Table Of Content

A project of Volunteers in Asia . . Shelter aftecQua&er - iiu.adels for As- . .- by: Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator Published by: United Nations New York, Ny 10017 USA Available from: UNDRO United Nations New York, Ny 10017 USA Reproduction of this microfiche document in any form is subject to the same restrictions as those of the original document. I “\ ,.,‘. ; 5. : I h% )) j ’ &a#‘~:< !; .,:,, ,_ I. ” _ OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS DISASTER RELIEF CO-ORDINATOR OFFICE OF THE UNITED NATIONS DISASTER RELIEF CO-ORDINATOR Geneva Geneva Shelter after Disaster Guidelines for Assistance UNITED NATIONS UNITED NATIONS New York, 1982 New York, 1982 Foreword Since its creation in 1972, the Office of the United Nations Disaster Relief Co-ordinator (UNDRO) has striven to assist nations if the world in their struggle against natural disasten, and other disaster situations, through a two-pronged strategy: firstly through intema- tional di-ater relief co-ordination, and secondly through pre-disaster planning in order to mitigate the risks and adverse consequences of disasters. In the lield of pre-disaster planning UNDRO has organized train- ing seminars and work-shops, provided technical assistance to disaster-prone countries, and has published studies on tbe many aspects of disaster preparedness, prevention and mitigation. The origins ofthe present study go back to 1975 when the Co-ordinator decided that a major review of emergency shelter provision WE needed, panicularly with a view to giving the iJnited Nations family and Member States guidance on this extremely difficult subject. The Government of &he Kingdom of the Netherlands, ex- pressing itsconcem forthesubject, funded the UNDRO study. The study was carried out in two phases: the first fmm July 1975 to September 1977, and the second from November 1979 to May 1982. During the first phase the bulk of Ihe evidence was assembled and analysed. The second phase of the study saw the development of planning and policy guidelines for emergency shelter provision, and post-disaster housing more generally. This has been both a dificult and challenging study, for the evidence gathered has clearly pointed out the need for some important attitudinal shins among the majority of groups providing assistance following disasters. Many conventional and preconceived notions have been questioned and new ideas proposed. The publications can be characterized as follows: It is probably the first comprehensive study to be published on disasters and shelter (many books and arti- cles having been published on limited or special aspects of the problem, usually in relation to specific events). I! encompascs the entire disaster sp&trum: disaster ’ preparedness; disaster relief; post-d!sa?ter recon- struction, and preventitin. It addresses one of the most complex, controversial and least understood aspects of disaster management and planning. It analyses the problem of shelter afier disaster from the point of view ofthe survivor, rather than through the traditional perspective of the donors and other assist- ing groups. It is evident that in the past decade the understanding. of disasters and their consequences has improved. In .tbe face of tbe mounting social and economic costs of natural disasters in the third world, the international community (donors and recipients of aid alike) have made considerable efforts to improve the quality of disaster relief. preparedness and prevention: to improve our understanding of natural hazards; to estimate the risks resulting lherefrom more accurately: and to take adequate precautionary or preventive mcJ\ares ahead of disasters. Progress has, never?h4ess, heen slow: population growth. rapid and uncontroLed urban- ization. degradation of the environment. economic re- cession. and poorly co-ordinated development planning have. together, conspired to outstrip progress in the control of disasters. It is certain that disasters are not merely “acts of God” but arc aggravated by human error and lack of foresight: that disaster relief can be made ever more effective through systematized planning and management; and that pre-disaster planning does help. at least, to reduce some of the harshest el’%cts of disasters. Therefore, whatever the difficulties. efforts to improve disaster relief and pre-disaster planning must continue unabated. It can be said with some assurance that relief management in the fields of medicine, health, and nutrition has, nevertheless, significantly improved over the last decade. The benefits of the lessons learned from major disasters during the 1970s and early 1980s are beginniug to show. However, there remains one particular sector in which too little progress has been made, and in which m 1: conservative and obsolescent attitudes survive, that is: emergency shelter, and shelter after disaster in a more general sense. Perhaps the core of thr problem lies in the fact that, although housing is one of the most complex and intractable problems ofdevelopment. it is also one upon which everyone has his or her personal opinion. thw creating much confusion between objec- tive and subjective evaluations. The least understood of all issues is that a house is murely the end-product of a long chain of social, economic, technological, environ- mental, political and other interactions. In some countries the housing issue is not “the house”. but land and utilities (water, electricity, roads, transport, etc.). In oth- ers, the poorest, housing has a lower priority than employm,;nt and nutrition. In no more than a handful of countries can the house, as a product, be said to be of primary concern. Until it is fully and widely understood that shelter is a “process” rather than a “product”, many housing programmes, however well-meaning, will fall short of expectations-especially in the drvel- oping countries. The foregoing reasoning is as true for the shelter aspects ofdisasters as for the “normal” housing process. This study is designed to provide policy and pro- gramme guidelines on eniergency shelter and post-disaster housing for disaster management personnel within the governments of disaster-prone countries; the non- governmental, voluntary and relief organizations; donor governments; the United Nations system, and other international organizations. It should be empha- sized that while considered to be a technical study, it is not a document on engineering or building construc- tion-for reasons well explained in the text--notably hecause precise sClecifications for shelter can only he given in a precise, local context. This study, nevertheless, provides the foundation for such action. The study was prepared by the OfIice of the United Nations Dtsaster Re!iefCo-ordinator(UNDRO), under *he responsibility of Mr. Ludovic van Essche, Senior Co-ordination 06;cer. The consultants to the study were Mr. Ian Davis. Principal Lecturer, Oxford Poly- technic, U&c. IL;: