The reconstruction response was based on a damage assessment exercise conducted by Development Alternatives for EFICOR after the earthquake.

EFICOR, the project proponents sourced finance for the project and also provided the critical social mobilization link. Development Alternatives provided the core technical and management support. Village Reconstruction Committees in each village represented the needs of the rural families and supported the construction and management process.

May 2003, has seen the handing over of 683 houses of 31sqm each (including toilets, bathing spaces, cooking areas and verandahs) and five community building in the villages Bittavaladiya (west), Nagavaladiya in South Anjar Taluka, Village Torania in Bachau and Village Sai in Rapar Talukas. The project which was initially slated for 18 months took 24 months (including three months of no work due to civil strife and change in contractors) and approximately eighty million Indian Rupees to complete.

Project Objectives

The promary objective of the reconstruction exercise was to provide for speedy construction of basic shelter in a manner that long term habitat development processes could be set up within the villages.

Therefore, getting the communities to participate in evolving the work plan with specific inclusion of women was considered important.

The limitation of time and funding resources was compounded by the fact that neither EFICOR, nor Development Alternatives were local to the region and had definitely no plans to stay on for a long duration in the region. Yes for a continuous sustainable habitat process, it was essential that community based participatory systems in the redevelopment of the villages be set in place.

The highlights of the operating strategies of the model were:

The primary achievements of project Asha, besides the number of houses and community buildings, have been:

The project has provided valuable learning for future re-construction exercises:

●	The significance of Village Reconstruction Committees was clearly demonstrated. We learnt the value of "empowering" these committees. During the course of the project, the role of the VRCs was reduced through lack of adequate communication for various reasons. This led to some misgivings and also mis-communication about project components and created problems that took much time and effort to resolve.
●	The value of "demonstration" especially of a new technology, design and construction process was brought home very strongly. A low acceptance of the roofing system in the first two villages Nagavaladiya and Bittavaladiya (West) had to be complemented by high inputs towards maintaining quality and time specifications here. This technology would probably be more acceptable, had an initial set of demonstration houses been constructed. Despite the intensity of participation in the design and technology selection process, families could only visualize what the new technology was after they saw it on the roofs. Many in the first two villages were not comfortable with this roofing system. Families in villages Sai and Torania, on the other hand, made their decisions about the roofing technology after seeing what the roofs were like and weighing the pros and cons of this system in comparison to the conventional RCC slabs.	Artistic value addition to new house - ownership
●	A post construction survey revealed that despite the clearly evident benefits of controlled and efficient curing (low requirement of water), and faster construction, the acceptance of the FC technology is not as envisaged. One probable reason is sited above. Another reason analysed is: the "limit design" and therefore high level of precision required for production and installation in this technology. The differential acceptance, can also be explained by the fact that unlike, Nagavaladiya and Bittavaladiya (West) where the Villagers were in position to demand the "provisions" for reconstruction; in Sai and Torania, there was little that the village families could negotiate and therefore accepted whatever they said.
●	The importance of "local contractors, masons and artisans was brought home strongly. The first set of contractors were Mumbai (not local) based were unable to provide satisfactory service and after due pressure from the VRC and upon the recommendation of the project managers, EFICOR reviewed their performance and appointed local contractors. The results of this change were soon evident both in terms of speed and in the quality of construction. In addition, "local artisanal skill" could be upgraded – towards long term "safe construction systems" in the region.
●	The project provided learning of careful contracting and strict and tight tendering with in-built flexibility to incorporate "community processes". While the actual construction was being taken up by contractors, the village families through the VRC and also directly would make demands upon the construction as well as on the process. For example, release of plots for construction was not only based upon the ease of location but also on social dynamics and identification of the most needy. Changes in specifications during the course of the project were also guided by both non-availability of certain material and non acceptance of a systems by the families. Some families also wanted changes in door orientation and window locations; a particular cluster had to be totally redesigned due to limited space and social norms existing in the village. All these aspects had to be built into the construction process while keeping a tight rein on the speed and standard of quality of construction through the contractor mode. There were many pitfalls but the teams learn as they went along.

The reconstruction of housing has not only minimized the vulnerability of families in these four villages to future emergencies but also enhanced their capacities to build safe structures in future.