Kibera, Nairobi

In September I attended a Young Planning Professionals (YPP) workshop organised by ISOCARP in Nairobi, Kenya. This workshop preceded the ISOCARP Annual Congress, on the theme of Sustainable City, Developing World.

The workshop was hard work but very interesting. Our project area was Kibera, specifically Soweto East village, the site of the first stage of the implementation of the Kenya Slum Upgrading Program (Kensup) being implemented by the Kenyan government. So far, the first phase has involved moving a number of families into a "decanting site" in another area of Kibera. This decanting site consists of a few apartment buildings with flats for rent. The idea is that families will be here temporarily while their former houses are upgraded into flats. The problem is that as most of the structures in Kibera are rented out to tenants, and not lived in by their owners, the "structure owners" as the landlords are called (since they do not own the land, which belongs to the state, only the buildings) do not see it as being in their interest to redevelop Kibera. They have therefore caused a delay in the implementation of Kensup by taking the government to court. Who knows when the issue will be resolved, when the new flats will be built, and when the families currently in the decanting site will be able to move to their new homes.

While many families have been moved to the decanting site, many still run small businesses in Soweto East village, and therefore have to travel from the decanting site to their former location daily. We had the chance to talk to a few of the residents of Soweto East, and they seem keen to move into the new apartments once they are built. Certainly, though, conditions in the decanting site are pretty good, and each flat comes with three rooms, with the option of one room being rented out for extra income. Meanwhile, those still in their shacks in Soweto East face exorbitant rents - we visited one lady's room, with walls made of tarp, dirt floor, low ceiling, and she was paying 2000 shillings monthly (20 euros).

A couple of observations struck me. Firstly, that the Kensup project was reverting to building apartments, which have largely been discredited as a solution to slums. When I brought this up, the explanation was lack of space. However, I still think that building apartments is short-sighted, and as part of our YPP projects the group dealing with shelter came up with an innovative solution of 3x3m houses in a grid layout which demonstrated that it is possible to upgrade horizontally too. It requires a bit more thought, and less space given to large roads, but given the terrible traffic in Nairobi one wonders whether the through-road currently under construction will be the best addition to the area. The YPP group dealing with infrastructure suggested an emphasis on making Kibera bike-friendly, as well as the route between Kibera and the industrial area where many of Kibera's residents work, and currently spend one hour walking to, and an hour walking back, per day. An interesting fact is that in Nairobi's CBD, bicylces are banned, because they cause chaos! One couldn't get a much more anti-poor, and short-sighted, policy.

The other thing which struck me was that Kibera residents did not seem much involved in the Kensup project. While there was a degree of community organisation, in the form of a representative committee representing 14 (if I remember correctly) groups (faith-based, youth, etc) given the thousands living in Soweto East village, a dozen or so representatives sitting on a committee would not be truly representative. The ideal solution (for me) would be for households to be organised in a sub-group system, similar to the Thai case in savings groups. For example, 10-20 households would form one subgroup, and 10 subgroups would form one group with one representative and so on. From what I understood, the current system only represents those that are part of a youth group or faith-based group etc, rather than a household or location-based system.

Finally, the residents seemed to have faith in the Kensup project, despite the fact that it has been indefinitely delayed by the structure owners' court case. At this rate, I don't know when those currently living in the decantment site will be moved back to their original area, let alone when the next phase of upgrading will occur... It is this faith that things will improve that really struck me, especially as none of the residents seemed to be actively doing anything to improve their housing. Clearly the situation in Kibera is still lagging behind that in Asian low-income communities, where residents are much more organised and empowered to take charge of improving their living conditions. As I have previously exposed only to these organised communities with strong leaders, it provided a strong reality check to me, that there is still much to be done in terms of community organisation.

Community architects in Fiji

I've been rather slack in updating this blog recently, but I do have a few things to post about soon. I'm just back from a trip to Kenya for a Young Planning Professionals Workshop organised by the ISOCARP (International Society of City and Regional Planners), where our task was to develop possible projects to integrate Kibera into the wider city. More on that, and photos of Kibera, very soon.

