‘Security of Tenure and the Way Forward: The Case of Samakee Pattana, Bangkok’

Savant-Mohit, Radhika. ‘Security of Tenure and the Way Forward: The Case of Samakee Pattana, Bangkok’, in Habitat International, Vol. 28, 2004, pp. 301-316.

The article analyses the process of improving tenure security of low-income communities with an example of an upgrading project in Bangkok in the form of a land-rental slum. The community goes through the process of signing a lease contract for the squatted land and the upgrading of infrastructure and services.

Although not about housing as such, it is very relevant in terms of the dynamics in communities and community-based organisations as well as the interaction with and roles of other actors in this process: the NGOs BTA (Building Together Association), Training Centre for the Urban Poor and the Slum Women’s Network as well as public sector agencies NHA, BMA and CODI.

Definition of Slum/Informal settlement by CODI, NHA and BMA:

“A group of buildings that with a housing density of not less than 15 houses per rai (1600m2), in an area characterised by overcrowded, deteriorated, unsanitary, flood and poor conditions of stuffy, moisture and non-hygienic accommodation, which might be harmful for health, security or the source of illegal action or immorality areas.”

Land-rental-slums:

• Pure squatter settlements make the smallest proportion of Bangkok’s informal settlements, located mainly along Canals and Railway lines.
• Most are land rental slums with negotiated permissions, rent payments, consensual or written contracts, usually 30 day notice period, often subdivided and rented out further.
• Seen as middle path promising more feasible arrangements of secure tenure with the facilitation of the authorities in which the poor can determine the circumstances and interests of land-owners are protected.
• In 97, generally most communities lived on private land (499), next biggest group on government land (263) and the smallest group on land of religious institutions (81)

Interesting table listing all types of tenure:

Case study Samakee Pattana looks at developments after tenure rights for land have been obtained. The description has much practical detail with figures, costs, area vs households etc, which can be looked up if needed for comparison with our sites. A few interesting points on stakeholders:

Tenure negotiations:

• Contractual negotiations between the housing cooperative of the community and the landowner (Clergy Foundation Hospital) to rent the land took 1.5 years! Another year later work on infrastructure started.
• The rent is 530$ /month for 6.4 ha and rent controlled with renegotiations every 3 years and a max. increase of 20%
• NHA and NGOs above helped in the negotiations for tenure, NHA had a personal contact and many meetings with the community unlike other government actors involved in following steps, i.e. infrastructure on site, see below

NHA commitment:

• Receives a subsidy per household to provide infrastructure. The subsidy is different depending on whether the community is relocated or not. The cost of land and infrastructure combined with political/social considerations does not necessarily encourage relocation.
• In the case study the budget allocation did not include the provision for housing improvement or relocation on site of the households affected by infrastructural changes or sanitation facilities (sanitation is seen as linked to housing). Equally the water connections from main pipes to houses are not included and need to be arranged by individual after they obtain a metre. Costs and labour had to be borne jointly by individuals and community.

BMA commitment:

• Through decentralisation responsibility for development on municipal level
• Committed to a community centre, improvement of Klongs and childcare assistance
• BMA has district offices (here Bumkum) with which the communities need to register with a certificate from landowner and who are supposed to carry out the physical improvements, help organise, initiate savings groups etc. Here this has only happened at a minimum due to lack of funds and personal
• Did not support financially or technically the necessary readjustment/shifting of houses (same as NHA)

Community organisations:

• Savings group: Started with help of NGOs Building Together Ass. and Training Centre for Urban Poor. Main driver to do so was the threat of eviction at the time and lead to appropriateness, effectiveness and focus.
• Housing co-operative: Created in order to pay rent under Co-operative Societies Act (some households joined and still don’t pay)
• Some dissatisfaction within and with the committee regarding efforts to resolve issues and obtaining positions
• Occupational Groups: SWD (Social Welfare Dept) with HNA and BMA set up groups to help income generation and provide funds for training and equipment. Unsuccessful and substandard products due to very basic training, no choice in product produced, budgeting errors and oversupply.
• Example for operation of government agencies with lack of consultative approach and evaluation, resulting in disillusionment towards approach.

NGOs:

• Advisory role to form savings groups
• Knew the individuals of the community
• Had access to legal info for lease

Situation in Samakee Pattana 2 years after lease contract:

• Distinct improvement of infrastructure but not of services
• Main issues are water supply and move from temporary to permanent housing registration (this changes extend and costs of services available) Permanent registration has been denied because of non-compliance with building regulations, therefor community has to seek a court order. Also they will have to pay a fine for previous land occupation.
• Community wants one to one arrangements with MWA (Metropolitan Waterworks Authority) without the housing cooperative
• NGOs, NHA and cooperative had complementary roles during lease negotiations. In Infrastructure phase individual members need to start benefitting, NHA has withdrawn as facilitator and MWA doesn’t recognise past situation.
• If co-operative extends its role from managing rnt to become negotiator/intermediary between community and service providing agencies without backing of a facilitator its risks loosing credibility and not being able to deliver results, therefor weakening a strong organisation.
• Communities are not more unselfish, participatory or committed than any one else. Prefer to leave operation, maintenance and management of infrastructure and services to municipal organisation

Different policy directions of NHA, BMA and CODI:

• BMA: Called for evictions under Building Control Act, while others could stay, especially Canal side slums need to go. Change of direction in 2003 from previous governor
• NHA: end to slums and gov announcement of Baan Ua Arthon project to construct 1 Mio new housing units in 5 years = ca 550/day, sirectly subsidised per unit, allocation in lottery and based on application and income. Concerns about quality and infrastructure, market distortion through undercutting private sector, whether it actually benefits the poor as endusers.
• CODI: Baan Mankong started same time as Baan Ua Arthon, gain secure land tenure (buy from private and lease from government), improve housing conditions and access to infrastructure, maintenance of facilities (little success in latter)

Conclusions:

• Land-rental slums offer opportunities for urban poor if one accepts temporal quality and diversity of needs and capacities of communities and land owner’s perspectives.
• Main caution, also with CODI approach: “Who does what?”
• Perpetual shift of roles and responsibilities since the 70s
• Government to review regulations that hinder social, economic and political advancement of the poor = institutional and attitudinal change in existing frameworks
• “Change in the attitude towards low-income communities and their contribution to a city is perceived and therefore changes in the approach to interventions to help develop these communities. That they are not just isolated cases, they are not altruistic societies, they are not quaint examples of struggle and benefit, but an integral part of the city and its management process which requires a strategic and flexible tripartite partnership between the communities, the non governmental sector and the public sector.”

Scaling Up Slums and Squatter Settlements Upgrading in Thailand Leading to Community-Driven Integrated Social Development at City-Wide Level

Boonyabancha, Somsook. Scaling Up Slums and Squatter Settlements Upgrading in Thailand Leading to Community-Driven Integrated Social Development at City-Wide Level, a paper presented at the Arusha Conference, New Frontiers of Social Policy, Arusha, Tanzania, 12-15 December 2005.

