|
Habitat for the Poor Zeenat Niazi Shelter is more than a basic need. It is both a cause and consequence of many social and economic changes. It represents a powerful intervening tool to foster sustainable development at household, community, regional and national levels. The links between poverty reduction and upgradation of habitat quality
of the poor are increasingly becoming clear. ‘Access’ to a safe, secure and dignified home is in itself an indicator of lowered poverty levels. It is generally accepted that expenditure on habitat by the poor normally follows growth in incomes and fulfillment of higher priority basic needs such as food and livelihoods. Investments in habitat, in fact, support poverty reduction in more ways than one. The most obvious being the improvement in physical quality of the living environment and contribution to improved human health and therefore, to the ability of the poor to undertake economic activities. The home – house is often the workplace and an economic asset for the family. Security of tenure and adequacy of shelter also define a family’s position in society, acceptance in the social framework and even legal right to participate in the development processes through voting power. Thus, empowering the poor to participate in their own development. Besides this cause and effect relationship between habitat and poverty alleviation, there are other strong interdependencies. The habitat sector is also a generator of livelihoods. In growing and developing economies the habitat and infrastructure sectors contribute to livelihood creation directly and indirectly at all scales from micro-level producers of materials and artisan services to mega scale infrastructure and housing projects. Despite its significant contribution to sustainable development, interventions in habitat were not seen as a “priority” till very recently. The connection was articulated for the first time at the UN Habitat II Conference at Istanbul in 1996. The Conference had defined “economic growth and employment opportunities for the poor as critical to the Sustainable Development of Human Settlements” (Habitat Agenda: Paragraph 29: Principle III). It has been argued that “The topmost priority in the national sustainable development goals for developing countries is the creation of sustainable livelihoods without further impoverishment of the environment.” 1 Building technology based livelihood opportunities produce “affordable” goods and services. They do so by creating large numbers of jobs in decentralized manner and create wealth in the local market. They have the ability to bring a large number of poor into the economic mainstream and they do so without having large scale environmental damage. If access to adequate shelter and habitat infrastructure is to be studied as a contributor to and an indicator of poverty alleviation and sustainable development, it is important to understand trends in habitat development, approaches towards improving the quality and access of habitat of the poor and sustainability of interventions being made in this sector.
The economic growth and liberalization in India is reflected in increased housing activity. Trends from the last three census reports indicate that the average quantity of living space per household (those who posses a shelter) has marginally increased in both urban and rural areas. The numbers of pucca2 and semi pucca houses have also proportionately grown as compared to numbers of kutcha3 houses4. Even as there is a steady growth in the housing markets, the numbers that live in inhuman and inadequate habitat conditions continue to grow. Even in the year 2003, only about 52% households live in permanent (pucca) houses and even amongst those that have a pucca roof over their heads, one third in the urban areas have no access to basic habitat infrastructure such as toilets and clean water. This number is less than 23% for rural families. The housing gap and lack of basic habitat infrastructure in developing countries poses a serious challenge to public, private and independent sectors.
Construction trends indicate a move away
from kutcha traditional less processed materials and
technologies especially in the rural areas to higher levels of
processing of raw materials leading to materials of longer life
needing less maintenance but also materials of higher embodied
energies and more centralized production characteristics. The
growth in “pucca” materials can be attributed to growing
aspiration levels of people, increased earnings and the change in
attitude to housing and other building practices. This in itself
is a positive phenomenon as it results in more durable shelter,
leading to a positive improvement in the quality of life. However,
its implications on the ecological sustainability of regions and on
capacities of nations to fulfil demand are immense. Studies
predict that the aspirations of an increasing population are
unlikely to be met if building materials and technology options
remain unchanged. This is largely due to resource constraints. Need for growth Clearly, demand will grow and must be met if we are to achieve the goal of adequate shelter for all. Supply of “pucca” building materials has to be augmented. At the same time a variety in options is required. Dependence on single building technology options such as fired bricks or fired clay tiles leads to unsustainable resource extraction, not only at local levels but also at regional and national scales. The diversity of material use is essential to ensure that no single resource is stressed. Diversity in material and technology options also provides solutions for varied levels of affordability in different geo-cultural contexts. Hence the gap for increased habitat technology and building materials has to be met by “more materials of greater diversity”. However, a large number of technology options being available does not necessarily mean that these would be accessible to the poor. “The more important aspect is perhaps not the products or technologies themselves but the manner in which they have, in some cases and can in many more, be developed and mass disseminated.” 5
Role of technology Habitat options for the poor continue to be governed by issues of affordability and therefore of low-cost, and of ecological sustainability. These concerns have a direct bearing on the selection and promotion of technologies. Many options of locale specific technology options are now available that address both ecological and economic concerns. Many of them are decentralized, small scale and by nature amenable to be adopted by small and micro entrepreneurs for production of building materials and service delivery in flexible ways. Such localized systems of production and delivery are close to the customers and respond best to their needs especially with respect to affordability while contributing to growth in local economies.
