NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY (KENYA) ACoRCE CONFERENCE IN NAIROBI: 1-3 NOVEMBER 2017. Theme: impact of laws, regulations, policies and taxes in construction. A proposal for the effective inclusion of professionals in the institutional framework to enable the delivery of quality housing in Kenya. Author: Arch. Dr. Noel J. Omollo Okello (PhD), Architect. Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, School of Architecture and Building Sciences, Department of Architecture. P. O. Box 62000-00200, Nairobi, Kenya. Email: noelokello@sabs.jkuat.ac.ke , Tel.: +254(0)716222444 ABSTRACT Housing is one of the rights due citizens of Kenya according to the 2010 Constitution of Kenya. Yet a survey of the housing situation in Kenya in 2017 shows that housing delivery is encumbered by several intractable problems: an inadequacy or reluctance of supply for actual existing demand, the high capital costs of credit and suitable land, outdated laws and regulations, an increasingly constricted access to credit, an oversupply of the affluent housing market at the expense of other necessary housing, the unaffordability of the supply of housing for the average wage earner, the poor and hazardous quality of construction and the lack of coordination and planning between housing, public transport and requisite social amenities. These problems can be addressed within an effective regulatory framework that considers both the constraints of financial capital and the promise of social capital. Indeed, the government in its recognition of its flagging capacity to deliver quality housing has promoted the development of housing through policy reviews targeting an array of challenges. Examples of such policy reviews include the offer of tax breaks to real estate developers to entice them to increase housing supply, the strengthening of training and research on low-cost housing strategies and subsidized rent through a social welfare system or monetary policy that supports housing investment in the low-income sector. These policy reviews though intended for the realization of adequate housing of urban residents are, however, yet to translate into practical benefit for majority citizens: real estate developers and the governments shelter development partners have not taken cue and increased the supply of housing in tandem with effective demand. In fact current data shows that most housing is self-built through the efforts and creativity of individual homeowners with mixed results. Besides, professionals in the built environment have not been included effectively in the housing delivery effort yet. So why is it important for professionals to be included in the housing delivery effort in Kenya? What is the institutional framework that may enable professionals and communities to collaborate with the government in housing delivery? In this paper I discuss the institutional role that the government plays in housing delivery and how it can collaborate with professionals in the built environment and with communities to improve the delivery of quality housing for the huge demand that is ignored by real estate developers. Key words: Housing, Delivery, Policy, Capital and Real Estate Introduction: Challenges of Housing Delivery in Kenya Various reports (Huchzermeyer, 2006, Huchzermeyer, 2011, Ondieki, 2016, Mitullah, 2003, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2010) have shown that there are a number of growing housing problems in Kenya that are both multifaceted and linked. Among the evidence presented for the existence of these housing problems are collapses of tenement blocks under construction in Nairobi’s informal settlements in the recent past, the consistent failure by the government to prioritize housing for the poor, the stagnation of the mortgage market, laws and building codes that are inconsistent with the resources and capabilities of the majority urban population, the lack of a maintenance framework for the extant housing stock and the inadequate and poor quality of housing and the environment in informal settlements. Beyond policy statements clear evidence exists of government discrimination towards housing development in rural areas–and simultaneous prioritization of housing development in Nairobi (Obudho, 1992, Obudho and Aduwo, 1992, Syagga, 2006)–though that is where the majority of Kenyan citizens live: Current research manifests that a huge proportion of the Kenyan population resides in peri-urban, market towns, and rural agglomerations (Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2010, Cohen, 2004) and that housing problems and the housing demand is just as compelling if not more urgent in these milieux. In fact, the rural housing improvement programme provided for in Sessional Paper no. 3 on National Housing Policy for Kenya that is in line with the population’s distribution patterns and attendant housing needs is yet to be reactivated. In particular, the government’s failure to respect the Bill of Rights with regard to housing and to protect the right to housing has severally been linked to mismanagement of state resources, the grabbing of public land by powerful and connected individuals, rampant corruption, and increasing levels of poverty and inequality in Kenya (Ondieki, 2016, Mitullah, 2003, Huchzermeyer, 2007, Huchzermeyer, 2011). In addition, the state in, perhaps, an overt admission of its failure to deliver housing for the majority of its citizens which needed it, resorted to policy formulations creating “an enabling approach where the government facilitates other actors to invest in shelter” (Republic of Kenya, 2004) rather than sorting out the housing mess transparently, methodically and substantively. This view is supported by reality because the Government of the Republic of Kenya has the express mandate to sort out the housing mess including even the mobilization of international finance and technical capacity: a promising avenue for which, so far, there is no evidence of government pursuit. Of great concern is that even institutional housing for public servants including the Prisons Department and the Kenya Police has persisted in deplorable conditions with the pace of development of what the government terms as “institutional housing of socially acceptable space standards” (Republic of Kenya, 2004) being painstaking. The construction of 20,000 housing units for the police by the government beginning 2016, for example, is a token attempt at housing viewed in light of housing demand for the police and for other institutional housing requirements within government departments (See http://constructionreviewonline.com/2016/08/kenya-to-build-20000-housing-units-for-police/ (accessed on 2 September, 2017)) As of the early 2000s the annual housing demand in urban areas was estimated at 150,000 units with supply at 40,000 units, resulting in a deficit per annum of 110,000 units (Republic of Kenya, 2004). In 2016, according to a 3 February 2016 press statement released by Professor Jacob Kaimenyi, the Cabinet Secretary in the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development, annual housing demand had reached 250,000 units with supply at 50,000 units. The government constructed a paltry 922 units in Kibera that year. These estimates on housing supply and demand, however, were equivocal about what kind of units these were and for which segments of the population they ought to be built. The mortgage market was also at a slow rising from 16,029 outstanding mortgage loans in 2011 to 19,177 outstanding mortgage loans in 2012 to 19,879 outstanding mortgage loans in 2013 to 22,013 outstanding mortgage loans in 2014 (Central Bank of Kenya, 2014). This was a drop in the ocean compared to the housing deficit of 250,000 units per annum. Another important trend in the intermediate period beginning 2006 was that while a boom in the construction of affluent housing resulted in an oversupply by 2017, the low-cost housing market remained critically unsupplied (see evidence of this in online reports such as http://www.nation.co.ke/business/Low-demand-for-Nairobi-luxury-residences/996-3472018-9bfu61/index.html (accessed on 2 September, 2017) and http://www.nairobibusinessmonthly.com/kenyas-real-estate-market-performance-in-a-fragile-banking-environment/ (accessed on 2 September, 2017).) except by informal developers–who are also powerful and connected individuals–erecting slums and tenement buildings (Ondieki, 2016). The corruption, land grabbing and lack of regulation characterizing rapid informal development has seen an increasing incidence of structural failures and complete collapses of tenement housing in Mathare, Huruma, Pipeline and other such informal settlements in Nairobi (Ondieki, 2016). Though the government had as early as 2004 identified the importance of research on low cost building materials and construction techniques the underinvestment in this endeavour and lack of political will continues to hamper housing delivery and exacerbate the housing crisis whose ultimate result is the proliferation of informal settlements. Further to this the intensifying development of informal settlements contributes to a stark underprovision for social amenities and requisite utilities, the prevalence of unhealthy living conditions, an increase in delinquency and the rise of disease epidemics (Ondieki, 2016). The housing problem is compelling and cannot be wished away because the Constitution of Kenya (2010) provides that every person has the right to accessible and adequate housing and reasonable standard of sanitation. Further, the Constitution of Kenya (2010) derives from international covenants to which Kenya is a stakeholder. For instance, the International Covenant on Economic and Social Rights–to which Kenya is a signatory–recognizes the universal right to adequate housing and asserts that Each State Party must undertake steps individually and through international cooperation to the maximum of its resources in order to fulfil this right for all citizens. In this covenant the state is obligated to act to ensure that this right is fulfilled for all of its citizens. While the government has, for more than a decade in the lead up to 2017, developed and reviewed policy prescriptions to address the housing delivery challenges it has identified, it has not acted on its own prescriptions. For example the Sessional Paper no. 3 on National Housing Policy (2004) states that “the successful implementation of this housing policy will depend on the existence of a conducive legal framework and availability of adequate resources and capacity at all levels of implementation.” A review of the Kenya budgets and actual expenditure on housing between 2007/08 up to 2013/14, shows that budgetary allocations for housing are typically underspent (Hakijamii, 2013) (see table 1 and table 2) compared to overwhelming housing needs signalling the governments weak will towards effectively sorting out the housing crisis. Table 1: Comparison of housing sector total expenditure allocation and actual expenditure in Kenya 2007-2014 (in Ksh. millions). (Source: Hakijamii) Period 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Budget allocation 3,079 3,782 3,910 3,797 3,875 4,307 8,434** Actual expenditure 2,557 3,334 3,678 3,494 3,391 - - Absorption rate 83% 88% 94% 92% 88% **In the financial year 2013/14 two new programmes from the public works sub-sector were merged with the housing sector. Table 2: Allocation to housing sector programmes (in Ksh. millions). (Source: Hakijamii) Period 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 Housing development and human settlement 3,079 3,782 3,910 3,797 3,875 4,307 5,940 Government building