Tipo de autoría: Promotor

Empowering the Poor: building the capacity of urban and rural communities

0

Empowering the Poor: building the capacity of urban and rural communities

Mismatches
Policies and regulations Local policies Governance Participatory processes
Urban Design Inclusion Equity
Promotion and production Public promotion Self-management

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2015:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Africa
City: Lilongwe
Country/Region: Lilongwe, Malawi

Description

Following the Slum Dwellers International approach and challenging Malawi’s ‘hand out culture’, this project is very much community-driven. It focuses on poor communities across the country, particularly in urban areas, and takes a comprehensive approach to development by empowering communities to organise, improve their living conditions and infrastructure, and increase their incomes by setting up viable enterprises.

 

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

The main aim is to empower poor people so that they are able to transform their own lives. This is done by working with the Federation of the Rural and Urban Poor using the Slum Dwellers International approach in the following areas:

  • Development of poor people’s organisations: carrying out activities such as assessment of community needs; developing partnerships; community-to-community learning; fundraising; community mobilisation and awareness campaigns; training on leadership, governance, financial management and budgeting.
  • Community data for change: empowering organisations with skills and knowledge to collect and present data about their communities using SDI tools such as community-led profiling, mapping and enumerations.
  • Basic services and infrastructure: setting up and lobbying for funds to support slum upgrading; construction of sanitation units, waste management and water connections; construction of housing and training of community contractors.
  • Skills and livelihoods: achieving self-sustainability for the community members including setting up savings and loan groups; business development training and learning exchanges between entrepreneurs.

NGO CCODE is dedicated to empowering the poor in Malawi, through providing support to the Federation of the Rural and Urban Poor, a Federation of organised groups of poor people. CCODE particularly focuses on the fields of decent housing, water and sanitation, income generation, governance and rights. CCODE works to make people aware of the benefits of participation in their programmes. No activity is undertaken without communities giving their prior commitment. CCODE is one of few organisations addressing Malawi’s fast-paced urbanisation, providing infrastructure and housing but also pushing for policy change.

Context

Malawi is one of the poorest countries in the world, with more than 60 per cent of the population living below the poverty line. Poverty is both rural and urban but cities have seen a rapid rise in population and with an annual growth rate of 5.2 per cent, Malawi is one of the fastest urbanising countries in the world.
Informal settlements without adequate infrastructure and basic services have increased in number and size and this urbanisation trend is set to continue. Currently 15.3 per cent of the population lives in cities. This is expected to double by 2030 and reach 50 per cent by 2050.

Despite this, the country’s political priorities and resources for development are still largely focused on rural areas and although some government initiatives are aimed at helping the urban poor, no approaches have reached scale and hundreds of thousands remain in need.

In the capital city Lilongwe, only 37 per cent of the population lives in permanent housing. There are no government programmes relevant to low income, informal sector workers, who are unable to apply for formal loans. There have been some attempts to provide micro-finance for shelter but these remain very limited in scale and politicised.

Key features

Demand-driven, continuous support to organised groups/communities: unlike most NGOs working in Malawi, CCODE sets up activities based on the real needs of the communities instead of the demands of donors. CCODE works with communities that show an interest in participating and leading on projects.
Recognising the urban poor as active leaders of their own development and supporting processes so that people can improve their living conditions themselves rather than focusing on handouts. The approach is very practical, using tools such as revolving funds to provide infrastructure or housing loans, skills development and support for business start-ups. The Federation members live in the communities where CCODE operates and they play a key role in the planning and design of the activities and projects.

Empowering communities through data and skills: through the ‘Community Data for Change’ and ‘Building Organisations of the Poor’ programmes, CCODE helps communities to have an open dialogue with government and other stakeholders.

In addition, CCODE believes sustainability and impact depend on long lasting partnerships at various levels, for example:

  • Design and planning: working closely with donors and networks, especially SDI’s members in Southern Africa, to plan strategies and programmes based on good practice and experience.
  • Development: working with communities, different levels of government, local universities and service/utility providers to carry out, monitor and evaluate activities.
  • Ongoing management: the Federation plays a central role in the planning and management of the activities undertaken by CCODE.
  • Other: relationship with Enterprise Development Holdings (EDH) and its subsidiaries as part of a long-term financial sustainability strategy.

What impact has it had?

  • Between 2003-2013: over 1,000 households achieved secure tenure and decent housing as result of CCODE programmes. This included setting a precedent for cooperative housing in Angelo Goveya.
  • Secured tenure for 372 families in Salima and Liwonde.
  • More than 2,500 households accessed improved sanitation.
  • More than 1,500 households have accessed piped water through CCODE water loans that leverage on relationships with service providers.
  • Improved food security for 500 households by using manure from ecological sanitation toilets.
  • Improved public sanitation in four market places through the construction of ecological sanitation (EcoSan) public toilets managed by women’s groups – increased to nine market places by 2015.
  • Enlisted over 70 communities onto a slum-upgrading programme, generated real and updated data through profiles and enumerations.
  • Increased income through skills development and help in setting up small-scale businesses.
  • For the wider community, improved governance (a stronger civil society making government more accountable), organised communities, increased social equality, improved public health.
  • Impact on various policies. Negotiations with the local councils and the Ministry of Land and Housing successfully led to the reduction of standard plot sizes to 13×18 m2 making housing more affordable for low income families.
  • Advocated for funding for community-led housing initiatives. The government of Malawi has provided MK 16 million (US$33,800) towards Federation housing in Salima district.

WHA2015_MALAWI4

How is it funded?

As of 2015, the financial turnover of CCODE is MK 309,126,554.00 (US$702,560) per year.

Resources to run the organisation come from several donors – including Reall, Comic Relief, WeEffect, Slum Dwellers International (SDI), UN-Habitat, Practical Action, African Development Bank, Tilitonse Fund, Scottish Government, Cara Malawi, European Union, SHARE project and Selavip.

In terms of the Federation, it started as network of savings groups and the Mchenga Fund, the successor of these original groups, and is made up of the contributions of Federation members and additional donor funding. This fund enables people in poor communities to access loans for housing or income generation.

