Bangkok’s Housing Boom and the Financial Crisis in Thailand

This paper is really interesting for the detail it gives about the Financial Crisis in Thailand. I can’t summarize it better than the abstract in the article so I’ll transcribe that. But there’s also a bunch of really great tables and it outlines a lot of private sector actors so I’ll include those too.

Worth a read anyhow.

“This paper explores the causes of the collapse of the housing sector in Bangkok in 197 and its impact on the financial sector and the economy of Thailand. With the liberalization of the Thai economy and its integration into the world economy during the 1980s and 1990s, real estate companies gained access to the US$-nominated off-shore loans at low interest rates. Because of the availability of cheap loans and the speculative demand for housing, financial institutions and real estate developers did not conduct market research and invested in doubtful projects, resulting in an enormous oversupply of housing. The close relationship between bankers, developers and politicians ensured that the government would bail out insolvent real estate companies and financial institutions. In 1996, exports fell and the economy stopped growing due to increased international competition. Unhedged foreign debts reached  dangerous levels and speculative attacks forced the government to devalue the currency. Real estate companies and financial institutions would have  collapsed without the continued bail-outs by the government. However, the government’s non-transparent policies eroded the confidence of the general public and international investors, resulting in capital flight and a serious financial and economic crisis.”

Actors: National Housing Authority, Government Housing Bank, Expats, Securities Exchange Commission, Real Estate Developers (i.e. Bangkok Land, Somprasong Land), Banks (Bangkok Bank, Thai Farmers Bank, Krung Thai Bank, Siam Commercial Bank), Ministry of Finance, Finance companies (General Finance, Nava Finance, Asia Credit, Dhana Siam, Finance One), Credit Fonciers (Thanakorn Credit Foncier, Housing Finance Credit Foncier, Land and House Credit Foncier), Bank of Thailand, Agency for Real Estate Affairs, the Central Valuation Authority, Government Savings Bank, IMF/World Bank, Property Loan Management Organization.

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

Financing City Building: The Bangkok Case (D. Webster)

Webster, Douglas. ‘Financing City-Building: The Bangkok Case’, April 2000. (http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/11894/Webster.pdf) Accessed 10 January 2010

ABSTRACT

Bangkok ir typical of a class of cities in East Asia characterized by: diffuse ans poorly coordinated institutional responsibility for urban management, ineffective land use planning, limited local government powers and limited revenues and financial resources to cope with growth. Bangkok Metropolitan Administration’s (BMA) current population is 8 millions. Until the crisis of 1997 the city’s economy grew rapidly at an annualized rate of 17.2%. City’s economy began growing again in 1999. It is a middle income city.

The starting premises of the paer are: Network infrastructure is the prime driver shaping development in middle income mega-cities in East Asia, basic urban infrastructure and services should be put in place before urban areas are built-up, capital for city-building is typically scarce and should be allocated to highest priority urban infrastructure, it is desirable and appropriate to borrow for infrastructure but borrowing should reflect future ability to repay debt, a portion of the land value increases generated by public improvement should be captured by the public sector and good governance should incorporate equity, competitiveness and sustainability concerns as reflected in local preferences.

Typically no corporate entity is responsible for the planning and management in urban areas. There is little coordination and lack of communication between providers of city infrastructure and city services. The new population growth, investment and physical development is occuring outside the core city’s boundaries. There is a problem of asymmetry between technological and institutional development. Often the most inefficient systems are those that have existed as institutions for the longest period of time.

A few agencies have attempted to estimate future demands for capital to finance city-building processes through public infrastructure. With increasing decentralization, much of this is likely to be the responsibility of local government. BMA benefits, at present, from low population growth but the suburban provinces are growing faster.

City-building is primarly associated with three processes:

1. Building at the fringe of the city on green field on relatively low-density rural sites. This type of development can engender the lowest capital investment costs and permit the creation of efficient land use/activity patterns compared with already built-up areas.

2. Redevelopment of existing urban areas which does not require significant investment in capital facilities. Particular concern is large-scalerestructuring or development whether driven by public or private initiatives.

3. Infilling, because arterial roads are scarce, large undeveloped lots often exist in interstices between corridors. On the periphery, the private sector tends to develop property holdings along major infrastructure networks. In built-up areas, the city building process associated with smaller parcels of land and is manifest through in-filling, demolishing and rebuilding, and upgrading or reusing existing structures.

It is critical that networks are property planned. This is especially importatn where land use planning processes are very weak. In many East Asian cities the approach to city-building that prevails could be described as ¡infrastructure follows’ rathes than ‘infrastructure leads’. Infrastructure-led development can only be realized if horizontal coordination exists among service providers at the local (micro) urban area scale.

