Disaster Response Shelter Catalogue

Home , Great Mosque of Banten, Tropical Storm Washi, Typhoon Ketsana, Typhoon Parma

Front cover: Acknowledgements Sondy-Jonata Orientus’ family home was destroyed in the 2010 earthquake We are extremely grateful to all the members of the Habitat for Humanity that devastated Haiti, and they were forced to live in a makeshift tent made of network who made this publication possible. Special thanks to the global tarpaulins. Habitat for Humanity completed the family’s new home in 2011. © Habitat Disaster Response community of practice members. Habitat for Humanity International/Ezra Millstein Compilation coordinated by Mario C. Flores Back cover: Editorial support by Phil Kloer Top: Earthquake destruction in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. © Habitat for Humanity International Steffan Hacker Contributions submitted by Giovanni Taylor-Peace, Mike Meaney, Ana Cristina Middle: Reconstruction in Cagayan de Oro, Philippines, after tropical storm Washi. Pérez, Pete North, Kristin Wright, Erwin Garzona, Nicolas Biswas, Jaime Mok, © Habitat for Humanity Internationa/Leonilo Escalada Scarlett Lizana Fernández, Irvin Adonis, Jessica Houghton, V. Samuel Peter, Bottom: A tsunami-affected family in Indonesia in front of their nearly completed Justin Jebakumar, Joseph Mathai, Andreas Hapsoro, Rudi Nadapdap, Rashmi house. © Habitat for Humanity International/Kim McDonald Manandhar, Amrit Bahadur B.K., Leonilo (Tots) Escalada, David (Dabs) Liban, Mihai Grigorean, Edward Fernando, Behruz Dadovoeb, Kittipich Musica, Additional photo credits: Ezra Millstein, Steffan Hacker, Jaime Mok, Mike Meaney, Nguyen Thi Yen. Mario Flores, Kevin Kehus, Maria Chomyszak, Leonilo (Tots) Escalada, Mikel Flamm, Irvin Adonis, V. Samuel Peter, Sara E. Coppler, Tom Rogers, Joseph Mathai, Additional thanks to Heron Holloway and James Samuel for reviewing part of Justin Jebakumar, Behruz Dadovoeb, Gerardo Soto, Mihai Gregorian, Edward the materials. Fernando, Ed Dunsworth, Meredith Crème, Nguyen Thi Yen, Amrit Bahadur B.K., Malvin Pagdanganan, Kim McDonald, Bonnie Vollmering, Eddie Byrd, Adrienne A final recognition to all the field staff from Habitat national organizations and Traxinger, Robert Baker, HFH New Zealand, HFH Guatemala, HFH Argentina, HFH affiliates who worked with extreme dedication and commitment to make all Honduras, HFH Chile, HFH Nepal, Cedar Valley HFH, Rebuilding Together. of these interventions possible. Our thoughts go out to all disaster-affected families that participated in these projects.

Habitat.org/disaster Table of Contents

Foreword 7 Introduction 9 Pathways to Permanence 11 Disaster Response World Map 18 Africa and the Middle East 20 Asia and the Pacific 30 Europe and Central Asia 104 Latin America and the Caribbean 114 United States and Canada 158 Bibliography and References 173

Foreword

Low-income families living in substandard housing are among those most vulnerable to natural and man-made hazards and the turmoil of armed conflicts. The devastation resulting from disasters destroys homes and livelihoods, and dreams for the future. War and civil unrest create millions of refugees and internally displaced people. Families whose lives are upended often struggle to rebuild their lives with few tools or resources.

Providing humanitarian aid to affected families requires immediate action. However, the need for simple, decent, well-built shelter remains for months and years — long after the headlines fade.

Since responding to Hurricane Mitch, which struck Central America in 1998, Habitat for Humanity has increased its capacity to support disaster risk reduction and response worldwide. Our work after some of the worst disasters of the past decade — including the 2010 Haiti earthquake, Hurricane Katrina on the U.S. Gulf Coast in 2005 and the Indian Ocean tsunami in 2004 — has forever changed our idea of what’s possible. To date, we have provided shelter assistance in a wide variety of forms to more than 80,000 families facing the gravest of circumstances. Our goal is to help families not only acquire adequate housing, but also to help them return to schools, jobs and communities that can help them create a pathway to permanence.

Habitat’s first Disaster Response Shelter Catalogue is an overview of our work around the world. We hope it will provide an inspiring record of our disaster response and mitigation efforts and will capture many of the valuable lessons we have learned.

Habitat for Humanity believes that every single person we serve is of infinite worth. We celebrate each family that moves into a home, each livelihood that is restored and each child who does better in school because they have a safe place to study. I want to thank everyone who has supported our disaster response efforts: all the Habitat staffers who have worked long hours in stressful situations, all the donors who have responded with generous hearts, all the volunteers who have left behind their daily responsibilities to offer help, and all our amazing partner families.

Our prayers continue to be with those who are starting anew, and Habitat remains committed to helping those affected by future disasters.

Jonathan T.M. Reckford, CEO Habitat for Humanity International

Introduction

Some responses have been unqualified successes. Others met with significant challenges, and the partners involved had to adapt as they went, sometimes having to re-think original goals. Those latter responses can provide valuable lessons learned, both for Habitat and for our fellow humanitarian organizations, and those lessons are included. We hope they will contribute to the institutional memory of Habitat and assist others who work in similar arenas.

Habitat’s recovery initiatives include shelter and settlements interventions with an end goal of sustainable development. They include emergency shelter kits, transitional shelters, core and incremental building; complete new house construction, repairs and reconstruction; and retrofitting to enhance resistance to hazards. Access to land, affirmation of tenure rights, access to clean water and improved sanitation complement this enabling strategy.

Habitat supports holistic approaches to working with families and communities who have been affected by disasters. In addition to shelter, community needs can include restoration of livelihoods, education, skills training, concerns for safety, and maintaining valuable social networks. In collaboration with community leaders, local government, humanitarian aid and development organizations and the affected families themselves, Habitat tries to address these needs where appropriate.

9 Habitat also provides customized training and resources to help communities and homeowners reduce the impact of future disasters. Mitigation and preparedness initiatives are community- based and designed to empower communities with risk-management capabilities. With particular emphasis on disaster-prone locations, Habitat works to build local capacities to identify hazards, reduce vulnerabilities and mitigate disaster effects.

Initiatives are implemented by Habitat for Humanity International, Habitat affiliates, national organizations and partners. Affected families and communities participate in all stages of the work, from planning and preparation to construction.

All of these tenets are summed up in our Pathways to Permanence strategy for reducing vulnerability and sheltering disaster-affected families. (For a full explanation of Pathways to Permanence, see page 11.) It’s a multi-faceted approach that rejects “one size fits all” and acknowledges that there are multiple pathways on which families will move toward the goal of permanent, durable shelter and settlements solutions. Pathways to Permanence includes the affected populations in the decision-making process, and includes listening and responding to the people we are assisting.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank those members of the Habitat Disaster Response community of practice around the world who contributed to this publication and encourage the study and dissemination of the many lessons contained here. We would also like to recognize the thousands of committed and dedicated workers, staffers, volunteers, partners and families who have been and continue to be a part of our Disaster Response efforts for a world where everyone has a decent place to live.

Mario C. Flores Director, Disaster Response Field Operations Habitat for Humanity International

10 Pathways to Permanence: A Strategy for Disaster Response and Beyond By Mario C. Flores and Michael C. Meaney

Introduction As Habitat for Humanity International began assembling and distributing emergency shelter kits in Haiti after the January 2010 earthquake, the response team started looking to the next set of interventions. In coordination with the Inter-Agency Standing Committee Shelter Cluster, the response team decided that transitional shelters solutions were needed by the significant number of families that were facing the upcoming hurricane season. However, the unavoidable question arose: Transitional shelters … but a transition to what?

Habitat for Humanity believes that safe, decent shelter provides the platform upon which much of post-disaster assistance is built: health, water, sanitation, livelihoods, safety, education, etc. To support these crucial processes, the Pathways to Permanence strategy places affected families on a path to durable, permanent shelter solutions using incremental stages as needed (e.g. erecting an emergency shelter, accessing or affirming land rights, improving a transitional shelter solution, defining next steps for a disaster- damaged house or expanding a new core house solution).

Pathways to Permanence is the process of reducing vulnerability as well as supporting disaster-affected families and communities using holistic program interventions that enable incremental progress toward the achievement of permanent, durable shelter and settlements.

This approach focuses as much on the process of sheltering and risk reduction as it does on the products that might support it. Depending on the situation, actual shelter products may be differently designed, and shelter components will often be used in different ways.

11 Products that support the process might include, but are not limited to, emergency shelter kits, provision of technical assistance for disaster damage assessments, transitional shelter (t-shelters), technical assistance for affirmation of property rights, core housing schemes, disaster risk reduction trainings and others.

Families enter Pathways to Permanence at different points after a disaster strikes. Habitat has learned that in the immediate aftermath of a disaster, affected families with shelter needs almost always come up with shelter default solutions by themselves. Effective shelter assistance and programs will seek to build on that effort, channelling such default solutions into synergies that will take them, in different iterations, to the next incremental step by potentially improving on various aspects (for example, reconstructing a foundation, substituting shelter elements with better quality materials, adding a room, etc.). This shelter continuum takes a disaster-affected family from disaster homelessness to a permanent, durable solution, in a timeframe that can last from a few weeks to many years.

In addition, it is important that the process involve those it is designed to assist. Interventions in either a development or disaster response setting are more successful when the affected population participates in the decision-making process. This includes listening to and responding to feedback from affected people when planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating programs, and ensuring affected people understand and agree with the proposed pathways.

There might also be significant regulatory barriers toward achieving early recovery. Habitat advocates for governmental policies that ensure immediate decisions take into account long-term implications.

Families A and B will walk different “pathways” toward a permanent housing solution. A number of shelter support interventions can enable incremental improvements to their shelter conditions along the way. Family C has the means to quickly resort back to its pre-disaster permanent housing condition.

12 Highlights of Pathways to Permanence Pathways: There are multiple pathways toward permanent durable shelter, and different circumstances, context, capacities and means will exist for families. Habitat interventions should recognize these variables and the fact that different families will have different pathways. Interventions should support these pathways, targeting the most vulnerable in the population.

Process: By focusing on the process of sheltering and risk reduction, Habitat’s interventions recognize the incremental nature of shelter in the program design and the range of roles Habitat may play at different stages of the process. Support for this process can include the provision of shelter elements; the construction of shelter units; the development of housing support services; and support for the market housing value chain. Additionally, given that families will have different pathways towards permanent durable shelter solutions, the support provided may be different, and change over time.

Reduced risk: Recovery must leave communities safer by reducing vulnerability and building resilience. Through the identification of hazards and disaster risk, intervention programs should develop strategies that mitigate them by structural and non-structural means.

Holistic intervention: Seeing shelter and settlements as central to other critical interventions, shelter program should not simply entail rebuilding physical structures, but also restoring social, economic, natural and cultural environments; and becoming a platform for health, water, sanitation, livelihoods, protection, education and other post-disaster assistance.

Empowerment and support: Families and communities should not be viewed as victims of a disaster, but partners in their reconstruction process. Empowering the capacities and strengths of families to participate in program design is critical to the outcome of the interventions. Program design should also look at the environment in which reconstruction will take place and try to strengthen government and community capacities, invest in the housing value chain, and enable rebuilding of livelihoods.

Incremental approach: Recognizing that reconstruction can take years and is very capital intensive, scaled shelter solutions are likely to use an incremental building methodology. It is also likely that Habitat’s role would change throughout this incremental process from provider of solutions to enabler of housing support services.

Permanent solutions: The goal of permanent durable shelter solutions drives all interventions. Given a country’s housing mix, this solution will look different based on the context, but could include owner occupancy, rental housing, cooperatives, public housing, etc.

As mentioned before, interventions in either a development or disaster response setting are more successful when participation of affected populations is fully achieved at all stages of the project cycle. Building such participation in shelter programs facilitates a process in which people understand and agree with the proposed or selected pathways, making sure interventions are aligned and in support of their choices.

13 Pathways to Permanence in Action When Habitat for Humanity puts Pathways to Permanence to work, a set of priorities guide and inform disaster risk reduction and disaster response program design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation. These priorities become a framework for a Habitat project cycle.

1. Community-based programs for Disaster Risk reduction and Disaster Response interventions. Community-based DRR and DR programs are characterized by a highly participatory process that engages local resources and seeks to build up local decision-making and multi-sector participation.

Habitat for Humanity fully embraces the concept that grass root or community development must be focused on long-term sustainability to be counted as true development. We further believe that comprehensive disaster management is an integral part of that long-term sustainability. Both in the pre-disaster and post-disaster stages, successful outcomes in risk reduction or response interventions are directly proportional to the role and level of involvement of the communities themselves. Disaster-affected families and communities are, in fact, the true first responders after a disaster, and it is crucial that they see themselves as active participants and owners of their recovery processes. Designing programs supported on this concept is fundamental if shelter-related interventions are to enhance community resilience and the reduction of vulnerabilities, fostering development. As nothing happens in a vacuum, it is

Community members in an Afghanistan village build a traditional home.

14 important to take a look at how post-disaster scenarios usually develop, and the implications on families seeking to restore the inextricably related conditions of their shelter and livelihoods.

The investment of efforts in community engagement can make all the difference in the implementation phase of shelter-related programs. These efforts begin with the identification of local leaders to facilitate involvement of the community around pre-program activities, such as initial assessments. They continue with participation in the design of shelter interventions and actual sweat equity in construction-related activities. The same applies with community-based disaster risk management processes. Best practices in the sector have shown that this approach, which assigns as much importance to the participatory process as to the outcome of programs, is the right and most respectful one. Community-driven, rather than agency- or donor-driven, is the key to successful and sustainable interventions.

The use of local materials, labor and technical know-how is strongly encouraged. Apart from the obvious benefit to local livelihoods and economies, the preference of local, culturally appropriate shelter solutions ensures their sustainability and multiplies the potential for incremental improvements undertaken by the beneficiaries themselves.

2. Preference for on-site reconstruction over relocation and displacement. Preventing displacement and helping households to quickly return to their own land to initiate recovery and reconstruction are key steps to restarting family livelihoods and community economic recovery. Relocating families to barracks and tent camps for long periods encourages dependence and slows the community reorganizing and planning that are needed for a community-based response program.

Experience has shown that households that are able to avoid displacement after disasters recover faster than those that need to spend time in spontaneous or planned camps. In the middle point are those households that find support with host families near their original locations. This is important because families need to resume their livelihoods and draw support from established social support networks. When disruption of these two elements is high, recovery becomes difficult. The main failure of shelter relocation schemes is the lack of planning and provision of support around these issues for families if they are resettled in housing projects away from their familiar environment. If relocation becomes the only available option (because of high risk in original locations or issues of land rights), programs should consider (and budget) follow-up support for integration of the new settlement and families into the existing environment, with investments in livelihood support and facilitation of services. Think settlement, not just houses.

3. Agency and donor coordination: a commitment to work collaboratively in all areas. Habitat’s DRR and DR programs emphasize collaborative work with partners to ensure that the goal of comprehensive disaster management becomes a reality.

The current standard for coordination is advanced by the Interagency Standing Committee, an interagency forum for coordination, policy development and decision-making involving UN and non-UN humanitarian partners, and is operated under the leadership of various United Nations agencies. Leadership of the Shelter Cluster is divided between the International Federation of the Red Cross/

15 Red Crescent and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. While the former is the convener of the Shelter Cluster for natural hazards disasters, the latter is in charge of the Shelter Cluster during complex humanitarian emergencies or conflict-related ones.

Habitat for Humanity strongly supports this and other coordination mechanisms which address gaps in shelter assistance and help avoid duplication or interventions that may cause harm to affected populations. Shelter can be pivotal for interventions in other sectors, such as access to drinking water, provision of sanitation, enhanced saftey, and livelihood support activities in the home. In other words, coordination is sought not only within the shelter sector, but with all related sectors.

Coordination of donor support to reconstruction activities (both geographically and in terms of products and methodology) is also encouraged. An increased number of households can be assisted at a more reasonable cost if shelter solutions are provided in a non-competitive environment.

Members of a women’s self-help program discuss disaster preparedness in India.

4. Compliance with global and local standards and accountability to program beneficiaries. As a matter of principle, Habitat for Humanity supports the right of affected people to assistance and protection with dignity, impartiality and without discrimination in times of disaster, calamity and civil strife. Habitat frames disaster response programs within the universally accepted concept of the humanitarian imperative: That action should be taken to prevent or alleviate human suffering arising out of disaster and conflict within the ethics of unconditional help based only on need. Habitat’s mission principles have always emphasized action toward those in greatest need first; assistance without any type of discrimination;

16 participation of those in need of assistance; dignity for all people; neutrality and independence from political, economic, or foreign policy objectives; and an understanding of housing as a fundamental human right.

To ensure the implementation of these principles in shelter programs and to foster accountability, all Habitat disaster response interventions seek compliance with provisions in globally-recognized standards, including, but not limited to, the Code of Conduct for The International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief, the Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response (Sphere), the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership 2010 Standard and the Private Voluntary Organization Standards as defined by the American Council for Voluntary International Action. In addition, disaster response interventions involving permanent housing aim to comply with applicable local standards and with Habitat’s own Housing Quality Standards. This guidance applies to all stages of program/project cycle (conceptualization, design, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, etc.).

Final thought Recovery after a disaster begins on day one, with the understanding that when it comes to shelter assistance, one size does not fit all. Comprehensive disaster management demands that consideration be given to both vulnerabilities and capacities of affected families, creating opportunities with the purpose of placing the ownership of the recovery process into the hands of disaster-affected families. This is the unequivocally consideration of Habitat for Humanity’s Pathways to Permanence, in the pursuit of its institutional vision: A world where everyone has a decent place to live.

About the authors Mario C. Flores is director of Disaster Response Field Operations at Habitat for Humanity International. He is a civil engineer with a post-graduate diploma in urban planning, housing and basic infrastructure from the Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. He is also a graduate of the Disaster Risk Management program at the Asian Disaster Preparedness Centre, Asia Institute of Technology, Bangkok, Thailand.

Michael C. Meaney is associate director of Disaster Response Field Operations at Habitat for Humanity International. He holds an MBA from the Open University in England, and has studied numerous disaster related courses, including the University of Cranfield’s International Disaster Management program.

17 Habitat for Humanity International’s Disaster Response Around the World

n Active Habitat for Humanity countries n Disaster Response projects past and present

All information is current as of September 2012.

Europe and Central Asia Area Office Bratislava, Slovakia

United States and Canada Administrative headquarters Atlanta, Georgia

Latin America and the Caribbean Area Office San Jose, Costa Rica

More than 100,000 families (approximately 500,000 people) have been assisted with direct shelter interventions after disasters and conflicts; many thousands more have benefited of risk reduction (mitigation and preparedness) programs. Asia and the Pacific Area Office Bangkok, Thailand

Africa and the Middle East Area Office Pretoria, South Africa Africa and the Middle East Belcior Community Resettlement, Angola

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Belcior Community Resettlement, Bie CARE Angola province, Angola Development Workshop Angola Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Fu n d i n g Resettlement project for returning Habitat for Humanity International refugees and IDPs Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n Ye a r Shelter assistance in post-conflict 2004-2005 environment

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by 400 families Mario Flores Director S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Disaster Response Field Operations 24 square meters HFHI [email protected] I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Habitat for Humanity International

Summary Habitat for Humanity International implemented a shelter resettlement program for returning refugees in the central province of Bié. Partnering with CARE Angola and other agencies, the resettlement program served 400 families (2000 people) with technical assistance for the production of mud bricks and transfer of construction skills. The shelter program was supported with a food security component to allow the resettlement and rebuilding process.

Timeline About 80 percent of the displaced were • February 2004 — De-mining work women and children. The high percentage completed for Belcior project. of disabled and maimed populations • April 2004 — Collaborative bears grim testimony to the scourges of agreement between HFHI and landmines, bitter fighting and disease. CARE Angola signed. • May 2004 — Construction project Project Overview began. In May 2004, Habitat for Humanity • October 2004 —First 100 houses International, through the First Shelter built, dedication ceremony held. Initiative, started working to assist families • December 2005 — Additional that had recently moved back to their 300 houses built. rural regions in the central province of Bie in Angola. This was possible through a Background strategic partnership created with CARE Since the end of the Angolan civil war International in Angola, an organization in 2002, more than 4 million refugees with an established history of relief and and internally displaced people returned resettlement activities in the province, to their homes in rural Angola. A large generally through emergency relief, percentage of this population was food security programs and agriculture relocated to the central provinces of Bié extension work. The Angola FSI pilot and Huambo, where the 35-year civil war project started in Belchior, a newly resettled took its greatest toll. The decades-long community near the Bie province capital of conflict killed or wounded hundreds of Kuito. Between 2004 and 2005, some 400 thousands of people, displaced 1.2 million returning families were helped with shelter people, destroyed towns and cities, severely and latrines. Houses were 24 square meters. An Angolan boy outside a new shelter damaged the economy and left huge tracts They were built using mud bricks produced in Belcior. of farmland unattended and unproductive. onsite and have two wooden windows and 21 a wood front door, a plastered mud floor and Lessons & Promising Practices a roof made of minimal wooden structure • Lack of support from local authorities and corrugated galvanized iron sheets. The for other services limited success of the provincial government assigned land for resettlement project. Although the shelters resettlement, with a secured tenure agreement and latrines were considered appropriate, for families. Areas for the housing project no further support for livelihoods were combined with areas designated for was available. agricultural purposes, which will become the • The food security program that ran main livelihood for the families. in parallel with the shelter intervention was instrumental in allowing families Implementation to become engaged with Before the project started, mine-clearing construction-related activities. agencies took care of unexploded ordinance. • Technical assistance from partner Once land was assigned, families in Belcior Development Workshop helped to apply worked in groups to make adobe blocks for corrective measures to housing solution each family in the community. These family design and improved construction quality. groups provided sweat equity to build the • The project layout reflects nothing of a walls for the houses. Habitat then provided rural culture, which might be an issue in doors, windows and metal sheets necessary the future. Its straight-line, urban layout is to finish the houses. By working in groups, based on private, independent plots that the vulnerable families (amputees, sick, will ultimately be serviced. Rural villages elderly) received a better house and the entire are planned organically with a focus on the community benefited. Families worked in family (social capital) and household assets. small groups to gather the water, mud and It is not clear how a straight-line township straw for the blocks, build the walls of their layout promotes rural social relations. own and their neighbors’ houses, procure Indeed, the use of trees and spatial layout the wood beams and complete their latrines. helps define the separation of different land CARE Angola provided food distributions to uses, including sanitation. The positioning facilitate resettlement and allow for families to of latrines directly adjacent to the house work on construction. starts to challenge certain cultural taboos.

22 Muyinga Province, Burundi

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Housing Project in Muyinga Province, World Vision International/Burundi Burundi Fu n d i n g Burundi Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Habitat for Humanity International House construction S u b m i tte d by Ye a r Kristin Wright 2004 Disaster Corps Specialist HFHI P ro j e c t t a rge t [email protected] 400 highly vulnerable households in returning refugees population

S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze 18 square meters

Summary By 2004, relative improvements in peace and security conditions in Burundi allowed many refugees to return from Tanzania, where they had sough refuge from conflict, to their homes in Muyinga. To meet the need for housing for these refugees, World Vision International/Burundi, in partnership with Habitat for Humanity International, launched the Habitat for Humanity Housing Project in Muyinga Province to build 400 households in the Giteranyi and Muyinga communes with decent, watertight and secure housing.

Timeline “blindé”, which means hardened or • 1993-2005 — Burundi civil war. armored. Compounded by the economic • April 2004 —Habitat for Humanity difficulties caused by the decade long war, housing project began. these changes increased the need for decent • November 2004 — All construction housing in Burundi. materials received and all 400 houses covered with tiles; doors Project Overview and windows fitted. The goal was to provide shelter and • December 2004 — All 400 access to essential services. The target homes completed. population was 400 families (vulnerable persons) in Giteranyi and Muyinga Background communes (200 families in each As the civil war was ending, 21,476 commune). Community meetings were refugees returned to Giteranyi and 10,238 held to increase awareness of the project to Muyinga, according to the United and identify the most vulnerable families. Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Families were responsible for obtaining In addition, the number of internally their own construction materials, such as displaced persons decreased from about tiles, doors and windows, to demonstrate 280,000 to 140,000 for Burundi as a whole, their willingness to contribute to the indicating the number of people returning construction of their own homes. Homes to their villages to start a new life. Statistics consisted of a covered area of about provided by the provinces indicated that 18 square meters (consistent with a only 23 percent of the people of Muyinga Sphere indicator for a family of five), and had houses suitable for occupancy. The incorporated mud bricks, mud plaster, Makeshift hut built by refugee family in majority of people lived in houses called a wooden roof structure, roof tiles and Muyinga. 23 wooden doors and windows. Local builders Lessons & Promising Practices were hired to build the homes, while families • Four hundred houses were too many for participated with non-skilled labor. In one person to monitor. However, 200 to keeping with Habitat’s community-based 250 is a more appropriate figure. To ensure development model, local authorities sufficient monitoring of construction, more contributed to the program by encouraging than one supervisor/monitor per community participation. project is needed. • Additional resources, such as motorbikes, Implementation need to be available so construction World Vision International/Burundi supervisors can reach the sites. consulted development committees and • In many cases, the water source was a long commune administrators to identify the most distance from the families in Giteranyi vulnerable families in each commune. Four commune. With the onset of the rains, hundred families were selected from about households were able to collect rainwater to 3,920 households based on whether they complete the plastering of their walls. were returnees, internal displaced persons, • Clay tiles were chosen for roof cover widows, orphans, handicapped, elders and instead of iron sheeting because they could low-income. In order to prevent jealousy, the be found locally in Muyinga Province. criteria did not favor one group exclusively. Although clay tiles are more weather- WVB staff visited homes to evaluate the resistant, durable and cheaper than iron families and to identify the construction sheeting, transportation costs were higher, materials needed for their homes. structures had to be more robust to account for their weight, their production requires Beneficiaries were then mobilized to find burning considerable amounts of wood, and obtain the construction materials. WVB suppliers did not have sufficient quantities, assisted families that were less able to do and production sites were located on dirt so, such as the elderly and disabled, and roads often impassable in the rainy season. purchased wood for families that did have Ultimately, the governor of Muyinga access to wood. In order to ensure that the province suggested future houses be built houses were of good quality, WVB hired 20 using iron sheets for roofing. local builders who worked in teams of five to build 20 houses each.

24 Pujehun District, Sierra Leone

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Habitat for Humanity First Shelter Netherlands Reformed Church Reconstruction Project, Pujehun District, Sierra Leone Fu n d i n g Sierra Leone Habitat for Humanity International Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Technical assistance and building Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n materials for permanent homes Technical assistance support for the building of permanent homes, five Ye a r community structures, one central 2005-2006 market structure and preventative health and HIV/AIDS awareness P ro j e c t t a rge t campaigns 600 vulnerable households S u b m i tte d by S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Kristin Wright Varied Disaster Corps Specialist HFHI I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n [email protected] World Relief

Summary The Republic of Sierra Leone experienced a traumatic armed civil conflict from 1991 to 2002, leaving 50,000 people dead, countless injured and many more people displaced. Habitat for Humanity International partnered with World Relief to provide public and private infrastructure (technical assistance and building materials) to 600 families, build five community structures for meetings and other functions, one central market structure, and provide preventative health and HIV/AIDS education to 600 households (3,000 people).

Timeline Community rehabilitation was seen as • 1991-2002 — Sierra Leone civil war. a much needed and effective method of • 2005 — HFHI and World Relief sustaining lasting peace in this volatile partnership for first shelter region of West Africa. reconstruction project began. • 2006 — World Relief distributed Project Overview building materials for 632 families. This program focused on communities • July 2006 — Extension granted for in the Pujehun District that were project completion. marginalized by the government and other development agencies because of poor Background road networks and difficult accessibility. The republic of Sierra Leone became one of Some of these communities could be the poorest countries in the world during reached only on foot or by crossing a its civil war. Once peace was declared river or lake. Since the end of the war, in 2002, nearly 250,000 refugees and World Relief was the only NGO that had internally displaced persons returned to reached some of these communities. Six their villages to rebuild, renovate personal hundred beneficiaries were chosen with property and re-establish livelihoods in the the approval of each community, trained petty trading and agriculture sectors. The to build their own houses and latrines, and Pujehun district hosted displaced returnees given materials and technical assistance. in temporary settlements and refugees Families that worked to rebuild their in camps, causing additional pressure own permanent homes proved their on community resources and facilities. commitment to the daunting challenge House in disrepair as a result of armed conflict. 25 of re-establishing livelihoods and fostered latrines from standalone structures to rows stability in the Pujehun district, which was for group families. Once construction of the devastated by years of civil conflict. foundation, walls, rafters, windows and door frames were complete, World Relief delivered Implementation iron sheets, nails and cement for plastering to The program targeted four chiefdoms complete the houses and latrines. across 53 communities. World Relief conducted community assessments, Lessons & Promising Practices identified those willing to partner, and • Some beneficiaries resisted World Relief sensitized the community on how to select because they did not see the value of beneficiaries. Each village received a number latrines; they work mostly in the fields and of beneficiaries based on its estimated would not use them much. In the future, it population before and after the war. The would be useful to make assessments and categories of beneficiaries were prioritized design education programs around for elderly widows, aged people, disabled, such projects. female/single parent and youth. Beneficiary • Communal septic tanks and toilets should families had to satisfy Habitat criteria for the be built in seaside communities because need of adequate shelter, ability to perform latrines might sink in sandy soil. sweat equity and willingness to partner. • Construction projects should be done World Relief ensured that families were not outside of planting season, because discriminated on the basis of race, gender, residents spend so much time preparing tribe, religion, ethnic heritage, color or the fields for farming. disability. After the families were chosen, • Some families were initially resistant to World Relief organized a community meeting using mud blocks because traditional to confirm the beneficiary list; residents were houses are usually built with sticks. asked to publicly agree or disagree with Additional training and education about the selection. the use of mud blocks was needed to overcome this unfamiliarity. Beneficiaries were responsible for their own • Iron sheeting is commonly stolen. Security construction with the assistance of a technical precautions and solid construction are advisor hired by World Relief. The technical needed to prevent thefts. adviser constructed a sample house and • Some Muslim community members latrine, and beneficiaries were trained on how were initially suspicious of World Relief’s to build them. World Relief provided building motive as a Christian organization, but the materials to 632 families; the extra 32 came resistance subsided once work started, and from leftover materials from other families there were no attempts at proselytizing. and from changing the design for some of the

26 Transitional Shelter Assistance, Lebanon

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Fu n d i n g Transitional Shelter Assistance for United States Agency for International Southern Lebanon Development, Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance Lebanon Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Shelter assistance, repairs and Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n resettlement, vocational training Complex humanitarian emergency and armed conflict Ye a r 2006-2008 S u b m i tte d by Mario Flores P ro j e c t t a rge t Director More than 5,000 individuals in 18 Disaster Response Field Operations villages and three southern suburbs HFHI of Beirut [email protected]

I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Habitat for Humanity International

Pa rt n e r s YMCA Lebanon The Center for Dialogue & Development Summary This program was a response to the tremendous damage to houses after the July 2006 conflict between the militant wing of the Lebanese group Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense Force. HFHI received a cooperative agreement with USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance for a shelter recovery program in rural villages in southern Lebanon. The program was called Transitional Shelter Assistance for Southern Lebanon and served more than 5,000 people with shelter and livelihoods support interventions.

Timeline significantly damaged. In the southern • July-August 2006 — Fighting between suburbs of Beirut, also known as the Dahia, the armed wing of Hezbollah and the 4,620 residential units were destroyed and Israeli Defense Force left thousands 38,401 were damaged. homeless and displaced in southern Lebanon. Beyond the direct damage done to homes • September 2006 — HFHI assessed and property, many families lost their damage and shelter needs. livelihoods as a result of the fighting. • December 2006 — HFHI awarded a Farmers lost the entire 2006 crop through grant by USAID/OFDA; fires or because of the large number program started. of unexploded ordinance scattered • April-July 2007 — YMCA started throughout their fields. Many of these training component. farmers lost the next year’s crops as well • January 2008 — Program completed. while humanitarian agencies struggled to clear land mines. Background In the summer of 2006, fighting between Project Overview Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense Force Habitat’s response focused on accelerating, left thousands of Lebanese homeless in monitoring and funding the repair and rural southern villages and the southern reconstruction of homes affected by the suburbs of Beirut. More than 30 days of fighting. This was complemented by an aerial bombardment and ground fighting effort to stimulate local economies in the displaced nearly 1 million people. A study service area. The program was designed conducted by the Council of the South, with three components: The Bazzi family’s home was rebuilt with a Lebanese government recovery agency, 1. Rapid shelter recovery and help from Habitat Lebanon. found that 11,100 homes were destroyed resettlement. Habitat used phased in rural communities and 86,093 were cash disbursement to accelerate shelter 27 recovery in rural villages, particularly unemployed youth and returnees in the repairs to meet the basic shelter needs villages of the Sur and Bint Jbeil kadaas. Facing page: Repaired homes of the family. This meant a 40-square Professional builders taught the classes in Southern Lebanon. meter living space, secure from inclement and focused on the practical application weather, with access to a kitchen and of their lessons. Forty-two students bathroom. participated in the program; 37 graduated. Two-thirds of participants found jobs on 2. Vocational training. A three-month or before graduation. Additionally, Habitat training program was designed to transfer subcontracted with two waterproofing skills, focused on installation of water companies and sealed the roofs of 33 and electrical networking in homes. The buildings located in southern Beirut suburbs, training combined classroom learning with benefitting 488 households (2,471 people). practical, on-the-job experience. This had the added benefit of accelerating shelter Lessons & Promising Practices recovery by augmenting the skilled labor • Inter-agency coordination of program workforce that performed basic repairs in activities through the IASC Emergency residential buildings and houses. Shelter Cluster was a key element to prevent duplication of reconstruction and 3. Shelter repair and protection. One of training efforts. the largest gaps that emerged in the early • Cash assistance proved a valuable shelter recovery environment was the intervention to support shelter activities. indirect effect on apartment buildings Families have flexibility on where of Beirut’s southern suburbs. While investment of the assistance should be they were not hit by the bombardment, applied, rather than a normal physical these buildings were close enough to intervention. demolished structures that the shaking • Partnerships with local NGOs and others from the nearby bombing exacerbated facilitated program mobilization and met to critical levels long-standing water leak gaps while Habitat focused on establishing problems. This component was designed a full implementation team. It also to address corrosion in structural steel facilitated consultation processes with local that was exposed to significant amounts of authorities and community leaders. winter rains in order to mitigate failure of • The establishment of leadership structural systems in the committees among residents reflected buildings. existing diversity (for example, representation of Muslims and Christians, Implementation men and women, diverse political parties), Focusing on salvageable structures, cash but required additional time and effort to disbursements were made to beneficiary achieve agreements. families for specific repairs. The program • Leadership committees provided an benefited 398 households (2,569 individuals). invaluable local counterpart during Money for repairs ranged from US$500 to the program. The extra-governmental US$5,000, with an average repair cost of composition helped assuage concerns of US$2,713 per home. This transitional shelter the community that aid would be heavily solution could then be built around or added politicized. The inclusion of religious and on to in order to complete the reconstruction social leaders built trust between residents or restoration of the entire home. Also, the and Habitat. The committees also provided direct disbursements led to an injection of a necessary local endorsement for the US$1 million into the local construction program and assisted regularly in enforcing industry, helping to stimulate the economies the appropriate use of cash disbursements of all villages in the service area. with families. YMCA Lebanon was selected as sub-grantee for a vocational training program targeting

Asia and the Pacific Cyclone Orissa Response, India

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Cyclone Orissa disaster response Habitat for Humanity India – Cuttack Bhitara Srichandanpur village in affiliate Jagatsingpur district, and Batrapada India village in Puri district, Orissa state, Pa rt n e r s India Lok Sevak Yuva Mandal, India

Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Fu n d i n g New house construction American Association for Physicians of Indian Origin Ye a r Our Village Trust 2000-2002 Rotary Club of Birmingham, UK

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by 73 families/365 people V. Samuel Peter Director S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Disaster Response 288 square feet Habitat for Humanity India [email protected]

Summary On Oct. 29, 1999, a cyclone struck Orissa, a state on India’s eastern coast. It was the deadliest Indian storm since 1971, killing about 10,000 people. This came after severe flooding in August, and a cyclone just a few days earlier. Habitat for Humanity India responded to help those affected in two locations — the village of Bhitara Srichandanpur in Jagatsingpur district, and the village of Batrapada in Puri district, building 73 homes as part of a wider, holistic disaster response operation carried out in partnership with other organizations.

