Although trained as an architect, Boonyabanch is discarding the conventional emphasis on developing housing for poor, urban communities. Instead, she is pursuing a more holistic and "integrated" strategy of community organizing to give poor communities political clout, the ability to manage their own affairs, promote savings, credit, jobs, and skills, and improve their environment and basic infrastructure.

Some 15 percent of Thailand's 30 million city dwellers live in poverty. About half of these poor residents live in illegal slum settlements, while the rest live with varying degrees of insecurity. Few have access to basic facilities, such as running water, proper sanitation and electricity.

The gap between Thailand's rich and poor has widened since the country slid into economic crisis in mid-1997. Many of the urban poor are migrants from the countryside. For them, land and housing tenure is uncertain because they cannot own their land or houses.

"The poor live on the land [they squat on] for such a long time, but they never own the land," Boonyabancha said. "They have no security, and because of new commercial developments, these poor communities are invariably evicted – especially if the land they occupy is prime land. This is a form of violence through development."

Slum dwellers lacked legal rights when Boonyabancha first began working with them in the mid-1970s. By 1996, Thailand enacted a law that allows them to register their houses in a government housing registry.

But municipal authorities didn't cooperate in practice. Even today, most urban poor communities lack legal titles to land or houses, and thus have no access to basic municipal services. Some people are squatters on undeveloped urban real estate, others rent rooms or houses in insecure settlements, and some construct houses on rented land that may be in dispute.

Land Sharing – a Novel Concept

Boonyabancha grew up near a slum during much of her childhood, so she was sensitized to the problems of the urban poor at a young age. Soon after she completed graduate studies in architecture in 1975, she went to work for the Thai government office charged with upgrading slums.

After completing further studies in Urban and Environmental Planning in Denmark, Boonyabancha returned to Thailand in 1979 where she spent more than ten years working for the government's Center for Housing and Human Settlements. She experimented constantly with her own ideas about grassroots community development, and by the late 1980s she felt ready to step out on her own.

Boonyabancha began experimenting with the novel concept of land sharing during the early '90s. It was one of her first and most important ideas for breaking the deadlock between slum residents and slum landowners and developers, and it helped her to win an Ashoka Fellowship in 1991.

The land sharing idea is simple: first, squatters are helped to organize themselves so they have a stronger position to negotiate the right to stay on at least a portion of land. Second, landowners and developers are persuaded they will be better off negotiating a deal with the squatters than getting bogged down in years of disputes.

Once the groundwork is laid, the details of the deal are thrashed out. Usually, squatters are allowed to develop affordable housing on the less-valuable portion of disputed property.

They may pay for this in-kind – by contributing their labor or materials for construction – or in cash, such as through affordable rents. This becomes a win/win solution for both the urban slum dwellers, who are illegally occupying prime land, and the owners and developers of the land.

Slum dwellers gain some kind of a formal housing, and with it, access to various municipal services, including tap water and electric connections. They also gain the right to register their house in the housing registry, which gives them a legal claim to their dwelling and the land on which it stands.

"I think that at some time in the history of the development of Asia, we forgot about the people," Boonyabancha said. "We forgot why we want development. Don't we want this for people, for a better society, for peace and the preservation of our culture?

"We need to find the right way, to allow people to control development – to be a part of development. People shouldn't have to be the victims of development."

Looking for a More Comprehensive Approach

Land sharing marked the beginning of a long process of innovation and experimentation in which Boonyabancha moved away from emphasizing housing as the most important concern for urban poor communities. By the mid-'90s, she began exploring a more comprehensive approach to community development in which housing programs were just one of many activities.

"The urban poor face a number of serious concerns, including [generating] income, [defending their] rights, welfare, and housing," she said. "Housing must be only one of the parts of a holistic development project – because the lives of people are a mixed issue. There is a need for integrated development."

Boonyabancha began exploring a range of community development activities such as community organizing, and savings and credit schemes. At the same time, community residents who were facing the threat of eviction began to recognize that there is strength in numbers. By organizing for collective action, they gained strength to negotiate more secure housing arrangements.

By 1996, this idea became central to Boonyabancha's new integrated development strategy. "We need to decentralize the process [of development] as much as we can," she said. "We try to link poor communities with the same interests [such as those living under bridges in Bangkok, or along railway tracks or beside canals (klongs)], to form a network through which they can experience another dimension of development altogether; and learn to understand their own problems and concerns collectively.

"Earlier, the concerned government bodies would tell them what their needs were. The community had no strength of its own. Now, they are stronger because they work collectively and they have larger platforms. They, as a network, can represent – for example – all the under-bridge communities from a specific city, or even at the district level.

"So now there are two kinds of developments taking place together: the development of their resources – communal resources – and their collective political status. This gives them a stronger political status to negotiate certain basic needs as a group, such as water, electricity, land, and welfare."

