YOGYAKARTA
HUMANITARIAN
BAMBOO
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
JOGYAKARTA,
JUNE
26,
2008
The
following
document
provides
a
compilation
of
the
notes
on
presentations,
discussions
and
debates
taken
throughout
the
day
by
the
three
notetakers
employed
by
the
Humanitarian
Bamboo
project
at
the
first
Indonesian
consultative
forum
on
the
use
of
bamboo
in
humanitarian
response.
Compiled by Dave Hodgkin (Benchmark Consulting) and Kim Williamson
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
The
Humanitarian
Bamboo
Project
aims
to
provide
tools
and
resources
to
humanitarian
workers
to
promote
and
facilitate
the
better
use
of
bamboo
in
humanitarian
response.
It
aims
to
bring
together
humanitarian
workers
and
bamboo
experts
to
synthesise
and
make
accessible
existing
knowledge
about
the
use
of
bamboo.
The
needs
of
humanitarian
actors
are
unique:
they
are
under
time
pressures,
mandated
to
prioritise
human
needs,
and
need
to
find
“good
enough”
and
timely
solutions,
not
overengineered
solutions.
Furthermore,
every
situation
will
be
different.
This
project
is
intended
to
provide
principles
and
guidelines
necessary
for
humanitarian
workers
to
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
1
make
good,
informed
decisions
about
using
bamboo,
to
make
it
easy
for
them
to
integrate
sustainable
and
accurate
techniques
and
procedures
for
using
bamboo
into
the
common
vocabulary
of
the
humanitarian
sector.
The
Humanitarian
Bamboo
project
came
out
of
the
recognition
that
the
Jogyakarta
earthquake
response
was
unique
in
the
humanitarian
sector
for
turning
out
a
huge
number
of
shelters
in
a
short
time
using
bamboo.
75,000
bamboo
t‐shelters
were
built
by
humanitarian
sector
in
9
months,
and
2‐3
times
that
number
built
by
community.
Bamboo
was
chosen
as
a
primary
building
material
in
transitional
shelter
because
of
cost,
time,
capacity
to
source
mass
quantities,
and
local
knowledge
and
cultural
familiarity
with
bamboo
as
a
traditional
building
material.
PRESENTATIONS
• Introduction
to
the
Humanitarian
Bamboo
project
by
Dave
Hodgkin,
Humanitarian
Bamboo
lead
consultant,
and
Sebastian
Fesneau,
Humanitarian
Response
Coordinator,
PRIME
Programme
• Summary
of
Humanitarian
Bamboo
workshop
in
India
and
the
role
of
RedR
India
by
Sarbjit
Singh,
director
of
RedR
India
• IOM
t‐shelter
programme
by
Ashley
Carl,
IOM
Acting
Director
• IFRC
t‐shelter
programme
by
Bill
Marsden,
Jogyakarta
Recovery
Coordinator
• Research
into
bamboo
technology
by
Professor
Purwito,
Research
Institute
for
Human
Settlements,
Department
of
Public
Works,
Bandung
DISCUSSION
THEMES
• Environmental
impact
of
bamboo
harvest
in
humanitarian
response
• Resource
management
and
harvesting
of
bamboo
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
2
• Mapping
the
availability
of
the
Indonesian
and
global
bamboo
resource
• Treatment
of
bamboo
• Jointing
techniques
RECOMMENDATIONS
There
can
be
a
tension
between
humanitarianism
and
environmentalism
in
emergency
response
organizations
which
have
a
clear
mandate
for
prioritising
human
needs.
This
can
be
problematic
in
disaster
response
as
communities
are
often
dependent
on
their
local
environment:
the
humanitarian
sector
needs
to
be
aware
of
the
importance
of
environmental
issues
to
the
communities
that
they
serve.
Bamboo
experts
argue
that
it
is
a
fallacy
that
you
can
clear‐cut
bamboo
with
little
effect
on
bamboo
regeneration:
even
a
renewable
resource
can
be
harvested
in
an
unsustainable
way.
In
order
for
bamboo
to
be
a
genuinely
sustainable
option,
there
should
be
clear
guidelines
for
mechanisms
that
support
best
practice
procurement
of
the
bamboo
resource.
• A
study
needs
to
be
carried
out
to
definitively
establish
the
impact
of
the
Jogyakarta
shelter
response
on
Java’s
bamboo
forests.
• Clear
guidelines
for
best
clump
management
need
to
be
drawn
up
and
be
easily
accessible
within
the
humanitarian
sector.
Bamboo
management
programs
should
be
an
integral
part
of
future
emergency
shelter
response
from
the
start.
• A
map
of
the
bamboo
resources
in
Indonesia
(and
potentially
global
bamboo
availability)
should
be
developed
for
humanitarian
shelter
purposes,
e.g.
a
GIS
map
of
bamboo
resources
within
shipping
distance.
A
simple
map
of
bamboo
distribution
that
could
satisfy
the
three
structural
needs
of
humanitarian
construction,
on
a
regional
scale
with
rough
capacity
of
the
bamboo
stock
would
be
sufficient
for
humanitarian
actors
to
know
whether
a
bamboo
project
is
viable
there.
• Although
it
might
be
outside
the
scope
of
disaster
management
agencies,
it
is
worth
considering
planting
bamboo
to
prepare
for
its
use
in
humanitarian
crises,
or
to
consider
the
possibility
of
developing
replanting
programs
or
community
carbon
credit
schemes.
TECHNICAL
ISSUES
TO
INCLUDE
IN
THE
MANUAL
• Glues
• Jointing
techniques
and
connection
system
• treatment
of
bamboo
• harvesting
and
sustainable
procurement
guidelines
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
3
PRESENTATION
NOTES
The
following
section
of
this
report
contains
notes
taken
from
the
presentations
made
throughout
the
day
INTRODUCTION
TO
THE
HUMANITARIAN
BAMBOO
PROJECT:
DAVE
HODGKIN
AND
SEBASTIAN
FESNEAU
The
Humanitarian
Bamboo
Project
aims
to
provide
tools
and
resources
to
humanitarian
workers
to
promote
and
facilitate
the
better
use
of
bamboo
in
humanitarian
response.
This
involves
identifying
and
addressing
the
gaps
in
understanding
that
exist
between
humanitarian
workers
and
bamboo
experts.
Globally,
there
is
a
lot
of
knowledge
about
bamboo,
both
traditional
knowledge
and
scientific
knowledge:
our
priority
is
to
synthesise
that
knowledge,
simplify
it,
and
make
it
accessible
through
appropriate
literature
and
training.
Primary Objectives
• Produce
a
set
of
technical
briefs
on
bamboo
temporary
shelters
• Develop
training
modules
about
bamboo
construction
based
on
technical
briefs
Secondary
Objectives
• Develop
further
bamboo
related
tools
specifically
for
the
Indonesian
context
as
agreed
upon
• Identify
and
make
recommendations
for
ongoing
needs
around
the
issue
of
bamboo
usage
in
humanitarian
work
as
it
applies
specifically
in
the
Indonesian
context
and
more
broadly
globally
The
Humanitarian
Bamboo
project
is
supported
by
Oxfam,
IFRC
and
RedR.
It
is
similar
in
scope
to
the:
• Humanitarian
timber
guidelines:
“A
guide
to
the
planning,
use,
procurement,
and
logistics
of
timber
as
a
construction
material
in
humanitarian
relief”,
www.humanitariantimber.org
• Plastic
sheeting
guidelines:
“A
guide
to
the
specification
and
use
of
plastic
sheeting
in
humanitarian
relief”,
http://plastic‐sheeting.org
ACTIVITIES
• Hire a lead consultant to oversee the project: Dave Hodgkin
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
4
• Develop
a
website:
http://humanitarianbamboo.org
• Investigate
and
collate
global
resources
on
bamboo
construction
applicable
to
the
post‐natural
disaster
environment:
technical
briefs
• Conduct
meetings
with
bamboo
and
humanitarian
construction
experts
to
ensure
adequate
contribution
into
the
project
• Set
up
and
work
with
a
peer
review
group
to
overview
the
work
of
the
bamboo
project
• Assist
RedR
India
to
develop
training
modules
BACKGROUND
The
Humanitarian
Bamboo
project
came
out
of
the
recognition
that
the
Jogyakarta
earthquake
response
managed
to
turn
out
a
huge
number
of
shelters
in
a
short
time
using
bamboo.
This
was
unusual
for
the
humanitarian
sector.
There
were
75,000
bamboo
t‐shelters
built
by
humanitarian
sector
in
9
months,
and
2‐3
times
that
number
built
by
community.
The
global
Shelter
Cluster
and
IASC
recognised
the
potential
of
bamboo
but
lack
of
use
within
the
sector.
In
a
similar
vein
to
the
timber
and
plastic
sheeting
guidelines,
or
the
SPHERE
manual
for
humanitarian
workers,
the
Humanitarian
Bamboo
project
was
established
in
order
to
address
that
knowledge
gap.
The
desired
outcome
is
a
practical
manual
about
how
to
use
bamboo:
how
to
investigate
a
problem
and
choose
and
implement
solutions.
It
should
be
easy
to
use
and
highly
accessible,
with
simple
diagrams
that
can
help
humanitarian
workers
make
informed
choices
about
using
bamboo.
The
style
of
the
manual
is
based
on
the
concept
that
in
any
emergency,
it
is
impossible
to
dictate
what
humanitarian
actors
need
to
do:
solutions
will
be
unique.
The
manual
will
be
a
set
of
best
practice
guidelines,
not
dictating
“correct”
solutions.
The
Humanitarian
Bamboo
project
is
initially
being
developed
at
the
Indonesian
level;
this
component
of
the
project
has
been
funded
by
Oxfam.
The
project
may
consequently
be
taken
to
an
international
level.
WORKSHOP
The
Humanitarian
Bamboo
workshop
is
designed
to
be
a
crossover
between
humanitarian
actors
and
bamboo
experts.
It
aims
to
create
a
discussion
space
between
humanitarian
actors
and
bamboo
specialist
to
get
recommendations
and
guidance
for
the
way
forward.
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
5
SUMMARY
OF
HB
WORKSHOP
IN
INDIA
AND
THE
ROLE
OF
REDR
INDIA:
SARBJIT
SINGH,
DIRECTOR
OF
REDR
INDIA
RedR
is
a
global
organisation
with
offices
in
different
countries.
We
elect
people
to
be
on
a
database
(invitation
is
necessary
for
RedR
membership),
train
them,
and
help
place
them.
Training
is
a
primary
mandate
for
RedR,
as
emergency
work
is
specialised
work
but
it
can
be
difficult
to
find
programs
that
train
future
emergency
workers.
We
suggest
that
an
Indonesian
RedR
initiative
would
be
worthwhile
given
the
national
need
for
trained
emergency
management
specialists.
SUMMARY
OF
HUMANITARIAN
BAMBOO
WORKSHOP,
PUNE,
INDIA,
5
APRIL
2008
Participants
included
bamboo
experts,
humanitarian
professionals
and
HB
project
support
staff
(RedR
India
and
Dave
Hodgin).
The
workshop
discussed
the
technical
themes
of
bamboo
treatment,
bamboo
harvesting,
bamboo
construction,
with
in‐depth
discussion
on
treatment
systems,
harvesting
and
jointing
systems.
There
was
a
tour
of
bamboo
plantation
and
bamboo
construction
facilities.
DISCUSSION OF BAMBOO TREATMENT
In
the
emergency
stage,
treatment
is
not
required;
for
transitional
use
maybe
(desirable),
and
for
permanent
use,
yes.
If
treatment
is
required,
the
type
of
treatment
depends
on
a
wide
range
of
factors:
different
treatment
systems
suit
different
applications.
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
6
DISCUSSION ON HARVESTING AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
In
an
emergency,
chopping
the
whole
HARVESTING
AND
RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT
clump
is
acceptable,
Best
practice:
Harvest
as
per
harvest
cycles
chart.
Harvest
although
good
clump
culms
between
2‐5
years
old.
Thin
out
older
culms
and
take
management
is
best
care
with
new
shoot
areas
(don’t
trample
on
new
shoots).
practice.
