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.
