I am Arwin Soelaksono from Habitat for Humanity Indonesia. I was on the ground during the early recovery phase and housing recovery program in Aceh following the tsunami. We built over 8,000 houses and were acknowledged as one of the most resilient non-governmental organizations working on the West Coast of Aceh, as well as other organizations like Samaritan’s Purse and the British Red Cross. Through the years and experiences, we took profound lessons, learned what we had done during the recovery, and gained the wisdom to help disaster-affected people rebuild their houses more effectively and sustainably.
A story from Aceh after the Asian Tsunami 20 years ago
By mid-2005, more than 5,000 international humanitarian workers had arrived in Aceh. During the heyday of the rehabilitation and reconstruction of Aceh, there were 124 International NGOs, dozens of United Nations organizations, and 430 local NGOs. During 2005-2006, cities like Banda Aceh, Meulaboh, and other West Coast parts were crowded with Non-Government Organizations or NGOs. Funded with a substantial amount of money, that is, 7.7 billion USD, the workers came and hit the ground running.
This large amount of money was poured into the recovery operations, and the crowding of humanitarian workers quickly met the reality. The affected area experienced prolonged three decades of armed conflict and, therefore, had insufficient market capacities. The construction materials were far below the needs, especially for recovery agencies who work in housing. The imbalance of supply and demand then created severe inflation and competition amongst the recovery agencies.
The competition did not stop; more problems occurred when the NGOs conflicted over who would get beneficiaries. It was a sad reality that recovery agencies had to compete so that the beneficiaries might choose which one could build their houses. At that time, it was common for NGOs to entice the beneficiaries to accept their housing donations and scrap the others. For instance, several NGOs offered to build larger or even two-story houses, not only houses but also donated furniture and TV sets. NGOs like Habitat for Humanity Indonesia were under challenging circumstances because our houses were 36 meters square, and no furniture was given to the beneficiaries. We believe there is sharing responsibility as houses are given freely; the homeowners should provide household goods according to their preferences.
One evening in March 2006, a group of villagers came to our office in Rigaih, on the West Coast of Aceh. They asked us to build 45 square meters instead of 36-meter square houses as we promised them. The discussion was tense. We had to agree; otherwise, they would send us out and let other NGOs who can build 45-meter square houses work. So, NGO competition brings a bad attitude to the beneficiaries. It made them spoiled. At the end of the day, it can dictate the NGO that helped them to fulfill their unreasonable needs. That evening, I signed a letter saying we would leave the area and let other NGOs work since we refused to meet their demand.
In the morning, as we prepared to leave the village and say goodbye to the community, we were surprised that the women were angry at their husbands. These ladies asked us to stay and build their houses. They told their husbands, “Let Habitat build our houses; then, we can ask other NGOs to build additional houses.” Even though I didn’t like what they were thinking, indeed, it was clever. This occasion brings us to a new understanding: women have a significant role in housing recovery post-disaster.
Experience in Nepal in 2015
Following the 2015 earthquake in Nepal, I was deployed by the American Red Cross to support housing recovery. One day during the recovery program, I was in Kaule village, one of the areas in Nepal hardest affected by the earthquake. I met a woman who was doing hard physical work. She carried a stone that would be used for her house. Though I believe the stone was heavy, I found no complaint from her on doing the work. In another place, I saw a family building their house. All are women from different generations, but both can do construction work. Still, in the same village, I saw women fixing steel rebar for earthquake-resistant bands. It was community work in which everyone knew the importance of earthquake-resistant attributes that must be installed in each house. So, individuals, families, and communities can do as men did in reconstruction work.
Read also: Adequate Housing for a Resilient Future
So, why is women’s role significant in housing recovery? In my perspective, there are at least two aspects that can support this idea.
First, they are focused. Protecting their children and families motivates them to finish the construction very soon. A woman I met in Nepal was running against the clock, ensuring her house would be finished before the winter. Those who were trained in safer construction carefully installed the material to achieve a robust structure.
Second, their presence brings more actors to complete the housing recovery ecosystem. To ensure the recovery will be sustainable, the process will continue even after the external support from the government and NGOs is gone. To create the ecosystem, additional support should be provided for the most vulnerable, improving access to livelihoods, the availability of financial service providers in the area, and so on. These initiatives are usually outside the scope of work of housing actors; therefore, partnering with non-shelter or non-housing agencies should always be attempted.
Construction training enhances the role of women more effectively
Then, how could we help women work on their role in housing recovery effectively? What is the best way to prepare women that makes them capable so they can confidently work for their houses and their neighbor’s houses?
The first start is through construction training as it was done in Nepal and Indonesia. For instance, during the 2015 housing recovery in Nepal, the government launched a mason training program as a preparation initiative prior to the massive reconstruction program. A 7-day training course taught them how to build an earthquake resistance house according to the code properly. The training was inclusive for men and women. A curriculum contained classroom activities and field training; if they passed the training, they would get a certificate. Women have been encouraged to participate, but their presence still needs to be improved.
Then, why were recovery agencies so serious about providing support for women? Is it too much to give attention to women working in construction?
Actually, giving more attention to women and trusting them to play a more significant role in the reconstruction process is respecting the nature of recovery. We need the post-disaster reconstruction process to be natural, as there is no shortcut to swift recovery. Injecting support that is driven by political pressure or other than recovery from within will not be sustainable or even lead to failure.
Women have a unique instinct to protect their children; wherever I work, I often find their persistence in finishing the construction in good quality and as soon as possible. It is their potential. The houses should be strong enough not to be damaged again if there is a similar hazard. Interestingly, they have their own design according to their needs; therefore, having houses with their design gives higher satisfaction than modular houses. Moreover, if they build the houses by themselves, they will be confident in repairing or extending them. Such sustainability that everyone is expecting.
Therefore, giving women a significant role in housing recovery will maximize their efforts to support their families, resulting in good construction quality and timely completion. Moreover, as a bonus, women can earn income from construction, eradicating vulnerability in the affected areas.
Writer: Arwin Soelaksono/Program Director Habitat for Humanity Indonesia
(kh/av)
