Quality: 2 - Ciudad

Bringing light and air to homes in informal settlements

0

Bringing light and air to homes in informal settlements

Mismatches Security Functional adequacy Vulnerable groups
Policies and regulations Local policies Regulation Governance
Urban Design Quality Liveability Inclusion Equity
Promotion and production Transformation and adaptation Favelas/Slums

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2017:

Stakeholders

Location

Continent: Asia
City: Ahmedabad
Country/Region: Ahmedabad, India

Description

For many poorer women living in informal settlements in India, the home is not just a place to live but also a place of work. Homes in Indian informal settlements are deep, long and arranged in rows backing onto each other. This means that there is no natural light or ventilation from three sides. Even in the middle of the day the rear part of the house remains dark and gets very hot. Most people solve this problem with electric lights and fans. However the electricity is expensive and electrical appliances generate their own heat. This problem is recognised by the Mahila Housing Trust, a non-governmental organisation which is part of the Self Employed Women’s Association; a movement which itself emerged out of the Textile Labour Association, a trade union established by Mahatma Ghandi in 1918.

The Mahila Housing Trust work to mobilise its members. The Trust supports communities to organise, working at grass-roots level and supporting dialogue to influence government policies. Their goal is to make homes and the wider living environment more suitable for women to live and work in. This includes projects to upgrade water and sanitation, build roads, develop low-income housing and improve security of land tenure. The organisation works in rural and urban areas across India, Nepal and Bangladesh focussing particularly on areas where there is little other support from government or NGOs.

“Ujasiyu”, an innovation developed by the Mahila Housing Trust to improve working conditions for self-employed women in India, is a simple dormer window that can be fitted to the roof allowing natural light and ventilation into homes in informal settlements. The window is made of fibreglass and is moulded to fit onto the shape of corrugated steel, which almost all roofs are made out of. The window itself is made of translucent plastic. This prevents glare and diffuses the light so that it illuminates the whole room rather than creating a shaft of light. The plastic is moulded into a hump with an opening at the bottom to allow air to circulate. The gap is covered with gauze to prevent insects and other animals from getting in.

Residents buy the dormer window (Ujasiyu) with the help of low cost loans which are offered by both the Mahila Housing Trust and SEWA Bank (cooperative bank that specialises in providing affordable finance to low-income self-employed women). Many families are able to pay back the loans within a year, through their earnings and the energy savings they make by having the window. Interventions were introduced in the state of Gujarat (West India) and are being implemented at various scales across the country in the states of Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Jharkhand, Delhi and Rajasthan.

In this project the housing trust partnered with Yatin Pandya, an Indian architect who runs Footprints E.A.R.T.H – an architecture and environment consultancy company. He offered technical support in the project development. The Solar Energy and Light Company (SELCO), an Indian social enterprise working on solar power solutions also offered technical support and sector knowledge.

Ujasiyu focuses on vulnerable households where women both live and work as part of the informal economy. The women who benefit from the improvements carry out unskilled work such as embroidery and rolling bidis (a type of cigarette). Improved lighting and ventilation means that they can comfortably use the home for this work (increasing their productivity) as well as for leisure time. Children can also spend more time in the house doing schoolwork due to the increased light. Better ventilation and less smoke also helps to improve health issues such as breathing problems and asthma. Cost savings are made as less electricity is used due to increased natural light.

The project has a community-led component with households helping to implement the new products and provide feedback for future improvements. Awareness of energy efficiency and the benefits of ventilated homes has increased as beneficiaries share their experiences with the wider community. As part of the wider work of Mahila Housing Trust, Ujasiyu is promoted to residents alongside other solutions which reduce energy use, including energy efficient light fittings and cooking stoves.

So far Mahila Housing Trust and SEWA Bank have helped:

  • 635 households to improve ventilation by installing Ujasiyu dormer windows.
  • 18,050 households to reduce lighting costs by installing energy efficient light fittings.
  • 2,647 households to improve cooking facilities with energy efficient cooking stoves.

Aims and Objectives

The main aim of the project is to provide natural daylight and ventilation in dark and dingy houses throughout informal settlements in urban India using community-led design.

Its objectives are to:

  • Ensure community conversations and voices contribute to the design of adaptations.
  • Design, manufacture and fit dormer windows (selected by communities as the most effective option) for lighting and ventilation.
  • Empower households in informal settlements to access loans that they can afford.
  • Educate residents in informal settlements about energy efficiency and home improvements.

A longer-term aim of the programme is to transfer the project to more communities across India so that more households can benefit from the interventions.

Context

Women make up 28% of the labour force in India[1]. Among working women, an estimated 93% are in informal employment, earning a living through their own labour or small businesses[2]. The nature of their employment makes it difficult for them to access ‘official’ state support, and financial services like credit and pensions. The Self-Employed Women’s Association was formed as a Trade Union, gaining recognition from the government in 1972. Since it began, the association has developed as a movement to improve the lives of its members through joining together to fight for things like workers protection, fair pay, and to develop solutions to improve living standards. The Self-Employed Women’s Association spread into a wide range of sister organisations to achieve its objectives[3]. These include the SEWA Bank, a cooperative bank which uses contributions from its members to offer credit to self-employed women; and the Mahila Housing Trust, founded to improve housing and living conditions for poor women in informal employment. These two organisations are lead partners in Ujasiyu on community involvement.

The need for interventions in informal settlements results from the rapid population growth experienced in cities across India. Most have struggled to keep up with this growth, and much of the population lacks access to basic infrastructure like housing, transportation and services. Nearly half the population in urban India are accommodated in informal settlements. Homes are densely packed, often very small, and built with temporary materials. A lack of natural light and air makes houses dark, dingy and stiflingly hot. This affects residents’ mental and physical health, as well as their ability to carry out day to day tasks in the home. Even in broad daylight many families are forced to use artificial lighting, and poor ventilation means fans are needed leading to high electricity bills. These issues are particularly negative for women who are more likely than men to be in the home during the day. Ujasiyu was developed in an ‘Innovation Centre for the Poor’, an initiative by Mahila Housing Trust and SEWA Bank to find simple interventions to improve the quality of life in the communities where their members live and work.

[1] International Labour Organisation, 2016

[2] Self Employed Women’s Association, http://www.sewa.org/

[3] http://www.sewa.org/Sister_Organization.asp

Key Features

Ujasiyu was developed in an Innovation Centre for the Poor, where prototype adaptations to improve lighting and ventilation were tested and selected by the community.

The dormer window was chosen as the best solution after the testing of five different prototypes which were developed with local knowledge and mounted in initial volunteer’s homes. These prototypes were as follows:

  1. Raising the roof sheet: allowing roofing to be raised to let air into the building.
  2. Sliding Window: Cutting the roof around 60cm and introducing a sliding window for ventilation.
  3. Square Skylight: Introducing a square raised skylight (of 30cm in the roof)
  4. Dormer Window: Adding a Dormer window of around 30cm to 60cm height, by cutting a small part of the roof.
  5. Waste Plastic Bottle Insert: Cutting the roof equal to the diameter of the waste plastic bottle. On inserting the bottle, the sun light illuminates through plastic thereby lighting the interior spaces.

After the success of the Dormer window adaptation based on volunteer feedback this was chosen to be rolled out at scale. In the pilot stage, these were provided free of charge and electricity savings were monitored for three months to understand the savings.

The main motivation behind Ujasiyu is to make homes comfortable spaces where women can carry out informal home-based work more easily. For women in informal settlements this is essential so that they can support their family and gain some financial independence in the home. A more comfortable working environment is not only healthier and more comfortable it also increases productivity. Along with savings in electricity this increases people’s income. It also benefits the family more widely in that children can study in the home improving educational success.

A wider culture of energy savings and home improvement has been developed through the work of the project to engage with the local community in discussions about the possibility of improving homes and participating directly.

The project is a collaboration between:

  • Mahila Housing Trust – Initial partner in setting up the project (with SEWA Bank). Worked with communities to develop dormer window product. Also provides some small loans.
  • Footprints E.A.R.T.H – Architect Yatin Pandya provided free technical assistance to the project
  • SEWA Bank – The bank provided loans to beneficiary households who wanted the installations
  • The Solar Energy and Light Company (SELCO) – Completed energy surveys to find out energy savings made as a result of the interventions and provided sector knowledge

What impact has it had?

Firstly, the project ensures that families live in healthier homes with access to natural light and air, improving both physical and mental health. In addition to healthier homes it has enabled families to save between 30-50% on their energy bills through having to use lights less often in daytime hours. These cost savings allow families to spend money on other needs such as education, as well as to accumulate savings and pensions. The new healthier homes have allowed many women who work from home to improve the effectiveness of their businesses and increase their income. The adaptations have also created better study environments for children in the home. Ujasiyu also has a positive environmental impact in the use of less energy.

Ujasiyu as a product is still developing and adapting. The dormer window is currently installed in 635 homes and work is underway to address the challenges of differences between building types. The wider work of the Mahila Housing Trust to promote energy saving has enabled over 17,000 households across informal settlements in seven states to benefit from one or more interventions (the total number of installations stands at 21,332). With a range of options and affordable credit, households can choose to install a single intervention even if they cannot afford to have all three (cooking, lighting and ventilation) at the same time. Currently about 20 per cent of families have been able to benefit from more than one installation. The project is working on reducing the costs of Ujasiyu further so that the product can be accessed by an even greater number of households.

Although the project has not directly impacted any policy changes it has changed the attitudes of residents enabling them to take ownership of their right to a comfortable home. It has also increased community awareness and education on energy saving and the use of simple interventions to create healthier homes.

How is it funded?

Initial set up costs were covered by international donor funding. Mahila Housing Trust worked with SEWA Bank to develop relationships with beneficiaries. This included setting up the ‘Innovation Centre for the poor’ where the project was planned and social surveys were carried out to understand people’s needs. Some fundraising was done to increase the funds available for start-up. In addition, initial design and technical support were offered for free by the architect Yatin Pandya through his practice, Footprints E.A.R.T.H. Once a family becomes involved in the project it is up to them to fund the housing improvements. They can do this through taking out loans from the SEWA Bank. The ventilation units cost each family 5,000 Rupees (approximately US$80). Instalments and interest are kept affordable in line with the bank’s cooperative principles.

The fact that improvements ensure 30-50% savings in electricity bills per month means that families can make savings into the cooperative bank and pay off loans quickly, often within a year. The ventilation units are produced locally to minimise costs. They are now sold under a private company called MHT Awaas SEWA Private Limited which was registered by the Mahila Housing Trust in 2013.

Why is it innovative?

The project is innovative in three ways: the product itself, the way in which it was developed and the focus on women.

The dormer window is the key innovation of this project. Although there are other projects (notably the 2015 World Habitat Award winner – Liter of Light) that solve the problem of poorly lit houses in informal settlements, the dormer window in this project is specifically designed for the needs of homes in India and provides ventilation as well as light.

The project’s home improvements were developed through a community-led ‘innovation centre’. The project did not begin until conversations with residents were undertaken so that their needs could be fully understood. Other approaches may focus on moving people from inadequate housing in informal settlements, instead of trying to ensure houses are more liveable in their community. The Ujasiyu product allows people to remain in their community, making it a more sensitive design innovation.

The focus on women in informal settlements is another innovative factor. Providing improvements to homes, the main workplace for many women, empowers them to earn increased incomes. Because conditions in their homes are improved and comfort is increased throughout the day and night, women are also given more control over the type and amount of work they do. The focus on women in informal employment, within informal settlements is also innovative. The collaboration with SEWA Bank means that the families can access affordable credit and not become burdened with debts from unregulated moneylenders, or be left out of the lending system all together because of lack of collateral.

What is the environmental impact?

The project works to improve current homes rather than building new ones, which saves energy and material use through the construction of new buildings.

The project reduces the amount of energy used in homes and therefore their environmental impact. Specific adaptations had specific environmental impacts. Residents who have had the dormer window installed have reported energy savings of up to 50%.

The use of locally available materials for adaptations also reduces the carbon footprint of the project.

Is it financially sustainable?

Initially adaptations (improvements to cooking, lighting and ventilation) were subsidised through grants. Once the effectiveness of the interventions was more widely known and understood, the project developed into a social enterprise. Families who want to install one or more adaptations are expected to raise their own funding. Soft loans are provided to interested households by the SEWA Bank. Costs are payable in instalments and are repaid within a year. The savings made on energy bills generate enough savings to cover the repayments. After repayment, the benefits to households will continue for the long term, enabling them to improve their income and standard of living.

Despite the potential savings, the cost of loan instalments has limited some of the poorest families from being able to access Ujasiyu products. Work is underway to lower costs so that the approach can be offered to a wider range of households.

What is the social impact?

The work of Mahila Housing Trust empowers women to be able to fulfil their right to a comfortable and healthy home. Their involvement in the project’s development and the ongoing discussions which occur once the improvements are in place mean women are partners not just voiceless beneficiaries.

The Ujasiyu dormer window improves the air quality in the homes which are cooler and no longer smoke filled (smoke can leave through the ventilation dormer) and are naturally lit. This reduces negative health impacts such as breathing problems, and improves mental health as people live in less dingy spaces. Entire families are able to spend more time inside on both work and leisure.

For women who work in the home, better light, ventilation and reduced smoke from cooking stoves has improved productivity and increased income. Families who have benefitted from Ujasiyu have more disposable income to save, and pay for things like children’s education.

Barriers

The main challenge so far has been that differences in local construction and local bylaws meant each city and state needed different size sheets to go with the dormer window installation. For example, in the city of Surat in Gujarat, homes needed much larger sheets. These needed to be developed cost effectively to maintain the affordability for the families in need. In some homes, a waste bottle roofing solution was implemented where a plastic bottle was fitted into the roof which the sun would shine onto and illuminate the inside rooms. This was less effective than the dormer window but was used where it was not possible to install dormers.

In some states, production and application has slowed down due to increasing manufacturing costs. This should be overcome if the project develops its own manufacturing centre.

A further challenge has been promoting the improvements and convincing residents that they work, so they are happy to take out the loans to pay for the solutions. Residents were also not used to their opinions being sought in projects like this. The project is currently being promoted by word of mouth and through communication between the project implementers and the local population.

Lessons Learned

As the project was implemented in states which differ in their physical context, ventilation adaptations had to be redesigned to suit the local context. Finding local manufacturers who could produce products in a cost-effective manner is an issue in some locations. To overcome this, the project aims to set up local manufacturing centres. This new expansion is still at initial planning stage. The Ujasiyu project also hopes to diversify the products they offer to provide a wider range of practical solutions to improve ventilation and natural lighting.

Evaluation

The project has not been formally evaluated yet anecdotally the product has been seen as a positive innovation amongst beneficiaries.

Recognition

The project has hosted various international visitors including representatives from Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Misereor Foundation, Care Foundation (Dhaka), Millennium Alliance along with FICCI, Womanity Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation.

Transfer

The Mahila Housing Trust’s work to improve working conditions in the home through reduced energy costs has scaled up from impacting 140 houses at the pilot stage to now 21,332 lighting, cooking, and ventilation installations in 7 states of India: Gujarat, Delhi, Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka, Odisha, Rajasthan and Jharkhand.

Work on transferring and scaling up the Ujasiyu dormer window product is continuing, and has also inspired further work led by the Mahila Housing Trust to produce modular roofing made out of paper waste and coconut husk for informal settlements. In 2016 this innovation won the ‘Urban Labs Innovation Challenge: Delhi’ an award organised by the University of Chicago and the Delhi Government in response to its success in bringing down indoor temperatures improving living conditions. The project has so far been implemented at a pilot stage in three informal settlements in Delhi around new sustainable innovations such as solar powered lights and solar eco-cooler.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Residential Energy Efficiency for Low Income Households

0

Residential Energy Efficiency for Low Income Households

Mismatches Vulnerable groups New family structures
Policies and regulations Governance
Financing
Urban Design Liveability Inclusion Equity Participatory processes
Promotion and production Technology

Main objectives of the project

Homeowners living in formerly state-owned buildings are supported to work together to improve their homes through the REELIH project.

Many multi-apartment blocks in former Eastern Bloc countries Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Macedonia fell into widespread disrepair following mass privatisation in the early 1990s. By creating homeowner associations, residents are able to borrow collectively to carry out energy efficiency improvements to their homes.  This makes heating homes more affordable, improving the health and well-being of residents.

After proving successful in Macedonia, the approach was transferred to Armenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Since all three countries face similar challenges, they all began with the principle of collective action and then went on to adapt to meet their different needs.

The project has developed connections between individuals, homeowner associations, local governments and banks. The work has helped spread awareness about energy efficiency and increased the funding available to residents to improve their buildings.