By linking similar constituencies, larger community networks amassed more power to negotiate than individual community groups, which often are controlled by just a few persons. They also helped mobilize residents around community issues such as infrastructure development, housing, community planning, and welfare.

Networks The word network was chosen as the best English equivalent of the Thai krua kai, and was deemed loose enough to be flexible without actually implying it has to be loose . . . allowing for fresh interpretations and new models of what a network might be, or how it might operate. Networks have developed up to the interests and capabilities of the groups involved, according to their own changing circumstances. They could have a tight structure, or be a loose assembly of groups. They could be a specific task-force or a national federation. But the common thread is a process in which people gather together in larger groups to learn and do things which they cannot do as individuals or as single communities.       Networks come in all shapes and sizes. Some like the networks of under-bridge communities in Bangkok, or communities on Crown Properties, and communities living along railway tracks and beside klongs (canals) which have common tenure or landlord problems, come together to find joint solutions and negotiate for land rights and entitlements as a block. There are networks of communities in the same city and the same province, which use collective strategies to negotiate with city and provincial authorities to carve out a place for themselves in the larger planning process, and to work together on specific problems of housing, welfare, livelihood or access to basic services.       Occupational networks like the Taxi and Tuk-tuk (3-wheel taxis) Cooperatives also use group system clout to deal with sharks in finance and private sector institutions and to lobby for large-scale municipal contracts. Source: UCDO Update, UCDO, No.2 October 2000 (p. 10).

As these new ideas and activities began to emerge, Boonyabancha collaborated with other citizens' organizations in Asia. In 1988, she helped form the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (ACHR), a regional network of grassroots community organizations, NGOs, and professionals who work on development activities for the urban poor.

ACHR now has more than 600 members, including the Bangladesh Coalition for Housing Rights, the Society for Area Resource Centres (SPARC) and the National Slum Dwellers Federation in India, the Third World Network in Malaysia, and the Women's Development Bank in Sri Lanka.

Boonyabancha also saw the need for a local grassroots organization that would address the needs of Thailand's urban poor, while linking with ACHR's regional network and activities. So, in 1992 she established the Urban Community Development Office (UCDO) with help from the Thai government.

UCDO's basic philosophy is to encourage collective effort and empower communities so they are at the center of the development process. The Thai government contributed a revolving fund of 1.25 billion baht (about US$29 million) to start various urban community development activities, and to provide low-interest loans to community organizations that help pay for emergencies, housing, and income generation.

Through UCDO, communities have access to various low interest loan schemes, such as housing development loans, income generation loans, revolving network loans and community enterprise loans. By mid-2000, 1,014 million baht (US$23.5 million) in loans had been dispersed to 36,308 households in 418 communities. Of these, 57 percent were for housing and 20 percent for income generation. Community networks or groups disburse the loans to individual households.

"What is unique about UCDO is that it was created by the government, but it works as an NGO," said Jorge Carrillo, an officer of the United Nation's Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific's (ESCAP) Human Settlements Division in Bangkok, which collaborates with UCDO. "It has the best of both worlds. On the one hand it has institutional stability, and on the other hand it has a flexibility and understanding of grassroots problems – without the fear of being trapped in political or bureaucratic games."

With UCDO, Boonyabancha now had an organization to test her evolving concepts of community development – as a holistic, integrated, participatory process – and financial support to make this possible. Today, more than half of Thailand's 2,000 urban poor communities – in 53 of Thailand's 75 provinces – belong to UCDO. They are organized into 103 networks that undertake a broad range of community development activities.

Saving and Borrowing One-Day-at-a-Time

UCDO found that most poor communities have no access to financing, but that it was possible to organize daily savings activities. So it encouraged the formation of local savings and credit groups with designated community leaders who collect savings from group members.

The savings and credit groups give communities significant power to influence and fund community development projects. At the same time, the savings plans allow savings groups to forge a more concrete, dynamic relationship with their community.

UCDO discovered that daily, rather than monthly, savings is far more realistic for most poor city dwellers because they live life one-day-at-a-time, earning and spending their money on a day-to-day basis. They find it easer to save money and repay loans in small, daily installments.

But there is room for flexibility, and most groups decide for themselves whether daily, weekly, or monthly savings best fit their earning patterns. In some monthly savings groups, daily savers have formed their own sub-group. Although they transact saving and credit with the larger group once per month, they have their own separate ledgers for internal loans that they make and repay on a daily basis.

These savings and credit groups are a dynamic and growing organization. There are 100,000 members in more than 850 savings groups throughout Thailand, and they have amassed a total savings of more than 500 million baht (US$ 11.6 million).

The UCDO has made loans to the savings groups with these funds worth more than 1 billion baht (US$ 23.2 million), supporting 365 community projects. Despite disbursing such large amounts of money, by the year 2000 the size of UCDO's initial fund of 1.25 billion baht (US$29 million) had grown by 36 percent.

