Residential Energy Efficiency for Low Income Households

0

Login necesario

Username

Password

Remember Me Lost your password? Register

Forgotten Password

Enter username or email

Cancel

Register For This Site

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Username

E-mail

Cancel

Residential Energy Efficiency for Low Income Households

Mismatches Vulnerable groups New family structures

Policies and regulations Governance

Financing

Urban Design Liveability Inclusion Equity Participatory processes

Promotion and production Technology

Main objectives of the project

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

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

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

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

Date

2017:

Stakeholders

Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Asia
Country/Region: Armenia, Yerevan

Description

Project Description

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

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

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

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

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

Aims and Objectives

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

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

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

The work is helping:

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

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

Context

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

Key Features

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

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

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

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

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

What impact has it had?

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

By 2017, the project had achieved the following:

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

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

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

How is it funded?

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

First half of 2012, Habitat for Humanity invested US$35,000 from its own undesignated funding sources for the initial development of a regional initiative building on the experiences from Macedonia
Preparatory work exploring the transfer from Macedonia, identifying Armenia and Bosnia and Herzegovina as suitable countries, and reaching out to diverse partners and stakeholders, in addition to technical assistance and mediation with Homeowner Associations, financial institutions, local government:

- US$2,000,000 (USAID, maximum committed funding for 2012-2019).
- US$590,000 (Habitat for Humanity International, committed funding for 2012-2019).
Additional project funding leveraged in subsidy or investment to date from private institutions and governments:

- US$100,000

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

Macedonia:

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

Bosnia and Herzegovina:

Energy efficiency works are covered by a combination of financial subsidy and residents’ personal savings.

Subsidy for retrofitting works: US$125,000 budget allocated (in 2017) by the canton of Tuzla, along with match funding by five different local governments which should collectively amount to US$300,000 (final amount of match funding still to be confirmed).

Armenia:

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

Why is it innovative?

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

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

What is the environmental impact?

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

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

Specific features delivered through the programme include:

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

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

Is it financially sustainable?

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

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

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

What is the social impact?

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

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

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

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

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

Barriers

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lessons Learned

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

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

Evaluation

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

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

Recognition

Residential Energy Efficiency in Low Income Households features as best practice in the ‘Energy Poverty Handbook’ published by the office of Tamás Meszerics (Member of the European Parliament) via The Greens/EFA group of the European Parliament.
The work of Habitat for Humanity on residential energy efficiency has influenced regional initiatives including:

- Build Upon; A collaboration of ‘Green Building Councils’ (not-for-profit organisations set up to improve and protect the environment by improving buildings).
- The EU Observatory on Energy Poverty; A consortium set up in 2016 to address and understand energy poverty across the European Union.
- C4E Forum; The Central and Eastern Europe Energy Efficiency Forum, set up to share and build upon successful energy efficiency work across the region.
A conference on residential energy efficiency in May 2017 attracted a range of interest from across Europe.

Transfer

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

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

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

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

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

Authors:

World Habitat

Mutual Housing at Spring Lake

0

Login necesario

Username

Password

Remember Me Lost your password? Register

Forgotten Password

Enter username or email

Cancel

Register For This Site

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Username

E-mail

Cancel

Mutual Housing at Spring Lake

Policies and regulations Local policies Governance Participatory processes

Urban Design Services and infrastructure Equity Regulación Técnica Procesos Administrativos

Promotion and production Participatory processes Progressive housing Transformation and adaptation Management and maintenance

Main objectives of the project

Mutual Housing at Spring Lake offers permanent year-round housing to agricultural workers in the state of California, USA. Based in the city of Woodland, Yolo County, it is also the first 100 per cent Zero Net Energy ready rental housing development in the country. Spring Lake was designed to support agricultural workers to enjoy the benefits of ‘green living’, often only available to high-income homeowners. As the homes use around the same amount of energy as they produce, utility bills for residents are extremely low.

The estimated 6,000+ agricultural workers in the county have traditionally had to put up with some of the worst housing conditions and most dangerous jobs in the country. Seasonal employment means accommodation is usually only available at government-funded migrant centres during the farming season. Living in appalling conditions in privately rented housing is often the only other alternative for workers.

Mutual Housing’s work with residents goes well beyond providing energy efficient homes. Through a range of opportunities including leadership development schemes, peer lending circles and digital literacy classes, residents gain skills and confidence. For many this has opened up new opportunities in education and community life. New leaders have emerged from the community who now work to advocate for the rights of agricultural workers.

Date

2017:

Stakeholders

Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: North America
Country/Region: United States of America

Description

Project Description

Mutual Housing at Spring Lake is based in the city of Woodland in Yolo County, California. It is the first permanent, year-round housing built for agricultural worker families in the county, most of whom are of Hispanic heritage. Agricultural workers have traditionally suffered some of the worst housing conditions and most dangerous jobs in the country. A survey of agricultural workers in the region in 2010 showed that people reported living in garages with mould and cockroaches and often in overcrowded conditions. Many workers are employed only seasonally and some government-funded migrant centres provide accommodation at these times. However, most agricultural workers stay in the community all year.

This is the first 100 per cent Zero Net Energy rental housing development in the USA to be certified by the US Department of Energy. A Zero Net Energy building uses around the same amount of energy as it produces so is very sustainable and better for the environment than traditional housing. Environmentally sustainable homes are often only available to higher income homeowners. This project was developed specifically to cater for agricultural workers, a community which makes a huge contribution to an area where the economy is largely sustained by agriculture, but is not catered for by the local housing market. This development by Mutual Housing California promotes equality by enabling low-income families to rent a home with strong eco-features. Mutual Housing California is a non-profit housing developer and a member of the California Coalition for Rural Housing. It was established in 1988 as a partnership of neighbourhood residents, business representatives, housing advocates and local government to improve housing opportunities for lower income families. It now owns and operates 1,071 homes for over 3,200 residents in California, USA. Resident involvement and leadership are key aspects underpinning and driving all their work. Residents of Mutual Housing developments are supported from day one to identify and develop their own skills and capacity for leadership. They are supported with training and mentoring to take control of their own lives as well as to advocate for their fellow residents and the wider community. Mutual Housing California provides similar services in its other developments, which include providing affordable rented housing for Housing First and other low-income residents.

The work to help residents achieve ‘green living’ doesn’t just stop with environmental features. Residents at Spring Lake are also trained in how to use the energy efficient equipment installed in their homes and are involved in learning and sharing ideas on other ‘green behaviours’ such as recycling and water saving.

After overcoming obstacles to access a plot of land and establish its use for multi-family housing (see details in the Context section), in 2010 land was purchased and construction began in 2013. The housing was completed in March 2015 and was fully occupied by June of that year. All applicants for housing at Mutual Housing at Spring Lake had to demonstrate that they meet the established income limits for the housing and that they were or had been employed in agriculture. A total of 62 highly energy-efficient homes have been built in five buildings. The homes have between one and four bedrooms and house 196 people including 90 children. Out of these housing units, seven are for families that have incomes at 30 per cent of area median income (AMI) or below, 13 units are for families that have incomes at 40 per cent of AMI or below, 25 units are for families at 50 per cent of AMI or below, and 16 units are for families at 60 per cent AMI or below. One of the units is reserved for the manager.

Mutual Housing at Spring Lake has a very strong focus on community development and the empowerment of individuals. Community organising is a core activity – the project has really been about building a whole community, not just constructing houses. Residents are actively involved in education and training programmes and the development runs several different facilities and programmes for residents. Personal development opportunities delivered through one-to-one mentoring, group sessions and on-the-job training have included financial education and budget management, green issues, leadership development and health education. As well as learning opportunities residents are able to use the community building and an activity room for meetings and celebrations. They can enjoy outdoor recreation spaces, with shared gardens and green spaces throughout the site.

A Spanish-speaking community organiser has been appointed and they have an important role in developing the leadership potential of adults and young people. They help local people to form resident councils and committees to address any specific issues or to shape ideas and plans for community activities and events. In fact leadership development is a very strong focus within the wider work of Mutual Housing. One of their key aims is to create ‘lifelong leaders’ by supporting the personal development of adults and young people alike across a wide range of activities. Some of the residents have shown that they are particularly interested in sustainable living and they have formed a ‘Green Leaders’ team. This group helps educate fellow residents with activities like composting and understanding electricity bills with solar rebates.

Authors:

World Habitat

Post-Haiyan Self-Recovery Housing Programme

0

Login necesario

Username

Password

Remember Me Lost your password? Register

Forgotten Password

Enter username or email

Cancel

Register For This Site

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Username

E-mail

Cancel

Post-Haiyan Self-Recovery Housing Programme

Mismatches Financing Vulnerable groups New family structures

Financing Public funding

Urban Design Liveability Regulación Técnica Procesos Administrativos

Promotion and production Materials Self-management Self-promotion

Main objectives of the project

Date

2017:

Stakeholders

Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: Asia
City: Dagami
Country/Region: Philippines

Description

Project Description

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aims and Objectives

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

The programme’s objectives were:

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

A longer term aim of the project was to:

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

Context

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

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

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

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

Key Features

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What impact has it had?

The programme has had a positive impact in several ways:

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

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

How is it funded?

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

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

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

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

Why is it innovative?

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

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

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

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

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

What is the environmental impact?

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

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

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

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

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

Is it financially sustainable?

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

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

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

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

What is the social impact?

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

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

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

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

Barriers

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

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

Lessons Learned

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

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

Evaluation

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

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

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

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

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

Recognition

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

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

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

Transfer

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

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

Authors:

World Habitat

Granby Four Streets Community Land Trust

0

Login necesario

Username

Password

Remember Me Lost your password? Register

Forgotten Password

Enter username or email

Cancel

Register For This Site

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Username

E-mail

Cancel

Granby Four Streets Community Land Trust

Mismatches Functional adequacy Services Demographic/Urban growth

Policies and regulations Local policies Building capacity

Urban Design Urban fabrics Quality Liveability

Promotion and production Participatory processes Innovation Self-promotion

Main objectives of the project

Granby 4 Streets developed out of a community group that campaigned against the demolition of houses and relocation of the community. It has successfully halted the demolition and provided a focus for the community using a creative approach. Its long term goal is to renovate all of the houses in the Granby triangle providing homes for 250 families who are either members of the original Granby community wanting to return home, or local families in housing need.

Date

2015:

Stakeholders

Promotor: World Habitat

Location

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

Description

Project Description

Granby 4 Streets and its predecessor community group have, for many years, kept the Granby community together. Its ultimately successful campaign to halt the demolition of houses provided a focus for the community but its approach was unconventional and creative. It focused on reclaiming empty houses and streets from dereliction and boosting the community’s pride in the area. It runs a street market that sells vintage clothes, cakes and Caribbean food. This has kept people visiting the area and has provided a visual presence for the community in the wider area and the city.

