1. Maharashtra Emergency Earthquake Rehabilitation Programme, 1993-1999 Krishna S. Vatsa Relief and Rehabilitation Government of Maharashtra

2. 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

4. 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

5. 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)

6. 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)

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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