Literature in uban finance can be categorized in:

1. Analysis and recomendations on fiscal relationships. Important issues associated with decentralization include efficiency, equity, transparency, accountability and impact on macroeconomic policy.

2. Innovative urban financing mechanisms like concessions, privatisation of state, regional and local government enterprises and public-private partnerships to finance catalytic projects. It was seen as a panacea for mobilising capital to meet the investment needs of Asian cities but many sectors are unattractive for innovative finance. Private sector capital tends to be more interested in large cities.

3. Sectorial analysis is an important area for further development. Urban infrastructure is delivered and operated by sector-related agencies.

4. Financial management from local urban government. Smaller East Asian cities have limited capacity for financial planning. Analysis and recommentations from perspective of cities as evolving, interactive systems, requiring horizontally-coordinated city-building processes, appear to be in short supply.

BMA controls less than 10% of public facility/infrastructure investment within its territory. The efficiency of tax/user charge collection is very low and all expenditure comes from current revenues. It means that capital projects are often incrementally built. For example, a road may be constructed at the rate of only few kilometers each year. State enterprises deliver most public utility services in Bangkok and the precentage of expenditure on social services was declining until the onset of the economic crisis. International lenders as the Asian Development Bank (ADB), the World Bank and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation play a major role financing major urban infrastructure in Bangkok. The Bangkok Transit System (BTS) is a major achievement for BMA because its significant contribution in shaping the city improving the quality of life and because it illustrates the BMA’s potential financial leverage. Private developers essentialy dictate the urban development. No mechanism exists to plan subdivisions so the building process often results in superblocks with inaccessible ‘blind land’ in the interior.

No one seems to be in charge of the city. No one is coordinating capital investment to major networks that shape and ultimately constitute the skeleton of the Bangkok organism. Given these conditions it is amazing that Bangkok works as well as it does.

What is needed?

1. Privatise the key state enterprises serving the city.

2. BMA should fully participate in the land subdivision approval process to avoid superblock dynamics.

3. Land readjustment processes need to be implemented on a pilot basis redesignatind some land for key public uses.

4. BMA’s monthly meeting with stakeholders should be formalized to include investment needed to realize strategic objectives.

5. Minimize the need for borrowing the BMA should maximise local revenues through the effective implementation of user fees for services and through effective property taxation.

6. Future revenue streams should be forecast based on two or three scenarios.

7. Continue to explore and take advantage of innovative financing techniques like privatisation and public-private partnerships.

8. Initial planning is not detailed enough and has not involved stakeholders. They frequently cause delays in project implementation.

Lessons:

1. Emphasize coverage at appropriate unit cost, utilizing appropriate technology rather than at unit costs based on technologies which result in considerably less coverage.

2. In planning and budgeting capital facilities, develop some type of mechanism to prioritise and allocate capital. A coordinating body that has political power from citizens and national government is needed for the metropolitan area as a whole, to ensure that the highest priority capital needs attract investment.

3. Buy rights-of-way ahead of time. Land purchase could be used proactively to raise revenues and shape economically strategic areas.

4. Land readjustment needed to shape local areas on the urban fringe.

5. Local government should participate fully in the local subdivision processes, emphasising infrastructure networks.

6. Demand side management. If the demand for new infrastructure in some urban sectors can be slowed, capital can be reallocated.

7. Emphasise economic forecasting, revenue forecasting and the wise use of credit. Future revenue to repay loans used for capital spending on coty-building is basically the product of the existence of instruments to raise revenues, the willingness of urban residents to pay for city-building and public services and future urban household income corresponds with the competitiveness of the city.

8. Use decentralization processes to integrate city-building processes. Decentralization is good news in terms of allocating capital more rationally at the city level. The challenge will be to link private suppliers to guidance and regulatory mechanisms of local governments.

9. Institution-building.

Bangkok will require very large amounts of money to meet their backlog, current and future needs. Privatization of key utilities could result in efficiency gains and ‘user pays’ principles should be implemented. Other infrastructure will require direct government expenditure so responsible borrowing will be needed.

ACTORS

BMA, ADB, World Bank, Japan Bank for International Cooperation

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

Critical Reflections on Cities in Southeast Asia (Tim Bunnell et al.)

Bunnell, Tim et alli. Critical Reflections on Cities in Southeast Asia, BRILL 2002.

ABSTRACT

In the territorial reconfiguration of capitalism, some cities reemerged as nodes of the global economy becoming home to more and more people leading to issues of poverty and lack of access to resources.

