1
USAID/INDIA
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE CLOSE-OUT REPORT
1. Basic Information:
SO Name: Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative (GERI)1
SO Number: 12 
SO Period: FY 2001-2002
Geographic Area (Code): India (386)
Total Cost: DA: $8,600,000 
2. Principal Implementing Partners:
CARE
Catholic Relief Services (CRS)
United Nations Development Program (UNDP)
World Vision (WV)
3. Summary of overall impact:
On January 26th, 2001, the Gujarat state of India was hit by a devastating earthquake, measuring 
7.6 on the Richter scale. It affected 7,633 villages and towns in 21 districts, affecting more than 
15 million people, killed almost 20,000 and left around 600,000 homeless. It is estimated that 
infrastructure worth $453 million was damaged. Following the immediate relief phase, 
USAID/India recognized the longer term need for rehabilitation and recovery and launched the 
Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative. A new special objective: “Recovery, Reconstruction and 
Rehabilitation Needs Met for Target Vulnerable Groups” was approved in March, 2001.
The impact of the program was felt immediately. Upon execution of the agreements, all the four 
grantees rapidly mobilized field presence along with local NGO partners. The Non Governmental 
Organizations (NGO) took on shelter reconstruction activities in target villages with households 
who wanted to have the shelter reconstructed. At the end of this program 2,813 houses were 
constructed incorporating earthquake resistant designs and construction techniques. Training 
programs were also organized for the local masons, carpenters and other building trade artisans 
in earthquake resistant building techniques. It is estimated that 1,214 craftspeople were trained in 
the Kutch district to ensure that future housing would be more likely to be earthquake resistant. 
Mobile health units were organized by CARE, one of the grantees, to provide vital health services 
to the affected communities. Through this service, over 2,800 women received antenatal check 
up services along with Tetanus Toxoid (TT) immunization and over 9,300 children received 
treatment for various diseases and disorders including 3,917 for immunization. With the collapse 
of the government’s health care system, the mobile health units were the only means to get 
health services to around 167 remote villages. USAID supported UNDP to develop a program to 
facilitate the availability of information in the community to assist the vulnerable groups through 
information sharing. Eighteen village information collection and dissemination centers (Setus) 
were set up with a central data processing and storage facility at Kutch, the district headquarters. 
Affected communities, NGOs and other organizations engaged in rehabilitation and 
reconstruction activities started receiving field level information through the UNDP’s program and 
it benefited the NGOs as well as the disadvantaged households to have access to the 
reconstruction resources. A newsletter published by a woman’s group addressing rehabilitation 
issues had a circulation of 2,000. Episodes in local (Kutchi) language were broadcasted 
periodically regarding the rehabilitation issues.
 
1
 Please note this is a special objective (SpO)
2
An independent mid-term evaluation of GERI provided some feedback on the impact of the 
program on the needs of the affected population, particularly the vulnerable communities. Key 
findings of the evaluation team suggested that the houses were well built and met recommended 
standards for earthquake prone areas and health care played a useful role for local communities. 
It was felt that the cash for work program did not have the envisaged impact. As a result of this 
evaluation USAID made some changes to the program. For example, targeted villages and 
households were changed, cash-for-work for water conservation was added to some program 
components and construction of check dams was approved. Some programs were extended until 
January, 2004 to incorporate the changes and implement new activities. GERI did not support 
construction in urban areas as the ground situation there was too complicated and the 
government of Gujarat had no policies in place for urban areas. 
With the completion of the activity, 2,813 households have since been provided permanent and 
earthquake resistant houses which have long term benefits for their housing and shelter needs. 
An additional 286 families were provided support for the retrofitting (reinforcement) of damaged 
houses which made these houses safe and reusable. Cash-for-work activities provided a total of 
104,015 person-days for earthen block production, construction of water harvesting and 
watershed management structures. These not only helped in providing much needed short-term 
wage employment for the affected families but also created long term assets to supply water, a 
scarce resource, to the affected communities on a continuing basis.
4. Summary of activities/ projects under the SO:
Grant agreements were executed with CARE, Catholic Relief Services (CRS) and World Vision 
(WV) during June – July, 2001 to provide earthquake reconstruction assistance focused on 
rebuilding 3,000 homes and community centers and re-instituting critical child survival and 
primary health services. 