Timeline affected were Bhubaneswar, Puri, Cuttack, • September 2000 — Coordination Paradeep, Jagatsingpur and Kendrapara. meeting with partners and community representatives. Project Overview • November 2000 — House design Orissa state government extended presented to community for feedback. emergency relief operations for three • January 2001 — House construction months, with assistance from non- started. governmental organizations and other • February 2002 — Program completed. institutions. In addition to deaths, injuries and housing damage, the cyclone destroyed Background the livelihoods of much of the coastal Orissa state, officially called Odisha, has a farming community, saturating more than 480-kilometer coastline along the Bay of 1 million hectares of crop under salty water Bengal, making it particularly vulnerable and killing more than 400,000 livestock. to cyclones. Cyclone 05B struck Orissa’s coastline and remained over the state for Our Village Trust, a U.S.-based more than 48 hours before weakening. organization, and its local partner Lok The India Meteorological Department Sevak Yuva Mandal, approached HFH described it as a super cyclonic storm, a India to construct homes for residents term that had never been used before. of Bhitara Srichandanpur village, where The cyclone caused heavy rainfall across all homes were destroyed and where southeast India, leading to heavy flooding LYSM had been conducting relief in low-lying areas. More than 275,000 operations. OVT and LSYM constructed homes were destroyed and 1.67 million a multipurpose community hall, used A completed house in Bhitara people were left homeless. Areas most as a children’s day-care center, a night Srichandanpur. 31 school, and a venue for adult education construction workers to build all 73 houses. and community meetings. LSYM formed HFH India and partner families built a local council and started a seed bank. the houses, while its partners provided Trees were purchased and families received infrastructure facilities. Houses were built of loans to purchase cattle. Within six months, bricks and cement, and were one hall, one livelihoods had been restored. room, a kitchen and toilet. Government rules required that the houses be built on plinths a Batrapada was another village where every minimum of four meters high, built on higher house was destroyed by the cyclone. HFH ground and incorporating cyclone India identified 27 vulnerable families that resistant features. did not fulfill government criteria for support because they had lost all their belongings Coordination by the United Nations ensured and were not able to prove their identities, that duplication was avoided, and provided and supported them to build new homes. In resources to NGOs that had experience Batrapada, the Rotary Club of Puri partnered working in Orissa and were trusted by with HFH India to provide logistical support. local communities. Implementation Lessons & Promising Practices In both villages, HFH India operated through • The Orissa cyclone relief and rehabilitation its local affiliate in Cuttack, Orissa. Housing experience resulted in policy changes, with designs were developed by HFH India to meet a focus on early warning systems. government specifications and requirements, • The community based development plan before being presented and explained to developed in Orissa is to be used as a model residents for their input and suggestions. for other Indian states. Committees were formed in both villages, • A state disaster mitigation authority was made up of local representatives, HFH India set up in Orissa. and partner staff, to monitor progress of • Getting building materials to the the project. construction site was a challenge because approach roads were destroyed. Instead, All home partner families participated in materials were driven in small trucks as far orientation meetings on their house design, as possible, and then transferred on people’s the construction process and the contribution heads. Materials were scarce after the of sweat equity, and actively worked to build cyclone, and prices shot up several times their homes. during the project.

Community members were trained in construction, and many worked as masons or

32 Sukakarya Flood Response, Indonesia

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Jakarta Floods disaster response Yayasan BMS Sukakarya village, Bekasi regency, Yayasan Mitra Mandiri West Java province, Indonesia Indonesia Fu n d i n g Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n General Motors Indonesia New semi-permanent houses Habitat for Humanity New Zealand

Ye a r Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n : 2002 New and old materials were combined to reduce costs. P ro j e c t t a rge t 50 families/250 people S u b m i tte d by : Rudi Nadapdap S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Disaster Response Officer 118.1 square feet Habitat for Humanity Indonesia [email protected] I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Habitat for Humanity Indonesia

Summary Torrential rains that began on Jan. 29, 2002, continued for days, causing widespread flooding in greater Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital, and surrounding municipalities. Flooding is an annual problem in Jakarta and the city of 12 million people ground to a halt as major thoroughfares were blocked, and shops, schools and factories closed. At the peak of the flooding, about a quarter of Jakarta was under water. Habitat for Humanity Indonesia helped 50 families to build semi-permanent shelters in Sukakarya village, in Bekasi regency, on Jakarta’s eastern border.

Timeline Project Overview • February 2002 — Assessment. HFHs Indonesia conducted assessments • March 2002 — Initial coordination in several locations and decided to meeting. concentrate on Sukakarya village, in Bekasi • March 2002 — Construction began. regency, an area close to Jakarta, based • June 2002 — Project completed. on recommendations and consultation with two local NGOs — Yayasan BMS Background and Yayasan Mitra Mandiri. The housing Jakarta is situated at the mouth of the design used material easy to find in the Ciliwung River, and 40 percent of the area, such as bamboo for walls and roofing, city is below sea level. Jakarta’s low traditional bricks and roof tiles, and wood. topography and numerous rivers make it HFH Indonesia hired local workers to prone to flooding. Overpopulation and preserve and benefit from knowledge of deforestation exacerbate the situation. traditional building methods. Those most affected by the flooding in early 2002 were living in the poorer, General Motors Indonesia, under its low-lying areas of the city, including banner Penduli, Bakti Sosial General shantytowns, where thousands of squatters Motors Indonesia (Care, General Motors live in makeshift dwellings. Hundreds of Indonesia Social Service) and HFH New thousands of people were forced to leave Zealand provided financial support. their homes and more than 114,000 people moved to temporary shelters provided HFH Indonesia invited students, corporate by the city and non-governmental employees and embassy expatriates to organizations. While many returned to join the project through the Building on their homes, many of their possessions Saturday and Sunday project, to fundraise Flooding in Sukakarya were lost or damaged. and to increase awareness of volunteer 33 opportunities and the needs of the HFH Indonesia explained the sweat equity families. This plan also helped achieve concept to home partner families. This reconstruction targets and raised the profile involved moving construction materials of HFH Indonesia. from road to build location, mixing concrete, producing coffee and tea for the laborers and Implementation assisting in the construction process. HFH Indonesia asked Yayasan BMS and Yayasan Mitra Mandiri to collaborate on the Lessons & Promising Practices project. To select home partner families, HFH • Having volunteers work with local Indonesia distributed an application form communities made the reconstruction to be completed by the community before process more enjoyable and helped starting verification. Families were selected maintain home partner dignity. based on land ownership, income level, extent • Dividing the project into three phases of flood damage and number of children. ensured that targets were met, the project well-monitored and there was maximum HFH Indonesia, Yayasan BMS and Yayasan impact for home partners and volunteers. Mitra Mandiri divided the construction • By working with local NGOs, HFH process into three phases because of the Indonesia could ensure that the most limited number of skilled laborers in the area. vulnerable families were selected HFH Indonesia oriented all groups on the to receive assistance. construction timeline, the housing size, the • There were occasions when HFH Indonesia locations (some family members chose to could not help families because they didn’t move because of future flood risks) satisfy the criteria of owning their own and labor costs. land, or because they chose to relocate to a different area.

Right: Habitat founders, Linda and Millard Fuller, present house key to home partner.

34 Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative, India

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Habitat for Humanity India Initiative, Kutch District, Gujarat State, Habitat for Humanity International India World Vision International India

Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Pa rt n e r s Debris removal, housing Discipleship Center reconstruction and community buildings Fu n d i n g United States Agency for International Ye a r Development 2001-2004 S u b m i tte d by P ro j e c t t a rge t Mario Flores 541 earthquake-affected families Director Disaster Response Field Operations S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze HFHI 30 square meters [email protected]

Summary After a devastating earthquake that affected thousands of vulnerable people, the Gujarat earthquake recovery program was conceived to help foster long-term recovery objectives. World Vision, with a grant from USAID, worked in partnership with Habitat for Humanity International and Habitat for Humanity India to launch the housing component for 541 families, with programs that included support for economic activity and the restoration of livelihoods.

Timeline many Kutchis, with a significant cottage • Jan. 26, 2001 — A powerful earthquake industry throughout the district (mostly struck Gujarat state. embroidery, dyeing and patchwork). • February-April 2001 — Field Many lost their stock of handicrafts, and assessments conducted. their tools and homes were destroyed. • June 2001 — Grant agreement Herders lost animals. Many buffalo and approved by USAID. goats, used primarily for dairy production, • August 2001 — Project began in Sikara, were injured or killed. Wage laborers Khumbariya and Somanivandh villages. employed in small-scale manufacturing, • December 2003 — Housing project salt production and port-related activities finished. also suffered loss of income. Kandla port, one of India’s first free trade zones and Background the second largest port in India, handles On Jan. 26, 2001, an earthquake measuring 17 percent of the country’s maritime 7.7 on the Richter scale struck western traffic. The five districts most affected India. Although the major commercial by the earthquake produce 75 percent of center of Ahmedabad sustained significant India’s salt. All of these vulnerable groups damage, the focal point for destruction experienced further economic losses as was Kutch district. Villages and towns they confronted the rebuilding of their were destroyed, and survivors confronted homes. The recovery program focused on a variety of needs: Food, shelter, water, vulnerable groups by providing an income sanitation, social services and livelihoods. buffer while reconstruction proceeded by incorporating a cash-for-work component. Severely affected populations included 15,000 artisans and thousands of herders Project Overview Local contractor checks progress on and wage laborers. Handicrafts are The program recognized both the context house construction in Khumbariya village. one of the main forms of income for in which the earthquake took place and 35 the groups made most vulnerable. The Debris removal was included, and it was • Community involvement was program was designed as a catalyst conducted as a cash-for-work activity. encouraged during planning and for a longer-term development, and Fifty workdays were budgeted for two for the clearing of debris. During each intervention was proposed members of each household in the targeted the construction stage, community through coordination with the partner villages, and included some demolition participation was somewhat hindered, communities, the government of Gujarat, in addition to clearing rubble. The CFW limited to works related to concrete other NGOs and partner organizations. income became an incentive to accelerate curing and movement of construction Coordination was established in order the housing reconstruction process. While materials. Residents could not participate to minimize risk, maximize impact and only two members per household could fully in the regular construction of respect key stakeholders in a changing be compensated for their labor, other houses because that required technical policy environment. household members also assisted with and skilled workmanship. In addition, debris removal. Rented tractors facilitated the contractors were obligated to The project resulted in the reconstruction more participation and faster clearing. complete the work on time, and of 541 permanent houses as a part of the During the final phase of the program, required quality. wider recovery program. Reconstruction it was necessary to strengthen the field • Technical solutions for sanitation was designed to keep families in the places operations by including the services of facilities must be adapted to the local where they lived, because one of the another local NGO that was already environment, financial resources, local objectives was preventing relocation. The working on housing reconstruction in skills and the traditional behavior of the houses had a covered area of 30 square Gujarat. Hence, Discipleship Center was users. Flush systems with septic pits were meters and were designed with permanent appointed as the project manager and provided in Sikhra and Khumbariya materials (masonry). Their design and given the task of completing 69 houses in villages. Unfortunately, the families size followed the government’s guidelines Somanivandh village. Discipleship Center were not in the habit of using flush for the smallest allowable house size to strategically positioned its staff in the field latrines. Because of disuse, the units were be constructed for landless laborers and and provided effective management neglected and many were damaged. farmers having less than one hectare of of all resources. Before constructing flush latrines, land. This criterion applied in villages it is necessary to provide corollary where more than 70 percent of the housing Lessons & Promising Practices household training on appropriate use stock was destroyed. This way, the program • The design of the houses incorporated and maintenance. It is also necessary to complied with the so-called “package 1” seismic resistance features and ensure availability of water throughout of the rehabilitation and reconstruction met national building standards. the year. Because of uncertainties on project announced by the government. Geotechnical assessment provided these two issues, sanitary facilities were At the same time, the recovery program information on soil type and its not included in the houses built in targeted the most affected villages and the suitability to safely bear the houses Somanivandh village most vulnerable people in those villages. constructed in high-risk seismic zone. In order to ensure compliance, a Implementation professional local engineering firm was HFHI brought technical expertise and hired for seismic design and drawings experience in project management and and for periodic supervision during housing construction to the program, while construction. The firm provided safety WV contributed its relationships with certificates when houses were completed. the communities in Kutch, relationships • The targeted communities preferred with local and state government officials, on-site reconstruction instead of years of U.S. government grant experience, relocating to new land. Relocation would private funding, and an integrated plan for have promoted better use of land and rehabilitation. The commitment of both resources, but it would have been at the organizations was to support interventions cost of social and financial disturbances to enhance long-term recovery. to the families’ networks and livelihoods. Salbarun Village, Afghanistan

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g Pa rt n e r s Salbarun Village, Balkh Province Joint Development Associates Mazar-e-Sharif, Afghanistan Food for the Hungry International Afghanistan Ye a r Fu n d i n g 2002-2003 Habitat for Humanity International

Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n Direct shelter assistance, construction Complex humanitarian emergency in materials production, reconstruction the context of civil conflict and failed state S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze 39 square meters S u b m i tte d by Mario Flores P ro j e c t t a rge t Director 199 households Disaster Response Field Operations HFHI I m pl e m e n t i n g o rga n i z a t i o n [email protected] Habitat for Humanity International

Summary Salbarun village, located in Balkh province in northern Afghanistan, is a typical rural settlement that revolves around agriculture and livestock. A shelter program for returning war-affected displaced households was started in 2002-2003, with strong links to shelter and livelihood, and a complementary food security intervention by partners.

Timeline Background • November 2001 — Fall of the By 2002, more than 30 years of civil Taliban regime. conflict had created difficult living • February 2002 — Exploratory trip conditions for a large number of Afghans. to northern Afghanistan by HFHI After the fall of the Taliban regime in assessment team. 2001, millions of refugees and internally • March-May 2002 — Surveys conducted displaced persons returned to their places in five villages in Balkh province. of origin, mostly to find dilapidated • June 2002 — Habitat for Humanity housing in dire need of repair and/or office opened in Mazar-e-Sharif. reconstruction. Ongoing civil unrest, a • August 2002 — Agreement signed with persistent drought and an earthquake Salbarun community elders. Project in 2001 compounded one of the more began with massive production of complex humanitarian emergencies seen mud bricks. lately. Though Afghanistan was under a • February 2003 — Project dedication United Nations mandate with support ceremony attended by Afghan from an international security assistance government officials. force and the U.S. military, local warlords still remained as the power brokers in vast regions outside the capital Kabul.

Residents show certificates of participation in shelter programs. 37 Project Overview Implementation Salbarun village was selected after a survey To respect Islamic culture, genders were of returning refugee and IDP populations as separated during phases of the project. Most a place for intervention to support holistic participants in the project were men. Women efforts that included food security and were surveyed separately by HFHI female staff agriculture technical assistance programs during the planning stage, and contributed organized by partner organizations. The significantly to the layout design of the shelter intervention included new housing new houses, specifically room dimensions and repairs using local materials and the to allow for carpet weaving, a livelihood traditional dome-shaped roofs. The project support issue. A community council was included the production of mud bricks organized and comprised of 15 community for walls, masonry of the walls and roof, elders (all men), including the local mullah. plastering with mud and straw and the The village mosque was used as a meeting provision of wooden doors and wood and place for planning and project monitoring glass windows. The entire community was meetings, and community areas were used for organized for the production of materials and warehousing. Participation was also facilitated participation in construction. Overall, some through food security assistance from Food 1.5 million bricks were produced and used in for the Hungry International and by 33 new houses, 25 major renovations and 141 logistics support provided by Joint repairs. The design included seismic analysis, Development Associates. and that determined thickness and height dimensions of walls and wood that was used as a horizontal bond and reinforcement in corners. All 199 families living in the village participated.

Right: Community leaders signing project agreement.

Facing page from top to bottom: Doors and windows installed in a new Habitat house; beneficiaries making bricks.

38 39 Lessons & Promising Practices • On-site reconstruction is preferred over relocation, even for returning populations. Households in this project had a high level of attachment to their place of origin and community, as they resettled after being displaced in locations as far away as Iran. • Having field female staff working for Habitat for Humanity proved critical in reaching women for feedback and information during the project design. • Involving the community in the governance of the project through a community council constituted a promising practice because problems and issues were resolved in a transparent and participative manner. • Risks remain on the long-term sustainability of the re-settlement because of unresolved broader governance and political issues affecting life in the community.

40 Balakot, Pakistan

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Pakistan Earthquake Response Partner Aid International Mansehra District and Northwest International Organization for Frontier Province Migration Pakistan

Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Fu n d i n g Distribution of non-food items Habitat for Humanity International, distribution, transitional shelter, Korea International Cooperation support of house construction and Agency, Japan Platform, Canadian repair, salvaged materials processed International Development Agency, by Habitat Resource Centers Pakistan’s Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority Ye a r 2005–2008 Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n Project included traveling sawmills P ro j e c t t a rge t More than 10,500 households S u b m i tte d by Mario Flores S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Director Transitional shelter covered area: Disaster Response Field Operations 18 square meters HFHI New housing of various sizes [email protected]

I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n HFH Pakistan Summary After a devastating earthquake in October 2005, Habitat for Humanity Pakistan started a multi-component intervention to assist households in northwest Pakistan with distribution of emergency supplies, construction of transitional shelters, and the establishment of Habitat Resource Centers to support house repairs and reconstruction, salvage and reprocessing of construction materials and skills training. Working with partners and the government of Pakistan’s Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority, the project assisted more than 10,000 families.

Timeline The earthquake devastated towns and • Oct. 8, 2005 — Earthquake struck villages in the harsh mountainous terrain northwest Pakistan. of northwest Frontier Province, Northern • Oct. 15, 2005 — Distribution of Punjab and Kashmir. Even before the materials began. tragedy, people in six of the nine districts • December 2005 — Transitional shelter that were hardest hit scraped a living from construction began. their small landholdings. • July 2006 — HRCs established in Balakot and Mansehra. Aftershocks and landslides severed roads, • August 2006 — ERRA began hampering relief efforts. About 250,000 government housing grants. people were forced into tent camps. • September 2006 — HRCs mobile Almost 750,000 people were stranded sawmill services began. in the mountains, relying on airlifts for • October 2008 — New phase of the house food, shelter and medicine. The Pakistani repair project began. government estimated that the earthquake affected 3.5 million people, killed 73,276, Background injured 70,000, and left 2.8 million On Oct. 8, 2005, a magnitude-7.6 homeless. earthquake struck Pakistan, India and Afghanistan. The epicenter was near Project Overview Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistani- The project consisted of several administered Kashmir, about 100 km phases, from emergency response to north-northeast of Islamabad, the capital. reconstruction of permanent homes. A young villager helps rebuild Balakot. 41 After initial distributions of non-food rebuild in four union council areas. About HFH Pakistan used mobile sawmills. At items (including 800 winter survival kits, 30 percent of the more than 18,000 homes each stop, villagers brought their salvaged 500 blankets, 150 waterproof tents, ropes, in the areas had been destroyed or timber for cutting into boards and trusses. buckets, nails and tarpaulins), transitional badly damaged. HFH Pakistan set up traveling teams to shelters were used to prevent displacing accompany the mobile sawmills. These families from their communities and Several factors hampered local people from teams trained local trainers, certified house livelihoods (mostly livestock and basic building their homes to the new standards: designs and trained residents on the use agriculture). The transitional shelters • A lack of skilled labor. of lighter-weight materials, proper linking consisted of a dome-shaped design adapted • Shortages of roofing sheets and materials of superstructures and foundations and for quick assembly. The design featured for upper walls. other government-mandated standards for materials that could be reused later in • No equipment for cutting the significant earthquake-resistant construction. permanent housing (corrugated galvanized amounts of wood and timber that iron sheets and insulation for cold weather). was salvaged. Lessons & Promising Practices • It was clear that in order to prevent death • Transitional shelter and distribution of For permanent reconstruction, the project and injury from another earthquake, a NFIs proved to be a rational strategy to provided technical support and assistance different house design would be needed. prevent displacement and disruption of for the design, processing and recycling The design would have to be acceptable basic economic activity and livelihoods. of salvaged materials and construction of to the cultural traditions and meet the • A fairly well coordinated government new housing that met new government new building standards. strategy in support of reconstruction was standards intended to mitigate earthquake a key element, particularly the issuing risks. The project also handled house HFH Pakistan established Habitat Resource of new earthquake-resistant design and repairs and developed training on Centers in Mansehra and Balakot. The construction standards. construction-related skills. HRCs served three important functions: • HRCs proved to be an important they were bases for local Habitat teams program delivery platform, creating Implementation to store construction materials, places for many avenues for technical support HFH Pakistan initially worked in Balakot, a members of the communities to decide and training. town near the epicenter of the earthquake. about their rebuilding programs, and places • A mobile version of the HRCs brought In collaboration with Partner Aid for people to receive training and advice. technical assistance to communities that International, materials for the transitional The centers were also distribution points otherwise would have gone unattended. shelters were flown to remote areas by the for materials. This outreach model for HRCs services Pakistani military. Most of the labor was should be explored more for its potential provided by the families under technical Designs were tested to ensure they to improve quality in shelter and direction by HFH Pakistan staff. worked and were earthquake-resilient. housing reconstruction. Villagers were consulted about needs and • The estimated cost of a new home, if Pakistan’s Earthquake Reconstruction and preferences. Families brought pieces of materials were bought commercially, Rehabilitation Authority announced a salvaged timber for cutting and processing. was US$2,500. By dismantling damaged US$3.5 billion, three-year recovery plan. Because many communities were very homes to salvage timber and reusing Families building their homes to new remote, in many cases it was easier to take materials from the transitional shelters, earthquake-resilient designs were eligible the equipment to the villages, rather than the average cost was just US$500. for government grants. In August 2006, send the timbers to the resource centers. the authorities assigned HFH Pakistan to Indian Ocean Tsunami, Indonesia

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Indian Ocean tsunami disaster 36 square meters and 45 square response meters 18 villages in West Aceh regency, Indonesia 10 villages in Nagan Raya regency, Fu n d i n g 8 villages in Aceh Jaya regency, 10 Singapore Red Cross communities in Sigli town, Pidie Christian Aid, UK Tsunami Disaster regency, and 10 communities in Fund, South Africa Plan, Obor Berkat Banda Aceh city, Aceh province, Indonesia Sumatra, Indonesia Pa rt n e r s Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Atlas Logistic, International Labor New house construction Organisation, Duta Wacana Christian House reconstruction and University, Mercy Corps, Salvation renovation Army, Qatar charity, International Community infrastructure Organization for Migration development Construction material production S u b m i tte d by Andreas Hapsoro Ye a r Disaster Response Manager 2005-2008 HFH Indonesia [email protected] P ro j e c t t a rge t 8,370 families/41,850 people

Summary On Dec. 26, 2004, a massive tsunami wave caused by an undersea 9.0-magnitude earthquake struck 160 kilometers north of Simeulue Island, just off Sumatra, Indonesia. An estimated 167,540 people were killed, and around 141,000 homes destroyed. Habitat for Humanity Indonesia repaired, rehabilitated or built homes for 4,991 families, and supported 3,379 other families by building community centers, playgrounds, kindergartens, public clinics, or setting up water and sanitation infrastructure.

Timeline the Indonesian government estimated that • February 2005 — First coordination only 120,000 needed to be rebuilt because meeting. so many families were killed. • April 2005 — Four centers set up. • April 2005 — First houses started. Project Overview • December 2008 — Project completed. Aceh province on the island of Sumatra suffered the most. The death of community Background leaders and local government officials, The earthquake that led to the 2004 Indian on top of extensive damage to land Ocean tsunami was the third largest administration services and facilities, left ever recorded, and the tsunami was the a void in the capacity for redevelopment deadliest. Approximately 230,000 people and rebuilding. In Aceh, 80 percent of died. Indonesia, the country that was hit land documents were destroyed, including hardest, accounted for nearly 73 percent almost all cadaster maps, detailing of all deaths and nearly half of the region’s registered land ownership with information economic loss. The physical force of on tenure, location and dimensions. the tsunami was strongest in Indonesia, the infrastructure the weakest and the Habitat for Humanity Indonesia population the most concentrated. The established four centers — in Banda Aceh, tsunami traveled six kilometers inland, Aceh’s provincial capital city; in the town of

An Indonesian mother of two daughters in destroying towns, villages, infrastructure Sigli; in the town of Meulaboh; and in an her new Habitat home, part of the and agricultural land. Although an isolated area of West Aceh. These centers tsunami response. estimated 141,000 homes were destroyed, employed nearly 400 people, a number 43 that rose to 600 at the height of construction. For example, in Peunaga Raya village, in HFH Indonesia’s program director and more Meulaboh, West Aceh, a group of families than 30 staffers worked in the center. This communally bought the rights to a piece of center handled relations with government land that a community committee divided authorities, donors and other HFH partners, into 77 plots, and HFH Indonesia built the providing financial services and management homes. The committee sought partnership oversight. The other, smaller, centers, led by with other organizations in order to address local HFH Indonesia staff, worked primarily the community’s overall needs. on project implementation with families and communities. In other locations, HFH Indonesia built houses consisting of two rooms and a toilet in Implementation communities where other donors provided HFH Indonesia collaborated formally water and sanitation facilities. In Jangka with several local and international non- Buya, in Pidie Jaya, and Ujong Beusa, West governmental organizations in Indonesia, Aceh, HFH Indonesia built homes, while including Mercy Corps, which covered the Dow Chemical installed a water treatment labor costs for building houses; and Obor facility, and other donors set up a clinic and Berkat Indonesia and Atlas Logistics, which community center. In Samatiga, West Aceh, supported the delivery of materials. To the French Red Cross provided water and support with resettlement, HFH Indonesia sanitation facilities for houses built by teamed up with various NGOs to meet a HFH Indonesia. wide range of shelter and community needs.

Right: Habitat homes built with tsunami-affected families in Sigli, Aceh province.

Facing page top: A Habitat house is modified to meet new design standards following the tsunami.

Bottom: Nearly finished homes in the the Lho Kruet area of Indonesia.

44 45 Lessons & Promising Practices • After the tsunami and massive reconstruction process in Aceh, not many NGOs were concerned about incorporating disaster risk reduction training into their projects. In 2005, DRR was not popular, and in Indonesia, the implementation of 2005’s Hyogo Framework for Action, a 10-year plan to make the world safer from natural hazards, did not become commonplace until 2007. • The distinguishing features of this disaster response project were community mobilization and transparency. • Houses built by community members and hired local labor, supervised by HFH Indonesia, were of better quality than those built by contractors. Habitat recovery homes in • HFH Indonesia’s selection process, Meulaboh receive final work. including on-site interviews and public hearings, ensured that it assisted the most vulnerable tsunami victims. Yogyakarta Earthquake Response, Indonesia

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Yogyakarta earthquake disaster Duta Wacana Christian University, response project Indonesia Bantul and Klaten regency, Java, Christian Foundation for Public Indonesia Indonesia Health, Indonesia Yayasan Indo Jiwa, Indonesia Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Yakkum Emergency Unit, Indonesia Non-food item distribution Construction tools mobile unit Fu n d i n g (Cotomu) ABC, ABN Amor, Amigo, AYUB, Debris clearing BMW, Cargill, Caritas Germany, Core house building Doshisa University Japan, Dow Construction training Indonesia, Exxon Mobil Oil Indonesia, Floral Home, GE Lighting, Gerakan Ye a r Kemanusiaan Indonesia, HOPE 2006–2008 International, IFF, International English Service, Jakarta Korean International P ro j e c t t a rge t School, Microsoft Inc., National 1,345 families (6,725 people) University of Singapore, NOKIA, and 500 families supported through Otsuka Chemical Tbk, Paguyuban Cotomu Freeport, PT Lautan Luas Tbk, PT Indonesia S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Pusat Bahasa Universitas Atmajaya 18 square meters Yogyakarta, Pusat Rehabilitasi Yakkum, Surabaya International School, Yuhui’s I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Team Singapore Habitat for Humanity Indonesia S u b m i tte d by Andreas Hapsoro Disaster Response Manager Habitat for Humanity Indonesia [email protected]

Summary On May 27, 2006, a 5.9-magnitude earthquake struck just off the southern coastline of the Indonesian island of Java. More than 5,700 people were killed and more than 45,000 people injured. The sultanate province of Yogyakarta Special Region was closest to the epicenter, and Bantul regency was the worst affected region. Habitat for Humanity Indonesia supported people during the immediate relief operation and the recovery phase.

Timeline Project Overview • May 2006 — House design completed. During the immediate relief operation, • June 2006 — Relief items distributed, Habitat for Humanity Indonesia distributed first houses started. food, tarpaulins, blankets, medicine and • May 2007 — Cotomu was assembled other non-food items to meet daily needs. and started operations. In the recovery phase, when designing • April 2008 — Project was completed. the disaster response operation, HFH Indonesia knew that the program must Background be well-planned and sustainable; involve Java is one of the most densely populated affected communities as partners, not places in the world and is home to subjects; and must involve outside parties, 60 percent of Indonesia’s population. whether individuals or groups, to not only Combined with the earthquake’s shallow assist financially, but to physically support depth and poor building standards, this led communities and help in the healing to high casualty rates from the Yogyakarta process. earthquake. More than 350,000 families lost Family clears foundation to build their homes in central Java and 1.5 million HFH Indonesia focused on the regencies temporary shelter. people were affected. of Bantul and Klaten because they 47 were the areas hit hardest. The villages and drill machine. Cotomu traveled to were selected after a series of meetings communities where reconstruction was with non-governmental organizations, taking place, even in areas where Habitat was local government and community-based not active, to aid the recovery process. organizations. The program was managed by a project The house design was influenced by many coordinator based in Yogyakarta and considerations. With Java’s propensity for reporting to an independent board. earthquakes, houses needed to be strong and earthquake-resistant; easy to build, because Lessons & Promising Practices many people were living in tents; and as • The earthquake left many people with economic as possible to ensure the maximum long-term physical disabilities, largely number of people could be helped without caused by houses collapsing on them. compromising standards. Because residents Often these were the primary income would be involved in the construction, skill earners in families, leading to a drastic levels had be taken into account. The final change in a family’s financial situation. house design was for a core house, allowing The needs of these injured people were partner families to expand their home as their largely overlooked in the aftermath of the circumstances changed. earthquake, so HFH Indonesia made a conscious decision to support these Implementation families in particular. HFH Indonesia distributed food and non- • In communities where there was an food items in the weeks after the earthquake, abundance of people with construction with the International Organization for knowledge, the gotong royong concept Migration, Atlas Logistic and Handicap worked well, but not as well in others as International providing transportation. differing levels of knowledge meant varying levels of support, which could potentially Many residents lacked the skills needed for affect the quality of a house. Thus, HFH house construction, so training sessions were Indonesia hired skilled laborers when held to build capacity. Besides theoretical expertise was required. learning, practical training took place as • Different communities had different houses were built. agreements to ensure adherence to the gotong royong concept. Some instigated Houses were built using a reinforced concrete a daily fine system; others a substitution structure, with foundations of reinforced system requiring the employment of a concrete foot plates and roofs made of non- skilled laborer when a family couldn’t asbestos fiber cement material, commonly participate. To support the arrangements used in central Java. Following the concept of decided by each community, HFH gotong royon (mutual aid), residents worked Indonesia delivered materials in stages so together on each other’s homes, reusing that if one resident did not comply with materials they already had or were able to the arrangements, supplies for another salvage after the earthquake, and transferred group were postponed and social pressure construction knowledge among themselves. ensured the situation was resolved quickly.

HFH Indonesia also set up a construction tools mobile unit (Cotomu), consisting of carpentry tools, a generator, electric saw

48 Tamil Nadu State and Puducherry Union Territory, India

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Community-based Disaster Rural Education and Action for Preparedness & Mitigation Program Liberation (REAL) Tamil Nadu State, India Gandhiji’s Oriental Organization for India Development of Workers and Institute Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n for Literacy and Logic (GOODWILL) Disaster preparedness training and awareness; structural mitigation of Fu n d i n g houses Habitat for Humanity International

Ye a r S u b m i tte d by 2007-2008 Mario Flores Director P ro j e c t t a rge t Disaster Response Field Operations 9,152 families in 41 coastal villages HFHI [email protected] I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Habitat for Humanity India

Summary In May 2007, Habitat for Humanity organized a disaster preparedness and mitigation program that benefited more than 9,100 families in 41 villages of Tamil Nadu State and Puducherry Union Territory. School-based programs reached 2,500 students and 70 teachers. Residents participated in hazard mapping and vulnerability analysis, disaster preparedness planning, awareness raising and hazards monitoring. Also, nearly 800 houses were retrofitted to protect against multiple hazards. Structural mitigation included reinforcement of walls, strapping of roof structures, waterproofing terraces and plastering exposed walls. Additional related training addressed know-how transfers for improvements in design, materials and construction techniques.

Timeline • Dec. 26, 2004 — A tsunami devastated Background numerous communities along the coast The southeast coast of India is prone to of Tamil Nadu State and Puducherry annual flooding and wind damage from Union Territory in southeastern India. cyclones and monsoon rains. Rising sea • February-July 2007 — Habitat for levels and increased rainfall over the last Humanity International and Habitat for few years, particularly in the Puducherry Humanity India developed a strategy region and its adjoining Cuddalore and for a community-based disaster risk Viluppuram districts of Tamil Nadu state, management program in tsunami- demonstrate the effects of climate change affected communities. patterns. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami • August 2007 — Surveys conducted killed nearly 11,000 people in India and and communities selected. displaced 150,000; about 90 percent of the • September 2007 — House retrofits tsunami-affected population lives in these began. low-lying areas. Fishermen, dalits (very • November-December 2007 — Training low-caste families) and other marginalized and community workshops conducted. and vulnerable communities living in Top: Children participate in hazards • May 2008 — Refresher programs disaster prone areas generally lack the identification activity. conducted. knowledge and facilities for safeguarding Bottom: Community map drawn by training participants. 49 themselves from the effects of disasters. They The inclusion of hazard preparedness and frequently suffer the most in terms of losses mitigation brought added value to the of family members and property. Habitat development initiatives being implemented by for Humanity’s disaster preparedness and other local NGOs in these communities. The mitigation program was conceived to mitigate program had three objectives: such losses, and to educate and prepare 1. Disaster preparedness and mitigation residents of these disaster-prone areas. community plans: Empower communities in 41 coastal villages from Villupuram, Project Overview Cuddalore district and from Puducherry The program was designed to facilitate Union Territory to address vulnerabilities capacity building and to empower local and to acquire skills to prepare for and communities to address their longer-term mitigate impact of future hazards. vulnerabilities, thus building community 2. Disaster preparedness and mitigation resilience. This, in turn, would prepare them measures for schools: Educate and equip to respond to any hazard. In addition, the 15 schools from Villupuram district to project included activities to mitigate the respond to any disaster. impact of a hazard, with concrete structural 3. Structural mitigation program: Retrofit mitigation components applied to existing 800 houses to make them hazard-resistant. houses. Some of these communities were already involved in reducing vulnerabilities Implementation (particularly in the social and economic fields) The primary strategy was to work with local through their own development initiatives. partners that had a long-term presence and

Right: A couple in front of their damaged home in Tamil Nadu.

Facing page: Women from self-help groups attend a preparedness workshop.