UCDO Loans Communities have diverse needs, including better incomes, better houses, access to secure land, and access to credit for emergencies. UCDO'S Integrated Credit System responds to those needs. The idea is that the parts add up to a broad ranging (and continuously expanding) community development package. Credit products currently on offer to poor communities: Housing development loans – 3 percent or 8 percent annual interest, depending on the amount of money loaned out, 15 years maximum term, repayable money. Available to groups of families. House improvement loans – 8 percent annual interest, 15 years maximum term, repayable monthly. Available to individual families. Income generation loans – 8 percent annual interest, 5 years maximum term, repayable monthly. Available to individual entrepreneurs for a wide spectrum of projects. Revolving fund loans – 10 percent annual interest, 3 years maximum term, repayable monthly. Gives a boost to savings groups which need more liquidity. Loans are used for such things as emergencies, school fees and paying higher interest debts. Revolving network loans – 4 percent annual interest, 5 years maximum term, repayable in six monthly instalments. Introduced in 1988 these loans allow the networks to add a margin of 4-6 percent if they on-lend to their savings group members, so people get loans at rates comparable to other UCDO loans at 8 percent. Allows networks to borrow up to 2 million baht (US$ 45,500) no more than three times during five years, allowing them greater flexibility in managing these funds. Community enterprise loans – 4 percent annual interest, 7 years maximum term, repayment varies. Loans made to community organisations, cooperatives and community networks for buying stock, raw materials and equipments, and for buying/renting/ building retail, workshop or storage space. Some examples include a Bangkok-based cooperative which worked with the Housewives' Savings Groups in 16 poor communities, and negotiated, in 1998, a 3.9 million baht (US$88,760) subcontract with the Bangkok Metropolitan Authority to produce school uniforms; the Rom Klao Zone 8 provisions store was started by the community's savings group in a relocation colony in Bangkok to provide low-cost rice, vegetables, condiments, soap and medicines. Run cooperatively, the shop is owned and managed by its members. Initially 50 members purchased shares at 10 baht each (US$0.23), and took a 250,000 baht (US$5,700) UCDO loan to set up the shop and purchase stocks. After 18 months, the shop generated a 42,000 baht (US$955) profit and had repaid over half of its five-year loan. The cooperative has now expanded operations to include 18 more retail shops, including wholesale supply. Bank guarantee loans – 2 percent over the current savings bank interest rate, payable in full at the end of the contract. To be used by communities trying to get government work subcontracts; must put 10-20 percent of the contract amount in a bank as guarantee. Revival loans – 1 percent annual interest, 5 years maximum term, repayable in 6 monthly installments with 2-year grace period. To assist savings groups facing internal financial difficulties. Up to 100,000 baht (US$2,280) available. Miyazawa revival loans – 2 percent annual interest to community groups, 1 percent to networks, 5 years maximum term, repayable 6 monthly, with 2-year grace period during which only interest is due. Fund available from the Japanese government's economic aid package to Thailand. Source: UCDO Update, UCDO, No.2, October 2000 (page 23).

"While UCDO's work is not altogether new, it is the scale that is significant," Corrillo said. "Thousands of communities can talk to UCDO on an equal basis, and can address their community's needs. We are talking about the long-term self-esteem and self-reliance of these communities. This, you see, is lacking in most community-based approach work, which almost always works through participation by decree."

Adversity Sparks Innovation

During the 1990s, UCDO's development approach evolved as it constantly experimented with new concepts and ideas. By 1996, it had become "more people- and community-oriented, with a holistic approach, localization, and a need to be more integrated," Boonyabancha said.

But by mid-1997, the economic meltdown of Asian economies had deeply affected Thailand. It further accelerated the evolution in the outlook and strategy of USDO's member organizations. "The crisis had a great impact on all sectors of people," Boonyabancha said.

"The urban poor also faced serious problems. According to a survey conducted by UCDO in 1998, 60 percent of the urban poor had less income [than before the crisis], and increasing debts. Saving activities in many communities also faced crises and near collapse."

As the non-repayment rates of savings and credit groups shot upwards, it became increasingly evident that responsibility for repayments needed to be transferred to a larger community network, rather than to rely on a single community organization.

It also became apparent that developing stronger community organizations, with their own managerial capabilities and ability to lead community development processes, was more important than promoting community savings and credit groups and providing low-interest loans to community organizations, Boonyabancha said.

To pull themselves out of this increasingly difficult situation, community groups needed to engage in community action planning; link with a variety of development activities; and develop partnerships with other local development actors, especially municipalities and local authorities. UCDO encouraged the communities to identify their own problems and needs, and to acquire the necessary funding to address them.