In 2013, Enterprise Development Holdings (EDH) was created as a sustainability social enterprise of CCODE. It is made up of a number of private companies that provide different services and products including: marketing; research on development and urban issues; housing construction and rental; ecological brick construction; land development; financial management and business advice; solar products; procurement services; administration and human resource management. The profits from EDH’s activities provide grant funding to CCODE. Reall supported the setting up of EDH through the Community Led Infrastructure Finance Facility scheme.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Working through long-term continuous community support, instead of donor-driven, time-limited projects is innovative within the context of Malawi.
  • The link with the Federation provides access to the ‘heart’ of communities enabling the work of CCODE to be genuinely community-driven.
  • CCODE works with communities through processes that lead to greater long-term commitment when compared to projects based on handouts.
  • The continuous ‘micro up-scaling’ of initiatives allows communities to learn from each other.
  • CCODE’s focuses on urban issues, as opposed to the rural focus of most national or international development projects in Malawi.
  • The focus on long-term collaboration with government at different levels is another innovative aspect. Most organisations avoid the challenges involved but CCODE believes making government accountable to citizens is a key aspect of sustainable development.

 

What is the environmental impact?

  • All construction (housing, toilets) is done with locally available materials.
  • Eco Matters (EDH’s subsidiary) introduced Vertical Shaft Brick Kiln technology into Malawi, a low-embodied energy and highly efficient brick production method.
  • CCODE also partners with Green Energy, a solar-lantern retailer, for awareness and distribution of solar products in low-income areas. Electrification in Malawi is around 7 per cent, and as a result many families use firewood for lighting and cooking, increasing deforestation.
  • Construction and sales of ecological cooking stoves by a Federation enterprise in Salima, decreases the amount of firewood needed. The stoves are made with locally available materials and sold to households for around US$1 per stove.
  • Training women from the Federation as ‘solar engineers’ at the Barefoot College in India means they earn an income from the installation and repair of solar systems in rural areas, and will be training girls who are school leavers.
  • EcoSan toilets have environmental benefits as they do not require water and produce organic compost that can be used instead of chemical fertiliser.
  • When connected to the water supply network, families receive training on the appropriate use of water, to avoid expensive bills and safeguard the environment.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

For CCODE:

  • Having diverse sources of funding from donors helps increase financial security by spreading the risk of losing a source of funding.
  • The income from EDH’s activities provides an additional source of funding.

For the communities:

  • One of the four themes of CCODE’s work is ‘Skills and Livelihoods’ which focuses on developing skills and income streams, which enable people to save, improve housing etc.
  • Housing loans and access to land provided for the most marginalised communities.
  • CCODE also helps create enterprises by providing business skills training.
  • Training and employment of local contractors for the construction of household EcoSan toilets.

 

What is the social impact?

  • Community cooperation and organisation are both a requirement and result of CCODE’s activities. This happens through bringing communities together to discuss their development priorities and create Community Development Strategies.
  • CCODE believes that strong community leadership is essential and therefore supports training on leadership skills.
  • Building advocacy skills helps communities take an active role in society. It empowers communities to negotiate with authorities and other stakeholders to encourage support for their initiatives.
  • More ‘applied’ skills including settlement planning and situational analyses, entrepreneurship, finance, community fund management, construction, etc.
  • CCODE encourages ‘the training of trainers’ and peer exchanges activities for different groups to learn from each other.
  • Appropriate construction techniques increase the safety of residents, as previously many houses were destroyed during natural hazards, putting people at risk.
  • There are increases in hygiene and sanitation through improved toilets and household water connections accompanied by awareness campaigns on health issues, such as ‘HIV and Housing’ programme in Salima.
  • There is a focus on women and young people and on the need to increase the participation of these marginalised groups in all programmes. Currently around 80 per cent of participants in the programmes and activities are women. This helps reduce social inequalities.

 

Barriers

  • Working closely with many stakeholders (public authorities, service providers, private sector) means there is a need to adapt and adjust to different timings and priorities. Delays are common. To counteract this, CCODE and the Federation conduct regular meetings with stakeholders to follow-up on issues and develop memoranda of understanding where possible.
  • The culture of charity and handouts that exists in Malawi creates problems when trying to develop leadership and entrepreneurship in communities. Some people with expectations of handouts can be disappointed by the community-led approach. To overcome this, CCODE focuses on building awareness of the advantages of leadership, creating a culture of the ‘collective good’ and promoting the benefits of communities ‘doing it themselves’.
  • The lack of commitment of some communities, individuals or organisations can create a challenge. A community-led approach is not possible where the ambition for improvement does not exist. In response, CCODE maintains a flexible approach with plans or areas of work being modified according to the ‘readiness’ of the communities.
  • Poverty in Malawi is a challenging factor, as the country’s institutions and systems are weak – creating a difficult context.
  • Limited capacity: despite growing and evolving over the years, CCODE is still a grassroots organisation with limited capacity and funds. Monitoring and Evaluation systems, documenting and other internal processes are currently in development.

 

Lessons Learned

  • The power of working collectively: groups can achieve much more than individuals. For example, repayment rates show that group-loans perform much better than individual loans, since support and peer-pressure make people more accountable.
  • Managing expectations: in a country dominated by NGOs and aid based on handouts, it takes some time and work to help people understand the value of long-term collective efforts.
  • Working with women: women are a vulnerable group and in Malawi there are social constraints that make their participation difficult. However, once included in the programmes, their commitment and determination to achieve goals help move things forward in incredible ways. Women, who make up 80 percent of the Federation’s members, have proven to be strong and resourceful leaders and members.
  • Achieving more with partnerships: collaboration between different organisations is not common in Malawi. CCODE, however, realised that uniting efforts can help achieve much more and stretch resources further.
  • Listening and adjusting: CCODE believe that it is not worth getting to a destination quicker, but rather getting there in the best way possible.

 

Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation activities have been carried out since the beginning of CCODE’s work mostly according to donor demands and criteria for specific projects. Since 2014, an internal monitoring and evaluation position has been created to develop comprehensive systems for the organisation.

 

Transfer

Scaling up: The project has been expanding in scope and scale throughout the country using a ‘multiplier approach’: projects are local, small-scale and focus on groups of up to 20/30 people on the ground. These initiatives are then replicated in the cluster, neighbourhood, city and region or across the country. People learn from each other, through the training of trainers, peer exchanges and community-to-community exchanges.

Transfer by other organisations: In Lilongwe, after negotiations and the securing of land for pro-poor housing construction, the City Council adopted the same approach for its work with other organisations such as Habitat for Humanity. Nationally, CCODE’s approach has been also adopted by other City Councils like Blantyre, Mzuzu, Kasungu and Salima, who followed the example of Lilongwe in terms of land provision for the poor. At international level, CCODE, works with other SDI affiliates in the region to support the transfer of the approach through mutual learning, with countries like Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, etc. CCODE and the Federation receive regular visits from SDI network members and other organisations such as WeEffect or the national government of Mozambique and have hosted international exchanges/workshops to share aspects of the project and learn from others.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Nashira, a Song of Love, a women-led project

0

Nashira, a Song of Love, a women-led project

Mismatches Diversity New family structures
Urban Design Urban fabrics Inclusion
Promotion and production Public promotion Progressive housing

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2015:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
Country/Region: Cali, Colombia

Description

Nashira Un Canto de Amor (a song of love) is an eco-village in rural Colombia built for and by women who have suffered displacement as a result of Colombia’s fifty year civil war and/or domestic violence.

