1
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
(MANICA, SOFALA, TETE AND ZAMBEZIA)
April 2020
DTM MOZAMBIQUE
2
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
IOM’s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) in collaboration with the Government of Mozambique’s National Disaster Management Agency (INGC) and as mandated by the Shelter Cluster in Mozambique conducted this assessment in areas of displacement, resettlement sites and areas affected by cyclone Idai in the central region of Mozambique. Data collection was conducted through household interviews by random sampling of 5,323 families, 1,281 families in 68 resettlement sites and 4,042 families in affected communities (displaced families in host communities and non-displaced families) in Sofala, Manica, Tete and Zambezia over a period of 10 days. The output of this exercise is to inform the Government of Mozambique and humanitarian and development community on the current living conditions of families affected by cyclones Idai, to understand affected households’ efforts for self-recovery so far, to identify the type and usage of assistance received by households in relation to their shelter and housing, in order to identify the gaps and needs still present in terms of housing reconstruction and recovery, and to inform the most effective support for further recovery and to effectively prioritize areas of intervention based on likelihood and intention of households to remain in existing resettlement sites or in affected communities.
ABOUT THIS REPORT
Cover photo: A transitional shelter under construction in Kura resettlement site, Nhamatanda district. IOM Mozambique/February 2020
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
DTM activities in Mozambique, including the shelter recovery assessment and report have been produced with the generous contribution of the following funding partners: the European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid, the U.S. Agency for International Development and the UK Government Department for International Development.
3
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
Table of Contents
Introduction 4
Methodology 6
Demographic composition 7
Key findings 8
Section 1: Shelter conditions in resettlement sites 9
Section 2: Housing conditions in the affected communities 18
Section 3: Technical knowledge 20
Conclusion 21
4
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
INTRODUCTION
In March 2019, Cyclone Idai caused the destruction of housing and infrastructure and that left more than 400,000 people displaced, with 160,927 having immediately sought refuge in over 164 temporary accommodation centres. The cyclone contributed to significant housing damage, particularly in communities with poorly built houses. The most affected locations were Manica, Sofala, Tete and Zambezia provinces in central Mozambique. Since then, displaced populations have either returned to their places of origin, relocated to new areas or have settled in various resettlement sites which were set up across the central provinces.
Working alongside the Shelter Cluster and the Cabinet for Reconstruction (GREPOC), IOM's DTM team collaborated with Mozambique’s National Institute for Disaster Management (INGC) conducted an assessment of the shelter conditions of both displaced and non-displaced families across the four affected provinces, to gain a better understanding of the current housing conditions and the communities’ abilities to self-recover, as well as and the type of shelter and housing support still required to enable affected households to restore their lives.
This assessment was designed through a collaboration between DTM and the Shelter Cluster in Mozambique, and based on the guidance outlined in the Post-Cyclone Reconstruction Programme (PALPOC) developed by GREPOC, to guide the reconstruction efforts by partners. This collaboration ensured that the indicators would align with the PALPOC whilst maintaining DTM methodologies.
Findings from this assessment are presented according to settlement types, and include information on geographic location, demographic composition, displacement history, access to building materials, technical knowledge, housing conditions and the needs of both displaced and non-displaced families.
