Housing for Dhaka City
A response to product fetishism
THIS write up is inspired by my former BUET-colleague Prof. Ghafur. A more elaborate version of this has already been submitted to the Ministry of Housing and Public Works as a response by the Institute of Architects Bangladesh to the proposed “Comprehensive Housing Programme for the Dhaka City”. I shall try to avoid issues already raised by Prof. Ghafur, published in The Daily Star on July 12, 2008. Given that the housing problem is enormous which has always been dealt with in a piecemeal manner, the proposal presented in a public seminar should have been a 'Comprehensive' one, rather than shying away from the term. Though the title also included the word 'Programme', there was no programme included in the proposal (except a table with set of requirements). Instead it included some examples most of which could be disputed as to their merit or qualification as good practice. Examples can be endless. 'Japan Garden City' has been widely condemned as a bad housing example devoid of any space or verdure. Financier of Baunia Bundh project (UNCDF) itself branded the project 'non-replicable'. Bhasantek has been more a political step than a desirable housing solution. Nawaz's 'Million Houses' was criticised when first published in DS in 1999 which was never refuted. Prof. Ghafur raised two additional but much valid questions -- the issue of sustainability in the use of scarce land, energy and natural amenities, and the responsiveness to the dwellers' way of life, add to that transport and employment, you could too foresee the 'impending catastrophe'. Housing is not number, it rather is a 'process' through which housing units are produced, delivered, and then acquired. It also includes various stakeholder groups, services, infrastructure, amenities, i.e. a total settlement, not only the dwelling unit. Yet questionable basis of 'self-referencing' made the necessary statistics irrelevant, as it matters little whether there are one million bastibashis or three million of them, the problem is still enormous which the conventional wisdom and government approach have failed to address. Also the level of severity (lack of services, etc.) was missing. Analyses of the existing pattern and assessment of backlog failed to take cognizance of a scenario that could be influenced by decentralization, economic resurgence, industry relocation, implementation of the strategic transport plans including mass rapid transit, restriction on using agricultural land, better environmental awareness and increased enforcement of law, etc. The nature of problem is over simplified because it failed to identify the problem. For example, inability of the government to provide housing cannot be a problem, as providing housing is not accepted to be the government's responsibility anymore. Though housing is one of the basic needs, guaranteed by the constitution, yet the government's role in this regard should be confined within that of an 'enabler/facilitator', not a 'provider'. Properly defined aims and objectives could be followed by strategies to be adopted and tasks to be undertaken, and lead eventually to viable solutions. The objective of “recommending a housing development programme” should have been the aim, while objectives could be such factors as providing satisfactory housing within affordable means to a majority of the population, creating an enabling environment wherein individuals, groups and organisations can meet their own housing needs, developing system(s)/mechanisms whereby the government can make available housing resources for the other actors in the sector, creating institutions and regulations whereby a desired growth in the housing sector can be ensured. The report does not include any strategy that would enable the government to achieve the aims and targets and meet the objectives, even if improperly defined. The task of identifying system deficiencies in delivering finance, land and other sources was ignored. This indeed was the most important task required to be taken. If the problems to be addressed are not identified, there cannot be any useful solution, and no amount of tables and maps can render any value! Instead it included a set of planning principles, which were important and useful. Yet these were not addressed, which could have been a useful point of departure. The report failed to provide a strategic direction for the future as how to tackle the severe problem in the urban areas of the country including in mega-city Dhaka. Instead of case studies, it should have suggested a system with set rules and control, providing incentives, infrastructure and finance, encouraging cooperation and participation of the cooperatives and the NGOs, etc. that should enable everybody to meet their housing needs with putting no extra burden on the government. Thus a 'Comprehensive Programme' should include how to produce and deliver all the facilities, and various components of a shelter like land and finance be made available to all. Land and finance are two most essential and crucial elements of housing development, and the lack in their availability is causing problem. At its root is the gap between the cost and affordability. Housing cost can be reduced by reducing the costs of individual components like land, labour, materials, technique, services, infrastructure, transport, etc. through various tested methods. Overall economic uplift of the population would automatically enhance its affordability. Even then finance is one proven method of improving the affordability. Scarcity and high cost of buildable land is a serious problem