Good
clump
management
greatly
Not
as
good:
Harvest
all
culms,
harvest
during
the
dry
season.
increases
productivity.
Worst
practice:
Harvest
whatever
you
need
when
you
need
it.
By
the
Transitional
Guideline
from
India
workshop
phase
of
an
emergency
shelter
response,
good
clump
management
should
be
fully
integrated
into
the
procurement
chain.
Harvesting cycles:
• Harvest
during
non‐rainy/growth
season.
• Harvest
at
dawn
and
dusk
when
sap
levels
are
low,
but
visibility
is
sufficient.
• Harvest
when
the
moon
is
at
its
smallest,
as
this
is
a
low
sap
time
• Harvest
culms
older
than
2
years
and
less
than
5
years.
DISCUSSION OF BAMBOO JOINTING
Nodal
placement
is
much
more
critical
than
“fastening”
choice.
All
culms
should
have
a
node
“after”
or
on
the
joint.
Traditional
pegged
and
rattan
structures
suit
small
shelters,
whilst
bolts
are
best
for
large
structures.
Local
traditions
should
be
encouraged
and
reinforced.
Adequate
bracing
is
critical
for
joint
strength.
best: bolts > peg & ratan > natural fibre rope > nylon rope > wire> nails : worst
Guideline from India workshop
EARLY
RECOVERY
IN
JOGYAKARTA
&
CENTRAL
JAVA
EARTHQUAKE
RESPONSE
On
the
26
May
2006,
an
earthquake
measuring
6
on
the
Richter
scale
struck
to
the
Jogyakarta
province
southeast
of
the
city.
Two
provinces
of
Java
were
seriously
impacted.
5,749
died,
and
38,000
injured,
but
shelter
was
the
overwhelming
humanitarian
need
in
the
earthquake
response:
303,000
houses
were
destroyed
or
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
7
seriously
damaged,
while
other
community
facilities
and
capacities
were
not
seriously
affected.
In
this
sense,
the
earthquake
was
a
man‐made
disaster
resulting
from
houses
were
not
well
built.
The
emergency
shelter
stage
of
the
earthquake
response
was
carried
out
relatively
successfully.
However,
after
the
experience
of
Aceh,
the
government
didn’t
want
anyone
to
build
transitional
shelter;
they
wanted
the
humanitarian
shelter
response
to
help
affected
communities
to
move
from
tents
and
tarpaulins
directly
to
permanent
housing.
There
was
widespread
concern
throughout
the
Cluster
that
there
would
be
serious
problems
housing
communities
in
the
interim
period
between
the
3‐6
month
lifetime
of
a
tent
or
tarpaulin
and
the
1‐2
years
that
it
might
take
for
to
rebuild
permanent
housing;
or
permanent
houses
would
be
rebuilt
too
quickly
and
not
very
well.
This
resulted
in
“a
massive
struggle
with
the
government
for
the
humanitarian
space
to
build
transitional
shelter”;
eventually,
the
Jogyakarta
earthquake
response
largely
focused
on
transitional
shelter.
CLUSTER CONSENSUS ON T‐SHELTERS
The
Cluster
wanted
some
measure
of
equity
in
housing
across
the
shelter
response,
and
came
to
a
consensus
on
basic
principles
of
a
t‐shelter:
that
it
should
be
a
braced
structure
(some
had
footing),
most
had
a
door
on
the
end
(for
safe
exit
in
earthquake),
most
had
windows
down
the
side,
a
bamboo
roof
frame
with
a
tarp
for
an
initial
roof,
but
designed
to
handle
a
roof
tile
load
in
an
earthquake.
It
was
decided
that
a
t‐shelter
should
not
cost
less
than
$US100
or
more
than
$US200
(Rp
2
million).
Some
NGOs
built
more
expensive
houses
(Rp
5
million),
which
disqualified
the
beneficiaries
from
the
government
reconstruction
fund.
CHOICE OF BUILDING MATERIALS
Bamboo
was
chosen
because
of
factors
including
the
speed
of
construction,
capacity
to
source
mass
quantities
–
Java
has
a
rich
local
bamboo
stock
–
and
funding
considerations.
The
cost
of
bamboo
in
Jogyakarta
at
the
peak
of
demand
almost
doubled
(petrol
levies,
construction
boom,
increased
demand),
but
it
was
still
a
relatively
cheap
material
to
build
with.
Other
factors
included
local
knowledge
about
bamboo
and
traditional
use
of
bamboo
as
a
building
material,
and
safety:
bamboo
is
a
strong
material,
and
if
it
is
collapsing
in
an
earthquake,
it
gives
time
for
people
to
escape.
Coconut
wood
was
an
option,
but
culturally
it
was
not
the
most
accessible.
Woven
bamboo
matting
was
chosen
as
a
traditional
wall
material.
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
8
Earthenware
tiles
were
chosen
for
the
roof
for
a
number
of
reasons.
There
was
a
strong
cultural
consideration:
roof
tiles
were
the
overwhelmingly
preferred
choice
(99%)
of
roofing
material
according
to
the
initial
ER
assessment.
People
make
tiles
locally,
so
using
tiles
would
also
support
the
local
industry.
Furthermore
if
roof
tiles
were
used
in
the
transitional
shelter,
they
could
then
be
reused
in
the
permanent
house.
In
fact,
after
receiving
a
tarpaulin
for
a
temporary
roof
on
their
t‐shelter,
many
people
salvaged
the
tiles
from
their
original
house
and
putting
them
on
the
roof.
Finally,
thatching
wasn’t
a
viable
option
because
of
the
difficulty
of
sourcing
mass
quantities
of
coconut
leaves
or
long
grass.
CLUSTER COORDINATION AND ADOPTION OF BEST PRACTICE
It
is
important
to
remember
that
the
goal
of
a
humanitarian
response
is
to
reach
standards
that
are
“good
enough”,
not
perfect.
The
question
of
design
imperatives
vs
over‐engineering
was
a
difficult
question
for
the
Shelter
Cluster
to
answer.
When
in
doubt,
people
will
fall
back
to
more
engineered
solutions,
but
does
over‐engineering
cost
houses
and
delay
communities’
return
to
normality?
