Site and Services-As an Option for Affordable Housing

?Site and Services-As an Option for Affordable Housing

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????* Jit Kumar Gupta

??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????**[email protected]

?

Introduction

Globally, nations are fast urbanizing with urban areas recording high degree of population growth and increase in their physical dimensions. Uncontrolled rapid growth of urban areas in majority of developing countries,?has led to ?emergence of ?large number of?physical, social, economic and environmental problems. Mismatch between demand and supply, has led to shortfall emerging?in many sectors. Besides acute shortage of basic infrastructures, urban areas are facing massive deficit/shortage of housing to provide adequate, affordable?and appropriate shelter to ?the urban migrants .Genesis of housing shortage has roots in the?fact that ?majority of the people moving to the urban areas often lack the necessary ?resources and capacity to acquire land and construct/rent ??appropriate shelter. In addition, ?designated government agencies and urban local bodies ?operating at local level?have been found to be lacking in capacity, capability, willingness and resources?to ?create sufficient housing stock, which are affordable for the poor ?urban migrants and residents of ?urban areas. Combination of these?factors has led to ?proliferation of slums and squatter settlements in?majority of urban areas.

?In the face of rapidly growing population and??rural-urban migration, uncontrolled, unregulated and mushroom?growth of?urban slums have emerged as ??a critical urban issue. Issue of managing urban slums has been engaging the attention of ?various governments in position, at the local, state and national levels, for finding appropriate solutions to minimize the origin and growth of such slums; for making cities more clean, green & ?inclusive and?providers of more livable space for the urban residents, including?the ?poorest of the poor, to lead a dignified life. Accordingly, over the years, various schemes have been conceptualized, evolved and?implemented by the governments and parastatal agencies, globally and locally, to overcome the problem related to slums and the housing shortage in the affordable category . Majority of ?solutions adopted for resolving these problems, revolved around providing built-up houses to the beneficiaries by the parastatal agencies. However, providing constructed houses involved large resources and considerable time taken for construction of houses. Accordingly, supply of built houses was found to be in both slow and limited, as compared to the large demand for such houses. Moreover,?availability of limited resources and the limitation of capacity of parastatal agencies to deliver adequate houses has invariably led to aggravation of the problem related to shelter for the lower strata of economic pyramid. Accordingly, it was thought prudent to look for more ?feasible, rational, realistic, cost-effective and time efficient options for increasing the supply ?of the ?housing stock?for the urban poor/slum dwellers.

Looking at the failure and inability of the?various conventional housing approaches, adopted by the government and parastatal agencies to address the issue of providing?effective and efficient solution to the housing?the slum dwellers including squatters and poor in the urban areas, it was thought to find an alternate?housing scheme which should be?more cost-effective, effective and efficient?by involving?both beneficiaries and stakeholders in creation of large housing stock. Considering the entire context and need for involving beneficiaries and using ingenuity and perseverance of squatters to house themselves, providing sites and services to the beneficiaries,?was?considered as?the most viable and?appropriate answer to the problems of housing the poor in developing cities. Numerous studies?made and analysis carried out by experts and various national and international educational/professional institutes had revealed that genesis of the?rapid growth and?massive development of the squatter settlements lies in the exclusion/non-involvement?of the beneficiaries, high cost of urban land and non- availability?of?appropriate?right to?legally construct house on the land?as?the prime reason for acute housing shortage and mushroom growth of slums in urban areas.

?Understanding /evaluating ,closely and objectively, the dynamics involved in the development and expansion of squatter settlements, has led to evolution of large ?variety of innovative housing schemes in?developing countries. These schemes focused on ?rationally solving the challenges posed by the acute shortage ?of housing besides managing?growth of slums ,by creating large housing stock in the affordable category .For improving the environmental quality and providing basic infrastructure and services in the?slums; ??sites-and-services" schemes was conceptualized as one of the sustainable and reliable option, made applicable for such squatter settlements.

