4 prominent ideas on the rehabilitation works

Another disaster struck Indonesia. The latest which was 7.3 RS earthquake jolted districts in West Java and one district in Central Java. UN-OCHA reported total of 31,778 houses were severely damaged and 22,453 houses were moderately damaged in 12 districts in West Java and one district in Central Java. And as WHO Emergency Situation Report released yesterday, public buildings severely affected as well. 377 schools, 605 religious buildings, 26 office buildings and 202 health facilities were damaged. WHO also reported 80 dead, 370 suffered from major injuries, 27 missing, and 1,098 people with minor injuries. In total 157,432 people become IDPs as the result of September 2, 2009 disaster.

Just in 24 hours several NGOs and UN agencies flocked to Garut, Ciamis, and Tasikmalaya which area heavily affected the earthquake. The NGOs which deployed their emergency response team and conducted assessment some of them can be described here were Catholic Relief Services, YTBI, Habitat for Humanity, ASB, ECHO, YEU, Oxfam, World Vision, Hope Worldwide, Save the Children, Palang Merah Indonesia, Church World Services, Plan International and Oxfam.

Until today there is no information regarding the exact number on how many building of those were damaged will be rehabilitated or rebuild. Government estimated the cost will amount to between IDR 1.4 trillion and 1.5 trillion. And the reconstruction expected to be completed by the end of February 2010. It can be predicted that there will be a massive rehabilitation work during these 5 months. Based on the experiences from reconstruction or rehabilitation of Aceh Tsunami 2004 and Yogyakarta Earthquake 2006, there are at least 4 prominent ideas should be considered on the rehabilitation works.

Beneficiaries’ participation

Based on the lessons learned from the Tsunami Response (2004-2008) and from Yogyakarta Earthquake (2006) shows beneficiaries and communities participation is the most important component in the program success. Yogyakarta shows huge difference in beneficiaries participation compare to Aceh which lead to the faster result and less cost of reconstruction. This participation brought to a stronger ownership and responsibility. Admittedly there are wide spectrums of participations. The fullest extent is they provide construction material and skilled labors for the rehabilitation of their houses or community infrastructure. On the lowest, they can guard the material or provide access when the construction materials come to their area. The participation can be anything but it should be there. All intervention by NGOs should complemented by their sweat equity. This is the only way if we want to develop mutual respect, synergies and long term cooperation. At the end of the day the communities will be able not only survive when other disaster strike again but have the skills to help other communities surrounding them.

Engineering structural safety

If it comes to safety, all rehabilitation work should apply the engineering concept on structural safety. This becomes more important on the earthquake disaster prone area. Catastrophic failure happens on houses, clinics, schools and other infrastructure buildings which built not follow the engineering code. As per engineering concept, structural elements can be design as ductile elements which absorb earthquake energy. If the earthquake load big enough but within its specified loading code, the elements may be broken but no sudden collapse will happen. In every earthquake shows that buildings without proper engineering design and construction, the structural behave as a brittle material and collapse without any warning to people inside the building to escape.

Local resource

There is no one size fits all intervention by NGO. We can not easily replicate the solution from one area to the other. If we want to rehabilitate or reconstruct housing or other infrastructure we can not just go copying the previous intervention in other area. Each disaster area has its own uniqueness. One of the uniqueness is the local resource. We have to consider skilled builders, construction material, common technology and equipment available on the site. On the structural safety side there is no compromise, it should be followed strictly but for using local resource we have to be innovative. We have to use what is available on site as much as we can otherwise local resource can be idle. We have to balance the appropriateness on engineering and its cost with the local resource availability. These affects to the decision on the engineering side which lead to materials to be used and builders who will works. If we use bigger component from outside the area it will reduce their participation. In this case NGO intervention will be partner in reconstruction to train, supervise and provide management in reconstruction.

Sustainability

The sad part of Aceh reconstruction is there is no significant and longer term effect in local economic growth. World Bank reported on Aceh Economic Update May 2009 Aceh’s non-oil and gas gross domestic product growth had dropped to 1.9 percent in 2008, far below the national figure of 6.5 percent. When NGOs started their reconstruction works in 2005 the non-oil and gas GDP was 1.2%. Then on the heyday of reconstruction and rehabilitation in 2006 and 2007 the GDP became 7.7% and 7.0% respectively. But when NGOs phasing out in 2008 the GDP plummeted to 1.9%. There are several issues such as security issue, which made the 7.77 billion USD funding committed for the reconstruction of Aceh and Nias have very minimum impact in sustainability in local economic growth.
To minimize such problems NGOs have to leave the competition on waving flags and move forward to form a solid group. This group should produce pressure to every party which can impede all rehabilitation and reconstruction effort. The obstruction can be security issues, improper business practices since massive reconstruction effort may attract everyone seeks for opportunity and to some extent, very demanding beneficiaries.

These four ideas mentioned above should be considered before the any kind of work on rehabilitation commenced. Without all of these the rehabilitation effort will be difficult to have long term impact and sustainable.

Arwin Soelaksono - Disaster Response & reConstruction

Cash for Work – one of the challenges for reconstruction work

Not more than two weeks after tsunami stroke Nangroe Aceh Darussalam 2004, the tsunami victim introduced to Cash for Work (CfW). The program developed by humanitarian organization in their relief program is a short-term intervention that would provide temporary employment. When the CfW program commenced there were no other livelihoods, since all economic infrastructures were wiped out. The CfW intervention is an alternative of Food for Work. And it is common in disaster response and post conflict area. The CfW apparently is less cost compare to the Food for Work since this program will not include huge procurement, transportation and storage cost.

In CfW program, the people can be as an employee of the NGO and work on the relief work and receive cash as their payment. A wide range of public project works in this relief operation start from removing corpses, debris, boats to shoreline, cleaning of road and drainage ditches and repair other public facilities as road and bridges as well. Even the worker is not literate or not skilled in this job, they still receive wages as long as they work, and on the earlier operation the salary was paid on daily basis.

In Aceh more than 75,000 people employed by the NGOs who have this program with total more of 8 million USD disbursed. This program has been carried out for more than a year which creates pros and contras among NGOs who work in the relief and mostly reconstruction phase.

the good

It is obvious that economic activity is dying in the devastated area due to a disaster. Tsunami which brought massive destruction in all infrastructures, in a blink of an eye everyone became poor person. Agriculture land flooded with saline water, fishermen’s boats dragged miles away into the city, shops turn to debris as happened with houses as well.

CfW proven as good intervention in this condition since cash infused to the local economy so that business activities start to reside. People regain their hope in a way to try to forget their sorrow start to work. Together with the idle workers they removed corpses, cleaned up agricultural land, drainage ditches, roads and houses. The money which they earned then can be used for their daily needs or as a capital for their business. As long as this program implemented as a short term program before livelihood program or long term economic opportunities, this Cfw was confirmed in stimulating economic activities.

the bad

When it was intended as a temporary intervention, many NGO was not prepared with the works should be done by the participants. Limited expertise of the NGO field staffs in managing the project (including in project design and logistic), made CfW participants left undirected. Many of the CfW participants in idle condition as can be seen they very small work to be done. Or there was no discipline was taken if people just showed up in the time they have to sign the presence list. Some people taken advantage as a ghost worker, they can put in their signature in the list of more than one Cfw program. During the first semester of 2005, CfW is a popular program done by NGOs. And this ghost worker can be understandable happened, since in a neighboring area two NGOs have the same CfW program. All they had to do just jumping around to signed in the list.

The program which intended to be an immediate response to rebuild economic activities became deterioration to the attitude of many people. These people might think that they can earn money easily without hard work or even worse, by cheating as a ghost worker. This sort of problem getting bigger since the implementation of CfW is quite long and made many people get used to it. A new comfort zone was created.

the challenges for reconstruction work

How long CfW program should be done? The answer is always debatable. But for sure this CfW program should be stopped when the reconstruction work commenced.

There are three arguments why CfW may hamper reconstruction works. First, it was difficult to find workers for construction. This is common sense, working in construction works is a hard work. Why people have to choose a harder one if they can earn almost equal amount of money from CfW. From their experience, controls from the supervisors are stricter in the reconstruction work since the number of working people is less compare to CfW and the amount of works are easier to quantify.

