Preventive Resettlement of Populations at Risk of Disaster - GFDRR

ered the costs of bathroom materials, electrical fixtures,
or construction tools, or those of technical and social
assistance. However, in the PPI, these costs were included,
which guaranteed optimal outcomes.
With respect to problems, delays were experienced in
some cases due to the difficulty of (a) obtaining land
suitable for housing in urban areas, (b) lack of coordination
to build the utilities’ networks, and (c) lack of
municipal or housing institution funds to deliver titles
to the beneficiaries.
Another major obstacle was that the housing components
depended on foreign loans. Thus, any delay in
obtaining or negotiating the loans translated into a suspension
or delay in executing the program; sometimes,
this meant the loss of institutional capacity and experienced
human resources.
7. External Evaluations
The housing components were assessed through three
external evaluations: an ex-post review at the rehabilitation
program (PREI) stage by The World Bank’s Operations
Evaluation Department, in 2000; a second review,
during the Flood Protection Program (PPI), by the International
Institute of Environment and Development
– Latin America (Instituto Internacional de Medio Ambiente
y Desarrollo - América Latina, IIED-LA) in 2003;
and an ex-post review by an independent consultant.
These evaluations showed a positive outcome of the
program. In particular, the training component was regarded
as “very important.” For many beneficiaries, this
meant that they could participate at the different stages
of construction and ultimately were in a better position
to find work.
Involving the beneficiaries in the process meant that,
besides the fact that they obtained houses in an area
safe from floods, they would benefit from a psychosocial
boost to their self-esteem. By contributing their
labor, family groups obtained their houses without
feeling they were receiving charity. The involvement
also strengthened neighborhood solidarity and integration
in society, offering a sense of belonging at the
local level.
With respect to the management model, the coordinated
effort among different levels of government (to combine
local, provincial and national resources), produced
major synergies that ultimately helped authorities meet
their goals and meet the beneficiaries’ needs.
The housing component strengthened the capacity of
the technical staff at the municipal level to conduct selfconstruction
programs; it also advanced their understanding
of urban development techniques. These skills
were later applied to municipal community development
programs.
Such achievements show the path to build resilient
communities and provide lessons that can be replicated
elsewhere. The experiences of the housing subprograms
can be applied to meet the needs of populations affected
by social, economic and housing emergencies—not just
those suffering from natural disasters. The experience
promotes, in an equitable way, low-income population’s
access to adequate houses and land fit for urban development.
As such, it helps mitigate poverty, one of the
underlying causes of social vulnerability.
Here we have a demonstration that it can be done, that results
are attained when we join efforts.
Mr. Orfilio Marcon, Mayor of Avellaneda, Santa Fe
Chapter 3 Response to Recurrent Floods: Assisted Self-Construction Housing Program | Argentina | 41