Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative (GERI) Lessons Learnt Workshop Hotel Cama Plaza Ahmedabad

April 27 h,2004

Workshop Report

Workshop Organization by: USAIDIIndia

Workshop facilitation by: Development Alternatives,

Report Prepared by:

Sara Ahmed Development Alternatives Gender and Development Specialist B-32 TARA Crescent T-19, IIM(A) Campus, Vastrapur Qutub Institutional Area Ahmedabad Gujarat 380 015 New Delhi 110016 INDIA [email protected] Tel: 011 2680 4482 2680 1521 * Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative (GERI): Lessons Learnt Workshop Organized by USAID/India and facilitated by Development Alternatives Hotel Cama Plaza, Ahmedabad, Tuesday April 2 7/, 2004

Table of Contents

Executive Summary Glossary and Abbreviations

1.0 Introduction 1.1 GERI: background and objectives 1.2 Background to the workshop 1.3 Workshop participants and methodology 1.4 GERI Mid-term Evaluation: key findings and actions taken

2.0 GERI Initiatives: An Overview 2.1 CARE 2.2 CRS 2.3 UNDP 2.4 World Vision

3.0 Key Emerging Issues

4.0 Strategic and Operational Critical incident Analysis

5.0 Addressing Vulnerability - Expert Inputs

6.0 Prioritizing Strategies for Disaster Mitigation and Rehabilitation

7.0 Summary: Looking Ahead

Annexure 1: List of participants and contact details Annexure 2: Workshop agenda Annexure 3: Group exercise details Annexure 4: USIAD/India Presentation Annexure 5: CARE Presentation Annexure 6: CRS Presentation Annexure 7: UNDP Presentation Annexure 8: World Vision Presentation A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

Executive Summary The Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative (GERI) - Lessons Learnt Workshop was organized with an aim to provide a forum to USAID partners of the GERI program to come together with USAID staff to review the context, nature and challenge of GERI, evaluate the validity of assumptions made during the design of the program and identify successful interventions that might be replicable elsewhere. The Workshop began with a short introduction from Mr. Patara (facilitator from DA) followed by welcome remarks from the USAID Mission Director, Mr. Walter North. While thanking participants for all the hard work they had done in Kutchh, Mr. North reiterated that the Workshop was to be seen in the spirit of transformation and partnership underlying GERI, an opportunity to generate new experiences rather than simply list outcomes. Ms. Nina Minka from USAID outlined the key objectives and assumptions underlying GERI and why it was important to look at lessons learned. Each partner then made a brief presentation followed by quick clarifications. Dr. Sara Ahmed, gender and development researcher, Ahmedabad, closed the session by raising some important concerns to consider. After lunch, participants broke into three groups each consistent of representation from every partner organization. The objective was to identify key strategic and operational factors which either worked or did not work in the field context. Participants shared these factors with others in their group through an exercise analyzing critical incidents. Each group then made a plenary presentation. Mr. Prasad Chacko, Director Behavioral Science Centre, Ahmedabad summarized key points of concern and provided an external view of the GERI project. All participants were then asked to prioritize five key strategic and operational' factors which they thought were most critical for sustainable disaster recovery programs.' The Workshop ended with a quick summary of most important strategies and/or points of concern identified by the group and a vote of thanks from the USAID team. (Annexure 2 contains the workshop agenda)

Development Alternatives Workshop Report 3 A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

Glossary

Taluka Of Block level Mahila Vikas Sanghatan Women Development Cooperative Setu Literally meaning 'bridge' Sarpanch Village leader Panchayati Raj Local (Village) Governance System

Abbreviations

GERI Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative NGOs Non Governmental Organisations CBOs Community Based Organisations USAID United States Agency for international Development CRS Catholic Relief Services UNDP United Nations Development Program DA Development Alternatives FICCI Federation of Indian Chambers Commerce and Industries KMVS Kutchh Mahila Vikas Sanghatan UNV United Nation Volunteers MoU Memorandum of Understanding GSDMA Gujarat State Disaster Management Agency

Development Altematives Workshop Report 4 A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Leamt Workshop

1.0 Introduction On 26m" January 2001, the Gujarat state of India was hit by a devastating earthquake, measuring 7.6 on the Richter scale. It affected 7,633 villages and towns in 21 districts (with a population of almost 16 million people), left 600,000 homeless and killed almost 20,000 (official government figures are 13,805). Nearly 1.3 million houses were damaged or destroyed. Infrastructure damage was worth approximately US$ 463 million. Many schools, hospitals and businesses were destroyed.

1.1 GERI: Background and Objectives Following the immediate relief phase, USAID/India (referred to as USAID in this report) recognized longer term needs in Gujarat and launched the Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative (GERI). GERI provided US$ 8.6 million to four main partners namely, CARE, Catholic Relief Services (CRS), World Vision and UNDP and their sub partners to facilitate longer term recovery efforts. However, it seemed that the resources available would not be able to match the scale of this humanitarian tragedy. USAID, therefore, decided to focus on how aid from the United States Government could be used to add extra value to recovery. USAIDs assistance was intended to leverage and mobilize public and private Indian resources and build up existing Indian capabilities. The GERI program had the following key recovery objectives: * Promotion of earthquake resistant construction - Re-build homes and community centers - Re-institute critical health services - Ensure dissemination of information about reconstruction programs at village level * Mobilize public and private resources * Engage affected households - Cash for work programs: * Debris removal, earthen block production * Development of water conservation structures (drought proofing) Since much of the massive assistance flow to Kutchh was being targeted to urban areas, 'USAID decided that GERI would focus largely on rural areas and generate best practicesfor approaching community recovery in a participatory manner. This was in consonance with USAID's country strategy to increase capacity of partners and support a new National Disaster Management Authority in India.

1.2 Background to the Workshop USAID/India organized a one day workshop on lessons learned from the Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative (GERI) in Ahmedabad (Hotel Cama Plaza, April 27 , 2004). The workshop was facilitated by Development Alternatives (DA). The main objective of the workshop was to provide a forum to USAID partners of the GERI program to come together with USAID staff to review the context, nature and challenge of GERI, evaluate the validity

Development Alternatives Workshop Report 5 A Report Gujarat Earthquake Recovery initiative - Lessons Leart Workshop of assumptions made during the design of the program and identify successful interventions that might be replicable elsewhere. Ahmedabad was chosen as the venue as it was seen to be a convenient location for representatives of partners' sub-grantees (NGOs based in Kutchh district) and others from Gujarat (development professionals, local resource persons) to attend the Workshop. Each partner was asked to make a 20 minute presentation on project accomplishments, challenges and success stories. An expectation from the workshop was to highlight what could be done differently in a similar program in future.

