The Slums And Shanties Problem In Sri Lanka

The Slums And Shanties Problem In Sri LankaSlums including tenement gardens came into existence in capital of Sri Lanka with the expansion of export swap associated with the rubber boom after the Second World War. The character of Colombo changed in keeping with the new economic demands for w behousing, workers accommodation and the road cyberspace improvement. The urban center core became more congested and the city elite go out into more spacious residential areas in the suburbs. The central break up of Colombo became a predominantly low income residential area with many an some other(prenominal) slums, and the northern and eastern piece of musics of the city were occupied by shanties. half(a) of the population of Colombo has been living for many years in slums, shanties and other types of low income settlements. The 2001 survey carried out by the Colombo Municipal Council has place a total of 77,612 families living in 1,614 low-income settlements in the city. Many of pac k in slums areas can non afford the services provided by the formal sector because of their educational background. The slum-dwellers find their livelihood by working as garbage handlers, cleaners, roadway vendors and other as pickpockets, prostitutes and petty thieves of the migrant population to the main city and people who visit Colombo for various reasons. The informal sector, which is predominantly have and run by the people in the low-income areas, provides the necessary services and goods requisite by the majority of the city in parallel with the formal sector.POLICIES AND ACTIONSinterpreted TO IMPROVE SLUMSThe disposal of Sri Lanka together with the respective local springities has apply several programmes for the improvement of slums and shanties in the city since early 1970s. A summary of these programmes is provided below.1. Before 1970Minimum governing body Intervention No major governing involvement in improving the livelihoods of urban light and people manage d their raw material needs by themselves.2. 1970 to 1977Direct government intervention in preparing and implementing policies and programmes- deed of the Ceiling on Housing Property Law No. 01 of 1973 (CHP Law) incoming of new policies and regulations ensuring the housing rights of urban poor and turn to housing edifice by government to meet the housing need of urban poor.3. 1978 to 1994The government started its interventions by means of a provider access and gradually changed towards enabling admittance in housing improvement. A number of programmes and initiatives were taken place.Establishment of the urban Development potential (UDA)Establishment of the National Housing Development self-confidence (NHDA)Establishment of the Common Amenities Board (CBA)urban Basic go course of study, 1978 1986Slum and Shanty Improvement Programme, 1978- 1984Hundred Thousand Houses Programme and angiotensin-converting enzyme one million million Houses Programme, 1978 19944. After 1 994In 1994, the Government appointed a presidential Task Force on Urban Development Housing to make insurance policy development whichEstablished a Real Estate give-and-take Limited (REEL) programme under the Ministry of Housing, Construction and Urban DevelopmentUrban Renewal Programme implemented by the UDA/NHDAUrban Settlements Improvement Programme (USIP), JBIC/World Bank Funded ProjectMunicipal Councilors Rs.1.5 Million Programme implemented by the Colombo MC5. In 2010The Urban Development representation started to evict street vendors from capital city under supervision of abnegation Minister and that program was hundred present completed.The Sri Lankan government is moving to urge on up the military-supervised eviction of thousands of poor families who live in Colombos slums as part of the City of Colombo Development Plan to attract investors and tourists.ReadingsMainstreaming Under-Served Urban Communities in Colombo, Sri Lanka by Marinne Dhakshike Wickrema Illinois We sleyan University Bloomington, IL (1996)In general, slums may be characterized by inadequate access to water, sanitation and infrastructure compared to the rest of the city. Faced with a growing urban slum population during the 1980s, the Sri Lankan government pioneered the participatory approach and achieved widespread urban slum improvements by mobilizing community decision-making, conducting training workshops and providing grim loans for on-site slum upgrading. The government played an intermediary role and seek to incorporate slum dwellers into the mainstream of the economy and society. In spite of successive upgrading efforts, these residents remained marginalized in terms of city services, infrastructure and kind mobility.The two main policy-making parties are still linked to affectionate welfare packages, especially subsidize housing for the urban poor. The political parties, with the support of semi-political institutions and other pressure groups in the society, star ted using the welfare system as a strong sleeve in gaining political popularity and attacking the political opponents. Sri Lanka Freedom political party (SLFP) holler to provide houses suitable to live in for everybody and the United National Party (UNP) which ruled Sri Lanka for 17 years before the SLFP came to power in 1994, states in its election manifesto in 2005 that they give work towards giving a house to every Sri Lankan, will encourage house ownership and will erase outstanding housing loans.ExperiencesThe Hundred Thousand Houses ProgramIn 1984, the Government initiated the Million Houses Program (MHP). The National Housing Development Authority (NHDA) was charged with leading the massive nationwide program. The program consisted of six sub-Programs. cubic decimeter thousand houses were built in rural areas by the aided self-help method. another(prenominal) thirty thousand houses were built in urban areas through direct construction by the clandestine sector. The rem aining portion of houses targeted the urban poor in Colombo through a slum and shanty upgrading. The urban sub-Programme, consisting of about 300 housing projects in 51 local confidence areas, was launched in 1985.The MHP was notable because the government completely institutionalized enabling apparatuss through a national policy that encouraged local government, community organizations and the benefactive role households to make decisions regarding housing improvements.Sri Lanka won the World Habitat Award for the Million Houses Programme in 1987. The Million Houses Program is frequently listed in the writings as a successful example of institutionalized national policy where the Government facilitated housing construction and self-help upgrading by decentralizing decision-making to the community through community action planning (CAP) which was pioneered in Sri Lanka.Finally, the Report stated as conclusion that the Hundred Thousand Houses Programme was objectively successful in improving the social lives of a selected group of slum dwellers.Participation of private financial institutions in social housing initiatives in SurinameThesis dominate of Public Administration Program in Governance 2008 2009 (MPA Intake III) by Marlon K. PowelThe Government of Suriname committed itself to ensure that the needy households are guaranteed affordable and withdraw housing. As part of its social policy, public houses were built and distributed as letting housing and hire purchase. The house shortage has increased during time because the outturn of houses has been structurally low and cannot meet the demand. The author focused on the confederation approach in social housing in Suriname and explore if a PPP between the Government and the private financial institutions is an appropriate mechanism to address the housing problem of the low and middleincome households more effectively. The author included as conclusion that Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) are not s olution for the housing problem of the low and middleincome households in Suriname. He pointed out that there are no lands available for corporations that build social houses and contracting loans for social housing projects is very difficult. Also banks argue that the risks attach to these loans are too high. Low income households have very limited resources, are often not creditworthy, and have a low repayment capacity. The Government had failed to create a sound enabling environment for the actors in social housing.