The
need
for
adequately
housing
people
as
quickly
as
possible
has
to
be
weighed
up
against
the
time
it
takes
to
develop
a
perfect
design.
Furthermore,
coming
up
with
the
best
plan
in
the
world
is
not
necessarily
what
is
needed,
because
the
key
question
is
whether
or
not
it
will
be
adopted.
Cluster
coordination
is
really
difficult:
it
never
works
to
produce
a
single
solution.
The
best
that
can
be
done
is
to
describe
(in
detail)
best
practice
guidelines,
and
make
it
easy
for
people
to
do
that.
COMMUNITY‐DRIVEN PROCESS
The
training,
socialisation
and
implementation
of
t‐shelters
involved
thousands
of
stipended
volunteers.
At
the
peak
of
the
response,
300
IFRC
volunteers
were
dispatched
every
day.
The
NGOs
carrying
out
t‐shelter
programs
strongly
encouraged
beneficiaries
to
follow
the
design.
Quality
control
was
a
real
challenge,
and
the
volunteers/supervisors
were
essential
in
this
process
to
guide
and
support
good
construction.
The
more
the
volunteers
were
confident
and
engaged
in
the
process,
the
more
the
construction
followed
the
design
and
was
of
sufficient
quality.
In
some
cases
people
ignored
the
design,
such
as
in
Delingo,
a
remote
community
with
widespread
construction
skills
and
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
9
lots
of
resources;
in
other
cases
people
modified
the
design.
The
Cluster
wasn’t
too
concerned
with
variations
as
long
as
the
general
principles
were
followed
and
the
essential
points
satisfied
(e.g.
size
of
building,
safe
connections
etc).
“You
can’t
underestimate
the
value
of
reiteration
of
the
information.
There
were
posters,
books,
films,
training
lessons,
radio;
the
design
that
had
come
out
of
consultation
with
the
communities
and
agreed
upon
across
the
shelter
Cluster
was
reinforced
and
reinforced.
It’s
about
creating
that
path
of
least
resistance”
(Dave
Hodgkin).
COMMUNITY CONSTRUCTION SKILLS AND BAMBOO KNOWLEDGE
“Community
levels
of
knowledge
about
bamboo
varied.
People
living
in
a
more
urbanised
environment
(peri‐urban
environments)
had
lost
their
inherent
knowledge
about
bamboo
so
bamboo
construction
quality
was
lower
in
the
urban
areas.
In
comparison,
the
rural
mountainous
communities
of
Gunug
Kidul
recovered
relatively
quickly,
despite
higher
levels
of
damage
from
the
earthquake
and
higher
levels
of
background
poverty.
One
of
the
reasons
for
this
was
that
prior
to
the
earthquake,
many
locals
worked
in
the
construction
industry,
and
that
community
experience
consequently
resulted
in
a
much
higher
level
of
self‐rebuilding”
(Dave
Hodgkin).
COMPARISON OF JOGYAKARTA AND ACEH
IOM
built
t‐shelters
in
Aceh,
but
didn’t
use
bamboo
because
west
Aceh
doesn’t
have
significant
bamboo
resources
and
the
transportation
process
would
have
been
difficult.
Immediate
available
resources
in
Aceh
were
coconut
and
timber.
There
was
also
less
traditional
use
of
bamboo
and
less
knowledge
about
how
to
use
it.
Furthermore
in
Aceh,
the
government
mandated
that
no
transitional
shelters
would
be
built;
instead
there
were
transitional
camps.
In
Jogyakarta,
no‐one
was
confident
of
government
assistance,
and
the
shelter
response
perceived
an
urgent
need
for
a
comprehensive
transitional
shelter
response.
“Fear
is
a
great
motivator:
because
there
was
never
enough
money
to
do
adequate
reconstruction,
people
needed
to
work
together.
It
wasn’t
clear
what
the
government
was
going
to
come
up
with.
There
was
widespread
confusion
about
whether
the
government
was
going
to
help
at
all,
especially
as
the
known
number
of
damaged
houses
increased:
10,000
houses,
100,000
houses,
200,000,
300,000”
(Dave
Hodgkin).
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
10
RISK MITIGATION OF T‐SHELTER PROGRAM
IFRC
had
never
before
carried
out
a
program
in
which
money
was
given
directly
to
beneficiaries
along
with
training.
IFRC
being
one
of
the
most
risk‐averse
organisations
mitigated
the
potential
risk
of
the
program
through
several
measures,
including
consulting
an
ex‐bank
manager
about
the
financial
side
of
the
program,
and
a
bamboo
expert
with
experience
in
three
countries
on
the
bamboo
construction
side.
AMOUNT OF BAMBOO USED
On
average,
50
culms
were
used
per
house,
including
bamboo
weave.
(Depending
on
figures
of
bamboo
reconstruction),
the
earthquake
response
used
up
to
300,000
x
50
bamboo
culms
within
9
months.
The
impact
on
the
Javanese
bamboo
ecology
is
still
disputed
but
bamboo
experts
believe
that
significant
deforestation
of
bamboo
occurred.
FACTORS
THAT
ENABLED
AN
EFFECTIVE
SHELTER
RESPONSE
• The
Jogyakarta
earthquake
response
was
unusual
because
of
the
unified
nature
of
the
Shelter
Cluster.
A
diverse
range
of
people
and
organisations
worked
together,
including
local
universities,
international
NGOs
and
humanitarian
agencies,
local
NGOs,
UN
branches,
and
local
communities.
The
Cluster
in
general
was
very
open:
suppliers
were
shared,
posters
and
toolkits
were
shared.
The
Cluster
worked
closely
with
UGM
and
other
universities
who
helped
make
the
designs
similar
across
the
Cluster,
and
were
a
source
of
volunteers.
This
made
it
easier
to
share
lessons
on
designing
the
t‐shelter
and
create
a
coherent
shelter
response.
It
was
an
unusually
inclusive
process.
• Large‐scale
use
of
volunteers
allowed
for
rapid
skill
transfer.
The
skills
training
and
direct
funding
of
beneficiaries
empowered
communities
to
rebuild
themselves.