Project Description

Aims and Objectives

  • The project offers a safe, permanent and affordable housing solution for women who have been displaced or subject to sexual or domestic violence.
  • It minimises costs (houses cost approximately US$10,000 each to build) enabling houses to be offered rent free; enabling women to escape from poverty.
  • It aims to empower women. The village is run by a series of committees and production centres are all chaired and run by women from the village.
  • It creates employment opportunities by establishing workshops where women can manufacture their own products. The income achieved through the sale of these products can further help them escape poverty.
  • The village provides a secure and nutritious supply of food grown on its own land and has its own clean water supply.

Nashira is an eco-village of 88 homes in Southern Colombia. It was built for and by women who suffered domestic violence or who have been displaced by the Colombian civil war. The project is funded by the Government’s Rural Housing subsidy.

Costs are kept to a minimum by using sweat equity and low cost or free recycled materials. These savings enable the ownership of the houses to be obtained without any costs as they don’t have a deposit or mortgage, they are free. As they are houses which have been developed by the community, they are family assets which cannot be seized so the houses cannot be lost as a result of debts. The project enables women to set up productive task teams that allow them to earn a regular income. There are task teams dealing with organic food production, a Saturday market, a restaurant and rooms within the houses for homestay tourism.

The project is a model of how different ways of living together can make a community more resilient, both ecologically and socially. The project offers a secure supply of organic food grown on its own land. Water and waste are managed in low-cost and ecologically sustainable ways. Reedbeds are used to filter the water, an aqueduct brings water to the village and waste is either recycled or composted.

The project was set up by the Nashira Women’s Association for a Better Quality of Life (Asociación de Mujeres Nashira por Mejor Calidad de Vida) (Nashira) through the purchase of 3.3 hectares of land that had previously been a banana plantation. The purchase costs were met by a donation from the Douglas Dolmetsch Foundation.

Context

Colombia is a country that has been locked in a civil war for fifty years. Since the mid-1960s, the country has suffered from a complex low intensity conflict between the government, paramilitaries’ and guerrilla groups. Over 220,000 people have been killed and according to UNHCR nearly six million people have been forced out of their homes. This has created the largest number of internally displaced people of any country in the world apart from Syria. In addition to this, the drugs trade has displaced thousands of people as drug producers attempt to expand their cultivation of coca into remote farmland areas.

The effects of this have been highly damaging to individuals and families. There is widespread evidence of sexual violence against women and many families have been broken up. The majority of displaced people are women. Thirty per cent of women in Colombia are single mothers and 35 per cent of children live in single parent families. Seventy per cent of single parent families are below the poverty line.

Key Features

Women build their own houses. They are expected to contribute at least 1,200 hours in total towards construction.

Houses are constructed from recycled materials in innovative ways. For example, walls are constructed with walls made out of rubbish and some are of plastic drinks bottles filled with soil. Stairs are made from used car tyres and windows are made from recycled glass bottles.

Homes are provided rent-free.

The project provides clean drinking water. This was a particular challenge as the local ground water is contaminated. A large aqueduct brings in fresh water from a nearby spring.

There are eleven production centres, which create income for the village. These include: homestay for tourists in spare bedrooms; waste recycling; small scale market gardening producing fruit and vegetables; fish farming and ceramic production.

Nashira operates its own currency for financial transactions in the village. This helps keep the income generated within the village.

What impact has it had?

The village has achieved its aims through the successful self-build of houses and the communal facilities in the village.

The quality of life of the women in the village has significantly improved. Most women previously lived in poverty in slums in nearby towns. All have been lifted out of poverty and health outcomes have improved significantly.

The village is close to being financially self-sufficient.

How is it funded?

The project was established with a grant from the Douglas Dolmetsch Foundation. Other set up costs were provided by the Colombian Government Social Housing Programme. Donations and grants have also been provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the water company Aquavalle. In the early stages the government charged women 10 per cent of the costs of building the houses. This was a condition of the government grant. The village has negotiated a change whereby in-kind costs are counted as a financial contribution by the government. This has allowed the charge to be dropped.

The village aims to be self-sufficient in its running costs. It has created a number of income generating activities called production centres. Many of these provide personal income for the women who live in the village and others help provide operating costs for the village’s communal facilities.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Nashira has demonstrated that an eco-village can operate as a viable and self-sufficient concern. It also demonstrated that eco–living is not necessarily only a life-style choice for high income earners but an effective way of helping people out of poverty.
  • Nashira has led the way in providing women-centred housing where the women are in control. This approach is new to Colombia.
  • The building techniques make use of very low cost materials and use what would otherwise be waste.

 

What is the environmental impact?

The village is highly sustainable environmentally. It creates little if any waste, consumes little energy and creates few pollutants. Carbon emissions, although not measured, are likely to be very low.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The village is close to being financially self-sufficient. Operating costs are covered by income generating activities. The village has achieved its aim of doing so without charging rent. The village does not appear to have large reserves and so any significant improvements and changes to the village have fundraising implications.

 

What is the social impact?

The project succeeded in improving the living conditions and quality of life for women who had suffered domestic violence or been displaced by the Colombian civil war.

 

Barriers

  • At the start of the project, women were expected to pay 10 per cent of the upfront cost to build the houses. This was a government subsidy condition. Many were not able to cover this. When women started contributing to the actual construction of the houses the upfront cost was removed.
  • There has been some opposition from local men and from relatives who did not want women to be the homeowners.
  • Some of the income generating businesses proved not to be viable and have failed.

 

Lessons Learned

  • An eco-village is not just an idealistic notion but a viable way of living. It can successfully be used to lift people out of poverty.
  • Living rent-free is a key way of helping people out of poverty. Without the need to make regular rent or mortgage payments, women were better able to improve their lives.
  • Although the village was set up for women, from the beginning it proved sensible to include some male relatives, such as long-term partners, who remained heads of households. However, as some of the women were abandoned or mistreated, some men had to be excluded from the village which left the women as the sole heads of households even though men are still welcome. This showed that the Nashira approach worked.

 

Evaluation

An ongoing feature of the project over its 13 years has been the link with academia which has led to the formation of a research group which evaluates and monitors every stage of the project. Amongst the organisations most closely involved are the University of Valle and its environmental, urbanism, gender, sociology and solidarity economy programmes. The community psychology programmes of the Cooperative University and the environmental programmes of the National University are also involved. Several postgraduate theses have been written, which analyse and evaluate the programme as a whole.

 

Transfer

Within Colombia seven other eco villages for women have been set up.

UN Habitat has initiated a project in Santa Marta using some elements of Nashira.

Internationally, UN Habitat is helping to set up Nashira- inspired projects in Mexico and El Salvador.

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

Community-Led Infrastructure Finance Facility (CLIFF)

0

Community-Led Infrastructure Finance Facility (CLIFF)

Mismatches Financing Functional adequacy Vulnerable groups
Financing
Promotion and production Favelas/Slums

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2014:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Africa
Country/Region: Kenya

Description

CLIFF starts from the philosophy that the poor are worthy of investment. Instead of giving one-off grants, CLIFF helps establish organisations in Asia and Africa with the capacity to provide slum dwellers with access to affordable housing finance. This approach not only facilitates the construction of affordable homes and neighbourhoods, it also generates enough financial return to allow the organisations it funds to achieve financial sustainability. In Nepal, this approach has enabled CLIFF investment to act as venture capital, proving the viability of projects that then achieve investment from established banks and lenders. Currently operating in fourteen countries, CLIFF has supported more than 70 housing and infrastructure projects in Asia and Africa between 2010 and 2014.

 

Project Description

What are its aims and objectives?

CLIFF stands for Community-Led Infrastructure Finance Facility. It defines its core work as, ‘to support slum dwellers to improve their lives and find lasting solutions to urban poverty’. CLIFF aims to address housing and basic services of slum dwellers, which are not adequately addressed by the local government or private sector.  CLIFF is a project coordinated and partly funded by UK based organisation Reall (formerly known as Homeless International).  It provides affordable finance to its Implementing Partners. Reall then work with these organisations to develop financially viable housing projects for their low-income communities. The long-term ambition of CLIFF is to help the projects achieve significant scale. It does this through:

  • Using the projects as demonstration projects.
  • Reducing the risk of investment in housing for low-income people.
  • Unlocking large-scale, private investment for future CLIFF projects.

CLIFF’s approach is to develop self-reliant housing projects that are capable of creating sustainable settlements, shelter and services. This is delivered through a long-term partnership approach with Implementing Partners, funding partners, and technical partners. Reall play a strategic management and coordination role in this process.  CLIFF provides capacity grants and revolving capital funds to the Implementing Partners. The Implementing Partners use the revolving funds to offer loans and to make strategic investments, such as the purchasing of land.  Through CLIFF, the Implementing Partners are also able to influence national policies and have amplified the voice of the urban poor at local, regional and national levels.

What context does it operate in?

According to UN-Habitat there are over one billion people living in slums. The vast majority of these slums are in developing countries. The housing and basic services needs of this population are not adequately addressed by local government or private sector. The institutions responsible for land planning, land markets and basic services are often weak or dysfunctional. Most of them lack both resources and capacity. Market-based projects aimed at upgrading slums tend to be short term and not sustained by responsible public institutions, while aid money is insufficient, considering the rate and scale needed to tackle the problem.  The CLIFF programme is set up within this context and starts with the premise that the urban poor are worth investing in. The programme is underpinned by the logic that if a financially sustainable implementing organisation is created and maintained, then the programme will continue to grow, irrespective of changing donor climates.  CLIFF has 14 partners in 15 developing countries and is involved in 70 projects across 33 cities. Where possible it also works with municipal authorities and is positioning itself to be able to receive loans/funds from both private sector and donor/development bank type organisations.

What are its key features?

What makes CLIFF different is its belief that the urban poor are worthy of investment and lending. CLIFF was established on the belief that housing and basic services designed and built in an appropriate and affordable manner can be paid for by the urban poor themselves. As a result, the programme works to counteract the current exclusion of urban poor groups from appropriate housing finance. To do this, CLIFF builds the capacity of local organisations committed to supporting the urban poor and delivers its vision with a twin approach programme:

  • To build capacity of partner organisations, helping them to consolidate their strengths and address their weaknesses. Through the support of CLIFF a number of Implementing Partners have developed the capacity to influence the policies of local and national level governments and financial institutions. For example, in Nepal LUMANTI, a national NGO and long-term CLIFF Implementing Partner, has been able to secure as much as 80 per cent of their total project costs from local banking institutions.
  • Alongside and connected to this capacity building, CLIFF provides Implementing Partners with recoverable capital funds to buy land, construct houses and to provide affordable micro-mortgages to slum dwellers. Early on in the CLIFF programme, capital funds were only recycled at a national level. However, as the CLIFF Implementing Partners have matured into sustainable Community Development Enterprises, a change in approach has occurred. Broadly speaking, Reall now distribute capital funds to CLIFF partners as a loan, allowing the recycled funds to be redeployed anywhere across the global portfolio. This approach encourages financial discipline amongst CLIFF’s Implementing Partners and rewards this with access to a larger, more responsive, capital fund.

Through a long-term partnership approach, CLIFF is able to support partner organisations towards a position of operational sustainability. In this way, the programme demonstrates a commitment to building institutions capable of accessing sustainable sources of finance and delivering housing projects at scale and in perpetuity.

How is it funded?

At present, CLIFF is supported by two international donors, the UK Department for International Development (DFID) and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA). In 2013/14, the largest donor was DFID, its funding is committed until 2015. Discussions are already underway to ensure continued DFID support for CLIFF Phase 3. The project has good economic sustainability strengths, with a number of partners already progressing to a position where they are able to receive their capital funds as a loan. In terms of repayment rates from communities, CLIFF is targeting a 100 per cent repayment rate, with partners encouraged to maintain a Portfolio at Risk rate of between 5 and 10 per cent. During the early stages CLIFF provides grants to help build the capacity of its local Implementing Partners. Overtime, this grant funding is phased out, with organisations covering their operational costs through effective business planning. The reduction of capacity grant funding has the potential to boost the amount of funding available for capital projects.  In 2013/14, CLIFF spent £7,685,753 on capital grants and loans to its partners. In the same year it had an income of £10,801,603 (including £1,377,539 carried forward from the previous year). The majority of its income is raised from donors. Reall’s revenue costs for operating CLIFF were £678,355. The excess of income over expenditure in 2013/14 was absorbed by the programme in the opening part of the 2014/15 financial year.

What impact has it had?

The CLIFF project has had a very significant and positive effect on the communities it has served.  The housing finance system has created a significant amount of suitable affordable housing that would not have otherwise been built. Indeed there is evidence that this has had a catalysing effect leading to more homes being built. For example, CLIFF funded the construction of 180 houses by the Vashandi Housing Cooperative in Zimbabwe but this led to an additional 500 being built, with a further 500 now under construction. Moreover, the house building has had a positive effect on local economic activity. The Vashandi project has led to the direct creation of at least 200 jobs.  In total, the CLIFF 2 programme has approved, commenced or completed the construction of 10,699 homes. As of April 2014, 17,183 people had already occupied their new homes, complete with improved water and sanitation, with a further 35,062 set to benefit.

Beyond housing projects, the CLIFF programme is also set to benefit a further 101,617 people through numerous sewerage disposal and sanitation projects approved in India and Nepal.  CLIFF has also influenced the housing policies in many developing countries. Causing policy change is one of CLIFF’s performance indicators. It targeted changes in six countries; in fact there has been change in eight.  For example, CLIFF’s Angolan Partner, DWA, was able to secure a reduction in the minimum plot-size requirement; whilst ZINAHCO, CLIFF’s implementing partner in Zimbabwe, gained formal acknowledgement of the cooperative housing model. Some projects have also been successful in changing local investment policy from lenders. In Nepal, LUMANTI have been successful in securing as much as eighty per cent of the total project cost from local banking institutions, a percentage previously unobtainable. The project has received international recognition by receiving the UN Scroll of Honour in 2014.

 

Why is it innovative?

With its belief that the urban poor are worthy of investment and lending, it delivers its programmes with a twin approach.

The innovation CLIFF brings to the sector is to build capacity of partner organisations, help them maintain their strengths and enabling them to work on more complex dimensions of housing programmes, such as land and financing. A number of CLIFF partners have also developed capacity to influence the investment policies of local and national banks. For example, in Nepal LUMANTI, a national NGO and CLIFF partner, was able to secure 80 per cent of the total project cost from local banking institutions. CLIFF uses donors innovatively. It uses them to build partners’ capacity through ‘capacity funds’ and provide them with additional recoverable capital funds to buy land, lend micro-mortgages to slum dwellers and to invest in physical construction. All capital funds are recoverable from the partners. Once recovered, the funds are recycled through the same or different partners.

 

What is the environmental impact?

CLIFF projects have the opportunity to reduce the carbon footprint of urban development by championing the cause of appropriate-tech, sustainable settlement solutions. A good example is the use of adobe mud bricks in Tansen, Nepal which have very low embodied energy values and are very locally sourced, saving on transport and energy costs.

Additionally, the design of LUMANTI’s apartment building in Lalitpur, Nepal, tackles the city’s frequent water shortages by implementing a rainwater harvesting system, allowing residents constant access to water for cleaning and cooking with low energy inputs. Similarly, the use of solar powered electricity builds resilience against the cities frequent power outages.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The long-term aim is for CLIFF to become fully self-sustaining, although this aim may not be realised for many years. The establishment and growth of CLIFF has been made possible by the significant contribution of donors. At present, there is a continued donor interest in building the capacity of CLIFF. CLIFF was established with financial sustainability built in at all levels. In-country partners are helped to grow sufficiently to generate enough financial return to allow them to operate without grant based support. This has helped the organisations to begin pursuing alternative sources of investment with the aim of becoming fully self-sustaining.

 

What is the social impact?

The project provides support to those who would otherwise be excluded from participating in the urban development process. It promotes greater community cooperation and encourages gender equality.  More than 75 per cent of the programmes beneficiaries are women or children and the model offers particular support to social cohesion initiatives through the empowerment of women-led savings groups. In some countries, CLIFF has supported projects for people with disabilities, offering hope to this uniquely disadvantaged demographic. In all cases, the programme builds the abilities of community organisations to negotiate, advocate and to better manage their operations.

 

Barriers

  • Dysfunctional local governments are a major challenge for CLIFF. The experience of the project is that the housing sector has been neglected, not understood or financed properly in developing countries. As a result, in some cases CLIFF’s work is seen as a unique solution.
  • Linked with the above, CLIFF partners are expected to address a number of sector-related issues, including the complexity of land tenure and sustainable supplies of materials.
  • In a number of countries where CLIFF works, there is a certain perception about the role of international NGOs. They are either seen as advocacy organisations or those which deliver free goods. The role of CLIFF in supporting financial and technical capacity has been difficult to communicate.
  • CLIFF believes that the urban poor are worthy of investment. However, large financing institutions are under pressure to offer ‘safe lending’ and do not see the opportunity immediately. The challenge for CLIFF is to demonstrate this bankability in order to attract large private finance.

 

Lessons Learned

  • It is important to deliver such programmes at scale in order to deliver a meaningful impact on the knowledge and practice in the sector. This means changing a number of practices, including community engagement and financing models.
  • CLIFF sees the future of partners as new urban institutions which bridge the gap between markets and governments. Therefore business modelling and long term financial sustainability is extremely important for CLIFF partners.
  • CLIFF still believes that the urban poor are worthy of investment and that the finance and opportunity to deliver this at scale is available. However, it is important to recognise that housing is not only about finance, the method of delivery is equally important.

 

Evaluation

CLIFF sets its own performance targets and monitors them continuously. Monitoring reports are produced every three months, with major external evaluations dictated by donor funding cycles. Indicators on finance and growth show the project is on target or exceeding its targets. Indicators on the provision of basic services are, however, below target. The findings of the reports/evaluations appear to be used to make improvements to the programme.

 

Transfer

Significant scaling up has taken place within the project. When it started in 2002 CLIFF operated with one in-country partner (in India) it has since expanded to ten countries. The number of homes built as a result of the project has grown each year. There are good reasons to believe that expansion will continue. The in-country partners are also expanding their capacity. There is no evidence of transfer outside the project, but perhaps in a large devolved model there is no need for this to happen.

There is good evidence that local individual projects have expanded and are delivering more homes. Three in-country partners (LUMANTI in Nepal, NACHU in Kenya, and ZINAHCO in Zimbabwe) have grown to become the largest delivery agent of formal pro-poor housing in their countries. Many individual projects have been successful in documenting and disseminating learning and good practice.

There is also good evidence that national transfer is occurring. The number of in-country partners has increased significantly. Many partners are actively engaged in transferring good practice within their country and sometimes beyond. For example, LUMANTI in Nepal has established a research centre and has helped establish new research centres in new CLIFF project areas across the country.

Internationally, significant transfer has occurred. The project has expanded into ten countries. There is good evidence that cooperation and support is occurring between the in-country partners. A highly successful new partner WAT- HST from Tanzania received significant help from partners in Kenya, Malawi and Zimbabwe, enabling it to scale up its activity significantly.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Social Housing in Supportive Environments (SHSE)

0

Social Housing in Supportive Environments (SHSE)

Mismatches Functional adequacy Vulnerable groups
Policies and regulations Local policies
Urban Design Urban fabrics Inclusion
Promotion and production Transformation and adaptation

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2014:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Belgrade
Country/Region: Belgrade, Republic of Serbia

Description

As a result of the 1990s wars, Serbia has the highest number of refugees and internally displaced people in Europe. The original government policy was to house the most vulnerable displaced people in collective centres. These provided shelter but conditions were frequently appalling with inadequate sanitation, water supply and little privacy. The centres were also in the process of closure. SHSE has played a significant role in providing new permanent housing for people enabling the collective centres to be closed. It offers quality housing, individually tailored support services from local social care institutions and connects people to a local “host family” who provide additional support to help people re-integrate into society. The project has been extended to other vulnerable groups including homeless people, vulnerable people and Roma.

 

Project Description

What are its aims and objectives?

The SHSE programme has been in place since 2003. The aim of the project is to improve the housing conditions and social inclusion of the most vulnerable groups in Serbia. The programme was initiated to provide permanent decent housing so that the most vulnerable forced migrants could be rehoused from Government collective centres built as emergency shelters to house people who had been displaced during the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s.

Government policy was to close the shelters but because of the lack of institutional mechanisms and insufficient capacity of social housing, they remained open long after planned closure dates. The centres provided extremely poor quality housing, with poor sanitation, overcrowding and insanitary water supply and, most important, produced further social exclusion of their residents. Whilst some still remain open today, the work of SHSE helped house many people and hastened the closure of many collective centres.

The project has built 1,014 homes so far, housing 2,643 of the most vulnerable and socially excluded people. It also provides individually tailored support to enable people to integrate back into society and lead independent lives. The individual needs of the tenants include finding work, acquiring health care and social care services, psychological support and relationship building within the local community. These are provided through the host families system and social work centres, which jointly provide a supportive environment.

Host families are families who face housing exclusion but have sufficient social capital and personal skills to enable them to act as good neighbours, helping new families find their feet and gradually become self-reliant. Host families live in an apartment in the same way as the other families requiring support.

Social work centres manage the buildings, educate, monitor and support the host families and also provide direct, professional services to beneficiaries.

Housing Center is an organisation which has, together with other partners, developed and implemented the project. It organises training workshops for beneficiaries of the project and organisations and institutions at local and national levels, carries out research on housing for vulnerable groups and works with the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy and Commissariat for Refugees to develop guidance on social housing in supportive environments in other regions.

Housing Center shares its learning externally and currently it is a member of FEANTSA (the European Federation of National Organisations Working with the Homeless).

What context does it operate in?

Serbia has a population of more than 10 million and has the highest number of refugees and internally displaced people in Europe. The situation is a legacy of the wars of the 1990s. Twenty years after the wars ended, the country still hosts 45,000 people with refugee status and has 205,000 internally displaced people.

Refugees and internally displaced people are the poorest and among most deprived in Serbia. Their unemployment rate is 33 per cent, far higher than the general population. Incomes are low; 29 per cent have incomes below 48 Euros a month. Sixty-one per cent do not have a permanent home. Many of them are accommodated in the collective centres or inadequate private accommodation.

Serbia has one of the largest Roma communities in Europe, with a population estimated to be around 500,000. Roma people are among the most vulnerable communities in Europe, with a long history of persecution and discrimination. The Roma communities are amongst the most deprived and socially excluded groups in Serbia. Although Serbia adopted a law on Social Housing in 2009, it does not have a functioning social housing system. Very few of the requirements of the Social Housing Law have been implemented. The private housing market has not been able to serve the most vulnerable people, due to high rental prices and rising demand. Estimates indicate that there is a shortfall of 100,000 homes in Serbia; this increases both the demand and the market price for homes that are available. Housing is not seen as a political objective and it has neither a system of affordable or social housing nor a housing policy in place.

What are its key features?

The SHSE project provides sustainable housing solution to the most vulnerable people. It helps them develop the skills and competences required for a self-reliant and independent life.

The role of the SHSE service is not only providing housing but helping residents become more included in society.  The project has two main components: The construction and provision of social housing units and creating a supportive environment, which further facilitates social inclusion.The social housing built by the project is specifically designed to help encourage integration and communication between residents. The buildings have a mixture of different sized apartments allowing a diverse mix of households. Special attention is given to common areas – common living rooms, laundries and outdoor spaces. The project recognises that these are the areas where social contact and communication between residents take place.  Setting up of the supportive environment component includes:

  • Selection and training of the host families, who help families adjust to a normal life and provide assistance for networking and building relationships with others.
  • Training of the social work centres, which continue to support and monitor the progress of the tenants after the project is over.

How is it funded?

The first SHSE projects were financed by Swiss Development and Cooperation. Since 2003, 20 million Euros have been invested in the capital costs of building. Ninety per cent of this has been provided by international donors, including UNHCR, the European Union and the German government. The other 10 per cent was raised locally through local government and local donors. Projects were also included in the National Investment Plan of the Government in 2009.

Land and infrastructure connections are provided by local government as their contribution to the project. Local government also takes responsibility for building maintenance and providing support services for residents through local social care centres, which it funds. In return, the ownership of the buildings is transferred to the local authority.

What impact has it had?

The project has successfully helped provide good quality housing and support in social inclusion to over 2,500 people. Evaluation work carried out shows that resident satisfaction levels are extremely high.

The project has enabled numerous collective centres to close. Over 2,000 of SHSE’s residents were rehoused from collective centres.

The project has influenced national policy. It was influential in the current national housing strategy, which recommends the SHSE approach be used for internally displaced people.The project was also used by the government as a model in developing a strategy for decentralising social welfare service.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • The key innovation of the project is to combine housing provision with social welfare support through Centres of Social work. Helping groups to leave the collective centres and start an independent life integrated with other parts of society.
  • Introduction of the Host Family to provide peer support. This support is available close to where people live and the hosts have the same ethnic background, language and family situation.

 

What is the environmental impact?

