Women’s Participation in Disaster Relief and Recoveryby Ayse Yonder with Sengul Akcar and Prema Gopalan

Women’s Participation in Disaster Relief andRecoveryby Ayse Yonder with Sengul Akcar and Prema Gopalan

About the AuthorsAyse Yonder is Professor of City and Regional Planningat the Graduate Center for Planning and the Environ-ment, Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, New York. Her re-search and publications focus on informal land andhousing markets and community development. Shestarted working on postdisaster planning issues afterthe 1999 Marmara earthquake in Turkey. Sengul Akcar

and Prema Gopalan are founding and current execu-tive directors of the two NGOs featured in this edition,KEDV, Istanbul, Turkey, and SSP, Mumbai, India.

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page i

is a pamphletseries devel-oped to meetrequests from

all over the world for information aboutinnovative and practical program ideasadvanced to address the economic rolesand needs of low-income women. Thepamphlets are designed as a means toshare information and to spark new ini-tiatives based on positive experiencesfrom projects that are working to helpwomen generate livelihoods and toimprove their economic status. The pro-jects described in this and other issuesof SEEDS have been selected becausethey have served not only to strengthenwomen’s productive roles but also tointegrate women into various sectors ofsocial and economic development. All

projects documented in the SEEDSseries involve women in decisionmaking,organize women locally, and addressbroader policy issues that affect the eco-nomic roles of women.

These reports are not meant to beprescriptive, because every developmenteffort will face different problems andpossibilities. Rather, they have been writ-ten to describe the history of an idea andits implementation in the hope that thelessons learned can be useful in a varietyof settings. They are also being written tobring to the attention of those in deci-sionmaking positions the vital roles thatwomen play not only in the economies oftheir individual households but also inthe economic life of every nation.

This edition of SEEDS is made possi-ble by support of the Ford Foundationand the Population Council.

The Population Council is an international, nonprofit, nongovernmental organization thatseeks to improve the well-being and reproductive health of current and future generationsaround the world and to help achieve a humane, equitable, and sustainable balance betweenpeople and resources. The Council conducts biomedical, social science, and public healthresearch and helps build research capacities in developing countries. Established in 1952,the Council is governed by an international board of trustees. Its New York headquarterssupports a global network of regional and country offices.

Population Council, One Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, New York, New York 10017 USATel: (212) 339-0500, fax: (212) 755-6052E-mail: pubinfo@popcouncil.org or seedseditor@gmail.comhttp://www.popcouncil.org/publications/seeds/seeds.html

Any part of this publication may be copied or adapted to meet local needs without permis-sion from the Population Council, provided that the parts copied are distributed free or atcost (not for profit) and that the source is identified. The Population Council would appre-ciate receiving a copy of any materials in which the text is used.

Number 22, 2005 ISSN: 073-6833

Copyright © 2005 The Population Council, Inc.

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page ii

Number 22, 2005 • 1

Foreword

SEEDS is pleased to publish its twenty-second pamphlet: Women’s Participation

in Disaster Relief and Recovery byProfessor Ayse Yonder with Sengul Akcarand Prema Gopalan.

Since this pamphlet was researched andprepared, the world has been reshapeddramatically by natural disasters. In lateDecember 2004, a record-breaking earth-quake in the Indian Ocean produced apowerful tsunami killing more than225,000 people and forcing more than 1.2million people from their homes in sevenAsian countries, in Somalia, and in partsof East Africa (UNICEF 2005). Monthslater, in July 2005, two successive hurri-canes—Dennis and Emily—struck anumber of Caribbean islands, Mexico,and the Gulf Coast of the United States.Although the loss of lives was minimal,the economic loss was severe—in excessof five billion dollars (of which half wasborne by the Caribbean).

The past three decades of disasterrelief and reconstruction efforts bear evi-dence that the poor are the most vulner-able and the most severely harmed bysuch events. Yet too little attention hasbeen given to the gender-differentiatedeffects of natural disasters, that is, wom-en’s losses relative to men’s, how wom-en’s work time and conditions change (bothin terms of care-giving and income-gen-erating work), or how disaster-related aidand entitlement programs include or mar-ginalize affected women. Similarly, fewpractical examples can be found show-ing how affected low-income women can

participate in postdisaster relief and re-covery and secure decent housing, liveli-hoods, and the restoration of basic serv-ices for themselves and for their families.

The detailed case studies from threeearthquake-stricken areas in India andTurkey that are contained in this SEEDSpamphlet help fill this information gap.They provide examples of how low-incomewomen who have lost everything can formgroups and become active participants inthe relief and recovery process. Readerslearn how women became involved inhousing, created businesses, mobilizedfunds, and provided crucial communityservices.1 The pamphlet also examinesthe roles that NGOs and governmentpolicy and procedures play in facilitating(or impeding) women’s involvement.

The structural barriers to reformingdisaster aid and recovery programs torespond to the realities and needs of low-income women are substantial. Yet Wom-

en’s Participation in Disaster Relief and

Recovery indicates that when grassrootswomen’s groups can form networks totransfer and scale up their innovativeapproaches across many poor communi-ties, these networks can also press forthe political and policy change that isrequired (see SEEDS editions 18 and 20for other examples). The case studiessuggest that as the numbers of disastersincrease, donors would do well to investin the collective organizing power of af-fected women.

— Sandy Schilen, SEEDS Editor

1 The women’s groups featured in the pamphlet were documented at particular points in time. They con-tinue to organize and experience gains and losses. For current information on their activities, contactgrootsss@gmail.com.

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 1

Natural Disasters:A Growing DevelopmentChallenge for PoorWomen and TheirCommunities

Disasters destroy lives, disrupt the social,economic, and political fabric of commu-nities, and can erase decades of develop-ment gains, sometimes in a matter of min-utes.1 Today, despite increased invest-ments and advances in hazard-manage-ment technology, human and economiclosses from natural disasters are risingannually worldwide. Natural events, com-mon in the developed North as well as thedeveloping South, turn into disasterswhen conditions of vulnerability (poverty,insecure housing, overcrowding, rapid ratesof urbanization) compound the damage(Hewitt 1998; Davis 1999). The combina-tion produces devastating results: Devel-oping countries account for 95 percent ofall deaths caused by such disasters andsuffer losses that are 20 times greater (asa percent of gross domestic product) thanthose of industrial countries experiencingsimilar events (World Bank Group 2005).

Natural disasters are multiplying de-velopment problems across the develop-ing world. Table 1 lists some of the recentlosses from earthquakes, hurricanes,cyclones, and floods in Asia, the Ca-ribbean, Latin America, and the MiddleEast. Losses from natural hazards areexpected to rise with increasing rates ofurbanization and to occur in the largest

metropolitan areas of the world, alllocated in the South (Smith 1996).

At the local level, disasters compoundsocial exclusion and existing vulnerabili-ties, disproportionately taxing the poor,women, and children. The United NationsHandbook for Estimating the Socio-

economic and Environmental Effects

of Disaster (2003) emphasizes that oneconsequence of disaster “is the decapi-talization of women and the reduction oftheir share of productive activities in theformal and informal sectors.” Women aredisadvantaged in two ways:

Not only do they sustain direct dam-

ages or production losses (housing

and means of production), but they

also . . . lose income when they have

to apply themselves temporarily to

unpaid emergency tasks and an in-

creased amount of unpaid reproduc-

tive work, such as caring for their

children when schools are closed . . .

Such reproductive work is usually

granted a lower status than paid

work . . . . It is also a continuous job

. . . which limits women’s mobility

and can sometimes even prevent

them from exercising their rights as

citizens. (p. 46)

According to this research, womensuffer four types of indirect losses fol-lowing disasters:

• Loss of productive employment out-side the home (domestic, industrial,or commercial);

• Loss of household production andincome (including that of the back-

2 • S E E D S

Women’s Participation in Disaster Relief and Recoveryby Ayse Yonderwith Sengul Akcar and Prema Gopalan

1 Disasters are categorized in two ways: “natural” disasters, a term that traditionally refers to earthquakes,cyclones, volcanic eruptions, floods, landslides, and “man-made” disasters, which include wars, riots, indus-trial and biological accidents, droughts, famines, and epidemics.

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 2

Number 22, 2005 • 3

yard economy and of small business-es run by women from their homes);

• Increase in reproductive work; and

• Other economic damage resultingfrom outstanding debts or loans.

Women’s restricted mobility and ac-cess to assets and resources make theirlinks to everyday survival precarious andincrease their vulnerability before, dur-ing, and after disasters (UN/ISDR 2001).

Although natural disasters vary in ori-gin, in suddenness, and in predictability(with regional drought in Africa develop-ing slowly, for example, in contrast to therapid massing of a hurricane), disasterresponse commonly divides into short-and longer-term stages. Although eachdisaster is unique, response efforts tend tooccur in phases: search and rescue, im-mediate relief (for immediate medicalhelp, shelter, sanitation, and food), recon-struction and recovery, and long-termdevelopment. The immediate relief stageincludes offering assistance to lessenhuman suffering and providing disaster-affected families with help and supplies tomeet their basic daily needs. Relief activi-ties typically include providing food, water,sanitation, temporary housing, psycholog-ical and social support, and basic healthservices in impermanent settings (forexample, tent cities). This stage can lastfrom three months to a year, depending onlocal conditions, and engage a range ofinternational and local nongovernmental(NGOs) and governmental organizations.

Reconstruction and recovery are stagesof postdisaster response following relief.Typical priorities in this period includerelocation of affected communities to safer,sturdier temporary housing (for example,prefabricated settlements); large-scale re-pair and construction of permanent hous-ing; restoration of running water, elec-tricity, and sanitation; and establishmentof community health and education facil-ities. Relief efforts also include restoringfood supplies (and food security in ruralareas) and commercial activities. Thisstage typically lasts two to three years,depending on the level of damage sus-

Table 1 A Selective Review of the Losses from Recent Natural Disasters inDeveloping CountriesLocation (year) Type of disaster Estimated deaths Estimated homeless

Sumatra, Indonesia (2004) Earthquake, tsunami 174,000 500-800,000a

Bam, Iran (2003) Earthquake 43,000 60,000 Gujarat, India (2001) Earthquake na 620,000Orissa, India (2001) Cyclone 10,000 naChina (2000) Floods na 1.5 millionVenezuela (1999) Floods/landslides 50,000 naCaribbean coast (1999) Hurricane na 200,000b

na = Not available.SSoouurrcceess:: a British Broadcasting Company (2005); b United Nations Commission on Human Settlements (UN-Habitat) (2001).

KE

DV,

Izm

it 1

999

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 3

4 • S E E D S

tained and access to resources, and itmarks a period when affected familiesneed clear information about entitlementsand other opportunities associated withrestoring their assets and livelihoods.

Community preparedness is the only

practical solution for poor countries

located in high-risk areas. The locals

are the ones who can bring any effec-

tive help in the first few hours, and it

is their capacity that has to be

strengthened. This is less heroic than

flying in after the event waving fist-

fuls of dollars, but it is cheaper and

demonstrably effective (IFRC 2001).

Across these stages, serious problemsarise over what, when, and how disasteraid is delivered. International agencies andnational governments typically provideemergency assistance in a top-down man-ner that reduces affected people to victimsand passive recipients of aid. In a periodwhen community involvement and coop-eration could be encouraged and survivorscould regain a measure of self-reliance byparticipating in setting priorities and dis-tributing supplies, information, and workduring the relief stage, agencies behave asbenefactors and do things for, not with,survivors. This behavior wastes fundsand fosters dependency and cynicismwithin affected communities—problemsthat carry over to the recovery stage.

Emergency relief and aid processesparticularly disadvantage women whomust organize food provision, shelter,and child and family care according tochaotic aid-delivery systems and entitle-ment procedures that rarely take theirwork or opinions into account. Althoughwomen commonly organize themselvesto distribute supplies, establish shelter,and pool labor and resources to createcommunity support services to meet basicfamily needs in the emergency period,their efforts are often invisible or go un-acknowledged. For instance, after Hurri-cane Mitch hit Central America, “mostrelief workers expressed surprise at the

range of women’s involvement, (but) somepurposely excluded women from activi-ties based on their assumptions aboutgender roles” (Delaney and Schrader2000:16). Whether by neglect or intent“field accounts amply demonstrate howunwritten and unexamined policies andpractices disadvantage women, exclud-ing them from food distribution systems .. . limiting their access to paid relief workprograms, or excluding women survivorsfrom decision-making positions in reliefprograms” (Enarson 2004:13).