It organised community painting and community gardening. This work manifested itself in murals and artwork on the bricked up windows of empty houses and in the displays of flowers and vegetables planted in recycled containers along the length of the streets. This activity won the North West in Bloom Award in 2014.

In 2011, it successfully attracted funding from a Jersey-based social entrepreneur. This enabled the community to commission architects to set out plans for the area. These featured a number of highly innovative designs including turning one house with no roof into a glazed winter garden. The designs achieved significant media attention and won the prestigious art award the Turner Prize, in 2015.

In 2012, Granby 4 Streets successfully negotiated with the council for ten homes to be transferred to the Community Land Trust for renovation. Five have been sold and five retained for low-cost renting.

The work helped inspire other renovation projects to take place in Granby. A renovation programme by local housing association Plus Dane has seen work start on renovating 27 derelict houses. Liverpool Mutual Homes is renovating 40 houses and a local housing cooperative, Terrace 21, is soon to start renovating five houses.

In 2015, Granby 4 Streets set up Granby Workshop, a social enterprise based in Granby itself that makes household products, such as door handles and fireplaces from the waste and rubble left by the houses that were demolished. The composite material they produce has become known as Granby Rock.

In 2016, Granby 4 Streets successfully secured Arts Council funding for the Winter Gardens house. This, when built, will use two derelict houses to create a glazed communal space that they envisage will be used like a botanical garden to grow exotic plants. The building will also provide a common house for the community, have bed and breakfast accommodation and conference facilities to help generate income for Granby 4 Streets.

Aims and Objectives

Granby 4 Streets aims to bring community regeneration to the whole Granby neighbourhood, not only undoing the damage and neglect of the last forty years but retaining the best of what remained and building a better, stronger and inspiring area. Its vision statement describes creating “a thriving, vibrant, mixed community, building on the existing creativity, energy and commitment within the area”.

Its initial redevelopment brief described “retaining the generosity and flexibility of the original buildings”, and “creating a neighbourhood, which provides affordable housing; the greenest quarter in the city; is architecturally rich and includes the imaginative renovations of Victorian terraces”. Its long-term goal is to renovate all of the houses in the Granby triangle, providing homes for 250 families who are either members of the original community wanting to return home or local families in housing need.

The main issues Granby 4 Streets aims to address are:

Lack of cohesion and resilience.
Low levels of civic engagement to hold accountable bodies to task.
Social isolation that some groups within the community experience e.g. minority groups.
Lack of buildings for public use or social activities for the good of the community.
Lack of communal spaces to enhance community cohesion and healthy lives.
Poor state of housing in the area.

Context

Granby is a small area of Liverpool. It comprises a series of roads of nineteenth century terraced houses, located in the Liverpool L8 area, about a mile from the city centre. It is the most ethnically diverse area of Liverpool and reportedly the home of the UK’s oldest Black community. There is evidence to suggest that a Black community has lived in this area for almost 400 years.

The community is amongst the poorest in the UK. In 2015, it was measured to be within the 1% most deprived wards in the country under the indices of deprivation. This measure considers levels of income, employment, education, health, crime, living environment and barriers to housing. The main street that runs through the area (Granby Street) was, until the early 1970s, a busy high street with grocery shops, butchers, small scale manufacturing and even a cinema. But during the 1970s, the area began to decline, residents experienced high levels of unemployment and increasing levels of poverty. Tensions in the area spilled over into 1981 with a serious civil disturbance known as the Toxteth Riots. One person died, hundreds were injured, hundreds more were arrested and many buildings were damaged or destroyed.

In the years following the riots, life in Granby became increasingly bleak. Poverty and unemployment levels became worse, more shops went out of business and empty houses began to appear as people’s perceptions of the area became more negative. Liverpool City Council’s response to these problems was highly controversial within the local community. It acquired hundreds of houses in the area for demolition. New houses were built in their place but some areas were left as vacant demolition sites. Allocation policies for the new houses were also controversial; the community perceived that they had the effect of breaking up the original community. The original houses were left standing in just four streets. But even here, most of the houses were acquired by the council and housing associations and bricked up and left vacant. Many members of the community felt that there was a policy of managed decline. Some perceived it as “special measures” (a term borrowed from the UK government’s response to failing schools) in response to, and possibly as punishment for, the 1981 riots.

Council intervention was accelerated in the early 21^st Century with the introduction of the national government’s Housing Market Renewal Programme. This provided government funding for councils to deal with areas with housing in decline. During this period, more houses were acquired and bricked up and more were demolished. There was little maintenance carried out and, as a result, the remaining houses, most of which were now empty, fell into serious disrepair.

In 2010, Liverpool City Council attempted to sell the whole of Granby to a developer. There was interest and a developer was selected but after a series of challenges the procurement process eventually stalled and the contract was withdrawn. By 2011, just four of the original 14 streets remained. Most of the houses were vacant and bricked up. Just 70 residents were left in the area. Yet the residents association that had formed in the 1990s to fight the demolition of houses was still present and they sensed that an opportunity had arisen.

They became a Community Land Trust in 2011 and raised funds for refurbishment and community control.

Key Features

Community Land Trusts are locally driven, controlled and democratically accountable organisations. Membership is open to all who live or work in the defined community, including properties that the Community Land Trust does not own. Members elect a volunteer board to run the Community Land Trust on their behalf on a day to day basis. The wider community in Liverpool L8 have offered Granby 4 Streets support from 2011, with open events taking place at Granby Market.

Granby 4 Streets deliver street events, social gatherings and participative projects, e.g. a planting group, to engage the immediate and wider community. They also use their website and social media presence to update and encourage participation and deliver a digital (and hardcopy) newsletter to boost information sharing.

Granby 4 Streets has a governance structure led by a board of Trustees that comprises:

One third of residents from the four streets.
One third of residents from the wider L8 area.
One third of stakeholders who work in the community with applicable skills, competencies and knowledge of the issues.

The Granby 4 Streets approach was to instigate, constitute and lead a network of projects, partnerships, and collaborations forged through longstanding negotiations with public and private stakeholders. The local authority transferred properties over to Granby 4 Streets in 2012 as an asset transfer. Steinbeck Studios, a social investor, offered an interest-free loan and funded the ‘vision document’ for the area that subsequently encouraged other partners to get involved. Steinbeck Studio provided project management in the early days and has now developed plans to redevelop homes on Ducie Street which will have a budget of several millions. Other houses in the Granby 4 Streets area are being developed by Plus Dane, LMH and Terrace 21 housing cooperative. Further financial support was obtained from Nationwide Foundation, Power To Change, Homes and Communities Agency, National Lottery, National CLT Network, Steve Biko Housing and Plus Dane Group, North West Arts Council, Trust House Foundation.

What impact has it had?

Granby 4 Streets has had an impact on Liverpool City Council’s thinking towards housing regeneration and how the council engages with local communities. There is evidence that the council has changed its approach to demolition. In 2016, another much larger area of derelict houses that was scheduled for demolition has been handed to developers for renovation.

Granby 4 Streets is cited in Liverpool Council policy as an example of community-led development. Granby 4 Streets are mentioned as proponents of good practice in terms of how residents and city officials work in partnership. They are also part of the Re: Kreators European network and they have recently presented to EU Urban Agenda ministers as proponents of good practice.

How is it funded?

Granby 4 Streets is moving towards a position of being financially sustainable. Income from rent for the houses, shops and workshop will pay the operating cost of the Community Land Trust and repayments on loans. They have calculated that every house they rent produces a surplus of £3,500 (USD $4,500) a year, which can be invested into the Community Land Trust. The set-up costs and capital costs for development work have been met by a series of grants and loans. The grants amount to £900,000 (USD $1.1 million) and are made up by:

£14,800 (USD $19,000) CLT feasibility grant (National CLT Network).
£128,000 (USD $164,000) affordable homes grant (Nationwide Foundation).
£32,000 (USD $41,000) feasibility grant (Homes & Communities Agency).
£37,500 (USD $48,000) grant (DCLG).
£10,000 (USD $13,000) feasibility grant – Four Corners (Heritage Lottery).
£10,000 (USD $13,000) project activity grant (Awards for All).
£385,000 (USD $ 496,000) community business development (Power to Change).
£249,000 (USD $ 321,000) Winter Garden (Arts Council).
£40,000 (USD $ 51,000) Winter Garden (Trusthouse Foundation).

There was also a development loan of £500,000 (USD $640,000) from Steinbeck Studio (the Jersey-based investor referred to earlier) in the project description. As Granby 4 Streets move into the next stage of their development, they are planning to use the sale of five homes to meet some of the costs. Projected income from the sale of Granby 4 Streets Community Land Trust’s five homes is £450,000 – £600,000 (USD $580,000 – USD $772,000) depending on valuations and confirmation of ‘affordability’ criteria at the point of sale.

Why is it innovative?

Granby 4 Streets is unique in the UK as a community-led regeneration of an entire neighbourhood. It is all the more remarkable because the community is amongst the poorest in the UK and has experienced perhaps the most extreme decline and dereliction seen anywhere in the UK in peacetime.

Ronnie Hughes, one of the founders and a Granby 4 Streets Trustee, said:

“What’s happening in Granby is an important prototype for northern councils, who’ve been so badly hit by the cuts, two years ago, the whole area was nearly signed over to a private developer, but now the people who live here have finally got a formal stake in the place. It’s an extraordinary achievement – and now it’s extraordinary forever”

Community Land Trusts are relatively new to the UK, and although the number is steadily growing, Granby 4 Streets is the first Community Land Trust to focus on the renovation of existing buildings. Their regeneration model is innovative internationally and has been recognised by Swiss Community-Led Housing specialists Urbamonde as an international case study.

Granby 4 Streets has embraced art as a means towards regeneration. This has seen it commission innovative designs and architecture and has encouraged creativity. This approach has led to the creation of a social enterprise and has helped engage the wider community. In addition, this has led to wider recognition, most notably by winning the 2015 Turner Prize. The Turner Prize is the UK’s most prestigious art award and is organised by the Tate Gallery. This has opened up wide media attention and has considerably boosted fundraising activities.

What is the environmental impact?

The project involves the renovation of existing buildings rather than demolition and reconstruction, making use of existing resources and maintaining original structures where possible. Granby 4 Streets has ensured that the DIY spirit from which the Community Land Trust emerged and a desire to reduce environmental impact are incorporated into their designs, e.g. the Granby Rock household appliances manufactured by Granby Workshop.

One of the first activities of the community group which predated Granby 4 Streets was community gardening. The group that continues this work, the affiliated ‘Blooming Triangle’, have renovated and created new green spaces with the local community. They continue to work with residents in maintaining the status as winners of the North West in Bloom and as finalists in Street of the Year 2015 by The Academy of Urbanism, in making Granby the greenest area in the city. Granby 4 Streets has also leased five homes to Terrace 21, an eco-cooperative, who will retrofit five homes to ‘passiv haus’ standard.