Cities increasingly function as nodes in social ans economic processes at a global scale. They are attracting large proportions of economic activity as a result of their economic centrality that appears to be particularly pronounced in many less developed economies. Cities became nodes of transnational networks, undermining the notion of the nation. There is a reterritorialization of state institutions from the national scale towards the urban-regional scale.

This situation leaded to competition between cities, rising activism of local governments in looking overseas to attract foreign investment in a response to disenchantment of local states with the ineffectiveness of federal governments. Exports, direct foreign investment and tourism have become commodities.

Economic fortunes of cities and regions are fragile so there is an increasing need to develop local level strategies to attract and retain industry and business. Cities and regions not only compete with places nationally, but also with cities from distant shores. There is a rise of “citystates”.

There is a need to attract new form of foreign investment, reinvent the economic reputations and create new labels, create “virtuous circles” starting with good infrastructure. The new urban governance is focused on a local politics of growth rather than a politics of income redistribution.

For example, Thailand became a major attraction for FDI in the late 1980s and99% of the Japanese investment in metropolitan areas went to Bangkok. A process of rapid urban development, a changing urban economy and a concentration of multinational companies was experienced.

Globalization is crating a new set of urban inequalities. It is not an egalitarian process. Because of the inter-city competitions, the intra-city disparities tend to be ignored. There is a call for the state to take up its responsibility to provide basic needs and to generate opportunities for communities to develop a voice. The most pressing and basic issues of urbanization in Southeast Asia are poverty and access to land. When the governments tried to intervene in providing housing for the urban poor, they were constrained by urban land shortages. Land shortage, corruption and mismanagement made housing too expensive for the poor and ended in the hands of the middle class. The process of globalization further marginalizes the poor both spatially and socially. Port-colonial nation-states, cities and people are thus represented as passive victims of global, external forces.

Cities are increasingly understood as the product of globalization. Architecture has rejected to look back to an authentic cultural past, seeking for the space of the West. Asian architects has tended to be incorporated into and adapted for the order of world-economy, rather tan to provide a site to interrogate it. The use of world-remowned architecs and engineering forms, high profile consultants and landmark buildings are common.The key drivers for a city are bound with social capital formation and social learning, making urban residents stakeholders and mobilizing citizens. The state neither engaged in its responsibility to provide basic needs nor encouraging open urban governance. There is a question whether such urban innovation through private enterprise can solve the problems of Asia’s mega-cities.  Mega-cities disconnect the cities and its elites from the nation state. Private cities are able to achieve far better provision of urban services than state agencies but contribute to the traffic and air pollution.

The urban poor, NGOs and CBOs must work through their socio-political networks. A political space for negotiation has been created through organizational capabilities of NGOs and CBOs. The question is how to turn participatory civic democracy into emancipatory outcomes and creating competent communities able to negotiate independently and directly with government and civil society agencies.

ACTORS

Central Governments, Local Governments, NGOs, CBOs

Urban Renewal and Slum Rehabilitation: A Sectoral Agenda within ADB’s Strategy 2020

This is a presentation that was given to the Transport and Urban Development division of the Asian Development Bank (ADB). It outlines a revised Urban Sector Strategy(USS):

• Based on the previous Urban Sector Strategy
• research is not done independently but always in alignment with lending
• focus on multi-city projects; cities consider development strategies in relation to linkages with other cities including knowledge sharing among municipalities.
• more attention to the role of the private sector
• more attention to disaster prevention and emergency
• National government assumes the role of connecting municipalities with the private sector (i.e. via land provision)
• capacity building, especially at a local government level
• redevelopment includes slum upgrading, local economic revitalisation, heritage conservation
• urban transportation management

Their approach is summed up as follows:

1. inclusive growth
2. environmentally sustainable growth
3. regional integration

And is realized through:

• infrastructure
• environment & living cities
• regional cooperation and integration
• financial sector redevelopment
• and education

Slum Upgrading Facility: Exchange Visit to CODI in Thailand (UN-HABITAT)

UN-HABITAT. ‘Slum Upgrading Facility: Exchange Visit to the CommunityOrganisations Development Institute in Thailand’, UN-HABITAT Slum UpgradingFacility Working Paper 11, 2009.

ABSTRACT

5500 low-income communities in Thailand (8.25 million people).

70-80% of urban population cannot afford housing.

In 1973 was set up the National Housing Authority in Thailand implementing sites and services and slum upgrading programs. From 1992 the UCDO extended loans to organised communities for settlement upgrading. Communities were encouraged to form networks.