1.3 Workshop participants and methodology 29 persons participated at the Workshop. These included the Mission Director and senior representatives from USAID, representation from the four partners, namely, CARE, UNDP, CRS and World Vision, facilitators from DA and two development professionals for expert inputs (refer to annexure I for list of participants and their contact details). The methodology used included: - Short presentations - Group discussions - Prioritizing exercise - External inputs

1.4 GERI Mid-term Evaluation: Key Findings and Actions Taken USAID commissioned an independent mid-term evaluation of GERI in 2003 to look at how well the needs of the affected population, particularly vulnerable communities, were being met in the relief and recovery stage in relation to the broad program objectives. The evaluation team found that: * Houses were well built and met recommended standards for earthquake prone areas * GERI-funded health care played a useful role for local communities * Cash for work programs were not having the envisaged impact * Women did not feel adequately represented in decisions related to housing design * No GERI activities were undertaken in urban areas (not intended) * Housing reconstruction may not be the best use of USAID resources USAID agreed with some of the recommendations made and subsequently changes were made in the program. For example, targeted villages and households were changed, cash­ for-work for water conservation was added to some programs and construction of check dams was approved. Some programs were also extended until January 2004. USAID, along

Development Alteratives Workshop Report 6 I A Report, Gujarat Earthquake Recovery initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

I with its partners was now back to review the context, nature and challenges of GERI; to see what had changed and if any learning could be picked from this experience. Moving from this brief overview of GERI the next session of the workshop sought to look at lessons learned from their partners. Short presentations by the partners highlighting the lessons learnt were followed by discussions at the plenary. Where participants sought clarifications and raised issues for further debate.

2.0 GERI Initiatives: An Overview The following section focuses mainly on the challenges encountered, success stories and key lessons learned as well as the clarifications raised after each presentation made by partner organizations.

2.1 CARE Program brief: CARE raised US$ 20 million for its recovery work in Kutchh. The GERI component of US$ 3.9 million was integrated within the larger FICCI-CARE initiative and this was implemented in partnership with a range of civil society and private sector organizations in synergy with government programs. (The presentation made is attached as annex 5). The core components of CARE's interventions included reconstruction of 1000 houses and health and nutrition services for mother and child. The main challenges faced by CARE interventions wee understaffing in health departments/hospitals and locating compatible partners with the required skills. Partnerships were integral to CARE's strategy. One of the key facilitating factors for CARE was its ability to work with government at all levels which enabled CARE to influence some policy decisions of the state government regarding what could I could not work. A direct outcome of this working relationship was to get the state governments contribution in reconstruction as a reimbursement. CARE selected villages where there were no other NGOs working and while it did not specifically focus on vulnerable communities for housing reconstruction, the approach to provide a uniform house to all was designed to enhance further.socio-economic disparities between groups. Lessons learned: " There is a need to understand the socio-cultural context while designing recovery program. * Any initiative aimed towards bringing behavioral change in a community should be 4-5 years long. * There is a need to balance development priorities with the pace of work/ pressure of speed. * The community should be involved in prioritizing project pace. * There is a need for aforum of NGOs to plan and implement activities.

Development Alternatives Workshop Report 7 A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

* Visible and long-term strategic needs of equitable and sustainable development should be balanced.

2.2 Catholic Relief Services (CRS) Program brief: The main objectives of CRS-GERI initiative were to construct earthquake resistant houses and multipurpose community centers; provide trauma counseling, masonry training and cash for work, while ensuring participation and equity. (The presentation is attached as annex 6). CRS facilitated capacity building processes at the community level. Their approach to core house construction was in-situ so that the village structure stayed intact. A flexible design approach enabled families to choose the type and design of their house with earthquake resistant standards in mind. CRS provided the core houses and did not us the government compensation which went directly to the beneficiaries. It is important to note that while CRS provided the core-housing unit (28 sq.mt) any additions in built up areas (35/45 sq mt), fixtures & fittings were contributed by the house owner as per CRS guidelines. The CRS-GREI program included the construction of 1,265 earthquake resistant houses in 10 villages, multipurpose community centers in six villages, 204 people trained in earthquake resistant construction techniques and 156,744 cash for work days were generated. Each village of CRS intervention had a Gram Navrachna Samiti (GNS), as mandated by the Government. The committee undertook the responsibility of identification of the people for house construction, proof of land, monitoring of local purchase of material & conflict resolution Decentralized livelihoods support and skill development was based on the use of local raw materials and the introduction of an alternative sustainable building technology - the Compressed Stabilized Earthen Blocks for walls. Training programs for masons, supervisors and labor ensured appropriate technology transfer. Drought proofing interventions focused on improving water retention infrastructure while trauma counselors facilitated discussions on social aspects of dealing with trauma and peace building using a variety of media. Lessonslearned: * Community participation from the initial stage instills ownership and responsibility among participants. * A model house or community hall is effective in confidence building among beneficiaries. * Introduction of a new technology can delay the project initially but is beneficial in the long run. * In-situ house reconstruction enables communities to maintain the social and economic structure of their village. * There is a need to find ways to enhance women's participation and find ways of working with migrants and pastoralists. * Shopping around by the families can delay the project implementation.

Development Alternatives Workshop Report g A Report, Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

2.3 United Nations Development Program (UNDP) Program brief: UNDP's efforts centered around two important objectives of strengthening the capacities and structures of CBOs in Kutchh district, and on improving people's access to information. UNDP's main sub-grantees, Kutchh Mahila Vikas Sanghatan (Kutchh Women Development Cooperative) and Abhiyan (Kutchh Nay Nirman Abhiyan), strengthened 150 women's groups so that they could be pro-active in the reconstruction process. A federation of self­ assertive women, well-versed in financial management was supported through artisan­ based, livelihood projects to negotiate gender concerns. (Refer to annex 7 for details) UNDP partners facilitated the strengthening of 400 village reconstruction committees, recognizing that traditional coping mechanisms are an integral component of a village's disaster cycle. In addition, access to information through innovative cluster-based 'SETUS' (information centers and platforms for information sharing for clusters of 15-20 affected villages providing linkages between community and district administration) was critical to the community-centered rehabilitation processes. A community radio program and a rural newsletter not only provided information in a strong oral culture but also facilitated the process of empowerment for neo-literate women. In terms of housing reconstruction UNDP found that retrofitting was not happening as it was often done with the family living in .the house and the estimated costs and techniques were not known and/or inconvenient. Therefore, UNDP retrofitted 280 houses as demonstration and built capacities of 400 masons and trade-persons in retrofitting technology. UNDP worked with the PRis and found them to be ideal institutions to represent the interests of the community. Lessonslearned: * Government is central to disaster management - hence a close relationshipwith Gujarat State Disaster Management Agency (GSDMA) is critical. * There is a distinct advantage of working with an existing network with strong linkages with the community. * Reconstruction is a primary need in a disaster aftermath. * A participatory, flexible approach with gender sensitivity is the essence of a comprehensive rehabilitation program. * Every dollar invested in information systems multiplies benefits across relief, and recovery phases to link recovery to development. * Corporates may not only bring a social face to main-stream development but also bring in their professional value to rehabilitation. * UN Volunteers bring in the right mix of volunteerism and professionalism. * Synergies from different donors make every dollar stretch the extra mile. * It is not just 'assistance' to the victim of a disaster, but how it can reduce her vulnerability to the next one (developing capacity). * There are very few sectors where little funds can be the most critical - rehabilitation is one such.