Poor women face a number of hurdlesin applying and qualifying for aid, includ-ing limited literacy, limited access toinformation on how to apply and navi-gate the bureaucracy, and eligibilityrequirements that exclude them. Morefrequently than not, entitlement guide-lines in the relief and rehabilitation stagefavor men over women, giving priority toproperty owners, tenants of record,bank-account holders, and perceivedheads of households. Where employmentassistance concentrates on workers inthe formal economy and business aid isawarded to formal enterprises, women’seconomic position is eroded further.

In the reconstruction period, entitle-ment programs focus on individuals andtheir loss of property. This approachfavors owners in affected communitiesand geographical regions and excludesor harms nonowners (the poor, women,and ethnic and other minorities). It alsoassigns priority to bricks-and-mortarprograms to build housing, infrastruc-ture, and business and tourist facilities,neglecting the priorities of the poor, whorely on informal economic subsistenceactivities and collective pooling of re-sources to survive and cope with crisis.

Although it is well documented thatwomen’s economic losses during disas-ter can be extensive, conventional disas-ter response has not been adapted totake women’s productive and reproduc-tive activities into account or to reflect

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 4

Number 22, 2005 • 5

how important housing and informallyheld resources and assets are to women’ssecurity. As a consequence, postdisasteraid and investments generally under-mine women’s collective capacity to sur-mount day-to-day problems and erodetheir economic base. As Enarson (2004:14–15 notes:

Women’s work is heavily impacted

by disasters, and their economic

losses can be extensive. Domestic

work increases enormously when

support systems such as child care,

schools, clinics, public transporta-

tion and family networks are dis-

rupted or destroyed. Damaged living

spaces are damaged working spaces

for all women. For those whose in-

come is based on homework, the loss

of housing often means the loss of

workspace, tools, equipment, inven-

tory, supplies and markets. [In addi-tion,] domestic violence appears to

increase when men’s sense of control

is diminished in disasters.

What conventional rescue and recov-ery programs that focus on delivery offood and supplies, large-scale construc-tion projects, and environmental engi-neering programs fail to recognize is thatwomen’s participation in decisionmaking

in all these undertakings could go a longway to sustain community recovery onceemergency measures are lifted.

Reshaping DisasterResponse To EstablishOpportunities forWomen andCommunities

Postdisaster response and recovery pro-grams represent huge investments bydevelopment and humanitarian reliefagencies. Since 1980, the World Bankalone has invested “about $35 billiondollars in loan commitments for projectsthat included at least one disaster com-ponent” (World Bank 2004:1). As devas-tating as natural disasters are, they canbecome focusing events, leading toimproved future development:

Disasters should also be seen as an

opportunity to improve pre-existing

conditions, including sex equity.

Reconstruction, therefore, should

not be thought of simply as a process

of replacing what has been lost, but

also as an opportunity to perform

actions that make the most under-

Yond

er, A

dapa

zari

199

9

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 5

6 • S E E D S

privileged groups less vulnerable,

favor sex equity and improve living

conditions for women, especially

those who are heads of households.

(UNECLAC 2003:45)

Postdisaster recovery can be seen as anopportunity to channel and leverageinvestments to upgrade the living stan-dards of the poor, to enable the most mar-ginalized to participate, and to establishdialogue mechanisms between affectedcitizens and government to fosteraccountability. It is a chance to “build backbetter” and apply principles of sustainabledevelopment and hazard reduction tocommunities and regions that are likely toremain at high risk of future disasters. Toencourage such an approach, analyzinghow the various stages of disaster re-sponse could be redesigned, is important.

During the relief phase, an infusion offunds and technical assistance oftenflows to the area, conventional rules andpractices are questioned, and previouslyexcluded groups—such as ethnic minori-ties and poor women—are informallyinvolved and take on new roles. Disastersliterally push women out of the confinesof their homes and neighborhoods andlead them to take on nontraditional roles

in the name of insuring their families’survival and well-being. For example,after Hurricane Mitch, women in Nicara-gua and Honduras hauled cement anddug out wells; built temporary shelters,latrines, and temporary water-collectionsystems; and hauled away damagedfences, roof material, and agricultural im-plements (Delaney and Schrader 2000).

In many other recent postdisasterrecovery situations, including those inIndia, Jamaica, and Mexico, women havebeen active in rebuilding their communi-ties. Field reports confirm that womentake the initiative in calling grassrootscommunity meetings and organizing dis-aster-response coalitions (Enarson andMorrow 1998). They outnumber men inthe leadership and membership of emer-gent grassroots groups working on disas-ter issues (Fothergill 1998; Enarson 2002).Analyses of the Mano community inKobe, Japan, and of the Mulukutu com-munity of Nicaragua, for example, havesuggested that those communities withpre-existing strong organizations and/orwomen’s groups were able to respondquickly, mobilize community resourcesefficiently, and reduce the amount ofdamage when disasters struck.

Yond

er, A

dapa

zari

199

9

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 6

Number 22, 2005 • 7

Even in marginalized communities,natural disasters such as floods and hur-ricanes have inspired women living in ex-treme poverty to take action and organizetheir own self-help initiatives. For exam-ple, in Honduras, the Garifuna, an ethnicgroup of African descent watched theiralready poor communities be decimatedwhen Hurricane Mitch swept the countryin October 1998. Aid and relief programsdid not reach their isolated North Atlanticcoastal town and villages, and residentswere forced to fend for themselves.

The Emergency Committee of Gari-funa (Comite de Emergencía Garifuna)was formed right after the hurricanestruck by a small group of communityresidents in Santa Rosa—eight womenand four men. Deciding to work togetherand pool their limited resources, theystarted by going in boats to save thosestranded in high waters and by sharingthe food they had. The group quicklyexpanded and started working on a rangeof livelihood, community development,and governance initiatives. Women whohad lost all their crops organized smallcooperatives to pool their few resourcesand cultivate their land together. In re-mote areas, people who had lost nets andother fishing equipment began workingin groups and giving part of their catchto the committee to distribute to those inneed. Instead of approaching the author-ities for aid to build houses one by one,14 single mothers whose homes weredestroyed banded together to set up newhomes. Within a year, they were fightingopportunistic efforts to grab Garifunaland along the coast, including a pro-posed constitutional amendment thatwould have opened the coast to multina-tional corporations and large-scaletourist development.

Six years after the Mitch disaster, theComite operates from an office in thesettlements of Trujillo, but women stillmeet regularly in each other’s homes orat the community center to discuss their

work, and they travel to other Garifunacommunities along the coast to supportthem in improving local conditions.Focused on food security, they organizefishing and the planting of banana andyucca, and they operate communityseed and tool banks for collective sup-port. To guard against future catastro-phe, they have bought land to relocatesome villages to higher ground and invit-ed trainers from the Jamaican Women’sConstruction Collective who taughtdozens of residents to identify and buildhurricane-safe roofing in 2004. The sameyear, the United Nations DevelopmentProgram’s Equator Initiative Programselected this community-based organi-zation as one of 26 best global practicesin community involvement in managingnatural resources and promoting sus-tainable livelihoods and environments.

Yet far more information is needed tobring about a shift in disaster responseand investment toward poor communi-ties and the women struggling to reorga-nize daily life in them. To date few, if any,in-depth case studies have documentedlong-term development-oriented disas-ter responses organized by women’sgroups over an extended period. Little isknown about practical ways of support-ing and sustaining women’s participationfor a three-to-six-year period in commu-nities’ emergency assistance, recovery,and hazard-reduction initiatives.

Supporting AffectedWomen in EarthquakeRecovery: TwoInnovative NGOs inIndia and Turkey

In the following sections, we presentcase studies from India and Turkey thataddress the gap in information and thatprovide a clear indication of what hasalready been done and how much moreis possible.

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 7

8 • S E E D S

These case studies describe howgroups of local women formed and orga-nized to secure housing, livelihood activ-ities, and basic services after earth-quakes struck two states of India (Maha-rashtra and Gujarat) and the MarmaraRegion of Turkey. In both countries,women-focused, nongovernmental orga-nizations from outside the devastatedareas (Swayam Shikshan Prayog, or SSP,in India and Kadin Emegini Degerlen-dirme Vakfi, or KEDV, in Turkey) reachedout to and organized local women’s groupsto enable women to participate in reliefand recovery processes and to build theskills and capacities necessary to sustaintheir involvement. Because many NGOSoffer direct services to communities rath-er than facilitate community participa-tion, it is useful to examine the origins,shared approach, strategies, and work-ing styles of the Indian and Turkish orga-nizations involved. Such an examinationilluminates ways in which NGOs canwork differently to support and sustainwomen’s involvement from postdisasterrecovery to long-term development.

Swayam Shikshan Prayog (translatedas “learning from one’s own and others’experiences”) in India and the KadinEmegini Degerlendirme Vakfi (translat-ed as “the foundation for the support ofwomen’s work”) in Turkey, are two non-profit organizations founded in the 1980s,each having more than 15 years’ experi-ence working with women and poor com-

munities. Both organizations grew out ofsocial movements in their countries andfocused on helping women organize eco-nomic activities and participate in localdevelopment. Although SSP is primarilyrural and KEDV is focused on urbanareas,2 they share an approach to work-ing with women that includes the follow-ing elements:

• They function as technical andfinancial resource partners to helplocal women’s groups organize, plan,and implement long-term initiatives.

• They leverage funds, identify innov-ative grassroots practice, and teachmethods that allow women’s groupsto participate in and lead communi-ty-to-community learning exchanges.Both groups believe women’s ef-fectiveness is strengthened by expo-sure to successful peer initiatives.

• They work with, and have the re-spect of local authorities, govern-ment officials, and other decision-makers. And, in conjunction withwomen’s groups, they both worked tosharpen decisionmakers’ apprecia-tion of women’s contributions to re-lief and reconstruction programs.Most importantly, they persuadegovernment officials to establish for-mal protocols and mandates thatrecognize and provide resources forwomen’s involvement.

2 SSP reflects the existence of a mature NGO sector in India that emerged along with the Indian govern-ment’s antipoverty programs and efforts designed to assist poor women. Many of these organizations havetheir roots in the Ghandian movement that began during Indian Independence in the late 1940s and in astrong Indian women’s movement. In the 1980s, international funding encouraged a proliferation of newtypes of autonomous, decentralized women’s organizations that were critical of the social welfare approachand that focused on the empowerment of women at the local level. Most of these groups worked with mahila

mandals (women’s collectives in rural areas that were set up by the government and by NGOs). KEDVgrew out of the 1980s feminist movement in Turkey, when, for the first time, several new groups emergedthat were independent of political parties or labor unions. Some of these groups took up issues of politicalrepresentation while others concentrated on the issue of violence in society, especially violence againstwomen. The 1980s in Turkey was also a period of structural adjustment policies under a military regime,during which wage levels dropped, income polarization reached unprecedented levels, and more womenentered the labor force under increasingly insecure and marginal conditions, without benefits or supportservices. KEDV was unique among the feminist groups in its choice to work with poor women in settlement-based centers on their social, economic, and community development concerns.

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 8

Number 22, 2005 • 9

• They are committed to networkingand sharing their experiences withother community-based women’sgroups elsewhere that are involved indevelopment and disaster-responseinitiatives as a means of improvingtheir own programs and to pressingfor program and policy change thatwill create opportunities for poorwomen nationally and globally.

Both organizations try to disseminatethe lessons they have learned, informingpolicy design through advocacy and dia-logue with major policymakers and fund-ing agencies locally, nationally, andinternationally.

The two organizations became ac-quainted in 1996 when they participatedin the United Nations Habitat Confer-ence in Istanbul. KEDV was chairing theNGO host committee and SSP was activein workshops on women’s initiatives inhuman settlements. Both groups arealso members of the GROOTS Interna-tional network,3 so they came togetheragain in 1999 when SSP hosted aGROOTS exchange in India, enablingKEDV leaders to see how the women’sgroups organized after the earthquake inMaharashtra. This exposure and infor-mation was invaluable when an earth-quake struck Turkey later the same year,and it intensified bonds and direct collab-oration between the two organizations.

Although SSP and KEDV used differ-ent strategies to help women participatein the postdisaster recovery processes,both groups saw disaster response as an

opportunity for instituting positive changein long-term development of poor andworking-class communities. They recog-nized that significant government andinternational resources were being allo-cated to the earthquake areas and thatthe crisis created new possibilities forcollaboration among community groups,NGOs, and the government. They alsosaw major mistakes being made andresources wasted and knew that poorwomen would suffer the most if thiswaste continued. SSP and KEDV seizedthe opportunity to support women inorganizing and participating in thereconstruction and development pro-cess. Together, their partnership withcommunity women’s groups offers adetailed overview of the potential forwomen’s involvement in postdisasterrecovery and reconstruction.