Taking Control of the Development Process

One vehicle for this is the Urban Community Environment Activities (UCEA) project. It was launched by UCDO in Chiang Mai, a city in northern Thailand, in 1996, with funding from the Danish government's Danish Co-operation for Environment and Development agency. UCEA finances only self-help projects, channeling small grants to poor urban settlements to improve infrastructure and amenities.

Typical projects include building wells and drainage lines, improving garbage collection, and canal cleaning activities in communities alongside the klongs. Thus far, UCEA has financed more than 200 self-help projects throughout Thailand.

Typically, residents of a community decide what type of improvements are needed, how to fund them, and then write a proposal. UCDO contributes the seed money for the improvements and the community contributes at least 20 percent of the project resources in cash, material or labor. Local residents elect community committees to help coordinate the project.

Settlements alongside the heavily polluted Mae Kha and Koowai klongs, which border the south, east and north sides of Chiang Mai's city center, received a UCEA grant to help clean-up the canals. "Not only have we been working together to clean-up the canal, we have also been planting trees along the canal and are now preparing to make a new bridge [across the canal]," said Bonrueng Pala-rangsi, a member of the Khampaeng Nam community group.

For the past six years, the Khampaeng Nam community group has been working with the People's Organization for Participation, a local NGO. Nearly half of the 132 families in this community are ethnic hill tribe people who migrated from the mountains surrounding Chiang Mai. The remaining families are from low-lying areas around the city.

Mae Kha canal and the bridge that the commmunity plans to rebuild

These residents were faced with the threat of eviction, especially because the community occupies land alongside a 200-year-old ancient city wall (the Khampaeng Din) that makes the area a potential site for tourism, should it be cleaned up and properly developed. The residents decided to take control of the process by cleaning-up the neighborhood and the canal; negotiating with city officials to stop hospitals, industries and markets from dumping wastes into the canal; and working to prevent the canal from flooding during the rainy season.

UCDO recruited architecture students to provide advice and designs for community redevelopment, including low-cost housing. The community group invited other parties to join the process – including other community groups, government officials, and NGOs – so the project would be supported by the entire city and not just the communities living along the canals.

The Khampaeng Din community group is part of the Chiang Mai Community Organization Network, a consortium of 17 communities in Chiang Mai. The network successfully negotiated a low-interest (1 percent) 1 million baht (US$ 23,255) loan from UCDO to construct a drinking water treatment plant. The plant will sell bottled water at less-than-market rates to the Mae Kha and Koowai canal communities.

Drinking water treatment plant nears completion

Solving urban environment problems was the top priority for communities alongside the Mae Kha and Koowai klongs, but this was only possible after they organized community groups and networks by promoting savings and credit groups. Chiang Mai's two community networks now have 26 member groups that include 3,180 households with a total savings of 13.9 million Baht (US$323,000). These funds have been used to create low-interest loans for projects such as housing construction, and business and community enterprises.

"Saving and credit is the financial resource base for the people," Boonyabancha said. "But it is also a human resource, so it becomes something quite extraordinary."

"Using saving funds as an entry point actually gives a breathing space to see what the community really needs," Carrillo added. "This is an ideal way to enter the situation and tackle the community's problems – while networking across communities with similar problems gives communities incredible strength to find ways to deal with the government and tackle certain issues."

UCDO has initiated a similar process in the ancient Thai capital of Ayuthaya, located 74 kilometers north of Bangkok, where 53 informal communities are populated by 6,611 households. It allows community residents to cohabit with ancient monuments – that they have lived alongside all their lives – in a mutually beneficial way. They provide numerous important services to the city's tourists for whom the monuments are being developed – for example as vendors or tuk-tuk (auto-rickshaw) drivers.

An artisan resident of one of the Klong Mae Kha slum communities

UCDO played an important role by helping the community negotiate with the local municipality, the National Housing Authority, and the Department of Fine Arts. The local municipality has agreed to allow the residents to stay if their neighborhoods can be made attractive, and shifted slightly where necessary to rehabilitate a monument.

As in Chiang Mai, UCDO has recruited architects from Bangkok to create a full redevelopment plan for the communities. One of the communities has already negotiated a long-term land lease with the city, and construction of new houses for the residents is underway.

In October 2000, UDCO was renamed the Community Organization Development Institute (CODI), after merging with the Rural Development Fund, a Thai government fund for rural development. The merger gives it greater freedom to mobilize funds, negotiate differences between rural and urban groups, and create more rural-urban linkages and connections for community enterprises. Despite the new name, CODI will continue to emphasize linking the poor through networks at various levels, and helping them gain enormous confidence and more control over their lives and futures.

Community Organizations Development Institute (Public Organization)
2044/28-33 New Petburi Road
Huaykwang Bangkok 10310
Tel. (02) 718-0911
Fax (662) 718-0937
Email: codi@codi.or.th
Web site: www.codi.or.th