Map 1: Geographic locations of sites assessed
PP
P
P
PP
P
PPP P
P
P
P
P
P
PPP
P
P
P P
Muawa
Geromi
Muchai
Magaro
Ngurue
Magueba
Macocoe
Mutassa
Digudiua MandruziManhama 2
Metchisso
Manhandure
Muchambanha
Nhanhemba 2
Nhanhemba 1
Inhajou 2019Nhamississua
Bairro da Unidade
Muoco Chiguendere (Madudo)
Sussundenga
Chibabava
P
P
P
PP
P
PChibue
Nkganzo
Magagade
Nhacuecha
Tchetcha 2
Tchetcha 1
NhamachereneCaia
Maganja Da Costa
NamacurraNicoadala
P
P
P
P
P
P
PP PMucoaRonda
GudzaBrigodo
Mussaia
Macarate
Munguissa
Namitangurini
Estaquinha sede
P
P
P
P
PP
PP
P
P
P
P
P
P PPPP
P
P
PMutua
Mdhala
Begaja
Savane
JaveraMuconja
Chiruca
Landinho
Gogodane
Chicuaxa
Ndedja_1
Mussocosa
Metuchira
Manhama 1
Machacuari
Maxiquiri 2
Chingemidji
Bandua 2019
Bandua Sede
7 Abril - Cura
Maxiquiri alto/Maxiquiri 1
Buzi
TicaNhamatanda
SofalaEstaquinha
Goonda
Mafambisse
Muxungue
Buzi
Dondo
Chibabava
PP
PPP
PPPPP
PPPPPPPPP
PPP
PP
P
P
P
P PPP P
PPP
PPPPPP
P
P
P
P
PPP
PPPPPP PP
PPP PPP
P
1
1 2
3
4
2
3 4Sofala
Tete
Niassa
Zambezia
Manica
Inhambane
Gaza
Nampula
District boundary
Posto boundary
Primary roadResettlement site
Water-body
P
Data source: ESRI, OSM, HDX, DTM0 900 1,800450 km
I
5
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
Family in Mandruzi Resettlement site used tarpaulins to reinforce the roof of the shelter that they constructed from local materials. Photo: IOM Mozambique/2020
6
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
Buzi
Machaze
Guro Mocuba
Macossa
Mopeia
Barue
Muanza
Doa
Lugela
Derre
Ile
Caia
Morrumbala
Chibabava
Maringue
Milange
Changara
GorongosaCheringoma
Moatize
Marromeu
Machanga
Sussundenga
Gile
Mossurize
Tambara Mocubela
Chemba
Chinde
Magoe
Vanduzi
Cahora Bassa
Dondo
ManicaGondola
Nhamatanda
Pebane
Mutarara
Mulevala
Marara
Nicoadala
Macate
Namacurra
Maganja Da Costa
Namarroi
Luabo
Alto Molocue
Maquival
Inhassunge
Cidade Da Beira
MolumboCidade De Tete
Chimoio
Quelimane
SofalaManica
ZambeziaTete
0 100 20050 km
Resettlement site
Aggregated sample size by district
20 - 65
66 - 150
151 - 299
300 - 462
463 - 887
Map 2: Sample size distribution by district and location of resettlement sites
Table 1: Households sample size distribution by province
Data was collected through direct interviews with a random sampling of 5,323 families, including 1,281 families in 68* resettlement sites and 4,042 families in affected communities (displaced families in host communities and non-displaced families). The survey covered 177 localities (62 postos) in 28 districts of Sofala, Manica, Tete, and Zambezia. A network of 54 enumerators (28 DTM enumerators with eight team-leaders and 26 INGC staff) conducted the interviews.
The sample size of 5,283 statistically represents the displaced population of approximately 93,516 individuals living in resettlement sites, as well as affected communities (displaced families in host communities and non-displaced families), based on DTM baseline data. The sample size is based on a confidence level of 85% with a 15% margin of error.
Methodology
ProvinceNumber of
Sites Covered
Total Households Surveyed in
Resettlement Sites by Province
Number of Localities Covered
Total Households Surveyed in Localities by
Province
Manica 32 568 62 1,547 Sofala 24 460 58 1,280 Tete 2 41 5 134
Zambezia 10 212 52 1,080 Grand Total 68 1,281 177 4,042
*The assessment was conducted in 96% of the total resettlement sites in the central region, as the other 4% were not accessible at the time of the data collection phase.
7
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
Demographic Composition
Profiles of people in resettlement sites
A detailed and representative overview of households composition was obtained during the assessment. The average household size in these sites was 4.3. Nine per cent of the families are composed of 1-2 members, 27 per cent comprise 3-4 members, 29 per cent comprise 5-6 members, 23 per cent comprise 7-8 members, seven per cent comprise 9-10 and four per cent comprise more than 11 members as shown in figure below. Results did not vary greatly between households displaced in resettlement sites and households affected but displaced in the communities.
Eight per cent of the families interviewed in resettlement sites are hosting other families who were also displaced due to the cyclone. The majority (87%) of the families being hosted reported that their houses were destroyed during the cyclone.
