Rural housing for very long has been approached from the point of view of special schemes for housing under the Indira Awaas and Nirbal Awaas Yojnas and similar grant and aid-based programmes.

We can, however, no longer continue to justify subsidy-based non-multiplying shelter provision, wherein the poor continue to be recipients instead of active participants in the process of their self-development.

Today, "the challenge is in developing self-sustaining and self- managed delivery systems." While rural economic growth is a pre-requisite to developing such a system, a systematic view that directs housing funds towards capacity building and basic services, as opposed to housing subsidies, is required.

Our learning from various projects and programmes leads us to believe that the strategy for large scale shelter transformation in a market driven approach of micro-entrepreneurs supported [not subsidised with technical, marketing and management systems will strengthen local building economies and have the desirable and most sustainable impact on habitat conditions in rural areas.

The ultimate objectives of any initiative aimed at improving shelter conditions on a large scale should be :

Even though these two conditions may seem obvious to development planners, the fact is that in the last five decades, the government has paid scant attention to the latter and actually worked against achieving the former by portraying housing as a welfare measure.

Impediments to the sustainability of habitat improvement processes are, to a large extent, generated by this charity based approach to housing programmes both from the end of the provider to the attitude of the recipients - "beneficiaries of housing schemes".

Contrary to the view subscribed by government housing grants, people are clearly prepared to "pay", if their genuine needs are being fulfilled. Experiences of Gram Vikas in Orissa show that communities of villagers (way below the poverty line) are willing to take house building loans and pay interest on it if they are convinced that at the end of the day they are getting value for their money.
 

We have found that from silent bystanders to hesitant and often sceptical participants (initially participating under a duress - or a ‘if no participation - no house’ threat), the families at Azadpura took control of making sure that they received their share of the raw materials, checked the quality of all they picked up, put in work at nights and during days (sacrificing the daily wage) to assist the masons, demanded quality from the masons - complained if the masons were not providing either the desired quality of work or following time schedules and even chose the masons whom they wanted for their house.

The participatory processes initiated during the building period at Azadpura, led to building up a sense of confidence within the families with the possibilities to improve their quality of life.
 

The first is an issue of technological innovation, the second incorporates designing for process sustainability and the third looks at building up capacities and empowering communities - converting needs into demands.
 

An ongoing study of the micro-linkages of livelihoods, energy and resource use patterns and shelter conditions in Bundelkhand has validated that "Higher diversity in building systems (technology choices) indicates a greater dynamism in the state of shelter and acceptance of newer materials." Increased diversity in a region may be attributed to improved linkages with distribution channels.

Thus diversity in technological options and variety in the delivery mechanisms becomes critical in "enabling" communities / families to meet their needs in a satisfactory manner.
 

Integrated Approach to Habitat Improvement

The Azadpura experience has clearly taught us the need for integrating the shelter programme with other aspects of community development. This is essential if projects have to lead on to sustainable processes for habitat improvement and is not possible if housing is treated as a one time project-based activity. Interventions for improving shelter conditions can be (and are often, at best) important entry points to catalyse the process of community development.

In terms of a cost benefit analysis, the hidden costs for the Azadpura project have been immense. The 5 per cent overhead expenses catered to in the project by the government are chicken-feed, in comparison to the inputs of the implementing agency, in this case TARAGram.

Yes, the pay-offs are tremendous but it is clear that as stand-alone projects such interventions cannot justify the inputs in proportion to the final outcome. In Azadpura, we realised this very early on. Integration of the shelter upgradation processes with other aspects of community development not only spreads the efforts (and the overheads) over a larger range of interventions but also the various facets of the development process reinforce each other and ensure continuity.

Thus the housing programme led to infrastructure development, capacity building of masons and block-makers who are gainfully employed and organisation of women into small handicraft enterprises.
 

Building centres are important role players in this process [of integrated continuous inputs].

Development Alternatives’ rural building centre - TARAGramin Nirman Kendra, functional since 1996, has provided valuable lessons. Its projects and programmes introduce the desired diversity in the building menu of the region; namely Compressed Earth Blocks, Concrete Blocks, Micro Concrete Roofing Tiles, Ferrocement roofing and understructure elements. The projects test these out on the field and provide live demonstrations. The building centre’s projects provide ground for upgrading the skills of masons and artisans, thus building up capacity within the region.

While functioning as an enterprise itself, in association with the Livelihood Mission, TARAGram provides consultancy and know-how to help set decentralised production units as enterprises. Thus different models for delivery are explored and put into action.

Association with government programmes and schemes, such as the IAY at Azadpura, wherein an integrated model of habitat improvement and community development could be explored, provide interesting ways in which even so called schemes and project-based approaches could be knitted together to provide integrated, holistic solutions.