Considering the perpetual problem posed by large magnitude of ever growing and ?mushrooming of slums on the urban landscape, Site and services has been used, as one of the simple and direct option ,to minimize growth of slums and?resettle the slum dwellers?at minimal cost and minimum effort to the parastatal agencies, by involving the beneficiaries and their resources through a system of collaborative ?and??mutually supportive approach. Genesis of the massive support to the ?site and services scheme was found to be in its capacity to address, effectively and logically, the ?critical ?factors which led to mushrooming of slums in urban areas. Factors involved in ?origin, growth and spread of?squatter settlements ?invariably revolved around; high degree of congestion, unplanned and haphazard development, high cost of land, lack of security of tenure and non-availability of basic essential services including water supply, sewerage, roads, electricity etc. However, studies made and analysis carried out indicated that construction of structure, though slow ,was not the major problem in these slums, because it was undertaken by the individuals based on availability of resources, materials and capacity to build. Major issue remained the availability of serviced and developed land along with security of tenure of such land.

?Considering the fact that housing remains essentially an individual based activity, accordingly ?it was felt that ?for providing an optimum solution to create large housing stock in affordable category, beneficiaries should be personally/actively involved by pooling and making available their resources for ?the construction of their houses. Accordingly, it was thought prudent that if government takes on the role of a facilitator instead of being provider ,by ?making available appropriate serviced land duly supported with basic infrastructures ?at reasonable and affordable price with adequate security of tenure, then it will be possible to minimize the problem of slums?by creating large stock?of houses with the active co-operation of beneficiaries. Recognizing that the vast majority of low income families?in?the world build their own shelter, which lack ?basic hygiene, service, access?and?electricity, the site?and services scheme was considered to be the best option for supporting the poor to create appropriate shelter in the urban context.

The realization that providing a "complete" serviced house by government agencies is not possible or simply cannot be afforded by most low-income families also ?prompted a shift in focus from supplying a fully serviced house to that of providing only serviced land. The key characteristic of the approach was the use of the beneficiaries so called sweat equity and other available resources,?both physical, ?technical and financial, for the actual construction and development of the houses. Looking at the apparent distinct advantages of the approach, Sites-and-services schemes became the by-word for solving the problem of squatter settlements. Squatter settlements were and has always been considered illegal and in order to relocate and rehabilitate the squatters (as a function of "slum clearance"), plots of land (or sites) with infrastructure on it (or services) were provided, and the beneficiaries had to ?build their own houses on such land. There are?large variety of sites-and-services schemes adopted globally by different countries/agencies ?ranging from the subdivided plot only, to a serviced plot of land with a "core" house built on it, depending upon the local conditions and available resources.

As per Wikepedia; Site and services first made applicable on a large scale in?Madras?(now?Chennai) in 1972 when the?World Bank?engaged?Christopher Charles Benninger?to advise the Madras Metropolitan Development Authority (MMDA) on their housing sector investment. The approach linked the user group's ability to pay with land prices and the costs of rudimentary and upgradable?infrastructure. The fundamental idea was to market plots with essential infrastructure at market prices, to avoid the resale of?subsidized housing, directed at low-income groups. The first major scheme planned by Benninger, at Arambakkum in Chennai, created about 7,000 shelter units, within the paying capacity of the urban poor. Within five years the MMDA created more than 20,000 units and the approach became a major strategy of the World Bank to tackle a variety of shelter problems globally. Considering the distinct advantages of the scheme, the?World Bank supported and funded?“sites and services” projects globally for adoption as a mechanism to promote housing for?the slum dwellers. Many countries in South America, Asia and Africa took up this concept, and with the World Bank strongly advocating this approach and providing key finance for a number of projects, the idea received widespread approval. In India, scheme was made applicable in?27?major cities?between ?the period spanning between 1977 and 1997.