The SHSE buildings are thermally insulated and energy efficient. New regulations on energy efficiency in Serbia promote the thermal performance of housing. Compared to the collective centres and also to the housing generally in Serbia, the new buildings are far more efficient. Most of the new buildings have more efficient energy and water usage. There is a positive environmental impact, as the old collective centre buildings were badly insulated, used old schools, gymnasiums, agriculture warehouses and factory buildings. The buildings were neither designed nor insulated for human use. The closure of these centres has had a positive impact on the environment and the people living in them.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The project relies significantly on international donors to provide the capital costs of buildings.

This model will be used in the immediate future.

There is a strong interest amongst donors to assist with finalising the refugee housing situation in Southern Europe through the Regional Housing Programme and so the prospects for future funding are good. In the future the project hopes that the financial stability of the country will settle to the extent that it will be possible to borrow capital from lenders, with additional funding provided through local government.

 

What is the social impact?

The project facilitates a system of mutual support and leads to greater community cooperation. The beneficiaries, host families and local community take responsibility for arranging a number of support measures together. Transferrable skills also identified from within the community are shared. In the many municipalities psycho-sociological support, learning assistance, computer training or employment assistance are provided in common living rooms provided within the buildings. The project enables people facing housing and social exclusion to acquire various forms of support (obtain citizenship, access health and social care services, increase their employability) facilitating their social integration. The approach adopted by the project contributes to improved health and safety, since special attention is given to architectural design, materials used in construction and construction standards.

 

Barriers

  • Political instability, frequent shifts in power and conflict between political parties and struggle over land allocation has been a major challenge, which has affected the level of government support the project has received.
  • After the collapse of the socialist political system and mass privatisation of social housing, the market was expected to provide housing to the most vulnerable. This has not happened and the policies and strategies have been delayed. This gap has led to the adoption of illegal self-help strategies.
  • Many project beneficiaries have been living in government and donor-supported collective centres for many years, in some case 15 years.
  • While Centres for Social Work and local self-government are enthusiastically working in the creation of an inclusive society, the other tiers of the political system and government are still struggling to wholeheartedly adopt the changes.
  • Housing construction is expensive and financial allocation is a challenge. The administrative processes for the allocation of land and construction of building are time consuming.

 

Lessons Learned

  • Housing with integrated social support is important. Housing alone is not enough and continual, long term and individually tailored support is crucial because of the multiple vulnerability people face. SHSE learned that integrated and targeted support is the most important part of social housing.
  • The importance of constructing the buildings in central locations and integrating families from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds.
  • National legislation on Social Welfare provides a general framework, while a number of decisions are taken at the municipal levels. At this level diverse needs of the families are recognised.
  • More investments are required at the beginning, especially as the host families require support and beneficiaries develop their knowledge and skills. Once, beneficiaries gain more independence, the support required is only occasional.

 

Evaluation

In 2005, evaluation was carried out by SDC. In 2010, UNHCR carried out some evaluation. In 2009, the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy conducted some evaluation. All the evaluations endorsed the impact of the SHSE programme.

 

Transfer

The project has scaled up and is operating in 42 municipalities. The local governments would like to use the approach to address the needs of low income populations, not just refugees. The project learning has been used in Armenia and Georgia with support from SDC.

At a national level, the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy has supported the exchange visits and training of staff in other municipalities. It has supported the networks of Centres for Social Work, the final beneficiaries and the host families so that they learn from each other.

With the support from Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), the positive experience has been shared with organisations in South Caucasus, Armenia and Georgia. Study visits have also taken place to Georgia and Armenia.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Social Inclusion and Improvement of Living Conditions for Roma

0

Social Inclusion and Improvement of Living Conditions for Roma

Mismatches Segregation Cultural suitability Diversity
Policies and regulations National policies
Urban Design Liveability Equity

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2014:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Europe
City: Novi Sad City
Country/Region: Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia

Description

The Roma are among the most vulnerable communities in Europe with a long history of persecution and discrimination perpetrated against them. Most live in segregated areas in poor quality and unhealthy housing. The project seeks to improve housing conditions and better integrate Roma people within wider society, including lobbying for equal access to public services. It has upgraded houses, improved sanitation, helped to improve school attendance, learning and helped people into work. The project’s ‘Dweller-driven Upgrading of Roma Settlements Model’ is now being successfully scaled up across Serbia.

 

Project Description

What are its aims and objectives?

The project aims to provide better living conditions for Roma People and help the Roma community better integrate with society. It aims to do this by:

  • Helping Roma people to improve and upgrade their homes and sanitation system.
  • Help more Roma children into mainstream education.
  • Improve employment rates amongst Roma people enabling them to earn a good level of income.
  • Advocating on behalf of Roma people to help them get equal access to public services.

During 2008-2012, the project successfully developed, tested and implemented a programme of improving the housing and living conditions of 3000 Roma living in 13 settlements. In addition, training support was provided to 630 Roma children. The current phase of this project aims to consolidate, scale up and institutionalise the approaches developed so far.

What context does it operate in?

Serbia has one of the largest Roma populations in Europe, estimated to be around 500,000. The government lacks the capacity and resources to develop Roma settlements. The Roma community is rarely involved in decisions about their settlements and housing. Roma people are among the most vulnerable communities in Europe, with a long history of persecution and discrimination. The Roma communities are also amongst the most deprived and socially excluded in Europe. In Serbia about 60 per cent of the Roma population is considered very poor, an estimated 60 per cent live below the poverty line of $2 per person a day. Twenty-six per cent of Roma children are regularly confronted with malnutrition, while only 46 per cent of them have a proper meal every day. Only 11 per cent of Roma settlements are considered developed, while most settlements are considered informal or illegal. Most Roma live in substandard houses without access to sanitation and with limited access to public infrastructure. Forty-five per cent of Roma settlements are located on land that is unsafe, risky and considered illegal. As compared to the general population, Roma people have a lower rate of joining and/or completing school education or getting employment.

What are its key features?

The project addresses the complex issues the Roma community face in a holistic way through partnerships between the Roma community, state institutions and municipalities. This compares to other previous approaches that have concentrated largely on providing housing. The project assists people in making decisions about upgrading their settlements through a ‘dweller driven approach’. The project places a high priority on owner occupation. This helps create an incentive for occupiers to improve and upgrade their own homes.  Labour and recycled materials are contributed by the families and the project invests on average Euro 2,150 per house for new materials. In addition, the project has raised money to pay for upgrading of sanitation and infrastructure in Roma settlements.  The project also helps Roma families introduce their children to mainstream schools. The project has provided mentoring support to 300 Roma pupils, through supporting the work of 14 teaching assistants.  Roma children in other schools have been granted vouchers to purchase necessary school equipment and school uniforms.  The project helps people seek new employment and helps develop their skills.  The service is provided in partnership with the National Employment Service.  This service has been used by 80 people.  In addition, 1,050 Roma returnees to Serbia have used the services of the legal and migration counselling centre.

