the cap worksthe cap works - massachusetts...

Pilot Tsunami CAPs June/July 20045 Banda Aceh, Indonesia1

Community Action Planning for Participatory Reconstructionof Tsunami Affected Areas in Aceh Province

Dr. Reinhard Goethert

June 22- July 28, 2005

Prepared for the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH

SUMMARY - ACTIVITIES - COMMENTARY - ISSUES - CONCERNS

The CAP WorksThe CAP WorksThe CAP WorksThe CAP WorksThe CAP WorksThe CAP WorksThe CAP WorksThe CAP WorksThe CAP WorksThe CAP WorksTsunami

Tsunami


Three pilot CAP workshops were carried out in June and July of 2005 in Banda Aceh and surroundingareas, to tackle the complex issues of rebuilding Tsunami destroyed communities. The goals were todevelop an appropriate Tsunami-specific CAP methodology with an implementation program of priorityprojects, to establish and train a ÔCAP TeamÕ for the expansion of the workshops to other destroyedcommunities, and to initiate construction by linking to a KfW rebuilding project focused on reconstructing10,000 houses. The community was considered the basic unit on which all development initiatives arekeyed and which representives stability within the ever changing political and strategic framework.

The pilot workshops demonstrated the effectiveness of the approach and provided a Ôkick-startÕ inmobilizing rebuilding. The villages ranged from a small fishing village on the East Coast, a fishingcommunity on the outskirts of Banda Aceh, and a large-inner city community in Banda Aceh itself. Thethree sites offered a variety of challenges, and a variety of approaches was tested, along with a broadrange of planning strategies.

A strength of the Tsunami CAP is the direct link between CAP and implemenation donors, but thislink is also a concern, particularly because of their different mandates. Continuity in staff during thetransition from CAP to implementation is critical. A mechanism to publicize needs is needed to broadenand maintain rebuilding momentum. Focusing on rebuilding new houses is not enough, and long-termtechnical assistance and support for the re-establishment of vital social networks can have an immediatebenefit as well as providing long-term development assistance.

The structure and goals of the 3 pilot CAP workshops were heavily influenced by the generally slowrebuilding situation, 7 months after the Tsunami wracked havoc on December 26. Assistance had beenoffered by reportedly more than 222 international NGOs, more than 150 national NGOs, 18 UN agencies,and an untold number of bilateral agencies. A GTZ/KfW team had already carried out a rapid appraisalmission in February/March 2005, commendably quick in assessing possible responses to the Tsunami.

Surviving families have long been rehoused in barracks or had made their own arrangements.Many assessments and studies have been undertaken and some say they have reached a saturationlevel. However, a sense of urgency by the various NGOs and funders was not apparent. In one of thepilot communities, reportedly 22 community forums, meetings, and surveys had already occurred beforethe CAP workshop.

The widespread publicity, the large number of NGOs and other donors, and immense, almostimmediate outpouring of aid had raised expectations to a very high level among the communities for rapidrebuilding. Actual dwelling reconstruction throughout Banda Aceh was not perceived as extensive, andseems largely carried out by smaller NGOs scattered throughout the areas. Surprisingly, some NGOswere still in a Ôrelief modeÕ with semi-permanent house construction.

The first CAP workshops took place from 29 June to 1 July. Families entered the CAP with highexpectations - perhaps unrealizable - and not surprisingly a sense of urgency in rebuilding housesdominated.

SUMMARY

The CAP workshops were developed and tested by Dr. Reinhard Goethert and Lalu Suhayatman Haditogether with the CAP Team Zamharira, Baiq Faerusz Ziba, Silvera Umeza, Ramadhona, Stephanus HeryKuntarto, with Zul Fadli, Saefullah, Mutia, Tri Wahuyni; and KfW liaison led by Georg Fiebig, with Sigit,Endah Raharjo and assistants.


Difficult policy decisions are made by the community with technical consultation.Rebuilding is focused and facilitated for both community and donor.

AND NOW READY TOWORK WITH THOSEOFFERING HELP!

■ A COMMUNITYSTRENGTHENED¥ A reinforcement of thecommunity andleadership structure,rebuilding a sense ofcontrol, direction andhope.

■ DOCUMENTATION AND ORGANIZATION¥ A Binder of the community goals and priorities to guide andrecord rebuilding. ¥ An organizational structure to

manage the process of reconstruction.¥ An English Summary to facilitatedonor assistance.

■ TRANSITION TOIMPLEMENTATION¥ Property corners reestablished onthe site to clarify vulnerable areas andplanned escape routes.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE AFTER THE WORKSHOP?

■ HOUSING¥An inventory of the houses and the facilities showingowner and condition.¥ An image and standard of houses to bereconstructed.¥ Criteria and sequence of rebuilding houses.

■ PLANNING¥A spatial plan of the village inmodel form, showing damagedareas, relative housing locationwithin a Ôgood enough accuracyÕstreet framework, public facilities,and open areas.

¥A concept plan for escaperoutes and other mitigationmeasures.

■ PRIORITIES AND ALTERNATIVES¥ A prioritized list of facilities to bereconstructed or repaired.¥ Alternatives and strategies forrebuilding priorities which consider arange of inputs, from community tooutside assistance.


ACTIVITIES

The Pilot Villages Ð There Pilot Tsunami CAPs Ð Site Model Ð The Workshop Ð Spatial Planning Ð Housing Ð Documentation

■ LAM TEUMAN TIMUR VILLAGE is near the center ofBanda Aceh, an area mixed in income, housing types anddegree of destruction - and with it different challenges ofrebuilding. It is 10 times larger than Lancang Village in Pidie.

The PILOT VILLAGESThe three pilot workshops represented a variety of site conditions with a large variation in availablebackground information. This diversity provided a broad range of challenges from which to develop and totest CAP methodologies, and was effective preparation for large-scale CAP implementation throughout theBanda Aceh region.

■ LANCANG VILLAGE, Pidie, is a fishing village on an islandwith only one central street -spine for access and escape.Most of the houses were destroyed.

■ LAMTEUNGOH and neighboring LAMTUTUI VILLAGESare located on the outskirts of Banda Aceh, on a peninsulawith mountains on one side affording a ready escape destina-tion. The village was completely destroyed with heavy loss oflife.


The workshops met in the few remaining public buildings ineach village. Approximately 50-60 participants attended eachof the workshops, with participations carefully selected toinclude representatives from all sectors, with special attentionto women representatives.

