79740 Issue #7 June 2013 Projecthighlights Learning from the Pakistan Experience of post-2005 Earthquake Rural Housing Reconstruction The Pakistan Earthquake of 2005 their design. Compounding this was the generally poor quality of construction and maintenance. The earthquake that struck northern parts of Pakistan on the morning of October 8, 2005 left widespread destruction in its wake. It killed over 73,000 people The Response: Pakistan’s Rural Housing and left more than 2.8 million in need of shelter at the Reconstruction Program onset of a harsh Himalayan winter, in a predominantly Rural housing took the brunt of damage requiring inhospitable rural terrain that was difficult to access. over US$1.5 billion for reconstruction and repair. In The earthquake affected nine districts in Khyber response, the Government of Pakistan, in collaboration Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province and Azad Jammu & with the World Bank, launched the Rural Housing Kashmir (AJK) state, covering an area of approximately Reconstruction Program (RHRP). 30,000 square kilometers. RHRP relied on an owner-driven mechanism Economic assets and infrastructure suffered providing multi-tranche financial support to affected extensive damage, with social service delivery, households based on assistance, inspection, and commerce, and communications either debilitated certification at various stages of construction to ensure or completely destroyed. Vulnerable groups, mainly compliance with seismic-resistant standards. The women and children living in inaccessible mountain housing grants financed replacement of completely areas with low levels of income and service provision, destroyed houses with new seismic-resistant core bore the brunt of the earthquake’s impact. Almost units, and repair of damaged houses to seismically 600,000 houses were either completely destroyed acceptable standards. A detailed Damage Assessment or partially damaged. Virtually none of the housing and Eligibility Verification Survey was conducted in affected areas featured seismic considerations in across the affected area to develop verified lists of Photo above: Existing construction techniques made seismic-resistant through introduction of requisite structural elements. www.gfdrr.org Projecthighlights Nature of Tranche Amount of tranche Total disbursed # of beneficiaries % of eligible benefi- (PKR) (PKR billion) ciaries covered First Tranche: Temporary Shelter Support 25,000 14 550,000 n/a Second Tranche: Mobilization 75,000 40 567,000 101% Third Tranche: Completion up to Plinth level 25,000 11 438,000 95% Fourth Tranche: Completion up to Lintel level 50,000 21 420,000 91% Total 175,000 86 Note: First tranche of PKR 25,000 for Temporary Shelter Support was provided to 550,000 beneficiary households before the official launch of the Rural Housing Reconstruction Program and the Damage Assessment and Beneficiary Eligibility Verification Survey. Thus, the number of beneficiaries for this grant was not equal to that of the remaining grants, which were officially part of the Program. Source: ERRA M&E Annual Report 2010-11 potential beneficiaries. Grant disbursements were channeled covering the entire affected area. This was done by the through commercial banks directly into beneficiary bank Pakistan military due to lack of capacity of other possible accounts. Partner organizations provided technical assistance partner organizations for a task of such scale. A large for reconstruction and rehabilitation. number of field teams were mobilized, each comprising a In total PKR 86 billion were disbursed through the RHRP. military engineer, a representative of the local community, By end-2008, 94 percent of reconstructed houses (430,000 and a government functionary such as a revenue official houses) were compliant to seismic-resistant standards up to or a teacher. The results were compiled to create a central lintel level. database of beneficiaries, which was linked to the existing national identity database. Besides conducting the survey, Lessons Learned from Rural Housing the field teams signed Memoranda of Understanding (MoUs) with verified beneficiaries, specifying the purpose of the Reconstruction Program Components grant and mutual responsibilities. Lessons learned: Carrying out damage assessment and 1. Guiding Principles and Strategy eligibility verification as a single exercise accelerates the The Guiding Principles and accompanying strategies process, mitigates the risk of error, and ensures transparency underpinning the RHRP were based on international and equitability. experience, as well as the specific context of the Pakistan earthquake, and included: 4. Transparent Mechanism for Grant Payments to i) owner-driven housing reconstruction; ii) assisted and Beneficiary Inspected reconstruction and restoration regime; iii) seismic A multi-tranche grant payment mechanism was developed safety; iv) uniform principles and assistance packages that was closely tied to beneficiary eligibility, and the across all funding sources maximizing outreach; and inspection and certification regime. Beneficiary households v) judicious use of grants; reducing and managing conflicts received financial assistance in tranches; the first tranche and grievances; avoiding socioeconomic distortions, was released upon beneficiary verification, while subsequent inequities and disparities. releases were dependent upon them meeting criteria for seismic resistant reconstruction agreed to in the initial MoU. 2. Institutional Arrangements for Rural Housing Lessons Learned: Many beneficiaries did not have bank Reconstruction accounts and lived in remote areas. A strong effort was needed Within a month of the disaster, the Pakistan government to mobilize commercial banks and other financial entities to set up the Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation facilitate expedited opening of bank accounts. Agency (ERRA) with