(http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETSOCIALDEVELOPMENT/Resources/Boonyabanchapaper.rev.1.pdf) Accessed 31 January 2011.

Summary:

Community-driven approach to social development of communities at grassroots level for the improvement of urban slums and squatter settlements. The author talks about the Baan Mankong Program launched by the Thai Government and implemented through CODI. It is a support system for urban poor formed by networks of urban poor communities to develop their own upgrading and land development programs. It acknowledges urban poor people and enhances their rights to the city through dealing with issues of land tenure, ownership and partnering and collaborative projects.

Notes from the text:

Acceptance and recognition of the poor community: “change the relationships between urban poor communities and local governments so these communities become accepted as legitimate parts of the city and have more space and freedom to develop their own responses” (p1).

Upgrading and land development: “The programme is unusual both for its scale and for the way it is structured – with support provided to community-organizations formed by urban poor groups to develop their own comprehensive upgrading and land development programmes” (p2).

Partnerships and collaborations: “the need for all the different community-driven upgrading initiatives to form part of city-wide programmes in which networks of urban poor organizations work in partnership with local governments and other local development actors in city-wide upgrading process and building joint capacity for community-driven development together” (ibid).

The program is partly trying to achieve the goals set by the Millennium Development Goals to make significant improvements to the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020. Although it recognises that it cannot only be through physical improvements but also requires managerial systems and changes in relationships between residents of informal settlements and the authorities.

Forced evictions: “A commitment to upgrading also means a step away from forced eviction programmes although it does not promise any long-term solution” (p3).

Rights to the city: “a mild form of recognition that these communities were part of the city” (ibid).

“But these initial attempts of upgrading did not know how to deal with these urban poor communities’ status, with their illegality, with their contravention of by-laws and many other aspects. So drains and walkways were provided, as a kind of reluctant, humanitarian gesture, without ever fully accepting that these slums were viable urban settlements” (ibid).

Land security – ownership and tenure: the Kampung improvement programme in Indonesia was the only example whereby the community was fully accepted and provided with secure land tenure in Asia.

Examples of community and civic/NGO movements and partnerships between community-based organisations and community networks and government agencies had been occurring in Thailand since the 1980s. NOTE: this was before the formation of the Millennium Development Goals in 2000.

Boonyabancha describes how UCDO and Rural Development Fund merged to form CODI, please refer to the Community Development Fund in Thailand: A Tool for Poverty Reduction and Affordable Housing abstract as it duplicates the information by the same author.

Community support networks formed according to shared issues such as occupation, pooled savings, co-op housing, land tenure, city, and canals and undertake collaborative communal activities to problem solve.

Merger enabled coverage of both urban and rural communities: “The emphasis on supporting community-managed savings and loan groups and community remains, but it now covers 30,000 rural community organizations as well as the urban community organizations” (p7).

The Thai Government introduced two new programs to address issues of housing for people in the low income band; Baan Mankong (secure housing) Program and the Baan Ua Arthorn (we care) Program in January 2003. Baan Mankong deals with government funds being directly channelled to urban community organisations for issues such as infrastructure, land and housing. In the Baan Ua Arthorn Program the NHA designs, constructs and sells ready-to-occupy flats and houses at reduced rates to low-income households. NOTE: same information as provided in Community Development Fund in Thailand: A Tool for Poverty Reduction and Affordable Housing abstract of the text by the same author.

Collective ownership, management and responsibilities: “Power to decide will be based on communities since community is the owner of the projects as a group. Community will also have to take responsibilities as a group collectively to manage loan for housing construction or land purchase” (p8).

Baan Mankong Program plan:

“2003: upgrading ten pilot communities (1,500 units) and preparations in 20 cities

2004: upgrading 174 slum communities (15,000 units) in 42 cities and preparations in 50 more…

2005-2007: upgrading 285,000 units in 20 cities” (ibid).

Methodology:

• identify stakeholders and explain program
• organise network and community meetings
• establish joint committee to oversee development
• conduct city meeting where joint committees meets representatives from all urban poor communities
• organise survey covering all communities (info  on households, housing security, land ownership, infrastructure problems, community organisations, savings activities and existing development activities)
• from the survey develop a community upgrading plan covering whole city
• support community savings group (while above is happening)
• select pilot projects based on the needs, the communities’ willingness to implement them and learning possibilities
• extend improvement program to other communities
• integrate upgrading initiatives into city-wide development
• build community networks around common land ownership
• create economic space for the poor or economic opportunities
• support constant exchange between projects, cities and regions (p9-10)

How it differs from other upgrading programs:

• urban poor communities and their networks are key actors
• ‘demand-driven’ by communities rather than supply-driven
• The program does not specify standard physical outputs
• It promotes more physical upgrading
• It helps trigger acceptance of low-income communities as legitimate parts of the city
• Secure land tenure is negotiated in each case locally

Six pilot projects:

1. Land purchase and re-blocking: Charoenchai Nimitmai comprising 81 households living on 0.7ha land in Bangkok between an expressway and a drainage canal
2. Post-fire reconstruction and a long-term lease: Bon Kai comprising 566 households living on land owned by the Crown Property Bureau in Klong Toey, central Bangkok
3. Relocation to nearby land: Klong Toey Block 7-12 comprising port workers, daily labourers and small traders residing in squatter settlement housing block on land owned by the Port Authority of Bangkok
4. Scaling up pilot projects: two schemes in the Ramkhamhaeng area of Bangkok; 124-family squatter community on 0.8ha of land and 34 famlies occupying 0.8ha of marshy land both owned by the Crown Property Bureau
5. Land sharing: Klong Lumnoon’s canal-side community
6. The relocation of mini squatters and a long-term lease: Bon Kook community comprising 124 households in the northern Thai city of Uttaradit (p12-14)

Decentralising actions within cities supported: “Community Upgrading is one powerful way to spark off this kind of decentralization and become an active part of city development activities actively participate by communities which will turn out to be active citizen groups of the city” (p15).

Six techniques used in the Baan Mankong Program include pilot projects, learning centres, big events, exchanges and sub-contracting. The program is instigated in other cities through city-wide processes.

Results have “shown that about 60% of families have been facing various kinds of eviction or illegals always become first priorities selected by joint city groups to be pilot projects to start for the city together” (p18).

“Urban poor groups learn by comparing what is being done in another community with what they know well…[when they] begin to understand this together, it is empowering” (p19).

The choice of pilot scheme varies with particular scheme and generally aims to be undertaken by the community for the community: “The communities in different cities choose their pilots according to all sorts of criteria. The important issue here is that the group understands the reasons for choosing the pilot projects” (ibid).

Power relations: “Almost all systems related to power and wealth and key decisions about development in our societies are vertical system. Therefore, the emergence of horizontal platforms or linkages to balance those so many vertical strings are very important” (p21).