Date

  • 2017:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Asia
Country/Region: Armenia, Yerevan

Description

Project Description

The Residential Energy in Low Income Households (REELIH) project is about the transfer of a successful approach to improving lives through improving buildings, which Habitat for Humanity began in 2009 in Macedonia. The project objective is to tackle poverty and improve the health and quality of life of low income homeowners. It is an approach which responds to a problem common across countries of the former Eastern Bloc. Before mass-privatisation occurred across the region in the 1990s, huge state-driven building programmes had provided the majority of the housing stock as multi-apartment blocks. Once ownership of these blocks was transferred to residents, the common areas of many buildings (roofs, stairs, facades) fell into disrepair as communal maintenance arrangements were not set up or not maintained by residents. As a result, thousands of buildings are at varying degrees of disrepair, with very poor insulation and sometimes dangerous structural flaws.

This project helps residents to improve their buildings by encouraging and enabling them to work together to arrange and finance energy efficiency works. The original approach was developed and trialled by Habitat for Humanity Macedonia. This provided the starting point for the REELIH project, a transfer which has been co-ordinated by the regional office of Habitat for Humanity (covering Europe, Middle East and Africa). Local partners in Armenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina have led and implemented the project on the ground, adapting specific elements to fit within the different administrative, financial, political and economic contexts of those countries.

The project, which receives funding from the United States Agency for International Development, supports individual homeowners living in multi-apartment blocks to mobilise and act as Homeowner Associations to collectively manage their buildings. These resident-led groups are able to get access to technical expertise through the project so they can make their buildings more energy efficient. As a result, residents spend less on energy and also benefit from improved air quality, which has a positive impact on people’s health.

A significant feature of the project is the work that Habitat for Humanity carries out in each country to develop financial models so the improvements can be funded. One of the ways that this is achieved is through mediation carried out between residents, the public sector and the private sector. This has really helped increase the funding available for this type of work and has made it much easier for people from different backgrounds and organisations to work together to achieve improvements for residents and the wider community.

The Residential Energy in Low Income Households (REELIH) project is co-ordinated by the Europe, Middle East and Africa branch of Habitat for Humanity International. Habitat for Humanity International is a non-governmental organisation working in 70 countries around the world. The organisation’s work is focused on ensuring that everyone has a decent place to live and on finding solutions to housing issues. This project is delivered by in-country partners: Habitat for Humanity Macedonia, Habitat for Humanity Armenia, and Enova in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Aims and Objectives

The main aim of the REELIH project is to tackle poverty and improve the health and quality of life of low income homeowners living in multi-apartment buildings. The project – currently delivered in Macedonia, Armenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina but of relevance to many countries across Eurasia[1] – works by:

  • Raising awareness about energy efficiency as a way of tackling poverty and reducing carbon emissions.
  • Providing technical expertise to residents living in multi-apartment buildings to help them form Homeowner Associations.
  • Helping residents to plan and organise energy efficiency work to be carried out on their buildings.
  • Helping to develop trust between residents, lenders and local governments.
  • Developing and testing replicable models of collective borrowing which help residents access funding.
  • Improving the health of residents through improved heating and air quality in their homes.

Through the Residential Energy Efficiency project, Habitat for Humanity demonstrates the case for public and private investment in residential energy.

The work is helping:

  • to establish and develop an investment market for retrofitting;
  • to secure the financial and political support of governments;
  • to place an increased focus on improving existing buildings.

[1] Eurasia is a combined continental landmass of Europe and Asia. The REELIH project is applicable in particular in countries that were formerly part of the Eastern Bloc, where there has been very high subsidy and nationalisation followed by economic decline and rapid privatisation.

Context

In many countries across Eurasia, there are large numbers of blocks of flats which were built using prefabricated units. Built between 1951-1991, this type of housing was originally state-owned and managed with high levels of subsidy. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union and former Yugoslavia, mass privatisation led to high levels of private homeownership. However, many of these buildings have fallen into disrepair and are now inefficient and expensive to heat. As countries in the region are mainly located in climate zones with cold winters, poorly heated homes affect the health and well-being of the residents, particularly those on low incomes, who also struggle with high energy costs. Heating poorly insulated buildings wastes large amounts of energy. Poorly maintained residential buildings also generate higher carbon emissions and contribute towards pollution and climate change. In this region residential buildings are the largest single consumers of energy and a major source of greenhouse gasses, especially carbon dioxide. However, the market for energy efficiency in the countries where the Residential Energy Efficiency project is working is not well developed. Also because households have been used to receive high levels of state subsidy to pay energy bills in the past, saving energy to save money is a new concept for many people.

Key Features

The REELIH project acts as a facilitator and mediator between homeowners and the public and private sector so that retrofit projects can be planned, funded and delivered. This mediator role has supported the formation of new Homeowner Associations, which are organisations formed of and run by residents. Through this programme these associations have become credible recipients of both bank loans and local government subsidies, enabling them to improve their homes and buildings. This is a significant development as previously residents were not able to get access to loans to improve their blocks of flats.

Capacity building is a key feature of this project and is implemented by in-country partners: Habitat for Humanity Macedonia, Habitat for Humanity Armenia, and Enova in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Training and awareness-raising helps ensure residents know about energy efficiency and their right to adequate housing. These in-country partners support Homeowner Associations to form, to plan which home improvements they will carry out and to decide if they will manage the work themselves or through contractors.

The work of the in-country partners also extends to working with banks and local authorities. The development of a market for residential energy efficiency retrofits is a great success of the project. It has created an opportunity for low income households to access funding and has helped to attract subsidy from local government in the form of match funding for loans. With the support of the REELIH project residents in Homeowner Associations have demonstrated their ability to manage projects and loan repayments, allowing them to make real improvements to their lives. The loan repayment rate of residents working with the project is 100%, which is a significant achievement.

In addition to providing technical assistance, Habitat for Humanity funds energy audits. These audits help the organisers to decide which buildings should be targeted and also help Homeowner Associations to make informed decisions about the work they will have done.

Habitat for Humanity currently shares knowledge about residential energy efficiency via three websites, one in English, one in Armenian and one in Bosnian. These explain how the project works and take people through a step by step guide on how to make improvements in their homes and in common spaces and structures (roof, facades, stairwells) in multi-apartment buildings.

What impact has it had?

In the context of former Eastern Bloc countries, the development of a market for resident-led energy-efficiency works is ground-breaking. The history of state-control over maintenance of the housing stock, combined with a heavily subsidised energy supply means there has been very little awareness of or interest in issues like energy efficiency among residents. As a result of the work of Habitat for Humanity on residential energy efficiency, more than 3,800 individuals now live in more comfortable and efficient housing across the three countries. Retrofitting has cut energy bills for low income homeowners by up to 50%, helping to reduce poverty and tackling rising energy costs. The project supports the rights of citizens to a good home, helping residents to access the means to improve their own housing.

By 2017, the project had achieved the following:

  • In Macedonia, 35 buildings (671 households, around 2,215 residents) have had energy efficiency works,
  • In Armenia, 18 buildings (519 housing units, 1,500 residents) have had work completed and the work of Habitat for Humanity has led to a commitment from the Yerevan Municipality to co-finance retrofits on 900 further units.
  • In Bosnia and Herzegovina, four buildings (49 housing units, 133 residents) have been retrofitted. This has attracted the attention of local governments in the Tuzla Canton who have now developed an action plan to retrofit 973 further homes. The plan will provide subsidies to match loans and other funds raised by Homeowner Associations.

The continued success of the work in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Armenia is now inspiring further work in Macedonia. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is funding a second phase of the project, which began in 2017 and will run until 2019.

The project has led several local governments to provide subsidies for energy efficiency interventions. In Armenia the Municipality of Yerevan has provided 40% subsidy for all energy efficiency interventions through the REELIH project. Habitat for Humanity Armenia is also working collaboratively to reform the national Armenian Housing Law, to create a better investment environment for Homeowner Associations. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, following the implementation of residential energy efficiency work by Habitat for Humanity, the Tuzla Canton local government has produced a five-year plan focusing on energy use in residential buildings. It is the first of its kind in Bosnia and will support large scale investments in residential energy efficiency across the area. It is expected this approach will spread to other areas. In addition, Habitat for Humanity is currently working on influencing the reforming of Homeowners Association laws in all three countries.

How is it funded?

The project costs are funded jointly by Habitat for Humanity International and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Residential energy efficiency is a key part of the Habitat for Humanity International strategy for Europe and Central Asia until at least 2020 and currently US$100,000 per year is allocated to this work from the organisation’s core funding.

  • First half of 2012, Habitat for Humanity invested US$35,000 from its own undesignated funding sources for the initial development of a regional initiative building on the experiences from Macedonia
  • Preparatory work exploring the transfer from Macedonia, identifying Armenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina as suitable countries, and reaching out to diverse partners and stakeholders, in addition to technical assistance and mediation with Homeowner Associations, financial institutions, local government:
    • US$2,000,000 (USAID, maximum committed funding for 2012-2019).
    • US$590,000 (Habitat for Humanity International, committed funding for 2012-2019).
  • Additional project funding leveraged in subsidy or investment to date from private institutions and governments:
    • US$100,000

The costs of the energy efficiency works are covered through different routes depending on each country. Energy efficiency markets are still being developed by Habitat for Humanity and their in-country partners. In Armenia, where Habitat for Humanity has successfully set up loans for Homeowner Associations these are combined with subsidy from the local government if available.

Macedonia:

  • Revolving loan fund set up by Habitat for Humanity Macedonia to help finance energy efficiency works: US$912,705. This fund aims to demonstrate that Homeowner Associations reliable clients, as currently commercial banks do not lend to these actors
  • Additional funding for energy efficiency leveraged by local governments: US$857,360

Bosnia and Herzegovina:

  • Energy efficiency works are covered by a combination of financial subsidy and residents’ personal savings.
  • Subsidy for retrofitting works: US$125,000 budget allocated (in 2017) by the canton of Tuzla, along with match funding by five different local governments which should collectively amount to US$300,000 (final amount of match funding still to be confirmed).

Armenia:

  • The Municipality of Yerevan has committed to fund 40% of the building retrofit costs per each building, and up to 900 buildings following the first retrofit pilot.
  • Ineco Bank and AGBA Credit Agricole Bank are working with Habitat for Humanity to develop loan products for Homeowner Associations.
  • Loans are insured by guarantees based on an assessment of the Homeowner Association’s cash flow (typically the history of collection rates of building management fees over the past two years).
  • The cost of retrofitting works is split with 60% covered by loans and 40% covered by subsidy. The interest rate for the loans is 17% (the average rate for retail loans), with repayment in three to five years.

Why is it innovative?

Residential Energy Efficiency for Low Income Households targets low income households affected by high energy costs, informing them about energy efficiency and providing technical support to help them manage the retrofitting of their homes. The skills people have gained through the project help them get involved in raising awareness, sharing their knowledge and concerns about energy costs as a cause of poverty and helping municipalities to further understand their residents’ needs.

By mediating between Homeowner Associations, municipalities and banks, the approach of Habitat for Humanity has improved the financial credibility and borrowing power of low income households. This is a particular accomplishment, as banks in Armenia (as in most of Eastern Europe) were previously unwilling to issue loans to Homeowner Associations. Through technical assistance and effective collaboration, the REELIH project has helped to establish new financial mechanisms, which facilitate the distribution of public funds and loans from banks directly to the Homeowner Associations. This provides an alternative to the need for each individual household in a multi-apartment building to raise their own finances. It allows a whole-building approach to energy efficiency which can be managed collectively by the residents. As the loan is also managed by a single entity (the Homeowners Association), the whole process of making improvements to buildings has also become more efficient.

What is the environmental impact?

Approximately 80% to 90% of energy is used during the lifetime use of a building with the remaining 10% to 20% used during construction and demolition (this also accounts for embodied energy). Retrofitting has a positive environmental impact by making buildings more energy efficient, reducing carbon dioxide emissions and the use of fossil fuels. As the number of retrofitted buildings increases, so does the positive environmental impact of the Residential Energy Efficiency project.

Retrofitting homes improves air quality and helps reduce moisture and noise, provides greater comfort and reduces the required frequency of maintenance and repair work. The retrofitting works carried out through this project can reduce the total energy consumption of these homes by up to 50%.

Specific features delivered through the programme include:

  • Thermo-insulation of the façade of the buildings.
  • Repair, replacement and/or new flooring and roofing with materials with thermal features.
  • Replacement of windows and entrance doors.

The approach of REELIH ensures materials used for retrofits provide optimal energy saving results. Different vendors are used in each building and materials are selected based on energy audits. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, most materials are produced or available locally. Some materials are imported in Armenia. Energy efficiency interventions are sometimes implemented hand-in-hand with other work on strengthening the structural stability of the buildings, improving them for future generations.

Is it financially sustainable?

Habitat for Humanity International has placed energy efficiency within its key strategy and funding streams until 2020. As of 2017, the project has funding from USAID for at least two more years. Advocacy carried out by the project has secured commitment from a number of local governments to place energy efficiency in their budgets. This achievement has been key to the financial sustainability of this work.

The relationship building with banks is also a very important aspect. Two additional banks in Bosnia and Herzegovina have started financing window replacement and other retrofit measures, and are now interested in developing affordable residential energy efficiency products for families and Homeowner Associations. In particular, banks would like to see a Guarantee Fund to reduce the risks of loans to Homeowners Associations. This option is being explored by Habitat for Humanity, in order to expand the number of banks that would be willing to provide loans for residential energy efficiency for multi-apartment buildings.

Over time Habitat for Humanity International believe it might be possible to set up revolving loan funds so Homeowner Associations can pay for energy efficiency works without any subsidy. At the moment the market is not developed enough in any of the countries where the project is being implemented for this to happen.

What is the social impact?

Residential Energy Efficiency for Low Income Households provides practical solutions to a housing problem that negatively affects standards of living, household budgets and quality of life. The project prioritises community-building and working in partnership across different organisations and sectors, focusing on solving energy poverty for low-income families and has a real impact on residents’ lives and their homes.

Multi-sector partnership and knowledge sharing is not only carried out on the ground but also through online knowledge sharing platforms. Presently there are two national knowledge sharing website for the work in Armenia (http://taqtun.am) and in Bosnia and Herzegovina (http://topaodom.ba), and a regional website for the project at a wider level (https://getwarmhomes.org). The national platforms allow residents and stakeholders not directly involved in the project to learn about and develop their own energy efficiency improvements, and the regional one acts as an international platform to share knowledge on residential energy efficiency.

Through the REELIH project, Habitat for Humanity works with residents to set up Homeowner Associations and strengthens their ability to negotiate for improvements with municipalities and banks. Homeowner Associations and their residents are given training on energy efficiency where they can share ideas on how they can save energy and money together. The technical assistance and expertise provided empowers residents to work collaboratively and go through the process of renovation themselves. Technical support is provided for decision-making, contracting construction companies, gaining subsidies from governments and funds from other financial institutions. The training, combined with mediation, ensures Homeowner Associations are seen as credible organisations. The project also develops community relationships by supporting residents to work together.

The physical retrofits themselves lead to better health and well-being as homes are more comfortable to live in and issues of cold, dampness and air pollution are improved. Residents are able to make better use of all the space in their homes (before many would only use one room with wood or coal fires for heat). Building improvements have also led to improved community interaction by making the shared spaces (such as stairways and hallways) more useable. The infrastructure of the building (e.g. pipes, elevators, etc.) also benefitted from energy efficiency as they are now less exposed to cold and dampness and therefore need less frequent maintenance. The increased awareness and appreciation of energy efficiency has led some residents to make further improvements to their own homes, for example by fitting double glazing or investing in energy efficient appliances.

Overall the approach has tackled poverty by reducing the living costs of low income residents through energy savings.

Barriers

The Residential Energy Efficiency project works in a region where energy efficient retrofits have not been well researched and are not widely understood. The project has had to work hard to prove its worth and raise awareness about the subject.

There is little clarity about homeowners’ rights and responsibilities relating to the management and maintenance of common spaces. This means there is little trust between homeowners and other partners when it comes to organising works on buildings and cost sharing. In Armenia, Habitat for Humanity has tried to overcome this by working with others on reforming the national Armenian Housing Law to improve clarity and create a better environment for cooperation and investment. Government arrangements across the region are incredibly complex, with multiple layers of administration at different levels. This presents an additional challenge with transferring the approach – not just across, but within countries.

Banks in Armenia (and across Central and Eastern Europe) cannot offer loans on buildings but ask individual residents to provide personal guarantees which can be difficult and time-consuming. The project has facilitated new lending mechanisms so loans can be made to Homeowner Associations on behalf of the whole building. This has been achieved through good communications with banks and ongoing technical assistance to residents and Homeowner Associations.

Another challenge relates to the project’s desired focus on low income households. The state programme applies an approach which awards subsidy based mostly on the state of buildings i.e. from the time of construction until today – the building has never been refurbished, it does not have thermal insulation. Surveys are conducted to determine the buildings with the highest needs. Nonetheless, most multi-apartment buildings in the area made up of mixed incomes families. As a result this means some of the households who benefit are in higher income groups. Nonetheless, one of the criteria for the building selection is that the majority of residents/ households in the building are very low income. Therefore, the project ensures that at least the largest part of the people it reaches is indeed part of their target group.