In the meantime, I want to highlight an interesting blog about the work of three community architects, Hugo, Anna and Heidi, in Fiji. They are working on the upgrading of informal settlements with the local residents, and the blog provides a great overview of the steps required in this upgrading, from community surveying to mapping to holding city-wide meetings. Check it out here: http://suva-projects.blogspot.com/

A question of fences in Mongolia

I recently went to Mongolia to visit ACHR's ACCA projects there, which have been in progress for a little over a year. While there is lots to report, for now I'll just stick to fences:

A very noticeable feature of the ger areas are the high wooden fences which surround each house. It seems that great importance is attached to these fences, with reasons for their existence including keeping the biting winter wind and animals out, and providing safety against theft and drunkards. However, given the country’s nomadic tradition, the rows of fences in urban areas can seem jarring, not to mention the high environmental impact of providing the timber for these fences. For those who promote collective action, these fences get in the way of forging closeness between neighbours and openness in the community. For example, Baan Mankong communities in Thailand do not include fences as part of the plan (though one does see a few communities with fences, for example Chalernchai Nimitmai in Bangkok, which was a case of reblocking. The community leader there noted that households with fences were the ones least likely to participate in community activities).

Therefore, where ACCA proposals do request funding for fences, it is preferable that they be of the low, see-through variety, though ideally, fences should not be a priority in terms of city-wide upgrading. However, it seems that for our Mongolian friends, fences remain important to mark out their territory (a law from the early 2000s gives everyone the right to a plot of land, the size depending on whether they are in an urban or rural area), and perhaps is a response to the ability to own land individually, following years of a socialist system.

The photo shows Thunkel village from above, with the fences demarcating each property very visible.

"Be the change you want to see in chumchon"

"Be the change you want to see in chumchon" (chumchon = community) was the theme for the recent Regional Community Architects Workshop organised by ACHR and held in Chiang Mai, Thailand. Gathering community architects and community members from all over Asia (and even some representatives from South Africa), there were about 120 participants who started off the workshop with a 17 hour drive from Bangkok to Chiang Mai, stopping to visit Sam Chuk market (an example of conserving heritage in a living form), a Baan Mankong project in Nakorn Sawan town, and a recently restored temple in Lampang.

Then followed three days of panels on topics ranging from small-scale and large-scale upgrading, disaster, heritage, and comprehensive upgrading, as well as field visits in Chiang Mai of Wat Doi Suthep, a Baan Mankong project inolving a community located on the old city walls, and the Wat Ket community, a project of restoration and conservation involving buildings of different faiths.

Though this meeting had powerpoint presentations and group discussions, the atmosphere was unlike any academic conference (except perhaps for things running behind schedule). There was a jovial and warm atmosphere, and I really got the impression that it was a real platform for exchange. We learnt about projects in different countries and cities, the challenges people faced, the successes, the similarities and differences. Having community members there in partnership with the community architects added depth, though I would have liked to have heard more from them, language issues notwithstanding.

All in all, a great experience. I was very glad to be able to meet all these people who are working hard across Asia, from reviving traditional craftsmanship in Tibet and Mongolia to post-tsunami projects in Thailand and Sri Lanka and community savings in Cambodia and Lao. Plans are underfoot for an in-depth publication relating to this meeting.

And to finish - a video by Maurice from ACHR, with images from the meeting, set to a song from Zimbabwe: "What shall we do?" - a pertinent question!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhxdnJHdqxM

Baan Mankong in Chum Pae

I recently visited the other locality to have a CDF in Thailand: Chum Pae town, in the Isarn region of North East Thailand. Chum Pae is a new town, about 90km from Khon Kaen, and has a population of about 30,000. Despite the relatively small size of the town, a city-wide survey carried out jointly by community residents and the tesaban (town council) 6 years ago found that about 3000 people suffered from housing problems. Chum Pae's poor communities therefore embarked on Baan Mankong upgrading, in 8 separate projects, with much vigour, led largely by the energy of Pa (aunt) Nong, a cheerful, community-spirited and ambitious lady. She was my tour guide and drove me around in her pick up truck to visit 5 communities, as well as to chat with the relevant person in the tesaban. I left Chum Pae imbued with a sense of warmth and truly moved by the willingness of the people to devote so much time to helping each other improve their homes.