“Legal versus illegal, the space between the system of authority and the system of poverty and illegality is a space of tension, fear, uncertainty: evictions and clashes” (p22).

Urban acupuncture: set up of networks of communities exchanging knowledge and experiences in city-wide programs. The pilot projects are a way of setting precedents of successful or not so successful projects and points of learning for communities. Involving local architects in the process is beneficial for the provision of good technical support.

In order for the Baan Mankong Program to be successful it is imperative that:

• The upgrading includes everyone in the community regardless of class, tenure, status
• Land tenure should be collective wherever possible
• There should be collective planning and implementation of the upgrading work
• Housing loans are given to the community organisation not individuals
• Community social welfare systems are built up

Citizenship, empowerment and social upgrading: “When we improve land tenure, in fact, we have improved poor people’s rights and security, we are actually changing their status in the city, their citizenship in the city also undergoes a change, through the upgrading process…Poorer groups have to have confidence in their ability to do things. They need to start believing in their own power, energy and ability – this is social upgrading” (p26).

The community’s “ability to manage funds is the key to freedom to development…upgrading is not something individual upgrading is something that arises from people living together, strengthening each other and wanting to develop, to go forward” (p28).

“Land becomes a collective – NOT INDIVIDUAL! – asset” (p29).

It is important to build community capacity and self-belief as opposed to prescribed solutions that do not allow for learning or growth. The Baan Mankong Program is about ownership, value, self-belief and community.

Actors:

Thai Government, Municipality, Central Government Development Agency, Policy makers, Mayer, CODI, DANCED, NHA, World Bank, UCDO, Rural Development Fund, Universities and Academics (local and international), Community representatives, leaders and networks, Japanese Government, Ministry of Social Development and Human Security, Professionals (architects, young architects, contractors), NGOs, Landowners (public and private), Port Authority of Thailand, Crown Property Bureau (CPB), Bon Kai, Klong Toey Block, Klong Lumnoon, Bon Kook, and Charoenchai Nimitmai communities, Monks

Community Development Fund in Thailand: A Tool for Poverty Reduction and Affordable Housing

Boonyabancha, Somsook for UN-HABITAT. Community Development Fund in Thailand: A Tool for Poverty Reduction and Affordable Housing, Nairobi, 2009.

(http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/getElectronicVersion.asp?nr=2782&alt=1) Accessed 31 January 2011.

Summary:

The report conveys the emergence of the Community Development Fund in Thailand. It talks about the development of CODI from the merging of two organisations; UCDO (Urban Community Development Office) and the Rural Development Fund in 2000. The relations with various actors in the field and the various types of funding available are highlighted. The case of the Baan Mankong Program is discussed in terms of the types of upgrading programs, how to implement the program, different funding options, how Baan Mankong differs from other upgrading approaches, how it improves people’s assets, and its achievements to date.  The document culminates with the results and impacts of the Community Development Fund generally for communities at large but focuses on the case of Ruam Samakee Reconstruction Project in Bangkok

Notes from the text:

“The Community Development Fund model supports poor communities in organizing savings groups and improves their capacity to manage their fund or the loans for community development activities” (p1).

Background:

In the early 1980’s Thailand was going through transformations due to rapid economic development; the private sector was booming, bank loans and finances were accessible, many construction and infrastructure projects were implemented and the services sector and middle class was growing.

But income share was widening the gap between the rich and the poor; the top 20% had 60% while the bottom 20% only had 3% of the total income. “Poor security of land tenure and the lack of infrastructure resulted in a deteriorating living condition for the urban poor” (p4). Approximately 20% were living in low income settlements in 1990 with 13% facing eviction, 3,500 informal settlements had formed with insecure tenure and poor services, infrastructure and living conditions. They had no legal protection.

The National Housing Authority (NHA) planned relocation of the urban poor was only partially successful as it did not secure livelihood opportunities without which many couldn’t afford to repay the loans/costs of the new homes. Therefore many tended return to the squatter areas.

Urban Community Development Office (UCDO):

The Urban Community Development Office (UCDO) was set up in 1992 by Thai Government to address urban poverty. It was initially under the National Housing Authority (NHA) during its early stages although its administration and development processes remained independent.

UCDO had an initial capital fund of Thai Baht 1250 million (US$ 35.7 million) to provide loans to organised communities for housing, land acquisition and income generation; these were available for community-based savings groups able to manage community finances; the loans would respond to particular needs and have low interest rates (lower than market rates). It was important for the funds to be flexible to the needs of the community.

Communities formed savings and credit groups which UCDO facilitated and “also supported communities in a particular city or province to form networks, to negotiate as a block with city or provincial authorities, or to work together on shared problems of housing, livelihoods, basic services and community enterprise, according to their needs, situation and changing context” (p2). Community networks were formed.

Larger scale community networks led to community-led development and UCDO formed links with other governmental and bilateral agencies. The Danish (Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development) and Japanese Governments, and the World Bank (Social Investment Fund) have funded programs. Welfare funds were established to further support the poorer communities gain access to grants for education and income generation.

The two important elements of the UCDO are institutional development and administrative strategy. The factors that supported the creation of the UCDO were the availability of Government finance, Government Policies, experiences from the past and from other countries, and rural community savings groups. The aim of the program was to “improve living conditions and increase the organizational capacity of urban poor communities through…community’s savings and credit groups and…integrated loans at favorable interest rate” (p7). This would also be promoting communities’ capability to be self-sufficient by drawing out existing skills and knowledge.

By 2000 (8 years of operation): there were 950 community savings groups supporting 53 out of 76 Thai provinces. Although it was becoming clear how limited the activities were under the admin system of the NHA.  So UCDO merged with the Rural Development Fund (which was in a similar position with the National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB)) to form Community Organisations Development Institute (CODI) in 2000.

Community Organisations Development Institute (CODI):

Royal Decree enabled CODI to be a new public organisation under the Ministry of Social Development and Human Security thus enabling it to have “its own legal entity to apply to the annual government budget directly” (p3). The merger meant that CODI’s initial capital fund was Thai Baht 2.899 billion (US$ 82.85 million) combining UCDO’s Thai Baht 2.156 million and Rural Development Fund’s Thai Baht 734 million.

In 2003 CODI proposed the Baan Mankong Program to the Thai Government that would “address land and housing problems of low-income sectors which targeted 2000 communities in 200 cities” (p3). The government allowed a budget for the “infrastructure and housing loan interest subsidies” (p3).

“The major lesson is that there is a need to support the poor themselves in becoming important players in the development process. The poor must be involved in decision making processes and in control of the activities that follow” (p3).

Urban Community Development Fund

“The Urban Poor Development Fund (UPDF) was governed by UCDO’s Board of Directors which had full power over all UCDO policies” (p8). This comprised four representatives from the government, four elected community members, and three professionals from NGOs and the private sector. It was important to emphasise the importance of communities as the key drivers of programs and initiatives; to have equal level of influence in decision making.

