This project directly supported the reconstruction of around 800 houses in improved quincha. An evalu-
ation nearly two years later found that several thousands of houses had been built using improved quin-
cha or a variation of it. The lesson is that the NGO’s intervention is not the only force driving technology
change. People’s needs, knowledge and technical capacity, local resources, political and personal agendas
are all factors promoting change and technology development. Innovations in quincha technology are
no exception. The improved quincha housing promoted by Practical Action and its partners can be seen
widely in the Alto Mayo, but it differs in design and detailing, reflecting the materials, skills and individual
priorities of the owners and builders.
In practical development projects it would be easy to imagine that the end product is the main goal:
the end product needs to be a comfortable, affordable and safe house. However, the way in which you
work towards that practical goal can have an important impact on people’s lives. Practical Action Latin
America’s staff and partners showed the need and ability for patience, flexibility and perseverance; people
processes are complex. The NGO seeks to ensure control of the agenda remains with the community and
to work in partnership, ensuring people understand the choices they are making and developing their long-
term technological capacity.
See: Lowe (1997) and Practical Action (undated) in the Resources section.
Case 2: Post-tsunami participatory design in Tamil Nadu
The coastal districts of Nagapattinam and Kanyakumari in Tamil Nadu were the most devastated by the
2004 tsunami in India. Many thousands of people were killed or injured, and of the survivors many had
lost their homes and livelihoods, and were displaced to camps and other sites. An Indian NGO, Swayam
Shikshan Prayog (SSP), with experience in helping women’s groups and local communities recover
after the Maharashtra earthquake of 1993, and the Gujarat earthquake of 2001 began working in the
region. Characteristics of SSP’s support to communities in their recovery include continuity from the
relief phase to reconstruction, and the use of learning exchanges between communities. In doing so,
they support many activities, and by the time reconstruction starts, they have good relationships with
and trust of communities. While many people were still in camps, people in Poompuhar decided they
needed a community shelter, as the emergency shelters that had been provided became uncomfortably
hot in intense sun, and flooded during heavy rains. This was to be both a meeting place and a place to
stay in hot weather or during heavy rains. The women wanted a place where they could meet and organise
activities. SSP asked the women to produce a design for the centre they wanted. It then produced finished
architectural drawings of the centre that closely matched the women’s ideas. The women also supervised
the construction of the centre. Meanwhile, SSP organised some improvements to the emergency shelters
and used this as an opportunity to train local builders. To start the rebuilding of permanent houses, SSP
proposed the construction of a demonstration house in Poompuhar village. People discussed the layout
of rooms in the house and how houses can be vulnerable to disasters. They also proposed that the layout
and positioning of the houses would need to be determined according to Vaastu (Hindu) principles. A
technical organisation, the People’s Science Institute, also participated in the discussions between SSP
and women’s group leaders. It drew up the plans for the model house. SSP also organised training of local
masons and builders before and during the construction of the model house. This focused in particular
on disaster resistant construction; training included building with stabilised soil blocks, interlocking
blocks, different types of masonry bonds, ferrocement construction and roof and floor tiling. The project
also included components of disseminating safer construction, treated in more detail in PCR Tool
Communicating Better Building.
A key lesson from this project was that communities often learn most from other communities that
have undergone a similar experience. In this case, the NGO facilitated learning exchanges between women
groups from Maharashtra and Gujarat, who had been affected by earlier disasters. This assisted the
affected women from Tamil Nadu to move from disaster to development and to take charge of that process,
to incorporate disaster risk reduction and preparedness, to develop disaster safe shelter and related
services through participatory design, to explore alternate livelihoods, and to strengthen social networks.
These initial visits helped to assess the needs and plan for their solutions. The NGO then supported further
visits to assist with the ensuing development activities.
See: SSP (2005) and NIDM (2006) in the Resources section.
8