Development Alternatives Workshop Report 9 A Report Gujarat Earthquake Reovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

24 World Vision Program Profi: World Vision's initial goal was to improve the well-being of the population of 20 villages that had been highly impacted, but they have now impacted more than 100 villages in three blocks namely, Anjar, Bachau and Rapar. Their interventions under GERI include the reconstruction of 541 houses in 3 villages, development of of 5 large Check Dams in 5 villages, laying of 8.95 kms of pipeline and construction of 2 water tanks in 3 villages. Overall, 11 villages were impacted with the help of USAID benefiting more than 15,000 persons In addition, World Vision worked on livelihood and drinking water projects - providing seeds to farmers and constructing check dams. One of the problems they encountered was getting technical information, like maps, from the government departments because of security concerns due to their proximity to national border. (Refer annex 8 for details) Lessons learned: * Coordination meetings help in identifying 'gaps' in the provision of services to the affected areas. * Village Development Committees are effective in tackling power structures within a community. * Finding contractors with the capacity to do large technical projects is not easy as they are usually not aware of social issues and have very little experience of community participation. * Realistic time-lines should be made for the projects. Bureaucracy and community infighting can delay projects from their time line. * Partnering with other international NGOs enhances learning experiences. * Follow-up could be better with more time to prepare and understand the community. * Constant meetings with relevant government departments I officers are the key to securing access to information.

3.0 Key questions The presentations made by the partner organizations and the discussion following them led to many questions. These questions along with the issues raised by Mr. Walter North in his introductory remarks and others during discussion were summarized by the facilitators for debate and reflection.

Development Alternatives Workshop Report 10) A Report Gularat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

The discussion began with recognizing that all the initiatives presented had taken the opportunity to enhance the socio-economic context they were working in and tried to improve it from what it was prior to the earthquake. There was a consensus that partnerships provide a forum for pooling relevant skills and experience. Questions raised were as follows: * Were the assumptions for the design of programs and activities right? * Did we work with the right organizations? * Did we add value to what we were doing? * Have we impacted the poor? Who really benefited from our programs given the atypical development context of Kutchh? * Have we addressed gender concerns? * What are our learning in terms of project design for recovery, inter-agency coordination and partnership building? * What are the capacity building issues when we look at facilitating empowerment for women and communities through livelihood interventions? * What is the 'right' approach for temporary shelters? * Is it worth spending time, building a relationship with the government and private sector? Are these worthwhile? Most partners agreed that housing per se was a secondary issue. Health, sanitation, access to water, trauma counseling and information were the areas which added value to the recovery efforts in Kutchh and complemented government efforts rather than duplicating them. Yet, initiatives in housing development were effective in tackling the other more immediate issues as mentioned above (this is discussed in section 7: Summary - Looking Ahead) Community participation was recognized as integral to the process of building community assets and the training of local government leaders and members of CBOs was seen as an important part of local capacity development. Networking, advocacy and the convergence of skills and services were accepted as essential to the sustainability of a partnership process beyond the planned funding period. While all points and questions raised were important to GERI in the context of lessons learned; there were still a few issues of importance that were not directly within the purview of the GERI initiative, but partners had addressed in limited ways. These were raised by the external resource persons Mr. Prasad Chacko and Dr. Sara Ahmed as concerns of a wider context. These were: * Role of the state and collaborative relationship between state and civil society.

Development Alternatives Workshop Report 11 A Report Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

* Impact of GERI initiatives in reduction of gender vulnerability on men- and women * The institutional relationships and mechanisms setup regarding access to information and 'control' over community assets. * Criteria for selection of GERI partners and a platform to share learning and innovations.

4.0 Strategic and Operational Critical Incidents Analysis After the discussions on issues and concerns (defined) by key questions for the participants, the Workshop was directed into a more analytical mode to derive lessons from the strategies and operational aspects of the project. Participants were divided into three groups of 6-8 people, representing different organisations. Each group was given about an hour to discuss what worked and what did not work through a reflection on critical incidents during the implementation of GERI. (Refer to annexure 3for group work description). The main objective of this exercise was: "To arrive at a set of strategic and operational factors that led to positive impact in the GERI program as well as factors that caused a shortfall in meeting program goals" Participants were asked to put the critical strategic and operational factors identified on charts to share in the plenary and use a quick narration of incidents where convenient to substantiate points raised. The following section- summarizes the outcomes shared by each group:

Strategic Factors What worked well? What did not work? Community processes * Existing systems like PRIs were very effective inconflict resolution. * Community contribution helped build homes rather than houses. Program Design and Technology

* Flexibility in program design allowed for * Over arching focus on technology and greater sensitivity towards evolving context. other physical aspects of * Utilization of existing infrastructure affected/damaged homes led to contributed to efficient use of limited ignoring of other cultural and social resources. aspects. * Access of information even in remote rural z Ferro-cement roofing technology did not work well for technical reasons. areas using different medias Coordination and Networking * Team work and partnerships between interaction with government officers helped

Development Altematives Workshop Report 12 A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

stakeholders was very effective initiative in many ways *Coordination between different UISAID departments was very efficient Training and Capacity Building

Local media eg radio programs, youth programs and puppet shows were very helpful in promoting ownership amongst community Specific Elements Mobile health units helped communities access basic health services

Operational factors What worked well? What did not work? Community processes * Continued interactions with communities ­ The partners at times found it difficult to helped change I challenge balance handholding community with attitudes/stereotypes. providing control to them. * Community involvement during planning and ­ Limited time to build rapport with implementation was very helpful in setting up community delayed other community systems. led processes * Social contracting processes helped communities to monitor work progress. * Community based water and sanitation committees were very effective in program implementation and monitoring.