50 interest in the communities. Habitat selected the village to re-familiarize themselves with local community-based organizations REAL various resources, landmarks, hazard-prone and GOODWILL on the basis of their areas. These were translated into hazard, capacity, past achievements and long-term vulnerability mapping. The findings of the commitments toward the communities in four different groups of stakeholders (women’s which they work. Disaster preparedness and self-help groups, men, youth, and other mitigation plans, at the village level, started vulnerable people) were brought together by with a hazard mapping and vulnerability a committee with representation from each analysis exercise in each village. The exercise stakeholder group to design the village hazard used participatory rural appraisal tools, and vulnerability scenario. with different stakeholder groups providing perspective on issues related to hazards and Local contractors handled the structural their impact on the community. Through a mitigation of houses with participation of socio-economic mapping exercise, groups homeowners and under close supervision were taught to record the impact of past and by HFH India technical staff. Interventions possible future hazards on the social, cultural, included buttressing weak walls to improve environmental, economic and individual life lateral load resistance of long walls, fitting in their community. The community groups weather-resistant tiles for sealing flat roofs to also discussed and recorded the resources stop the corrosive effects of water leaks from and capacities that could be used to respond. compromising the underlying structures, The whole process was participatory, with fitting cement lateral bands on the tiled roofs each group taking transect walks through to provide additional stability for houses

51 located in cyclone and high wind locations, reach a no-vulnerability stage. installing cistern rainwater harvesting • Disaster preparedness and mitigation structures for proper drainage and to prevent programs represent a long-term water collecting around structures, fitting commitment because they require rooftop doors so inhabitants could escape to sustained involvement with the community. the roof, and repairing or retrofitting houses Mainstreaming risk reduction elements to strengthen structures. in HFH India’s work around shelter and housing adds tremendous value to the Lessons & Promising Practices program portfolio. • A community-based disaster preparedness • The use of local, community-based and mitigation program reinforces partners to engage target populations saved traditional community values such as time and prevented misunderstandings self-help, resourcefulness and cooperation. about the scope of the program. To With this program, Habitat for Humanity assure sustainability of the program, it kick-started a community-led initiative that was critically important to establish local can be developed further. The capacity- disaster management committees with building training is only an initial step representatives from the village council, toward a comprehensive hazard-resistant women’s self-help groups, youth community. A community ideally moves and educators. up various socio-economic measures to

Right: Community leaders discuss disaster preparedness.

52 Cyclone Sidr, Bangladesh

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Cyclone Sidr rehabilitation 20 square meters Mirzaganj in Patuakhali district and Bakherganj in Barisal district, I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Bangladesh Bangladesh HFH Bangladesh

Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Pa rt n e r s Transitional shelter construction Southern Socio Economic Permanent toilet construction Development Program Society Community-based disaster risk Development Agency management, and water, sanitation and hygiene training Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n Hosted 365 CAM volunteers Ye a r 2007-2009 S u b m i tte d by Nicholas Biswas P ro j e c t t a rge t National Program Manager 480 transitional shelters Habitat for Humanity Bangladesh 1,857 people trained in CBDRM and [email protected] WASH

Summary Cyclone Sidr struck Bangladesh’s southern coastline on Nov. 15, 2007. Sidr killed more than 3,000 people and affected more than 8 million people. Habitat for Humanity Bangladesh responded to this disaster by providing materials, training and construction assistance for 480 transitional shelters built with permanent toilets and facilitated community-based disaster risk management and water, sanitation and hygiene training in 12 communities across Patuakhali and Barisal districts.

Timeline killed more than 600,000 people, the lower • November 2007 — Seven-person death toll was attributed to investment in assessment team visited affected areas. warning systems and disaster prevention • February 2008 — Habitat Resource efforts. Despite this, much more must be Center opened in Mirzaganj; home done in order to better prepare for disasters partner families identified. and save more lives. • March 2008 — Construction began on first 200 homes. Earlier in 2007, Bangladesh was struck by • December 2008 — Construction of 480 severe flooding and Habitat for Humanity transitional homes completed. Bangladesh was assisting families affected • February 2009 — CBDRM and WASH by that disaster in the central district of training complete; 480 permanent Tangail when Sidr hit. toilets built. Project Overview Background Before Sidr, Habitat for Humanity Cyclone Sidr’s winds peaked at 250 kph and Bangladesh did not have a presence in tidal surges reached 6 meters, killing 3,000 Bangladesh’s coastal southern districts, people as entire villages were swept away. so a Habitat Resource Center was set Reports from the worst hit areas indicated up to coordinate operations. Mirzaganj that many died when trees fell on poorly subdistrict was chosen at the suggestion constructed homes, or as houses were of a district commissioner because it swept away by torrents of water. was an area severely affected by Sidr and

The Habitat Resource Center was a place where no other nonprofit manufactured cement columns and When compared with the destructive organizations were working on metal components for roofs. cyclones of 1970 and 1991 that together housing rehabilitation. 53 Transitional shelters were built, rather than near the water, waterways were a reliable and permanent structures, because communities practical way of transporting pre-fabricated were so poor that low-cost, easy-to-assemble shelter components to the project sites cyclone resistant structures were the best option. for assembly. HFH Bangladesh was already using a similar approach in Tangail district after floods, and this HFH Bangladesh identified families to benefit model had been used successfully elsewhere. from the project by working with local government officials and communities. Home Between March and December 2008, HFH partner families were those who had lost Bangladesh conducted 16 sessions of CBDRM their homes or those who were particularly training and orientation on transitional housing. vulnerable, with elderly or disabled relatives. Home partner families had to demonstrate The toilets are permanent structures, built at clarity of land tenure. a slight distance from the houses as standalone buildings. Southern Socioeconomic Although many families did contribute sweat Development Program, a local non-government equity, this wasn’t possible in all cases because organization, built them. HFH Bangladesh many families survived on a purely subsistence provided technical expertise, supervision and basis and had to tend to their vegetables gardens quality control. Another local group, Society and rice, or fish or take on itinerant employment Development Agency, provided WASH training in order to survive. The prefabricated for all 480 families using adapted UNICEF components therefore tended to be assembled Bangladesh materials. by volunteers and skilled or unskilled day laborers. Implementation The Mirzaganj HRC manufactured and Lessons & Promising Practices produced pre-case cement columns and welded • Establishing a HRC and on-site metal roof brace and trusses. At the peak of preconstruction methodology meant it was manufacturing, the HRC could produce five easy to maintain a high quality product. shelter kits a day and 100 in a month. Raw, • Developing policies and procedures before aggregate steel reinforcing bars and other starting the project allowed for materials were brought in from the neighboring smooth implementation. town of Patuakhali. • HFH Bangladesh gained valuable project management knowledge and experience. The HRC was intentionally situated near a river • A key strength of the project was establishing so that supplies, equipment and volunteers good working relationships with the NGO could be easily transported to and from Dhaka. bureau, local government authorities Because home partner families tended to live and communities. Jakarta Floods Disaster Response, Indonesia

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Jakarta floods disaster response Varied Bekasi city, Bekasi regency; Teluk Gong and Tanjung Priuk sub-districts; I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Indonesia North Jakarta, West Java province, Habitat for Humanity Indonesia Indonesia Fu n d i n g Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n HFH Indonesia House repair S u b m i tte d by : Ye a r Rudi Nadapdap 2007 Disaster Response Officer Habitat for Humanity Indonesia P ro j e c t t a rge t [email protected] 1,000 families/5,000 people

Summary Beginning Feb. 2, 2007, heavy rain caused major flooding in Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital, and in areas around the city, including West Java and Banten. Heavy rain, deforestation in areas south of the city and waterways clogged with debris were blamed for the scale of the devastation. Habitat for Humanity Indonesia supported 1,000 families to repair their homes in Bekasi, a Jakarta commuter city; and Tanjung Priok and Teluk Gong, two sub-districts in North Jakarta.

Timeline Project Overview • March 2007 — Damage assessed. Tanjung Priok and Teluk Gong were badly • March 2007 — First coordination affected by the flooding. Three members meeting held. of Habitat for Humanity Indonesia staff • March 2007 — House repair and assessed the damage, traveling to villages renovation started. and collecting information. HFH Indonesia • June 2007 — Project completed. responded in three areas — Bekasi, a city close to Jakarta; and Tanjung Priok Background and Teluk Gong, in north Jakarta, to Jakarta sits at the mouth of the Ciliwung help families with house repairs. HFH River, and 40 percent of the city is below Indonesia was already running a regular sea level. Jakarta’s low topography and Save and Build program in Bekasi, so the abundance of nearby rivers make it current home partner families were prone to flooding. The 2007 flood was the supported initially. worst in 300 years, and killed about 50 people. Public utilities and livelihoods were HFH Indonesia’s priority was vulnerable disrupted and there were fears of polluted families, such as those headed by widows, water spreading disease. Electricity and or with disabled members or very water supplies were cut in large areas of the low incomes. city. Telecommunications were affected in some parts of the city, and transportation Housing repairs involved repairing walls was suspended in most areas, with major and floors; floors were repaired up to a train lines and some roads closed. limit of 26 square meters and walls up to one meter high. HFH Indonesia hired

55 local laborers to assist with repairs, with HFH Indonesia hired local laborers to do the two construction workers at each house. In work, all working with local communities, and discussions with home partner families, HFH handled family selection, coordination with Indonesia staff determined what needed to be suppliers and supervision of the work. HFH repaired and calculated quantities and costs of Indonesia coordinated with local government materials before purchasing from authorities and invited students, corporate local suppliers. employees and embassy expatriates to join the project through the Building on Saturday Implementation and Sunday plan, to fundraise and increase HFH Indonesia addressed each area awareness of volunteer opportunities and the separately, with targets every month for situation of the affected families. This plan three months. One thousand families (5,000 also helped achieve reconstruction targets and people) were supported: 500 families in raised the profile of HFH Indonesia. Bekasi, 250 families in Tanjung Priok and 250 in Teluk Gong. Dividing the project into Lessons & Promising Practices three locations meant better coordination, • When the floods hit, HFH Indonesia lacked monitoring of budgets and adhering to the a reserve fund for disaster response activity. project timeline. Such a fund, which is now in place, would have allowed more families to receive help. HFH Indonesia approached community leaders to introduce the program, gather feedback and identify vulnerable families. HFH Indonesia staff then interviewed families to verify the final list of recipients.

Right: Flooding in Bekasi.

56 Cyclone Nargis Response, Myanmar

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Shelter component of the Cyclone World Concern (handled most CERR Emergency Response and Recovery, work, except shelter) Myanmar Local peace and development Myanmar councils Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Construction of new housing and Fu n d i n g community cyclone shelters with United States Agency for International rain water harvesting features, Development, Office of Foreign on-the-job training in cyclone- Disaster Assistance resistant construction skills, disaster Jersey Overseas Aid Commission preparedness training Habitat for Humanity Australia Hong Kong Christian Council Ye a r Tearfund 2008-2011 Christian Reformed World Relief Committee P ro j e c t t a rge t 7,000 vulnerable families, of which Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n 1,267 received new houses and 500 Solar rechargeable lamps were received repairs distributed to families

S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze S u b m i tte d by 25 square meters Mario Flores Director I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Disaster Response Field Operations Habitat for Humanity International HFHI through a secondment to World [email protected] Concern

Summary After Cyclone Nargis devastated areas of Myanmar in 2008, World Concern, an international NGO, started an integrated multi-sector disaster recovery program in 30 villages in Labutta township, in the devastated Ayeyarwady Delta region, about 200 kilometers southwest of the former capital Yangon. Habitat for Humanity became one of World Concern’s partners in a phased program to facilitate early recovery and restore access to food, water, shelter, livelihoods, income and healthcare. By the time phase two was completed, in April 2011, Habitat’s involvement had assisted an estimated 7,000 families, or about 26,000 people in 52 villages.

Timeline neighboring countries. Cyclone Nargis • May 2, 2008 — Cyclone Nargis struck struck on May 2, 2008, and is considered the Ayeyarwady Delta region the worst disaster to hit Myanmar. About of Myanmar. 145,000 people were killed and more • June 2008 — World Concern conducted than 50,000 people were listed as missing. damage assessments. Hundreds of remote villages were affected. • July 2008 — A comprehensive Damage was estimated at US$10 billion. project started. Habitat for Humanity Political repression, ethnic strife and a International managed the dictatorial regime compounded the effects shelter component. of the cyclone because the ruling junta • April 2011 — Project completed. established obstacles to humanitarian aid and foreign assistance. Nevertheless, Background established NGOs mounted a significant Myanmar is among the poorest countries response, in contrast to little action from in Southeast Asia, with almost one-third the government. of its more than 54 million people living Top: Community members discuss aspects in poverty. According to estimates, the Project Overview of the housing project. ongoing conflicts between the government Housing design and construction took Bottom: Bamboo being prepared for and ethnic minority groups have forced into account tides, other cyclones and construction in the delta region of Aima. 500,000 to 1 million people to flee to the normal heavy rains and high winds 57 of the monsoon season. Covered area of The houses were constructed using paid the housing solution provided surpassed local labor, skilled and unskilled, which minimum global standards (Sphere). The demonstrated an effective use of local housing design included such elements as capacities. This provided income for men and concrete foundations for strength and stability, women, and enhanced construction skills posts to raise houses above normal water through on-the-job training for hundreds of levels, and pitching the roofs to minimize laborers. In the villages where Habitat built the lift generated by the wind. One goal was houses, at least 200 skilled and unskilled to replace familiar technology and facilities workers were able to improve themselves with some modest improvements in quality through training in carpentry and other and standards. For example, the housing construction skills. Three model houses style is similar to the traditional style, yet would be built with skilled carpenters from incorporates significant features that make other villages on hand to guide their newly the structures more resistant to cyclones trained counterparts. After the model houses and flooding than those they replace (metal were evaluated, construction of the remaining strapping, timber frames and houses elevated houses went into full swing. on concrete stilts). Walls, windows and doors were designed of woven bamboo, and the roof Lessons & Promising Practices cover was fitted with corrugated galvanized • A key to the success of the program was iron sheets. Each house included a water the close cooperation with the government- catchment system and a latrine. backed village peace and development councils around the hardest hit township, Additionally, families received rechargeable Labutta. The councils helped in such areas solar lamps with charging stations in each as selecting the most vulnerable families, community. The houses were planned to identifying relocation areas, mapping, be constructed by local labor and a training and identifying residents to be trained in component was provided to families to allow carpentry and masonry. for repairs and maintenance. As part of the • The intervention included principles program, six multi-purpose “safety” buildings of accountability to beneficiaries, and were built as a shelter from future cyclones, a mechanism to address complaints by flooding or other disasters. Each was designed beneficiaries was put in place. These to protect up to 300 people. principles followed standards derived from the Humanitarian Accountability Project. Implementation • Logistics proved to be a huge challenge The secondment arrangements for staff because of the remoteness of most between Habitat and World Concern vulnerable villages, in addition to functioned smoothly. Habitat provided competition with other NGOs for materials. technical supervision, training, materials and • Education regarding sanitation elements logistics. Families were encouraged to work was a key element for proper use of on their houses, but paid workers did most latrines. Lack of experience with latrines of the construction. Habitat coordinated the and disregard of hygiene practices should logistics and transportation of construction be considered top issues to address in any materials that were often purchased in Labutta sanitation-related component. and shipped up to five hours away to the • Political tensions and constraints for visas villages. Habitat also helped to supervise the and mobilization of international staff construction of jetties and the repair of roads outside Yangon represented a major hurdle, through a cash-for-work program funded by and an opportunity to build local staff World Concern. capacities and forge partnerships.

58 Monsoon Flooding Response, Nepal

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Flood disaster response program Habitat for Humanity Nepal Ratanpur and Pabera villages in Kailali district in Seti zone, and Dekhatbhuli Pa rt n e r s Nepal village in Kanchanpur district in Adventist Development and Relief Mahakali zone, both in the far-Western Agency, Nepal Development Region, Nepal Backward Society Education, Nepal Organization for Community Child Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n and Environment, Nepal Core house construction Fu n d i n g Ye a r Habitat for Humanity Canada 2008-2010 S u b m i tte d by P ro j e c t t a rge t Rashmi Manandhar 110 families/870 people Architect Habitat for Humanity Nepal S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze [email protected] 76.2 square meters

Summary Monsoons in August 2008 caused large-scale flooding in Nepal. Forty-three of Nepal’s 75 districts were affected, and 130 people died either from the floods or in landslides caused by heavy rain. Habitat for Humanity Nepal launched its first disaster response operation to support more than 100 families who lost their homes to floodwater.

Timeline Habitat for Humanity Nepal implemented • May 2009 — Two-person assessment its first disaster response operation, in team visited affected areas. the districts of Kailali and Kanchanpur • June-July 2009 — Home partner in western Nepal, where 16 people died, families identified. 3,000 homes were destroyed and more than • July-August 2009 — Bamboo supplied 22,000 families were affected. and construction started. • September 2009 — Construction of 50 Project Overview homes in Kailali district completed. HFH Nepal partnered with a local non- • January 2010 — Construction governmental organization, the Adventist of 60 homes in Kanchanpur Development and Relief Agency, because district completed. the scope of its disaster response operation • June 2010 — Program completed. involved western Nepal. Additionally, HFH Nepal worked with two other local Background NGOs — Backward Society Education and Nepal is a landlocked country, prone to Organization for Community Child and natural disasters, with flooding the most Environment on the program. prevalent. With more than 6,000 rivers and streams, many flowing north to south After an assessment, BASE and OCCED at high velocity because of steep river worked with respected village elders in gradients, heavy rains cause destructive three communities and gave HFH Nepal a floods and landslides. In the summer list of 110 families. of 2008, the Koshi and numerous other rivers rose to very high levels and caused The families selected had had their considerable flooding. homes destroyed by floodwater and Finished house with exterior structure lacked a way to rebuild. Homeowner added on by home partner. 59 partners included the most vulnerable Because these communities were situated families in the community, those with elderly in areas prone to flooding, houses were or disabled family members or built of very high 3-meter plinths, raised female-headed households. mud platforms built of brick walls with compressed earth centers or a mix of soil and For the first time in Nepal, humanitarian grass. Houses in western Nepal were often response to this disaster operated under the constructed using huge tree trunks, causing United Nations’ cluster system. Thus the many people to be injured when houses Koshi floods marked a large step toward collapsed. HFH Nepal encouraged residents improving humanitarian support in Nepal, to instead use high plinths and lightweight although efforts were largely focused in structures to mitigate against further disasters. eastern Nepal and many aid agencies departed Village elders were responsible for all after initial relief efforts of distributing food community interaction, and their houses used and clothing. for meetings and storage of bamboo.

Most of the efforts were focused on the Koshi ADRA supported the program through floods in eastern Nepal, so HFH Nepal chose its Food for Work project, with 12 families to focus on western Nepal. receiving food for every house constructed. ADRA also provided a technical supervisor Implementation to assist with community orientation and the After a meeting with partners and local initial construction process. government authorities to prioritize needs, the villages of Ratanpur, Pabera and Dekhatbhuli Lessons & Promising Practices were identified as needing support. HFH • Using bamboo to construct homes was a Nepal worked with ADRA, BASE, OCCED new concept for these families. Bamboo and local communities to explain the house is largely ignored as a viable construction design and construction process. Houses of material in large parts of Nepal and so it two rooms were built, with the opportunity had to be introduced as a new material that to build additional rooms, following could create a secure house, built quickly. Habitat’s core house model. Bamboo used in • Time and resources could have been saved construction came from HFH Nepal’s factory, if bamboo fabrication had been done in and residents who were responsible for western Nepal, rather than at the factory in housing construction were trained. eastern Nepal and driven the length of the country.

60 Earthquake Response, Sichuan, China

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Fu n d i n g Sichuan earthquake program, Sichuan Singapore Red Cross Province, China Flextronics Corp. Hong Kong Christian Council China Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Hyundai Motor Co. New permanent housing, multi-story Cisco Systems Pepsico International Ye a r Habitat for Humanity Germany 2008-2010 Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n P ro j e c t t a rge t Volunteer teams from Hong Kong 963 households in six areas left and South Korea contributed to the homeless by the earthquake projects

S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze S u b m i tte d by 100 square meters Mario Flores Director I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Disaster Response Field Operations Habitat for Humanity China HFHI [email protected]

Summary Habitat for Humanity responded in communities affected by a devastating earthquake that hit Sichuan province in southwestern China in May 2008. With support from donors, partners, volunteers and local government officials, Habitat for Humanity China worked on six housing projects designed for about 1,000 families.

Timeline as missing. The earthquake left about • May 12, 2008 — Powerful earthquake 4.8 million people homeless, though the struck Sichuan province. number could have been as high as 11 • June-August 2008 — Assessments million. Approximately 15 million people conducted in coordination with lived in the affected area. local governments. • September 2008 — Construction began. Project Overview • February 2009 — Habitat China began In compliance with government hosting volunteer teams. specifications for post-disaster rebuilding, • February 2010 — Project completed. Habitat for Humanity China built earthquake recovery housing in six Background locations. The housing, which included The Sichuan earthquake on May 12, single detached, row houses, townhouses 2008, measured 8.0 on the Richter scale, and apartment buildings, were built using killing an estimated 68,000 people. It is the government’s quality standard for also known as the Wenchuan earthquake, earthquake-resistant housing and designs because the epicenter was Wenchuan from the Architecture Design Institute in County. The epicenter was 80 kilometers Chengdu, from which the families could west-northwest of Chengdu, the capital of choose. The houses are relatively large Sichuan. The earthquake was also felt in (about 100 square meters). nearby countries and as far away as Beijing and Shanghai —1,500 kilometers and 1,700 In an effort to increase income capacity kilometers away — where office buildings for the affected families, many of whom Top: Earthquake survivor in front of a swayed with the tremor. lost their farmland because of the disaster, two-story housing solution under construction. houses were constructed with livelihood Official figures said 69,197 were killed in mind. In Taizi and Yangping villages, Bottom: Volunteers do masonry work. and 374,176 injured, with 18,222 listed houses were built as bed and breakfasts 61 to accommodate tourists. The houses in project is in Jiexiang township, Zhongjiang Luoyang and Changzhen villages were County, northeast of Chengdu. Although constructed so families would have space contractors did most of the construction for a small business on the ground floor (because of government regulations), it is and could live comfortably above. In one important to highlight the participation of community, where many people were killed hundreds of volunteers in the six locations. or hurt when overweight concrete structures Their contributions were a cornerstone of the collapsed during the earthquake, the new project and a show of international solidarity homes are a combination of brick with wood with affected families. superstructures. Elsewhere the houses were built with bricks and reinforced concrete. Lessons & Promising Practices Habitat was also involved with constructing • Swift government action was very effective community buildings. One county in the emergency phase. Cleanup of debris government administration asked Habitat and rubble began almost immediately, China to assist with building a kindergarten. clearing land suitable for reconstruction. • The disaster was an opportunity for Implementation Habitat China to expand operations to Five of the Habitat projects are in Pengzhou new geographical areas and establish City, 36 kilometers northwest of Chengdu, relationships with local authorities and capital of Sichuan. The city has a population of academic institutions. 780,000 spread over 20 townships. The sixth

Right: A two-story housing solution under construction.

62 West Sumatra Earthquake Response, Indonesia

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n West Sumatra earthquake disaster Habitat for Humanity Indonesia response Kudu Ganting and Limau Purut village Pa rt n e r s Indonesia in V Koto Timor district, Pasie Laweh Christian Aid Ministries village in Lubuk Alang district, Lareh United Nations Office for the Nan Panjang village in V Koto Sungai Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Sarik district, Kurai Taji village in Nan PADMA Indonesia Sabaris district, Padang Pariaman Islamic Relief regency, West Sumatra province, Indonesia Fu n d i n g Habitat for Humanity Singapore Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Habitat for Humanity Australia New house construction CIMB-The Star House rehabilitation DBS Bank School construction Nokia Water and sanitation provision Multiple donors. Those listed here contributed more than US$100,000. Ye a r 2009-2011 Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n 417 core houses, 465 house P ro j e c t t a rge t rehabilitations and four schools 882 families/4,410 people S u b m i tte d by S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Andreas Hapsoro 69 square feet Disaster Response Manager Habitat for Humanity Indonesia [email protected]

Summary On Sept. 30, 2009, a 7.6-magnitude earthquake struck just off the southern coast of Sumatra, an island in western Indonesia. The earthquake killed more than 1,100 people and left more than 250,000 families homeless or in need of decent shelter. Habitat for Humanity Indonesia built 417 new homes, four new schools and repaired 465 houses.

Timeline Project Overview • Oct. 2, 2009 — Assessment and first Habitat for Humanity Indonesia’s goal coordination meeting. was to support and mobilize survivors in • Nov. 24, 2009 — Construction began. West Sumatra to rebuild safe, earthquake- • Nov. 24, 2011 — Project completed. resilient homes, to construct safe and hygienic water and sanitation systems and Background to repair damaged homes. Most of Indonesia is located in an area of high seismic activity known as the Using HFH Indonesia’s expertise from Pacific Ring of Fire. The earthquake came the Indian Ocean tsunami and other less than a month after a 7.0-magnitude disasters, the initial disaster response plan earthquake struck off the island of Java. The included debris removal and cleanup earthquake’s epicenter was 45 kilometers through the distribution of tool kits and from Padang, the capital and largest city of “cash for work” initiatives. West Sumatra, with a population of more than 833,000 people. Most of the deaths After a two-week assessment, HFH occurred in Padang Pariaman regency Indonesia saw that many other non-profit that surrounds Padang, home to nearly organizations were concentrating on 400,000 people. About 115,000 homes were debris clearance and providing tool kits. severely damaged; 135,000 houses suffered Recognizing that focusing on the recovery moderate or slight damage. stage would be of greater benefit, HFH Indonesia completed its assessment and 63 decided to work in Padang Pariaman regency, Lessons & Promising Practices the hardest hit area in West Sumatra. • When HFH Indonesia built the new core houses, it could ensure that the house One month after the disaster, many families in was well constructed. However, when Padang Pariaman had already built temporary staff worked with home partners to repair shelters using material salvaged from their homes, it was clear that damaged homes homes. HFH Indonesia set up a project of had not been adequately built originally; house rehabilitation and construction of core homes were without corner columns or had houses. the wrong reinforcing bars and incorrect connections. Home partners wanted to use Unlike the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster their repair materials budget on walling response project, when funding was easy to material and ignore the need for proper secure, the West Sumatra earthquake disaster reinforcements. To counter this, HFH response project had a very tight budget. This Indonesia provided construction training meant that considerable work had to be done and consultation services, and persuaded to find partners to serve as many families as home partners to use their budget to possible and to prioritize assistance for the purchase the right material. For example, most vulnerable families. reinforcing bars in timber columns were replaced with ones of proper dimensions Implementation and a joint in every corner. The core house design used in previous • Distribution of materials such as cement, disaster response projects (the West Java reinforcing bars and other construction earthquake and the Yogyakarta earthquake items was difficult in the Nagari Kudu in May 2006) were used again in West Ganting area because of poor road Sumatra, with the addition of a small room conditions, hills and lack of vehicle access. for a toilet. The house was built using an Landslides occurred at almost every earthquake-resilient design with concrete heavy rainfall and blocked roads. To columns and beams. overcome this, communities worked together to clear roads of landslide debris HFH Indonesia worked with residents to find or delivered materials to houses themselves usable salvage material from damaged houses. — carrying cement, zinc roofing sheets or For families whose homes were damaged but reinforcing bars piece by piece, occasionally weren’t habitable, HFH Indonesia provided a using buffaloes to pull reinforcing rods grant for materials (US$150-600) instead of across rice fields. This often took days until building a new house. all the materials were in place and work could begin. HFH Indonesia was also involved in renovating and building schools as part of the disaster response project. The schools were Junior High School SMPN 1, Elementary Schools SDN 4 and SDN 9 in Nagari Kudu Ganting, V Koto Timor district; and Elementary School SDN 12 in Nagari Kurai Taji, Nan Sabaris district.

64 Kosi Floods, India

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Kosi Floods disaster response Habitat for Humanity India — Delhi Jorgama village in Madhepura Habitat Resource Center district, Bihar state, India India Pa rt n e r s Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Church of North India New house construction Community hall construction Fu n d i n g Livelihood restoration Associated Cement Companies Hindustan Unilever Ye a r 2009-2012 S u b m i tte d by Justin Jebakumar P ro j e c t t a rge t Director 72 families/280 people Delhi Habitat Resource Center Habitat for Humanity India S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze [email protected] 250 to 300 square feet

Summary The Kosi River runs through Nepal and into India, passing through Bihar state. On Aug. 18, 2008, Kosi breached its man-made embankments and diverted to an old channel. More than 2.3 million people were affected, and 250 were killed. Habitat for Humanity India supported 72 families to build new homes and 280 other people through the construction of a community hall and livelihood restoration program.

Timeline Project Overview • June 2009 — Location selected and HFH India, working in partnership with partners secured. Church of North India, developed a • June 2009 — Housing construction disaster response project that included started. building disaster-resilient houses for 72 • May 2010 — Livelihood restoration families, constructing a community hall started. and implementing a livelihood program for • November 2011 — Community center 280 people. Jorgama village, in Madhepura construction started. district, was selected as the location for • December 2012 — Expected project Project Ashreya. (Ashreya means shelter or completion date. refuge in Hindi.)

Background CNI had already started working in Bihar is India’s most flood-prone state, with Jorgama, providing immediate relief after more than two-thirds of the population the flooding, and approached HFH India living with the recurring threat of for its support in building shelter for floods. The floods in 2008 were the most affected families. The Kosi floods struck disastrous in the state’s history, affecting Madhepura district the hardest, and the the districts of Supaul, Araria, Saharsa, entire Jorgama village was submerged, with Madhepura, Bhagalpur and West Chaparan residents fleeing to save their lives. in northern Bihar. More than 3 million people were forced from their homes, with The goal of the livelihood project was to set 300,000 houses destroyed and hundreds up alternatives opportunities for residents Top: Community center under of thousands of hectares of crop damaged. of Jorgama village. Because the floods construction. When Kosi changed its course, it inundated ruined farming opportunities, this project Bottom: Community members areas that hadn’t experienced floods in focused on training in tailoring, spice- rebuild in the village of Jorgama. many decades and were largely unprepared. making, masonry and other professions. 65 The multipurpose community hall was Houses were built on elevated concrete designed to act as a shelter during disasters columns, with traditional lightweight concrete and for social networking and gatherings, bricks and reinforced cement concrete slab including being used as a training space. roofs. Houses were built as twin units for two families, comprised of two rooms and two Implementation toilets, with enough space for a kitchen. HFH India ran the program through its CNI helped organize self-help groups among Habitat Resource Center in Delhi. Habitat the residents of Jorgama and presented a provided project and technical management number of different livelihood opportunities. assistance, including monitoring, time CNI then found experts to conduct training management, project reporting and transfer sessions at the request of the self-help groups, of funds. HFH India developed procedures who now independently manage these for regular financial, technical and social income-generating activities. reporting to ensure that houses were built on time. Lessons & Promising Practices • Community participation increased the CNI developed selection criteria in effectiveness of the program. consultation with HFH India to ensure • Good health and sanitation practices were that assistance was provided to families most missing in the village, and this should in need of support. Community leaders have been addressed as part of the project. were consulted and the entire community Initially, beneficiary families used their new involved in the selection process. All bathrooms as storage space, so community families that were selected participated in an meetings on the benefits of using toilets orientation session that explained housing took place, leading to changes in behavior. design, the construction process and flood- • Empowering women was a key resistant features. component of the project, and this led to positive changes in the socioeconomic status of the village.

Right: Homeowner partners made bricks for their houses.

66 Tien Phuoc, Vietnam

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Typhoon Ketsana disaster response 131 feet square Tien Phuoc district, Quang Nam province, Vietnam I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Vietnam Habitat for Humanity Vietnam Ye a r 2009 Fu n d i n g United Nations Office for the Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Provision of new roofing sheeting through United Nations Development Housing repair Program Construction training Electric Schneider New house construction Holcim Ltd. Exxon Mobil Ye a r 2009 S u b m i tte d by Nguyen Thi Yen P ro j e c t t a rge t Manager 605 families Disaster Response and Mitigation Habitat for Humanity Vietnam [email protected]

Summary Typhoon Ketsana struck Vietnam’s central and highland provinces on Sept. 29, 2009, killing more than 150 people and affecting 14 of Vietnam’s 58 provinces. Quang Nam province in the south central coast region was hit hardest, with damage estimated at US$177 million. Habitat for Humanity Vietnam supported 662 families in Quang Nam by distributing roof sheeting, ridge caps, screws and wire; and by providing technical assistance on safe house repair, replacement and reinforcement. In addition, five new homes were built and 270 people were trained in disaster-resilient construction techniques.

Timeline Recognizing this need, Habitat for • Early October 2009 — Four members of Humanity Vietnam cooperated with local an assessment visited affected areas. authorities to assist. • Nov. 1, 2009 — Volunteers trained in construction techniques. Project Overview • Nov. 6-13, 2009 — Home partner HFH Vietnam chose Tien Phuoc district families selected. because it was the most affected district • Nov. 9, 2009 — Roof sheeting in Quang Nam province, which was hit distribution began and technical the hardest of all Vietnam’s provinces, and assistance provided. worked in 49 villages in six communes in • Dec. 24, 2009 – Project completed. Tien Phuoc to support 662 families.

Background Through the assessment process, HFH Vietnam is a disaster-prone country, Vietnam realized that roof sheeting was because of its long, low-lying coastline an overriding priority. In almost all the and location in the western Pacific, one areas visited during the assessment, large of the biggest storm centers in the world. numbers of houses, in some cases 80 Every year, Vietnam experiences six to 10 percent to 100 percent, had collapsed and storms or tropical depressions of varying were missing their roofs. For example, in intensities, usually between June village 1 of Tien Phong commune, of the 53 and November. households, all but two lost their roofs after Ketsana. Residents and local authorities Top: Home repair training. Most of the families affected by Ketsana emphasized the need for steel sheeting as Bottom: A damaged house with a new were already marginalized and could not a priority. That prompted HFH Vietnam roof in Tien Phuoc. afford to repair or rebuild their homes. to focus its response effort on providing 67 roof sheeting, building five new homes and Home partners were involved with the training 270 volunteers in disaster-resilient delivery, supervision and evaluation of construction techniques. the project, and provided sweat equity. Construction materials and house designs Implementation followed local traditions and customs, based HFH Vietnam collaborated with local on requests of residents. government and residents on the project while taking a lead role in providing Lessons & Promising Practices materials, technical assistance, supervision • It was important for HFH Vietnam to and training. conduct its own assessment after Typhoon Ketsana, because government figures Home partner families were selected based did not provide information on specific on income, the extent of roof damage and housing needs and the most vulnerable financial need, and attempted roof repair groups. This required HFH Vietnam to be that did not meet construction standards. well coordinated, to quickly mobilize staff HFH Vietnam’s partners at the community and finances, and develop expertise in rapid or district level collected information about needs assessments. potential family partners and HFH Vietnam • Many of the residents had limited access conducted random assessments to verify the to information and were illiterate, so information. If incorrect information was explaining project criteria and requirements found, partners had to submit another list. took longer than originally expected.

Right: A Vietnamese family in front of their repaired home.

68 Typhoon Response, Philippines

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Ketsana, Parma and Mirinae Habitat for Humanity Philippines disaster response More than 100 barangays Pa rt n e r s Philippines (villages) or towns in provinces Save the Children of Pangasinan, Bulacan, Rizal, La Philippines Red Cross Union and Benguet, and cities The Charitable Foundation of Marikina, Quezon, Pasig and ABS-CBN Foundation Valenzuela in Metro Manila, Nagkakaisang Nayon Neighborhood Philippines Association Gulod Neighborhood Association Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Foundation for development Alternatives Home repair kits Community Organizing Multiversity Toilet and bathing unit construction Active Citizenship Foundation in evacuation centers Commission on Service within the Diocese of Food for Work plans Malolos and Novaliches House rehabilitation New core house construction Fu n d i n g Ayala Foundation Ye a r ABS-CBN Foundation 2009-2010 S u b m i tte d by P ro j e c t t a rge t David (Dabs) Liban 75,000 people/15,000 families Disaster Response Manager Habitat for Humanity Philippines S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze [email protected] 21 square meters Summary In 2009 the Philippines experienced its worst Pacific typhoon season in decades. The deadliest of the typhoons occurred within a month of one another when typhoons Ketsana, Parma and Mirinae struck in quick succession. Habitat for Humanity Philippines responded to the multiple disasters, helping more than 15,000 affected families, providing home repair kits, supporting Food for Work plans, rehabilitating homes, constructing toilets and bathing units in evacuation centers, and building new homes.

Timeline Philippines area each year, and six to nine • September 2009 — Assessment done. make landfall annually. Of the islands that • September-November 2009 — Food for make up the Philippines, northern Luzon Work program conducted. and eastern Visayas are most commonly • October 2009-May 2010 — Home repair affected. Ketsana and Mirinae affected areas kits distributed. in the center and south of Luzon Island, • November 2009-January 2010 — Toilet whereas Parma struck northern Luzon. and bathing stations built. • November 2009-April 2010 —Homes Project Overview rehabilitated. Typhoon Ketsana struck on Sept. 26, 2009, • February-April 2010 — New houses making landfall on the border between built. Aurora and Quezon province, and moved • April 2010 — Project completed. over metro Manila. A state of calamity was declared in metro Manila and 25 other Background provinces. More than 450 people died, The Philippines straddles the typhoon many from severe flooding and landslides. belt, an area in the western Pacific Ocean HFH Philippines immediately started its where nearly one-third of the world’s disaster response operation. tropical cyclones form. This area is not only the most active in the world, but Then Typhoon Parma struck on Oct. 1, also has the most intense storms globally. sparing the capital but crossing northern Approximately 19 typhoons enter the Luzon Island twice, making it the costliest 69 Philippines typhoon and killing.450 people. roofing material, lumber, plywood sheeting, Just three weeks later, Typhoon Mirinae nails, sealant, and bags of cement. HFH struck the same areas as Ketsana, rapidly Philippines also worked with The Charitable passing over the island. About 1,000 people Trust of Australia to distribute Food for Work were killed in total and hundreds of items, including rice, canned goods and thousands affected. bottled water.

Habitat for Humanity Philippines’ disaster In the rehabilitation and resettlement stages, response operation involved working with HFH Philippines worked with ABS-CBN partners in the relief, repair and rehabilitation Foundation to help relocate 4,000 families and resettlement stages. to Laguna, a province south of Manila. HFH Philippines refurbished 4,095 homes and built Implementation 693 new housing units. HFH Philippines’ first disaster response after Ketsana and Parma was to build toilet and Lessons & Promising Practices bathing units for evacuation centers because • HFH Philippines learned that being facilities could not handle the number of a facilitator in the disaster response people in need of shelter. In partnership with operation, and empowering affected Save the Children, the Philippines Red Cross communities help find solutions to and others, HFH Philippines built 312 toilet the housing need, worked best. Local and bathing units at 25 evacuation centers by government support provided the January 2010. environment to do this, expediting the process for receiving materials and allowing In the repair stage, HFH Philippines construction to start. distributed home repair kits to 10,000 • Local governments do not often have families in four of the cities of metro Manila available land for resettlement. HFH (Marikina, Quezon, Pasig and Valenzuela) Philippines brought together several and five neighboring provinces (Pangasinan, partners, including media organizations Bulacan, Rizal, La Union and Benguet). Each and national government, to secure land home repair kit cost US$153 and included and develop the sites.

Right: Habitat homeowner partner Anelia Llego with her grandson, Jowen, in her Habitat house in Calauan.

70 Upolu, Western Samoa

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Tsunami Response, Western Samoa 600 volunteers from New Zealand

Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Fu n d i n g Samoa New homes Habitat for Humanity New Zealand World Vision New Zealand Ye a r Caritas Samoa 2009-2010 Digicel Samoa Air New Zealand P ro j e c t t a rge t 91 new homes built S u b m i tte d by Pete North S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze CEO 50 square meters Habitat for Humanity New Zealand [email protected] I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Habitat for Humanity New Zealand

Summary In late September 2009, a tsunami hit the southeast coast of the island of Upolu in Western Samoa, killing 150 people (including New Zealand tourists) and destroying many homes along the coast. Habitat for Humanity New Zealand approached the Samoan government and offered to be the primary rebuilder of new homes using New Zealand volunteers. By June 2010, HFH New Zealand had sent 600 volunteers to rebuild 91 new homes, or Fale.

Timeline Project Overview • Sept. 29, 2009 — A tsunami hit the coast Roughly 350 new homes needed to be of Western Samoa. rebuilt to replace those destroyed by the • Nov. 15, 2009 — New Zealand tsunami. Many Samoans were afraid to volunteers began building the first house. rebuild on the coast, fearful of another • June 30, 2010 — 91 homes completed. tsunami, so the government tried to build roads and infrastructure inland in the Background hills behind the coast. The capacity of The southeast coast of Upolu was a favorite the local building industry for massive tourist destination, with many tourist reconstruction was minimal, as were accommodations (Samoan traditional transportation, labor, water and electricity homes with poles and open sides during for construction. day, tarps rolled down at night) on the popular beaches. Villages dotted Implementation the coastline and many local residents Within 24 hours of the tsunami, HFH operated tourist businesses or worked New Zealand decided to help Samoa, and in the industry. On Sept. 29, 2009, an staff members were in Samoa within three earthquake in the Pacific Ocean caused days. They met with the Samoan prime a 46-foot tsunami to hit Upolu in three minister, other elected officials, building distinct waves. The southeast coast was the material suppliers, village chiefs, the United worst hit, because it had high cliffs directly Nations’ Office for the Coordination of behind the beaches. The waves hit the cliffs, Humanitarian Affairs and NGOs. In New Top: Tsunami-affected beneficiaries then instead of continuing inland, washed Zealand, the office was swamped with perform sweat equity for their home back toward the beaches and destroyed offers to volunteer. By the end of October, in Samoa. many buildings weakened by the first wave. the Samoan government had approved Bottom: A home being built with help Habitat as the primary shelter provider; by from New Zealand volunteers. mid-November house plans were drawn, 71 suppliers chosen and volunteer teams booked. and vehicles, extreme goodwill with the Habitat arranged volunteer accommodations people and government of Samoa, and a in the church hall in the village of Lepa in massively increased awareness and the middle of the area that was hardest hit, profile in New Zealand. This was our housing up to 70 volunteers at one time. journey of faith. • We formed multiple ongoing partnerships The first volunteer team built a block with with NGOs and Samoan and New Zealand toilets and showers, and renovated the kitchen corporations and donors. of the hall. Women from Lepa were hired • We built excellent relationships with media. for the next eight months to cook for the • We have US$40,000 worth of tools and volunteers. A Habitat Resource Center was US$40,000 worth of vehicles remaining, established near the hall as Habitat’s base of which we are keeping in Samoa as a rapid operations and served as storage for tools and response kit available for future DR work in materials and as a prefabrication factory. As the Pacific Region. cash became available, four-wheel drive trucks • We have the opportunity for further and tandem trailers were bought in New disaster mitigation work (cyclone Zealand and shipped to Samoa. New Zealand strapping) and new housing for lower volunteers traveled in teams of 25 per week, income families. staying for two weeks. Teams overlapped so • We gained our first DR experience.Now we those who had been there one week could are establishing strategies and capacity to be instruct the new teams. the primary shelter provider for DR in the Pacific region. Funding for project management, vehicles • We were surprised at the extent to which and tools was provided by World Vision New we enabled and oversaw mass volunteer Zealand and church groups. Local charity engagement; this has prompted us to aim Caritas Samoa and local cellphone business higher in plans for sending volunteers Digicel provided funding for the 91 Fale. Air overseas, whether on Global Village trips, New Zealand halved the price of round trip big builds or DR work. airfares to Samoa for volunteers; volunteers • We learned capacity limitations; for paid their own way and costs were kept very instance, we received the funds for vehicles minimal with no donations solicited. in time to get them to Samoa when the project was half finished; nonetheless there Lessons & Promising Practices was no other way of doing it and it all • Our immediate response was essential worked out. to all aspects of volunteer recruitment, • We learned about striking a good balance fundraising and liaison with the between empowerment and efficiency. Too government and NGOs. much emphasis either way led to lesser • We started with nothing but completed the outcomes in the other. project with surplus funds, surplus tools

72 Karnataka Flood Response, India

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Karnataka Floods disaster response Habitat for Humanity India Karwar town and surrounding villages, Uttara Nannada district, Pa rt n e r s India Karnataka state, India Habitat for Humanity International Karwar Diocesan Development Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Council New house construction House rehabilitation Fu n d i n g Disaster mitigation and preparedness Habitat for Humanity International training United Way Construction training Karwar Diocesan Development Council Ye a r 2010 S u b m i tte d by Joseph Mathai P ro j e c t t a rge t Director 191 families/1,166 people Bangalore Habitat Resource Center Habitat for Humanity India S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze [email protected] 250 square feet

Summary Continuous rainfall and the breeching of river embankments from a surge in water from upstream reservoirs led to devastating flooding and landslides in northern Karnataka state in October 2009. The town of Karwar and its neighboring villages were particularly affected. Habitat for Humanity India built 100 new homes and rehabilitated 61 homes to assist families affected by the flooding. Training sessions on disaster mitigation and preparedness were organized for 30 families with the assistance of local government departments, and 20 people were trained in construction skills.

Timeline Zariwada, in Kadwad village, about 7 • February 2010 — Assessment. kilometers from Karwar. The huge 4.5- to • April 2010 — House construction and 6-meter mud mound covered about five rehabilitation started. hectares, killing 22 people. • March-April 2010 — Construction training conducted. Project Overview • October 2010 — Disaster mitigation and The Karwar Diocesan Development preparedness training conducted. Council was the first non-governmental • December 2010 — Project completed. organization to help those affected. With limited resources, it was able to provide Background some food, fuel and utensils to families. The torrential rain, leading to severe Government district authorities selected flooding, lasted from Sept. 30 to Oct. 4, KDDC to monitor, supervise and construct 2009, affecting about 18 million people, houses for those who lost homes or needed the most severe rain and flooding in to repair homes in Karnataka. more than 100 years. Fourteen districts in Karnataka were flooded, and most of the KDDC approached HFH India’s Habitat people affected were small-scale farmers, Resource Center in Bangalore, asking it agricultural laborers, daily wage earners to help Karwar and surrounding areas. A and slum dwellers; 229 people were killed. joint assessment of the shelter needs was The rainfall and floodwater led to multiple conducted and information verified with landslides. At the peak of the flooding, government records. Local officials assess damages from on Oct. 2, the worst of the landslides hit floods in Karnataka. 73 KDDC handled the selection process, based Training sessions on construction skills were on a needs assessment that was verified. held and 20 young adult residents learned new Criteria for support included families whose skills. In return, these residents provided free houses were damaged or destroyed, female- labor to build and rehabilitate houses. headed households, families with long-term ill members, and/or families with young children Lessons & Promising Practices or elderly members. Based on the assessment • Strong NGO and government links were and resources, 161 families were selected, and established, and local village councils HFH India and KDDC developed a shelter strengthened through collective planning, intervention project together. decision-making and working together. This meant that local residents felt Implementation empowered to steer their own development, The goal was to build or rehabilitate homes as they gained bargaining power to demand while training residents to mitigate the effect basic amenities such as roads, water and of future disasters. streetlights. Residents are now participating in development programs organized by Working in partnership, HFH India and NGOs and government agencies. KDDC constructed 100 houses and repaired • Because of the high level of construction 61 damaged houses. Each new house activity after the disaster, there was a consisted of a bedroom, kitchen, toilet and shortage of skilled and unskilled laborers. hall. Houses were built with locally available By training local residents in construction laterite blocks; cement; clay tiles; and Palmira skills, HFH India and KDDC helped to and country wood for rafters, windows and bridge the gap, while saving on costs and doors. In some houses, reinforced concrete ensuring timely completion of the project. was used. • There were initial setbacks because transporting construction materials to build HFH India provided project management sites was hampered by road damage and a support and technical input for the project, lack of vehicles. In some cases, construction while KDDC organized the project with materials were not available or only at the participation of community members. increased cost, and so budgets had to be KDDC was responsible for organizing readjusted many times. training sessions for volunteers and community leaders in construction processes and the purchase and management of materials. HFH India organized training sessions on disaster mitigation and preparedness for 30 families, with the assistance of government departments.

74 Andhra Pradesh Floods, India

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Andhra Pradesh Floods disaster Habitat for Humanity India response Bobbara Lanka, Varpu, Bandikolla Pa rt n e r s India Lanka, K Kothaplalam and Society for National Integration Gangivanipalem village in Krishna through Education and Humanizing district; and Bairmapply and Korvipad Actions, India village in Mehbubnagar districts, Society for Help Entire Lower and Andhra Pradesh state, India Rural People, India

Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Fu n d i n g New house construction Habitat for Humanity International House repairs S u b m i tte d by Ye a r V. Samuel Peter 2010-2011 Director Disaster Response P ro j e c t t a rge t Habitat for Humanity India 306 families (1,836 people) [email protected]

S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze 220 square feet

Summary In November 2009, massive floods struck the districts of Krishna, Guntur, Nalgonda, Mehbubnagar and Kurnool in Andhra Pradesh state, as the Krishna, Tungabatra and Attrie rivers burst their banks. Approximately 559 villages, including all island habitats, were inundated with floodwater, killing 59 people and leaving 400,000 people homeless. Low-lying areas along riverbanks were the worst affected. Habitat for Humanity India built 106 new houses and repaired 200 homes to help families affected in Bobbara Lanka, Varpu, Gangivanipalem and Bandikolla Lanka village in Krishna district, and Bairmaplly and Korvipad village in Mahbubnagar district.

Timeline Project Overview • November 2010 — Assessments. The Andhra Pradesh government gave • May 2010 — House construction and approximately US$1,300 through the repair work started. Housing Board’s Awaz Yojana program to • June 2011 — Project completed. families whose houses were washed away, but that was not enough for many low- Background income families to construct a house; an Low-income families living in villages or additional US$288 was usually required low-lying urban areas in Andhra Pradesh to complete a house. Families asked a were affected the worst, with 100,000 local nongovernmental organization homes damaged by the floods and 180,000 — the Society for National Integration people forced to relocate to safer places or through Education and Humanizing relief camps. The area was inundated with Action — for help to rebuilding their debris and mud. Families lost livelihood homes. SNEHA asked HFH India to be its opportunities because cultivable lands were partner. Together, HFH India and SNEHA immersed and fishing nets and boats lost. constructed 106 houses in Bobbara Houses were damaged or washed away. In Lanka, Varpu, K Kothaplalam, Varpu and most areas, water remained for two days Bandikolla village in Krishna district. before receding. Although the government had offered support to families that had lost their Ed Venkadeshwarrao in front of his old homes completely, there was no support for and new house in K Kothaplalam village. families whose homes were damaged. HFH 75 India addressed this need in partnership with ownership and government lists. SNEHA and another local NGO, the Society Repairs focused on floors, walls, windows, for Help Entire Lower and Rural People. HFH doors and roofs, and included plastering and India, SNEHA and HELP repaired 100 homes painting. New houses with a living room, in Bobbara Lanka, Gangivanipalem and kitchen and toilet were built according to Bandikolla Lanka village in Krishna district, Andhra Pradesh government design with and 100 homes in Bairmaplly and Korvipad bricks and concrete. SNEHA and HELP built village in Mahbubnagar district. the homes, and HFH India provided technical input, project supervision and a financial Implementation contribution to the 306 homes. The project operated from HFH India’s Habitat Resource Center in Chennai. HFH Lessons & Promising Practices India developed policies on financing, • HFH India could not reach more families technical and social reporting, with because of a lack of money. frequent reviews. • Fundraising in India should have started immediately after the disaster in order to HFH India and its partners assessed damage secure corporate donations, rather than to homes and consulted with village leaders waiting until the relief phase was over and before finalizing a list of families, then the rehabilitation phase began. educated home partners about repairs or new • Government support was crucial and core house construction plans. Home partners helped with funding. were selected on the basis of need, land

Right: Rajuku Patti Swnathri Pothuraju in front of his new house in Varpu village.

76 Hiep Duc, Vietnam

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Safer future for families and 40 square meters communities exposed to natural disasters Fu n d i n g Vietnam Hiep Duc district, Quang Nam Habitat for Humanity Greater San province, Vietnam Francisco

Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n S u b m i tte d by House renovation and rebuilding Nguyen Thi Yen Disaster-resilient construction training Manager Community-based disaster risk Disaster Response and Mitigation management and community Habitat for Humanity Vietnam awareness-raising [email protected]

Ye a r 2010-2012

P ro j e c t t a rge t 184 families — renovation 15 families — rebuilding 600 construction workers trained 600 community members trained 15,000 residents benefit from information, education and communication activities on reducing disaster risk Summary Typhoon Ketsana struck Vietnam’s central and highland provinces on Sept. 29, 2009, killing more than 150 people and affecting 14 of Vietnam’s 58 provinces. Quang Nam province in South Central Coast region was the hardest hit, with damage to Quang Nam estimated at US$177 million. Habitat for Humanity Vietnam aimed to support about 200 families with rebuilding or housing renovations by June 2012, to provide construction training for 600 people, community- based disaster risk management training for 600 residents, and to conduct information, education and communication activities befitting more than 15,000 people.

Timeline Project Overview • November 2010 — Construction Hiep Duc district in Quang Nam province, training began. South Central Region, was the area worst • December 2010 — Home partner affected by Ketsana in Vietnam. Local families identified. government units in Hiep Duc were • December 2010 — Rebuilding and amenable to volunteer participation in renovation started. reconstruction. • December 2010 — CBDRM training. • March 2011 — IEC activities. Habitat for Humanity worked in 59 villages • June 2012 — Project completed. in 10 communes in Hiep Duc district. HFH Vietnam chose a holistic long- Background term disaster response and preparedness Vietnam is a disaster-prone country project, spanning two years, to not only because of its long, low-lying coastline help those affected after Ketsana but to and its location in the Western Pacific assist communities to prepare for and region, one of the world’s biggest storm mitigate against future disasters. The centers. Vietnam experiences six to 10 project included housing renovation and storms or tropical depressions of varying rebuilding, CBDRM and disaster-resilient intensities every year, often occurring construction training and awareness- between June and November. Most of the raising for high-risk communities. families affected by Ketsana were already Top: Awareness-raising event. marginalized, and could not afford to HFH Vietnam worked with the Hiep Duc Bottom: Entry for a drawing competition. repair or rebuild their homes. District People’s Committee, the Vietnam 77 Red Cross’ Hiep Duc chapter and Quang Lessons & Promising Practices Nam Province’s Foreign Affairs department. • HFH Vietnam learned how important it Three HFH Vietnam staff ran the project from was to have home partner families involved an office in Hiep Duc, supervised by a at every stage of the project, because that led project manager. to greater understanding and appreciation of how to protect their homes and removed Implementation dependence on others. Fifteen families were supported in rebuilding • Families and communities accepted their houses and 145 families helped to the houses because HFH ensured that upgrade or repair their homes. Families took construction materials and housing designs on microloans secured by HFH Vietnam and met local traditions and customs and met managed by HDDPC. House building costs the needs of home partners. were subsidized for families who had lost • Hiep Duc was pretty inaccessible after the their homes. Repayments go into a revolving typhoon, making it difficult to find and fund and are used to help more families. All transport material. This made it difficult families will have paid off their microloans to meet usual standards and requirements by June 2014. of construction. • Some training sessions were not well In order to increase knowledge of disasters attended because men and young adults and efforts to mitigate their effects, HFH were busy working and earning money, so Vietnam project staff worked with a the sessions were attended predominantly CBDRM expert to devise and construct by women and the elderly. Furthermore, awareness-raising activities. As of May 2012, without incentives of money or visible 606 construction workers had attended 15 support, villagers were reluctant to attend training sessions on disaster-resilient building training sessions because they did not techniques and 920 students and teachers recognize the benefits. in five primary schools had participated in • It takes time to change mindsets and awareness-raising activities, including an routines, but CBDRM training was a step art contest. in the process to achieving this and ensuring people are better prepared HFH Vietnam designed and produced a video when disaster strikes. on disaster-resilient construction techniques that was broadcast on the Quang Nam Provincial Radio and Television station. More than 5,000 leaflets on disaster preparedness and safe housing construction techniques were distributed.

78 Huong Khe, Vietnam

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Disaster relief and early recovery from 40 square meters flooding in Central Vietnam Huong Khe district, Ha Tinh province, I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Vietnam Vietnam Habitat for Humanity Vietnam

Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Fu n d i n g Roofing renovation Jersey Overseas Aid Commission, Housing repair and rebuilding Electric Schneider, Holcim Ltd. Construction training S u b m i tte d by Ye a r Nguyen Thi Yen 2010-2011 Manager Disaster Response and Mitigation P ro j e c t t a rge t Habitat for Humanity Vietnam 400 safer roofs [email protected] 150 repaired houses 20 new houses 513 households, seven local construction workers and 10 government staff trained in disaster- resilient construction techniques Summary Flooding is a regular occurrence in Vietnam, but 2010 brought more severe flooding than usual with water levels reaching six meters in some areas. More than 100 people died in September and October, and more than 600,000 people in seven provinces were affected. Habitat for Humanity Vietnam responded to the need for housing repairs, providing better roofs and floors. Training in disaster-resilient construction techniques was also provided to limit damage from more flooding.

Timeline cooperated with local authorities to support • Early December 2010 — Three-person families with housing assistance. assessment team visited affected areas. • Dec. 10-15, 2010 — Home partner Project Overview families identified. HFH Vietnam focused its disaster response • Early January 2011 — Roof and floor and early recovery activities in Huong Khe repair work started. district in Ha Tinh province because it was • January 2011 — Training on disaster- one of the worst hit areas. resilient construction techniques started. • June 30, 2011 — Project completed. Because funding that was promised did not materialize, HFH Vietnam was not able to Background meet all the project targets, but still worked Vietnam‘s flat topography and itslong, in 79 villages in 10 communes in Huong low-lying coastline make it particularly Khe. HFH Vietnam assisted 186 families susceptible to flooding. Vietnam has more with safer roofs and floors, constructed than 2,860 rivers, with the Red and Mekong using disaster-resilient techniques, and rivers the most significant. The river built two new homes. Members of 188 network is about 25,000 kilometers long, families were trained in disaster-resilient and the majority of Vietnam’s population construction techniques and 14 local lives near rivers. Vietnam is extremely government staff (at least one from each vulnerable to natural disasters and extreme commune) also benefited from weather. Many of the families affected by similar training. the flooding in Huong Khe were from low- income families, and could not afford to HFH Vietnam focused on slightly repair or rebuild their homes. Recognizing longer-term support of more substantive this need, Habitat for Humanity Vietnam upgrading and repair work because many 79 families had already patched up their houses safer roofs and floors. Home partner families as best as possible immediately after the were shown how to repair or replace roofing flooding. This meant that the repair and firmly, to reduce the likelihood of leaking upgrading work could incorporate disaster- during heavy rain or being blown away in resilient features and protect families against strong winds. Home partners were also future flooding. trained in how to strengthen house frames so that roofs are better supported. Implementation HFH Vietnam worked in liaison with Huong Lessons & Promising Practices Khe district’s People’s Committee, a local state • Because of decreased funding, the scale of management entity set up to mobilize the the project had to be reduced. Despite this, district’s resources to develop social economy 188 families were supported to rebuild, and to respond to and mitigate against repair or upgrade their homes with safer natural disasters. roofs and floors, while also being trained in disaster-resilient construction techniques HFH Vietnam staff from northern and central to better protect themselves against future areas of Vietnam conducted the program, disasters. These families can share these with HFH Vietnam construction supervisors skills with neighbors and relatives who live handling the disaster-resilient construction in disaster-prone areas. technique training sessions. • The 17 local government staff and construction workers trained in disaster- All 188 families that HFH Vietnam worked resilient construction techniques are now with either to rebuild, repair or upgrade able to inform and support the wider homes benefitted from the training sessions. community so that more people are better Clay tiles and cement were used to construct prepared when disaster strikes.

Right: Tran Thi Lai’s new home.

80 Katahari, Nepal

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n P ro j e c t t a rge t Morang disaster preparedness and 1,200 families/4,000 people mitigation Katahari Village Development I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Nepal Committee in Morang district in Koshi HFH Nepal zone, Eastern Region, Nepal Pa rt n e r Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Jeevan Bikas Samaj, Nepal Disaster preparedness and mitigation training Fu n d i n g Disaster mitigation housing Habitat for Humanity International construction training Community disaster mitigation S u b m i tte d by activities Amrit Bahadur B.K. Manager Ye a r Habitat Resource Centre East 2010-2011 Habitat for Humanity Nepal [email protected]

Summary Every year, monsoons cause the Lohandra River to burst its banks, flooding homes, roads and other infrastructure. Communities along a three-kilometer stretch of the riverbank are most at risk. Habitat for Humanity Nepal implemented a disaster preparedness and mitigation program to help these communities minimize the damage from flooding.

Timeline in the dry season. With the support of the • June 2010 — Program coordination Katahari Village Development Committee, meeting. which is part of the local development • July 2010 — Disaster friendly houses ministry, HFH Nepal implemented training began. the program. • November 2010 — Disaster preparedness and mitigation awareness Project Overview raising activities started. HFH Nepal partnered with a local non- • January 2011 — Disaster preparedness governmental organization, Jeevan Bikas and mitigation activities started. Samaj, on the three parts of the program: • February 2011 — Program completed. training sessions on “disaster friendly” houses, awareness-raising sessions on Background disaster mitigation and preparedness, and Nepal is a landlocked country, prone to organizing some disaster mitigation and natural disasters, with flooding the most preparedness activities to better protect at- prevalent. With more than 6,000 rivers risk communities. JBS is a regular partner and streams, many flowing north to south with HFH Nepal, working mainly in at high velocity because of steep river disaster prone areas. gradients, heavy rains cause particularly destructive floods and landslides. The JBS supported initial discussions with 25 Lohandra River in eastern Nepal, close to communities, helped identify community the border with India, floods annually. needs and sourced groups to support the street drama and poster printing. HFH HFH Nepal saw an opportunity to help Nepal worked in 10 villages in Katahari communities along the banks of the Village Development Committee, all Lohandra River before disasters strike, to of which were villages with JBS savings Women trained to make improved lessen or prevent the burden of annual groups, selected in coordination and cooking stoves. flooding and other disasters, such as fires consultation with the District Disaster 81 Relief Committee, the government entity Lessons & Promising Practices responsible for disaster response. • Initially some political bodies in Morang district were reluctance to implement the The program focused on flooding but included program, because they thought it was a sessions on fire safety, including how to build giveaway program and didn’t want to create safer hearths. a dependency mentality among residents. After HFH Nepal staff and JPS explained Implementation the program involved community-based A coordination meeting at the start of the activities and awareness-raising, there were program included social workers, farmers, no further problems and the program women, members of a microfinance group continued unhampered. and representatives of the community. A nine- • Local community residents were active member volunteer coordination committee participants in awareness-raising and was formed, which organized two meetings construction activities, realizing the benefit with community members so issues could be of knowing more about improved hearths addressed. Supporting committees handled and disaster mitigation techniques. project activities. • Planting bamboo not only acted to prevent the Lohandra River from carving In total, 22 training sessions on “disaster away banks and encroaching into local friendly” houses were held, which were communities, but also provided an income attended by more than 4,000 people. Disaster opportunity through the production of mitigation and preparedness awareness-raising bamboo handicrafts. The bamboo can took the form of posters and street drama be used as a construction material when sessions, reaching more than 12,000 families. disasters strike because it can be used to build homes quickly. In order to be better prepared for disasters • Empowering communities by mobilizing and to limit their impact, local residents women is crucial in order to implement constructed an embankment using gabions program activities with the full participation near the landmark of Kali Temple so the and approval of communities. Women who area could be used as a refuge in times of participate in social work are well regarded disaster. Bamboo was planted along the river in their communities. to prevent the banks being cut away, which leads to soil erosion.

Right: Embankment built by community for disaster mitigation.

82 Noah’s Ark, Malanday, Philippines

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Noah’s Ark disaster preparedness HFH Philippines Malanday village, Marikina city, metro Manila, Philippines Pa rt n e r s Philippines Corporate Network for Disaster Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Response, Philippines Adapt safe zones as evacuation World Wildlife Fund centers when disaster strikes Ayala Foundation

Ye a r Fu n d i n g 2010 Ayala Foundation Inc.

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by 600 people/120 families David (Dabs) Liban Disaster Response Manager S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Habitat for Humanity Philippines Kitchens - 24 square meters [email protected] Toilets - 36 square meters

Summary The damage from typhoons Ketsana and Mirinae in metro Manila in the Philippines in 2009 focused this project on disaster preparedness. Habitat for Humanity Philippines joined a consortium of 15 organizations to develop a sustainable way to prepare for disasters. In 2010, HFH Philippines played an integral part in the pilot project, designing standardized models of kitchens and toilets to be added to schools, community or parish centers that would be used as evacuation centers during disasters. HFH Philippines built four kitchen units and 20 toilets at the pilot site of Malanday Elementary School.

Timeline flooding is common. Typhoon Ketsana • October 2009 — Consortium formed. killed more than 450 people, many from • May 2010 — Sites visited and final flooding and landslides. selection determined. • September 2010 — Construction of Project Overview toilet and kitchen units began. Typhoon Ketsana, known locally as • October 2010 — Construction Ondoy, struck on Sept. 26, 2009, and completed. affected the national capital region (metro • December 2011 — First flood Manila). A state of calamity was declared evacuation drill. in metro Manila and 25 other provinces. HFH Philippines joined a consortium of Background public, private and nonprofit organizations The Philippines straddles the typhoon committed to the idea that the effects of belt, an area in the western Pacific Ocean disasters can be greatly reduced, if not where nearly one-third of the world’s completely prevented, if people tropical cyclones form. This area is not are prepared. only the most active in the world, but also has the most intense storms globally. The project involved identifying safe places Approximately 19 typhoons enter the in communities where people could go in Philippines area each year, and six to times of disaster, adapting the sites so they nine make landfall annually. When could handle greater numbers of people, Workers finish 20 toilets at Malanday typhoons strike, high winds and driving and implementing disaster response Elementary School. New kitchen units were also part of the pilot program. rain destroy homes and lead to landslides. systems so residents knew where to go and Heavy rain causes rivers to swell, and what to do when disaster strikes. 83 The pilot location of Malanday Elementary replicated and installed at schools and School was chosen because it was an community and parish centers to help them evacuation center after Ketsana. The pilot better cope with a sudden influx of evacuees. location and other Noah’s Ark sites were For every 600 people expected to use a site, a required to meet certain criteria: They are minimum of four kitchen areas measuring 24 particularly vulnerable to disasters because square meters, and five clusters of toilets and of substandard housing in a low-income bathing areas, measuring 36 square meters, community, or they are in a high-risk were necessary. area, or they are communities not already supported by other nonprofit or government Habitat for Humanity Philippines built and organizations, or an active local organization installed these units at Malanday Elementary is prepared and willing to conduct disaster School. preparedness training and workshops. Lessons & Promising Practices Implementation • Officials of the Barangay Disaster Risk Each organization in the consortium was Reduction and Management Council were responsible for certain aspects of Noah’s Ark. trained in disaster risk reduction The Ayala Foundation was responsible for and management. overall project management. • The technology developed to build decent and strong sanitation facilities using HFH Philippines, Corporate Network for steel frames can now be used by HFH Disaster Response and the foundation Philippines in other projects after a disaster. identified standards for each site and the • After the success in Malanday, the Noah’s steps needed to achieve them. Locations were Ark project was implemented in San Mateo selected based on criteria established by and Mutinlupa city. the consortium. • Malanday Elementary School was an evacuation center after Tropical Storm HFH Philippines designed standardized Meari and Typhoon Nesat. No one in modules of kitchen and sanitation facilities Malanday died from those storms. (toilets and bathing areas) to be easily

A restored classroom in Malanday Elementary School.

84 Karawang Flood Response, Indonesia

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Karawang Floods disaster response Habitat for Humanity Indonesia Anggadita village, Karawang regency, West Java province, Indonesia Pa rt n e r s Indonesia Local government Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Home improvement — upgraded Fu n d i n g flooring Habitat for Humanity International, Asia-Pacific office Ye a r 2010 S u b m i tte d by : Rudi Nadapdap S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Disaster Response Officer 118.1 square feet Habitat for Humanity Indonesia [email protected] P ro j e c t t a rge t 78 families/390 people

Summary In March 2010, heavy rainfall caused the Citarum River to overflow. This caused severe flooding in Karawang, a regency in West Java province, about 111 kilometers (60 miles) from Jakarta, Indonesia’s capital. Habitat for Humanity Indonesia supported 78 families in Anggadita, the hardest hit village in the area, to help them upgrade the flooring in their homes and minimize the impact of annual flooding.

Timeline cities. Following the assessment, HFH • March 2010 — Assessment. Indonesia decided to work in Anggadita • March 2010 — First community meeting. in Karawang regency, because it was the • April 2010 — Concrete floors poured. hardest hit in the area. Because of funding • April 2010 — Project completed. limitations and staff resources, HFH Indonesia’s Jakarta branch decided to Background support 78 of the most vulnerable families Three hydroelectric dams are on the in the village. Citarum river, and about 5 million people live in the river basin. Anggadita is in the Kari sub-district of Karawang. The village occupies 478,800 The flooding in Karawang submerged hectares, nearly 60 percent of which is more than 8,000 houses in seven districts, used for settlement and nearly 5 percent home to approximately 32,000 people. for agriculture. Anggadita’s population is Houses were submerged in 30 centimeters approximately 12,000 people, of which to 2 meters of floodwater. More than more than 1,000 families are classified as 10,000 people were displaced in two low-income. of the most severely affected sub districts: Telukjambe, where about 7,400 people were The Karawang flood severely submerged displaced, and West Karawang, where 3,200 three neighborhoods in Anggadita, were displaced. affecting 250 families, 80 percent of whom were low-income. The floods damaged Project Overview houses and increased the vulnerability of Habitat for Humanity Indonesia and the community to post-flood diseases. This the Indonesian Red Cross conducted disaster response project aimed to reduce Home damaged by Karawang floods. assessments in Jakarta and its surrounding the damage caused by the flooding and 85 increase the community’s resilience to transfer the concrete mixture to the floor. In future disasters. addition to providing construction workers, HFH Indonesia also involved suppliers from Implementation the community to supply sand and gravel for The home partner families were selected the project. based on low incomes, those living in a house with a dirt floor, and land ownership. The Lessons & Promising Practices family selection process was very transparent, • Using concrete mixers was very efficient, involving the community, its leaders and enabling HFH Indonesia to control quality, the local government. HFH Indonesia staff thus reducing project costs. interviewed each family to verify information • Sweat equity’ from homeowners was before selection, and an announcement was a major contribution to the project, made to the whole community. This helped to making it easier for supervisors to oversee prevent jealousy. construction workers and ensure the best quality of floors. HFH Indonesia chose to support families by • There was not much collaboration with installing concrete floors. Families in homes non-governmental organizations because with dirt floors repeatedly suffer from various the Karawang floods were not considered a diseases after floodwater subsides. national disaster and not many NGOs were involved. The maximum floor area was 36 square • Community-based disaster risk meters per house. HFH Indonesia used two management training was not incorporated concrete mixers to produce the concrete. because of a lack of experience. Construction workers supervised families to

86 Christchurch, New Zealand Earthquake

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Earthquake Response, Christchurch, Habitat for Humanity New Zealand New Zealand Fu n d i n g New Zealand Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Habitat for Humanity New Zealand Temporary shelter facilitation HFH International House repairs Red Cross New Zealand Multiple trusts and donors Ye a r 2011-2012 S u b m i tte d by Pete North P ro j e c t t a rge t CEO More than 50 families targeted for Habitat for Humanity New Zealand home repairs [email protected]

Summary After a devastating earthquake, Habitat for Humanity New Zealand launched a program to offer temporary shelter assistance through hosting families and a repair program for homes deemed repairable by local authorities. As of July 2012, a year after the earthquake, 30 houses had been repaired using paid project management and volunteer labor.

