Maharashtra Emergency Earthquake Rehabilitation Programme, 1993-1999

Krishna S. VatsaRelief and Rehabilitation

Government of Maharashtra

The earthquake September 30, 1993: 3:56 am 6.3 on Richter scale Epicentre near Killari, Latur district 8,000 people killed, 16,000 injured 25,000 houses collapsed, another 200,000

suffered damages of varying degrees 52 Villages razed to ground 1500 villages damaged by earthquake Latur and Osmanabad districts badly affected, 11

other districts also affected by the earthquake

Main Features A rural earthquake in a relatively backward

agricultural region Density of deaths very high: 8,000 deaths in 52

villages A deep sense of devastation and trauma Houses collapsed due to poor building practices:

uncoursed stones, poor masonry, thick walls, and heavy roof

25,000 houses collapsed, another 1,90,000 suffered damage of varying degrees in about 2,500 villages

Economic losses not very heavy Total Damage assessment: US$300 million

Financing Reconstruction and Rehabilitation

Total Cost of Reconstruction and Rehabilitation: US$358 Million

World Bank Credit: US$ 221 million (62 percent)

Government of Maharashtra: US$ 96 million (27 percent)

Donors (DfID, UNDP, ADB and External donors): US$ 41 million (11 percent)

Reconstruction and Rehabilitation

Focus on Housing (220,000 Units) Infrastructure (Roads, Bridges,

Water Supply, Drainage and Sewerage)

Social, Economic, and Community Rehabilitation

Technical Assistance (Project Management, IEC, Disaster Management)

Basic Scheme of Rehabilitation Relocation of 52 most affected

villages in Latur and Osmanabad districts: A Category

In-situ reconstruction of 22 villages in Latur and Osmanabad (they were eventually relocated): B Category

Repairs and Strengthening of houses in 1500 villages spread over 11 districts: C Category

Peoples’ Entitlements Core houses in “A” Category (250,

400, and 750 Square feet) according to land ownership

Rs. 62,000 to each beneficiary for reconstruction of their individual houses

Rs. 17,000 and Rs. 34,500 for repairs, reconstruction and strengthening of houses

Initial Difficulties Rushed reconstruction Inappropriate designs pushed by NGOs Quality Control became an issue Communities’ bargaining with NGOs Government stepped in Pre-approval of house designs Supervision of NGOs’ reconstruction In-situ reconstruction & Repairs and

Strengthening a non-starter

Reconstruction Strategy “A” Category (52 Villages) Complete abandonment of old sites Acquisition of land for relocation sites Layout, Design and bid preparation by engineering

consultants Tendering for reconstruction Consultations with the community New layout of villages Houses on the basis of nucleus families Decongestion, but increase in sprawl Increase in length of internal roads and storm water

drains

Accomplishments and Limitations Construction of 28,000 houses Low-income groups net beneficiaries: house-ownership a

positive outcome Women found new houses easier to clean and maintain Houses brought a new life-style with increase in possession of

consumer durables A mixed record on adaptation to new houses and life in

relocated villages No intermix of communities: Different caste groups retained

their exclusive identity Quality Control always an issue both in government as well as

NGOs’ construction: An outcome of community participation Civic amenities: varying levels of satisfaction Limitations to community participation, which reduced the

level of satisfaction

In-situ Reconstruction “B” Category (22 villages) Work was stalled for more than two years People wanted relocation Government finally accepted relocation Six villages joined the category later NGOs purchased the land Construction largely through NGOs (About 10,000

houses) Layout and design through extensive community

consultations Lesser civic amenities in terms of internal roads

and sewerage A contested process, but a higher level of

satisfaction

Repairs and Strengthening“C” Category (1500 villages) Largest category of program (180,000

houses in 1500 villages across 11 districts)

Owner-driven construction Disbursement of financial assistance in

installments linked to physical progress Distribution of building material through

depots set up by governments Extensive supervision through engineers

at the village-level

Accomplishments and Limitations Started almost two years later, but finished

within one to two years It acquired the dimension of a housing

movement People used the assistance to increase living

space and renew their houses Families participation in reconstruction They brought their own savings A very high level of satisfaction Focus on housing; not much was done for

improving civic and community facilities

Relocation vs. In-situ Reconstruction Improving the habitat, not reconstruction, the main

goal Choice between in-situ reconstruction and relocation

should be guided by this goal In-situ reconstruction is a better and cheaper choice,

but relocation is at times unavoidable (decongestion, difficulties in clearing debris, psychological trauma)

An ideal situation is one which combines the positive features of both the options

Which means in-situ reconstruction on a bigger plot, better layout and architectural design, stronger foundations, more decongested environment

Contractor-driven vs. Owner-driven Reconstruction Owner-driven construction a better choice:

a better utilization of resources and greater control and supervision over reconstruction

It may not be feasible for many families which lost their adult members

Government required to provide housing to socially handicapped people, and hence contractor-driven strategy remains relevant

Necessary to make this choice based on communities’ needs, their capacities and vulnerabilities

Reconstruction vs. Retrofitting Strategy

In the Repairs and Strengthening Category, construction of additional rooms and increased their living space

Retrofitting of houses not really a priority Retrofitting involves complex techniques,

closer supervision, and may not be feasible in a large-scale program

Community needs should be guiding factor

Lessons at Program Level Focus on resettlement planning and

architecture rather than earthquake engineering

Dynamic response to emerging community perceptions: flexibility and innovation required

A strong institutional framework of consultations with the communities

Increasing communities’ stakeholding through their financial and work contribution

Lessons at Project Level Strong project leadership Building a committed project team A well-developed framework of

partnership with donors and NGOs Well-established institutional

mechanisms and procedures for implementation

Secure budget lines