"Organization type ": Organización sin fines de lucro

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

Nochlezhka

0

Nochlezhka

Mismatches Services Vulnerable groups
Financing Sustainable development financing
Promotion and production Site&services

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2014:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Asia
City: Saint Petersburg
Country/Region: Russia, Saint Petersburg

Description

Nochlezhka is an independent charity that provides a wide range of services to, and advocates on behalf of, homeless people in Saint Petersburg. The city has a huge and growing homelessness problem, and, Nochlezhka apart, there are few services available to help. Nochlezhka operates in a harsh environment in which state help for homeless people is poor and there is little public sympathy for the issue. Winter temperatures are extremely cold and living on the street is perilous. Nochlezhka operates on a tiny budget and most of its services are provided to help homeless people but it is not able to make an impact in tackling the causes of homelessness itself. Nevertheless Nochlezhka is a lifeline to many people and is almost certainly responsible for saving hundreds of lives every year.

 

Project Description

What are its aims and objectives?

The organisation provides a large range of services to help and support the large population of homeless people who live in Saint Petersburg. It provides temporary accommodation to homeless people, as well as providing social, legal and psychological counselling for homeless people. The organisation also advocates improved systems of rehabilitation to the government and raises public awareness about the challenges faced by homeless people.
The organisation’s aims are:

  • To ensure homeless people are not deprived of their human rights.
  • To help homeless people off the street and return to an independent life.
  • To challenge the generally negative publicly held myths and stereotypes about homelessness.

What context does it operate in?

Nochlezhka works in a highly challenging environment. The Russian public is generally ignorant about homelessness. There is widespread public intolerance and numerous myths about the causes and consequences of being homeless. Compared to most governments in Western Europe the state government does little to dispel the public perception and arguably exacerbates the situation with poor service provision for homeless people and significant underreporting of the scale of the problem.

The state requires people to complete a registration process and have a permanent address in order to access support from the government. This is a lengthy procedure.

The majority of homeless people have not completed and are unable to complete the registration process alone and therefore without help they do not qualify for state support.

A large number of people in Russia face homelessness due to difficult social and economic conditions. The Russian state does not recognise this fully and official statistics are believed to be unreliable. There is, however, little doubt that the scale of the problem is enormous. Some studies suggest that there are 4.5 million homeless people in Russia and the number is growing rapidly. The small number of services which are available are unable to deal with the demand. It is estimated that the average homeless person lives on the street for seven years.

Saint Petersburg is the second largest city in Russia with a population of just under five million people. Official statistics state that in 2002 there were 28,000 homeless people in the city. Nochlezhka estimates that the true figure is at least 60,000 in 2014. At the turn of the century the majority (more than 90 per cent) of homeless people were older men but this is changing and there is an increasing number of homeless women (20 per cent of homeless people in the city are women).

There is also a trend of children and younger people becoming homeless. Nochlezhka believes that there is now a substantial population of people who have lived their whole lives on the street.

Saint Petersburg experiences very cold winters during which many homeless people die. Temperatures of -20ºC are not uncommon. In the winter of 2012/13, 1,042 homeless people died of cold weather related conditions between November and March.

What are its key features?

Nochlezhka is one of very few organisations in Russia working on the issue of homelessness. It provides a range of services which provide basic support for homeless people in the city including shelters and hot meals. It also helps homeless people access state services and provides advocacy, public information and campaigning to challenge discrimination of homeless people.

Nochlezhka is the Russian word for Night Shelter and indeed the organisation started in 1990 with a single shelter. Nochlezhka still operates this 52 bed unit, which is the largest in the city. In addition, they operate heated tents during the winter months with a capacity of 50-60 people. Here homeless people can get shelter, hot food and help from medical and social workers. They also operate a “half way house” for recovering alcoholics and a night bus, which distributes hot meals.

A large part of Nochlezhka’s work is helping homeless people access state help. This involves helping people obtain registration and passports and helping them access government backed health insurance policies.

They publish a handbook annually to help inform homeless people about how to access state help and benefits. A ‘social contract’ is prepared to help people to become independent and goals are set to include assistance with employment, finding relatives and arranging documents.

The organisation has an increasing advocacy role. Its lawyers frequently take legal cases to the prosecutor’s office challenging unfair discrimination of homeless people. Its work also involves working with local government to influence local polices so that they do not discriminate and are better aligned to help homeless people. Nochlezhka also runs public awareness campaigns and writes media articles to challenge public attitudes to homelessness. It has achieved a high media profile and has received significant coverage on TV and in newspapers.

How is it funded?

Nochlezhka is a charity that operates on a very small budget. Its turnover is an estimated £250,000 a year. The vast majority of its income is from a wide range of private and corporate donations. It also runs music festivals and other fundraising events.    Approximately 20 per cent of its funds come from the city government. The charity returns an equivalent amount in rents and in taxes to the city government.

What impact has it had?

In 2013, Nochlezhka helped 8,083 people. Some of them received food, others used the night shelter or the services provided on the charity’s night bus. On average 1,000 homeless people request aid in terms of free meals, clothing, shelter and legal consultation every week.  The charity has a growing impact on enabling people to return to independent life. In 2013, 320 people were successfully helped in this way. The charity helped 29 people get jobs, 44 moved to another city to get employment, 19 received their passport, 14 received legal support in court and 15 received temporary registration. Twenty-four people received support to overcome alcohol dependency, out of which 18 overcame the dependency.

 

Why is it innovative?

Nochlezhka states it is the only organisation in Russia working on the issues of homelessness. It has demonstrated a model in which people could apply for support, which includes shelter, legal advice, medical aid and protection from the cold. The NGO develops plans to move people out of homelessness. The NGO initiated an approach with a major focus on rehabilitation and a minor focus on physical shelter. They have introduced a method called, ‘case management’, which looks at the needs, situation and past history of each person requiring support. Followed by this, a comprehensive action plan is prepared which includes social workers, psychologists and others. Based on the nature of support, volunteers also used to provide the support.

 

What is the environmental impact?

The organisation does not construct new buildings and makes use of existing buildings. It intends to construct an eco-friendly building and promotes the reuse of goods and materials in their centre.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

Nochlezhka appears to have a highly effective fundraising capacity. It raises funds through a combination of foreign donors and local events including TV campaigns and music festivals. It also relies on volunteers, who are all local. The charity has a large and diverse range of donors. 40 per cent of donations are from foreign donors. Political tension between Russia and the west has led to many foreign donors suspending their donations during 2012 and 2013 but this has been more than offset by an increase in private donations from within Russia. This in itself is a significant achievement given the public’s generally negative view of homelessness.

 

What is the social impact?

The social impact of the organisation is significant. Not only does the charity succeed in keeping thousands of homeless people alive, it is increasingly effective in enabling them to overcome medical and bureaucratic barriers to become independent.

Significantly the charity confronts public attitudes and challenges discrimination to homelessness people in society.

 

Barriers

The state owned shelter centres are in poor condition and a continuous investment is needed to bring them to a minimum standard and to support ongoing maintenance. With an increasing number of homeless people, this is a major task for the project. The other barrier is about the negative public attitude towards homeless people. Nochlezhka works on these issues by raising public awareness and maintaining the centres.

 

Lessons Learned

The most important lesson learned is to understand that shelter is not only a temporary need and it includes all aspects of social rehabilitation. Most of the official programmes in Russia are designed to provide shelter for a certain duration, with very little support for reintegration. This means that people are rehabilitated for a short period and end up on the streets again.

 

Evaluation

Nochlezhka keeps a good record of the services provided and the people receiving those services. They also collect beneficiaries’ stories. However, the foundation has not provided any evidence of its long term impact.

 

Transfer

The scaling up of the project is limited and so far only state employees have taken up the approaches they have learned from the NGO. Nochlezhka hopes that the government will take the approach forward but this has not been done due to the challenging social and economic context.

The programme has not been transferred although Nochlezhka actively shares its experiences.

NGOs from other parts of Russia send questions to Nochlezhka on issues concerning homelessness.