How is it funded?

The project is largely funded by the donations from the Swiss Church Aid (HEKS-EPER) and Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC). Between 2008 and 2012, EHO and its partners invested approximately Euro 2.4 million in improving the living conditions of Roma in settlements out of which, Euro 1.21 million came from the SDC, HEKS and Swiss Federal Office for Migrations, while Euro 0.76 million was invested by Norwegian Church Aid and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway. Local municipalities invested Euro 0.38 million, while Euro 0.76 million was invested as in-kind contribution by Roma families themselves.  Advocacy and lobbying with the municipalities have resulted in in-kind contribution and co-funding of Euro 82,870 and another Euro 95,000 is budgeted for 2014. While a number of national government departments are supporting the project and promoting this as a best practice in the Serbia, thus contributing in kind.

What impact has it had?

The project has had a significant impact on Roma population. During the period 2008-12, the project improved the living conditions of 3000 Roma, living in 13 settlements. This project has successfully tested the ‘dweller-driven upgrading’ approach, which was validated by an independent evaluation completed in 2011. During this period, educational support was provided to 630 children, on the job training was provided to 240 Roma and 186 people received legal advice and counselling services.  The 2013-15 phase of the project is currently scaling-up the approach in nine municipalities, with an estimated 19,000 Roma benefiting. The housing conditions of 540 people have already been improved. They have better access to water, sanitation and electricity.  The mentoring service in schools has continued and provided support to 300 Roma pupils, which has significantly increased attendance rates. Seven hundred pupils have received vouchers to purchase school items.  One thousand and fifty Roma have received legal and migration counselling services to assist them with resettlement. Eighty people have benefited from the services to access employment or start to earn an income. The project offers a model to municipalities on how to upgrade Roma settlements and to promote their inclusion in the society.

 

Why is it innovative?

The partnership between the municipalities and the Roma communities with a common goal is perhaps the most innovative element of this project. As compared to a project that just delivers physical housing run by the government or an NGO, this project combines the relative strengths of the institutions involved. It also places a high priority on beneficiary ownership and improves their existing structure and fully utilises their skills and knowledge.  It does not just focus on housing needs but also strengthens the economy of the Roma population and supports the education of their children.  This contributes to their overall wellbeing.

 

What is the environmental impact?

The manual produced by the project encourages the use of recycled bricks, roof tiles and timber.

The project significantly improves the water and sanitation systems, creating a healthier water supply for people and reducing the pollution of water courses. There are a number of positive impacts on the local environment, especially as the Roma settlements are upgraded.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The project is funded by grants from international donors and church-based organisations. The project has used the funds to build capacity and lobby for more resources from the government. There is evidence that in future the project will continue to receive government funds, local funds and community contributions.

The project has been successful in helping the Roma community access employment and acquires new skills. The project also uses the labour of the Roma and assists in the education of Roma children. This has resulted in pupils staying at school and improving education levels.

 

What is the social impact?

The project helps support the integration of Roma people into society. It also facilitates the mutual support and cooperation among Roma community.  The project helps develop people with courses, business plan training and basic equipment, which help them to seek employment. However, employment levels remain low, partly as a result of the poor labour market in the country. The project also provides basic building skills training through a manual and on the job training.  The project also inspired significantly increased school attendance amongst Roma children. The project has significantly improved housing and access to basic services, such as water and sanitation. Both settlements and housing have improved, resulting in health improvement. Health and safety improvements are not generally measured through the project monitoring.   The project has succeeded to a large degree by enhancing employment and self-employment opportunities. It has achieved this by advising Roma returnees, host communities and local authorities and institutions on matters relating to Roma rights, migration issues, legal subjectivity and personal documentation, etc. It has also supported communities in building sanitation facilities and upgrading their housing.

 

Barriers

The project has identified four challenges and measures were put in place to overcome those:

  • Beneficiary selection was a challenge at the inception of the project. It is now done with local government representatives and shared with the community. For added participation, Roma Settlement Development Boards are established by the municipality.
  • Active cooperation of the municipality was a challenge at the beginning. Now, local government is involved in all aspects of the project to avoid the risk of lack of cooperation and to enhance the sustainability. Similarly at the inception, the Roma community was also not sure of the benefits of the project.
  • The evaluation carried out in 2011 also identified the challenges of finding employment for the Roma community. Skills, training and ‘know how’ is not enough to put them on the employment ladder.

 

Lessons Learned

The project brings together the strengths of various partners: the donors, municipalities, government departments and the Roma community itself. It involves the Roma community, both in making choices and involvement in planning and designing and works with clearly defined and systematic procedures. It works with a group, who have been treated as the passive beneficiaries in the past. The project has promoted an approach through which owners take the lead on identifying and working on the need to upgrade housing and settlements. This guarantees ownership of the work and its sustainability. Additional support to the participants, in terms of residence registration, schooling, finding employment and income are considered as integral parts of the upgrading process.

 

Evaluation

Since 2013 the project has undertaken systematic monitoring and evaluation based on the baselines and indicators. An external evaluation was carried out in 2011 and another evaluation is planned for autumn 2015. Monitoring is also carried out of the activities and expenditure. The project submission also includes an independent auditor’s report for the period ending 2013.

 

Transfer

The project continued from 2008 to date. It carried out an evaluation in 2011 and the current phase finishes in 2015. The trust in the approach of stakeholders, especially the donors, municipality, the government and the Roma has increased with time. The current phase of the project is the scaling up and mainstreaming phase. The EHO is making every effort to scale-up the project and help others to learn from this project. They are also making efforts to share the learning across other countries, where the Roma population is facing similar challenges.

The project has been transferred to a number of municipal corporations within the Vojvodina region.

Elements of the project have been transferred around Serbia. A separate project was established in Belgrade and central Serbia, and a decentralised project has been established in South Serbia. The project has been shared internationally and visited by a number of groups. EHO’s settlement upgrading programme was included in UN-Habitat’s Handbook of sustainable housing practices in 2012. In 2011, it was also presented at the First Housing Forum, in Budapest, Hungary. Its work has also been highlighted in the Organisation of Security and Cooperation (OSCE) in Europe’s report on housing legalisation.

Elements of the project have been incorporated by Kosovo-based NGO Voice of Roma.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat