Preventive Resettlement of Populations at Risk of Disaster - GFDRR

as in São Paulo and Bogotá, this expedites the resettlement.
In Argentina, Colombia and Guatemala, the new houses
were designed to allow for gradual expansion, based on
each family’s needs and resources.
The Colombian example was particularly interesting. As
mentioned above, families received legal, technical and
social services to help them select new or pre-existing
houses on the market. Another interesting option was
developing partnerships between the entities in charge
of the program and private construction companies,
since the existence of an assured market is a strong incentive
for firms to develop housing projects.
Another interesting option was the “chess game” (Brazil)
that helped families which did not want to leave their
neighborhoods. Under the plan, they exchanged the
houses they were offered in the resettlement program
for ones owned by other families which were located in
the same (original) neighborhood but where the sites
were not at-risk. This created a win-win solution for the
participating families and helped expedite resettlement.
Of all the options, perhaps the most noteworthy was
the self-construction and mutual assistance arrangement
(Argentina). The magnitude of the program, its
broad geographical scope (in a large country), the participation
of different levels of government and entities,
and its major achievements dispel the myth that selfconstruction
is inefficient or impossible; it also proved
that women could participate on an equal footing with
men. This option had comparative advantages in terms
of costs, community participation and secondary benefits.
For example, various external evaluations found
the population’s self-esteem increased, along with high
levels of “ownership,” which prompted greater care and
maintenance of the properties. It also trained many
people in house construction, thus strengthening human
capital (regardless of gender) and enhancing the
community’s entrepreneurial skills, which in turn, increased
their job opportunities. Moreover, the program
promoted community solidarity and cooperation,
helped reduce the cost of houses and generated savings
the residents later used to construct community facilities.
Another lesson is that self-construction does not
mean leaving communities to their own devices; rather,
it requires well-planned technical and social assistance
and the timely delivery of materials.
With regard to the practice of relocating households in
buildings within large housing complexes (Brazil), the
independent evaluation recommended avoiding such
solutions and focusing instead on smaller complexes
that are better suited to fostering harmonious community
relations. Another lesson from Brazil’s experience—already
encountered in numerous resettlement
programs elsewhere—is that cash compensation is not
an appropriate solution and creates problems for both
the families and cities. For example, in the initial phase
of the program, the families that received cash compensation
without any assistance, returned to areas unsuitable
for human settlements.
In addition to the information already obtained from
the studies, comparative cost-benefit analysis reviews
are needed to better understand the advantages and disadvantages
of each housing solution.
7. Payment for Housing
Solutions
Because the families involved in all the cases were extremely
poor, the governments had to subsidize housing
costs. In Argentina, families contributed their labor and
received free construction materials and technical assistance.
In Guatemala, they received their new houses free
of charge. In Brazil, families that were resettled in housing
complexes assumed 10% of the cost of their new
houses by obtaining government subsidized long-term
loans. In Colombia, families initially received a partial
subsidy and had to pay part of the costs; however, Bogotá
authorities later decided to subsidize all the costs.
Despite the cases show different arrangements regarding
payment for the new houses, due to a lack of comparative
evaluations, it is impossible to draw firm conclusions
about the best payment arrangements. This
aspect should be studied further.
8. Legal Titles to the Houses
In all the cases, families were given deeds to their houses,
which had a significant impact on their net worth
Chapter 7 Comparative Analysis of the Case Studies
111