services - - - - - - 2,236 Construction standards and research 108 Total allocation 3,079 3,782 3,910 3,797 3,875 4,307 5,940 Role of Professionals in Housing Delivery The government has recognized the critical role that professionals play in the housing sector. However, the role of professionals in the transformation of the housing sector in Kenya is at best modest and uninterested at worst. Practical and intellectual gaps exist between professional practice and realities. First, though housing problems are distributed in conformity to the population distribution of Kenya–with large populations living in rural areas and smaller settlements (Cohen, 2004, Kenya National Bureau of Statistics, 2010), a perusal through the lists of professional associations such as the Board of Registration of Architects and Quantity Surveyors and the Engineers Board of Kenya shows that professionals in the built environment are concentrated in large urban centres including Nairobi and Mombasa. Since the government neither provides design services for individual housing in urban or rural areas nor provides technical supervision for private housing projects, this distribution of professionals limits access to approved services in the built environment. Second, though in laws and regulations governing professional practice–such as Cap 525: the Architects and Quantity Surveyors Act–the remuneration of professionals in the built environment is clearly specified, the housing policy (Republic of Kenya, 2004) states that the government should prevail upon professionals to provide pro-bono services to the disadvantaged. The rationale through which such an arrangement might work is left unexplained. Third, little evidence exists beyond policy statements of the government supporting research organizations including the Housing and Building Research Institute (HABRI) at the University of Nairobi and other institutions identified in the housing policy (2004) as being tasked with research into appropriate building materials and building technologies as well as the dissemination of such research findings. Fourth, the disciplines in charge of the built environment are still fragmented. The housing portfolio has been moved from one ministry to another depending on the whims of the prevailing political system (Republic of Kenya, 2004). Besides, in reality the installation and maintenance of infrastructure necessary for the provision of housing including sewerage, roads, power, social services and security does not go hand in hand with housing development. This fragmentation disrupts planning and causes inconsistencies, ineffectiveness, overlaps in functions and poor accountability. Fifth is that a weak enforcement of planning regulations by counties hampers the input of professionals in the housing sector. Though the incapacity of public institutions plays a part in this challenge, another dimension of the problem is corruption including the grabbing of public land. In an effort to sort out these issues the Ministry of Lands and Housing, in sessional paper no. 3 on National Housing Policy for Kenya (2004), recognizes the role of human resources development in shelter development and prescribes the following actions to address their role in the housing sector appropriately: “(a) Facilitate capacity building within the Housing Department, other public sector organizations and partners in the housing sector so as to maintain a flow of activities, programmes and projects. (b) Establish a learning centre for the housing sector. (c) Promote continuous and sustainable training and reorientation of architects, engineers, planners, administrators and other related professionals on recent approaches to shelter and human settlement development, especially the adoption of low-cost and cost effective approaches. (d) Update facilities in vocational and tertiary institutions involved in training professionals in shelter development. (e) Provide non-formal training to facilitate maintenance and improvement of housing stock. (f) Decentralize widely formal and non-formal training facilities to upgrade social and managerial skills of construction workers, artisans and small-scale contractors. (g) Promote indigenous contractors engaged in the construction industry. (h) Ensure improvement of the working conditions for construction workers including safety, general working environment, wages, as well as their access to affordable housing. (i) Encourage greater involvement of NGO’s and the private sector in the training of construction workers both in the formal and informal sectors and assist urban self employed to organize themselves in order to upgrade their skills and get better access to working space, credit and marketing channels.” While at face value the actions specified are noble, they neither set specific targets nor timelines for achievement. They are not binding on any party or stakeholder including the government itself. Additionally, it is unclear whether the actions ensconced in these policy statements are related to the capacities and resources at the government’s disposal or relate to government aspirations rather than to reality. Specific prescriptions targeting professionals in terms of their involvement in sorting out the housing crisis are impractical and in fact clash with existing laws and regulations regarding practice. For example the vilification of professionals in the building industry as being “an impediment to the development of affordable shelter due to their insistence on rather complex designs and costly specifications of construction materials and techniques” fails to address the realities of professional services in a free market economy. Indeed the housing policy goes further to state that “professionals will be prevailed upon to facilitate shelter delivery processes by: (a) Being sensitive to the