?Sites-and-Services Scheme

Various inputs that go into making of the shelter include; finance, building materials, construction technology, machinery/equipment and labour. The genesis behind Sites-and-services schemes is that: low-income people have always been housing themselves both legally and illegally, in most urban areas of the developing world. Site and Services scheme depart from the earlier housing schemes, like low-cost housing or subsidized high-rise housing units, undertaken by the state/parastatal?agencies, in the concept and the approach that scheme recognizes the ability, capacity and capability of the low-income households to build their own house, provided an opportunity was given through?appropriate handholding. Considering the entire gamut, genesis, scope and approach, "Sites-and-Services" scheme has been defined differently by different agencies in terms of ; ‘ making provision of plots of land along with a bare minimum of essential infrastructure needed for habitation either on ownership or land lease tenure basis. It has also been defined as an approach to bring shelter within the economic reach of the poor. However, the basic approach and intent of the scheme remains universal with variation in contents of?the scheme. The essential components of site and services scheme are the plot of land, infrastructure (like roads, water supply, drainage, electricity or a sanitary network), and the house itself.

Basic agenda under the scheme remains, identifying and ?sourcing appropriate and adequate land?by the State/ Housing Boards/ Development Authorities/ Improvement Trusts/ Urban local authorities/designated parastatal agencies, in the urban setting or in close vicinity of urban areas, for?housing the urban poor. The land is then planned/designed ?by?undertaking sub-division of land by the designated agency, based on the area?norms approved for each beneficiary. Land is then planned/designated ?into land parcels/plots for housing, defining area under roads, open spaces, public amenities, services etc. needed to serve the number of beneficiaries to be housed . Normally these areas are planned not based on any norms. In majority of cases, objective remains to accommodate the maximum number of?identified beneficiaries, which invariably lead to high ?proportion of land going under plots to be allotted with high population density, with minimum area allocated to roads, open spaces and supportive amenities and facilities. ?Basic services of water supply, sewerage , roads, storm water drainage, electricity etc. are then planned and provided within the scheme area. In addition, the plots are provided with certain amenities which remain at variance in various models defined for site and services. Beneficiaries, along with the developed plots, are?given in certain cases construction comprising of foundations and walls up to defined plinth height along with the provision of toilets enclosed with walls, containing?water closet and tap for sourcing water and bathing. Beneficiaries are also given the rights of connecting the services provided in the plot with the public services laid in the street. In addition, in certain cases beneficiaries are also given the standard design of the house ?to take up the construction on the plot and to maintain uniformity in the design of the houses to be constructed. The possession of the developed plot with services is then given to the identified beneficiaries for construction of the house on the self-help basis. However, no time?limit is defined for completing the shelter.

Thus, the sites-and-services approach ?mandate the role of government agencies only in the preparation of land parcels or plots with certain basic infrastructure, which is to be sold or leased to the intended beneficiaries ?on a pre-defined price?by such authority, with actual house construction left to the beneficiaries themselves by using their own resources, including informal finance or family labour and various other types of community participation modes to build their house. The beneficiaries could also build the house in phases, depending on the availability of financial and other resources. Basic principle of the development of a squatter settlement?remains development of settlements/houses without involving ?squatting

?Typologies of the ?Sites ?and -Services Schemes

Depending on the ?financial and technical resources available, willingness?to take up the scheme; number of beneficiaries to be catered; inhouse capacity of the ?implementing agency; ready availability of?appropriate land; capacity of the beneficiaries to pay the cost; making scheme cost-effective, rational & acceptable; political commitment and time available for implementation, large variations in the content and scope can be observed in the ?sites-and-services schemes . This variation remains the outcome of the juxta- positioning of the need ?to create a balance between minimum "acceptable" housing conditions and affordability of the beneficiaries. While following the basic rule of a plot of land (sites) and essential infrastructure (services), the degree of participation and inputs of the implementing agency on one hand, and the beneficiaries on the other, varied greatly. They ranged from an empty plot of land and some services (like water, electricity and sanitation connections) to the provision of a "core" house (consisting of a toilet and kitchen only) on the plot of land with attached services.

