IFRC SRU SD Steel Current Options and Innovation

PPT2: Steel in humanitarian sheltering: the current options and innovation Kaat Boon, Coordinator SRU Research on current options done by Carmela Mayrink Martins – independent researcher

Steel Days P2: Current steel options & innovation, 8th November 2011

PPT2: Steel in humanitarian sheltering: the current options and innovation

Part 1: Why Steel Days?

Identified a gap:

Part 1: Why Steel Days?

How does knowledge build up in humanitarian sheltering: -Institutional knowledge versus individual experience and expertise -Knowledge travelling with the international community versus knowledge that sits where it is applied, in the areas struck by disaster -Knowledge linked to the trauma of a specific disaster versus knowledge across times and places -Knowledge of the shelter sector versus knowledge of the housing sector, development, urban planning, engineering etc.

-In-depth reflection versus the urgency of disaster

Part 1: Why Steel Days?

+ -A material, a technique -Academia, private & humanitarian -Cases & theory -Closed & open stories -The known, the unknown and the unknown unknown ‌

Part 1: Why Steel Days?

+ -A material, a technique -Academia, private & humanitarian -Cases & theory -Closed & open stories -The known, the unknown and the unknown unknown ‌ Progress one piece of the puzzle

Part 1: Why Steel Days?

>>>> Identified gap + opportunity!: -SRU’s research partners active in steel research -Many steel producers in the humanitarian market present in the BeNeLux context -Some interesting sheltering projects making use of steel landed in our library

Goal + presenters & audience >>>>

Part 2: Steel Days Scoping Study: what exists?

-Examples and cases:

-Techniques:

-References:

Part 2: Steel Days Scoping Study: what to do with it?

-’High tech versus low tech’:

-’Emergency, transitional and permanent shelter’:

-Ideas, suggestions: Strapping is one of those techniques that does not cost a lot, nor requires high skills or efforts while it can contribute highly to the stability of a structure. It’s a technique relevant for disaster preparedness as well as reconstructing back better.

Part 2: Steel Days Scoping Study: status:

Selection: all we could dig up to add the discussion not a ‘stamp of approval’ Not complete (other projects, techniques and references / tools for handling steel / production of steel / etc.)

Review, suggestions, comments are very welcome – continue on the net Relates to a couple of other research projects (some presented here, others not) to push things forward

… it’s a work in progress, these days are another ‘étappe’ BUT: we need to put our cards on the table to stimulate discussion and enable to move forward: think outside of the box for what needs to go into the box… >>>> a common starting point!

Part 3: Material and technical innovation Example: South of Bangladesh

Bangladesh

Part 3: Material and technical innovation

-Plot sizes are too small -Skills are expensive -Good quality material is not available or not accessible -No time for construction or maintenance >>>> the instrinsic quality of this type of construction for this context can’t just be pulled out and applied to quick, cheap, easy and small housing.

Part 3: Material and technical innovation It’s a challenge:

Part 3: Material and technical innovation Humanitarian Innovation Fund (ELHRA & ALNAP) :

1. Recognition of a problem, a challenge, or an obstacle to be overcome; with a corresponding opportunity for innovation.

2. Invention of a solution, or an idea, which helps to address the problem or seize the opportunity.

3. Development of the innovation by creating practical, actionable plans and guidelines.

4. Implementation of the innovation to produce real instances of changed practice, often initially using pilots and then scaling up promising innovations.

5. Diffusion of the innovation leading to its wider adoption, outside the original setting. This might include various formal and informal communications channels, and may involve the original innovation being continually developed and refined.

Part 3: Material and technical innovation Humanitarian Innovation Fund (ELHRA & ALNAP) :

This five stage process is useful for tracing the progress of innovations, but it should not be taken to suggest that all innovations are linear processes. Rather than clearly defined stages, these are broad and overlapping phases through which many innovations pass.

In reality, progress is iterative and frequently non-linear – some innovations might never get past the early phases, and others might be discarded and later revived only after a fortuitous event or different application.

There is no set path for innovation, and most innovation processes feature moments of serendipity, randomness and good or bad fortune.

Part 3: Material and technical innovation We need it, we can’t force it but we can stimulate it.

In the Red Cross Red Crescent context – shelter – , two helpful distinctions can be made:

‘To be distributed’ versus ‘humanitarian infrastructure’ ‘Pre-position(able)’ versus ‘Local(ised) solutions’

Part 3: Material and technical innovation ‘To be distributed’ versus ‘humanitarian infrastructure’:

What we leave with the affected population: -high tech in conception, low tech in use -great quantities,very cheap -unspecific to cater to many usages -adapted to the context -stays in the context, so needs to be re-usable or disposable with little consequence

Part 3: Material and technical innovation

Versus What we need to run our humanitarian assistance operations: -high tech in conception, and can be high tech in use (people trained to use it) -limited quantities, can be (very) expensive -to deliver very specific services as water purification, or a hospital for surgical procedures -adapted to the international aid workers community -can be re-used in other contexts: travelling equipment

Part 3: Material and technical innovation ‘To be distributed’ versus ‘humanitarian infrastructure’: They serve a different purpose

Versus

Part 3: Material and technical innovation (For what we leave with the affected population)

‘Pre-position(able)’ versus ‘Local(ised) solutions’:

Pre-position(able Pre-positioned or easily sourced in great quantities): -Standard items, developed and decided upon before the disaster hits, to cover a certain recurring need -Quick to transport and can be put to use immediately after the disaster -Through a logistics chain of the global standard to the local manpower -Decision making is done by disaster response experts after quick assessments

Part 3: Material and technical innovation

Versus Local(ised local with introduction of foreign techniques and materials) solutions: -Tailor made for a certain context and a certain time -As much as possible materials sourced locally, and compatible to local skills -A bit more time can be spent on this - Decision making is steered by the local population. The decision making involves a complex set of humanitarian experts, local leaders, the donor community etc.

Part 3: Material and technical innovation ‘Pre-position(able)’ versus ‘Local(ised) solutions’: They are part of a different process

Versus

Part 3: Material and technical innovation ‘Pre-position(able)’ versus ‘Local(ised) solutions’: They are part of a different process

Versus

Part 3: Material and technical innovation ‘To be distributed’ versus ‘humanitarian infrastructure’ // ‘Pre-position(able)’ versus ‘Local(ised) solutions’:

Innovation of all aspects of humanitarian response is needed and possible, but it needs to fit the reality; some examples: Emergency items for sheltering that are distributed today can be made more precise and flexible: addressing a greater diversity of disaster contexts while still maintaining enough standardization for quick decision making.

‘New’ disaster contexts - urban disasters, quickly recurring disaster – require new approaches

Part 3: Material and technical innovation Introducing new techniques and materials from outside into the humanitarian context Tailor made context induced innovation through trial and error on location in collaboration with local engineers and architects Quick, light and easy insulation for cold climates Better industrial design applied to emergency items packaging Removable still strong foundation systems for different soils Etc.

Part 4: Proceedings of this conference Improve the current sheltering practice further, by continuing to discuss, exchange, reflect, develop, test, disseminate.

Conference proceedings on web.

The IFRC SRU is supported by: