Not quick-fix but risk-free

“The most appropriate way to honour the memory of all those who died in the tsunami two years ago is to address what did not work and make sure that recovery and reconstruction deliver the best possible results,” writes special representative for the tsunami operation for the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Johan Schaar.

Mr. Schaar who is responsible for three of the most tsunami-affected countries – Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Maldives – was in the country recently on one of his tours to the affected areas.

Mr. Schaar outlines three issues that guide their work: (1) Reborn communities must be safer -be able to withstand earthquakes, floods or landslides; (2) Recovery should deliver quality - unlike some of the hastily-built houses that are reported to have developed cracks or leaking roofs; (3) a culture of accountability must be upheld – where one is accountable towards all stakeholders. “This should be our legacy,” he says.

How is IFRC ensuring this in Sri Lanka? Mr. Schaar considers it important to use the opportunity to reduce risks. “We do not simply rebuild the same risks that were there before the tsunami,” he says. For example the rebuilt homes in Aceh, Indonesia are of earthquake safe standard so they don’t collapse during the next earthquake, lying as they do in the earthquake zone.

An integral element of reconstruction efforts in the country has been to strengthen the disaster management capacity of the Sri Lanka Red Cross – so that they will be better prepared with equipment and resources and manpower and training to respond effectively to disasters when they happen.

Towards this, they have also been working on an early warning system for the country. Their awareness-raising-campaigns involve educating children in schools of the kinds of dangers they may face and people on what to do when the warning comes. “It is not a quick fix but a long term effort that must be continuous,” he says.

What of the criticism that less than 50% of the work has been completed after two years? “It is an issue of expectations rather than any real delays,” Mr. Schaar says. He thinks agencies and governments may have all been part of creating expectations among people that the work would be done in a year or two. Going by past experiences of major natural disasters, it has always taken 8-10 years for reconstruction to be fully completed, he says.

“To deliver quality programmes takes time and things have to be done in the proper order which requires planning.” If you build a housing complex but do not provide the water and sanitation or the infrastructure that has to go with that site, people cannot live there, can they, he asks.

“If you try to do this too quickly -- your driving force to spend money rather than provide quality lasting homes--then the result will be the cracks, leaking roofs and houses in the wrong place where no one wants to live,” he warns.

Mr. Schaar pointed out that calamities generally reveal the social, political and institutional weaknesses: what did not work, where there was no preparedness and no warning leading to unavoidable deaths of men, women and children. One of the flaws in Sri Lanka as in all the countries of the Indian Ocean was that people were not warned. Had this happened in the Pacific Ocean people would have been warned and evacuated, he says. “Many lives were unnecessarily lost.” IFRC has taken this aspect very seriously and hence their emphasis on disaster reduction.

Another aspect that IFRC has been actively promoting is that the homeless are put in charge of rebuilding their homes. The government launched its policy last year to favour owner-driven construction. Currently there are a couple of large schemes supported by the World Bank and IFRC and implemented through government agencies whereby people are given grants and supported with technical advice so that they can manage the reconstruction process.

Citing evidence from the Gujarat earthquake when the homeless were put in charge of rebuilding their homes, Mr. Schaar says it achieved an important dimension of giving people the opportunity to physically rebuild their own lives. “There is no psychological support programme or trauma support that can replace this in being the most effective provider of psychological relief.”

Asked how he would rate the progress in Sri Lanka, he says, “Given the scale and the magnitude of the disaster, I think we are progressing OK. However, we can never be satisfied as long as people continue to live in temporary houses.” Admitting that mistakes will be made and of the need to learn continuously, he warns that we should not try to make compromises or cut corners in order to do this quickly.

Another concern during this visit here is to review the impact of the conflict. Reiterating their commitment to providing support to conflict affected areas, he said “We are not relocating resources from these areas. We are waiting until we can resume our activities.”

In all its endeavours IFRC has been guided by the fundamental humanitarian principle: “Nothing but the need of the person should guide our actions regardless of whether you are a conflict-victim or a tsunami victim.” They have addressed it by ensuring conflict IDPs living in the areas where they work are given access to all support.

On the premise that all international agencies would have to leave one day when local governments have to manage and maintain systems, they have worked alongside the government in all aspects. “There is no other way. The government is responsible and accountable and has to take the lead in reconstruction by providing the policies.”

As part of the second year commemoration, IFRC hopes to present a two-year report of their achievements. What will come out is not just the physical results (number of houses or km of roads built) but the status of the people in terms of their health condition, their livelihoods, employment, schooling rate, etc. that make up the human aspect of reconstruction.

As of October 2006, Red Cross partners had either fully funded or co-financed the construction of 5450 houses in 12 districts; rebuilt 10 clinics with 31 sites under construction, assisted 5000 families along the east coast with water and sanitation, provided vocational training and tool kits to 13,000, piloted a community based disaster management programme and psychosocial support in five districts.