As per ?Hari Srinivas in his article, ’Urban Squatters and Slums Sites and Services’, some of the variations attempted in sites-and-services projects ?included:

• Utility wall:?In certain site and services ?projects, beneficiaries along with the developed plots were also given the benefit of ?a "utility" wall, which was?built on the plot providing access for water, drainage, sewerage and electricity. The beneficiaries were supposed ?to build the house around this wall, and utilize the connections from it. Some projects provided this utility wall in the form of a sanitary core consisting of a bathroom/toilet, and/or a kitchen.
• Latrine:?Due to its critical waste disposal problem, many projects provided a basic latrine (bathroom and/or toilet) as part of each plot.
• Roof frame:?The roof being the costliest component of a house and requires skilled labour to build, therefore, some projects provided the roof structure on posts, and the beneficiaries was to build the walls according to their requirements.
• ?Plinth; ?In few projects, construction was made up to?plinth level by the implementing agency, which formed the base over which the beneficiaries was to ?build their house.
• ?Shell house, core house ; Other variations in these schemes ?involved construction of ?the shell house (which is an incomplete house consisting of a roof and two side walls, but without front or rear walls) and a core house (consisting of one complete room) by the parastatal agencies with remaining construction to be completed by the beneficiaries.

Agencies involved

As already explained, schemes remain a joint venture and collaborative approach involving the beneficiaries living in the slum/squatter settlement and,?providers in the shape of parastatal agencies, entrusted with the task and mandate to implement the scheme. The two key actors in a sites-and-services project ?remained- the intended beneficiaries and the implementing agency. Intended beneficiaries of the project are known to ??be part of ?the lower income group of an urban area – squatters/slum dwellers, who are to be relocated from their original illegal settlement. They are, primarily and essentially, characterized by low income; informal?jobs/irregular employment, lacking invariably in?necessary assets, resources, capacity, employment and income to enable them to afford a formal?house. It was also observed?that few of the beneficiaries?who were possessed/armed with basic skills in construction;?having?financial resources?or those who could manage resources through formal/informal system, were in a position to build their own house, whereas majority of the beneficiaries having limitation of capacity, resources and willingness ,failed to make bare minimum construction on the site which has led to ?partial failure and success of many sites-and-services schemes.

The other major actor in the sites-and-services schemes were the implementing agencies, which in majority of cases were ?government department or parastatal agencies including Housing Boards, State/Local level Urban Development Authorities, Improvement Trusts, Urban Local Bodies etc. Such agencies undertook the?site and services schemes with twin objectives of; fulfilling the agenda and mandate ?of the national government to provide housing for all in general and housing for low-income families in particular?in the urban setting and to make the cities slum free by ?removing eyesores that squatter settlements depict. In addition to beneficiaries and parastatal agencies, site and services schemes involved??several agencies?responsible for ?making provision of infrastructure, services and amenities. Number of non-governmental and ?voluntary organizations have also known to play critical role in educating, creating awareness about the various facets of the scheme and involving beneficiaries in planning , designing and implementing the scheme besides bringing beneficiaries and implementing agencies on the same platform to make?the scheme operational.

Limitations and Way – Forward.

