TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 4

1. Methodology and Sampling Framework 6

1.1 Selection of Villages 6

1.2 Selection of Households 7

1.3 Design of Data Collection Tool 7

1.4 Database Design and Management 7

2. Effects of Earthquake 2005 9

2.1 Muzaffarabad and Neelum 9

2.2 Bagh 9

2.3 Poonch 10

2.4 Abbottabad 10

2.5 Battagram 11

2.6 Mansehra 11

2.7 Kohistan 11

2.8 Shangla 12

3. Social Impacts of Direct Outreach Interventions 13

3.1 Rural Housing 13

3.2 Social Protection 17

3.3 Livelihood 20

4. Social Impacts of Social Services Interventions 24

4.1 Education 24

4.2 Health 26

4.3 Water and Sanitation 29

5. Social Impacts of Public Infrastructure Interventions 33

5.1 Transport 33

5.2 Power 34

5.3 Telecommunications 34

6. Recommendations 36

7. Conclusions and Way Forward 37

Annexes 38

Annex I: Lists of District-wise Sampled Villages

Annex II: Impact Assessment Household Survey Questionnaire

Annex III: ERRA M&E Evaluation Group

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ADB Asian Development Bank

AIT Assistance and Inspection Teams

AJ&K Azad Jammu and Kashmir

BHU Basic Health Unit

CBO Community Based Organisation

CIF Community Investment Fund

CLRP Community Livelihood Rehabilitation Plan

CMT Construction Monitoring Team

DNA Damage Need Assessment

DRAC District Reconstruction Advisory Committee

DRU District Reconstruction Unit

EMEF Earthquake Monitoring and Evaluation Framework

ERRA Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority

EQ Earthquake

GoP Government of Pakistan

IEC Information Education and Communication

IGA Income Generation Activity

IP Implementing Partner

JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency

Km Kilometre

LAC Legal Aid Centre

LHV Lady Health Visitor

LHW Lady Health Worker

LSCG Livelihood Support Cash Grant

LSS Linear Systematic Sampling

LVU Land Verification Unit

m Metre

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

MB Measurement Book

NRC Norwegian Refugee Council

NWFP North-West Frontier Province

PCRWR Pakistan Council for Research in Water Resources

PERRA Provincial Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency

PKR Pakistani Rupee

PO Partner Organisation

PPAF Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund

PPS Probability Proportional to Size

PTCL Pakistan Telecommunication Limited

PWD Peoples With Disabilities

RHC Rural Health Centre

RHRP Rural Housing Reconstruction Programme

RLL Rural Landless

RSS Random Systematic Sampling

SCO Special Communication Organisation

SERRA State Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency

SST Social Survey Team

UC Union Council

UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund

USAID United States Agency for International Development

WatSan Water and Sanitation

WB World Bank

WHO World Health Organisation

WLL Wireless Local Loop

WSS Water Supply Scheme

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Social Impact Assessment Report 2008 is a comprehensive document covering the

social impacts of Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA) specific

interventions in all the major sectoral clusters (Direct Outreach, Social Services and Public

Infrastructure)1. The document highlights the key progress made by ERRA in the process of

reconstruction and rehabilitation, and their timely assessment in order to evaluate the

outcomes and impacts at all the levels. The efforts of ERRA Monitoring and Evaluation

(M&E) Wing in identifying assessing and interpreting the dormant areas are an indicator that

is realistically amalgamated through this Social Impact Assessment Report 2008.

During the social impact survey, all the nine earthquake affected districts were covered in a

way that four districts were surveyed in the State of Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJ&K) and

five in North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) during April - September 2008. Five

beneficiaries from each of the 30 villages (out of a total of 270 villages) were selected in

every district, resulting to a total of 1,350 beneficiaries in the nine predominant districts. A

rigorous survey and sampling methodology was practiced for statistically robust results, with

the help of integrated data collection tool formulated by ERRA M&E Wing.

Social Impacts of Direct Outreach Interventions

ERRA introduced an owner-driven approach in the housing reconstruction in order to build

the capacity for which the affected community was provided a series of tranches (PKR

75,000 for partially damaged and PKR 175,000 for completely damaged) according to the

extent of damages. It was observed during the survey that a vast majority (seventy-two

percent) of the sampled population were in compliance with ERRA standards, while in

districts of Kohistan and Shangla, a focused attention is required to facilitate the

communities to follow ERRA standards. The respondents felt a sense of security and quoted

their new houses as “comfortable” as compared to pre-earthquake situation. A small

percentage of the sampled beneficiaries received technical training to practice them to make

a living.

Livelihood Support Cash Grant Programme (LSCG) has provided the essential cash flow to

the affected communities, which provided them an opportunity to focus their attention on

housing reconstruction. The programme has been effective in addressing the need for

immediate food and non food items. The formulation of 506 Community Based

Organisations (CBOs) was consequential in a raised social capital of the communities.

Another deduction from the survey indicates an expected increase in the physical capital of

the region because of the Community Livelihood Rehabilitation Plans (CLRPs) interventions.

The survey confirmed that female headed households were given preference by the

government in disbursing the livelihood cash. Establishment of Legal Aid Centres (LACs)

helped the vulnerable in understanding their rights. ERRA interventions have restored the

confidence of the Persons with Disabilities (PWD) through the provision of livelihoods.

1 Direct Outreach: Rural Housing, Social Protection, Livelihood

Social Services: Education, Health, Water and Sanitation Public Infrastructure: Transport, Power, Telecommunication, Governance

2

Social Impacts of Social Sectors Interventions

One of the major achievements of ERRA after the earthquake was the immediate recovery

of the educational institutions in the affected areas. The students were shifted to either the

permanent or temporary shelters, which saved their academic year. The seismic

construction of the schools has raised the confidence of the parents, consequently uplifting

the percentage of the school going children. Student enrolment has increased in the order of

eighteen percent for male and thirty percent for female students of school going age as

compared to pre earthquake. ERRA interventions provided them an opportunity to benefit

from the quality education as a result of teacher training programmes.

In the Water and Sanitation (WatSan) sector, it was observed that the population had a

better access to safe drinking water, as the beneficiaries were saving about an hour during

each trip that they had to make earlier to fetch the water from remote locations. Before the

earthquake, the households relied on gravity flow or water springs, but with the

implementation of ERRA interventions, the usage of tap water through the improved water

supply schemes has increased. Open defecation has decreased in the order of fifty percent

in the affected areas. Practices of safe disposal of waste and excreta is improving, thus

minimizing the factors generating infections and diseases.

Social Results of Public Infrastructure Interventions

During the survey, an improvement in the accessibility to the health facilities, markets, and

schools has been reported by the respondents. Most of the road construction is in progress,

and 52 contracts have been awarded to the local contractors; this would result in economic

regeneration, increased employment opportunities, and improved road access for the

communities. The training of local engineers and sub-engineers at various stages has built

the capacity of the local workforce in the field of road construction.

Electricity is being provided to the remotely located affected areas under the ERRA

interventions in the Power sector. Reduction in workload due to the automation of multiple

work appliances and their application in daily use have improved the living standards and

conditions of the communities. The students can study at night in a better environment due

to the provision of electricity; hence they may achieve their career goals more

enthusiastically and efficiently.

The coverage of the earthquake affected areas has improved with the introduction of an

enhanced telecommunication system in the region. This intervention has improved the socio-

economic condition, as people are involved in small businesses such as telephone repairs,

franchise operation, and a number of businesses requiring telephonic communication. The

State of AJ&K has issued permission to the telecommunication companies to operate in the

region. Within three years, mobile phone subscribers have crossed a figure of one million,

which confirms the importance and usability of the telecommunication services.

Conclusions and Way Forward

The social impact assessment survey and its analyses provide a statistically robust picture of

the reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts by ERRA and it‟s Partner Organisations (POs).

3

The results exhibit ERRA‟s efforts as a key factor in bringing a positive change in the lives of

the people, and in fostering an enabling environment in the earthquake affected areas.

However, the report also highlights certain challenges and actions regarding

institutionalisation; introduction of a follow-up mechanism across ERRA, Provincial

Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency (PERRA), State Earthquake

Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Agency (SERRA), and District Reconstruction Units

(DRUs); and promotion of continuous process of documentation, and organisation of

learning round-tables are critical for a sustainable reconstruction and rehabilitation

programme. In addition, a number of specific sectoral recommendations emerged to address

the shortcomings are also identified in the report that may be referred to in the respective

sectoral sections.

4

INTRODUCTION

History depicts earthquakes as one of the most catastrophic naturally occurring incident,

which have always been devastating, especially when it is of an enormous magnitude.

Considering the fact that the earthquake strikes a region lying in the seismic belt, and that

the epicentre lies across a mountain range, the consequences would surely be disastrous,

beyond expectation.

Such an incident occurred on the 8th of October, 2005 in the northern part of Pakistan. The

tremors exceeding the reading of 7.6 on the Richter scale clearly indicate the destruction

accompanying this earthquake. The reciprocating factor in the earthquakes is the intensity,

through which the total loss may be approximated, as it is directly proportional to the

eruption created.

The span of the earthquake lasted a few months as around 1,900 aftershocks were recorded

(till 31st May, 2006) and a total of 30,000 square kilometres of area was disrupted as an

aftermath of this natural disaster. A rapid assessment of damages, occurring to the physical

and social capital, estimated a loss of about 73,338 human lives, injuring 128,304 people

across the four affected districts of AJ&K and five of NWFP. Over 600,000 houses were

destroyed, almost all the educational and governance infrastructure was damaged or wiped

out, hospitals were demolished and the public infrastructure, particularly the roads, power

facilities and telecommunication infrastructure were severely affected.

ERRA was established by the Government of Pakistan (GoP), within days of the earthquake

(24th October, 2005), with the purpose to “Build Back Better”. The aim of this autonomous

government authority was to coordinate the reconstruction and rehabilitation activities in the

earthquake affected areas. The focus of ERRA at the time of its establishment has evolved

from the immediate rescue and relief operations to long-term reconstruction and

rehabilitation, for a sustainable environment in order to facilitate the affected population of

AJ&K and NWFP.

While progress on reconstruction and rehabilitation is in line with expected targets, ERRA is

also striving to enhance its institutional strengthens through formulation of work plans and

implementation mechanisms; development of standard procedures; capacity building

interventions encompassing ERRA and its affiliates; consolidation of partnerships with

national and international donors to materialise their pledges of assistance.

The M&E Wing of ERRA designs and implements the central M&E system, through the

devised Earthquake Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (EMEF). Following the

„programme logic model‟, monitoring is conducted for inputs, outputs, outcomes and impacts

of ERRA specific interventions. The regular monitoring is applied in quantifying the quality of

the programmes, assessment of the progress, identification of goals and achievements

along with the challenges being faced. Technical monitoring (input and output) is conducted

by the field based Construction Monitoring Teams (CMTs) and the field based Social Survey

Teams (SSTs) carry out the social monitoring (outcome and impact).

While technical monitoring provides for the appropriateness, relevance, quality, and

compliance related elements, the social monitoring reports inform the management

5

regarding extension of services as a result of completed facilities, and changes in peoples‟

lives. To maintain the authenticity, the social surveys follow an empirically robust survey

methodology and sampling framework. Regular data collection is carried-out according to

statistically sturdy approved scale of monitoring and information gathering.

The social impact assessment report is a measuring document, produced by ERRA M&E

Wing, as a part of the aforementioned effort. It is purely based on the social impact

assessment survey conducted at the household level. Following the devised sampling and

survey framework, 1,350 households were selected from 270 villages across the nine

ERRA-served districts of AJ&K (Bagh, Muzaffarabad, Neelum, and Poonch) and NWFP

(Abbottabad, Battagram, Kohistan, Mansehra and Shangla,).

The key sectors have been clustered into three groups: Direct Outreach covering rural

housing, social protection, livelihoods; Social Services constituting education, health,

WatSan; Public Infrastructure comprising transport, power and telecommunication. The

cross-cutting themes of gender, disaster risk reduction and environmental safeguards are

covered within individual sectors, as applicable. The social impacts of ERRA-specific

interventions are reported and analysed for the above mentioned social clusters followed by

conclusions and recommendations.

Learning and experiences emerging from social impact assessment report are to form

knowledge base for ERRA management and its stakeholders to gauge the trends and

changes in peoples‟ lives and outline mid-course corrections.

The report is intended to be shared with ERRA‟s national and international partners in the

effort of reconstruction and rehabilitation. This report is expected to improve the decision-

making, allowing a rectification of the short-comings in any programmes and enhancing their

effectiveness.

6

1. METHODOLOGY AND SAMPLING FRAMEWORK

Based on M&E sampling tools and techniques followed by international development

agencies, an empirically robust survey framework was followed. A ninety percent confidence

level was maintained to ensure precision and accuracy during the survey. Managed by the

M&E Wing SSTs, the survey was conducted at the household level. It captures the changes

in the lives of the people and the socio-economic as a result of the overall reconstruction and

rehabilitation efforts with specific reference to ERRA. It highlights effects on the identifiable

population groups through various interventions, directly or indirectly, intended or

unintended.

To achieve ninety percent confidence interval, a survey of 1,350 households, spread over

nine affected districts was implied. While the unit of survey was “household”, the unit of

analyses was “district”.

