Really heavy rains for no more than 7 days in central Pakistan in September 2012 nearly 500,000 homes were completely destroyed, leaving almost 3.5m homeless and destitute. Most of these people had barely recovered from floods in August 2010. I am proud to say that DFID (UK tax payers money) has been the largest donor year on year in shelter, agriculture recovery and water-sanitation across this area, reaching almost a million people. I have started to include photos of these amazing people, because they are just that, and so inspiring and positive, always.

1. Observations and feedback
from field monitoring of post-flood recovery work
across Northern Sindh in November 2014
Of DFID & Partners work – initiated in mid-2013

2. Overview
• Progress since May 2014
• Shelter
• Livelihoods
• WASH
• Cook-stoves
• Whole Community
support

3. Shelter & Housing
Excellent results from lime tests – underwater for months.
(block and render tests shown). Lime expert, author,
consultant and trainer, Stafford Holmes, with the Strawbuild
consultancy team, shown left applying a concrete pressure
test – these lime blocks stood up to over 700 psi (meaning
these could be used to construct two storey buildings) and
withstand months of immersion underwater.

4. Village based – soil and
lime analysis and testing.
People owning the
process and results.
People need to know
how and where to buy
quality lime.
“one lime block is 1Rs,
one brick is 7Rs”
(go figure…)
ACTED village, Kashmore

5. From testing to application
Good to see that all shelter partners now
following Strawbuild’s training and advice.
Only after extended periods underwater is
the mix deemed appropriate to use to build
the walls.
This is an evidence-based approach, in
practice.
The tensile strength of the blocks are
sometimes tested as well, as demonstrated
here.

6. Good to see thick lime “screed” on roof – tested underwater for
months already so likely to withstand heavy rains.
Exposed rafters should be avoided
as they will quickly deteriorate in
the extreme weather

7. More attention to detail on roof eaves needed. Ideally
no part of the walls are exposed to heavy rains.

8. Another example
of poor detail on
roof eaves
Here the top of the walls are very
exposed to heavy downpours which
could weaken the tops of walls..
The risk of collapse reduces depending
of the quality of the lime stabilisation
in the blocks or ring beam used at the
top of the walls.
Extensive testing of these mixes
underwater before application is
therefore critical.
Again, unprotected wooden / bamboo
rafters will deteriorate in sun and
weather.

9. • Pitched or flat roof?
• We all know that water runs off a slanted roof quicker and easier than a flat roof yet
most roofs in the area are flat and finished with a simple mud mix that will deteriorate
quickly in heavy rains. Many communities have adopted these pitched roofs now.
• Without lime stabilised and water-resistant screed water will penetrate either roof.
HANDS, Jacobabad.

10. Lime-stabilised walls
and Roof make this
low-cost dwelling
highly flood (and rain)
resistant. HANDS,
Kashmore)

11. It is so important to listen to the people we work with, who so often have valuable feedback and
ideas about the work, how it can be improved, how this has changed their lives (or not). This
family recently moved in to their home they constructed with help by IOM and BRD, local NGO.

13. Concerns over bamboo quality

14. In some cases the bamboo shows deterioration already from
moisture and in other cases insects.

15. ACTED teams purchase the bamboo on behalf of communities
assuring quality control (but when tens of thousands of
houses are under construction it is proving difficult to source
sufficient quantity at this quality)

16. Offer training on range of different designs
This building is using bricks salvaged from a collapsed house. Where these aren’t available
lime-stabilised blocks are used. (Being 5 times cheaper why wouldn’t you?) The design
point here is the solid base at the top of the highest columns that is a safe place to rest a
steel girder – assuming the column is well constructed!

17. The value of steel: long life, no degrading over time, roughly equivalent
cost to bamboo. Able to meet the demand (local industrial capacity).
Cons: environmental impact. Danger if not properly stabilised.

18. But attention to detail again very important.
A few concerns visible here.
E.g. these running lines down the brick
work which could separate if the
foundations weaken in standing waters

19. The impact of safer shelter is enormous: this family has been living this
very basic shack, in the foreground, for over two years, since the last
major flood in 2012. They have now moved to their completed shelter
and explained how much safer and more hopeful they feel.