Timeline emergency. The total cost to insurers of • Feb. 22, 2011 — Earthquake struck rebuilding has been estimated at NZ$30 the Canterbury region and the city of billion, by far New Zealand’s costliest Christchurch. natural disaster and the third costliest • Feb. 24, 2011 — HFH New Zealand earthquake worldwide. launched a website to facilitate temporary accommodation for residents, Project Overview with host families around the country. The response initially set up a website • September 2011 — Repairs began; (shelter.org.nz) to match affected families they continue. with people across New Zealand who offered temporary accommodation. Background After the government conducted initial The earthquake in February 2011 in studies and assessments, affected areas Christchurch (New Zealand’s second and houses were tagged as “green” (stable largest city, population 370,000), measuring location, suitable for repair or rebuilding) 6.3 on the Richter scale, caused widespread or “red” (unstable location, considered damage, exacerbated by buildings and too dangerous for repairs or rebuilding). infrastructure already weakened by the Because most homeowners were covered earthquake in September 2010. Significant by insurance and would have their repairs liquefaction affected the eastern suburbs, paid for, and New Zealand was a country producing around 400,000 tons of silt. in economic recession with the building About 185 people were killed in the industry looking for work, HFH New earthquake, making it the second deadliest Zealand positioned itself to help those New Zealand natural disaster recorded, without insurance, including those in with victims from more than 20 countries. extreme vulnerability — the elderly, and A damaged house after the earthquake. The government declared a state of national people with disabilities or other serious 87 health issues. Repairs were defined as help, funding difficulty, and no national those essential to make a home safer and media coverage, which normally helps weatherproof, averaging NZ$10,000 drive volunteer response. per family. • Funding support has been minimal and difficult to obtain. Implementation • Some donors oppose helping those without Within two weeks of the earthquake, insurance, a stigma we have worked hard Habitat New Zealand had more than 1,000 to overcome. expressions of interest from volunteers from • Most available and donated funds from around the country and the world. Habitat the public have gone to psychosocial needs volunteers were not needed in the early rather than housing repairs, because it is recovery phase, thanks to a student volunteer believed insurance will cover repairs. With army 20,000 strong that cleaned up the Christchurch still enduring significant liquefaction. Repair work could not start aftershocks, insurance companies are until September because of delays caused by unwilling to pay for repairs that could be complex engineering and insurance issues, made too early. and lack of funding for building materials. • Immediately after the earthquake, the public was encouraged to give to HFH New Zealand was project manager for centralized appeals run by the prime repair work for the uninsured and vulnerable minister and the Red Cross. HFH New families, and funding for building materials Zealand chose not to run an immediate for repair work was supplied by another NGO. television appeal for repairs. The result Since September 2011, volunteers have been has been disappointing, because we have clearing debris, releveling houses; recladding received no help from the PM Fund, and exteriors; removing chimneys; repairing roofs, Red Cross funds come attached with ceilings and walls; and repainting. difficult conditions that make repair work difficult. In hindsight, HFH New Zealand Lessons & Promising Practices should have run its own televised appeal. • Most of the damage to residential buildings • HFH New Zealand was inundated with occurred to homes with unreinforced volunteers in the early days, but that masonry built before stringent earthquake support dropped off significantly over time codes were introduced. While the repairs as the repair project was continually delayed by HFH New Zealand helped with urgent by a lack of funds and the government habitability and weatherization, bringing completing engineering assessments. This old houses up to newer codes will require has resulted in disappointingly low ongoing significantly more investment, with volunteer numbers. costs well beyond the capacity of • The funds and volunteers have occurred in affected households. dribs and drabs, thus making it a difficult • The earthquake and rebuilding of project to implement. Would we do it Christchurch is a massive enterprise for the again? As a Christian, yes, because 30 country of New Zealand, estimated to take families have been helped. As a Habitat at least 10 years and cost roughly 8 percent CEO, maybe not, as it has taken a lot of of annual GDP. In light of this, the role time, energy and effort for limited results HFH New Zealand can play is very minor, and impact. and this has resulted in no government

88 Rebuilding Thailand

P ro j e c t N a m e I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Rebuilding Thailand Habitat for Humanity Thailand Location Bangkok, Ayutthaya, Pathu Thani, Pa rt n e r s Thailand Nonthaburi, Saraburi, Lopburi, Uthai Naresuan University Thani, Pitsanulok provinces Thai Special Forces

Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Fu n d i n g : Urgent relief efforts, distribution Coca-Cola Thailand of tents, tool boxes for temporary Government Housing Bank shelter, small boats. Government Saving Bank House rebuilding and rehabilitation, Siam Commercial Bank school renovations Bank of America Cisco Systems Ye a r HSBC Bank 2011-2012 Boston Consulting Group

P ro j e c t t a rge t 157 families helped with emergency S u b m i tte d by relief Kittipich Musica 949 families supported with direct Manager housing assistance (180 houses Disaster Response Project rebuilt and 769 houses rehabilitated) Habitat for Humanity Thailand 28 schools renovated [email protected]

S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze : Steel-structure, stilt houses, 18 square meters, 36 square meters and 76 square meters Summary Devastating flooding in Thailand in 2011 affected more than 13 million people. Habitat for Humanity Thailand responded quickly, from the emergency relief phase to longer-term recovery efforts. To date, HFH Thailand has supported nearly 1,000 families, rebuilding 180 homes and rehabilitating 769 houses.

Timeline Phraya River and inundated parts of the • August-October 2011 — Shelter capital city of Bangkok. Flooding persisted toolboxes and temporary shelters in some areas until mid-January 2012, distributed. and killed more than 800 people. More • December 2011-February 2012 — than 13.6 million people were affected. Family selection process. Sixty-five of Thailand’s 77 provinces were • January-June 2012 —Procured materials; declared flood disaster zones, and more construction began. than 20,000 square kilometers of farmland • April-June 2012 —Housing inspected was damaged. and dedicated.. • May-June 2012 — Monitoring and Project Overview evaluation. HFH Thailand focused on supporting • June 2012 — Program completed. families affected by the flooding in eight provinces: Bangkok, Ayutthaya, Pathum Background Thani, Nonthaburi, Saraburi, Lopburi, Heavy rainfall began at the end of July Uthai Thani and Pitsanulok. With a budget 2011, triggered by Tropical Storm Nock- of approximately US$2.3 million, HFH ten, and flooding spread through the Thailand embarked on an extensive disaster provinces of Northern, Northeastern and response program to rebuild or rehabilitate Central Thailand along the Mekong and damaged homes, build new homes and Chao Phraya river basins. In October, strengthen existing homes so they are A new home built on stilts to mitigate floodwaters reached the mouth of the Chao better able to withstand floods. against future flooding in Lopburi. 89 Implementation involved moving construction materials from HFH Thailand asked the local government, road to build site, mixing concrete, and floor Naresuan University and Thai Special Forces and wall installation. in Lopburi province to collaborate. To identify the target area, HFH Thailand distributed Lessons & Promising Practices an application form to be completed by the • The documents required for family selection community leader. Families were selected need to be carefully prepared in order to based on land ownership, extent of flood ensure transparency. damage and number of members. • Working with local community leaders and government agencies is key to smooth After families were selected, HFH Thailand, running of the program. Naresuan University and Thai Special • Ensure that community members are totally Forces divided the construction process into involved at all stages of the program. two phases because of the lack of skilled • Purchase materials directly from laborers in the area. HFH Thailand oriented manufacturers to reduce costs and develop the partners on the construction timeline, good partnerships for future collaboration. Royal Thai Army volunteers housing size and locations. • Use the services of a professional working with Habitat prepare construction materials for construction agency to plan the house repairs. HFH Thailand explained the sweat equity construction process. concept to home partner families. This Assam Floods, India

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Assam Floods disaster response Indo Global Social Service Society Alchiga Patna Wala, Sumdirimukh, Inter Agency Group Khaga Jugalpur and Naharani villages India in Lakhimpur district, Assam state, Fu n d i n g India Habitat for Humanity India

Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n S u b m i tte d by Emergency shelter kits Justin Jebakumar Director Ye a r Delhi Habitat Resource Center 2011 Habitat for Humanity India [email protected] P ro j e c t t a rge t 169 families/850 people

I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Habitat for Humanity India – Delhi Habitat Resource Center

Summary The Brahmaputra River, swollen by continuous rainfall in Assam and neighboring states of Arunachal Pradesh and Nagaland from the end of July until mid-August 2011, breached riverbanks and caused widespread flooding across the plains.The river’s 34 tributaries and other rivers broke through weak embankments and swept away many villages. Habitat for Humanity India provided emergency shelter kits for 169 families in the villages of Alchiga Patna Wala, Sumdirimukh, Khaga Jugalpur and Naharani in the immediate relief stage after the disaster.

Timeline halting transportation and communication • Aug. 2-3, 2011 —Rapid response team systems for more than five days. assessed situation in Lakhimpur district. • Aug. 4, 2011 — Emergency shelter Project Overview designed, materials sourced Habitat for Humanity India’s rapid response and assembled. team found Lakhimpur district severely • Aug. 5-6, 2011 — Emergency shelter affected, and without government or kits distributed. nongovernmental organization assistance. The villages in Lakhimpur were widely Background dispersed, roads were badly affected and Assam is a northeastern Indian state, relief operations had not reached residents. geographically isolated from the majority Many homes were submerged, and families of the country and connected via a narrow were living along embankments or in strip of land known as Siliguri corridor. relief camps. The floodwater meant that One-third of Assam’s population was surroundings were contaminated and affected or displaced by sudden flooding people struggled to find safe drinking water in the summer of 2011. More than 1,000 and adequate sanitation facilities. India’s villages in 12 of Assam’s 27 districts were Inter Agency Group coordinated the setup devastated by the flooding, and more of water and health facilities. than 400,000 hectares of agricultural land destroyed, posing a severe threat to Safe and decent shelter was an immediate livelihoods and the economy. The need. Families that had lost everything Emergency shelter kit materials used to floodwater damaged 17 bridges and wanted to erect temporary or transitional make transitional shelters. disrupted national highways and link roads, shelters to protect themselves from the 91 sun, cold winds and damp, while families Families that had lost everything, or needed whose homes were partially damaged needed shelter materials to repair or upgrade their shelter materials in order to repair their damaged homes, and that had young homes. Habitat for Humanity India decided children or elderly family members, emergency shelter kits were the best way to receive assistance first. address immediate needs. Orientations on how to use ESK materials HFH India’s Technical Assistance Center were conducted, and families received in Chennai developed a design plan, and practical training on how to use the tools and materials were purchased in bulk, following materials. Residents helped one another to HFH India purchasing procedures. make their transitional shelters. Some used the tarpaulin sheeting to stop their roof leaks; HFH India worked in four of the most other used it as a wall for privacy. severely affected villages that had been cut off by floodwater and had not been reached by ESKs were made of tarpaulin sheeting, other relief efforts. bamboo poles, nylon rope, coir rope (made from coconut husk fibers), hammers, steel Implementation rods and a mat. HFH India operated the program through its Habitat Resource Center in Delhi, Unfortunately, without additional resources, with staff working alongside volunteers to HFH India was unable to help the families to verify information gathered from partner build permanent homes. organizations — Indo Global Social Service Society and IAG — and local government Lessons & Promising Practices officials, about affected communities. Each • By supporting families to get the family that needed assistance received a privacy and security they were lacking, token that was exchanged for a shelter kit. communities gained the confidence to IGSS and IAG helped HFH India overcome work together and approach the local the challenge of transporting materials by government and other NGOs to find a providing local volunteers who moved ESKs more permanent housing solution. to the affected sites using trucks, boats • Pre-positioned materials helped to prevent and minivans. delays and kept down costs.

Right: House partners receive their shelter kits.

92 Mannar, Sri Lanka

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Mannar Internally Displaced People Habitat for Humanity Sri Lanka project Habitat for Humanity Japan Neelaseni village, Mannar district, Sri Lanka Northern province, Sri Lanka Fu n d i n g Japan Platform, through Habitat for Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Humanity Japan New core house construction S u b m i tte d by Ye a r Edward Fernando 2011 Manager Program and Disaster Response P ro j e c t t a rge t Habitat for Humanity Sri Lanka 18 families (85 people); 18 core [email protected] houses built

S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze 82.6 square meters, comprising two rooms, verandah and toilet

Summary During Sri Lanka’s 30-year civil war, fighting was concentrated in the Northern province. Since the Tamil Tigers laid down arms in 2009, Northern province has been trying to rebuild itself. Habitat for Humanity Sri Lanka built 18 houses for families that were displaced as a result of the civil war and returned to their village, but were living in temporary accommodation.

Timeline many living in camps. Almost all internally • May 2011 — Home partner families displaced persons were resettled by identified. January 2012. • May 2011 — Community meetings held on construction process and Project Overview house design. Habitat for Humanity Sri Lanka focused • June 2011 — Construction work began. on Neelasanai village in Mannar district, a • September 2011 — Construction of location recommended by the Sri Lankan 18 homes completed. government’s Mannar district secretary in consultation with the divisional secretary Background and the Grama Niladhari, a government- The Sri Lankan civil war started in July appointed village leader. The 18 families 1983 between the government and a that HFH Sri Lanka supported were separatist militant organization, the displaced by the civil war and returned Tamil Tigers, which fought to create an to Neelasenai village to live in temporary independent Tamil state in the northeast shelters provided by Caritas Sri Lanka, of the island. Around 100,000 people were a nonprofit. killed during the civil war, which had a debilitating effect on Sri Lanka’s population The incomes of the 18 families were generally, its environment and economy. extremely low, US$8 and US$15 per month. HFH Sri Lanka built a core house for each Various ceasefire agreements were signed, family, consisting of two rooms, a veranda then broken or withdrawn, before the and toilet. Per government requirements, Tamil Tigers admitted defeat in May 2009. homes were built with a 152.4-square meter Top: Home partner at her transitional shelter. The final stages of the war created more foundation. than 300,000 internally displaced persons, Bottom: Completed core house. 93 Homeowner families contributed unskilled The 30-year civil war destroyed local labor to the construction process, digging the businesses, which are only just starting to foundation and toilet pit, and providing water. recover. As a result, suppliers were limited, and construction materials were not available Implementation locally. Materials had to be transported across Neelasenai is home to 50 to 75 families. great distances, which often delayed timelines. The families that were chosen had to show documents to prove ownership of land and a Lessons & Promising Practices ration card as evidence that they had been in • Homeowners were eager to participate in an IDP camp. The Mannar district secretary the construction process, and HFH Sri approved the list of families. Lanka staff members were very committed, despite limited facilities. HFH Sri Lanka worked with the Grama • Initially, some homeowners wanted to Niladhari to organize community meetings at have bigger homes. HFH Sri Lanka staff the village church, where homeowners were worked with families to explain Habitat for oriented on the design of the core house and Humanity’s mission and the core their contribution to the construction process. house concept.

Right: Volunteers and beneficiaries lay a foundation for a new core house.

94 Leh Floods, India

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Building Back Better Habitat for Humanity India Leh Flash Flood disaster response Stoklam Palam, Leh district, Jammu Pa rt n e r s India and Kashmir state, India Ladakh Ecological Development Group, India Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n New house construction Fu n d i n g Habitat for Humanity India Ye a r Ladakh Ecological Development 2011 Group, India

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by 24 families/120 people Justin Jebakumar Director S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Delhi Habitat Resource Center 200 square feet Habitat for Humanity India [email protected]

Summary On Aug. 6, 2010, unprecedented rainfall deluged Leh (previously the capital of Ladakh) district, in Jammu and Kashmir, state, India. Eleven centimeters of rain fell in just two hours — more than 10 times the average rainfall of the region in a month. The rain created flash floods and mudslides, leading to extensive damage of homes and communication lines as highways were washed away. Habitat for Humanity India supported 24 families to build new homes in the village of Stoklam Palam.

Timeline Project Overview • September 2010 — Assessment of Many homes in Ladakh are built using a damage and shelter needs conducted. mud called gomfa, which keeps houses • October 2010 — Home partner warm in winter when temperatures drop to families selected. -30 Celsius, and these were swept away or • May 2011 — House construction began. submerged. In one village that was hardest • October 2011 — Program completed. hit, mounds of mud carried by rivers were as high as electric lines; many people were Background buried alive as they slept. More than 500 Because of the lack of productive land, Leh’s people were buried beneath these huge sparse population lives along riverbanks, mud mounds, while others who are still practicing sustenance agriculture and missing were probably swept away. rearing cattle. When the sudden rain fell, rivers swelled and burst their banks, wiping Government departments, civil out everything nearby. In many places the organizations and international agencies river changed its course completely, causing provided immediate relief. The Indian further destruction. More than 630 houses army, India’s Border Roads Organization were washed away, nearly 600 houses were and General Reserve Engineer Force played damaged, and more than 500 huts were a major role in clearing debris, creating affected. The estimated damage to public road access and constructing property was US$35 million, and damage makeshift bridges. to shelter was US$8.7 million.

Homeowners and soldiers-volunteers lay Families were relocated to relief camps, the out the foundation for a new home, then largest being Solar Colony. dig it. 95 Because the floods and mudslides left a large rural building center for research and number of people at the mercy of a very harsh propagation of environmentally appropriate climate, housing was critical to ensure that technologies. HRC Delhi provided technical people survived the extreme winter weather. input, monitoring, reporting and overall Many of the houses had been built with coordination of the project; LEDeG substandard material or without resilient implemented the project in Leh; and technology. New homes were constructed house designs, layout and technology were with substantially improved material developed collaboratively. and technology. The house design was developed to be Implementation culturally appropriate and used traditional Habitat for Humanity India assessed the knowledge, with a focus on ecology and the damage and shelter needs of the area. Factors environment. The house design incorporated such as the extent of loss or damage to their disaster-resilient features, was locally relevant, home, the security of land tenure or alternate adhered to minimum Indian standards government land allocation, vulnerability and Sphere codes, and the construction to extreme weather conditions, or lack technology was environmentally friendly and of economic capacity to build their own energy-efficient. Each house was built with a home were key criteria in the home partner compost toilet. selection process. Lessons & Promising Practices The nearest Habitat Resource Center, in • Using local materials meant less impact on Delhi, partnered with Ladakh Ecological the environment. Development Group, a local non- • Using locally available skills reduced governmental organization, on the project. dependence on outside resources. LEDeG was an NGO active in the Leh • Construction based on traditional housing region, specializing in environmentally designs preserved cultural heritage. appropriate shelter, with an established

Right: House near completion.

96 Earthquake and Tsunami Recovery Program, Japan

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Rebuilding Japan: Earthquake and All Hands Volunteers Tsunami Recovery Program Peaceboat Japan Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Fu n d i n g Distribution of non-food items, care Habitat for Humanity International kits, debris and rubble cleanup; Habitat for Humanity Japan house repairs Japan Platform

Ye a r Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n 2011-2012 More than 750 local and international volunteers mobilized P ro j e c t t a rge t 4,000 families S u b m i tte d by Kristin Wright S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n Disaster Corps Specialist Varied HFHI [email protected] I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Habitat for Humanity Japan

Summary Habitat for Humanity Japan got to work immediately after the devastating earthquake and tsunami in 2011, assessing damage, appealing for donations and partnering with local and international organizations in disaster recovery. Targeting the areas most affected by the disaster, HFH Japan has been working in various communities across northern Japan, specifically in Iwate and Miyagi prefectures. Japan’s government estimates that the reconstruction will last 10 years.

Timeline damaged and 52,513 temporary shelters • March 11, 2011 — Earthquake and erected. Because HFH Japan’s program tsunami hit Japan. did not have a developed building • April 2011 — Habitat for Humanity program in Japan, and the construction of Rebuilding Japan Tsunami Recovery temporary housing was controlled by the Program began with distribution of non- Japanese government’s Ministry of Land, food items. Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, • May 2011 — First brigades of volunteers HFH Japan focused on coordinating with mobilized for debris cleanup. government authorities and NGOs to meet • October 2011 — House repairs began. related needs, such as cleanup and • January 2012 — Plans for additional small repairs. work devised. Project Overview Background HFH Japan’s assessment teams moved A 9.0-magnitude earthquake struck off the in immediately after the disaster and coast of Japan on March 11, 2012, resulting launched partnerships with NGOs in aftershocks and a tsunami that destroyed Peaceboat and All Hands Volunteers to homes and killed thousands of people. mobilize volunteers to clear debris and Compounding the disaster was uncertainty mud from houses and community spaces, about radiation leaks from the earthquake- pull out wet flooring and insulation, and Top: Home owner Saeko Mizuno, 77, in affected Fukushima nuclear facility. As make repairs. HFH Japan then began the front of her damaged house in Ofunato. of March 2012, a reported 15,826 people distribution of household and winter items

Bottom: Habitat volunteers and All Hands were dead and 3,810 were missing. The (bedding, heaters), providing financial volunteers clear the debris at Takata housing landscape was severely damaged assistance, and building additional storage School in Rikizentakata, northern Japan. with 118,640 houses destroyed, 183,033 units for families living in temporary 97 accommodation. In 2011, HFH Japan HFH Japan’s 2012 program has included mobilized 462 volunteers, distributed winter repair of 125 homes, upgrading at least kits to 3,840 families, cleared 389 structures of five community spaces and mobilization debris and repaired 54 homes. of more than 750 volunteers. To achieve this impact, HFHJ launched “Hometown In March 2012, the program shifted into Higashimatsushima” seeking to repair community revitalization activities to upgrade damaged/abandoned community centers facilities serving families in temporary and provide spaces for temporary shelter shelters, and to repair houses. Additionally, of residents. Through the assistance of an HFH Japan is collaborating with local international technical advisor from HFHI’s organizations to explore possible permanent Disaster Corps program, HFH Japan finished community facility design and construction repairing the Kameoka Community Center projects. As of June 2012, HFH Japan had in June. The “Homes and Hope” initiative in mobilized 761 volunteers through individual Ofunato received a $672,000 grant from the and corporate volunteer programs, repaired Japan Platform to rehabilitate 100 houses and 136 homes, upgraded four community spaces provide consulting for up to 1,000 families in and raised more than US$3.5 million for its Ofunato. It also aims to support community disaster response operations. HFH Japan space upgrades such as 40 storage units for launched the “Homes and Hope” project household items; HFHJ volunteers built them in Iwate Prefecture for house rehabilitations for the residents of an Odachi temporary and “Hometown Higashimatsushima” shelter complex. project in Miyagi Prefecture for upgrading community spaces. HFH Japan is also working with local organizations such as the Iwate Association Guiding principles for all HFH Japan of Architects and Construction Engineers, initiatives are to accelerate families’ return to local community leaders and coordination their homes, recreate hometown spirit, rebuild units to provide financial subsidies and community bonds and interaction through technical advice to families seeking to volunteer participation, and support the work rehabilitate their homes. of other NGOs providing social services and livelihood assistance. Lessons & Promising Practices • Follow the guidance of local needs. Implementation Programs should be structured in the HFH Japan supports local partner context of unfolding infrastructure and organizations with their recovery activities economic recovery policies, long-term by providing volunteer mobilization, funding support for communities and preparation and programmatic support. Its partnership to support needs not addressed by with All Hands Volunteers served to government plans. mobilize volunteers for home repairs in • To build trust, geographic and mission Ofunato city, Iwate Prefecture. A partnership focus are key. Grassroots relationships are with Peaceboat mobilized volunteers for critical for delivering meaningful services. distribution of home starter and winter kits • Engaging volunteers shows support from (heated floor mats, portable heaters and around Japan and worldwide to help sustain kotatsu — heated table sets) to almost 4,000 morale within the affected population, families by February 2012. particularly among older groups; an on-the- ground presence allows us to accomplish more and better work.

98 Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Cagayan de Oro City Rebuild City government of Cagayan de Oro Program, Philippines Philippines Department of Public Works and Highways Philippines Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Xavier University Distribution of emergency shelter/ St. Francis Xavier Church care/cleaning kits, emergency All Hands Volunteers sanitation (latrines), new core house construction, skills and materials Fu n d i n g production training Habitat for Humanity International San Miguel Foundation Ye a r Philippines Department of Social 2012 Welfare and Development Philippines National Housing P ro j e c t t a rge t Authority 6,000 households Lutheran World Relief Cargill S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Quadruplex, duplex and row core S u b m i tte d by houses; 21 square meters per family Leonilo Escalada Chief Operating Officer I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Habitat for Humanity Philippines Habitat for Humanity Philippines [email protected]

Summary On Dec. 16, 2011, Tropical Storm Washi devastated the central and southern islands of the Philippines, causing flash floods and landslides. More than half of all confirmed deaths occurred in the cities of Cagayan de Oro and Iligan in the Northern Mindanao region. Habitat for Humanity Philippines pledged to build 6,000 housing units for displaced families, distribute 5,000 shelter repair kits and deploy three construction mobilization units to repair houses and restore and communities damaged by the storm.

Timeline Project Overview • Dec. 16, 2011 — Tropical Storm Washi HFH Philippines partnered with the struck Mindanao. Cagayan de Oro government, Department • January 2012 — Project concept, design of Social Welfare and Development and and timeline completed. the National Housing Authority to build • April 2012 — First 500 units completed quadruplex, duplex and row houses and and delivered. Project continues. communities in several barangays. The goal for each community is to be safe, Background clean, green, child-friendly, resilient Tropical Storm Washi’s winds reached 90 and empowered. km per hour, swept entire villages out to sea and released more than 181 mm of Each community will have a daycare center, rainfall in 24 hours, equivalent to more a multi-purpose center and environmental than a month of rainfall. According to programs. Continuous assessment of the Philippines’ National Disaster Risk the families’ needs and development will Reduction and Management Council, as of be done with the help of volunteers and Jan. 4, 2012, the flooding had affected more partners. Training will be offered to build than 724,700 people across 13 provinces; resilience and to improve health and killing 1,257 people, with 98 listed as childcare programs. The primary goal of missing. Nearly 37,300 people were living this program is to rehabilitate, rebuild and in 54 evacuation centers. With the number improve the living condition of damaged of damaged or destroyed houses at 48,499, communities in Cagayan de Oro and there was an urgent need for shelter. enhance resilience of families for Partial view of Calaanan site. future disasters. 99 The program has three components: shelter HFH Philippines obtained materials and relief, shelter recovery, and disaster mitigation partnered with local agencies to identify and preparedness. As of Dec. 30, 2011, HFH families for distribution of emergency Philippines had partnered with DSWD to shelter kits (construction materials and fund the construction of 2,948 core housing tools), care kits (hygiene) and cleaning units, with San Miguel Foundation to fund kits. HFH Philippines also obtained and 2,500, and achieved corporate sponsorship mobilized heavy equipment and tools for through Wilcon Builders and Cargill. Soon the construction mobilization units to be after, funding from government and corporate available for communities active in cleanup donors reached more than US$10 million. and reconstruction. Latrine construction for emergency camps and school evacuation Implementation centers was also implemented in partnership This is an ongoing program. Most projects with camps and school management teams. are being completed simultaneously and implemented in partnership with the local With several partners, including the All government unit, DSWD, National Home Hands Volunteers NGO, HFH Philippines Affairs, national and international donors, and has embarked on building at least 6,000 many others. Within two days of the storm, housing units using designs for four-unit HFH Philippines responded with assessment quadruplexes, duplexes and row houses on teams and within one week had partnered land provided by the government, which with barangay-level (neighborhood/ is also undertaking site development and community level) government units of CDO infrastructure work for installation of water to distribute tools and cleaning kits for supply systems, electricity and roads through 1,000 families. appropriate agencies.

Right: Partners review construction plans.

Facing page, top: Many people moved into temporary shelters after they lost their homes to the tropical storm.

Bottom: Clearing debris was an important part of the process.

100 101 HFH Philippines will offer community- the same time scout and train potential based disaster risk management training, skilled laborers within CDO. construction training in partnership with • Because of a lack of local construction the Technical Education and Skills materials and high prices, advance scouting Development Authority, and livelihood is necessary to order from suppliers. It is training to cover market analysis of skills important to negotiate with suppliers to and opportunities within the community. prepare hollow blocks on-site to reduce Several organized community groups time and cost on production and allocate participate in an income-generating scheme at least 30 percent contingency/incidental for production of concrete blocks being in the budget. used in the project, while transferring skills • Planning is required for local government on small-business management. units and national agencies to make available tracks of land for relocation site for Lessons & Promising Practices permanent shelter. • A strong coordination with other • The support of local and national authorities organizations through cluster coordination has been instrumental to the development and local interagency group meetings is of a rapid recovery and the implementation needed to avoid duplication of products of the housing project. Resources such as being distributed to the affected community. land, site planning services and development Multiple organizations provide similar of basic infrastructure, and assistance with products, such as repair kits. family selection, are key to a successful • There are a limited number of skilled recovery in a relatively short time. laborers for the core house construction in • Electricity and water in the relocation sites CDO. A short-term solution is to import are a major consideration. skilled laborers from other regions and at

Right: A family celebrates their new home.

Facing page: As core houses were finished, homeowners made them their own, hanging curtains and planting gardens.

102

Europe and Central Asia Rasht and Kumsangir Districts, Tajikistan

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Disaster Mitigation Project, Rasht and Jamoats (local authority units) Kumsangir Districts, Tajikistan Tajikistan Institute of Seismology Tajikistan Ministry of Emergency Tajikistan Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Situations Structural mitigation and retrofit of rural homes using renewable Fu n d i n g resources. Skills training. United Nations Disaster Risk Management Program Ye a r United Nations World Food Program 2006-2011 Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n P ro j e c t t a rge t Tajikistan is an earthquake-prone 337 households country

I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n S u b m i tte d by Habitat for Humanity Tajikistan Behruz Dadoboev Program Development Manager Habitat for Humanity Tajikistan [email protected]

Summary After the 2006 earthquakes, Habitat for Humanity Tajikistan began testing and using an innovative, low-cost technology combining timber framing and mulberry branches as the structural reinforcing elements on walls. The technology has benefited 337 families in rural areas of Kumsangir and in Rasht District, and has been used not only in response to these earthquakes but as a retrofit in homes for disaster mitigation.

Timeline technology was one of three winners • Late 2006 — HFH Tajikistan began of the Innovation Award at the World research on the use of mulberry Reconstruction Conference, sponsored branches as reinforcement for mud brick by the World Bank in Geneva. walls. • December 2007 — The Tajikistan Background Institute of Seismology certified the Each year, Tajikistan experiences more strength and methodology of use of than 5,000 tremors and earthquakes, the mulberry branches in seismic retrofits. magnitude of which can reach between • January 2008 — Retrofit of 80 7 and 9 points on the Richter scale. With homes began in Rasht, Rasht and the more than 43 percent of the population Kumsangir district. living on less than US$2 a day, very few • December 2008 — An earthquake families can afford to build reinforced with epicenter in northern Afghanistan homes to withstand earthquake damage. affected the Rasht area. Homes with Most of the population lives in fear that mulberry branch retrofits resisted their house could collapse, causing injury damage. or death. Scientific research, certified • January 2009 — An earthquake hit the by Tajikistan’s Institute of Seismology in Kumsangir area. More than 150 homes December 2007, showed that mulberry reinforced with mulberry branches twigs and branches, with a diameter of 12 showed little damage in comparison to to 14 millimeters, have a tensile strength those not reinforced. of 2,300 kg/cm² equivalent to 46 percent • May 2011 — The mulberry branch of 4- to 5-mm diameter steel rebar, and

105 106 thus can be used to retrofit mud brick walls to been approved by the Tajikistan government withstand earthquakes. and installed in more than 330 rural homes in eight vulnerable communities. Mulberry twig Project Overview reinforcement grids can be easily installed This disaster mitigation project aimed to by families and communities, and have the significantly reduce the damage caused by potential to be produced in any country where earthquakes to poverty housing. Mulberry mulberry trees (or a similar variety) twigs and branches can be harvested, coupled are found. into grids and attached to internal mud walls and timber frames, using the grid to also Implementation sustain a mud plaster mixed with straw and Beneficiaries were selected from the poorest wool. This stabilizes the walls and provides and most vulnerable rural families in Rasht structural protection. The technology and Kumsangir districts. In these rural cotton- can be built into the construction of new growing regions, most of the men are forced homes or added to existing homes, even to migrate to Russia in search of seasonal those already damaged by earthquakes. The work, leaving women and children behind technology is innovative (it harnesses the in unprotected homes. The retrofit of homes strength of mulberry twigs, opposed to much accommodated these seasonal variances. more expensive steel rebar reinforcement), People in target communities were also affordable (mulberry twigs are free and trained on disaster preparedness, to protect the total reinforcement work costs at least themselves and their homes from earthquakes 33 percent less than the rebar alternative), and tremors, and were taught how to collect, low-tech (because no special equipment is prepare, construct and install the reinforcing needed), and environmentally sustainable, mulberry twig grids. Partner organizations because the twigs can be harvested annually. included the Jamoats (local authority units), This new disaster mitigation technology has community development committees, field

Facing page: Top and lower left: Preparing a grid for wall reinforcement using mulberry branches. Lower right: A young beneficiary of the project.

Left: Unziyamoh Abulhaeva gestures “rahmat,” meaning thank you, in gratitude to those who helped her complete her house.

107 units of emergency committees and local • Intense community mobilization resulted partner NGOs. In a second phase of the in extended involvement beyond original project, a revolving fund was established project goals. In Kumsangir, a volunteer by Habitat to facilitate loans for families to community development committee of finance additional repairs and access to the community leaders, partner families and technology. The small loans are subsidized local authorities mobilized the community and payable over a two-year period. to work on such initiatives as clean drinking water (water filters) and earthquake preparedness. Family in Rasht district Lessons & Promising Practices in front of their home that was retrofitted with mulberry • Sound technological innovations using branch technology. local materials and technologies are possible. The mulberry twig reinforcement technology has been incorporated in the Tajikistan code for rural construction. Dorohoi, Romania

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Fu n d i n g Reconstruction after floods Multinational corporations (Vodafone, Dorohoi, northern Moldova, Romania Lafarge), UNICEF, local companies and individuals Romania Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Renovations and new housing, Pa rt n e r s technical assistance, on-site Romanian Ministry of Regional reconstruction Development

Ye a r Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n 2010-2011 Disaster response project in multiple sites/locations, implemented during P ro j e c t t a rge t winter. Integrated approach (housing, 400 families (1,200 people) school, technical assistance).

S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze S u b m i tte d by 60 square meters on average Mihai Grigorean DRR Program Manager I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n HFH Romania HFH Romania [email protected]

Summary The project targeted the most affected community by rebuilding social infrastructure after heavy flooding. The results consisted of 30 new houses, 50 renovated houses, 320 rehabilitated houses, one school rebuilt and two schools renovated. Town government helped to relocate 500 families in a new area with urban planning advice and land zoning. The project mobilized 497 local volunteers. It also used donated materials and gave families materials and technical assistance to support their own repairs and renovations.

Timeline seriously damaged. Because of limited • July 1, 2010 — Project started. financial resources, government assistance • July 9, 2010 — Partnership with central was drastically reduced. The Romanian government signed. government provided basic materials — • August 2010 — Project team cement, wood, bricks and roof elements, formed, communities identified, and only for the families whose homes families selected. had been destroyed. The government did • Aug. 19, 2010 — Construction started. not provide financial aid or money to pay • Aug. 19, 2010 — First Habitat Resource for labor. For those in houses that were Center opened. damaged, it cost more than 15 percent of • February 2011 — Finished the the total house cost to make repairs. renovation of 50 houses. • February 2011 — Finished building Project Overview school. Because of the extent of damage, the • May 2011 — Finished construction Dorohoi area was selected for the first of 30 houses. intervention. More than 400 houses were destroyed and 500 were damaged. Background Surrounding villages were equally affected. In June 2010, heavy rains in Romania caused severe floods, affecting 31 counties, A selection committee comprising two killing 27 people and causing economic representatives from the organization, a loss in the hundreds of millions of euros. town hall representative and a community Hundreds of people lost their houses, representative. Public information and 7,000 had to repair their homes to meetings were held in the camp for flood make them livable. Infrastructure was victims in order to explain the housing 109 program, eligibility criteria, and conditions for Implementation participation and future obligations. The city allocated a plot of land for the construction of new houses, along with the At the same time, social surveys were infrastructure. A warehouse was set up close conducted for each family on the official list to the main construction site to receive and of victims. Through this process, 43 families store in-kind donations and materials, later were initially selected for the renovation distributed through the resource center. It project and 17 families for the construction also disbursed materials for the construction of new homes during the first phase. The of new houses. Two local companies were other 340 beneficiaries were selected in the subcontracted to perform core/specialized second phase of the project because of the work with new constructions and renovations. increased capacity of the project staff to A local team was formed to manage the assess new areas. project. It included a public relations specialist, volunteer coordinator, family The first stage of the campaign — “Now, support officer and construction site manager. more than ever!” — focused on fundraising. For the new builds, aerated thermal blocks At least 60 companies and more than 20,000 were chosen because of availability, climate individuals raised US$650,000 in cash and conditions and construction costs. The houses US$290,000 in construction materials. Later were finished using standard quality materials stages of the response dealt with school for interiors, including drywall, laminate rebuilding and renovation. The project also parquetry, stoves and tiles. Bathrooms were mobilized local 497 volunteers from the equipped with sinks and showers. business community.

Right: Special thermal blocks were used for homes in Romania.

Facing page: Local construction workers help the homeowner partners build their homes.

110 111 For the renovation of the damaged houses, • The municipality was involved from the solutions were selected on the spot. The bulk start, which helped the project to of work was restoring walls and insulation, proceed quickly. reinforcing foundations, and replacing • The government’s endorsement of the flooring and internal finishes. Technical campaign helped generate resources assistance was provided to a large number of and partnerships. families through the resource centers. Families received materials for their own work. Project weaknesses : Transportation from the warehouse to each • Government delays in delivering on location was offered to each family. promises for materials. • Logistics not adapted for working Construction workers were deployed to give in multiple locations (10 locations families design and technical support in simultaneously). construction, and help with the use of tools • Difficulty in engaging the beneficiaries and equipment. This helped ensure the quality selected for relocation. of construction and that health and safety • Weak involvement of local volunteers requirements were met. interested in renovation program. • Severe weather conditions in winter and Lessons & Promising Practices spring (-10 degrees Celsius in April) Project strengths: delayed construction and prevented more • Families contributed their time and labor local volunteers from participating. toward construction of their new homes. • Effective coordination and support from the national office. • Business partners quickly provided materials and money.

Right and facing page: Habitat built 30 new houses in the Dorohoi area of Romania after the flood.

112

Latin America and the Caribbean Hurricanes Mitch and Georges, Central America

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o ns Hurricanes Mitch and Georges HFHI, HFH El Salvador, Response Program (Guatemala, HFH Honduras, HFH Nicaragua, HFH El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic Central America Dominican Republic) Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n Ye a r First multi-country disaster response 1998-20 0 0 program implemented by HFH

Fu n d i n g S u b m i tte d by The James S. & John L. Knight Jaime Mok Foundation, International DRR Coordinator Organization for Migration, Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua Cooperative Housing Foundation, [email protected] Water for People, International City/ County Management Association, Common Hope, South American Missionary Society of the Episcopal Church

Summary In September and October 1998, Georges and Mitch, two of the most destructive hurricanes in recorded history, struck the Caribbean and Central America, killing an estimated 10,000 people and leaving nearly 1 million people homeless. Thousands more were missing or injured. The storms destroyed more than half of the vital infrastructure of several countries. Habitat for Humanity International carried out its first significant multinational disaster response program, focusing on long-term recovery by helping victims build simple, decent, affordable and permanent housing.

Timeline cities along the southern coast, including • September 1998 — Hurricane Georges the capital. High winds of 120 mph struck the Caribbean. downed and uprooted trees across much House construction results: • October 1998 — Hurricane Mitch struck of the country. Thousands of houses were Central America. destroyed. The entire country was without Planned Built Dominican Republic 450 154 • October 1998 — HFHI made an urgent electricity after the storm, which damaged El Salvador 494 451 appeal for donations to help the water systems and communications. Honduras 1,025 1,042 five countries. Guatemala 2,191 3,067 • February 1999 — HFHI multinational Hurricane Mitch was the deadliest storm to Nicaragua 480 237 Total 4,644 4,951 disaster response project launched with strike the western hemisphere since 1780. an ambitious plan for construction of permanent homes. After threatening Jamaica and the Cayman • June 2000 — Program closed after Islands, Mitch moved westward. Reaching surpassing by 307 the goal of building Guatemala on Oct. 31, Mitch produced 4,644 houses. up to two feet of rain per day. In some regions, as much as 75 inches of rain fell. Background Floods and mudslides virtually destroyed In September 1998, Hurricane Georges the infrastructure of Honduras and struck the Dominican Republic with devastated parts of Nicaragua, Guatemala strong winds and very heavy rains, along and El Salvador. Entire villages — and with a seven-foot storm surge. Nearly 10 their inhabitants — were swept away in hours of continuous rainfall resulted in the torrents of floodwaters, and deep mud mudslides and overflowing rivers across rushed down mountainsides. Hundreds of Habitat volunteers in Honduras. the mountainous country, damaging many thousands of homes were destroyed. 115 The initial assessment showed the The program followed the traditional During the projects, strategic alliances were following damage: Habitat methodology: family selection, vital for reconstruction. Alliances provided sweat equity, volunteer help and a funds that supported land acquisition, site Guatemala repayment plan. The housing projects development, house construction, staffing • 270 dead (particularly those that included land and administrative costs in the five • 750,000 affected/displaced purchase and site development) also had national organizations. • 50,000 homeless subsidies to help make them affordable. • US$500 million in economic losses Lessons & Promising Practices After 18 months of accelerated work • By June 2000, the project had surpassed El Salvador in Honduras, Nicaragua, El Salvador, by 307 the goal of building 4,644 houses, • 240 dead Guatemala and the Dominican Republic, bringing the total to 4,951. Thus HFHI • 345,000 affected/displaced 4,951 Habitat houses were built. Most proved it could successfully put to use • 56,000 homeless of the work was done at the community its expertise in house construction and • US$400 million in economic losses level with groups of families and local and the development of local grass-roots international volunteers organized through organizations in addressing the acute Honduras local Habitat affiliates. need for long-term housing for victims of • 5,700 dead natural disasters. • 1,500,000 affected/displaced Implementation • The project illustrated a major • 285,000 homeless Within two weeks after Hurricane Mitch, achievement for Habitat for Humanity • US$5 billion in economic losses HFHI’s urgent appeal for donations by organizing the construction of nearly exceeded expectations, creating great 5,000 houses over 18 months — nearly Nicaragua opportunity and also challenges for tripling the annual building capacity • 3,050 dead Habitat’s national organizations and of the national organizations in the • 870,000 affected/displaced affiliates. More than US$6 million five countries. Other accomplishments • 65,000 homeless was raised. include the generation of more than • US$1 billion in economic losses US$6 million in resources for HFHI To expedite HFHI’s response, a Special programs, the start of eight new affiliates, Dominican Republic Programs department was created in the the establishment of several strategic • 380 dead Latin American and Caribbean area office. alliances with local and international • 500,000 affected/displaced Assistance included funding, technical organizations for project implementation • 185,000 homeless expertise, support for management of and additional resource development, • US$2 billion in economic losses international volunteers, and and the development of four new and financial management. integrated communities for Project Overview urban residents. The context of inadequate shelter in Central By February 1999, after meeting with America and the Caribbean cannot easily Habitat partners in every country, the be separated from a backdrop of increasing Special Programs department set an poverty. Poverty is exacerbated in rural ambitious plan to build 4,644 houses in an areas that lose their livelihoods after a 18-month period. disaster. HFHI responded with its first multi-country disaster response program, HFHI then decided to establish the Disaster focusing on long-term recovery through Response office in Americus, to make permanent housing and by forging disaster response part of its ministry. strategic alliances. This became a legacy of the response to Hurricane Georges and Mitch.

116 La Joya Amarateca, Honduras

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Fu n d i n g Project La Joya, Amarateca Valley, Habitat for Humanity International, Tegucigalpa Central District, Honduras United States Agency for International Development through Honduras Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n the International Organization for New housing construction, site Migrations and the Cooperative development and infrastructure, Housing Foundation, Honduran school building Social Investment Fund, The Knight Foundation, International City/County Ye a r Management Association 1999-2001 Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n P ro j e c t t a rge t This project was part of the HFHI 355 households left homeless by Special Programs department (a Hurricane Mitch multi-country response to hurricanes Mitch and Georges) S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze 48-square meter duplexes S u b m i tte d by Mario Flores I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Director Habitat for Humanity Honduras Disaster Response Field Operations HFHI Pa rt n e r s [email protected] Municipality of Tegucigalpa

Summary In response to the damage from Hurricane Mitch in 1998, Habitat for Humanity Honduras developed several recovery housing projects that served more than 1,000 families. The biggest of these projects was in the Amarateca Valley, in the outskirts of the capital city of Tegucigalpa, where 355 homeless families relocated, mostly from temporary shelter camps.

Timeline Mitch killed more than 6,500 people and • Oct. 30, 1998 — Hurricane Mitch left 8,085 missing and 165,000 homeless in made landfall in Honduras, causing Honduras; agriculture, responsible for most widespread death and destruction. exports, was the worst affected. • November 1998-January 1999 — Temporary shelter camps established on What made the hurricane truly devastating public land in Tegucigalpa, hosting more was that several dams broke and than 10,000 homeless families. completely flooded a number of towns. The • September 1999 — Land secured by capital city was filled with 18 feet of mud HFH Honduras in Amarateca Valley, 35 and all activities came to a halt, including km from Tegucigalpa the government. Mitch did not only sit on • November 1999 — Site development the coast; it went inland. Towns throughout began. the country were affected. After the • January 2000 — House construction hurricane, the housing deficit increased began. from 63 percent in March 1998 to 66 • June 2000 — First families moved in, percent, making an already dire situation with temporary services. even worse. Several temporary shelter • April 2001 — Project completed. camps were established in the capital city to host more than 10,000 displaced and Background homeless families. Schools, hospitals, Honduras is one of the poorest and least bridges and other critical infrastructure developed countries in Latin America, were also heavily affected sending the with nearly two-thirds of Hondurans living country “50 years backward,” as the in poverty. Before 1998, Honduras had president of Honduras said in a message to shown moderate economic growth as a the international community. Family in Amarateca Habitat house. result of government reforms. Hurricane 117 Project Overview labor and “sweat equity” (participation of projects had undergone the design and Project La Joya involved the construction beneficiaries) for housing construction, construction permit approval processes. of a permanent relocation settlement with and Habitat Global Village volunteer teams, • Separating the beneficiaries from their 355 housing units of 48 square meters each which were an integral part of construction former social and territorial network in a duplex design, using self-construction activities in Amarateca. and source of employment showed the and mutual help. HFH Honduras secured limitations of this relocation plan. The the land, implemented site development HFH Honduras had to grow staff capacity valley’s economic infrastructure did not (roads and walkways) and built the in- in a relatively short time in order to meet have the economic capacity to absorb project water supply network, sanitary the demands of the project, which created this population, which resulted in some sewerage network and electricity grid. internal tensions. Additionally, the expected of the families abandoning homes or not HFH Honduras also negotiated with the connection to existing utility services by the being able to live in them immediately. city of Tegucigalpa for the connection to city of Tegucigalpa was delayed, as was the • The new project inhabitants arrived existing utility systems and for a sewage building of an external sewage treatment like a barrage, without previous social treatment plant. HFH Honduras relocated plant designed to serve several housing infrastructure or organization. They were families living provisionally in macro projects in the valley. Yielding to strong not well-organized; families came from shelters in the city of Tegucigalpa, who pressure from families and donors, HFH different neighborhoods, communities went to the camps after their homes Honduras allowed families to move into the and macro-shelter camps without any were lost in massive landslides along the project without basic services functioning, common links or familiarities, which Choluteca River. Neighborhoods of origin and had to implement a temporary system made organization and the fulfillment of such as Colonia El Reparto and Colonia of water supply and latrines to address their roles in the project difficult. Soto were centrally located in the city, and sanitation needs. Basic services (water • Despite the proximity of the capital, families faced the only option of relocating and sewerage) were finally provided two it was difficult to reach the main to the Amarateca Valley housing projects years after the project was completed. The connecting road with Tegucigalpa being built by several agencies (including notable exception was electricity, which from some areas of the valley and thus HFH Honduras) 35 kilometers away. The was already functioning during the housing impeded many resettlements toward the relocation was stimulated by a voucher construction phase. capital. This fosters settlement isolation. system financed by USAID in which • Many families not living in temporary families leaving the camps would receive up Lessons & Promising Practices shelters had to have their bus rides to USD$600 toward a new housing solution • HFH Honduras was able to leverage paid for by the project so they could in Amarateca Valley. HFH Honduras also five-fold the original funding available participate in the house construction. built a school to facilitate relocation of for the project through the negotiations Arrangements and administration of families with school-age children. of alliances and partnerships with several “sweat equity” consumed time and international agencies and the Honduran required a full-time staff. Implementation government. The result was an increased • The methodology through which After Hurricane Mitch, Honduras received number of families in the project and housing is granted to families in tremendous amounts of outside help and a level of subsidy (up to 60 percent) emergency projects should be analyzed economic and political aid. NGOs ran the applied to the housing solution. carefully. In this case, Project La Joya bulk of the housing sector reconstruction • The Amarateca Valley region was facilitated credit to affected families, process. The government had a role, but not prepared to accommodate the which caused problems for those that had the funds made the real entire population of more than seven HFH Honduras’ portfolio, even with decisions. The government was a side- housing projects being carried out almost 60 percent of the housing shadow player in rubber-stamping what simultaneously by NGOs (including solution already subsidized. A better NGOs planned and implemented. the La Joya project). Likewise, the city assessment of capacity to contribute of Tegucigalpa was neither financially financially by disaster-affected Project La Joya was a mix of construction nor technically prepared to fulfill its households needs to be part of project contract services (site development, in- administrative responsibilities toward design in other to determine realistic project infrastructure work), contracted the new settlements, although all of the capacity for repayment.

118 Earthquake Response, El Salvador

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n 2001 Earthquake Response, El Habitat for Humanity El Salvador Salvador Pa rt n e r s El Salvador Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n CARE International Permanent house construction and Local municipalities repairs Fu n d i n g Ye a r Habitat for Humanity International 2001-2002 S u b m i tte d by P ro j e c t t a rge t Cristina Pérez 1,000 affected families (619 new Coordinator houses and 381 house repairs) Housing Projects and Disaster Risk Management S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Habitat for Humanity El Salvador 34.8 square meters [email protected]

Summary In response to damage caused by two earthquakes, in 2001 Habitat for Humanity El Salvador designed a response to assist families with the construction of permanent housing and repairs of damaged ones, including those of Habitat homeowners. There were 1,000 construction projects that included strengthening capabilities in affected communities through community development training and a mutual help methodology. Additionally, Habitat El Salvador worked with CARE International and local municipal councils to develop a sanitation component.

Timeline to the Comité de Emergencia Nacional, • January 13, 2001 — A 7.6-magnitude 163,866 houses were declared inhabitable earthquake struck El Salvador, leaving (destroyed) and 107,787 houses were widespread destruction. damaged. Together, these represented • February 13, 2001 — A second approximately 25 percent of the houses in earthquake (6.6 magnitude) hit the same El Salvador. More than 1.6 million people areas. were affected, and the first earthquake • March-April 2001 — Damage alone caused US$1 billion in damage. More assessments conducted and response than 270,000 families were left without plan developed. shelter or were forced to live in substandard • July 2001 — Family selection and conditions. training began; construction followed. • July 2002 — Project finished. Project Overview Habitat for Humanity El Salvador designed Background a reconstruction program to assist residents El Salvador is the smallest country in in the eight provinces that were hardest hit: Central America, with an area of 21,041 Usulután, San Vicente, La Paz, Cabañas, square kilometers. It is regularly affected Santa Ana, San Salvador, Cuscatlán and by seismic activity because of the Cocoas Sonsonate. The program lasted one year and Caribbean tectonic plates. Because and had two main components: permanent of high population density and social and housing and repairs. Most of the affected economic conditions, the country is highly families came from houses built with adobe vulnerable. In January and February 2001, or bahareque, a combination of wood Family in front of their new Habitat home, two powerful earthquakes struck with sticks and mud, which sustained severe to under construction. devastating consequences. According complete damage. 119 Permanent houses for 619 families were maintenance of the latrines and other made of concrete block reinforced masonry. hygiene practices. Training sessions educated families in such subjects as mutual help, leadership, HFH El Salvador managed all of house community organization and proper use construction and repairs. Construction and maintenance of latrines. The program involved the participation of 60 international included loans payable in 10 to 15 years volunteers and more than 90 national to cover the direct costs of constructing volunteers, who worked alongside local permanent houses. contractors and family members. It is important to note that HFH El Salvador The repair component assisted 381 families applied new program skills learned after the from 15 communities through technical response to Hurricane Mitch, which affected assistance and repairs. Much of this work some of the same communities in late 1998, was targeted to current Habitat homeowners but it also had to learn new program design who had damaged walls and roofing tiles. methodologies. The engineering design of Habitat homes was modified to make new homes better resistant Lessons & Promising Practices to earthquakes. • The involvement of the local municipalities was very important because it helped in Implementation selecting and prioritizing the communities The program was implemented by HFH and facilitated the relationship with El Salvador, generating contacts with the local leaders. municipalities in order to prioritize the areas • Community organization was key that needed immediate attention or had in achieving success through active not been assisted by government programs. participation of families. Municipal governments provided venues for • Assessments and evaluation of damages training events, conducting meetings and were a challenge. This activity was new to to facilitate communication among HFH El Salvador staff and took place under community leaders. great pressure during a crisis. • HFH El Salvador designed the permanent The permanent housing component housing and the repair projects as a cost benefitted from an alliance with CARE recovery program; families were expected International to provide latrines. CARE to repay the direct costs. That limited the also organized training in the use and selection of families.

Right: A Habitat home stands amid damaged houses.

120 Santa Fé, Argentina

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Rebuilding Santa Fé, House by House, UN Development Program , Executive Santa Fé, Argentina Reconstruction Unit University of Buenos Aires, Association of Civil Argentina Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Micro-engineering, Baptist Church, Core house construction Free Brothers Church, Argentine Federation of Protestant Ye a r Churches, Adventist Disaster 2003-2004 Relief Agency, German Red Cross, Methodist Church, The Salvation Army P ro j e c t t a rge t 26 families Fu n d i n g HFHI, Marriott Hotel, local donations S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze 50 square meters S u b m i tte d by Erwin Garzona I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n DRR Manager Habitat for Humanity Argentina Latin America/Caribbean office HFHI [email protected]

Summary In April 2003, 30,000 families were left homeless from severe flooding in Santa Fé, in northeast Argentina. The communities were among the poorest population in this part of the country, which contributed to their vulnerability during a disaster, and the disaster exacerbated their situation. Habitat for Humanity Argentina responded by working with 26 families in the construction of core houses.

Timeline The Salado basin floods every decade. • April 22-24, 2003 — Salado River The Parana River contributes to the floods flooded Santa Fé. because it is a tributary of the Salado. • May 2003 — HFH Argentina responded. The floods were also caused by degraded • June 2004 — Project completed. soils in the basin from deforestation, erosion and intensive monoculture. Background The floods killed 23 people, damaged The Economic Commission for Latin 28,000 houses, closed 5,000 agricultural America and the Caribbean reported businesses, damaged 2 million hectares of in 2003 that the Santa Fé floods of 2003 agricultural land and cost US$1.5 million caused enormous damage to housing for reconstruction. infrastructure and urban services, which affected the economic strength of the city. Project Overview The first phase of HFH Argentina’s Santa Fé was already one of the poorest emergency response consisted of building cities in the country, with the worst housing six houses with the support of networks deficits in quantity and quality. A quarter in the area. Families with their own land of the population lived in precarious outside of flood risk zones received help. In settlements surrounded by dumps and addition, HFH Argentina sought technical contaminated streams. The location of assistance from the local university settlements on the banks of the Salado to improve the dangerous sanitation River and failures of a flood warning conditions of four houses. A rotating fund system contributed to the devastation. was established during this phase. Evacuation during flooding of Salado River. 121 During the second phase, HFH Argentina Donations and volunteer time were abundant. took into account the evaluation of the first Hotel Marriott donated lavatories, beds and phase, and worked with land granted by the rugs. These donations in money and products government. The Red Cross and the United covered the US$1,000 subsidy. Nations Development Program cooperated with HFH Argentina to construct 20 houses HFH Argentina had not built a single house for families that had been relocated to in Argentina at the time the disaster hit. In safe areas. less than three weeks, HFH Argentina had a voice in the crisis committee alongside Implementation the Red Cross, Salvation Army, Samaritan’s HFH Argentina worked with existing Purse, Civil Protection and government networks including NGOs and churches. A representatives. HFH Argentina’s choice of coordination group was established — five a small pilot project and the launching of a local volunteers and two hired technical local affiliate proved to be the biggest strength. experts. This group determined the details of HFH Argentina built six houses within 18 the first stage of the project to build six houses months after the disaster. HFHA’s Santa Fe and, in collaboration with other NGOs affiliate has served more than 250 families and churches: so far.

• Selected the families according to land Lessons & Promising Practices availability, needs and involvement with • After the Santa Fé program, HFH HFH Argentina’s proposal. Argentina was able to show concrete results • Coordinated and incorporated technical of its work in Argentina and was thus able aspects for house construction. to conduct an awareness campaign. • HFH Argentina now has an affiliate in Despite the families’ notable poverty, the Luján that conducts housing and NGOs and churches wanted to avoid training activities. ‘“donating’’ the houses, but at the same • The team responsible for the Santa time needed a humanitarian approach. Fé project was formed by volunteers Depending on the economic circumstances and Friends of HFH Argentina, a new of each family, a subsidy of up to US$1,000 experience that helped HFH Argentina to was created, as well as a 12-year loan with a design a team of volunteers and monthly fee of 50 pesos (20 percent of the strengthen the organization’s capacities minimum salary). This subsidy was paid off for disaster response. by donors (churches and individuals) during the first two years, and helped reduce the families’ monthly repayment fees during the life of the loan. This created a culture of regular donations and repayment.

122 Hurricane Ivan, Jamaica

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Fu n d i n g Hurricane Ivan Response Thornton, Habitat for Humanity International, Monchioneal, Port Antonio and Jersey Overseas Aid Commission, Manchester, Jamaica Adventist Jamaica Development and Relief Agency, Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Diageo Foundation Core houses and housing repairs Pa rt n e r s Ye a r Food for the Poor, Jamaica Red Cross, 2004-2010 Adventist Development and Relief Agency Jamaica P ro j e c t t a rge t 200 families Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n Results: 12 core houses, 98 house S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze repairs, materials packages training 290 square feet S u b m i tte d by I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Irvin Adonis HFH Jamaica Country Coordinator HFHI Latin America/Caribbean office [email protected]

Summary Hurricane Ivan, one of the worst tropical storms to be recorded in Jamaica, caused significant damage, left thousands of people homeless and killed about 17 people. The effects of the storm are still being felt, and the situation was exacerbated by other storms.

Timeline in Jamaica. Most of the severely affected • Sept. 10, 2004 — Hurricane Ivan coastal dwellers, south of the island, were passed southwest of Jamaica. extremely poor and many, especially • November-December 2004 — fishermen, lost their livelihood, as well as HFHI met with community-based their homes and possessions. organizations and local builders to coordinate long-term recovery. Project Overview • 2004-2006 — First interventions by Habitat for Humanity International HFH Jamaica and HFHI. supported local housing recovery efforts • 2008 — Follow up response (new by partnering with community-based housing) with HFHI and Food for organizations to serve 210 families in the Poor. five hard-hit villages. Habitat provided • 2010 — HFHI, ADRA Jamaica and funding and construction expertise, and Jamaica Red Cross launched a risk community groups selected participating reduction project. families and organized unskilled labor. Local contractors were hired by Habitat Background to source materials and supervise the Each year the Caribbean is threatened construction. Families received loans by the devastating storms of the Atlantic and subsidies based on their income; Hurricane season. Between 2000 and some of the poorest, whose housing 2008, 146 storm-related disasters were could not be repaired, received subsidized recorded in the region, an average of 16 290-square-foot starter homes built by per year. Jamaica has required disaster community labor. response attention almost annually. From Sept. 10-12, 2004, damaging winds and The work was consistent with HFHI’s core floods from Hurricane Ivan, a Category 5 principles, while working toward the goal storm, destroyed more than 8,000 houses of long-term sustainable development in

123 areas where there was no Habitat presence. primary roles were funding and technical Rehabilitation/repair and core unit housing support. ADRA and the Red Cross performed — a staged building approach beginning with community selection, and ADRA handled a core unit for immediate shelter — were the individual family selection, building and main components of the projects. project management. The Jamaica Red Cross’ role was as community trainer and Implementation project enumerator. This process covered three periods of response: After Hurricane Ivan, a follow up An estimated US$370,000 was spent on in 2008 by partner Food for The Poor, and a these projects. final intervention in 2010 in conjunction with ADRA Jamaica and the Jamaica Red Cross. Lessons & Promising Practices In 2004-2006, HFHI started the project • Habitat’s traditonal house-building with HFH Jamaica, then took on the entire systems and methodology do not always project after HFH Jamaica ceased operations. work after a disaster. Habitat’s duties included selection of families, • It is difficult to start a house repayment purchase of materials, the hiring of skilled system with disaster-affected families labor and project management. In 2008, because of loss of livelihoods. Habitat supplied the funds and some project • Inter-agency dynamics need to be oversight to Food for the Poor. In 2010, understood and all groups need to know projects with an emphasis on disaster risk what each is doing. reduction and preparedness were launched • The response to a disaster can continue under an agreement between HFHI, ADRA for years, even when the disaster is not Jamaica and the Jamaica Red Cross. HFHI’s recorded as a major event. Hurricane Ivan, Grenada

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Fu n d i n g Grenada Hurricane Recovery Program Habitat for Humanity International (Hurricane Ivan) United States Agency for International Development Grenada Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n House repairs Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n New house construction 30 houses rebuilt Community mobilization 20 repairs completed Organizational development 5 new houses built Supported 13 additional families in Ye a r finding funding 2004-2006 S u b m i tte d by P ro j e c t t a rge t Irvin Adonis 225 low-income Grenadian families Country Coordinator severely affected by the hurricane. HFHI Latin America/Caribbean office [email protected] S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Varied

I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Grenada Response, Recovery and Reconstruction Summary After Hurricane Ivan struck Grenada in September 2004, Habitat for Humanity International worked with a local partner to assist families, channeling funds, organizational development training and support for the quest of additional funding. The project focused on a common goal to bring organizations together, build awareness of resources and networks, and provide training and support to a wider body of organizations participating in housing assistance after the disaster.

Timeline Heavy losses in agriculture, tourism • September 2004 — Hurricane Ivan infrastructure, power and communication struck Grenada. lines compounded the situation. • October 2004 —Habitat team, including Approximately 90 percent of the housing former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, stock was damaged or destroyed. visited the island to assess the need and meet with authorities. Project Overview • November 2004 — HFHI approved the Because Habitat for Humanity did not implementation of a three-month first- have a presence in Grenada, and because of phase intervention. organizational constraints on resources, the • January 2005 — Letter of intent signed HFHI Disaster Response office undertook with local partner; project began. a short-term disaster response program. • 2006 — Program ended with evaluation. HFHI identified a locally registered organization with which to partner to Background achieve specific goals: Grenada Relief, Hurricane Ivan, one of the most powerful Recovery and Reconstruction, a newly hurricanes to hit the Caribbean region in formed nonprofit organization that was the last 10 years, ravaged Grenada on Sept. established in response to the disaster. In 7, 2004. Heavy rain and winds of 220 kph the three-month first phase in Grenada, left behind destruction and despair on the HFHI stationed a staff member to identify three-island nation of 102,000 inhabitants. sources of funding for a hurricane Thirty-seven people died and most of the response program and to assess GR3 in population of Grenada was affected. Of order to define measures to increase its the six parishes, St. Andrew, St. David, St. organizational capacity and support for Mother and son inside their Georges and St. John were destroyed, and seeking additional funding. repaired home. destruction was striking in other parishes. 125 Implementation community mobilization in four of the main After the initial assessments and project Grenadian towns (St. Georges, St. John, St. development, HFHI and GR3 signed a letter David, and St. Andrew). of intent binding both to specific results. There were some issues around collaboration Lessons & Promising Practices and responsibilities on both parties, stemming • In the future, there needs to be clearer from a lack of detailed expectations, that communications on expectations when slowed implementation, mostly related to signing collaborative agreements between house repairs. organizations. Ensure that partners or potential partners, all department and staff HFHI provided funding to send HFHI know from the onset what is being offered staff to operate for six months in Grenada and have a consistent message. and covered consultation fees. Habitat • Have signed agreements with all parties also provided documentation for seeking with clear deliverables, and with every CBO funding with USAID as support to GR3 and and NGO under an umbrella body. other CBOs involved in the reconstruction • Be aware of the time and window of process. There were basic carpentry courses opportunity for making an impact after for families and training for other CBOs a disaster. and NGOs, including board development, • Consider staff availability for resource development, shelter program and placement, and consider skills and business design. competencies required. • Be aware of the local environment and who House under repair in St. Andrew. House design and program elements were is doing what. This would require early determined and estimates completed. placements, and current information on Families were selected and local workers local players and relationships must did the construction. In spite of some issues, be established. other CBOs and NGOs (aside from GR3) • Identify a person to do networking and got involved in the process of rebuilding. The relationship-building before disaster hits. second phase of the construction project was • Identify partners and engage them for curtailed because of lack of funding. A total of mitigation or capacity assessment, in 225 families were assisted with housing, from addition to response activities. repairs to construction of new housing and

126 Hurricane Stan, Guatemala

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Guatemala Response Program, Habitat for Humanity Guatemala Hurricane Stan Pa rt n e r s Guatemala Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n 200 local committees, House construction corporate and student national brigades Ye a r 2005-2006 Fu n d i n g $285,000 P ro j e c t t a rge t 100 families (700 people) S u b m i tte d by Jaime Mok S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze DRR National Coordinator 35.06 square meters, including a Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua bathroom [email protected]

Summary After Hurricane Stan in October 2005, at least 1,500 people were confirmed dead, and up to 3,000 were believed missing in Guatemala. A total of 5,515 houses were destroyed and 7,202 houses were damaged. One hundred houses were built in collaboration with HFH Guatemala staff, national and international volunteers and local committees.

Timeline Chimaltenango. A national fundraising • October 2005 — Hurricane Stan struck system was established. Despite the Mexico and Central America, difficulties of accessibility and local supply including Guatemala. of material, 100 houses were built. • November-December 2005 — Needs assessments conducted. Implementation • January 2006 — Construction began. A damage evaluation was carried out in the most affected departments. A system Background of funds was created at a national level Hurricane Stan was the 11th hurricane of via such organizations as Rotary Club, the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. Stan United Fund, Construction Chamber was a relatively weak storm that and individual donors. HFH Guatemala only briefly reached hurricane status. prioritized the families that would receive It was embedded in a larger non-tropical aid directly for home construction, and system of rainstorms that dropped then built the houses. In addition, the torrential rains in the Central American families and hundreds of volunteers made a countries of Guatemala and El Salvador huge contribution. and in southern Mexico, causing flooding and mudslides that led to 1,628 fatalities, Difficulties the project faced included: 93 percent of them in Guatemala. The • Access to main roads was obstructed by damage in Guatemala was estimated at landslides and mudslides, which delayed US$988 million. the response. • The local supply of materials was Project Overview affected, which caused delayed the After evaluating the damage, HFH construction and raised the cost of Guatemala focused on Sololá and construction materials. Before and after Hurricane Stan. 127 • Lack of suitable sites for the construction. a few stayed to solve the most serious In some cases HFH Guatemala had to problems caused by the hurricane. improve and mitigate the conditions in • Coordination of the response efforts with order to make construction easier. the actual government system CONRED and the humanitarian network is Lessons & Promising Practices highly recommended. • New alliances with organizations that • Because the region is so vulnerable, it financed the construction were established. should be a priority to create a HFH • During the emergency, several institutions Guatemala Disaster Response department. participated that wanted to support in other • Disaster response should be based on the areas. However, in the transition from the guidelines of the Sphere Manual. Habitat homeowner Regina emergency response to rebuilding, only Tesawic and her son, Rudy.

128 KATA Project, HAITI

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n HFH KATA (Konbit AK Tet Ansamn) — HFH Haiti Building and Training Centers project, Cape Haitian, Gonaives and Cabaret, Pa rt n e r s Haiti Haiti CHF Haiti

Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Fu n d i n g Technical and vocational training, job CHF International via creation and micro-small enterprise USAID-funded program funding and support; repairs, home Habitat for Humanity International improvements; shelter assistance to disaster-affected populations Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n Skills training and job placement Ye a r program in three Haitian 2006–2011 locations

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by More than 900 people targeted Jessica Houghton for skills training; disaster-affected Disaster Response Support residents received help with repairs Latin American/Caribbean office and shelter materials; supported HFHI response after the January 2010 [email protected] earthquake

Summary The KATA project was designed to further stability in Haiti by stimulating employment and supporting sustainable livelihoods in highly vulnerable areas: the cities of Cap Haitian (north Haiti), Gonaives and Cabaret (near Port-au-Prince). The work spanned several years and was an asset for the Haiti earthquake response in 2010.

Timeline highly vulnerable areas. This project • 2006 — HFH Haiti and CHF established required the development of networks with collaborative agreement non-governmental organizations working • 2007 — First Habitat Resource Center in Haiti. Therefore, CHF International established in Gonaives. collaborated with Habitat for Humanity • 2008 — Tropical storms cause mudflows International Haiti to build construction in Gonaives. Graduates of the HRC in skills and capacities, create and support Gonaives assisted families with small micro-small enterprises and help secure repairs and distribution of long-term employment for the participants. shelter materials. • 2009 — HRCs in Cape Haitian and Project Overview Cabaret established. The project focused on vocational-style • 2010 — Devastating earthquake strikes training in workshop fabrication, carpentry, Port-au-Prince in January. Graduates of concrete work and masonry, arc welding all HRCs assist with HFH Haiti and quality control. response projects. These skills were lacking in the Haitian Background construction market, thus the program In 2006, CHF International Haiti secured focused on training residents to be qualified a four-year USAID funded program for employment. Classes were conducted in Haiti — Konbit Ak Tet Ansamn — in Building and Training Centers, which which is the Haitian principle of working are a version of the Habitat Resource together to accomplish a common goal. Center concept. These were initially This was achieved through job creation, located in Gonaives and Cap Haitian, Mistral Vernet, left, and Evens Jean-Saint graduates of Habitat for Humanity Haiti’s promoting conflict mitigation and and later in Cabaret. construction training program improving the livelihood of people in in Gonaïves. 129 In 2010, the final year of the program, a Lessons & Promising Practices result from crises or unforeseen massive 7.0 earthquake hit Haiti. CHF • The KATA project approach is disasters, which occurred with the and HFH Haiti changed the focus of the appropriate for building human January 2010 earthquake. program to also include a response to the capacity, particularly for youth in highly families and communities affected by the vulnerable areas prone to conflict, Further support for trained and earthquake. The emphasis was now to and can be a tool to promote peace unemployed HFH beneficiaries via: direct trainees to some of the areas most and stability through training and affected, join agencies implementing shelter employment. • Employment in HFH’s disaster response, and still meet the mandate of • New training programs serve as a catalyst response and permanent housing securing employment. for sustainable long-term development construction projects for individuals and their communities. • Provision of essential tool kits for Implementation For example, the new plastering contract-competition and MSE startups The project began with a housing value technology in canal construction in • Job/construction fairs for trainees and chain analysis. This was followed by the Gonaives was a valuable innovation potential employers establishment of training centers and for the community. Similarly, the new • Job-search training and placement delivery of training material aimed at block making techniques added value to support developing the business and technical techniques in housing construction. • Prevent extended program disruptions skills of micro-small enterprises. Training • Providing scholarships to trainees is an by: in construction skills was provided to effective form of assistance, considering • Contingency and continuity of vulnerable persons, particularly women the poverty level in Haiti. operations plan so organization’s and youth, so they could compete for jobs. • Because of the economic and social overall resources and management conditions in Haiti, training alone is not attention are redirected to emergency Next came development of micro-small enough to close the gap in the low- response. enterprises through training and practical income housing value chain. • A well developed monitoring and activities to help create awareness and job • The lack of monitoring and evaluation evaluation framework and project opportunities for trained people in their capacity of the program resulted in tracker implemented from onset of communities. A total of 913 individuals poor quality of data, data gathering, future projects with adequate system were trained, including women and youth measurement, recording and reporting. training. living in highly vulnerable areas. This caused problems in tracking and • Annual learning review evaluations reporting long-term jobs the by project staff and headquarters The project helped the creation of 21 new trainees found. monitoring and evaluation unit for micro-small enterprises and supported • A tangible impact for a similar project continual improvement. 32 others. An additional 101 micro- requires effective partnerships and • Greater gender mainstreaming efforts small enterprises received business collaboration between stakeholders; at HFHI to increase participation of development training. Training programs this was apparent among the NGO women in construction training and were established in collaboration with stakeholders that implemented the BTC/ trades, and focus groups. existing micro-small enterprises, linking micro-small enterprise activities. Better • Improved program to strengthen and strengthening the main business links with employers and partnerships micro-small enterprises. stakeholders in those communities’ with the private sector are likely to construction field (service providers, improve results. materials suppliers and BTC trainees with • To prevent delays, management market opportunities). needs to prepare for disruptions that

130 Auhya Pihni, Nicaragua

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Auhya Pihni Village The Moravian Church Autonomous Region of the Atlantic Red de Vivienda Coast, Nicaragua HABITAR Nicaragua

Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Fu n d i n g New house construction, on-site Habitat for Humanity International reconstruction American-Nicaraguan Foundation

Ye a r Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n 2007-2008 Indigenous community, highly organized P ro j e c t t a rge t 150 families (950 people) S u b m i tte d by Mario Flores S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Director 30 square meters Disaster Response Field Operations HFHI I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n [email protected] Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua

Summary The Auhya Pihni community was ravaged in September 2007 by a powerful hurricane, leaving most of its 150 families homeless and in a state of shock. Relief agencies provided emergency shelter in order to prevent displacement. Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua, in collaboration with partners, devised a participatory methodology to design and build new homes that integrate mitigation elements while respecting local culture and customs of the indigenous Miskito population. A total of 150 homes were built.

Timeline services, cutting off communication. More • September 2007 — Hurricane Felix than 160 people were killed and 600 were hit Auhya Pihni. reported missing. In a region already • October 2007 — Meetings conducted characterized by dire poverty and a with residents and Council of Elders to fragile socio-economic infrastructure, agree on housing project, community about 7,895 houses were destroyed. commitments, house designs and Affected communities included smaller priorities in family selection. indigenous settlements such as Auhya • November 2007 — Initial funding Pihni, where all houses were obliterated. secured. Given the extent of the damage in the • December 2007 — Survey and area, on Sept. 5 the government declared a enumeration of families. Materials national state of calamity. salvaged, negotiations on timber supply by community finalized. Project Overview • February 2008 — Construction began. Auhya Pihni is a settlement located 55 km • September 2008 —Project dedicated. northwest of Puerto Cabezas, comprising indigenous Miskito people whose Background inhabitants frequently survive on unstable, On Sept. 4, 2007, Hurricane Felix, a sporadic sources of income. Many of these Category 5 storm, hit the autonomous families were already living in extreme region of the Atlantic Coast on northeast poverty. The Auhya Pihni community Nicaragua with sustained winds of 260 was selected based on surveys conducted kmh, causing widespread devastation. In by a group of Nicaraguan NGOs and

Top: : Plastic sheeting protects a roof. the provincial capital city of Bilwi (also meetings with local authorities, influential known as Puerto Cabezas), the hurricane Moravian Church leaders and local Miskito Below: New Habitat home in Auhya Pihni. caused severe damage to houses and community elders. 131 The project included the physical layout labor aspects (schedules, resistance to certain of the settlement, the construction of 150 tasks, etc.). The contribution of the Moravian houses and a training and capacity-building Church representatives was key to solving component for community leaders and work most of these issues. crews in carpentry skills. The house design followed a culturally appropriate pattern and Notwithstanding those problems, the project used familiar materials (timber for most of was completed and dedicated just before the the house and corrugated galvanized sheeting first anniversary of Hurricane Felix, a fact the for the roof). The design included mitigation community considered a success. features such as building the houses on stilts to reduce the risk of flooding, the use of metal Lessons & Promising Practices straps to reinforce connections of wooden • A pre-established level of organization elements, and a strong structure. The design between communities and hierarchical and size was decided on with the community structures can be leveraged for the representatives with assistance from architects benefit of the project. Understanding the from HABITAR, another local NGO. dynamics of community governance and relationship with local authorities and Implementation other stakeholders was key for securing Habitat for Humanity International provided community participation. US$150,000, Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua • It is important to recognize and be aware US$30,000 and the American-Nicaraguan of cultural and language barriers with Foundation, US$120,000. the target population in order to have intervention methods prepared in advance: Residents of the community were hired to Use of ethnic language interpreters, leader supplement skilled workers (carpenters) from orientation techniques, knowledge-transfer Bilwi and other towns. A processing center and community training methodologies. for timber was set up in the community, • Having an ally (the Moravian Church) to and residents were hired to help produce mediate with the community proved key construction elements (posts, wood frames, to solving implementation issues. The fact rafters, etc.), which set the stage to transfer that the church was respected and seen as skills to local labor. The Moravian Church part of the community helped to legitimize provided power tools and community-owned the introduction of labor agreements timber processing equipment was used. between Habitat and the families. Habitat Nicaragua started a public awareness • The reconstruction project was an program on risk reduction, training and opportunity to introduce an improved, knowledge-building for families involved more orderly layout and territorial in construction. Two brigades of volunteers organization for the Auhya Pihni from Costa Rica and the United States settlement. assisted for several weeks. • The use of locally known, familiar construction materials facilitated the The projects faced some difficulties at the process of skills transfer from skilled beginning: lack of reliable electricity supply, carpenters to residents working in language barriers that required interpreters, timber processing. and misunderstandings/disagreements on

132 Newen Ñeque Project, Chile

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Newen Ñeque for Chile Project, Chile Habitat for Humanity Chile Earthquake Response Pa rt n e r s Chile Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Several local NGOs Distribution of non-food items, transitional housing, repairs, training, Fu n d i n g construction technical assistance Habitat for Humanity International

Ye a r Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n 2010-2012 Local and international volunteers participated in reconstruction P ro j e c t t a rge t 2,082 households in 20 villages S u b m i tte d by Scarlett Lizana Fernandez S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Director of Construction 21-27 square meters Habitat for Humanity Chile [email protected]

Summary Habitat for Humanity Chile launched the Newen Ñeque para Chile (translated from the indigenous Mapuche language as “physical and spiritual force for Chile”) project after a devastating earthquake in February 2010. The project served 2,082 families with shelter in more than 20 vulnerable communities, particularly in locations that fell under the radar of government assistance.

Timeline • January-March 2011 — Disaster risk • Feb. 27, 2010 — A powerful earthquake reduction training held for more than measuring 8.8 on the Richter scale 180 community leaders representing hit central Chile. A tsunami ensued, dozens of villages. compounding the devastation of cities, • March-June 2012 — HFH Chile towns and villages along the worked with committees for the Pacific coastline. involvement of grassroots communities • March 2010 — HFH Argentina lent a in disaster preparedness and prevention, group of volunteers, including engineers, participating in a national network of architects, social workers and disaster civil society organizations. relief coordinators, to assist with rapid assessments in areas where HFH Chile Background was involved. The earthquake and tsunami that affected • March 2010 — HFH Chile began central Chile in February 2010 killed 525 distribution of emergency shelter kits. people, left 800,000 people homeless and • May-September 2010 — Habitat Chile destroyed 220,000 homes; 150,000 were and partner families built transitional damaged. Although the response by the housing, a core unit of varying sizes. government was swift, initially the main • June 2010 — Skills training program focus of reconstruction was on major began, with a focus on training infrastructure, particularly transportation- women in masonry construction and related. Many small, isolated and vulnerable construction safety. At the same time, communities were overlooked, and these community leaders were trained in became the focus of HFH Chile’s assistance. organizational development and skills. Habitat staff work on a house in Curepto, Chile. 133 Project Overview habitability of homes, and other community Shelter-support interventions covered needs. Communities measured the dimension emergency shelter assistance, primarily of the problems they faced and established the distribution of shelter kits and construction basis for a community organizational process tools. For the recovery phase, survey teams geared toward participation in the planning coordinated by HFH Chile focused on and implementation of reconstruction selecting communities and coordinating with activities. It is important to highlight the local leaders. The project had four high level of participation of women heads of main components. households in the project, because they were 1. Construction technical assistance: an important majority in most communities. Included damage and safety assessments Participation of local volunteers (students of houses, feasibility analysis, design from the Catholic university among others) and budget preparation for repairs, and and international brigades (such as Delta Air technical and legal support to families that Lines’ Force for Global Good) were also key were applying for the government players during the implementation phase. subsidy program. 2. Training: Consisted of training and Lessons & Promising Practices skills transfer in several tracks, such • HFH Chile went through a fast track as construction skills (masonry and learn-as-you-go experience in responding carpentry), construction safety, disaster to disaster-created shelter needs. A disaster preparedness and organizational response training held just two months development and leadership for before the earthquake provided key community representatives. response protocols and concepts. Since 3. Construction: Included construction of the earthquake, HFH Chile recognized core housing, pre-fab transitional housing that more investment in organizational and repairs and expansion of damaged preparedness and business continuity is homes to meet government safety standards needed in order to better address relating to seismic, thermal, ventilation and major emergencies. fire prevention. • The earthquake inevitably generated a 4. Risk reduction planning: Included sharp increase in the price of construction work to help communities create plans for materials and skilled labor because of disaster preparedness and coordination high demand for both. When budgeting, with early warning systems (tsunami), it is important to include this element in close collaboration with the Chilean of uncertainty as a contingency in National Office for Emergencies at the reconstruction projects. Ministry of the Interior. • Involvement of local and international brigades of volunteers was important to Implementation the project. A well-rounded volunteer HFH Chile identified families and management structure is important. households with the most need in 20 • HFH Chile’s national visibility was affected communities (Puerto Saavedra, enhanced by its participation in the Tirύa, Talcahuano, Lota, Coronel, Los earthquake response. It is now recognized Ángeles, Cauquenes, Curepto, Villa Pratt, and has been validated as a valuable player Rio Claro, Peralillo, Los Mayos, Rinconada in disaster preparedness and response de Cáceres, Molineros, San Vicente, Malloa, issues related to shelter and housing. Pichidegua, Requinoa, Paine and El Monte) • The response allowed HFH Chile to through preliminary surveys. Residents consolidate a technical team with expertise became involved in subsequent surveys and in disaster assessment and technical enumerations to determine damage and assistance to communities.

134 Emergency Shelter Kits, Haiti

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Emergency Shelter Kits for Haiti Assembly of kits: Habitat for Earthquake Response, Port-au-Prince Humanity Dominican Republic, metropolitan area, Haiti Habitat for Humanity International; Haiti Distribution: Adventist Development Ye a r and Relief Agency, CARE, International 2010 Development & Aid, International Rescue Committee, International Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Action Ties, Save the Children, Yele Emergency shelter assistance, Haiti Foundation Inc., Première distribution of shelter items Urgence, All Hands Volunteers and Lott Carey P ro j e c t t a rge t More than 28,000 earthquake- Fu n d i n g affected households Habitat for Humanity International, American Red Cross, Clinton-Bush I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Haiti Fund, United Nations Office for Habitat for Humanity Haiti the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs — Emergency Relief and Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n Response Fund,Habitat for Humanity First large-scale distribution program Germany through Humedica by Habitat for Humanity Internationale Hilfe with funding from the German Federal Foreign Office, CARE

S u b m i tte d by Mike Meaney Associate Director Disaster Response Field Operations HFHI [email protected]

Summary On Jan. 12, 2010, a devastating earthquake struck Haiti, displacing more than 2 million people, destroying an estimated 105,000 homes and damaging 85,000 homes. In response, Habitat for Humanity committed to a multi-phase disaster recovery strategy that included emergency shelters, transitional housing and long-term, permanent housing. In February 2010, HFH launched the first phase of this strategy, an aggressive program focused on addressing the immediate shelter crisis by providing more than 28,000 emergency shelter kits to earthquake- affected families.

Timeline Background • Jan. 12, 2010 — Earthquake hit Port- This was Habitat’s largest disaster response au-Prince metropolitan area and distribution program. Although shelter surrounding towns. kits have been used many times in the past, • Early February 2010 — A shelter strategy the scale and the logistics involved yielded for emergency assistance to support a wealth of knowledge and challenges. earthquake survivors was planned at the Emergency shelter kits are becoming a IASC Emergency Shelter Cluster. core solution in disaster-prone countries • Mid February 2010 — First emergency where Habitat works in Asia/Pacific, Latin shelter kits distributed. America, Central America and recently, • March 2010 — Distributions scaled up Eastern Europe. through partnership agreements with other agencies. Project Overview • August 2010 — Program closed. In February 2010, Habitat’s first phase • November 2010 — Pre-positioned, focused on the immediate crisis by stocked emergency shelter kits assembling and distributing emergency distributed by HFH Haiti to families shelter kits. These kits were designed affected by Hurricane Thomas. to help families construct temporary Emergency shelter kits sent to Haiti. emergency shelter or make immediate 135 136 repairs to their homes, if possible. Habitat sent to the central warehouse were given to chose the contents of the kits in consultation partners (or later stockpiled to address new with guidelines from the United States Agency response needs; for example, after Hurricane for International Development’s Disaster Thomas). The kits that went directly to Assistance Response Team and the IASC partners were allocated to beneficiary cluster coordination mechanism (Emergency communities and scheduled for distribution. Shelter Cluster), which identified priority items after rapid assessments were conducted. Lessons & Promising Practices Preparedness: A local program must be Implementation prepared if it is to distribute non-food items The first kits were assembled by HFH to families when they are most needed. This Dominican Republic and brought overland to should include designing context-specific kit Haiti (the main Haitian seaport and airport content, identifying vendors and suppliers, were shut down because of earthquake planning distribution options and partners, damage). Distribution took place in Léogâne creating donor relationships to facilitate the in partnership with CARE. The kits speed of response, and the consideration of initially were to be taken to another camp; stockpiling material in strategic areas of however, the size of that camp tripled high risk. overnight, so HFH Haiti did not have enough kits to serve all the families and Program development: It is critical to had to select another location. target the criteria to the most vulnerable and ensure that is it a positive step toward a The next round of kits were assembled and pathway to permanence. shipped from the United States. These went to the central HFH Haiti warehouse or the Use options: Non-food items and ESKs have storage areas of partner organizations. Those multiple uses, depending on the content and

Facing page: Volunteers assembled more than 13,000 emergency shelter kits for Haitians left homeless by the 2010 earthquake. The kits were assembled at a Whirlpool distribution center outside Atlanta, Georgia, and delivered to Haiti.

Left: Emergency shelter kits ready for distribution in Carrefour, Haiti.

137 context. Program design should take this into relationship with partner organizations and consideration, especially to alert donors to the donors. Habitat’s increased visibility and multiple uses. We have seen kits used to build credibility is crucial for continued dialogue emergency shelters, to repair homes, to restart and contribution for the longer-term livelihoods and to clean homes after flooding. rebuilding processes.

Partnerships: Partnerships are a critical Resource development: Given the early element. This includes logistical support response interventions of ESKs, donors from cluster partners and assistance in should be chosen carefully to ensure they navigating customs and moving significant understand that the context and needs might quantities from ports to beneficiaries. In change rapidly. Careful review of contractual Haiti, this included a partnership with the obligations should be taken seriously before United Nations to use helicopters to reach accepting funding. inaccessible mountainous areas. Partners also helped to identify beneficiaries. A key element Volunteer engagement: Many NFI programs was the ability to reach multiple locations are a positive opportunity to use the and for other NFIs to be added to the shelter contributions of volunteers. This occurred kits (such as hygiene and kitchen kits). It is at the stage of assembling the kits to important to note the role of community distributing them. committees and government agencies that are critical partners in ensuring that the Logistics: Depending on the quantity and interventions are coordinated and that the number of locations, challenges include mass most vulnerable families are reached. production, shipping, transport, customs security, and distribution. The more work that Engagement with community and sector: can be completed during the preparation stage Bringing a tangible shelter solution to a helps reduce the challenges that stem from disaster area allows Habitat to engage with the logistics after a disaster. community directly and strengthen HFH’s

Right: Workers unload and distribute Habitat emergency shelter kits in Haiti.

138 Transitional Shelters, Haiti

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Transitional and upgradable shelters Habitat for Humanity Haiti in Cabaret, Léogâne and Port-au- Prince, Haiti Fu n d i n g Haiti USAID Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n United Nations Emergency Relief Transitional and upgradable shelters Response Fund Catholic Relief Services Ye a r American Red Cross 2010-2011 United Methodist Committee on Relief African American Baptist Mission P ro j e c t t a rge t Collaboration 3,665 families S u b m i tte d by S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Mike Meany 18.5 to 23.5 square meters Associate Director Disaster Response Field Operations HFHI [email protected]

Summary In response to the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, Habitat for Humanity deployed a range of solutions. Transitional shelters were used for families who were able to remain on their land but needed shelter while they rebuilt, and for families who had access to short-term land. For families that had “secure enough” tenure, upgradable shelters were built and were designed with a structural foundation allowing full masonry walls to be built later.

Timeline 300,000 were injured and 1 million left • January 2010 — Earthquake that homeless. The government estimated that measured 7.0 on the Richter scale 250,000 residences and 30,000 commercial struck Haiti. buildings collapsed or were severely • January 2010 — Habitat for Humanity damaged. Complicating factors included sent emergency shelter kits to land tenure issues, and the upcoming rainy displaced families. season and hurricane season. • March 2010 — Habitat secured funding for transitional shelters. The Habitat for Humanity shelter program • March 2010 — 475 t-shelters delivered aimed to take into consideration the to Léogâne. different circumstances in which families • April 2010 — 440 t-shelters delivered found themselves, and their options about to Cabaret. the future. Several designs were developed • September 2010 — 1,750 upgradable to address the level of land security/tenure shelters delivered to Léogâne. families had. • October 2010 — 1,000 t-shelters delivered to Cabaret and Port-au-Prince. In the three locations where shelter programs where run, Habitat Resource Background Centers were established for community The earthquake on Jan. 12, 2010, was development, fabrication and a catastrophic magnitude 7.0, with an monitoring purposes. epicenter near the town of Léogâne, approximately 25 km west of Port-au- Project Overview Prince, Haiti’s capital. An estimated 3 Habitat for Humanity had been working

A worker helps to build the first 10 Habitat million people were affected by the quake. in the community of Cabaret for 10 for Humanity transitional shelters in The Haitian government reported that years before the earthquake. The Habitat Léogâne, in the Kada neighborhood. an estimated 316,000 people were killed, homes were not damaged during the 139 earthquake, but the rest of the community established by Habitat, and community was significantly affected. Léogâne and committees identified vulnerability criteria. Port-au-Prince were two new work areas for Family applicants were identified and Habitat, and Habitat Resource Centers were prioritized by the committees. established. A critical element of the HRC included a As a member of the Strategic Advisory Group fabrication unit in each location. This allowed and a Technical Working Group member for the pre-cutting and fabrication of key of the Inter Agency Standing Committee elements of the shelters in order to ensure Shelter Cluster, HFHI participated in the quality and increase the speed of assembly of development of minimum standards for shelter units. transitional shelters to be delivered by agencies in Haiti. These standards were based Where possible and when land security upon the hazards that exist in Haiti, the allowed, an upgradable shelter was provided, technical solutions to withstand these hazards, and in other areas, a shelter that could be and the international minimum standards for relocated, reused or recycled was provided. humanitarian response. This is central to Habitat’s pathways to permanence approach. The geographical locations of work were selected in cooperation with the Shelter Implementation Cluster and based on the need and the funded Three locations had fabrication units: Cabaret, projects that were allocated to the areas. Port-au-Prince and Léogâne. In Cabaret, a facility that was already owned by Habitat Community engagement was a priority. was repurposed to construct shelter elements, Vulnerability was a key factor in prioritizing including windows, doors and pre-cut wood. families to be assisted. Base criteria were In Port-au-Prince, the fabrication unit was

Right: A Habitat transitional shelter in Cabaret, Haiti.

140 established at the central warehouse to reduce families in Haiti, because of the heat inside logistics costs. In Léogâne, Habitat partnered shelters during the day. Although the with a number of other organizations families do not like the heat and shadows to establish a joint logistics base, which created by the plastic material, the material produced paneled units and metal work for is a first step toward enabling the families to the upgradable shelters. Delivery schedules upgrade their living space using their own were established for families. Deliveries took capacities and resources. place daily and families signed for the shelter 2. Transitional shelter (upgradable): In its elements that they received. initial state, the shelter is already a very solid starter home with 18.5 square meters Contractors with a number of construction of enclosed space, a 5-square meter teams were given shelters to build. After porch, pressure-treated plywood walls, training in key disaster risk reduction and a concrete perimeter foundation and quality control issues, they went out to build corrugated metal roof. The structural the shelters. Quality control was monitored foundation, including rebar, is designed to and incremental training sessions took place hold full masonry walls. with teams to improve quality. Contractors were paid bi-weekly after the supervising Lessons & Promising Practices engineer signed a shelter sign-off sheet. • Continuous improvement: Each shelter design went through a number of Two basic designs of transitional shelters changes based on feedback from the were used: construction teams and families. While 1. Transitional shelter (recyclable): Habitat’s this was challenging from a procurement transitional shelter has 18.5 square meters perspective, it allowed for experience to of covered space, including the porch. determine the incremental improvement The porch is an important living area for of such items as foundations, increased

Left: Islande Isnardin, 32, lives with her husband and two small children, including son Silvenson, who is almost 2, in a transitional shelter built by Habitat in Cabaret, Haiti.

141 protection for flooding and wind load, and and logistics difficult, it is the right thing to build-ability. do. Supporting a family with an upgradable • Supply chain: In such a large project with shelter on unsecured land leaves the constant time constraints and a difficult family without either land or shelter if logistics environment (lack of vendors, they are evicted. Matching the shelter lack of supply options, island and import to best support the family’s pathway to environment), the supply chain was a permanence should be considered with the constant challenge. Navigating a difficult program design. customs environment, vendors would • Budget items: Inflation needs to be accept orders and then prioritize another incorporated into the budget, and if customer, and the huge demand for raw possible the unit cost of critical material materials (sand and gravel) was challenging. supplies should be explained to the donor. It was critical to have solid vendor Inflation was significantly higher than A transitional shelter relationships, safety stock supplies and a expected. Also don’t forget to include the under construction. final bill of quantities as early as possible. cost of security, fuel, surge labor, fabrication • Shelter types to support families’ situation setup, backup power supply and meals at and pathways to permanence: While the the fabrication unit to encourage timely number of designs can make procurement return to work. Enumeration Project, Simon Pele, Haiti

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n O t h e r I m pl e m e n t i n g Pa rt n e r s Community-based enumeration, Mairie of Delmas, the Simon Pele Simon-Pele, Port-au-Prince, Haiti Community and Council; SODADE; Councils of Community-Driven Haiti Ye a r Development Projects through 2010-2012 ongoing engagement of UNITES; Rayjon Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Urban disaster response, community- Fu n d i n g based enumeration and community HFHI, United Nations, Canadian contracting for public works; International Development Agency, transitional shelters Catholic Relief Services, United States Agency for International S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Development/Office of Foreign 18.5 square meters for t-shelters Disaster Assistance

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by 6,000+ urban households Mike Meaney Associate Director I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Disaster Response Field Operations Habitat for Humanity Haiti HFHI [email protected]

Summary Over the last 28 years in Haiti, Habitat for Humanity has concentrated its efforts in the rural communities of the country. Following the January 2010 earthquake, the capital Port-au- Prince was significantly damaged. Working in the informal settlements of this dense urban environment, specifically Simon Pele, required a different methodology and approach. HFHI took the approach of community-based enumeration.

Timeline Supporting the government’s action plan • October 2010 — Habitat committed to for national recovery and development work in Port-au-Prince and selected the of Haiti, Habitat’s neighborhood community of Simon Pele. development approach encompasses a • January 2011 — Community based range of interventions that directly serve enumeration project launched. families and strengthen the systems that • April 2011 — Community action help families find the services they need to plan developed. rebuild stronger and safer communities. • May 2011-June 2012 — Implementation HFH’s program interventions are of the community action plan, including community-based and operate out of community contracting for critical Habitat Resource Centers. HRCs are used infrastructure repairs, transitional shelter as catalysts to encourage communities to building, repairs, retrofits; catalyst for become sustainable and successful through inviting partners into the community their own efforts and to strengthen the low- income housing sector. Background On Jan. 12, 2010, an earthquake measuring Project Overview 7.0 on the Richter scale struck 10 miles The area called Simon Pele, an informal west of Port-au-Prince. In October 2010, settlement, densely populated with Habitat for Humanity committed to approximately 30,000 people, was selected developing a Habitat Resource Center in as the target community. The project was Simon Pele, an informal community of financially supported by UN-Habitat and around 26,000 people that borders CIDA, and Habitat for Humanity Canada Cite Soleil. was able to mobilize the community. Children in Simon Pele, a neighborhood in Port-au-Prince, Haiti. 143 • Trained 30 engineers to conduct Moving forward, HFH Haiti secured further damage assessments. funding for more community engagement • Conducted 625 damage assessments giving and contracting, infrastructure projects and guidance to families on house repairs. house repairs/retrofits. • Hired 40 enumerators from the community (65 percent women). Implementation • Conducted more than 6,500 household Community-based enumeration is a process surveys. that involves mobilizing the community to • Mapped 2,700 houses and land boundaries. collect data about itself and use it to develop a • Established a community database with community action plan. The entire process is linked maps. participatory, from inception through design, • Created 36 detailed maps of the management and implementation, to analysis community representing different topics, and use of the data. As a community-based including: security risk (for men and process, it is possible to gain transparency and women); community capacities; critical trust; improve the data gathering; empower infrastructure; flooding risk; fire risk; etc. the community and ensure that all segments • Established a community action plan. of vulnerable groups are included. In Haiti, • Set up four community contracts that are this was the best way to ensure security for the managed by a community committee staff and reduce risks to the project to address critical issues identified, including street lighting; health clinic; The process of community-based water kiosk improvements. enumeration includes: 1. Building a team: A local enumeration

Right and facing page: During the enumeration project in Simon Pele, residents planned and carried out the survey, which gave it greater credibility.

144 team is selected through engagement 5. Household survey: Each household with community representatives, CBOs is surveyed, and staff members begin to and camp committees. This team is assess and compile the data. A verification comprised of members of the target process enables areas of disagreement to community, local authorities, academics, be identified and mediated by community and support professionals. members. Detailed documentation 2. Rough mapping: The enumeration team (graphs, charts and narratives) is prepared meets with local community leaders and by the support organization and given to city officials to “rough map” the settlement, the community, city officials and other identifying toilets, water taps, public stakeholders. This data is used by the services and transportation systems. This settlement in future negotiations exercise provides a general sense of issues to for resources. be addressed by the enumeration process, 6. Household mapping: Using clipboards, and informs the preparation pencils, tape measures, and GPS units, of a questionnaire. enumerators create a qualitative and 3. Training: Community members build quantitative map of their settlement. their skills and capacity to complete the Their work is twofold: to survey each survey form by conducting a trial run in a household, and to number and measure sample section of the settlement. every structure. This information-gathering 4. Launch: The enumeration exercise is underpins the development of a launched at a public ceremony. Ministers, physical and narrative picture of mayors and local leaders are in attendance community-level challenges. to add political credibility. 7. Community mapping: Community

145 mapping sessions further develop the initial Lessons & Promising Practices rough mappings of the neighborhood. • This is a time-intensive process toward a Focus remains on the big-picture elements long-term strategy. of physical mapping, such as the mapping • Many of the results from this process of social services and water and sanitation are not the traditional ones measured facilities. Several versions of community by Habitat. However, the outcomes have mapping take place, creating a more impact and can be measured. comprehensive view of the neighborhood, • Institutional donors like this type of and different versions of a community programming. map will be produced that highlight • Security issues can stop the process, but the different key themes within the community. strong community relationship can keep Each map can be laid over each other as things moving. required to build up a fuller picture of the • Being embedded in the community with a neighborhood as a whole. Habitat Resource Centre is critical. 8. Community master planning: Elements • There are lots of “community of the household and the cadastral survey representatives,” and navigating their are combined with the community agendas and influences is difficult. mapping in order to provide a more • Building a relationship as a facilitator — not in-depth and comprehensive view of the aid provider — takes time. neighborhood. From these elements the • Technology is a great asset. However, we community makes informed decisions on have a knowledge gap in GIS systems. what is needed and desired, how these can • Establishing who owns and has access to be prioritized, and what can be sacrificed. the data is important. Through further community workshops, • Establishing common methodologies and this is worked into a master plan developed data collection tools between partners by the community. and other NGOs/CBOs running similar 9. Report back: The results of the projects is important. enumeration are tabulated and presented • Cross-cutting issues, such as land tenure to the community in a validation event and rubble removal, need to be addressed designed to test whether the results seem in the program design and a plausible to community members, as well community/Habitat position identified as to cement relationships with politicians, before project implementation. etc., initiated during the launch event. 10. Action plan: The main goal of this process is to get to a position in which residents have an action plan that has been developed through their participation. This allows them to advocate for their rights, invite investments into their community, and in many cases use their skills and capacities to address issues identified.

146 Santo Community Project, Léogâne, Haiti

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Santo Community Project, Léogâne, Habitat for Humanity Haiti Haiti Fu n d i n g Haiti Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Multilateral Investment Fund of the Permanent core houses in a greenfield Inter-American Development Bank, development Samenwerkende Hulporganisaties Cordaid, SAP AG, African-American Ye a r Baptist Mission Collaboration, Lott 2011-present Carey , Minuto de Dios, Urban Zen Foundation, New York City Housing P ro j e c t t a rge t Authority, Habitat for Humanity Great 500 homeless, vulnerable families Britain COINS and Jersey Overseas affected by the 2010 earthquake in Aid Commission, Diageo Foundation, Léogâne Progressive Haitian American Organization, Deerborn Charitable S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Trust, First Institutional Baptist 22 square meters Church, Ocean Reef Foundation, St. Brigid Catholic Church Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n 155 core houses built during the first S u b m i tte d by phase of project Mario Flores Director Pa rt n e r s Disaster Response Field Operations Haven Community Foundation HFHI Architecture for Humanity [email protected]

Summary On Jan. 12, 2010, an earthquake measuring 7.0 on the Richter scale struck near Port-au-Prince. The town of Léogâne was hit hardest, with almost 90 percent of buildings and houses severely damaged or destroyed. After emergency shelter kits were distributed and nearly 2,000 transitional shelters built, Habitat secured land from the Léogâne government to design and create a permanent housing project for up to 500 families left homeless by the disaster. In the first phase, 155 core homes were completed in partnership with families and international volunteers.

Timeline by holding meetings and inviting families • January 2010 — Earthquake struck living in two adjacent communities. These Haiti. families constituted the base from which • September 2010 — Obtained land from the Santo Project beneficiaries were the city of Léogâne. been selected. • November 2010 — Community-based participatory design began. Access to land, facilitated by the city, helped • September 2011 — Groundbreaking to spur the project because issues related to ceremony at site. land tenure are very complicated in Haiti. • November 2011 — Jimmy and Rosalynn At every step of the project, Habitat and Carter Work Project brought hundreds community members worked together of volunteers to work alongside families to ensure the most vulnerable families to complete the first 155 homes. were identified and the specific needs of the community were addressed. With Background technical planning and design support After the earthquake, about 300 homeless from Architecture for Humanity, residents families settled in a displacement camp provided feedback to proposals related to near the Santo site, living in temporary family selection, site and house design, shelters cobbled together from tarpaulins, sanitation and other vital services. Beneficiary works on the roof of his sticks, straw and concrete rubble. Habitat Habitat for Humanity Haiti and its partner, future home. started its involvement with these families Haven, are the only nongovernmental 147 organizations building permanent housing for plywood/concrete masonry walls, concrete disaster-affected families in Léogâne. floor and a corrugated metal roof. Each house will have a separate sanitary unit. The core Project Overview house can be expanded as the needs (and the In its final stage, the Santo project will create capacity) of the family grow. permanent housing for up to 500 homeless families, along with vital infrastructure. The Implementation project follows Habitat’s model of greenfield Habitat’s project methodology is based resettlement, in which vacant land is donated on learning by doing, where community and residents are involved from the beginning members have a stake in and sense of in the design, planning and decision-making ownership of the project and its outcome. for a new urban neighborhood. A full range Habitat does this by delivering a host of of focus groups, community charrette construction-related services through its presentations, discussions and dialogue community-based Habitat Resource Center governed the design process. Site planning in Léogâne, including training in construction includes an area for houses, small spaces for skills, disaster preparedness, financial literacy, home-based agricultural activities, roads, and health and hygiene. public spaces for two future schools and a public market. Provisions were made for Habitat Resource Center activities support the water supply, sanitation (septic solutions) development and sustainability of the local and electricity. A community-managed construction sector — as well as economic waste management scheme is included, in recovery — with job creation and business coordination with the municipality. The development. More than 120 community core houses were designed to be culturally members have been employed by Habitat appropriate and disaster-resistant. Each on the Santo project site, helping to prepare provides approximately 23 square meters of the land and foundations for the first 155 living space for an average Haitian family of houses. Through the project, families, local five and comprises a traditional front porch businesses and the wider community learned with a roof, combination new construction and fabrication skills and

Far right: Rosemie Dodo lived with her infant daughter in a temporary shelter. In November 2011, she participated in the Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project and now lives in a new, sturdy home.

Right: A new neighborhood of core houses.

148 149 disaster-risk reduction techniques, improved Lessons & Promising Practices hygiene and sanitation practices, and how • The commitment of Habitat and the to create a safe, healthy environment for community to work together proved generations to come. Training involved more essential to the success of the project. than 155 families and 200 construction Mutual trust and understanding paved the workers. way for lasting change for the families of Santo. Nearly 500 volunteers for the 2011 Jimmy • Land access and secure tenure are issues & Rosalynn Carter Work Project helped that need prompt resolution to allow complete 100 core houses in one week. for new recovery projects. This type of Fifty more Habitat houses were built in project cannot succeed without decisive partnership with the Haven Foundation. involvement of local authorities to clear International volunteers worked alongside tenure-related issues. Haitian homeowner partners at the new homeowners, who were required • Greenfield developments require a rhe Santo site start work. to contribute 250 hours of sweat equity. comprehensive approach to address land Besides the brightly painted homes, Habitat is tenure, basic infrastructure and livelihood working with partner organizations to provide support and community governance. latrines for each house and 26 community • Families’ participation in construction is water points to provide clean drinking water. essential to create a sense of ownership, engagement and belonging toward the One hundred houses will be completed project. during the 2012 Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter • Participation of high-profile volunteers Work Project, with the rest (for a total of 500) helped to raise awareness of pressing scheduled to be built in the coming years. housing needs in post-earthquake Haiti.

150 Cumana, Trinidad and Tobago

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Cumana, Trinidad and Tobago: Trinidad and Tobago Red Cross Community Awareness through Citizens for a Better Trinidad & Tobago Responsible Preparedness and Trinidad & Tobago Empowerment Fu n d i n g Habitat for Humanity Trinidad and Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Tobago Vulnerability and capacity assessment Habitat for Humanity International of the community Canada Caribbean Disaster Risk Capacity building Management Fund CCDRMF (funded Roof repairs and strengthening by the Canadian International Development Agency) Ye a r Unemployment Relief Program 2010-2012 Adventist Development and Relief Agency P ro j e c t t a rge t The costal township of Cumana with S u b m i tte d by emphasis on low-income families Irvin Adonis whose roofs were damaged by heavy Country Coordinator, English winds in 2009 Caribbean HFHI Latin American/Caribbean office I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n [email protected] Habitat for Humanity Trinidad and Tobago

Summary Thirty families had their roofs retrofitted to withstand winds up to 125 mph. Skills and capacity training for at least five construction workers living in the affected community was included, and 25 people were trained in disaster risk reduction through the vulnerability and capacity assessment methodology of community mapping and documentation. Finally, through a tree- planting program, the project focused on reducing vulnerability to heavy winds.

Timeline Project Overview • Late 2009 — Heavy winds damaged The “Community Awareness through roofs in the Cumana area. Responsible Preparedness and • 2010 — The governmental Office of Empowerment” project was designed Disaster Preparedness and Mitigation to identify needs of the Cumana rural invited Habitat Trinidad and Tobago community and to empower its members to apply to the CCDRMF to help the through training to start addressing these community. needs with special focus on their • 2010 — Stakeholders identified and primary shelter. proposal submitted. • 2011 — Proposal approved after the In close collaboration with the Trinidad mapping and documentation was and Tobago Red Cross Society and completed and the families identified. the Adventist Development Relief • 2012 — Training for capacity and roof Agency, HFH Trinidad designed a retrofitting was completed. project that included the Vulnerability • 2012 — Tree planting program. Capacity Assessment methodology and a Community Disaster Response Team Background comprised of community leaders and In 2009, heavy thunderstorms in Cumana members to be trained in disaster risk tore off nine roofs and damaged 18 homes. management. TTRCS’s role was to lead HFH Trinidad and Tobago strengthened the administering of the VCA, while the community as part of its Building Safer ADRA, as an experienced partner in

Members of the Trinidad Red Cross strategy, with assistance from the Trinidad disaster mitigation, supplied support prepare to conduct interviews in and Tobago Red Cross Society. to HFH Trinidad for the community Cumana community. mapping activities and training events. 151 One of the VCA outputs was designed to be Phase III: The training for builders, families the identification of vulnerable families with and community was spread out to coincide the most need in order to provide them with with the corresponding work. When the roof retrofits. The project also included a planting of trees is completed in the near reforestation component to be implemented future, this will mark the end of the project. in collaboration with Citizens for a Better Trinidad and Tobago. This group will also Lessons & Promising Practices provide the volunteers to work along with the • When funding is received from members of the community in the planting international agencies, flexibility is needed and care of the trees. to allow for review of the project before approval. Implementation • Caution should be exercised in determining Phase I: The Red Cross provided entry the extent of roof retrofitting needed. into the community. The assessment Sometimes the leaking roof is only part of a helped to identify the potential hazards more serious structural problem. that might affect the community. The most • It is essential to understand the cultural vulnerable homes, which would require roof nuances of the community you work retrofitting or hurricane strapping, were with — the vulnerability and capacity identified. Budgets were set for the cost and assessment was a crucial step in gaining the type of work required. community’s confidence. • This project identified a clear need for HFH Phase II: Education of the families and the Trinidad and Tobago to articulate a disaster community of the work that Habitat planned response protocol, because it was the came next, in addition to analysis of the risks first major deviation from the traditional posed by soil erosion and high winds that program model of HFH. are specific to the Cumana area. Hiring of • Bringing several partners together required contractors, ordering of materials and actual a significant amount of time for organizing construction work on the roofs was started and meetings; these factors and their and completed in four months. The tree- potential cost should be considered. planting program was delayed because the Ministry of Agriculture delayed approval by a few months.