Of the first 8 Baan Mankong projects, 349 households of the 395 planned have been completed. However, this process took 5 years, and further plans were slowed by the drying out of CODI's revolving. A more recent re-survey of the city found about 600 needy persons (the big difference in numbers from the previous survey was explained by the fact that perhaps the first survey had been too wide in its definition of "need") - so the city's poor were faced with the question of how to upgrade/provide 600 homes in half the time of the first batch of Baan Mankong. Chum Pae is one town where "city wide" upgrading has been taken literally - some of the Baan Mankong projects involved the relocation on to one site of scattered renters and squatters around the city. This was the case with Pa Nong's small community of 31 households, who previously lived all around town.

When I asked whether this didn't create problems in the community if people didn't really know each other before hand, one committee member told me that actually it simplified things, because everyone was so desperate for a secure and affordable home. In comparison, the community next door, Sawang Saeng See, was earmarked for on-site upgrading and was Chum Pae's first Baan Mankong project - however, of the 65 households, only 29 houses have finished the process. According to Pi Waad, leader of the savings group, the process fell apart because people were thinking only of themselves, not of the whole community and the benefit they could all derive from upgrading. So savings activities stopped and started. Of the remaining 35 non-upgraded households, some don't want to take on debt, and others don't see the need for new houses. This community has served as a valuable learning opportunity for others.

The 9th project is just about to get started - two plots of land have been purchased, and infrastructural improvements will be starting imminently. As I watched the World Cup in the Pa Nong's community "sala" in the evening, two young persons arrived on a motorbike and whisked out a laptop to go over figures for Project 9. They are some of the dedicated community members of Project 9 who continue to work on their future community after a hard day's work at their "real" job, with the benefit of input from Pa Nong and other experienced upgraders from Chum Pae.

Chum Pae's CDF was formed in 2008 as a result of CODI's funding shortfall, and has already had marked benefits for Chum Pae's low-income residents. Chum Pae's CDF has funded 3 homes for three women in deep poverty who had no one to care for them and in insecure housing - the CDF contributed 35,500B to their new homes (on one of the Project 9 sites), the network provided the labour, and the tesaban the machinery.

With Project 9, the purchase of two sites involved the CDF in different ways:
1) Chayapuk site cost 3.6mB to buy, but only 2mB came in funding, plus the 10% of the residents' savings totalling 360,000B - this meant a shortfall of 1.2mB, and so the shortfall was borrowed from the CDF. As Chayapuk is slightly larger than needed at present, this allows for the creation of a land bank to accommodate future needy persons.
2) at Chalermsuk, the land cost 4.4mB, but CODI loaned 4.8mB, so the extra 0.4mB went into the CDF.

So the CDF really is a mixing and matching of different sources of funding, including 2mB from the tesaban (in the form of infrastructure subsidies), 1mB from ACHR, contributions from each community's savings group, and donations from other parties.

Another benefit of the CDF which was pointed out to me was that since the communities didn't need to borrow so much from CODI, as they had the CDF as an alternative funding source, CODI's money could be loaned to other communities elsewhere in Thailand - thus Chum Pae's CDF is not only helping Chum Pae people, but others around Thailand. Far reaching effects that I hadn't considered before.

Pa Nong is keen to get other towns to start their own CDFs, especially as outside Bangkok, there are many instances of persons who own land but live in poor quality housing - this group cannot be helped through Baan Mankong (as their land is secure) but the CDF could be a solution. The CDF also encourages people to save for their future, not just for Baan Mankong projects, so that they can end their reliance on outsiders. As someone said, the CDF isn't just about spending, but also about saving.

