Some thoughts about the work scope

[Jim Reilly]

Hi All,

It seems to me that there may be two phases to the relief effort:
emergency relief; and, reconstruction. I do not think ISOCARP has much
to offer to the first phase. I propose that our contribution be
focused on the preparation of an plan to guide investment during the
second phase.

I propose that our scope for this second recovery phase focus on two
issues: 1. the spatial location and development character of
reconstruction - in effect the development of a plan to guide physical
development which (hopefully) mitigates future damage from earthquakes
as well as achieves other goals and objectives; and, 2. the
establishment of building standards and rules to insure that
reconstruction uses methods and designs to mitigate earth quake damage
in the future.

1. Plan for the region - this needs to be accomplished in quick order
so that infrastructure recovery investments also achive long term
objectives. In effect, we need to collaborate with geological and
soils scientists to determine if there are areas more or less suited
for growth at varying densities. We also need to quickly grasp other
social issues in the region and reflect them in our plan. I think
there may be the need to establish more than one UPAT team to
accomplish the work which needs to get done. I see the need for at
least three teams: one to work with scientists and to produce a
development suitability map for the region. A second team needs to
collect social and funding agencies issues and produce a program for
development. The third team will use that products from the two other
teams to prepare a plan for the region.

2. Development Standards - We also need to have a team development the
best earthqauke mitigation building recommendations and standards and
produce a development Standards Guideline which would be of use to all
agencies investing into the Haitian recovery. I think we need to look
at both development standards and at research or experience in other
countries focused on earthquake resistant houses and shelters.

I hope these broad ideas can be of use to the group. Feel free to
modify them as best suits the group.

Jim Reilly

[Tom Wolters]

Hi Jim,

ISOCARP would come in in the second phase i.e., early recovery (after around 3 months), followed by recovery and reconstruction starting after around half a year. Nevertheless, it would be good to be already involved in damage an needs assessments, which will be in full swing a few weeks from now. 

'Natural' partners for "building back better" would be UNDP and UN-Habitat.

Best, Tom

--
Tom M. Wolters
Sustainable Development & Disaster Management Adviser
http://cn.linkedin.com/in/tomwolterschina

Tel: +86 (0)10 84012831
Mob: +86 13520214757
Skype: tommwolters

#1 Zhonggu Hutong, Beiheyan Dajie
Dongcheng District, Beijing 100009
PR China`

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Jim Reilly <james....@gmail.com> wrote:

H, i All,

[Jim Reilly]

Hi Tom,

I agree with your comment about when ISOCARP assistance would come
into play.

I was more interested in beginning the discussion of what in the world
we would be doing, as that portion of the proposal seems most barren.

China certainly has experience with natural disasters and non-natural
caused ones also. Based on your expertise I was wondering if you had
the time to expand or revise the scope ideas I presented?

Jim Reilly

On Jan 18, 8:26 am, Tom Wolters <tom.m.wolt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Jim,
>
> ISOCARP would come in in the second phase i.e., early recovery (after around
> 3 months), followed by recovery and reconstruction starting after around
> half a year. Nevertheless, it would be good to be already involved in damage
> an needs assessments, which will be in full swing a few weeks from now.
>
> 'Natural' partners for "building back better" would be UNDP and UN-Habitat.
>
> Best, Tom
>
> --
> Tom M. Wolters

> Sustainable Development & Disaster Management Adviserhttp://cn.linkedin.com/in/tomwolterschina

> > Jim Reilly- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[ir. H. C. M. Heyning]

Hi Tom & Jim

Read in the Dutch papers that IOM (International Organisation for Migration)
is already busy developing plans to organize temporary camps/settlements for
100.000 displaced Haitian people each. They are surveying the region for
possible sites.
You and I know that temporary often means 'eternal'.
So part of the physical planning is already on its way...

http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/5818541/__Plan_voor_massakamp_Hati__.html

Haiti - With large numbers of people displaced in earthquake-affected Haiti
and logistical constraints hampering the distribution of aid to victims,
plans are now underway to establish a large temporary settlement that would
both provide shelter for the homeless and facilitate comprehensive aid
delivery. >>see for more information http://www.iom.int/jahia/jsp/index.jsp

Best
Helena

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: isocarp-h...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:isocarp-h...@googlegroups.com] Namens Jim Reilly
Verzonden: maandag 18 januari 2010 18:28
Aan: ISOCARP Haiti UPAT
Onderwerp: [ISOCARP Haiti UPAT] Re: Some thoughts about the work scope

[Debra Andreades]

I want to reiterate what Jim said.  The Development standards piece is of utmost importance; almost before the regional long term plan, because as someone else pointed out, re-building will start as soon as feasibly possible and no one knows how long those "temporary" structures will be utilized.  Look at New Orleans.

Development Standards would go hand in hand withe economic development.

Debra

[Luc Vrolijks]

Just to add on the discussion of scope of the Isocarp task force - I
think it is important to build on the UN Habitat doc that Ric uploaded
on 22 jan:

This refers to the Habitat doc 'Strategic Citywide Spatial Planning'.
The description of the situation is very good. It paints a picture
(before the earthquake) of a city under enormous stress, in very bad
shape and in urgent need for planning. Habitat proposes to establish
an 'urban pact' and work on a 'metropolitan strategic framework'. This
to me seems the right way to go, even more urgently after the
earthquake, although some modifications may be necessary.

Some thoughts on how to move on -

In preparation on the on-site work, it may be useful to 're-visit' the
document in some detail as a first step towards the Isocarp brief? I
assume that UN Habitat has perhaps been doing that already. (Doe
anyone know if this has been done? - have we contacted the author?)
But otherwise I could try to put together some notes on how the
proposed planning approach could or should be reinterpreted following
the earthquake.

An alternative would be to see this as a more longer term activity,
which could in fact be the brief of the first Isocarp mission: re-
evaluate the document, speak with stakeholders, analyse the situation
and come up with a modified strategy for strategic citywide planning
as per the report?

I am sure a lot of these have already been considered, but the Habitat
doc seems to be key for the long term redevelopment of Port au
Prince. The PPP - Pact for Port au Prince is something that is needed
at the local level, and perhaps the city, or the pact, can generate
the funds to make a substantially better city. It will be great if
Isocarp can contribute to get that started on the right track.

Luc