The workshop was focused around small group workto explore options, with presentation and discussion with thefull community to reach consensus on issues. A moderatorguided the sessions, and the working groups were assisted by

n LAM TEMEN TIMUR VILLAGE

n LAM TUTUI AND LAM TEUNGOH VILLAGES

n LANCANG VILLAGE

facilitators to provide additional resources and assist thediscussion.

Charts filled out by the small groups were usedextensively to capture ideas and to use as a transparentpresentation reference. All charts and models were photo-graphed, reduced, and place in a binder as the workshoprecord. Copies of the binder are intended for the community,the GTZ, the KfW, Bappenas, and the district headÕs office.

Recently clearedelementary school wassite for workshop.

THREE ÔTSUNAMIÕ CAPSThe focus of the CAP workshops was the community. The community was seen as aconstant, stable element within the frequent shifts and often conflicting policies, and thevariable interests of agencies and aid groups.

Mosque being repairedwas workshop location.

Central meeting place inrefugee barracks wasworkshop site.


The base varied according to community size, and to amaximum dimension of approximately 3 m. The larger themodel the easier it was for the community to visualize theirvillage. The scale varied from 1/500 to 1/1000, with the largersize more useful and recommended for future CAPs.

The model was build to be deliberately crude whenviewed from the eyes of a professional. The model wasintended to be a working tool and not a finished representa-tion. Being crude - but not inaccurate - encouraged thecommunity to explore alternatives without concern fordestroying the integrity of the model.

The model base included road alignments and generalphysical boundaries, and was built by the project team inpreparation for the workshop. The base was precise, withdimensions taken either through careful field measurement orfrom satellite imagery (Ikonos). The method used variedaccording to availability: Lancang on the east coast in Pidierequired a field survey since the Ikonos imagery took severalweeks to procure. Lamteungoh and Lamtutui villages on theoutskirts of Banda Aceh in Aceh Besar used a low-grade

SITE MODEL

A vital element of the CAP process is a large model of the site, which accommodates several goals:¥ facilitates visualization and understanding of the situation in each village.¥ records physical elements of the village: houses, streets, public facilities, and destroyed and damagedareas as identified by the community. This is essentially an instant community mapping (GIS) exercise.¥ serves as a driver for the workshop discussions.

Ikonos image as base, sufficient for general boundaries (waterline), and an indication of the previous streets. Surprising thequality was bad, explained by the image suppliers as a resultof atmospheric conditions. For Lam Teuman Timur village inthe district of Jaya Baru, Banda Aceh, a high-quality Ikonosimage was secured which was redrawn with AutoCad toprovide a detailed accurate base.

No attempt was made to include houses or theirÔfootprintÕ, since this was left for the individual families to locateas part of the workshop. The families used precut woodenblocks as their houses and located them on the model beforeand during the workshop. On their house they indicateddegree of destruction (natural = OK; red = damaged; black =destroyed) and their name.

Collectively, the community identified public buildingsand their degree of destruction, and areas damaged by thetsunami, for example Ôeroded areasÕ.

After the model was completed with the basic informa-tion - streets, houses, public facilities, damaged areas - it wasused throughout the workshop to explore replanning options.

Model BaseStreets, rivers, other major elements are shown

Model CompletedFamilies add their houses, labeling with name anddegree of destruction (natural, red, black coloring).Community indicates damage using red, and publicfacilities/public interventions in yellow.Blue/green tape indicates escape routes.Kiosks and ÔrelaxÕ were also identified.


THE WORKSHOP

Task 1: REMEMBERING - GOOD AND BAD“What do you want to pass on to your children? Whatdo you want them to experience, what memories do youwant them to carry into the future?First, what are the good things that you want them toexperience? And secondly, what are the things thatcould now be improved, the things that were not sogood.”

Rapid, focused sessions with the community and other representatives was used to inventory rebuildingneeds, agree on strategies and priorities for rebuilding, and to determine an immediate implementationprogram for housing as catalyst for a rebuilding program. Priority was given to community initiatives, withprofessionals only in a limited supporting role.

The goal is to bring the community together by reflecting onwhat was important in the past, as a basis for thinking aboutthe rebuilding program and priorities. Physical things -buildings, parks, etc. - as well as events and social activitieswere suggested.

But before the workshop gets started, children sketch their visionof what the village would look like when it is rebuilt.The sketches are displayed as part of the workshop and provide anotherperspective for thinking about priorities. The children will be the villagein the future, and it is important for them to already contribute and feel apart of the process.

A Vision Statement isprepared from the ÔgoodmemoriesÕ.

A Problems list issummarized from theÔbad memoriesÕ.

q

t

Our VISION - Lam Tutui

“A strong welcoming communitycentered around fishing and harbor,favoring the beach, sports and trees.A mosque as the focus, and houseswith gardens and courtyards.”

Our VISION - Lam Temen Timur

“A mixed life-style community be-tween modern and traditional cul-ture, with high mobility in expecta-tions, where accessibility and publicfacilities are important: communitycenter, green areas, with goodstreets and drainage. Good housesare for everyone.”

Our VISION - Lancang

“A green village with trees and good roads, withthe mosque as the community activity center.There is a place for the fishermen to work, a placefor the kids to play, clean water facilities thatcovers all the community needs, and a decenthouse to live, surrounded by fish ponds andmangrove trees.”

What do youremember thatwas good?

What do youremember thatwas not so good?Things that needimprovement?

+ –••••

••••

Summary of Problems

••••


Task 2: INVENTORYING THE SITUATION“Locate your house and the public facilities on themodel and indicate whether OK, damaged, or destroyed.Also on the model, identify damaged areas of thevillage. ”

VILLAGE INVENTORY

••••

Public Facilities

Infrastructure

Site

••••

•••

Status

The goal is to locate every house, all the public facilities, andthe site conditions on the model, along with the name and thedegree of damage, to give a spatial perspective of the villagesituation.The information is summarizedin a ÔVillage InventoryÕ chartaccording to category. Theinventory is useful for anoverall perspective of thevillage situation.

A second chart gathers theproblems from the previousÔRememberÕ task together withnew problems identified fromthe model. The chart is acombination of the formerproblems from ÔRememberingÕand ÔnewÕ problems arisingfrom the Tsunami destructionas identified on the model.

A ÔSummary of ProblemsÕ chartis useful to group problemsunder main categories - forexample, ÔinfrastructureÕ,Ôpublic facilitiesÕ in anticipationof exploring how to overcomethe problems by small workinggroups. Note that additionalspecial subgroups may behelpful to address specialsituations.

