Natural disaster Shelter Projects 2010 A.26

A.26 - 2010 - Typhoon Megi Case study:

Country: Project timeline Philippines Disaster: 9 months- –– Project Completion Typhoon Megi Disaster date: Philippines October 18th 2010 No. of houses destroyed: 7 months- –– Reassessment 30,048 (destroyed) 118,174 (damaged) Project target population: 49,765 people (9,953 households) in , , 4 Months- –– Ban on harvesting and timber - new Materials Cost per household: approach to vouchers 160 USD for damaged houses, 3 months- –– Suppliers and ben- 340 USD for destroyed houses eficiaries identified through cash vouchers

1 month- –– Project start

October 18th 2010- –– Typhoon Megi

Project description Vouchers were distributed to provide materials for the repair of 9,953 shelters. Two types of vouchers were tried. Initially people could choose from a given list of materials. Due to supply issues the project was adjusted so that people could choose the materials that they wanted up to a given value and from an approved list of suppliers. Families also received information on how to reinforce their homes against typhoons.

Strengths and weaknesses 99 The cash voucher approach ensured that to agree fixed prices with the suppliers and guarantee beneficiaries played a bigger role in their own quality. recovery. 88 Initial attempts to restrict which materials could 99 According to a project evaluation people assisted be used failed due to supply shortages following a felt that orientation and information sessions enabled government ban on harvesting timber. them to understand what they were entitled to 88 Some dishonest suppliers could cheat beneficiaries receive. of some items and claim them in invoices. Financial 99 Recommending several hardware stores allowed controls aiming to prevent this required a very large people to shop around, but also allowed them to amount of documentation and massively increased the choose the most convenient stores. workload for project and finance staff. 99 Vouchers allowed people to identify and prioritise 88 A minority of beneficiaries colluded with suppliers their own needs. and used their cash vouchers for other unintended 99 The value of the vouchers was sufficient to meet purposes. In part this was due to shelter not being the immediate shelter needs. However many people seen by all of them as the highest priority. added their own resources to repair their houses. 88 Not all households adopted improved typhoon- 99 The majority of people supported by the project resilient construction techniques. The project could preferred vouchers to direct cash. Their main reason have better promoted and trained in safer construction was that vouchers enabled them to avoid spending techniques. cash on other needs. It also allowed the organisation

www.ShelterCaseStudies.org 83 A.26  Natural disaster

Families are not given a pre- defined list of materials. Instead, the organisation conducted price surveys and recommended several shops from which beneficiaries could obtain shelter materials. Families repaired or rebuilt shelters through bayanihan. This is a tradition common in Philip- pine rural areas, where community members help each other. Through bayanihan, those households who Vouchers were provided that could be used to purchase materials up to a given are physically unable to build [older cash value. people, people with disabilities, Photo: Hajime Matsunaga/IFRC households headed by women and households headed by children] Before the typhoon voucher worth 7,000 PHP (150 are supported by their fellow The Philippines has a history USD) to obtain the same materials community members. of storms. In late 2009 Typhoons and tools as in Category I shelter The period during which Ketsana and Parma caused con- repair kits. Under this category vouchers could be redeemed was siderable damage. Three of the the families would also receive limited to a fixed period. This districts hit in 2009 were also hit by the following materials to enable amount of time depended upon the typhoon Megi in 2010. them to place poles in reinforced capacity of the shops and number concrete footings: After the typhoon of beneficiaries per shop. Selected Typhoon Megi caused signifi- • three bags of cement, shops were required to display fixed cant damage to houses, livelihoods • six timber posts - 6”x6” prices of main shelter materials and infrastructure. The damage (150x150mm) or 4”x4” throughout the time. was mainly due to the powerful (100x100mm), Each voucher could only be category 5 winds when the typhoon • eight x 6m, 10mm diameter redeemed in one shop. However, made landfall. The damage was steel bars, beneficiaries of Category II shelter largely focused on five provinces. • four x 6m, 8mm diameter bars. repair kits received two vouchers of Two weeks after Typhoon Revised implementation USD 150 and were able to redeem Megi, heavy rains caused further In February 2011 a government each voucher at separate shops. damage. The typhoon and the ban on harvesting timber was es- tablished. This lead to a new meth- Selection of beneficiaries rains combined further stretched As relief operations progressed, community coping capacities. odology being established. In this approach, people were provided the organisation reverified the ben- Implementation with cash vouchers, which they eficiary lists. Details were initially The shelter interventions had then use to purchase their choice of provided in lists by the government. two components: shelter materials. During reverification, the sites of all damaged or destroyed homes • Category I - shelter repair kits for families whose homes were damaged. • Category II - shelter repair kits for families whose homes were destroyed. Initial plan For Category I shelter repair kits, families were provided 7,000 PHP (150 USD) .They could collect any combination of materials and tools in a predetermined list from a shop of their choosing, as long as the total cost did not exceed the allocated amount. For Category II shelter repair kits, each beneficiary family would also Families rebuilt the shelters through community self-help. receive an additional commodity Photo: IFRC

84 Natural disaster Shelter Projects 2010 A.26

The organisation monitored the shops. Photo: Hajime Matsunaga/IFRC

A typical house rebuilt using the grants. Photo: IFRC were visited, to assess the extent niques. During the sessions, ben- which people could obtain shelter of damage, and check that families eficiaries were provided with posters materials. met agreed beneficiary selection showing how to construct typhoon- These visits ensured that shops criteria. This was to ensure that the resistant shelters to encourage them applied fixed pricing for basic most vulnerable were supported to construct houses with steady shelter items as agreed prior to dis- and that they had not received as- foundations, and to place poles in tribution. This helped to eliminate sistance from other actors. concrete footings with reinforce- the possibility of shops inflating ment. Shelter assistance targeted prices or overcharging beneficiaries. families that lacked the capacity In the initial approach of People in the project were also to repair or rebuild their homes. commodity vouchers, carpenters encouraged to conduct their own In addition to this, the beneficiary were part of the project team and independent comparison of prices, selection criteria prioritised families participated in beneficiary orienta- to bargain for better prices with the headed by women without income, tion sessions. Their role extended to shops, and to decide independently families headed by children, persons assisting beneficiaries in selecting from which of the recommended with disabilities, families with young materials and guiding them when shops to redeem their vouchers. children or elderly family members, repairing or rebuilding their houses. families from ethnic minorities and Though prices varied slightly In the new approach of providing other socially excluded groups. from shop to shop, monitoring cash vouchers, carpenters were showed that beneficiaries were able Team members undertook con- no longer a part of project teams. to select shops from which they tinuous reverification to ensure Instead, beneficiaries were encour- got most competitive prices and that only deserving beneficiaries aged to engage the services of car- therefore more materials from the received shelter assistance. This penters independently. This was fixed voucher amount. The shops took into account the reality that because beneficiaries purchased saw an opportunity to make profit other actors could have served their choice of materials according from larger sales volume rather some of the targeted beneficiaries to their respective, unique needs. than per item. in between the initial reverification and the period they were scheduled Logistics supply to receive shelter materials. Throughout provision of shelter assistance using the cash voucher Technical solutions system, team members monitored Before the beneficiaries received the market prices and visited des- the materials, they attended orien- ignated shops on a regular basis tation sessions organised by project to observe how families were teams composed of carpenters, and obtaining shelter materials. Through project staff. The orientation sessions this monitoring, the team was able highlighted basic building tech- to recommend several shops from

www.ShelterCaseStudies.org 85