• There
was
limited
damage
to
social
infrastructure
in
Jogyakarta,
unlike
Aceh.
Furthermore
Jogyakarta
is
well‐located
at
the
centre
of
Java’s
web
of
supply.
• People
put
a
lot
of
effort
into
working
together
because
of
the
fear
that
there
was
not
going
to
be
money
to
do
adequate
reconstruction:
it
wasn’t
clear
when
or
how
the
government
was
going
to
assist.
Furthermore,
the
rainy
season
was
only
a
few
months
away.
In
hindsight,
there
was
more
than
enough
money,
it
was
a
heavy
rainy
season
everywhere
except
for
Jogyakarta,
and
the
government
managed
to
help
relatively
quickly.
OVERVIEW OF IOM T‐SHELTER PROGRAMME IN YOGYAKARTA: ASHLEY CARL
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
11
BRIDGING THE GAP
Transitional
shelter
facilitates
permanent
reconstruction
to
bridge
the
gap
between
emergency
shelter
and
permanent
reconstruction.
It
can
help
prevent
a
health
disaster
during
the
rainy
season;
it
is
quick
to
build;
and
80%
of
materials
can
be
reused
for
permanent
shelter
which
can
then
be
rebuilt
around
the
t‐shelter.
T‐shelters
were
more
about
socialisation
and
community
involvement
(distribution
and
assessment).
There
were
designed
to
last
for
two
years.
If
people
abandon
it,
the
t‐
shelters
tend
to
deteriorate
quickly,
but
if
people
live
in
it,
the
quality
is
maintained.
Bamboo
was
chosen
for
the
speed
at
which
it
could
be
built
and
the
cost.
DESIGN PROCESS
The
design
of
the
t‐shelter
structure
was
a
learning
process
that
resulted
in
a
design
that
evolved
over
time,
after
modifications,
testing,
adapting
the
shelter
design
to
continual
inputs,
starting
from
the
emergency
phase
up
to
6‐9
months
later.
The
t‐
shelter
design
took
three
weeks,
with
continual
improvements
over
the
following
three
months,
and
then
load
testing
carried
out
(after
which
some
additional
trussing
was
added,
roof
tiles
1.4
kg,
1.1
maximum).
There
were
800kgs
of
roof
tiles,
so
the
design
of
the
trusses
was
important.
2.2
tonnes
of
vertial
load,
lateral
(transversal)
load
(600?),
longitudinal
2.1
tonne.
“The
success
of
the
t‐shelter
program
within
the
Shelter
Cluster
resulted
from
the
combined
efforts
of
all
participants.
In
IOM’s
case,
IOM
was
more
engaged
in
the
discussion
and
design
process
during
the
first
few
months
of
the
shelter
response,
this
allowed
IOM
to
observe
the
initial
efforts
of
earlier
shelter
actors
such
as
CHS
and
Oxfam,
and
wait
until
some
of
the
earlier
issues
were
resolved.
The
design
process
was
shorter
for
IOM
because
the
whole
Cluster
was
engaged
in
the
process,
in
which
minimum
guidelines
and
principles
were
drawn
up
that
everyone
agreed
on.
Lack
of
capacity
was
identified
early
on,
so
for
example
some
NGOs
conducted
training
programs
to
increase
the
capacity
of
the
community
to
produce
gedek”
(Dave
Hodgkin).
PREFABRICATION AND PRODUCTION LINE
Daily
capacity
of
the
IOM
t‐shelter
program
was
200
shelters
(assessed,
procured,
produced,
distributed
&
constructed).
Large
scale
prefabrication
improved
the
quality
and
speed
of
construction.
IOM
set
up
a
production
line
with
40
workers
making
components
for
20
shelters:
in
total
400
workers
&
200
shelters
per
day.
IOM
had
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
12
quality
control
at
every
step,
but
still
found
defects
at
the
end
of
the
process.
It
was
important
to
have
a
final
quality
check
of
components
before
sending
them
out
to
the
village.
IOM did not prefabricate gedek (bamboo matting), but got the mats from a supplier.
BENEFICIARIES
IOM targeted those in need of a roof in a village, ie people with
• ‐
totally
or
heavily
damaged
houses
• ‐
no
shelter
support:
still
living
in
emergency
housing
(tarpaulins
and
tents)
• ‐
sufficient
space
for
3x6m
shelter
• ‐
willingness
for
gotong
royong
• ‐
dusun’s
with
high
numbers
are
prioritized
• ‐
100%
coverage
in
a
dusun
All
details
were
captured
in
a
beneficiary
database.
LOGISTICS
IOM’s
specialisation
in
logistics
facilitated
the
distribution
process,
including
170
trucks
(90
used
for
t‐shelter
programme).
There
was
daily
distribution
of
200
kits:
4
walling
elements,
4
roof
frames,
4
connecting
beams,
40
bambu
apus,
300m
tali
ijuk,
5
sacks
of
cement,
1
terpal,
0,5
cubic
pasir,
paku
2
tas
(2,5cm
and
3,5cm),
1
manual,
1
tool
kit
per
10
KK,
poster
bambu
dan
T‐shelter
(nails,
nylon
straps,
bamboo
sheeting,
prefab
roof
frame)
(160,000
sticks?).
IOM’s construction process provides for training and quality control
• partnership
with
the
University
of
Gadjah
Mada
(UGM)
• 100
volunteers,
300
skilled
workers,
200
shelters
per
day
• construction
volunteers
provide
technical
assistance,
quality
control
and
reporting
• density
of
supervision:
1
person
per
5
units.
Volunteers
are
the
supervisors.
• skilled
workers
provide
assistance
to
the
Gotong
Royong
process
(300
volunteers?
students
of
architecture
and
engineering:
technical
assistance
in
the
field)
• ‐
Transport
problems:
the
handling
of
the
bamboo
could
be
problematic
as
the
bamboo
could
cracks
during
transport.
• ‐
Construction/training
problem:
beneficiaries
might
not
have
knowledge
about
working
with
bamboo,
for
example
using
nails
and
cracking
the
bamboo,
and
then
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
13
using
the
bamboo
despite
its
structural
weakness
and
despite
having
a
supervisor
in
the
field
–
a
problem
due
to
the
training,
not
the
design.