The organisation has prepared a manual and videos about its work and shared internationally.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Build Back Safer with Traditional Construction Methods

0

Build Back Safer with Traditional Construction Methods

Mismatches Vulnerable groups Climate change
Urban Design Quality Inclusion Equity

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2014:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Asia
Country/Region: Karachi, Pakistan

Description

848,000 houses were destroyed and 9.7 million people affected by severe floods in western Pakistan in 2011. This project developed and provided support to build over 20,000 flood resistant houses by the most vulnerable families based on local and traditional building designs. The houses were built using local labour and construction skills. Water resistant and lighter weight materials, such as lime and bamboo were introduced, creating huge savings in cost and embodied carbon over standard reconstruction approaches.

 

Project Description

What are its aims and objectives?

The aim of the project was to quickly provide low-cost safe housing to some of the most vulnerable families affected by the floods.  The project did not take the approach of direct post disaster reconstruction; instead it facilitated a mass community self-build programme. Most of the communities affected were remote, had few resources and families frequently had a poor understanding of the structural vulnerabilities of buildings.

The project achieved its aims by supplying disaster-resistant materials and facilitating wide-scale training of communities to rebuild buildings themselves using these materials.Within each district, local project partners worked in collaboration with government authorities to identify the most affected villages. Committees of local people who knew the families were formed. These committees selected the neediest families, using previously established criteria. Priority was given to families whose homes had been completely destroyed. The highest priority was given to those families who also had disabled or elderly family members, had particularly low incomes or where the family size was large. The project worked with the communities to provide training on effective building techniques. This approach helped people to build 23,387 houses at an average cost of US $300 per house.

What context does it operate in?

Floods affect large parts of Pakistan. The 2011 flood was particularly severe and 848,000 houses were destroyed or damaged and 9.7 million people were affected by severe flooding in Southern Sindh and Eastern Balochistan. These regions are amongst the poorest in Pakistan and many residents were very vulnerable, even before the disaster. Houses collapsed under the weight of waterlogged roofs and foundations were compromised by the flood waters. Many of the affected areas had also been hit by floods in 2010 and families reconstructing homes after those floods lost everything twice. This project has focused on helping rural communities which have suffered disproportionally from the extensive flooding.

The Heritage Foundation has been involved in post-disaster reconstruction since the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, where the organisation recycled materials such as stone, mud and wood from collapsed houses, adding lime and traditional cross-bracing (dhajji) to create stronger buildings. Another local material, bamboo, was subsequently tested and proven in housing displaced populations in the Mardan region. The use of these materials was then further developed during post-flood reconstruction in the Swat region in 2010, using multiple bamboo joists and cross-bracing to carry heavy roofs, withstanding subsequent flooding and several feet of snow.

This experience was then taken further in early 2011, after the 2010 floods in Upper Sindh, creating bamboo buildings on stilts, thus proving the feasibility of building two-storey structures of bamboo that have withstood several floods since; this included housing over 400 households. All this experience fed into the current project, implemented after the 2011 floods in Lower Sindh.

What are its key features?

Various aspects make this project unique. Most important is the experience gained by all the project partners including the UK Government’s Department for International Development (DFID) and International Organisation for Migration (IOM) in previous disasters and shared in this project. This experience, in terms of suitable building materials and building techniques, was then further piloted, tested and proven in the programme area, before being scaled up into this project. The project adopted materials that had proved to be durable and flood resistant in post disaster reconstruction in other parts of the world. This included bamboo, which was used in place of timber and steel. Bamboo was cheap, flexible and strong and experience had shown it to be more resilient than timber and steel to floods. Hydraulic lime is a form of mortar that is much more water resistant than other forms of mortar. It had not previously been commonly used in Pakistan but can be made easily from locally available materials. It was used instead of fired bricks and cement.

These materials were then adapted into traditional building designs and techniques used in the areas affected.  A significant advantage of the use of these materials were the carbon savings. By avoiding cement and fired bricks wherever possible, the wider project has saved approximately 365,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.  Implementation was then supported by large-scale training of the communities, raising awareness around disaster risks and the vulnerabilities of their traditional ways of building. It then provided knowledge and training in using bamboo and lime materials to create safer buildings.

How is it funded?

Overall funding of £30m over three years has been provided by DFID based on detailed proposals submitted by the implementing partners, including International Organisation for Migration (IOM), which then worked with the national organisations, such as Heritage Foundation. The costs of technical consultants, training and community level training and support are included in the overall budget. The capital costs were US$300 per One Room Shelter (ORS) plus an estimated US$214 per house as the cost of overheads, transport, advisors, equipment, consultants and researchers. DFID has played a key role in the project by maintaining its funding for reconstruction after all major floods.

What impact has it had?

23,387 shelters had been completed, by Heritage Foundation by the end of the programme in 2012. The wider DFID programme, of which this was a part, implemented by various other partners, has benefitted 100,000 families in Sindh and Balochistan. The project has also enhanced the livelihoods and promoted the use of local materials. The techniques have reduced the carbon emissions and demonstrated an approach to deliver flood resistant reconstruction at an affordable price. Evaluation studies are underway to further gather the evidence of the project impact.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Low environmental footprint due to the use of local, mainly low or zero-energy materials.
  • Re-introduction of lime to improve earth construction.
  • Improvements to vernacular construction that are innovative in each specific location.
  • Introduction of barefoot building entrepreneurs.
  • Greater involvement of women in construction, income generation and community based disaster risk management (CBDRM).

 

What is the environmental impact?

According to the estimates made by DFID’s advisor, by avoiding the use of cement and fired bricks this project has saved approximately 365,000 tonnes of CO2, which is equivalent to three days’ emissions from the city of London or 170,000 inter-continental return flights. The project has used local, light-weight materials. The use of bamboo instead of wood reduces the environmental impact on forests. The project does introduce improved stoves, which should be more fuel efficient.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The project started by making use of the Floods Relief Fund made available by DFID. By giving beneficiaries the skills to self-build with improved vernacular technologies, no further funding is required to maintain the project, although there are still thousands of families requiring help. The decentralised procurement process also contributes to local income generation. With the help of International Labour Organisation (ILO), the Foundation has also been able to initiate a programme of village barefoot entrepreneurs, who are now marketing the project’s shelters or parts thereof, including eco-toilets, stoves and other innovations. Local tribes, known as Odhs, who are traditionally employed in construction, have also found work locally. In addition, the programme and its precursors have been piloting women-focused Community-based Disaster Risk Management Centres, which have promoted alternative income generating activities.

 

What is the social impact?

The project worked with the local communities and government departments.

The village committees were established to deal with the selection of beneficiaries, the management of the funding at village level and through participation in training.  The project placed great emphasis on reaching all households with awareness raising regarding disaster risks and training to improve on vernacular building. As the shelters were relatively small, the project foresaw they would be extended at some stage in the future and aimed to give beneficiaries sufficient skills to do so on their own. The project has changed the role of women, enabling more women to be involved in construction and various alternative forms of income generation. Women are also now beginning to take a lead role in the Community-based Disaster Risk Management Centres.

 

Barriers

  • Though many of the improved vernacular technologies have proven their DRR in practice, funding has been lacking to actually test them structurally.
  • Households had to divide their time between construction and agriculture, affecting quality and donor deadlines. Quality was also affected by not all households valuing some of the support staff’s recommendations. Some further work is needed to improve the quality and reach of technical support. After reconstructed houses had proven their value during the 2012 rains, motivation to build better increased considerably.
  • Many households have been unable to extend their ORS due to extreme poverty and lack of access to micro-credits.
  • Lack of funding to support trained builders to become village entrepreneurs or provide technical support.
  • The programme was unable to initiate local bamboo plantations, to ensure sustainable harvesting in future.
  • Convincing a large number of organisations quickly of the efficacy of the project methodology was difficult, but the use of volunteers in surveys and piloting of solutions enabled the programme to rapidly provide useful information and proven options. The method was soon adopted as a key component of the “Pakistan Initial Floods Response Plan” and in grant applications to donors and thus a relatively small initiative became influential.

 

Lessons Learned

  • It is possible to improve vernacular technologies using mainly simple local means to become much more disaster-resistant, in many different locations and to transfer and adapt these experiences between locations.
  • It is possible to help disaster victims rebuild or retrofit damaged houses with relatively limited cash inputs, of just over US$500 per household, and, based on continued research by the Foundation, this can be further reduced.
  • Adequate training of each participating household is key to successful construction and its sustainability.

 

Evaluation

IOM monitored beneficiary selection, as explained above, as well as the proper use of cash for shelter by randomly scrutinising 5 per cent of beneficiaries. In doing so, it also ensured that monitoring would involve a visit to each village.

 

Transfer

Following the success of this programme in Lower Sindh, the methodology was replicated in Upper Sindh, with additions based on local technologies. Currently, 11,557 ORS are under construction there and a further 3,000 under preparation.

A survey in various programme villages revealed that community members who did not benefit from the project replicated the module with their own resources, attracted by its low cost and ease of construction, sometimes with the advice of people trained by the programme.

The Foundation has conducted training for several other agencies and communities, e.g. those affected by the Awaran earthquake of 2013 in Balochistan. And following some research, HF built several prototypes there, using earth and bamboo, with Swiss Aid. A local organisation, trained by HF will build several thousand shelters there, funded by DFID. HF is currently also being considered to provide assistance with rehousing a million people displaced from North Waziristan.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Indigenous people building their homes

0

Indigenous people building their homes

Mismatches Segregation Diversity Vulnerable groups
Policies and regulations Land Planning Evaluation and impact
Promotion and production Innovation
Ownership and tenure Ownership

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2014:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
Country/Region: Mexico, Mexico City

Description

Indigenous communities in the Sierra Norte de Puebla region in Mexico live in extreme poverty in houses that are inadequate to protect people from strong rains. The project focused on the right to adequate housing for these communities. It provided social and technical assistance, and access to finance based on social financing combined with public subsidy to purchase materials; enabling people to build their own homes using traditional building practices and locally available materials.

 

Project Description

What are its aims and objectives?

Indigenous people building their homes was initiated in 2009 by CIUDEMAC in partnership with COPEVI. The project is community-led and focused on ensuring the right to adequate, affordable, environmentally sustainable housing for low-income indigenous families in rural areas, while preserving traditional culture and building practices.

What context does it operate in?

Indigenous communities in the Sierra Norte de Puebla region in rural Mexico live in conditions of severe poverty, inequality and social exclusion. More than 20 per cent of the population live in houses with mud floors and roofs made of corrugated sheets, wood, cardboard or tin, without access to basic infrastructure and services, often located in high-risk areas and vulnerable to strong rains. Access to government funding often requires families to obtain credit from financial institutions, which is not viable where there are such high levels of poverty and exclusion, being either inaccessible or leaving household heavily in debt. The project seeks to improve living conditions and demonstrate an alternative, sustainable, people-centred approach.

Mexico’s history of paternalistic government policies has had the effect of engendering a culture of dependency within many communities. COPEVI and CIUDEMAC have worked together to increase awareness, develop a sense of commitment and encourage self-management and autonomy.

Government policies in Mexico generally do not take into consideration the specific housing needs of indigenous groups, or of communities living in rural areas. COPEVI and the Social Production of Housing network have worked to articulate these needs and gain recognition within government that rural and indigenous housing processes have particular aspects that differ from urban housing issues.

The project has been carried out within the framework of the 2006 National Housing Law, which formally recognised people-led housing processes (‘social production of housing’), following long-standing efforts by grassroots organisations, academia, NGOs and other civil society organisations.

What are its key features?

The project has developed a comprehensive, community-driven, rights-based approach. Partnerships between organisations, innovative funding and sensitivity to local culture, traditional building practices and environmental sustainability are fundamental.

Led by COPEVI, the project has benefited from successful partnerships between a range of organisations.

CIUDEMAC and its members have taken a central role, including the selection of participating families, monitoring of on-site work, communications and development of local capacity. The partnership has enabled CIUDEMAC to acquire knowledge and experience in project management, construction, advocacy and collective decision-making, and transfer that knowledge to its members.

Technical support is provided through the COPEVI architects who were trained in the use of local materials through a partnership with Mesoamerikaab (a regional platform that promotes the use of local building materials).

The German development agency Misereor encouraged the initial design of the initiative and linked to earth construction specialists with the project. This support allows carrying out traditional construction processes based on earth. Misereor also provided core funding for COPEVI.

CONAVI provided federal funding for the project through its housing subsidy programme for community-led housing. An innovative funding mechanism for the project was developed through a partnership between COPEVI and local NGO Pobladores, which combines state subsidies with ‘social credit’ (in-kind contributions of building materials and labour by participating families).

Working to widen the impact, the ‘Social Production of Housing’ network of non-governmental and civil society organisations, of which COPEVI is a member, has been involved in policy and advocacy efforts to increase funding for grassroots housing processes.

Minimising the ecological footprint, making use of environmentally sustainable building materials and preserving traditional indigenous building practices is a key focus of the project. Locally-sourced materials with low embodied energy, including earth/adobe, water, stone, timber, sand and gravel, have been used in housing construction, with small amounts of iron and cement used where necessary. COPEVI and CIUDEMAC have worked to increase awareness of sustainable building practices amongst participating communities and the success of the project has encouraged families who might otherwise have preferred conventional/industrial building materials to value traditional, earth-based construction.

How is it funded?

The total capital costs of the project were US$2.63 million, of which 50.5 per cent has been obtained from the Mexican National Housing Commission (CONAVI), through its programme of subsidies for community-led housing construction, with the remaining 49.5 per cent obtained through what has been termed ‘social financing’, or in-kind contributions of building materials and labour by participating families. Technical assistance has been provided by COPEVI, with financial and technical support from the German international development agency Misereor.

Each 60m2 house costs, on average, US$6,150. Residents are responsible for maintaining their homes and each household has contributed US$77 to a communal fund, which now stands at US$34,000.

What impact has it had?

The project was initiated in 2009 with the construction of its first 20 houses, with 428 houses completed to date. A wider community development strategy was implemented in 2011 and the project is currently in feedback and transfer stages.

CIUDEMAC is currently partnering with the Tosepantomin cooperative to expand the approach and is working with COPEVI and a range of other organisations and networks to influence public policy and improve access to decent housing.

The main sector benefiting from the project are 16 low-income indigenous communities groups living in rural areas in the municipalities of Zacatlán, Tetela de Ocampo and Tepetzintla in the Sierra Norte de Puebla region in Mexico.

In addition to supporting income generation and local economic development, the project has worked to develop local leadership and community decision-making structures, both within individual communities and between the 16 different participating communities.

The project has benefitted approximately 3,000 people (22 per cent of the total population in the area) through housing improvements in the last five years and is in the process of being expanded to other areas.

Positive impacts for the communities include improved housing conditions and healthier living spaces, improved indoor air quality and greater protection from the strong rains that are prevalent in the region. Residents speak of the emotion they felt on having their dreams realised, of feeling safe from the rain and of their satisfaction with their new homes.

The mutual aid construction process has brought neighbours together and there is an increased appreciation for the use of local building materials. Dialogue between different generations of builders has contributed towards rescuing some traditional building techniques that had been lost, primarily regarding earth-based construction. Houses are larger and of significantly higher quality compared to conventional houses built by construction companies.

COPEVI and the ‘Social Production of Housing’ network of non-governmental and civil society organisations have worked to influence public policy and increase the amount of state funding available for community-led housing processes. Together they have succeeded in obtaining recognition at policy level of the value of non-traditional finance schemes, i.e. in-kind and labour contributions (‘social financing’) and their inclusion as the residents’ counterpart in accessing housing subsidies. As a result, housing is significantly more affordable and accessible to people than it was prior to the project, as residents are able to access public housing subsidies without having to obtain costly loans which they would either not have been eligible for or would have been unable to repay. The improvements enabled by the project help to generate income and employment opportunities and stimulate local economic development.

COPEVI is currently scaling up the approach to two other regions – Zoatecpan in Puebla, and the Mixteca Alta de Oaxaca region, working with small groups of indigenous families (including an indigenous women’s group, with municipal government support). CIUDEMAC has a waiting list of 145 families looking to carry out similar projects.

The approach has been adopted by various member organisations of the Red de Productores Sociales de Vivienda del Sureste (community-led housing network) and is also in the process of being transferred to the state of Oaxaca by grassroots organisation CODEP, adapting the funding scheme and building 40 houses.