However, despite distinct??theoretical and conceptual advantages showcased, Sites-and-services schemes have also faced considerable opposition and failure in a number of projects. Success in the scheme were few and failures have been found to be many. Reasons of failure for the scheme was oversimplification of the entire context of housing and series of assumptions and misconceptions in the manner in which low-income families house themselves. However, it needs to be understood and appreciated that housing remains a highly resource intensive, time intensive, labour intensive and material intensive activity requiring dedicated financial resources, technical expertise, technical manpower, labour, expert guidance?for sourcing materials, planning, designing and construction?of building besides availability of appropriate land for construction of the shelter. Scheme worked on the ?simple premise ?that once the developed land is made available to the squatters, they shall be able to create an appropriate shelter with the passage of time and availability of resources without any outside guidance, support and services. It missed the point that majority of houses constructed in the slums were?not only sub-standard but also poor/unsafe in quality of construction. In majority of cases these houses provided poor quality of human living. With several assumptions and misconceptions regarding living, working and resources available with low-income families, sites-and-services projects have been subject to many shortcomings. These shortcomings have found reflections in terms of; ?conception, execution, identification of beneficiaries, capacity of the beneficiaries to construct, resources available, need of the space, affordability, implementation of the scheme, relation?between place of work and place for living, travel time ?and cost recovery. Thus, ?in majority of the cases sites-and-services schemes often failed to meet its objectives of creating affordable shelter for the urban poor. In majority of cases, it became an exercise of land speculation. As per Srinivas, scheme in larges number cases ?have?been rendered unaffordable or inaccessible for the lowest-income groups by cumbersome bureaucratic procedures, institutional requirements and political interventions. Lack of knowledge and understanding of the manner of living?culture of the beneficiaries, on the part of the agencies involved in the planning, designing and implementation of the schemes also led to numerous problems emerging in rational formulation and implementation of the scheme. Unfortunately, in majority of the cases , site and service schemes were?considered as a vote bank?besides providing shelter tot the poor . Some of the constraints in these schemes observed revolved around:

• Wrong Targeting of Beneficiaries; ?Most of the schemes involving subsidy or making available facilities in urban setting at lower cost, invariably suffer from wrong targeting of the beneficiaries, with the result large number of ineligible people also get included as beneficiaries of the scheme. In majority of cases, it has been observed?that eligibility conditions are so designed that it benefit/focus on?a particular group with the connivance of the officials deputed?to enumerate the eligible beneficiaries. With large scale?intervention of the local politicians, prevailing local interests, pressure exerted by the mafia involved with the development of the squatter colonies, lack of accountability and corrupt practices prevailing in the official system, large number of ineligible people were ?identified ?and included as beneficiaries. Large number of identified beneficiaries made site and services schemes ?either non-starter or led to taking up ?only limited number of ?schemes??which were devoid of merits. It also led to large speculative practices in which plots of land allotted was traded with non-beneficiaries not belonging to the?economical weaker sections of the society. ?
• Wrong Siting and Location of Scheme: Since the scheme involved making available developed land by the parastatal agencies, accordingly focus of such agencies was to find land which was low-cost, so that cost of the scheme could be minimized, irrespective of?suitability of said land for the scheme. Most of these agencies had no technical manpower to identify suitable land for the scheme. While selecting land for the scheme, studies were never made, regarding understanding /appreciating the need and requirement of the beneficiaries for whom scheme was being framed , nor?beneficiaries who were to be housed in the area, were?consulted?while defining site for the scheme. With high land costs in urban areas, most sites-and-services schemes were located on the ?urban fringes, where land costs were found to be lower. In the process, it led to shifting of the beneficiaries ?far away from their place of work, leading to increasing their cost of living due to increases travel time and cost of transportation to be paid on day to day commutation, between place of work and place of living. This?discourage many beneficiaries to take advantage of such schemes and in many cases beneficiaries ,who were allotted the developed site?either sold those sites at a premium or abandoned the schemes?and returned back to the cities, close their work places, to create new slums.
• Cumbersome Bureaucratic Procedures: Site and Services Schemes, in majority of cases have been found to ?be on the wrong side/suffer , due to large scale intervention and involvement of bureaucrats and cumbersome procedures involved. Selection procedures, designed to ascertain that applicant meet eligibility criteria, have been found to be ?largely cumbersome, often time-consuming and full of bureaucratic pitfalls, and provide opportunities for corruption. Besides, for many low-income families, the eligibility criteria were impossible to meet due to informal sector jobs or low/irregular incomes.
• Delayed Provision of Services: Locating such schemes on the fringe of the city led to ?numerous problems of making provision of defined?infrastructure on time bound basis, due to non-existent in the peri-urban area, leading to delay in providing these services and allotment of serviced plots , besides increasing the cost of development. Lack of co-ordination and ?spread of responsibility among multiple agencies involved in making provision of services and?delay in assured flow of funds, further delayed the schemes and added cost to the beneficiaries. In many cases ?considerable delay was observed in the?provision of ?the defined ?services, even after the land had been allocated to the beneficiaries for construction of the houses.
• One Solution Fit all Housing Problems; Unfortunately, intent and content of the ??site and service?scheme is based on a too simplistic assumption that by providing developed land , problem of housing the urban poor in urban area will automatically vanish, because slum dwellers have capacity and competency to build their own shelter, without any outside guidance and support. Accordingly, it got limited to defining the size of plot/land to be allotted for construction with the defined infrastructure/ services. However, scheme ignores large number of factors which need to be considered while evaluating the shelter needed by the beneficiaries. Housing remains highly personal and individual requirement and cannot be put into a standard and a straight jacket. Scheme does not take into consideration factors involving?need of the shelter and its size, affordability, capacity to finance the house and its construction, size of the family, purpose of the beneficiary?being in the city etc. In many cases sites were allotted to beneficiaries who were single/ unmarried, had no family and did not require such a large shelter, which were either not accepted or sold off to non-beneficiaries. Accordingly, scheme ?suffered from being too benevolent in large number of cases. Scheme also did not take into account?realistically the need of ?the optimum space required for ?housing the family. As against a space norm of 300sqft for the affordable?house in case of PMAY-U , the area available in the plotted development of 25 sq yds was 450 sqft, when the house was built on two levels. In Chandigarh, beneficiaries have?made construction of houses on the?allotted site up to ?four floors , leading to a covered are of 900sqft, which remains unrealistic and irrational for such categories of houses. Scheme needs rationalization based on the need of the beneficiaries and should offer multiple options instead of one solution fit all problems,?which invariable ?has led to wastage of precious resources?in many cases.
• High Degree of Speculation; Perpetual shortage of developed and legally sanctioned land in urban areas is seen to commands high?premium and accordingly remains ?both elusive and expensive. Cost of such land remains positively related to size of the city and location of the land. Accordingly, in majority of cases, parcels of land allotted in the site and services , which had good connectivity and were close to the developed area, commanded good price and were found to be in good demand. This led to high degree of speculation in such plots which were illegally transferred/sold, in majority of cases to the people belonging to higher strata, either for construction of the houses or as an investment for making large profit subsequently. Since, in majority of cases ,land disposal policy adopted by the development authorities remains only through auction, accordingly getting legally carved out ?developed land in the site and services scheme offered best option for such people to own land for making housing by buying?land at a relatively low price. Majority of houses constructed in such schemes are owned by higher income strata, who bought these plots illegally. In case of schemes , which were located at far off places initially, came within the developed area over a period of time, which subsequently led to high demand of plots in these areas, leading to increasing?premium of such plot creating an environment of illegal transfer of such plots. In either case it defeated the very objective of creating affordable shelter for housing the poor and minimizing the growth of slums in the urban spaces.
• Poor Quality of Construction; Since very little control appeared to have been exercised on the construction and?orderly development of the houses in site and services schemes, accordingly, majority of?houses?constructed ?remains?beyond the norms of safety and security of buildings. Since construction of houses require?appropriate skill, guidance, support, supervision, quality of materials and good construction techniques, self-help method adopted by majority of beneficiaries devoid of good construction practices have created low quality construction in site and services schemes.
• Planned Slums; Looking at the developed site and services colonies, majority of them present a picture of chaos and disorder. These schemes display high degree of congestion, lack of open spaces and absence of basic amenities. Majority of the open spaces ?planned and provided within the scheme area for the benefit of the beneficiaries, remain illegally and unauthorizedly occupied by the new migrants to the city. Lack of maintenance and upkeep of the services provided has led to its damage and?decay. Streets remain occupied with?parked vehicles for which there exists no space. Resident welfare Associations are conspicuous by their absence. These scheme areas have emerged more as planned slums replacing the unplanned slums.
• Poor Cost-Recovery: Most sites-and-services schemes ?have suffered in implementation, due to ?poor cost recovery from the beneficiaries. Reasons for such poor cost recovery can be largely attributed to the fact, that in addition to making ?lumpsum upfront payment as part of the cost of the plot; beneficiaries had ?to pay the monthly instalments ,for the cost of land ?allotted on regular basis ?shortly after moving into the scheme, ?besides incurring cost on part construction of the house, irrespective of the fact that he may not have regular flow of income due to casual nature of employment. In addition, increased transport, water and electricity costs added to the burden which they might not have had before. However, ?poor cost recovery in such schemes can also be attributed to ; ?delay in making provision of ?defined services, inefficient/cumbersome methods of ?collection , poor record maintenance system, absence ?of penalties for non-payment and lack of political and administrative will to enforce payment(Srinivas).