a clear mandate to manage post-disaster recovery and reconstruction across all affected sectors. The 5. Development of Seismic-Resistant Structural agency coordinated all assistance through a ‘one-window’ Designs mechanism, and all stakeholders were obliged to work The large scale devastation caused by the 2005 earthquake through it. ERRA also created strong linkages with existing provided a window of opportunity to improve the prevalent national-level institutions to assist in the implementation of methods and quality of construction. The guiding principle of various elements of the reconstruction program. the reconstruction effort was ‘building back better’. A menu Lesson Learned: Political support is crucial, but drops of seismic-resistant structural designs was developed, based over time. The absence of government leadership is one of on familiar materials already prevalent in the region. the greatest risks in responses, at times more problematic Lessons Learned: People build early; policies and than resource deficiencies. strategies are always catching up with them. Housing reconstruction starts earlier than other sectors. It is important 3. Detailed Damage Assessment and Beneficiary that policies, standards, and support systems are devised and Eligibility Verification Survey in place in time to ensure that people are aware of the terms A preliminary damage assessment by local authorities was and conditions of financial support, and can access technical followed by a comprehensive door-to-door assessment advice in time to use it. 2 6. Training and Capacity Building in Lessons Learned: Private sector-led materials hubs tend Projecthighlights Disaster-Resistant Construction to be located near existing markets. The initiative helped Training materials and curricula on seismic-resistant partly resolve the problem of limited supply in secondary construction were developed for various target groups such centres and remote areas. as architects, masons, and community members. A ‘cascaded 10. Community Mobilization training’ approach was used to train a critical mass of artisans ERRA tasked partner organizations (which were also and craftsmen in the affected area in seismic-resistant responsible for capacity building of construction masons construction techniques. Model houses and demonstration at field level) with social mobilization activities in affected structural details were also set up at field level. villages. The Program strategy provided consistent messages Lessons Learned: International experience in training and outlined common outputs for social mobilization, but left on seismic-resistant construction techniques, provided by a Partner Organizations to achieve them using their own best team of experts from Nepal, proved invaluable in developing practices and approaches. Village Reconstruction Committees training curricula. The building boom in the disaster-affected (VRCs) were formed to support this effort. areas attracted unskilled individuals to join the construction Lessons Learned: The Partner Organizations, mainly sector, exacerbating the need for training. local NGOs, often had prior experience with this nature of 7. Assistance, Inspection and Certification of work and thus provided valuable expertise in community Disaster-Resistant Construction mobilization. Village Reconstruction Committees played a Since the release of housing grant tranches was conditional facilitation role but lacked authority over households, at on adherence to seismic-resistant construction standards, a times undermining their effectiveness. regime of assistance, inspection, and certification was set up. 11. Social Aspects Hundreds of specialized teams were mobilized for the entire The Program ensured that women-headed and orphan duration of the Program. These teams were also provided households also received financial assistance. Under the training to carry out their roles. Inputs from these teams were Landless Program, financial assistance was provided to then linked with the beneficiary database to release grant households without land or who had lost / had rendered tranches electronically. hazardous their land due to the earthquake. Reconstruction Lessons Learned: Dealing with non-compliance is grants were provided on the basis of houses and not essential in achieving Program objectives. The field inspection households; in cases where more than one family lived under teams advised beneficiaries on necessary improvements to one roof, the grant was provided to the owner subject to achieve compliance and arranged for technical assistance to agreement by other family members. be provided by partner organizations. Lessons Learned: It is critical to understand the social dynamics in post-disaster settings and account for these, so 8. Effective Public Information Campaigns as to ensure that reconstruction programs do not exacerbate Information material developed for the Program included: existing social inequities. Ideally a program should be (a) general material for mass media (radio, TV, print) to empowering in nature, but at the very least it should deliver key messages to beneficiaries and stakeholders; and ensure that it is not leaving vulnerable groups even more (b) technical information materials (e.g. training materials, disadvantaged. drawings, posters) for various target groups outlining technical standards on seismic-resistant construction. All 12. Grievance Redress Mechanisms information release was controlled by ERRA, thereby ensuring In order to ensure equity, a formal mechanism was developed consistency. that streamlined the handling and resolution of complaints Lessons Learned: Retrieving messages already and grievances faced by beneficiaries. It was a simple, low- disseminated is very difficult. While strong measures for cost, and automated system and was based on four tiers: consistency were set in place, some unauthorized guidelines community/village, sub-district, and