Design and Technology Simplifying retrofitting technology made it easier for community to adopt Coordination and Networking * Lack of information flow between different stakeholders resulted in decreased efficiency at times. * Lack of communication between, different government departments and' other levels of governance broke down the information flow system * Lack of coordination between

Development Alternatives Workshop Report 13 A Report Gujarat Earthquake Reoevery Initiative - Lescos Leamt Workshop

government agencies and NGOs further broke down information flow system Training and Capacity Building

Specific Elements Food Security Programs through various National Resource Management based interventions were very effective

5.0 Addressing Vulnerability While the learning that has emerged through this exercise is significant and hopefully it can help organizations do better next time, it needs to be contextualized and that is, what is the 'value framework' which guides our work? Prasad Chacko (Director, Behavioural Science Center, Ahmedabad) raised a number of critical points on vulnerability and disaster related development interventions within general context. * Clarity in patterns of vulnerability in the intervention area is critical for deciding the target population for that project. * How do we reduce vulnerability caused due to unequal patterns of resource use, access and ownership, without causing conflict and/or magnifying it? * Vulnerable are usually the ones left out from the compensation scheme. * Interventions should be sensitive to the unequal relations of power, whether of gender, class, caste or social status, and accordingly decide on asset ownership. * Community should be involved in selection of technical options between conventional, traditional and 'new' technologies and should be supported by training of masons along with the beneficiaries.

6.0 Prioritizing Strategies for Disaster Mitigation and Rehabilitation This last exercise was facilitated by the DA team: each participant was given 5 red dots / circles and asked to stick them against the strategic and operational factors, shared in the previous plenary discussion, which they thought were the most important in terms of meeting GERI objectives, replicability and 'cautionary' concern. The dots /circles were then counted and those factors which had the most dots were shared and mutually agreed upon. Prioritizing exercise

Development Altematives Workshop Report 14 A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

These are listed below but not in any order of priority: * Select appropriate partners * Appropriate beneficiary targeting * Consider social and physical needs of population. * Strong accountability to the community should be ensured. * A social contracting process can help in internal community conflict mitigation. * Use appropriate communication channels. * Merge community and traditional knowledge with external 'expertise'. * Use flexible and participatory approach. * Team-work and partnership are crucial.

7.0 Summary: Looking Ahead Given the time available, it was not possible to answer or even discuss all the issues in detail, however, participants agreed that even though reconstruction of houses may not at initial analysis seem to have been the best use of limited USAID resources, it provided a vital entry point for re-building communities and livelihood interventions. Houses were tangible benefits. The "process" of housing has the potential to had been very effectively used in many cases and enhanced community mobilization and solidarity management capacities, gender empowerment and other such intangibles that support interventions in health, water and trauma related concerns. Housing intervention therefore was justifiable and needed to be addressed with in a framework of overall outcomes and impact and not mere number of houses constructed. A key factor in terms of meeting GERI objectives was finding the appropriate balance between 'speed' and ensuring community participation, capacity building and ownership given the limited time to understand the socio-economic context of Kutchh. Perhaps an organization or support and advisory group could facilitate 'social backstopping' on contextual issues like technical backstopping. The workshop, in turn, provided a good opportunity for partners to re-visit GERI and share learning with frankness, self-analysis and introspection. Development Alternatives was thanked for the excellent work they had done in facilitating the workshop, and the USAID Mission Director thanked partners for keeping hope alive in Kutchh through their hard work under GERI - its not just a house now, its becoming a home again for communities.

Development Alternatives Workshop Report 15 A Report Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiabve - Lessons Learnt Workshop I I I

I I ANNEXURE S

Development Alternatives Annexures A Report Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learn[ Workshop

Annex I ------.------_------Participant List

Name Organisation Address e-mail id Tel Nos (With Designation) 1. H.S. Sethi, CARE 27, Hauz Khas Village [email protected] 26969770 Director External Relations New Delhi: 110016 - 2. N.M. Prusty CARE 27, Hauz Khas Village [email protected] 26564101 Director, Emergency & New Delhi: 110016 Rehabilitation 3. Mvanlsh Mathur CARE-India B-211 Rajnigandha Apt. [email protected] Regional Manager Bihar Sadakat Ashram Rachna Kunji-Patna (Resi) 4. K. S.Agarwal CARE - Bhuj 16 AB, Sanskar Nagar [email protected] 02832-222719 _____Bhuj . 5. Rajib Haldar Prayas Prayas Institute of Juvanile [email protected] 011-26055499 Executive Director (CARE Partner) 59, Tughlakabad Institutional Area New Delhi: 11005\62 6. Rajnish Cassyhap Rajbhra Consultants 306, Ansla Chambers II [email protected] 011-26104407 Managing Director Pvt. Ltd 6 Bhikaji Cama Place (CARE Partner) New Delhi 7. Manoj Solanki K-Link (KNNA) St. Xavier School, Bhuj [email protected] 9825449625 8. Arpit Desmunani K-Link (KNNA) St. Xavier's School, BhuJ [email protected] 9824080990 9.. Madeleine Smith CRS Bhuj Clo CRS [email protected]

10. Kasturi Sengupta CRS Bhuj CRS, "Naimesh",'Sardar Patel [email protected] 079-2640818 Road, Nxt Meghalaya Flats 926441130 Navanpura, Ahmedabad

Development Alternatives Annex I List of participants and contact details 16 m mW ------WW-WI- -m m m-ma man ro-a m mn m-a m a .mm-a ecvr -ntm .aiv m ­

A Report. Gujarol Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

Gujarat 11. Mehul Salva CRS BhuJ 4, Radhakrishna appt. [email protected] Ghanshayam Nagar, Museum Road Bhuj, Gujarat 12. Dennis Lazarus UNDP 55, Lodhi Esate, P.O. Box: [email protected] 24628877 3059 New Delhi: 110003 13. Didier Trebucq UNDP C 23, Defence Colony [email protected] New Delhi: 110024 14. Rahul Sengupta UNDP R & F Dept. (R & R) Govt. of [email protected] 022-34501090 Maharashtra Mantralaya Mumbai: 32 15. Preeti Soni KMVS 5, S.T. Colony [email protected] 02832-222124 (UNDP - Partner) Bhuj, Kutch: 310001 02832-224481

16. B.R. Patel UNDP Plot No. 239 Sector -7/A [email protected] 9825095140 Gandhinagar 17. Franklin Joseph World Vision 16, V.D.C. Main Road [email protected] 9840783991 Kodam Rakkam Chennal: 27 18. Donald Burgess World Vision Gujarat Earthquake [email protected] 9825236010 Rehabilitation Program [email protected] Adipur Kutch 19. Dr. Sara Ahmed Researcher T-19, 1lM (A) Ahmedabad: 015 [email protected] 9824051945 20. Walter North USAID/INDIA US embassy [email protected] Chanakya Puri New Delhi 1 21. Nina Minka USAID/INDIA . US embassy [email protected] Chanakya Puri New Delhi 22. N. Ramesh USAID/INDIA US embassy [email protected]