•••

••••

(From Remembering Task 1)

(From Model)

PROBLEMS

•••

•••

Public Facilities

Infrastructure

SUMMARY of PROBLEMS

Regroup into categories tofacilitate thinking about howto overcome problems.

t

HOMEWORK!Ask for volunteers to count all the houses on the modeland summarize their condition. This is a good check tosee if the number matches with official lists and ito makesure no one has been forgotten.


Task 3: PRIORITIZING REBUILDING

Task 4: EXPLORING WAYS OF REBUILDING “Take the prioritycomponents in the ‘Now’column from Task 3 andexplore different ways torebuild considering differentways that the community canbe involved: self-build, withsome help, or if too difficultand/or costly, needs to bedone by others.”

“Take each of the problems from the Summary chartand the Village Inventory chart and decide which areurgent and should be done Now, and which could bedone at a Later time and do not have a sense ofurgency. Think about the relative cost, and groupthem as relatively Low cost, High cost, and those thatfall in the Middle.”

This chart gives a quick understanding of the values that thecommunity places on the various components to be rebuilt.This priorities are decided by the small working groups withineach category, which is then presented and discussed.Relative cost may be more problematic to determine sincethere are different solutions possible.

The goal is to broaden the waysto think about rebuilding and tobring out the possibilities ofmore community involvement.Building up dependency onoutsiders is to be discouraged.

“After the chart has beenfilled and presented,determine the priority of allthe ways of rebuilding,indicate with N (now), S(soon), and L (later).”

SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS

RELATIVECOSTS

Rp

Rp Rp

Rp Rp Rp

Now LaterSoon

VILLAGE INVENTORYFacilitaties - Infrastructure - Site

RELATIVECOSTS

Rp

Rp Rp

Rp Rp Rp

Now LaterSoon

ALTERNATIVE APPROACHES

Can doNeed some

help Cannot do

RELATIVECOSTS

Rp

Rp Rp

Rp Rp Rp


Task 5: STARTING PROJECTS - CATALYSTS

“Help potential donors by outlining possible projects,what you think needs to be done, how can the villagehelp, and where it could be located.”

To facilitate the participation of donors, selected priorityprojects are detailed. These summary outlines of possibleprojects facilitates informed choice by the donors. Each of thecategories should select at least one project to be detailed.Projects are presented category by category, to allow andencourage smaller donors to participate. This does notpreclude large donors from complete across-the-boardrebuilding efforts.

The all important and difficult decision on where to startrebuilding housing was a key input of the community. Surpris-ingly the communities were able to quickly determine criteriaand select families - a task that outside professionals wouldhave grappled with for months. This politically-chargedprocess proved to be more as a regular task of the workshopdespite our initial reservations.

In one of the villages the village head and a small groupof leaders took the initiative in deciding which houses, usingthe model as their reference with the whole communityclustered around. This transparency in decision-making wascarefully followed by the community.

It is important for the community to review the selectionswith regard to the site situation. The model serves well todetermine if the houses fall within Ôescape routesÕ or in otherno-build areas.

For EACH ITEM (Ex: Repair road - preparedfor each priority item in Task 4)

Where to start with reconstruction?

HOUSING - Who and where to start?

Criteria forselection

Name offamily

Where located inthe village

••••

••••

••••

“Where do we start rebuilding houses? First considerhow you would decide, ask what criteria would reflectthe consensus of the community. Then, use the criteriain determined which specific houses are built first,second, etc. It may be useful to group houses intogroups of 5-10 to anticipate how the constructionwould proceed since you cannot build all at once. Indicate the locations on the model.”

“Think about these other issues:- Where can houses not be rebuilt because of damagesto the site? This could be areas where it is now floodedand the land has been washed away, or barriers havebeen destroyed.- Where is land that families could move if they cannotgo back to their original places? Does the village ownland that could be used?- What to do in situations where many family membersare missing?”

Where to start with houses?

Whatcould bedone>

What arethe maintasks?

Where is itlocated in thevillage?

What canwe offerto help?

•


SPECIAL TASKS FOR HOUSING

“Consider how the house should be constructed. Whatmaterials should be used? And think about how tobuild your house better and safer - what would you doto be safer in Tsunamis, flooding, and earthquakes.”

The goal is to improve the construction of the houses and buildawareness of standards which result in safer construction. Byasking how they would address the potential disasters, it offersthe opportunity to discuss various alternative constructionmeasures.

The facilitator has a particularly important role in these tasks:he must bring in safety issues and offer suggestions on howthe house could be better constructed. He must remindfamilies of the costs involved and suggest tradeoffs whenappropriate.

In the pilot workshops, the houses were elevated to mitigatedamage from seasonal flooding, and a 3m x 3m grid ofreinforced concrete was encouraged as a safety measure.

WHAT SHOULD THE HOUSE LOOK LIKE?

Sketch Plan

“Sketch how you envision the house to be rebuilt.What is the arrangement of the rooms, and what wouldit look like?”

The goal is to determine the standard of expectations in plan,materials and size, and most importantly, what is the ÔimageÕ ofthe house. A model - out of cardboard? - may be usedeffectively for families to visualize the house.

From the pilot workshops, the families expressed their biggestconcern for the size of the house and the image.

HOW SHOULD THE HOUSE BE BUILD?

What materialsto use?

How addresssafety concerns?

Roof:

Walls:

Flooring:

From earthquakes:

From flooding:

From Tsunami:


6

7

23

45

8

1

9

SPECIAL PLANNING TASK FOR LARGER VILLAGES

“In your village there is a wide range of houses fromrelatively small to big, and there are various ranges ofdamage, some completely destroyed and some onlydamaged a little. Each family has a different situation,and the community should explore strategies indealing with the different cases.Think about different strategies that make senseconsidering the different family circumstances.It may be useful to think about policies on technicalassistance, material support, financial support, andeven construction of a new house.”

“And secondly, which are the most important strategiesthat need to be implemented now. Rank each box inorder of importance.”

Damage has been simplified into three levels: minor damagewhere the family can still live in the house, major damage inwhich the family can no longer live, and destroyed wherenothing is left to repair.

The types of houses are grouped into three categories:obviously houses belonging to wealthy families, more standardhouses with assumed average income, and small houses withfamilies assumed to have lower incomes.

A large matrix was constructed onthe floor to make it easy foreveryone to participate, tofacilitate adding information, andto let everyone follow what ishappening.