The UPDF is a revolving fund which allows flexibility in the management of the process by community members. It reduced bureaucratic processes and supported communities directly. It reduced time and was more efficient in supporting the needs of the community while also creating links between the community and other actors in the development process. “Income earned on the fund would cover the administrative and development costs of all activities” (p9).

The types of loans offered comprised revolving funds, income generation, non-project based housing improvements and project based housing. There are four types of project based housing loans; purchasing land of an existing settlement or land, relocation, housing construction on leased or occupying NHA resettlement projects and infrastructure improvement. The conditions for loan applications included having organised savings activities within a community and an accurate and reliable accounting and financial management for at least six months. This meant that the more a community saved, the more it could borrow.

The various roles included UCDO providing technical support, the community networks supporting workshops for learning and capacity building, and the community collecting repayments and managing development processes. There were three parts of obtaining a loan firstly after applying through eligibility the loan has to be approved, the community needs to have collateral and then negotiate the repayment terms.

UCDO/CODI performance

General approach: drawing people together through community savings and loan activities, ground daily activities through financial mechanisms, provide opportunities for the urban poor through savings and loan activities, and create ongoing learning enabling involvement of all members of the community.

Community networks: UCDO needed to find a way to revive capacity of communities to repay loans and transfer this responsibility from individuals to communal level. The process resulted in the creation of community networks to “work and share responsibilities in the form of a network” (p16) with linkages through district, city or national scale or sector based. These connections enabled communities to deal with issues such as housing, infrastructure, land, education, health and planning. The community networks share “common rules, norms, and simple coordinating structure and taskforce bases on various activities that are planned and agreed together” (ibid). The community networks enabled a platform for communities to learn from each other’s experiences and strengthen community relations.

The community networks and linkages with existing development agencies and other actors assisted in forming the Local Development Committee in each city. Other organisations encouraged to form links with included local authorities, NGOs, professionals, federations, and the government. In urban areas these groups were called the Urban Community Development Committees. Development activities were subcontracted to municipalities and NGOs. NGOs, community networks and local authorities were given direct financial support to undertake development projects.

The Baan Mankong Program

The Thai Government introduced two new programs to address issues of housing for people in the low income band; Baan Mankong (secure housing) Program and the Baan Ua Arthorn (we care) Program in January 2003. Baan Mankong deals with government funds being directly channelled to urban community organisations for issues such as infrastructure, land and housing. In the Baan Ua Arthorn Program the NHA designs, constructs and sells ready-to-occupy flats and houses at reduced rates to low-income households.

“The Baan Mankong Program was specifically set up to support upgrading processes that are designed and managed by existing low-income communities and networks” (p19) that work with universities, professionals and local authorities to implement upgrading initiatives. The Program has a target of “improving the housing, living conditions and tenure security of about 200,000 poor households, in 2000 poor communities in 200 cities, within five years” (ibid, as of 2009) and is a demand-driven approach.

The Baan Mankong Program is implemented in the following stages:

1. Identifying relevant stakeholders and explaining the program
2. Organising community meetings for stakeholders to take ownership of the program
3. Establishing joint committees to manage the implementation process
4. Creating joint mechanisms to collectively plan and implement housing development
5. Gathering information
6. Creating an improvement plan
7. Establishing collective community savings and loans groups
8. Selecting and assigning pilot projects
9. Developing plans for launching the program

The types of Baan Mankong Upgrading Program are:

• On-site Upgrading (improvements to settlements without changing layouts and plot sizes)
• On-site Reblocking (infrastructural improvements and lay-out of housing in existing settlements)
• On-site Reconstruction (existing settlements completely demolished and rebuilt on the same land through a long-term lease or community ownership)
• Land sharing (both landowners and communities share land, e.g. Ruam Samakee, Tung Wah and Klong Lumnoon)
• Relocation

There are three main types of funding available through the program:

1. Government subsidies (housing, administrative and capacity building subsidies)
2. Long-term loans for housing development
3. Household savings

How is it different from conventional upgrading approaches?

• Allows urban poor communities and networks to be the main actors (control funding, manage projects, implement improvements, and undertake building activities)
• It is community demand-driven with priority given to communities ready to execute their own improvements
• Variety of solutions to fit the particular needs of communities
• Allows flexibility for communities to coordinate with local partners and agencies
• CODI acts as facilitator
• It enables the changes to community social structures
• Helps to trigger acceptance of the low-income communities once changes have been implemented
• Secure land tenure negotiated for most communities by individuals with emphasis on collective rather than individual land tenure

So far 1,250 community initiatives are in operation, 76,792 households have been improved and the program is working in 237 cities in Thailand.

Interesting quotes:

“As a result of settlement upgrading, the issue of land tenure has been resolved, shacks and makeshifts are replaced by permanent housing and necessary utilities and basic services are put in place” (p24).

“Secure land tenure is essential in allowing this development to happen and opens up the gate for additional energy, development resources and investment to flow into these communities” (ibid).

“Property rights bring with them a sense of legitimacy, infrastructure improvements, while creating a much-needed capital, and the participation of the poor” (p25).

Conclusion

The general impacts on UPCD:

• Increase in community organisation and networks
• Increase in community assets and direct financial resources
• Increased community management and entrepreneurship skills
• Development of more diverse housing solutions from individual projects to city processes
• Development of large scale community welfare activities
• Communities have stronger status and can develop better partnerships with local authorities and other development actors
• Changing the way how development institutions are managed

Case Study: Ruam Samakee Community

Squatter community comprising 124 families on 0.89ha of swamp land in the Ramkhamhaeng Soi 39 in Bangkok owned by the Crown Property Bureau (CPB). The community comprised of migrants from north-eastern Thailand such as vendors in unregulated factories and labourers from the Ramkhamhaeng business area.

CPB initially wanted to lease the land to a private developer with the permission to evict the occupants. However the Ruam Samakee Community organised themselves into savings groups and set up a welfare program and through lengthy negotiation processes managed to obtain a long-term lease of the land, returning 0.16ha of land and rebuilding houses on the remaining 0.73ha plot on a collective long-term lease.

After the initiation of the Baan Mankong Program, the Ruam Samakee Community was selected as one of the pilot projects. Two young architects from the Community Organisation Development Office “began working with the people to help develop a new layout plan, with three lines of row-houses arranged along two lanes, a small community center and a playground” (p28).

The upgrading program comprised creation of new housing (detached-twin houses, row houses and flats for rent), land and tenure status, management of housing construction costs, creation of housing standards, provision of basic services and enabling the housing to be affordable. By 2008 all 124 units had been constructed, with a raised level of land to prevent flooding and new infrastructure. These pilot projects influenced the initiation of development projects of seven other informal settlements on CPB land in the area.

The financial sustainability of the program can be observed through three indicators; community savings activity, community investment in their housing and social contract binding the community together.