Sustainable Building Technologies are needed regionally to respond to the increased aspirations of the people within ecosystem limits. The sustainability of a building technology menu in a region can be defined in terms of (a) diversity – to ensure that no particular resource is stressed. It also ensures that enlarged basket of options leading to increased choice to suit affordabilities and combinations of use; (b) efficiencies in production of material and technology options are necessary to enhance productivity of material, capital energy and human resources; and, (c) improved quality of performance leading to better shelter and increased value addition to local economies. Today, there are many public, private and independent sector initiatives being designed and implemented that respond to the habitat needs of a growing population specifically in relation to the need for large scale dissemination of Sustainable Building Technologies.
Given that there is a steady growth in housing activity in India, contributions by the State towards closing the housing gap are very little. The public sector contributes to less than 3% of housing created for the poor. Most housing activity continues to be an informal activity through small and petty contractors and master masons in association with family members. At this level, the knowledge and appreciation of the benefits of sustainable building technologies is very low. Buildings constructed by the government, although few in number have a strong demonstrative effect. They perpetuate the misconception that “RCC and brick based structures are the only acceptable option. This is not because of lack of knowledge on the part of the government but because the systems that would promote the use of sustainable” building technologies at local and regional levels are not in place. At the national policy level, in India, there has been recognition of the need to
augment the supply of affordable building materials and technologies and promote “sustainable alternatives” that are energy efficient, less polluting and also cost effective. The building centres movement initiated in 1988 by the Housing and Urban Development Corporation of India (HUDCO) and the Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council (BMTPC) of the Ministry of Urban Affairs and Employment set up in 1990 have been critical interventions by the Indian national government towards this aim. The directives of the Supreme Court of India have also given an impetus to the promotion of industrial waste based construction materials such as fly-ash bricks, sand lime bricks and FAL-G blocks. The prohibition on moveable chimney based brick production and regulation on top soil extraction are other measures being put in place to support eco-friendly low polluting construction materials. The concept of entrepreneurship development in the building sector has come to assume significance in government policies. For this purpose, numerous institutions have been established to provide support services to upcoming entrepreneurs in the areas of finance, technology, raw material procurement etc. There is now evidence from various parts of India that building technology options that rely on efficient use of energy intensive materials such as cement and steel and alternatives to primary timber are being adopted, although in a limited way. These include secondary timber and timber substitutes, micro-concrete roofing tiles, ferro-cement building systems, concrete blocks, the vertical shaft system of firing bricks and the rat trap system for brickwork. The viability of the building centres and impacts of policy supports are however, yet to reach the masses in large numbers, both in terms of technologies for improving shelter and livelihood options in the habitat sector.
While the availability and promotion of SBT
production is being pushed through varied fiscal incentives to
building centres and small scale producers of alternative
technologies, the demand creation of these technologies in the
markets for the poor is very limited. Some amount of market
creation is sought through the directives to utilize SBTs in
government sponsored projects and schemes. In India, all the social
housing schemes underline the use of some “recognized” SBTs in
construction. However, it must also be noted that in most cases
availability of SBTs at local levels is as yet not good and
engineers at local government levels are hesitant to use new
technologies. Initiatives towards housing and enterprise finance
The housing finance initiative to influence
housing demand has largely favoured the urban middle class, the
builder lobby, and the banks. It has had no impact on the housing
for low-income families in urban or in rural areas. The rural poor
have, in fact, remained totally alienated from any financing options
for housing and even the special “credit-cum-subsidy scheme” of the
government of India has failed to produce any meaningful results.