The other argument is the competition created higher cost for construction works. One of the characteristic in construction works is continuity. It means the work can not be stop unless the project is completed. It is always costly if we have to stop the work and resume. Every restart takes mobilization cost and in the idle time, the equipments and field staffs still need to be paid regularly. In order to retain workers higher wages should be provided.

The third argument is the beneficiary’s participation was deteriorated. In humanitarian approach when doing intervention including the reconstruction work, beneficiary participation is one of the success key. For example in housing reconstruction, the beneficiary can work as a labor when his house is being reconstructed. He can receive wages for this work and at the same time he built his sense of ownership during the construction. The CfW can distract them to leave working on their housing reconstruction to work in CfW program. In reality, the last argument seems not practical in Aceh reconstruction, since many beneficiaries still working for their houses but working in other livelihood area such as fishermen or farmers.

the recommendation

It is proven that construction work and CfW can not be implemented simultaneously. The nature of the payment itself is different. The CfW pay the participants based on the presence construction worker paid based on the amount of work. The payment for construction work based on unit rate of per each type of work meanwhile the wages of CfW based on how many days he/she is working. If the construction work using the approach of CfW the cost will be very high since every worker don’t have to rush on to achieve the target. They get paid on how many days they are working. On the contrary in the construction work they can get paid less or more – depend on their skills – and there is risk component. In the construction work in the same period of time they can earn less if they are not succeed to complete the job.

Naturally people more attracted to the secured job like CfW compare to construction work. Therefore it is difficult to find worker if in the same area, CfW and construction implemented in the same time.

One of the solution is there should be clear that CfW only short intervention. How long the CW can be implemented it depends on the scale of the disaster, but more than 6 months potentially make the people depended. The CfW should be a preparation and transition to the reconstruction phase. Therefore strong coordination amongst organization should be done to ensure the transition.

The other suggestion is the CfW should located not to close to area which already in reconstruction phase. There is should be some distance, let say 3 hours travel by motorbike, from the CfW area to the construction sites. This separation will obstruct their willingness to go back and forth from their residence or working area to join the CfW.

I believe there will not be a contradiction between implementing CfW and construction works. Both can be done successfully if all parties have strong coordination and clear understanding and enough capacity on managing the program.

Arwin Soelaksono - Disaster Response & reConstruction

Recommendation on reconstruction methodology

On October 2006 I attended a workshop which held by BRR. Workshop which focused on contractors and construction contracts was interesting to me. Many of the attendees shared their Catch-22 situation with their contractors. The performances of contractors who done the construction jobs were a big issue at that time. In the opening remarks, Ray Benson from BRR, shared a problem which experienced by an NGO. The NGO already paid a down payment to one of their contractor, big money, but the contractor never showed up with their work. When the NGO pursued the contractor to work, the contractor on the contrary threatened the NGO guy with serious intimidation. Ouch!

Aceh reconstruction due to enormous of the house need is really a big business for contractors. More than 100,000 houses to be built, and should be as soon as possible. The tsunami victim became impatient since they have already in tents for almost 2 years. The donors were irritated due to the slow progress of reconstruction. They were chasing their NGOs whom receive their funding to fulfill what the NGOs had been promised. All of these were a perfect chemistry to drive a rush and messy construction job. In the next paragraph I will tell you how bad the situation was.

Bigger part or almost of all NGO who work in the reconstruction work are a relief NGO. Their experience is in mobilizing food, medicine and paramedic and also water-sanitation work and temporary shelter. But building a permanent house is a different story. Then at the end, the work of building a permanent house in a massive scale become out of context. This job becomes irrelevant since there are two things which mostly these NGO not possess. First, if they have this kind of experiences they should have all policies, procedures and the project management systems. All of these systems should be embedded in their org-ware and enable them to move fast to respond all the needs on the ground. Second, they don’t have human resource which capable enough to handle the job. Come to Aceh merely because of humanity is not enough. Reconstruction people should have project management skills if they want to succeed.