Countries in much of Eurasia are mainly located in climate zones with cold winters, so energy and heating efficiency should be a major concern for governments and residents. However, historically energy costs have been heavily subsidised so awareness about energy saving is low.

In South-East Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (unlike in Central and Eastern Europe), legal barriers exist which create additional difficulties with maintenance and new investments in multi-apartment buildings. This is further aggravated by the fact that homeowners living in multi-apartment buildings in these areas usually have lower incomes. Since the early 2000s improving energy efficiency has become an increasing priority for Central and Eastern European countries but the majority of buildings (50-70%) are still waiting for renovation so large numbers of residents are affected by high energy costs.

Lessons Learned

Habitat for Humanity International has developed several policy recommendations based on the lessons learned from the Residential Energy Efficiency for Low Income Households project:

  • A system of clearly defined responsibilities is needed in multi-apartment buildings that integrates energy efficiency.
  • Financing mechanisms need to be available and affordable to residents. Government intervention through targeted subsidy or loan guarantees is necessary.
  • Assistance to all stakeholders is necessary for successful renovation of the housing stock on a larger scale.
  • It is vital to interlink housing and social policies to improve energy efficiency in housing.
  • Providing information for example through presentations, training and awareness campaigns helps more people achieve energy efficiency by promoting informed choices.
  • It is crucial to establish and create opportunities for knowledge-exchange and experience-sharing.

Evaluation

The REELIH project is evaluated by looking at energy savings made through pre-retrofit and post-retrofit energy audits. These are carried out using an approach Habitat for Humanity developed in 2012. Energy audits are carried out by ENOVA, an environment and energy consultancy and the in-country partner for the project in Bosnia and Herzegovina and by the in-country office of Habitat for Humanity in Armenia.

Habitat for Humanity and partners have also conducted base-line surveys of the housing stock and the financial and living conditions of residents. They have looked at things like participation in Homeowner Associations, comfort levels in the home, and awareness about energy efficiency. These surveys will be repeated in the future to help understand the impact of the project.

Recognition

  • Residential Energy Efficiency in Low Income Households features as best practice in the ‘Energy Poverty Handbook’ published by the office of Tamás Meszerics (Member of the European Parliament) via The Greens/EFA group of the European Parliament.
  • The work of Habitat for Humanity on residential energy efficiency has influenced regional initiatives including:
    • Build Upon; A collaboration of ‘Green Building Councils’ (not-for-profit organisations set up to improve and protect the environment by improving buildings).
    • The EU Observatory on Energy Poverty; A consortium set up in 2016 to address and understand energy poverty across the European Union.
    • C4E Forum; The Central and Eastern Europe Energy Efficiency Forum, set up to share and build upon successful energy efficiency work across the region.
  • A conference on residential energy efficiency in May 2017 attracted a range of interest from across Europe.

Transfer

Habitat for Humanity International started the first REELIH project in Macedonia in 2009. With the continued support of USAID, the approach was successfully transferred and has been adapted in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Armenia. Following pilot projects, a number of regional and local governments are supporting more work on residential energy efficiency. Subsidies are now being provided in five areas in the Tuzla Canton region of Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the Municipality of Yerevan in Armenia. These subsidies will match loans raised by Homeowner Associations to help pay for energy efficiency improvements. This was made possible by the work of the REELIH project.

Habitat for Humanity Armenia is also partnering with Spitak and Vayq Municipalities to work with them on energy efficiency in residential and public buildings in their areas. Their success with the REELIH project helped them to attract funding from the European Union to do this.

Visitors from the United Nations, European Union, the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit GmbH (GIZ), United States Agency for International Development (USAID) missions and other development agencies have been to Armenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina to learn from the project. In Macedonia, Habitat for Humanity has helped to make energy efficiency a subject for students in technical high schools, providing training sessions and arranging internships.

Energy poverty and poor energy efficiency in residential buildings is a problem in many countries of the former Eastern Bloc. A great number of low income families could benefit from the REELIH approach to accessing finance and subsidy.

The REELIH work was shared in April 2017 at a conference in Brussels aimed at raising awareness and interest among EU-policymakers and developing opportunities for people to work together.

 

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Post-Haiyan Self-Recovery Housing Programme

0

Post-Haiyan Self-Recovery Housing Programme

Mismatches Financing Vulnerable groups New family structures
Financing Public funding
Urban Design Liveability Regulación Técnica Procesos Administrativos
Promotion and production Materials Self-management Self-promotion

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2017:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Asia
City: Dagami
Country/Region: Philippines

Description

Project Description

In 2013, Typhoon Haiyan devastated large areas of the Philippines causing significant loss of life and destroying approximately one million homes. Through the Post-Haiyan Self-Recovery Housing Programme (2013-2016) CARE Philippines helped over 15,500 families made homeless by Haiyan to rebuild their homes.

CARE Philippines is one of CARE International’s country offices. There are over 70 such offices across the world.

CARE International is a non-governmental organisation which works to defeat poverty and achieve social justice through projects tackling a wide range of social issues including emergency response after natural disasters, education, food security, HIV/AIDs, climate change, maternal health and the empowerment of women and girls. Each of CARE’s national members works independently to lead programmes, raise funds, advocate on key issues and communicate to the public in their country.

CARE Philippines has been operating since 1949 in areas which are extremely prone to natural disasters. They develop projects which respond to the needs of the most vulnerable. This project was delivered in partnership with Accord (Assistance and Cooperation for Community Resilience and Development Inc.) and other local actors.

All phases of the rebuilding work were done in line with the families’ wishes and kept affordable so that they could work within their means. Families were supported to rebuild their homes themselves, hence being called a ‘self-recovery’ approach. Working with families to develop their own housing is different from the majority of natural disaster responses which tend to focus on temporary solutions built quickly by external contractors. The ‘self-recovery’ approach also helps families to feel more empowered and have a stronger sense of ownership over decision-making, their housing and their lives in general.

The Post-Haiyan Self-Recovery Housing project had a strong emphasis on supporting the families who were most severely affected and most vulnerable following the disaster. This was partly because it was felt that they were least likely to be able to resolve their housing problem without support but also because enabling very vulnerable people to have an active role in delivering their own housing solutions was seen as very important.

With the support of the programme groups of ten or more families worked together as communities to share the burden of construction. Each rebuilt home is unique, tailored to the needs and means of the family who built it. Some families also benefited from livelihood grants to help them develop small businesses after the loss of jobs in many sectors (including agriculture) after the typhoon.

The project provided technical assistance, materials and cash grants to support some of the country’s most vulnerable families to build new homes. This included training people in building skills and also providing the expertise of carpenters who travelled to different areas to help families with construction. Initial materials for essential repairs (including roofing sheets, hurricane strapping and tools and nails) were supplied by CARE. Families then bought other materials using cash grants. The homes that were built were owned by the families so affordability is not an ongoing issue.

The Post-Haiyan Self-Recovery Housing Programme developed ‘Build Back Safer’ guidelines which helped families ensure that repaired or rebuilt homes were more resilient to natural disasters. Residents were trained in how to use the guidelines through a mixture of community seminars and individual support. Although the guidance was provided by CARE, control and decision-making about rebuilding was firmly in the hands of the families.

At a national level the Department of Social Welfare and Development in the Philippines government is currently considering if the ‘Build Back Safer’ guidelines developed through this programme should be adopted to help deal with natural disasters in the future.

Aims and Objectives

The aim of the Post-Haiyan Self-Recovery Housing programme was to support vulnerable families to rebuild their homes in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan. It also helped replace jobs and incomes lost as a result of the typhoon.

The programme’s objectives were:

  • To target some of the most vulnerable people in rural communities, who are often missed by traditional post-disaster reconstruction projects. This included older people, widows and widowers, people living with disabilities, single women and women-headed families, pregnant women, women with young babies and large/extended families.
  • To provide training to families so that they could develop their own housing to a better standard than before the storm, increasing their resilience to further natural disasters. This also provided new skills they could use in the future.
  • To give materials to families so essential building work could be carried out.
  • To provide families with cash grants so they could buy more building materials and/or labour if they were unable to carry out the work themselves.
  • To develop ‘Build Back Safer’ building guidelines so that resilient building practices could be followed at that point and in future, creating a legacy of improved construction techniques.
  • To encourage the development of new opportunities for employment and income generation to replace what was lost as a result of the typhoon.

A longer term aim of the project was to:

  • Offer an alternative to traditional post-disaster housing by demonstrating that working with people who are actively involved in ‘building their own recovery’ can be successful and effective.

Context

As many as 4.1 million people were made homeless and more than 10,000 people were thought to have died in the affected areas after Typhoon Haiyan struck in 2013.  It was the strongest tropical cyclones to have ever been recorded. Many homes in the Philippines are made of timber and bamboo and could not withstand the force of the typhoon. Over one million homes were damaged with almost half of these being totally destroyed, so there was a significant and widespread need for rebuilding.

In addition to typhoons the Philippines is prone to multiple hazards including earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Eighty-one percent of the country’s population are vulnerable to typhoons and the country is third in the world after Vanuatu and Tonga for being most prone to natural disasters. Since Haiyan, a further three particularly strong typhoons (Hagupit, Haima and Nok-Te) have hit the Philippines and in February 2017 a 6.7 magnitude earthquake also affected the country.

The CARE Philippines programme worked in Geographically Isolated and Disadvantaged Areas that were hardest hit by the typhoon. These included barangays (wards) on the islands of Leyte, Samar and Panay. These wards are small rural communities who rely on farming as their main source of income. This work is often supplemented by running small convenience stores but there are few opportunities for income generation. Average incomes in these areas are low (US$40-80 per month) so rebuilding without outside help from CARE Philippines would have been very difficult.

The ethos of ‘self-recovery’ meant that villagers were able to control the rebuilding of their homes and the construction work they undertook was fitted around their everyday life. For example, if they wished to prioritise a day working rather than completing any building work this was their personal choice. This freedom and flexibility meant people could still earn an income whilst completing building works.

Key Features

The Post-Haiyan Self-Recovery Housing programme ensured that the most vulnerable people in local communities were selected as it was felt that they would be least able to carry out successful self-recovery without support. As a result of this programme, over 15,000 people who had been made homeless by the typhoon are now living in stable housing that they have built themselves.

The programme was community-led – resident choice and input into housing design was prioritised throughout. Following training families completed the rebuilding themselves but could ask for help from carpenters funded through the programme.

Grants were also given out which meant that people who were unable to do the building work themselves could pay others to do it. Communities also grouped together to share labour and help each other. These groups were informal but often ten or more families would come together to work on their houses as a team.

To guide the building process, ‘Build Back Safer’ building guidelines were developed by CARE Philippines and shared with families. These guidelines focused on three key techniques that significantly improve safety and are affordable:

  • Construction techniques that strengthen homes, for example cross-bracing.
  • Building strong foundations as a starting point for construction.
  • Ensuring roofs are securely nailed onto the structure.

Additional grants given by CARE Philippines helped some families develop small businesses in addition to their homes helping them generate income and support the wider recovery of the community.

CARE Philippines was the main lead on the project. CARE also collaborated with Assistance and Cooperation for Community Resistance and Development (ACCORD), a Philippine organisation which provides capacity building for communities and promotes resilient building practices. ACCORD led on providing the training to educate residents how to rebuild sturdier homes using the ‘Build Back Safer’ messages. In addition to ACCORD, other smaller organisations also acted locally as an interface between CARE Philippines and the communities. They were responsible for much of the day-to-day implementation of the programme. These include cooperatives and NGOs such as the Leyte Center for Development, the Metro Ormoc Community Multi-Purpose Cooperative, and the USWAG Development Foundation.

What impact has it had?

The programme has had a positive impact in several ways:

  • Ensuring that over 15,000 people affected by the typhoon now have a safe place to live which is more resilient than their previous home.
  • Developing an increased sense of involvement and ownership due to the self-recovery approach.
  • Significant scale was achieved as resources were focused on enabling people to help themselves rather than paying for more expensive contractors, who would have delivered fewer homes for the same budget.
  • The materials used and the focus on the Build Back Safer building guidelines means homes built have been a big improvement on homes where families lived before the typhoon.
  • The focus on both housing and income generation has meant families have a safe home and new job opportunities.

The development of ‘Build Back Safer’ guidelines has been seen positively by the Philippines government’s Department of Social Welfare and Development. They now wish to incorporate these codes into future natural disaster responses. The programme has also helped inspire the academic research programme ‘Promoting Safe Building, supporting safer self-recovery after disasters’ which will highlight the potential of self-recovery approaches in disaster responses.

How is it funded?

The majority of costs were funded through CARE’s fundraising and donations, for a total of 145.6 million Philippine Pesos (US$3 million). Homeowners were provided with grants of 3,000 Philippine Pesos (approximately US$55) to buy building materials.

When this grant was combined with the materials which CARE provided (roofing sheets, hurricane strapping and nails and tools) the total cost to CARE per house was around US$190 dollars. Residents were expected to provide some financial contribution. However, the most vulnerable families (about 45% of the beneficiaries of the programme) received a top up grant of 5,000 Philippine Pesos (approximately US$90) if they could not afford to contribute. Families also salvaged materials from storm debris and provided free labour to reduce costs.

Additional livelihood grants were given by CARE from their fundraising reserves to many of the families to buy, for example, livestock. There is even an example of 70 families coming together to purchase a rice mill.

The financial support provided through the programme meant that families were less likely to get into debt in the rebuilding of their homes.

Why is it innovative?

The use of ‘self-recovery’ at such a large scale is innovative when it comes to post-disaster work on housing, as recovery work is often expert-led rather than community-led. This programme was able to reach more of the population by using the self-build method. Its success has demonstrated the beginning of a shift in mainstream humanitarian shelter practice towards recognising that self-recovery can be an effective, quick and sustainable post-disaster response.

It is the norm for the community themselves to start the recovery process after a natural disaster. The Post-Haiyan Self-Recovery Housing programme was able to respond quickly and in a way that built on the recovery work the community had already started.

CARE’s comprehensive recovery package also makes it innovative. Right after the typhoon, CARE and local partners gave food, water and shelter kits to beneficiaries. Orientation on the Build Back Safer guidelines was given before giving out the shelter kits to ensure beneficiaries knew how to use them. Livelihood grants were given to the communities and CARE and local partners continue to implement livelihood recovery projects in the affected communities. This approach is quite different from typical disaster aid projects that mainly focus on providing one product (e.g. temporary shelter or core housing or relocation) for a specific period of time but do not, for example, follow up with livelihood projects which beneficiaries need in order to earn a living and stay in the community.

The project put control and decision making in the hands of the families themselves rather than the implementing organisation, giving families greater ownership over what happened to them. Families will also be able use the building techniques they have learnt in the future. The fact that cash was given to families so that they could choose to purchase their own building materials and/or pay for labour meant that work was carried out more quickly than if they had had to wait for help to get to them. The response could begin swiftly thanks to this approach.

The focus on both housing and income generation is a more holistic approach to recovery, recognising that homes and livelihoods are often interconnected.

What is the environmental impact?

The project used local building materials and salvaged debris after the typhoon to reduce environmental impact. Hundreds of thousands of palm trees were blown down by the typhoon and coco lumber became the main construction material used to build the houses. This also meant that materials were sourced as locally as possible, often in the vicinity of the new buildings.

The programme also allowed local entrepreneurs to set up small chain mills to make use of the fallen timber, providing new job opportunities. The use of valuable hardwood, which is less environmentally sustainable, was limited to foundation stub posts and was often recycled from destroyed housing. Bamboo was also used, which is a fast growing and environmentally sustainable crop.

‘Self-recovery’ supports the use of local materials and imported, high embodied energy[1] products are limited to a few materials. Houses are also built in the same areas where they were before meaning that little or no new land is needed for construction.

The ‘Build Back Safer’ guidelines developed by the programme helped to educate communities in sustainable building practices.

[1] Embodied energy is the energy consumed by all of the processes associated with the production of a building, from the mining and processing of natural resources to manufacturing, transport and product delivery

Is it financially sustainable?

The Post-Haiyan Self- Recovery Housing Programme finished in 2016 and its goal was not to achieve financial sustainability for the programme itself beyond that date. However, this ‘self-recovery’ programme has been very careful to work within the families’ own means so the housing itself is affordable for them. Once rebuilding was complete, over 15,000 households owned their own home with no reliance on future funding and no rental payments.

Cash grants given by CARE were less than the total value of the cost of rebuilding. This meant that some families had to use their own money to fund their rebuild within their available resources.

The cash loans helped families start the construction process. As local labour was used in the rebuilding, if finances allow in the future, families can continue to make home improvements using these contacts.

Although the long-term impact of the programme is greater financial resilience within the communities, recovery following large scale natural disasters will always require significant amounts of external funding to deal with the immediate devastation caused.

What is the social impact?

Communities have been able to stay in their villages after the typhoon as the project has enabled new homes to be built. As the homes are more resilient families should be able to live in them for years to come, even if further natural disasters hit.

Community cohesion and cooperation were developed through the project’s focus on people working together to rebuild their homes. In the Philippines, this community spirit is called bayanihan. Many of those involved in the project felt the project allowed bayanihan to be realised as people controlled the creation of their own homes. Neighbours came together to help each other which made people feel they were working towards a common goal. Being encouraged to take charge of their own recovery after the typhoon helped some families to deal with the psychological trauma of the event.

The magnitude of Typhoon Haiyan meant that people’s livelihoods were lost as well as their homes. The project helped many families to develop new skills and access new jobs. Income generation opportunities such as setting up small businesses were supported using grants. The construction skills developed through the project were important and the techniques learned are now educating future generations on sustainable building practices.

CARE is committed globally to the empowerment of women so a gender-sensitive approach was adopted to ensure equal inclusion of women in the project. CARE Philippines particularly encouraged women to take an active role in decision-making and construction. Focus group discussions at the beginning of the project were almost entirely made up of women. In their role as key activists in the community the women also helped the carpenters give technical support by having conversations with their neighbours to find out their needs before the advice was given. It was made easier for women to take part in project management and their participation in the construction activity as a whole increased.

Barriers

The project faced two major challenges. Firstly, some families struggled to find money to complement the grant from CARE Philippines which they needed to complete their homes. CARE responded to this by distributing a second ‘top-up’ grant to families who were most in need. The combination of support led to a 92% successful completion rate of homes rebuilt through the CARE programme. The provision of essential materials at the start of the project also tried to ensure that families would be able to rebuild their homes to a good standard without having to borrow or spend large amounts of money.

A second major barrier was ensuring that families followed the Build Back Safer guidelines when constructing their new homes. This was addressed by the introduction of a team of carpenters who gave technical assistance to families. In addition, the materials given at the start of project were chosen to help families successfully follow the guidelines.

Lessons Learned

The project has enabled CARE Philippines to critically reflect on their work and to learn various lessons. These include:

  • Future programmes need to review whether to target the most vulnerable or whether other similar programmes should be designed to benefit whole communities.
  • Households that had already rebuilt before the programme did not benefit but in future the approach could be redesigned so these households might also have access to grant.
  • If the programme is transferred there will be a need for better integration between the housing project itself and other sectors such as water and sanitation.
  • In some cases there was a lack of compliance with Build Back Safer techniques which might have been avoided if further training and support were offered.
  • It is more effective for materials and tools to be collectively bought by communities rather than individuals. This strategy has been implemented in other programmes.
  • More support is needed when families are unable to undertake construction themselves.

Evaluation

The Post-Haiyan Self-Recovery Housing Programme has been evaluated a number of times in different ways. Throughout the programme CARE Philippines produced regular reports for donors and an evaluation that compares it with other responses to Typhoon Haiyan is being completed. CARE Philippines is currently producing a final presentation of the programme for donors including Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC), Global Affairs Canada and Diagio.

The CARE International UK shelter team has carried out two evaluation projects. One was completed after the first year of the programme, looking in detail at the levels of completion of houses. They discovered that the majority of houses had been completed to an adequate standard in that they had a safe roof and walls and had successfully implemented the Build Back Safer guidelines. Some residents, however, felt their homes were incomplete and had further ambitions for improvements such as plywood walls rather than bamboo. They felt they could not achieve this due to lack of money. There was also concern by residents over the vulnerability criteria and selection process used.

The second evaluation looked more broadly at the level of recovery and the lessons that can be learned from the programme. Despite the resident concerns above, both evaluations were positive overall and found that in general better built, stronger, often bigger homes had been successfully constructed. Families also expressed an evident sense of pride in and ownership of their achievements. The evaluations have been used to inform subsequent post-disaster responses in Vanuatu, Fiji and Nepal.

A separate evaluation by Habitat for Humanity GB and CARE International entitled ‘Lessons from Haiyan’ offering a comparative review of evaluations and learning documents from the shelter response to Typhoon Haiyan is in progress.

The CARE International UK research team is currently evaluating the perception of ‘recovery’ from the perspective of the affected families. This work is part of an interdisciplinary research project that investigates households’ self-recovery trajectories and how safer construction practices can be more effectively integrated into humanitarian shelter responses.

Recognition

The project has not had any specific recognition to date. However, its work has been cited in various reports and articles as an example of good practice in post-disaster recovery.

A recent Euronews article details the programme and the joint work of CARE Philippines and ACCORD. They have also been featured in the Forced Migration Review Journal and on the Humanitarian Practice Network.

CARE International has recently launched a research collaboration between the Overseas Development Institute, British Geological Survey and the Engineering Department of University College London. It will research building techniques and self-recovery processes from the perspective of those affected, using the programme as a case study.

Transfer

The programme was initially carried out on three Islands (Leyte, Samar and Panay). Since implementation in these locations CARE Philippines has started similar projects in response to Typhoons Hagupit/Ruby (2014) and Typhoon Haima (2016). These transfers were adapted based on lessons learned. For example building materials were purchased collectively to provide cost savings. Residents came together to create a list of what tools were needed instead of each family being given individual materials. The training element was still key to these projects with the knowledge of local carpenters being used to benefit the whole community.

The programme is being used as a case study to inform wider research on the effectiveness of ‘self-recovery’ as a post-disaster construction technique. It is hoped it can act as a model for future projects. Lessons have influenced similar projects in Fiji, Nepal and Vanuatu carried out by CARE.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Promoting Eco-sanitation in Informal Settlements

0

Promoting Eco-sanitation in Informal Settlements

Mismatches Functional adequacy Cultural suitability Vulnerable groups
Policies and regulations
Urban Design Environments Quality Equity
Promotion and production Self-management Cooperatives

Main objectives of the project

This eco-sanitation project enables marginalised communities in urban informal settlements to access basic services through the community-led provision of bio-centres, which provide toilets and bathrooms and an additional floor for housing, offices, business spaces, etc. The community development process enables people to gain skills and a strong sense of ownership and to deliver an eco-sanitation facility that fits local needs. To date, over 70 bio-sanitation facilities have been put in place across Kenya.

Date

  • 2015:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Africa
City: Nairobi
Country/Region: Kenya, Nairobi

Description

Project Description

Through this eco-sanitation project, the Umande Trust seeks to involve marginalised communities living in urban informal settlements in accessing basic services through community-led provision of bio-centres. The Trust facilitates community participation and provides training and support to enable informal settlers to lead on the planning, design and management of the facilities. This community development process enables people to gain skills and a strong sense of ownership, and to deliver an eco-sanitation facility that fits local needs.

The facility is made up of a bio-sanitation facility (toilets, bathrooms) with an additional floor for housing, offices, business spaces, etc. The bio-gas generated from the facility provides clean energy for cooking and lighting.

The project started in January 2013 and, to date, has successfully put in place over 70 bio-sanitation facilities across Kenya in five counties: Nairobi (in Mukuru, Kibera, Mathare, Korogocho and Kibagare settlements), Kisumu, Nakuru, Embu and Kirinyaga. Five of the completed facilities also include a total of 23 housing units. These facilities are spread across schools and other institutions, urban informal settlements and market places around the country. The projects have so far worked with 70 self-help groups or community-based organisations and delivered facilities that each receive around 500 people per day.

Aims and Objectives

The overall objective of this particular project is to increase the use of eco-friendly sanitation technologies and their by-products for improved health and livelihoods in the informal settlements in Kenya by means of improved management of human waste, increased access to sanitation services and safe water through the construction of the sanitation facilities (bio-centres).

The initiative responds to issues that communities in informal settlements face in terms of lack of access to sanitation, inadequate housing and water crisis. Beneficiaries include:

  • community groups who manage the facility and benefit from economic returns from the use of toilets and from the businesses within the building such as kitchens, internet cafés, nurseries, etc.;
  • households living and working near the facility through improved sanitation;
  • disabled people, given the provision of accessible toilets;
  • children in school through improved sanitation and educational activities linked to some bio-centres such as libraries, gardening and environmental awareness activities;
  • community-based hygiene promoters through improved sanitation and increased opportunities to raise awareness of hygienic practices;
  • community-based workers who earn an income from being involved with the construction;
  • the residents of the five bio-centres (three in Mukuru, one in Korogocho and one in Kibera) that have built 23 houses between them through good quality affordable housing. These residents are from the informal settlements and have been chosen by the community groups;
  • the users of the by-products (residents and businesses within the facilities) have cheap access to energy for cooking, lighting, etc.;
  • the users of the additional services offered, i.e. internet connection; community courses on environmental issues, micro-credit, social audits; spaces for meetings, rehearsals and the screening of football matches.

Currently, only the occupiers of the building can make use of the bio-products. However, in the next five years Umande Trust plans to have a factory that can process and store the bio-gas in cylinders and the manure in containers. This will serve residents, households and small-scale businesses within the informal settlements.

Context

Around Kenya, houses in informal settlements are characterised by low-lying, non-permanent structures constructed of walls and roofs made of mud or iron sheet and concrete floors. These houses generally lack access to toilets, bathrooms, sewerage systems and proper lighting. As urban growth increases, the quality of the environment across informal settlements is deteriorating at an alarming rate. This is manifested in the loss of bio-diversity, the accumulation of solid waste and faecal matter, the increasing prevalence of disease and other indicators of low quality environmental factors. The geographical location of many informal settlements, which are often found in valleys, high risk zones etc., makes them difficult to access, leading to complex water and sanitation issues.

The limited access to sanitation means that residents have to use inadequate methods for waste disposal such as buckets, flying toilets[1] or open defecation. This hygiene disaster has created numerous disease outbreaks of cholera, dysentery and diarrhea. Various measures have been taken to help improve access to water and sanitation; such as communal pit latrines, portable toilets etc., but had not been able to tackle the scale and depth of the problem.

The eco-sanitation facilities (bio-centres) are designed by the community group to address the issues that the community faces in accessing decent sanitation, and other needs such as the lack of housing and multifunctional spaces.

[1] Use of plastic bags as toilets, which then get ‘flung’ away – hence the term ‘flying toilets’

Key Features

Umande Trust believes in community-led processes based on the full and effective participation of all stakeholders. The scope of activities within the programme include initial selection of the community group who will lead the delivery of the construction, research to determine the scale and location of the toilets, training the group on hygiene promotion, financial literacy and governance and the construction of the sanitation facility.

Initially, the Trust sends out a call for community groups to apply to manage the bio-centres, using posters placed within the informal settlements or via key stakeholders such as village elders, ward-level local government officers or members of the county assembly as a way of reaching community based groups.

The characteristics of a community group suitable to lead this work include:

  • Groups that have been in existence for more than six months.
  • A group with a set of values and focus or activity that binds them together already and where the income from the bio-centres is complementary to existing income streams rather than a sole source of income, for example:
  1. table banking: where members meet once every month, place their savings, loan repayments and other contributions on the table then lend either long-term or short-term loans to one or a number of interested members.
  2. merry-go-round: where members contribute a small sum of money on a regular basis and each time money is collected, the full sum is paid out to one of the members. The members take turns to receive the pay-out, so after one full cycle, every member of the group has had a turn.
  3. environmental groups that focus on waste collection, cleaning the environment or tree planting.
  4. art-based groups such as dance classes, yoga, drawing etc.
  • Groups that have been legally registered by the Government of Kenya, under the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development. Under the constitution, the group would have outlined how often they should meet and by looking at their records the Trust are able to see if they are following the objectives laid down in their constitution.
  • Groups that invest in their members by loaning or buying assets that will increase the membership of the group.
  • Some community-based groups involve purely women or girls but where there is a gender mix, the trust operate a 2/3 rule (i.e. a maximum of 2/3 of the management is male).

Once a group has been chosen, a design session is held in which they give inputs into what they want the building to look like as part of developing a work plan. The activities start with a survey to determine the number of users and their attitudes to fees for using the services. This involves quantifying the number of households in the informal settlement to establish potential demand to guide the design process.

The programme aims to build the capacity of the community-based organisation to manage the facility by offering training on financial management, marketing and governance, hygiene promotion, entrepreneurship skills and management skills so they can run the facility in a transparent and accountable manner. The design of the bio-centre is undertaken by the Umande Trust and the community so that the groups have the chance to choose what they want in the spaces built above the sanitation facilities. The groups are also in charge of hiring labourers from within the community. These people are trained on the job and earn some income from their work, while also gaining construction skills that they can use to gain employment. Umande Trust offers technical guidance through the process.

The money for the construction is deposited in the group’s bank account for easy accountability and management and in order to train the group to be accountable. For transparency, periodic accountability sessions are held to determine how much money has been used.

The construction phase itself consists of three stages:

  1. The construction of a bio-digester underneath the ground.
  2. Construction of the sanitation facility, toilets (female and male) with both sides containing specific toilets for people with physical disabilities and children.
  3. Construction of the housing units or other spaces on top of the sanitation facility.

Once the construction has been completed the group takes charge of managing the project with Umande Trust staff monitoring their progress and acting as advisor to the group. The Trust works closely with the county government and relevant ministries who are in charge of approvals i.e. of the land which is acquired through the groups and also the provision of water to the sanitation facility.

They also work with donors, who provide three types of funding:

  1. Donor funding/grants: these are funds that a donor has provided as they have seen a need that they want to address. These funds are supplemented by the group in terms of sweat equity.
  2. Loans: under the Umande Trust’s Sanitation Development Fund groups are able to apply for funds for the construction of these projects.
  3. Social entrepreneurship: this is the consultancy wing of the Umande Trust where expertise in the construction of the bio-centres is sought either from schools or public/private institutions.

What impact has it had?

The project has succeeded in developing an impact on the plans of local authorities and at a county-level, the bio-centre technology has been identified as a priority in ward development plans by the County Government. This has been achieved via a Memorandum of Understanding between the Umande Trust and the County Government which focuses on demonstration projects in the counties of Kisumu, Machakos and Busia. The local authorities in these areas have allocated funds to implement the bio-sanitation model as pilots within schools and market places to the tune of Kenyan Shillings (KES) 23,000 (USD $230,000). There is also an ongoing discussion on the development of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Umande Trust and Nairobi County, on the integration of the bio-sanitation model within health provision.

How is it funded?

The bio-centres are mostly funded through a mix of community contributions and international donor funds from organisations such as the French Development Agency, Oxfam GB, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Swedish Embassy, the Finnish Embassy SustainableEnergy, etc. The local or national government and its agencies, such as the Nairobi Water and Sewage Company have also offered support. This income has been achieved as a result of fundraising activities by the Umande Trust but also individual schools/organisations.

For example, the implementation of one of the bio-centres in Mukuru started with an initial grant from the Embassy of Finland in Nairobi, and a Finnish civil society organisation, Wimma Liikuttaa ry. The total amount of this grant was KES 3.5 million (USD $35,000) and was used to cover the capital costs of the construction of the whole project: the toilets, bathrooms, housing, installation of bio-gas cookers and lighting in the houses.

The local community group within Mukuru contributed approximately 20% of in-kind support by undertaking the management of the excavation of the site for the bio-digester, ensuring the wider community were able to participate and managing the labourers, who came from the local community and who were paid for their work within the budget. The members of the group will provide security of the materials that will be in use during and after construction and project staff and labourers are also taken care of as not all settlements are safe. The Kenyan Government also contributed a lump sum of approximately KES 60 million (USD $630,000) to support the programme.

Since starting the project in 2013, the Umande Trust has made some changes to their financing model for the bio-centres, moving from a Build and Transfer model to a social entrepreneurship model which operates on a Build-Operate-Transfer basis. This revised approach works by supporting the construction of sanitation facilities by groups who are capable of managing the process and who have the prerequisite space and approval documents from the Government. The Umande Trust then enters into an agreement to provide a loan which will be recovered from the operation of the facility over an agreed period of time. Upon recovery of the capital investment and agreed interest, the facility is entirely transferred to the group concerned to run as a business venture for the benefit of all the members of the community.

There are three types of bio-centres:

  1. Bio-centres based in or near market places, serving traders and customers.
  2. Bio-centres based in residential areas, serving the residents within the informal settlements.
  3. School-based/community-based bio-centres serving users of these facilities in the area.The design of the bio-centres themselves is chosen by considering the population that will use the sanitation facility and the costs of construction might be as low as KES 1 million (USD $10,000) or as high as KES 5 million (USD $50,000) depending on the size and specification of the facility.In terms of the costs of the housing units, the usual housing costs in the informal settlements range from KES 2,500 (USD $25) to KES 4,500 (USD $45). The lack of access to basic services at home means that the residents are forced to cover the cost of toilets, water services and cost of fuels from their daily income. In comparison, the cost of the housing units at the bio-centres is of KES 5,000 (USD $50) for a large room and as low as KES 2,500 (USD $25) for a small room with amenities included: toilets, bathroom services, water and bio-gas for cooking and lighting. The revenue from the rental of these properties is managed by the community.