Development Altemnatives Annex IList of participants and contact details 17 AReport: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

Chanakya Purl New Delhi 23. A. Dasgupta USAID/INDIA US embassy [email protected] Chanakya Purl New Delhi 24. C. BalajI USAID/INDIA US embassy [email protected] Chanakya Purl New Delhi 25. S. Patera Development B-32, TARA Crescent [email protected] 2680 1521 Alternatives Qutub Institutional Area [email protected] 2680 4482 New Delhi 16 INDIA 26. Zeenat Niazi Development B-32, TARA Crescent [email protected] 2680 1521 Alternatives Qutub Institutional Area [email protected] 2680 4482 New Delhi 16 INDIA 27. Dolly Jain Development B-32, TARA Crescent [email protected] 2680 1521 Alternatives Qutub Institutional Area 2680 4482 New Delhi 16 INDIA

Development Alternatives Annex I List of participants and contact details 18

SMnMMMMMM mmnmMeM I AReport: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Leamt Workshop

I Annex 11 I Workshop Agenda GUJARAT EARTHQUAKE RECOVERY INITIATIVE (GERI) LESSONS LEARNT WORKSHOP

FAcILITATED BY DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES

Venue: The Oak Room, Hotel Cama Plaza, Ahmedabad U Tuesday, April 27, 2004

U AGENDA

U 09:00 - 09:10 Welcome Address by Mission Director, Walter North 09:10 - 09:20 Introduction of participants

09:20 - 09:40 Presentation by USAID/India: Background and purpose of the workshop by Nina Minka

09:40 - 10.10 Presentation by CARE and brief clarifications

10:10 - 10:25 Coffee Break

10:25 - 10:55 Presentation by CRS and brief clarifications

10:55 - 11:25 Presentation by UNDP and brief clarifications

11:25 - 11:55 Presentation by World Vision and brief clarifications

11:55 - 12.40 Summing up by facilitator and comments by experts

12:40 - 13.40 Lunch

13:40 - 15:10 Group Work: strategic & Operational Critical incidents Analysis

15:10 - 15:40 Group Presentation

15:40 - 15:55 Coffee break

15:55 - 16:55 Prioritize and Summarize Lessons Learnt

16:55 - 17:10 Wrap-up and Vote of thanks

Development Alternatives Annex IIWorkshop Agenda 19 AReport Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop 5

Annex III Group Work Details

Group A Participants HS Sethi, K S Agarwal, Kasturi Sengupta, Dennis Lazarus, Preeti Soni, B R Patel and Nina Minka What worked well? Strategic factors * Team-work and partnerships with several stakeholders brings about results: visible in the happy faces when houses were being handed over * Access to information even in remote areas - through partners and use of different media * Promotion of ownership through the use of locally appropriate cultural media, e.g. I radio program of KMVS, youth groups and puppets (CRS) * Flexible and participatory design approach - created ownership Operational factors * Merging technology with rural reporting - providing voice and space to people * Making technology accessible * Continued interactions with communities to.change/challenge attitudes/ stereotypes, e.g. in the context of gender roles continuous interactions with outsiders enabled women from traditionally 'secluded' communities to eat/drink in front of men from the same community (example shared of a Muslim woman). What did not work? Strategic factors * Overarching focus on physical, visible aspects of the affected I damaged homes ignored other cultural aspects like family well-being intotality. * Merging community issues with technical (external) know-how neeas "to -be addressed. Operational factors * Lack of information flows between different stakeholders: for example, water storage tanks had been built by one partner but there was no water flowing to the tank as the appropriate government scheme had not taken off. * Development arrogance: often NGO staff do not want to 'let go' as they think people are illiterate, poor and cannot manage on their own. Finding an appropriate balance between hand-holding the community and allowing the community to manage on their own is critical. * Information flow system broke down because of lack of communication between different government departments and other levels of governance. I1 Development Alternatives Annex Ill Group Work Description 20 A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery initiative - Lessons Leamt Workshop

Group B Participants N MPrusty, Rajib HaIdar, Rajnish Casshyap, Mehul Savla, DidierTrebucq, Franklin Joseph and A Dasgupta What worked well? Strategic factors * Engaging existing systems like PRIs for conflict resolution * Mobile health units helped communities access basic health services * Use of appropriate communication channels like radio were very effective Operational factors * Community involvement in planning and implementation helped * Developing local skills (e.g. training of masons) and capacity building * Social contracting processes helped communities to monitor work * Collective decision-making systems used for conflict resolution, e.g., by World Vision in the discussion about the number of houses the agency could re-build * Food security programs through various National Resource Management (NRM)­ based interventions, like watershed * Community based water and sanitation committees What did not work? Strategic factors * Targeting - Village allotment done by government - Universal approach noted in housing construction * Choice of technology: ferro-cement roofing system did not work well for technical reasons Operational factors * Delay in shelter construction * Inadequate coordination between government and NGOs, though better than other disaster contexts such as-Latur earthquake and Orissa cyclone (1999) * Inadequate accountability to local communities compared to donor accountability due to the pressure of time * Inter-agency coordination did not work well * Worked on 'perceived needs' rather than 'assessed needs' - for example there were no social audits or community monitoring systems. Whereas, constant reporting was to the donors - 'accountabilityto donors and not to the people"

Development Alternadives Annex Ill Group Work Description 21 A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Leamt Workshop

Group C Participants Rahul Sengupta, C. Balaji, Medeleine Smith, Manish Mathur, Donald Burgess, Arpit Desmunani and Manoj Solanki What worked well? Strategic factors 3 * Community contribution: every field visit showed that people were making new houses into homes and this was related to the fact that they were involved in the design, they owned the land and they could stay in their village * Consideration of physical and social needs * Targeting primary audience * Interaction with government officers * Scope for change in program - demonstrated flexibility and sensitivity towards partners and partnerships * Utilization of existing infrastructure, e.g. community radio programs * Coordination between different USAID departments * Capacity building of NGO staff and communities * Commitment and dedication of staff, professionals, doctors, especially in mobile health clinics which were readily 'accepted' by the communities Operational factors * Rewarding those who worked well * Joint planning, information and monitoring * Providing different options and not just a 'fix' * Continuous follow-up through meetings, field-visits, etc. * Effective communication through different media Simplifying retrofitting as a technology * Availability of the right technical skill sets - demonstration by people who had worked in the Latur earthquake context, facilitated by team leaders (contacts) * Established networks within region: e.g. use of women's groups * Willingness to provide service by community members: example- shared of school children and teachers who had mobilized the community to keep their village clean, including the maintenance of water sources * Partners provided information and were willing to adhere to procedures What did not work? Strategic factors * Identification of beneficiaries - income and standard of living should have been considered by the government when assessing whom to target * Selection of right partners - did partners have the capacity to deal with different aspects of such tragedies. For example, there is a 7 year old orphan girl who still