LEVEL OF DAMAGE

RELATIVESTANDARD

LowerCost

Middle

HigherCost

MinorDamage;Intact

DestroyedMajorDamage

Need newhouses

Need technicaland materialsupport

Priorities asdecided by one ofthe communities.Note unusualdecision on Ô6Õand Ô7Õ.

Photos make clearthe RelativeStandard and theLevel of Damage

q

q

q


Task 6: ORGANIZING THE VILLAGE“Decide on the main categories that include all yourprojects. Agree on who will represent the communityin discussions with donors.”

The forming of committees for each of the key categoriesoffers some assurance that their points of view will be taken inconsideration during reconstruction. A ÔVillage DevelopmentCommitteeÕ composed of the headman and heads of each ofthe committees provides overall guidance and coordination.These agreed committees provide a stable, consistent contactfor donors, facilitating the process of rebuilding.

Special sessions would be useful in helping communitiesunderstand and deal with donors.

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION CHART

DevelopmentCommittees

CommitteeMembers

Donorcounterpart

‘VDC’Village Develop-ment Committee

• Village Head• Heads ofeach committee

Housing

Infrastructure

Public Facilities

•••

•••

•••

GTZ Liaison

KfW Liaison

Streets tThese blocks are filled in bydonors as they indicate theirinterest in assisting in thisarea.

THE CLOSING

The ending of the workshop is very important informalizing the agreements. It is also a time ofcelebration, and an important milestone in theprocess of reconstruction.It should be a formal and serious event with officialsfrom government and donors attending andspeaking. It should involve all of the community andnot just the workshop participants - including thechildren!

The closing ceremony is a time for validation andacceptance of the workshop results. HavingEVERYONE sign a large sheet with the communityvision is a good way to show support for theworkshop, and provides a formal record of theevent.

In some of the pilot workshops, a seedling waspresented to each family, symbolizing the growing oftree to parallel the growing of the house.

And a customizedT-shirt for the wholecommunity tocommemorate thestart of rebuilding!


SPATIAL PLANNING

Spatial planning focused on:¥ Addressing safety concerns in the community.¥ Rapid re-establishment of a sense of identify and focus of the community.

An underlying hierarchy of reconstruction wasconsidered to reinforce the re-establishment of the community.Repairing and rebuilding roads quickly as a framework forreconstruction was a key concern. The roads define public/private realms, and provide structure for the communityRepairing/building a place for community to meet wasconsidered vital to re-establish a place of identity, and torecreate an address. A mosque or Baile serve these functionswell.

The village model provided the base to explore replanning initiatives with particular concern fordisaster mitigation. The physical elements are located on the model and the status determined(intact, damaged, destroyed); escape routes were considered; a site assessment of damages wasmade (buildable as is; needs some site work to be used; requires replanning before development)

The model provided the base for the community to studyoptions of redevelopment. Tape, colored paper, pins, etc. wereused to rapidly visualize and test different alternatives. Themodel of the community provided sufficient accuracy to definethe general location of envisioned changes and impacts.

A second planning goal was rebuilding and reinforcingthe sense of community through consolidation of rebuildingelements. Construction of a multi-purpose central meetingplace (ÔbaileÕ) was a quick highly visible action, requiringagreement on location preferably on community-held land. Asecond key strategy was to reconstruct the initial housesclustered in a central location, augmented by repair andrepaving of streets, installation or repair of drainage, andreestablishing trees and other markers. All the measures aredirected toward reestablishing a physical presence. In villageswhere few or no houses remained, this becomes a veryimportant factor and the absence of houses facilitates theprocess by allowing maximum freedom in selecting which torebuild first.

Safety concerns at the village scale primarily involveddesignating Ôescape routesÕ. These routes generally required1) realignment of streets, widened to accommodate antici-pated use during an emergency, and 2) identification ofproperties impending the routes and requiring resettlementelsewhere, ideally in or near the existing community.Damaged areas where resettlement would be ill-advised orrequire special reconstruction efforts - for example, severelyeroded sections requiring fill - were identified and strategiesdiscussed. Escape routes became an important

planning goal. In some areasadjacent hills provide ready safety.

A baile was a quickintervention forrebuilding thecommunity.

The consolidation of rebuildingelements is a seed for the rebirthof the community.


I - High density, 1-2 story houses, saturateddeveloped; requires upgrading.II - Very high density, tightly packed houses,saturated development; requires upgrading.III -Commercial strip development, 2-4stories, relatively higher value land; providesservices to community, limited in futureexpansion.IV - Rice patties, with potential to absorbfuture expansion; requires structure plan anddevelopment strategy.V - Vacant land, can accommodate futureexpansion; requires structure plan anddevelopment strategy

■ LAM TEMEN TIMUR VILLAGE

Five planning areas were identified from the model withdistinctive characteristics, and requiring different approachesin rebuilding and planning for future development.

Several escape routes were identified, leading into the mainthrough street.

■ LAMTEUNGOH and neighboring LAMTUTUI VILLAGES

Three areas were identified withdifferent environmental situations.A: Areas flooding from Tsunami;B: Seasonal flooding approximately50cm twice a year; andC: Generally dry with no flooding.For areas ÔAÕ and ÔBÕ, houses shouldbe elevated; for area ÔCÕ, thehouses could be build on theground.

AB

C

■ LANCANG VILLAGE, Pidie

Escape routes were the key planning elements considered,around which the rebuilding would be organized. Two sizeswere identified: two 8-meter main routes to the hills, and 4-meter cross routes feeding into the two main routes.

Newly created low level areas were identified, andconsiderations for rebuilding dikes were explored.

Model provides the base for planning.


TRANSITION TO IMPLEMENTATION:STAKING THE CORNERS OF THE FAMILY PLOTS

In situations where the village has beenheavily destroyed, the re-establishmentof the properties by staking out thecorner points of each property is aneffective transition to implementation.Several purposes are achieved:- it re-establishes the physical presenceof the village- it maintains the momentum towardimplementation.- it clarifies immediately the areas of thevillage that can and cannot be built on.- it makes clear to affected families theimpact of the expansion and routing ofstreets and paths for escape routes, andguides the adjustment of the propertiesto accommodate the increased width.

A team consisting of 3-4 persons fromthe community who are familiar withsurveying, or are engaged in this field, isan effective mechanism for staking theproperties. This provides employmentand infuses income directly into thecommunity.

