By: Ammar Hamdani
Cash for Work Coordinator, Mercy Corps - Mansehra, Pakistan

Lack of coordination between INGO’s  regarding shelter kits creates packages of varying qualities that force communities to reject viable packages that they consider less attractive during the current Pakistan earthquake relief effort.

On October 8, 2005 at 08:52 hours a powerful earthquake struck the northern part of Pakistan causing major destruction and playing havoc with millions of lives. The affected areas were the five districts of North West Frontier Province and four districts of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. More than 60,000 people lost their lives out of those 35,000 were children who were attending schools at that time. Most of the civil society infrastructure such as schools, colleges and hospitals were destroyed and require immediate attention. 

Using the Sphere minimum standards and indicators in conjunction with the shelter guidance notes we created a package that under the circumstances we felt was appropriate for the situation.  The shelter package included all the necessary tools required to build the one room shelter, plus 9 sheets of CGI (Corrugated Galvanized Iron) a stove, 5 blankets and a latrine.  The pieces of CGI completely covered the 16’ x 16’ shelter we were constructing.  However, none of the NGO’s providing shelter agreed upon a common package or plan which resulted in different packages for all of them.  The main cause of contention was the CGI’s, which were of different quantities in the various packages because of the availability and prices of CGI sheets. 

In many instances there were cases of communities turning away shelter kits because they wanted to work with another NGO that had a more attractive package.  Again, the problem was the number of CGI.  Many beneficiaries ignored all the other items that were part of the shelter kits, it only came down to the number of CGIs. With the prices of CGI rising exponentially, it was seen by many beneficiaries as an astute financial decision, disregarding the fact that it can start snowing any day now. 

Besides the obvious problems with having a community reject the shelter package, more problems are created when a small portion of the community rejects the package.  Our shelter program employs the beneficiaries to rebuild their homes, we provide all the tools required and pay the laborers for the rebuilding effort as a way of injecting money back into the local economy.  The program normally takes about two weeks, and on many occasions towards the end of the project, a small portion of the community will decide that they do not want to work with us.  The villages in the affected areas are on a master list that all the NGO’s have marked as the ones they are working in.  We cannot mark our villages as complete if a small portion of that community is not covered, and it is a waste of resources for another NGO to move in to house a small portion of that community.  It is also a gamble by the community itself, because it is not guaranteed that another NGO will move in to fill the gap left by the original NGO.

Another aspect that we experienced was with having another NGO, with a different shelter package, working close by.  When the beneficiaries saw what the other villages were receiving, they “demanded” an upgrade to their package.  When told that this was not a possibility, they became abusive and threatened staff with violence.  It created a rift in the village itself because they were forcing their will on the majority of the people.  As wealthier residents, they were not “as needy” as the rest of the beneficiaries and thus were in a position to bargain.  This was not a distinction we made or could make, but there was a real possibility that because of our shelter program the harmony that existed in the village before we implemented our shelter program would be shattered.  In comparison to what is held as the common belief in capitalism, individual gain is not the only driving force in these areas.  Even if it is the wrong decision, the community will agree just to keep harmony with their neighbors.  But since most villages are scattered over a large area, there are multiple communities and thus multiple decisions in a situation like this. 

In an ideal situation there would have been a lot more funding and coordination.  With unlimited budgets and seamless coordination among the NGO’s, problems like this would not have occurred.  Realistically, it seems to me, that there should have been more coordination among all the NGO’s involved in the shelter program regarding the shelter kits.  To have an efficient and in this case in particular, a more peaceful program of constructing shelters, a common standard should have been applied by all NGO’s involved in the shelter program.  Differing packages give an illusion of choice to the beneficiaries, and in Pakistan especially, that is not the case.

As from all mistakes, a lesson is to be learned from this experience.  Since coordination among agencies could not be achieved, we need to incorporate this issue into the evaluation phase of the project (Common Standard 6).  We will need to utilize this information to ensure that a lesson is learned from this experience and that it is shared amongst agencies so that it leads to improvements in humanitarian practices.

Comment this article

Only registered users can write comments.
Please login or register.