district (where appeals on construction standards did get introduced, resulting in could be made), and ERRA, which centrally tracked data on some initial reconstruction activity not following approved complaints redress to determine trends and problems. A standards. Another important lesson was that among visual number of district-level Data Resource Centres (DRCs) were tools, all groups expressed preference for photographs. also established in the affected areas to deal with certain kinds of complaints and grievances related to personal and 9. Creating a Building Materials Supply Chain financial data. To counter potential shortages in availability of building Lessons Learned: The grievance redress mechanism materials, price increases, and difficulties in accessing also ensured quality control and a built-in monitoring and materials in remote areas (leading to high transportation evaluation function for the Program. costs), the Program helped set up a building materials supply chain and materials hubs with the collaboration of the private 13. Reporting, Monitoring and Evaluation sector. These were designed to ensure consistent and fair- The Program developed a comprehensive Reporting, priced supply of required materials across the affected area. Monitoring, and Evaluation (RME) system to function in a The hubs represented an expansion rather than replacement coordinated manner to standardize and compile all data of the private sector, and hence did not distort markets. streams related to reconstruction data, seismic compliance, 3 Projecthighlights 2. Creation of Institutions for Disaster Management A key aspect of disaster response is availability of requisite institutional capacity, which was essentially absent at the time of the earthquake. The post-earthquake reconstruction experience led the Government of Pakistan to establish the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), and its subsidiary entities at the provincial level. NDMA has since emerged as the key coordinator in post-disaster situations, in the immediate relief and recovery phases, as well as championing the disaster risk reduction agenda. 3. Transparent Grant Payment Mechanism In the years since the earthquake, the post-disaster grant payment mechanism developed under the Rural Housing Reconstruction Program has set a precedent in Pakistan. It has been further developed and used post the historic 2010 Remote communities had to summon all possible means to transport and 2011 floods. Beneficiaries received compensation grants construction materials to building sites. through a centralized system of debit/ATM cards, linked with and technical support activities. This provided reporting on a the national-level citizen identification database. disaggregated level on key program outcomes, and was used to make information available to a range of stakeholders for Documenting RHRP Success for Replication Program analysis, planning, and course corrections. Lesson Learned: All forms and methodologies were In light of the phenomenal success of the RHRP, GFDRR standardized, making processing and compilation easier. has funded its documentation through the development of ERRA retained centralised control providing accountability a Manual for Post-Disaster Housing Program Managers. It’s and reducing confusion or parallel systems. Indicators objective is to assist project managers and policy makers determined monitoring priorities. The Program measured engaged in large-scale post-disaster housing reconstruction rates of compliant completion of houses, and financial programs make decisions on how to reconstruct housing disbursement – its formal indicators. Several other aspects and communities after major natural disasters. It provides a of reconstruction (e.g. cost of reconstruction) were formally comprehensive guide to the tasks and processes required for tracked only retroactively to inform policy development. development and management of such programs, using key lessons and learning from the RHRP. Program Impacts The Manual uses Pakistan’s post-earthquake Rural Housing The ambitious scale and scope of the Program meant that Reconstruction Program (RHRP) as a case study, and draws on some of its interventions and approaches outlasted the the experience and lessons from it to derive recommendations Program itself, and became mainstreamed: for future post-disaster housing reconstruction programs. The Manual also provides a strong results-based outlook through a 1. An Emerging Culture of Disaster Risk Reduction results framework that links desired impacts, program level and At the time of the earthquake, virtually none of the housing intermediate outcomes, and outputs into a coherent whole. It in the affected area had seismic considerations in design, in spite of being in a high seismic-risk area. Compounding also provides information on the options that were considered this was the generally poor quality of construction. Thus in various aspects of reconstruction, and insights into what the philosophy of ‘Build Back Better’ underpinned the worked and what did not. It aims to guide policymakers in RHRP design, which helped generate a culture of safety and designing and implementing such a program with a focus on resilience. Thus, what began as an immense disaster was achieving results. It thus tries to make a unique contribution turned into an opportunity and a prospect to enhancing the by bringing in a results lens to conventional post-disaster lives of the affected people through reconstruction. reconstruction efforts. Disclaimer: The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Executive Directors of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, The World Bank or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this work. The boundaries, colors, denominations, and other informa- tion shown on any map in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries.