| |
|
|
Tsunami
housing - a vexed issue |
|
Extracts from a
post-tsunami survey report conducted by Research Consultancy
Bureau for Sarvodaya Supported by the World Bank
Post-tsunami survey (continued)
The survey was conducted among community leaders
representing the tsunami affected communities in the South
and the East. Six Focus Groups of community leaders with
direct experience with the tsunami devastation at the relief
and reconstruction stage participated in the survey. In the
South, the survey was conducted at Koggala, Unawatuna and
Hikkaduwa while in the East, the interviews were done at
Vakrai, Kathankudy and Kaluwachikudy.
The immediate need of shelter for tsunami victims was
provided through schools, temples and churches.
Subsequently, temporary shelters were provided with tents
and semi-permanent structures.
There were two schools of thought in this regard where some
believed that semi-permanent structures were too costly and
therefore it had delayed the permanent construction of
houses. Others were of the view that it was needed to avoid
going through greater difficulties in temporary shelters
which would have caused serious health concerns and
epidemics.
The understanding of the community on receiving a house was
two-fold. Some were of the opinion that the Divisional
Secretariat was providing a complete house with necessary
facilities, i.e. water, electricity, and toilet, while
others were of the view that the houses would be provided
independently by voluntary and international charitable
organisations. |
           
|
|
| |
The communities were also
aware that they would not be receiving money to build the
house on their own. To some community leaders, providing of
houses depended solely on the political situation in the
country; hence people were keen to receive a house through
any means.
The communities within the 100/200 metre rule either
expected or received houses valued as follows:
Value Given by
Rs. 500,000 Divisional Secretariat
Rs. 500,000 NGO
Rs. 650,000-850,000 NGO
Comparatively, the communities who are living beyond 100/200
metres were able to fulfil their housing needs somewhat
speedily and effectively.
According to community leaders, some received assistance in
proportion to the size of the damage whilst others received
pre-defined housing similar to communities within the
100/200 metres.
Thus assistance received was both in cash and kind. The
assistance received can be broken down as:
Value of house (Rs) Given by
100,000 - 250,000 Government
100,000 - 150,000 Government
200,000 Presidential Secretariat
100,000 - 200,000 NGO/Private organization/ foreigners
Housing is an area much discussed by the community leaders.
The comments reflected the personal requirements of some
leaders but mostly expressed views of the community.
The following aspects are noteworthy indications for the
leaders to have greater attention to housing:
- Shelter (housing) is seen as a primary need after food.
- Difficulty in making a serious decision due to high cost
involvement
- Difficulty of meeting individual needs with the value of
assistance given
- Location of housing
- Interest shown by some to keep the damaged house as a
means to obtain more assistance - A way to demonstrate the
contribution by the Government, NGO or other groups to the
public.
The reconstruction of housing, therefore, is symbolic to
community members and institutions that provide assistance.
In this context,housing is seen as one of the most
criticised areas of post tsunami activities. Reasons for
such criticism can be seen in three ways:
1. Degree to which assistance is received
2. Degree to which the problem of housing is understood by
the provider
3. Concerns with the process of construction
Almost all community leaders were thankful to
non-governmental organisations, individuals and, to some
extent, to the State for their generosity in providing
housing needs. Yet they questioned the prevalence of
temporary houses even after seven months of tsunami. They
have commented that the work completed so far was less than
50%.
This has led to substantial displeasure among the
communities. The situation has worsened when communities
found out that some families who were registered as a single
family before the tsunami were now eligible to obtain two
separate houses having registered as two families. Further,
those who had wattle and daub or temporary houses have
obtained brick and mortar houses. The concern is on the
disparity of provision of assistance and transparency,
integrity and fairness.
Typical comments made by community leaders:
"The NGOs have informed that a temporary house would cost
between Rs. 65,000-85,000 but within these 7 months not even
a temporary house was built. Within this period they could
have built at least a single room" - East
"Some have lost houses worth Rs. 500,000 ... for some it is
less and for some it is more ... but the government without
taking these into consideration has given equal amounts" -
East.
"The correct statistics of people affected were not provided
... or even the number of houses damaged ... at various
times various statistics were given with the result there
was no proper planning" - East.
"Those who didn't have a proper house, now has a house. They
have got a better status ..." - South
Discrimination
Tsunami has devastated communities regardless of individual
status, but subsequent relief and reconstruction programmes
have created -
- Visible discrimination with some communities receiving
less than others or less than what they used to have.
- Visible benefits for those who had less earlier now having
more.
Both seem to have created social disharmony leading to
un-satisfactoriness.
Comments:
"Some houses were actually not broken but they looked broken
because they were old ... people from the Presidential
Secretariat said' if you like, you can break this house ...
we can pass 2 lakhs for you to build a house' ... so the
people who liked it agreed to break the house ... now they
have 2 lakhs in their savings as a NGO had promised to build
a house and had asked them to save the money" - South "Some
who lost their houses were given 50,000 rupees.
If a family member was dead, 15,000 was given; there was
also a monthly payment of Rs. 5,000 per family. Some have
got all these even without facing the Tsunami.
Those who have faced Tsunami haven't got anything" - East
The community leaders questioned whether the State, NGOs or
individuals truly understood the idea of housing needs in
the local context. They believe that once a permanent house
is provided it should last for generations. They believe
that a house should be at a locality where domiciles should
be able to live a decent and comfortable life and be able to
carry out their day-to-day activities similar to pre Tsunami
days.
Further, the design of the house should conform to the
respective culture and value system of the community. Hence
fulfilment of a housing need is not a brick and mortar
structure but a place for livelihood. Therefore, community
leaders request that those who design houses for the
Tsunami-affected, should have this view.
Comments:
"NGO together with a man is cheating money. If the house is
costing 5 lakhs they try to finish the house by spending 2
lakhs building a very low quality house using low quality,
cheap bricks and timber that will not withstand a Tsunami at
all" - South
"There was a need to find out at village level and
understand what really people need ... NGOs work from
Colombo and get the house done with toilets inside the house
similar to toilets in the city ... they forget that this is
a house in the village.
These people are not used to having a toilet inside the
house. They are used to going to the thicket or to some
place in the vicinity" - East
Community leaders are of the view that people find it
difficult to restart their life or carry out their
occupations without settling their housing needs. They have
highlighted the disparity in quality and cost of
construction where similar designs have been built at
different quality and costs.
They believe that the time taken to initiate the
construction is far too long, sometimes the process is
politicised and/or discouraged through bureaucracy. As a
result, some NGOs and individuals have lost patience and
abandoned projects resulting in the community losing the
opportunity to have a house.
The community leaders requested an adequate intervention and
monitoring of progress of work by the Government. Further,
the leaders expect the authorities to develop trust with
regard to housing activities by displaying transparency when
selecting beneficiaries.
Comments:
"The correct statistics of people affected was not provided
... or even the number of houses damaged ... at various
times varying statistics were given and therefore they
couldn't plan properly" - East
"The job situation is getting back to normal but their
houses are not built to earlier state. The fishermen are
given their needs to get back to their work but not the
houses" - East.
"We are living within the 100 metres. Those who are living
far away got a lakh or 1 1/2 lakhs from the Government. Then
a foreigner gave one lakh each and then private companies
gave two lakhs each. See the amount they got" - South
Summary
The importance given to shelter is only next to food as it
is a difficult task to both provider and receiver due to
involved cost and permanency. The summary of the comments
implies four stages and the successful completion of these
stages can make the recipient satisfied.
At the stage of Receipt, the assistance is subject to
eligibility and ability of the recipient, which eliminates
proportion of the community. From the recipient's point of
view there is a possibility of being displeased if the new
location is a re-location.
The Type of the house, meeting the floor area requirements
and design practicalities have become sensitive issues, as
it was difficult to strike a balance between individuals who
had large houses and those who had small (clay) houses
before the Tsunami.
The inconsistency of Quality of the houses depicted poor
monitoring procedures by the Government and wastage of
finances. In this context the is mixed views with regard to
appreciation of housing and reconstruction programs.
It is to be seen as an expectation and delivery phenomenon,
hence it is not possible to attribute shortcomings to one
party. However, the provider of housing needs to address the
four stages identified in this research to provide a
livelihood than a mere cement building.
****
Oh Tsunami.
Oh! The giant seas,
We were friends for thousand years,
But suddenly, you've gone cross,
Your violent wave killed the beaches,
Why you have done so?
Were we wrong the way we dealt?
With the beach and the ocean,
We used you to fish,
But blasted with dynamite,
We voyaged through your surface,
But diverted garbage,
Smeared with atomic waste,
Extracted your coral belt,
Destroying your seam,
Is that why you were angry?
One year has lapsed,
Now our media friends,
The TV, the radio, and the press,
Refresh the pains of yesteryear,
I hear again the screams, the hiss
of storms,
The Horror of life and fear of Death.
With a bit of merit,
I might have gained,
Never again in our life,
See you vicious.
H.W. Thilakaratna
|
|
|
