Please note - this article was originally published on the id21 website which has now closed. This and other articles produced by id21 were archived by Eldis in 2009 and are not actively maintained. If you find links and references which are no longer valid please email eldis@ids.ac.uk.

Linking housing and enterprise development: lessons from Kenya and India

Despite the Millennium Development Goal of eradicating extreme poverty and hunger, chronic urban poverty is rising. This leaves most slum dwellers unable to access formal housing finance they need to continue to occupy or improve their houses. Few housing initiatives exist to help them generate the income and savings they otherwise require. A new integrated approach for developing a sustainable shelter delivery strategy may offer the urban poor some alternatives to securing adequate housing.

A report from the Intermediate Technology Development Group describes the field testing of this new approach. Project staff team selected a Kenyan and an Indian city with similar populations (around a quarter of a million) and situated at a similar distance (160 km) from their country’s capitals, New Delhi and Nairobi. In both of these secondary towns – Nakuru in Kenya and Alwar in India – investment has been insufficient to counter steady economic decline. In both places a key challenge has been to identify sub-sectors of the local economy that could be revitalised and become the engine for housing development.

The project set out to increase the access of a sample of low-income households to adequate, safe and secure shelter by providing training in marketable skills, facilitating creation of home-based, micro and group enterprises and offering marketing advice. A process-oriented, consultative, participatory and inclusive approach enabled beneficiaries to be involved in problem identification, planning, implementation and evaluation.

Considerable resources were invested in building the capacity of and forging strategic partnerships between community-based organisations (CBOs), local authorities, central government agencies and partner NGOs. The main objective was to develop joint approaches to addressing identified shelter, infrastructure and livelihoods priorities.

In a relatively short time the project improved the livelihoods of around 600 households. Other key outcomes are:

Many women in Alwar are overcoming social, cultural, behavioural and occupational barriers by developing skills in basic literacy and numeracy.
Alternative cooking fuel and methods are being adopted in Alwar and changes in sanitation practices are gathering momentum.
A newly-created umbrella group – half of whose members are women – is now coordinating the work of CBOs in the project settlements in Nakuru.
Houses have been built in Nakuru using innovative and more affordable technologies and of better quality than the predominant mud-and-wattle structures.
In both towns CBOs, business and trade groups have become better organised and empowered with new business, finance, management, technical and intellectual skills.
Local communities have gained greater credibility with local authorities.

However, the project has not achieved its housing and services targets. The local teams have realised that it takes time for incomes to increase, become sustainable and result in sufficient savings to invest in housing or better services.

Other key lessons for the future development of an integrated approach to urban development are that:

Before projects are launched it is advisable to undertake an analysis of the local economy, land and housing market and policy framework.
The process is necessarily slow: time is needed for the integrated approach to take root.
Imposing an idea or project upon people might result in the achievement of numerical targets but will not be sustainable.
Greater focus must be given to providing credit from the outset.
Projects should more directly enhance the capacity of local government and seek to influence the national policy environment.
There should be greater exchange of findings between researchers investigating new approaches to shelter provision.

Initial expectations may have been too high, but there is evidence that an integrated approach has its advantages. In particular, the opening up of channels for the community to work with other partners, especially the local authority, makes possible the introduction of sustainable urban housing development initiatives.

Source(s):
‘Integrated urban housing development – experiences from Kenya and India’, Intermediate Technology Development Group, by Theo Schilderman February 2004
‘Integrated urban housing strategy: experiences of a secondary town –Alwar’, Society for Development Studies, by Stuti Lall and Vinay D. Lall 2003 Full document.
‘Integrated urban housing project, Nakuru, Kenya: Project impact assessment’ ITDG, by Margaret Ngaaya 2003 Full document.

Funded by: DFID (IUDD) R7395

id21 Research Highlight: 16 August 2004

Further Information:
Theo Schilderman
Intermediate Technology Development Group
The Schumacher Centre for Technology and Development
Bourton-on-Dunsmore
Rugby CV23 9QZ
UK

Tel: +44 (0) 1926 634400
Fax: +44 (0) 1926 634401
Contact the contributor: theo.schilderman@itdg.org.uk

Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG), UK

Views expressed on these pages are not necessarily those of DfID, IDS, id21 or other contributing institutions. Articles featured on the id21 site may be copied or quoted without restriction provided id21 and originating author(s) and institution(s) are acknowledged. Copyright © 2009 IDS. All rights reserved.

id21 is funded by the UK Department for International Development. id21 is one of a family of knowledge services at the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex. id21 is a www.oneworld.net partner and an affiliate of www.mediachannel.org. IDS is a charitable company, No. 877338.