JIBGAR.COM

For its own convenience, the government has made provisions several times for the regional administration. However, they were never considered as a part of the constitutional process. There is a distinct role of the State to be carried out at the regional level. A federal system will legitimize that role constitutionally. This is the most important aspect. In this context, it is necessary to use the opportunity created by the recent political development in making decentralization work more effectively.
The local government failed to penetrate deeper. It is not likely that transfer of power from the national government to the local level will help to deepen decentralization. The reasons are:
• The national government is too busy to deal with the local issues.
• There are no binding obligations for the center to give adequate attention.

For a long period, the need for regional administration has been felt. Federal system of the government will fill in the gap. It will allow the local government to deepen decentralization. The empowerment of the people at the local level means the power should be devolved to the action level. It is likely that under a federal system, power will be more easily devolved deeper to the grassroots. It should aim at bringing people nearer to governance and not distancing them from it. Things that need to be brought to the local level can be brought more easily with this system.
In the process of the ongoing transformation of the Nepali society, the following points should be addressed:
• Whether it is a federal system or a unitary system, the share of the power at the action level should not be reduced.
• Some of the works now done at the local or national level should be directed to the federal level.
• The sharing of power and responsibility among different levels of government is crucial.
• Federal structure should not cause any additionality in terms of inputs and costs.

The risk factor is whether the central government is prepared to share power with sub national governments. The trend so far has been to resist the process through bureaucratic means. Activities that the center cannot or should not do must be transferred to either the lower levels or the private sector. There are several ways that regional administration will foster decentralization. However the most important element is to make the center understand that the center simply cannot execute most of the works by itself. Once the responsibilities are devolved to lower levels, this should be strictly followed.
The regional level will also allow a careful scrutiny of development projects. The ability of the center to monitor development works at the local level is increasingly questioned. Federal government will be able to better monitor the local level works and actions.
Another advantage is related with the unwillingness of the key personnel to leave the capital. This is natural because power as well as key government functions, at present, are concentrated at the center. The federal system will reduce the attraction of the center with the dispersal of its power and functions.

During the ninteen eighties, Turner’s seminal work “Freedom to Build” has influenced housing policy of most of the Third World countries and developed the concept of social housing where use value instead of exchange value of houses is predominant. (Turner 1976) Housing is more than a finished product. It is a process that guides an activity through which people provide themselves with shelter and services. In this process, people-bound resources are mobilized in the provision of shelter. Family needs over time for space are gradually and incrementally satisfied along with changes in family size and structure as well as resources. The first thing people need is a good location with respect to job opportunities. Then they need a piece of land, where they can build their shelter with whatever materials and resources available. Then they look for amenities like water, electricity and so on. They will go on improving their shelter conditions.  

However, houses are being produced more and more as commodities meant for exchange value; and housing problems remained unsolved in many cities of developing countries even today. In addition to the use value, housing has an exchange value. As more and more land came under commercial use, most houses in highly urbanized areas began to be constructed as commodities, as something to be traded for (or to be rented). When housing is produced as a commodity, the meaning of self-help, people-bound resources, or the sense of belonging becomes less significant. This is the case of economic housing against the social housing. Real estate developers and private investors are involved in such activities. For instance, the recent developments that are taking place in Kathmandu is discouraging social housing. (Joshi 2013: p. 32) 

Housing provides the owner with valuable assets. It is the most dependable asset. As its value appreciates over time, it generates income and serves as a good insurance. It is a status symbol. In societies as ours where maximum standards are not legally enforced or the ceiling is set at a very high level, the rich accumulates wealth in the form of land and buildings inhibiting the development of social housing.  

There is a clear evidence to show Nepal’s failure to sustain housing industry and real estate business where houses are built for fetching exchange value. Governance related negligence, expectation of very high returns from housing investments leading to the exclusion of key industires, and overwhelming reliance of banks and national economy on real estate development all seem to have worked against economic housing. Are the recent earthquakes driving us towards a policy shift in favor of social housing?

An immediate observation shows that the soil condiitons of Kathamndu Valley in general limit the extent of landuse for intensive development. Another important fact to be obsered is that  the   houses built for exchange value suffered more than houses taken care by the dwellers themselves. This clearly shows that dwellers’ involvement in planning and constructing buildings makes a difference. Following Turner, dweller controlled building process should be encouraged as such buildings proved to be safer in aggregate terms. Buildings used as commodity and built for exchagne value suffered most. Institutional buildings as they lacked a sense of belonging with negligence in maintenance naturally were not better either.

Dwellers’ participation in the rebuilding process is the key to sustaining the resilience shown by our settlements. Through the housing process that people initiate, different institutions are urged to provide urban infrastructure and services; and the demand for urban goods and services is created for the business to operate and thrive. Through housing, neighborhoods and communities are formed, which eventually grow into towns, cities, and metropolises. The transformation from a tiny village to a town implies the provision of housing and infrastructure, which helps the village to grow as a thriving economy. The mode of providing housing in rapidly growing urban areas that have acute shortage of housing and services is an important factor that shapes cities. Housing process saves our cities from major economic catastrophes since the financing of urban development is expanded by bringing the people into the process. This becomes self-sustaining as people’s ability to pay for services increases. The polciy should enhance people’s access to more resource and more power.

The provision of housing and services through the formal sector, whether public or private, has failed to cater to the needs of all and the poor in particular. Moreover such an approach has an adverse impact on the development of local buidling materials and alternate technologies.Public agencies are facing many problems in the delivery of housing related services in a satisfactory way. In order to reduce the further load on the already stretched mechanisms of most of the agencies, it is necessary to pursue development in a decentralized way. People should be encouraged to participate in the process of rebuilding; and most of the resources will come through the process itself.

References:

Turner, J. and R. Fichter. 1972 “Freedom to Build”. New York: McMillian Co.
Joshi, J. 2013. “Housing and Urban Development in Nepal” Kathmandu: Lajmina Joshi.

Another big earthquake on May 12 after 18 days from the first one made us rethink again. Most of our assumptions and our knowledge-based approaches are once again challenged. The management of shared open space and their utilization for providing housing related services became more critical in the overall provision of urban services during and after the disaster. People returned to open space once again after getting back to their houses for a day or two. More buildings collapsed leading to more housing shortage.

Our recent exposure to disasters shows that we have been providing housing at standards that our society as a whole cannot afford. Instead of making the rich contribute to create built public spaces to enhance the social good, the policy worked to allow them to appropriate resources for constructing their abode creating externalities on others. Ignoring this, efforts have been made to sustain what is basically unsustainable. This became clear after the earthquakes. Yet some are still seeking ways and means to sustain what has proved to be unsustainable by distorting facts. The resources from outside did not come up as expected since there is conflict between national pride and external dependence; instead of collaborative efforts, the issue of who should provide relief to the affected cropped up in a thorny way.

Although action on housing is being highly politicized we should not forget that Nepal should take this as an opportunity to sustain what needs to be made sustainable. We should try to improve our plight through the building of our resilience. We should learn from our own experiences such as basic housing needs, integrated action planning and land pooling. We should set our goals commensurate with our resources and integrate the external help into our plan in order to allow all to help us. We should learn to cut our coat according to our cloth and prepare plans to shape housing demand that satisfies our housing needs.

There is an ever increasing gap between our earnings and expenses on housing including taxes. Access to land is rapidly decreasing. The implication of rebuilding on sustainable land management needs to be considered.  It is necessary that we should try to avail some of our needs at neighborhood or community level. In Kathmandu, the low-income wage earners do not get any opportunity to save and invest in any housing related areas. Given the complexities and confusions that we have created, we should intensify response and action to pave the way for rebuilding with less resource while meeting more of our needs. Community-driven activities directed to meeting housing needs are reported to be minimal even at this time of emergency. There is lack of common shared space as well as the political access required to carry out such activities. We should enhance social cohesion as a part of rebuilding.

It is clear that individual families will not be able to meet their housing needs themselves with limited support from the government. Nor the government will be able to meet their housing needs. Some of the needs ought to be fulfilled at the neighborhood level by providing community space; this will reduce needs at the family level. It is necessary to form a group of perspective house builders and form a cluster. Without assessing the available resources and the possible impact of the anticipated housing expenditure on our economy, particularly the supply of building materials and labour, housing programs may not work. There may be more chaos and disorder apart from inequity. We should thus try to reduce housing needs at the private family level by sharing the available common space in the production of housing related services at affordable prices. We should integrate the re-development of heritage sites with the meeting of community level housing needs.Some of the common spaces in Kathmandu are already intensely utilized, we should invest more  to improve the environment there to enhance their sustainability and meet community needs.

Two things have become self-evident. First the production and sustainable use of common space, whether built or open and whether managed by public, private or community needs to be improved. If we could develop and implement strategies for the sustainable production and utilization of “common and shared spaces” for availing housing related needs, the cost of providing services can be drastically reduced. School premise or heritage sites that could have been easily used as spaces for risk mitigation services have become a huge liability now.

The process towards convergence of interest, we could clearly see, is still ongoing. It is taking longer time since we are primarily working on political rationality. We rely on political alliance and hierarchy and strength of party leaders. We know housing is a political process and the implementation will depend on the articulation of interests of different political players. They should realize that action will suffer if they ignore the power of knowledge and if they fail to transpire technical rationality in the process of rebuilding.