Actors:

CODI (Community Organisations Development Institute), Rural Development Fund, UCDO (Urban Community Development Office), Crown Property Bureau (CPB), DANCED (Danish Cooperation for Environment and Development), the Duang Prateep Foundation, Human Development Center, Human Settlement Federation, NESDB (National Economic and Social Development Board), NHA (National Housing Authority), POFD (People’s Organisation for Development), UNESCAP (United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific), Urban Community Development Committees, Thai Government, Municipalities, Local Authorities, NGOs, Federations, Professionals, Savings Groups, Community Networks, Local Academics/Universities, Ruam Samakee Community

City-Wide Upgrading in: Bangkok

Asian Coalition for Housing Rights. ‘City-Wide Upgrading in: Bangkok’, in Baan Mankong Cities, October 2005. (http://www.achr.net/Countries/Thailand/Ban%20Mankong/Baan%20Mankong%20Cities%20Part%202.pdf)

Abstract:

There are 1604 informal settlements across Bangkok and in order to make the upgrading more manageable; each district (50 in total) has been regarded as a city for the Baan Mankong Programme. Each district conducts its own survey of poor settlements, forms its own committees and develops own 3-year upgrading plan. Two pilot projects selected from each district, a total of 100 in Bangkok. The idea is to “break the wall” of savings group which limit access and do not reach many poor communities.

On April 3 2004 a big seminar was held to discuss the Baan Mankong Programme with 1500 participants invited to share their experiences, learn, express problems and plan collectively to solve the housing problems. 64 communities targeted for solving their housing problems. Canal Networks and Housing Cooperative Network were created for communities to support other communities with similar needs, hence creating support networks.

Canal Networks comprise communities living in informal settlements along the many canals in Bangkok. Networks may develop according to certain canals or canal communities within certain districts. Activities include cleaning canals and their environments, savings and welfare activities. Some are beginning collaborative pilot programmes with NGOs, local universities and district officials with the aim to improve all canal side settlements.

Housing Cooperative Network were introduced by CODI before the Baan Mankong programme for a support network of communities facing eviction to collectively purchase alternative land and develop their own housing projects. These are experienced communities who often help other communities to form cooperatives, start savings groups, search for land, negotiate land purchase/lease terms and design plot layouts and housing. After-housing activities comprise daily savings and loan repayment, community welfare, income generation and environmental improvements.

4 pilot upgrading projects briefly identified; Chalermchai Nimitmai, Bonkai, Klong Toey Block 7-12, and Klong Lumnoon communities. Brief outline of the communities and their struggles are identified alongside figures for the number of households, tenure terms, landowner, upgrading type, infrastructure costs, housing loans, land loan and land area. The article also includes before and after pictures of the upgrading programmes for these communities.

The document also includes a case study and city-wide upgrading of Rangsit a municipality in the Pathum Thani Province; it is part of the greater Bangkok Metropolitan Region. Thailand’s first planned agricultural development was in Rangsit which unfortunately due to Bangkok’s expansion and high real estate value of land the eviction of many of the Province’s canal-side communities began in the 60’s and 70’s.

This article goes into some detail regarding one of the many canal-side communities, Mit Sampan which was the first pilot upgrading project. It conveys the story of how a fire broke out creating devastating damage to 84 houses. The landowner who wanted to develop the land for commercial use refused to help rebuild the homes. The affected households formed a committee, created a savings group and sought an alternative land. With the help of Rangsit’s mayor, the same landowner dropped the selling price of another 1.4 hectares of open land not too far away from the settlement which the community group bought with the help of a loan from CODI.

The resettlement project was a success and there are now 8 further upgrading projects underway in Rangsit of squatter settlements, many of them canal-side communities. The article as it did for the Bangkok pilot project provides figures for the Mit Sampan’s upgrading finances. Images document how the community was involved and participatory methods used; models of proposed house designs, community discussions and consultations.

NOTE: One group will be going to a site in Pathum Thani Province in Rangsit during the fieldtrip.

Actors:

ACHR, Chalermchai Nimitmai, Bonkai, Klong Toey and Klong Lumnoon communities, Port Authority of Thailand, Crown Property Burea, CODI, Bangkok Metropolitan Authority (BMA), Universities, NGOs, District Government Agencies, National Housing Authority (NHA), Klong Sawaan Community, young Architects

HOUSING BY PEOPLE IN ASIA

Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (ACHR). ‘ Housing by people in Asia’, No 13, June 2001

Asian Coalition for Housing Rights

‘HOUSING BY PEOPLE IN ASIA’

Newsletter June 2001

This newsletter show different examples In Asia how bad situations can became an opportunity for communities, it is a matter of organization and positive approach instead of weeps and hopeless standing.

The newsletter is divide in four theme:

Development funds – examples how the development money got into the poor hands

Informal settlements along railway tracks – few examples of community and state working together in relocations

Poor in historic cities – example how the historic revitalization works better if the poor participate in the process.

Natural disaster– examples how bad events had became an opportunity for secure land and decent homes.

Natural disaster cases studies

Philippines – Slum in garbage dump collapse

The largest slum in Manila is in garbage dump with 25000 households. In 2000, after a storm the dump collapsed causing huge damage. Just after the fact the government announced the closing of the dump and the relocation of the people to the outskirts.

The case was constantly in the media at that time so the community organize a public event and manage do set meetings with the government. They proof to the state that they could build their own house and plan their community cheaper and according to their needs. They just need land. Government and community worked together to find solutions.

If the community is organized when a bad event takes place they can better receive the resources and aids and they can take advantage of the media to negotiate and manage their re-development.

India – Earthquake in Gujarat January 2001

Two million people were homeless. The first group to help was a poor women village that had experienced an earthquake in 1993 with the help of a NGO.

The reconstruction was used to “build local capacities and skills, and by doing so, to reform and strengthen their social and political structures.”

Nepal – Federations

In this case, networking between different federations help to create others federations and share knowledge, it is a way of scaling up.

“If by working alone you managed to get into 70 communities, what if you now used those 70 communities to go into 700 communities?”

There are all others cases studies in Asia but the abstract will focus on Thailand and/or CODI.

Thailand – Ayuthaya

Ayuthaya is the old capital of Thailand and it was designated World Heritage Site.

Squatter settlements were located between the ruins and if the announced as Unesco site the community were afraid of evictions. 80% of the land of the informal settlements was government land.

Community organized to maintained the monuments but keep living in the area and be the provider of services as drink vendor, transport…

CODI worked together with National Housing Authority, the Municipality and the Department of Fine Arts to create a pilot project where the community would take parte in the restoration.

Codi provide loans for the community and they worked with two young architects of Bangkok redevelopment the plan and realigned the plot sizes.

 “poor communities and historic monuments can make good neighbours.”

Housing problem in two different cities in Thailand

Nakhon Sawan is a small city but an important junction therefore a lot of poor migrants arrives everyday.

The constant threat of evictions brought up the land use in discussion.