There are however, growing number of examples of enhancing the
capacity of the rural poor to access better housing through
innovative financing methods arising out of the independent sector
in India and countries in South Asia. The Grameen Bank model led
the movement to link group loans to poor women for enterprise
creation and house building. Many such models and variants of this
exist across South Asia, some of which link the use of “sustainable”
technology to access to cheap housing finance. Several offer cheap
credit to the poor who have shown regular saving discipline and are
also involved in livelihood activities. The Mahila SEWA Sahakari
Bank is one of the more successful models in India. Housing for
poor women forms an important part of the overall development
strategy of SEWA. SEWA has found that a home is often a poor
woman’s workplace and investments here will reflect into
productivity and quality of the livelihood activity that the woman
is engaged in. The SEWA bank responds to a variety of house
building needs of its members – small loans for retrofitting,
repairs and upgradation of houses and incremental growth of a house
from katcha to pucca. Additions of toilets,
electricity and water supply are also financed. To date, SEWA bank
has provided housing loans to over 12,000 women totalling to more
than 150 million rupees. With over 95% recovery, SEWA has found
over the years that housing finance at the micro-scale is profitable
– both for the lender and the borrower. Independent sector initiatives in habitat and livelihood sectors Many initiatives across South Asia have addressed the issues of poverty alleviation through livelihood creation and habitat security in an integrated manner. They focus on the role of sustainable habitat technologies and their contribution to livelihood creation in various contexts of social housing programs, reconstruction in post disaster situations and setting up supply of affordable technologies while catalyzing demand in the markets of the rural poor. A typical example in case is the initiative of SEVAI, a non-government Agency in association with Econ Industries - a sister private sector company. SEVAI (Society for Education, Village Action and Improvement) is a voluntary service organization working for the integrated development of the rural poor in the villages and slums of Trichirapalli, coastal Nagapptinam, Karaikal and Pondichery through empowerment of the rural poor and active involvement of target community in all phases of program like planning, decision making, implementation and evaluation. One of SEVAI’s significant achievements has been the consolidation of women’s self-help groups for saving and group enterprise activities. More than 2000 SHGs now operate under the SEVAI umbrella. Econ Industries produces and sells building materials and provide skills for housing and other building activities in the region. With support from the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation and HOLTEC, SEVAI set up a revolving fund to finance the housing needs of its members. Loans, which are available at a small rate of interest are linked to the products and services available from Econ. Econ on its part is committed to the production of 'Energy Efficient Cost Effective Materials'. With a 100% recovery rate, the SEVAI – Econ partnership is set to demonstrate a viable and profitable approach to habitat upgradation of the poor. Post disaster reconstruction and rehabilitation processes post disaster and disaster mitigation interventions offer interesting opportunities for both the introduction of new technologies and for livelihood creation. Reconstruction efforts require large quantities of materials and manpower within a relatively short span of time. Both the Orissa cyclone and Gujarat earthquakes in the recent past in India have demonstrated some very innovative approaches that have created centers of production of “improved building materials” pools of masons and other skilled manpower required for construction. The UNDP initiative in Orissa has created a large pool of masons and supervisors that have been associated in self-help groups and federated at block and district levels. With regular technical supports these artisans are now in a position to independently take on projects – most of which at the moment are the government social housing schemes and community buildings. Similarly the Abhiyan network in Gujarat has initiated the Hunnar Shala – an institutions for training masons and artisans in appropriate construction systems that are being utilized in the reconstruction post earthquake. An initiative that addressed the links between shelter provision and livelihood creation after the Orissa Syper-cyclone is Project Ashraya.6 In this CARE supported programme, Building Material and Services Banks were set up with technical assistance from DA.
