Roofs for all

REBUILDING the North and East is an essential part of not just reconciliation but overall sustainable development in Sri Lanka. In this endeavour, while providing housing is an important step, the spectre of corruption, mismanagement and wastage has reared its ugly head. 

Weekend reports indicated that a Cabinet subcommittee has been appointed following the decision to award an estimated $2 billion contract to a French company to build 65,000 houses in the North and East. The pre-fabricated houses would also not provide an impetus to the local economies as they do not require local labour. In addition, since each house comes ready-designed it cannot be adjusted to the requirements of the people receiving it. 

Each house is also is estimated to cost Rs.2.18 million, local contractors have argued the houses can be constructed for less and at benefit to local companies. The current standoff is yet another example of how problematic universal housing can be.      

Another top complaint against the Government is its choking red tape, which calcifies any project leaving beneficiaries waiting for years. But such due processes also ensure the most deserving people are selected, politicisation is minimised and owner-driven participation means the houses will not just be built but also lived in, thus saving millions in public funds.

A comprehensive National Housing Policy must embrace the issues of land, infrastructure and finance as well as the capacity of the building materials, construction industry and the capability and aspirations of the people to house themselves. In Sri Lanka each of these components of housing falls under a different administration, with different controls, traditions and values that have to be brought together in a single State policy for facilitating them and a new strategic approach to implement it.

If the Government actually manages to get these variables working together, it will be unprecedented. It will require a mammoth amount of resources, especially in the sector of finance, as most houses will be targeted at vulnerable communities who are unable to fund their own homes. Such a huge program also needs to be sustainable over several decades to have any meaningful impact.

The challenge with large scale housing drives is they can just be limited to numbers. For example after the tsunami and the end of the war, many organisations, some with Government oversight, built thousands of houses around the country. However, some of these were later abandoned as people swiftly de-invested from the projects. Finding better housing, bad construction, one person getting several houses and socio-economic demands are all among the reasons for “ghost” houses to pop up around the country. 

These are all important lessons for a Government that does not have spare cash to waste. As the Government struggles to meet the Budget deficit for 2016 and strains to reduce public expenditure for next year it is extremely important for earmarked funds to be used as meaningfully as possible. This means less emphasis on numbers and more on making sure well-constructed houses are given to the most deserving people in society. Such efforts should also come with follow up reports that evaluate the success of these ventures to correct mistakes and direct future efforts. Focusing on numbers to get political mileage will mean more houses and not homes.