Is it financially sustainable?

Granby 4 Streets is on a path towards financial sustainability. It has a 30 year business plan which sees the organisation become fully financially sustainable by 2021. Its early work was reliant on grants for capital costs and volunteers carrying out activities to keep revenue costs to a minimum. As the Community Land Trust grows it will develop more income generating potential. Income will derive from letting houses, leasing housing to other housing associations, letting meeting-room space and, in the future, it plans to lease shop space.

Granby 4 Streets has been very successful in fundraising to support the early development and initial capital costs of the project. They have also worked with social investors to access social finance. They aim to ensure that the organisation will not be reliant on restricted income or grants and will be able to further develop using their own generated income.

What is the social impact?

Granby 4 Streets has provided a focus for community dialogue and action, in a previously disempowered and ignored community. They have created a strong sense of solidarity around housing, green spaces and community ownership. Local volunteers have been instrumental in developing the projects and have been supported to develop their own capacity in all areas of the Community Land Trust’s operation.

Residents have been given the opportunity to come together and collaborate with international artists delivering sculpture and installations. Granby Workshop, a new social enterprise making bespoke household goods on Granby Street, employs 14 young local artists/creatives, working towards delivering orders from the Turner Prize exhibition. Granby Workshop have recently showcased at the International Business Festival 2016 in Liverpool. Granby Workshop will occupy space within the planned retail units to act as the hub for local retail, social and creative enterprises bringing further economic activity.

Granby Market has continued to expand and recently moved onto the main road, Granby Street, enabling it to grow and making it more prominent and visible. Building upon previous activity they have attracted internationally recognised poets and musicians to perform and co-produce with residents an atmosphere, activities and a sense of cohesion. This contributes towards the health and wellbeing of an engaged group of residents building their own social capital. Granby 4 Streets has to date created 50 new jobs in building construction, art and community organising. This is significant in an area where unemployment remains amongst the highest in the UK, especially among young people. The refurbishment not only boosted the local economy but also offered valuable training and employment opportunities.

Barriers

Granby 4 Streets overcame a huge barrier in negotiating the transfer of ownership of houses from Liverpool City Council to the Community Land Trust. This is particularly remarkable given the historic relationship between the community and the council. Other barriers it overcame include:

Commissioning competent and reliable contractors.
Additional building works outside the scope of the project due to unforeseen problems.
Volunteer board members having sufficient skills to oversee the works and feel comfortable challenging contractor decisions.
Obtaining funding that was flexible and responsive.
Establishing legal covenants to ensure that the properties meet mortgage criteria and are affordable for low-income community members in perpetuity.

They overcame these challenges by recruiting a specialist to help the board including representatives of Liverpool City Council and Steve Biko Housing Association (Liverpool’s only Black and minority ethnic (BME) housing group).

Lessons Learned

The need to evolve throughout the project lifespan and adapt the ways in which they work.
To stay focused on project aims and objectives rather than adapting the scheme or ideas to fit around funders’ criteria and timescales.
The importance of ensuring that the Board have the right skill set to deliver the project and having a plan to meet any gaps identified.
There was a need to commission specialist contractors to assist where there were gaps in expertise and knowledge such as contractor law and project management.

Evaluation

There is no formal project evaluation. The various funders have required regular feedback and some have commissioned external evaluations.

Recognition

The Granby 4 Streets Project was awarded the Turner Prize 2015 with their architects Assemble.
One of the four streets: Cairns Street was a finalist in the 2015 Academy of Urbanism’s UK Street of the Year.
Granby 4 Streets won a European urbaMonde Community-Led Housing Award in 2016 and they have recently been named in Nesta’s 50 New Radical Organisations.
Granby 4 Streets has attracted national media attention including items on BBC TV news and articles in the Guardian, Independent and Daily Mail newspapers.
They have also been used as a case study in a number of architectural, urban planning, geography and sociology dissertations, theses and peer reviewed articles. They have also contributed to a BBC programme on the history of architecture in the UK, appeared on several media arts and cultural programmes across Europe.

Transfer

The work of Granby 4 Streets has inspired and encouraged local housing associations to acquire and renovate empty properties within Granby. Current programmes by three housing associations will see 72 houses returned to use.

Granby 4 Streets is currently working with other groups across Liverpool, e.g. Homebaked Coming Home (social enterprise for bringing empty homes into use). They share their experience of moving from activism to organisational structures. They are collating what they believe are the important methodological approaches they took at each stage to share with other working class communities in other cities

Granby 4 Streets regularly hosts visitors to share their experiences with others. For example they run workshops (60 in 2016) for planning, architectural and social science students to influence place making and creating spaces for democratic management.

Authors:

World Habitat

50,000 Houses for War Victims

0

Login necesario

Username

Password

Remember Me Lost your password? Register

Forgotten Password

Enter username or email

Cancel

Register For This Site

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Username

E-mail

Cancel

50,000 Houses for War Victims

Mismatches Functional adequacy Services

Financing Demand subsidies Sustainable development financing Progressive financing Public-private collaboration

Urban Design Urban fabrics Services and infrastructure Inclusion

Promotion and production Participatory processes Self-management

Main objectives of the project

This project has provided humanitarian and financial support to help communities displaced as a result of the Sri Lankan civil war to rebuild their homes. The target is to fund and build 50,000 houses, for an estimated total of 225,000 people. The majority of the houses, 44,000 are self-build, 4,000 will be built by plantation workers, while only 1,000 are to be built by contractors.

Date

2016:

Stakeholders

Promotor: World Habitat

Location

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

Description

Project Description

Following the prolonged civil war in Sri Lanka from 1983 to 2009, the Government of India took the decision to provide humanitarian and financial support to the Government and people of Sri Lanka to help them recover from the trauma of war. In total, the Government of India is supporting a number of self-help housing rehabilitation/development programmes costing over USD $240 million. Some of this funding is a grant, for example the funding for the 50,000 Houses of War Victims project, and some takes the form of long-term loan assistance.

For this project financial assistance and organisational support has been provided to help internally displaced people to construct their own homes. The target is to fund and build 50,000 houses, for an estimated total of 225,000 people. The majority of the houses, 44,000 are self-build, 4,000 will be built by plantation workers. One thousand houses were constructed by commercial contractors before the owner driven approach was introduced as a more suitable solution. The focus on self-build is designed to give people a real say in their own housing solutions.

The programme focuses on internally displaced people in dispersed, rural areas of Northern, Eastern, Central and Uva provinces of Sri Lanka. The basis of the programme is that people are enabled to return to land and property which they owned and lived in prior to the war. In effect, this means that some families are moving back to the area they left in 2009 or before.

The houses that are developed are on average 550 ft² in size, so relatively large compared to those often built as part of rehabilitation projects. The home owners are able to make decisions on the design, materials used, size of the house and whether they wish to add in their own savings or loans to include specific features or make the house larger.

Since the construction work started in 2012, forty-five thousand, two hundred houses of the 50,000 target have been completed. The houses are built on existing sites in villages or new sites provided by the Government of Sri Lanka.

Aims and Objectives

The main aim of the project is to deliver homes for internally displaced people in a quick and sustainable way. These people are the direct victims of the conflict: those who lost homes, property, assets, family members, livelihoods, income and social networks. The other beneficiaries are the plantation workers living in poor housing and environmental conditions for whom 4,000 houses are being constructed.

Though this project is confined to the provision of houses, it has laid a foundation for a people-sensitive and community-driven approach to development. Housing is the crucial first phase in a long-term rehabilitation process that must be eventually followed up by:

economic rehabilitation of the families who lost assets, jobs and means of livelihood;
rebuilding physical/social infrastructure and economic base of the area lost in the war;
rebuilding people, communities and social networks that suffered ruptured relations, shaken confidence, internal divisions and trust deficit and have seen much violence.The delivery of the phases beyond the house-building lie with the Sri Lankan government and the people of Sri Lanka but this project’s contribution is to develop a receptive climate for participative development action which supports future developments.

Context

The Sri Lankan civil war lasted 26 years and left large numbers of houses and public infrastructure damaged or destroyed. Around 160,000 houses were affected in the Northern Province alone. After such a long conflict, community life was shattered with networks and relationships broken down. The economy and governance structures were in crisis. Displaced families returning to their places of origin were housed in temporary shelters, constructed by the Sri Lankan Government, humanitarian agencies or families themselves. Families survived with minimal security and scant protection from the elements. People were living in widely dispersed sites, many in forests with poor road connectivity, no electricity or other services.

This project is working in the districts of Jaffna, Kilinochchi, Mullaithivu, Vavuniya and Mannar in the North and Batticaloa and Trincomalee districts in the East, which were areas of considerable conflict during the war and the most severely affected in terms of human and material losses: houses, physical and social infrastructure, transport, industry, commerce, business establishments, jobs and livelihoods were either destroyed or severely damaged.

Key Features

The focus on self-build housing changed the complexion of the reconstruction process and has planted seeds for people-led recovery.

Adopting an owner-driven approach meant:

putting owners in charge of house building instead of contractors;
handing over funds and decision making to individual families;
entrusting the delivery of the programme to people who are vulnerable (internally displaced people) and who had not recently had experience of being empowered to make decisions. This meant changing ways of working, setting aside apprehensions about shattered communities and discounting arguments that the families and communities would leave houses either incomplete or spend money elsewhere or construct poor housing. The role of the organisations supporting the implementation of the project was key in this regard as they were working with the communities at a local level. Empowering people with responsibility, decision making, money management and giving them a lead role in steering their own development process has enhanced their confidence and self-worth. The impact of this culture of self-help and dignity is demonstrated in the quality of houses built, their own financial contribution in enlarging houses and in the speed of construction as well as in the confidence they display in meeting other challenges.

The potential beneficiaries applied for inclusion in the project and the severity of need was used to for selecting those who would get involved and prioritised:

age (priority for older people);
poverty (priority for the poorest);
number of dependents (priority for the ones with more children and dependents);
women-headed families;
physical condition of the head of the family (wounded, disabled).

Both the beneficiary selection and grievance redressal systems involved the entire community, as the approved lists were displayed in public places for everyone’s information and intervention. Debate and discussion around the list and the openness of the system to listen to every view and opinion made the process participatory and democratic.

Besides officers of the Sri Lankan Government the four partner agencies, namely UN-Habitat, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Habitat for Humanity and National Housing Development Authority provide assistance in the identification and selection of the beneficiaries. The project wanted to serve the most severely affected people in the greatest of need.