When I left Chum Pae I felt very much inspired and invigorated by the energy of the town's community members. Next time I hear someone (invariably a Bangkokian) brand NorthEastern Thais as lazy and stupid, I'll send them to Chum Pae to see for themselves how wrong they are.

Introducing the City Development Fund - the example of Bang Khen district's CDF

Many community-based activities rely on the existence of community-level savings groups, as these savings groups may allow the communities access to other loan sources, with their savings being used as a contribution to the loan. For example, in Thailand, communities wishing to apply for a Baan Mankong loan need active savings groups, not only to allow for a 10% downpayment on the loan by each household, but also to demonstrate the community's commitment to upgrading activities.

City Development Funds (CDF) take these savings groups one step further. They are a way of connecting these savings groups to allow for larger scale projects on a wider city level, rather than just community by community. The CDF functions as a network linking the different communities in a town, city or province, and representatives of each community will serve on the CDF committee.

In Cambodia, CDFs have been in existence for a number of years, as they serve as the channel through which loans from the national-level Urban Poor Development Fund (UPDF) can be disbursed. Most cities have their own CDF (or, in the case of Phnom Penh, each district) and these CDFs link the various poor communities in that city, and it is with the CDF that the authorities will cooperate and liaise with.

In Thailand, CDFs are a newer phenomenon, and only two CDFs exist so far: in Bang Khen district of Bangkok, home of the Bang Bua canal communities; and in Chum Pae town, which is in the North East of Thailand. The impetus for the creation of these CDFs was the realisation that the communities could not always rely on government funding for their upgrading projects, as demonstrated by CODI's shortfall in funds in 2008. Hence, CDFs give the communities a measure of financial independence: Bang Bua's CDF connects the savings groups of 15 communities, with total savings of 1.45 million baht (though the savings of each group remain separate).

Bang Khen's communities have been strongly networked for over a decade, with their collective activities starting over a project to improve the quality of the canal water along which they lived. When some communities started Baan Mankong upgrading in 2004, others were spurred on to start (or re-start) savings groups. At this point, other communities in Bang Khen municipality which were not located along the canal, joined the Bang Bua canal network, so that it became the Bang Khen community network, and the basis for the Bang Khen City Development Fund.

As part of the Baan Mankong process, a district-wide survey of the housing problems faced by the district's urban poor was carried out by the network, in collaboration with Sripathum University. This mapping exercise allowed for the identification of all the persons in need of secure housing, potential threats to existing communities such as infrastructure projects, and types of land tenure already in place.

When CODI's budget constraints hampered the continuation of Baan Mankong, the communities formed a CDF. Member communities can take on loans, at an interest rate of 4%, of which 1% will go towards management costs, 1% will go towards the community's welfare fund, and 2% will go back into the CDF. This is the same rate as charged by CODI for Baan Mankong loans. The CDF is administered in a very community-centered manner: representatives from each of the 15 communities take part in decision-making with regard to loans. When allocating loans, communities which have demonstrated true participation will be favoured, rather than those where the community leaders take all the decisions. When a loan is granted, it is in the name of the community committee, not the individual who needs the loan, and the loan is repaid by monthly bank transfers from the committee, not in cash. The individuals who took out the loan then repay the committee on a monthly basis, in cash. This model suits households which usually do not have access to formal financial institutions. Because the money is the CDF is used as a revolving fund, this presents an incentive for residents to repay the loan regularly and promptly, so that others can benefit. Additionally, the money in the fund comes from their contributions, and therefore they may feel more responsibility over it than the government money which comes through CODI loans.

In Bang Bua community, the CDF has helped to fund "welfare" homes for two elderly and infirm households. A third home is on the way for a resident who wants to build a home on a sliver of land at the extremity of the community - this was not part of the Baan Mankong plan but is now possible with the CDF.