The bio-centres have been designed to be self-sustaining through income generated from the services offered: toilets, bathrooms, bio-gas, housing and rental space. As the bio-centres are constructed in different settlements there isn’t one generic model. Some bio-centres earn up to KES 91,000 (USD $900) a month with others earning as little as KES 30,000 (USD $300), depending on the size of the facilities and the levels of usage. The centres achieve an average income of KES 50,000 – 60,000 (USD $500 – 600) a month, which is paid into the bank account of the community group.

Why is it innovative?

Innovative design responding to multiple needs for sanitation, energy, income, community activities/services and housing: The eco-sanitation model of the bio-centre responds to the need for the provision of dignified sanitation and also to the high demand for energy by supplying safe bio-gas to households and by providing natural compost to improve urban gardening. Bio-gas use replaces the use of conventional fuels like kerosene or wood fuel, which in the long run supports the conservation of the environment by protecting forests. Beyond the provision of sanitation, the multifunctional facility provides spaces to include activities, businesses and services that the community has identified for the benefit of their neighbourhood, expanding the benefits to include income generation and social impact.

Use of technology: There are several technological innovations within the bio-centres, such as sensors at the entrance and counter systems in each toilet that provide a headcount of all the people accessing the facility. The bio-centres also include the use of digital platforms for payments such as M-Pesa and Kopo Kopo (operating systems for mobile payments), or BebaPay (a system supported by Equity Bank and Google that uses the Near Field Communication (NFC) technology. Users tap a card on their phone and the service charges are deducted and transferred directly to the group’s bank account). In this way, the community members and bio-centre managers can avoid dealing with cash directly, which has improved the control and security of financial assets, helped increased trust and transparency in handling finances and made the use of the facilities quicker and more efficient.

Community governance through design process and management: Their construction governance procedures ensure that community groups and neighbourhoods are at the driving seat in proposing and determining the architectural design and plan of the proposed bio-centre. Before construction, each community group establishes task specific teams to play key decision-making roles in construction, operation and management.

Examples of sub-committees:

  • Procurement and tender committee: ensuring transparent and affordable access to building materials;
  • Works team: responsible for planning and implementing works;
  • Audit team: responsible for audit reports during regular (monthly and quarterly) accountability sessions between members and staff of the organisation;
  • Business management committee: tasked with business planning and development of the facility as well as post construction management (hygiene, bio-gas, accounting etc.);
  • Executive committee: responsible for overall coordination and compliance with the Memoranda of Agreement.Community shareholding scheme: This scheme, designed for basic urban services, is to ensure that individual members of the community-based groups managing the bio-centres benefit from a profit-sharing scheme. The business plans in place stipulate that 60% of the incomes are allocated to members as dividends; 30% is set aside for operation and management and 10% is deposited in the Umande Trust’s Sanitation Development Fund.

What is the environmental impact?

The environmental issues addressed include sanitation, land and water pollution, renewable energy and atmospheric pollution. The project promotes renewable energy helping the shift from wood, charcoal, kerosene and gas to biogas for cooking. Bio-sanitation closes the loop in the waste management process by turning human waste into a resource. The bio-centres apply ecological sanitation principles to ensure that human waste is turned into valuable bio-products by producing gas through bio-digester systems and producing fertiliser as a by-product.

One standard bio-digester produces at least 12 m3 of bio-gas (1 m3 of bio-gas will generate 4,500–5,500 Kcal m2 of heat energy when burning effectively). This heat is sufficient to boil 100 litres of water or light a lamp with a brightness of 60 – 100 watts for four to five hours. And 30 m3 of biogas is equivalent to 18 litres of diesel oil. This renewable energy source has been used to power commercial and household activities within the facilities. Estimating an average per capita consumption of 3 kg of wood per day for energy (cooking, heating and boiling water) per household, the daily per capita demand of energy equates to approximately 6 kWh which could be covered by about 1 m3 of bio-gas. Biogas use, replacing conventional fuels like kerosene or firewood, helps in the conservation of the environment, in particular the trees surrounding the informal settlements. In addition, the bio-gas digester effectively reduces the amount of methane directly released into the atmosphere, by trapping it and facilitating its use as a green fuel.

The bio-centres also positively impact on the surroundings of the facility. Cases of flying toilets and open defecation within the informal settlements have dramatically decreased in areas where bio-centres are located. This containment of human waste also reduces the pollution of water bodies and helps to curb water-borne diseases. The bio-slurry produced by the bio-centres is currently used for urban greening in areas with space in the local area, improving the environment for residents and some of the bio-centres have embarked on activities to promote urban farming and tree planting. For example, the bio-centre within Mashimoni Primary School has organised an agriculture club.

Is it financially sustainable?

The project is self-sustaining as the bio-centres generate income from the use of the toilets, bathrooms, bio-gas and the rentals from the business space and housing. Approximately 300 people use the facilities on a daily basis each paying KES 5 (USD $0.05) for a toilet and KES 10 (USD $0.10) for hot water in the bathroom. Bio-gas is charged at KES 10 (USD $0.10) whereas traditional fuels such as firewood, kerosene cost KES 81 (USD $0.80) a litre and briquettes KES 20 (USD $0.20) respectively.

The centres achieve an average income of KES 50,000 – 60,000 (USD $500 – 600) a month which is ploughed back to finance future activities that may arise for consideration from the project and are then distributed as follows:

  • 60% is shared out as dividends to group members to be used as savings for members and/or can be used as loans to individual members.
  • 30% is used for the operational expenses of the facility including a salary for the caretaker, management fees, repairs and maintenance.
  • 10% is paid as a contribution to the Sanitation Development Fund which is a revolving fund financing sanitation owned and operated by Umande Trust for the benefit of the community group and to enable other facilities to be set up across the settlements in order to meet the growing demand for better services.

As donor funding has decreased, this revolving fund has been used as a way to help groups get loans for sanitation facilities and pay these back with 10% interest after completing the construction of the facility. This model was developed given demand from not only community groups but also institutions and landlords who weren’t able to get support from financial institutions or the government. This helps a greater number of people to access the funds lowering the reliance on other funding agencies and allows individuals, institutions or communities get funding and scale up the improvement of sanitation in low-income urban settlements.

The bio-centre involves many different stakeholders at a local level within communities and has generated both part-time and full-time work opportunities for the local community. Youth groups have particularly benefitted from the income generating opportunities attached to the bio-centres and the jobs associated with the construction of the facility. For example, in Lunga Lunga, the youth groups used their savings from the bio-centre to buy car washing equipment and employed other local young people to wash vehicles. Local people have also been able to access loans to start new businesses using the income from the bio-centres as security. The cashless system used provides more accuracy and transparency, making the project more financially sustainable and reducing risks of financial mismanagement.

The rates charged for renting the housing varies based on the size of the rooms and the local market conditions. They are generally in line with the cost of housing in informal settlements but offer housing of a much higher build quality and with access to sanitation. The costs of the energy coming from bio-gas are lower than conventional fuels and sources of energy/lighting and are relatively affordable for their users.

What is the social impact?

The approach also includes the establishment of working groups of people from the community who focus on areas such as finance, energy and sanitation, all of which helps strengthen ownership and participation. This participatory approach also enhances the involvement of women and young people. Through the project, they have had the chance to contribute towards community development through the setting up and running of the bio-centre and/or by initiating their own projects through the self-help groups within the settlements.

Community groups can manage the bio-centre effectively and this has been made possible through the training provided in the capacity development strategy on a range of topics including accountability, promoting hygiene, leadership, procurement and tendering procedures, record keeping, financial management and reporting, governance, etc. These, and other skills gained, allow members of local communities to have a means of earning a living.

The community spaces provided in the facilities have created a platform for dialogue amongst residents and as an opportunity to share common issues and offer a space for leisure activities (watching football matches, music rehearsals, etc.), and other services such as training, access to the internet etc. Some bio-centres incorporate community halls that allow for meetings and discussions to be held between leaders and residents or just for residents to use discuss issues or undergo training.

The dividends received from the income goes to the community groups and are used to support the community in a variety of ways. Increased access to sanitation facilities reduces the costs associated with seeking medical attention for water-borne diseases thereby reducing household bills. Frequent hygiene promotion activities are carried out by the group members in the neighbourhood and these directly involve residents, who are encouraged to get involved in community ‘clean-up’ activities and to dispose of waste correctly. Community education and sensitisation on conservation and hygiene have increased people’s awareness of the importance of practices such as hand washing after using the toilet to reduce disease outbreaks within the community.

Access to water, proper sanitation and bio-gas fueled stoves has lowered the incidence of common diseases such as eye infections, respiratory disease, smoking-induced coughs, diarrhea, dysentery, cholera and parasites among both adults and children. Women and children experience fewer bronchial problems and can expect to live longer; in turn the money they would use on going to hospital is saved.

The facilities are designed to be accessible to people with disabilities, which makes this an inclusive solution, which is appropriate for all ages and all physical conditions, hence reducing inequalities in terms of access to sanitation. An additional outcome that has been noted is that people living in the areas close to the bio-centres have started upgrading their own housing in line with the improvements made to their local area.

Barriers

Since the construction of the first bio-centre coincided with the general elections in 2013, there was a fear that the construction area would be unsafe due to civil unrest. This led to delays in the supply of materials and higher costs for materials as suppliers delayed transporting materials as tension was still high at the time and the increased prices were caused by suppliers attempting to protect themselves from losses.

The construction also coincided with a rainy period which led to the excavation site becoming water-logged. Some informal settlements have narrow roads making them inaccessible which made it difficult for lorries to access the site.

These challenges were addressed as follows:

  • A partnership with the local administration helped provide security which was maintained through frequent visits by the Local Administration Chief.
  • Signing a Memorandum of Understanding with different suppliers delivered a wide range of materials at different prices.
  • The lack of access to the site provided employment opportunities for young people in the area as they were used to carry materials from the drop off point to the site using wheelbarrows.

Some barriers remain in terms of resource availability, cultural barriers to using energy from waste and spaces that are linked to sanitation and limited dissemination of knowledge. There is unmet potential in terms of wider provisions of eco-sanitation but the Umande Trust aims to keep on partnering with communities to increase awareness of the benefits of the bio-centres.

Lessons Learned

  • Community participation in the management of services creates a sense of ownership and increases their responsibility.
  • Partnerships helped the organisation and communities to achieve their goals, which would otherwise be difficult to achieve.
  • Opportunities for joint planning and for periodically reviewing the project proved worthwhile as this helped raise awareness of the priorities for the organisation.
  • Community contracting and work-related interventions add value to poverty reduction strategies as they offer employment opportunities.
  • Integrating community contributions including at inception and design stages of the project help with a strong sense of ownership.
  • Income from facilities can provide an alternative source of finance for landlords.

Clear messages through targeted marketing are key as they can challenge and over the stigma associated with the use of bio-gas and bio-slurry from human waste. Effective marketing strategies have included:

  • Open days: where communities are able to access the toilet free of charge on a particular day or cook using bio-gas without paying.
  • Hygiene promotion: involving group members training residents on cleanliness and proper hygiene.
  • Different pricing: depending on the time of day, with higher rates charged at peak times (early mornings and evenings) helped with income generation and also helped lots of members of the community to access the facilities.

Evaluation

A range of tools are used by the Umande Trust to evaluate the programme:

  • Business plan with quarterly monitoring and reporting.
  • Financial reports including annual audits to review the progress of the groups.
  • Field visits by Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) officer and Area managers.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Resilient Social Housing

0

Resilient Social Housing

Mismatches Functional adequacy New family structures Climate change
Policies and regulations Local policies Governance
Urban Design Urban fabrics Liveability Inclusion
Promotion and production Participatory processes Self-management Self-promotion

Main objectives of the project

Over 11,000 buildings on the Chilean coast were destroyed by an earthquake and tsunami in 2010. The challenge of reconstructing people’s houses and livelihoods in situ involved the design of social housing adapted to local needs and resilient to extreme natural events. A total of 180 ‘stilt houses’ were built with input from the communities in five villages where people make their living from the sea.

Date

  • 2016:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
City: Concepcion
Country/Region: Chile, Concepción

Description

Project Description

The 2010 earthquake and tsunami destroyed 11,400 buildings on the Chilean coast – shattering people’s houses and livelihoods. For these families, the government’s reconstruction programme could have seen them resettling in a safer place away from the sea but this would have meant not only losing their homes but their livelihoods and community identity.

The challenge of reconstructing these houses and livelihoods – so deeply linked to the sea – involved the design of social housing adapted to local needs and resilient to extreme natural events.

This resilient social housing has helped to preserve the culture and identity of coastal communities and has supported people’s livelihoods. A total of 180 ‘stilt houses’ were built in five fishing villages for local families who make their living from fishing or by collecting algae.

Aims and Objectives

The aim of the project was to develop a new model of resilient social housing to help rebuild fishing communities. This project’s objectives were:

  1. To rebuild communities of families that depend on the sea for their livelihoods by recognising and respecting their needs and wishes as well as architectural traditions.
  2. To help fishermen and algae collectors  to recover their livelihoods, which are so deeply connected to the coast.
  3. To design high quality, resilient housing which is able to minimise risks from future natural occurrences, such as tsunamis or tidal waves and which is simpler and quicker to rebuild or repair if affected by a future natural disaster.
  4. To support the development of the coastal culture, which is a national tradition.

Context

The Chilean coast is characterised by towns and villages where fishing and collecting algae are not only the main sources of income but also inherently linked to a sense of culture and identity. But the coast also represents significant threats. The Chilean coast is one of the most geologically active places on earth. Several earthquakes occur every year, occasionally and without warning there are big earthquakes and associated tsunamis. Such an event occurred in 2010. On that occasion, people from across the region of Bío Bío lost their homes and all their belongings. Future natural disasters are all but certain, exposing these communities to continuous threats. The threat is worsened by the type of housing typical of the area: mostly self-built, with few people complying with building regulations and standards. The families do not want to move from the source of their livelihoods, thus creating a situation of vulnerability. The design of the new housing aims to increase the resilience of these communities, allowing them to remain on the coast whilst ensuring their safety.

Key Features

An innovative design for resilient social housing that respects the wishes and coastal identity of the communities to stay in the same place, and allows them to recover their livelihoods. The new houses are architecturally and structurally designed to offer extra safety to the families and enable quick repairs if they are affected by future tsunamis or rough seas.

After the disaster, the affected communities became key players in decisions about what should happen next. There was close collaboration between them and housing professionals in the early technical assessments stage. Focus groups with neighbourhood leaders identified the most relevant and sensitive topics which needed to be considered for the reconstruction of the coastal villages. Then each family was consulted and asked whether they wanted to stay in the same place or be relocated somewhere safer. The ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of each option were discussed at community workshops. Lots of families wanted to stay on the coast as their livelihood depended on fishing. The communities that decided to remain became part of the Resilient Social Housing programme.

Community workshops were carried out with these families where they discussed and agreed which aspects of the physical appearance and functionality of the new houses were important to them. After this, the design proposal was finalised in assemblies or workshops in each locality. The programme focused on several related activities:

  • Identity and architecture: looking at how traditional materials and elements of architecture could be integrated into the design and architectural style of the houses.
  • Economic activities: supporting fishermen and algae collectors to acquire equipment and boats; support for small and medium sized enterprises to establish commercial activities and a wider programme of training.
  • Cultural activities: the development of various programmes including an annual festival ‘Viva Dichato’.

The involvement and collaboration of different actors and institutions was essential in each locality including:

  • local families and residents;
  • the technical and political authorities of each municipality;
  • the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development (providing funds and resources);
  • the Universities (carrying out the risk assessments);
  • the Housing and Urban Development Service (ensuring the technical standard of the buildings);
  • different construction companies (carrying out the works);
  • the Coastal Border Reconstruction Plan team from the Regional Government of Bío Bío (in charge of project coordination).

What impact has it had?

The project demonstrates that public housing policies can and should respect local identities and ensure they are a joint development with the community. This project has placed the concept of resilience at the heart of Chilean reconstruction policy in a country which, because of its geographical location, is so prone to natural disasters. Public policy focused on the needs of the community whilst recognising the value and right to stay in the place where people live. This has facilitated the recovery not only of the housing, but of the coastal communities themselves, their culture, identity and dignity.

How is it funded?

The costs of Resilient Social Housing were covered by the Post-Earthquake and Tsunami Reconstruction Programme in 2010 run by the Chilean government’s Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. The cost of each Resilient Social House was up to USD $25,000. The residents had already been identified as in need of social housing and so they were able to benefit from new homes, free of cost, without obtaining loans and getting into debt. Annual maintenance costs are covered by each household, which they have been able to achieve by re-establishing their coastal livelihoods.

Why is it innovative?