Families from abutting properties should identify and agree oncorner locations. The stakes are placed, and distancesmeasured. The conditions of the property should be noted.A simple 1-page form may be used to record the information:name of family, abutting families, a sketch plan of the propertywith measurements and notes.

Drawing a plan of the village with the measurements from theground provide an effective frame for reconstruction. Althoughthe information may not have the accuracy of professionalsurveyors, it is Ôgood enoughÕ and satisfactory to the villagers.Moreover this approach is quick, a powerful advantage in allowinga quicker start in rebuilding and avoiding delays waiting forovercommitted professionals.

Once the corners have been marked, it may be an opportunity forthe village to consider adjusting property sizes, shapes, andlocations. Villages would need to set criteria for appropriatesizes, acceptable by all to assure smooth adjustment andmaintain community harmony. It also provides a frame forconsidering relocation of public facilities, and shows the impact ofvarious alternatives.

Stakes should be suitable of pounding into the ground withoutbreaking, and long enough to be relatively stable and difficult tomove.

First four plots located and staked in Lamteungoh andLamtutui villages

Detailed information sheet prepared for each familyduring staking out of first 24 plots in Pidie.

Form used in the field to document thesurvey information.


HOUSINGHousing was a key concern of the villagers. The long delay since the Tsunami madereestablishing their community and rebuilding their houses a top priority.The design was a partnership effort between the families and the architects. Floorarea and a reassuring familiar image was the concern of the families, and safety andflooding protection were key concerns of the architects.

Note: Lam Temen Timur has 10 timesthe number of houses as in Lancang,with a large percentage of housesneeding repair.

n LAM TUTUI and LAM TEUNGOH VillagesStatus of Housing

Destroyed 164* 100%Damaged Ð ÐIntact Ð ÐTOTAL 164 100%

n LANCANG VillageStatus of Housing

Destroyed 283 75%Damaged 75 20%Intact 21 5%TOTAL 379 100%

n LAM TEMEN TIMUR VillageStatus of Housing

Destroyed 2,040 54%Damaged 1,007 27%Intact 746 19%TOTAL 3,793 100%

*Lam Tutui - 55; Lam Teungoh - 109


DOCUMENTATION

All of the workshop material - model and charts - wasphotographed and saved in digital format. The material wasstored in two ways:1 - Print form. All the charts from the workshop exerciseswere reduced, printed on A4 format, and collected in a binder.Photographic images of the model were also included, bothbefore the planning exercises and after.2 - Digital storage. All the material was also stored on a CD,and included with the binder. The information on the CD iscollected in its original form (Photoshop, Word, PowerPoint,etc.) and in an Acrobat conversion to avoid dependence onspecific programs.

The binder was organized into two sections, targeting differentpurposes:1 - Reduced prints of all workshop charts and materials. TheÔrawÕ charts photographed directly from the workshop provideda record of the proceedings. These are intended to facilitatefuture rethinking and adjustment, and as a base for futurecontinuation.2 - English summary. A summary of the key points targeting

The workshop was documented to preserve the discussions and agreements, and to guide funders in framingand implementing their contributions. It provides a reference base and starting point for future furtherdevelopment by other funders.

potential funders is added at the beginning. Included is a quick1-page overview, the agreements reached on housing, theorganization of the community listing contacts for specificsectors (ex: school, clinic, water supply, etc.) and special itemsspecific to the village. It is prepared in English to reach awider group of funders.

Copies of the binder were distributed as follows: The originalbinder remains in the village, and a copy would be available tothe district, Bappenas, and GTZ/KfW.

As the community rebuilds and as future developmentinitiatives occur, the binder could continue to serve as adepository of information, both as history and as guide forfuture support from NGOs or other funders. Photographs ofthe community and the families would further enrich the binderand truly make it a working history of the village.

The model also remains with the community. It offers anopportunity for the community to keep track of the rebuildingand to reflect on development alternatives.

Example of pages from theLam Tutui Binder


¥ The ‘Tsunami CAP’ Process is Effective in Rebuilding¥ The ÔTsunami CAPÕ Builds on the ÔstandardÕ CAP Process¥ Direct Link to Implementation a Key Advantage¥ Pilot Communities Well-chosen to Develop Process¥ CAP Restores Authority and Balance to Communities¥ CAP Links to Other On-going Programs¥ Facilitators are important for effective information dissemination

The ‘Tsunami CAP’ Process is Effective in RebuildingThe rapid nature inherent in the process matched theexpectations of the communities, and provided the catalyst toÔkick-startÕ the process. It starts with the premise thatcommunities should be the proper guardians for communitydecisons and they have the capacity to do so. It respects andreinforces community ownership through this Ôequal partnerÕapproach. The CAP approach links community mapping,prioritization, preliminary planning and design, andorganization. It goes beyond community mapping and includesthe difficult policy decisions that are best left to the community.

CAP broke the perceived growing complacency by theagencies and the survey/study/research cycles. It effectivelyre-energized and refocused on rebuilding activities, acting as acatalyst in the process.

The ÒTsunami CAPÓ Builds on the ‘standard’ CAP ProcessA key difference is the emphasis on speed in assessment ofwhat is needed and setting up reconstruction efforts, andlinking priorities with an implementation programming. AÔstandardÕ CAP is focused toward identifying problems andprogramming ways to improve circumstances for a longer termdevelopment agenda.

The outcome is focused on spatial rebuilding, while in aÔstandardÕ more customary CAP, process is emphasized and abroader spectrum of issues is entertained with a longerdevelopment horizon. Transparency and decision-making witha broad range of stakeholders features in both.

The format is the same: focused workshop with fullrange of community members, rapid 2-3 day event, a model asbase to visualize and collect issues, small groups tackle issuesand present to the community using charts as the device forfocusing inputs, and guidance by a moderator assisted byfacilitators. A similar sequence is followed by both CAPs:problem identification, priority establishment, solutiondetermination, and Ônext stepsÕ with responsibilities andactions. In the ÔTsunami CAPÕ additional modules are addedbut maintaining the general style and framework:Remembering (reflecting on what is important in rebuilding,preparation of a vision), Inventory (what is there, what is thestatus), Spatial Planning (opportunities for improvement),Development Agenda (program of priority items, focused

COMMENTARY

around housing reconstruction and resettlement of families)and Dealing with Outsiders (how to relate to NGOs, otherpotential funders, and dealing with technical assistance in aconstructive, pro-action stance).