20. Discussing the building project with the people who are learning and building themselves.

21. Bee Rowan of Strawbuild, one of the UK’s most experienced specialists and trainers of lime and
earth construction. Now a consultant for all partners on this project to build knowledge and
skills in working with lime and local soils.

22. WASH (Water, Sanitation, Hygiene)
• Are we: contractors or change agents?
• Sewage treatment – we’re still not there
• Hand-washing: neither
• Some good lessons from UNICEF’s Community
Approach to Total Sanitation (CATS)
• CATS Should be incorporated into every
recovery project – all partners should be
trained and all communities given the
opportunity to start.

23. The usual consequences of septic tanks without adequate treatment. This was
constructed after 2010 floods by other NGOs. Now the septic tank is overflowing
creating a pond of septic water and a serious public health hazard. This is not the
exception – it is the rule. This needs to change! Biological systems (trees, networks of
different plants, roots, fungi and bacteria) can treat this perfectly well – while
producing trees that have real value, for animal fodder, timber, medicines, etc.

24. Leaking septic tanks everywhere.
Smells like open defecation
These are often found in villages where
shelter, livelihoods or WASH partners
are still working.
From 2015 onwards can we agree on a
standard design that all partners, in
whatever sector adopt (and adapt) for
the communities they work with?

25. A wasted opportunity – again!
We have to take waste water
treatment more seriously.
Very little evidence of good
practice.
This is a grey water from a
washroom. It should be
directed into a garden bed, or
some trees that have value
such as fodder crops or timber.

26. So many examples of this.
• In most of the villages we
visited.
Key feedback:
It costs very little to show
people how to build a
catchment area for this waste
water and to introduce trees or
vegetables.
Key constraint
Appropriate designs for water
catchment. We need some
good examples and some
guidelines for all organisations.

27. Often the waste water areas become the community dump for all garbage and it is highly
toxic and a real health and environmental hazard. Dangerous to people, animals and the
wider environment.

28. Before
(Oct 2013)
Village: Muhammed Nawaz Nachi
UC: Dasti, District Jacobabad
Cost to project: $0 (Nothing!)
Impact:
• < 2,500 Rs. / month savings on
vegetables not bought at
market
• Better nutrition
• public health hazard reduced
After
(May 2014)
But remember this?
There are good practices
(with grey water)

29. Kitchen gardens from
hand-pumps
Respect and recognition to FRDP,
local NGO partner of UNICEF, who
persuaded the community - who
were initially dubious – but are
now super-proud and saving over
2,000 Rs ($20) a month on
vegetables not sourced in the
market.

30. Latrine construction
• This model is designed by engineers and
requires skilled masons to build
• It has a High cost ($230)
• Bricks and cement are used for the base
and septic tank
• There is no hand-washing space
• It is not built by community themselves.
Lesson:
Building latrines FOR communities cannot be
replicated. They need to build them for
themselves – if they want them. So creating
“demand” for a decent toilet is the first step.
Then they will build themselves. The NGO
just needs to help with design advice, maybe
build a couple of very low cost models. See
UNICEF’s CATS approach for more info.

31. UNICEF promotes model latrines, which it supports with < 9,000 PKR. ($90)
This model cost 5,500, for slab, cement, etc. Now the community have the design model.
Community Approach to Total Sanitation (CATS)

32. But people say they can’t afford the constructed model
So they build basic pit latrines and use scrap material for the
walls. This is seen as the “first step” in the ladder of sanitation.

33. Low cost, low tech. Not great, but it shows initial efforts t by people to build their first
toilets.

34. Offset latrines
(in a UNICEF / NRSP CATS village,
district Shikarpur)
(the pit is set a metre or so
away out of shot, reducing
smell to some degree).
But with no sewage
treatment (the pit fills up
quickly and has to be
manually emptied). Not
very smart, when trees and
plants can do this work for
you.

35. To more advanced
Adapting local spaces
Very low cost
(c. 1,800 Rs / $18)
Built and paid for by the
family after mobilisation
and education by the
NGO. Now they say they
are saving about $10 a
month on medicines.
Over time they can build
a septic tank +
treatment wetland. But
this is the first step!

36. Earth bags for walls alternatives. (So much cheaper
than bricks. How much do old rice bags cost?)

37. Hand-washing in latrines – should
be included every time
This use of scrap materials to make a hand-washing tap
was invented by a local family in Jacobabad, probably
costing no more than $2.
Evidence shows that hand-washing with soap (or ash)
can prevent up to 70% of diarrheal transmission.

38. Almost hand-washing
• Very close to toilet
• Evidence of regular hand-
washing and bathing
• But not every family has a
hand-pump in their yard
• Hand-washing must come
to the latrines.

39. UNICEF’s “flood resistant” hand-pump design.
Slightly more expensive initially but likely to
avoid contamination and collapse during a flood
with up to a meter of standing waters.
This is so important for communities who face
annual flooding. Returning home to find your
fresh water supply completely flooded with
contaminated water causes myriads of
problems

40. Typical scene in semi-urban towns around Pakistan
Ecological systems can provide the solutions
Must be: low cost, low tech and environmentally beneficial

41. School WASH
Public health impact of outflow?
UNICEF has opportunity to showcase better design
that could be taken up by all Government schools.

42. Livelihoods

44. Raised platforms for livestock in time of floods
Good practice by FAO

46. And a fish pond in the space made to
build the raised platform

47. Fish spawn provided by community

48. Raised bed opportunities exist in many communities.
Multiple functions from one endeavour, e.g. platform for animal
safety, community sports; pond for fish, rice nursery, aquatic
plants, trees. Consider the cost benefit analysis…

49. Better design of this kitchen garden could enhance productivity. For example there is no shade,
nor clearly set out walking / access paths through the beds. The water pump is actually lower
than the level of the garden making gravity-fed irrigation from the pump impossible.

50. In contrast, this garden has ample area for access /
walking, plants are placed in the lower areas
where water will naturally fall (rather than on the
raised bund sections). It appears productive and
relevant.
It is hoped that people have open pollinated and
local varieties of seed that can be stored and
shared. (Rather than hybrids that produce
unproductive seeds and people need to buy new
seeds again each season)

51. Kitchen Gardens - results
FAO Post harvest surveys show:
Average kitchen garden produces 640kg of crops;
• 67% was used for home consumption
• 22% was given away for free;
• Remainder sold in the market generating Rs
2031/HH
Vegetable intake frequency increased by 16% and
diversity by 10%.

52. Poultry Model schemes
• Mortality rate was high at 18% largely due to
disease (31%) predators (35%) and
accidents(23%) but:
• There was an average production of 13-14
eggs/week
• 90% of households report inclusion of eggs in
diet at 3-4 weekly;
• Remainder sold in local market generating an
average monthly income of PKR 500-600.

53. Agriculture
• Rice – appreciation for local varieties
• Rice multiplication (vs. hybrid and GM)
• Pre-monsoon harvesting (using local non-hybrid
varieties of rice) to avoid losses during floods.
• Access to affordable credit not available
• Insurance not available to poor farmers. Most
now bearing multiple years debts because of two
major floods over past 4 years.

54. Whole village approach
• In recovery – try to address needs beyond the project
activities.
• Integrated designs opportunities: links between
livelihoods, WASH, shelter
• Community mobilisation: we have found this to be so
important. And good mobilisation takes time!
• In future projects let’s see more joined-up thinking:
from emergency to recovery. And between sectors
(linking water to livelihoods, sewage to forestry,
housing to apprenteships, waste to biogas, etc.)

55. An example of a village destroyed by flooding in 2012. Now receiving livelihoods
support. But their houses are completely destroyed! How much more would it cost to
support shelter and livelihoods here? And water/ sanitation at the same time? If your
project does not include shelter: lobby and advocate the shelter cluster and agencies
for support.

56. Skills in wetlands and forestry ?
Apply here…

57. Biogas pilot – HANDS
• Observe the denuded landscape
• How much can biogas change this?
• Critically: cow manure that has been
through a bio-digester like this is
much better fertiliser compared to
direct application.
• The slurry / fertiliser produced could
support a small forest of productive
species for the community.
• Cost: $750
• What returns and value for money?
• Several families may benefit from the
gas for cooking

58. Every village appears to have lots of animals, as well as agriculture waste like straw. Both are
good for biogas digesters. Slurry from the digester could support rapid growth trees that could
feed the animals – providing far more nutrients that the straw they are generally fed.