Although the country is characterised by its geographical location, the design of this type of housing, which is resilient to tsunamis or coastal storms, is new and provides opportunities for communities affected by global climate change. Resilient Social Housing was a pioneering social housing programme in Chile, as its features were designed and adapted to the requirements of the community and the coastal geography.

The design of other social housing programmes in Chile is neither the result of a participatory process with the community nor designed with potential coastal floods in mind, with their standard for structural calculation not conceived for use in coastal areas. Some of the unique features include:

  1. The houses are earthquake-resistant stilt houses, responding to a structural calculation model that considers the particular challenges of a flood-prone area.
  2. The ground floor is flood-able to take account of tsunamis and can otherwise be used as a work or storage area.
  3. The living space (bedroom, kitchen and bathroom) is higher and at a safer level which makes it much easier to make the house habitable again after a tsunami or high seas.
  4. The design of the houses acknowledges the local, architectural tradition expressed by the communities during the design process.
  5. The structural design allows for faster reconstruction in the event of potential extreme natural disasters.

What is the environmental impact?

The project focuses on sustainability in terms of the conservation and adaptation of housing in a coastal environment with high levels of risk:

  1. The stilt houses are an adaptation to local conditions and have a low impact on the local environment and topography.
  2. This type of construction deals with the risks inherent in being on the coast. The structure protects the heart of the house at a safe height by using a platform of pillars and slabs calculated to provide better performance in future floods.
  3. The houses are resilient as their design provides better performance in natural disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis, and faster recovery (reconstruction). The new social houses will always be at risk from natural events but their structure will provide more resilience.

The houses are specified according to earthquake resistant design; reinforced concrete and high resistance steel make up the stilt platform and a wood structure is used over this platform (wood being the traditional construction material in the local area). The Resilient Social Housing complies with the General Urban Development and Construction Decree which defines Chile’s thermal regulation standard. Likewise, it complies with the requirements to be connected to the electricity grid as well as waste and drinking water networks.

Is it financially sustainable?

Being a social housing programme set up after the earthquake and tsunami of 2010, funds were only allocated for the reconstruction period. It is assumed that the new residents will take care of their new homes and provide for their maintenance and conservation in the same way as all beneficiaries of social housing in Chile. The Resilient Social Housing has allowed families to remain in the same places they lived in before the disaster and this has contributed to enable them to access their existing sources of income, has supported the local economies and also their community support network. This factor has been key to the economic and social resilience of these communities.

What is the social impact?

The consequences of the disaster caused by the earthquake and tsunami were not only felt by the loss of material goods, including housing, but also the risks from loss of jobs and incomes and the breakdown of communities and social cohesion. The destruction of the built environment causes the loss of access to services, weakening of family bonds and neighbourhood support networks as well as affecting other aspects of the daily lives of the families.

There are a number of social aspects of this project:

  1. The collaborative, joint work with the affected families allowed the opinions and wishes of the people affected to be better reflected in the solution to their problem. This joint process with the community enabled further empowerment of the community and the development of bonds which increased social capital.
  2. The flexible approach the reconstruction project took to finding housing solutions that are different to traditional ones and which are able to adapt to the needs of the coastal area (economic, cultural etc.) was key to designing the new housing. This has helped with the recovery of the housing and at the same time has supported the social fabric of communities by promoting their unique culture and identity.
  3. The resilience of the new social housing will help improve the social resilience of the families when they face future natural disasters.
  4. The project allowed communities to remain in the same place they had lived in for decades and so avoided a relocation process.
  5. The quality of the housing also has an impact on the health of the residents, who have benefited from improved living conditions and safer houses.

Whilst the project focused on the affected families – mainly fishermen and algae collectors – there was also a very significant impact on the whole community of the area, who were able to regain their rich coastal life and livelihoods. The wider community had been greatly affected by the tsunami and not only those who had lost their homes. Neighbours and relatives had provided housing and support to others, livelihoods had been affected where people depended on their neighbour’s work and family networks had been put under strain or had broken down. This programme helped re-establish these links – between families, within the community and in connection with employment. This wouldn’t have happened if the affected families had been relocated to other areas.

Barriers

Institutional issues:

  • The institutions involved were traditionally conservative in their approach and not natural innovators. This made the development of this model more difficult. In order to solve this constraint they strengthened the project teams by adding in the time and skills needed to help influence key people.

Political issues:

  • The priority of many local politicians was a speedy response to the housing needs caused by the tsunami. This made the comprehensive nature of the project more difficult to implement. This challenge was overcome by putting more time into communicating the benefits of the wider approach of the project.

Social issues:

  • The affected communities had to wait for the construction of the Resilient Social Housing whilst living temporarily in emergency camps which had limited facilities.

Technical issues:

  • Chile’s building regulations did not have a standard structural calculation for buildings that were at risk from both earthquakes and tsunami flooding. Because of this, the project had to carry out its own research and develop new approaches. This work has now been incorporated into the building regulations.

Economic issues:

  • The Resilient Social Housing costs were higher than those of social housing built under regular programmes. This meant that additional funds had to be found for these houses, which was justified by the long-term social benefits.

Lessons Learned

  1. The community should be part of the solution to the problem from the start and should be involved at each stage and kept well informed with a constant flow of communication.
  2. Managing the expectations of the community is key, particularly regarding the anticipated results as these can affect the performance of the process and in the end damage the perception of results. The timescales should be very clear and over-optimism regarding the speed of delivery should be avoided.
  3. Uncertainty or lack of information can become a real enemy and prevent genuine ownership by the community.
  4. A project is a lot more than one good idea. It is the result of individuals and organisations working collaboratively in a persistent and systematic way to create a community of thought.

Evaluation

The Resilient Social Housing project was completed in 2014 and no systematic evaluation studies have been conducted to date. However, several university dissertations focusing on the perception of the community have shown significant levels of satisfaction amongst residents in relation to the Resilient Social Housing[1].

[1] Masters Dissertation: “Planning strategies for the urban-social vulnerabilities in the resilient reconstruction process in the coastal locality of Dichato, VIII Region” Carolina Arriagada, Universidad de Chile, 2015.

Masters Dissertation: “Conflict and Dispute for an Alternative Construction of the Territory” Camilo Riffo, Pontificia Universidad de Católica, 2014.

Learning From 27F, A Comparative Assessment Of Urban Reconstruction Processes After The 2010 Earthquake In Chile. Columbia – Chile Fund, Global Center Santiago y CONICYT. Directed by Latin Lab, GSAPP Columbia University y Santiago Research Cell. 2015.

Recognition

  • Urban reconstruction post 27F PDF – Ministry of Housing and Urban Development, Chile, 2014.
  • Urban resilience: learning how to live with the threats of nature: the experience of the earthquake and tsunami of 2010 in the Bío Bío coast. Margenes Magazine, University of Valparaiso, Chile, 2015.
  • A new view from the Coastal Border. Theory and Practice from Urban Design Book, p. 113-122, Chile, 2014.
  • Dichato – from crisis to reconstruction. A model of risk management and resilience, Urbano Magazine, N°27, Chile, 2013.
  • Urban resilience: the challenges of reconstructing the coastal area, Urban Space, Reconstruction and Territorial Re-Setting Book, p.199-2012, Chile, 2013.
  • Urban Resilience: the Experience of Urban Reconstruction in the Coastal Area in the Bío Bío Region, Chile. Special Edition of the Escala Magazine, Bogota, Colombia, 2013.
  • Reconstruction Plan for the Coastal Area – Bío Bío Region. CA Magazine, Nº 145, p. 62 – 68, Chile, 2011.
  • Urban resilience: the challenges of reconstructing the coastal area, book: The City, a Social Anthropogenic Construct, pages 417-432, Mexico, 2015.

The project has been visited by various government delegations, academic, and researchers from national and foreign universities.

Transfer

The Resilient Social Housing project and the concepts associated with the reconstruction of the coastal area are now incorporated into the public policies of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Development of the Government of Chile. These are now being implemented in other coastal localities affected by natural disasters, such as Coquimbo city (in the north of Chile), after the earthquake and tsunami of 2015.

This experience has been an “experimental laboratory” and has presented in congresses, seminars and at national and international meetings, the most recent in Ecuador following an invitation from the government of that country to present the Chilean experience and contribute to the reconstruction process after the earthquake in Manabí province[1].

The resilience of coastal communities is a local and global issue, particularly within the context of rapid urbanisation around the world and climate change. We need greater cooperation between donors to help encourage discussions and solutions. International organisations can make a big difference by disseminating information, supporting the transfer and exchange of experiences, and by targeting the creation of communities and networks of new knowledge.

[1] http://noticias.ubiobio.cl/2016/06/01/academicos-de-la-ubb-asesoran-evaluacion-tecnica-y-reconstruccion-post-terremoto-en-ecuador/

http://www.ing.udec.cl/node/276

http://learnchile.cl/academicos-de-la-universidad-del-bio-bio-asesoran-evaluacion-tecnica-y-construccion-post-terremoto-en-ecuador/

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

TECHO – Development of Habitat

0

TECHO – Development of Habitat

Policies and regulations National policies Governance
Urban Design Inclusion Participatory processes
Promotion and production Materials Self-construction

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2015:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
City: San Joaquín
Country/Region: Chile, Santiago

Description

TECHO is an NGO working with residents and young volunteers to overcome the poverty in which thousands of people live in informal settlements across Latin America and the Caribbean. TECHO’s ‘Development of Habitat’ projects aim to implement permanent solutions in the settlements in the different countries in which it operates. ‘Development of Habitat’ projects are currently in place in Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Colombia.

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

TECHO focuses on overcoming poverty in informal settlements.  The organisation was started in 1997 by a group of students and soon became a Latin American institution with hundreds of employees and thousands of young volunteers. It works with the families living in informal settlements to develop shared strategies for the improvement and transformation of their communities based on their needs. The programme aims to improve their access to basic services, regularise land use and improvements to their housing wherever the families are.  TECHO works to integrate families into the ‘formal city’ so that everyone has the change to develop new skills and exercise their full rights in society.

TECHO operates in 19 countries across Latin America and the Caribbean.  The ‘Development of Habitat’ programme focuses on Chile, Argentina, Uruguay and Colombia, having started in Chile in 2006.

Context

UN Habitat estimates that 80 per cent of the population of Latin America lives in cities. Most informal settlements don’t have access to basic services, such as water, sewerage and electricity. Most informal housing is substandard in quality and much of the land where the houses are built is not regularised (i.e. the use of the land has not been agreed with the land owner).

Key Features

To date, the Chile, Argentina and Uruguay programme has reached and helped 23,000 people. Five thousand, nine hundred permanent homes have either been built or redeveloped, land use has been regularised and access to basic services and the urban infrastructure have been improved.

They have achieved this by setting up local design workshops composed of local families, community leaders and volunteers. They work together to identify the needs of the community, to devise practical solutions and plan the improvements.

The programme brings together young volunteers from different disciplines such as architects, lawyers and engineers to evaluate and work on the land in the informal settlements. This enables the groups of volunteers to practise their skills and understand the challenges related to rapid urbanisation. It also helps create crucial social connections between the ‘formal’ and ‘informal’ city.

The programme is supported by a series of partnerships with local government, utility providers, architecture firms, law firms and other institutions. These partnerships are tasked with effectively solving the needs of the communities by obtaining legal land security, accessing basic services and designing improved infrastructure and housing.

WHA2015_CHILE3

What impact has it had?

TECHO’s projects have had a direct impact on the lives of the participating families: besides improved living conditions, people are also trained in management which allows them to lead their own projects and deal with issues.
The project also provides direct experience to the volunteers involved.  Young qualified volunteers are recruited and can practise their technical knowledge and improve their skills.

How is it funded?

The programme is funded by a mix of partners from public, private and international development institutions, as well as individual donors. This diversification of funding sources makes the project more sustainable in the long term.

The costs vary by country and type of project. On average the cost per household is US$24,000 (£15,500).

The largest share (60 per cent of income) of the organization’s funding comes from corporate donations while the specific ‘Development of Habitat’ projects are financed at a local level, including with the support of government subsidies.

Why is it innovative?

  • TECHO provides a long-term, large-scale answer to improving living conditions in informal settlements.
  • TECHO’s approach maintains a long-term relationship with the communities it works in. It aims to fully transform informal settlements into socially and territorially integrated communities.
  • TECHO’s approach is far greater than simply improving buildings. It brings together all the key stakeholders who can play a role in upgrading: the families, community organisations, local governments, utility providers, architecture firms, law firms and government.

What is the environmental impact?

  • Families are trained on housing maintenance resulting in a more efficient use of energy and water.
  • The community has better access to basic services.
  • Families in some of the communities in Chile have participated in large scale planting of grass and trees. As the families themselves were involved in planting, these new green areas are looked after and kept clean and tidy by the families themselves.

Is it financially sustainable?

The organisation is financed by a combination of corporate donations (60 per cent), international cooperation funds (20 per cent), individual donors (5 per cent) and conducting various campaigns and fundraising events (15 per cent).

TECHO also has two fundraising offices in the United States (Miami and New York) and two in Europe (UK and Germany).

What is the social impact?

  • Apart from helping to deliver high-quality housing and security of tenure, TECHO encourages communities to form relationships between the settlement and external stakeholders. The aim of this is to help transform the settlement into a fully functional neighbourhood.
  • TECHO helps to strengthen community leadership to become validated and representative, encouraging self-management and the participation of thousands of residents to generate collective solutions to shared problems.
  • TECHO works with young volunteers who work with the families on a daily basis. Thanks to this, strong and long-lasting social connections between the volunteers and the families and communities develop.

TECHO’s Development of Habitat projects address six issues:

  1. Regularisation of property for the legal security of the land;
  2. Formalised access to basic services;
  3. Access to city infrastructure, such as paved streets, public lighting, proximity to public transport, schools and hospitals;
  4. Living spaces, dimensions and materials, ensuring high technical standards and appropriate common spaces;
  5. Ensure that the solution is supported with public investment with additional added-value;
  6. Communities organised based on their collective needs, able to find sustainable solutions to their problems.

Barriers

Time: Projects have an average duration of three to five years. Keeping communities active in a process that does not provide immediate results is not straightforward. This is overcome by letting communities lead the entire process from designing to managing the housing solutions.

Access to land: There has been a shortage of vacant land with the right conditions for the development of the projects. Given this, some projects had difficulties in regularising land.

Lessons Learned

  • TECHO found that it is important to accept that regeneration processes are long-term and need constant adaptation.
  • The active participation of families in the project, was an essential part of its success.
  • TECHO found that efficient implementation depends on many specific requirements that make the project technically feasible, economically viable and socially desirable. Working with all stakeholders to meet these requirements is crucial.
  • TECHO found that projects need to be adapted to meet the specific needs of each community.
  • The transfer of information and coordination with other actors has been crucial at all stages of the projects.
  • A real understanding of the urban and land issues in the areas where the settlements are is essential, as is an understanding of the legal issues relating to the land and a knowledge of the community.

Evaluation

  • The technical aspects of the projects delivered by TECHO have been compared with projects from other institutions.
  • All the ‘Development of Habitat’ projects are undertaken by a multidisciplinary team from TECHO (architects, lawyers etc.) who plan and deliver all the processes and stages in the projects.

Transfer

TECHO’s model, first established in Chile, has been replicated and improved through ongoing learning across Latin America.  The transfer of the ‘Development of Habitat’ programme involves the experience and learning from the development work in the originating country. To implement it in another country it’s vital to adapt the project to the local situation and within the opportunities provided by the political and social context.

It is now being replicated in three other countries:

  • Argentina (in Buenos Aires and Córdoba since 2012 and Salta and Río Cuarto since 2014)
  • Uruguay (in Montevideo) since 2012
  • Colombia (in Bogota) since 2015

Two professionals working in Chile for the last three years moved to live in Argentina and Uruguay in 2012. This was the first time transfer of the programme occurred to other countries and cities in Latin America.

Initially they formed teams with local volunteers to gather information within informal settlements with the aim of planning the local work. Currently this work of transferring the experience to the other countries in which TECHO works continues.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Back to Rio

0

Back to Rio

Policies and regulations Local policies
Urban Design Urban fabrics Liveability Inclusion
Promotion and production Participatory processes Self-management

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2015:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
City: Rio de Janeiro
Country/Region: Brazil, Rio de Janeiro

Description

This huge scale public arts project has radically transformed the image of one of the most notorious favelas in Rio de Janeiro. It mobilised a community to paint the façades of their houses creating massive works of art. The effect has been to redefine their surroundings and turned a no-go area into a dynamic community.

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

The ultimate aim of the project is that the painting of the houses in the favela will act as a catalyst for the wider regeneration and empowerment of the area and thereby improve people’s lives.

As a next stage, the project aims to continue, involving painting a further 50 buildings.

