Presentation on theme: "Environment and Shelter post-disaster A presentation of options for the Shelter Meeting May 2012 Geneva Magnus Wolfe Murray Humanitarian Advisor, DFID-Pakistan."— Presentation transcript:
Environment and Shelter post-disaster A presentation of options for the Shelter Meeting May 2012 Geneva Magnus Wolfe Murray Humanitarian Advisor, DFID-Pakistan
Summary Environmental impact of construction Alternative and low-impact alternatives Value for money and “better economics” Energy and environment Examples from DFID-funded shelter work in Pakistan
Environmental impact Modern construction materials have a high environmental impact Cement is very energy intensive in production (e.g.1 tonne cement = 1 tonne CO 2 emissions) Brick production can be very resource-intensive We should measure (and attempt to mitigate) impact of shelter Or we will increase community vulnerability to future climate disasters (Do No Harm)
DFID position on environment Climate change and Environment top priorities for UK Govt DFID seeking innovative approaches to deliver on targets & reduce env.impact Engaged with BREEAM as observers Soon to open Global Resilience Action Programme for research and evidence Contact: Brenda Coughlan on b- firstname.lastname@example.org
Bricks Needed for One House: 5500 Total Bricks Required: 550 million Total Kilns Required: 106 kilns for one year Deforestation: 50,770 Acres w/o trees for 10 Yrs o CO2 Emissions: 316,470 tons of CO2 Carbon Credits Admissible: USD $ 4.75 million o Dioxins: 234 gms 5 Environmental Impact Assessment: For 100,000 One Room Shelters – post 2010 flooding (assuming use of Punjab brick kilns)
Local and Global Emissions – total brick production in Pakistan Dioxins : 425.88 nanogramme / brick 6 CO 2 Emissions : 37.4 million Tonnes Equal to: 40m Pakistanis CO 2 / year 9 million cars CO 2 / year
Social impact – bricks in Pakistan (Should we ignore this element?) 7 Child Labour Bonded Labour
Ecological capital What value do we attach to local ecology? How can this be measured? Do your building materials damage or restore the local and global environment? Do alternatives exist that offer lower impact? Do you have the tools to measure reduced impact?
Embodied energy A means to measure impact of materials Life cycle analysis University of Bath, UK: Inventory of Carbon and Energy Measures in MJ/Kg and CO 2 / kg Does not show local level impacts, such as deforestation
Examples MaterialMj / KgCO 2 kg / kg Steel (typical / recycled)24.40.482 Cement4.60.22 Fired bricks30.060 Limestone0.85- Timber (average)8.50.125 CGI (iron sheet)390.7 Source: University of Bath, Embodied energy and carbon in Construction materials (2008)
Applied to a project in Pakistan Post-2011 flooding, HANDS (local NGO) funded for 20,000 one room shelters Usually (e.g. post 2010-reconstruction) 5,000 bricks per house procured – would equal 100m bricks for the 20,000 houses Earth and lime chosen as alternative Estimated environmental saving: 57,000 tonnes CO 2 and 5,600 acres deforestation avoided.
Steel for roof structures One beam weighs 27kg 2 beams per house = 54kg 54 x 0.48 kg CO 2 = 25.92 kg CO 2 / house If target is 10,000 houses = 259,000 Tonnes of CO 2 to atmosphere Research and elaborate these concerns in proposals Many better alternatives already exist
What impact for DRR element? Critical question for flood / disaster zones Brick, cement mortar is effective Mud & Lime correctly applied can work – though much tech training needed And offer much better thermal comfort Vernacular design & culture can be respected
A traditional Sindhi round-house, built on a raised platform by Heritage Foundation as a training model. Lime mud render for water- resistance. Examples from DFID-funded work with IOM and Heritage Foundation, Sindh, 2012 Target: 7,500 one room shelters
The thatched roof has yet to be completed. Already it feels cool inside. Structural engineers approved the design which is clearly robust. And cheaper than the square houses
The building is raised placed on a platform of earth and mud – for increased flood protection. This building is a reproduction of vernacular design, with specific improvements to make it more resilient to future floods.
For flat roofs: alternatives to steel beams – compound bamboo (a renewable material). Note extended eaves to protect walls and a ring beam of bamboo and lime-concrete. The Ring Beam
Lime-rich earth mix increases durability and water-resistance to wall Especially at the base where standing water can weaken earthen walls Lime bonds with the clay in earth much better than cement Lime “carbonates” becoming increasingly hard and more resilient over time Unlike cement, lime “self-heals” so small cracks in surface won’t allow water in. Karachi University Architecture student explains the methods and rationale of lime use
These roofs are far stronger than typical roofs made from steel girders and bamboo poles (partially because of the shorter distances between each girder & rafter). So they can be used as “refuge platforms” in case of future flooding (or to grow food, store stuff, etc.).
A completed shelter with mud-lime water-resistant render. The roof can hold up to 20 people, and the walls are protected by extended eaves.
The problem: deforestation from use of timber in roof structure As wood became more scarce, people “advised” to use modern systems: cut timber and CGI sheets. No insulation = very uncomfortable and unhealthy Imported materials = high cost
NGO La Voute Nubbiene brings design from East Africa Trains local masons Challenges established construction industry norms Value for Money: 90% cheaper Better suited to climate More healthy indoor environment Reduces local ecological damage = Good Value for Money
Straw bale – Northern Pakistan. Source: Pakistan Straw Bale and Appropriate Building (PAKSAB)
TGA Techno Green Associates 27 Compressed Stabilised Earth Blocks (Non-fired bricks, 7% cement or lime added)
Value for Money (for DfID) Low unit cost with high quality Is it accessible, appropriate, well targetted, relevant, done on time, fit to purpose? Acceptable transaction, support and overhead costs Does the investment make sense? (for the beneficiary and the taxpayer?) Triple bottom line accounting: economics, social, environment