Skip to main content

Shelter Cluster Badakhshan Earthquake Response Evaluation Assessment Report

Countries
Afghanistan
Sources
Shelter Cluster
+ 1 more
Publication date
Origin
View original

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On 26 October 2015, a powerful 7.5 magnitude earthquake struck Jurm district in Afghanistan’s Badakhshan province. 1 By 3 November 2015, at least 15 of Afghanistan’s 34 provinces had verified damage reports with the north-eastern region being the most severely impacted. 2 Badakhshan and Baghlan provinces suffered the most serious damage; however, there were reports of severely damaged and destroyed homes as far south as Kabul, and even Khost, provinces.

The earthquake, striking in late October, increased the rapid need for emergency winterized shelter assistance to earthquake-affected communities. On the instruction of the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC), 2.64 million USD from the Reserve Allocation of the Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) were released to support emergency interventions. This effort aimed to ensure that families whose homes were lost, damaged or who were at risk of exposure to winter conditions, received timely support to access appropriate shelter solutions. 4 Due to the urgent need for winterized shelter and the difficulty in accessing the worst affected areas, the CHF, with technical assistance from Emergency Shelter and Non-Food Item (ESNFI) cluster partners, decided that a cash transfer programme (CTP) would be the best suited assistance option. The emergency shelter response plan included both one-off upfront payments and four monthly payments of varying amounts depending on whether those displaced were considered to be of Category A (house completely destroyed) or Category B (house damaged) households. These cash distribution programmes were implemented in the worst affected province by partner members of the Afghanistan ESNFI cluster.

REACH, on behalf of the global shelter cluster, conducted this ESNFI Cluster Evaluation Response assessment to evaluate the effect of the emergency shelter responses on household shelter conditions, following the October 2015 Badakhshan earthquake. Specifically, the assessment evaluates the ESNFI cluster’s response to the Badakhshan earthquake in relation to a) the use of cash assistance as an emergency shelter intervention approach, b) the change in shelter conditions and c) any assistance gaps or limits to recovery. In addition to evaluating the ESNFI intervention as a whole, the report provides also an endline assessment concerning household conditions and current damage level from data gathered in October and November 2015.

Baseline data concerning the number of those affected and relevant damage levels was based on a secondary data review (SDR) of various documents. These include rapid assessment forms (RAF), ESNFI partner datasets, post-distribution monitoring reports and OCHA situation reports from November 2015 concerning Badakhshan, Baghlan and Kabul, three provinces in which the cash assistance programme was implemented. Although there is no single coordinated baseline assessment, these materials provide the best information in order to produce a comparison in terms of household damage and repairs. To do so, the evaluation assessed a random sample of earthquake affected households taken from beneficiary lists of implementing partners. As initially identified in the baseline, this sample resulted in the assessment of 48% destroyed (category A) and 52% damaged (category B) households.

a) The use of cash assistance as an emergency shelter intervention approach

The percentage of assistance spent on shelter material by households across all three provinces amounted to 25% for houses completely destroyed and 50% for those with damages. In Baghlan, households with completed repairs spent on average 50% of their cash assistance package on shelter, whilst households with repairs not started and on hold spent on average 19%. Kabul households spent the higher rate of the original assistance package on shelter materials and labour (on average 56%), resulting in 36% of households assessed having completed their repairs. Yet, in the 30 days prior to data collection they reported an average monthly expenditure of just 4% on shelter repairs and, as a result, recorded only 1% of household with repairs ongoing. Also, across all three provinces, and especially in Kabul, spending on shelter has subsided since the cash assistance packages were distributed. As a result, the 54% of households that have repair work on hold or not started are unlikely to begin until more funds for shelter repairs are being made available, and the 14% with repairs ongoing are at risk of having to put them on hold if they cannot continue to afford them.

Badakhshan households on average spread their original cash assistance package more thinly across several needs and, as a result, they initially spent the least of the three provinces on shelter materials.
Consequently, they reported the lowest number of completed households (22%) but currently have 21% with repairs ongoing; this is higher than in other provinces. This may be due to harsh Badakhshan winters, with households preferring to wait until the spring before engaging in large scale repairs. Thirty days prior to the assessment, Badakhshan households spent the most of their monthly income on shelter which further supports their high number of repairs ongoing.

Reportedly, cash usage of the original assistance package and household income expenditure during the 30 days prior to the assessment are starkly different. Food expenditures increased from 23% to 49%, health expenses more than tripled from 5% to 18%, whilst shelter spending dropped from an overall average of 61% to just 23%. Therefore, most of the cash assistance was spent on shelter, however, as soon as the assistance came to an end, other expenditure items were given priority over shelter needs. Therefore, those households who spent heavily on shelter from their original assistance package are more likely to have houses complete or near complete now in comparison to vulnerable households who equally divided their initial assistance package between food and shelter. Households who had to divide their assistance package to support other household expenditures are thus unlikely today to be able to fully recover without additional aid assistance.

b) The change in shelter conditions

Across the three provinces, the evaluation found that shelter conditions have improved and now 32% of households have reported that repairs are completed, while 29% are still missing doors and windows, a roof or both, and 39% are still inhabitable. The highest percentage of household living areas still inhabitable are to be found in Kabul (54%), followed by Baghlan (35%) and Badakhshan (53%). The situation is particularly alarming in the districts of Andarab and Fereng Gharu, Baghlan, where this percentage ranges between 63 and 82%. On a different aspect, participants reported a large number of households still to be repaired in Badakhshan (53%), followed by Baghlan (23%) and Kabul (12%). Where household repairs remained incomplete (68% of all households), a considerable number of participants maintained that their repairs and reconstructions had either not yet started, or had started but are currently on hold; this was the case for 75% of destroyed and 42% of damaged houses.

Additionally, the assessment outlined that more households in Baghlan and Kabul were found to have completed their repairs than in Badakhshan. One of the barriers in Badakhshan that limited their reconstruction was a heavy need to spend on shelter labour, as they spent 20% of their package compared to 6% in Kabul and just 4% in Baghlan. This could be explained by the fact that, in Kabul and Baghlan, unskilled and uncontracted work was one of the most popular income generating activities; an abundance of unskilled workers may have driven the price of labour down.

c) Any assistance gaps or limits to recovery

When asked why repairs were not completed, 92% of households not having completed repairing reported that, despite the cash assistance they received, they could not afford shelter materials and 83% reported they could not afford labour. This is despite the fact that labour was obtainable, as only 3% of households with repairs not started or on hold reported that it was unavailable at the market.

Concerning build back better (BBB) methods, almost every repairs completed and ongoing household assessed had lintels, and their windows and doors were 60cm away from corners. Without a baseline assessment of household structure safety and building habits, it is impossible to say if there has been an improvement but they are definitely two key methods of construction advised to protect households against structural damage. However these households are still not entirely protected against future disasters. A large proportion with repairs completed and ongoing failed to incorporate other key BBB methods as 73% had no plinth bands, 70% reportedly had cracks and 53% had no corner bracing.

As a result of the evaluation assessment the following recommendations are suggested by the ESNFI cluster to improve post-disaster cash assistance programmes in the future:

  1. Shelter Needs Assessments 1.1 Displacement coping mechanisms ought to be included in a shelter needs assessment so as to better identify those most in need and help inform a tailored shelter response. An assessment of household damage leads to assumptions regarding numbers of those displaced and their coping mechanisms. As such, the level of household damage might differ from household vulnerability and shelter needs. For example, those with completely destroyed households may be staying in an improvised shelter with no protection from the weather or may be safe, sheltering with family or friends.

1.2 Gender analysis ought to be included in a baseline investigation concerning shelter interventions in Afghanistan. Due to cultural conditions, it is far more likely that when a natural disaster strikes, females are the most to be initially affected, as they tend to be inside shelters due to daily tasks and drudgery. It is thus crucial to understand the perspectives of women and girls in the household and female headed households as part of a baseline. Not only so to ensure that their specific needs are met after the disaster, but also to look at how reconstruction, repairs and shelter interventions are understood by female headed households and how they have improved, or failed to improve, their lives.

1.3 A standardised shelter assessment tool would be useful for all ESNFI partners to implement when a specialist shelter assessment is needed following a displacement emergency or natural disaster. This tool would ensure that all partners are using the same indicators and would simplify the sharing of information and assistance if one partner has the capacity to deliver assistance where another does not. It would ensure that a standardised baseline exists in all areas affected by a disaster regardless of which ESNFI partner supported this area. This will allow future response evaluation assessments to be more methodical in their comparisons between past and present, different geographical areas and different organisations’ responses.

  1. Targeting Criteria 2.1 Shelter vulnerability analysis should include food security and livelihood indicators in order to understand cash usage and where intended spending might be sacrificed in place of other needs.
    Implementing partners of the cash assistance programme performed market assessments and household assessments in order to design the post-earthquake cash assistance programme. However, these assessments failed to identify that among earthquake affected populations food remained a top priority even after food assistance.

2.2 Income generating habits should be considered as part of the design of post-disaster cash assistance programmes in order to design cash intervention strategies that are suited to livelihood profiles. In this assessment, in areas where cash crop farming was a popular income source, household spent much less on food which allowed them the freedom to spend more on shelter. On the contrary, by identifying income earning habits, cash assistance interventions can be modified to suit populations’ needs and be more efficient in the long term. For example in a post-disaster area with high unemployment where unskilled daily labour is a popular income source, a cash for work scheme might work well alongside the cash assistance intervention.

  1. Response Design 3.1 Transport prices and labour prices ought to be included in a market assessment, particularly in rural areas, in order to truly identify reconstruction costs and thus tailor the cash assistance amounts to the needs of those affected. Although market surveys were conducted, they concentrated on price fluctuations and market access in relation to distance, time and security. The transport of household reconstruction materials and labour may, especially in rural and mountainous areas, involve complex transportation possibly involving large expensive vehicles. Similarly labour prices were not included, which can depend upon the amount of skilled labourers available to hire.

3.2 BBB and disaster risk reduction (DRR) training ought to be prioritized as part of a cash assistance intervention that involves large scale repairs and reconstruction, as it reduces risk of future destruction.
If a cash assistance intervention is chosen as the best option to provide emergency shelter to affected families and to financially support the redevelopment of their homes, then BBB and DRR training should be an essential module of that intervention prior and during assistance. DRR is often largely the responsibility of the household themselves and making sure that BBB methods are used as part of their household structure is an important and approachable DRR tactic. Beneficiaries should receive training/awareness sessions on the importance of BBB for future safety and how to incorporate BBB methods into the reconstruction process. This should also be followed up with a monitoring assessment that identifies if BBB methods/materials have been used and if not why not.