Using steel for humanitarian sheltering: current options and innovation, by Kaat Boon, Co-host Conference, IFRC SRU

The IFRC Shelter Research Unit (IFRC SRU) was briefly introduced. It was formed in 2010 to support improvement of technical and material aspects of sheltering. The IFRC SRU maps, innovates and interacts, focusing on four main project areas; scientific research, emergency items, localized solutions and documentation.

A double knowledge gap led to the IFRC SRU deciding to organise this conference. The one single handbook or guideline on steel sheltering does not exist. Secondly, hardly ever does one specific material give shape to the discussion around sheltering. The gap was matched with a clear interest from the academic, private and humanitarian worlds. Kaat proceeded by introducing the scoping study, which was an attempt to lay open the current use of steel in humanitarian sheltering as basis for the discussions during and after the conference.

A final topic addressed was innovation, highlighted with an example from Bangladesh. The impossibility of commanding innovations through rigid linear processes was recognized. Two main category distinctions - “to be distributed” versus ‘humanitarian infrastructure’ and ‘pre-position(able)’ versus ‘local(ised) solutions’ - were presented as a frame of thought that can steer R&D efforts by non humanitarian partners. The second distinction was elaborated as a tension between 1) the need for standardized products versus context specific needs and 2) decisions made by disaster response experts versus decision making steered by local community, or different balances thereof.

consult the complete presentation on: http://issuu.com/shelterresearchunit/docs/ifrc-sru-sd-steel-current-options-and-innovation#embed

Affordable Housing for Low to Middle Income Households, by Robin Black, Habitat for Humanity International

Habitat for Humanity has many years of experience in offering simple, decent and affordable housing to people in need. For the purposes of this conference, Habitat for Humanity focused its presentation on two of its projects in Eastern Europe (Romania), implemented in collaboration with ArcelorMittal: ‘Casa Buna’ and ‘Mansard Extension & Thermal Rehab’. Both projects used steel to provide low income housing adjusted to the particular context.

Steel was chosen over timber for a number of reasons: material life cycle, building waste, volunteer involvement, split between pre-fabrication and on site, margin for error, local availability. It was used in this context as part of a process that offered jobs and skill training. The cost was kept low by effective management, family involvement and significant volunteer contributions. Robin furthermore presented the lessons learned out of these experiences, in relation to steel.

These projects are more closely related to development work than emergency sheltering. It was confirmed however during the steel days conference, that the learning done in development work can positively inform emergency sheltering, and vice versa. The presented technologies, and typologies, may be applicable to middle-income countries struck by disaster, or offer solutions for more urbanised contexts. The claiming of roof space for extra dwelling units was, in that respect, a unique concept to investigate further.

Consult the full presentation on: http://issuu.com/shelterresearchunit/docs/ifrc-sru-sd-hfh-am-steel-innovation-for-low-middle#embed

Two case studies of steel sheltering in Vietnam, by Eelko Brouwer and Corinne Treherne, Netherlands Red Cross and IFRC

One main message at the start of the presentation was that transitional shelter is not a product, but a process, a phase, that can be materialised in many different ways, such as through host families, cash and/or vouchers, technical guidance and training, or, as in these cases, the construction of transitional shelters. Two case studies from Vietnam (Central in 1998 and South in 2000) are given to illustrate some of the challenges faced in transitional shelter using steel.

Similarities and differences between the two locations, including exposure to different types of disasters and different local building practices, led to two different shelter designs. They however shared the same considerations around long term disaster preparedness and risk reduction; progressive design, simple and quick to set up, limiting deforestation, increasing hazard resistance and coping options, basic outlook. In the given context, steel was considered the appropriate material to fulfil these strategic choices.

A follow up study on the projects was done seven years later. Conclusions from this study, including advantages and disadvantages of using steel for the shelters, were elaborated during the presentation. This led to the identification of some points on which the collaboration between private, academic and humanitarian actors can be improved.

Consult the full presentation on: http://issuu.com/shelterresearchunit/docs/ifrc-sru-sd-ifrc-nlrc-two-cases-steel-shelter-viet#embed

Post disaster steel-frame shelter, by Milton Funes, CHF International

CHF is a large US based American NGO with both development and humanitarian disaster response capacity. CHF presented lessons learned out of the Sri Lanka 2005 tsunami response, and discussed parallels and differences with their most recent response to the 2010 Haiti earthquake operation.

The steel-frame transitional shelters built in Sri Lanka were quite simple, temporary structures. In collaboration with the affected communities, some adjustments could be made that made these shelters well accepted. They were suitable in the climate, easily assembled and disassembled.

In Haiti, CHF built 5,140 transitional shelters in response to the earthquake, 2,000 of which were cold formed/light gauge steel and frames. Other ones were built using wood. CHF undertook a thorough review of the response, analysing the pros and cons of the two different material solutions. It is quite rare that operational agencies invest in such an analysis post-operation; it brought about very interesting considerations for the future.

The steel design was chosen, amongst other reasons, because of the disaster proneness of the context and the scarcity of wood. This was felt to compensate the higher cost of the steel design. Another conclusion of the review was that the affected population was more inclined to invest in the upgrading of the steel shelters than in the wooden ones. This indicates that the steel design was felt to be more durable, stimulating a quicker transition from relief to recovery. On the other side, the planning of the steel shelter project took considerably more time than of the one using wood. Another issue raised highlighted the risk of alterations to the original design that can compromise structural strength.

Consult the full presentation on: http://issuu.com/shelterresearchunit/docs/ifrc-sru-sd-chf-post-disaster-steel-frame-shelter#embed