1.1. Product-Centric Approach

They can also contribute their money, this is we called owner-driven and also there is the kind of NGO or contractor driven approach that can be 2 types; one is product-centric approach and people-centric approach. This product-centric approach where it is done by the NGO itself, it is mainly NGO driven or agency driven. People's-centric approach is more like a collaboration of partnership between people and the private agencies or NGOs.

In this section, we differentiate between two fundamental approaches to aid and development: the product-centric approach and the people-centric approach. The product-centric approach is primarily driven by NGOs or agencies, focusing on delivering specific products or services directly to communities. Conversely, the people-centric approach emphasizes partnerships and collaborations that involve the community members actively participating in the development process alongside NGOs or private agencies.

Think of it like two ways of learning. In a classroom where a teacher delivers a lecture (the product-centric approach), the teacher (like the NGO) shares information directly to students (the community). On the other hand, in a group project where students collaborate to build a presentation (the people-centric approach), everyone gets involved, contributing their ideas and efforts to create something together.

So, we have total 3 categories of models; 1, 2 and 3. So we can see clearly here also that there is one package from package number 2, there is owner-driven. And from package number 1, there are 2 that are NGO driven and community NGO partnership approach.

The discussion identifies three categories of models for development intervention. The first model (package number 1) is NGO-driven efforts, which involve NGOs taking the lead in implementation. The second model (package number 2) focuses on owner-driven initiatives, where individuals or communities contribute resources or labor directly to the solution. The third model is a combined approach that fosters partnerships between the community and NGOs, emphasizing collaboration and shared responsibility.

Imagine a school project where you have different models of doing the project. In one model, the teacher does most of the work (NGO-driven). In another, the students do everything on their own without any help (owner-driven). In the third model, they work together with the teacher to complete the project (community NGO partnership). Each approach varies in the level of involvement and collaboration.

What they have done in Gujarat; post-disaster interventions, they Rs.1 lakh was made to the next of kin of each of the deceased person, Rs.1250 rupees per family was given as the household kits was to provided and in case of cattle death, different amount of money was given like for goat 150, for bull 750 rupees, for cow 2500 like that.

After a disaster in Gujarat, various interventions were implemented to assist affected families. For each deceased person's family, a monetary compensation of Rs.1 lakh was provided. Additionally, families received household kits worth Rs.1,250 to help them recover their livelihoods. Compensation varied for lost livestock, with set amounts allocated based on the type of animal.

This is akin to a community response after a natural disaster. If a hurricane hits a town, the government or NGOs may provide financial aid to families who lost their homes or loved ones. They might also hand out boxes of food and essentials to help people get back on their feet, similar to the household kits provided in Gujarat.

Shelter reconstruction; some of the reports here; now, progress of housing reconstructions in Kutch, number of total destroyed houses was 1 lakh 56,000 little more than that in Kutch area, and that was planned by the NGO was around 50,000 among them, the under-construction house right now that time 2003 was little more than 6000, completed almost 40,000 thousand little less than that.

In the context of post-earthquake recovery in Kutch, it was reported that over 156,000 houses were destroyed. The NGOs planned to reconstruct around 50,000 of these, with approximately 6,000 houses still under construction at that time, and close to 40,000 houses reported as completed. This reveals the scale of damage and the significant effort required for recovery and rebuilding.

Imagine a neighborhood where a fire destroys a large number of homes. An organization may commit to rebuilding a certain number of those homes, but there will be a significant amount of work involved, and not all homes can be rebuilt immediately. The organization needs to prioritize and manage the rebuilding process systematically, just as the NGOs did in Kutch.

Self-construction that is owner-driven basically is around 96,000 to 97,000, and the total houses constructed were 1 lakh 35,000 thousand that time. The mode of reconstructions; NGO constructions you can see that even in case of NGO mostly, it was 56% was in-situ but is a great number of also relocated house, in case of owner-driven or self-constructed majority are in-situ development, only 22% is relocated buildings.

Out of a total of around 135,000 reconstructed houses, approximately 96,000 were built through owner-driven initiatives, focusing on self-construction. When comparing the reconstruction modes, 56% of the NGO-led constructions occurred in their original locations while a significant portion of owner-driven houses were also built in the same places. However, only 22% of these self-constructed homes were relocated to new sites.

Think of a community that needs to rebuild after a storm. Many people choose to rebuild their houses in the same location where their homes stood (in-situ). Others might have to move to a safer area. It reflects how some people might prefer familiar surroundings while others see a chance to improve their living conditions by relocating.

--