The community collaborate with National Housing Authority, the municipality and UCDO to find a solution. The first step was survey done by the community, then prepared a city strategy, following by deciding who stay and who would be relocate, then look for land and at least develop a plan.

Uttaradit

Not all the community participate in the saving schemes and could benefit of the loan. The development process was stagnated since the UCDO team started meeting with these people and helped them to set up a saving groups.

Heroine

The King of Thailand appointed ten members for a Human Rights Commission. One of them is Aporn Wongsan who is a community senior leader who faced several evictions and relocations. He set up an ‘Evcition Hotline’ that gives support, advice and help to the communities.

Community welfare

UCDO proposed to link the Social Investments Fund with the communities’ networks, in a way that communities had a direct route to resources and could decided how to take care of the themselves in a welfare system.

 “By making them the basic unit of a social safety, the poor’s communities can take care of the most vulnerable members of their group.”

The formation of CODI

On October 2006 UCDO merged with the Rural Development Fund and create CODI with the intention to follow UCDO development activities but with some changes.

CODI is an autonomous organization that gives him flexibility and possibility to work together with social groups but is also a public organizations, the government status is crucial for its role.

Codi is governed by a mixed board: poor communities representatives, government, NGOs, academia and private sector. People should select their representatives to sit on the board and this is the Community Advisory Committee. The Committee meet before every month Board meeting to discuss and revise CODI performance.

Codi had set up different coordinating teams for every region.

“None of us have the answer to these problems! We’re not very good with many different issues, but what we are good at is linking people together, finding ways that people can discuss together and fins solutions together. We can provide back up, financial assistance, provide some status which gives formal clout to whatever solutions you develop-that’s what we’re good at.” (Somsook Boonyabancha, page 17)

“Codi is a new and potentially powerful tool which networks and people’s organizations can use as they see fit. There are, though, two crucial conditions for support from CODI, which everyone has agreed are most important: the community has to be the key actor and the process and activities should try to link with others.”(Somsook Boonyabancha, page 17)

Urban Development Discourses, Environmental Management and Public Participation: The Case of the Mae Kha Canal in Chiang Mai, Thailand (G. Ribeiro & A. Srisuwan)

Ribeiro, Gustavo & Angunthip Srisuwan. ‘Urban Development Discourses, Environmental Management and Public Participation: the Case of the Mae Kha Canal in Chiang Mai, Thailand’, in Environment & Urbanization, Vol. 17, No. 1, April 2005, pp. 171-182.

ABSTRACT

Projects that target problems of environmental degradation can be seen as platforms for interaction between different social groups and stakeholders and they risk therefore becoming the stage for power struggles and social conflict. The paper discusses the case of a low-income settlement in the city of Chiang Mai in northern Thailand in a context of environmental deterioration where low-income communities have squatted on land owned by the government. It has become ground for social conflict between low-income communities fighting for the right to stay on squatted land and government authorities who attempt to evict them.

Chiang Mai was selected as the main urban centre for economic development in the northern region, attracting poor rural migrants who settled in informal settlements, some of which where located on the banks of the Mae Kha canal. This is the case of Kampaeng Ngam community, which has settled in an area between the Mae Kha canal and Kampaeng Din. Shantytown dwellers had very limmited access to education. They are mostly employed as non-secialized labour and have limited earning capacity. Local people have limited opportunity to own land.

In 1997, 17 informal settlements along the Mae Kha canal were identified. Seven were designated as squatter settlements located on public land. The Kampaeng  Ngam community is located on land owned by the Department of Fine Arts (DFA) in charge of the protection and restoration of historic monuments. Kampaeng  Ngam has no sewage nor garbage collection.

Mae Kha canal was already heavily polluted in 1978 and the waste produced by informal settlements contributes only marginally to its pollution. The main sources of pollution were private companies. and the city centre.

Kampaeng  Ngam has been under increasing threat of eviction. This situation has stimulated the involvement of several interest groups and organisations. Among these are:

– Municipality: The services are not provided by the municipality. Kampaeng  Ngam community has been given financial support by the municipality for improvements. A master plan for the area was developed in 2002 but the major stated that he would work for the right of this community to stay in their current location.

– DFA: Has commissioned studies for the rehabilitation of the city, which includes a proposal for the restoration of the canals. The communities are located in an historical site and the DFA’s policy is to evict them but Kampaeng  Ngam was allowed to remain in the current location on condition that some dwellings were moved. However, in the long term they were going to be evicted.

– Lanna Architects: Consultant to the municipality in the elaboration of a 30-year master plan. Community participation is built into the planning of the project through the inclusion of public hearings.

– CODI: Under the National Housing Authority (NHA) implemented community development programmes that adopt a bottom-up approach to improve the living conditions of urban poor communities and to strenghten their organisational capacity through the organisation of saving groups to loans for housing improvement and income generation. CODI has been a catalyst in a process of social change, which aims to promote a large scale community-driven development movement and places the decision making and management of responsibilities with community networks.

The Urban Community Environmental Activities (UCEA) project included grants to urban communities that are actively involved in environmental improvements, self-managed development in the communities, community-driven participatory processes, mechanisms for coordination and mutual decision-making between communities and local authorities and developing and promoting coordination among communities. Environmental improvement is seen not as an end itself but, rather, as means of promoting social change. UCEA adopts a bottom-up approach in which communities are the main actors in the processes of problem identification, project design, decision-making, budget management and imlementation to create ownership of interventions.

– People’s Organisation for Participation (POP): CODI’s main partner in imlementing UCEA has been the POP. They have worked organising events such as canal-cleaning weekends, placing the communities in a stronger position in their fight against evictions.

UCEA has stood as an alternative approach to dealing with environmental issues focused on empowerment and education of poor urban communities in environmental management, beyond short-term political agendas. But it has also remained an isolated initiative. The process of urban development and environmental management in Chiang Mai is dominated by struggles at the political, economic and cultural levels, between central and local governments and civic representation. Housing conditions in squatter communities along the Mae Kha canal, is being shaped by conceptions of environmental management in terms of promotion of tourism which has led to accelerated economic growth and a continuous depletion of the environment. Environmental management takes the form of beautification and preservation of historical identity, however fail to consider the contradictions implicit in mass tourism, economic and infrastructure development, environmental decay and historical identity.

ACTORS

Chiang Mai Municipality, CODI, POP, DFA, Lanna Architects

Self-help Housing in Bangkok (2009)

Sheng, Yap Kioe & Koen de Wandeler. ‘Self-Help Housing in Bangkok’, in Habitat International, 2009, pp. 1-10.

A very good article, with current information and objective analysis of the Baan Mankong programme.