Back to Rio is a grassroots arts project started by two Dutch artists, Jeroen Koolhaas and Dre Urhahn, founders of the Favela Painting Foundation. They first visited Vila Cruzeiro in Rio in 2006 and painted a 150 m2 mural of a boy with a kite on the wall of one building. They returned a few years later creating a much larger mural covering a public stairway. This artwork depicted the stairway as a river with Koi fish swimming in it. They returned to Rio de Janeiro in 2010 to undertake a very large community artwork on a big public square in Santa Marta.

After they completed the Santa Marta project, their vision was to do something even bigger and paint a whole favela. Work then restarted in Vila Cruzeiro, in the main street of this favela. This project is called: Back To Rio. A serious gun battle in 2014 temporarily halted the work and also caused them to rethink. They relocated and chose a more visible and public place, partly for security reasons, but also to help create a more positive image for the area after its darkest moment. The project involves painting thirty-four connected buildings creating a vast 7,000 m2 artwork.

The artists initially hired six local young people to take part. Participants were given training in plastering (the houses were bare brick and had to be repaired and rendered before they could be painted). Later in the projects they trained twenty-five young people from the favela in painting and art techniques. Participants were all paid and learned a skill.

The project has drawn positive attention to Vila Cruzeiro in particular and Rio’s favelas in general. The brightly-coloured paintings have received wide scale international media coverage and the area has hosted several celebrity visitors. For the first time the media was reporting positive news from the Favelas. Santa Marta is now a tourist destination, with regular organised tours provided by locals for visitors to the city.

Context

Vila Cruzeiro is an informal settlement (favela) in Rio’s North Zone. It has a reputation for criminality and violence. In 2010, The Rio Times described it as “one of the most dangerous favelas in Rio.” It went on to say “The zone is responsible for over one third of the city’s murders and a common cause of death amongst inhabitants is stray bullets”. The settlement was built in the early 1970s and most of the buildings have been little improved since. In 2010, the area was targeted by police aiming to break a local drug gang. A street gun battle ensued, which lasted five days and resulted in the death of 37 people.

Estimates vary on the number of people living in Rio’s favelas, but in 2009 New Yorker magazine estimated that the city had more than one thousand favelas, inhabited by three million of the city’s fourteen million population. This number has almost certainly increased in the years since, with most of the city’s population growth occurring in favelas.

What impact has it had?

Back to Rio has delivered training and capacity-building within communities in some of the poorest neighbourhoods in Rio.
The project has attracted significant media attention, both nationally and internationally and has helped to change people’s perceptions of the favelas.

How is it funded?

Back to Rio is funded by a continuous fundraising campaign. The project was set up after a successful US$100,000 KickStarter crowdfunding campaign. It has been sustained by further crowdfunding, donations, private money from Haas&Hahn and a grant from the Johnnie Walker Foundation.

Why is it innovative?

  • The Favela Painting undertaken as part of the Back to Rio project offers a very unusual approach to neighbourhood improvement in deprived communities. None of the actors involved see themselves as urban planners, development professionals or community organisers. They’re artists with a social conscience, understanding the power of art as a way to bring people together in positive action.
  • The project has very effectively used media coverage to draw positive attention to the favela. Most previous media coverage concentrated on crime, drugs and violence.
  • The painting has created a tourist destination which has brought income to the area employing local guides and increasing sales in local shops.
  • The artists believe the project has high street credibility, drawing in people who were previously hard to reach or even involved in criminal activities.
  • The project has used its media coverage to drive a successful crowdfunding campaign that paid for much of the costs of the project.

What is the environmental impact?

Whenever possible, the painters experiment with coloured plaster; using pigments in plaster instead of paint which is then sprayed onto the houses which, in the long term, is more sustainable. To support this, a Dutch team of residents from Vila Cruzeiro are currently setting up a pilot for a self-sustainable paint factory in Providencia (another Favela) which will be used to transform even more houses and, if successful, export the paint to other places where favela painting projects are happening.

Is it financially sustainable?

The financial sustainability of the project depends on the successful use of innovative funding mechanisms, for example crowdsourcing.

What is the social impact?

  • The project helps change public perception of favelas.
  • It has provided a positive focus and new image for an area that has undergone violence and tragedy.
  • It empowers residents of the favelas to feel a greater sense of participation in local development without the government being involved.
  • Participants are trained in arts, painting techniques and project management.

Barriers

Despite safety having improved in Vila Cruzeiro, the project has been halted due to the ongoing conflict between the police and drug gangs, which led the project to move to another more central and safer location.

The project is heavily reliant on the two Dutch artists being on site. They immerse themselves in the community, which is one of the success factors of the project because it allows them to develop an in-depth local understanding and the creation of local teams, but it also makes it very time-consuming.

All the tenants and homeowners living in the streets where the project takes place need to be willing to get involved in the project and all of them need to come to an agreement on the design and colour scheme of the art work. The project has developed a methodology using colour-lab workshops in which people come together to make a first draft together. These workshops can also convince homeowners who were not yet sure about their participation.

Lessons Learned

People can play a major role in neighbourhood improvement without the involvement of government and can also be actively involved via different approaches to participation, which don’t follow the traditional urbanism approaches to participatory planning.

Evaluation

Locally, results are evaluated, changes implemented and re-evaluated by the local crew leader until everyone is satisfied.

The longer-term impact of the project has not as yet been evaluated.

Transfer

The project started with one mural in a favela in Rio and has since been replicated in Port-au-Prince (Haiti), Philadelphia (USA), Gothenburg (Sweden) and Willemstad (Curacao).

The project ‘Germen Crew’ in Mexico painted an entire informal settlement in Pachuca City was inspired by Favela Painting.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Comprehensive Community Development for Poverty Alleviation

0

Comprehensive Community Development for Poverty Alleviation

Policies and regulations Planning
Urban Design Urban fabrics Inclusion Equity
Promotion and production Self-promotion Transformation and adaptation

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2015:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Asia
City: Thimphu
Country/Region: Bhutan

Description

This project focused on the Olep ethnic group who live on the western fringes of an important national park in the west central part of Bhutan. Originally a nomadic hunter gatherer community, the Olep were encouraged by the government to settle in Rukha in the early 1970s, so that they could benefit from the development initiatives that were taking place in the country. With no experience of settled living and their earlier means of living off the forest no longer available, the community fell into extreme poverty. This project, run by the Tarayana Foundation, has developed skills and encouraged a self-help ethos that has successfully helped the community recover and prosper. Originally focusing on the village of Rukha, the project has spread to 150 other villages across Bhutan.

 

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

The project’s main aim was to empower the local community so that they could help themselves out of poverty. This was achieved through the key objectives:

  • Awareness creation of the roles, rights and responsibilities of the community members towards a future they wanted.
  • Education of the children as well as non-formal adult literacy programmes for the adults.
  • Capacity development.
  • Document the language and traditional folklore.
  • Promote local stewardship of their immediate environment.

Tarayana Foundation is a non-profit organisation working to enhance the lives of vulnerable individuals in rural and remote communities in Bhutan. It was founded in 2003 by Her Majesty the Queen Mother Ashi Dorji Wangmo Wangchuck (who remains Chair and President of the organisation). Although independent, Tarayana works with the Bhutanese government and the local communities to help achieve its objectives of improving rural prosperity.

Tarayana focuses on extremely remote areas that would otherwise be considered too difficult and isolated to work in. The Foundation worked around logistical and practical issues of reaching and serving these far-flung places. By doing this, they recognised small, marginalised communities as important groups to support in accessing opportunities and maintaining their unique culture. This is important as remote ethnic minorities often risk isolation and/or see young people leaving for more vibrant places.

Context

Rukha is a small, remote village of 18 households (147 people). The people are from the Olep ethnic minority. The Oleps settled in Rukha in the early 1970s as part of a government programme to settle nomadic communities so that they could benefit from the planned development that was being introduced. The government gave the community three acres of farm land in addition to half an acre for house construction and kitchen gardens.

Families settled on the land in temporary, makeshift small houses made from bamboo with bamboo leaf mat roofs. The original expectation was that these houses would be replaced with more permanent housing. However, the community had little experience of settled living and lacked the skills to improve their houses. As a result, not only was the housing not replaced, it was not well maintained and fell into disrepair. The community’s background also meant that they lacked the experience and skills to sustain arable farming. Over several years, the farm remained partly cultivated with more fallow fields that fell out of agricultural use. The nearest school was many hours walk away and few children were educated.

After the initial three years of support from the Ministry of Agriculture, where terraces were made and basic farming skills taught, they were on their own. With the failure of reliable irrigation, the crops failed, and the lack of awareness regarding seed selection and storage, the villagers slowly fell into extreme poverty. At the time of a visit from Her Majesty in 2001, the living conditions had deteriorated significantly and there was evidence of poor health and malnourishment.

Key Features

The project’s philosophy was to encourage the community to lead their own development.  Tarayana’s role was to facilitate community involvement and engage key actors in helping the community to prosperity. Tarayana’s Field Officers worked and lived in Rukha with the community. This helped them understand the Olep lifestyle and concerns and build a relationship of trust.

The project used the Rural Participatory Appraisal Approach to engage the whole community in project planning as it did not require participants to be literate. Through this, the community formed a committee which drew up the project objectives and strategies. Housing improvement was given the first priority, concluding that better shelter was an essential basic need and the first step to feeling secure and confident. Other priorities included revitalising farming and starting up traditional handicraft businesses as a source of cash income.

Three sub committees were set up to oversee the three priority areas:

  • Housebuilding and renovation: The committee mobilised the relevant community members in receiving skills training such as carpentry, masonry, rammed earth and laying stone walls. The training and site supervision was provided by a master builder brought in from a nearby village. Additional labour was provided by trainees from the Construction Training Centre. Over a two year period, all of the bamboo houses in the village were replaced by two-story timber and mud houses built in the local traditional style. Tarayana provided materials (corrugated roofing sheets, timber, nails, etc.) The whole community took part in the construction. They drew lots to decide a fair construction schedule.
  • Revitalisation of traditional handicrafts: The committee oversaw training in traditional handicraft skills which included making cane and bamboo products and also many items made of maize cob sheaths.
  • Environmentally friendly farming: A committee was formed by women from each family to ensure that vibrant kitchen gardens were maintained by each household. Additional committee members were recruited to provide specialist skills and knowledge as required from time to time. These included a Field Officer and a specialist from the Department of Agriculture who supported them and provided training on environmentally friendly farming techniques that were sustainable.

In addition to the three sub committees, the project also included:

Support for education, sanitation and health: A primary school was built in the nearby village of Migtana, which serves as the central location for three other villages. Tarayana covered daily meals for the 60 students enrolled there. A community learning centre was set up by the government to initiate Non Formal Education for adults, and the Foundation provided basic stationeries, learning aids and facilitated other sessions for the children. English classes were provided for young people.  Awareness raising activities also took place around:

  • Health, nutrition and sanitation.
  • Local environmental and natural resources management (water management, improved soil productivity, etc.).
  • The value of education.
  • Gender issues.

Access to credit: Community members wanted to access micro-credit to start up small enterprises. They took up Tarayana‘s micro credit programme to access 100.000 BTN (US$1,500) to purchase a power tiller. This served as the main transport service in the absence of any vehicle after the farm road was build.

Irrigation: Installing appropriate water pipes for agricultural irrigation and solving the previously inadequate water distribution. This piped water was also used for aquaculture.

Fishery: Smoked fish called Nga Dosem is a delicacy of the Oleps. Fish production started locally with the introduction of fingerlings from the Government fishery programme and it became a good source of cash income.

Solar electrification: Three local women installed solar home lighting systems for all 18 houses, the community shed and the learning centre. They were trained at the Barefoot College, Tilonia, Rajasthan in India, an institution that teaches community members to become ‘barefoot solar engineers’. A Rural Electronic Workshop was also set up in the village for repairs and maintenance of solar panels and the home lighting system.

What impact has it had?

Within two years, 15 houses were completed in Rukha; 33 men and 24 women were trained in carpentry and masonry skills. Tarayana facilitated the construction of 860 other houses as part of the housing improvement programme based on the Rukha model, in many remote rural villages.
The availability and variety of food increased and improved farming techniques led to surplus production that was sold in the market. With the increase in cash income, they could buy other necessary goods and services. The population saw an improvement in their access to health and education, along with increased employment opportunities through agriculture, handicrafts and selling smoked fish. A few of them also took up house construction work in other remote villages as carpenters and masons. The activities carried out to improve life in the village led to people working together that built social cohesion in the community.

How is it funded?

The United Nations Volunteers/United Nations Development Programme (UNV/UNDP) provided US$50,000 to start the project in 2006 for the duration of two years. The community contributed labour and land, while Tarayana contributed project facilitation, management staff and administration support.

In 2007, the Global Environmental Facility’s Small Grants Programme (GEF-SGP) Support funded the ‘Alternative Livelihood Options for the Indigenous Community of Rukha’ programme with US$31,845. This programme complemented the ongoing work in Rukha. Tarayana applied on behalf of the community and the funds were transferred to the community’s bank account. Tarayana helped use the fund according to the plan developed with the Oleps.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Tarayana’s role as a grassroots facilitator in bringing together stakeholders to achieve a common goal and the focus on remote ethnic minorities are significant achievements within the Bhutanese context.
  • This project demonstrated the need to dissolve the sectoral silos in addressing the multi-dimensional nature of rural poverty.
  • It demonstrated that involving grassroots in project design, management and implementation improved the relevance of the interventions with better sequencing of activities.
  • Tarayana Foundation was able to bridge the gap between larger national initiatives and local realities.
  • The wide-ranging and people-centred nature of the project aims to address any issue within the community, instead of imposing an existing agenda that might not fit local needs.
  • Working together towards a common goal empowered the community to collaborate in solving housing and other collective issues.

 

What is the environmental impact?

  • The raw materials used in the construction of these houses were chosen based on what was already locally available. This reduced the need to import. For example, rammed earth was used in Rukha where mud was abundant. In the eastern part of Bhutan, the communities used stone as the main building material and bamboo in place of timber, as these were easily found in the area.
  • The GEF-SGP supported project helped introduce environmentally friendly technologies like improved fuel efficient cook stoves to locally designed solar dryers, locally designed basic improved hygienic facility for smoking fish with the help of the Livestock Extension Officer and solar home lighting systems to reduce the consumption of kerosene and resinous wood for lighting.
  • Tarayana facilitated the community to control land degradation, re-instated the irrigation system and trained the community in managing water and land effectively.
  • Local environmental and natural resources management was encouraged through the training of all households.
  • Natural and eco-friendly farming techniques including composting, mulching, crop rotation, companion planting etc. improved soil productivity. Open pollinated local seeds were used, seed selection, storage and exchanges between different villages was encouraged.
  • The use of relevant hand tools and implements were promoted.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

  • The Rukha project is financially sustainable as the community now has the skills to earn cash income. Their confidence has been built; all their children are able to access free education provided by the Government.
  • They are able to look after and build their own homes and have also understood the concept that together they can reach greater achievements.
  • The community has understood that they are primarily responsible for their own well-being and that much good can be done by working together. This in itself is a big step towards sustainability. They no longer wait for support from the outside and have the confidence to tackle one common issue after using local solutions.
  • Residents from Rukha are now working as master carpenters in other districts and villages (some hired by Tarayana). Master carpenters are paid well and are in high demand.
  • The community makes bamboo products on order and is conversant in the processes of pricing and marketing their products after the initial years of hand-holding done by the Tarayana Rural Crafts.
  • Increased agricultural yields have resulted in the Oleps eating better while selling the surplus for cash.

 

What is the social impact?

  • Community cohesion: The project brought together the whole community to achieve a common goal, despite differences in ages and gender.
  • Capacity-building: Training in financial literacy resulting in increased savings, artisan crafts, entrepreneurship, book-keeping, house building skills, carpentry, hygienic preparation of smoked fish, agriculture, etc. has increased the overall knowledge and capacity of Rukha. In addition, three women were trained as barefoot solar engineers at the Barefoot College in Rajasthan for six months and are members of the Barefoot Solar Engineers Association of Bhutan.
  • Learning opportunities: The community learning centre and the improved access to school means more education opportunities for both children and adults. And thanks to the solar panels, children have light and more time to do their homework.
  • Nutrition and health: The consumption of a more varied diet has helped improve the family’s nutritional intake. The community also learned how to make nutritious meals using different vegetables. Initiatives around health and hygiene, water and sanitation, HIV/Aids and other health issues, along with the importance of education and gender equality have helped raise awareness around these important issues. Traditional firewood stoves for cooking emitted a lot of smoke, often causing respiratory problems. These stoves were replaced with the fuel-efficient smokeless stoves.
  • Decreased inequality: Gender equality improved as women were empowered through training and economic opportunities, along with better access to information and knowledge. The elders and many men of the village admired the fact that women gained new skills. They were particularly impressed that it was the women who provided solar power to the village.

Tarayana was able to demonstrate that with opportunity and coordinated facilitation, all community or section of society could become empowered and capacitated to drive their collective developmental agenda.