The case studies described belowpresent women’s experiences with earth-quake recovery in chronological order,starting with the 1993 Maharashtra earth-quake and women’s work repairing andstrengthening houses. A description ofwomen’s efforts to establish centers forwomen and children following the earth-quake in the Marmara region of Turkeyin 1999 follows. The examples concludewith an account of women in Gujarat,India, who became active following the2000 earthquake there when SSP andthe grassroots women’s groups fromMaharashtra traveled to this neighboringstate to share experiences and pledgelong-term assistance.

3 Grassroots Organizations Operating Together in Sisterhood (GROOTS) International is a global network,established in 1989, by autonomous locally focused grassroots women’s organizations and NGOs working inpoor communities around the world. Members share an interest in increasing opportunities for peer learn-ing among grassroots women’s groups, promoting a new development knowledge base, generated fromwomen’s experiences and practices, and in engaging systems of public power to promote a shift in gover-nance strategies to include low-income women. In the context of postdisaster response, GROOTS is link-ing groups who share a vision of engaging women in redevelopment and in processes that prevent futurehazards from devastating the poor communities. It sponsored the majority of community learning ex-changes described in this pamphlet, and with a sister coalition, the Huairou Commission, is working withmultilateral institutions and innovative donors to change policy and programming to ensure that womenparticipate in postdisaster response and mitigation initiatives. Specific elements of this advocacy are out-lined in the conclusion. For more information, see http://www.groots.org or http://www.huairou.org.

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 9

Centering Women’sParticipation inReconstruction Effortsin India: The SSPExperience inMaharashtra

India is one of the most disaster-proneregions in the world. Floods, cyclones,droughts, and earthquakes hit South Asiaevery year, causing substantial humanand material losses. About 57 percent ofIndia, mostly in the northern Himalayanregion and the Deccan plateau in thesouthern and central sections, is proneto earthquakes (Parasuraman and Unni-krishnan 2000).

In the past 12 years, two major earth-quakes devastated communities in thewest/central section of the country. On30 September 1993, an earthquake witha magnitude of 6.3 on the seismic scalehit the Latur and Osmanabad districts inthe Marathwada region of MaharashtraState. Fifteen hundred villages lay in theepicenter of the quake, and 69 of themwere totally destroyed. Official figuresplaced the death toll near 8,000 and thenumber of those injured at 16,000. Ma-terial losses included more than 200,000houses categorized as seriously dam-aged. Eight years later, another earth-quake with a magnitude of 8.0 hit theBhuj District in neighboring GujaratState on 26 January 2001, disruptinglives in more than 620,000 households incities and villages and resulting in thedeaths of more than 20,000 people.

The Maharashtran StateGovernment’s RecoveryPrograms in the MarathwadaRegionNationally and at the state level, India hadnever faced a calamity as large as the 1993Marathwada regional earthquake. Thefive-year rehabilitation program, launchedby the Government of Maharashtra with

10 • S E E D S

World Bank support, estimated to costUS$216 million, was one of the largest inthe country’s history (Martin 2003). Thegovernment decided to relocate the vil-lages hit hardest by the earthquake tonew settlements and invited private andvoluntary agencies to build the new hous-es and requisite infrastructure. For the1,300 villages that were partially dam-aged, the government launched the Re-pair and Strengthening Program (R&S)to rehabilitate as many damaged housesas possible. Accounting for the largestshare of government aid, the R&S pro-gram was designed as a homeowner-driven, self-help initiative that offeredeach affected family a grant of 17,000rupees (approximately US$425) towardthe repair of their dwelling. Participatingfamilies were offered payments in stagesif they provided family labor, additionalmaterials and transport, and hiredmasons, and supervised the repair andstrengthening of their houses.

From the outset, the program hadproblems. Access to information, techni-cal support, and coordination were majorobstacles. By giving subsidies for repairwork to individual homeowners ratherthan to community groups, the programencouraged patronage, competition, andcorruption. For example, politicians tookcontrol of identifying and listing whichhouseholds were eligible for subsidies.Those homeowners who accepted thesubsidy and began the repair process,found that masons were overchargingthem or providing faulty construction.The appointment of more than a thou-sand government engineers to overseeand expedite reconstruction compound-ed the situation. Many engineers demand-ed bribes to provide homeowners withthe certification they needed to qualifyfor additional payments, and the majoritywere unwilling to share information, trainhomeowners, or resolve problems.

Although “people-friendly” policiesand community participation were in-

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 10

Number 22, 2005 • 11

tended to be innovative aspects of thisprogram, neither the World Bank nor thegovernment transferred decisionmakingpower or resources in a manner thatenabled village committees to form andfunction. Gender concerns also were miss-ing from the reconstruction and commu-nity-participation strategies. Despitewomen’s central role in the home andtheir related work, they were categori-cally ignored and socially excluded fromplanning, design, and repair processesassociated with the recovery of theirhomes and local communities.

Meanwhile, tremors continued for ayear after the quake, and many home-owners began to doubt that their tradi-tional mud-roof and stone-wall housescould be made safe. Lacking informationon construction technology and new de-sign features, many believed that theyneeded new concrete houses and reject-ed the Repair and Strengthening Pro-

gram. In village after village, people werefrustrated and mistrustful of the com-plexities of the reconstruction process;the R&S program was coming to a stand-still, and the government’s credibilitywas at stake.

In late 1994, the state government ofMaharashtra appointed Swayam ShikshanPrayog (see Box 1) as its consultant toinsure community participation in theRepair and Strengthening Program in300 Latur and Osmanabad villages. Thisassignment required SSP to balance itsrole as an advisor to the state with itsidentity as an NGO committed to transfer-ring decisionmaking power to local com-munities and especially to women. Thetime pressure to move villagers back intosafe housing was great because it requiredSSP to find practical and innovative waysfor the residents of 300 villages to learn,cooperate, and apply new technology andconstruction techniques rapidly.

Swayam Shikshan Prayog (SSP) was formal-ly established as an NGO in 1988 to buildthe capacities of rural women’s groups to ac-cess and manage development resourcesand to participate in decisionmaking pro-cesses affecting their families and communi-ties. SSP’s program experience was devel-oped in the late 1980s in a pilot collabora-tive effort with the government to enhancewomen’s economic participation in an exist-ing antipoverty program (DWCRA), fundedby UNICEF (the United Nations Children’sFund) and the national and state govern-ments. SSP facilitated a dialogue betweencommunity-based women’s groups and localgovernment officials in six districts in theMarathwada region of Maharasthra State.During this period, SSP piloted methodssuch as districtwide information fairs andcommunity-to-community exchanges and

dialogues for women designed to help themto learn to work with banks and governmentagencies.

Today SSP, with a staff of more than 60,partners with women's collectives and com-munities across 889 villages, including 1,680savings and credit groups that representmore than 22,000 female members. Thesewomen’s groups address urgent issues suchas credit, food security, water and sanita-tion, health, education, and social infra-structure by initiating demonstration pro-jects, community planning, and skills train-ing, and by increasing their participation inlocal governance. To support these efforts,SSP, with headquarters in Bombay, operatesfield centers in the Maharashtran districts ofAmaravati, Beed, Latur, Nanded, Osmana-bad, Solapur, and the Gujarat districts ofJamnagar and Kutch.

Box 1

Swayam Shikshan Prayog (SSP):A Maharashtran NGO Strengthening theOrganizational Capacity of Rural Women and Their Role in Local Development

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 11

12 • S E E D S

Marathwadi Women’sInvolvement in Recovery andReconstruction

When the government appointed SSP tofacilitate community participation, itsstaff—community organizers, engineers,and others—first looked at what hadgone wrong or “gone missing.” Throughinterviews, village mapping, and the useof rapid-appraisal techniques, they creat-ed a picture of the problems as well asthe potential. The government authori-ties clearly lacked a common view of howto implement the program and whatroles should be played by those involved(district officials, engineers, local gov-ernments, and affected residents). Vil-lage officials and homeowners lacked notonly basic information but also opportu-nities to discuss and evaluate what washappening. In response to these prob-lems, SSP undertook two concrete tasks:training government officials to dissemi-nate information and facilitate bureau-cratic processes (such as entitlement andprocurement) and identifying communi-ty groups that could catalyze and engagelocal residents.

The latter task led SSP to decide torevive and reorient the government-established women’s groups (mahila

mandals) as community agents forinvolving households in the Repair andStrengthening Program. By means of alarge-scale publicity campaign (pam-phlets and newspaper and radio ad-vertisements), meetings were organizedwith 500 women’s groups throughout thetwo affected districts. Large numbers ofwomen gathered for these events. Theyevaluated the current program and dis-cussed how women’s groups could takethe lead in creating visible communityprocesses for participation. From this dis-cussion, the idea emerged that women’sgroups would nominate members to makeup a team to work as official village infor-mation and communication assistants

(samvad sahayaks) within the R&S pro-gram. To formalize these positions, SSPnegotiated with the government so thatthe state, not SSP, would pay the samvadsahayaks to work in this capacity. In thisway, the mahila mandals were recognizedformally as the official interface betweenthe communities and the governmentadministration. Between April 1996 andMarch 1998, 300 samvad sahayaks wereappointed in as many villages.

Managing large-scale homerepair programs

In a mistrustful, deadline-driven, and ini-tially hostile environment, the women’sgroups had to prove that they could in-form, motivate, and supervise local home-owners. To prepare them for this assign-ment, SSP provided hands-on leadershiptraining with more than 1,000 villagewomen appointed by the mahila mandals.(Larger teams of women were created tosupport the 300 women officially namedby the government.) Women were taughtthe basic construction techniques usedfor adapting and strengthening tradition-al village houses and learned how thistype of construction would protect resi-dents from future tremors. The informa-tion assistants and women’s groups tooktheir responsibilities to homeowners andcommunity groups seriously and workedto ensure that people knew how to accessand use their entitlements and under-stood and were able to supervise the useof earthquake-safe features in construc-tion and make use of appropriate tech-nology and local resources. They worked,as well, to involve women in planningand designing their houses and interact-ed with government agencies on behalfof their communities.

“Women were initially ridiculed.

‘Oh, you have now become an engi-

neer,’ [they would say].”

—Suman, samvad sahayak in Usturi

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 12

Number 22, 2005 • 13

To accomplish these goals, the wom-en’s collectives organized themselvesinto teams to map and survey householdsin their villages. Visiting and interview-ing neighboring homeowners, especiallywomen, gave them a clear picture of sit-uations in the villages and of the needs oftheir constituents. (See Box 2.)

As the women began to assume visibleleadership positions, the women’s groupsfaced dual and persistent challenges bothto empower themselves and to build con-sensus among village residents and col-laborating officials. For example, a num-ber of women appointed as samvad sa-hayaks traveled to the first orientation

Participatory mapping is a useful andenjoyable exercise to bring women into adiscussion of the concerns they have abouttheir settlements and basic services. Whiledrawing the map and discussing problems,women have a chance to take a focusedlook at their community. Mapping beginsby drawing the most familiar elements—the main road, houses, the school, the tem-ple, and the shops. Some women becomeaware for the first time where their settle-ments are in relation to where the marketis, where the water resources are, whetherthere are any vacant lots or houses, who

lives where, and who obtained what fromthe government. It prompts them to talkabout the condition of the community facil-ities, the power structure of the communi-ty, and how resources are allocated.

Once all the information has been col-lected and mapped, the next step is to dis-cuss women’s priorities and organize a planof action. One benefit of the mapping exer-cise is to prepare women to read technicalmaps and plans. As valuable sources ofdata and visual support, the maps helpwomen in their negotiations with govern-ment officials and technical staff.

Box 2

Women and Participatory Mapping:A First Step Toward Planning Settlements

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 13

14 • S E E D S

meeting accompanied by male membersof their families, explaining that thismade them feel more secure. Yet somemen—family members and village lead-ers—hindered rather than helped womenassume their new public roles, ex-pressing shock that “the governmentcould actually offer jobs to women.”Engineers and bankers often withheldinformation from the leaders or simplyturned them away, and masons common-ly thwarted women’s efforts to supervisetheir work.

These realities required SSP to makeinvestments in a range of simple strate-gies to help women counter social hos-tility and promote public responsivenessto the urgency of repairing local houses.Women organized themselves to:

• work in a team, never alone;

• speak with everyone in the village,regardless of caste, age, or genderto publicly foster an open, inclusive,approach;

• support local village assemblies (gram

sabhas) to function as informed, pro-active, problem-solving bodies; and

• speak frankly and directly aboutproblems (such as shortages, cor-ruption, and lack of information).

The groups held informal meetings invillage lanes to bring women (especiallythose from poor and lower-caste fami-lies) out of their homes to discuss theirconcerns about the R&S process. Theyalso used biweekly village council meet-ings and assemblies to share informationabout aid to homeowners and programprogress and to register how water andtransportation shortages and similarproblems were blocking house repairs.When confronting hostility or corruption,teams of women would approach house-holds or officials and speak directly, nomatter how high up in the hierarchy theproblem occurred. Women from Usturi,

for example, went directly to top districtofficials to complain about a junior engi-neer who was taking bribes and to insistthat his lower-level colleagues were fullysupporting his behavior.

As women’s intention to improve thesituation became clear and officials wereforced to act, resistance lessened, andcooperation grew. Even masons and engi-neers became open to adapting the de-sign of houses to include features thatwomen householders considered priori-ties, including, bathrooms, semi-openspace between living room and bathroom,chimneys, strong shelves and containersfor grain storage, and corners for reli-gious offerings. Gradually, the repairedhouses began to incorporate these practi-cal elements as well as the traditionalwelcome symbols valued by the commu-nity. As villagers experienced being en-gaged as homeowners and partners (ra-ther than as victims or beneficiaries ofaid), trust and participation grew. Theybecame more active, donating labor, buy-ing materials with their own funds, andadvancing payment to hire masons andlaborers. The women’s groups up-scaledthese initiatives by promoting continuouscooperation among homeowners for pur-chasing and transporting materials inbulk and pooling their labor.

As this level of participation and part-nership increased, Swayam ShikshanPrayog realized that additional staff andtechnical support were needed to helpwomen multiply their gains and expandtheir involvement. With a team of engi-neers and expert masons, SSP established“leading villages” to demonstrate and im-plement the safest, most user-friendlyconstruction methods. Mahila mandalmembers as well as local masons receivedtraining in earthquake-safe techniquesand how to combine these with thedesign features that local women had re-quested. Within a village, the samvadsahayaks held regular meetings with

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 14

Number 22, 2005 • 15

homeowners, offering technical advice onhow to choose and purchase buildingmaterials collectively, design a house, andimplement new construction techniques.

These “leading villages” proved to bean effective means for connecting wom-en’s groups across communities as teamsof leaders routinely journeyed back andforth to learn firsthand how to apply newbuilding processes at home. Exposure toone village’s success energized others.Soon, groups of homeowners began tobuild houses collectively, sharing costs anddesigns and jointly dealing with the engi-neers and supervision of masons and otherlaborers. As people found self-help solu-tions to the shortage of masons, water, andcash, their problem-solving skills im-proved. They began to recycle materialsfrom their traditional houses—doors, win-dow frames, stones, bamboo, and sheets oftin. In several villages, women’s groups setup committees for accessing water, pur-

chasing materials, supervising construc-tion, and managing cash flow (includinghandling the documentation required toexpedite government payments).

Interacting with village, block,and district governments

Prior to the earthquake, women were notregularly included in local council meet-ings (nor did these meetings take placeregularly). To keep the repair process ontrack, however, women’s groups orga-nized community women to participatein village assemblies and prepared themto describe the problems of their house-holds to local leaders (gram panchayat

members) so that the leaders would beforced to respond with collective solu-tions and action. In several villageswhere local governments previously hadnot conducted village assemblies,women’s groups pressured local leaders

Yond

er, M

ahar

asht

ra, 1

999

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 15

16 • S E E D S

to do so. Women used these assembliesas public platforms for demandingchanges in procedures and governmentaccountability, and for pressuring influ-ential local men, including bankers, tosupport them.

Early in the reconstruction process,women’s groups had begun to meet withsenior district government officials (thedistrict is an administrative unit in chargeof dozens of villages) to report formallyon village problems and decisions. Overtime, they persuaded block and districtofficials to attend village assemblies reg-ularly in order to share information andmake decisions together with affectedfamilies.

The dramatic increase in women’sinteraction with engineers and govern-ment officials and their participation invillage assemblies and meetings pro-duced many benefits. Women helped toexpose and reduce local corruption andto promote greater public disclosure ofinformation and investments. They setan example by publicly displaying prog-ress charts, reviewing the goals and out-comes of meetings, and convening pub-lic dialogues between bureaucrats andaffected homeowners. The collaborationswomen promoted also saved money, ad-vanced public safety, and produced re-stored houses that included featuresthat reduced women’s domestic workand improved living conditions.

Since the women took the initiative to

engage themselves, the government

started understanding the problems

better. This engagement and experi-

ence helped us gain confidence.

—Rukmini Koli, former samvad saha-yah and former headwoman of Rajuri inOsmanabad

As local women gained a reputation asresource providers and problem-solvers,social relations also changed. Workingtogether across caste lines became more

acceptable, and traditional discriminationwas reduced. Officials’ became responsiveand proactive in addressing problems andcomplaints, and they trusted women’s in-formation. Community support for wom-en’s greater participation, both within andoutside of the family, helped strengthenwomen’s political identity. Within twoyears, women stood for local panchayatelections, with the support of their groups,to advance the community developmentthey had started.

Building and managing publiccenters

As the R&S program wound down inLatur and Osmanabad districts, the localwomen’s groups and SSP recognized theneed to take practical steps to ensurethat women stayed active in public life.In conversations between SSP and thegroups, the women outlined their desireto secure independent public centersthat they could manage and control.They envisioned these as permanent“public homes” that women’s groupsfrom five to nine nearby villages couldshare and operate as information, train-ing, and resource centers. They knewthat if they had their own space, theywould not have to negotiate with menfor access to public meeting spaces orconfine their activities to their homes.

These newly evolved public women’sinformation centers, known as mahila

mahiti kendras (MMK), required groupingenuity to start and quickly multipliedacross the two districts by the samelearning-by-doing-and-seeing methodsthat SSP had fostered in the past. Box 3summarizes some of the steps the groupin Usturi took to build their MMK.

As women’s demand for informationcenters grew, SSP arrived at a formulaby which local women’s groups were ex-pected to identify and negotiate for thenecessary land, provide the labor and

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 16

Number 22, 2005 • 17

some of the materials, and raise fundslocally. In turn, SSP would match a partof the funds collected for constructionand provide training in constructiontechniques.

In the years since the Maharashtranearthquake rehabilitation program offi-cially came to a close, the women’sgroups involved have sustained a highdegree of activism in local developmentprojects and in local governance. In Bel-wadi, where poor families were frequent-ly keeping their children, particularlygirls, out of school, the savings and cred-it groups began supporting an education

campaign that provided girls with loansfor bus fare, books, and school uniforms.By the end of the campaign, all of thegirls in the village were attending school.

The women’s group in Kajala villagecollaborates with local council memberson community sanitation and other de-velopment projects. Throughout the nar-row village, signs with slogans remindresidents to keep the village clean. Acommon washing area has been estab-lished, as has a garden of medicinalherbs. Residents claim that cleaning upthe village resulted in a significant re-duction in the incidence of malaria.

In Usturi village, the women’s group beganby surveying the vacant or unused avail-able land in the area. They approached thevice-sarpanch (village headman) to ask ifthe local government could contributeland, only to be offered plots that wereeither too small, unsafe, or in marshyareas. Their survey had revealed a large,unused piece of land adjacent to a temple.The plot included an existing structurethat could provide sufficient buildingmaterials for construction of their center.

The women contacted the owner, areligious figure living in Mumbai, and heagreed to donate his plot for the center ifthey would leave him a room to worship inwhenever he visited the area. The womenagreed and consulted SSP, people in thevillage, and the government land official tostart the legal procedures for taking titleto the plot. In a short time, they hadsigned the necessary papers.

To prepare for construction, thewomen negotiated agreements with neigh-boring families and the temple authority toshare adjoining walls and to gain rights of

access. Once the Usturi women had theirtitle in hand, several of their leaders trav-eled to Pune to visit a site managed by awomen’s federation and learn how to makesoil cement blocks and concrete beams.Eager to construct the building them-selves, the Usturi women asked SSP formasonry training on their site. The train-ing was organized to strengthen connec-tions across the women’s groups. In all, 80group members from nine surrounding vil-lages participated.

To build local support, the Usturiwomen invited local masons, carpenters,and blacksmiths to take part. The womenexplained to everyone that constructionwould be affordable only if many peoplehelped out, creating space for men andwomen to participate. While some womengained construction skills, others helpedby carrying materials, clearing the site ormixing mortar. Four women supervisedthe site in daily shifts, and the women'sgroup developed a simple method forkeeping a record of everyone's contribu-tion (SSP Publications [2000a]).

Box 3

Usturi Village Women Construct Their MahitiKendra (Women's Communication Center)

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 17

18 • S E E D S

Creating Spaces forWomen in Relief, Recovery,and ReconstructionEfforts in Turkey:The Foundation for theSupport of Women’sWork (KEDV)

The Marmara Earthquake

Turkey is at high risk for earthquakes,which account for the majority of dam-age to the country caused by natural dis-asters. A destructive earthquake occursabout every one and a half years; morethan 90 percent of the country’s totalsurface area is at seismic risk. In fact,more than half of Turkey’s land area andpopulation are first- and second-degreerisk zones.4

Two earthquakes in the Marmara Re-gion, occurring on 17 August and 12 No-vember 1999, were the strongest ever ex-perienced in Turkey, with fatality ratesfive times greater than those of previousquakes. Rated at 7.4 and 7.2 on the seismicscale, they occurred in the most denselyurbanized and industrialized region of thecountry where 23 percent of the coun-try’s population and 47 percent of Tur-key’s gross national product were con-centrated and affected. According to offi-cial figures, more than 18,000 peopledied in the two quakes and about 48,900were injured. About 100,000 housingunits were destroyed; more than 250,000units received serious to moderate dam-age. Estimates of economic damageranged from US$5 to 6.5 billion.

Located adjacent to the Istanbul Met-ropolitan Area, the Marmara region hada thriving and diverse economy. Somecities like Izmit were highly industrial-ized; Adapazari and Duzce were wealthyagricultural provinces with flourishingtrade. A major navy base was situated in

Golcuk; a middle-class summer resort wasnearby. The majority of new migrants tothe area had fled from civil strife and eco-nomic problems in the Kurdish region inSoutheast Turkey. As a result, the earth-quake disrupted the lives of people withhighly diverse social, economic, and cul-tural backgrounds, resources, and needs.

The Turkish Government’sResponse and RecoveryPrograms

In the few hours that followed the firstearthquake on August 17, volunteersand donations (food, clothing, house-hold goods, medicine, and other necessi-ties) started to flow into the area. As oneobserver put it, “As blood gushes to anopen wound, volunteers flowed to thearea. Anyone who could use a shovel ordress a wound, rushed to the area fromall parts of the country” (Coskun 2001).Even if uncoordinated and inexperi-enced, volunteers and local people per-formed most of the immediate rescuework. Government and military forcesand international rescue teams arrived72 hours later. By that time, local peopleand volunteers had accounted for mostof the 10,000 people that were pulledout of the rubble; professional teamsrescued only about 500 more.

Despite a second earthquake that dev-astated the region within 86 days of thefirst one, the government—supportedby an outpouring of international assis-tance from various governments and aidagencies—was able to rebuild the basicinfrastructure and provide temporaryaccommodation for about 800,000 in 121tent cities. Within four to nine months,about 42,000 prefabricated temporaryhousing units were completed; NGOsand the private sector contributed one-fourth of the total number of units.

4 The figures cited in this section are from the UN Habitat+5 draft report for Turkey (2000).

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 18

Number 22, 2005 • 19

Although the speed with which theprefabricated houses were constructedwas admirable, the units were designedand built without input from local resi-dents, women’s groups, or NGOs, so thatthe size, quality, and location of the tem-porary housing proved controversial. Noattention was paid to the livelihood needsof the poor, particularly to those of wom-en, so that many families refused toleave their tents because leaving wouldcause them to lose their food aid and theywould have to move far from theirsources of income. Rent subsidies wereoffered to households that chose to findtheir own living quarters, but this offerled to rent inflation and evictions, thusdriving more poor families to seek shelterin the temporary housing settlements.

Even though the majority of smallbusinesses were destroyed and layoffs ofworkers continued to contribute to wide-spread unemployment in the area, thereconstruction program ignored people’slivelihood needs and replacement infra-structure for many businesses (fouryears after the earthquake, the 14,500destroyed businesses were offered onlytemporary accommodation). The govern-ment chose to focus on brick-and-mortarsolutions and use recovery aid to con-struct large-scale permanent housing.Furthermore, the government’s housingprogram targeted only homeowners, soat least as many households did notqualify for housing support from thegovernment because they were tenantsor had lived in dwellings without clearlegal tenure.

Ultimately, a large proportion of thislatter group were stranded in temporaryhousing settlements that were sched-uled to be evacuated and shut downimmediately after completion of govern-ment-sponsored housing projects. Be-cause thousands of households, espe-cially those of the poorest families, facedserious shelter problems as a result ofsoaring rents and unreliable repairs,

some prefabricated housing settlements(more than 13,000 units) had to bemaintained after almost all of the 40,000new units were completed and allocatedto homeowners by the end of 2003.

The majority of the homeowners whoapplied for government assistance (96percent) were qualified to receive it.Many families with alternative options(living with relatives, having savings, orowning a home in another province)took the government’s housing subsidyand left the area, but the majority of dis-placed people stayed and sought shelter.First, they lived in tent cities and later inthe temporary prefabricated housing set-tlements. Those whose houses were onlymoderately damaged received a lump-sum payment to use for repairs. Thosewhose housing was destroyed couldchoose either to receive credit for recon-struction or apply the credit toward newpermanent housing built by the govern-ment. This policy meant different thingsto different people. For some homeown-ers, it was an opportunity to improve thequality of their housing; for others, itwas a chance to recover some portion oftheir life savings. Yet this money was aloan that had to be paid back over time,and for some, especially for retired peo-ple, the government housing repaymentplan was burdensome.

On 1 June 2000, the Ministry of PublicWorks and Housing began constructionof 40,000 housing units financed by theWorld Bank and European Council De-velopment Bank credits, by the Ministry,and by private donations. Again, thepublic did not have the opportunity toparticipate in decisions about the loca-tion, design, or construction of thesesettlements, nor about the terms of therepayment scheme. The Ministry con-ducted a small sample survey to deter-mine the types of housing to be pro-duced, and a few token public meetingswere held in connection with the unitsto be built with World Bank credits, but

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 19

20 • S E E D S

these efforts were largely public rela-tions strategies to gain support for pre-determined plans. As in the case of thetemporary shelters, site selection wascontroversial; many of the new settle-ments were to be located on prime agri-cultural land and far from city centers. Apublic outcry arose concerning the selec-tion of developers for government-spon-sored construction of permanent hous-ing. Some of the developers awarded theselucrative contracts simultaneously werebeing sued for malpractice and for caus-ing loss of life.

Women Organize Relief in the Tent CitiesThe government’s initial response afterthe Marmara earthquake was to housethose displaced from their homes in tentcities. Poor women whose homes hadbeen destroyed circulated, searching forways to ensure the safety and survival oftheir families. They were looking for food,collecting usable items, talking to thepress, and caring for their families andthe injured. Men, in contrast, seemed tobe in shock from having lost their jobs,their life savings, and their health, andwere looking for work. Some wanderedoff to escape the responsibilities broughtby the disaster. In tent cities, women at-tended community meetings and inter-acted frequently with settlement admin-istrators and local government represen-tatives to obtain information and accessto aid. They tried to raise money fortheir families, by selling handicrafts orby preparing and selling food (illegally)from their tents.

Members of Kadin Emegini Degerlen-dirme Vakfi (KEDV) became involved indisaster-relief and recovery efforts at thetime of the earthquake, working as vol-unteers. (See Box 4 for a brief descrip-tion of KEDV’s organization and activi-ties.) First, the staff helped organize agroup of young volunteers to provideemergency aid, collaborating with the

union of local shipyard owners. Theyused land, sea, and airways to respond torequests for help coming from devastat-ed towns. As they observed the condi-tions in the area at first hand, KEDVstopped distributing food and supplieswithin the first few weeks to concentrateon what it could do most effectively—provide safe and secure communityspaces for women and children. The vol-unteers were quick to observe thatwomen could play a key role as agents inthe relief and recovery process, but todo so they would need a place to cometogether, share information, and offermutual support. Life had to return to nor-mal as quickly as possible so that peoplewould not become disaster victimsdependent on outside aid. People had torebuild their own lives, even if theyreceived support from outside sources.As SSP had learned, KEDV realized thatthe disaster, as devastating as it was,could be turned into an opportunity fordevelopment and social change.

The first step KEDV took was to meetwith local women, NGOs, and govern-ment officials to determine the mostappropriate sites for new centers forwomen and children in tent cities. KEDVsought to identify tent campsites thatcould accommodate the largest numberof poor families, with cooperative campadministrators, and sites that appearedas if they could be sustained for thelongest periods of time. The first centerswere set up in Camlitepe, Cephanelik(Izmit province), Gözlementepe (Golcukprovince), and Emirdag (Adapazariprovince). Because of KEDV’s ongoingpartnership with the Social Services andChild Protection Administration (SosyalHizmet ve Çocuk Esirgeme Kurumu—SHÇEK) and a protocol signed with itsregional administration, the organizationalready had a high degree of legitimacy,an advantage that helped to quicken thebureaucratic procedures for obtainingaccess to space.

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 20

Number 22, 2005 • 21

Four new tents were bought to beused as women’s centers, and SHÇEKprovided additional tents for children’suse, mobile toilets, and shipping contain-ers that could be used for storage as wellas for office and dormitory space forKEDV and SHÇEK staff. Several privatecompanies donated storage containersthat could be converted into rooms forgroups of children as well as furnishingsfor these facilities. Thus, within twoweeks, the first four centers for womenand children had been set up in themakeshift world of tent cities.

Within days, local women appropriat-ed the tents as a public living rooms andworkspaces and organized their ownactivities. They cooked, received guests,made new friends, and held small sup-

port-group sessions. Soon the tents werehousing several income-earning schemes(described below). At the centers, thewomen discussed the earthquake, therelief programs, and events around theregion. They organized exchange ormarketing visits to Istanbul and startedmaking plans for the future.

Generating income to support theirfamilies was a priority for most of thewomen. In late fall, KEDV was able tonegotiate a contract with the Ministry ofTourism to produce toys at the centers.According to the protocol, 300 womenproduced 750 dolls each week; KEDVcoordinated the production activities,and the ministry purchased and market-ed the dolls. Over a five-month period,the 300 women who participated in the

Kadin Emegini Degerlendirme Vakfi(KEDV) was established in 1986 by a smallgroup of Istanbul-based professional womenwith grassroots backgrounds. Its missionwas to support poor women so that theycould organize to respond to basic needsand to develop the capacities to improvetheir own lives and communities. KEDVbegan by working with poor women fromsettlements around Istanbul who hadexpressed the need for community-basedchild-care services to keep their childrensafe while they worked. KEDV helped thesewomen organize and negotiate with localmunicipalities for public space where par-ents could operate child-care centers withadjacent women’s rooms that offer a rangeof capacity-building programs. In additionto providing an essential service to workingwomen, the child-care centers also offered asocially legitimate reason for women toleave their homes to meet with their peers,thereby reducing their isolation.

KEDV’s participatory approach, relianceon local resources, and success in develop-ing strategic partnerships with both the pri-vate sector and government agencies wasunique among the newly emerging NGOs inTurkey. It formed successful partnerships,including one with the Social Services andChild Protection Administration (SHÇEK),in order to gain access to resources and alsoto gain visibility and recognition for its workwith poor women. The primarily source ofKEDV’s outside funding initially (and to thepresent) was the Bernard Van Leer Foun-dation in the Netherlands. With headquar-ters in Istanbul, KEDV now works as a re-source partner with 17 centers for womenand children and with 20 women’s savingsand credit groups in low-income neighbor-hoods of Istanbul, in earthquake-affectedareas in the Marmara region, and in south-eastern Turkey. It maintains a staff of 25 to35 people, including women who work inthe local centers.

Box 4

Kadin Emegini Degerlendirme Vakfi (KEDV—The Foundation for the Support ofWomen’s Work): Partnering To Establish Womenand Children Centers that Women Control

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 21

22 • S E E D S

project produced more than 10,000 dollsand shared earnings of approximatelyUS$11,000. Beyond producing much-needed income, this project introducedmost of the women to the collective pro-duction process. At the same time, itserved as a practical way for many of thewomen to overcome the trauma result-ing from the disruption of their lives. Asone woman remarked, “Every day, I hadto get up, come to the tent, and be to-gether with others. It helped me forgetabout my troubles.” Others who did notparticipate in the doll project also cameby to watch the work and chat. Ultimat-ely, the collective process became amajor attraction at the centers and pro-vided women with an opportunity to getto know each other better and to planfuture collective initiatives.

In less-damaged areas, people beganto complete repairs on their homes andleave the tent cities. Some tent citieswere closed down suddenly. For in-stance, a month after they opened, twoof the centers (in Camlitepe and Gozle-mentepe) were ordered to move to

another tent city. In areas like Camlitepeand Guney, many families decided tostay near their damaged homes to pro-tect their property, even if they had tolive in makeshift tents. Some womenwere concerned that these changescould cause them to lose access to theircenters. They petitioned their munici-palities to set up centers with supportfrom the KEDV (see Box 5).

We’ll do anything to keep the center

here. Children learn good values at

child care and we have a place of

our own. We can raise the money

among ourselves. . . . This is public

land; they should just give us space.

—A mother from Camlitepe tent city,September 1999

In the meantime, KEDV was able tosecure funding from NOVIB (Oxfam,Netherlands) and the American JewishWorld Service to set up eight centers forwomen and children in the temporaryhousing settlements under construction.Their construction required anotherround of meetings with officials and sev-eral site visits to identify settlements withthe largest number of poor families, thosewho would stay in the area the longest,and, preferably, those who were locatedin close proximity to the existing centers.Because at this point the authorities werefamiliar with the work of KEDV, securingspace was easier, and construction ofthe centers began in some of the largestsettlements in the three provinces.5

Creating Women and ChildrenCenters in TemporaryHousing Settlements

The move from tent cities to prefabricat-ed temporary settlements marked the

5 In Kocaeli, the five settlements where the centers were built accommodated more than half (56 percent) ofall residents in temporary housing in the province. In Adapazari, the two settlements accounted for more thana third, and the settlement in Duzce accounted for 18 percent of the population lodged in temporary housing.In all but one settlement, households paying rent made up the majority (60 to 80 percent) of residents.

KE

DV,

Ada

paza

ri, 1

999

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 22

Number 22, 2005 • 23

transition from the relief to the recoveryphase of the postdisaster intervention.Because humanitarian relief efforts wereno longer needed, most of the local andinternational NGOs began to leave theearthquake area. The cooperative attitudethat had existed between the public andnongovernmental organizations duringthe relief phase eroded. Only those NGOswith resources and a practical or long-term mission continued to work in thearea during recovery and reconstruction.

The women who had moved into tem-porary prefabricated housing settle-ments in winter again found themselvesisolated. This was at least the secondtime that many of these women had hadto move after they lost their homes.Separated from their neighbors andfriends in tent cities who had helpedthem, the women had to look for ways toimprove their situation. Based on their

previous experience at the centers, a fewof these women took on formal roles asblock representatives, but most were leftto fend for themselves.

Living conditions in the overcrowded,hastily built prefabricated housing unitswere better than in the tent cities, butwere still difficult. The settlements suf-fered from frequent infrastructure prob-lems and lacked basic social services, andthe barrack-style layout of buildings pro-vided no informal gathering spaces forwomen. Along with widespread unem-ployment, social problems (includingdrinking and domestic violence) began toescalate. Tension grew, first, among home-owners who qualified for governmenthousing credits and renters and unregis-tered tenants who did not, and secondbetween residents and the settlementadministrations (as a result of constantinfrastructure problems, favoritism in the

In Guney, KEDV joined the women in nego-tiations with the municipality for continua-tion of basic services (utilities and toiletfacilities) on this site. The women calculat-ed the budget and fees needed to hire a pro-fessional staff and divided the work amongthemselves. KEDV supported their effortsby organizing exchange visits to their centerfor women and children in Istanbul, and bytraining the women to manage the centerand assist the only professional childcareworker employed at the site.

Soon, the Social Services Administration(SHÇEK) invited the women’s group tomove from the shipping containers they hadbeen using into a new NGO-donated com-munity building in the neighborhood. Thewomen agreed on the condition that theywould continue to be in charge of managingthe child-care center and women’s room withtechnical support from KEDV. Forty womenattended the first meeting organized in the

new building and decided on the rules formanagement of the new center. Within a fewmonths, however, tensions began to developbetween the women and SHÇEK staff. Thebuilding administrator, who believed that“ignorant women should leave child care toexperts,” tried to interfere in the manage-ment of the center and to limit the mothers’access to the building. Eventually, at the endof the summer, SHÇEK took over the com-munity center, and the women’s appeals tothe governor's office and municipality for analternate space was rejected with the expla-nation that sufficient child-care servicesexisted already in the district.

Ultimately, even though the new centerclearly demonstrated what women couldaccomplish when they combined theirenergy to reach a common goal, the fragili-ty of their success in light of bureaucraticpriorities illustrates the importance of insti-tutionalizing women’s gains and authority.

Box 5

A Struggle for Control: The GuneyNeighborhood Experience

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 23

24 • S E E D S

explored different options. With fundingand technical assistance from the Cana-dian International Development Agency(CIDA) and the Vancouver-based Inter-national Center for Sustainable Cities(ICSC), several women learned to makerecycled paper, while others took up thenontraditional skill of carpentry. Two ofthe centers (Dernekkiri in Adapazari andUzunçiftlik in Izmit) set up their ownwoodworking workshops where thewomen made not only wooden toys butalso screens for windows and doors,which were in great demand in the set-tlements. They also explored ways topartner with local institutions to enhancetheir skills. For example, while theywere discussing the difficulty of findingplumbers and electricians who wouldcome to their settlements, women atsome of the centers decided to organizeworkshops for training interested wom-en as plumbers and electricians.

Another major concern that preoccu-pied women was earthquake-safe hous-ing. A summer visit from SSP membersfrom India helped women envision whatthey could accomplish. By late summer,with KEDV staff, they organized weeklycommunity meetings on housing issues,attended by hundreds of women, andeven a few men. At each center, a coregroup of determined women began tomeet regularly to discuss strategy andtake action. They selected two womenas community-outreach workers to orga-nize and facilitate meetings, take notes,disseminate information, and arrange formeetings with local authorities. The groupsalso began going door to door to collectinformation on the status of fellow resi-dents in terms of their housing subsi-dies, livelihood concerns, and settle-ment-related problems. The womenmarked facilities and resources on set-tlement maps and noted other in-formation they gathered (locations ofvacant units, tenant households, house-

allocation of larger units, and the like).Because safe and affordable housingoptions were virtually unavailable else-where, residents who were not eligible forhousing credits began to understand thatliving in these prefabricated dwellingsmight not be a temporary situation.

Within this context, the centers forwomen and children became the onlysource of community information andservices in the settlements. As the initialshock of the disaster wore off under thehard living conditions of the temporarysettlements, the women began to focuson their long-term economic and hous-ing needs. Employment and income-gen-eration became a critical concern. As thedoll-making project ended, KEDV wasable to involve some groups of women inthe production of toys and educationalmaterials, while other groups developedtheir own marketable products (such ashousehold items and candles). Thewomen organized teams to sell their pro-ducts to local merchants, secured down-town stores from municipalities, andsucceeded in obtaining stalls at twonational chain department stores. Others

KE

DV,

Izm

it, 2

000

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 24

Number 22, 2005 • 25

holds with young children and/or dis-abled persons, and so forth). Collectingand owning this information, which thegovernment did not have, provided thewomen with an asset they could use innegotiations with the government andmade them feel empowered.

Three women from each center at-tended biweekly regional coordinationmeetings with KEDV staff to discusstheir progress, findings, obstacles,strategies, and next steps, and wherethey identified local experts (lawyers,engineers, and developers) to invite tothe centers to explain basic rules forsafety in construction and issues relatedto eligibility for government programs.They strategized about the order inwhich to visit the local agencies andauthorities and prepared questions toask that they divided up among them-selves so that everyone would have achance to talk during the meeting. Theyorganized group visits to local agenciesand to the construction sites of the newpermanent housing being built by theMinistry of Construction and Resettle-ment. At one center they discoveredconstruction errors in some new perma-nent housing blocks in their district. Thiscontributed to their concern that some ofthe new housing developers were thesame ones who had built the buildingsthat collapsed during the earthquake,calling into question how the govern-ment was selecting contractors.

The women grew increasingly frus-trated because on the one hand, theyattended World Bank meetings wherethey received fragmented informationand on the other hand, no public agencywas prepared to take responsibility forestablishing safe building and repairstandards. Over time, the women begandeveloping their own sense of credibilityand standards for evaluating the govern-ment’s accountability. They warned theirpeers from other centers to be vigilant

and to keep good records. Meanwhile,because the government program didnot address their housing needs, groupsof tenant women began exploring anddeveloping their own housing coopera-tives linked to savings groups.

After the first few meetings, we real-

ized that the local authorities did not

have clear information about the gov-

ernment programs, either. They would

just repeat what they and we already

knew or would say things to make

things look rosy. So we started taking

notes in the meetings and asked them

to confirm and sign the notes. Now

they think twice before making empty

promises.

—Nehir from Uzunciftlik, November 2000

As women experienced the benefits ofacting together as a group, the centersreached out to collaborate more witheach other. Women from different centersbegan to go to meetings with local author-ities together. They exchanged the namesand numbers of experts and officials whowere helpful, and groups farther along inthe process began to help the others, par-ticipating in their weekly meetings, andsharing information, experiences, andstrategies. At the same time, attitudeswere beginning to change within localhouseholds. As a woman from Yesilovaremarked, “My husband used to complainthat I spent too much time at the center.Now he is used to it and asks why I amhome, even during the weekends.”

Group discussions of shared concernsencouraged the women to push so thattheir priorities related to housing, socialservices, and livelihoods would appearon the local agenda. Recognizing thatthis would be a long-term process, theimportance of staying together and sus-taining their centers became clear. Theybegan to the take the necessary steps toestablish a formal identity as autono-mous women’s groups so that they couldcontinue their negotiations with authori-

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 25

26 • S E E D S

ties and access resources on their own.With support from legal experts andfriends, the women explored differentorganizational formats and decided oncooperatives as the most suitable struc-ture for their needs and purposes. Mean-while, a six-year protocol signed be-tween KEDV and the Social Services andChild Protection Administration in 2001provided more favorable conditions forsustaining the centers.6 By early 2003,six of the eight centers for women andchildren were consolidated as autono-mous service-production cooperatives.

Also by 2003, four housing coopera-tives were established by about 200women from the three provinces, whobegan looking for funding and negotiatingwith the authorities for allocation of landfor their cooperatives. This effort hasrequired vigilance. For example, duringtheir visits to public agencies, the womenlearned that the Ministry of Public Worksand Housing was considering auctioningoff land in temporary housing settle-ments to cooperatives that had been setup by tenant groups for building apart-ments. Even though site selection wouldbe based on each settlement’s tenurecomposition, the women had alreadygathered this information and could sup-ply it to the Ministry. One outcome of thisprocess was a promise from the RegionalCoordinator of the Ministry of PublicWorks to give the women’s cooperativespriority in land allocation.

What the WomenAccomplished

Since the earthquake in September 1999,more than 10,000 women have been in-volved in the activities of the centers forwomen and children. While many local

and international agencies were having ahard time finding local groups to takeover the management of the service cen-ters they had built, the grassroots wom-en’s groups organized around the centerstook control of their situation. Theyformed savings and credit groups and ini-tiated partnerships with local agencies toensure the financial sustainability of theircenters. Tenants organized around hous-ing cooperatives to find a solution to theirhousing needs. Moreover, small groups ofleaders participated in regional and inter-national peer exchanges in Bulgaria,India, and Southeast Turkey, and mostrecently in Bam, Iran. These meetingsgave them confidence to act as grass-roots experts on microcredit schemes,housing processes, information gather-ing, and on the establishment and opera-tion of centers for women and children.

Transferring Skills andExperience: MarathwadiWomen’s GroupsSupport Earthquake-Struck Gujarati Womenin Taking Action

Women’s groups that participate in emer-gency relief, resettlement, and recon-struction efforts following a natural disas-ter acquire significant knowledge and ex-pertise that can greatly benefit communi-ties that subsequently experience similarcrises. When mechanisms are establishedfor promoting the transfer of this knowl-edge from community to community, poorwomen are enabled to come out of theirhomes and form groups to assess their sit-uation, organize, and participate in therange of decisions and programs that will

6 The protocol allowed grassroots women’s groups, beyond the emergency conditions of the disaster region,to set up and govern their own community child-care centers without having to hire an expert administra-tor. Therefore, this protocol was also an important step toward mainstreaming the establishment of com-munity-run child-care centers throughout Turkey that would be monitored and assessed by KEDV andSHÇEK to develop proposals for legislation to disseminate the model.

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 26

Number 22, 2005 • 27

shape their immediate and long-termfutures. When disasters strike, the oppor-tunities to decrease women’s marginaliza-tion arise early on, when norms of socialcontrol and male-dominated family struc-tures are temporarily disrupted and weak-ened by the chaos that ensues. If affectedwomen can meet and benefit from theexperiences of other women who havemanaged to deal successfully with disas-ter-related issues, much valuable time canbe saved and mistakes avoided. The after-math of the earthquake in Gujarat in 2001is one example where local women bene-fited from the help of their peers fromMaharashtra and from the experiences ofthe Turkish women from the Marmararegion.

A powerful earthquake, with an epi-center near Bhuj, struck the Indian stateof Gujarat in late January 2001, andnearly a million families were left home-less. The Kutch region, a large part ofwhich lies in the highest seismic hazardzone in India, was the hardest hit—accounting for 90 percent of all deathsand almost an equal share of alldestroyed assets. The Kutch region had“high levels of social and economic vul-

nerability and fragility even in ‘normal’times” (Martin 2003:14)

With higher poverty and lower social

indicators than in the rest of Gujarat,

people’s capacity to absorb and recov-

er from the losses caused by hazard

events is limited. The main sources of

livelihood, agriculture, salt mining,

handicrafts and trade have been seri-

ously affected by the compound ef-

fects of earthquake and drought. . . .

For a community trying to cope with

a drought since 1999, the earthquake

. . . tested their resilience. While los-

ing their habitat, employment and

family support, poor rural women

also lost the childcare, community,

education, and health infrastructure.

Many anganwadi centers (for wom-

en and child welfare) providing gov-

ernment assistance completely col-

lapsed, leaving an estimated 1.5

million women and children with-

out nutrition support and health

services, as a UN team noted. (Martin2003:30)

A tardy government response re-quired survivors to mobilize relief andrecovery efforts on their own, and a num-ber of Gujarati women quickly sprang

SSP,

Guj

arat

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 27

28 • S E E D S

into action, summoning doctors, pullingchildren from the debris, and rescuinganimals. Nevertheless, their initiativeswere largely invisible.

Swayam Shikshan Prayog, collaborat-ing with the Society for the Promotion ofArea Resource Centers (SPARC), offeredsolidarity by soliciting corporate, interna-tional, and relief agency monies to helpaffected communities organize them-selves. Pushed by the women’s collec-tives in Maharashtra, SSP traveled withexperienced leaders from these groupsand with their own team of engineers andarchitects across the villages of Gujaratto determine how their postdisaster ex-perience could be useful. Within severalmonths, they were providing support tocommunity initiatives in more than 200

Gujarati villages in Jamnagar, Kutch, andRajkot districts in collaboration with sev-eral NGOS and districts’ administration.7

SSP began its work by supportingcommunity-to-community exchangesbetween women’s group leaders fromLatur and Osmanabad savings and creditfederations (in Maharashtra) and af-fected women in three Gujarati districts.Focused on identifying and addressingthe urgent practical needs of survivors,the exchanges enabled these experi-enced leaders to help their neighborsanalyze their own situation and decideupon effective actions that could betaken. For example, they helped Gujaratiwomen map the degree of damage theearthquake caused by asking: “Whatlosses did you suffer after the quake?Was your house destroyed? How do youget food? Has family employment contin-ued or been disrupted? Do you havemoney set aside or are you borrowing?How have your children’s health andeducation been affected?”

Maharashtran women also shared sto-ries of how they had coped and organizedthemselves to improve their living andworking conditions. This sharing gave Gu-jarati women, more confined by caste andreligious barriers than their visiting sis-ters, a vision of how they could justifyparticipating in community recovery andwork together across social differences.

In a short time, the government, armedwith more than 300 million dollars fromthe Asian Development and World Banks,moved in to repair and strengthen morethan 700,000 houses, construct dwellingsfor the homeless, and rebuild core infra-structure (schools, village health clinics,roads, and power grids). Stalled entitle-ment applications, bribe taking, and faultyrepair and reconstruction processes re-peated themselves in earthquake-devasta-

7 SSP partnered with local and outside NGOs, including Anandi, Hum, and Oxfam India, to build women’scapacities and create livelihood activities.

SSP,

Guj

arat

, 200

2

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 28

Number 22, 2005 • 29

ted villages across Gujarat, replaying theMaharashtran experience. When seasonedgrassroots leaders visited their strugglingpeers, they urged the women to deter-mine who was taking bribes, where bot-tlenecks existed in accessing entitle-ments and repair materials, and todecide how they would confront theseproblems collectively and sustain theiraction. For example Sultana (of Osmana-bad) asked Dilharba of Jodia village:

Is it true that the engineer in

Bhimkatta village asks for bribes to

approve houses for the second

installment of funds?

Dilharba: Yes, the engineer asks for

bribes. I have been telling people that

if your homes are using the proper

earthquake safety guidelines, then

you should not give the engineer

any money. I completely discourage

them from giving bribes to anyone.

Have you complained to anyone

about the engineer who’s asking for

money?

Dilharba: No, we have not told any-

one yet.

Why not? You should bring this to the

attention of the Taluka District Office

so that the corruption stops.

One year after the earthquake, wom-en leaders from the Marathwadi (India)and Marmara (Turkey) regions, coordi-nated by SSP, met with Gujarati womento help them evaluate whether the recov-ery program was meeting their needs. Ata public meeting with local officials (seephoto), they listened as Gujarat womendescribed how the scarcity of water andother development challenges in thisdrought-prone, conservative region, wereinterfering with the repair and recon-struction process. One woman reported:

In my village, we have received the

first installment of funds to start the

construction of houses. But if you

don’t get water for construction, how

can you build your house? We get

water in our village for one hour

every three weeks. How can anyone

construct houses in such a situation?

Gauriben of Jamnagar district de-scribed how her daughter spends most ofthe day standing in a long line waiting forwater because of the shortages and de-manded to know: “Why do I have to makea choice between making my daughterstand in a line for water or sending her toschool?” A third woman, Sheetal,described how her group organized tocompel officials to respond to theirwater shortage:

The women from Latur encouraged

us to go and talk with the officials

and request that the lead person

come to our village to see conditions

for himself. [We did, and] at first he

got angry and refused to listen. We

told him we could have him sus-

pended if he didn’t listen. So he

calmed down and agreed to visit.

Once he was there, he saw how

severe the problem was, and he orga-

nized a meeting with the entire vil-

lage where we decided to build a

water tank. Since his visit, we’ve

been getting a water tanker here

everyday, [and will continue to] until

our tank is built! (SSP Publications2002)

Fel

dman

, Guj

arat

, 200

2

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 29

30 • S E E D S

Adapting EmpowermentStrategies to Cultural andSocial Conditions

Despite their widespread poverty, theGujarat villages where SSP worked hadno active savings and credit groups. Ini-tially, the Gujarati women resisted theidea of forming such groups, claimingthey were uneducated and would notknow how to operate as a group or han-dle money; some anticipated that menwould forbid them to participate.However, after repeated visits, meetings,and study tours to observe the savingsand credit groups in Latur and Osmana-bad (where more than 15,000 womenwere running more than 1,100 groups),the Gujarati women agreed that theycould start the process of saving andlending together (see Box 6).

For every step the Gujarati womentook out of their homes, their apprecia-tion grew for how the Maharashtranwomen had created tools to make theirgroups a permanent part of public lifeand development processes in their vil-lages. From their numerous exchangevisits, they soon became curious aboutthe “whys” and “hows” of building—from repairing and strengthening theirhomes to constructing the mahila mahitikendras. Indeed, SSP helped train Guja-rat women in construction methodsonce households were able to gain ac-cess to their payments and the repairand strengthening of houses were under-way. Although women’s restricted mobil-ity shaped the ways in which they par-ticipated, nevertheless, Gujarati womenused the information and training theyhad received to become involved. Accor-

In early October 2001, a study tour wasorganized by ANANDI, a women’s NGO, tohelp women from the quake-affected arealearn about savings and credit groups. Agroup of 25 women from the villages ofJodia block, accompanied by a leader fromLatur, visited Rakodia, a remote village inMaliya block lacking proper roads, electrici-ty, and water. While there, they heardKhaleedaben, the leader of the host savingsand credit group, describe the Rakodiagroup and the benefits it was yielding:

Not only do we save money by circu-

lating low-interest loans but also we

have started making and selling

cement tanks with the money that we

have saved. The profits from the sales

go back to our savings group. So it

gives us both an income and great

empowerment.

As they met with the women and heardhow they had organized themselves and

learned to keep records and establish rulesfor governing the group, Bhanuben, a visitorfrom Utbeth Champer, began to see thepotential.

Even though SSP has had meetings

with us on the importance of forming

savings groups, I did not really

understand the concept clearly. I also

thought it would be impossible to

mobilize the women of my village to

do this. But after coming here today

and seeing what women in Rakodia

have achieved, I can see the impor-

tance of women coming together. If

Khaleedaban and the women here can

do it, there is no reason why we can’t

make such progress in my village.

By the end of the visit all the women onthe study tour were asking SSP if their col-leagues from Latur and Osmanabad couldcome and help them form groups in theirvillages (SSP Publications 2002:10).

Box 6

Learning about Savings and Credit

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 30

Number 22, 2005 • 31

ding to Phuliben of Jodhpur Vandh, inRapar Kutch,

Today we are able to provide proper

guidance to the masons when our

homes are being built. . . . I also help

to guide others in my community. If

my home is being built right now, I go

and ask other women whose homes

will be built later to come and help

me. Then when their homes are being

built, I go and help them. In this way,

many women have been coming

together to work on rebuilding homes.

Numerous village women worked inconstruction: sifting sand, mixing ce-ment, ensuring the right proportions ofsand and cement, and supervising themasons to make sure that they wereincorporating earthquake-safe features inthe construction.

To establish mahiti kendras, womenorganized the work into five committees.Leaders in Khirsara village describedthese committees at a meeting withJamnagar residents. They organized:

• a water committee responsible forensuring that water is available forconstruction—arranging both accessand transport to sites;

• a purchasing committee responsiblefor checking the prices and qualityof construction materials beforebuying them;

• a materials committee responsible forkeeping records of the materials com-ing in and the amount used, and forinforming the purchasing committeewhen more materials are needed;

• an accounts committee responsiblefor recording the amounts spentdaily on construction, literally track-ing every expense from the day thefoundation is excavated to the daythe walls are painted;

• and a supervisory committee respon-sible for the overseeing construction,which records when the masons start

and end work and all other daily con-struction activities and ensures thatmasons use appropriate, earthquake-safe building techniques.

Participating women have been elo-quent in expressing how these process-es have helped them learn to plan, solveproblems, and negotiate and monitorplanning and construction. A mahila ma-hiti kendra in a village, be it in Maha-rashtra or in Gujarat, symbolizes an im-portant milestone in the learning processof local women. These multipurpose cen-ters house the activities of women’sgroups from as many as 15 surroundingvillages and testify to the ability of wom-en working collectively to acquire land;to mobilize labor, materials, and monies;and to build and manage new communi-ty structures. Moreover, when women’sgroups can establish their own building,with their name on it, they acquire newstatus in their village.

Conclusion

Claiming Opportunities WithInnovative StrategiesThe case studies of the SSP and KEDVexperience highlight how postdisastersituations can be opportunities to em-power women at the grassroots level,build more resilient communities, andinitiate long-term social change and de-velopment. They also illustrate howNGOs can focus on facilitating and part-nering to leverage resources and there-by galvanize affected women’s groups toscale up and sustain their energy andorganization over the cycle of relief toreconstruction. Although the Indian andTurkish strategies were different, theyjointly suggest key elements of effectivepractice.

In India, SSP began by negotiating withthe government to secure the appoint-ment of women as communication inter-

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 31

32 • S E E D S

mediaries, placing them at the center ofreconstruction processes. The women’sgroups underwent training to take onthis role: to motivate householders, buildtechnical capacity, demonstrate collec-tive arrangements, provide feedback,and monitor reconstruction. Over time,women acquired the confidence andskills to become community-develop-ment intermediaries, monitoring basicservices, voicing women’s priorities intheir communities, initiating local devel-opment projects, and facilitating dia-logues between their communities andgovernment officials. Training of publicagency staff concerning community andwomen’s participation was also critical inensuring the success of this process. Asa result, 250,000 households were in-volved in earthquake-safe constructionin Gujarat and Latur. As 4,000 womenand families took loans; 1,200 womenstarted businesses, and livelihoods andassets were stabilized. Communitiesorganized for long-term development.Today, more than 800 women’s groupswork on health, education, water, andsanitation in their communities.

In Turkey, KEDV used a differententry point for women’s participation. Itbegan by creating public spaces forwomen and their children as a way tolegitimize and sustain women’s partici-pation in the public sphere and to rebuilddisrupted community networks. Thecenters for women and children provid-ed women’s groups with a place to meet,organize, learn new skills to start indi-vidual and collective businesses, andgather and share information on thereconstruction process. The centers alsogave women’s groups legitimacy in theirdialogue and negotiations with officialsfor information, partnership contracts,and resources. Since the beginning ofthe relief phase, more than 10,000women and their children have partici-pated in various activities at the centers.Women’s groups, organized as indepen-

dent service and production coopera-tives, also assumed control of six of thecenters for women and children andstarted numerous savings and creditsgroups as well as collective and individ-ual businesses. More than 100 womenorganized around tenant housing coop-eratives and began negotiations withgovernment agencies to seek a solutionto their housing problems.

Both SSP and KEDV used peer learn-ing exchanges among local women’sgroups as a capacity-building strategy.This approach promoted the rapid ex-pansion of effective practice and demon-strated that women can function at thegrassroots level as technical assistants toone another. An unexpected outcome isthe eagerness and effectiveness of wom-en’s groups to provide support and guid-ance to other women’s groups in areasexperiencing disasters. One example isthe Maharashtran women leaders whohelped Gujarati women become in-formation gatherers, challenge corruptofficials, scale up savings and creditgroups, and establish public spaces tosustain their involvement in reconstruc-tion. More recently, Turkish communitywomen leaders from the Marmara areatraveled to Bam, Iran to teach womenwho also survived a devastating earth-quake how they had established centersfor women and children in Turkey, nego-tiated with local authorities, and orga-nized effective microfinance and enter-prise projects (see photo).

Lessons Learned

Not only do the case studies pinpointpostdisaster opportunities for women’sparticipation and contributions, theyalso underscore the conventional attitu-dinal and operational approaches topostdisaster programming and resourceallocation that must be overcome to sup-port women’s grassroots organizationsso that they can be fully effective in re-

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 32

Number 22, 2005 • 33

Gup

ta, B

am, 2

004

storing their communities in the reliefand subsequent recovery processes.Four types of barriers are highlighted,some derived from the tension betweenemergency and development approach-es and others related to biases aboutgender roles and professional expertise.

First, despite the lip service paid todisaster reduction and sustainable de-velopment, policymakers often fail torealize that postdisaster efforts are, infact, development interventions thatshould reflect principles of participationand sustainability. Emergency, short-term disaster-response programmingfavors technical responses that elevatethe involvement of outside professionalsover the priorities, skills, and knowledgeof affected citizens. Standardized, top-down, bricks-and-mortar-type govern-ment programs ignore the complexity ofcommunities’ needs in rebuilding theirlives and livelihoods.

Second, even when the importance oflocal communities’ participation is rec-ognized, often no clear agreement existsabout what this participation should en-

tail in relation to the roles of the govern-ment, international relief, and donor or-ganizations. Lack of communication andcoordination between the governmentagencies, aid organizations, and NGOsoften wastes a sizeable share of theresources flowing into the affected area.International aid efforts, concentrated onemergency relief, frequently compoundsthe problem by fostering competition,dependency, and corruption among af-fected communities and civic groupstrying to access this support.

Third, relief and subsequent recoveryefforts fail to pay adequate attention tothe gender-specific impacts of disasters.Disasters increase women’s householdand care-giving work dramatically for anextended period of time as housing andsocial infrastructure once destroyed isslowly replaced. They require women tomanage displaced households andrestore family livelihoods. Yet postdisas-ter aid efforts generally ignore this real-ity and target male-headed householdsas the primary claimants for governmentand other support. Not only does this

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 33

34 • S E E D S

approach to aid ignore women’s jointclaim on family assets, it also ignores theneeds of women living apart from male-headed households and is largely indif-ferent to the income-generating rolesthat women do and must play. Thesebiases substantially undermine prospectsfor household and community recovery.Gender-sensitive programming is essen-tial during emergency relief. The centralaim of disaster relief is to support andrebuild communities; what women do tokeep their families and communitiestogether in the critical moments afterdisaster occurs often is taken for grant-ed. Protocols must be developed thatvalue women’s priorities and contribu-tions appropriately.