Pilot Communities Well-chosen to Develop ProcessThe three areas selected covered a wide range of issues thatwould confront future CAPS. and allowed effective preparationin anticipation. A broad range of issues, from relatively simplerebuilding to complex rebuilding and repair were sucessfullyconfronted, which provide good models for future CAPs.

The available information varied considerably before thestart of the CAPs, from little to no information, to detailedsocial and physical surveys. Very little information wasavailable for the Lancang Village, with no social surveys andno physical mapping. Lam Temem Timur had relativelycomplete social surveys and detailed physical maps. Despitethe lack of information in some villages, this did not adverselyaffect the outcome of the CAPs, and this is not seen as abarrrier to to future CAPs.

Direct Link to Implementation a Key AdvantageThe credibility and the power of the Tsunami CAP is thepromise and immediate follow-through of implementation. Therapid CAP process sets the tone and rhythm of Ôkick-startingÕthe rebuilding process, but vital are immediate tangibleoutcomes which must follow.

Housing was articulated as the clear priority of thecommunities, and commencement of construction wasapplauded and brought credibility in the pilot projects.

Linking the two agencies, the GTZ with its CAPbackground, and the KfW with its construction mandate, hasthe potential of a powerful mechanism for rebuilding.Expected uncertainties in determining the shared responsibili-ties when linking GTZ and KfW may be problematic andassumed to be able to overcome.

The CAP Revitalizes and Restores Balance TowardCommunitiesThe community is strengthened through the CAP process, andgives them more confidence in addressing their issues. Theirdirect involvement in deciding on priorities and determining


KfW

VDC(Village Development

Committee)

Contractor+ Skilled workers

RpsPrimarily for housing

Villagers

Provide labor

• Makes contracts• Manages Funds

KfWStaff

CAPGTZStaff

ManagementSupport

TechnicalLiaison

IndividualFamilies

• Technical support(clients advice,training programs)• Quality control(Monitor construction, Training, skills programs)• Financial control(Sign-off on major items)

Full time assignmentwith villages, responsible for up to 3

• Technical support(clients advice,training programs)• Quality control(Monitor construction, Training, skills programs)• Financial control(Sign-off on major items)

Full time assignment with villages, responsiblefor up to 3

Development Organization

KfW

VDC(Village Development

Committee)

Contractor+ Skilled workers

RpsPrimarily for housing

Villagers

Provide labor

• Makes contract wth NGO• Manages Funds

KfWStaff?

GTZCAPStaff?

ManagementSupport

TechnicalLiaison

IndividualFamilies

• Technical support(client advice,training programs)• Quality control(Monitor construction, Training, skills programs)• Financial control(Sign-off on major items)

Full time assignmentwith villages

• Technical support(client advice,training programs)• Quality control(Monitor construction, Training, skills programs)• Financial control(Sign-off on major items)

Full time assignment with villages

Development Organization - NGO Model

NGO

implementation strategies empowers the community. Apassive, Ôwaiting for helpÕ stance is avoided, replaced by a Ôwecan doÕ optimism. It helps reestablish the fragile socialnetworks of the community.

Their dependence on outside policy decision which mayor may not be applicable and which may or may not be fundedin a timely manner, was lessened. Essentially, the communi-ties take the lead and drive the agenda, which opens thepossibility for them to market their needs to many funders, andto explore internal ways of reconstruction. This is an advan-tage to both community and outsider support: for thecommunity it clearly identifies their specific needs andpriorities, and for the outsider support agencies it clearlyindicates where support is needed, eliminating difficult policydetermination and avoids irrelevant projects and programs.

A Village Development Committee (VDC) was estab-lished when no there was no existing organization. Generallythis paralleled and overlapped with an existing structure. Twoliaisons were considered for each village: one from the GTZCAP Team, who would continue to provide support to thecommunity, and one from KfW who would liaison with theimplementing agency.

Tighter links with the local government and the planningcommission should be encouraged. The current shortage ofstaff and overwhelming responsibilities of the governmentprecluded effective operational links and support in the pilotworkshops.

Facilitators are important for effective informationdisseminationGenerally there were six for each workshop, who work with thesmall working groups in focusing and articulating their ideas.They are the front-line, key resource in bringing in technicalexpertise and experience. For example, they can discussways of strengthening buildings for earthquake and floodingmitigation as learned in other contexts.

They can be engaged for only the workshop ot on-callas needed, or could have dual responsibilities including settingup and implementing CAPs. Critical is that the facilitators donot dominant the small working groups, but remain asresource persons who are ready to assist as needed.

CAP Links to Other On-going ProgramsCAP embraces the CDD model (Community-Driven Develop-ment) and offers a way to put these principles into practice.

CAP effectively builds on other programs that areengaged with communities. For example, the extensive andsuccessful Ôcommunity-mappingÕ efforts from several agenciesprovided an ideal starting point for the CAP workshops whenavailable. The previous work is not wasted but facilitates theCAP process, and provides more detailed information for theimplementation phase after the CAP.

However, the upfront Ômust-haveÕ information for theCAP workshop to function is minimal. Information sufficient forthe model base with boundaries, main land features, mainstreets is necessary. Other information including number ofhouses, tenure of properties, status of damage and otherphysical data is derived in the workshop, but if available theworkshop provides a check with reality as noted by thevillagers.


¥ Organizational Issues Considered Transitory During Pilot Phase¥ After the CAPs - What happens to the Team with its Expertise?¥ CAPs Are Never the Same¥ Community and Professional Are Partners and Have Different Roles¥ Limits to CAP Approach¥ Plan/build As-you-go Strategy vs Detailed Overall Planning¥ CAP Bias Toward Communities, Not Policies and Programs¥ Community Contracting Important¥ Is CAP Needed?

Organizational and Staffing Issues Considered TransitoryDuring Pilot PhaseThree issues persisted throughout the pilot phase: staffing ofthe CAP Team, clarity of organizational structure (ÒWhichagency is the boss? Where are the funds coming from?Ó withsudden shifts at awkward and inopportune times), andestablishment of a coordination/interface protocol among thedifferent agency partners. All of these issues were assumed tobe handled during a Ôcatch-upÕ phase, where only a few CAPswere programmed. During this phase the goal was to train newstaff and to test and cement procedures in preparation for full-fledged ÔCAP-factoryÕ production. More importantly, the Augustphase allowed the critical funding and organizational definitionto be finalized.