IFRC T‐SHELTER PROGRAM YOGYAKARTA, LESSONS LEARNED: BILL
EARLY RECOVERY ASSESSMENT
Shelter
was
the
overwhelming
need
in
the
earthquake
response.
People
needed
a
safe
place
to
leave
family
and
possessions
so
they
could
get
back
to
work.
Within
days,
communities
had
secured
their
homes
and
remaining
possessions.
Social
cohesion
was
strong,
markets
were
functioning
and
recovery
started
immediately.
RELIEF ASSISTANCE
PMI reached nearly 120,000 families by November 2006. This included:
• 11,877
tents
and
110,944
tarpaulins
• 100,000
hygiene
kits,
sarongs
&
food
parcels
• Extensive
public
health,
water
and
sanitation
&
psycho‐social
support
programs
SHELTER PROGRAM DESIGN
The
goal
of
the
program
was
to
empower
community
members
to
rebuild
their
lives
starting
with
the
construction
of
a
transitional
shelter.
The
t‐shelter
design
developed
through
understandings
of
locally
available
materials,
community
needs,
capacity
and
objectives
of
the
PMI‐IFRC
Team,
and
through
working
as
parting
of
the
Shelter
Cluster.
The
Shelter
Cluster
guidelines
included
housing
being
seismic
resistance,
designed
up
to
two
years,
less
than
$US200,
and
using
materials
could
be
recycled.
There
was
a
high
level
of
uncertainty
about
what
the
government
would
do
and
when.
TEAM MEMBERS
IFRC’s
design
team
included
a
bamboo
expert
with
disaster
reconstruction
experience
in
Venezuela
and
Flores,
undergraduate
architects,
community
consultation,
training
team,
top
NGO
facilitators/trainers,
implementation
team,
and
enthusiastic
young
PMI
volunteers.
The
PMI
volunteers
were
often
very
willing
to
help,
but
had
a
low
level
of
confidence
or
experience.
• Indonesian
Red
Cross
Volunteers
• Indonesian
Red
Cross
Staff
and
Boards
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
14
• Atma
Jaya
University
Yogyakarta
• Gajah
Mada
University
• IFRC
Early
Recovery
Team
• Shelter
Cluster
• The
Communities
of
Yogyakarta
and
Central
Java
TRAINING PROCESS
The
training
process
involved
hands‐on
training
for
three
days
and
nights
making
straw
models,
a
mock‐up
frame,
finance
training
and
team
building
exercises.
Community
training
lasted
up
to
1
week
in
which
the
volunteers
and
community
built
the
first
shelter
together
with
supporting
media:
a
step‐by‐step
guide,
informative
video
about
using
bamboo
in
construction,
safe
house
advertisements
and
booklet.
Key points that were emphasised within the community trainings included:
• How
to
chose
and
prepare
the
right
bamboo
• Don’t
use
green
bamboo
• Harvest
at
the
end
of
the
dry
season
(when
the
bamboo
has
low
carbohydrate
content)
• How
to
build
a
seismic
resistant
house
• Feet,
bracing
and
joints
Other
key
points
in
the
community
program
included
training
and
field
support,
live‐in
helping
volunteers
who
often
stayed
for
several
months.
IFRC
then
provided
daily
technical
support
and
with
volunteers
engaging
in
a
weekly
reflective
learning/training
session.
THE COMMUNITY‐BASED T‐SHELTER PROGRAM
The
IFRC
t‐shelter
program
gave
small
cash
grants
supporting
traditional
mutual
support
mechanisms
(gotong
royong)
to
neighborhood
groups
to
buy
tools
and
basic
materials
to
build
temporary
shelters.
Funds
were
delivered
through
group
bank
accounts
in
3‐4
tranches.
The
community
contributed
labour
and
materials
recovered
from
rubble.
IFRC cooperated with local universities to:
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
15
• Develop
technical
inputs
to
shelter
design
and
messages
• Develop
posters,
pamphlets,
t‐shirts,
etc
• Train
students
to
deliver
“build
back
better”
messages
under
staff
supervision
• Set
up
mobile
construction
clinics
(UGM)
The
local
media
also
got
involved
reinforcing
best
practice
shelter
and
construction
messages
on
the
radio,
TV
and
in
print.
IMPLEMENTATION
It
took
one
month
for
community
preparation
and
1
week
to
build
740
“model”
houses
through
a
public
competition.
In
months
29,
12,
250
“decent”
shelters
were
built,
which
was
22.5%
of
UNOCHA
recorded
shelters.
Rp
21,000,000,000
disbursed
to
761
groups
at
a
cost
per
unit
under
$US200.
People
were
able
to
return
to
work,
vulnerable
people
were
reached,
and
financial
skills
learned
by
communities.
The
program
closed
in
April
2007:
“turned
a
tragedy
into
opportunity”.
However,
it
could
have
been
so
much
more!
The
Indonesian
Red
Cross
was
concerned
and
hesitant
about
this
program
as
they’d
never
given
cash
directly
to
beneficiaries,
so
the
program
had
little
funding
at
the
start:
it
took
two
months
to
get
the
program
running.
There
was
a
sense
that
had
the
program
been
scaled
up
faster,
if
there
had
been
more
volunteers,
many
more
shelters
could
have
been
built
and
more
people
could
have
been
reached.
“Achieving
good
recovery
and
risk
reduction
outcomes
in
shelter
is
not
about
building
structures,
it
is
about
building
trust
with
communities.”
RESEARCH INTO BAMBOO TECHNOLOGY: PROFESSOR PURWITO
Department of Public Works Research Center, Bandung
It
is
a
common
belief
throughout
Indonesian
society
that
if
you
live
in
a
bamboo
house
it
means
that
you
are
poor
or
comes
from
the
lowest
level
of
society.
We
are
trying
to
change
the
image
of
bamboo:
it
is
not
just
a
“primitive,
natural”
material
used
in
rustic
building
construction,
but
can
be
processed
to
make
modern
commercial
products
that
compete
with
less
environmentally
friendly
materials
(note:
perceptions
of
bamboo
in
rural
vs
urban
are
different).