The key features of the project can be summarised as:

Transparent system for beneficiary selection.
Re-settlement in the original village or new sites provided by the Government of Sri Lanka and approved by the community.
Making available 15 – 20 prototype house designs to select from with required modifications for climate, local traditions and cost effectiveness.
A house no smaller than 550 ft².
Construction on self-build basis.
Grant of Sri Lankan Rupees (LKR) 550,000 (USD $3,800) per house towards construction costs.
Payment in four installments at specific construction stages through electronic transfer.
Facilitation through partner agencies for logistical support and technical assistance for speedy, cost effective and good quality construction via logistical support, technical guidance on construction, assistance in material procurement, quality, time and cost monitoring and account keeping.
Physical infrastructure and social amenities provided by the Government of Sri Lanka.
An effective grievance redressal system.

What impact has it had?

The project is still being completed and therefore it is a little early to expect it to influence policy or institutional change. However, this model of facilitation by partner agencies has been presented to the Government of India as a way to improve owner participation and the quality of construction in the national housing programme for rural communities.

The project goes beyond accepting the conflict/disaster victim communities’ right to housing and rehabilitation. It provides housing and infrastructure and it provides houses that are better and bigger than the minimum size prescribed and does so in a manner that builds community capacity to meet other aspects of full recovery challenge now.

How is it funded?

The Government of India provided a grant of LKR 34.8 million (USD $240 million) for this project.

Phase I for one thousand houses constructed by contractors at a cost of LKR 1.4 million (USD $10 million).

Phase II for the construction and repair of 45,000 houses had an outlay of LKR 33.4 million (USD $240 million) to cover the following:

Payment of fees to the four partner agencies.
Payment to beneficiaries for construction of a house – Total of LKR 550,000 (USD $4,000) in four instalments, (LKR 100,000 = USD $700; LKR 200,000 = USD $1,400; LKR 200,000 = USD $1,400 and LKR 50,000 = USD $350).
Payment to beneficiaries for repairs to houses – Total of LKR 250,000 (USD $1, 700) in three instalments (LKR 100,000 = USD $700; LKR 125,000 = USD $900 and LKR 25,000 = USD $200).

The cost of land, physical infrastructure and social amenities is met by the Government of Sri Lanka

The houses, both repaired and newly constructed, are ownership assets of the 50,000 families and so the costs of maintenance are the responsibility of the owners. The cost of maintenance of the physical and social infrastructure is borne by the Government of Sri Lanka through its departmental or development agencies.

Why is it innovative?

Self-build construction is not new in Sri Lanka. Houses had been constructed and projects had been implemented using that principle after the 2004 tsunami. What is new and an institutional innovation is the introduction of the partner agency as part of the organisational design for implementation. The facilitation role undertaken by the likes of UN-Habitat, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, Habitat for Humanity and the National Housing Development Authority is new to Sri Lanka and the support and direction provided by these organisations has been key to the acceptance of the project by target communities and to the success of the project as a whole.

Innovation within a post conflict rehabilitation context can be expressed as follows:

Giving in kind, i.e. facilitation support rather than cash (benefitting families directly instead of Government to Government bilateral aid).
Self-build on a large scale programme instead of engaging commercial contractors.
Transfer of decision making responsibility to thousands of families.
Institutional innovation: conceiving, identifying, hiring, deploying and supervising work and performance of four partner agencies as facilitators, while accepting self-help as a community tradition.
The principle of “Building People and Communities while Building Houses” put the emphasis on the process as much as the product.
A government programme entrusting decision making to communities challenges custom and practice.
Investing in building a development platform while delivering a conventional service.

Though a majority of the home builders have used conventional materials and techniques, some innovations have been introduced by the partner agencies. A visit was arranged to Kerala, Gujarat and Maharashtra in India for staff from partner agencies so that they could see innovative materials, projects and experiments. Fifteen engineers and supervisors participated and tried many options such as rat-trap bonds for masonry; filler slabs for roofs; twin-pit systems instead of conventional soak-pit methods for latrines and cement soil blocks in place of bricks were tried out on experimental basis.

What is the environmental impact?

The choice of materials which are locally produced and available, usable by local craftsmen, easily repairable or replaceable, low cost and requiring low maintenance has been the main philosophy of the project. Home builders have been exposed to alternative materials, construction techniques and explained economic, environmental and social benefits. However, the project has not imposed any material or technique or technology on the home builders and the choice always remains with them.

In terms of the resilience of housing to natural disasters, several factors have been incorporated:

The structural design and detailing of the houses makes the structures disaster resilient, especially from cyclones and earthquakes.
The participatory process of decision making and construction has raised people’s overall awareness of natural disasters and how to reduce impact (bracing walls against earthquakes and roof anchors to stop roofs blowing off during cyclones).
The training of masons has also increased awareness and preparedness.

In addition, some of the partner agencies have developed features which help improve the wider environment. UN-Habitat has raised special funds for tree planting and developed a community supported tree planting program in new settlements.

Is it financially sustainable?

In terms of overall housing need in providing 50,000 houses, this project has met a quarter of the needs of the Sri Lankan people. The additional housing required and also the subsequent phase of this programme (focused on economic development and wider infrastructure) will fall to the Government of Sri Lanka to fund.

To reduce future costs for home owners care has been taken to produce houses of:

adequate size therefore reducing further construction costs;
safe and strong construction against earthquakes and cyclones;
good quality workmanship, materials and specifications;
reasonable sized plots of land.

What is the social impact?

The ‘owner-driven’ approach of this project has greater objectives than just the reduction in cost of construction through owner’s unskilled self-help labour contribution. The participatory/consultative approach is meant to see them as ‘owners’ and ’clients’ (as opposed to recipients of grants) and gives them decision making power. It has been noted that the system of self-build and decision making has not only improved the construction of the houses but has played a significant role in restoring people’s self-worth and cultivated a sense of dignity.

Housing is the first and the key input in the long term and multi-faceted rehabilitation and recovery process for the individuals and the communities. In the area of physical rehabilitation and full scale recovery much remains to be done in terms of development of infrastructure – physical and social, for example, the restoration of livelihoods, creation of jobs and employment generation. It is in that context that the social capital built through a participatory house building process will be advantageous. Over a year long process of engagement in decision making, responsibility sharing, problem solving, conflict resolving, finance management, delivering and achieving has left a more determined, confident and responsible individual and citizen.

Barriers

Initially the programme met many barriers:

lack of infrastructure facilities in the project areas;
restricted sand and timber permits;
social factors like alcoholism, divorce and separation;
increased costs of materials;
periodic inclement weather conditions;
lack of motivation for some and time constraint for others.

These barriers have been addressed by the project partners by:

working with government departments and suppliers to overcome gaps in infrastructure;
ongoing communication with government authorities to speed up the issuing of sand and timber permits;
the involvement of communities to address social issues;
collective procurement after researching sources;
adjusting the time of construction to accommodate the inclement weather;
activities to encourage motivation within the beneficiaries.

Lessons Learned

The success of the programme has been attributed to:

the attention given to factors such as involvement of beneficiaries in their house construction;
timely release of funds to beneficiaries;
transparency in beneficiary selection process;
the use of encrypted messages for transfer instructions to banks;
having an organised system of file handling;
regular monitoring of the project;
flexibility in adaptation to the ground conditions.

Evaluation

The houses have only recently been occupied and the program is still under implementation so no final assessment has been undertaken. However, a range of indicators have been considered during the development of the programme:

level of satisfaction of the users;
the sense of ownership they display;
the investment they make in extensions/upgrading;
evidence of togetherness and collective community action. In addition, there have been no cost escalations and no major delays to the construction process.

Discussions have started with local universities, NGOs, international development agencies and communities to undertake feedback studies on the impact of the owner-driven, self-help approach to construction.

Recognition

This is the first time that this project has been submitted for any award. However, the model has been acknowledged by the development partners in Sri Lanka including Diplomatic/UN Missions, INGOs and the Government of Sri Lanka.

Transfer

The model has already been adopted by the Indian government-owned Housing and Urban Development Corporation’s Committee on Rejuvenation and Strengthening of Building Centres Network, which is examining ways to revitalise the network of building centres in the country in order to support large-scale construction programmes. The approach of confidence building, motivating, initiative-taking and empowering the owners has been adopted for the 4,000 plantation workers’ houses, which are yet to be built. Beneficiaries and plantation companies have endorsed the approach. These houses were originally going to be constructed by contractors.

The positive outcome of the project approach, both in the well-constructed houses and in human terms (i.e. confident, self-respecting, initiative-taking communities) suggests the replication potential, not only in post-disaster reconstruction scenarios but also in normal circumstances where the clients are disadvantaged in some way.

Authors:

World Habitat

Reconstruction of Habitat

1

Login necesario

Username

Password

Remember Me Lost your password? Register

Forgotten Password

Enter username or email

Cancel

Register For This Site

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Username

E-mail

Cancel

Reconstruction of Habitat

Mismatches Cultural suitability Diversity

Policies and regulations Local policies Regulation Governance

Urban Design Liveability Regulación Técnica Participatory processes

Promotion and production Materials Self-construction

Main objectives of the project

This project has helped low-income communities in areas vulnerable to natural disasters to build resilient housing that revives traditional construction techniques and combines them with modern approaches. Programmes for disaster risk reduction and self-build housing have a long history in Mexico, but don’t combine an increase in community resilience, capacity building, sustainable management of natural resources, use of local materials in construction and community development.

Date

2016:

Stakeholders

Promotor: World Habitat

Location

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

Description

Project Description

Since the hurricanes of September 2013, Cooperación Comunitaria has been working in the Montaña de Guerrero region in Mexico.

The Reconstruction of Habitat project was implemented first in the community of Obispo, in the Municipality of Malinaltepec, after assessing the magnitude of the problems caused by hurricanes and is designed to enable replication in other communities.

This comprehensive habitat reconstruction project has improved the living conditions and increased the resilience of the residents of Obispo by:

reducing the risks of disaster through the development of a landslide risk map, which has resulted in the relocation of four houses;
promotion of the sustainable management of natural resources through practical and theory-based workshops about reforestation to reduce landslides;
a community centre which was built by the community and acted as a prototype
a practical construction workshop for the subsequent self-build of 33 reinforced adobe houses and 31 energy-saving stoves;
recovery of maize crops using agro-ecological[1] techniques.

The project started in September 2013 and finished in June 2015. It has now moved on to its second stage and is being replicated in three other communities of the Montaña region. It takes a comprehensive approach by tackling the multiple dimensions of vulnerability.

[1]The application of ecology to the design and management of sustainable agro-ecosystems.

Aims and Objectives

The main aim of the project is to reduce the vulnerability of the population in the region of Montaña de Guerrero by increasing the resilience of people living at risk and through the comprehensive reconstruction of their housing and habitat.

This is met by the following objectives:

Reducing the risk of disasters, increasing resilience of residents through detailed risk analysis and mapping, increasing residents’ knowledge regarding their territory and the risks of disaster.
Reinforcing housing for protection against earthquakes and winds through the architectural, structural and materials analysis of traditional adobe housing, and improving their suitability as living spaces by optimising temperature, acoustics and lighting.
Recovering the community’s traditional knowledge of their territory, reinforced construction techniques with adobe and sustainable management of natural resources, respecting social and cultural norms in the region, preserving traditional productive spaces.
Improving knowledge of agro-ecology techniques in order to limit the use of agro-chemicals, reduce plot rotation, avoid soil degradation, deforestation and therefore reduce the risk of landslides.
Strengthening the organisational and decision-making capacity of the community. Strengthening solidarity among residents and recovering traditional systems for community work, such as “mano vuelta” (reciprocal community work).
Improving the health of residents, reducing deforestation and the associated risk of landslides through the self-build of energy-saving stoves, which reduce the presence of smoke in the kitchen and the prevalence of lung and eye disease.
Strengthening the community’s autonomy by using natural construction materials and reinforcing food self-sufficiency.

The region of Montaña de Guerrero is home to 85% of the indigenous population of the State of Mexico. This project:

Directly benefitted 92 Me’phaa or Tlapanecos families whose housing and crops were affected by earthquakes, winds, heavy rain and landslides with: the construction (by the community itself) of a community centre/children’s library, and 33 houses with 31 energy-saving stoves.
Indirectly benefitted 275 families with capacity-building workshops on the above mentioned skills (e.g. self-construction with reinforced adobe), as well as community development workshops and risk diagnosis.

Context

Eighty-one per cent of residents in the municipality of Malinaltepec live in poverty. They are in the most seismically active region of the country and in an area where winds can reach up to 120 km/h. Local people are highly vulnerable to and affected by these factors, as well as hurricanes and landslides with 70+% of residents reporting damage to their houses.

In September 2013, Hurricanes Manuel and Ingrid hit western Mexico, causing 200 deaths and affecting 230,000 people. In the region of Montaña del Guerrero, these phenomena caused numerous landslides, affected communication channels and infrastructure, led to the loss of crops and irreparable damage to over 5,000 adobe houses.

In addition to these conditions, migration has also been a factor in the loss of traditional knowledge, both in construction techniques and in the management of natural resources such as forests, which in turn has increased the vulnerability of residents. This loss of knowledge has led to gaps in the application of adobe construction techniques such as: lack of stone foundations and skirting boards in 86% of cases which causes dampness and deterioration of the walls; lack of an internal structure which debilitates the structure as a whole and weakens the corners; and inadequate anchorage from the roof to the walls which affects the resistance to strong winds, causing the roof to blow off.

Residents tend to attribute these damages to traditional use of adobe, when in reality they are due to technical omissions.

Key Features

Women from the community asked Cooperación Comunitaria to help with the reconstruction of their houses which were affected by hurricanes and so the organisation carried out a diagnosis of damage and the causes. When seeing the size of the problem caused by landslides, high deforestation and the impact on crops and houses, Cooperación Comunitaria brought together an inter-disciplinary team: a geologist, biologists, forestry and agricultural engineers in order to carry out an analysis of the risks and combine that information with the traditional knowledge of the community and a geological study of the territory.

The team of architects, an engineer and the community committed to working together to develop and implement a comprehensive project. Risks maps were developed and workshops were carried out to improve the skills and knowledge within the community, to identify how to relocate certain houses and areas for growing crops and to build new houses as well as improve residents’ resilience to future natural events.

The selection criteria for the beneficiaries were: permanent residence in the community, having suffered considerable damage to housing and crops, availability to participate in the community process and willingness to provide labour. Residents from affected neighbouring communities also participated in self-build workshops on using reinforced adobe. Decision making took place at community assemblies at which objectives were defined, internal systems and a project calendar created and committees set up to coordinate construction. Participants had control over each stage of the project. Their active participation in the workshops, which were delivered using participatory techniques, helped with the knowledge exchange between the community and Cooperación Comunitaria, and new techniques were incorporated through learning by doing. Community development officers were trained to supervise and monitor construction and they will act as the technical advisers in the next communities to be included in the programme.

A broad range of stakeholders took part in the workshops:

Community authorities: in calling for assemblies and workshops; (Community authorities are a moral and legal entity in the indigenous law system. They have religious and political power in the communities and are recognised by the Mexican government and can sometimes act as representatives of the law).
Local authority: providing communication about the activities and the reinforced adobe construction workshops to wider audiences and to other communities; (The local authority endorsed one of the workshops and brought together the community representatives from across all the municipal area).
Community Goods Commission: involved in the sale of stone for foundations; (as there are no providers of materials within the involved communities, these materials were instead sourced from the ‘Office of Communal Goods’, which administers the natural resources of the municipality. This meant lower costs and benefits to the local economy).
Metropolitan Autonomous University: undertaking tests on the community adobe bricks and land resistance.
Guerrero Autonomous University: Diagnosis and landslide risk maps.
Cosechando Natural (Natural Farming): advisor on agro-ecology techniques.

SAI Group: structural calculations and resistance simulation in housing for the development of a housing model with reinforced adobe.

What impact has it had?

Cooperación Comunitaria supports the needs of people from rural areas in order to exercise their right to housing. Currently, government bodies are reluctant to use local building materials, classifying these as precarious in the official regulation. Faced with this, the project aims to reclaim the benefits of these materials, proving that they are resistant, adapted to the local climate and culture, less expensive, less polluting and supportive of a better quality of life.

Cooperación Comunitaria is a member of the Mexican Social Production of Housing Network which seeks agreements with national institutions for improved housing. This network participates in the National Habitat Commission, seeking changes in the legislation to increase attention on the qualitative aspect of housing as currently these are purely focused on quantitative aspects.

How is it funded?

After the hurricanes, Cooperación Comunitaria coordinated a fundraising programme in Mexico City in collaboration with individuals and civil society partners. It was this emergency humanitarian fund which covered the initial costs and the initial participatory analysis work be completed. Subsequently, funding was secured from the Merced Foundation for disaster-risk reduction, recovery of maize fields, reforestation and capacity building activities.

The Mexican Federal Government, through the Social Development Institute, provided resources for the construction of the community centre/children’s library. The ‘Sharing with Guerrero’ Fund supported the self-build of 33 reinforced adobe houses and 31 energy-saving stoves.

There were MXN (Mexican Pesos) 2. 5 million (USD $140,000) received for materials, administrative costs, transport, training and learning materials. Cooperación Comunitaria provided another MXN 105,000 (USD $6,000) through donations and contributions from partners, and the support of national and foreign foundations (Misereor, Misión Central, Fundación Sertull y Fundación ADO) for the second phase of the project in three communities.

The community provided labour, produced adobe bricks and pajarcilla (a mixture of clay, water and hay or dry grass) to insulate the roofs, and food and accommodation for Cooperación Comunitaria’s field team. The community contributes both materials and a monetary contribution of MXN 1,000 (USD $55) to a communal loan facility. These savings enable people who cannot provide adobe bricks to access a loan of MXN 3,000 (USD $165) which is used for building materials and which is repayable in one year.

The total cost of a house (materials, labour, eco-technologies) is MXN 117,000 (USD $6,500); or MXN 140,000 (USD $7,700) if you include the costs of the activities (mapping, diagnostic, etc.). Cooperación Comunitaria is registered as a Contractor so is able to obtain government housing subsidies, which represent 58% of the costs (MXN 64,500 = USD $3,500), and the rest is covered by the beneficiaries’ contributions (MXN 1,000 = USD $55) and materials, plus contributions from donors for toilets and stoves.

Why is it innovative?

The main innovation is the methodology for comprehensive community work which reduces vulnerability and improves living conditions. Programmes for disaster-risk reduction and self-build housing have a long history in Mexico, but none of them combine an increase in community resilience, capacity building, sustainable management of natural resources, use of local materials in construction, community development and an economy based on solidarity. The combination of traditional indigenous knowledge as a risk reduction factor and new adaptations to well-established building techniques is another innovation. The participatory comprehensive methodology implemented by Cooperación Comunitaria through an interdisciplinary team ensures the appropriateness of the programme’s objectives and activities in relation to the needs of the communities. The project takes into consideration the community’s cultural, economic, environmental and climatic conditions. It puts forward traditional techniques and proven technology, which are adapted to local conditions, thus guaranteeing their acceptance. Participation in the project helps incorporate the effective use of solutions developed by the community themselves.

This type of innovation can, for example, be seen in the adaptation of traditional housing models. Some elements no longer in use have been integrated into the widespread adobe model such as:

stone foundations and stem walls, with added reinforcement from adobe buttresses;
concrete frames with fixings for the roof’s wooden frame;
larger quantity of nails calculated according to the wind speed and the suction force applied to the roof;
improvements in the size of adobe bricks;
reductions in joints and horizontal elements for each three courses to improve seismic resistance;
pajarcilla for insulation;
earth floors to improve temperature control
lime-based white paint;
translucent panes to improve lighting.

What is the environmental impact?

The increase in knowledge of construction techniques using local materials and eco-technologies, reforestation and landslide risk analysis all contribute to greater awareness of and consideration for natural resources as well as increased community resilience.

Cooperación Comunitaria favours the measured use of local materials in construction, such as adobe, local wood and the organic insulation of roofs using pajarcilla. This avoids the need to transport concrete blocks and steel structures to the communities from the city of Tlapa de Comonfort, reducing CO₂ emissions by 22% and preventing the emission of 482 kg of CO₂ per house, which translates into a total saving of 16 tonnes for 33 houses. It is worth noting that by using local wood for roof structures, arches, doors and windows, the users of the housing projects expressly commit to planting 10 trees for each house constructed, promoting preservation of resources for future generations. The project includes self-build dry toilets (composting toilets) in each house, which prevents pollution and excessive water use, whilst at the same time protects and increases the quality of arable soil by avoiding the contamination caused by untreated human waste.

The resistance of the houses was measured through seismic and material resistance tests and increased using new elements such as buttresses, reinforced roofs and stone foundations. The main cause of landslides is deforestation. The use of agrochemicals depletes arable land, thus contributing to degradation of forests. The implementation of agro-ecological techniques reduces the contamination of soil and underground water through the reduction of agrochemical use. The increased skills in sustainable forest management, use of energy saving stoves and reductions in crop rotation through agro-ecology has reduced deforestation and the risks of landslides.

The use of open fires generates significant wood consumption, causing progressive clearance of the environment. According to the National Commission for Protected Natural Areas, a rural family cooking on open fires can consume up to 32 mid-sized trees each year. By using self-built energy-saving stoves, 40% of deforestation related to wood consumption has been reduced, preventing the emission of 200 tonnes of CO₂ and the cutting of 775 trees each year, promoting the reduction of greenhouse gases. In addition, this comprehensive project includes community workshops on reforestation and awareness-raising.

