Although not widely recognised across the rest of the public sector, Fire and Rescue Services have arguably gone further in terms of demand management and service prevention than any single public service body. Over the past 10 years the fire service has overseen a substantial reduction in the level of demand for its services. This […]
The number of people who live in slums in urban Thailand is disputed widely, but stands roughly between two and five million people [1]. Most of these people live in sub-standard housing with little to no security of tenure and suffer from poor living environments. With almost half the world population living in urban areas, housing for the poor is a growing problem for many countries and a lot can be learnt from the way Thailand is addressing the issue.
In 2003, the Thai Housing Ministry set up the Baan Mankong programme to provide urban communities with long term, low-interest loans to upgrade their homes. Instead of destroying slum areas, the Thai Government is empowering poor urban communities by letting them be in charge of transforming their communities into more attractive and better quality settlements.
[testimonial author=”Resident of Kao Seng”] It [community] used to be slum, but now it is a house. In the past when we went back home, we were afraid to say we live in Kao seng. People might look down [or] have antipathy. However, recently we speak proudly that we live in Kao seng. We speak louder than ever before. [2][/testimonial]
Providing the poor with flexible financing options is one of the key components of the programme. This works hand in hand with the requirement that each settlement forms a savings group and manages their finances collectively. The savings group becomes the core of the community, managing all activities associated with the upgrading operation, from searching for a new piece of land to learning how to plan projects. All around Thailand, they collaborate with local government, volunteer architects, designers and university students to survey all available land, and develop a plan of action to upgrade their settlements within three to four years. The appropriate government bodies then review these plans and channel infrastructure subsidies and housing loans directly to the communities.
Savings groups provide communities with the necessary structure to manage a complex upgrading process collectively and reach out to other communities to share their knowledge and experiences. They also serve a very important social function: Through these groups, everyone in the community, even the poorest individuals, is included in the decision-making processes. In this way, savings groups strengthen the bonds within a community and ensure that each individual’s needs are addressed in the design and production of new settlements. As such, the Baan Mankong program accomplishes two important tasks with a single effort, empowering marginalized individuals while providing them with security of tenure.
For example, in the community of Bonkai, a long-established informal settlement in central Bangkok, 566 households formed a cooperative and negotiated with Crown Property Bureau to rebuild 200 houses that were damaged in a recent fire. Bonkai community was the first to be issued a ‘community lease contract’ in Thailand. The community decided to manage the reconstruction effort in three phases, so that all dwellers could remain on site. In order to fit every impacted household, they decided to build 72 three-storied units. Each unit was built on twenty-four square meter plots, for an average cost of US$4901. [3]
Bonkai before and after reconstruction. Boonyabancha, 2005.
As a precaution against land speculation and gentrification, the program requires communities to make decisions collectively about selling individual properties or making any other changes to the settlement. One of the most common types of tenure in the program is cooperative ownership (other types of tenure include long-term and short-term leases, in which case the community still makes decisions together about selling or building in the settlement), which ensures that the future of the settlement is decided together. There are over 1,010 Baan Mankong projects under way, in 226 towns and cities, involving 54,000 households. [4]
This is not to say that Baan Mankong does not have its problems. The level of debt might be disconcerting and cause long-term stress for many slum dwellers. The project might also disservice those who are renting their dwellings. Strategies that prioritize helping original settlers and reducing participants’ debt should certainly be considered. Yet, the bottom-up, community-led style in which Thailand addresses the issue of informal settlements is exemplary. It not only presents a sustainable method to conquer a monumental problem, but also serves to show how communities can overcome complex urban issues on their own and function as local democracies.
[testimonial author=”Onn (36 years old), Bangramard resident”]Many friends asked me, do I regret destroying this home? I simply say yes, I really do. But it is worth it. If it can be used in exchange for thirty years of permanent tenure, I accept that. My daughter is just eight years old. If we did not attend the project [Baan Mankong] and the [landlord] suddenly need the land back, I have no idea where we would go. [5] [/testimonial]
The Thai approach may not be directly applicable in the UK, and Thailand might be an unusual place to look for inspiration with regards to this issue. However, Baan Mankong not only presents a potentially sustainable method to conquer a global social problem, it also serves to show that communities can be efficient and reliable local decision-making bodies. Key approaches of the programme, namely, the policies that allow for much more localized cooperative ownership, community management of financial resources and local decision-making could be relevant for the UK. Incorporating these measures into local government could help problem-solve and plan more efficiently at a community scale. It might also just create less isolated and more independent communities.