In 2000 the UCDO merged the Rural Development Fund to form CODI, made up of 1/3 community representatives, 1/3 government and 1/3 form civil society (NGOs and universities).

The aim of CODI (established in 2000) is to build a powerful society from the basis of the power of community organizations and civil society, supporting and emphasizing the role of the community, coordinating the efforts of the civil society, developing a learning process, building financial institutions and loan systems, improving efficiency and transparency and innovating in land tenure arrengements.

In 2003 the Baan Mankong program was launched to achieve 200 cities without slums in 5 years. At least 10% of the finance come from the community. Sometimes there is money from the local government and increasingly also from the private sector.

CODI receive a budget from the central government which is passed directly to the communities. More money is needed, so CODI has begun to work with the National Housing Bank (NHB). The success key factors are macro-economic stability, low inflation, land owned by community, compulsory participation in savings, build social and managerial capabilities, initial technical and financial support from government and support from community cooperatives.

CODI helps communities to come up with plans, start with a big ambition, promote people to stay and work together. People and information have to come first (community survey). Involve people can reduce the costs.

Cooperatives are including rental units.

Reblocking is a way to make better use of the land. Actually 77% of CODI developments take place in-situ.

Land must be collectively owned or leased for fifteen years to freeze market forces.

CODI has produced a handbook of technical designs.

ACTORS

CODI, Baan Mankong, National Housing Authority, UCDO, National Housing Bank, Rural Development Fund, Central Government, Local Governments, CBOs, Universities, NGOs

Land for Housing The Poor – By The Poor: Experiences from The Baan Mankong Nationwide Slum Upgrading Programme in Thailand (Somsook Boonyabancha)

Boonyabancha, Somsook. ‘Land for Housing the Poor – by the Poor: Experiences fromthe Baan Mankong Nationwide Slum Upgrading Programme in Thailand’, inEnvironment and Urbanization, Vol. 21, No. 2, October 2009, pp. 309-329.

ABSTRACT

The housing project is not an end in itself but, rather, the beginning of more community development. People can live free from the threat of eviction.

Not enough land for housing the poor and squatter settlements keep increasing. Management of urban land is failing.

Assumption that land for housing the poor should be provided by the government. No easy thing for governments to acquire decent, well-located land for poor people’s housing. Land has become a commodity. The allocation of the land is vital part of the upgrading.

Need for new kind of land expropriation by people in a decentralized process supported by local governments. Poor people themselves can become key actors in the process of acquiring land for their housing negotiating in collaboration with the local authorities.

Land ownership can transform relationships within slum communities: From collection of individuals to collective mutual support. Collective land tenure to avoid people selling up and moving. It reduces the better off eventually replace the poor, protect people during the vulnerable transition from informal to formal, ensure the community gets together, does not compromise individual freedoms, brings greater equity, tights housing development on minimal land providing more common spaces.

Baan Mankong (2003) program implemented by CODI provides infrastructure subsidies and soft housing and land loans directly to communities. They manage and provide technical assistance. All subsidies come from the Thai government. The budget for upgrading is only transferred from CODI direct to the communities. The community cooperatives lend to individuals adding a 2-3 per cent margin on the interest.

The communities start saving, they work together and bridge their development plans with other actors (local governments, NGOs, universities). They plan for available land for all slums in the city with support from accessible and flexible finance. Community cooperative buy or lease any land collectively and receive CODI loans. Land tenure must remain collective for 15 years.

ACTORS

CODI, Baan Mankong, Central Government, Local Governments, CBOs, Universities

Women’s Struggle for Housing Rights in Thailand (Somporn Surarith)

Surarith, Somporn. ‘Women’s Struggle for Housing Rights in Thailand’, in CanadianWoman Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 15-16.

ABSTRACT

Rapidly increasing number of slums in Bangkok whose tenants are being forcibly evicted. Communities and networks (food, schools, clinics, etc.) destroyed.

Women who suffer the most. They say “We must fight for our children”.

Women get more involved in the fight for housing rights. They are more gentle and patient (but not weak) in negotiations.

Rama IV was a legal and stable community under risk of eviction. They have learned from doing (not previous cases to learn from).

Most of professional supporters were women.

They started community development organizing credit union and savings program to upgrade homes or re-establish their lives somewhere else.

They were coordinated with governmental agencies to get services and they suggested plans for land sharing.

The problem of evictions must be solved in urban areas.

Government must accept that slum communities exist.

Evictions should be ended.

Government should encourage CBOs.

Government should provide housing security to the poor to invest their money in upgrading.

Government must work together with people to provide services.

ACTORS

Central Government / Local Governments (not specified) / CBOs (not specified)