SelfRecovery Stronger Buildings Promoting safer building at scale

Self-Recovery & Stronger Buildings Promoting safer building at scale in a selfrecovery programme – some pre-evaluation thoughts.

CARE’s shelter response to Typhoon Haiyan • Staged response 1. 2. 3. 4. Food Emergency Shelter Early recovery shelter programme Livelihoods • Working through partners REACH Monitoring Assessment, mid April: It is clear that emergency shelter – usually the focus of humanitarian responses in the weeks after a disaster – is no longer preferred by the population.

Early Recovery Image taken on 11 th November 2013; 3 days after the Typhoon

CARE’s Shelter Programme Objective: The most vulnerable affected households (men, women, boys and girls) have increased capacity to build back safer shelters. Phase 1, 3 months: Emergency shelter & NFIs for 15, 000 households. DFATD (Canada) & DFID RRF Phase 2, 3 -12 months: Self-recovery shelter support for 15, 000 vulnerable households.

Response in numbers • 15, 854 housholds received emergency shelter kits • 16, 576 households received self-recovery kits & cash • 7, 980 received additional top-up cash grants

Early Recovery 5 th May 2014

Ambitious recovery

Safer building measures

Not so safe(r) building measures? Some beneficiaries used wire, some refused because of corrosion worries

Control over quality & design

Benefits of early recovery “We can concentrate on our livelihood because we know we have a place to come home to” – Adult male “It is a very big help because I can focus on my studies instead of finding work to help sustain the needs of rebuilding our house” – Male child “If not for the support, we would still be raising money for the repair. The SRK lessened my worries and gave us a chance to put food on the table” – Pregnant woman

Expectations “We were satisfied with the quantity of materials because we were told that it is not to build a whole house but for repair so we did not expect too much. ” – Adult male “Even if we are going to need more materials, at least we’ve started building. We’ll take care of the rest. ” – Roving team member “I accepted that not all will be assisted because the criteria have to be followed. ” – Adult female “Other beneficiaries are not deserving; why did they make it to the list? ” – Adult female

Perceptions over time As agency-built houses start to be delivered, what will happen to perceptions of the support?

Building back safer messaging

Building back safer application

Is it working? • REACH monitoring assessment found, in April: • Households that shelter assistance, in any form, were twice as likely to have knowledge of building back safer measures. • But… Only 18% of households that received build back safer information actually used it in construction of their homes. Why is this? • In July: • “When looking at the safety statistics for households that received non-emergency types of assistance, 30% were classified as being fairly safe or safe” • “there should be an increased focus on technical assistance, trainings and public outreach on building back safer so as to support households in their self-recovery. ”

Promoting safer building measures • Design & construction of shelters is done by the owners and the community • Each Barangay has a ‘roving team’ of two trained carpenters & one mobiliser, for technical support, monitoring and community relations • A variety of measures, including model houses (large & small), training carpenters, training men and women, demonstrations and twice-weekly site inspections were used to promote adoption of safer building measures.

Prioritising messages 1 2 3 4

Varied means of messaging

Adoption of safer building measures % adoption of 4 priority build back safer measures by time since distribution

Building back safer, safely?

Conclusions • The programme has successfully targeted the most vulnerable, and reduced their vulnerability • The programme has supported communities’ ability to self -recovery • Working through partners was enormously beneficial • Technical expertise on the ground early was critical • Flexible funding allowed a more responsive programme

Questions • Are we, collectively, doing enough to understand how to effectively promote safer building? • Is a programme well received after 6 months still so well regarded after 12? And how will it be after 24 months? • Has support to the most vulnerable been sufficient to allow them to recover – and how long will that take?