Skilled local experienced personnel had already beencontracted by the many competing agencies engaged inrebuilding since the start of reconstruction. Agencies quickestto respond to the Tsunami had contracted local expertise forup to one-year periods upon their arrival in January andFebruary. The skilled among the flood of willing outsiders hadalso been quickly hired. Staff from other cities throughoutIndonesia partially filled the need for staff, but brought withthem attendant language and culture difficulties. AdvancedÔstudentsÕ (the term ÔstudentsÕ may better be characterized asÔyoung professionalsÕ) proved to be excellent in learning thenew CAP approach, were eager and energetic in their work,and lacked customary ÔbaggageÕ which facilitated teamformation and learning skills - the issue became one of how toconvince them to postpone their graduation and remain withthe Team! Foreign volunteers generally lacked language skillswhich was almost essential for effective contribution. Theremay be more staff available after the bulk of the initial effortsare ending by the relief-oriented agencies. This may be anopportunity to tap experience professionals who already areconversant to development and local issues.

After the CAPs - What happens to the Team with itsExpertise?Is it feasible to consider that the CAPs would reach an endwith everything accomplished? The longer term involvementin rebuilding may require maintaining staff in support to the

ACTIVITIESACTIVITIESISSUES

Village Development Communities. At the minimum, it may beuseful to maintain some of the CAP team to continue theirliaison with the communities, since by then they will havedeveloped a rapport of confidence and experience that wouldbe difficult to reestablish.

The CAP Team would be a proven asset: one assumesthat it would be experienced and effective in the process. Itmay be useful to explore how the team may be further utilized,perhaps in fundamental development issues particularly inupgrading of non-Tsunami affected communities throughoutthe Aceh region. The many years of conflict have had adverseaffects on the region, and it may be explored how to redirectfunds to broader redevelopment goals, using the CAP Teamas one of the key development catalysts.

CAPs Are Never the SameAn effective CAP is not a static process, but dynamic andflexible to adjust to varied situations confronted.

Communities vary by sizes, site characteristics, degreeof destruction, income levels, and thus the challenge mix isdifferent. CAPs respond to these differences by modifying thebasic core process. There is no one fixed set of tasks, andeach CAP is a mix of options tailored to the specific commu-nity situation.

CAP moderators personalize ÔtheirÕ CAP for effectivedelivery, which adds additional variation to the CAP process.Not surprisingly, each CAP workshop takes on an individualcharacter and tends to be varied and different, but all are stillin the CAP spirit with similar outcome of prioritized program ofrebuilding.

The burden is on the CAP moderator to make ajudgement as to what is appropriate and what is needed foreach community. The expertise and responsibility of the CAPmoderator is critical to the success of a CAP.

Community and Professional Are Partners and HaveDifferent RolesCommunity Action Planning is synonymous with Ôparticipation,Õand the active, full involvement of the community members isbasic to the process. But participation does not meancapitulation to desires of the community; it does not imply that


a community has complete, unchallenged decision authority.The professional provides inputs that are equally valid but froman outside perspective. The community perspective is vital forexperiential, local knowledge while the professional brings intechnical as well as experiences from elsewhere. In essence,the CAP process balances the two perspectives. If there is abias it should be towards the community, since they areultimately left with the results.

Architects must learn ways of effectively working withcommunities without dominating. The workshops are notvehicles for architects to pronounce their creative constructs,but are honest forums for exchange of ideas in design. Again,if there is an imbalance, it should be on the side of thecommunity.

In the pilot CAPs, the valid criteria of rebuilding the firstseries of houses as established by the community, but wastempered by the need to quickly establish identify and focus tothe community as suggested by outside facilitators. This couldbe achieved by grouping houses and consolidating around acentral element, usually a main street, but was not imple-mented in the CAPs because of funding constraints.

Limits to the CAP Approach?Tsunami CAPS are inherently short and focused, and notintended for long, more deliberate planning exercises. TheTsunami CAPÕ is a demonstrated successful process tomobilize both communities and donors, and to rapidly focusissues, take priority decisions and Ôkick-startÕ the rebuildingprocess in a transparent manner. Time is factor, and the rapid2-3 day sessions are vital to the success. This rapid processknowingly precludes longer-term deliberate reflection andplanning.

The emphasis on documentation and production of aÔcommunity binderÕ captures the discussions and does allowreview and revision at a later date. Revisions could take placein smaller working groups, with presentation and discussionwith the whole community as part of a regular planningmeetings as the community rebuilds.

Because of the rapid nature, CAP cannot address allissues, and limits must be established. Policy decisions -what to do and when - are most appropriate for a CAP sincethey require community consensus; for example: Where tostart reconstruction? What criteria to use when deciding torebuild? Where to place escape routes with the invariableadjustment of abutting properties?

CAP is also an effective way to disseminate informationquickly to the whole community. But information is notprovided as an end in itself, but only to assist communities inreaching decisions.

CAP cannot address fundamental underlying structuralissues beyond the domain of a community. For example, it isnot conceivable to suggest an appropriate organizationalstructure for the government, but could only indicate that waysthat the services are best received.

The basic interactive workshop methodology could

transfer well in other uses. However, it would need to becarefully framed to match expected outcome with the appropri-ate participants.

Plan/build As-you-go Strategy vs Detailed OverallPlanningA strategy of rapid identification and identification of therebuilding of an initial group houses was adopted in the pilotCAPS. A more measured and deliberate comprehensiveplanning approach was considered neither desirable norcredible in the context of the seven-month gap between theTsunami and the CAP, the increasing pressure by otherdonors, and the expectations by the communities. In part, thedecision to start with houses paralleled the very limited fundsavailable during the pilot phase. Rebuilding of housesdemonstrated credibility and built confidence of the communityin the CAP process and the CAP Team.

This approach carried risks, and influenced decisions onrebuilding. The initial group of houses were limited to ÔsafeÕareas: primarily areas that are not in high-risk locations(damaged areas from the Tsunami, flooded areas) or locationsliable to escape-route adjustments. However, the houses wereself-selected by the community following criteria they estab-lished. The opportunity of adjusting property sizes andrelocation of properties to more technically-appropriate siteswas not considered, and beyond the scope of the CAPresources.

The small number of initial houses construction madethe risk acceptable, but postponed the more complex issues ofbalancing property sizes (if considered desirable), realignmentand rationalization of properties, modification of land uses, andrealignment of the roads themselves. Other site reconstruc-tion elements normally built initially were deferred. Forexample, the vital road system which provides a frame forrebuilding, property realignment, utility infrastructure andfacilitates access for construction could potentially becompromised.