Development Alternatives Annex Ill Group Work Descnption 22 A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

does not talk, is malnourished and does not have access to education, despite being 'surrounded'. by a number of NGOs. * How do we keep our focus on the vulnerable when we scale up? * Low literacy amongst women affected their participation in schools /teaching * Need to be aware of the social context of Kutch and the economic conditions of households - targeting only the poor caused a rift in some villages, instigated anger and violent threats; also strong caste factor, sarpanch was often used to resolve conflicts. Operational factors * Rural health systems were not functioning / did not exist in many cases * Very little time to build rapport with the community * Livelihood context - migration important livelihood strategy for many social groups in Kutch * Mind-set of some community 'beneficiaries' - greater demands every moment * Need to engage community in beneficiary identification: many houses built but not occupied

Development Alternatives Annex III Group Work Description 23 A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Leamt Workshop

Annex IV USAID/India Presentation - I

I I I I I I I GERI Objectives, * $8.6 million program I * Rehabilitation &reconstruction * Promotion of earthquake resistant construction - Rebuild homes & community centers - Re-matituie critical heaiih services - Erisure dissemination of infounion about reonstruuian I pmgramsto vulnerable populations " Mobilization of public & private Resources * Engage affected households I I I

Development Alternatives Annex IV USAID/India Presentation ­ 24 ­

I 3. A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

Development Alternatives Annex IV USAID/India Presentation 25 AReport: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Leamt Workshop I I I

Mid-Term Evaluation Some Findings & Recommendations

* Analyze USG Response: * Houses well built ­met recommended

- How well were the needs ol eaffectied population met in : standards the relief stage? * GERI-funded health care played a usefut role - Howwe! were needs being met during therecovery stage? -* Cash for work programs were not having the I envisaged impact I * Objectvesbeing more *Prolern INirplem eo? - Rubble removal; production of building bloclis * ShelterIssues . Masontraining - Check dam construcho & pond deepening *Corniuypartcpaton I I

I Some Findings & Recommendations :-z-- Changes Made I * Women did not feel adequately represented * Villages and household lists modified

* No GERI activities in urban areas * Water conservation structures added I

* Housing reconstruction may not be the best * Programs extended until January 2004 use of USAID resources I I

Development Alternatives Annex IV USAID/India Presentation 26 A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery initiative - Lessons Leamt Workshop

Development Alternatives Annex IV USAID/India Presentation 27 AReport: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Leamt Workshop I1

Annex V CARE Presentation

CARE's Support to GERI ProjectLife :Angust200I1-January2004 GrantAmount :53,990,72 awarded on24 July201

Tbc ovral goaloftheGoarl EarthqakeRecovery imiave (GER)was tocoribsute lOwardsthe spid inrfastructurerehabthttuion and socso­ enomireco ofte ert ke aff-ectdaras ofKuc ditmn with a partiular emphassanthepoorcstand ulnerablegroup, COMONET

W 104 individust homes 4 Earthquakeuisantconstruction design andtechnequesunrmduced ta v4lEnges -n Acces, to nanmtationand wanir facilitisc o 1000hoscholds ­ 4 Wat systcerus checkedandrapaed as usnessay fleth4 Ernaymetgeneannadskltrinng &Nuriio 4 Starttuprepair ofthe Aim Mhal Muscum

ResAechild survivalandriasrnsal sriuces.

u.esinionotniLsesnamaiA 2 27it,20tM

INTERVENTIONS Assint the public andprivate sectorsin reestablishing essential child The child survival and Disease (CSDI Conronent of GERI suMvialservices,specially focussimnOnpreveontion,rieuiment, and contronl kpimarydiddhoodkite(diariea taterespnatoylliness, Aimedto 'restore thechild survivaland naterrial sanvices'in the three malnutlntion, malaia andvaccine preventabli illnesses) blocks severelyatffcted by theearthqeake vi.. Anar. Shachan and Raparand thesurroundtngrectscoplenrttne thelarger FCGRP projactL epromote and support community actionfor better child survval outcome focussmon community mtvolvement in Comprehentive Health Day (CID). community basel sanitation initiatives and DELIVERABLES behavior changeactiYities O*Reesitablish Child Survival intervenlions andoptimum nuition practices STRATEGIES nOrganizeSystemfor micro nuinsent supplementaion andiesunization siervices o ithepublic health sysicmin Kutch Patnoershipwith NGOsand other pnvate sectorbodiec. co Organizesystcm andbuild capacity for community ivolvement inWater - andSanikattonimiiatives. = Comphmtent andsyeregize with Government pronrnm OnPromote successfulmodels andbest practices.

Ms~iast nGERt**aor Lsami. 3 Mai&ngetRt..asnsania A 27flirt 2004 27apts 20. I I

Development Alternatives Annex V CARE Presentation 28 I I AReport: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Leamt Workshop

PARTNERS

KEY ACTIVITIES For Mobile Unls RapthraCorsuantsFtLL.

=Establcshandepaat MobilcHeatihUmis. VohmareyeaSifAscietaafkhda

FcPrevdciscatudeIpmmoWatelacthdcmgedcosainthdoPilCs. For W.ter and Sanitalno

ANoROeForrxtatior Capacitybomldinhroughprofessinlbodii. MoetvKaysoa Iust

VoftenoyflediaAaacoeLoirof kote a Supping thecommun in mitmuienng theorphans and disodnngcd childn ForOtrtisaind diadvantged oidren malinamuln

GASP a Pooo noof best M.aue especily ao ar Fatof knkin ae and annuiirt For BCCAECMainial onNutilonHealth Inus

&mast eec~ hng oar tnerkdkxh = Pro. lae Infantutation andHekihpnrct- througi ECand BCC. Naboar Neanog. Pnranat i.s Bhsewad kia vmasn

M WetalGER1 Lessorni Lar. Mee GOEtItssrtan, S 27pruDI 274onl 2004

SERVICES PROVIDED IN THE Challenges Faced MOBILE HEALTH UNITS e5ANC Clinic eUnder staffing in Health &ICDS Departments -PNC Clinic aUnder 5's clinic EFinding the compatible partners -Counseling of community members on care during pregnancy aFinding the qualified staff (Partners) eCounseling of community members on Infant care ,High turnover of the staff (Partners) EneComprehensive Health days .School health Checkup Program aDuplication of efforts by several NGOs EConvergence ofservices in association with EaRelief Vs Development. PRIHealth/lCM5rygSggjg 7 27Acrt2004 27Api2004

Development Alternatives Annex V CARE Presentation 29 AReport: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Leamt Workshop 1