Bamboo
has
many
benefits,
such
as
the
environmental
benefit
of
using
a
natural
material
with
a
water‐based
glue.
We have many machines to process bamboo. There are machine for cutting bamboo,
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
16
crushing
bamboo,
a
cold
press
and
hot
press.
There
are
many
kinds
of
glue
but
I
use
water‐based
glue.
We
have
a
range
of
machines
for
testing
various
structural
aspects
of
the
bamboo
products,
including
a
universal
testing
machine
for
testing
material,
small
electric
oven,
and
a
moisture
tester.
For
testing
building
structures,
there
is
a
reaction
wall
to
test
the
strength
of
a
two‐storey
wall
in
an
earthquake
and
a
tilting
table.
We use international standards for bamboo testing:
• International
Standard
ISO
22156
(2004)
Bamboo
–
Structural
Design
• International
Standard
ISO
22157‐1:
2004
(E)
Bamboo
‐
Determination
of
physical
and
mechanical
properties
‐
Part
1:
Requirements
• Technical
Report
ISO/TR
22157‐2:
2004
(E)
Bamboo
‐
Determination
of
physical
and
mechanical
properties
–
Part
2:
Laboratory
manual
We
have
developed
a
variety
of
products
included
laminated
bamboo,
plyboo,
a
lightweight
honeycomb
panel,
and
a
bamboo
plaster
panel
which
is
used
for
containers,
walling
and
partitions
and
is
sound
proof.
In
1994,
a
friend
and
I
from
Japan
developed
non‐treated
bamboo
mats
plastered
with
rice
straw
and
mud,
and
covered
in
lime.
Houses
using
this
composite
material
as
walls
are
still
in
excellent
condition
14
years
later.
We
also
develop
a
truss
clamp
system.
A
concrete
knock‐down
house
used
by
IOM
in
Aceh
included
the
honeycomb
panel,
which
is
still
weatherproof
after
3
years.
My
current
research
is
in
protecting
bamboo
with
palm
fiber
so
that
it
cannot
be
attacked.
I
am
also
employed
by
the
Ministry
of
People
Housing
to
develop
a
manual
of
bamboo
for
post‐disaster
shelter
reconstruction.
Discussion
Notes
The
following
section
of
the
report
provides
detailed
notes
as
collated
from
the
breakout
discussion
groups
and
general
discussions
throughout
the
day
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF BAMBOO HARVEST IN HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE
There
is
a
concern
from
Indonesian
bamboo
experts
that
disaster
and
technical
experts
working
in
emergency
response
can
lose
sight
of
or
not
prioritise
the
environmental
implications
of
large‐scale
bamboo
use.
The
Jogyakarta
shelter
program
harvested
1.5
million
culms:
bamboo
management
programs
should
have
been
an
integral
part
of
the
shelter
response
from
the
start.
It
is
a
fallacy
that
you
can
clear‐cut
bamboo
with
little
effect
on
bamboo
regeneration:
even
a
renewable
resource
can
be
harvested
in
an
unsustainable
way.
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
17
All
t‐shelter
programs
asked
the
villagers
to
source
and
buy
the
bamboo
themselves.
The
price
of
bamboo
doubled;
anecdotal
evidence
suggests
that
some
unscrupulous
or
unconcerned
bamboo
businesses
clear‐felled
local
bamboo
forests
to
meet
the
demand
from
the
shelter
response.
Indian
bamboo
experts
recommend
that
best
practice
is
clump
management
systems,
but
if
there’s
an
emergency,
clearfelling
the
entire
clump
of
bamboo
is
acceptable
emergency
practice;
Indonesian
bamboo
experts
contend
that
clearfelling
bamboo
is
unacceptable
as
it
is
possible
to
kill
off
the
clump
or
take
up
to
a
decade
to
return
to
previous
growth.
The
humanitarian
position
is
that
addressing
human
needs
is
the
overriding
priority.
If
faced
with
the
choice
between
saving
human
lives
in
the
short‐term,
with
a
potential
long‐term
impact
on
the
environment,
humanitarian
agencies
are
mandated
to
choose
human
needs.
However,
humanitarian
actors
contend
that
the
shelter
response
did
consider
the
impact
on
Java’s
bamboo
stock,
but
no
one
had
the
sense
that
it
would
have
a
serious
negative
impact
on
the
environment.
Everyone
who
was
asked
said
there
was
plenty
of
bamboo
and
that
it
wouldn’t
be
a
problem;
bamboo
didn’t
seem
to
run
out.
There
was
no
supply
shortage.
People
said
that
this
pulse
of
bamboo
use
wasn’t
going
to
affect
the
Java‐wide
bamboo
market.
Furthermore,
bamboo
seemed
to
be
more
environmentally
friendly
and
a
more
sustainable
resource
than
other
materials
such
as
timber.
Bamboo
was
chosen
by
the
shelter
Cluster
as
a
“green”
option.
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ENGAGE
A
STUDY
TO
ESTABLISH
THE
ACTUAL
IMPACT
OF
THE
YOGYAKARTA
SHELTER
RESPONSE
ON
JAVA’S
BAMBOO
RESOURCE.
2. PRODUCE
CLEAR
GUIDELINES
FOR
BEST
PRACTICE
IN
CLUMP
MANAGEMENT.
THESE
GUIDELINES
NEED
TO
BE
DRAWN
UP
AND
READILY
AVAILABLE
WITHIN
THE
HUMANITARIAN
SECTOR.
MAPPING THE NATIONAL AND GLOBAL BAMBOO RESOURCE
The
Forum
called
for
a
map
to
be
made
of
global
bamboo
availability
for
use
by
the
humanitarian
sector.
EBF
suggested
that
a
map
of
bamboo
resources
needs
to
be
a
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
18
community
process,
carried
out
at
the
community
level,
since
only
communities
have
accurate
knowledge
of
local
bamboo
resources.
The
single
word
“bamboo”
is
misleading:
there
are
over
1000
different
species
of
bamboo,
with
different
properties,
suitable
for
different
things,
native
to
specific
areas,
so
mapping
the
distribution
is
difficult.