· The main objectives of CARE initiative were to construct earthquake resistant houses; 
provide mobile health care services and cash for work. 
· Catholic Relief Services support was to: construct earthquake resistant houses and 
multipurpose community centers; provide trauma counseling, masonry training and cash 
for work. 
· World Vision’s intervention under GERI included the reconstruction of earthquake 
resistant houses, construction of check dams and water tanks as part of the cash-for￾work initiative.
An additional agreement was signed with the UNDP during September, 2001 to improve 
dissemination of field-level reconstruction information and to improve equity of services among 
more vulnerable groups of earthquake-affected people. UNDP’s efforts centered around two 
important objectives of strengthening the capacities and structure of community based 
organizations (CBOs) and on improving people’s access to information. 
5. SO results framework:
No results framework was formulated as the SO was developed to meet an immediate crisis from 
a disaster. 
6. Prospects for sustainability and threats:
This SO was expected to meet the immediate needs and help the process of recovery of the 
people impacted by the earthquake. The activities were not expected to remain long after the 
recovery process had begun. 
3
7. Lessons Learned:
GERI was based on certain key assumptions, but the ground reality was however much more 
complex. Continuously changing ground realities beyond the control of USAID and its partners 
affected the location and number of households that were willing to sign up with the housing 
program. The uncertainty of the Government of Gujarat’s policies, as well as the differences in 
provision of housing assistance among the myriad organizations working with the affected 
communities created an atmosphere of “shopping around” among the affected population. This 
created a difficult environment for USAID partners to establish and maintain agreements with 
needy households. Neither micro-grants nor cash-for-work for construction proved to be feasible.
A one day workshop on ‘Lessons Learned from the Gujarat Earthquake Recovery Initiative 
(GERI)’ was held in Ahmedabad, Gujarat to bring together all the program partners to review the 
context, nature and challenges of GERI, evaluate the validity of the assumptions made during the 
design of the program and identify successful interventions that might be replicable elsewhere. 
The workshop helped to identify GERI’s experiences which could be useful in designing a 
responsive and effective reconstruction project. Some of the learning included:
· Houses were tangible benefits. The ‘process’ of housing had the potential to be 
effectively used to enhance community mobilization and solidarity management 
capacities, gender empowerment and other such intangibles that support intervention in 
health, water, sanitation and trauma related concerns. Housing intervention therefore was 
justifiable and needed to be addressed within a framework of overall outcomes and 
impact and not by mere number of houses constructed. 
· There is a need to have a good understanding of the socio-cultural context while 
designing a recovery program.
· A balance must be found between the time it takes to mobilize communities in a 
participatory approach and the pressure of rapidly demonstrating results.
· A participatory, flexible approach with gender sensitivity should be the essence of a 
comprehensive rehabilitation program. 
· Coordination among NGOs, community based organizations, local and state government 
officials is essential to help in identifying ‘gaps’ in the provision of services to the affected 
areas as well as identifying synergies among programs. 
· Community participation was recognized as integral to the process of building community 
assets and the training of local government leaders and members of CBOs was seen as 
an important part of local capacity building. 
· There is a distinct advantage of working with organizations that are already part of an 
existing network with strong linkages with the community. 
· Ensuring that information is available about recovery programs and systems multiplies 
benefits, and. 
· Recovery takes time.
4
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
(A list of evaluations and special studies conducted during the life of the SO, including 
Annual Reports)
Mid-term evaluation, 2003; Workshop report: GERI- lessons learned, April, 2004.
Appendix 2
(A list of instrument close out reports prepared for contracts, grants, and cooperative 
agreements)
Close-out reports are maintained by Regional Contracting Office, USAID/New Delhi. For any 
information, please contact Mr. Marcus Johnson, Regional Contracting Officer at e-mail: 
mjohnson@usaid.gov
Appendix 3
(Names and contact point of individuals who were directly involved in various phases of 
the SO (planning, achieving, and assessing and learning), and who would be good 
sources of additional information)
David Heesen, Program Office, USAID/India; A.S Dasgupta, EG/USAID/India; Nina Minka, 
OSD/USAID/India; Balaji Singh, OSD/USAID/India
If you wish to contact any of the above individuals or if you would like any additional information 
about this SO please contact Ms. Nina Minka at Tel# 2419-8706 or 
e-mail: nminka@usaid.gov