Sustainable Built Environment - a view from Reconstruction Radha Kunke, Architecture & Development

The Context Construction, like all forms of human activity, is an intervention in the order of nature and is often violent and damaging to it.

The Context Highly scientific, highly technological – highly specialized Knowledge is concentrated in the hands of a few Knowledge and information is difficult to acquire Strong disconnect between the needs expressed by social reality and the interventions Traditional knowledge at risk Environmental, social damage extensive Standardized and ignores plurality Nature of Construction industry:

The Context Disasters affect the poor, vulnerable and marginalized No voice and No choice Reconstruction and rehabilitation is violent by nature – rapid, destroys habitats, displaces people Technologies and methods decided by few Traditional knowledges further sidelined and hastened Abounds with opportunities to put new methods and approaches in place Nature of reconstruction:

The Case study The Case Study Gujarat earthquake: largescale, massive destruction, recurring infrequently Owners choice of building materials and technology Policy initiatives and legimization Tamil Nadu tsunami : medium scale destruction, once in a lifetime Government as a client Total control over choice of materials and technology Policy delegitimization of other practices Bihar Kosi floods : largescale massive destruction, recurring frequently traditional practices largely prevalent with bamboo as materials government push towards ‘pucca’, concrete houses policy and economic push 3 disasters:

The Case study The Case Study 3 disasters: A viewpoint from the ground at the Science & Technology of (re)construction industry vis-à-vis the manifesto The technologies themselves - dominant, alternatives, traditional - building materials, design, techniques and methods Knowledge development management in (re)construction industry

The Case study The Case Study The focus: Justice, Sustainability and Plurality longer term community solutions democratic processes on S&T relation between science, violence and inequity influence of S&T on policies & guidelines relationship of “citizen” with the “scientist” innovations and their relation to traditional systems Position of traditional crafts and skills and alternatives Bring to fore the existing plurality of expertise

The Case study The Case Study The Methodology Reviewing secondary data – policies, reports, evaluations, studies, technical guidelines related to the 3 disasters Gathering viewpoints of communities, NGOs, practitioners, technologists etc. Juxtaposing the two to arrive at a S&T understanding of Reconstruction Sharing the case study in 2 or 3 roundtables Sharing the case study with various actors Integration of the results of the roundtables and people’s reactions into the case study.

The Case study The Case Study Advisory team (proposed) D.K.Mishra ji John D’Souza Mohan Rao Study team A&D – Radha CED – team

The Case study The Case Study Timeline July – November 2009 July – develop framework, gathering materials August – reviewing materials, distill points September – discuss with various people October – integrate findings, share and integrate again November – preparation of final draft

The Case study The Case Study Budget: Case Leader: 12 days a month x 5 Rs.3,000 per day = 1,80,000 Research asst: 2 days a month x per day = 80,000 Communications & Equipments: = 15,000 Travel for case leader and assistant: = 80,000 Focus group meetings: Rs.15,000 per 3 meetings: = 45,000 Co-ordination and institutional expenses: = 50,000 Total: = 4,50,000