Is it financially sustainable?

A comprehensive project, Reconstruction of Habitat does not depend on a single funding source. In 2016, it has not only managed to fundraise from a number of foundations but has also established alliances with two other organisations interested in the programme’s social aim: a German international cooperation agency, Misereor; and a Mexican foundation, Fundación Compartir. These alliances have enabled the continuation of the regional expansion of the project and mid- and long-term planning. Other foundations have offered their collaboration or have expressed their willingness to participate in the future under the same scheme, due to the achievements and impact achieved in the short-term. These include Fundación ADO providing funding of MXN 500,000 (USD $25,000) and Fundación Sertull, providing funding of MXN 360,000 (USD $20,000).

The programme requires beneficiaries to have previous savings and access to credit. However, Cooperación Comunitaria thinks that for the most vulnerable people, getting credit without savings puts them in an impossible situation. For this reason, following the operational regulations of CONAVI (National Housing Commission), people can contribute in-kind savings through the provision of adobe bricks, covering 5% of the construction costs. Families receive the support of Cooperación Comunitaria with in-kind savings, their contribution of manual labour and receive personal advice on how to manage their micro-credit. Habitat for Humanity, the authorised Contractor Body by CONAVI and project partner, serves as the financial actor in charge of verifying the savings contribution and providing micro-loans.

Cooperación Comunitaria is developing a system of savings and loans through community funds, which are administrated by the participants themselves. In this way, each family saves from the beginning of the project and when the time comes to contribute to the house, they have capital to act as collateral for the micro-credit. Cooperación Comunitaria has already implemented this model in Veracruz state in a separate programme and it worked well, although implementation takes time.

The use of local materials reduces costs and promotes self-sufficiency, reducing dependency on industrial materials.

A productive space for coffee processing in the house is planned for the second stage, as this is the residents’ main activity. A space will be allocated with a modular roof with mesh for coffee drying, whilst other productive activities can take place underneath the living spaces.

What is the social impact?

Participants were involved in communal work focused on collective collaboration to achieve common goals. Better communication, willingness and cooperation among residents was evident in construction, reforestation and their work on risk analysis, as well as in the commitment of each resident as part of a strengthened community. Likewise, the project organisers have noticed an increase in empathy among members, which has reduced problems and misunderstandings. Also, a greater sense of responsibility in decision-making through the organisation of the project activities was evident, as well as the development of working teams in construction and agricultural activities and when the community reached legal agreements via discussions in assemblies. An example of this is the increased participation of members in assemblies. At the beginning, only leaders would participate, but latterly members engaged in discussions, and Cooperacion Comunitaria became witness to a process driven by the communities – whose members engage in debates about fairness in beneficiary selection, community work, etc.

Working together also increases the organisational and decision-making capabilities of members of the community in the long term. In this way, it facilitates the independent design and development of future projects. The people who participated in the project have shown their ability to judge short-term programmes and their lack of sustainability; they are able to work independently and have a reduced dependency on handouts.

The area has many government programmes that are based on people receiving a monthly monetary sum, with the only requirement being that they attend meetings or events. This is seen as a way of receiving income but does not help people to become self-sufficient. On the contrary, they are dependent on this handout that can stop at any point. The government also runs programmes providing fertilisers and agrochemicals to farmers in the area without them knowing how to use them properly. This project, instead, is looking to promote independence and self-sufficiency, with people being able to produce their own housing and food. Participants increased their construction skills to produce reinforced adobe houses and energy-saving stoves. They have also gained knowledge of the causes of risks in their local area, their role in these events and the importance of the measured use of resources.

People who participated in the project are safer as their houses are resistant to the elements; significantly reducing their vulnerability towards landslides and natural phenomena such as hurricanes, strong winds and earthquakes. In this way, there is increased resilience towards the effects of climate change. The residents have the tools to identify risks in the long term. All community members have access to the risk map, which they can consult when necessary. A year after completion, the houses faced strong storms without any damage. The housing design respects the social and cultural norms of the region and preserves traditional productive spaces (for example for coffee production), and the project reduces the loss of traditional knowledge in construction techniques and resolves the technical issues that lead to damage such as cracks and humidity in walls. Self-build construction of new housing has helped to solve overcrowding situations through the building of new homes for young families. The project has an impact on living and health conditions: natural lighting was improved and thermal and acoustic insulation increased with mud tile floors and pajarcilla insulation in the roof; and the energy saving stoves help reduce the amount of smoke produced, helping to avoid respiratory problems as well.

Barriers

The main barrier faced was the effect of the federal government aid programmes, making people familiar with receiving resources without doing any work. Because of this, the organisation of the project, communication and participation were a challenge at the beginning. This was resolved through assemblies, talks and community development workshops where dialogue, decision-making and participation were promoted and facilitated.

Another obstacle was that prior to the construction of the housing, a road was widened through the whole community, which involved works that complicated construction logistics and made the attendance of some stakeholders at the assemblies difficult. Logistical arrangements were adjusted, the wood from felled trees was put to use once the road was open and the construction concluded before the rains as planned.

Lessons Learned

The main learning point for the project was being able to adjust the finance and work schedule in line with the activities of community members, taking into account agriculture cycles and cultural celebrations within the community. This helped Cooperacion Comunitaria better understand the community’s pace and way of working.

Another important point was knowing more about their culture, rituals, medicines and traditions, which helped them to adjust the project for the next communities in the same local authority area, with whom they are currently working.

Whilst finishing the Community Centre some modifications were made following residents’ comments, which allowed some structural modifications to be made with the engineer in order to facilitate the construction process. The programme is continuing to improve the techniques of lime-paint, floors, the ways of using pajarcilla for insulation, etc.

Evaluation

The impact of the project has been assessed by obtaining baseline indicators, through a community audit. The results were compared with those obtained at the intermediary and final phases of the project. Qualitative indicators were assessed with techniques such as ethnographic analysis and a community biography in the initial stage, which provided data on appropriate living spaces, cultural use of spaces and adaptability. Surveys and technical diagnoses were carried out, measuring damage, risks and gaps, which provided baseline indicators. Four follow-up visits have been carried out following the end of the project in 2015.

Recognition

2015 Razón de Ser (Raison d’être) Award, Sustainable Habitat category, presented by Merced Foundation and Kaluz Foundation.
Semi-finalists for the 2016 Fuller Challenge, Buckminster Fuller Institute.
Representative in the Mexico pavilion, 2016 Venice Architectural Biennale.
Enlace Ciudadano (Citizen Link) programme in CDMX radio, presentation on projects and perspectives, July 2015.
Project presentation in Ciudadana (Citizen) Radio, November 2015.
Participation in HIC-AL publication “Transformative Experiences in Social Production of Habitat”.
“Obispo residents: traditional knowledge incorporated to strengthen their resilience” Article published by UNISDR.
Visitors have included HIC-AL/Franciscan Central Mission (Germany); MISEREOR (Germany); ADO Foundation (Mexico) and National Housing Commission – CONAVI (Mexico).

Transfer

This project is currently being replicated in three communities in the same local authority area (San Miguel, Laguna Seca and Moyotepec). Since October 2015, they have completed a socio-economic audit, risk analysis and mapping, as well as building a traditional medicine centre (which served as a practical example for the construction workshop).

Community workshops on risk reduction, community development and capacity building in construction of reinforced adobe housing have taken place. They will build 81 energy-saving stoves, 60 dry toilets and 110 reinforced houses, as well as three community garden centres with native species for reforestation. Capacity building activities will be carried out on resource management, cooperative development, self-build and eco-technology maintenance and six community development officers will be trained. In order to replicate the project, Cooperacion Comunitaria have acquired the certification needed to be able to transfer a federal subsidy from the National Housing Commission (CONAVI) to the residents, applying the constitutional right to housing for any Mexican citizen.

Through partnerships and presentations, 17 communities have come forward to ask to be involved in the development of similar projects, which are currently being considered. One of Cooperación Comunitaria’s programmes is focused on research into adapting living spaces to their context. In the case of Montaña de Guerrero, the project has already been implemented and tested and for this reason they plan to work with the same approach in the same region, in communities keen to work with them.

The methodology developed by Cooperación Comunitaria was designed to adapt to different geological, climatic, social and cultural contexts. Participation of the residents ensures the relevance of the activities in relation to the needs of each place, through the stages of needs analysis, architectural analysis of traditional housing, diagnostic and prevention of disaster risks, participatory housing design, capacity building, adapted housing and sustainable management of public resources. In that sense, the project is fully transferable to marginalised rural areas in Mexico and other countries that are exposed to disaster risks, even if the solutions developed are unique to each community.

Authors:

World Habitat

Promoting Eco-sanitation in Informal Settlements

0

Login necesario

Username

Password

Remember Me Lost your password? Register

Forgotten Password

Enter username or email

Cancel

Register For This Site

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Username

E-mail

Cancel

Promoting Eco-sanitation in Informal Settlements

Mismatches Functional adequacy Cultural suitability Vulnerable groups

Policies and regulations

Urban Design Environments Quality Equity

Promotion and production Self-management Cooperatives

Main objectives of the project

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

Date

2015:

Stakeholders

Promotor: World Habitat

Location

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

Description

Project Description

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

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

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

Aims and Objectives

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

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

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

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

Context

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

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

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

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

Key Features

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

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

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

Groups that have been in existence for more than six months.
A group with a set of values and focus or activity that binds them together already and where the income from the bio-centres is complementary to existing income streams rather than a sole source of income, for example:

table banking: where members meet once every month, place their savings, loan repayments and other contributions on the table then lend either long-term or short-term loans to one or a number of interested members.
merry-go-round: where members contribute a small sum of money on a regular basis and each time money is collected, the full sum is paid out to one of the members. The members take turns to receive the pay-out, so after one full cycle, every member of the group has had a turn.
environmental groups that focus on waste collection, cleaning the environment or tree planting.
art-based groups such as dance classes, yoga, drawing etc.

Groups that have been legally registered by the Government of Kenya, under the Ministry of Gender, Children and Social Development. Under the constitution, the group would have outlined how often they should meet and by looking at their records the Trust are able to see if they are following the objectives laid down in their constitution.
Groups that invest in their members by loaning or buying assets that will increase the membership of the group.
Some community-based groups involve purely women or girls but where there is a gender mix, the trust operate a ²/₃ rule (i.e. a maximum of ²/₃ of the management is male).

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

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

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

The construction phase itself consists of three stages:

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

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

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

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

What impact has it had?

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

How is it funded?

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

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

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

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

There are three types of bio-centres:

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

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

Why is it innovative?

