Global Report on Human Settlements 2007 - PoA-ISS

216
Natural and human-made disasters
Reconstruction is a
period when urban
land rights are often
contested or fought
over by competing
interests
The basic need for
shelter should not
be used as an
excuse for overly
rapid and socially
unsustainable
housing
reconstruction
…local economic
development must
be restarted as soon
as possible after a
disaster
rights, or for the poor or tenants, to lose claims over highvalue
land, and for this to be transferred to speculators and
developers in the process of reconstruction. If land titles did
not exist before the disaster or have been lost, proxy indicators
are useful. Where such measures are not possible,
alternative means need to be found to ensure that land is not
seized outright or that fraudulent claims are not honoured.
Following the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004, reconstruction
planning for Aceh (Indonesia) recognized the
opportunity to build back better through the provision of
land titles. Land rights were correctly understood to be the
cornerstone upon which communities rebuild their homes
and livelihoods. They provide a solid, legal foundation for
spatial planning, reconstruction and long-term economic
development. Reconstruction has been supported by a multidonor
fund of US$28 million. Under the project, some
600,000 land parcels are to be titled, many for the first time
ever, since less than 20 per cent of the landowners in Aceh
had legal titles prior to the tsunami. This developmental
aspect of reconstruction will enable citizens to use their land
as collateral for financing homes and businesses. Yet, a
review of progress in December 2006 found that while fieldbased
teams had surveyed and adjudicated over 120,000
parcels of land, bureaucratic obstacles had resulted in the
disbursement of only 7700 titles. Political will as well as
technical capacity is needed to push forward ambitious
programmes for building back better. 94
The overall aim of building back better is to use reconstruction
as an opportunity to improve the economic,
physical and social infrastructure, and to support the asset
bases of individuals and households at risk. Reconstruction
becomes a project for improving survivors’ life chances and
resilience, not returning them to pre-disaster levels.
If reconstruction programmes are to build back
better, they must take into account the needs of families and
be sensitive to gender, age and culturally specific needs and
norms. The basic need for shelter should not be used as an
excuse for overly rapid and socially unsustainable housing
reconstruction. Too often, household livelihoods requiring
access to external space (such as peri-urban agriculture) are
lost when reconstruction planning places excessive emphasis
on value for money. The misapplication of a development
approach was seen in the Indian Ocean Tsunami in 2004,
where efforts were made to strengthen the local livelihood
base beyond pre-tsunami levels through the widespread
provision of fishing boats. In some communities, this led to a
lack of crew and the withdrawal of older male children from
school.
One positive outcome of reconstruction that takes
development goals into account can be the strengthening of
social capital, which, in turn, builds resilience. In cities were
civil society is strong, disasters can be opportunities for
pushing reforms in urban planning. Popular action in Mexico
City, following the 1985 earthquake, prevented the implementation
of city plans to redevelop low-income inner-city
tenements for higher-income uses.
The International Labour Organization (ILO) Crisis
Response Programme aims to promote social development
during reconstruction by helping to save existing jobs and
creating new ones through the reconstruction process. The
response package to the 2001 Gujarat earthquake in India
included a model programme for social and economic reconstruction
in ten villages in the Kutch district, funded by the
ILO and implemented by the Self-Employed Women’s
Association (SEWA). In response to the earthquakes in El
Salvador and in Peru in 2001, rapid employment impact
projects were launched in partnership with the UNDP. 95 In
order for households and communities to recover, local
economic reconstruction must be restarted as soon as possible
after a disaster. This means developing local markets
through cash-for-work schemes, as well as direct support for
local businesses requiring new premises or tools to restart.
Often called ‘foundation markets’, these include consumer
and retail services – stalls and shops. 96
A final act in the transition to (realigned) development
has often been to memorialize a disaster. Memorials can
serve to support the healing process and help as a reminder
of what can result from inappropriate development.
Memorials are especially powerful when they gather
together data and experiences – perhaps conflicting – of the
event, its causes and consequences.
There is great scope for disaster impacts to be
reduced if development actors are invited to contribute to
planning reconstruction and rehabilitation. The inclusion of
UN-Habitat in planning reconstruction following the earthquake
in Bam (Iran) in 2003 led to a policy of supporting
residents in reconstructing their own homes, including the
incorporation of improved seismic resistance in preference
to the established procedure of placing residents in temporary
shelters. 97
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The components of urban risk policy outlined in this chapter
are mutually reinforcing. Successful early warning relies
upon risk assessment and strong local communities for information
transfer and action. Risk assessment feeds directly
into land-use planning decisions. These and the other activities
outlined in this chapter offer opportunities to build back
better when they are considered in reconstruction, as well
as in preparedness for disaster. They are key pathways for
meeting developmental activities with the humanitarian
imperatives of relief and reconstruction and point towards
mechanisms for urban disaster risk reduction.
Local authorities are the most important actors in
urban disaster risk reduction. Local authorities are the level
of government closest to the ground and most directly
answerable to those at risk. They occupy a strategic institutional
position, mediating between competing interests in
the city and beyond, and as a conduit of information and
resources between communities and external actors. Their
scope for action is, however, often severely limited by lack of
finance, human skill shortages, an overburdening of responsibilities
and political constraints.
The most successful partnerships for risk reduction
invariably include local authorities and communities, often
also with civil society organizations involved. Such partnerships
can combine the scale of action and resources of