Right: Residents attend a disaster preparedness training in Cumana.

152 Tropical Storm Agatha, Guatemala

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Pa rt n e r s Tropical Storm Agatha Response CONRED, Cementos Progreso, Project, Chimaltenango and Camara de la Industria Guatemalteca Sacatepequez, Guatemala Fondo Unido Guatemala

Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Fu n d i n g Clean up activities, transitional HFH Guatemala, Cementos Progreso housing, preparedness training and ConstruRed

Ye a r Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n May 2010 US$200,000 was raised in Guatemala

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by 40 families Jaime Mok DRR National Coordinator S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua 23.75 square meters [email protected]

I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Habitat for Humanity Guatemala

Summary In May 2010, after two days of a volcanic eruption that affected Guatemala City, Tropical Storm Agatha devastated nearly the entire country, damaging or destroying more than 53,000 houses. Habitat for Humanity Guatemala did a rapid assessment to evaluate damage to Habitat houses. HFH Guatemala and its partners launched a national fundraising campaign, and 40 houses were built with vulnerable families.

Timeline Pacaya volcanic eruption, struggled as its • May 27, 2010 — Pacaya volcano erupted; drainage systems tried to cope with the covered Guatemala City in ash and enormous amount of water and ash. Zone black sand. 2 of the capital suffered a massive opening, • May 29, 2010 — Torrential rains 30 meters deep and 20 meters wide, which from Agatha affected nearly the swallowed three buildings and entire country; HFH Guatemala staff an intersection. mobilized to evaluate damage to Habitat houses. More than 150 people died, 98 were • November 2010 — National fundraising reported missing and 142,096 people were campaign, ‘“A mí me importa (I do evacuated from their homes. About 53,000 care),” launched. houses were damaged, from flooding • Early 2011 — Forty permanent to complete destruction, according to houses completed. CONRED, the Guatemalan agency for emergency management. Background Tropical storm Agatha covered Guatemala Project Overview with torrential rains, the worst in 60 HFH Guatemala first checked the state years. The Naranjo and Motagua rivers of Habitat-constructed houses. Most overflowed and destroyed bridges, roads, damaged houses were, fortunately, only houses and lives. Guatemala’s mountainous slightly affected. Three homes were unsafe territory was hit by numerous landslides, to occupy. HFH Guatemala’s assistance particularly the upper lands, such as focused on 40 families via two national Quetzaltenango and Sololá. programs: Casa en Progreso (House in Progress) and Programa de Mejora Guatemala city, which had just been (Program for Improvement). covered in ash and black sand from the 153 Implementation Forty families that lost their homes were HFH Guatemala cleared mud from the assisted with transitional housing solutions in houses, identified communities and surveyed the municipalities of Santa Apolonia, San Jose families. Awareness-building and training was Poquil, Tecpan and San Martin Jilotepeque, in conducted with families and local committees. Chimaltenango, and Ciudad Vieja Construction was delayed in areas still of Sacatepequez. considered to be at risk. All 140 staff at HFH Guatemala participated in the reconstruction Lessons & Promising Practices process, with 1,200 permanent volunteers • Funds were raised by organizations and by from HFH Guatemala’s 200 local committee a national campaign with the support of partners. National corporate and student local corporations. volunteer brigades also participated. • The traditional HFH Guatemala housing design was changed to a transitional A donation campaign called “A mí me housing solution of 23.75 square meters. importa (I do care)” was launched during • CONRED agreed to train HFH Guatemala the last two months of 2010 by two sponsors, staff and revise the HFH Guatemala Cementos Progreso and ConstruRed. disaster response manual in order to meet local standards.

Right: Volunteers start a new home site in Guatemala.

154 San Rafael del Sur, Nicaragua

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Disaster Risk Reduction Project, Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua Municipality of South San Rafael Managua, Nicaragua Pa rt n e r s Nicaragua PLAN Nicaragua Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Engineering National University Disaster Risk Reduction and Local government, Mitigation (housing improvements, community committees community reorganization and community skill- Fu n d i n g building) Habitat for Humanity International Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua Ye a r 2011 S u b m i tte d by Jaime Mok P ro j e c t t a rge t National DRR Coordinator 1.000 families; approximately Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua 5,411 people in three communities [email protected]

Summary Homes that were severely damaged by a tsunami that struck Nicaragua in 1992 still needed repairs. Recurring frequent floods after the tsunami killed many people and destroyed shelter and infrastructure. The extreme damage is attributed to increasing numbers of natural disasters; overcrowded informal settlements in high-hazard sites along rivers, streams and floodplains (representing approximately 10 percent of shelters in the settlement); poor construction practices; and lack of disaster response training and planning. Habitat for Humanity Nicaragua started a disaster risk reduction project to train local committees.

Timeline and other locations. One hundred • September 1992 — Tsunami hit San seventy people were killed, the tourist Rafael del Sur. infrastructure was seriously damaged and • 2007 — National government entities the marine ecosystem disturbed. The threat established a tsunami early warning of a reoccurrence exists because of frequent system in Masachapa. seismic activity along the Nicaraguan • 2010 — HFH Nicaragua identified a Pacific coast. need for DRR activities through local authorities. Funding was received. In La Gallina, residents are exposed to • March 2011 — Training began for local small landslides as well as house floods. committees and government technicians. HFH Nicaragua’s projects for housing • October 2011 — Tropical Storm E12 hit, and disaster prevention include possible and committees responded. community reorganization and community • November 2011 — In alliance with Plan skill-strengthening with the goal of Nicaragua, school children attended mitigating these risks. DRR camp. • December 2011 —Project activities Project Overview ended in a public event. In 2007, local disaster response committees were established, as was a tsunami Background early warning system. After four years, In September 1992, a tsunami hit the however, neither was fully functioning Community members attend preparedness Nicaraguan Pacific coastline, affecting the because of lack of money. HFH Nicaragua training and create a plan of action. spa towns of Pochomil and Masachapa started work in the area in 2010, and in 155 consultation with local authorities decided Seventy children from seven disaster-prone Facing page: Waswali project built for hurricane-affected to strengthen local capacities for an adequate schools attend a two-day camp, learning risk families in Nicaragua. response. Local government technicians mapping, evacuation planning and first aid. were trained in site planning and evaluation, Plan Nicaragua is committed to working with and DRR forums for local authorities were the students in complementary DRR efforts. held. A DRR camp was organized with Plan Nicaragua that trained 70 students. Three Lessons & Promising Practices local DRR committees were organized and • Training and skill building of local leaders recognized in a public event. They put their was considered as a key strength of the skills to use during the tropical depression E12 project. Collaboration with the national that hit in October 2011. university and Plan Nicaragua was crucial. • The DRR project was an opportunity Implementation to pilot and document community Habitat for Humanity International allocated methodologies and tools of risk evaluation US$8,000 and Habitat for Humanity as well as the growth of the DR institutional Nicaragua, US$8,000. profile. Public awareness of the need for joint collaboration with government Three DRR local committees were elected organizations and private sector was in neighborhood assemblies. Using the identified as another key strong aspect of vulnerability and capacities assessment the project. methodology, they identified their historical • Difficulties to consider: Activities coincided disaster profile, analyzed their vulnerabilities with government elections (restructuring and resources, then mapped them. of the work timeline), not all activities that These committees developed a plan and were planned were completed because the implemented some of the activities, such as plan was too ambitious, and the beginning first aid training. They also participated in of the project was delayed. safe shelter awareness training in 2012. • It is important to take advantage of local organizations to promote the involvement In October 2012, tropical depression E12 hit of local people in the project. In this Central America, and San Rafael del Sur case, the Protestant church was an ally in was affected. Members of local committees organizing community meetings. helped their neighbors evacuate to shelters • Gather resources by forming relationships and were key factors in removing debris and with institutions or NOGs interested in providing tools. regional work. • Establish cooperation agreements with the Site analysis and adequate planning training university community, which will facilitate were organized for local government staff. important lessons learned. With the support of architecture students, • Count on a network of local university many sites were risk-analyzed before houses volunteers to support specific activities. were built.

156

United States and Canada Hurricane Floyd Response, North Carolina, United States

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Hurricane Floyd Recovery Program North Carolina Habitat for Humanity North Carolina, United States affiliates United States Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n : Pa rt n e r s New House Construction State of North Carolina

Ye a r Fu n d i n g 20 0 0-20 02 Habitat for Humanity International State of North Carolina P ro j e c t t a rge t 60 families S u b m i tte d by Giovanni Taylor-Peace S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Manager 1,100 square feet Disaster Response Field Operations HFHI [email protected]

Summary Hurricane Floyd caused considerable damage to communities in eastern North Carolina in September 1999. It was a challenge for local and state government, and HFHI, which had only recently started a Disaster Response department, to rebuild and repair homes. Fortunately, the state of North Carolina, HFHI and several HFH affiliates created a unique partnership to assist families with 60 new homes over a two-year period.

Timeline The state of North Carolina tried to move • September 1999 — Hurricane Floyd quickly to obtain federal and private made landfall at Cape Fear, North resources to help communities rebuild but Carolina. faced challenges in getting its requests met • September 1999 — North Carolina by FEMA and other federal agencies. Governor Jim Hunt established the N.C. Hurricane Floyd Relief Fund for families Project Overview in need. Habitat created a collaborative effort • January 2001 — Habitat blitz build of 12 between affiliates, HFHI’s Regional Support homes in Princeville, North Carolina, Center for the area and the recently formed with help from Federal Emergency Disaster Response department. Five HFH Management Authority and Mennonite affiliates in the region suffered severe flood Disaster Service. damage to 16 houses during Hurricane Floyd. Fourteen Habitat families were Background forced out of their homes; two houses were Hurricane Floyd was considered one of unoccupied at the time. the most destructive hurricanes to hit North Carolina. Its damage to houses in The North Carolina’s Legislature approved eastern North Carolina was unprecedented. $870 million in housing funds from the According to FEMA, the storm destroyed federal government. Some of the money 4,117 uninsured and under-insured homes was available to Habitat to build new (13 percent of the homes affected had flood homes. One town particularly hit hard insurance.) Flooding caused the damage, was Princeville, the oldest U.S. town not wind. incorporated by freed black slaves, located on a floodplain. Floyd destroyed about 159 1,200 of its nearly 1,480 homes, but local Regional Support Center of HFHI provided officials declined a buyout offer from FEMA program and construction staff support and were interested in rebuilding to affiliates. Interestingly, there wasn’t full the community. understanding of the HFHI role in the beginning of the project except for the Implementation relationship between the regional office and The state provided $2.25 million to Habitat the Disaster Response department. affiliates toward 30 two-home packages. At that time HFHI prevented affiliates from Special effort was made to help the receiving this type of funding directly from community of Princeville recover with a the government, so the funds had to first go to blitz build sponsored by Lowe’s. There were a local sponsor. Another interesting aspect of some challenges in acquiring all of the lots the project was that 10 percent of state funds and sponsorships that were targeted, but the were intended to be tithed to a sister flood community recovered at a steady pace with recovery build in Hyderabad, India. support from numerous entities.

A panelized house plan was adopted from Lessons & Promising Practices a Habitat affiliate in Michigan (3 bedrooms, • Affiliates not directly affected by 1 1/2 bathrooms) and could be configured the disaster supported neighboring five ways. North Carolina Emergency affiliates by adopting families and aiding Management contracted with the state in reconstruction. prison system to build the walls and roof • There were issues with drawing state funds trusses, which were delivered to municipal and identifying eligible families through the governments for roughly the cost of the approved sources. This became common lumber. The local governments were free to with later responses, but Habitat continued partner with builders of their choice to build to move toward being freer with using the houses, and all houses built to this plan government funds, compared with other were appraised for the same amount, $70,000. domestic nonprofits. Affiliates completed the building of these houses for about $35,000 and they received $ 75,000 at closing, so they actually funded two houses with every one that was built.

One of the key HFHI staff members working on the project had recently retired from state government and had positive relationships with key state officials. The Central Atlantic

160 2004 Hurricane Response, Florida, United States

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Fu n d i n g 2004 Florida Hurricane Challenge Habitat for Humanity International Grant, Florida, United States Case Foundation Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Charlotte County (Florida) United States Repairs and new construction government

Ye a r S u b m i tte d by 2004-2006 Giovanni Taylor-Peace Manager P ro j e c t t a rge t Disaster Response Field Operations 61 families HFHI [email protected] I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Florida Habitat for Humanity affiliates

Summary The year 2004 was devastating for the state of Florida, as four major hurricanes caused significant damage in numerous communities. Residents know the risks of living in a hurricane- prone area, but did not expect so much damage in one hurricane season. Habitat for Humanity worked with some of the affected communities in Florida to build more than 60 new homes, thanks in large part to a challenge grant from the Case Foundation.

Timeline Background • August 2004 — Hurricanes Charley and In 2004, four hurricanes hit the state of Frances hit. Florida between Aug. 13 and Sept. 25. • September 2004 — Hurricanes Ivan and Hurricane Charley made landfall on Jeanne hit. the southwest coast near Punta Gorda, • September 2004 — HFHI sent team Hurricane Frances on the southeast to assist Punta Gorda community in coast near Stuart, Hurricane Ivan in the Charlotte County with cleanup and panhandle near Pensacola, and Hurricane stabilization of Habitat and non-Habitat Jeanne nearly retraced the route of Frances. homes. Hurricane Charley was the strongest, • Sept. 15, 2004 — Case Foundation a Category 4 storm. Property damage challenge grant announced to help from Charley alone was estimated by the American Red Cross and Habitat for National Hurricane Center at $14 billion. Humanity International with $500,000 At the time, Charley was the second each to raise funds for those affected by costliest hurricane in U.S. history. Charley, Frances and Ivan. • October 2005 — 18 homes completed The four storms left a path of destruction with the Case Foundation matching that killed 25 people and destroyed or grant funds. damaged more than 31,000 homes. • November 2012 — Charlotte County Besides the physical destruction, Florida government gives its remaining $875,000 residents were psychologically affected. in federal hurricane funds to local The four made landfall within a small affiliate to use for 25 new/rehabbed period of time, leaving little time for homes. preparation. Hurricane Charley damage in Charlotte County, Florida, was severe. 161 Project Overview Sixteen affiliates received funds through the Habitat for Humanity International matching grants. HFHI and the affiliates had established a disaster response coordination to raise $1.5 million in order to obtain the center in the Regional Support Center Case Foundation funds. in Jacksonville, Florida, after Charley and Frances hit. The regional HFHI HFHI set up criteria for proposals to staff established contact with affiliates, use the hurricane grants for new homes, collected needs assessment information repairs/insurance deductibles, and tools for and coordinated volunteer teams to assist construction. HFHI provided $1.4 million homeowners with short-term needs. Damage toward the response and the affiliates assessments revealed a significant need contributed $380,000. for permanent housing. In the hardest hit counties, affiliates suspended mortgage A year into this response, HFHI’s U.S. Office payments on an as-needed basis to provide went through a massive reorganization, which some relief to families that temporarily was followed by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. lost income. HFHI also sent hundreds The Indian Ocean tsunami also occurred a of volunteers and thousands of dollars to few months after these hurricanes. The efforts affiliates for cleanup and repair and to help in Florida got minimized in importance to a homeowners with short-term needs. certain extent because of those circumstances.

The key piece of Habitat’s 2004 Florida Lessons & Promising Practices hurricane response was a joint request from • Rapid occurrence of storms highlighted the American Red Cross and HFHI to the a need for organizational preparedness at Case Foundation to provide matching funds the affiliate and U.S. Office levels. Some of for relief and recovery. this effort was deterred by the U.S. Office reorganization because regional offices were Implementation closed in favor of a new system of support The goal of the Case Foundation matching to affiliates. grant established by HFHI was to help • The number of significant responses at the affiliates that were in disaster response mode global level during this period highlighted by offering a 1:5 match (affiliate pays $10,000, the need to build capacity outside of HFHI grant pays $50,000) to build new homes. to help steer future responses.

Right: Volunteers re-opened the local Habitat ReStore to help raise finds for hurricane victiims.

162 Hurricane Katrina, United States

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o ns Hurricanes Katrina/Rita Home Repair Church World Services Partnerships, Texas, Louisiana, Rebuilding Together Mississippi and Alabama, United United States States Fu n d i n g Habitat for Humanity International Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Home repair and rehabilitation S u b m i tte d by Giovanni Taylor-Peace Ye a r Manager 2006-2008 Disaster Response Field Operations HFHI P ro j e c t t a rge t [email protected] 994 families

S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Varied

Summary After hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Habitat for Humanity International leveraged funds raised for the Operation Home Delivery program to assist 994 families with repairs and rehabs done by Church World Service and Rebuilding Together. By tapping into other organizations with experience and skill in this arena, Habitat was able to focus on its strengths while assisting with these critical needs in Gulf Coast communities.

Timeline building homes that would be sent down • April 2006 — HFHI and Church World to Gulf Coast affiliates. These initial goals Service announced US$3 million would evolve over the next three years. partnership to repair 500 homes in the Gulf over a two-year period. Project Overview • June 2006 — 88 home projects were In the early days of developing the strategy funded through the first round of the behind OHD, it was clear that home CWS grant application. repairs and rehabilitation would have to • June 2007 — HFHI and CWS received be addressed because of the staggering 2007 National VOAD Award for amount of damage to owner-occupied Excellence for this partnership; 236 residences. For HFHI, this raised homes completed. important concerns: • October 2007 — 210 home projects were funded through the last round of the • Flooding in the greater New Orleans CWS grant application. area and coastal communities raised the issue of mold remediation. Background • Increasing the scale of affiliates just Habitat for Humanity International to meet new construction was taxing launched Operation Home Delivery to enough, especially in terms of volunteer provide a recovery/rebuilding response labor. To address these concerns, Habitat to hurricanes Katrina and Hurricane partnered with other organizations Rita. OHD was intended to help affected to focus on repair. In March 2006, affiliates re-open, serve as a catalyst to negotiations culminated in a relationship create low-income housing on a scale that with Church World Service to facilitate Habitat alone would be unable to achieve, home repair. East St. Tammany homeowner, Burnette and implement a new project to engage Bailey, in front of her repaired house. Habitat affiliates around the country in 163 Implementation committees that received funding. HFHI was in the unique position of being the The Rebuilding Together relationship did funder of affordable housing repairs because not end up being as productive as the CWS of the generosity of current and new donors partnership and was cut short of its planned that supported Habitat’s vision for long-term target. The CWS commitment was extended recovery along the Gulf Coast. This generosity for an additional round because of the had interesting effects in the domestic Habitat productive results and remaining community and with the broader networks of funds available. domestic response organizations. Lessons & Promising Practices The Disaster Response department managed • This project allowed HFHI to truly be a the CWS project on behalf of Operation catalyst for recovery efforts without the Home Delivery because it helped drive the burden of pushing affiliates to ramp up development of the relationship. OHD staff their production of repaired and rehab handled the Rebuilding Together partnership. homes along with their core focus on new construction. The bulk of the funds for the home repair • The CWS partnership was highly partnerships went to CWS, which distributed successful in terms of engaging a broad grants to 53 local long-term recovery range of actors that could deliver results committees and organizations throughout with the support of an organization with the region. It received funds from HFHI a large amount of experience dealing with and accepted applications from community long-term recovery issues. organizations in four rounds. Grant recipients • Developing partnerships at the national used the majority of funds for building level with peer organizations will benefit materials and contract labor to aid clients Habitat in future responses. Effort must be that also received support for other needs invested, however, to make sure that those through the long-term recovery committee/ partnerships are recognized and embraced organization. CWS had previous experience by the local counterparts, especially in the working with (and in some cases fostering the long-term view, when the recovery effort creation of) many of the long-term recovery becomes more localized.

Right: A Katrina-affected home that was repaired in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi.

164 Hurricane Katrina, United States

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n : I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o ns Hurricanes Katrina/Rita Modular HFH affiliates in Louisiana, Housing Project, Mississippi, Texas and Alabama Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and United States Alabama, United States Fu n d i n g Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Habitat for Humanity International New house construction Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n Ye a r s Factory-built housing shipped to 2006-2007 affiliates

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by 100 families Giovanni Taylor-Peace Manager S h e l te r / h o u s i n g s o l u t i o n s i ze Disaster Response Field Operations 1,022-1,161 square feet HFHI [email protected]

Summary After hurricanes Katrina and Rita, Habitat for Humanity International determined that modular housing was a way to increase the pace of building in affected communities. With help from outside consultants, an ambitious plan was created to build 1,000 homes in the Gulf with modular homes. But experiences in the field eventually tempered expectations of the number of places that could use this approach. One hundred hurricane-affected families received Habitat homes that started out as factory-built homes.

Timeline to hurricanes Katrina and Hurricane • August 2005 — Hurricane Katrina made Rita. OHD was intended to help affected landfall near Grand Isle, Louisiana. affiliates re-open, serve as a catalyst to • September 2005 — HFHI CEO Jonathan create low-income housing on a scale that Reckford announced Operation Home Habitat alone would be unable to achieve, Delivery response effort. and become a new project to involve • September 2005 — Hurricane Rita made Habitat affiliates around the country in landfall near Sabine Pass, Texas. building homes that would be sent to Gulf • January 2006 — OHD and the Coast affiliates. These initial goals evolved Construction and Environmental over the next three years. Resources department asked for-profit manufacturers to help them better Project Overview understand how modular housing could Habitat affiliates had been using factory- increase construction efforts. built and panelized housing systems • June 2006 — After extensive for years before the hurricanes. But the negotiations, OHD opted to pursue challenge of working with affiliates at partnerships with three system- limited capacity to meet ambitious goals led built manufacturers — Crossroads HFHI leaders to seek innovative ways to Development, Palm Harbor Homes Inc. serve more families in rapid fashion. While and All American Homes. volunteer interest was high to help the Gulf Coast communities, there were initially Background limited numbers of skilled volunteers and Modular houses are built in a factory and Habitat for Humanity International skilled construction supervision on the transported to a lot. A crane places the launched Operation Home Delivery to ground to help increase house production. modular on its permanent foundation. provide a recovery/rebuilding response Some of the keys to making modular 165 housing work for the hurricane response handled differently in each state. Besides included coordination between affiliates and concerns about local codes, in some cases HFHI to source the homes and schedule the modulars had to be approved by state foundations, and ensuring that there was insurance regulators before being installed. still some element of sweat equity left on the construction site for volunteers and partner Ultimately the costs to build modular homes families to make significant contributions to for Habitat families ran significantly higher the builds. HFHI hoped that 200 of the 1,000 than estimated versus traditional stick-built planned homes in the Gulf would come from homes, with a negligible difference in the modular factories and be completed by time of completion. Some of the local skilled June 2007. trades that had worked with these affiliates for years saw problems with the modular Implementation units from factories in Indiana and Texas, HFHI attempted to do as much due diligence and advised affiliates to remedy the problems as possible to devise a strategy for supporting themselves or ask HFHI for additional funds. affiliates in the region. Discussions were Communication between HFHI and the held with several modular vendors and affiliates on the foundations had to be crystal with other nonprofits, such as Thrivent and clear to prevent sending the wrong home Lutheran Social Services of the South, that to the wrong site. Despite these challenges, were interested in the project. The research the modular homes looked like regular showed that while purchasing modulars Habitat homes and served as an opportunity from manufacturers might be 10 percent for at least one affiliate to be seen as a local to 30 percent higher than through a factory innovator for using new building technology co-owned by HFHI and LSSS, there would to meet the need for affordable housing. probably be significantly less overall risk by working with for-profit production. OHD Lessons & Promising Practices negotiated prices that were comparable to • Issues with transfer of responsibilities from those of affiliates’ stick-build costs. HFHI to affiliates on homes (for example, the definition of turnkey). OHD leaders assigned a staff person to work • Affiliates had a harder time following up with affiliates on procuring modular units on warranties with manufacturers because through the vendors and tracking shipments they were not originally part of the buyer to the field. OHD leaders also worked early and seller relationship — HFHI was. on to secure agreements with several affiliates • Hard to introduce a new technology in to devote some of their projects to using a situation in which communities were modular units purchased by HFHI. This was dealing with a great deal of other confusion. delayed as staff realized that modulars were Disaster Corps Legacy Leadership Initiative

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Fu n d i n g Disaster Corps Legacy Leadership Corporation for National and Initiative Community Service, HFHI United States Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n Creation of Disaster Corps volunteers Pa rt n e r s program, training and deployment of University of Maryland Center on skilled volunteers Aging

Ye a r S u b m i tte d by 2006-2007 Kristin Wright Disaster Corps Specialist P ro j e c t t a rge t HFHI Gulf Coast Habitat affiliates [email protected] participating in long-term recovery

I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Habitat for Humanity International

Summary After hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Disaster Corps Legacy Leadership Initiative was launched to develop a trained volunteer corps aimed at assisting Habitat for Humanity disaster response, recovery and reconstruction efforts in the Gulf Coast. This initiative allowed HFHI to establish a program infrastructure for specialized disaster response volunteers still used today.

Timeline Intended to build upon HFHI’s experience • March 2006 — The Corporation for in volunteer mobilization, Disaster Corps National and Community Service was proposed to develop a consortium of awarded HFHI a challenge grant to volunteer professionals to support HFH launch the Disaster Corps Legacy disaster response and recovery initiatives Leadership Initiative. throughout the Gulf, and to create • September 2006-February 2007 — 95 a platform to be expanded to participants attended the Disaster Corps affiliates nationwide. Legacy Leadership Institute, a two-week training session at four locations Project Overview across the U.S. Targeting the Baby Boomer generation, • October 2006-May 2007 — 81 Disaster HFHI implemented creative recruitment Corps Legacy Leaders were deployed at strategies aimed at appealing to the affiliates throughout the Gulf Coast to diversity in this population. In order participate in long-term recovery. to leverage Baby Boomers with Habitat affiliates’ disaster response and recovery Background needs, HFHI developed a training program After 2005, an increasing number of to strengthen skills and knowledge related disasters brought into focus the importance to effective nonprofit management in post- of disaster response, mitigation and disaster situations. Disaster Corps leaders preparedness because of more requests were then assigned volunteer leadership for technical, financial and human opportunities with affiliates engaged in resources assistance by Habitat affiliates. disaster recovery activities in areas affected HFHI saw a need to build and expand an by hurricanes Katrina and Rita and part of infrastructure to support overwhelming the Operation Home Delivery program. numbers of volunteers wishing to help Providing field and technical support Habitat’s Hurricane Katrina response. to affiliates, these deployments covered 167 a range of focus areas, such as strategic Mississippi and Alabama participated in planning, volunteer coordination, finance, hosting DCLLs, resulting in 10,965 hours resource development, family services and of service. To close out the program, HFHI selection, and construction site supervision. staff visited affiliates, conducted volunteer Continued engagement of these DCLLs and affiliate evaluations and hosted volunteer after the grant period effectively fostered recognition events. a volunteer corps prepared to mobilize for disaster response needs, aid in long-term Lessons & Promising Practices recovery activities, and ultimately support • This opportunity allowed HFHI to connect preparedness initiatives to help mitigate the more with disaster-affected affiliates impact of disasters nationwide. through identifying potential, sharing a vision and developing alliances through Implementation our DCLLs. These connections must be Four HFHI staffers were hired to carry out nurtured in order for continued partnership the proposal and manage the program. Their and advancement of long-term recovery. marketing and recruitment campaign reached • The psychology of disaster, and dealing out to the targeted population through with grief and sorrow, emerged as multiple and integrated communication important topics in the training institute channels, including media, direct contact and should be explored thoroughly in with affiliates and outreach to social and all volunteer training, not only through community networks. The Disaster Corps curriculum but also through firsthand Legacy Leadership Institute, a two-week experiences by those affected by disasters. training curriculum developed in partnership • This initiative set a platform for future with the Lifelong Learning Institute at the expansion and growth by creating a University of Maryland’s Center on Aging, program infrastructure that effectively was launched in West Palm Beach, Florida; engages highly skilled volunteers with Phoenix, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; and disaster response and preparedness College Park, Maryland. Ninety-five DCLLs initiatives. Today, Disaster Corps is completed 60 hours each of comprehensive becoming an integral part of the resources training, resulting in 5,700 hours of volunteer that HFHI’s Disaster Response can use training. After graduation, 81 DCLLs were to support the work of Habitat affiliates, deployed to affiliates in the Gulf Coast to work greatly increasing the organization’s overall on recovery activities designed to provide ability to respond to and assist more permanent housing to those affected by the families vulnerable to disaster. hurricanes. Sixteen affiliates in Louisiana,

Right: Disaster Corps leadership participants in Washington, D.C.

168 Iowa Flooding, United States

P ro j e c t N a m e a n d L o c a t i o n Fu n d i n g Midwest Flooding Response, Cedar Habitat for Humanity International Rapids, Iowa, United States Aegon United States Ticketmaster Ty p e o f I n te r ve n t i o n New home construction/repairs Ad d i t i o n a l i n fo rm a t i o n Cedar Valley HFH supported a number Ye a r of other affiliates in their response 2008-2010 efforts.

P ro j e c t t a rge t S u b m i tte d by 60 families Giovanni Taylor-Peace Manager I m pl e m e n t i n g O rga n i z a t i o n Disaster Response Field Operations Cedar Valley Habitat for Humanity HFHI [email protected] Pa rt n e r s Iowa State Support Organization HFHI

Summary In 2008, Iowa experienced the most devastating series of natural disasters in the state’s history. Between May 25 and Aug. 13, floods, tornadoes and other severe weather affected more than 90 of Iowa’s 99 counties. In Cedar Rapids, the hardest hit community, Cedar Valley HFH served 20 families with back-to-back blitz builds with help from the state support organization and neighboring affiliates.

Timeline resulted in extensive flooding throughout • June 2008 — HFHI began coordinating the Midwestern United States in early 2008. with the Habitat for Humanity of Iowa By June, a number of major rivers washed State Support Organization to assess over their banks and levees for several status of several affiliates whose areas weeks at a time. About 36,000 people were hit hard by flooding. were left homeless by the floods, with • October 2008 — Habitat for Humanity approximately 24,000 homeless in the city of Iowa met with several affiliates near of Cedar Rapids alone. Also, 4,000 homes Cedar Rapids to discuss plans for a were damaged by fast-rising water. blitz build. • January 2009 — Cedar Valley HFH and Project Overview Habitat for Humanity of Iowa received Ninety percent of the state of Iowa was the 2009 AmeriCorps Build-a-Thon declared a federal disaster area. With 36 grant from HFHI and the Corporation affiliates around the state, it was a challenge for National Community Service. to grasp the extent of the damage and the • June 2009 — Cedar Valley HFH hosted capacity to respond to it. The flooding its first HFHI AmeriCorps Build-a-Thon directly affected the offices of two HFH and built 20 homes. affiliates, and many partner families • November 2009 — Cedar Valley HFH suffered material losses and damage to received a second AmeriCorps Build- their homes. Arguably the hardest hit (and a-Thon grant, to build, rehabilitate and highest profile) of these communities was renovate 20 homes. Cedar Rapids. In addition to being one of the affiliates with office damage, Cedar Background Valley HFH lost its executive director and The combination of unusually severe several board members in the following winter storms and heavy spring rains months. Despite these setbacks, the 169 remaining board members and the executive In Cedar Rapids, the initial challenge of director of the state support organization securing short-term capacity to assist the started plans in July 2008 for a blitz build affiliate after the executive director left fell in 2009 with support from local businesses to a husband and wife team from HFHI’s and neighboring affiliates. One of the project Disaster Corps program. While the board sponsors, Aegeon, was honored for being a went through the process of selecting the new leader in the flood recovery effort. director, these volunteers tried to recover as many files as possible and recreate affiliate Implementation manuals and processes. HFHI’s organizational The Iowa Habitat for Humanity state development staff helped get the affiliate ready organization played a significant role in this to qualify enough families to do the blitz build response from the beginning, by helping in June. Because of the circumstances, the to collect updates from Habitat staff and SSO acted as the fiscal agent for the project volunteers as they assisted local communities and helped with fundraising efforts. The with sandbagging, cleanup and minor repairs. National Service department of HFHI played The Iowa Heartland affiliate had nine partner a significant role through the winter and families with flood damage and assisted spring of 2009 to prepare for the blitz. them in repairing their homes. The North Central Iowa affiliate (which also housed the The 2009 AmeriCorps Build-a-Thon was state organization) supported several partner successful, and it returned to Cedar Rapids families as they worked through buyouts with the following year with an emphasis on the local government. repairs and rehabs, plus new construction.

Right: Damage from the floods that struck Iowa in 2008.

Facing page: More than 500 Habitat for Humanity AmeriCorps National Direct and VISTA members came to Cedar Rapids, Iowa, for the Habitat for Humanity AmeriCorps Build-a-Thon.

170 171 Lessons & Promising Practices • At multiple levels, Habitat realized there • This was the first response where an SSO was potential to get more Iowa affiliates played a significant role in Habitat’s efforts involved with rehabilitating and repairing and showcased what what an SSO could homes than it probably would have if the do: capitalize on its local connections to floods hadn’t occurred. state emergency management and VOAD, • After the Iowa response and the support work with state finance authorities eager provided by the Iowa SSO, HFHI’s U.S. to promote self-help housing, distribute a Office asked HFHI Disaster Response to donation of $250,000 worth of carpet, and focus on supporting and leveraging SSOs provide free transportation to homeowners in future responses as well as promoting looking to repair and preparedness to affiliates. Disaster rebuild their homes through several preparedness and response became one ReStores across the state, etc. of the four pillars for SSO operations.

172 Bibliography and References Transitional Settlements and Reconstruction after Natural Disasters, Field Edition. Geneva: United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 2008. Print.

Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response. United Kingdom: The Sphere Project, Practical Action Publishing, Print. .

Jha, Abhas K., Jennifer D. Barenstein, Priscilla M. Phelps, Daniel Pittet, and Stephen Sena. Safer Homes, Stronger Communities: A Handbook for Reconstruction after Natural Disasters. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery, 2010. Print.

Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters. Geneva: United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, 2005. Print. .

Albu, Mike. Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis Toolkit. United Kingdom: Practical Action Publishing, 2010. Print. .

Participatory Approach for Safe Shelter Awareness. Geneva: International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 2011. Print.

Transitional Shelter Guidelines. Geneva: International Organization for Migration and Shelter Centre, 2012. Print. .

Urban Shelter Guidelines. Geneva: Norwegian Refugee Council and Shelter Centre, 2010. Print. .

The Shelter Report. Americus, GA: Habitat for Humanity International, 2011. Print.

For 14 years, Habitat for Humanity has been working in Disaster Response, offering a variety of interventions to help vulnerable families and communities recover from devastating disasters and conflicts. This Disaster Response Shelter Catalogue seeks to give a meaningful overview of our efforts. The reports here span the globe and every possible metric, from modest local efforts to help one village to huge undertakings that involve multiple countries, partners, complex logistics and millions of dollars. Some responses have been unqualified successes. Others met with significant challenges, and the partners involved had to adapt as they went, sometimes having to re-think original goals. Those latter responses can provide valuable lessons learned, both for Habitat and for our fellow humanitarian organizations, and those lessons are included. We hope they will contribute to the institutional memory of Habitat and assist others who work in similar arenas. -From the foreword by Mario C. Flores

INTERNATIONAL HEADQUARTERS: 121 Habitat St. Americus, GA 31709-3498 USA

(229) 924-6935 (800) HABITAT fax (229) 928-8811 [email protected] www.habitat.org 100/DR/12-12