Family settled at the aftermath of the disaster in Mandruzi resettlement site. Photo: IOM Mozambique/May 2019
2%
7%
11%
16%17%
12%11%
12%
5%
2%4%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11+
Household size
Perc
enta
ge o
f hou
seho
ld c
ompo
sitio
n
6%
7%
87%
8%They fear for future �ooding
The area where they lived is unsafe
Their house is destroyed
Families being hosted
8
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
KEY FINDINGS
The majority of respondents (89 per cent) still live in emergency and temporary shelter. The remaining 11 per cent have upgraded to transitional shelters (nine per cent) and permanent houses (2%). The majority of respondents reported that their houses were quickly, completely destroyed by the cyclone.
The majority (76%) of respondents in this assessment reported that they would not consider returning to their places of origin, while 24 per cent are uncertain if they could consider returning. This is similar to the finding in the Durable Solutions Assessment Report published on 31 March 2020 that the vast majority of respondents (98.6%) report that they would prefer remaining in their current resettled location. Of these,72.4 per cent reported that their shelter conditions needed to improve for them to be able to remain, and 15.6 per cent required improved security of tenure.
Fifty-seven per cent reported that their houses were completely destroyed by cyclone Idai and one year after the cyclone struck, and approximately one in four families (27%) report no improvements of their housing conditions. Over three quarters of the surveyed population reported having access to natural materials which could be collected and used for construction and repair.
Almost all respondents reported that following the extensive damage brought on by Cyclone Idai, there is a need to rethink house construction methods, to make them stronger and more resilient to future climate-related disasters.
SECTION 1: SHELTER CONDITIONS IN RESETTLEMENT SITES
SECTION 2: HOUSING CONDITIONS OF NON-DISPLACED FAMILIES IN AFFECTED COMMUNITIES
SECTION 3: TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE
Emergency shelter materials distributed in various resettlement sites in Buzi district were used to build emergency shelter and upgraded by beneficiaries using locally sourced materials such as laka laka. Photo: IOM Mozambique/January 2020
9
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
Overall, the majority of families living in the resettlement sites originated from the districts of their resettlement location as illustrated in the figure below, exemptions are seen in Mutua and Savane sites in the Dondo districts of Sofala province, where some of the families originated from Cidade de Beira district. Additionally, a similar trend is seen in Chibabava district, where families displaced to Macarate site were originally from Sussudenga (Manica province).
SECTION 1: SHELTER CONDITIONS IN RESETTLEMENT SITES
Origin of displaced families
Chibabava (Sofala)
Mutarara (Tete)
Maganja Da Costa (Zambezia)
Namacurra (Zambezia)
From Sussundenga: 44.3% Sussundenga: 44.2%
Chibabava:9.0%
From Buzi: 16.9% Buzi: 16.9%
From Caia: 8.4% Caia: 8.4%
From Chibabava: 8.9%
From Cidade Da Beira: 0.8% Dondo: 1.7%From Dondo: 0.9%From Mutarara: 3.2% Mutarara: 3.2%
From Maganja Da Costa: 5.1% Maganja Da Costa: 5.1%
From Namacurra: 8.2% Namacurra: 8.2%
From Nicoadala: 3.3% Nicoadala: 3.3%
25 de Setembro: 24
Bairro da unidade: 20
Chibue: 20
Chibue Mateo: 19
Chiruca: 13
Gudza: 20
Javera: 7Machacuari: 12
Macocoe: 20
Madibunhana: 16
Magaro: 22
Magueba: 17Manhama 1: 18
Manhama 2: 19
Manhandure: 18
Matarara: 19
Metchisso: 21
Minas Gerais: 20
Muawa: 19
Muchai: 17
Muchambanha: 18
Mucombe: 19
Muoco Chiguendere (Madudo): 17
Mutassa: 16
Ngurue: 19
Nhamississua: 15
Nhanhemba 1: 19
Nhanhemba 2: 24
Tossene Choma: 22
Zibuia: 19
Zichão: 18
Macarate: 24
Bandua 2019: 23Bandua sede: 23
Begaja: 21
Chingemidji: 23
Estaquinha sede: 21
Grudja (4 de Outubro/Nhabziconja): 1
Inhajou 2019: 24
Maximedje: 21
Maxiquiri 2: 21
Maxiquiri alto/Maxiquiri 1: 23
Mussocosa: 15
Magagade: 21Ndoro: 21
Nhacuecha: 21Nharugue: 1
Tchecha 2: 21Tchetcha 1: 23
Chicuaxa: 23Geromi: 22
Mdhala: 23Muconja: 23
Mutua: 13Savane: 9
Nkganzo: 21Panducani: 20
Landinho: 22
Mussaia: 21Parreirão: 22
Brigodo: 22
Gogodane: 20
Mucoa: 21Munguissa: 21
Ronda: 21
Digudiua: 21Namitangurini: 21
District of origin District of displacement Resettlement site
Sussudenga(Manica)
Buzi(Sofala)
Caia(Sofala)
Dondo (Sofala)
Nicoadala (Zambazia)
Districts of origin, district of displacement and resettlement site
10
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
Shelter Conditions in Areas of Origin for Families in Resettlement SitesThe majority of respondents reported that their houses in areas of origin were completely destroyed by the cyclone hit. Only three per cent reported that they are rebuilding, the majority (38%) of whom are from Sussudenga district of Manica. Half of the rebuilding respondents reported that they are using salvaged materials, while 26 per cent (or nine families) reported that they are using materials they received from aid organizations to rebuild their houses in their area of origin. On the other hand, those reporting unchanged conditions of their houses represent 68 per cent of respondents. Those reporting worse conditions of their houses represent 16 per cent of respondents.
