Report on the Tsunami housing reconstruction process and problems in Sri Lanka affected by 2004 Sumatra Tsunami

Transcription

1 2 nd International Conference on Urban Disaster Reduction November 27~29, 27 Report on the Tsunami housing reconstruction process and problems in Sri Lanka affected by 24 Sumatra Tsunami Hideaki NAKAZATO 1*, Osamu MURAO 2 1 Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Tsukuba, Japan 2 Faculty of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Tsukuba, Japan Abstract On the 26th of December 24, tidal waves struck the coastal areas in Sri Lanka as well as other Indian Ocean rim countries. The Tsunami damaged to five provinces in Sri Lanka and more than forty thousand people were displaced and disappeared or killed within a short time. After the tsunami, the Government provided three types of houses for the victims (emergency shelters, temporary houses, and permanent houses). At the same time, Government set up the area, called Buffer Zone, to regulate the new building construction. Affected people who work in the fishing industry had been against the new regulation on the ground that they could not continue their working. As a result, government moderated the regulation by decrease distance of Buffer Zone from 1m 2m to 3 13m in May 26. About reconstruction status in reconstruction program of permanent housing, it is said that there are regional differences. Housing reconstruction project had been implemented quickly in Hambantota, while it was delayed in Colombo and Ampara. For affected people reconstruction program needs to be fair anywhere they are. The authors conducted field surveys and interviews in the damaged area, Galle Hambantota, southern area, and Trincomalee, northern area in November 25, March 26 and March 27 to understand the recovery conditions and the problem in the Permanent house and Temporary house. We also obtained data set, which had been collected for 13 months since December 24, by Reconstruction and Development Agency. It shows about the construction status of temporary house and permanent house. This paper demonstrates regional transition of the temporary house construction in comparison with permanent house and the problem in temporary and permanent house. Keyword: 24 Sumatra Tsunami, Sri Lanka, Housing reconstruction, Buffer Zone, Permanent house, Temporary house Hideaki NAKAZATO, Graduate School of Systems and Information Engineering, University of Tsukuba, Japan, Laboratory of Advanced Research B-721, Tennoudai, Tsukuba City, Ibaraki, Japan, nakaza2@sk.tsukuba.ac.jp

2 1. Introduction and object The Indian Ocean Tsunami, which originated in Northern Sumatra on December 26, 24, struck many countries in South and Southeast Asia. In Sri Lanka, the second most affected country, Department of Census and Statistics [1] reported that approximately 4, people were killed, and 96, houses in coastal area were completely or partially damaged. Ministry of Fisheries and Aauatic Statistics [2] reported that 34% of all affected houses belonged to fisheries or fishery-related industries. According to Steering Committee (Ministry of Finance and Planning) [3], 516,15 people were considered displaced after the tsunami, having lost their homes. The Government conducted a housing reconstruction program composed of three phases: emergency shelters, temporary housing, and permanent housing; temporary houses were to be used as a bridge between emergency and permanent houses. Maeda et al. [4] revealed that the way of restoration of settlemets was quite different in Moratuwa and Hikkaduwa, south west area affected by tsunami. In the case of Sri Lanka, the relocation of affected people was also an important issue. This report first describes the housing reconstruction program in Sri Lanka, particularly permanent housing, and then compares the regional differences between affected areas based on field surveys and interviews with government officials and residents of the affected areas. 2. Outline of housing reconstruction TAFREN and THRU provided the framework for the following three categories of recovery housing: 1) Emergency shelters (Photo-1), 2) Temporary houses (Photo-2), and 3) Permanent houses (Photo-3). For the third phase, the Buffer Zone settlement is an important concept. In Sri Lanka, uncontrolled development had been taking place in coastal areas due to growth in the tourist industry from the 195s to the 197s. However, in 1981 the Coastal Conservation Department designated Buffer Zones as part of the Coastal Conservation Zone (CCZ) to regulate development in coastal areas (R.A.D.B. Samaranayake) [5]. According to Urban Development Authority [6], the CCZ is divided into two parts, the 1 st and 2 nd strips (Table-1). The 1 st strip (1 m landwards on the west coast and 2 m landwards on the east coast) was defined as a Buffer Zone, and reconstruction of affected houses in this area was regulated. On the other hand, affected people who work in the fishing industry had been against the new regulation on the ground that they could not continue their working. As a result, government moderated the regulation by decrease distance of Buffer Zone from 1 2m to 3 13m in May 26. Donor-built reconstruction programs were implemented for all affected families in the Buffer Zone, and the Homeowner-Driven