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

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

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

Examples of sub-committees:

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

What is the environmental impact?

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

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

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

Is it financially sustainable?

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the social impact?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barriers

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

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

These challenges were addressed as follows:

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

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

Lessons Learned

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

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

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

Evaluation

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

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

Authors:

World Habitat

Urban Shelter Project

0

Login necesario

Username

Password

Remember Me Lost your password? Register

Forgotten Password

Enter username or email

Cancel

Register For This Site

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Username

E-mail

Cancel

Urban Shelter Project

Mismatches Functional adequacy Vulnerable groups New family structures

Urban Design Urban fabrics Environments Inclusion Equity

Promotion and production Public promotion Participatory processes

Main objectives of the project

The project works with Jordanian owners to refurbish uninhabitable properties to create homes. These are leased to Syrian refugees, rent-free for 18 months. Funds are used to subsidy the refurbishments, which has a positive impact on the local economy by increasing the availability of housing and providing jobs, which helps to reduce conflicts between refugees and local people. To date, over 5,000 housing units have been improved, providing housing for over 18,000 refugees and creating over 20,000 short term employment opportunities.

Date

2016:

Stakeholders

Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Country/Region: Jordan

Description

The Urban Shelter Project creates new housing units in Jordan for Syrian refugees to live in rent-free for 18 months. The project works with local property-owners whose properties are uninhabitable because they are unfinished or incomplete. The Norwegian Refugee Council provides funding to bring the properties up to acceptable standards. The refurbished homes are leased by the owner to a refugee family, rent-free for 18 months.

Norwegian Refugee Council also provides legal assistance services to Syrian refugees in regard to their rights and access to legal and civil documentation, refugee registration procedures and housing, land and property rights (including evictions, and landlord/tenant disputes).

To date, the project has:

Created 5,100 units benefitting 1,106 landlords.
Provided 18,127 refugees with shelter, 83% of whom are women or children.
Created 20,400 short term employment opportunities in northern Jordan, where, in the city of Irbid, the unemployment rate is the second-highest in the country at 21%.
Re-vitalised local economies by investing USD $10 million locally.

The project is ongoing and is continuing to fundraise to renovate additional properties.

Aims and Objectives

The main objectives of the project are:

to ensure that Syrian refugees can access suitable shelter;
to ensure the protection of vulnerable people;
to ensure that refugees know their rights and can voice those rights.

The high number of refugees in host communities is putting increased pressure on the local housing and labour market. This is a key source of tension between Syrian refugees and Jordanians. An estimated 20% of Syrian refugees living in host communities do not have rental contracts, which means that they are at constant risk of being evicted. This lack of security of tenure impacts on their ability to stay registered with refugee and Jordanian authorities, which is necessary in order for them to access humanitarian and state-provided services. This project therefore aims to:

Provide a secure, adequate and affordable shelter to vulnerable [1] Syrian refugees in out-of-camp areas of Jordan.
Limit the increases in rent prices at a local level by increasing the number of housing units.
Invest in the local economy, directly through conditional cash grants to Jordanian landlords and indirectly by creating income generation opportunities for skilled and unskilled labourers in the construction sector.

[1] Vulnerability criteria are used to assess those who would benefit the most from the intervention – single parents, single mothers, families, people with disabilities, people with a large number of young children. Preferential treatment is offered to these groups.

Context

Northern Jordan has experienced an enormous influx of refugees fleeing from the war in Syria. More than 635,000 have been registered by the United Nations since the war began in 2011. Whilst several large refugee camps have been built, 82% of Syrian refugees live outside the camps, mainly in cities and towns in the north of Jordan. This has created a significant additional demand and competition for housing, the impacts of this are felt not just by the refugees, but by Jordanians who have seen increases in housing costs. As the conflict enters its fifth year the vulnerability of refugees increases as their ability to pay for services including housing decreases.

Eighty-six per cent of Syrian refugees are now living below the Jordanian poverty line. According to the UNHCR Vulnerability Assessment Framework Baseline Survey, 50% of the Syrian refugees outside camps are highly vulnerable from a housing point of view. Many Syrian refugees in Jordan are unable to secure adequate shelter for their families. One in five Syrian refugee households live in shelter which cannot offer them basic protection from the elements and may have leaking roofs or plastic sheets in place of windows. Almost half of all accommodation rented by Syrian refugees is also visibly affected by mould and moisture which has a negative impact on family health.

The latest nationwide statistics show that the main sources of income for Syrian refugee households are:

Food assistance (25%);
Income from unskilled labour (23%);
Borrowing money (19%);
Income from skilled labour (10%).

Some 23% of the refugee households assessed live in accommodation where kitchens and bathrooms do not meet minimum standards. In addition, the large refugee influx has significantly impacted on local rent prices, which have gone up by 13% compared to pre-crisis market prices.

The project strives to address the root of the housing crisis, contributing to an increase in the adequate housing stock in Jordan, as well as impacting on the local economy and social cohesion through the clear investment in the host community. The project takes an integrated approach to the needs of refugees by first providing access to adequate shelter and then working to meet other housing needs, including security of tenure, providing conflict dispute resolution and giving support with documentation and legal assistance as required.

Key Features

Beneficiaries are selected by using the Vulnerability Assessment Framework Baseline Survey (using the VAF Welfare model 2015). Fifty per cent of the Syrian refugees outside the camps are highly shelter vulnerable. The majority of their monthly expenditure is spent on rent.

The Norwegian Refugee Council adopted various measures to ensure beneficiaries and local partners were involved and played an active, meaningful role in the programme:

Community Based Organisations and local authorities play a key role in disseminating information and referring potential property owners to the project;
Beneficiaries are offered but have the right to refuse a property if they have valid reasons not to live there; and
Syrian refugees have been involved in identifying the key vulnerability criteria used to assess people’s involvement in the project.Feedback from the people who are housed through the project is used to improve services and ensure accountability to beneficiaries. This information is collected through a variety of means such as surveys and one to one household interviews. Information, counselling and legal assistance work involves day to day listening and understanding the issues of Syrian refugees and trying to find real-time solutions to them. Landlords are included in this process and are also able to provide feedback and request assistance throughout the term of the lease. The project’s implementation is also coordinated with the local government through a Memorandum of Understanding with the relevant ministry in the Government of Jordan.

The activity involves upgrading existing housing units, including work to:

Improve durable protection from cold and wet weather and increase security and privacy. This includes adding permanent doors and windows; insulation (roof, doors and windows) and applying a base coat of plaster.
Inclusion of sources of renewable energy (solar thermal) and water conservation kits within the upgrading of properties.
Improve hygiene and access to water and sanitation facilities. This includes installing toilets, washing facilities; improving drainage; building new/expanding existing septic tanks; mending leakages in water supply; fixing drainage systems.
Improve connections to municipal infrastructure and services. This includes connection to water mains/installing water tanks; installing separate electricity meters.
Remove health and safety risks. This includes adding balustrades or barriers to stairs, balconies etc.; adding electrical earths, removing faulty wiring etc.; dismantling and removing any existing unwanted items and removing all debris.
Create separate sleeping areas to improve privacy and provide a warmer living area. This includes installing internal doors and lightweight partitions.
Ensure that people with disabilities can move around their home, use toilet facilities and enter/exit the home safely. This includes provision of equipment to ensure accessibility, and prioritise safety and dignity tailored to the specific needs of the individuals with disabilities.

The table below summarises the level of payments made to the landlords for upgrading their properties, based on the number of upgraded/livable housing units they can provide to refugees.

Number of Housing Units	Investment limit (18 months’ rent free (Jordanian Dinars (JDs))	Minimum requirements
1	2,000 JDs (approximately USD $3,000)	Rent-free shelter for 18 months; Security of tenure; No evictions
2	3,000 JDs (approximately USD $4,000)
3	4,000 JDs (approximately USD $5,000)
4	5,000 JDs (approximately USD $6,000)

What impact has it had?

The Norwegian Refugee Council are not aware of any direct impacts on local or national policy as yet. However, the project has been successful in positively engaging the Government of Jordan at a local and national level to discuss the housing needs of refugees. This work has resulted in the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Jordanian Government which had demonstrated the government’s buy-in to the project. One of the main components of the Memorandum of Understanding is the establishment of a steering committee comprised of representative of the various relevant ministries (Social Development, Municipalities, Planning and International Cooperation) along with the representatives from the local authorities of the areas targeted by the project. The steering committee positively influenced the project’s acceptance at national and local levels and provides a platform to ensure the sustainability of the project in the future.

The project has been able to protect and promote the rights to decent housing in a number of ways. Firstly, by directly increasing the supply of decent housing available to refugees. Secondly, the project has raised awareness of building codes with local contractors and has increased the expectation for compliance beyond the project’s own buildings. Thirdly, the project has been active in protecting refugees’ housing rights once they are in the new properties. Additionally, the Norwegian Refugee Council has been actively engaged with Jordan’s newly established Green Building Council advocating for environmental initiatives to be included.

How is it funded?

Five thousand, one hundred housing units have already been converted by the project using donations from the funders listed below. Future refurbishments are dependent on additional donor funding and further funding has been secured until September 2017.Costs are related to outputs – between 1,000 JDs (approximately USD $2,000) and 2,000 JDs (approximately USD $3,000) per housing unit – as well as operational costs including staffing, transportation and office rent and utilities.

The costs have been covered by direct funding from various donors including:

Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
BPRM: Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (USA)
DFID: Department for International Development (UK)
NMFA: Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
ECHO: European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid Office
SIDA: Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency
GAC: Global Affairs Canada (formerly CIDA)

The scalability of the project is wholly dependent on funding. The Norwegian Refugee Council is actively fundraising to continue to further develop their work.

Why is it innovative?

Breaking with convention, the project sought to address multiple issues and not simply provide shelters for refugees. The project strives to address the root of the housing crisis, contributing towards an increase in the adequate housing stock in Jordan, as well as impacting on the local economy and social cohesion through a clear investment in the host community.

Investment into the local economy brings clear benefits in reducing conflict between refugees and local people. Supporting this initiative, the programme mapped the skilled labourers in different trades and locations and shared the contact list with the landlords, linking them to the labour market. This is also an example of supply chain innovation in the project and responded to a local need whereby there were insufficient labourers to respond to the construction programme.

In the context of the Jordanian rented housing sector, the provision of renewable energy (solar thermal) and water conservation kit is also innovative. It is only in very recent years that renewables have begun to be adopted and water conservation is still not consistently applied within construction or upgrading in Jordan and the project provides a platform for others to learn from and copy.

In this project, The Norwegian Refugee Council used Cash Transfer Programming as the delivery mechanism for the assistance to the landlord. In addition, as an additional feature the Norwegian Refugee Council provides the landlords with the opportunity to install solar water heaters in exchange for a reduction in rent (beyond the rent-free period) – and this option is clarified in the scope of works agreed with the landlord.

