Case Study 1: The Subsidiary Housing Approach in Gujarat
After a huge earthquake hit Gujarat in India in 2001, an NGO assisted some 270 of the poorest households in Kachch district in their
recovery efforts. It provided technical and material assistance to households rebuilding their own homes, through the State Government’s
assisted ODR programme. About 20% of households in the area, though, did not qualify for State assistance, and for these the NGO entirely
rebuilt their houses. Additionally, the NGO sought to improve the livelihoods of the local people who were mostly engaged in agriculture
through projects to improve water supplies and rainwater harvesting, as well as the distribution of seeds and tools. In a user-satisfaction
survey of houses, both categories of beneficiaries expressed high satisfaction, though the ones who had received houses from the NGO
slightly less so than those who had built their won houses. [Barenstein, 2006]
Case Study 2: Community-Driven Reconstruction in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Following the 2004 tsunami the charity Action Aid provided relief and then continued to assist many people in the islands with
reconstruction and recovery work. Action Aid undertook a Participatory Vulnerability Analysis to identify the most vulnerable people and
prioritised support to reconstruction to them. Significant features of the reconstruction projects included:
• Understanding how people were building, what they were already doing to safeguard their homes and how this knowledge could be used to
design the new houses with the active participation of the communities
• Promoting safety and future disaster mitigation
• Training and technical support to residents building their houses and promotion of quality standards
• Use of locally sustainable materials and ecological production
• Transparency and information sharing
• Improved security of tenure, especially for women who were allocated land titles in their own name or jointly with their husbands
• Distribution of funds for reconstruction through bank accounts managed by communities
• Advocacy for community-led policy change in collaboration with other NGOs and networks
[Development Alternatives, 2008, pp.27-30]
Case Study 3: Addressing Urban Poverty and Vulnerability through Integrated Projects
People with very low incomes face many challenges to access safe and secure housing. In urban areas of the Third World, many of them
live in slums or informal settlements prone to a multitude of hazards. Housing improvement as an intervention may not be a viable starting
point for reducing the vulnerability of those people, because of underlying constraints, such as their poverty preventing them to invest in
safe housing, a lack of tenure and restrictive regulations. Housing improvements may therefore have to be combined with other actions,
particularly to improve incomes and address legal constraints, as well as the provision of key services. In doing so, various actors – local
authorities, communities, NGOs, utilities and others - will have to come together to pool resources. Integrated projects then stand for
an integration of both activities and actors. Care should be taken that in this complex context, that the voice of poor communities, and
particularly of their most vulnerable members, is not drowned, but strengthened.
Practical Action (formerly the Intermediate Technology Development Group) has been undertaking integrated urban development projects
since 1988 in Kenya, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka and, through a partner, in India. These have done a lot to reduce
poverty and vulnerability in the communities concerned. Though those who have realised better housing, like Mama Susan in Nakuru at the
start of this Tool, are still in a minority, there now are many more income generating opportunities, greater access to community-based and
external savings and credits, stronger community organisations, improvements to infrastructure services such as water, sanitation, roads and
drains, and waste management, and secure tenure in some localities. [Lowe, undated] reduce poverty and vulnerability in the communities
concerned. Though those who have realised better housing, like Mama Susan in Nakuru at the start of this Tool, are still in a minority,
there now are many more income generating opportunities, greater access to community-based and external savings and credits, stronger
community organisations, improvements to infrastructure services such as water, sanitation, roads and drains, and waste management, and
secure tenure in some localities. [Lowe, undated]
Case Study 4: Assisted Self-Help Reconstruction Programme after an Earthquake in Peru
On August 15th 2007 an earthquake of 7.0 affected the southwest coast of Peru’, mostly affecting the regions of Pisco and Ica. As part
of the Government response to the disaster, the FORSUR (Fondo para la Reconstrucción del Sur) was created to manage the funds for
reconstruction and develop guidance for rebuilding process. In their initial plans priority was given to people living in urban settings and
owning their house/land that was damaged by the earthquake. This also meant that the most vulnerable people residing in rural areas without
legal title would not access funding to repair/build their houses.
After an initial emergency phase that led to the construction of temporary timber frame shelters, IFRC together with the Peruvian RCNS,
started a programme in the rural areas for the most vulnerable target groups. This programme focused on four objectives:
1. Disaster risk management at community level, by identifying and addressing vulnerabilities through risk maps and preparedness measures.
2. Assist reconstruction of houses and community centres, built with safe and affordable earthquake-resistant features, and developing
training people on these low-cost technologies during the construction process.
3. Develop small entrepreneurship, small business and other income-generating activities around construction (material production, skills
improvement etc).
4. Analyse the legal aspects of land ownership in rural areas in order to better assist landless to obtain a formal status.
The project defined four areas in the Pisco province, where 600 houses and 2 community centres were built, while in the Chincha
province an additional 4 community centres and 400 houses were constructed. Technical assistance was provided on the adopted
technology, the ‘adobe mejorado’ (reinforced adobe), and on the job training offered at household level. The distribution system was done by
creating ‘material construction banks’ at community level, through bulk purchasing to reduce costs, where families directly obtained what
they needed.
The beneficiary targeting took into consideration the level of damaged houses but also the prior to earthquake social conditions of the
most vulnerable. Additional technical and management support was provided to those who couldn’t handle the process by themselves.
Future extensions and incremental improvement of the houses have been done directly by the beneficiaries, who had been trained on the
job. In addition, construction manuals were developed to showcase and explain the technologies used, as well as provide guidance on how to
repair, care and maintain the constructions.
IFRC and Peruvian RC worked in partnership with La Catolica University to optimise the construction technology and implement the
programme in a sustainable way.
7