Who governs reconstruction? Changes and continuity in policies, practices and outcomes - Rebuilding After Disasters: From Emergency to Sustainability - page 174

Maharashtra, however, did communities accept this solution. In Gujarat and
Tamil Nadu the relocation plan led to fierce opposition and to the govern-
ments ultimately amending their policies. This reflects an increased awareness
concerning socio-economic and environmental risks and the negative impacts
of relocation among communities, governments, civil-society organizations
and the World Bank. Several international NGOs and private corporations,
however, showed little concern for such risks. Whenever land was available,
they urged communities towards accepting resettlement, because build-
ing a village on clear ground is less complex than reconstruction in situ .
Nevertheless, both in Gujarat and Tamil Nadu we noticed that local commu-
nities, too, sometimes took advantage of agencies' preference for relocation,
as this may offer an opportunity to obtain new houses without having to
give up the old ones. This factor, more than the presumed loss of people's
faith in their own building capacity and the post-tsunami fear of the sea, may
explain why several communities in all three states voluntarily accepted, or
even demanded, to be relocated. This kind of unnecessary relocation gives
communities the option of returning to their pre-disaster villages in case they
do not like what they obtained, but it constitutes a waste of resources that
may have serious socio-economic and environmental consequences.
Even though the enhanced awareness of the risks and drawbacks of
relocation represents an important step forward, it is important to note that
reconstruction in situ does not necessarily or inevitably lead to better out-
comes. In Gujarat we noted that in situ reconstruction generally led to poor
outcomes when adequate settlement plans were absent, when reconstruction
happened on the basis of the contractor-driven approach, or when exogenous
building materials and designs were employed. In Tamil Nadu, in particular,
reconstruction in situ ended up having severe negative effects on communi-
ties' cultural identity and natural habitat, because contractors would refuse
to start reconstruction before the ground was completely cleared of houses
and vegetation. Reconstruction in situ thus often led to the erasure of much
of people's history and cultural identity, which had detrimental psycho-social
consequences.
Owner-driven versus contractor-driven reconstruction
The potential advantages of owner-driven reconstruction in terms of cost- and
time-effectiveness and in empowering citizens to rebuild their houses accord-
ing to their individual needs and preferences are increasingly being recognized
on the international level. A number of international agencies, such as the
World Bank, the International Federation of Red Cross Societies (IFRC),
the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC) and the American
Red Cross, have adopted owner-driven reconstruction in Sri Lanka and
Indonesia following the Indian Ocean tsunami, as well as in Pakistan after
the earthquake of 2005. However, in India - the country where the approach
was successfully adopted for the first time on a large scale by the Government