3 Housing Reconstruction Program applied to damaged houses outside the Buffer Zone. This paper focuses on the Donor-built Reconstruction Program, and compares the regional differences in this program. Photo-1 Emergency shelter Photo-2 Temporary house Photo-3 Permanent Table-1 Change of the definition of the Coastal Conservation Zone original guideline February 25 revised guideline May 26 land strip Zone 1 west coast from Point Pedro to Point Dndra Zone 2 east coast from Point Pedro to Point Dndra 1st strip (Buffer Zone) 1m landward 2m landward 2nd strip 11-1m 21-1m the distance from the coast line is decided m by CCD based on 1st strip investigation. (Buffer Zone) CCD takes consideration of situation in each region. 2nd strip inland from 1st strip 3. Donor-built housing reconstruction program 3.1 Institutional arrangements and process The Sri Lankan Government established the Task Force for Rebuilding the Nation (TAFREN) as the primary institutional mechanism for recovery and reconstruction, The Tsunami Housing Reconstruction Unit (THRU) was also established to manage and focus on housing reconstruction. In this project [7], first, the donor applies to TAFREN with a plan for the amount of the grant, the number of houses, and the location of construction. Next, TAFREN vetted the donor plan and found projects which fit their criteria. Then, after arriving at an agreement, TAFREN and the donor concluded a contract and coordinated the type of housing and the community plan. In this program, it was notable that the donor s opinion was reflected in the plan. TAREN was shifted to Rebuilding and Development Agency (RADA) after November Regional comparison of the project The number of houses contracted between TAFREN and donors was 33,821, approximately 7% of the 49,233 houses required in this project as of March, 26. Figure- 1 shows the change in the ratio of houses under construction against the number of houses

4 1% 8% 6% 4% Ampara Batticaloa Colom bo Galle Gampha Hambamtota J affna Kaluthara Kilinochchi Matara Mullaitivu Trincom alee 2% % 1/5 3/5 5/5 7/5 9/5 11/5 1/6 3/6 Figure-1 Transition of the ratio of Permanent houses start construction against contracted 12 9 H ouses started construction 12 9 H ouses started construction /5 3/5 5/5 7/5 9/5 11/5 1/6 3/6 1/5 3/5 5/5 7/5 9/5 11/5 1/6 3/6 Hambantota Batticaloa Figure-2 Transition of number of permanent houses started construction contracted between TAFREN and donors from January 25 to March 26. Figure-2 shows the number of houses required and the transition of houses under construction in Hambantota and Ampara. As indicated in the figure, construction in Hambantota started earlier than other districts, and construction stayed after March 25 in Mullaitive. The other districts show almost identical trends, except for the date the project was initiated. While much attention was directed at humanitarian aid from donors in urban areas such as Colombo and Khalutara, there were not enough donors in the poorer eastern districts, such as Ampara. As shown in Figure-1, the number of houses constructed was only 4% of the number needed. Giving consideration to the difference of number of affected houses in each district, there are notable differences about progress in housing construction. It became clear that there are some reasons behind the regional differences the above, from field conducted in surveys we conducted in November 25, March 26 and March 27. One of the reasons is that Donor interest is considered a reason for the unbalanced distribution of donors between affected areas. It is thus important to examine how donors take part in disaster recovery projects. Furthermore, the factors such as land shortage in the west, Colombo and Kaluthara, and project delay results from a strike known as hartaal which is caused by Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Trincomalee and Batticaloa.