• Bangkok Metropolitan Region (BMR) population of 10 million inhabitants.
• Statistical level of urbanisation in Thailand (below Asian average) does not reflect the real situation, as 1) much of urbanisation in Thailand and Bangkok is occurring outside municipal boundaries and the concerned population is counted as rural, 2) there is considerable seasonal/daily migration, 3) many ‘permanent’ migrants maintain their registration in their villages and are administratively not counted as Bangkok residents.
• There are close links between the informal and formal sectors in Bangkok; cheap food, transport and housing provided by the informal sector is a supplier of labour, goods and services to the formal sector.
• Thai culture plays a key part in agreement for housing on private land, both from the landowner and residents perspective.  Society tries to accommodate the poor, at least as long as vested interests are not threatened.
• Thus, informal settlements in Bangkok are somewhat different from those in other cities, as they are scattered all over the city, usually on relatively small plots of land, in between other land uses, aver. size is 200 houses.
• Most settlements in Bangkok meet all 5 criteria that define a slum: insecure residential status, poor structural quality of housing, inadequate access to safe water, sanitation and other infrastructure, and overcrowding (UN-Habitat, 2003)
• Temporary self-built structures are unauthorized from a regulatory perspective
• Due to informal nature of settlement, the authorities are not inclined to provide basic infrastructure (except for electricity)
• Residents make informal arrangements for the supply of water, access to public roads etc.
• Many settlements are  on SRT, PAT, RID land, they are considered squatters as these lands are intended for infrastructure development, maintenance works and emergency access
• Slums often develop on land which is being held for speculation
• Important to note that not all residents of slums are poor, and that some poor live in formal and informal rental housing
• The rental market has happened for the following reasons: 1)Rapid economic development had limited suitable sites for self-builds, 2) Many families lots their savings in the 1997 crash, 3) Many urban poor are temporary or migrant residents, preferring to rent accommodation
• Renters are often the poorest of the poor and the most vulnerable.  Improvement programmes are not always in the best interest of these groups as their rent often increases with improvements. They are sometimes excluded too, as they are seen as a burden to the group (savings clubs etc).

• ….. blah blah blah  lots more about government interventions, non-government assistance, the private sector, UCDO and CODI, Baan Mankong, and Effectiveness, Inclusiveness and Sustainability

Conclusions

• Baan Mankong has been effective in improving land tenure security and the housing conditions of urban poor communities, but there are limitations to it’s effectiveness, inclusiveness and sustainability.
• It’s best suited to those households who need a bit of financial and technical support to gain access to landownership or long-term leases.
• There are urban poor households who cannot afford or do not want to become land and house owners or who need to develop their housing incrementally.
• Also doesn’t catter for the new low-income households in search of housing.
• This emphasises that Thailand urgently needs a national housing policy that sets as its goal adequate housing for all (and in particular the very poor), covering legal, financial, institutional and political means.
• The above is becoming characteristic in newly industrialized cities.
• In the case of Thailand, social welfare policies have not been successful, because society expects people to be self-reliant or to rely on family and the community.
• Slum dwellers do not ask for charity, but insist on their rights.  The provision of access to affordable land and housing addresses the most critical ussue for the urban poor:  Their marginal position in urban society.  What the poor demand is recognition that despite their poverty, they, their jobs and their settlements are integral parts of the city.
• The right to adequate housing for all urban poor through their self-help or otherwise requires structural changes in the distribution of wealth and property.

Catalysing Pro-Poor Development, The Role of Savings and Savings Organisations (2004)

Mitlin, Diana (Editor). ‘Catalysing Pro-Poor Development, The Role of Savings and Savings Organisations: Key Issues Arising from an International Workshop on Housing Finance and Poverty – Bangkok June 2004’, IIED Working Paper 15, Poverty Reduction in Urban Areas Series, March 2005, 23 pages.

** There is a lot of reference to CODI throughout the article. Also, other references to SPARC, CLIFF and other programmes and situations.

The Core Role of Savings – The distinct approach uses savings strategically to strengthen local community groups, thereby enabling a multi-stranded effort that simultaneously builds:

1. confidence and organizational skills in communities
2. a documentated savings habit
3. collective financial management systems
4. local loan funds for emergencies and enterprise development
5. a capacity to lobby state agencies for a redistribution of resources and regulatory reforms

Despite their apparent concentration on finance, money is used as a means of achieving multi-faceted development not as an end in itself.

Somsook ‘This is the first step in the liberation of the poor.’

Not Another Financial Market Initiative – It is believed that the major limitation of micro-finance initiatives is that money may not be the major cause of poverty and/or money is not necessarily the solution.  Where poverty is linked to exclusion from social, political and economic processes, micro-finance alone may be of little assistance.  Initiatives need to:

1. go beyond credit – linking enterprise and housing savings
2. support a huge demand for insurances against disasters (particularly in the event of fire or death)
3. be complimented by technical support

Importantly, the agenda of the poor is beginning to be realised through the process of participatory budgeting.

The Process is Not Problem-Free – A large problem is related to banks and finance, as poor people are currently excluded or find the formal system inaccessible.  There is need for restructuring the system – with a move away from ‘formal and informal’ towards large scale and grassroots financial systems.

An alternative to traditional financial sector developing new models for lending might be in wholesale funding from intermediary institutions (such as CODI or SPARC) to help reach the grassroots.

The Role of Networking and Exchange – By networking horizontally it builds strength and negotiated power against the vertical system.  Within horizontal relationships development activities can be strengthened, and checks and balances within the process emerge.  It builds a stable system that works for them!

Good to involve a mix of people for best results.

What is the scale of the subsidy and how can it be delivered? – Many are being delivered through NGOs or state institutions, but all schemes operate  with collective savings and loan management, not with individuals.  The loans are managed at the level of the savings schemes, who identify members to participate, manage the building process, and take on responsibility for repayment.

*** Linked to the process of savings, loans and subsidies is that of repayment.  It is important to recognise that the most poor people are not likely to be able to repay loans in the ways of the conventional process because they face higher levels of personal crisis etc.  Therefore, to secure inclusion (particularly among vulnerable groups in the community) and opportunities to all, there needs to be recognition that dealing with the poorest requires less conventional practices, and that specific and temporary financial insolvency for some households is not a reason for abandoning loan finance.

The strength of the community is critical.

Subsidies have to build community skills and capacities.

Agencies can share risk  to help build a support network and gain access to more conventional financing.

How to Ensure that Inclusion is Addressed – at 2 levels – inclusion within the schemes themselves, and the process helps to build inclusive cities by creating opportunities for the urban poor to secure tenure, services and housing.

Key areas:

• In far-reaching or small geographical areas, extra efforts have to be made to ensure they are included.
• Establish ‘Daily Savings Groups’ rather than monthly, as this allows the very poor to be involved.
• Include women, as there is a widespread understanding that women are concerned about their neighbours, again ensuring more inclusivity.
• When savings is related to home ownership, special efforts need to be made to ensure these in the rental market (often the most poor) are included.  City-wide surveys can help with this.
• Change the focus for saving away from housing (alone) by carrying out ‘Hunger Mapping’ to be able to identify the most in need of support.  And then lend for food production etc.
• Identify illegal migrants or temporary residents for inclusion in some way.
• Violence is also a hindrance.
• Establish programmes which aim to include whole communities which have been excluded.
• Support in housing may also require support for income generation.
• A problem of inclusion is that it can lack rigor, in that not all activities will be wholly successful.