Lessons Learnt IUMS @@WSlTRITE UNDER 'USAID' ,A formal forum of NGOs to plan & implement activities through continued Name of Village communication. No. of houses Constructed eDabunda 225 ,Long term projects (4 - 5 yrs) should be Saranvand a-:-----24 taken up for bringing in behavioral change M~ltrdya 85 at community level. ,,Kharoi 461 anVanoi 205

aNeed of Socio - cultural context 1000

m~fsnmar tmnt M.*InMoenGERIt~~essombarr 10 2?At 200

I I

am&au@en amDOL mOsUom 9COE HZOUS LDATMiASSUMr10 I

No.erierqr.Gre o

eieneds hMayumtiluri.)

wlJ)t.*ftlem..arMw.a - lt.Sgtn

The dcsgn camorFCGRP la by Dr AS Ary I (nucirianginer,advisor

GSDMA) and)r.M.NJagekar(archbract) visneithertoedeterminets' us.ropn..tares...anciuMr..eumser..aersm.i.sih* 2)Cu.saO..okC.Sh&ina(2'rrwarammare*ItJI evirornmetand'ecocnsider thecopinionsaftihecommunimdesigningthb 4)ACih .ne fnrear.iufes I houseHousing designsandcnitrusnr plansware shared with the ijhpplkaui.Iu.iismdird &3:oi5-mi

memberstalike comrmunty for theire femdbckm . - 1inusan>2 *-Z .-

M ist.gERs b arre.53 1 MeelarmO L (..em t. Im 11 yi"­ I I I Development Alternatives Annex V CARE Presentation 30 I 5 A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Rocovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

al.FFWSOFWIME >Area of each core house 30 sq mis vur.E5Ahquake and cyElone resistant. - Jwelebands prvded atPlith, Sill, Lntel to make it earthquake ' tesisin s of solid concrete blocks in constriucotn u RCCFlat R~k' ~-rT- h "aarign also allows for bothhonasontal i..d vec fs

r-htthoese3dsign Incorporates a number of important featr 'Autcludmgstefireinforcng at all comers ofthe house 1>Each house has two mn s and a ktche util9coom b e-verandah: *,' ro,. .1>2oiilorifor~a tetind.P-- i blil a- ..- ; ­-- ' steenaGERnLasormn Lums,. 12 * 27fAprl200si

gest Recosution program in Kutch by reconsinuc'ing 5000

n~nnna~sd seismic resistasnt houses ­ corstREsL0tiorommunity buildingsandbasicinfrsinctsrc in.1123 iteges Aniar BbachumandRaparblocks u57u.At~we*doneInshortesttirne of2 yvars

C~~ X-I-,pi­ iP 4,Z onosutezoslswith suponor specfcation alconsnscain-oouses jE. incsero sweretrained endesaed for manufacture of sonu-t blocs andrnsport ofsand, stone,aggregates,water et. - COMPLETED HOUSE CONSTRUCTED BY FICCI-CARE or-- .- MneeinesGERItenoraLearrg, 15t oanetkenOERtsnitraitn. - 16 zr 4aco04 zz~ SMuso

Development Alterniatives Annex V CARE Presentation Si A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Leamt Workshop I

Lessons LeamwQ

>Balancingdcevelopmental pnoaniesandpressure of'specd'

tProritics" and"Pace" needto berooted mncommunity process. The most vsibteeads to be balancedwish long term santegic needsof . cqitable andsustainable developmet

htealhngonA LanusLant1'R 1 27faB2004

Development Alternatives Annex V CARE Presentation 32 I A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

Annex VI CRS Presentation

Catholic Relief Services/ USAID MJ Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative Successes and Lessons Leanmed 27 April 2004

Madeleine Smith Kasun Sengupta Mehul Savi

GERI Objective Three

60 trauma counselors will provide trauma counseling and referral services in 5 villages.

Results: A total of 79 traumacounselors were trainedin nine villages.

Development Altemnatives Annex VI CRS Presentation 33 A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Leamt Workshop - I I I GERI Objective Four GERI Objective Five

By April 2003, 150 apprentices 165,620 cash-for-work days will will have received training be provided to villagers for in masonry and carpentry activities such as site clearing, and earthquake resistant rebuilding homes, block building techniques. production and shifting, and Results: 204people were * building/repainring micro­ d realy raned in CSEB watershed structures in each masonry and carpentry and ofthe ten villages. supervised groups ofl0-IS I construction laborers Results: 156,744 cash-for-work days were generated through GERI fundedactivities. I I I I

GERI Strategic Outcomes

Community Participation - Strengthening Gram Nawachana GERI Strategic Outcomes Samiti GNS capacity to organize support from government and villagers Government Collaboration - Verification ofbencliciary lists and legal documents - Package 2B for housing construction - Coordination and mobhlzation of * CRS provided the core house resources in the village * Govenment compensation was not pooled with Idcntification ofcommunity structure NGO and donor funds to be built and watershed infrastnicture Site * Beneficiaries receive govenment compensation directly - In-situ constiction - flexibility and choice ofhouse type, design, and * Estabhshnentof building standards for Compressed orientation Stablized Earthen Block construction I I

Development Alternatives Annex VI CRS Presentation ­ 34 I I A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Leart Workshop

GERI Strategic Outcomes GERI Strategic Outcomes * Decentralized Livelihoods * Compressed Stabilized Earthen Support and Skills Blocks (CSEB) development - Proven earthquake resistant - Block production labor technology with vertical and horizental steel and cement - Training and employment of remforcement master masons, production supervisors, and labor- 940 - Uses locally available people trained materials and hand operated machine molds purchased in. - Training and employment of 74 India small mason and 44 roofing groups comprising 10-15 - Improvement oftraditional members each mud house found in Kiuch - Watershed cash-for-work labor - Low cost option - Rs 225/sq - Utilization of local transport and fi. material supply

GERI Strategic Outcomes GERI Strategic Outcomes

* Drought Preparedness - Addressing social needs - Trauma counselors trained to conduct - Water retention workshops and discussion groups infrastructure improved focused on earthquakes and * Check dam and waste weir construction preparedness. * Pond deepening - Youths trained in puppetry, and designed * Farm bunding shows addressing social aspects of - Earthen embankment dealing with earthquake trauma, and reinforcement peace building.

