Appropriate technology for post-disaster reconstruction - Rebuilding After Disasters: From Emergency to Sustainability - page 65

land was available at the same price as at the time of the announcement of
the scheme, costs of all other components had increased considerably.
When the financial package was announced, the government pledged to
provide the building materials at a subsidized rate. However, a quick check
of the prices over time of the same materials shows the true picture. Cement
pledged at 100 INR per cement bag at that time was, in 2008, at 220 INR;
and steel bars, which were 17 INR per bar, cost 50 INR in August 2008
(one rupee equals 0.02364 US dollars as per interbank exchange rate on 3
August 2008). 9
By a rough estimate, the mandatory 250-square-foot (approximately
25 square metres) construction, which was proposed at the rate of 120 INR
per square foot (~1200 INR per square metre), is now approximately
400 INR per square foot (~4000 INR per square metre). Accounting for the
high inflation rate, the goal of building earthquake-safe structures, at least
in the urban areas, looks very grim.
Moreover, as mentioned before, the compensation for reconstruction was
tied closely to the construction work. Therefore, the financial assistance was
sanctioned against completion of a certain extent of the construction. The
government's refusal to provide assistance for livelihoods in the urban sector
hit the urban lower-middle-class and lower-class people very badly. The major
grievance voiced against the entire relief package was that the programme
did not take into consideration how livelihood options could have really
made the process owner-driven. In fact, the common refrain remains that
the Gujarati people, as industrious as people in any other part of the world,
could have made the repair of their houses on their own had the government
allowed them the easiest path to attain financial stability. The ability of the
poor to undertake safer construction was severely compromised, in spite of
the availability of technical expertise.
This policy stance made the situation of the urban poor really deplorable,
as they were forced to reside in unsafe housing. In fact, many people were
left with houses that had parts severely damaged due to the earthquake; they
often shut down the damaged part and continued to live in the existing unsafe
section of the house after sprucing it up from outside.
The towns had a high percentage of tenants. Some of these people have been
residing in the houses they have occupied for several decades. Post-earthquake,
they found themselves in a worse situation, as the packages announced by
the government - being linked to buildings - had no place for this segment of
the population. Also, in many cases, they did not have documents supporting
their tenancy and subsequent rights to be compensated. In some instances,
the owners whose houses were damaged decided to opt for relocation by
surrendering their damaged property in the old town to the government, even
if that meant further damaging the buildings to avail themselves of better
compensation in return. This left the tenants, who had been residing in those
houses, homeless. In fact, in certain localities of Bhuj, people are still living in
the initial tent provided by various relief agencies (Figures 3.10 and 3.11).