However, despite limitations and numerous failures, ?the positive aspect of sites-and-services schemes that deserves support is its recognition of the ability of people to house themselves, with a little backing from the government agencies. Thus, the role of the government changed from that of a "provider" to an "enabler". It also enables parastatal agencies to save scarce resources by sharing their responsibility of housing with the intended beneficiaries and take up large number of projects with limited resources. On the part of the beneficiaries, it makes best use of existing/potential resources, both at the household level as well as the community level. On a large scale, it enables the low-income families to obtain decent housing and services, at levels that can be afforded by them. While sites-and-services schemes are not a blanket solution for all ills of low-income housing, it does provide potential for future housing, making best use of existing resources, both governmental and household. A number of local conditions and circumstances determine the type and scale of the scheme to be used. However, the scheme ?would need change in the approach and methodology of implementation, in order to make it more rational, objective, effective and efficient as detailed below;

·??????Moving from individuals to Groups of Beneficiaries; Limitation of the Site and service ?scheme lies in the fact that it is totally focused on capacity, capability and resources of the individual beneficiary, which remains largely at variance. According individual approach remains the greatest?weakness and limitation of the scheme. Since housing remains largely a multifaceted activity, accordingly it will be appropriate to shift the focus of the scheme from individual beneficiary to the group of similarly placed beneficiaries in a given scheme. This would require co-operative based approach to be adopted for beneficiaries involved in the scheme so as to pool their resources, knowledge, expertise, labour and commitment, ?to create appropriate shelter on a time bound basis.

·??????Moving from Plotted to Flatted Development;?Studies made and analysis carried out of urban development schemes ?has shown the plotted development remains highly inefficient, when compared with the flatted development,???in terms of?optimum utilization of?available developed land; cost-intensive in terms of making provision and maintenance of ?basic services and common amenities ; cost of construction of houses; creating adequate stock of shelter on time bound; embedding sustainability in the project; promoting social cohesion and providing appropriate common services required by the community. Accordingly, considering the larger objectives of the scheme, it will be appropriate to change the typology of buildings from plotted to flatted development.

·??????Vesting Land Rights with the Government; Over the years, it has been observed that majority of the schemes relating to the shelter for the ?urban poor have failed to meet its objective, when the land is allotted to the beneficiaries; by giving them the absolute right to own, use and transfer the land so made available. Accordingly, all schemes embedding the transfer of land rights to the beneficiaries has led to illegal transfer of ?such land on large scale, to the non-beneficiaries belonging to the higher?income groups of the society. Considering the acute shortage of developed land in the urban market coupled with its high prevailing price, all urban lands are subjected to high degree of speculation and manipulations, because land is considered as the best option to earn maximum return on investment made in the urban context. Accordingly, it will require that absolute land rights should remain vested with the government and never transferred to beneficiaries for sale/illegal transfer. Such land should be given on lease?so that when need arises due to scarcity of land in subsequent years, the given land can be used?for creating larger stock in the affordable housing category.