From a poor and impoverished, highly indebted and food insecure community a decade ago, the Oleps of Rukha are enjoying a better quality of life. They are also better able to articulate their aspirations to their elected leaders. The community also built a common temple in their village of their own accord, mobilising support from others for the statues and altar, but putting in their collective labour to bring the temple to fruition.

While there is still much to be done, they are on a sustainable development trajectory that can only bring them more collective prosperity and well-being.

 

Barriers

  • Geographical isolation and the rugged mountainous terrain remain one of the greatest difficulties in serving these remote communities.
  • This in turn makes the cost of service delivery very expensive particularly the cost of transportation of both good and services.
  • Having lived in isolation for so many decades, the Oleps were hesitant to express their needs and desires. Tarayana had to work hard to gain their trust. Living and working with the Oleps, the Field Officer became a familiar figure in the community.
  • Community mobilisation is challenging, as every small community has their own dynamics. The project focused on dialogue and patience to understand local traditions. This helped overcome some of the barriers that were linked to cultural misunderstandings or a fear of change.
  • Funds for housing are difficult to obtain although having a decent roof over one’s head is one of the basic needs in addressing poverty particularly in rural communities. We have seen the importance of having a home, around which all else like civic awareness, access to education, health and hygiene, food and nutrition security, water and sanitation, better farming and green technologies, can be anchored.

 

Lessons Learned

  • Building up local skills is at the heart of development. In fact, the community can solve many issues when they can get support to develop the skills they need.
  • Proper consultation is key to the success of the project. Taking time to understand the needs of the population and assessing their capacity to carry on activities is crucial.
  • When the organisation’s staff live and work with the community, this provides a clearer understanding of local issues and helps build strong links with the community.
  • It is important to research and understand the funding opportunities at hand. Each donor has to be approached differently and it is essential to make the most of what they could offer.
  • We have learnt to understand the increased administrative burden with each small project implemented hence moving more towards programmes approach while working for budgetary support.
  • Small communities can handle big programmes if they are given the opportunity.

 

Evaluation

The Project Manager carried out monthly visits to the Rukha, involving four hours of drive followed by eight hours on foot, each way. The mid-term monitoring and evaluation visit was jointly carried out by representatives of the donor, member of the Tarayana Executive Committee and the project management. The project end evaluation was carried out by an independent consultant hired by the Poverty Unit, UNDP. The project was viewed as very positive in addressing multi-dimensional poverty as seen in remote, rural corners of the country.

 

Transfer

This model is currently being replicated in 150 villages across Bhutan in 15 of the total 20 districts. Additionally, Tarayana has signed an MOU with the Royal Government’s Gross National Happiness Commission (Planning Commission) in January 2015, as a partner in implementing the ‘Rural Economy Advancement Programme’ Phase 2 (REAP-2). Tarayana had very successfully piloted in three remote villages during the first phase of REAP.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Self-Help Housing in the North of England

0

Self-Help Housing in the North of England

Policies and regulations Local policies
Urban Design Inclusion Equity

Main objectives of the project

This work is delivered by Canopy and Giroscope, two separate housing charities that train homeless and vulnerable people to renovate abandoned properties and bring them back into use. The completed houses provide low cost homes for local people who are homeless or in housing need.

  • Both organisations started in response to failed housing markets and a desire to match empty homes to people in housing need. The models they developed have become known as Self-Help Housing, and have been replicated and adapted many times.
  • At its heart the model involves organisations acquiring long-term empty properties, renovating them using volunteer labour and letting them out as below market housing.
  • The process of renovating the properties is in many ways just as important as the end result and both organisations focus on wider benefits for individuals and communities, including skills development, capacity building and social integration.

Canopy and Giroscope are pioneers in a movement of UK housing providers called “Self-Help Housing”, which has gained momentum and grown significantly in recent years. Together they provide a model that has inspired many others. Today, over 100 organisations in the UK follow their Self-Help Housing model.

Date

  • 2015:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Hull
Country/Region: Hull, United Kingdom

Description

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Caño Martín Peña Community Land Trust

0

Caño Martín Peña Community Land Trust

Mismatches Security Functional adequacy Vulnerable groups
Urban Design Urban fabrics Segregation
Promotion and production Participatory processes Transformation and adaptation

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2015:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

City: Río Piedras
Country/Region: Puerto Rico, Río Piedras [San Juan]

Description

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

  • Legalise the relationship between more than 2,000 families and the land on which their homes stand.
  • Guarantee affordable and safe housing.
  • Resettle people who lived in high-risk areas in a fair and reasonable way.
  • Improve environmental conditions by developing basic infrastructure and dredging the channel.
  • Ensure ownership and management of the area by the community and for the community.

The Martín Peña Channel was once a waterway that ran through the middle of the Puerto Rican capital San Juan. Impoverished squatters settled on the mangrove swamps along its banks, building more than 5,000 informal homes. The water filled with debris and silt, and with no sewer system, it became highly polluted. With nowhere for water to flow, every time it rained the area flooded, creating a dangerous situation for residents. The government decided that something had to be done and a plan was put in place to dredge the channel and drain the land.  Whilst there were obvious benefits to this plan, a potential consequence was that, with the environmental problems removed, the land (in a prime city location) would soar in value displacing the original residents.

Residents living in informal settlements around a polluted water channel and a government agency (the ENLACE Corporation) established a Fideicomiso – a Community Land Trust or CLT (a model of home ownership that develops and manages affordable housing on behalf of the community. It does this by separating the value of the land and the buildings. Land is held in perpetuity by the community enabling it to remain affordable for local people) was set up with. The government had experienced opposition and delays in previous infrastructure projects and was keen to ensure that residents’ interests were accommodated.

Between 2002 and 2004, the government consulted with communities over dredging the channel and improving the area. The communities were united in wanting to ensure that the works did not displace them. The consultation resulted in a comprehensive Development Plan and Land Use Plan which included dredging and drainage work, and also significantly the transfer of the land to the community. Initially the land was transferred to a government-owned arm’s length company: the ENLACE Corporation, with the intention that it should be transferred back to the community once a CLT had been established.

The process of setting up the CLT involved participatory workshops with the community. These workshops drew up the regulations that would govern the CLT. An Advisory Board and lawyers supported the process so that the ideas put forward by the community could be formalised legally. This period also saw the creation of the Group of Eight Communities (G8), whose role is to check that the Comprehensive Development Plan is followed by the CLT and the Corporation and facilitates communication between them. It is made up of elected representatives from 12 community organisations, increasing their collective power and voice. The Corporation led on land registration.  In 2009, a Board of Trustees was formed, made up of residents, technical and professional advisors, a member of the corporation and representatives of the Government of Puerto Rico and the city of San Juan. The same year, the Corporation transferred 200 acres of land to the CLT.

Context

Puerto Rico is a group of islands in the North Eastern Caribbean. It is an unincorporated territory of the United States of America. The World Bank classifies Puerto Rico as a high income economy but 41 per cent of its population fall below the poverty line. Economically Puerto Rico is poorer than the poorest state in the United States but wealthier than any other state in Latin America.

The eight communities living around the channel have an estimated population of between 15,000 and 18,000. The population is amongst the poorest in Puerto Rico, although the unemployment rate (22 per cent) is lower than the average for the territory. The 5,000+ houses were originally built on stilts out of light materials (cardboard, wood, scrap metal and palm leaves), but over time residents replaced these with cement and other sturdy materials. There is an informal supply of electricity which is unsafe. Most houses are in poor condition and the area is overcrowded (it is three times more densely populated than the rest of San Juan). The area is a high fire risk. Most houses are only accessible by narrow alleys which are inaccessible to fire engines.

Key Features

  • Avoiding Dispute: The CLT has provided a mechanism which allows the government and the communities to achieve their aims amicably.
  • Relocation to appropriate and secure housing: Certain families have to be resettled in safer and more adequate housing. So far, this has affected 500 families, and will reach and affect a further 1,000 families over the next 10 years. The residents have the choice of where they would like to be resettled (within certain parameters), and can be housed within the CLT. At the moment there is not enough readily available housing in the district for all those needing resettlement. In response, the CLT is developing empty plots for new homes.
  • Regularisation of land tenure: The CLT provides secure tenure for 2,000 families through rights to occupy land on defined areas. The right to occupy is formalised at the Land Registry. Regularisation can also involve obtaining building permits, resolving inheritance issues. Thirty notaries offer help for free to carry out this process.
  • Guaranteeing long-term affordability and avoiding displacement: If the land was made available on the market, this could lead to rapidly increasing prices that would make the area unaffordable for current residents. The CLT structure avoids the involuntary displacement of the population. The residents collectively hold the title of the land in perpetuity.
  • Ensuring participation of CLT members in decision taking: The members form an assembly that takes decisions on the CLT. In addition, both the regulations of the CLT and the Comprehensive Development Plan were developed through participatory activities.
  • Ensuring financial sustainability: The CLT generates income by renting its properties, by developing vacant lots and by implementing projects as defined by the Comprehensive Development Plan. It grants government and non-profit providers of community services the chance to rent property in the District at a reduced and very low rate.

What impact has it had?

To date, the main impacts have been in terms of: increased access to security of tenure, a beginning of relocation to adequate sites, the start of new housing developments and increased organisation and empowerment of the communities:

  • Around 1,500 families are now eligible for the right to occupy land in the District.  Four hundred families have been trained on the procedure, 160 started the process of formalisation and 28 have completed it. The procedures to regularise the residents’ right to occupy have progressively been simplified and by 2016, the number of fully registered households should reach 1,000.
  • The CLT is developing the first eco-friendly units as a pilot for a larger number of houses across the District. The predevelopment stage of 120 units in a multi-family complex designed in collaboration with residents is also ongoing (2015). These will be the first of the 450 units developed in the next five years.
  • There are ongoing activities in education, workshops and events for members, which enable the sharing of experiences. Participatory budgeting is also being developed.

A wider effect of the CLT is the law that was passed to establish it. This set a precedent in Puerto Rico for CLTs and has had the impact of creating an effective model to respond to insecurity of tenure for the urban poor in the country.

How is it funded?

The CLT aims to be largely self-funding once fully operational. In the interim, it receives subsidies from the public and private sector for specific projects, such as the use of land registration procedure and the development of housing. For the financial year starting on 1 July 2015, US$200,000 have already been secured. The CLT currently receives US$140,000 per year through renting its properties but it aims to increase this to US$500,000 by the end of the current fiscal year.

Why is it innovative?

Using the CLT mechanism in the context of urban informal settlements is ground-breaking. The Caño Martín Peña CLT learned from international examples that used this model mostly for low-income residents, for example in North America and in Europe, and adapted it to local needs.

The model is innovative because it enables existing residents to remain and enjoy the improvements to the area. Investments in improved living conditions often increase land values and lead to gentrification. This prices out the original residents. The CLT avoids this by creating a system in which low-income residents can improve their living conditions without being priced out.

The process of resettling members within the CLT enabled the works on the channel to start more quickly with significantly reduced resettlement costs. It also allowed the families to have a choice over where they resettle. This was achieved by setting up a Resettlement Committee made up both of residents and employees of the Corporation.

The capacity to involve the wider community and mobilise significant support from numerous actors was crucial. Comprehensive development built on community participation, increasing collective knowledge and becoming active citizens contrast with the mainstream development of the city, where speculation and open market dynamics were the norm.

What is the environmental impact?

The works to the channel will improve 6,500 acres of the estuary, allowing water and tides to flow again. This will allow wildlife to return. Dredging the channel and new rainwater management will resolve local flooding problems. They will also help the whole city become more resilient to possible future rises in sea level.

In the future, the CLT is planning to extend its financial schemes to include micro-credit for energy efficiency.

The Environmental Squad was created so that children and young people would engage in the sampling of water for quality checks, or the development of community and school allotments.

Is it financially sustainable?

  • The CLT aims to be largely self-funding once fully operational. The CLT and the Corporation receive funds from various sources, including donations, investments, income from rent of properties and development.
  • The trust is quite reliant on volunteer work, which although cost effective, needs significant management and can be unstable in the long term.
  • The CLT has a duty to develop and keep housing accessible for communities. It cannot resell the land and can only sell or rent out housing with the objective of benefitting its members. The trust reinvests profits into the communities through a revolving fund. This fund is for infrastructure improvements, buying property and other priorities of the Comprehensive Development Plan.
  • As the area improves, the collective value of the land is expected to significantly increase. When a member household sells their house, any profits will go in part to the family, and part to CLT. This is because part of the increase of value comes from both the maintenance and upgrading of the house by the family and also from the work of the Corporation and the CLT in the area. Once a family sells their house, the CLT always has the option to be the first buyer and can guarantee an affordable price for the next occupant.
  • The CLT supports families to make sure that they have a full understanding of how to manage their loans. This helps reduce the cases of mortgage defaults caused by the inability to pay back the loans. The CLT appears on the mortgage agreement and guarantees the option of buying out the property in the case of default. The CLT also hopes to help families raise their income. One of the ideas is to do this through certificados de participación (similar to US equity share) as an additional form of income for the members.

What is the social impact?

Participation in governance

Residents previously did not have any property title for the land on which their houses stood. For them, having the right to stay in the area they lived in for generations was their main priority.

The residents were trained on participatory processes, so that these methods and their objectives would be fully understood, and that people could identify and commit to them. In addition, music, cinema or theatre activities were added to participatory methodologies to engage citizens.

Discussions took place on which models of tenure would suit them best, including individual ownership, land cooperatives and CLTs. They were evaluated through a list of criteria, and residents decided that collective ownership through the CLT structure responded to their objectives.

Between 2002 and 2004, seven hundred participatory meetings were held to develop several documents, including:

  • The Plan for Comprehensive Development and Land Use for the District (approved in 2007): a guide for the development of each of the communities of the District, as decided by its residents.
  • The Law for the Development of the District (approved in 2004): created the Corporation, CLT and the G8 as entities that would respond to the priorities of the residents.

Between 2006 and 2008, the G8 and the Corporation organised three rounds of community workshops which took place on every two or three streets. These workshops helped to develop the General Regulations for the functioning of the CLT.

Cohesion and integration

Most of the activities of the CLT are carried out with and by the residents of the District. Resident members of the CLT are also in charge of explaining to those who also live on the land but are not part of the CLT what the advantages are of joining and help them in the registration procedure.

The communities worked closely with many other actors such as professionals, professors, students, the press and by being invited to share their experiences to different audiences including in academic circles or community groups, social marginalisation is reduced.

Long-term permanence

The residents managed to remain on prime land at the heart of San Juan, and organised to transform it into an attractive area. This will reduce inequalities in quality of life with other residents of San Juan. If the CLT had not been created, the rehabilitation of the channel would have led to speculative investment and displaced the population in favour of hotels, commercial buildings, etc. Instead, the residents have managed to create the law that enabled them to own and manage the area and remain there long term. This is a significant achievement since the area was under so much pressure for commercial redevelopment.

Capacity Building

The CLT supports the development of leadership skills and critical thinking for adults, young people and children. Thirty programmes for social development were created to increase collective knowledge and skills across generations.

Health and Safety

For decades, the population lived in poor conditions and was exposed to health hazards associated with a polluted channel (flooding, poor water quality, solid and liquid waste, etc.). Their risk of having gastro-intestinal problems, asthma and dermatitis was significantly high, and many days in school or employment were lost to illness. Rehabilitating the channel will reduce such issues.

The social programmes also include initiatives against violence and the use of drugs. Children can become ‘Guardians of Prevention’ to support their peers in fighting against violence or addiction. Sport tournaments are paired with workshops on violence and gender inequality.

Barriers

There was a significant setback in 2009. The Mayor of San Juan passed legislation that transferred the land back to the municipality of San Juan. The government approved a law which took the land from the CLT and made it public once again which made it available for sale.

The community, professionals, professors and students, media representatives, activists and many others joined forces to contest and revert this, and argued that the CLT was the best option both for the communities and for San Juan as a whole.

In August 2013, they succeeded and this law was revoked. The communities and the CLT were strengthened as a result as they managed to attract widespread visibility, engaging many actors who became committed supporters of the CLT.

Lessons Learned

When the CLT was given the land back in 2013, the members and supporters realised something had to be done so that this would not happen again. If the land was registered as a private entity with juridical independence, the following governments were less likely to change its ownership as they would have to pay compensation to the CLT.

The CLT is learning to adapt regularisation to a context where often documentation is missing and where cases have to be treated individually. Finding a good system to efficiently collect and update information from the field can reduce delays.

Evaluation

No evaluation has yet been carried out.

Transfer

The CLT has no plans to scale up beyond current boundaries of the CLT, however, the membership of the CLT has been progressively increasing.

The CLT has been happy to share their experience with others facing similar issues. For example, the informal settlement Villas del Sol in another part of San Juan asked for their support in deciding how to avoid displacement (they eventually opted for collective ownership of land through a cooperative system).

Links

Authors:

World Habitat