Zone District Area

(sq. Km)

No. of

Tehsils

No. of Union

Councils

No. of

Villages

NW

FP

Abbottabad 1,967 2 51 346

Battagram 1,301 2 20 104

Kohistan 7,492 3 38 1,404

Mansehra 4,579 4 64 492

Shangla 1,586 5 28 111

Sub-Total 16 201 2,457

AJ&

K

Muzaffarabad 6,117 2 40 516

Neelum 3,621 1 9 80

Bagh 1,368 3 27 193

Poonch 855 4 21 110

Sub-Total 10 97 899

Total 26 298 3,356

Table 1: Main Features of Survey Districts

A two-stage cluster sampling methodology was used to select the survey households.

i. In the first stage, 30 villages were chosen in each district using Linear Systematic

Sampling (LSS);

ii. In the second stage, a cluster of five households was chosen in each village using

Random Systematic Sampling (RSS).

1.1 Selection of Villages

Thirty villages were selected using LSS with Probability Proportional to Size (PPS), i.e. the

probability of selecting any given village was proportional to the size of the village. Use of

PPS ensured that larger villages had greater significance in the survey than smaller ones,

and thereby simplified calculations made in the analysis stage.

The procedure followed was:

i. The villages were sorted by altitude, from low to high;

7

ii. The cumulative population was calculated using population data from each

village and listed in a separate column;

iii. LSS methodology was used to select the villages. The stepping interval was

calculated by dividing the total population with the sample size (30). A random

number village was chosen in the first stepping interval. This became the first

village in the sample, with the remaining 29 chosen by adding stepping intervals.

1.2 Selection of Households

Five households were chosen from each sampled village. According to the original

guidelines for the impact survey, a strictly randomised household sample was to be used,

based on a complete list of households in each village. However, due to the resource

constraints, the ERRA management adopted a simplified procedure to minimise time

requirements while preserving the principle of random selection. This was achieved by

selecting households randomly from within each mohalla (neighbourhood), a „sub-division‟ of

the village. Random selection was strictly applied for these mohalla, thereby validating the

calculation of confidence levels for the final results.

1.3 Design of Data Collection Tool

An integrated survey questionnaire was designed to cover all ERRA priority sectors, i.e. rural

housing, livelihood, social protection, education, health, water and sanitation, transport,

power and telecommunication. It was reviewed from the cross-cutting lens and field-tested

for additional comprehensiveness.

1.4 Database Design and Management

Data entry screens were developed prior to data collection using Microsoft Excel

spreadsheets. This facilitated data entry and averted the risk of errors because of

delayed/non-entry. It is a critical aspect of ensuring the quality of data. Standard principles

of data entry (ensuring data entry screens matched the questionnaire format); data validation

and cleaning (compilation sheets, permissible value tests, etc.) and data storage (for raw

data, cleaned data, processed data, etc) were applied.

8

9

2. EFFECTS OF EARTHQUAKE 2005

This section details the effects of the October 2005 earthquake on each of the nine surveyed

districts. In each case, general figures for damaged houses, schools and other infrastructure

are presented (where available). These statistics are drawn from the previous surveys and

reports, e.g. the Asian Development Bank (ADB)/World Bank (WB) damage assessment

report.2 They are followed by the effects of the earthquake particularly on the households

included in the survey. Besides the reported damage, respondents were asked about the

damage to their houses, sources of livelihood and access to facilities, markets, etc.

Studying the effects of the earthquake 2005 is crucial, both to understand the threats posed

by such disasters (thereby facilitating disaster prevention and management), and to provide

a baseline against which to measure the impact of ERRA interventions.

2.1 Muzaffarabad and Neelum

The earthquake damaged 1,706 educational institutes and 228 health facilities in the area.

Most of the water facilities and water sources were destroyed. Both the districts also

suffered significant loss to livelihood, due to the damage to land, crops, livestock and

infrastructure. Close proximity of the epicentre of the earthquake to the city of Muzaffarabad

resulted in an extensive damage to private housing.

During the social survey carried out in the two districts (300 households), the statistics

revealed the following effects to human lives: 60 lost their lives, 40 with major injuries and 65

with minor injuries. Findings for physical damage and loss of livelihoods are given in Table

2.

Category Complete / Severe

Damage

Moderate / Partial

Damage

Minor / No

Damage

No. % No. % No. %

Muzaffarabad

Housing 121 81 29 19 - -

Livelihood 94 63 27 18 29 19

Accessibility 44 29 71 47 35 24

Neelum

Housing 104 69 38 25 8 6

Livelihood 31 21 54 36 65 43

Accessibility 53 35 48 32 49 33

Table 2: Damage Suffered by Households Surveyed in Districts of Muzaffarabad and Neelum

2.2 Bagh

District Bagh also suffered extensive damage to its physical infrastructure as well as losing

physical sources of livelihood and social assets including land, schools and health facilities.

Table 3 summarises physical damage and loss to livelihoods.

Pakistan 2005 Earthquake Preliminary Damage and Needs Assessment Report. (ADB and World Bank, Islamabad, November 2005).

10

Category Complete / Severe

Damage

Moderate / Partial

Damage

Minor / No

Damage

No. % No. % No. %

Housing 124 82 13 9 13 9

Livelihood 56 37 38 26 56 37

Accessibility 31 21 51 34 68 45

Table 3: Damage to Households Surveyed in District Bagh

2.3 Poonch

The total loss to the human life in District Poonch was 1,120, while another 1,883 people

were injured. The damage to the housing was extensive: according to ERRA reports, eighty

percent of housing structures were totally destroyed and fifteen percent were partially

damaged. According to the WB/ADB preliminary damage assessment report, a total of 923

schools and 213 health institutions in both the public and private sector were either fully or

partially damaged. The earthquake affected some 242 Water Supply Schemes (WSS) in

District Poonch.

Among the 150 households surveyed, there were 46 causalities, 30 people received major

injuries and 27 minor injuries. Table 4 summarises physical damage and loss to livelihoods.

Category Complete / Severe

Damage

Moderate / Partial

Damage

Minor / No

Damage

No. % No. % No. %

Housing 86 57 48 32 16 11

Livelihood 48 32 27 18 75 50

Accessibility 18 12 53 35 79 53

Table 4: Damage to Households Surveyed in District Poonch

2.4 Abbottabad

Nine Union Councils (UCs) in District Abbottabad i.e. Dalola, Boi, Bakote, Pattan Kalan,

Namal, Berote, Kukmong, Pluck and Beerangali located across the River Jehlum and the

River Kunhar were severely affected by the 2005 earthquake. A total of 872 government

educational institutions, 25 health institutions, 145 government buildings and 280 WSS were

partially or completely damaged. The WB/ADB report indicated extensive damage to 264

Kilometres (Kms) of roads and 23 bridges/culverts in District Abbottabad.

Category Complete / Severe

Damage

Moderate / Partial

Damage

Minor / No

Damage

No. % No. % No. %

Housing 25 17 30 20 95 63

Livelihood 5 3 20 13 125 83

Accessibility 7 5 33 22 110 73

Table 5: Damage to Households Surveyed in District Abbottabad

No casualties were reported among the 150 households surveyed in the sampled villages of

Abbottabad, showing that they suffered less than the other affected districts. However,

damage was reported to physical assets as indicated in table 5.

11

2.5 Battagram

Out of a total 525 educational institutions, 410 were completely damaged and the remaining

115 were partially damaged including one degree college. A total of 42 health facilities, 364

WSS and 238 kms of roads were affected in the district. The administrative infrastructure in

District Battagram was severely disrupted by the destruction of government buildings: 73

buildings were completely destroyed. Table 6 gives a summary of damage suffered by the

150 households surveyed.

Category Complete / Severe

Damage

Moderate / Partial

Damage

Minor / No

Damage

No. % No. % No. %

Housing 94 63 38 25 18 12

Livelihood 75 50 30 20 45 30

Accessibility 62 41 50 33 38 25

Table 6: Damage to Households Surveyed in District Battagram

2.6 Mansehra

There was widespread damage to the private housing in District Mansehra. According to

figures provided by the district government as many as 108,283 (seventy-one percent)

houses were completely damaged or destroyed and 34,001 (twenty-two percent) were

partially damaged3. A total of 1,559 educational institutions in both rural and urban areas

were either destroyed or partially damaged while 43 health facilities were completely

destroyed and 11 were partially damaged.

Damage to physical assets and livelihoods was more extensive, as seen in table 7.

Category Complete / Severe

Damage

Moderate / Partial

Damage

Minor / No

Damage

No. % No. % No. %

Housing 66 44 45 30 39 26

Livelihood 66 44 73 49 11 7

Accessibility 34 23 51 34 65 43

Table 7: Damage to Households Surveyed in District Mansehra

2.7 Kohistan

The death toll in District Kohistan was 596 and 1,160 people were injured. 210 educational

and 45 health facilities were either destroyed or partially damaged. Table 8 summarises

damage in District Kohistan.

Category Complete / Severe

Damage

Moderate / Partial

Damage

Minor / No

Damage

No. % No. % No. %

Housing 54 36 27 18 69 46

Livelihood 10 7 17 11 123 82

Accessibility 8 5 9 6 133 89

Table 8: Damage to Households Surveyed in District Kohistan

3 District Profile, District Mansehra, ERRA, June 2007

12

2.8 Shangla

According to the initial estimates, 444 people lost their lives while 1,925 were injured in

Shangla, and a total of 26,531 houses were reported damaged. 30 health units were either

completely or partially damaged; 414 WSS and 65 sanitation schemes were damaged; 85

kms of roads and 44 bridges were partially damaged. 39 government buildings were

affected, out of which 18 were completely damaged and 21 partially damaged. Table 9

summarises damage to the physical assets and livelihoods among the 150 households

surveyed.

Category

Complete / Severe

Damage

Moderate / Partial

Damage

Minor / No

Damage

No. % No. % No. %

Housing 43 29 65 43 42 28

Livelihood 22 15 59 39 69 46

Accessibility 29 19 86 57 35 23

Table 9: Damage to Households Surveyed in District Shangla

Figure 1: Map of Earthquake Affected Area

13

3. SOCIAL IMPACTS OF DIRECT OUTREACH INTERVENTIONS

ERRA direct outreach interventions encompass three sectors: rural housing, livelihood

generation, and social protection. Rural housing interventions fulfil the basic need among the

population; assistance provided through cash grants enables people to engage in house

reconstruction and support their families; social protection provides a safety net for the most

vulnerable families. Impact of the rural housing program has prompt visibility whereas

interventions taken under the livelihood and social protection have also achieved significant

outcome level changes.

3.1 Rural Housing

Rural Housing Reconstruction Programme (RHRP) is aimed to reconstruct the damaged or

destroyed houses by applying the techniques devised by ERRA, with a focus on earthquake

resistant, owner-driven approach. According to the survey carried out by the Pakistan Army

in collaboration with the Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund (PPAF) in September 2008, a

total of 610,893 houses were either damaged or destroyed. The provision of financial

assistance packages in the form of tranche release in four instalments, technical and social

training of the POs and the communities, and capacity building of the local community to

enhance their capability in order to expedite the process of owner-driven reconstruction, are

a few components of ERRA rural housing sector. These interventions have demonstrated

progressive results, as 463,077 houses have been completed by September 2008.

Only 663 out of the total houses (1,350) sampled for the social impact assessment survey

were found to be either damaged or destroyed; rest of the buildings received negligible

damages. ERRA policies in the RHRP have facilitated the earthquake affected communities

through its interventions, at a long-term and sustainable level, through retrofitting and

reconstruction of houses, which has introduced a culture of seismically safe construction.

Social impact assessment survey underscores

observations pertaining to the positive changes brought

in peoples‟ lives through ERRA rural housing

interventions. The elements, including a sense of

security, comfort level of the new houses, development

of skilled labour, a culture of responsibility, self-

sufficiency of the community, are a few highlights of the

following detailed social results.

3.1.1 Improved Safety Measures and Standards

ERRA rural housing programme is mandated to ensure

seismic safety in the reconstruction of rural houses.

The compliance action teams, Assistance and

Inspection Teams (AITs) and CMTs are set-up at

various stages to certify the houses upon reaching

particular levels (plinth and lintel). This is being

achieved through the development and dissemination

of Information Education and Communication (IEC) Figure 2: IEC Material

14

material to the communities, including construction guidelines, training curriculum, standard

designs, improved local technologies (Dhajji, Bhattar), and quality control measures to test

the material.

Utilisation of the information provided by ERRA has improved the safety standards in the

affected areas, as eighty-eight percent of the surveyed community registered their new

houses safe for living, without the fear of destruction in case of future earthquakes.

Summary of the feedback during the survey has been highlighted in table 10.

Zone District Safer than before Same as before Less safe than

before

NW

FP

Abbottabad 77% 23% 0%

Battagram 96% 0% 4%

Mansehra 92% 4% 4%

Kohistan 93% 7% 0%

Shangla 85% 15% 0%

Average 89% 9% 2%

AJ&

K

Muzaffarabad 89% 11% 0%

Neelum 71% 7% 22%

Bagh 90% 1% 9%

Poonch 94% 2% 4%

Average 86% 5% 9%

Average 88% 8% 4%

Table 10: Safety due to ERRA interventions

The contradiction occurring in the table, where four percent of the population is feeling less

safe than before, is the reflection of the trauma and sufferings which will keep on haunting

the people.

Figure 3: Building Better

Figure 2: An Example of IEC material

15

3.1.2 Quality of Improved Housing

The RHRP is expected to provide the communities with a better access to improved seismic

resistant houses, with better designs. The comfort of the communities is one of the key

indicators that the affected population is expecting as a by-product of ERRA interventions.

The promotion of the enhanced designs introduced by ERRA has comforted the population

as these are practiced more frequently by the communities.

Zone District Better than

before Same as before

Worse than

before

NW

FP

Abbottabad 57% 43% 0%

Battagram 96% 0% 4%

Mansehra 82% 9% 9%

Kohistan 93% 7% 0%

Shangla 77% 15% 8%

Average 81% 15% 4%

AJ&

K

Muzaffarabad 90% 3% 7%

Neelum 91% 8% 1%

Bagh 90% 0% 10%

Poonch 91% 7% 2%

Average 90% 5% 5%

Average 86% 10% 4%

Table 11: Comfort of the Community in the New Houses

Eighty-Six percent of the affected respondents considered their new houses comfortable and

better equipped. Only four percent of the sampled beneficiaries considered their new houses

uncomfortable for living due to extreme weather. The usability of thin hollow blocks, which

have a lower coefficient of insulation, is the prominent factor exposing the houses to climatic

severities, and making them uncomfortable, i.e. hot in summer and cold in winter.

3.1.3 Development of Skilled Labour and Human Resource

The awareness campaigns amalgamated with the development of human assets has

emerged as a predominant element, contributing in the capacity building of the local

community. Technical trainings conducted at all levels, including training for women, have

expedited the pace of work, within the communities, creating an opportunity for the

community participants to earn their livelihood. Survey results reported that 212 out of the

affected beneficiaries (663) received the technical training. The skills learnt through the

technical trainings may be positively utilised in incremental household earnings of the

communities. The awareness campaigns through electronic and print media have equally

enhanced the capacity of the communities, promoting safer house construction methods and

implementation of new technologies.

3.1.4 Culture of Responsibility

Owner-driven approach is one of the major aspects covered in the rural housing strategy.

The freedom to construct houses as per owner‟s convenience in terms of pace of

construction and house layouts, by utilising the skills developed through technical trainings

provided by ERRA has expedited the pace of reconstruction in the affected areas. The

16

compliance levels attained during the reconstruction of houses certify the awareness of the

communities and the culture of responsibility, with regard to seismic-resistant education.

People are more inclined towards the construction of newer houses on the lines defined by

ERRA. The percentages of houses constructed as per ERRA design have been arranged in

the order of districts in table 12.

Figure 4: Owner driven approach yielded extra-ordinary results

Zone District

No. of

Houses

Wrecked

No. of Houses

Partially

Damaged

Total

damaged

Houses

constructed

as per ERRA

design

% Houses

constructed

as per ERRA

Design

NW

FP

Abbottabad 5 0 5 4 80%

Battagram 60 33 93 90 97%

Mansehra 66 10 76 68 89%

Kohistan 45 16 61 26 43%

Shangla 41 32 73 28 38%

Sub-Total 217 91 308 216 70%

AJ&

K

Muzaffarabad 28 10 38 36 95%

Neelum 42 19 61 45 74%

Bagh 137 7 144 102 71%

Poonch 91 21 112 77 69%

Sub-Total 298 57 355 260 73%

Total 515 148 663 476 72%

Table 12: Compliance Level of the houses

The social impact assessment survey reports that seventy-two percent of the sampled

houses constructed in accordance with ERRA standards. The compliance rates registered in

Kohistan and Shangla are lower than other districts. Difficult access, geographical spread

and delayed implementation of alternate designs (Dhajji, Bhattar) are some of the perceived

restraining challenges. Other contributing factors are related to lower levels of capacity

17

building and implementation of training practices. To enhance the coverage, it is suggested

to train the local communities, along with the POs, for dissemination of the IEC materials;

promotion of the capacity building techniques; and organisation of trainings at local levels.

3.2 Social Protection

Social protection can be broadly defined as public actions that enable people to deal more

effectively with their vulnerability to crisis and changes in circumstances and help tackle

extreme and chronic poverty.4 The major ERRA social protection interventions covered

under the survey are enlisted as under:

Livelihood Support Cash Grants Programme (LSCG)

Rural Landless Programme (RLL)

Legal Aid Centres (LAC)

3.2.1 Livelihood Support Cash Grants Programme

The programme has been funded by the WB through a loan of PKR 5.2 billion. The

programme was aimed to provide six instalments of PKR 3,000 per month for six months to

vulnerable families. It was later extended for another six months to cater for approximately

22,000 most vulnerable households among the beneficiaries. The total numbers of

applicants for this programme were 750,000, while the project assisted 267,402 vulnerable

households.

The utilisation of these cash grants facilitated the communities, as their basic necessities

could be met through them. These grants have been used not only to meet the necessary

daily requirements like food and water, but they also provided families the opportunity to pay

their bills, buy medicine and even construct their houses. This intervention brought a state of

satisfaction to the people, at a crucial time, when the affected population was recovering

from the trauma of the earthquake.

Zone District Building Houses

Food Items

Non-Food Items

Medical

NW

FP

Abbottabad 32% 53% 0% 15%

Battagram 11% 76% 0% 13%

Mansehra 19% 57% 19% 5%

Kohistan 25% 75% 0% 0%

Shangla 29% 57% 0% 14%

Average 23% 64% 4% 9%

AJ&

K

Muzaffarabad 26% 59% 5% 10%

Neelum 14% 77% 0% 9%

Bagh 26% 60% 9% 5%

Poonch 19% 50% 8% 23%

Average 21% 62% 6% 12%

Average 22% 62% 6% 10%

Table 13: Utilisation of Cash Grants

4 Social Protection Interventions in the Earthquake Affected Areas – January 2008

18

The utilisation of cash grants for various purposes is provided in table 13. The table narrates

the utilisation of cash grants, which have been subdivided into categories including house

construction, food items, non-food items and medical purposes. It has been observed that

sixty-two percent of the sampled population utilised these cash grants for the purchasing the

food items. This may be correlated with the food as a necessity over all other components.

Seventy-six percent of the sampled population in District Battagram and seventy-seven

percent beneficiaries in District Neelum used the cash grants for food purpose. The reason

for this prominent percentage in the two districts is a result of the unavailability of general

food items in the specified areas, because of which the beneficiaries have to travel to the

nearest locations. This amount includes their travel expenses, as well as the increased cost

of a few edible items available in these districts but at a higher price due to inaccessibility in

the initial earthquake period. This also relates to the financial condition of the community,

which prioritised food for survival over all other activities, due to financial constraints. In

District Kohistan, none of the sampled population spent money on medicine, because of the

low income and poor financial condition of the community. In fact, the population has spent

more money on their daily food items than on health services, non-food items and house

construction.

3.2.2 Rural Landless Programme

The programme was targeted to provide a grant worth PKR 250,000 to each landless family

in the earthquake affected areas. The break-up of the grant is such that the family received

PKR 75,000 for the purchase of land and PKR 175,000 for the construction of house. The

programme costing PKR 3.0 billion was funded by United States Agency for International

Development (USAID). As of September 2008, over 8,050 people have been interviewed,

4,960 claims have been registered and 540 cases have been verified. The “Certificate of

Entitlement” has been issued to the verified beneficiaries.5

Figure 5: Facilitating the Landless

5 Booklet on Social Protection Interventions – ERRA

19

The Land Verification Units (LVUs) have been established in seven most affected tehsils

(Mansehra, Balakot, Muzaffarabad, Hattian, Neelum, Bagh, and Haveli). These units provide

information on the financial assistance, register the landless, verify their claims, and maintain

the database of the landless persons. The verified lists of applicants are sent to the ERRA

headquarters and the funds are disbursed by the LVUs, through a one-window operation. A

grievance redressal committee has been established to register any complaints.

By using these grants, a number of landless have been rendered the amount they deserved,

which has been utilised in house construction, as well as the purchase of land. With the

application of ERRA standards, the prices of the houses have increased, thus the target

group is benefited by fixed assets that have provided them a longer term financial security.

In Bani Hafiz village in District Muzaffarabad, many people lost their land and houses in

landslides. A total of 34 people were declared landless by the LVU Hattian through ERRA

RLL policy. LVU Hattian was able to help more than 18 people through its one-window

service, and most of these people have since, constructed their new houses.

3.2.3 Legal Aid Centres

The LACs are targeted to be implemented over a period of two years, in collaboration with

Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), funded by ADB, costing PKR 30.77 million. The aim of

LAC is to provide free legal assistance to the vulnerable groups, including widows, orphans,

disabled and elderly people, in the earthquake affected areas. The legal issues related to

entitlements, succession, disputes, protection and enforcement of other legal rights relevant

to sustainability of the vulnerable, are addressed by LACs.

Figure 6: Providing Legal Awareness through Legal Aid Centres

LAC is a component of social protection that has been a key element in restoring the morale

of the vulnerable population. All the legal issues pertaining to land possession, rightful

ownership and law, are being looked into, at a satisfactory level. LACs are located in the

district courts of 18 districts, making it easier for the beneficiaries to obtain legal aid.

20

The beneficiaries interviewed showed their satisfaction, as most of their legal problems are

resolved, under the supervision of LACs. Overall, this intervention has led to increased

awareness of legal rights among vulnerable groups, thereby empowering them and helping

them fight various forms of social exploitation.

3.3 Livelihood

ERRA livelihood strategy aims to support immediate and mid-term livelihood recovery of the

vulnerable populations in the earthquake affected areas in NWFP and AJ&K. This is

envisaged to be achieved through reviving implementation of the CLRPs, collaborative

watershed management, reviving the capacity of the concerned line departments

(agriculture, forestry, industries), Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs), and CBOs, by

improving agricultural production, rehabilitating critical minor infrastructure, micro-enterprise

development, vocational skill training, labour markets and preventing environmental

degradation.

3.3.1 Community Livelihood Rehabilitation Plans

The CLRPs are devised to emphasise on the recognition of the community‟s need,

prioritisation of needs as per the available resources and translating these needs into

appropriate action jointly with the communities.

Since CLRPs are directly linked to the communities, their knowledge and understanding of

the process is of foremost importance. The discussion, planning and decision making

associated with CLRPs, involves the participation of the community. The awareness

campaigns conducted by the IPs were massive, resulting in ninety-two percent of the

sampled population based in AJ&K, educated about the process. On the contrary, only

seventy-six percent of the population interviewed had knowledge about the CLRP

formulation in NWFP. The lower percentage in NWFP reflects the cultural sensitivity in the

region.

CBOs are responsible for need identification to liaise with technical staff for preparation of

feasibilities, designs and cost estimates and mobilisation of labour and other community

contributions. However, many villages were identified with no formal CBO. Various NGO

have formed CBO, which were facing difficulties in adapting many projects. CLRP

formulation and implementation by the CBO was recorded in only forty-five percent of the

sampled villages, while the remaining villages consisted of CBO formed by the IPs.

Women participation in the process of CLRP formulation is an encouraging aspect from

gender perspective. Women were involved in the need assessment process, and eighty-four

percent of the CLRPs formulated in AJ&K registered their participation. However, due to

religious and cultural barriers, only forty-five percent of the CLRPs formulation involved

contribution from women in NWFP.

After the approval from the District Reconstruction Advisory Committee (DRAC), IPs were

mobilised to form user groups to ensure sustainability of the project. User groups were

encouraged to remain closely involved in the design and cost estimation of the selected

schemes. Sustainability of these user groups would determine the long term access to the

21

interventions carried out in CLRPs. These user groups may be strengthened by building their

capacity and creating their strong linkages with the CBOs and IPs.

The first tranche has been released for implementation to 72 CLRPs as of September 2008,

and the second tranche to three CLRPs. The numbers of tranches thus far released are less

against the 506 CLRPs formulated. One of the main factors behind this was less limit of

Community Investment Fund (CIF) in the DRUs which was later increased. There are

several other factors at DRU‟s level which are resulting delays in release of funds to the

CBOs and IPs:

Many IPs have not submitted CLRPs and project digests for approvals6.

Measurement Books (MB) for the release of second tranches have not been

provided7.

Many IPs have not provided complete documents8 for release of the first tranche.

While some of the CLRPs were formulated almost seven to eight months ago, funds have

still not been transferred. Due to inflation in the market, this could affect the cost of the

projects in particularly the cost of CIF projects. Additionally, this unnecessary delay has also

resulted in frustration among IPs as they face embarrassment for not fulfilling their

commitments with the community.

Figure 7: Achieving Sustainable Livelihood

6 Minutes of the LWCs meetings from DRU Bagh

7 Minutes of the LWCs meetings from DRUs

8 Starting points for link roads were mentioned in many of the cases as respective village‟s name, which did not suffice the

needs of DRUs. DRUs required the exact location of starting and termination points within the village. Beneficiaries, and declaration affidavit to assure the donation of lands for the harvesting structures and water ponds was required by DRUs which was not provided by the IPs to avoid conflicts.

22

3.3.2 Financial Capital

Cash grant programmes were found very effective in mitigating the immediate sufferings of

disaster struck communities. Hurricane Rita, Katrina and Tsunami highlighted the importance

of an immediate subsistence mean for affected population, which catered for their immediate

needs before a comprehensive rehabilitation effort could start.

ERRA developed a two-pronged approach to address the short term needs of livelihood and

medium term economic sustainability in earthquake affected areas. To address short term

needs a livelihood cash grants programme was launched to provide liquid cash for meeting

the essential requirements of the vulnerable people. As already mentioned in the section of

Social Protection sector, the LSCG was funded by the World Bank, through which PKR 5.2

billion have been disbursed to 267,402 vulnerable households9.

Figure 8: Achieving Food Security through Improved Access to Financial Capital

The grants and loans, in addition, have helped affected households to rebuild their financial

capital or at least prevented large-scale insolvency and indebtedness. The disbursement of

cash grants on a large scale was completed as scheduled, and the programme extended to

include a large number of vulnerable women without an increase in the total budget.

Assistance given through cash grants also contributed, by allowing people to devote the

required time for house reconstruction. The livelihood and cash grant programme provided

some of the immediately needed relief and also has developed medium-term interventions

for rehabilitation to promote sustainability. It started with an immediate injection of capital for

helping affected people meet their daily subsistence needs. Refer to table 13 in social

protection sector for the utilisation of cash grants.

Based on the achievements reported, the cash grant program also proved to be highly

effective in addressing many of the immediate needs of the affected population. The

9 Extension of programme to 22,807 extremely vulnerable families (women only).

23

provision of cash generated a semblance of employment and stability at a time of great

disruption. It also injected critically required cash back into a devastated local economy,

contributing to the revival of economic activity in earthquake-affected areas.

3.3.3 Social Capital

Traditional systems of mutual help and social cohesions came under threat following the

earthquake. Although the affected communities were used to sustaining hardship but this

affected all segments of the society, particularly the poorest and most marginalised groups,

with women and children bearing the brunt of devastation. CLRPs improved the social

capital and community cohesion. Social cohesion varied between the settlements within

AJ&K. CBOs are now involved in a variety of purposes and activities including environmental

clean-up, house construction, savings and mutual support.

A clear relationship between enhanced access to resources and membership was observed.

CBOs are highly valued because of their informal nature and capacity to provide immediate

help in times of need. CLRPs have a positive effect on linking social capital of the

communities by bringing marginalised members of the community closer to the influential

members of the community during the need assessment process.

3.3.4 Physical Capital

CLRPs intervention is expected to have a major impact on the access to physical capital.

Careful analyses on the CLRPs have revealed that seventy-eight percent of the projects are

related to community physical infrastructures including link roads, irrigation channels,

retaining walls, bridal paths and water reservoirs. Among the infrastructure projects, highest

percentage of the CLRPs is concerning link roads. Access to roads, transport facilities,

communications, reliable irrigation water supply, and various support facilities services is an

important enabling condition for sustainable livelihood development.

24

4. SOCIAL IMPACTS OF SOCIAL SERVICES INTERVENTIONS

ERRA is committed to „Build Back Better‟. This is particularly challenging in the context of

the social services sectors because service provision depends not just on the quality of

physical infrastructure and facilities but also, on the „social‟ aspects. ERRA has sought to

ensure this by paying special attention to sectoral policies, implementation strategies and

organisational capacities to deliver improved social services.

ERRA‟s work in the social services focuses on education, health and WatSan. ERRA

interventions have produced considerable improvements in all these sectors in the

earthquake affected areas.

4.1 Education

ERRA education strategy is aimed at the reconstruction of 5,344 schools, at all levels

(damaged and destroyed). The restoration of equitable access to higher education is the

prime objective stated in the strategy. The pragmatic steps taken by ERRA at this time of

dilemma in order to provide the students‟ continuous education were immaculate. A

complete year of the students was saved with the advent of ERRA interventions in education

sector. Immediate rehabilitation of schools through the installation of temporary shelters and

pre-fabricated buildings enabled the students to continue their education, without any

hindrance or delay.

Figure 9: Build Back Better

After the earthquake, ERRA collaborated with its POs to maintain the pace of education

activities. In the process of reconstruction, the seismic safety of the constructed schools was

the focal point. The prior devastation caused, due to the non-compliant construction of the

schools, brought all the parents under a phase of trauma, which required a set of convincing

measures ranging from seismic safety to better quality of education. While the GoP is

25

primarily responsible for the reconstruction of educational institutions, a number of

international and national donors, as well as development organisations have pledged to

facilitate the reconstruction of institutions. As of September 2008, a total number of 203

educational institutions have been reconstructed, 1,553 are under construction, 1,222 are at

tendering stage, and 1,813 are at planning stage.

The schools reconstructed so far have followed the ERRA prescribed seismic resistant

designs. The teachers have been trained by different POs, and teaching kits have been

provided aiming that the teaching that the teaching methods can be improved and students‟

interest in studies can be developed.

Training Males trained Females trained

Content/Subject 4,851 3,142

Methodology/Pedagogical 5,986 4,392

Psychosocial/Detraumatisation 4,415 2,824

Table 14: Teacher’s Training

4.1.1 Enrolment of Students in Schools

One of the expected impacts of the education sector includes the increased enrolment of

students in schools. The impact survey registers figures quoting the number of students,

who were of school going age, but not enrolled. The attitudinal change was a necessity in

the earthquake affected areas, so as to convince the parents to send their children to

schools. The importance of education for a better upbringing of the children and for their

prosperous future, were a few issues highlighted during the awareness campaigns. These

efforts for sustainable awareness are time taking, as the significance of education among the

parents requires immense concentration. Table 15 presents the percentage of students who

are of school going age, but are not going to schools.

Zone District

Number of School

Age Children

Number of School

Going Children

Children who are not

enrolled

M F M F M F

NW

FP

Abbottabad 56 37 40 30 29% 19%

Battagram 223 165 131 66 41% 60%

Mansehra 312 191 289 171 7% 10%

Kohistan 190 114 82 13 57% 89%

Shangla 247 132 212 39 14% 70%

Average 206 128 151 64 30% 50%

AJ&

K

Muzaffarabad 139 144 127 130 9% 10%

Neelum 199 195 163 148 18% 24%

Bagh 225 215 176 176 22% 18%

Poonch 216 218 179 184 17% 16%

Average 195 193 161 160 16% 17%

Average 200 160 156 112 24% 35%

Table 15: Percentage of Children of School-Going Age but not enrolled

Table 15 shows a formidable percentage of children belonging to NWFP, who are not going

to schools. The percentage is relatively lower in AJ&K, because of the concentrated

awareness campaigns being practiced in the region, because of the easy access to the

26

communities, compared to NWFP, where the religious and cultural barriers restrict the

movement of the awareness campaign teams. This percentage is highest in District Kohistan

due to the difficult terrain and resistance of the local population for outsiders to enter their

vicinity.

4.1.2 Parents’ Confidence to Send their Children to Schools

The parents have been reluctant to send their children to schools, ever since the earthquake

demolished the educational institutions 5,344, taking lives of over 18,000 students, and 853

teachers and educational staff. The scathed structures lacked seismic resistivity, and this

reputation of the construction quality has been an element holding back the parents from

sending their children to schools. The percentage of confident parents has not been formally

registered during the survey; however, the increase in the number of students going to

school reflects the restored confidence of the parents to send their children to educational

institutions.

Figure 10: Opening new horizons for learning

4.2 Health

The earthquake severely affected healthcare infrastructure in AJ&K and NWFP and

completely disrupted the healthcare system. The Damage Need Assessment (DNA),

conducted in November 2005 by the WB and ADB provided the baseline data that enabled

ERRA to estimate the efforts and resources required for reconstruction. Out of 796 health

facilities, only 211 remained unscathed; 388 were completely destroyed and 197 were

partially damaged.

27

ERRA has provided a unique opportunity to improve the infrastructure and performance of

the healthcare system. New health facilities have been designed to provide integrated

essential service delivery packages. The required health services are being provided either

in 137 prefabricated structures, or in 46 permanent health facilities. All these measures are

meant to provide the affected community in accessing the health facilities and benefiting

from the health services. Health facilities reconstructed after the earthquake are better than

before, due to the design, space as well as provision of facilities.

4.2.1 Utilisation of Health Facilities

The survey illustrates an increase in utilisation of health facilities following the enhanced

provision of health services under the reconstruction strategy. More than fifty percent of the

respondents have visited the reconstructed health facilities, showing a high level of utilisation

of health services.

A higher level of utilisation of Rural Health Centre (RHC) / Basic Health Unit (BHU) could be

attributed to provision of better health services as well as the increased awareness among

the community – a direct result of health awareness campaigns by various POs.

Zone District BHU/

RHC Dispensary

Hakeem/

Homeopath

Private

Doctors Hospital

NW

FP

Abbottabad 31% 14% 1% 7% 47%

Battagram 41% 30% 5% 24% 0%

Mansehra 38% 19% 0% 2% 41%

Kohistan 59% 26% 0% 8% 7%

Shangla 43% 15% 0% 1% 41%

Average 42% 21% 2% 8% 27%

AJ&

K

Muzaffarabad 33% 17% 0% 1% 49%

Neelum 51% 21% 3% 4% 21%

Bagh 35% 32% 2% 2% 29%

Poonch 44% 14% 0% 6% 36%

Average 41% 21% 1% 3% 34%

Average 42% 21% 1% 6% 30%

Table 16: Percentage of People Utilising Different Health Facilities

Figure 11: First Dialysis Centre in AJ&K - Abbas Institute of Medical Sciences – Muzaffarabad

28

4.2.2 Community Confidence in Health Service Provision

The social impact assessment survey found that users‟ confidence in health services has

increased because of the availability of doctors, adequate medicines and post-earthquake

specialised services in many of the facilities. With the exception of District Shangla, the

surveyed population had access to proper medicine as prescribed/ required.

Zone District Yes Quite Often No

NW

FP

Abbottabad 38% 31% 31%

Battagram 61% 25% 14%

Mansehra 47% 17% 36%

Kohistan 28% 55% 17%

Shangla 20% 35% 45%

Average 39% 33% 28%

AJ&

K

Muzaffarabad 27% 40% 33%

Neelum 28% 49% 23%

Bagh 33% 42% 25%

Poonch 23% 50% 27%

Average 28% 45% 27%

Average 33% 39% 28%

Table 17: Community Responses on the Availability of Essential Medicines

Zone District Yes Quite Often No

NW

FP

Abbottabad 43% 28% 29%

Battagram 57% 12% 31%

Mansehra 52% 42% 6%

Kohistan 20% 63% 17%

Shangla 37% 25% 38%

Average 42% 34% 24%

AJ&

K

Muzaffarabad 56% 23% 21%

Neelum 45% 46% 9%

Bagh 42% 28% 30%

Poonch 72% 26% 2%

Average 54% 30% 16%

Average 48% 32% 20%

Table 18: Availability of Doctors on Regular Basis at BHUs/RHCs

Around eighty percent of respondents have

expressed their satisfaction with the regular

availability of doctors at the BHU and RHC to

communities. Respondents in Districts of

Mansehra and Muzaffarabad were

appreciative of the doctors‟ performance.

These figures indicate an overall improvement

in the sense of responsibility and awareness

among doctors to provide proper care to

patients visiting their health facilities.

Figure 12: Access to Health Care Services

29

Zone District Yes Quite Often No N

WF

P

Abbottabad 43% 50% 7%

Battagram 44% 28% 28%

Mansehra 73% 21% 6%

Kohistan 48% 37% 15%

Shangla 50% 18% 32%

Average 52% 30% 18%

AJ&

K

Muzaffarabad 73% 2% 25%

Neelum 63% 25% 12%

Bagh 43% 30% 27%

Poonch 67% 27% 6%

Average 62% 20% 18%

Average 57% 25% 18%

Table 19: Doctors Paid Attention to the Patients

4.2.3 Enhanced Capacity of Medical and Paramedical Staff

Quality of health service delivery has also improved through training and capacity-building of

Lady Health Visitors (LHVs) and Lady Health Workers (LHWs). The latter played a vital role

in bringing behavioural changes among the communities in the earthquake-affected areas.

They increased awareness among females in particular about the basic health and hygiene

practices.

4.2.4 Access to Healthcare Services

It is always desirable to have a medical facility within easy access, particularly for

emergency situations. Regarding the accessibility of health facilities, only a few BHUs and

dispensaries were reported to be within one Km of households surveyed: most were located

at distances of over three Km, restricting accessibility, especially at night or in bad weather.

4.3 Water and Sanitation

The earthquake severely disrupted the existing water supply and sanitation mechanism in

the affected districts of AJ&K and NWFP. The intake structures, water treatment plants,

storage reservoirs, supply mains and distribution networks, were either damaged or

destroyed. The water yield through wells and springs, and water sources in many localities

dried up, due to the landslides. Damage was noticed in household and public latrines,

slaughter houses, sewerage networks, as well as solid waste management infrastructure.

A total of 4,080 WSS were damaged or destroyed in the earthquake affected areas. These

schemes were required to be rehabilitated at least to the pre-earthquake level, and where

possible, with improve access and coverage. Drains, street pavements, and public toilets,

were damaged in 25 sites and solid waste management systems were affected in 23 towns

of AJ&K and NWFP.

30

4.3.1 Improved Accessibility and Quality of Water

Prior to the earthquake, the WSS were at a distance farther than the current schemes. The

implementation of ERRA‟s interventions has reduced the distance in the order of 35 metres

(m) in AJ&K and 80m in NWFP, compared to 332m and 162m, in the respective areas. As a

result, the total distance to reach the facilities has reduced from 291m to 45m.

This is primarily, a result of ERRA‟s directive to design and install WSS within the proximity

of a radius of 75m from the houses. In addition, the rehabilitated WSS are providing a higher

coverage serving more beneficiaries compared to pre-earthquake situation. The coverage of

WSS has increased due to the installation of new stand posts, provision of household

connections, and extension of supply lines, as per requirement.

It was found that, on average, a household gaining access to improved water supply saved

57 minutes per day (range: 0 to 180 minutes) .These findings give 29 hours saved per

individual per month, for improved access to water, implying 343 hours per year.

Considering a normal working day in Pakistan which is 8 hours per day this makes a saving

of 43 working days per year for one person.

Zone District Saved Time (Minutes)

NW

FP

Abbottabad 52.50

Battagram 54.30

Mansehra 50.20

Shangla 90.00

Kohistan 80.00

Average 56.70

AJ&

K

Bagh 61.35

Muzaffarabad 40.02

Neelum 77.80

Poonch 63.97

Average 57.29

Average 57.24

Table 20: Pre-EQ / Post-EQ time utilisation comparison

This time may be utilised in other household activities, especially for women who fetch water

from the WSS and reservoirs. Another aspect that may be highlighted through the instalment

of WSS in the nearby locations is safety. Prior to the earthquake, the women had to travel

great distances to fetch water, which was considered culturally unacceptable and ethically

wrong. ERRA interventions have helped overcome this important element as well.

The water quality, particularly in the mountainous region is of a high-level importance, for

health and protection against water borne diseases. According to the survey, forty-nine

percent of the beneficiaries graded the water they used excellent while forty-one percent

were satisfied with the water quality they consumed. However, there is not a lot of difference

recorded between the pre-earthquake and post-earthquake percentages. The perceived

unchanged quality of water is attributed to decolourisation which persisted even after the

introduction of rehabilitated WSS. This status-quo does not necessarily mean poor quality

but could be water colourisation at source.

31

Zone District

Pre - EQ Post - EQ

Excellent Satisfactory Not

Acceptable Excellent Satisfactory Not

Acceptable N

WF

P

Abbottabad 34% 57% 9% 31% 60% 9%

Battagram 55% 37% 8% 55% 39% 6%

Mansehra 54% 33% 13% 58% 35% 7%

Kohistan 72% 28% 0% 72% 28% 0%

Shangla 37% 54% 9% 36% 53% 11%

Average 50% 42% 8% 50% 43% 7%

AJ&

K

Muzaffarabad 26% 57% 17% 21% 55% 24%

Neelum 64% 27% 9% 67% 23% 10%

Bagh 37% 53% 9% 47% 46% 8%

Poonch 59% 33% 9% 57% 33% 9%

Average 47% 43% 11% 48% 39% 13%

Average 49% 42% 9% 49% 42% 9%

Table 21: Improved Quality of Water

As per ERRA specifications, all the water sources are to be protected properly and tested for

physical, chemical and biological parameters. However, in AJ&K, eighty-three percent

schemes, and sixty-seven percent schemes in NWFP have been observed to be protected.

Water testing after the earthquake by the implementation agencies has not been reported.

According to a recent report by Pakistan Council for Research in Water Resources

(PCRWR), forty percent of the 500 WSS constructed by United Nations Children‟s Fund

(UNICEF) were found to be unfit for human consumption, as per World Health Organisation

(WHO) standards. These findings suggest an improvement in water quality and its proper

testing before it is released for the affected population for drinking. The installation of water

filters and improvement in water storage and facilities is advisable.

4.3.2 Improved Service Delivery

Improved access to WSS has helped to bring the behavioural changes in the community.

Trainings and massive campaigns were carried out on hygiene and sanitation. Trainings on

health and improved hygiene took place mostly after the community had access to WSS.

Such trainings generally involved promoting the use of safe water to maximise the health

benefits and hygiene awareness.

Water availability, along with the latrine availability in

their homes increased the privacy for defecation and

personal hygiene for females of the communities. As a

result of these hygiene promotion sessions, use of soap

for washing hands before eating and after defecation

are the key results of the hygiene education. Proper

disposal of faeces is a primary barrier and would help to

prevent the disease causing pathogens from reaching

the environment.

Similarly, hand washing is yet another safeguard, which

would help to prevent the transmission of pathogen to a

new host. Eighty-two percent of the beneficiaries have

latrine in their houses and ninety percent of the Figure 13: Safe and Hygiene Practice

32

community has raised their awareness about the importance of hand washing. There is a

need to educate the women to ensure the appropriate children‟s stool disposal as only fifty-

five percent of the women dispose their children‟s stool in the latrine despite having the

latrine in their houses. Rest of the women dispose off their children‟s stool either in the field

or around their houses thus exposing the pathogen to the environment.

Low participation of the women in the hygiene promotion sessions was mainly due to the use

of male facilitators for trainings/awareness campaigns. Considering cultural sensitivity,

particularly in NWFP, use of male facilitators instead of female facilitators was the hampering

factor in increasing the women participation. Another factor, which led to less women

participation of women in the hygiene campaigns, was the inconvenient timing and location

of the trainings and due to biasness in the selection of candidates.

4.3.3 Socio-Economic Benefits and Human Capital

Social impact assessment survey observations reveal that the communities are involved in

different Income Generating Activities (IGAs) because of the improved access to sufficient

water. One of the most important productive activity which resumed after the rehabilitation of

the WSS, is “kitchen gardening”. Kitchen gardening is primarily taken up by the women at

household level and it was encouraging to note that women are taking more interest in the

kitchen gardening as compared to the pre-earthquake situation.

Although it is too early to measure and clearly draw upon the health impacts, it was

interesting to find a relationship between the fully functional schemes and the prevalence of

sickness among the beneficiaries. Low prevalence of sickness was observed among the

beneficiaries where WSS were able to meet the daily needs. The prevalence of diseases like

diarrhoea and skin irritations was up to eleven percent where water supply schemes were

able to meet the needs of the community as compared to seventeen percent occurrence,

where water supply schemes were not able to meet the needs of the beneficiaries and

consequently community was relying on the surface water or unimproved water sources.

33

5. SOCIAL IMPACTS OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE INTERVENTIONS

The three sectors in this section focus on reconstruction and rehabilitation interventions for

the roads and bridges, power facilities, and telecommunication networks. ERRA strategic

approach towards these domains is to put an efficient, seismically-safe infrastructure in

place. While it may take a little more time towards full realisation of the impacts of projects

in the public infrastructure, the midterm impacts are clearly visible. Some of these impacts

could be observed in terms of increased employment opportunities for the communities thus

facilitating earning of livelihoods, better reconstruction skills, increased consumption of local

products, and improved business options.

5.1 Transport

The road network is being reconstructed for most of the affected areas and its full impact will

only be visible after the projects completion. Most of the interventions are related to the

construction of all weather roads, clearance of roads in case of landslides and stabilising

slopes following disaster preparedness approach.

5.1.1 Improved Accessibility

In general, interventions in the road sector have enhanced accessibility and mobility of the

affected areas by bridging gaps between communities. One of the good example of such

schemes is the construction of Chinar road in Mansehra city which is a bypass road

connecting Balakot road to the main Mansehra city. This has considerably reduced the traffic

congestion problem in Mansehra city. Survey results revealed that before the construction of

this road, average time to pass through Mansehra city during morning peak hours was 30 –

40 minutes which has now been reduced to half (15 – 20 minutes).

JICA sponsored structures in Jehlum valley -District Muzaffarabad are amongst the relevant

activities in the area which helped in restoring life to normalcy. Beneficiary level survey of

these structures revealed improved access in health facilities (thirty-six percent), markets

(thirty-one percent) and schools (thirty-four percent).

Figure 14: Improved geometry for safe and smooth traffic flow

34

5.1.2 Beneficiary Satisfaction

Beneficiary satisfaction was observed during the survey as an important and intermediate

result of the completed interventions under the transport sector. Results of the beneficiary

level survey conducted in Districts of Mansehra, Battagram and Muzaffarabad revealed that

community felt a positive change as up to ninety-eight percent of the beneficiaries were

feeling comfortable due to the existing improved conditions.

District

Increased level of comfort

Total Beneficiaries*

Yes %age No %age

Muzaffarabad 50 47 94% 3 6%

Battagram 50 48 96% 2 4%

Mansehra 50 49 98% 1 2%

Average 97% 3%

Table 22: Comfort Level with respect to Roads

5.1.3 Improved Disaster Preparedness

Landslides and slips occurred on most of the reaches damaged road network in earthquake

affected area. Making road network earthquake resistant by stabilising the slopes and by

retrofitting and reconstructing the structures to new standards is one of the objectives of the

sector. In District Muzaffarabad, bridges of Subri and Tandali were re-aligned to avoid

curves which are related to improved geometry of structures for smooth flow of traffic and to

enhance sustainability of respective bridges. Gabion stone masonry breast wall constructed

along the length of a Dhani Sehri culvert is related to the slope stabilisation measures

especially in the areas of active slides in Jehlum Valley and are stable so far.

5.2 Power

The electricity was temporarily restored in the affected area within days after the earthquake.

The restoration of the damaged power infrastructure is the primary objective of ERRA in the

Power sector. The recurring changes in the requirements of the community with the advent

of industrial boom in the region of AJ&K and NWFP suggest a substantial power capacity to

cater to the economic developments (cottage industry initiatives, various community-based

livelihood related enterprise).

The impact survey reported that the electricity provision in all of the sampled areas. Power

facilities have contributed to the socio-economic development of the communities. It is

analysed that the electrification has reduced the women‟s housework burden, because of

use of various electrically operated home appliances. Among the social changes, it was

found that ordinary peoples‟ awareness of events has increased through access to radio and

television, and students are able to continue their educational activities for longer duration

due to electricity availability at their houses.

5.3 Telecommunication

Since Pakistan Telecommunication Limited (PTCL) is responsibility for rehabilitation of the

telecommunication infrastructure in NWFP, ERRA coordinates the rehabilitation of the

35

telecommunication sites only in AJ&K with Special Communication Organisation (SCO) as

the implementation agency. The SCO is providing fixed lines, SCO mobile connections and

Wireless Local Loop (WLL) to users which are working very efficiently in the area. The rapid

expansion in telecommunication services has brought direct and indirect benefits to the

people for years to come e.g. mobile service/repair, installation of antennas etc. There has

been a substantial increase in mobile telephone connections which are now over one million

as compared to only 5,000 before earthquake. Timely provision of permits/licenses to

cellular telecommunication companies to establish and operate their services has enhanced

interface of the affected areas with the rest of the country, as well as the world. This

enhanced communication is likely to reduce the impacts in case of future disasters.

Figure 15: Connecting People

36

6. RECOMMENDATIONS

i. Efforts should be made to promote community understanding of the benefits of ERRA

designs for rural housing, particularly in districts of Kohistan and Shangla. The remote

location and lower literacy rates in these areas require focused awareness-raising

campaigns and training sessions.

ii. Government cash grants are being used by recipients to meet their essential daily

needs and for activities of a temporary nature and in some cases dependency on

government grants had resulted in a slow return to normal livelihood and people were

still waiting for any kind of additional grant. There is a need to promote income-

generation activities through community-based programmes. This will reduce

dependency on government departments and promote the economic revival of the

area.

iii. The survey found that attendance at school was poor among school going-age children

in Kohistan. It is recommended that there should be programmes aimed primarily at

creating awareness among the general public about the importance of education.

iv. Adequate steps need to be taken to enhance enrolment in districts of Shangla and

Kohistan, including construction of easily accessible educational institutions providing

quality education.

v. According to the survey, the majority of doctors in the earthquake-affected regions are

performing their duties well, especially in Abbottabad and Mansehra. However a

number of respondents in Shangla were not satisfied with the availability of doctors. It

is recommended to devise accountability mechanism and management systems to

ensure availability and good performance of doctors at public health facilities. This can

be further substantiated through capacity building of the relevant departments.

vi. The survey results show that that the overall quality of water can be further improved in

the affected areas. Cost-effective technologies and practices like installation of water

filters, use of disinfectants, etc., should be promoted to improve water quality wherever

feasible.

vii. The survey found that most projects in the public infrastructure group are still in various

stages of construction and their expected impacts or results have yet to be

materialised. It is recommended that implementation of these projects should be

expedited on priority-basis. Various impediments need to be settled immediately with

the respective IPs and DRUs in order to achieve the proposed work plan targets.

37

7. CONCLUSIONS AND WAY FORWARD

The ERRA social impact assessment survey and analyses provide a statistically robust

picture of the reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts made by it and its partners. The

findings are in accordance with the expected results articulated in the ERRA sectoral

strategies, as well as those presented in different reviews by donors and international

partners. The results demonstrate that ERRA efforts are fostering an enabling environment

in the earthquake-affected areas, which is gradually bringing about positive changes in

peoples‟ lives.

However, the report also highlights certain challenges. Timely attention to the identified

issues will help ERRA and its partners adhere to prescribed quality standards, thereby

ensuring optimal utilisation of resources.

For a sustainable reconstruction and rehabilitation programme, it is essential to make good

efforts in the following areas:

Institutionalise ERRA standards as part of local codes and practices to be followed

by all on-going development programmes;

Introduce a follow-up mechanism with clearly articulated administrative authority for

compliance with the M&E Wing‟s recommendations, and mid-course correction.

Promote a continuous process of documentation, education of communities and

practitioners, random monitoring, and organisation of learning round-tables for

promotion of applicable practices.

38

ANNEXES

39

Annex 1a List of Sampled Villages in District Muzaffarabad

Sr. No. Village Union Council Population

1 Arliyan Panjgran 1784

2 Balgran Balgran 3631

3 Bandi Miran Talgran 348

4 Bandi Syedan Chinari 992

5 Basira Therian 600

6 Chandira Charakpura 1140

7 Ducha Danna 325

8 Garang Sena Daman 4741

9 Gharthama Chakhamma 3643

10 Gunchatir Muzaffarabad 1532

11 Hassanabad Gojra 485

12 Jheng Sarli Sacha 2568

13 Kamar Bandi Charakpura 2044

14 Khai Gran Chinari 1023

15 Khalana Kalan Khilana 1451

16 Kot Kachheli 2321

17 Lubgrann Bana Mula 1610

18 Lwasi Hattian Dopatta 3130

19 Nagni Kaser Kot Chikar 2723

20 Narat Jhandgran 1530

21 Nokot Leepa 1973

22 Numbal Panjkot 886

23 Pajgran Gojra 566

24 Potha Salah Gali Jhandgran 1690

25 Purak Lanegarpura 486

26 Shah Kanjah Khilana 1171

27 Shoran Gojra 541

28 Tali Kote Gujar bandi 2754

29 Tamber Muzaffarabad 2103

30 Urnian and Suran Kaimanja 1180

40

Annex 1b

List of Sampled Villages in District Neelum

Sr. No. Village Union Council Population

1 Ashkot Ashkot 2499

2 Bandi Ashkot 1697

3 Bata Shah Kot 581

4 Bugnia Shah Kot 564

5 Cholai Barian 979

6 Chunjath Kundal Shahi 1020

7 Danger Shah Kot 2001

8 Dular Kundal Shahi 676

9 Flakan Barian 1321

10 Ghil Ashkot 545

11 Islam Pura Ashkot 1312

12 Jabber Barrian Barian 2445

13 Jageer Barian 721

14 Jergi Barian 651

15 Jura Ashkot 2501

16 Katha Chugalli Barian 2000

17 Katha Parian Shah Kot 1204

18 Kundal Shahi Kundal Shahi 2666

19 Lary Maigal Shah Kot 637

20 Lasswah Kathian Ashkot 541

21 Lasswah Khas Ashkot 2509

22 Mirpura Barian 1093

23 Palehri Bessian Ashkot 988

24 Payalian Barian 988

25 Pur Nahi Barian 394

26 Rawatta Shah Kot 901

27 Salkhala Shah Kot 1341

28 Sandok Ashkot 1282

29 Seaid Pura Barian 291

30 Ter Ban Barian 278

41

Annex 1c

List of Sampled Villages in District Bagh

Sr. No. Village Union Council Population

1 Awari Bani pasari 1352

2 Banni Pisari Bani pasari 2499

3 Bathara Chamyati 2185

4 Birpani Birpani 3173

5 Chanat Mallot 2675

6 Cheri Kote Sangal 1098

7 Choor Mallot 5236

8 Daighwar South Degwar Terwan 2100

9 Dhara Dhara 7286

10 Halen Jonubi Kala Mula 2231

11 Jaglari Jaglari 7329

12 Kala Mula Jonubi Kala Mula 1698

13 Karni Chanjal 3892

14 Kharal Maldialan Bhont Bhaiyan 4440

15 Khuntal Renialla Makhyala 2044

16 Khurshid Abad Kehlar 3394

17 Makhiala Makhyala 6468

18 Mera Rawali 1097

19 Nar Sher Ali Khan Nar Sher Ali Khan 8379

20 Narr Pula/ Naryula Rawali 4153

21 Padar Badhal Sharif 2364

22 Rairbun Thub 6309

23 Rankeri Khas Degwar Terwan 1356

24 Samni Dhara 3047

25 Seri Mong Nar Sher Ali Khan 1928

26 Sheikh Soli Kala Mula 955

27 Soli Khas Kala Mula 1485

28 Suddan Gali Bir Pani 1328

29 Surrall Bir Pani 1736

30 Thub Thub 10634

42

Annex 1d

List of Sampled Villages in District Poonch

Sr. No. Village Union Council Population

1 Abbaspur/Batole Abbaspur 5289

2 Aziz Abad Thorar 2568

3 Bhangoin Bhangoin 7371

4 Bhantini Bhantini 3694

5 Chaffar Shamali Chaffar 3495

6 Chota Galla Dothan 4631

7 Dara Shair Khan Sehrah 5193

8 Dhrake Dhamni 3763

9 Ghambir Ghambir 3330

10 Ghambir khas Ghambir 9007

11 Hurna Mera Gharbi Hurna Mera 5603

12 Kakutta Sehr Kakuta 4340

13 Kalpor Bhantini 958

14 Keeri Kot Phagwari 6252

15 Khali Daraman Khali Daraman 3946

16 Mangora Khali Daraman 2107

17 Mudar Pur Sehr Kakuta 1590

18 Nala Nakar Bhangoin 2786

19 Namjar Khali Daraman 2180

20 Namnota Pakhar 3774

21 Pachhiot Pachiot 4665

22 Peer kot Sirari 3493

23 Sarachha Pachiot 385

24 Sarari Sirari 9710

25 Sehra Sehrah 4412

26 Sharqi Ali Sojal Ali sojal 4532

27 Sountha Bhangoin 3435

28 Tain Tain 7511

29 Thorar Khas Thorar 4992

30 Wasti Singola Singola 2968

43

Annex 1e

List of Sampled Villages in District Abbottabad

Sr. No. Village Union Council Population

1 Banda Baz Dad Dahamtore 2887

2 Banda Sohib Khan Langra 2999

3 Bandi Pahar Boi 7558

4 Bhoraj Chamhad 1777

5 Birot Khurd Birot Kalan 5953

6 Dahaki Khaitar Namli Mera 1907

7 Dalola Dalola 14725

8 Dewal Manal Dewal Manal 3412

9 Gandah Pind Kargoo Khan 1131

10 Havelian (rural) Jhangran 9839

11 Jhangi Jhangi 7537

12 Kakol Kakol 5599

13 Khokhar Salhad 2785

14 Kothiala Kothiala 7704

15 Langrial Langrial 2426

16 Majohan Majohan 8739

17 Mari Nara 734

18 Mirpur Mirpur 18765

19 Namli Mera Namli Mera 6955

20 Noor Mang Namli Mera 1847

21 Pattan Kalan Pattan Kalan 8892

22 Pattan Khurd Kokmang 42299

23 Pawa Pawa 4292

24 Pind Kargoo Khan Pind Kargoo Khan 7006

25 Rani Phala 3931

26 Salhad Salhad 18926

27 Seri Lora 472

28 Sher Bai Pawa 179

29 Tarnawai Banda Pir Khan 9718

30 Ukhreela Dahamtore 1785

44

Annex 1f

List of Sampled Villages in District Battagram

Sr. No. Village Union Council Population

1 Bab Batkul 3301

2 Barri Bana 3161

3, 4 Batagram Batagram 11534

5 Biari Biari 4277

6 Biland Kot Kuza Banda 3438

7 Bojri Batila 2944

8 Chanjal Thakot 2402

9 Dagai Banian 3260

10 Ganjbori Ganjbori 7395

11 Gantar Rashang 5326

12 Jambera Jambera 4636

13 Karag Biari 3644

14 Koshgram Bana 2446

15 Kot Gallah Pashora 2978

16 Mera Kuza Banda 5026

17 Nili Shang Gharbi Raj Dahari 2345

18 Nili Shang Sharqi Raj Dahari 2751

19 Nowshera Ajmeerah 1138

20 Pakha Behk Pashto 2084

21 Pashora Pashora 5007

22 Phagora Raj Dahari 7168

23 Pir Hari Tarand 5907

24 Raj Dahari Shumali Raj Dahari 1518

25 Shah Murad Paimal Sharif 2503

26 Shingli Bala Ganjbori 6183

27 Surgai Batkul 2275

28 Tamai Ajmeerah 2300

29 Tandol Pain Sakkar Gah 2252

30 Tarand Tarand 3137

45

Annex 1g

List of Sampled Villages in District Mansehra

Sr. No. Village Union Council Population

1 Andrasi Bhogarmang 353

2 Baffa Lughmani Baffa Town 1824

3 Baj Mohri Shohal Mazullah 2411

4 Banda Gisacha Jabori 4965

5 Barar Kot Garhi Habibullah 312

6 Basti Shahdad Mansehra City-i 845

7 Chansair Sher Garh 7311

8 Chehr Pairan 5030

9 Dhara Oghi 240

10 Dheri Haleem Hilkot 2131

11 Faridabad Darband 4175

12 Garwal Phulra 1763

13 Ghanool Ghanool 3292

14 Hair Ichrian 4619

15 Hassa Garlat 494

16 Jandar Banda Mansehra City-ii 4713

17 Kalwal Phulra 5094

18 Karmang Tarla Battal 2389

19 Khaliala Sawan Mera 1525

20 Kund Utla Hilkot 902

21 Mansehra (Rural) Mansehra 313

22 Mungan Sanda Sar 2519

23 Nokot Trangri Sabir Shah 12769

24 Paras Kawai 5810

25 Sachan Khurd Sachan Kalan 1509

26 Saphaida Mansehra (Rural) 453

27 Shamdhara Shamdhara 1258

28 Shanaya Dara Shanaya 2602

29 Timri Sum Elahimang 2933

30 Ukhreela Shinkiari 3721

46

Annex 1h

List of Sampled Villages in District Kohistan

Sr. No. Village Union Council Population

1 Baneel Qallah Dubair Khas 1401

2 Bankhad Bankhad 755

3 Chuchong Dassu 500

4 Dano Bankhad 327

5 Dhar Mada Khel 1037

6 Gaider Bar Sherial 350

7 Gat Dobair Payan 617

8 Gaya Dobair Bala 971

9 Jai Chawadara 622

10 Jajal Kuzparo 224

11 Jamra Batera Pain 450

12 Janchal Sagayun 602

13 Khel Beach Bela 262

14 Kolai Kolai 575

15 Koop Barjalkot 549

16 Loreen Batera Pain 533

17 Mujgali Dobair Bala 971

18, 19 Nairri Dobair Bala 1083

20 Richao Gabral 348

21 Sanagai Dobair Payan 967

22 Shah Murad Mada Khel 254

23 Shair Dubair Khas 985

24, 25 Shalkey Dubair Khas 1354

26 Shungial Dobair Payan 265

27, 28 Sumar Nala Sazeen 3075

29 Thapan Ranalia 486

30 Zailly Komila 206

47

Annex 1i

List of Sampled Villages in District Shangla

Sr. No. Village Union Council Population

1 Alami Banda Behlool Khail 2094

2 Amnay Malak Khel 6512

3 Banr Deri 3747

4 Basi Alpuri 6352

5 Bina Choga 2199

6 Chagum Banglai 5490

7 Chakisar Chakisar 11082

8 Choraq Baba Khel Behlool Khail 1167

9 Danakol Opel 3878

10 Dawoot Sarkul 2075

11 Donai Ranyal 4820

12 Ganshal Pir Khana 6463

13 Hasham Khel Dab Hasham Khel Dab 1458

14 Kadona Aluch 3286

15 Karshut Damorai 4941

16 Khadang Chakisar 5892

17 Kotkar Bunerwal 3237

18 Kozkana Kozkana 7276

19 Lilowani Lilowani 14735

20 Maira Maira 10534

21 Malak Khel Kotkay Malak Khel 5752

22 Nimkalai Aluch 6422

23 Pirabad Pirabad 5836

24 Ranial Ranyal 2868

25 Sangrai Ranyal 4043

26 Sarkul Sarkul 2830

27 Shahpur Shahpur 10070

28 Shang Shang 10917

29 Taloon Sarkul 5634

30 Wahab Khel Kotkay Alpuri 5928

GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN Annex II

Earthquake Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Authority (ERRA)

IMPACT ASSESSMENT HOUSEHOLD SURVEY

1. REGISTRATION AND IDENTIFICATION DATA 1.1 Name of Surveyor: _____________________ 1.2 Name of Respondent: ______________________ 1.3 Contact Number: ___________________ 1.4 N.I.C No: 1.5 Respondent‟s Relationship to Household Head: _____ Codes: Head of the family =1, Spouse of Head = 2, Son/Daughter of head = 3, Other (specify) = 4