From the contractors’ side this reconstruction job is a fiesta and heavy meal. No wonder they were flooded BRR with requests for prequalification. In mid of March 2006, there were 3,088 companies who took the prequalification document. They were 2,885 contractors and 203 consultants. It was unbelievable, if we compare to the number of same kind of company in Jakarta with a lot of continuously construction job. A notary whom we hire for our legal works, mentioned that a week before the submission of the company profile, she received abundant request for company legal document. This was miserable. These new born companies are intended for the sake to win a contract. They don’t have the past record which shows they have the capacity to work. And their capability to supply the working capital is a big question mark. It was a common tale that if they can win the contract they will subcontract to other company so create the 2 tier or even worse. At that time many NGO became a sitting duck in front of the nasty contractor.

Someone asked me, which one is better using contractor for the construction or direct implementation using skilled labours? Both are fine. This is my recommendation; we have to use contractor and direct implementation using the skilled labours at the same time. Contractor and the skilled labours can be like Dr Jeckyl and Mr. Hyde. Sometimes they are good and sometimes they are corrupt. They can be nice and the other time can be ill-behaved. Let say, your contractor done something nasty, you can switch them off and turn the job to skilled labours, and vice versa. The project management discipline can do that. You have to have a strong system and quite some experience to make this kind of move. If you can’t make an immediate corrective action supported with system and enough resource, you can be fooled by the contractors or your skilled labours. I have shared my best practices on managing skilled labours (click here) and managing contractors (click here). But merely depend on using just skilled labours or only using contractors is not enough. We have to combine it. This methodology can increase our productivity, reduce or overhead and already proven in my work on completion of the 4,600 permanent houses in Aceh reconstruction.

Arwin Soelaksono - Disaster Response & reConstruction

Success Story of Blang Mounlung Resettlement

Blang Mounlong is a village in Aceh Jaya District which swept by tsunami wave and sunk due to lowering of the land. This condition forced the village dwellers to move out and have to find a new place which livable. Last August when I visited the community, I saw flowers and gardens in almost every house that our team have been built. People with big smiles greet me asking for visited their house. Hedgerows and plants are along the path that they made. In short, Blang Mounlong is one of the success stories in resettlement.

There are two ways of doing reconstruction works. First, the on-site reconstruction which means to build a new reconstructed house in the previous land. The new house – even the house is smaller or bigger than the previous house - built in the land which the previous was destroyed by disaster. The new building may not exactly at the same spot with previous one, but it must be the same location or land or the same address. Second, the resettlement, which is the reconstruction of house, may be built in some distance from the previous location. And sometimes this can be quite far. Resettlement is needed since the previous land uninhabitable anymore.

Resettlement challenges

Resettlement beyond all questions is much more difficult than the on-site reconstruction. Land title is a one big issue. Before the house been built, the beneficiary should provide the evidence of the land proprietary. It means he/she has to own the land. If they can not afford the price of the land, the resettlement idea is only escapism. If they have the money to buy the land and the government support it; it does not mean that all problems are gone away. The autochthonous dweller is not automatically accepting Johnny come lately to be their neighbor. It happens to villagers of Desa Fajar in Sampoiniet sub-district in Aceh Jaya District. When they intended to move to Blang Dalam village, which is still in the same sub-district, Blang Dalam community shut the door against them.

Livelihood is another issue that makes resettlement more complicated. Their houses should be not far from their livelihood. A lot of fishermen were became the victim of tsunami. Their houses which just around the beach were swept off and the entire infrastructure were devastated as well. But the survivors still work as fishermen. That is the thing that they know since their childhood. To move them to a safer place at the higher ground means to move them quite far from beach. In June 2005 government issued the regulation of buffer zone; which is in area within 2 km from the sea shore is restricted to be rebuilt. This was real tough for the tsunami victim and to the government. For the government it is almost impossible to relocate people who affected by tsunami along more than 3,000 km coastal line. Prodigious number of people has to be moved in the place which is already dwelled.

Resettlement always cost dearly. New land has to be purchased. If the land is contoured it has to be developed, some cut and fill should be done to make paths and flat area to build the houses. It needs extra works and sometime extra equipment which brings more cost has to be paid. And the very expensive will be damage of the environment. Sometimes resettlement means deforesting. In mid 2005 an NGO intended to open a huge compound in Cot Gajah Mati forest in Aceh Barat District for relocation. Vast area was opened and thousands of trees cut down. When the first time I saw the place the scenery was hideous. For me it was an environmental destruction. The sad story has not finished yet. Until now there is none house has ever built there. Tittle-tattle the soil was too soft and then the house can not be built there.

Resettlement success tips

Community initiative is the key of success. Blang Mounlong community was solid under strong leadership of their village head. They managed themselves by collected money than purchased land which located around 2 km from their previous village. Coordinated by the village head they divided the land. Every one of them got as many as their agreed and paid. We guided them in village design, the lay out and road formation since the area is newly opened. For the land marking, we asked every land owner to plant coconut bud in every corner of the land. And coconut buds are very easy to found.

Community participation always a catalyst of success. Aceh Jaya District was the most destroyed area hit by tsunami. The infrastructure washed-out; this condition made this area so remote. There was neither electricity nor cellular network at that time, made our work even harder. But the community gave their hand to help us. They became the guard of the construction material. They gave their access that we can deliver the construction material to be sent to every house. They treated our worker nicely which made this new village a pleasant place to work.

Community provides local material to ensure availability of supply. We always expected that our logistic and construction material will come late. In our operations in West Coast of Aceh we found almost all of bridges are disappeared, and the temporary bridges in many times are broken due to heavy loads click here. Ground transportation was miserable. In November 2005, it took more than 24 hours to travel 43 km click here. From the sea we got problems with the big wave and at that time it was difficult to found a proper barge to carry the construction material. In January 2006, a barge that we rent, sunk, when they brought the material from Medan to our West Coast operation center. So to ensure that we have the availability of material, we asked them on what kind of material that they can supply. With the reasonable price and within the budget, off course. They agreed to supply rubble stone, sand and lumber. We appreciate their cooperation since it is a win-win business solution.


The appreciation goes to my comrade, Sugio. Blang Mounlong was one of Sugio’s beloved villages. He started his work in Blang Mounlong since April 2005 when we recruited him as construction manager. On April 2006 we appointed Sugio to be the head of West Coast Disaster Response Technical Center. He had done extremely good job in delivered the 739 houses in our operations at Aceh Jaya district. Though, Aceh Jaya district was the most difficult place for the reconstruction work as mentioned by Kuntoro, head of BRR click here. He can perform well in a very minimum condition and support. His achievement made the local government and many NGO who work in Aceh Jaya reconstruction paid him with respect. Blang Mounlong is just one of his undeniably successes.

Arwin Soelaksono - Disaster Response & reConstruction

Recognition from BRR for our Aceh Barat team

After last June we received appreciation from Kuntoro, BRR head, click here, we received recognition from BRR, again.

In BRR Regional 4 report dated August 23, 2007; they put HFHI at the top notch in the 5 TOP DONOR LIST in Aceh Barat District. By June 2007, we have completed the 1,500 houses that we have committed. The completion brought our team on the BRR highest rank. Other big guys in BRR list are World Vision, Asian Development Bank, Catholic Relief Services and Japanese Red Cross.

When I read this BRR report I contemplated on what I have been doing in Meulaboh for almost 2 years.

Our pioneer team led by Tommy Pacatang who came in Meulaboh to open the reconstruction work in the entire of Aceh Barat had done a brilliant job. They dealt with all head honchos in Meulaboh to determine area of work and number of houses committed to be constructed. They dealt with the donor. They did the recruitment and set up the office in the time that many people reluctant to work in a frightened disaster area. And to add their ordeal, there were no adequate support to run proper operations, it was a disaster area, remember? Not enough suppliers, lack of materials and dearth of skilled labours at that time. Disbursement of huge amount of money, without banking presence is completle headache. But Tommy with his strenuous team were absolutely tremendous, they beat all these challenges down.

When I came for the first time in Meulaboh on November 2005, I contribute in strengthen their operation systems and construction methodologies. It was really interesting. Other my fascinating work was appointing who is to be the leader of our Disaster Response Technical Center in Aceh Barat. On March 2006 we assigned Gunawan Sudiyono to be the Center Manager.

The achievement of the 1,500 houses is a mark of Gunawan’s success. He had done exceptional job. Mobilization skilled workers, procurement, logistic management, community development, construction planning and monitoring —the whole enchilada.

One can be highlighted here is mobilizing hundreds skilled labours from Central Java and Medan. In order to deliver around 150 houses monthly we need to add skilled labours from outside Aceh. These skilled labours will increase the speed of works and deliver better quality of houses compare to the local workers. Even the labours paid slightly lower than they can get from other NGO, these workers are eager to work with us since we have the right system. Click here

Gunawan led his team to reach after their attainment. He succeed in orchestrated the construction works Aceh Barat district and Nagan Raya district; and very sure it was a big time.

Below is the list of Top 10 of BRR list. The source is BRR Perwakilan Wilayah IV Resume Kegiatan Aceh Barat 23 Agustus 2007. Actually the list not accurate since we have finished 1,500 house by end of June 2007.

Non Government Organization	House target (unit)	Completed (unit)
Habitat for Humanity Indonesia (HFHI)	1,439	1,439
Catholic Relief Services (CRS)	2,386	1,508
The Salvation Army	1,250	750
World Vision	1,536	721
KKSP	702	420
Islamic Relief	445	345
SOS Desa Taruna Indonesia	322	322
Yayasan Budha Tzu Chi	1,100	366
Tearfund UK	335	208
Caritas Switzerland	1,271	139

Arwin Soelaksono - Disaster Response & reConstruction

3 musketeers who set up a team and system for a massive reconstruction work

Who are people should be in charge for setting up a team and system for a massive reconstruction work? This was one of my discussions with Treena Wu click here last week. Treena is a Research Fellow from Maastricht Graduate School of Governance. Aceh reconstruction work is quite familiar for her. On December 2005 she had produced a paper 1) on shelter reconstruction work.

In the discussion I shared to her what I called the 3 Musketeers of Reconstruction. The presence of these three’s company is a must for a massive reconstruction work. They have to be on the ground to set up the reconstruction team. They have to see by them self the problem faced then decide the policies, methodologies and the strategies for the operations.

Program Manager

This person will determine what kind of program will be implemented. He has to decide the methodologies that affect in long term development for the beneficiaries. Based on his/her experience the program should be operated efficiently and in cost consciousness manner. In order to simplify the work, Program Manager has to provide templates which tailor made suit to working condition. The templates should provide guidelines for the team to understand if the project tends to fail and provide the remedial action. Since the project is time limited, Program Manager should design time line and milestones prior the commencement. Last but not least, the manager should establish the exit strategy. The strategy which assured the output of the operations will be worth for a long period.

Finance Manager

Disbursement of big amount of money is a common thing in a massive reconstruction work. The challenge is how we can safely distribute the money in widely devastated area where no banking systems. It means no bank transfer or payment through bank can be made. For example, paying labours and local supplier with cash amounted of 1 billion Rupiah need to be carried by 3 men with backpack. This complicated work is just one thing should be anticipate by developing a proper finance system. Setting up finance procedural and budgeting will be the earliest work when he/she arrives on the ground.

Human Resource Manager

It is not an easy work to have an experienced, smart and dedicated staff to join the team. The team should be blend of experience people which mostly from outside of the area and from the local one. Set up a fair HR rules which can support the staffs to perform their best and in the same time can protect the staff from malicious act, should be done prior recruiting.

Last Tuesday, Treena came to our office as an external evaluator from Christian Aid, one of HFHI’s donor. I mentioned to her that even there are templates for the work, the presence of these 3 people are needed to make judgment of the most practicable methodology. The 3 musketeers have to work as a team. They have to have a good coordination since the beginning, so they can provide a realistic guidance to the team.

1) Aceh-Nias Reconstruction Shelter Sector: Views from Beneficiaries and NGOs. Treena Wu. December 2005

Arwin Soelaksono - Disaster Response & reConstruction