Fourth, misconceptions are wide-spread about grassroots women’s groupsas small-scale, passive, and low-tech, de-spite considerable evidence to the con-trary (Batliwala 2001). The case studies

indicate that grassroots efforts can, if sup-ported, rapidly mobilize a critical mass ofactors. Women can acquire nontradition-al skills and take on information-givingroles often considered to be the maledomain, overcome male opposition andskepticism, and take on active leadershipto rebuild their communities.

Reducing the economic vulnerabilityof women and of their families is a keymitigation measure that reduces poten-tial losses from future disasters. A long-term development perspective is criti-cal, starting at the relief stage, in theallocation and use of resources in orderto foster self-reliance, build local capac-ity, and avoid dependency. Capturingmomentum in the region early is impor-tant for integrating women’s participa-tion in postdisaster efforts. Lessonslearned from the case studies shed lightnot only on obstacles but also on howwomen’s involvement adds value and

S. S

awan

t, S

SP 2

004

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 34

Number 22, 2005 • 35

productivity to postdisaster investments(see Box 7). The lessons include a set ofgood practice principles that could redi-rect postdisaster programming towardgender-equitable, community-develop-ment opportunities. These principlesinclude:

First, donors and international emer-gency aid agencies must broaden ac-countability measures for aid and loangranting to reward efforts that demon-strably reduce social vulnerabilities andfoster participatory local developmentthroughout the postdisaster relief andrecovery stages. Guidelines to distributeresources more evenly across the stagesof relief to recovery should include hold-ing the powerful relief industry account-able. Moreover, distribution and pro-curement policies should encourageinnovative and appropriate local ap-proaches, taking special note of the piv-

otal role that women’s groups can playthroughout the process of relief, recov-ery, and long-term development.

Second, as they recognize that poorwomen are among the most vulnerableand marginalized groups when disasterstrikes, policy and program designersmust establish specific monitoring mech-anisms to ensure that women can accessresources, participate publicly in plan-ning and decisionmaking associated withpostdisaster recovery, and organizethemselves and build their capacities tosustain their involvement throughoutthe years of the recovery and develop-ment processes.

Third, the case studies suggest twocornerstones for good programming:creating formal spaces where women’sgroups can organize to participate inpostdisaster efforts and formally allocat-ing resources and roles to groups of af-

Women’s groups are talented in gatheringlocal information that is difficult, if notimpossible for outsiders to access, and inmonitoring the implementation of govern-ment programs. They can ensure properallocation of resources by identifying thosein need and exposing corruption.

Women’s groups can collectively mobi-lize local resources and rebuild communitynetworks to help restore and operate es-sential services, such as childcare, educa-tion, health, water, and explore new liveli-hood activities. Capacity building and finan-cial support is crucial to support womendevelop collective and non-traditional live-lihood strategies.

Grassroots women can function asintermediaries between their communities

and the government in a manner thatimproves the speed, quality, and account-ability of the government programs (as inthe case of Maharashtra). When trained,they can effectively communicate informa-tion about earthquake safety, mitigationmeasures, and government programs, andresolve local conflicts as negotiators. Thisrole not only helps affected families, butalso increases the government’s credibilityin the eyes of local communities. An out-come of their active involvement is respectin the eyes of their communities andauthorities, which starts changing genderstereotypes.

Women’s groups can provide effectivesupport and guidance to women from newdisaster areas.

Box 7

The Practical and Strategic Contributions of Affected Women to Disaster Response and Mitigation

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 35

36 • S E E D S

fected women to ensure that they can:(1) access entitlements and assets in amanner that reduces their vulnerabilityand the prevailing gender and class/castebiases; (2) participate in government anddonor planning processes in order todesign social, livelihood, and housingsupport services that reduce the house-hold and public work burden of poorwomen; (3) claim permanent communitymeeting spaces that they manage them-selves; (4) collect and disseminate re-sources and information; (5) publiclyestablish, implement, and evaluate post-disaster relief-to-recovery plans and pro-grams related to social, economic, andphysical infrastructure and governance;(6) have equal access to formal platformsfor ongoing dialogue, negotiations, andfeedback; and (7) claim recognition fortheir accomplishments and knowledge,and in turn, be given the resources to en-able them to advise their peers in otheraffected communities when similar disas-ters strike.

The case studies also suggest thatinstitutional frameworks are crucial inhelping to achieve the large-scale partic-ipation of women. The Maharashtra Stategovernment was persuaded to make for-mal spaces available for women’s partic-ipation available in reconstruction ef-forts, and it supported long-term devel-opment efforts at the district level aswell. Coupled with the Indian quota sys-tem for women’s representation in vil-lage governments, and the existence ofgovernment antipoverty programs de-signed to help rural women, Maharash-tran women’s groups were able to orga-nize effectively.

Finally, given the significant obstaclesto applying a development and gender-equity approach to postdisaster invest-ments and programming, the case stud-ies also imply that women’s groups inaffected communities (and supporting

NGOS) benefit from joining networksthat connect their experience, publiclyhighlight their results, and link them tokey institutions to advocate for policyand program change.

References

Batliwala, Srilatha. 2001. Remarks made at theGrassroots Women’s International Academyat Habitat +5, New York. <http://www.groots.org>. Accessed 5 January 2005.

British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). 2005.World News 1/23/05.

Coskun, Zehra. 2001. KEDV advisory boardmember. Personal communication.

Davis, Mike. 1999. Ecology of Fear: Los Angeles

and the Imagination of Disaster. New York:Vintage Books.

Delaney, Patricia L. and Elizabeth Shrader.2000. “Gender and post-disaster reconstruc-tion: The case of Hurricane Mitch inHonduras and Nicaragua.” Decision reviewdraft. Washington, DC: LCSPG/LAC GenderTeam, The World Bank.

Enarson, Elaine. 2000. “Gender and NaturalDisasters.” Employment Working Paper 1.International Labor Organization (ILO)Recovery and Reconstruction Department,Geneva: ILO.

———. 2004. “Making risky environments safer:Women building sustainable and disaster-resilient communities.” <http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/public/w2000.html>.Accessed 24 August 2005.

Enarson, Elaine and Betty Hearn Morrow(eds.). 1998. The Gendered Terrain of Dis-

aster: Through Women’s Eyes. Westport,CT: Praeger.

Fothergill, A. 1998. “The neglect of gender indisaster work: An overview of the literature.”In The Gendered Terrain of Disaster:

Through Women’s Eyes. Eds. Elaine Enar-son and Betty Hearn Morrow. Westport, CT:Praeger.

Hewitt, Kenneth. 1998. “Excluded perspectivesin the social construction of disaster.” InWhat Is Disaster? Perspectives on the

Question. Ed. E.I. Quanterelli. London:Routledge.

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 36

Number 22, 2005 • 37

International Federation of Red Cross (IFRC)and Red Crescent Societies. 2001. “Chapter1: Relief, recovery and root causes.” InWorld Disasters Report 2001. http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/wdr2001/chapter1.asp>.Geneva: IFRC. Accessed 1 August 2005.

Martin, Max. 2003. Women Builders:

Breaking Barriers in Earthquake-torn

Villages. Bangalore: Books for Change.

Parasuraman, S. and P.V. Unnikrishnan (eds.).2000. India Disasters Report. New Delhi:Oxford University Press.

Swayam Shikshan Prayog (SSP). 2000a. “Worm’sEye View: Women’s Information Centres.”Available from http://www.sspindia.org. Un-published.

———. 2000b. “Small Change, Big Deals.”Available from http://www.sspindia.org.

———. 2002. Margin to Mainstream: Re-

building Communities in Gujarat. <http://www.sspindia.org/PDF%20files/margin.pdf>.Accessed 1 August 2005.

United Nations Commission on Human Settle-ments. 2000. Habitat +5 Draft Report forTurkey. Unpublished.

———. 2001. Press release #CHS/00/01.

United Nations Economic Commission for LatinAmerica and the Caribbean (UNECLAC). 2003. Handbook for Estimating the Socio-

Economic and Environmental Effects of

Disasters. Santiago, Chile: UNECLAC.

United Nations Inter-Agency Secretariat of theInternational Strategy for Disaster Reduc-tion (UN/ISDR) and the UN Division for theAdvancement of Women. 2001. “Environ-mental management and the mitigation ofnatural disasters: A gender perspective.”Presentations and final report of the ExpertGroup Meeting in Ankara, Turkey, 1 No-vember. <http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/env_manage/documents/EGM-Turkey-final-report.pdf>. Accessed 1 August2005.

World Bank Internal Evaluation Note. 2004.Disasters and Development: Learning from

the World Bank’s Experience. Washington,DC: World Bank.

World Bank Group. 2005. “Hazard risk manage-ment.” <http://www.worldbank.org/hazards>.Accessed 1 August 2005.

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 37

Editor: Sandy SchilenEditorial and Production Coordinator: Michelle SkaerCopyeditor: Karen Tweedy-HolmesDesigner: Mike VosikaCover Photos: Front–Ayse Yonder, Izmit, 2000; Back–Ayse Yonder, Adapazari, 1999

SEEDS Advisory CommitteeJudith Bruce (Population Council)Marilyn Carr (Consultant)Marty Chen (Harvard University)Monique Cohen (Microfinance Opportunities)Caren Grown (Bard College, Levy Economics Institute)Ann Leonard (Consultant)Joyce Malombe (Institute of International Education)Katharine McKee (USAID)Aruna Rao (Gender at Work)Mildred Warner (Cornell University)Corinne Whitaker (International Women’s Health Coalition)

No. 12 The Muek-Lek Women’s Dairy Proj-ect in Thailand (English)

No. 13 Child Care: Meeting the Needs ofWorking Mothers and Their Children(English, Spanish)

No. 14 Breaking New Ground: Reaching Outto Women Farmers in Western Zam-bia (English, Spanish, French)

No. 15 Self-Employment as a Means toWomen’s Economic Self-Sufficiency:Women Venture’s Business Develop-ment Program (English)

No. 16 Wasteland Development and the Em-powerment of Women: The SARTHIExperience (French, Hindi)

No. 17 Supporting Women Farmers in theGreen Zones of Mozambique (Eng-lish)

No. 18 Out of the Shadows: HomebasedWorkers Organize for InternationalRecognition (English)

No. 19 Empowering the Next Generation:Girls of the Maqattam Garbage Set-tlement (English, Arabic)

No. 20 Women Street Vendors: The Road toRecognition (English)

No. 21 Are We Not Peasants Too? LandRights and Women’s Claims in India(English)

No. 2 Hanover Street: An Experiment toTrain Women in Welding and Car-pentry—Jamaica (English, Spanish)

No. 3 Market Women’s Cooperatives: Giv-ing Women Credit—Nicaragua (Span-ish, French)

No. 4 Women and Handicrafts: Myth andReality—International (English, Span-ish, French)

No. 5 The Markala Cooperative: A New Ap-proach to Traditional EconomicRoles—Mali (French)

No. 6 The Working Women’s Forum: Organ-izing for Credit and Change—India(French)

No. 7 Developing Non-Craft Employmentfor Women in Bangladesh (English,French, Spanish)

No. 8 Community Management of Waste Re-cycling: The SIRDO—Mexico (Eng-lish, Spanish)

No. 9 The Women’s Construction Collective:Building for the Future—Jamaica(English, Spanish)

No. 10 Forest Conservation in Nepal: En-couraging Women’s Participation(English, Spanish, French, Nepali)

No. 11 Port Sudan Small Scale EnterpriseProgram—Sudan (English)

Other Editions of SEEDS Currently Available

If you would like additional copies of this issue or any SEEDS issues listed above, send an e-mail to:seeds@popcouncil.org or seedseditor@gmail.com. Copies of selected SEEDS issues in local languageshave been published by organizations in the following countries: Egypt, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Nepal,Pakistan, Thailand, and Vietnam. Please write to us for more information if you are interested in thesematerials. Most past editions of SEEDS are also available online at: www.popcouncil.org/publications.

Seeds2005 8/30/05 4:37 PM Page 38

Women’s Participation in Disaster Relief and Recoveryby Ayse Yonder with Sengul Akcar and Prema Gopalan

Scan photo to approx. 250% andreplace