Identification of Location Code

Province/ State

District

Tehsil

Union Council

Village

Location of Selected HH in a village (if appropriate)

2. Summary of Immediate Earthquake Effects on This Household

2.1 Death of household member(s) (no. of persons) [ ] Male [ ] Female [ ] Children

2.2 Serious injury to household member(s) (no. of persons) [ ] Male [ ] Female [ ] Children

2.3 Minor injury to household member(s) (no. of persons) [ ] Male [ ] Female [ ] Children

2.4 House required complete rebuilding (tick one) Yes No N/A

2.5 House required partial rebuilding/repair (tick one) Yes No N/A

2.6 Adverse impact on livelihood (tick one) Severe Moderate Small

2.7 Adverse impact on access (tick one) Severe Moderate Small

3. Household Demography and Occupations

Indicators Members of the Household

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3.1 Sex

3.2 Age

3.3 Marital Status

3.4 Education level

3.5 Vocational training

3.6 Primary Occupation

Sex Code: 1=Male, 2=Female Marital Status: Married=1, Unmarried=2, Widow/widower=3, Divorced/separated=4 Educational level: Illiterate=1, Under School Going Age=2 , Primary=3, Class VI-VIII=4, Matric and above=5, Vocational/technical training Yes=1, No=2, Occupation: Agriculture Own Farm=1, Agriculture Own-Cum-Others Farm=2, Tenant=3, Absentee farmer=4, Agri. Labor=5, Non-Agri. Labor=6, Govt.Job=7, Non-Govt.Job=8, Business=9, Transport=10, Other (specify)=11, Unemployed=12, Not Applicable=13, House Wife=14, Student=15 4. Income & Expenditure of Household

4.1 Average Monthly Income Before EQ(whole HH) PKR:

4.2 Average Monthly Expenditure Before EQ (whole HH) PKR:

4.3 Average Monthly Income After EQ(whole HH) PKR:

4.4 Average Monthly Expenditure After EQ (whole HH) PKR:

- -

44

5. Social Services Group 5.1 Education 5.1.1 Access to Educational Institutions

Schools

College University Primary Middle High Higher Secondary

Pre-EQ

Post-EQ

Pre-EQ

Post-EQ

Pre-EQ

Post-EQ

Pre-EQ

Post-EQ

Pre-EQ

Post-EQ

Pre-EQ

Post-EQ

Distance (km)

Time (hr:min)

5.1.2 What is the normal means of transport to school? 1 = Foot, 2 = Bus/car

5.1.3 School-age children and school-going children in the Household

Primary Middle High

Higher Secondary

College University

M F M F M F M F M F M F

No. of School/ College Age Children

No of Children Going to School/ College

1 5.1.4 How many children from your house were going to school before the earthquake?

______ 5.2 Health Care 5.2.1 Access to Health Care Institutions

BHU/ RHCs

Dispensary Hakeem/

Homeopath Doctor (P. Practice)

Hospital

Pre- EQ Distance (km)

Time (hrs)

Post- EQ Distance (km)

Time (hrs)

5.2.2 Have you used any health-care institution in the most recent 12 months? YES/NO If YES, go to Question 5.2.3. If NO, go to Question 5.2.8 5.2.3 If YES, which type/types of institution? (Tick all types used)

BHU/ RHCs Dispensary Hakeem/

Homeopath

(Private Practice) Doctor

(MBBS) Hospital

Other (specify)

5.2.4 Are essential medicines available in BHU/ RHC? 1. Yes [ ], 2. Quite often [ ], 3. No [ ]

4. Not applicable [ ]

45

5.2.5 Is the doctor available regularly? 1. Yes mostly, [ ] 2. Quite often [ ] 3. No [ ] 4. Not applicable [ ]

5.2.6 Do the doctors pay proper attention to patients? 1. Yes, always [ ] 2. Yes, sometimes [ ]

3. No [ ] 4. Not applicable [ ]

5.2.7 Are you getting free medicine in case of emergency? 1. Yes, always [ ] 2. Quite often [ ]

3. No [ ] 4. Not applicable [ ] 5.2.8 Are LHWs paying regular visits? 1. Yes [ ] 2. Quite often [ ] 3. No [ ] 5.2.9 Do they give you health/ hygiene promotion tips? 1. Yes, always [ ] 2. Quite often [ ] 3. No [ ]

If YES, What have you learnt from them? (a) ______________________________________

(b) ______________________________________ (c) _______________________________________ (d) ______________________________________

5.2.10 How do you rate the service provided by LHWs? 1. Excellent [ ] 2. Good [ ] 3. Acceptable [ ]

4. Poor [ ]

If POOR, why?__________________________________________________________________

5.3 Drinking Water Supply 5.3.1 Type of Scheme (tick one)

Gravity Flow Direct

Pumping Pumping

with Storage Hand Pump Dug Well Spring

5.3.2 Quantity of Water (tick one for Pre-EQ and one for Now)

Pre-EQ Now

Sufficient In-sufficient Sufficient In-sufficient

5.3.3 Quality of Water (tick one for Pre-EQ and one for Now)

Pre-EQ Now

Excellent Satisfactory Not acceptable Excellent Satisfactory Not

acceptable

5.3.4 In the last XX months, did anyone in your family suffer from:

Condition Yes No

Vomiting

Diarrhoea

If ANY OF 5.3.4 IS=YES, go to 5.3.5. Otherwise go to 5.3.6

46

5.3.5 What measures do you take to get safe water? (tick one)

1. Boil water

2. Fetch water from distance where good source is available

3. Other (specify)

4. No measure

5.3.6 Total time required for fetching of water:

Pre-EQ Now

hrs/day hrs/day

5.4 Sanitation 5.4.1 What type of latrine did you use pre-earthquake and now?

Type of latrine Pre-earthquake Now

Sanitary latrine

Pit Latrines

Open fields

5.4.2 Has any member of your household received training or advice in hygienic practices? 1. Yes [ ], 2. No [ ] 6. Direct Outreach Group

6.1 Housing Reconstruction/Rehabilitation 6.1.1 Did your house damaged in 2005 Earthquake? (Tick one) Yes, [ ] No [ ] and what type of

this house was? 1. Kacha [ ] or Pakka [ ] If YES go to Q 6.1.2 otherwise go to 6.2 6.1.2 Type of damage to your home: Complete [ ] Partial [ ] Negligible [ ] 6.1.3 Type of construction used in reconstruction: RCC [ ] Dhajji [ ] Bhattar [ ] CITU [ ]

Mixed Construction or Any Other [ ] 6.1.4 Have you reconstructed your house as per ERRA design? (tick one) 1. Yes, [ ] 2. No [ ] 6.1.5 Do you feel that your newly constructed house is comparatively better than pre-earthquake

house. e.g: a) Comfortable (Tick one) Much better [ ] Somewhat better [ ] Slightly better [ ] Same [ ] Worse [ ] Due to? Covered Area [ ] No. of rooms [ ] Size of rooms [ ] Accessibility [ ] other [ ] If other, Please specify: _____________________________________________________ b) Facilitated (Tick one) Much better [ ] Somewhat better [ ] Slightly better [ ] Same [ ] Worse [ ] Due to? Kitchen [ ] Veranda [ ] Bath [ ] Latrine [ ] Boundary wall [ ] Any other [ ] If other, Please specify: _____________________________________________________ c) Better Environment/Hygiene (Tick one)

47

Much better [ ] Somewhat better [ ] Slightly better [ ] Same [ ] Worse [ ] Due to? Solid waste Management [ ] Sewerage [ ] Septic tanks Any other [ ] If other, Please specify: _____________________________________________________ d) Feel Secure (Tick one) Much better [ ] Somewhat better [ ] Slightly better [ ] Same [ ] Worse [ ] Due to? ERRA Standards [ ] Improved Local Technologies (Dhaji, Bhatar, Situ etc.) [ ] If other, Please specify: _____________________________________________________ e) Compatibility with climatic conditions: (Tick one) Much better [ ] Somewhat better [ ] Slightly better [ ] Same [ ] Worse [ ]

6.1.6 Did you get construction material from: a) Open market Yes, [ ] No [ ] b) ERRA Established material hubs Yes, [ ] No [ ] If (b), go to Q 6.1.7, otherwise go to Q 6.1.9

6.1.7 Did you feel any difference in quality: Yes, [ ] No [ ] and Prices Yes, [ ] No [ ] 6.1.8 Do you think these hubs should continue for future construction Yes, [ ] No [ ] 6.1.9 Is the household member of Village Reconstruction Committee (VRC)? (Tick one) 1. Yes, [ ] 2 No [ ] 6.1.10 Have any member of your household received training in EQ-proof construction? (Tick one) 1. Yes, [ ] 2. No [ ] 6.1.11 If YES, Construction training received?

Training Types No. of Household Members Trained Income Increased due to

Training (Y/N) Female Male Total

1. Artisans

2. Masons

3. Carpenters

4. Steel Fixers

5. Other ( specify)

6.1.12 Have you used wood in your construction? (Tick one) 1. Yes, [ ] 2. No [ ] 6.1.13 If Yes, what type of wood was used in the construction? a) New Wood: 1. Yes, [ ] 2. No [ ] b) Re-used wood: 1. Yes, [ ] 2. No [ ] 6.1.14 If New Wood, then: a) Was this self wood? (Tick one) 1. Yes, [ ] 2. No, [ ] b) Was this forest wood cut from forest? (Tick one) 1. Yes, [ ] 2. No, [ ] c) Was purchased from market? 1. Yes, [ ] 2. No, [ ] 6.1.15 How do you dispose Human/Animal excreta? a) Direct into drain (Tick one) 1. Yes, [ ] 2. No, [ ] b) Disposal in open air (Tick one) 1. Yes, [ ] 2. No, [ ] c) Disposal into streams (Tick one) 1. Yes, [ ] 2. No, [ ] 6.2 Micro-Credit and Cash Grants

6.2.1 Do you and your household members have easy access to micro-credit/grant? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

48

6.2.2 Have you taken any loan since the earthquake (tick one)? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

6.2.3 If Yes, details of loan/loans taken (include all loans)

Source Amount

(Rs) Purpose

Rate of Interest (% per year)

Collateral Required

(Y/N)

If Yes, How Much?)

K. Bank

NGOs

Others

IF PURPOSE = 1 OR 2 OR 3 FOR ANY LOAN, GO TO Q.6.2.4. OTHERWISE GO TO Q.6.2.5 6.2.4 Do you think that your household income has been increased because of business which

has started with micro-finance? 1. Greatly increased [ ] 2. Increased [ ] 3. No increase [ ] 4. Decreased [ ]

6.2.5 Did you or any family member receive any Cash Grant from ERRA/ NGOs since the earthquake?

1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] 6.2.6 If YES, for what purpose did you use the cash grant? (tick applicable boxes)

Building/Rebuilding Houses

Food Items Non-Food Items Medical Purpose

Income Generating

Activity

Male Female Male Female Male Female

6.2.7 If cash grant was used on income generation, was it for:

1. Temporary Activity [ ] 2. Permanent Nature of Activity [ ] 6.2.8 Do you think that your household income has been increased because of business which

has started with cash grant? 1. Greatly increased [ ] 2. Increased [ ] 3. No increase [ ] 4. Decreased [ ]

6.2.9 Do the women of the household have any regular savings? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] 6.2.10 If yes, what is the main use of the saving? (tick one):

1. Dowry [ ] 2. Livestock purchase [ ] 3. Agriculture [ ] 4. Family enterprise [ ] 5. Education of the children 6. Any other (specify):__________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________

_

Purpose codes: 1=Agriculture related activity, 2=Related to livestock or poultry, 3=Small business, 4=Debt repayment, 5=Children‟s education, 6=Household consumption, 7=Dowry/Social ceremony, 8=Others (Specify) ___________________________________________________________________

49

6.3 Rehabilitation of Agricultural & Livestock Livelihoods 6.3.1 Did you or your household members cultivate any land, before or after the earthquake? (tick one) 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] If YES, go to Q. 6.3.2. If NO, go to 6.3.8 6.3.2 Area of land available to household members before earthquake and this year (kanal)

Land Use Type 2 Area Rain-Fed 3 Area Irrigated

Pre-EQ This Year Pre-EQ This Year

Cropped Land

Fallow Land

Orchards

Total Land Available

6.3.3 Tenure of land cropped by household members, before earthquake and this year

Land Tenure (kanal) Total Cropped Land (kanal) Owned Land Tenant/Share Tenant/Rented

Pre-Earthquake

This Year

Note: Total cropped land must be the same as for Question 6.3. 6.3.4 Area, Yield and Production of Major Annual Crops

Name of Crop

Pre-Earthquake Most Recent Completed Season

Area Sown (kanal)

Yield (maund/kanal)

Total Production

(md.)

Area Sown (kanal)

Yield (maund per

kanal)

Total Production

(md.)

Wheat

Maize

Barley

Pulses

*Potato

*Onion

*Tomato

Chillies

Cabbage/cauliflower

Other:

Note: Post-earthquake data should refer to most recent season for which yields are known. 6.3.5 Have you received any seed or fertilizer or pesticide from ERRA or ERRA POs?