Experience in the habitat sector has revealed that there are primarily three factors that drive the delivery of improved shelter. These drivers are intrinsically linked to the empowerment of poor communities and therefore to factors of economic well being and poverty reduction. The driving factors are:
The role of building activity in direct livelihood creation is however linked critically to “products and services” that the construction sector can generate in the process of delivery of improved habitat to the poor. It is here that the technology and its packaging and modes of delivery become significant. In the Indian Sub-Continent, the production and supply of building materials needs to be decentralized to respond to large dispersed rural settlements in the country side. Decentralized production systems hold the key for sustainable economic development. It is therefore important that building technology packages be designed so that products and services of these technology packages are available to the masses in a reliable and cost effective manner. Thus building technology options need to be designed as micro-enterprises - profitable small scale businesses that can provide livelihood to the producer while providing affordable habitat products and services to the poor. Such techno-entrepreneurial packages consist of:
Unfortunately, while there is much technical know-how available, many innovative technologies developed in the laboratories of our countries – most that have even been field tested; there are very few technology options that are completely packaged. The critical elements of designing the enterprise component, financial packaging and links to the financing agencies are often missing. Market and business support services are not even thought of. Some technology options that are amenable to decentralized production and marketing are:
While a range of technology options exist, a question that needs to be asked is what needs to be done to ensure that these technologies can reach the market of the poor through the manufacturing units of the poor. The market creation approach to poverty alleviation 7 If lessons from various initiatives are consolidated and analyzed, it seems that the “market creation approach to development” is the only viable strategy for sustainable poverty alleviation of the poor. This approach combines two aims:
The approach goes beyond the standard “business development services approach in such that it is a method to use profitable delivery channels preferably run by micro-enterprises to supply large quantities of products that have a high poverty alleviation and ecological impact. The micro-concrete roofing tile story in India is an example where critical linkages to market supports, technology promotion, financial engineering and technical supports coupled with an easy to use rugged hardware has enabled more than 350 micro-entrepreneurs to set up small businesses in far out remote villages of India supplying tiles and roofing services at reasonable costs through flexible transaction methods to the rural masses. In areas such as north Bihar, the technology is truly liberated and large numbers of villages have totally converted to the MCR tile as a viable roofing option. The technology has now been accepted by various district governments and features in the “public sector schedules of construction" enabling larger use. At Rs. 120,000 per unit, six long term jobs, a small scale business with payback periods of 18 months or less and steady production capacity of 200 tiles a day, this business has become a role model for “livelihood creation through the building material sector in rural areas”.8
Entrepreneurs require three critical supports technology, finance and marketing in order that they are able to promote “sustainable building technologies” to the poor in a profitable manner. While technology development agencies need to develop their products keeping in view both technical efficiencies and practical considerations of delivery in mind; financing agencies need to design packages that facilitate the initiatives of the micro and small scale private sector; the key condition is that micro-entrepreneurs have to have a market. The market of the poor needs to be catalyzed and sensitized through inputs of housing finance, project initiatives, policy regulations and financial incentives amongst others to access the products and services of the small entrepreneur. What is the role of the various players in the field and how do these interact ?
A favourable policy environment is critical for promotion of any new technology.
Policy
makers therefore require more flexibility and quick response time to
change their guidelines, schemes and programs in tune with the
needs. The days of provision of social housing are past. Maybe the
very poor still need to be “partially” supported in their endeavour
to access a better habitat, but a majority of the poor can access
improved habitat provided the technologies, products, services and
delivery mechanisms are tuned to their needs. The
micro-entrepreneur is most viable and least cost high return channel
of delivery. Not only will this approach create alternative
viable livelihood opportunities, it will enable large numbers of our
poor to access better habitat products and services and improve
their lot. References 1 Khosla Ashok , The Development Alternatives’ Blue Book, 1983 2 pucca indicates construction with longer life span materials often more possessed as in stone with cement mortar, fired bricks, metal sheeting of reinforced cement concrete etc 3 kutcha means built with unprocessed natural materials of short life span requiring high frequencies of maintenance such as mud or thatch and grasses 4 National Human Development Report 2001; Planning Commission, Government of India 2002 5 Khosla Ashok ; The Development Alternatives’ Blue Book, 1983. 6 Refer to earlier discussion on Project Ashraya in previous Development Alternatives’ newsletters – Vol 11, No.5; May 2001 and Vol. 11, No.10, Oct., 2001 7 Heierli, Dr. Urs , Poverty alleviation as a business: The market creation approach to development - a study. SDC, Berne, Switzeland; March, 2000 8 Chojjar, Amit, Developing a successful Rural Enterprise – A case study. Development Alternatives’ Newsletter; Vol. 10,, No.1; January 2000
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
