1525 File Eritrea Housing Study

8/2/2019 1525 File Eritrea Housing Study

1/13

CHF/EritreaSurvey on Affordable Housing for IDPs

October 2004

1

Background

The need for affordable housing in Eritrea including the upgrading of existing housingstock as well as construction of new housing was high even prior to the border conflictof 2000, as a result of the 30-year struggle for independence from Ethiopia. During the

recent border conflict, nearly 450,000 Eritreans were displaced; in addition, over 16,000expellees from Ethiopia came to settle in Eritrea. Initial post-conflict assessments ofborder communities identified over 100,000 homes that were totally destroyed, seriouslydamaged or partially damaged.1 Eritrea thus now faces an urgent, acute shortage ofaffordable housing to accommodate the return of displaced communities to their placesof origin, as well as expellees and returnees from abroad.

Emergency and transition shelter programs have been implemented over the past 3years, funded and implemented primarily by multilateral and international organizationssuch as UNHCR, UNDP and ICRC. Shelter assistance approaches have included:

Provision of tents and plastic sheeting to IDPs;

Cash and in-kind assistance to residents of severely damaged homes forreconstruction; Construction of transitional structures (e.g. the Agudo semi-permanent dome

structure)2; Construction of expandable starter homes using low cost materials such as

compressed soil block, adobe, or locally available stone.

Designs for semi-permanent and permanent homes used to date have had mixedsuccess. The Agudo dome structure was more durable and cost-effective than morecommon forms of emergency shelter, such astents. However, many beneficiaries did not carrythe structure with them or incorporate it intopermanent construction, as was originallyintended. The use of compressed soil block hasbeen questioned after homes constructed with thismaterial in proved unable to withstand heavyrains. Meanwhile, the need for permanentsolutions to shelter needs has become acute dueto the desire to resettle an estimated 60,000 IDPsremaining in camps as of September 2004, inaddition to smaller numbers of returnees andexpellees from abroad still in need of housing.3Government and non-governmental agenciescontinue to struggle to identify shelter designs andconstruction materials which are affordable as wellas culturally and environmentally appropriate.

1 Government of the State of Eritrea and UN, Integrated Recovery Programme, April 2003.2 The Agudo semi-permanent shelter is a dome-shaped frame of galvanized iron, inspired by the traditional dome-roofed Agudo, provided toIDPs with grass mats or plastic sheeting for cladding. The structures were designed to serve as temporary shelters, and to be incorporated intopermanent homes as support for the traditional dome-shaped roof.3 UNDP Seminar on Recovery Activities in Eritrea, September 21-23, 2004, Asmara, Eritrea

CHF InternationalCHF serves as a catalyst for sustainable

positive change in low- and moderate-incomecommunities around the world, helping toimprove their housing, economiccircumstances, and environments.CHF has implemented affordable housingprograms throughout the world, includingBotswana, Lesotho, Kenya, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, and Tanzania, and thePhilippines. CHF has implemented post-conflict and post-disaster shelter reconstructionand rehabilitation in Afghanistan, Kosovo, ElSalvador, Guatemala, and Honduras.A worldwide leader in affordable housing, CHFhas received numerous awards for itsprograms, including the UN Dubai Award forBest Practice for Habitat, and the UNHCS (UNHabitat) Scroll of Honor.


2/13


October 2004

2

In response to the deepening shelter crisis, CHF International has undertaken atargeted assessment seeking to identify potential shelter solutions which are financiallyand technically feasible, and meet the minimum needs of IDPs preparing to return totheir home communities. With financial and technical support from CHF, primary

research was conducted by the Eritrean firm of M&Y Consulting Architects, Engineers &Planners. Based on research conducted in 9 IDP and expellee camps in 2 regions, theassessment identifies minimum shelter needs, and proposes specific designs andmaterials to meet those needs at minimum costs.

Survey MethodologyPotential beneficiaries of an affordable housing program were interviewed in 2 regions:Debub and Gash Barka. In the Debub Region, a total of 48 families were interviewed in7 IDP camps, 3 near the town of Senafe, and 4 near the town of Tsorona. In GashBarka, a total of 9 families were interviewed in 1 IDP camp, and community leaders of

Gerenfit expellee camp were interviewed4.

Interviews included questionnaires as well assemi-structured discussions, focused oninterviewees occupations, living conditions priorto displacement, current living conditions, abilityand willingness to participate in self-help shelterconstruction, and desire to return to places oforigin. Additional information was gathered fromlocal administrations and IDP representatives.(See Attachment 1, section 3.1 for a completesummary of interview results).