REFERENCES
[1] UN HABITAT, 2008:248; CODI, 2004
[2] Rhabibadana, 2007: 3
[3] CODI, 2006
[4] CODI Website, http://www.codi.or.th/housing/aboutBaanmankong.html
[5] Chutapruttikorn, 2009: 17 [/box]
Even for those with only a passing interest in politics and government, it’s been a busy few months up here in Scotland. Most notably, we had our Independence Referendum on 18th September, and the subsequent discussions via the Smith Commission on what further powers could and should be devolved to our parliament at Holyrood. That report was issued in late November, with a plan to legislate on much of that even before May 2015’s General Election.
Over the coming few years, we will assume control of a range of new responsibilities, including the ability to set income tax rates and bands, bits of VAT and Air Passenger Duty – and keeping whatever is raised from those in Scotland. In addition, the Scottish Government will have some control over chunks of welfare (essentially, powers to determine the structure and value of elements of Universal Credit), over employment initiatives like the Work Programme, over the management and subsequent revenues from the Crown Estate in Scotland, and fuller control of transport including allowing the public sector to bid for rail franchises, powers to set speed limits and (bizarrely!) over all road traffic signs.
For some, this isn’t enough: does this ability to tax income (but not other forms of wealth or assets like oil & gas) allow us to really grow our economy and take genuinely different courses of action on welfare and so on? For others – including Lord Smith himself – this is simply a good start, and has at least secured the support of all five political parties in the Scottish Parliament.
Of particular interest was Smith’s explicit recommendation that the parties show a similar commitment to “see the principle of devolution extended further, with the transfer of powers from Holyrood to local communities.”
This continues a noticeable trend over the past few months to commit to moving decision-making closer to people and their communities: there’s certainly loads of other things going on up here that point in that direction.
Just a few months ago, COSLA (the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the representative body for local government) published a thoughtful, laudable and I think successful attempt to influence national thinking on principles of subsidiarity, ‘spheres of governance’, community empowerment, democratic deficits and improving outcomes. Its Commission on Local Democracy is well worth a read and makes a compelling case why local services and local accountability matters – and therefore why devolution shouldn’t stop at Holyrood.
The Scottish Government is now consulting on its Community Empowerment Bill which – although largely a ragbag of bits and pieces of community-focused initiatives – has some pretty strong policy commitments on more wide-ranging Community Planning Partnerships (CPPs), rights for community groups to request involvement in planning, extending Community Right To Buy, decent procedures for community asset transfers to communities, and welcome new powers for flexibility on local reliefs on National Non-Domestic Rates (local business rates).
And just at the end of November, Scotland’s new First Minister Nicola Sturgeon set out her inaugural programme for government, promising an administration that is “decentralising”. Among 12 bills detailed, two are particularly relevant. First, a commitment to Land Reform aimed at securing a ‘fairer, wider and more equitable distribution of land’ in Scotland through possible measures to break up large land holdings, providing help to communities (including in urban areas) to buy the land that surrounds them, removing business rate exemptions for shooting and deerstalking estates, and penalising landowners who act as ‘a barrier to sustainable development’.
Second, she announced that an independent commission would be set up to report on fairer alternatives to the Council Tax by autumn 2015. My view is that the current SNP administration’s Council Tax freeze (replicated in England by the Coalition) flies in the face of genuinely local democracy. In Scotland, just 18% of local income is raised through local taxation (compared with proportions nearer 50% elsewhere in Europe). This limits the spend and investment choices available to local communities and will inevitably affect their participation rates. It should be a point of principle that local people decide what taxation is levied and services delivered.
What all of these events, initiatives, policies and announcements have in common is this: they are about power, where it lies, how it’s used and for whose benefit. A national conversation has begun in Scotland on these issues. Hopefully this will continue – perhaps even more emphatically – at local levels by elected councillors, community groups and individual citizens.
For us in Scotland, it will mean a profound change in attitude by our local authorities and other public sector partners. It will mean recognising – as set out by Ben Ramalingam – that “managed systems of people, land, resources, assets and services are all unique”. It opens the door to genuinely diverse communities – with no nationally-prescribed plan and no top-down approaches locally – and occasionally unpredictable events and unforeseen opportunities. Things are messier, yes, but so be it.
For others in the UK, it should also spark similar debates about devolution, decentralisation, control by Westminster, Whitehall and our big public sector organisations. Different parts of the country should be able to experiment with different ways of doing things too.
What we’ve gone through in Scotland in the past year or so has been very special but the lessons cannot be unique.
David Welsh is Director at MainStreet Consulting
@mainst
@mrdavidwelsh
www.mainstreetconsulting.co.uk
Despite years of money and government initiatives the evidence of London’s communities actually being in control of meaningful budgets or setting up new, local, democratically elected bodies (such as parish councils) is thin on the ground. Read more