In 2011, the project was highlighted as an example of best practice at a high-level meeting of the National Housing Commission (CONAVI) and senior government officials. In 2012, it received a special mention in a Latin American competition for housing projects that promote the right to the city, sustainability and good living practices, organised by the Habitat International Coalition on the occasion of the Rio+20 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Comprehensive, community-driven, rights-based approach – addressing the needs of the most vulnerable through a holistic approach that considers social, environmental, economic and cultural aspects.
  • Financing scheme that works for the poor and provides an alternative to traditional paternalistic government approaches, combining public and social subsidy and placing a value on residents’ labour and in-kind contributions.
  • Building technical and financial alliances with key partners (CIUDEMAC, CONAVI, Misereor).
  • Demonstrating a practical result of an innovative legal and financial framework (Housing Law 2006, PSV fund).

 

What is the environmental impact?

A key focus of the project has been on minimising the ecological footprint, making use of environmentally sustainable building materials and preserving traditional indigenous building practices. Locally-sourced materials with low embodied energy, including earth/adobe, water, stone, timber, sand and gravel, have been used in housing construction, with small amounts of iron and cement used where necessary. COPEVI and CIUDEMAC have worked to increase awareness of sustainable building practices amongst participating communities and the success of the project has encouraged families who might otherwise have preferred conventional/industrial building materials to value traditional, earth-based construction.

As the project progressed, a range of eco-technologies were developed and included in the construction of the houses to ensure a more appropriate use of energy and water resources. It is currently a requirement for at least one eco-technology to be integrated into each new housing unit, including rainwater harvesting, dry composting toilets, backyard orchard and fuel-efficient stoves.

A fundamental characteristic of the local culture relates to the cuidado de la Madre Tierra (preservation of Mother Earth), and this has guided various aspects of the project. Following the construction of the homes, community groups have begun to develop plans for additional actions to improve their living environment, including a number of reforestation projects.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The project has enabled families to access existing government housing subsidies. Whilst there is a possibility that the policy framework and subsidies schemes may change in future, participating communities and organisations are now better equipped to deal with issues affecting their right to adequate housing and develop alternative funding solutions.

 

What is the social impact?

The project is community led and residents have been actively involved in all aspects of the process, with participation at the following three levels: the board of directors, a decision-making body comprised of representatives of each of the 16 indigenous community groups involved in the project; community committees responsible for information sharing, recordkeeping, convening assemblies and setting key priorities; and participation by all families in the construction process itself, through traditional mutual aid processes. Training has been provided by COPEVI and its partners on technical, social, governance and legal aspects. Over the last five years CIUDEMAC has significantly improved its leadership and organisational structures and is now working to support other organisations.

The mutual aid process helps to confirm the sense of belonging, increases self-esteem, provides greater security and enables residents to subsequently address other problems they may be facing.

The project has generated local employment, the creation of ten micro-enterprises and a community fund (with a US$77 contribution by each household), as well as supporting the local economy through the purchase of materials from local suppliers. CIUDEMAC has recently been working with families to carry out and manage communal savings projects – for example, for the construction of a community kitchen and a youth centre.

Through the project, COPEVI has worked to reduce existing social inequalities and improve the living conditions of marginalised indigenous groups. Women have played a leading role in the construction and governance processes and some participating communities have begun to develop programmes that aim to empower women and young people.

 

Barriers

  • Conceptual barrier: as government policies in Mexico generally do not take into consideration the specific housing needs of indigenous groups, or of communities living in rural areas, COPEVI and the Social Production of Habitat network have worked to articulate these needs and gain recognition within government that rural and indigenous housing processes have particular aspects that differ from urban housing issues.
  • Access to public resources: it is very difficult for low-income rural families to obtain access to government housing subsidies, as these are generally given to large organisations with strong political influence or require households to obtain loans which are unaffordable and/or inaccessible for the poor. In partnership with local NGO Pobladores, COPEVI has worked to increase access to existing housing subsidies for participating families and in the wider sphere.
  • Cultural barrier: Mexico’s history of paternalistic government policies has had the effect of engendering a culture of dependency within many communities. COPEVI and CIUDEMAC have worked together to increase awareness, develop a sense of commitment and encourage a can-do, self-management approach through the project.

 

Lessons Learned

  • Building solid partnerships with other organisations has been a key factor in the success of the project, allowing for the exchange of knowledge and experience and consolidating an approach that covers diverse areas, e.g. political relationships, financial aspects, local building systems, communication with indigenous communities in their own language etc – which COPEVI, on its own, would not have had the capacity to manage.
  • The fact that COPEVI works at both ends of the spectrum – from public advocacy to direct action – has been a significant advantage, allowing them to take part in high-level policy debates as well as implementation on the ground.
  • The construction of a school at the beginning of the project played an important role in understanding the reasons for acceptance or rejection of the use of local materials as well as bringing together the technical team and local builders.
  • Although most indigenous communities work together in the collective interest, in many cases the construction of housing was understood as a process carried out by families rather than communities. Existing practices of collective construction and exchange were mainly observed in communities with strong levels of organisation and leadership.
  • The positive economic impact has been greatest for those who previously worked in the construction industry – more work in building capacities and partnerships is necessary to enable financially viable enterprises to be established.
  • Midway through the project an evaluation was carried out, resulting in the development of more specific criteria for the selection of participating families, with specific requirements for materials and labour contributions.

 

Evaluation

Whilst a formal external evaluation has not taken place, a continuous process of feedback and reflection has enabled COPEVI to adapt and improve its approach over time. The project is currently in the final feedback and transfer stages.

 

Transfer

COPEVI is currently scaling up the approach to two other regions – Zoatecpan in Puebla, and the Mixteca Alta de Oaxaca region, working with small groups of indigenous families (including an indigenous women’s group, with municipal government support). CIUDEMAC has a waiting list of 145 families looking to carry out similar projects.

CIUDEMAC and COPEVI have carried out peer exchanges and hosted meetings with members of other grassroots organisations interested in learning from their experience, e.g. the Centro para el Desarrollo Rural (Rural Development Studies Centre – CESDER).

The approach has been adopted by various member organisations of the Red de Productores Sociales de Vivienda del Sureste (community-led housing network) and is also in the process of being transferred to the state of Oaxaca by grassroots organisation CODEP, adapting the funding scheme and building 40 houses. There has been no international transfer as yet.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Rural Habitat Improvements

0

Rural Habitat Improvements

Mismatches Cultural suitability New family structures
Urban Design Urban fabrics Liveability
Promotion and production Self-promotion Progressive housing

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2014:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
Country/Region: El Salvador, San Salvador

Description

A project led by FUNDASAL (the Salvadoran Foundation for Development and Low-cost Housing) to improve health and housing standards in the deprived rural settlements of canton El Pinalito in county Santa Ana, where the risk from disasters caused by natural phenomena such as earthquakes is high and services and infrastructure are poor. Supported by a wide partnership of organisations, the project has helped to significantly reduce the incidence of Chagas disease and other illnesses related to the poor condition of the habitat and has improved the durability of housing. Chagas disease is a tropical parasitic disease spread by insects that live in cracks and gaps found in poor quality housing, it is endemic to South and Central America. The objective of FUNDASAL and partners is to achieve a transferable model of intervention which will not require external funding, so the project embeds knowledge within the local communities and enables the use of locally sourced building materials. The inclusion and training of local households and support groups is integral to this project.

 

Project Description

What are its aims and objectives?

The project aims to contribute to the establishment of a replicable intervention model for the control of Chagas disease and reduced incidence of other illnesses, with the support of state institutions. It does so by tackling the physical and social vulnerabilities in canton El Pinalito in county Santa Ana, where the incidence of Chagas disease is highest.

What context does it operate in?

Many houses in El Salvador are self-built and not strong enough to withstand hazards or extreme natural phenomena such as earthquakes. Poor housing conditions and lack of support services enable the proliferation of insects that transmit Chagas, malaria, dengue, respiratory and gastrointestinal conditions and many other diseases.

Much of the local housing is built with earth and cracks in the structures harbour insects (such as the “beaked bug” that transmits Chagas disease). Around a quarter of people who contract Chagas disease develop cardiac problems which lead to heart failure. Other bugs are carried by animals that are allowed to sleep indoors.

Many households in the area do not have security of tenure due to legal issues regarding entitlement and ownership which cause complications regarding their ability to address problems with their homes.The local economy is heavily reliant on agriculture, so adjustments had to be made to the project’s implementation and engagement activities to accommodate the farming calendar, for example, when local people have to focus on crop harvesting.

Religious ceremonies are also highly important to local people, with similar adjustments being necessary to account for this.

What are its key features?

The principal objective of the project is to prevent diseases such as Chagas by tackling the underlying physical causes, especially poor housing, alongside awareness raising, education and social action (where other approaches have been mainly medical or educational only). Structural improvements were based on ideas first tested by the PUCP (Pontifical Catholic University of Peru) and then locally adapted through research in collaboration with the University of El Salvador and Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). The project also encourages sustainability and reduced costs through the use of local materials.

A participatory approach was used in establishing the project, to inform and empower the communities involved, regardless of gender or age. Planning was carried out with the input of local families, ADESCOs (community development organisations) and local training institutions.

The programme provides training across the breadth of the community being supported, through a variety of mechanisms. These include:

  • Training for families.
  • Training for young people via schools.
  • Support for community development organisations to improve self-management skills.
  • Training for health committees and inter-communal organisations.
  • Practical and theoretical training in technical construction for fieldwork staff and families on the improvement and construction of housing and sanitation.

Practical interventions include:

  • Physical intervention on housing and surroundings, for example, to cracked clay walls and floors, at the same time reinforcing walls to withstand earthquakes.
  • Legal support regarding the human right to decent housing. Many of the project participants were settlers in the area but the legal structure of ownership entailed the land to others. FUNDASAL provided advice and explored a variety of legal mechanisms (such as bailment and inheritance law) to expand the number of families reached.

The intervention programme is supported by several key partners:

  • The Ministry of Health, which supported the project by measuring the impact of changes to housing, contributing to the provision of training, monitoring the presence of disease-carrying insects and undertaking other measures of disease prevention in the target community, such as fumigation.
  • The Ministry of Education, which made facilities available and integrated health issues into the curriculum, involving teachers and improving the physical condition of local schools.
  • The Municipality of Santa Ana, which provided administrative support and contributed staff and other resources
  • The Community Investment Committee of TELUS International El Salvador (TELUS is one of the largest telecommunications companies in Canada), which supported youth activities and awareness raising.
  • Four community development associations (ADESCOs), which are legally recognised community-led groups committed to local improvement, training and development. These were ADESCOLME, ADESCOMAR, ADESCOES and ADESCO LA ESPERANZA.

How is it funded?

The project received financial support from a number of different organisations. These were:

  • FUNDASAL (the Salvadoran Foundation for Development and Low-cost Housing).
  • Manos Unidas (a Spanish NGO with a focus on reducing the effects of poverty through interventions in agriculture, health, education, social development and the advancement of women), which acted as the co-ordinator for the project and facilitated access to funding from five Spanish local or regional authorities. These were the Government of Cantabria; the City and Provincial Councils of Guadalajara; the Provincial Council of Valencia and the City Council of Pamplona.
  • MISEREOR (the German Catholic Bishops’ Organisation for Development Cooperation, which supports the principle of help towards self-help).
  • Two national awards (in the form of financial contributions) given by the Gloria de Kriete Foundation (based in El Salvador, which provides support to organisations committed to the well-being and improvement of Salvadorian families).
  • TELUS International El Salvador (TELUS is one of the largest telecommunications companies in Canada).

The programme was carried out over two main phases and four interphases. The total cost was US$1,464,851.21. Donor contributions paid for staff, building works, transportation, training, equipment and materials and various facilities. Communities contributed labour and local authorities provided new and existing staff to collaborate with the programme.

The project also benefited from a number of non-financial donations such as training and support from a range of partners.

What impact has it had?

The project has benefited over 300 impoverished and excluded families in ten rural settlements with no access to adequate housing or public or private programmes. It has helped to strengthen community cohesion; rather than acting individually, people now have learned to address problems together. The training provided has helped to embed improved health behaviour and increase the quality of housing, as well as putting in place institutional support from permanent institutions like the health service.

Local communities have been empowered to improve their own situation through:

  • Greater awareness and knowledge about various diseases and what causes them, leading to changes in behaviour. Two major hygiene surveys involving hundreds of families have shown a huge increase in awareness of Chagas disease and its causes and in hygiene behaviour and a reduction in presence of the bug.
  • Training in self-applied improvements to homes and services (sanitation, kitchen) which benefits their health and safety and raises living standards.
  • Increased community cohesion and joint problem-solving.
  • Establishment of an umbrella organisation which now represents and advocates for the communities on a wider scale.
  • A strengthened role for women, both in project implementation and taking a lead.

Neighbouring communities have observed and learned from the Pinalito experience and started to copy some of the techniques, sometimes assisted by Pinalito residents. The health promoter, recruited by the Ministry of Health, is also helping to transfer the experience to neighbouring communities. At least two communities have come to visit to learn from the project.

A National Network against Chagas disease has been formed, which aims to generate greater awareness and action. The initiative is also used as a model by the University of El Salvador to influence other municipalities.

The project was awarded the “Helping those who help” prize by the Gloria de Kriete Foundation in 2011 and 2012. FUNDASAL was also asked to present the project experience at three events: the First National Chagas Conference in El Salvador, the Manos Unidas Forum in Cadiz, Spain and the Terra 2012 Conference in Lima, Peru. Replica projects have been formulated for two areas of the country and presented to the Inter-American Development Bank and the Vice Ministry of Housing and Urban Development.

The Research Centre of the University of El Salvador has shared knowledge from the project with other municipalities where there is a high rate of Chagas disease. As a result, the town of Tacachico has prepared a Chagas project. In addition, the community of Matapalos in Honduras has been trained and is currently implementing the intervention model.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • The principal innovation by this project, in the context of El Salvador, is in preventing diseases such as Chagas by tackling underlying physical causes, especially poor housing alongside awareness raising, education and social action, where other approaches have been mainly medical or educational only. Structural improvements were based on ideas first tested by the PUCP in Peru, then locally adapted through research in collaboration with a university of El Salvador.
  • The use of mainly local materials in strengthening and improving houses.
  • A joined-up approach between communities, the NGOs, schools and government agencies of health and education.
  • Education across all groups in society, regardless of gender or age.
  • Alternative ways of creating sufficient tenure security to avoid evictions and enable home improvements.

 

What is the environmental impact?

The project mainly uses local materials including earth, wood, bamboo and thatch. This keeps the transport component – and related energy need – down. The building materials required are simple and predominantly recyclable. The project also recommends that bamboo is replanted to encourage sustainability.

The compost toilets introduced are designed to save water and produce a source of fertiliser with secondary benefits. The stoves introduced reduce smoke in kitchens – a health benefit – and are more fuel-efficient than the stoves previously used. The project has also improved the means of waste disposal and protection of water resources such as springs.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The project set out to define and prove a replicable model of tackling Chagas and other diseases. If it succeeds in doing so, no future funding will be needed for similar projects by FUNDASAL, though it may still want to raise funds to promote replication.

The project was not primarily designed to generate local incomes. However, people’s assets in housing and services and therefore their wealth, have definitely increased. The emphasis on using local materials also keeps transport costs down, which saves money.The costs of home improvements are kept low by using mainly local materials and skills. By empowering residents in this way, better and safer housing, as well as related services, have become much more accessible.

 

What is the social impact?

The project has improved community engagement and strengthened the organisations representing local people (ADESCOs). This has led to inter-communal action on health. The educational aspects of the project have successfully brought about behavioural change.

The most vulnerable and excluded were targeted for housing improvements and inclusion was actively promoted (for example the participation of women in social and construction processes; the education of all irrespective of gender and age; linkages and collaboration between Community Based Organisations and state agencies). A particular effort was made to reach young people, thus raising awareness and creating skills at an early age.

 

Barriers

  • People lacked belief in institutions, because they had been let down twice by other agencies before. Thus, time was required to establish credibility and trust.
  • Agricultural and religious calendars are important to people, and the project had to adjust the timing of its activities to those.
  • Some people were not interested in the project because they already had good housing, or did not see its need. Many others were unaware of the presence and risks of Chagas and other diseases, and therefore taking action against those was not a priority to them. Thus, the project needed to spend time on raising awareness.
  • It was found that many households did not have secure tenure, preventing their participating; thanks to flexibility of the main donor, this was tackled, and at least some form of guarantee established to improve security.
  • The lessons of the project have been analysed and are being made available as an example for others to replicate; the project is aware, though, that local contexts differ, and the model offered therefore may have to be adapted to each situation.

 

Lessons Learned

  • The project has helped to strengthen community cohesion; rather than acting individually, people now have learned to address problems as a community.
  • Households face several vulnerabilities, of which exposure to disease and natural disasters is one. But e.g. land tenure is also insecure and should be integrated in such projects from the onset.
  • The project could also have integrated medical interventions more closely, alongside the physical ones addressed by FUNDASAL. This would have required closer collaboration with other agencies charged with health issues.
  • It is essential to formulate any collaboration into formal agreements, to ensure their continuity.
  • The success of projects like this lies primarily in the capabilities it leaves with families to change their health behaviour and maintain their houses well, with some institutional support of permanent institutions like the health service.

 

Evaluation

The established health committees extensively monitor families’ hygiene habits twice yearly, with FUNDASAL’s monitoring unit, thus establishing sources of contamination and any illnesses. In addition, the Health Service of Santa Ana carries out vector monitoring on bugs collected, and thus continues to maintain vector control. It is also undertaking a pre- and post-intervention evaluation of the FUNDASAL project in order to initiate a process of Chagas disease prevention. There have been two major hygiene surveys, of hundreds of families, showing a huge increase in awareness of Chagas disease and its causes and in hygiene behaviour, and reduction in presence of the bug. The project has been externally evaluated.

 

Transfer

Replica projects have been formulated for two areas of the country and presented to the Inter American Development Bank and the Vice Ministry of Housing and Urban Development. They are awaiting review and approval.

Neighbouring communities have observed and learned from the Pinalito experience and started to copy some of the techniques, sometimes assisted by Pinalito residents. The health promoter, recruited by the Ministry of Health, is also helping to transfer the experience to neighbouring communities. At least two communities have come to visit to learn from the project.

The project has become a model used by the Research Centre of the University of El Salvador to present to other municipalities with a high rate of Chagas disease. As a result, the town of Tacachico has prepared a Chagas project.

The community of Matapalos in Honduras has been trained and is currently implementing the intervention model.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat

Upgrading of Audi União Shantytown: Curitiba

0

Upgrading of Audi União Shantytown: Curitiba

Policies and regulations
Promotion and production

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2014:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
City: SCIA
Country/Region: Brazil, Ceilândia

Description

This upgrading project has been carried out in Audi União, one of largest and poorest squatter settlements in Curitiba, Brazil. The project has protected the households living in high-risk areas on the banks of the Iguaçu river, it provides safer and improved living conditions whilst avoiding evictions and ensuring that families are able to stay within the same community. It has developed an integrated multidisciplinary and participatory approach involving partnerships between the local community, local leaders, civil society organisations and government agencies at local, state and national levels.

 

Project Description

What are its aims and objectives?

The main purpose of the project is the protection of households living in high-risk areas on the banks of the Iguaçu river in Audi União shantytown. The project includes the improvement and/or provision of urban infrastructure (drainage systems, sanitation and flood control measures); housing within the local area for families living in high-risk areas, including one-, two- and three-bedroom units; recovery of areas of environmental protection; the regularisation of land tenure and social programmes contributing to safety and security, urban mobility, gender equality and social inclusion. Investments have also been made in the construction and improvement of public health, education, culture, sports and leisure facilities. Residents have been involved throughout the process through partnerships established between government agencies and local residents’ associations. The project has improved homes without resettlement and has only resettled those people who were at risk from flooding or landslides.

What context does it operate in?

Curitiba is one of the fastest growing cities in Brazil, with a municipal population of 1.8 million people. The city is known for a number of innovative initiatives to improve the local environment. Audi União informal settlement is home to 3,144 low-income families, many of whom were previously living in precarious conditions in an area of environmental protection on the banks of the Iguaçu river – an area which is prone to frequent and devastating floods. It is the largest and poorest informal settlement in the city of Curitiba, with 70 per cent of households earning less than the minimum wage and 86.5 per cent of households lacking adequate water supply, electricity, waste collection and drainage systems. With one of the highest homicide rates in the city, residents of Audi União face conditions of insecurity and vulnerability. Many of the houses are built on stilts and are constructed using poor quality building materials. The project has been implemented by Curitiba Municipal Housing Company (COHAB/CT), a public housing institution, established in 1965 to provide housing for low-income households in the city of Curitiba. Its activities are carried out with funding from local and national government sources as well as through public-private partnerships. COHAB/CT implements Federal Government housing programmes as well as programmes for urban and informal settlement upgrading.

What are its key features?

This comprehensive informal settlement upgrading project has been carried out in Audi União through an integrated, multidisciplinary and participatory approach involving partnerships between the local community, local leaders, civil society organisations and government agencies at local, state and national levels. Residents, through partnerships established between government agencies and local residents’ associations, have been involved throughout the process. The project includes the improvement and/or provision of urban infrastructure and services. Investments have also been made in the construction and improvement of public health, education, culture, sports and leisure facilities. New housing is provided to the families living in high risk areas and land tenure has been regularised. Social programmes contributing to safety and security, urban mobility, gender equality and social inclusion have been introduced. Flood control measures, though still ongoing, have led to a significant decrease in flooding in the area.

How is it funded?

Total funding amounting to US$19.5 million (R$38 million) has been provided by the CAIXA Federal Savings Bank (67.2 per cent) and by the Curitiba Municipality (32.8 per cent), covering the following areas: a) flood control; b) recovery of areas of environmental protection; c) construction and refurbishment of housing; d) land tenure regularisation; e) urban upgrading; f) social inclusion. In addition, the Municipality has invested in the construction and improvement of public facilities relating to health, education, culture and sports, as well as collaborating with the state government of Paraná on the provision of public security and leisure facilities.

What impact has it had?

The project has made significant improvements in the living conditions of residents, including flood risk reduction, increased security and improved sanitation and environmental conditions within the community and surrounding areas. Following the implementation of the flood prevention system, there has not been any subsequent flooding in the area, despite heavy rains and flooding in surrounding areas not covered by the project. Income levels have increased, with a 206 per cent increase in the number of families earning at least the minimum wage. There has been a reduction of 33 per cent in the number of violent deaths and 26 per cent in the number of armed robberies. Urban mobility has been improved through a range of actions, including the paving and widening of streets, public lighting, improved public transport (with 20 additional bus lines), selective waste collection and formal address registration. Residents have since been involved in carrying out improvements to their housing and there has been a gradual change in habits and in the relationship of residents with public/communal spaces.

 

Why is it innovative?

  • Integrated, multidisciplinary approach, including three levels of government, carried out through partnerships between a range of actors and levels of government. The complexity of the issues to be addressed required common goals, participatory planning and integrated actions that are environmentally responsible and socially just, with community members involved throughout the process.
  • Ensuring that families were relocated only where necessary and not more than 500 metres from their original homes, respecting community and neighbourhood ties. The conventional solution might have been a full or partial resettlement of the area, as it involves the occupation of an area of environmental protection, subject to flooding. This solution addressed the environmental problems whilst ensuring that all residents were able to remain in their community, avoiding the demolition of thousands of homes built with the efforts and financial resources of the community.
  • Going beyond physical improvements, establishing effective communication channels between community residents and government, addressing gender issues (particularly around land titling) and working to ensure the right to adequate housing.

 

What is the environmental impact?

The project has used conventional building materials, many of which are locally sourced, for the construction of the new housing units.

It has kept existing housing and communal buildings except in the areas of highest risk, making use of existing resources.

The project involves the provision of adequate water supply, sanitation, waste collection and drainage infrastructure, which was previously not in place in the Audi União settlement. A macro-drainage system has been built to address the issues of intense flooding in the area as well as delineating the boundaries of the settlement and areas of environmental preservation, with the overall aim of reducing risk to people and the environment. No flooding has been recorded in the area following implementation, despite heavy rains.

 

Is it financially sustainable?

The project has been carried out with funding from both federal and municipal government sources and in partnership with a range of other organisations and public service providers. In other projects, where similar levels of state funding were not available, COHAB/CT has obtained funding for its work through public-private partnerships.

The project has supported skills development to enhance local family incomes.

A range of training courses and activities focussing on income generation and employment were carried out within the community and by 2010 there had been a 206 per cent increase in the number of families earning at least the minimum wage. In addition, the fact that residents have been able to remain in their community rather than being resettled in distant areas has ensured that existing employment and access to places of work have not been affected.

 

What is the social impact?

The project approach demonstrates the strong commitment of all actors involved and has facilitated greater cooperation both within the community and amongst different government agencies and institutional partners. Local NGOs have played a key role in facilitating collaboration and the project has worked to foster a sense of belonging, confidence, permanence and continuity within the community, resulting in the strengthening of social ties and maintenance of existing relationships and networks.

The project works with highly-vulnerable families and seeks to implement strategies that oppose social exclusion and lead to a reduction in social inequalities. Women in particular have benefited from the project, particularly with regards to the land tenure regularisation/titling process where priority is given to women heads of household.

The project has worked to improve access to rights and information, promote citizenship and empower communities. Residents now pay government-subsidised utility bills and formalising property ownership, improving urban mobility and ensuring access to public infrastructure and services have all contributed towards enabling residents to take a more active role in society.

 

Barriers

  • From the outset, the problems faced were complex and required integrated and multidisciplinary solutions. COHAB/CT has worked in partnership with the community and a range of local organisations to address these issues in an integrated way.
  • Due to financial constraints, the original project did not include the construction of public health and educational facilities and there is a demand for schools and health units in the area, as well as leisure and recreational facilities. This has affected children and young people in particular, and the gap has been partially filled through the application of municipal resources in the construction of a municipal nursery, a youth centre, health units and a centre for social assistance.
  • Although there has been a significant improvement in living conditions and quality of life for residents, a few key issues still remain, including safe access to rail transportation and improved connections to the sewage disposal system, which is in the process of being carried out through another project.

 

Lessons Learned

  • During the implementation of the project, it was found that the problems arising from informal settlements in areas of environmental preservation affected the city as a whole, causing social, economic, physical and environmental damage.
  • Partnership working was essential, as the complex problems faced cannot be fully resolved by a single institution or group of people. The establishment of strong partnerships enabled discussions to take place based on the specific conditions in the area, as well as making it possible for government actions to go beyond purely physical interventions.
  • In order to establish these partnerships it is important to recognise the importance of engaging the three levels of government (federal, state and local), the various sectors within the municipal government and relevant organisations, local groups and professionals engaged in the pursuit of access to social rights, public goods and services.
  • In order to ensure a successful outcome, it is important to establish direct links between communities and government through a participatory approach, increased access to information and improved communication channels. It is recognised that a strong partnership between the community and government is critical to effectively guarantee the rights of citizens and the development of a sense of appreciation and belonging amongst residents.
  • Integrated actions in urban upgrading and infrastructure provision should be carried out in accordance with public policies relating to housing, sanitation, social support, health, education and the environment.

 

Evaluation

Monthly reports are produced on the activities carried out by the social assistance team, as well as gathering data on the housing units and other urban and physical intervention processes. The multidisciplinary team carrying out the project meets each month in order to strengthen communication and monitor the work that has been completed. A range of indicators have been developed for post-occupancy monitoring and evaluation with funding provided by the Brazilian Ministry of Cities, in order to give visibility to the results, impacts and level of satisfaction of the local community, as well as providing an opportunity to reflect on the implementation process and the effectiveness of the results achieved. A final research project is due to be carried out on the project encompassing three key areas:

  • Housing and Urban Environment: including basic infrastructure, urban mobility, environmental quality and housing.
  • Social Inclusion: focussing on access to public services (education, health, sport, leisure, culture, social assistance and public security), citizenship and participation and job market insertion.
  • Household Satisfaction: capturing the evaluation of local residents regarding their own housing conditions, urban infrastructure and services, as well as looking at the impact of the project on social and community life.

 

Transfer

The approach is currently being scaled up by COHAB/CT and is being applied in 64 active projects in the city of Curitiba in areas that, as in the case of Audi União, require integrated actions. In each case the approach is being adapted to local specificities and complexities.

Although there has not been any national or international transfer of the approach as yet, there has been a great deal of interest in the project and Audi União has received a number of national and international visitors, including the United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Shaun Donovan.

Links

Authors:

Liter of Light

0

Liter of Light

Mismatches Diversity
Policies and regulations Evaluation and impact
Urban Design Quality Regulación Técnica
Promotion and production Innovation Industrialisation Management and maintenance

Main objectives of the project

Date

  • 2014:

Stakeholders

  • Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Asia
Country/Region: Philippines, Quezon City [Manila]

Description

Liter of Light uses cheap, readily available materials to provide high quality lighting to homes in poor communities. Recycled plastic bottles filled with water and a bit of bleach are fitted into the roof to provide daylighting and can be upgraded with an LED bulb, micro-solar panels and a battery to provide a low cost night lighting system. Liter of Light works with the local community to produce the lighting systems creating jobs locally. By embracing social media and the philosophy of open-source technology, the project has grown from nothing to lighting up 160,000 homes in the Philippines and has now spread around the world.

Project Description

What are its aims and objectives?

The use of plastic bottles as a way to provide indoor lighting from sunlight, developed by Alfredo Moser of Brazil in 2002, has inspired MyShelter Foundation to use the technology as a social enterprise. MyShelter Foundation (MSF) is an NGO established by social entrepreneur Illac Diaz in 2006 that aims to create sustainability and reliability through capability-building and employment-generating projects. MSF launched the Liter of Light in 2011 in the Philippines in cooperation with students from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Alfredo Moser. To help the idea to grow sustainably, MSF implemented a “local entrepreneur” business model whereby bottle bulbs are assembled and installed by local people, who can earn a small income from clients for their work.

Liter of Light aims to provide poor communities in the country with a cheap source of lighting that can be produced and distributed locally. It was conceived as an open-source, DIY programme that could easily be replicated by anyone around the world using readily available materials and basic carpentry/electronics skills. Rather than relying on large-scale, imported or patented technologies, the project sought to create a grassroots green lighting movement starting from the principle that anyone can and should become a solar engineer.

What context does it operate in?

Hundreds of millions of people live in informal settlements worldwide. Many of these dwellings lack windows or adequate lighting and residents often resort to kerosene, candles or inventive wiring for light, risking health and safety in the process and many simply go without. Proper electricity is not usually an option, especially in the Philippines, where twenty million Filipinos (a quarter of the population) live below the poverty line. The Philippines has the highest electricity prices in Asia and suffers constant blackouts due to outdated power plants.

The country is also vulnerable to extreme weather events resulting in loss of life and destruction of property and infrastructure.

Typhoon Haiyan, which struck in November 2013, one of the strongest tropical cyclones ever recorded, destroyed 14 million houses and pushed millions of people into further poverty. The project has been helping the rehabilitation of areas affected by the typhoon by providing training and solar bottle nightlight kits (for homes and streets) to local partners and grassroots entrepreneurs.

What are its key features?

Liter of Light (Day) is an affordable DIY lighting system that allows the sun’s rays into homes, schools and public centres for US$2 per unit. Using recycled plastic bottles, 10 ml of bleach and distilled water, the bottle is placed through galvanised steel roofs . Sunlight refracts through the bottle to light the space below with 55-watt of brightness.

In 2012, Liter of Light (Night) began by using the database of households with the daylight bottle bulbs in their roofs, offering a package of upgrading this to a 1-watt ($10/unit) or 2-watt ($15/unit) LED with micro-solar panels and battery which would give another 10 hours of light at night. With a simple circuit panel, drill and soldering, the night solar LED light is built and inserted into the already installed bulb.

The project works with women’s cooperatives to make solar nightlights from a handful of parts, including both recycled components and a new high-tech chip guaranteed to make the light last 70,000 hours. The water bottles are covered with handcrafted woven shades, providing a new outlet for local basket-weaving skills, which are otherwise no longer in demand.

Replication is done by equipping local partners or grassroots entrepreneurs with basic tools to build and install daylight bottle bulbs, and teaching them to build solar nightlight upgrades through purchasing kits from MSF or by sourcing other parts locally. Step-by-step guides on materials and installation are available online through video tutorials and social media in order to facilitate use and replication of the technology.

How is it funded?

Roche, Inc. and Pepsi provided a start-up grant of $57,000 to provide training to communities and also gave grants to help rehabilitate the areas affected by Typhoon Haiyan. As of 2014, Liter of Light is funded by dual cash flow from donations of $159,090 from Roche and $15,230 sales income. This came from the sale of finished lights or kits sold to other NGOs where MSF provided training on how to make lights.

What impact has it had?

Liter of Light began with one carpenter, one solar bottle bulb and one paid installation in one home in 2011. Within months, the project had completed 15,000 solar bottle bulb installations in 20 cities around the Philippines and had begun to inspire local initiatives around the world. To date, more than 145,000 installations in 100 cities in the Philippines have been completed.

The simple lighting technology creates local jobs, teaches green skills and empowers local communities.
Residents are able to save an average of $10 in electricity bills a month by installing the solar bottle day bulb. They can use this saving to upgrade to the night bulb (costing $10) which allows them to further save on electricity bills. This allows them to have more disposable income to pay for critical needs.

Liter of Light is uplifting the quality of life of thousands of impoverished families in the Philippines who have no access to electricity and use dangerous kerosene lamps indoors, which provide poor light, pollute and cause respiratory problems and fires. With the solar bottle bulbs, residents do their chores and activities efficiently inside a brighter home. Having affordable lighting not only improves the living environment of urban and rural poor families but also allows children to do homework and read at home.

Due to high electricity prices, local government officials could not afford to light up their streets. This was made possible by the project’s affordable solar bottle streetlamps ($60 each) which helped improve the public perception and attractiveness of neighbourhoods and addressed security issues. Many mayors around the country have also supported the start-up of local social enterprises with the project’s solar streetlights and houselight kits to alleviate the shortfall of energy supply in their towns/cities.

In partnership with the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), a government entity that trains young people and workers, the project has trained 572 volunteers, mostly women and disabled people and a number of local government units and non-profit organisations in building solar streetlights and houselights.

Through social media and easy replication, the movement has spread to more than 160,000 households in the Philippines and inspired local initiatives around the world lighting up 360,000 homes in over 15 countries. The project has been replicated in 15 countries (Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Spain, Switzerland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia) via partnerships with social enterprises that raise their own funds to run the project in their respective areas. Each country in which the project operates has developed its operations and programming at a local level but shares technical knowledge, conducts troubleshooting and crowd-sources innovations to the technology through regular coordination calls, skype, emails and social media.

Why is it innovative?

  • The project’s innovation lies in its utilisation of cheap, durable and readily available materials to produce high quality lighting enabling the urban poor to have access to an affordable, environmentally friendly, long-term alternative to electric light for use during the day and night.
  • Liter of Light provides enough initial supplies and volunteers to generate interest but its focus is on teaching a community how to manufacture and install the solar bottle bulbs, with the end goal of creating green microbusinesses.
  • By embracing social media and the philosophy of open-source technology, the project has grown from lighting up 160,000 homes in the Philippines to providing solar lighting to communities around the world.

What is the environmental impact?

Liter of Light is a zero-carbon-emitting alternative to the use of electric or hydrocarbon-burning (kerosene/gas) illumination. The materials used are readily available, e.g the reused plastic bottles, needing no additional manufacturing resources. Discarded plastic 1.5 to 2 litre bottles are reused and upcycled to a lighting system, helping reduce plastic waste. With a bit of bleach to prevent mould and just enough distilled water to fill the bottle, the solar bottle daylight bulb produces 55 watts of brightness through sun refraction and will last up to five years before being replaced.

The LED bulbs in the nightlighting system have a longer lifespan and higher energy efficiency than incandescent/fluorescent lamps.

Each daylight bulb saves 200 kilos of carbon emissions a year, and each nightlight bulb saves 350 kilos in carbon emissions a year. Compared to a kerosene lamp which emits 20 times more black carbon with 7-9 per cent of fuel burned converted into black carbon particles (black carbon is known to be a very powerful absorber of sunlight, far more than carbon dioxide).

Is it financially sustainable?

The corporate partners help to increase the impact of the project through donations which increase the number of kits that MSF is able to produce but these donations are time-limited, usually of one-three years in duration. But the income gained through sales is rising. By working with a local partner, Design Centre of the Philippines (the national institute for product design), the project now creates marketable lamps with woven designs for the solar bottle bulbs enabling them to charge a premium rate.

With simple training and tools, local partners and grassroots entrepreneurs could easily replicate and install the solar bottle bulbs earning $0.50 from clients per bottle bulb installed. Products are available in micro-stores in neighbourhoods and the project supplies kits to these stores.

Partnerships with national and local government agencies, institutes, non-profit organisations and private companies enabled the project to be replicated in towns and cities nationwide. The project aims to install 15,000 solar bottle lights in the provinces affected by Typhoon Haiyan in 2014 and to expand the programme to energy poor areas in 12 provinces by 2015.

What is the social impact?

The project is coordinated with local organisations and communities, who are given initial training. Technicians work with them by providing further training and undertaking installations. In order to lower installation costs, the local residents or organisations usually collect and provide the used materials e.g. pre-used soda bottles for the solar bottle bulbs. Residents help each other during the collection of materials and installation of solar lights.

Most of the 350 affiliates working with the production and assembly of solar night bulbs are women’s cooperatives. The project also trained disabled people and economically marginalised groups to build solar lighting products. MSF has established a training centre that conducts workshops with young people, companies and other groups interested in volunteering their time to build lights in their communities. The project also partnered with technical schools and prison facilities to equip women with marketable skills in electronics increasing their employment prospects once they complete their skills-based programmes or become reintegrated in the workforce.

Barriers

  • Using appropriate durable, leak-proof, space-filling glue is one of the main challenges. Many local groups are experimenting with different glues to find the best solution for both cost and quality; silicone-based or polyurethane glues have usually been found to work best.
  • Several villages experienced problems with the early version of the linked in batteries series where one battery drained and had to be completely replaced at the project’s expense. Through trial and error, the correct parallel connection is now used.
  • Access to knowledge on product improvement is limited as there are only a few specialists in the country. The project tries to overcome this by trial-and-error learning and seeking partnerships with specialists and training agencies. The project currently experiments with assembling solar panels out of readily available SunPower solar cells and, though a slow process, is learning how to cut the solar cells and assemble connectors by hand.

Lessons Learned

  • The Liter of Light (Night) was built with rudimentary knowledge in mobile chargers and solar lighting. It would have been better to look for partnerships earlier in the process to speed up product development.
  • Despite their benefits, there is still not much financial support (e.g. tax exemption or assistance programmes) from the government for green technologies such as solar energy.
  • A person’s life can be made dramatically better through simple solutions that are affordable, use local materials, are easily replicable and generate sources of income.
  • The use of the internet and social media for sharing instructions/information about the project and for the coordination with partners has proven to be very successful to disseminate ideas.

Evaluation

The project has a database of the families with the daylight system and families are advised to keep a record of their electricity bills to monitor their savings. After two to three months of installation, the project revisits the families, surveys them about their energy savings and also offers them a package to upgrade to the nightlight system. MSF has not yet carried out an evaluation of the whole Liter of Light project in the Philippines.

Transfer

MSF began with one carpenter, one solar bottle bulb and one paid installation in one home in 2011. Within months, the project completed 15,000 solar bottle bulb installations in 20 cities around the Philippines and began to inspire local initiatives around the world. To date, more than 145,000 installations in 100 cities in the Philippines have been completed. The project aims to install 15,000 solar bottle lights in the provinces affected by Typhoon Haiyan – Cebu, Iloilo and Leyte – in 2014 and to expand the programme to energy poor areas in 12 provinces by 2015.
Local and National: MSF’s work and the success of the Liter of Light have been possible through partnerships with national and local government agencies, institutes, non-profit orgs and private companies. These partnerships enable the project to be replicated in towns and cities nationwide.

International: Liter of Light is a network of partners sharing sponsors, best practices, and successes (or failure) in fundraising and community implementation. The project has been replicated in 15 countries (Argentina, Bangladesh, Brazil, Colombia, Egypt, India, Kenya, Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan, Peru, Spain, Switzerland, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia) via partnerships with social enterprises that raise their own funds to run the project in their respective areas. Some countries have made small adaptations to the design. In countries where battery or solar cells are unavailable, MSF ships them these materials with samples and instructions and shares with them information about the suppliers.

Links

Authors:

World Habitat