68%
16% 14%3%
Conditions are worse I don’t know
Purchased building materials,
Other,
6%
Assistance from rela tives/friends,
15%
Assistance organizations,
26%
With salvaged materials,
50%
3%
from aid
Same as above, no change Condition has improvedbecause I am rebuilding it.
What is the current condition of your house in your original community? If the house is being rebuilt, how are you doing this?
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
Completely destroyed
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Roof destroyed but walls are intact
Roo�ng damage only
Completely destroyed
Other
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Roo�ng damage only
Completely destroyed
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Roo�ng damage only
Completely destroyed
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Completely destroyed
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Completely destroyed
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Roof destroyed but walls are intact
Roo�ng damage only
Completely destroyed
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Roof destroyed but walls are intact
Completely destroyed
Other
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Roof destroyed but walls are intact
Roo�ng damage only
Completely destroyed
Other
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Roof destroyed but walls are intact
Roo�ng damage only
Completely destroyed
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Roof destroyed but walls are intact
Roo�ng damage only
Buzi
Caia
Chib
abav
aCi
dade
Da B
eira
Dond
oM
agan
ja D
aCo
sta
Mut
arar
aN
amac
urra
Nic
oada
laSu
ssun
deng
a
Housing conditions in district of origin
11
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
Only seven per cent reported that a family member or relative has been living in their house or has been taking care of their house in their place of origin. Of these, 28 per cent were relocated from Chibabava, 23 per cent from Sussudenga, 17 per cent from Manga Da Costa, 17 per cent from Buzi, 12 per cent from Caia, two per cent from Cidade De Beira and one per cent from Dondo.
7%1%
2%
12%
17%
17%
23%
28%
Dondo
Cidade de Beira
Caia
Buzi
Maganja de Costa
Sussundenga
Chibabava
Shelter typology in place of origin before the cyclone
Number of displaced families who still maintain their houses in their place of origin
Districts of origin where the houses are located
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%Adobe block house
Cement block house
Fired brick house
Mud house
Other
Palhota
Pau-pique
Adobe block house
Fired brick house
Mud house
Other
Palhota
Pau-pique
Adobe block house
Cement block house
Mud house
Palhota
Pau-pique
Cement block house
Pau-pique
Mud house
Palhota
Pau-pique
Adobe block house
Mud house
Palhota
Pau-pique
Adobe block house
Mud house
Palhota
Pau-pique
Adobe block house
Mud house
Other
Palhota
Pau-pique
Adobe block house
Mud house
Other
Palhota
Pau-pique
Adobe block house
Cement block house
Fired brick house
Mud house
Other
Palhota
Pau-pique
Buzi
Caia
Chib
abav
a
Cida
dede Be
iraDo
ndo
Mag
anja
Da
Cost
aM
utar
ara
Nam
acur
raN
icoa
dala
Suss
unde
nga
63 per cent of respondents still visit their place of origin while only 37 per cent either rarely or never visit. Of those who still visit, 27.1 per cent lived in Sussudenga, 23.9 per cent in Buzi, 12.5 per cent in Caia and 11.9 per cent in Namaccura prior to relocation.
12
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
The vast majority of respondents (89.1%) reported having no documentation to prove ownership of their original house or land (this aligns with the result from the Durable Solutions Assessment Report where 90% do not have documentation for their original house or land). Only 0.5 per cent (or seven families) reported having an official DUAT, and 10.2 per cent reported having a community DUAT. Almost all of these families reported loss of the documentation they once had.
Overwhelmingly, 76 per cent of respondents reported that they would not consider returning to their places of origin, whilst 24 per cent are uncertain would consider returning. Of those respondents who are uncertain, the most commonly reported factor influencing their decisions to remain in the resettlement site or to return to their place of origin is therisk of losing access to their farmland (22%) and the lack of access of building materials on site (17%). The majority of these respondents were relocated from Namacurra district of Zambezia and they are presently in Brigodo, Mucoa and Munguissa sites, all in the same district.
Of the families reporting that under no condition would they return to their places of origin, one third (33.8%) cited frequent flooding in Sussudenga district . Additionally, 32.2 Per cent, expressed no interest in return due to construction of a new house on site, this group reporting new construction is represented mainly by respondents in Bandua 2019 , Bandua sede and Begaja sites in Buzi district of Sofala province and Nhanhemba 2 and Tossene Choma resettlement sites in Sussudenga district.
Official DUAT, but i t was lost, 0.1%
None, 89.1%
Community DUAT, and I s till have it, 5.7%
Community DUAT, but it was lost, 4.5%
Official DUAT, and I still have it, 0.5%
What kind of documentation do you have for your original house?
District of origin of those who will return if they lose their farmland District of origin of those who will return if there is no access to building materials
1%
1%
2%
5%
14%
14%
17%
46%
Dondo
Nicoadala
Buzi
Sussundenga
Caia
Chibabava
Namacurra
1%
1%
2%
2%
2%
3%
24%
65%
Chibabava
Dondo
Caia
Sussundenga
Buzi
Namacurra
Maganja Da Costa
Cidade Da Beira
Maganja Da Costa
6%
14%
18%
18%
19%
25%
0.2%
2.4%
2.5%
6.6%
11.9%
12.5%
13.0%
23.9%
27.1%
Nicoadala
Mutarara
Namacurra
Caia
Chibabava
Buzi
Sussundenga
Once a month Once a week Rarely
Everyday Never A few times per week
Cidade de Beira
Maganja de Costa
How frequently do you or your family have the opportunity to visit your place of origin?
District of origin
76%
0.5%
0.8%
7.9%
9.4%
15.3%
32.2%
33.8%
Other
I have no more family/community there
I lose all my possessions each time it rains in my place of origin
My community has reestablished itself here
I have already adapted my livelihood
I have already rebuilt a house here
I am afraid of returning due to frequent �ooding
Under no condition would I return to my place of origin Reasons for never going back
13
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
Date of arrival into resettlement sites
Current shelter conditions
Shelter typology (current)
Current shelter conditions in resettlement sites
Upon relocation, almost three quarters of the families relocated (72%) were living in emergency shelters or tents, and 20 per cent constructed makeshift shelters out of natural materials collected from nearby forests. Approximately one year later, this figure has not varied substantially; in total, 69.7 per cent of respondents still live in an emergency shelter or a tent, and one in every four families is living in the same shelter they were living in when they were first relocated. Only 27 per cent of respondents have been able to transition from emergency shelters to an upgraded house, almost half of this group (47%) live in makeshift shelters constructed out of natural materials, and 29% live in mud block house.
Of the families reporting emergency shelters, almost half indicated that the shelter is in good condition, while 41 per cent reported that rain water enters the shelter when it rains. This may be related to the later distribution of emergency shelter materials, such as plastic sheets, targeting families who were living in damaged shelters. Only eight per cent reported that their shelter was partially collapsed, and four per cent reported that they materials had degraded with time and exposure.
80.6%
3.8% 8.0%0.9%
8.9% 2.8% 0.1% 0.2% 1.1%
Mar-19 Apr-19 May-19 Jun-19 Jul-19 Aug-19 Sep-19 Oct-19 Nov-19 Dec-19 Jan-20 Feb-20
Shared accommodation,0.3%
Emergency shelter,
69.7%
Upgraded shelter,
30.1%
4%
8%
41%
Material has degraded
Partially collapsed
It leaks when it rains
Good condition 47%
14
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
Tenuresecurity
0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0%
Buzi
Chibabava
Buzi
Caia
Chibabava
Maganja Da Costa
Sussundenga
Buzi
Caia
Chibabava
Sussundenga
Maganja Da Costa
Buzi
Caia
Chibabava
Maganja Da Costa
Nicoadala
Sussundenga
Buzi
Caia
Chibabava
Maganja Da Costa
Buzi
Chibabava
Maganja Da Costa
Sussundenga
Buzi
Caia
Chibabava
Maganja Da Costa
Namacurra
Nicoadala
Sussundenga
I am
not
phys
ical
lyab
le to
build
or
trans
port
the
mat
eria
ls
I am
wai
ting
for s
uppo
rtfr
om a
idor
gani
zatio
ns/g
over
nmen
t
I do
not k
now
how
tobu
ildIn
com
e is
not
eno
ugh
to b
uym
ater
ials
and
tran
spor
t the
m
Lim
ited
acce
ss to
conv
entio
nal
cons
truc
tion
mat
eria
ls.
Lim
ited
acce
ss to
natu
ral m
ater
ials
No
one
in m
y fa
mily
has
a s
ourc
e of
inco
me
Why have you been unable to build a more permanent house
When asked to specify what the main barriers to self-recovery were, 26.4 per cent reported to be waiting for support from aid organizations or the Government, 24.1 per cent cited the lack of access to collect natural materials which could be collected and used for construction, and 20.6 per cent reported a lack of financial means. The vast majority of these respondents are families living in various sites across the district of Sussundenga, in Manica.
15
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
Almost half of the families who had begun the process of self-recovery (42.1%) had collected materials from the surrounding areas, and 22.3 per cent reused materials which had been distributed during the emergency phase of the humanitarian response, including plastic sheets, tents and timber. A small but encouraging group (10.8%) had produced their own bricks for construction. Almost all respondents (93%) reported spending less than approximately 100 US dollars (6,000 Meticais) to build their new home.
Over half (51.6%) of the families interviewed reported that plastic sheeting, most likely distributed during the emergency phase, was being used for the roofing of their shelter. The majority of these (83%) are families who reported living in tents or emergency shelters, and only 13 per cent of houses with tarpaulin roofs are self-built houses. The second most common roofing typology is the grass (capim) roof, mainly used for self-built houses. Only 10 per cent reported using corrugated iron sheets for their roofing.
6% 42%
22%
11% 15%
5%
Collected materials from nearby surroundings to construct their houses.
Bought materials to construct their houses
Received support from an aid organization to construct their houses.
Produced blocks themselves to construct their houses.
Other.
Reused materials received when they were first displaced to construct their houses.
Roofing typology in resettlement sites
16
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
Large leaves (palhas),
5.9% Thatch (Canico),
7.6%
Roo�ng sheets
(chapas),
10.5%
Capim,
24.4%
Tarpaulin,51.6%
Over half of respondents (56%) reported that their shelter or plot does not flood after one day of heavy rainfall, and an additional 16 per cent reported that the area around the shelter may flood but water does not enter the shelter. On the other hand, a quarter of respondents (27%) reported that water does enter the shelter, of which six per cent claiming that the water recedes after two hours.
6%
16%
21%
Yes, but recedes after 2 hours
Yes, but only external to the shelter, not internally
Yes, water enters the shelter
No, the shelter or plot do not �ood 56%
Access to natural building materials varied greatly depending on the district, and overall, only 60 per cent of respondents reported that they were able to collect materials that could be used to construct a house. The majority of respondents (over 75%) interviewed in the districts of Buzi in Sofala province, and Namacurra and Nicoadala in Zambezia province reported inability to source natural materials for construction nearby to their resettlement sites. On the other hand, more positive results were recorded in the districts of Maganja Da Costa in Zambezia, Mutarara in Tete, and Chibabava and Caia in Sofala province, where over 75 per cent of respondents in each district reported access to materials. To a lesser extent, 64 per cent and 70 per cent reported that they could access materials in Dondo and Sussundenga respectively.
Access to Building Materials
Current roofing types in the resettlement sites
Roofing typology
Does your shelter and/or plot flood after one day of heavy rain?
Roofing repair kits were distributed by IOM in informal urban settlements in the city of Beira. The kits included timber, roofing sheets and a toolkit. Photo: IOM Mozambique/February 2020
17
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
Across all the sites, the most commonly found materials are laka laka (wooden strips often used for walling as shown in the photo on page 8), and wooden poles. Respondents in Sussundenga and Chibabava districts report the most varied types of materials that can be sourced locally (more than seven types of materials reported), while respondents in Dondo, Mutarara, Namacurra, and Nicoadala report three types of materials, or less.
Almost half of respondents (48%) who indicated that they were able to collect materials from nearby the resettlement site reported that materials could be collected within a one hours walk, 28 per cent reported that it would take them a walk of between one and two hours, and 17 per cent reported between two and three hours. Seven per cent of respondents said the walk to source materials requires more than three hours, almost half of whom (45%) live in Caia and 37 per cent live in Chibabava. When considering each district separately, results vary greatly depending on the resettlement site where the respondent resides. For example, 43 per cent of respondents living in resettlement sites in Sussundenga reported that it took them less than one hour, 30 per cent reported between one to two hours and 26 per cent reported between two to three hours.
Wooden poles, used for the structural frame of a typical house found in rural areas, are reported to be the most common materials which can be purchased, with 44 per cent of respondents reporting this.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Buzi
Caia
Chib
abav
aDo
ndo
Mag
anja
Da
Cost
aM
utar
ara
Nam
acur
raN
icoa
dala
Suss
unde
nga
Access to building materials
18
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
SECTION 2: HOUSING CONDITIONS IN THE AFFECTED COMMUNITIES
Across all the districts surveyed in the affected communities, 54 per cent of respondents reported that they were living in a mud block house when the cyclone struck, making it the most common housing typology. It was also the most heavily affected, as almost half of these families (48%) reported that their house was completely destroyed and 34 per cent reported that the roof was destroyed and the walls partially collapsed. The remaining 18 per cent reported varying degrees of roofing damage.
Informally constructed houses, using timber collected from rural surroundings, were also badly affected, likely due to the quality of materials and construction. Although only nine per cent of respondents claimed to be living in such a house at the time of the cyclone, more than half (57%) reported that their houses were completely destroyed. Additionally, one in four respondents reported varying levels of roofing damage, and similarly 18 per cent reported roofing damage and partially collapsed walls.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Completely destroyed
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Roof destroyed but walls are intact
Roo�ng damage only
Completely destroyed
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Roof destroyed but walls are intact
Roo�ng damage only
Completely destroyed
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Roof destroyed but walls are intact
Roo�ng damage only
Completely destroyed
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Roof destroyed but walls are intact
Roo�ng damage only
Completely destroyed
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Roof destroyed but walls are intact
Roo�ng damage only
Completely destroyed
Roof destroyed and walls partially collapsed
Roof destroyed but walls are intact
Roo�ng damage only
Cem
ent b
rick
hous
eFi
red
bric
k ho
use
Mak
eshi
ft sh
elte
r M
ud h
ouse
Othe
rPa
u-a-
piqu
e ho
use
2%
5%
9%
10%
20%
54%
Other
Cement brick house
Makeshift shelter built out of naturalmaterials collected from the forest
Pau-a-pique house
Fired brick house
Mud block house
Shelter typology in the communities
Housing conditions right after the cyclone
A typical mud block house found in places of origin experienced significant roofing damage. IOM Photo: IOM Mozambique/January 2020
19
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
The Cement block houses, although not common among the surveyed population (5%), had the most positive results, as only nine per cent reported that they house was completely destroyed. Over half of the respondents reported varying degrees of roofing damage, and 37 per cent reported additional damage to the walls.
Results were less conclusive for the pau-a-pique and the fired-brick house, with limited variations in results across the different levels of damage classifications. The second most common housing typology among the surveyed population is the fire brick house, with 20 per cent of respondents reported living in such a house at the time of the cyclone. The largest majority (43%) reported various levels of roofing damage, with the walls remaining intact, reflecting a more structurally rigid structure through the use of fired bricks. Additionally, 35 per cent reported severe damages, with the roof completely destroyed and the walls partially collapsed, and one in five reported that the house was completely destroyed.
On the other hand, 10 per cent of respondents lived in a pau-a-pique house, of these, 38 per cent reported completely destroyed houses, 28 per cent reported roofing damage with partially collapsed walls, and 35 per cent reporting varying degrees of roofing damage.
One year after cyclone Idai struck, approximately one in four families (27%) report that the conditions of their housing had not improved, although only 12 per cent of respondents who reported that their house had been completely destroyed fell within this category. Only a small group, had used salvaged materials to repair their walls (17%) and roofs (25%). Even fewer reported using purchased materials to repair walls (five per cent of respondents) or donated materials to repair roofs (nine per cent of respondents). Approximately two per cent of respondents received humanitarian support.
36% 27.4%
7%
25% 11%
25%
Constructed new houses. Have not been able to improve the conditions of their homes.
Repaired walls using salvaged items. Repaired walls (5% used purchased materials while 2% used donated items).
Repaired roofs using salvaged items. Repaired roofs (9% used purchased materials and 2% used donated items).
20
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
Of the 27 per cent who reported being unable to rebuild their homes, the vast majority said that the family did not have enough income to cover the associated costs, with 45 per cent claiming that no one in the family had a source of income, and 41 per cent said that although at least one member of the family had an income, it was not enough to purchase and transport the materials. A few respondents (7%) claimed to be waiting for support from the Government or aid organizations.
Over three quarters of the surveyed population reported having access to natural materials which could be collected and used for construction. The material that can be most commonly found are the wooden poles, as indicated by 37 per cent of respondents, which are used as the vertical structural elements of a house typically found in rural areas. To a lesser degree, large leaves and thatch for roofing, and mud for walling could also be found. Approximately 70 per cent reported that it takes less than two hours to find the materials on foot, one in five reported that it takes between two to three hours, and 13 per cent reported more than three hours.
Almost all respondents (92%) both displaced and non-displaced, reported that following the extensive damage brought on by Cyclone Idai, there is a need to rethink the house construction methods, to make them stronger and more resilient to future climate-related disasters.
Forty-six per cent of respondents reported knowing construction methods. This construction knowledge was most commonly passed on from others in the community including community leaders (16%), elders (22%), and trained workers (22%). Additionally, 35 per cent of those who claimed to have knowledge of construction had some form of construction training. Of the remaining 54 per cent who having no construction knowledge, 38 per cent said that they would have to pay someone for labour support, whilst 36 per cent of respondents said that they would attempt the task, even though with no knowledge of construction.
SECTION 3: TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE
5%
16%
22%
22%
35%
Other
From community meetings with the
I ask for advice/help from persons in thecommunity who are trainedI ask my elders
I have been trained
How did you acquire this knowledge?
54%46%
No Yes
Chefe
Access to building materials How long do you need to walk to collect these materials
Do you know how to build?
1%
3%
4%
9%
14%
14%
17%
37%
Sticks/branches for pau-a-pique
Other
Laka laka (timber used for walling)
Bamboo
Mud
Canico (thatch)
Palhas (large leaves)
Estacas (wooden poles, structural use)More than 3
hours,
13%
Between 2-3 hours,
19%
Between 1-2 hours,
31%
Less than 1 hour,
38%
21
SHELTER RECOVERY ASSESSMENT IN THE CENTRAL REGION OF MOZAMBIQUE
CONCLUSION
It is evident that more than a year after the cyclone, affected families are still struggling to fully rebuild their homes, both in host communities and resettlement sites and return to the living conditions they had before Cyclone Idai wrought havoc across Central Mozambique.
Those who were deemed as living in high-risk areas, were displaced and relocated to resettlement sites are still the most vulnerable, particularly in terms of their capacity to begin the process of self-recovery, with 72 per cent still living in temporary emergency shelters provided through humanitarian support, more than half of whom report poor living conditions. However, even considering their current living conditions, three out of four households would not consider returning to their place of origin, mainly due to frequent flooding that they’ve experienced in the past, and also because some have already started building a new life for themselves in their new community and in the process of a search for more durable solutions and local integration.
Approximately one in four non-displaced families still living in their place of origin reported that their living conditions had not improved significantly since the cyclone, many of whom claim lack of financial means to access quality building materials. Many report using salvaged materials from surrounding rural areas to improve their houses. Although this is likely a common construction practice, low quality materials coupled with lack of technical knowledge or guidance leaves these families vulnerable to future climate-related events.
For more information or to report an alert, please contact:[email protected].
DTM information products:http://displacement.iom.int/mozambique