However
for
humanitarian
purposes,
a
simple
map
is
sufficient.
A
broad
regional
scale
is
enough:
is
the
type
suitable,
what
is
the
rough
quantity.
Detailed
information
on
species
composition
is
not
as
important
knowing
the
rough
capacity
of
the
bamboo
stock
that
could
satisfy
the
three
structural
needs
for
humanitarian
construction;
exact
quantities
aren’t
necessary.
The
map
should
be
as
simple
a
diagram
as
possible;
it
is
just
to
know
whether
a
bamboo
project
is
viable
there.
For
example,
bamboo
in
Latin
America
is
heavy
and
harder
to
mobilise.
In
Asia,
bamboo
is
fast
growing,
small
and
strong.
RECOMMENDATION
PRODUCE
A
MAP
OF
THE
BAMBOO
RESOURCES
IN
INDONESIA
(AND
POTENTIALLY
GLOBALLY?)
SHOULD
BE
DEVELOPED,
E.G.
A
GIS
MAP
OF
BAMBOO
RESOURCES
WITHIN
SHIPPING
DISTANCE.
DISASTER PREPARATION AND RISK REDUCTION
The
Jogyakarta
response
was
lucky
in
that
Java
has
such
a
rich
bamboo
resource,
but
other
regions
might
not
be
the
same.
A
key
question
in
one
of
the
discussion
was
why
doesn’t
the
global
disaster
response
community
plant
bamboo
to
prepare
for
its
use
in
humanitarian
crises?
Unfortunately
it
is
much
easier
to
get
money
to
respond
to
disasters
than
to
get
money
to
prepare
for
them.
Humanitarian
shelter
in
particular
is
a
globally
under‐resourced
sector.
In
terms
of
managing
for
future
disasters,
would
it
be
possible
to
develop
replanting
programs
or
community
carbon
credit
schemes?
Is
there
any
capacity
for
NGOs
to
be
disaster
resources
for
carbon
credits?
The
response
was
that
this
would
be
unlikely:
the
responsibility
of
the
humanitarian
sector
is
to
focus
on
humanitarian
work.
It
may
well
overload
the
already
stretched
capacity
of
humanitarian
NGOs
to
take
on
further
roles
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
19
outside
of
their
traditional
mandate.
In
that
case,
which
NGOs
might
step
in
to
take
this
on?
USE OF BAMBOO IN HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE
Bamboo
has
been
used
in
disasters
on
a
mass
scale
elsewhere
in
the
world,
e.g.
India
and
Latin
America,
but
never
in
such
a
structured
response.
As
far
as
we
know,
the
Jogyakarta
shelter
reconstruction
program
employed
the
most
extensive
use
of
bamboo,
and
through
community‐based
programs;
the
speed
and
scale
of
deployment
was
unusual;
as
such,
Jogyakarta
is
seen
as
a
leading
example
for
the
world.
However
although
bamboo
is
less
commonly
used
in
post‐disaster
reconstruction,
it
is
a
normal
part
of
construction
in
many
parts
of
the
world.
In
Jogyakarta,
bamboo
was
traditionally
used
long
before
the
earthquake;
one
of
the
strengths
of
the
t‐shelter
program
was
that
it
connected
with
local
wisdom
and
community
knowledge.
It
is
important
to
remember
the
purpose
of
bamboo
in
humanitarian
response:
globally,
the
bamboo
sector
is
interested
in
making
interesting
permanent
architecture,
and
having
the
material
more
valued,
but
the
humanitarian
sector
is
after
a
quick
and
dirty
solution.
The
important
factors
for
humanitarian
use
is
time
(possibility
for
mass
production)
and
cost
(funding),
as
well
as
considering
whether
aid
would
disqualify
the
beneficiaries
from
government
assistance.
TECHNICAL ISSUES
DISCUSSION
• Connection
system
(concern
about
earthquake
resistance):
connecting
each
element
is
the
most
difficult
and
important
part
in
bamboo
construction.
The
combined
weight
of
the
roof
tiles
is
significant,
nearly
800kgs.
Usually
this
is
a
static
load,
but
during
earthquake
it
becomes
a
dynamic
load
and
a
potential
danger.
• Bamboo
shelter
can
be
considered
as
a
light
structure:
do
we
need
an
extra
strong
foundation
and
is
there
danger
of
damage
to
culms
from
wind?
Not
if
we’re
putting
800kgs
on
the
roof.
•
Design
recommendations:
it
is
necessary
to
have
something
underneath
the
roof
tiles
to
stop
them
falling
inside
the
house.
Also
need
a
gable
end
to
prevent
roof
tiles
sliding
off
the
roof.
•
Concrete
jointing?
Debatable.
•
A
shelter
will
potentially
be
made
weaker
in
an
earthquake
by
having
a
strong
foundation.
This
is
an
example
of
the
confusion
by
the
Cluster
about
building
transitional
shelter.
• One
of
the
tensions
in
the
design
process
is
the
desire
to
come
up
with
a
perfectly
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
20
engineered
solution
against
the
urgency
to
save
human
lives
and
return
to
normality.
The
humanitarian
objective
is
to
return
the
community
to
normality,
or
to
a
reasonable
standard
of
safe
accomodation
(safe
enough
to
survive
apparent
risks
‐
not
oversafe).
There
is
a
danger
of
overengineering
designs
at
the
expense
of
housing
people
sufficiently
well
and
quickly.
TECHNICAL
ISSUES
TO
INCLUDE
IN
THE
MANUAL
• glues
• connection
system
• treatment
of
bamboo
DEFINITIONS
Bamboo:
A
grass,
not
a
tree.
Globally
there
are
over
500
species.
Indonesia
has
around
67
types
of
bamboo.
Clump:
The
group
of
bamboo
culms.
A
bamboo
grows
by
sending
up
new
shoots
outside
of
the
clump:
inside
the
clump
are
older
culms,
outside
the
clump
are
younger
culms.
Culm:
A
stick
of
bamboo.
Node:
The
joints
on
the
culm.
Shoot:
A
new
culm
coming
up.
YOGYAKARTA
CONSULTATIVE
FORUM
NOTES
21