people’s limitations, especially the disadvantaged and offer pro-bono professional services where necessary and to develop type plans for sale to low-income groups at discounted prices. (b) Involving end-users in the design process to ensure that the end product incorporates their values. (c) Building on existing initiatives in the use of building materials and construction techniques. (d) Upholding professional integrity, charge reasonable fees and instil unquestionable ethical standards.” The rationale that this policy prescription may take is unclear since there are no incentives for professionals to engage and collaborate with communities for purposes of adequate housing delivery. Therefore, as long as the private sector is able to remunerate professionals in the built environment according to the laws and regulations of practice then professional involvement in low-cost housing will remain token. Beyond Policy Kenya’s chronic underachievement in housing delivery shows clearly that policy statements alone are not enough. For policy to work it must be followed by actual interventions on the ground. Indeed, the scant construction of affordable housing and the poor quality of self-built and other alternative types of housing is evidence that discrepancies exist between policy statements and actual mediative actions that are necessary for housing delivery. Policy statements are sweeping and nonchalant with respect to the constraints in various regions in the country. They also do not strengthen ameliorative actions as they are not premised on targets including requisite investment and capacity, milestones of achievement, and expected quality. For instance, with reference to professional practice, there are neither concrete initiatives nor specific institutions set out in the housing policy to facilitate collaborations between professionals in the built environment. While affordable professional services are identified as an ingredient in the delivery of housing, how this may work with regard to laws regarding practice is left unaddressed. I address this gap in the next section: I discuss why professionals are necessary and how professionals may contribute to housing delivery efforts within the structures of an institutional framework. So why is it important for professionals to be included in the housing delivery efforts in Kenya? Professionals in the built environment are formally mandated in law to plan, design, coordinate, implement and review physical development. Public institutions including universities, research institutions and tertiary technical training institutes, in particular, have invested both capital and time in the training of professionals–including architects, engineers, quantity surveyors, landscape architects, project managers and contractors–to resolve the problems of the built environment. Formal mandate and the investment in the building of capacity warrant the expectation of constructive results. First principles, therefore, dictate that professionals be centrally and practically involved in housing delivery efforts. As part of society the deterioration of the built environment affects professionals as they too have to live, work and pursue opportunities in the villages, towns, cities that surround them. Professionals notice the challenges of development and construction. In the course of their duties and in the aftermath of tragic building collapses they are frequently asked why the built environment is unsatisfactory. Professionals acknowledge that the built environment is in dire need of interventions. Problems of structural integrity, the failures of planning, the conditions of informal settlements, affordable housing, project financing and delivery, inadequacies of infrastructure, and so on, constitute the discussions in recent seminars and continuous development programmes of various professional associations. As invaluable assets to the think tanks attempting to resolve these problems of housing delivery then professionals have a central role to play. Professionals having benefitted from the resources of the country in terms of training and experience are expected to participate effectively in nation building. As part of the endeavour of nation building and in the altruistic spirit of corporate social responsibility, professionals in the built environment have a duty to contribute toward the improvement of the lot of the average Kenyan. As such professionals may choose to fulfil this calling by making use of skills and experience imparted upon them in the course of practice to give back to society. Built environment professions are therefore called upon to actively participate in housing delivery among other spatial construction and spatial organization initiatives. What is the institutional framework that may enable professionals and communities to collaborate with the government in quality housing delivery? Professionals possess knowledge and skills to facilitate the delivery quality housing including experience in planning, design, and construction of affordable, safe and healthy housing and residential environments as well as in the maintenance of existing housing stocks. The Government of the Republic of Kenya has therefore recognized the need for professionals in the housing sector. However, policy statements are ambiguous with regard to how affordable housing can be achieved while, simultaneously, the laws and regulations regarding practice remain in force. For instance the policy prescription that professionals should provide pro-bono services for the disadvantaged are untenable and unattractive in the absence of incentives. The question is what sort of incentives these may be and under what institutional framework they may operate. To get to a reasonable proposal for an institutional framework, there are several underpinnings that