5 4. Temporary house building program The Transitional Accommodation Project (TAP) was implemented to supply affected people Temporary houses in which they live until they get permanent house. According to Ministry of Finance and Planning and the Reconstruction & Development Agency (RADA), 57,57 shelters were provided and 14,961 shelters remain occupied as of November 26 [8]. Figure-3 shows the number of Temporary houses needed and provided. Table-2 shows the number of houses required and the transition of houses under construction in Colombo and Ampara. As figure shows, the number of houses provided is less than the number needed in urban area such as Gampaha, Colombo (Figure-3), and Kaluthara. On the other hand, more Temporary houses were provided than houses needed in local area such as Ampara (Figure-3), Batticaloa, and Trincomalee. These symptoms seem to be related to the fact that the permanent housing construction project is delayed in local area. It is needed to provide more temporary houses, so that displaced people could live until they get new houses. 5. Livelihood problems The authors interviewed affected people in Galle, Hambantota, and Trincomalee. The problems in relocated sites found out from interviews were water supply and access to sea. In almost all temporary sites water was supplied by bower, water supply track, so that it is Colombo a. Houses needed b. Houses completed balance ( b / a ) Ampara 1,566 18, % Batticaloa 1,55 12, % Colombo 3,397 1,363 4% Galle 6,169 5,561 9% Gampaha % Hambantota 1,29 1,78 138% Jaffna 3,395 3,574 15% Kaluthara 2,671 1,661 62% Kilinochchi % Matara 2,41 3, % Mullaitivu 2,124 2,124 1% Trincomalee 4,643 6,37 136% Total 47,493 57,57 12% Table-2 The number of Temporary houses needed and completed(as of February 26)[8] 2, 16, H ouses com pleted 2, 16, H ouses com pleted 12, 12, 8, 8, 4, 4, 12/4 2/5 4/5 6/5 8/5 1/5 12/5 2/6 12/4 2/5 4/5 6/5 8/5 1/5 12/5 2/6 Colombo Ampara Figure-3 Transition of number of Temporary houses completed

6 serious problem to secure drinking water and daily use water. Fishery is major industry in these areas, and a lot of people who engage in fishery industry were affected. NGOs have provided boats, but some of them are not used. It is too far for affected people to go to sea from where they live, so that they leave boats without using. These problems were identified in Permanent housing sites. Almost all of sites locate some distance away from town and sea without infrastructures. Upgrading and improvement livelihood in replaced sites are required. 6. Conclusion This paper reported the status of permanent housing construction, temporary housing construction, and the problem in replaced sites. The processes and problems elucidated by this paper will be indispensable for future reconstruction projects. Projects have been still continued in affected area, and then the authors have mind to continue the field survey in affected area. Acknowledgements This paper is supported by Restoration Program from Giant Earthquakes and Tsunamis, Granted by the Special Coordination Funds for Promoting Science and Technology, Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology. The authors are grateful for the assistance of Nihal Rpasinghe, (Central Engineering Consultancy Bureau), Dr. Srikantha Herath, (United Nations University), and Navindra De Silva, (Senior Japanese Interpreter of JICA). Refferences [1] Department of Census and Statistics, Census of Persons, Housing Units and Other Buildings affected by Tsunami, 26th December 24, (25). [2] Ministry of Fisheries and Aquatic Statistics, Fishermen s Houses Affected by Tsunami, (25). [3] Steering Committee (Ministry of Finance and Planning), Joint Report of the Government of Sri Lanka and Development Partners, (25), pp1-2. [4] Maeda, M., Nakagawa, Y., Yamada, K., and Funo, S., Consideration realities and issues of settlements in south west coast of Sri Lanka after the Sumatra earthquake and indian ocean tsunami in 24 - From the view of continuation from the usual living, Journal of Architecture and Planning, Architectural Institute of Japan, (27), pp [5] R.A.D.B. Samaranayake, Sri Lanka s Agenda for Costal Zone Manegement, pp1-3 [6] Urban Development Authority, Physical Planning Guidelines and Project Proposals for the "Vulnerable" Coastal Zone of Sri Lanka, (25). [7] TAFREN, Donor Assisted Housing & Township Reconstruction, (25), pp12-14.

7 [8] Ministry of Finance and Planning and the Reconstruction & Development Agency (RADA), Post-Tsunami Recovery and Reconstrucion, (26), pp15-16.