Blending Shelter Finance into Upgrading and Redevelopment – Most importantly, it’s about the optimum institutional relationships witht he state in order to secure the redistribution of state resources and collaborative development partnerships in upgrading and redevelopment.

There is a need to avoid any one programme from being sabotaged by changes in politics.

Possible Solutions:

1. Bilateral Funding Streams.  There are still issues with this as it then relies on other governments and their politics.  It is difficult to get long term / instituationalised support in this way.
2. Quasi-State Agencies. Ex. CODI.  With this structure, the agency needs to aim NOT to be at the centre, but put the local networks and local authorities in the driving seat.  This will allow the ‘scaling up’ to be at the local level not at agency level.
3. Allowing ‘in kind contributions’ play a mechanism for scaling.
4. State making contributions to other programmes (in additon to state programmes), ie. NGO funds, to help reach everyone.
5. Decentralisation is important, reinforcing municipal level of development involvement.

The Role and Contribuition of Professional Agencies – Key roles include:

1. Guarantors of the system
2. Helping communities to manage information
3. Moving programmes forward
4. Documentation
5. Sharing what they know they cannot do
6. Building capacity

We Speak Louder than Before: A Reflection on Participatory Housing Design in Bangkok (Rittirong Chutapruttikorn)

ABSTRACT

Squatters illegally occupy land which belongs to the State Railway of Thailand. In order to resist eviction, squatters from many communities have gathered to negotiate property agreements with landowners. They managed a temporary house registration certificate and then a thirty-year land lease on the condition to meet urban standards.

They registered for the Baan Mankong housing programme implemented by CODI, which issues housing loans directly to communities. Low-income dwellers take a key role in managing and designing their new housing in collaboration with other agencies. CODI takes the role of facilitator. Community participation is the programme main approach.

The Bangramard community is located in a rural zone in the suburb of Bangkok. Only a detached style of house was approved, but it was modified 4 times because of the poor communication between the designer and the residents. The author worked with the inhabitants building scale models for the better understand of the design.

To transform the built environment does not only signify the improvement of their dwellings, but can also lead to a higher status and new self-identity. Having a permanent house significantly rises the community status, showing that they are no loger slum dwellers.

Similarity would make the community look orderly and beautiful, but some residents commented that the community should be concerned with the residents’ real needs and familiar financial situation rather than prioritizing one community image alone. The members worked, discussed and came to an agreement together. Different designs also imply considerable delays but the house selected by the majority was unnecessarily large and expensive for some. The voice of the minority tends to be ignored.

The understanding between facilitators and residents is a crucial factor that affects the appearance of the housing and the image of the community. CODI provides a budget specifically intended to generate an identity for each community.

A heavy burden of loan debt is the major concern of the residents. A considerable number were forced to borrow money from other sources with higher interest rates. Strategies for reducing the participants’ debt should be given much greater importance. A common proposal is the method of gradually consolidating funds and improving houses. Dwellings would be incrementally developed. As residents develop the house, their quality of life also improves. However, many inhabitants disagreed with this proposal because they were afraid that some residents might construct their new house with sub-standard materials. People who proposed this argued that they did not invest in the past because they did not have ownership. The idea of gradual consolidation cannot immediately eradicate the slum image.

It could be assumed that Baan Mankong might upgrade the identity of squatter settlements. The residents present a new social position by imitating middle-class models. This may transform their pattern of living from community-oriented groups to more independent. Uniform housing can better represent the power of the group. It integrates the former squatters into the city as formal and legitimate members.

ACTORS

CODI, CBOs, NGOs, universities

‘The Lease on Life: Richard Swift Breaks Bread with the Resilient Squatters of Bangkok’

Swift, Richard. ‘The Lease on Life: Richard Swift Breaks Bread with the Resilient Squatters of Bangkok’, in New Internationalist, Issue 386, January 2006.

The article gives some insights into the life in the Bangkok slums and different positions on Baan Mangkong and on evictions – especially it’s largest slum “Klong Toey” – through conversations with several key people.

Location and growth of Klong Toey:

• Classic dualism shapes politics of space in Bangkok: A Lotus-Tesco now encroaches into slum, serves as parking lot disco at night
• 80,000 to 100,000 or more
• Have resisted eviction for generations and inspire other slum dwellers
• BPA owns the land
• Character of slums in Bangkok: not spreading but dispersed in pockets of undesired land
• In 50s & 60s the “land rent system” allowed settling on land for small rents, during boom in 70s public and private landholders under pressure to sell or develop land. At the same time cheap labour was needed for the boom > 20% slum population in ca. 2000 slums
• Violent eviction and demolition are now rare
• Thai cultural preference for fro conflict avoidance and compromise

Sumon Charoensai, citizen squatter:

• Has a shop where he makes natural cleanser for the polluted canals, fixes computers and sells art
• Evicted three times by the Bangkok Port Authority. One of the measures is blowing sand and mud into houses to make them uninhabitable
• Has large collection of cards, maps and charts on squatter situation to give people information in order fro them to decide
• Has understanding of global forces behind the issues he is facing personally and the contradiction: the squatter communities labour is necessary to fuel the system that is trying to drive them away

Tactics:

• Deliberate and un-deliberate fires are a big problem: 70 fires led to rebuilding of 10,000 houses over night for bargaining power in order to avoid resettlement
• Plans for eco-tourism village in centre of town instead of demolition
• Buddhist religious ceremony to stop eviction raid (unthinkable to interrupt Buddhist ceremony)

Soomsook Boonyabancha:

• Challenge the system from within
• 25% of communities working with CODI
• Activist as architecture student
• Solution is collective land holding and collective finance
• Soft power approach to work out compromises case by case on the ground

Scott Leckie, Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions:

• Challenge the system from outside
• Critical of CODI because of accommodations of big landlords
• Believes in rights-based approach and sees solution in housing rights to become law: freedom of eviction

Prapai, Klog Toey community activist:

• Positive about CODI
• Problem is that in her case the Port Authority has imposed 3-year leases: CODIs accommodation with power doesn’t solve secure tenure issues

Pimjai Pa-Ta, community leader:

• Problem is idea of accumulation versus liveablity
• Fear of high-rise solution instead of current 2 story livelihood/housing combinations
• Will join CODI to achieve a solution
• Established garbage fund to help saving and mitigation interest

Father Joe Maier, social entrepreneur, activist, slum analyst:

• “The slum is a village”
• Built community centre: Mercy centre incl childrens centre
• Despite improvements of infrastructure in Bangkok he sees people’s situation deteriorating because the pressures and discontents of modernity impact on the village like slum-community
• Problems with gambling and dept, interest at 2% a day
• Problems with HIV