2009年-世界发展银行全球_GDLN_Seminar_on_Strengthening_Disaster_Risk_Management_in_East_Asia_and_the_Pacific___Volume_4_Housing_and_Community_Reconstruction_after_Natural_Disasters_5页_673kb

报告摘要

GDLN Seminar Summary: Strengthening Disaster Risk Management in East Asia and the Pacific – April 28, 2009

Core Content

This seminar focused on post-disaster housing and community reconstruction, emphasizing the importance of involving affected communities in the recovery process. It highlighted the need for effective strategies, quality control, transparent funding mechanisms, and managing political pressures to ensure successful and sustainable reconstruction.

Main Topics and Key Points

1. Right Approach for Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction

Preferred Approaches: Owner-Driven Reconstruction (ODR) and Community-Driven Reconstruction (CDR) were identified as the most effective approaches, as they involve communities in decision-making and lead to higher satisfaction.
Contractor-Driven Reconstruction In Situ (CRIS): This approach was criticized for lacking community input, leading to poor quality and higher costs due to reliance on external materials and methods.
Case Examples:
- Yogyakarta, Indonesia (2006): A CDR approach was used, involving over 20,000 facilitators. It resulted in 90% community satisfaction and full occupancy of 270,000 houses within 2 years.
- Gujarat, India (2001) and Latur, India (1993): Both used ODR, which led to higher satisfaction rates (around 80%) compared to CRIS projects (60% dissatisfaction).

2. Building Quality and Implementation of Building Codes

Quality Control: Essential for ensuring safe and durable housing, especially in multi-hazard areas. It requires trained personnel and regular audits.
Building Codes: Must be updated and enforced post-disaster. In Yogyakarta, all rebuilt houses received a certificate proving compliance with seismic standards.
Case Examples:
- Kobe, Japan (1995): Existing building codes were not followed by many pre-disaster houses, leading to collapse.
- Good Governance: Crucial for enforcing building codes. The Wenchuan Earthquake in Sichuan highlighted the need for effective governance to prevent unsafe structures.

3. Costs of Reconstruction: Who Bears the Burden?

Housing as a Major Cost Component: Typically accounts for over 30% of total reconstruction costs, with some cases reaching up to 57% (e.g., Aceh after the 2004 tsunami).
Funding Sources:
- Government: Primary source in Yogyakarta and Kobe.
- Donors: Major contributor in Aceh.
- Insurance: Rarely covers a significant portion, highlighting the burden on public and private sectors.
Transparent Funding Mechanisms:
- Yogyakarta: Used a government website to track all expenditures and complaints.
- Gujarat: Financial assistance was channeled through bank accounts to ensure accountability.
- Aceh: Established an anti-corruption unit to monitor funds.

4. Political Pressure and Other Challenges

Risks of Political Pressure: Can lead to rushed reconstruction and compromised quality. In Aceh, this resulted in dissatisfaction and mismanagement.
Successful Model: Yogyakarta managed to avoid political pressure by ensuring a steady flow of funds, leading to timely and quality reconstruction within 18 months.
Resettlement Challenges: In Aceh, some communities had to be resettled due to hazardous conditions, while in Gujarat, relocation was voluntary with support from the government.

Key Takeaways

Community Involvement: Central to successful and sustainable post-disaster reconstruction.
Transparency and Accountability: Critical in managing large-scale reconstruction funds to prevent corruption and ensure efficient use.
Building Standards: Must be enforced and updated to ensure safety and resilience.
Funding Mechanisms: Need to be diversified and carefully managed to meet the needs of affected populations.