·??????Promoting partnership; ??In order to make such schemes viable, successful and focused on creating ?large housing stock for the weaker sections of the society, it will be desirable that?partnership approach needs to be taken up on a larger platform. Instead of limiting the partnership between the government and beneficiaries in the present?site and services scheme, it should be extended by including the private sector also in order to synergies their strength and resources. In this partnership,?the contribution of the government/parastatal agencies shall remain limited to providing developed land with appropriate sanctions. Beneficiaries will contribute their resources on defined norms periodically, whereas private sector ?would put their resources for construction of the houses, while the funds shall be tied with the identified financial institutions/ banks. In the other model, private sector can be replaced by an appropriate construction agency?engaged/ managed by the?co-operative?society?formed by the beneficiaries. Making adequate provision of the retail shops for meeting the day-to-day needs of the beneficiaries, creation of crèche for the beneficiaries , providing community center and other service?besides opportunities of?skilling/gainful employment/carrying out trade, as integral part of planning, designing and development of the scheme will help in making the project more viable, self-contained and sustainable.

·??????Creating Multiple Options for the Shelter;??While accepting the basic premise of the scheme, it will be appropriate that instead of a single option of providing a developed plot of a standard size to ?each of the beneficiaries for construction of the?house on the plot, it will be appropriate that before framing the scheme, agencies given the task of?framing/implementing ?the scheme, should look objectively at the requirement of the identified ?beneficiaries in terms of shelter , based on their capacity, need and resources. This will help in making the scheme more rational and realistic by creating different options of providing the shelter besides minimizing the element of misuse, abuse and speculation of the resources and the opportunity being created for the slum dwellers.

·??????Migrating from Right to Own shelter to Right to Shelter;?Concept of ownership embedded in making provision of the ownership of the shelter for the poor, in the Indian context, has done greatest damage to achieving the objective of creating shelter for the poor. For poor household, quality of life has little meaning when compared with the opportunity of?earning large amount of money in a lumpsum manner. Houses/land allotted by parastatal agencies offer that opportunity to such migrants/poor urban residents, who are perpetually short on finances. Accordingly, it will be appropriate that government must move away from the policy of?creating ownership of shelter while?universally accepting the?right to ?appropriate shelter for all?citizens, including poorest of the poor.

·??????Appropriate Siting and Planning;?In order to make site and services scheme more ?realistic, rational, effective and efficient, it will?be prudent on the part of agency made responsible for implementing the scheme, to put in place?a group of experts from?planning, architecture, engineering, finance, revenue, services, infrastructure etc., to undertake a detailed study and analysis?for locating?suitable land for siting of the project. Selection of appropriate?site remains critical, because large number of site and services?projects have failed to take off?and?have remained neglected?for the simple reason that site selected ?was not?found?to be suitable by the beneficiaries due to various reasons. Selection of site should not be merely guided by the cost of land or easy availability of land, being a government land, but should be closely related ?with the need and requirement of identified beneficiaries including their place of work, availability of good connectivity and ?availability of efficient system of ?mass transportation for the people who are to be located in the scheme. In addition to selection of the suitable site for the project, it will be critical that these sites are?appropriately and rationally planned and designed in close consultation with the identified beneficiaries, because only beneficiaries?know what is?the best?shelter which ?suits?their?culture, living and requirements. However, planning and designing ?of the scheme would need the active?involvement of the professionals to create appropriate, affordable, qualitative, cost-effective and livable shelter for the slum dwellers.?Planning and designed must be carried out on the prescribed norms and standards based on premise to make the project self-contained and self-sustaining. ?

?

?

.

?