1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] 6.3.6 If YES, what types did you receive? (tick all relevant boxes)

50

Type of Input Type of Input Type of Input

Wheat Seed Other Crop Seeds Pulse Seed

Potato Seed Tree Seedlings Chillies Seed

Maize Seed Fertilizer Vegetable Seed

Barley Seed Pesticide Other:

6.3.7 Number, Yield and Production of Fruit Trees

Name of Crop

Pre-Earthquake Most Recent Completed Season

No. of Trees

Yield per Tree

(md.)

Total Production

(md.)

No. of Trees

Yield per Tree

(md.)

Total Production

(md.)

Apple

Apricot

Other:

6.3.8 Do you have access to communal grazing or forest land (shamilat)? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] 6.3.9 If YES, how much rangeland and forest did the village have before and after the earthquake?

Type of Land Pre-Earthquake Post-Earthquake

Range land (acres)

Forest land (acres)

Total

6.3.10 Did you own any livestock before or after the earthquake? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] 6.3.11 If YES, what type and how many?

Species

Number and Type

Pre-Earthquake Now

Breed No. Breed No.

Buffalo

Cow

Cow Cross-Bred

Sheep

Goat

Goat Cross-Bred

6.3.12 Have you received livestock from ERRA/POs? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] 6.3.13 If YES, what type and how many?

Species Number and Type Received

Breed No.

Buffalo

Cow

Cow Cross-bred

Sheep

Goat

Goat Cross-bred

51

6.3.15 How has access to farming input sellers changed since the earthquake? (tick relevant boxes)

Type of Inputs Level of Access

Much Better Better Same Worse

Serial Crop Seeds

Tree Seedlings

Fertilizers

Pesticides

Tools/Equipment

Livestock Feeds

Livestock Medicines

6.3.16 Do you normally sell any crops, fruit or livestock? 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] 6.3.17 If YES, How has access to markets changed since the earthquake? (tick relevant boxes)

Type of Market Level of Access

Much Better Better Same Worse

Grains/Pulses

Vegetables

Fruit

Livestock

Other:

6.3.18 What was your normal amount of crop and livestock sales per year before the earthquake, and what is the amount now?

Crops

Pre-Earthquake Now

Amount Sold

Price Gross

Income Amount

Sold Price

Gross Income

Wheat

Potatoes

Maize

Barley

Pulses

Chillies

Vegetables

Fruit

Milk/Butter/Ghee

Cows/Buffaloes

Sheep/Goats

7. Public Infrastructure 7.1 Roads 7.1.1 Has any road linking this village been constructed/reconstructed since the earthquake? (tick one) 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] IF YES, GO TO QUESTION 7.1.2. IF NO, GO TO QUESTION 7.2.

52

Road Impacts on Livelihoods, Access and Commercial Activity 7.1.2 If YES, have there been any positive impacts of the road construction/reconstruction on you

or your household members?

7.1.2.1 Job opportunities (compared with before earthquake) (tick one) 1. Substantially increased [ ] 2. Increased [ ] 3. Not increased [ ]

7.1.2.2 Income (compared with before earthquake) (tick one) 1. Substantially increased [ ] 2. Increased [ ] 3. Not increased [ ] 4. Reduced [ ]

7.1.2.3 Access to public facilities (compared with before earthquake) (tick one box for each facility)

Facility Substantially

Improved Improved

Not

Improved

Worser

than

Before

Medical Facility

Market

School/College/University

Work Place

Others

7.1.2.4 Increase in shops and stores along the road (compared with before earthquake) (tick one) 1. Substantially more [ ] 2. More [ ] 3. Same as before [ ] 4. Fewer than before [ ]

Road Impacts on Travel Time

7.1.3 What has been the effect of the road (construction/reconstruction) on your travel time? (tick one) 1. Much quicker than before [ ] 2. Quicker than before [ ] 3. Same as before

4. Longer than before [ ]

7.1.4 If 7.1.3 = 1 or 2, approximately how much travel time has been saved by using the new road/link road compared with pre-earthquake? (tick one) 1. Less than 10 minutes [ ] 2. 10 ~ 20 minutes [ ] 3. 20 ~ 30 minutes [ ] 4. 30 ~ 40 minutes [ ] 5. More than 40 minutes [ ] Road Impacts on Transport Costs, Congestion and Road Safety

7.1.5 Are you a vehicle owner, or employed as a driver? (tick YES if either is true) 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] IF 7.1.5 = YES, GO TO QUESTION 7.1.6. IF 7.1.5 = NO, GO TO 7.1.11

53

7.1.6 Has your travel cost (monthly fuel expenses/ repair) been reduced by using the reconstructed road/link road as compared with the pre-earthquake times? (tick one) 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

7.1.7 What is the approximate saving per month from driving? Rupees_____ per month 7.1.8 How frequently do you face traffic jams when you drive on the new/reconstructed road? (tick one)

1. Quite often [ ] 2. Often [ ] 3. Sometimes [ ] 4. Occasionally [ ] 5. Never [ ] 7.1.9 Do you think that frequency of traffic accidents has been reduced for the new/reconstructed

road, compared with the situation of pre-earthquake? (tick one) 1. Yes, largely [ ] 2. Yes, somewhat [ ] 3. Yes, slightly [ ] 4. No [ ]

7.1.10 Do you think in general that traffic/driving safety of the new/reconstructed road has become better or worse compared with pre-earthquake? 1. Much better [ ] 2. Somewhat better [ ] 3. No change [ ] 4. Somewhat worse [ ] 5. Much worse

Road Impacts on Land and Agriculture 7.1.11 Do you own any land? (tick one) 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] 7.1.12 If 7.11 = YES, do you think that the value of your land has been increased after the

construction/reconstruction of the road? (tick one) 1. Substantially increased [ ] 2. Increased [ ] 3. Same as before [ ] 4. Decreased [ ] 5. Substantially decreased [ ]

7.1.13 Are you a tenant of any land? (tick one) 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] 7.1.12 If 7.1.11 = YES, do you think that your tenant fee has been increased after the construction/

reconstruction of the road? (tick one) 1. Substantially increased [ ] 2. Increased [ ] 3. Same as before [ ] 4. Decreased [ ] 5. Substantially decreased [ ]

7.1.13 Do you think that the land use pattern in your neighboring area has been changed after construction/reconstruction of the road? (tick one box per row)

Pattern Greatly

Increased Some-What Increased

Same Some-What Decreased

Greatly Decreased

7.13.1 High Value Crops

7.13.2 Low Value Crops

7.13.3 Pasture/Grazing Land

7.13.4 Forest

7.13.5 Land used for Houses

7.13.6 Land used for Business/Industry

7.1.14 Since construction/reconstruction of the road, has it been easier to market your

crops/livestock? (tick one) 1. Much easier [ ] 2. Somewhat easier [ ] 3. Same as before [ ] 4. More difficult [ ] 5. Much more difficult [ ]

7.1.15 Since construction/reconstruction of the road, has there been any change in your transport

costs to the market? 1. Much cheaper [ ] 2. Somewhat cheaper [ ] 3. Same as before [ ] 4. More costly [ ]

54

5. Much more costly [ ]

7.1.16 Since construction/reconstruction of the road, has there been any change in the prices you get for your crops/livestock? 1. Much higher [ ] 2. Somewhat higher [ ] 3. Same as before [ ] 4. Somewhat lower [ ] 5. Much lower [ ]

7.1.17 Since construction/reconstruction of the road, has there been any change in the income you

get from crops/livestock? 1. Much higher [ ] 2. Somewhat higher [ ] 3. Same as before [ ] 4. Somewhat lower [ ] 5. Much lower [ ]

7.2 Electricity and Other Energy Sources 7.2.1 What sources of energy was your household using, before the earthquake and now? (tick

boxes for all types used)

Time period Type of Energy Used

Kerosene LPG Charcoal Dung Cake

Electricity Wood Crop

Residues

Pre-earthquake

Now

IF ELECTRICITY USED BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER EARTHQUAKE, GO TO QUESTION 7.2.2 IF ELECTRICITY USED ONLY AFTER EARTHQUAKE, GO TO QUESTION 7.2.4 IF ELECTRICITY NOT USED AT ALL, GO TO QUESTION 7.2. 7.2.2 Compared with pre-earthquake, does load-shedding happen more or less often? (tick one) 1. Much less often [ ] 2. Less often [ ] 3. About the same [ ] 4. More often [ ]

5. Much more often [ ]

7.2.3 Compared with pre-earthquake, does low-voltage occur more or less often? (tick one) 1. Much less often [ ] 2. Less often [ ] 3. About the same [ ] 4. More often [ ]

5. Much more often [ ] 7.2.4 What purposes does the household use electrical equipment for, compared with pre-

earthquake? (tick all relevant boxes)

Time period

Electrical Equipment Used For

Lighting Cooking Room Heating

Domestic Equipment

Income-Earning Equipment

Pre-EQ

Post-EQ

7.2.5 Since the earthquake, has the household installed any new electrically-powered equipment or upgraded any of its electrical equipment? (get list of types and tick for new or upgraded)

Types of Equipment Tick if New Tick if Upgraded

7.2.6 Since the earthquake, has any household member established any enterprise or business that depends on electrically powered equipment? (tick one) 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

55

7.2.7 If 7.2.6 = YES, what type of enterprise/business? (tick all relevant boxes)

Type of Business Tick if Business Depends on Electricity

Trading/Retailing

Food Processing

Handicrafts

Other (specify):

7.2.8 Has your electricity connection/restoration reduced workload for women/men (tick one box for women and one for men)?

Women Men

Workload Reduced Workload Not Reduced

Workload Reduced Workload Not Reduced

7.2.9 If 7.2.8 = YES for either women or men, in what way was workload reduced?

Women Men

7.2.10 Has electricity connection/restoration prolonged the study hours for school-age household

members? (tick one). 1. Yes [ ] 2. No. [ ] 7.2.11 Has Electricity connection/restoration facilitated the study hours for school going-age

household members? (tick one) 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] 7.3 Telecommunication 7.3.1 What is your access to telephone service, compared to pre-earthquake? (tick all relevant boxes)

Time Period

Types of Telecommunication Access

Land Line in House

PCO in Village

PCO at

UC HQ

Own Mobile Phone

Mobile Phone Cash Service in Village

Pre-Earthquake

Post-Earthquake

7.3.2 Compared with pre-earthquake, do you think that telecom has brought your relatives/friends

in more frequent contact with you? (tick one) 1. Yes, much more [ ] 2. Yes, somewhat more [ ] 3. Yes, slightly more [ ] 4. No change [ ]

8. Cross- Cutting Themes 8.1 Environment 8.1.1 Is your house situated on a hilly slope? (tick one) 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ] 8.1.2 Did your family face any damage/loss of property or crop during road

construction/reconstruction? (tick one) 1. Yes [ ] 2. No [ ]

56

8.1.3 Did your family face any damage/loss of property or crop or due to land slide? (tick one)

Yes No

Pre-Earthquake

Post-Earthquake

8.1.4 Did your family face any damage/loss of property or crop or due to soil erosion? (tick one)

Yes No

Pre-Earthquake

Post-Earthquake

8.1.5 Did your family face any damage/loss of property or crop or due to flooding? (tick one)

Yes No

Pre-Earthquake

Post-Earthquake

8.2 Measures for Vulnerable People 8.2.1 Have you or anyone in the household received entrepreneur training?

Training Types

No. of Persons Trained Did Your Training Help You to Earn Any Income? (Y/N)

If YES, Approximate

Income (Rs per year) Female Male Total

Fruit nurseries

Vegetable Nurseries

Bee Keeping

Grain Storage Pest Control

Fruit & Vegetable Preservation

Off Season Vegetable Production

Compost Making

Orchard Management

Linkages with Markets

Other (specify)

8.2.2 Training for vulnerable groups

Training Type No. of Persons Trained Have You Found your

Counselling/ Training Useful for Your Life? Y/N Female Male

Total

Individual Counseling

Family Counseling

Counseling for Access to Compensation for Land & Property

Psycho-Social Therapy

How to Live an Independent Life (PWDs)

Any Other

57

THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO SPEAK TO US TODAY. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK US?

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

58

Annex III

ERRA M&E Evaluation Group

Sr. No. Name Designation

1 Brig Umer Farooq DG (M&E)

2 Lt. Col Khalid Rashid Dir. Evaluation

3 Mr. Muhammad Rizwan Ul Haq Coordinator Impact, AJ&K

4 Ms. Zeb Un Nisa Coordinator Impact, NWFP

5 Mr. Gulzar Ahmed Zonal Coordinator, AJ&K

6 Mr. Micheal Ditta Zonal Coordinator, NWFP

7 Mr. Akhtar Nawaz Khattak Evaluator

8 Mr. Nazir Ahmed Evaluator

9 Ms. Bushra Saeed Evaluator

10 Ms. Fizza Sabir Evaluator

11 Dr. Awais Naser Evaluator

12 Mr. Temur Safdar Evaluator

13 Mr. Muhammad Baqir Evaluator

14 Mr. Ajmal Khan Evaluator

15 Mr. Ghazi Kamal Evaluator

16 Ms. Zahida Amin Evaluator

17 Mr. Zahid Shah Evaluator

59