Based on the outcome of the survey, theconsulting architects developed a set of generalrecommendations regarding design parametersand materials, as well as a series of proposeddesigns for 2-stages of home construction.Designs were developed separately for the tworegions, which differ considerably in climate aswell as local availability of materials. Costestimates for proposed designs were alsodeveloped. Recommendations and designsconsidered the needs and desires of potentialbeneficiaries, as well as the need to minimizeconstruction costs.

4Interviews were conducted in the following camps: Zoba Debub/Senafe area Awlie Hahaile, Metera, Afoma; Zoba Debub/Tsorona Area

Tsorona, Mai Wray, Dibbi, Endabastifanos; Zoba Gash Barka Adi Keshi, Gerenfit.

Key Findings from InterviewsDebub Region Current shelter occupancy is as high as 7

adults and 4 children per householdAlmost all respondents (over 90%) are farmers. The majority of respondents lived in traditional

structures with stone walls and earth roofs priorto displacement.

Less than 10% of respondents currently havecarpentry or masonry skills; 20% expressedwillingness to be trained.

Respondents whose village of origin was nearthe border expressed hesitation to return due tosecurity concerns.

Gash Barka Region Current shelter occupancy averages 3 adults

and 2 children per household 22% of respondents are farmers and 67% are

traders. Over half of respondents were living in soil

block shelters at the time of the interviews; athird were in tents.

A third of respondents lived in soil block homesprior to displacement. The others lived intraditional stone constructed homes.

Very few respondents have construction skills,but most are willing to be trained.

67% of respondents stated a preference toreturn to their village of origin.


3/13


October 2004

3

Summary of Recommended Design Parameters and Materials

Shelter Dimensions and ShapeThe proposed designs assume a minimum room size of 2.9 meter x 2.9 meters. This

size room accommodates at least 2 beds with additional, flexible, living space. Theproposed designs use rectangular room shapes, rather than the circular design which istraditional in many targeted areas. Rectangular rooms allow for a more efficient use ofspace, as most furnishings (beds, table, etc.) are also rectangular. Maximizing the useof space is essential to reducing construction costs.

Furthermore, the room size can be multiplied and arranged in order to share walls, aswell as create a spine wall for roof support, thus maximizing the utility of wallconstruction. Short span, light wall structures are also less prone to cracking due tosettlement, eliminating the need for disproportionately expensive reinforced concrete tiebeams for wall support. In addition, the size and shape of the rooms provide sufficient

roof support so that costly roof trusses are not required. A room height of 2.5 meters isrecommended, as the effect of additional height on the air circulation in a room wasfound to be minimal, and the additional costs therefore not justified.

Primary Material for Wall ConstructionThe primary construction material recommended for an affordable housing programtargeted at IDPs returning to their home villages is stabilized soil block. Beneficiariesoften identify concrete hollow block as their preference for new shelter construction.The consultants rejected the use of concrete hollow block in final designrecommendations primarily for reasons of cost. Some estimates put the cost ofconcrete block construction as much as 30% higher than stabilized soil block.5

Stone construction, common in traditional construction methods, is also a commonpreference. In the case of Debub Region, where stones are readily available in manyareas, alternate designs using stone as the primary material were also developed.However, use of stone requires more labor, more heavy tools, and higher transportcosts, and could therefore increase costs and/or labor required from beneficiaries.However, as a traditional building material used for many generations, it should beconsidered in any areas where it is locally available in sufficient quantity. (In both soilblock and stone construction, stone is required for the foundation wall.)

Previous shelter programs have used stabilized soil block with mixed success, thereforethe proposed designs incorporate several measures to ensure the durability of thismaterial, including roof overhangs to protect walls from both rain and sun, andapplication of cement slurry to strengthen the water resistance of the walls.

Use of wood has been minimized for cost and environmental concerns, though aminimal amount of wood would be needed for roof support structures, door and windowframes, and foundation support.

5UNDP Seminar on Recovery Activities in Eritrea, September 21-23, 2004, Asmara, Eritrea


4/13


October 2004

4

Temporary shelters occupied by IDPs in Adi Keshicamp, Zoba Gash Barka

Roofs, Floors, Doors, WindowsThe traditional "Hidmo" roof, which is made up of tightly compacted and crowned earth,on top of closely laid down wooden sticks, carried by heavy wooden beams, and restingon top of rows independently standing heavy wooden pillars, requires a large amount of

wood for supporting structures, and is often not durable, requiring substantial repairs onan annual basis. Therefore for reasons of cost, environmental concerns, and durability,traditional roof structures were passed over. Galvanized corrugated iron sheets (CIS)were found to be convenient for transportation into the sites, easy to fix, highlyimpermeable and long lasting. The purlins that go along with the construction of theC.I.S roofing can be eucalyptus poles or imported timber placed, according to thedesign, on local wooden rafters. The primary concern of beneficiaries and donorsregarding CIS roofing is its heat retention, which is particularly unfavorable in the hotlowland climate of Gash Barka. The most cost effective means of mitigating this effectis to place door and window openings at opposite sides of each room; leaving doorsand windows open during the hottest part of the day maximizes air ventilation in the

house. Other measures which can be taken if budgets permit include provision of grassmats or other heat absorbing material on top of the CIS roof, and construction of aninexpensive chipboard ceiling for the home to minimize the heat retention in the livingspace.

Doors and windows would also need to be provided from non-local material. The mostcost efficient choice to provide minimum protection would be to provide plain sheetmetal doors and windows with wood door frames for support. Beneficiaries couldchoose to upgrade these installations when their resources permit. In both Debub andGash Barka regions, compacted selected materials, which can be filled up to the brim ofthe inner edges of the protruding stone foundation walls, are recommended for floors.Again, beneficiaries may choose to install concrete floors at a later date.

Proposed DesignsThe shelter designs developed by M&Yconsultants working for CHF were designedwith the primary goal of providing minimumshelter needs for beneficiaries at a minimumcost. The assessment team worked with anawareness of the very limited resourcesavailable to support resettlement efforts, andsought to develop technical solutions whichare financially feasible and, while very simple,offer a substantial improvement over thecurrent living conditions of most IDPs. At thesame time, the consultants sought to developdesigns which allowed for improvements tobe made to the initial structures, so thatbeneficiaries would have the option to

improve their minimal living standards as they gain access to additional resources.


5/13


October 2004

5

Based on the survey findings and the resulting parameters described above, a total ofthree shelter designs were developed, each with two phases of construction. The firstphase of each construction is intended to provide the bare minimum shelter for aresettling family, at a minimum cost. In each case, a second phase is designed to allow

expansion of this minimal shelter when resources allow.

In the Gash Barka region, stones are not readily available, and the proposed designassumes soil block wall construction. Phase 1 provides 1 2.9m x 2.9m room, and anadditional space of the same size built as an open, covered verandah. This designaccommodates the heat of the lowlands, where an open air space is often preferred tothe heat of an enclosed room. Phase 2 of the Gash Barka design adds 2 enclosed,2.9mx2.9m rooms which expand the living space, and also provide a second wall to theverandah space.

For Debub Region, Phase 1 of the soil block design includes 2 rooms of 2.9m x 2.9m,

since the lower temperatures in the highlands require more indoor space. Phase 2adds 2 rooms of the same size to expand the living space with minimal need foradditional wall construction. The same 2-phase design was developed for use of stonewall construction, for consideration in areas where stone is plentiful, and budget andlabor availability allow the use of this material.

Drawings are shown on the following pages for a total of 6 designs:

1. Soil block construction for Gash Barka region Phase 12. Soil block construction for Gash Barka region Phase 23. Soil block construction for Debub region Phase 14. Soil block construction for Debub region Phase 25. Stone construction for Debub region Phase 16. Stone construction for Debub region Phase 2


6/13


October 2004

6

Soil block construction for Gash Barka Region Phase 1One room plus a covered veranda is provided. In the hot lowland climate, use ofoutdoor space is greater.


7/13


October 2004

7

Soil block construction for Gash Barka Region Phase 22 rooms are added to the Phase 1 design.


8/13


October 2004

8

Soil block construction for Debub region Phase 12 rooms are provided.


9/13


October 2004

9

Soil block wall design for Debub Region Phase 22 rooms are added to the phase 1 design.


10/13


October 2004

10

Stone construction for Debub region Phase 12 rooms are provided. Stone construction is a possible alternative in many partsof Debub Region, where stone is readily available locally.


11/13


October 2004

11

Stone construction for Debub region Phase 22 rooms are added to the Phase 1 design.


12/13


October 2004

12

Considerations for Implementation

Project CostsIn the Integrated Recovery Programfor returnees, expellees and IDPs, released in April2003 by the Government of Eritrea and the UN, the cost of providing a shelter

consisting of one room, a kitchen, and a bathroom was estimated at US$1,000 perfamily. CHFs research suggests that this estimate is low. Material and labor costestimates for the three designs developed by M&Y consultants range from $1,000 to$1,300 per family per phase for the minimal designs described above, and these costsdo not include provision of sanitation facilities, or consider any other site developmentcosts which may be required, such as road improvements or water access. In addition,costs of construction management, as well as program implementation costs such asbeneficiary selection and monitoring, transport from camps to resettlement locations,and provision of training and tools to beneficiaries for self-help construction, must beconsidered in estimating the real cost of providing shelter for settlement of IDPs.

Funding ModelsThe economic and social circumstances of the IDP populations who would be the targetof shelter provision programs would not allow beneficiaries to provide cash contributionstoward shelter construction, and would allow only limited participation in the constructionactivities. Therefore, construction of the first phase homes described above as aninitial, minimal, shelter for resettling families would need to be almost fully subsidized,with the exception of limited labor contributions.

However, assistance for expansion or improvement of these homes in subsequentyears may take other forms. A housing microfinance program could be implemented toprovide credit to families for incremental home improvements as returnees developincome and/or savings to apply to improvement of their homes. Such programs canprovide further opportunity for economic development at the community level throughthe economic activity generated by families expanding or improving their homes.

Construction Implementation ApproachesCHF field offices have employed a variety ofconstruction techniques from trained self-help to fullycontracted construction. The choice of implementationmode depends on many factors, including socio-economic circumstances, the availability of skills withinthe target community and the relative cost of labor as apercentage of the whole house cost. In general, whenlabor costs are relatively cheap it may be preferable tohave contracted construction; beneficiaries may havelittle available time for building their own houses. Onthe other hand, where labor rates are high, learningconstruction skills, which beneficiaries then hone ontheir own houses, is a valuable investment of time forthem.

Range of Construction Approaches Individual Self-Help: each family

undertakes most or all constructionactivities, with training

Mutual Self-Help: non-specializedconstruction teams are formed to workhouse-by-house, with training

Self-help labor: specialized construction

teams are formed and trained to providelabor, which may be paid or seen as acontribution by the community

Combinationof self-help labor andcontractors for specialized activities

Contractor construction: fully paidprofessional labor

Source: Low-Cost Housing Solutions: A Manualfor CHF Managers. CHF, March 2000


13/13


October 2004

13

Survey results indicate a low level of construction skills among potential beneficiariesand moderate interest in receiving training. Many respondents also expressed concernthat the capacity within the communities for contribution of significant labor, evenunskilled, is low. At the same time, proposed shelter designs are meant to minimize the

skilled labor required for construction, and the cost of contract labor is relatively high.Under these circumstances, based on its experience worldwide providing sheltersolutions to low-income communities, CHF would recommend a self-help laborapproach to construction. Training would be provided to specialized construction teamsfrom within the community, who would provide the bulk of the labor required for homeconstruction, with a limited amount of unskilled labor contributed by each family for theconstruction of their own home. Such an approach would maximize the use of availablelabor within the community, as well as providing useful skills to a subset of communitymembers. Construction teams provided to shelter provision programs through nationalservice could also receive construction skills training. Wherever possible, theconstruction of the homes should be used itself as an opportunity for training and

employment generation in the skills necessary to produce materials (especially soilblock) and construct homes (carpentry, masonry, etc.).

Ensuring Quality of Shelter ProvisionAs mentioned above, recent use of soil-block construction in Eritrea has met with mixedresults. Although there are infamous cases of soil block homes which could notwithstand the rainy season, there are also examples of soil block construction which haslasted several years. The keys to proper use of soil block include: proper materialselection, testing of stabilized blocks, proper training in production of blocks andconstruction techniques, and expert site supervision. In developing an affordablehousing program, these activities must be built into the implementation. In addition,both government officials and beneficiaries may be skeptical regarding the use of soilblocks, and may need extensive explanation and demonstration of the potential cost-savings, and the technical feasibility, of proper soil block construction.

Finally, regardless of the construction materials and implementation modes used, anyshelter provision program must include expert oversight by qualified professionals toensure the quality and safety of shelters constructed. Although proper managementand oversight involves additional costs up-front, in the long run it can reduce costs byavoiding errors or poor implementation which must be re-done. Quality control appliesto all aspects of implementation, including production/processing of local materials (e.g.soil block production) as well as on-site supervision of shelter construction.

Attachment

1. Affordable Homes for IDPs in Debub and Gash Barka Survey Report, M&YConsulting Architects, Engineers & Planners, June 2004.

Documents

1525 File Eritrea Housing Study