are necessary. First, it is fundamental to understand that the governments at both national and county levels–being duly elected and officially mandated–represents the constitution and interests of majority of citizens. In Kenya today this majority comprises poor and marginalized households living in rural, periurban and urban areas of various sizes and characteristics. Constitutionally, the government is tasked with the express responsibility of providing adequate housing for its citizens. Therefore it cannot simply shirk responsibility for the provision and delivery of quality housing. In fact a comparative analysis of social housing in countries including Singapore, Denmark, Sweden and Chile shows that housing problems have been tackled with success and that they can be overcome with concerted effort, effective public participation and political will. It is my submission that government should be tangibly involved in housing delivery because government projects in Kenya, by law and in fact, have the benefit of professional input regardless of the context in which they are realized. Further, such public projects are routinely audited to establish whether value for money has been achieved. These facts mean the likelihood of achieving quality in diverse government housing projects is higher compared to private sector or other types of housing projects. Second, is that the resources and ways of life of the people must be considered in policy formulation and the making of laws and regulations. Laws should be made for the people’s participation rather than–as wont to happen to the indigenous population during Kenya’s colonization –laws prescribed without the participation of the people. This would pre-empt situations where laws are made from abstract or alien aspirations and imposed. Laws about minimum spatial requirements, for instance, should be developed through a dialectic process. In existing informal settlements and myriad rural communities the creativity and motivation of communities living and working in some of the most deprived conditions and limited spaces is remarkable (Ondieki, 2016, Huchzermeyer, 2007). In this regard then, the people should be considered as the social capital of the country. They should not be viewed as “passive and helpless victims” in the delivery of housing. In light of these understandings I propose the following institutional arrangements to bolster professional involvement in housing delivery efforts: (a) Devolve and set up county housing development agencies to provide professional services at the expense of both national and county governments to the economically disadvantaged. These could also be part of existing devolved government delivery structures like the Huduma Centres and could, similar in concept, be one-stop shops for professional services. Such services could include professional advice on design, materials and financial products specifically for the construction of low-cost housing. (b) Revise laws and regulations of professional practice to enable the provision of pro-bono services to the needy. These could include tax as well as material or other attractive incentives to professionals in private practice for any pro-bono services offered to the public. These pro-bono services could be regulated so that only those registered with the government as taxpayers earning a set maximum income benefit. (c) Establishment of transdisciplinary professional organizations to enhance collaborations across the disciplines of the built environment. (d) Organize communities, county housing development agencies and professionals in private practice for purposes of constructing and administering community housing within the resources and capacities of local communities and their contexts.  References CENTRAL BANK OF KENYA 2014. Bank Supervision Annual Report 2014. Nairobi: Central Bank of Kenya. COHEN, B. 2004. Urban growth in developing countries: a review of current trends and a caution regarding existing forcasts. World Development, 32, 23-51. HAKIJAMII 2013. Report on housing sector financing in Kenya. Nairobi: Hakijamii. HUCHZERMEYER, M. 2006. Slum upgrading initiatives in Kenya within the basic services and wider housing market: A housing rights concern, Geneva, Centre on housing rights and Evictions (COHRE). HUCHZERMEYER, M. 2007. Tenement City: The emergence of multi-storey districts through large scale private landlordism in Nairobi. . International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 3, 714 - 732. HUCHZERMEYER, M. 2011. Tenement Cities, Trenton, African World Press. KENYA NATIONAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS 2010. The 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census. Nairobi: Government Press. MITULLAH, W. V. 2003. Urban slums reports: the case of Nairobi, Kenya. Understanding slums: case studies for the global report on human settlements 2003. Nairobi: Intitute for Development Studies, University of Nairobi. OBUDHO, R. A. 1992. The role of metropolitan Nairobi in spatial planning of Kenya: toward a planning alternative. African Urban Quarterly, 7, 210-215. OBUDHO, R. O. & ADUWO, G. O. 1992. The nature and extent of the urbanization and urbanism in the city of Nairobi, Kenya. African Urban Quarterly, 7, 50-64. ONDIEKI, E. O. 2016. Tenement housing in Nairobi: the case of Lucky Summer (Pipeline) Settlement, Embakasi. Thesis (Ph.D. Urbanism)), Oslo School of Architecture and Design/Arkitektur -og designhøgskolen i Oslo. REPUBLIC OF KENYA 2004. Sessional paper no. 3 on national housing policy for Kenya. In: HOUSING, M. O. L. A. (ed.). Nairobi: Government Press. SYAGGA, P. M. 2006. Land ownership and use in Kenya: policy prescriptions from an inequality perspective. Readings on inequality in Kenya: sectoral dynamics and perspectives. Nairobi: Society for International Development (SID). 1