which was not identified, caused by speculation (including competition among the developers), encroachment, injudicious use etc. The issue of land has been inadequately dealt with. It is not a technical problem (of developing and delivering more plots), but a political one (providing access and right of use). Thus it requires fundamental structural reforms in the ownership and use pattern, not reduction in plot size, or filling upon wetland around the city. Nevertheless, there are various methods available to increase supply of buildable land in right locations and control their price rise. These have been adopted worldwide both in developing and developed countries, and some of the more feasible ones could be introduced in Dhaka. The report could evaluate the viability of these methods in the local context, and suggest ways to adopt and practice them. Low-income group's housing doesn't necessarily have to be low-cost or small in size. There are various internationally tested methods, like incremental building, service sharing, etc. available through which the cost of various housing elements (other than land) can be reduced or controlled. Worldwide finance is now recognised as important housing resource/element. In countries like Sri Lanka or Singapore the government has successfully solved the housing problem of the majority of population by using finance mechanisms. We too should base finance on domestic saving and enable a family to own a house when the aspirant is young, not when he retires. When the inflation is high, conventional market cannot provide long term soft loan very much necessary for housing. Therefore, unconventional sources like individual contractual saving, insurance fund, international market, etc, have to be tapped. The report instead of looking for and addressing the cause tried to heal only the symptoms. As 30 percent of the housing is delivered by the formal non-government sector and 60 percent by the informal sector, the problems and needs of these sectors required to be identified and addressed. The developers could be brought to play a more desirable role. Though they supply only 5 percent of the stock in Dhaka city, they can realise the greater potential by increasing their coverage to address the needs of the middle-income groups too. In many countries, housing societies work as finance institutes; and REHAB can establish its own bank. It can also arrest the unabated price rise in land for which they are to be blamed. The government can also introduce 'valorisation' in partnership with the developers. The report talked about implementing Housing Policy 2004, which in fact was never adopted. We urge for the 2004 Policy to be adopted as it was well studied, prepared through stakeholders' participation, and comprehensive and contemporary. In fact the government had many policies, but never followed those. For example both the second and third Five Year Plans mention housing for the government employees as “perennial wastage of scare national resources, which should not be pursued anymore”. Instead, every plan includes a number of staff quarters in their programmes, as the bureaucrats that decide the programmes upheld their class interest. The Plans instead suggest introducing 'hire-purchase system' for the government employees and encouraging large employers and corporations to accommodate their own employees. The First Five Year Plan mentions of encouraging cooperative development by providing incentives. However, none of these was ever adopted. Thus to ensure good governance and accountability adopted policy must be followed, strategies adopted and plans adhered to and programmes be undertaken that have followed from the policies and the strategies. Housing rights, guaranteed adequately by both the constitution and various policies, should be recognised. Eviction creates more problem than solving; hence the squatters' problems should be addressed more humanely. Various models in mainly Asian countries show that by accepting the rights of the low income group various innovative methods can indeed bring viable solutions to the problems, many of which can also be implemented in Bangladesh. Too much has been wrongly pinned upon the Detail Area Plan which cannot be the cure for all urban ill. DAP should follow the broader policy as outlined in the Structure Plan, which we have ignored. DAP more than a decade behind due time, and still taking so long to complete, has in fact been used as a scapegoat. From what has been seen and heard of the progress, content and quality of the under preparation DAP, there are reasons to fear that it will fail to provide a visionary direction for a mega city of the third millennium. Let's accept that conventional wisdom has made solution(s) to the housing problem impotent. It needs fundamental change in attitude and unconventional innovative methods that in a land-hungry poor country can provide suitable housing to all within affordable means. Also it is impossible for the government alone to meet the exact needs. It should rather develop an enabling environment and appreciate public-private partnership. This needs to raise and address such radical questions as why everybody should need a plot. Why cannot the government own all land? Why everybody has to come to Dhaka in search of livelihood? And why housing problem shouldn't be seen in the context of overall settlement, environment, economy, transport, income generation, education, health, governance and security, in fact the whole gamut of national development and citizens' welfare?
For all latest news, follow The Daily Star's Google News channel.
Comments