In Roon Mai Pattana community, two households have taken CDF loans to build new homes. In this community where Baan Mankong upgrading is not yet taking place, the CDF can serve as a tool to spur on interest in upgrading, by demonstrating through individual projects that upgrading is possible. An added advantage of taking a CDF loan is that the bureaucracy required is far less than for CODI loans. This is important not only when making loan applications, but also when they are disbursed: when it takes as little as 23 days to build a house, the fact that the CDF loan is disbursed in one lump sum is advantageous, compared to the CODI's three-stage release of the loan, as it allows for immediate and full payment of construction workers and housing materials.

The beauty of CDFs is that they encourage communities within an area to work together and take a wider view of the problems and solutions, sharing their problems and liaising with other stakeholders. Because the Bang Khen network of communities was already strong due to its various canal-based projects, it was an obvious candidate to start a CDF and take some independence from CODI in upgrading projects.
The members of the Bang Khen network clearly see the CDF as a flexible tool that can push forward improvements in housing conditions, on a smaller and more independent scale than Baan Mankong, which requires bureaucratic procedures as well as the readiness of the whole community to participate. This can be useful in demonstrating to more reticent community members the merits of upgrading, and hence speeding up the process.

"Chang chumchon" = community builders

One of the outcomes of Baan Mankong has been the formation of teams of "chang chumchon", meaning community builders, in the physical sense of the term: masons, carpenters, painters and so on. Whether upgrading for Baan Mankong requires complete reconstruction of homes, or just on-site upgrading such as improving pathways, someone needs to carry out this work, and typically, the options are:
1) the community hires a contractor to implement physical improvements;
2) the community residents build their own homes, with neighbourly assistance, or work with their neighbours to build infrastructure;
3) the community hires fellow community members who are skilled in construction techniques.

Increasingly, it is option 3) that is being chosen by communities for their ugprading projects. Sometimes, community members will all join in a project, especially one that doesn't require particularly high skill levels, such as laying a concrete pathway. Such collective efforts can also serve to demonstrate to outsiders (such as uncooperative municipal officials) the community's collective capacities, and even to emphasise to community residents themselves what they are capable of achieving.

I recently sat in on a meeting of the Bangkok region's network of chang chumchon, a meeting where they reflected on their role in helping communities complete Baan Mankong. They see themselves as having an important role in the Baan Mankong process, not only in building, but also in auditing the construction process in other communities. They are therefore split into two teams: "team chang" (building team) and "team tuat" (quality control team). Outside of communities, they can also demonstrate to external organisations, such as CODI, their ability to move forward the construction process and help to build strong communities. They realise they are not perfect, and this meeting was a chance to air some of the issues that have arisen, such as some builders taking the upper hand and taking decisions on their own, rather than working as a team.

Many communities have had bad experiences hiring outside contractors, who may charge high prices, and take advantage of their clients by suggesting modifications to the house design which are unecessary and costly to those who are already in a tough financial situation. Contractors may want to be paid up front, which is not always possible given the bureaucracy involved in releasing loan money to communities. If payments aren't made, or disagreements arise, they may abandon the project and leave families with unfinished homes, and the chang chumchon are then hired to "clear up the mess". Contractors were generally perceived negatively in this meeting.

The advantage of using chang chumchon is that these workers have been through the Baan Mankong process themselves, and as they are also residents of low-income communities, they are aware of the constraints that other residents face. These are not only financial, but also in terms of meeting building regulations. Baan Mankong communities are often by necessity in breach of some regulations, such as the roads not being the minimum required width (if they were, there would be no room left for the houses!). If houses deviate from the agreed specifications of the Baan Mankong house design, the household risks not being able to obtain a house registration - something to avoid, as this registration is necessary for access to many public services. However, the chang pointed out that they mustn't assume that they only way to do things is the way they were done in their own community - each community has its own methods, and the chang shouldn't impose their own way of doing things, but must listen to the community members.

The "team chang" are an innovative offshoot of Baan Mankong, arising from community members themselves. These teams not only provide community residents with jobs, but also increase their capacities as builders and managers, and gives them more power in the upgrading process.