59. Denuded landscapes
Eastern Ghotki district, on the edge of the desert area. Small investments in Water Retention
Landscapes design could increase vegetation on the slopes and reduce flood risk.

60. Community mobilisation in HANDS villages – highly effective.
Each village now presents their own action plans including threats /
risks, key priorities, resources they have, resources they need, who is
charged with dealing the job and by when.

62. 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Recovery cash
transfers
Livelihood
restoration (ag)
Shelter (flood
resistant)
WASH Integrated
recovery (Shelter,
WASH, Livelihoods
combined)
Costperfamilyin£GBP
Type of Recovery Programme
Recovery options: unit costs per family
• Unit costs in each sector are lower when the projects are integrated
• Integrated recovery more likely to build resilience than cash alone – discuss,
research and build evidence base.

63. Cookstoves
• Introduced for all shelter partners: every
community should be given choice of new
stove design
• Should be zero cost or very cheap for people
• Should reduce smoke in face and eyes
• Should offer better efficiency (less wood used)

64. The standard cooking stove in
Pakistan: 3 stones with the pot
on top
Also very unhealthy – this lady is
constantly bothered by smoke.
Evidence shows serious health
implications for women –
especially when pregnant.

65. c
Good cook-stove designs by Heritage and Pako-Swiss Technologies who designed this very
efficient (and wood gasifying) stove. With integrated hand washing system and storage places
for cooking implements.

66. Pilots by other organisations. These are effective at reducing smoke pollution,
though the Heritage/Pako-Swiss model offers certain advantages, like hand-
washing and raised storage for cooking utensils and food. The people should be
given the opportunity of choice – if they could be shown the different designs.

67. For example, this stove does have a chimney to reduce smoke inhalation, but lacks
hand-washing options and appears to be vulnerable to heavy rains or floods. The lack
of any shade structure also condemns the women and girls working there to extreme
heat and relentless sunshine.

68. Open to the elements. On left, the usual cooking experience for women: very smoky,
unpleasant, unhealthy. On right, less smoke thanks to chimney. But protection from extreme
sunlight would make this much better. Raising her stove off the ground would also improve
health and hygiene. And again… a hand-washing device?

69. Heritage Foundation – trainers
Local women from Southern Sindh who
now deliver training in other villages –
earning 200 Rs ($2) each time.
This has become a new income stream
for these women.
And the primary beneficiaries are
women and girls who no longer have to
suffer from wood-smoke for hours each
day.
Low cost for vast impact.

71. DisasterPreparednessand SustainableConstructionSkills
Karavan Pakoswiss Chulah: Construction Phases
1.3
PHASE 1
Elevated Earthen
Platform with Stove
and Chimney
PHASE 2
Elevated Washing
Platform (Utensil
and Hand washing)
with water supply &
drainage
PHASE 3
Partition Wall
with Storage
Alcoves and
Shelving for
Utensils

72. Karavan Pakoswiss Chulah

74. Barefoot Village Entrepreneurs (BVE)
MONTHLY PROGRAM
Selection of 15 BVE Trainers from Core Chulah
Villages (CCV) trained in November 2014.
HF to link 2 neighbor villages to CCV BVE.
1. HF’s Artisans to construct chulahs in
30 Satellite Chulah Villages
2. Briefing by BVE and selection of
trainees.
3. HF’s supervisory staff to check
process.
4. IOM to transporting 40-50 trainees to
DRR Park, Kot Diji.
5. HF training session for Master Trainers.
30 MT/BVEs /month to produce 300 chulahs
each in 3 months
Delivery of 36,000 to 40,000 in 6-8 months.
v

76. Solar lights still going strong – this unit
distributed by IOM over two years before,
while this community was displaced.
This unit has now been retrofitted with a
much larger battery, by local technicians,
so its life span has been be extended even
further.
Most families say they spend around 600
Rs ($6) a month on candles, torches etc.
for light usually, so these solar lights have
saved around $140 per family already. The
initial investment was $8.

77. Thanks to all our partners and
the communities for the trip!