In short, the CAP locked in - but in a very small way -the future rebuilding, and the selection and positioning of theinitial houses became the critical decision in the physicalrebuilding.

CAP Bias Toward Communities, Not Policies and Pro-gramsThe workshops deliberately focused on the community as thestarting basis. The strategy of Ôbottom-upÕ planning prevailed,with the goal of determining the ÔrealÕ issues (i.e., as perceivedby the community) at the ÔgrassrootsÕ. The identified prioritiesthat resulted provided a vehicle to seek assistance which hasdirect, immediate benefit as perceived by the community.

The continuing flux in policies and guidelines, thecontinuing debate and discussion of rebuilding strategy, thelack of information for detailed planning, and the slow anddifficult process of developing effective government capacity,


suggests the community as one of few constant elements andessentially an island of stability within the disorder of therebuilding programs. Accordingly, the CAP program wasstructured to be largely self-referenced, with a clear goal ofdefining areas that need support from the community perspec-tive. The community was considered to be the driver fordefining necessary government support and offered acommunity input in formulating appropriate policy and supportprograms.

A strong case could be made that organizing CAPworkshops much earlier on would have been particularly vitalin setting government priorities in rebuilding programs.

Community Contracting ImportantÔCommunity ContractingÕ proved to be very useful and shouldbe continued and strengthened.

As became clear in the pilot workshops, members of thecommunity had a variety of skills that could be tapped forconstruction and to undertake the other tasks necessary tostart implementation.

This may cause difficulties with donor contractualrequirements for a number of bidders on construction.Perhaps additional ÔpointsÕ could be given to community-basedorganizations to encourage outside contractors to pair localpartners. In all cases contracts should specify that a largepercentage of the workers should be drawn from the commu-nity.

Is a CAP needed?The Tsunami CAP has been a clear catalyst in Ôkick-startingÕthe rebuilding efforts. Would a CAP still be useful if thevarious development agencies had been more effective andtimely in their efforts?

The active involvement of the community allows quickdecisions on difficult issues by the affected families: what to dofirst, what is the priority?

A CAP helps rebuild the confidence of a community,which remains once outside assistance is ended, andaddresses a broad development purpose. Merely building andrepairing is not sufficient to regain the vital social networks.

A CAP helps assert the control of the community, as acounterbalance to technocratic decisions and inputs.

Community contracting is an effective way to generateneeded employment and provide an income source for thefamilies. It parallels the broader goal of rebuilding theeconomy of the village which is not just limited to rebuildingthe destroyed and damaged houses and facilities.

Labor is never free. Requiring ÔfreeÕ effort by a commu-nity deprives families from other employment.


Linking CAP with implementation is the strength but alsoa concern. The fear of ÔforgetingÕ the CAP process and Ôgeton with rebuildingÕ is a strong temptation in the implementationphase.

A Ôdeep pocketÕ donor with a full range of capacities andresources could rebuild the village quickly and more thor-oughly. For the village this is an immediate gain, but with ahigh risk of being Ôover-runÕ and loss of control, and confrontedwith the dilemma of settling for something different ordemanding what was agreed but with the potential of losingsupport.

The unequal power relationship makes this particularlydifficult to achieve. The basic question of Òwho decides themodel of the villageÓ tends toward the technocratic, quickersolution, all too frequently overpowering the community.

Continuity in staffing is important in the transition fromCAP to implementation.Staff from both donors should maintain their presence in bothphases to assure continuity and adherence with agreementsreached in the CAP. And very important, the trust built upduring the CAP provides a ready platform for facilitatingimplementation.

The practice of contracting staff for relatively shortperiods and the divergent goals of staff who are answerable todifferent agencies makes transitional staffing a problematicissue.

Needs of the community should be disseminated to thebroader world of donors.A single donor limited to only the houses may result in anabrupt end to rebuilding the village and the community whenthe houses are completed. Small donor resources may be toolittle and rebuilding becomes limited and incomplete. A largedonor promotes a dependency relationship and raisesexpectations that cannot be maintained in the long-term. Itboth cases it is advantageous to broaden the support base,despite potentially less effective community management.

A medium of interface needs to be found wherecommunities can list their needs, and donors can match theirinterests, skills and contributions. This would be particularlyuseful for the many smaller donors globally who wish to helpbut are limited by their means and organization to take onlarge tasks, and limited by their awareness of local needs.The ÔSummaryÕ in English prepared by each of thecommunities could be effectively used to announce the needs

to the broader development community.The place of interchange may take several forms with

both global and local reach. A web-based network has instantglobal reach, and linking directly to umbrella NGO and donorsites facilitates access. Use of a ÔwikiÕ model may offer a low-effort model were both donor and community could list needsand contributions. Who would maintain the site? They wouldneed to act as the go-between among the communities anddonors, in updating the information, and in raising awareness.They would facilitate the initial contacts. A central-clearinghouse of locally based donors may be the first step. Inboth cases control remains with the communities, in that theycan choose among potential donors.

Targeting only select villages raises the issue ofÔneighbor-envyÕ.Two villages side by side, one rebuilt to a high standard, onestill with rudimentary shelters or only limited rebuilding is anunavoidable result. What are the consequences? Are thereways to spread the rebuilding effort more uniformly?

Framing the rebuilding program to include naturalgroupings of several communities may mitigate the impact ofthe disparity of investment. For example, in the Lam Tutui andLam Teungoh villages, the broader arc of villages around theocean front would be a natural grouping.

Rebuilding new is vital but not enough.Technical assistance and reconstruction support is equallyimportant, and even moreso in the long term. Not allcommunities are completely destroyed, and many areas havea large percentage of damaged houses as in Jala Baru.

A case-by-case assessment of damages and repairoptions for the families is needed, and support programsoffering financial assistance and rebuilding support need to beestablished.

The repair/technical assistance can be developed intoan continuing long-term development program, whichcontinues to assist families in expansion and upgrading of theirhouses. Both in the Tsunami affected areas, as well asthroughout the city, upgrading is a vital need which transcendsthe immediate reconstruction program and suggests a long-term development program.

Linking CAP with implementation was the strength but also a concern Ð Continuity in staffing isimportant in the transition from CAP to implementation Ð Needs of the community should bedisseminated to the broader world of donors Ð Targeting only select villages raises the issue ofÔneighbor-envyÕ.Õ Ð Rebuilding new is vital but not enough.

CONCERNS

the cap worksthe cap works - massachusetts...

Documents