Field Based Operational Training for Reconstruction

1. Field Based Operational Training for Reconstruction 15th November 2006, Shelter Meeting Geneva

2. Disasters Destroy Homes and Lives!!

3. Good Hearted Humanitarians Jump in with Spontaneous Response!!

4. Culturally andTechnologically Inappropriate and Inequitable Shelter Solutions Follow !!!

5. Result??? • Suspicion on quality and Durability! • Inadequate Occupancy!! • Rejection of Shelter Solutions by the users!!! • Huge Waste of Donor Funds!!!!

6. Many People will revert to what they have and what they know!!!

7. Location : Batticaloa District, Eastern Province • Context: • 85% of the District is Controlled by the LTTE • War affected IDPs have started returning after the CFA in 2002 • Batticaloa is the second most affected district during Asian Tsunami in 2004 • Thousands of these people are still in transitional shelters • There is huge demand for shelter in the district. This resulted in skyrocketing of building material prices • There is a huge shortage of construction work force in the district • Contractors and other construction workforce are taking the NGOs and the people for a big ride. • GOSL has limited resources and capacity to fulfil all the shelter demand. We at NRC Did Something Different in Sri Lanka

8. Moved Away from the Conventional Beliefs • Came out of “We Know, They Do not Know; We have , They Do not Have; We can, They cannot” Syndrome!!!! • Believed in Beneficiary Communities ’ latent potential to rebuild their own lives and homes • Tapped in to Traditional Knowledge • Built the Capacities of the Beneficiary Communities through training and Skill Upgradation and Participatory Approaches to Shelter Delivery • Motivated the Beneficiary Communities in owning the intervention from the beginning • Recognised that each community and family are inherently different and have different needs. Hence, provided space for individual creativity at least in inner layouts with in allowable boundaries of size and cost

9. Banished these Eternal Myths Out of our minds!!! • Participatory processes are long drawn and will delay the completion and there by result in time and cost overruns • The Beneficiary Communities are completely helpless and lack any skill and resources to manage their own reconstruction • It is very hard to get the people to contribute • Community participation means unnecessary • interference from the people • People misuse the funds

10. Three Projects!!! • Semi Permanent Housing for War IDPs in LTTE Controlled areas of Batticaloa-149 Families • 430 Tsunami affected families in GOSL Controlled areas • 2000 Tsunami IDPs living in Transitional Shelters

11. Three Steps!!! • Participatory Design • Livelihoods based Building Material Production • Transparent Cash for Work based Construction Management by the families

12. Key Specialties of the Methodology • Cash at the Doorstep-Doing away with official red tape and delays • Simple and Humble staff who are always available for help and guidance • Total transparency • Technical and managerial advice at the doorstep • Regular monitoring on a daily basis

13. The Path we Chose to Tread Training and Capacity Building of Staff and the Beneficiary Communities

14. Training Begins at Home! • Convinced and Oriented Our Staff first • Sensitized the Representatives from the Beneficiary Community • Trained and Built Capacities of the willing and Sensitized Beneficiary Groups and Families

15. How Did We Begin? • Made the the staff and the Communities aware of the Possibilities and Alternatives, Showed them Live Examples, Provided answers to their queries

16. Why Did We Train? • To re assure the staff and the beneficiaries about their latent potential • To upgrade already available Skills • To sharpen their accounting, negotiation and managerial skills • To make the effort efficient and effective • To introduce appropriate technologies and sustainable shelter delivery methodologies • To empower the beneficiary communities to self manage the reconstruction intervention from the very beginning • To enhance their self esteem

17. What Training We Offered? Different Themes for Different Target Groups • For Staff: • Participatory Methodologies • Monitoring Techniques and Quality Control • Accounting and Project Management • Reporting and Documentation Techniques • For Construction Workforce: • Building Material Production and Maintenance of Machinery • Small Business Skills • Construction Techniques • Construction Safety • For Beneficiary Communities: • Negotiation Skills • Quality Control • Material Selection and Procurement • Material Safety

18. Field Training on Account Keeping, Negotiation Skills and Material Procurement and Inventory Management

19. Field Training On Building Material Production

20. Field Training On Construction Skills

21. When Did We Train? • Trained the Staff Before the Project Launch as a pre project activity. • Identified and trained Local Trainers who can speak the local language and trained them at the initial stages of the project • Oriented and Sensitized the beneficiaries in the initial stages of the project implementation Cycle • Trained and Upgraded Skills of locally available Construction Workforce during initial stages of the project implementation Cycle • Kept on providing refreshers as when need arose

22. How Did We Train ? • Adults learn slower and by seeing, hearing, touching and experiencing. Used these methods in plenty. • Organised Exposure Trips and Peer Group Interactions. • Offered Simple and Essential Theory only • Made the training capsule interesting by making them Hands On • Offered multiple capsules of short duration.

23. Where Did We Train? • Most of the time on the project site itself. • Organised Exposure Trips to nearby areas when necessary

24. What our Training Resulted in? • Staff became confident and proud • Beneficiaries owned the intervention from the beginning • They decided the inner layout according to their needs • Kept an up to date record of funds received and prudently managed the funds and never misused. Became very proud of handling money on their own • They identified sources of building materials, sourced at the best prices, transported and safeguarded the materials • They identified and negotiated with the construction workforce. • They produced high quality building materials • Maintained the machinery very well • They competed with peers on quality and pace • They negotiated with LTTE and SLA and made sure that the work did not stop even during the height of hostilities • Never complained about the quality of construction and never disputed on any other issue

25. Impact of the Training • Cost effectiveness- Less than 50% of similar houses • Timely completion-Took about 30% less than planned duration • Assured quality of building materials and construction • Local Employment Generation-About 100000 Human Days of Work generated • Introduction of Environmental Friendly Technologies • Facilitated emergence of local social institutions • Enhanced local skills and increased opportunities for livelihoods- About USD 130, 000 worth wages earned • About USD 300,000 circulated in the local economy. This money remained in the beneficiary community rather than going out to the hands of big traders and multinational companies • Zero pilferage • Zero logistical cost for NRC • Least overheads- About 5% of the Project Cost • Tapped in to inherent potential of the Beneficiary communities to bounce back and rebuild themselves and enhanced their self esteem

26. People Lived in these Houses for last several years!

27. Completed Semi Permanent Houses for War Affected IDPs

28. Incomplete Houses of Tsunami Affected Families under a GOSL Reconstruction Scheme

29. Finished Houses After Intervention

30. Thank you very much