Development Alternatives Annex VI CRS Presentation 35 A Report Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Leamt Workshop I

GERI Successes GERI Lessons Learned

* Strategy bridged emergency response and long-tenn development, and set the stage for future work in GERI communities * Introducing a technology new to Kutch and * Community participation built ownership and establishing block production operations responsibility among participants - and training delayed the beginning of * Establishment ofgovemment standards for CSEB building technology housing construction. * Decentralized training and livelihoods support created jobs * A model house, or community for people hall should * In-situ building enabled people to maintain the social and have been built in each village to build economic structure of the-village confidence from the beginning among beneficiaries:

Complimentarity and Future Programming

* CRS funded construction of an additional 1,362 houses * CRS implemented activities in education and health in GERI villages * CSEB training to be given to CRS India partnersand their project participants * Capacity builtwill extend to earthquake response in Iran I I I Development Alternatives Annex VI CRS Presentation 36 I I A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

Annex VIl UNDP Presentation

Objective I and its Outputs

USAID's Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative A Lessons Learnsed Workshop

Athmab geerat Tud An 27200f

F"n $s. atsooyo.dV.5.e.flRflrkshoehNChi.mha M..I

'tiltb ,0,I p.s..oelm W&Ia Al0119 'IMP,

Women's groups strengthened Retrofitting and Capacity building of masons/tradesperson

* Rseoninctconpecessby tlsoey mgteastasecessmeeenne

* *=kw p. ,* ak do- rabk he fdye

* Fedrase ,iofifs'cs womawil rcrsed infinosod n'51

C apac ~ti=istnsbe~on

mtu.ed - HW head rohbenbsowrmntu S' aamfoenglapncefceprodcs througlhmnrs

(.090nut

Development Alternatives Annex Vl UNDP Presentation 37 A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Leamt Workshop 1

I

Village reconstruction committees strengthened Objective II and its Outputs

*Fe n a insamypuk * eeadude uara imy

* Irs..nwadaesmesab SOtene,(re uma..r.newses.'

* ~~eT.aanl eqammqledadas.mak II- - III I I I I Community radio programme & the Rural newsletter IE.ui.anc..ne er.un MIS ostppon the reconstrucion process through access to information

Le.erawmiseaaracsesate.nprees s ,ss * 0

* hilma..na IAsmd a q.d.dk 'Lhsaq

* Sp.ade ee amnua..dwns.mb amp dcdde

IIliE mu I I I Development Alternatives Annex VII UNDP Presentation 38 I I A Report:.Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

ILessons learned from the program ILessons learned from the program

* A -showd..'. , . ~

* Tha matmk -Ammub.nJrhrn.

* A or keysrtcy I-l -C 4 b-wA- t p IOUt ''''Ii,

Development Alternatives Annex VII UNDP Presentation 39 A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop I

Annex Vill I World Vision Presentation I I GERP Program Overview

Lesson Learnt Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative *Program Goal: To improve the well being of the population of 20 villages in Gujarat Earthquake Rehabilitation Program (GERP) Kutch District that has been iffected Kutch - Gujarat worst by the earthquake. I

I I I

*GERP Achievements I Livelihood and drinking water-Projects Construction Projects Arcsueure.Moccthan3,500Iaroersrccivcd thoproIaon ofseeds for planting I Hou-e Reconnctson - 1333 Huse 2. Ilanaton*.Caonrucrlansocheckdaumm4Sv'allages.Boscding more . SchoolContclttion - Codn n of 2tPrmy Schools or than 300hcaesfln(onomng) approxnmtcly 101roormthat will commoduteS,000 scudensin abc 3 Incomc~encesbon-A surgIlofmitum enterpluseset taracted are or0isms]] upm thcan&dhdan atoepully womaon(followep isrow winth. full 3 CommunityEducattotnCcusr (CEC)-Cnsrclonof20Communty odged MED Prora) Educain Cener. whch wal bcneritmcatIn3. ommunny . Watespply-nre tlon I vallagarchenitdbythis progrms mnenb, a the tarac vt1acs. whichinmolvosIyng of Ppclnes.Construction ofround lact wter 4 rtmurydihcenr-contucionerui~scussitb Ccoaerso iite tnk,Overhad sge tatnktapstnds. Bar well arnapsc secommeodateapproznmatelyd.000commulnitemnbers wells tcogoing) 3 I I Development Alternatives Annex VIll World Vision Presentation 40 I I AReport: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

GERI Programs

Constructio

. wwdi..pnncd.-rulw.ubs.ar5,k Vf unmma,heeitasusw '~co to. sensactioothuses, Lessons Learnt SaL avlnscseestrucd.iIdurnersanamely5cr t645ll (l9)Sa19) KhOrubltiraya(74)Annumted 2305pecpearcnflicd Livelihood and drinking water nroiccts

armnek * SOsck 5 ,Vd'edcpedt,,ewtravcsiangwrthemarcthui00

S3-cwtcrpnictsweoiwncketaiesupplwaeodlwtds35Krmofsshnesawsraasf00 itsarcutiutd ahasad nnrlac

* Community Impact * Operations

The sudden injection ofsignificant inputs into a rural S-he earthquake created scarcity ofhuman resources, community, invariablycause the emergence ofpower play which affected project implementation in the field with siruggles Despite the involvement of the Village an incrased dependence on the Contractors Development Committees tensions were remained, given 2 Finding contractors with the capacity to do large, those with positions of power either in the community or technical projects was not easy. Contractors were not direct players aware of social issues and had very lttile experience with community participation

Development Alternaives Annex VillI World Vision Presentation 41 A Report: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative - Lessons Learnt Workshop

* Timeline * Coordination -

We couldnotmake enoughIcewayto dealwih the many faciors a We learned a great deal about partnering wth another lst causeddelays Many ofthese could notthav beceanticipatedu advance,altoiugh afrw should havebeen expeced. Fewexamples international NGO. Perhaps what emerged was the need for good co-ordtnation wduin each agency at the Dfiicaities in procunnga -No Obactions Criicaie fre intermational, regional and national levels as well as government oflicials createdIcngthy delays instarting the work. between agencies at each of those levels Which-was later 2. Viliage-level approval wasalsoconstderablydtayed understood and followed up. X Oncetheapprovals werereceived andwort wasduo to begin, dinsagrcns among h. villagers stalledcr-ven ialdproges a WV also found that there were areas of co-orditation Infighting within thevillages contmued to bca problem throughout where we could fill a gap in the provision of services Ex. thecourse ofthe project. Ratnal, Tappar etc. * Otheractors

Follow up

GERP is continuing its presencein the limited section of a .aihquake-affected villages with tong term snstainabic proeccs World VinnonAusteaisa has initiated FoodSecunty Proent ror th. perod of three years whie World Vision Canadasuppon thienew Micro Enterprise Developroent (MED) propect In addition to this Werld Viin irdland wit the fund from tde IrelandGovernment provided phase II of the water and slceck damdevelopronnl which contiuss tobe themaor problemin the legionWV-US andWV- Coany have also com fonward to talso partinthe water programs.

I I

Development Alternatives Annex VilI World Vision Presenfation 42 3 I .U