The approach taken by the Norwegian Refugee Council has included using proactive engagement with other key stakeholders e.g. local authorities and the newly established Green Building Council to inform them about the project which has strengthened the project itself and benefited the refugee communities more widely.

What is the environmental impact?

At the project design phase, an internal environmental impact assessment indicated that there were no significant risks to the environment associated with the project implementation and, therefore, no specific mitigation measures were put in place. This reflects principally the fact that the refurbishments and upgrades are not new build and therefore there is no issue of land take and its associated impacts on the environment.

The project involves the renovation of existing buildings rather than demolition and reconstruction and the Norwegian Refugee Council has incorporated renewable energy, energy efficiency and water conservation in the project design including:

Installation of solar water heating to households utilising renewable energy resource. The solar water heaters considerably cut down household energy bills and improve living conditions of beneficiaries;
Provision of energy efficient lighting which contributes further towards cutting down household energy bill;
The distribution of water saving kits to reduce household water consumption which, in addition to the environmental benefits, reduces the costs of water trucking and wastewater disposal faced by vulnerable households.

Overall with the emphasis on re-use of existing structures and the inclusion of renewable energy and water conservation measures the project is considered to have a positive impact on the environment when considered against the options associated with new build.

Is it financially sustainable?

Five thousand, one hundred housing units have already been converted by the project. Future refurbishments are dependent on donor funding. As of April 2016, funding is secured until August 2016. However, several proposals are under review by donors committed to supporting the project and the Norwegian Refugee Council is confident that the project will continue to be implemented in Jordan.

What is the social impact?

The high number of refugees in host communities in Jordan is putting increased pressure on the housing and labour markets. This is a key source of tension between Syrian refugees and Jordanians.

Without the project Syrian refugees would face protracted displacement with no or limited livelihood options which could result in:

Negative coping mechanisms adopted by vulnerable Syrian refugees e.g. prostitution, crime, exploitative labour.
Risk of deportation by Syrian refugees working illegally.
Return to Syria.
Involuntary returns to camp settings.

For Jordanian host communities:

Loss of income for construction labourers in areas of poverty in Jordan.
Mismatch between the demand and supply of affordable housing.

In a survey of Syrian refugees currently assisted through the project, 93% felt ‘secure’ or ‘very secure’ in their new accommodation compared to only 58% before. A third of all beneficiaries reported that they had previously lived in a basement, tent, warehouse or partially constructed house compared to their new accommodation which was either a flat or fully constructed house meeting minimum standards. Some 92% considered their new accommodation ‘good’ or ‘very good’.

The impact of the project on the Jordanian landlords and their families is longer lasting. The upgrading of the housing units directly impacts the value of the landlords’ housing asset and allows them to generate more income following the end of the project by entering the rental market.

Barriers

Several challenges have been highlighted in the implementation of activities:

The project’s detailed assessment of construction delays helped the Norwegian Refugee Council adapt and highlighted ways to reduce such delays in the future. One of the issues identified by the landlords as causing delays in the completion of the construction was the availability of skilled labourers. In an attempt to support the landlords overcome this challenge, the programme mapped the skilled labourers in different trades and locations and shared the contact list with the landlords linking them to the labour market. This is also an example of innovation in the project.
Some of the refugee families didn’t accept the housing offered to them. A detailed assessment of why showed interesting results. At the time of the assessment the level of non-acceptance was 15%. Findings from the assessment included a better understanding of the refugees’ perception of the importance of, for example, the proximity of the housing to services and markets. As a result the criteria used to select properties were revised and proximity to services and markets were given a higher priority.
Eighty per cent of refugees in Jerash governorate and 61% in Aljoun chose to live there because they had family close by, while only 13% and 28%, respectively, chose to live there because of low rents. This highlights the significance of social networks in refugee housing choices. This has only proved to be a barrier for the project in being able to find enough properties close to people’s relatives. However, by involving the community and with the support of local authorities, the impact of more outreach focused on Jordanian landlords increased the availability of properties in most locations.
Overcrowding and sub-standard housing conditions in urban areas may result in increased family violence and early marriage of girls. And although this has not been a noticeable issue specifically within the project, protection measures are mainstreamed through all of the Nowegian Refugee Council’s activities with referrals made to specialist sources of support.
The lower costs of supporting refugees outside camps means that the demand for provision of urban shelter by humanitarian organisations is likely to rise which increases the importance of advocacy efforts with the main donors and stakeholders to ensure continued support for extremely vulnerable cases. In addition, the programme is looking at various interventions supporting the livelihoods of the refugee households, and promoting their engagement in useful income generating activities (such as in the construction sector or in home based businesses) in order to grow their independence from humanitarian assistance.

Lessons Learned

Integration of legal assistance and security of tenure into the housing project was vital to ensure the sustainability of the activities and provide, as far as is possible, protection from eviction.
Coordination with the hosting government at national and local level was instrumental in ensuring buy-in and the smooth implementation of the project, and allowed the Norwegian Refugee Council to be better placed in order to reach beneficiaries in different governorates.
The project design which included significant benefits for the local community in terms of conditional cash grants mitigated any likelihood of increased tension between host and refugee communities. It also increased the ability of the local communities to cope with the protracted crisis by increasing the number of housing units and also mitigating the increase in rent prices.
Building partnerships with local organisations helped the acceptance of the programme and empowered them with the learning and training they would need to implement similar projects in the future. It also increased the reach of the programme and allowed better access to beneficiaries in different locations.
The coordination efforts with other humanitarian actors at a national and local level helped with the quality of the beneficiary selection process by avoiding duplication and by standardising the methodology used by different organisations. And the setting up of various referral mechanisms ensured that the assistance given to refugees was timely.
The approach of actively engaging with local governors, local authorities and community-based organisations, as well as developing legal guidance for project activities, could be even more valuable in the future if the urban shelter programme is expanded.

Evaluation

The Norwegian Refugee Council has rolled-out a consistent approach to monitoring and evaluation across all its Middle East country operations. The roll-out also includes a complaints, response and feedback mechanism.

For many years Norwegian Refugee Council has used standard indicators across all of its operations, first through its core activity database and now its global output reporting system. It ensures that there is maximum accountability to beneficiaries and that there are systems in place which will support the improvement of the programme during its course.

Technical monitoring of the shelter component of the programme is provided by civil engineers on the Norwegian Refugee Council staff, supporting and following up with landlords in their implementation of construction works. The engineers ensure that the construction work is undertaken to an adequate, safe standard and in a timely way. In addition to technical supervision, the Norwegian Refugee Council undertakes regular visits to the beneficiaries following up on their experiences of living in the housing and trying to mitigate any disputes.

An external evaluation of the project was completed in 2015, with recommendations that have been incorporated into the project design and processes in order to better reach the target objectives. One of the recommendations of the external evaluation was that the programme should consider a more ‘area-based’ approach to programming in addition to strengthening engagement with local stakeholders and organisations. As a result, in 2016 the Norwegian Refugee Council started the implementation of its community-based approach in programming ensuring different projects and interventions are implemented together in order to maximise the impact on beneficiaries.The impact of the project on host communities has not been looked at in depth, beyond the economic impact.

Recognition

The Integrated Urban Shelter Project was selected and presented as good practice programming during the Mediterranean Municipalities at the Forefront of the Refugee Crisis: Peer-to-Peer Learning Workshop for Communities Hosting Refugees organised by the World Bank and Crisis Management Initiative (CMI) in Amman in 2016 and has received considerable attention in the media within and beyond Jordan including:

Transfer

The Norwegian Refugee Council is keen to continue scaling up the project within Jordan – the only barrier is funding. The approach could be a replicable model in other emergency settings and bridge the gap between humanitarian and development approaches in the shelter sector. The project in Jordan was developed from a similar project implemented by the same organisation in Lebanon, where other organisations involved in shelter are now replicating the intervention.

In Jordan, the Norwegian Refugee Council is the only organisation involved in implementing this project. However, it is included as a priority shelter intervention in the Jordan Response Plan for the Syria Crisis and the Shelter Working Group has developed detailed technical guidance on how to implement the project. Transferring the project into similar settings and repeating success is very much dependent on communicating the process. The Norwegian Refugee Council is actively engaged outside Jordan with various working groups such as the Shelter Cluster, where this approach is being discussed.

Authors:

World Habitat

Resilient Social Housing

0

Login necesario

Username

Password

Remember Me Lost your password? Register

Forgotten Password

Enter username or email

Cancel

Register For This Site

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Username

E-mail

Cancel

Resilient Social Housing

Mismatches Functional adequacy New family structures Climate change

Policies and regulations Local policies Governance

Urban Design Urban fabrics Liveability Inclusion

Promotion and production Participatory processes Self-management Self-promotion

Main objectives of the project

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

Date

2016:

Stakeholders

Promotor: World Habitat

Location

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

Description

Project Description

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

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

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

Aims and Objectives

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

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

Context

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

Key Features

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

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

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

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

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

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

What impact has it had?

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

How is it funded?

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

Why is it innovative?

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

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

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

What is the environmental impact?

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

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

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

Is it financially sustainable?

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

What is the social impact?

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

There are a number of social aspects of this project:

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

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

Barriers

Institutional issues:

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

Political issues:

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

Social issues:

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

Technical issues:

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

Economic issues:

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

Lessons Learned

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

Evaluation

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

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

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

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

Recognition

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

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

Transfer

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

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

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

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

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

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

Authors:

World Habitat

Intercultural Neighbourhood

0

Login necesario

Username

Password

Remember Me Lost your password? Register

Forgotten Password

Enter username or email

Cancel

Register For This Site

A password will be e-mailed to you.

Username

E-mail

Cancel

Intercultural Neighbourhood

Mismatches Vulnerable groups New family structures

Policies and regulations Local policies Building capacity

Promotion and production Progressive housing

Main objectives of the project

Date

2016:

Stakeholders

Promotor: World Habitat

Location

Continent: South America
City: Neuquén
Country/Region: Argentina, Neuquén

Description

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

Aims and Objectives

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

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

Context

Key Features

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

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

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

What impact has it had?

How is it funded?

Why is it innovative?

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

What is the environmental impact?

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

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

Is it financially sustainable?

What is the social impact?

There are a number of social aspects of this project:

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

Barriers

Institutional issues:

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

Political issues:

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

Social issues:

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

Technical issues:

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

Economic issues:

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

Lessons Learned

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

Evaluation

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

Recognition

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

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

Transfer

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

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

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

Authors:

World Habitat

0 Login necesario Username Password Remember Me Lost your password? Register Forgotten Password Enter username or email Cancel Register For This Site A password will be e-mailed to you. Username E-mail Cancel