20

08

: Vo

lum

e 1

5 N

um

be

r 2

promoting dialogue among Habitat for Humanity’s worldwide partners

Ha

bit

at

for

Hu

ma

nit

y a

nd

Str

ate

gic

Pa

rtn

ers

hip

s

The mandate for partnershipsby Marty Kooistra

The mandate for partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

The importance of partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Exploring strategic partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Habitat for Humanity Egypt: Partnerships for scale . . . . . . . 5

Pragmatic partnerships in disaster response: Lessons

learned from Lebanon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Partnerships key to HFH Nepal’s success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Partnering with Vision Fund Mongolia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Addressing poverty housing through microfiance

partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Building strategic partnerships for advocacy in LA/C . . . . 13

U .S . Advocacy pilot projects and strategic partnerships . . 15

contents

The alliance mandate

As compelling as this quote is when applied to in-dividuals, it becomes even more so when applied to organizations. This might seem contradictory.

Organizations are, by definition, groups of people working together. But consider our own work. Historically, Habitat has been a very “entrepreneurial” organization, using rapid worldwide growth of its programs and volunteer base to serve as many communities as possible. Now that it has a broad global presence, Habitat can focus on significantly increasing the housing impact it makes in each of those communities. Leaders from throughout the Habitat move-ment realize that the scope of the affordable housing problem — and poverty itself — is so vast that Habitat can’t possibly make the necessary impact on its own.

As a result, partnerships and alliances have risen to prominence in Habitat’s current strategic plan. This is pos-sible because Habitat no longer thinks of itself as the control-

“A person working alone has all the power of social dust.”—Saul Alinsky,

pioneering U.S. grassroots community activist 1

ling hub of a wheel, but rather as one of the wheel’s many spokes (or “nodes”). Each node represents an organization contributing uniquely but cooperatively to a central focus on poverty. Habitat’s crucial role is that of housing “catalyst,” sparking awareness about housing and encouraging coordi-nated, effective action.

Continued on page 2

2 2008: Volume 15 Number 2 Habitat for Humanity and Strategic Partnerships

Volume 15 Number 2The Forum is published quarterly in English, Spanish and Portuguese

Editor:Anita Mellott

Copy editor:Heather Myers

Graphic designer:Tonya D . Wright

Portuguese and Spanish translations:Translation Station, Inc .

Adviser: Karan Kennedy

Distribution manager: Nancy Barnes: NBarnes@habitat .org

Editorial policy: We welcome the submission of articles, photos, news items and ideas . For more information, please e-mail The Forum@habitat .org or AMellott@habitat .org .

Mission statement “The Forum” exists to enable the worldwide partners of Habitat for Humanity International to accomplish its mission by providing a means to:• Promote discussion, the exchange of ideas and best practices,

and knowledge sharing;• Share concerns and challenge our standard ways of doing things;

and• Explore different methodologies and issues relating to housing

and poverty worldwide .

121 Habitat St ., Americus, GA 31709-3498 USA

Continued on page 16

A common alliance language“Partnerships,” “alliances,” “collaborations,” “cooperations,” “al-legiances.” Terminology can present challenges to forming and maintaining working relationships and even to studying the sub-ject. Habitat for Humanity University’s Strategic Alliances course suite2 suggests the following basis for a common language:

“…These words generally reflect the level of intensity of the relationship and whether it is formal or informal in nature. Just as with individuals, relationships between organizations can range from formal and long-lasting to informal and transitory. Both formal and informal relation-ships can be developed into strong alliances that deliver value to both parties. … We use the term ‘alliance’ and define it as ‘a mutually beneficial relationship between two or more entities to achieve results more likely to be achieved together than alone.’ An alliance is not a fleeting relationship defined by a single donation or volunteer workday. An alliance is also not static, but represents a changing relationship, with its ups and downs. Therefore, a key part of success in this changing relationship is constant evaluation and ongoing learning for all parties.”

An alliance may be appropriate when…1. ...others are able to perform an aspect of the work more effectively, more efficiently and in a manner compatible with Habitat’s values and methods. 2. …it would establish a continuum of care providing all types of housing to both the formal and informal sectors (including emergency shelter, transitional, rental, owner- ship and supportive housing).3. …the shared goal is community transformation and the elimination of poverty through a holistic approach (in- corporating, for example, economic, health, educational and housing interventions).4. …it is necessary to transform the systems that prevent families in the informal sector from achieving livelihood.3

These are just some of the situations in which an alliance might be called for. Appropriate alliances allow Habitat to focus on what it does best while still providing a compre-hensive solution that maintains the integrity of the Habitat ministry. The net result is almost too good to be true: Habitat achieves scale by serving a greater number of families, and does so in a more effective and efficient way.

Alliance challenges Forming alliances is one matter. Maintaining them through execution is another. Success requires a deep understand-ing of one’s organization and the ability to hold important tensions in correct balance. For example, it is necessary to

The mandate for partnerships Continued from page 1

set aside an organization’s self-interest yet explicitly articulate and consistently uphold its non-negotiables. Likewise, a common value proposition must drive performance, but alliance members must contribute to the success of each ally and not just to achiev-ing the cause. Therefore, valid evaluation metrics reflect not just outcomes, but the health of the relationship as well.

In some parts of the world, Habitat for Humanity’s brand makes it a magnet. This, too, presents challenges. HFHI has cre-ated a partnership analysis group to review potential alliances objectively and to create tools to allow the entire Habitat ministry to do the same.

Marty Kooistra is the senior director of Global Program Design and Implementation for HFHI. He has served in various capacities with Habitat for Humanity for more than 16 years, including local affiliate leadership, field supervision and support, and headquarters program and curriculum development.

2008: Volume 15 Number 2 �Habitat for Humanity and Strategic Partnerships

The importance of partnershipsby Jonathan Reckford

We need look no further than the vision state-ment in our own strategic plan to find clear expression of the role partnership plays in

this ministry: “Mobilizing people, and financial and social capital, Habitat for Humanity International will demonstrate the love and teachings of Jesus Christ by serving as a partner and catalyst for worldwide access to decent, safe, affordable housing.”

This means that we should and must work together to ful-fill our mission. It means we have to seek, establish and cul-tivate partnerships between Habitat and the families we want to serve, between HFHI and affiliates, national offices and lo-cal organizations, between volunteers, donors, churches and community groups, government agencies, corporations and other development organizations whose missions comple-ment ours and vice-versa.

There is nothing I enjoy more about my job than experi-encing Habitat in the field — encountering Habitat’s part-nership model creatively at work, at the hands of those so passionate about upholding it. It’s inspiring to see how God is working through Habitat and our partners in transforma-tional ways. I saw a perfect example of this during a recent trip to South America.

I traveled to a community called Varjada, about two hours outside of Recife, Brazil, which is one of the country’s poorest regions. Not unlike many poor communities in other parts of the world, women and girls in Varjada often found themselves walking four hours a day to collect water for cooking, bathing and cleaning. In addition, “kissing bugs”

had infested the substandard housing in the area and infected some of the people living there. The resulting chagas disease can damage internal organs and lead to death. Confronting that threat and spending so much time gathering water stole from a focus that might have been directed elsewhere. Fortu-nately, the power of partnership was at work in Varjada.

Like some of her peers in the community, a woman named Severina Guilermina Ferreira — informally called Dona Tatá — had partnered with Habitat to build a solid, decent brick home. (Already working in the community, the Methodist Church had alerted Habitat Brazil to the housing need there.) Habitat and a partner organization called Ar-ticulação do Semi-áridoBrasileiro (ASA) then built a cistern at her home and at other Habitat homes nearby. This meant that Dona Tatá and others in Varjada no longer had to devote so much time each day to gathering the water they needed.

With more time on her hands, Dona Tatá began em-broidering — a time-honored, but declining, art form in the community — and created an embroidery group with other women in Varjada. World Vision recognized the activity and added a microfinance component to the equation, which has helped many community women develop their craft into an income-generating enterprise.

Today they have decent, affordable housing, a means of collecting water at home, more time to apply themselves toward a financial end and the means through which they can reach that end.

Thanks in part to student work teams from São Paulo, a new school is being constructed in the community, providing further opportunities for local children to gain the education that is so important.

All of this may never have happened without the partner-ships that have flourished in Varjada. As servant leaders, we want our neighbors living in poverty to develop holistically; we want their communities to develop holistically. While our focus at Habitat for Humanity always will be housing, we should view it in the context of other needs families have: water, sanitation, employment, education, healthcare and the list goes on. We can’t do that without partnerships. I often reflect on my experience in Varjada as clear evidence of the positive power partnerships can wield. We need look no further than Dona Tatá.

Jonathan Reckford is CEO of HFHI.

AS SERVANT LEADERS, WE WANT OUR NEIGHBORS LIVING IN POVERTy TO

DEVELOP HOLISTICALLy; WE WANT THEIR COMMUNITIES TO DEVELOP HOLISTICALLy. …WE CAN’T DO THAT WITHOUT PARTNERSHIPS.

HFH

Brazil

Partnerships with various NGOs have been instrumental in starting Dona Tatá (pictured left on the porch of her Habitat house) and others in the community on the path to holistic development.

� 2008: Volume 15 Number 2 Habitat for Humanity and Strategic Partnerships

Exploring strategic partnershipsby Karan Kennedy and Anita Mellott

“Two people are better off than one, for they can help each other succeed.” Ecclesiastes 4:9 (NLT)

The idea of partnerships is not new to Habitat for Humanity. For example, as early as 1993, Habitat began working in Egypt in partnership with the

Coptic Evangelical Organization for Social Services (CEOSS), a well-known NGO involved in community development. That early partnership later enabled HFH Egypt to register as a legal entity and establish similar partnerships with a variety of community-based organizations (CBOs) throughout Egypt. (For more information, see article, “A winning strat-egy born out of necessity: HFH Egypt’s CBO partnerships,” which appeared in “The Forum”, 13:1.)

Today, partnerships or alliances are vitally important to Habitat for Humanity and its ability to leverage resources. A wide variety of partnerships exist, and Habitat for Humanity has many different types. The most common and basic is the donor-client partnership, where corporations or celebrities tie their corporate brand to that of Habitat’s providing an avenue for social responsibility and good will.

These alliances are important and can become increasing-ly complicated and strategic. An alliance becomes strategic when it serves the strategic plan and forwards the strategic goals of the organization. The more strategic the alliance is for both partners, the higher the value of the partnership.

This issue of “The Forum,” however, explores alliances that are tied specifically to program development. These strategic alliances are very appealing since they enable Habi-tat to do what it does best — housing — alongside partners who are experts in other aspects of community development.

Habitat becomes a catalyst in holistic community develop-ment and an agent of community transformation.

This issue of “The Forum” draws on the experiences of various Habitat entities engaged in strategic partnerships worldwide. It highlights best practices and lessons learned. A common theme emerges: Alliances can add value and in-crease the scope and scale of housing interventions, but there are also huge risks if the partnership is not managed prop-erly. Good partnerships are challenging and take a special set of skills, which includes:

• Clearly defining roles and responsibilities right from the beginning• Clearly articulating goals and outcomes • Mutual respect • Shared values • Good, intentional, continuous communication• A plan for conflict resolution• Consistent evaluation of the partnership.

We hope that this issue of “The Forum” will encourage, challenge and motivate us to continue steadfastly toward our goal of bringing simple, decent housing worldwide.

Karan Kennedy is director of International Projects at Habitat for Humanity. She has 14 years of experience with HFH in various capacities, mainly in the Africa/Middle East department.

Anita Mellott serves as editor for International Field Operations. She has been with HFH for 10 years. She has a background in journal-ism and communications.

Both Karan and Anita may be contacted at TheForum@habitat.org.

2008: Volume 15 Number 2 5Habitat for Humanity and Strategic Partnerships

Exploring strategic partnershipsby Karan Kennedy and Anita Mellott

Habitat for Humanity Egypt:Partnerships for scaleby Nesreen Wagih Sobhy

Innovation is the hallmark of Habitat for Human-ity Egypt (HFHE). Its original style highlights the importance of an indigenous, grassroots approach to

development. Instead of utilizing the traditional role of affili-ates, HFHE builds thoughtful partnerships with community-based organizations (CBOs). Under this model, HFHE acts largely as a support system, providing its partner organiza-tions with loans, training in housing program implementa-tion, and technical support such as monitoring and evalu-ation. In this way, while the projects are community-based efforts, the housing committees are not totally absolved of their accountability to HFHE, nor HFHE of its responsibility to the community.

The partnerships are mutually advantageous. HFHE benefits from decreased administration costs, allowing it to use its funds to reach more people. In addition to helping HFHE’s reach grow, the collaborations build the capacity of the partner organizations. HFHE does not intend any one partnership to be permanent. Instead, it hopes that partici-pating organizations will gain enough experience to be able to raise funds for and operate their own housing programs independent of HFHE. This would not diminish HFHE’s impact, as it would just continue to forge new partnerships.

So far, HFHE’s partnership model has proven success-ful. From 1997, HFHE has grown from having one to 10 partnerships, and from working in one to 23 communities. The repayment rate consistently hovers around 95 percent, and HFHE will soon dedicate its 10,000th house. Thoughtful partnerships are the core of its inspirational progress.

INSTEAD OF UTILIzING THE TRADITIONAL ROLE OF AFFILIATES, HFHE BUILDS

THOUGHTFUL PARTNERSHIPS WITH CBOS. UNDER THIS MODEL, HFHE ACTS LARGELy AS A SUPPORT SySTEM, PROVIDING ITS PARTNER ORGANIzATIONS WITH LOANS, TRAINING IN HOUSING PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION, AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SUCH AS MONITORING

AND EVALUATION.

In El-Kom El-Akhdar, a village of about 12,000 people, HFHE collaborates with the El-Kom El-Akhdar Community Development Association. In light of each organization’s mission and work, the partnership seemed natural. HFHE’s goal is to eliminate poverty housing, while the CBO aims to eliminate poverty. The CBO, experienced in implementing a wide range of development projects including microfinance, hoped the collaboration would help bring affordable housing and a general improvement of quality of life to the struggling farm community. Technical skills were not the only require-ment, though. Equally essential was the fact that the CBO was well-established and well-reputed within the community.

Despite the organizations’ parallel aims, the partnership was not effortless. HFHE’s model of loan repayment and the concept of a revolving fund did not resonate well with the CBO. The CBO was accustomed to receiving grants to implement projects, not loans. Ultimately, the two organizations formed an official,

Continued on page 6

� 2008: Volume 15 Number 2 Habitat for Humanity and Strategic Partnerships

July 14, 2006 — Fighting between the militant wing of Hezbollah and the Israeli Defense Force ignited a 34-day conflict resulting in the forced displacement of nearly

25 percent of Lebanon’s population, thousands of casualties, the destruction of infrastructure and the disruption of liveli-hoods throughout the country. More than 15,000 homes were completely destroyed and an additional 120,000 homes were sig-nificantly damaged. Official estimates placed damages to homes alone in excess of US$1.4 billion.

Habitat for Humanity Lebanon (HFHL) responded with a program that enabled the rapid return of displaced families to their villages in rural South Lebanon. HFHL also worked to stimulate regional economic recovery by recruiting local builders and sponsoring livelihood development programs for youth in areas where farm lands had been lost to unexploded ordinances. The program, which USAID/OFDA funded, had initial targets of reaching 300 families through home repairs and an additional 40 beneficiaries through vocational training activities. Habitat selected two partners, yMCA Lebanon and the Center for Dia-logue and Development, to supplement HFHL’s response team capacity during the intervention.

Points to consider in developing and maintaining successful partnerships

Habitat Egypt has a set of clearly identified criteria upon which

partners are selected .

• The CBO is registered with the Ministry of Social Solidar-

ity and has a legal entity .

• The CBO has a separate, permanent place for running

its activities .

• The CBO is experienced at managing developmental

projects, running construction projects and managing

small revolving loan programs with evidence of strong

repayment rates .

• The CBO works in a specified geographical area, with a

poor community with demonstrated need for develop -

mental work .

• The CBO provides a number of developmental services

or programs to communities and operates under a

clearly defined and sufficient administrative structure .

• The CBO accepts Habitat parameters and regulations,

especially as defined in partnership agreements, and is

willing to undergo periodic evaluation .

In addition,

• Investigate the partner’s reputation before entering

into a partnership .

• Conduct periodic evaluations .

• Scale up gradually, and ensure continuous followup

and communications .

successful partnership in 2003. By December 2007, 872 houses were built. Health, education and economic development also improved. Housing conditions are better ventilated and more sanitary, and a local building industry has started to take shape.

HFHE aims to move 2 million people out of poverty housing by 2023. The goal is ambitious, but through HFHE’s partnership strategy it seems HFHE is on its way toward reaching it.

Nesreen Wagih Sobhy has been with HFH Egypt since June 2007 as resource development and communications coordinator. Prior to this, Nesreen worked for six years in the Coptic Evangelical Organi-zation for Social Services as an international relations coordinator.Nesreen may be contacted at rdc1@habitategypt.org.

Habitat for Humanity Egypt: Partnerships for scale Continued from page 5

Through HFHE’s partnership with El-Kom El-Akhdar Community Development Association, some 872 families were moved out of poverty housing by the end of 2007. Ramses Hanna and wife Amal Saad, who buy materials from trash pickers and sew and sell bags for corn, are one such family.

Kim

MacD

on

ald

Pragmatic partnerships in disaster response: Lessons learned from Lebanonby Dan O’Brian

Continued on page 7

2008: Volume 15 Number 2 7Habitat for Humanity and Strategic Partnerships

The Center for Dialogue and Development (D&D) is a com-munity-based organization focusing primarily on reconciliation activities among the disparate sects of Muslims and Christians in Saida, a region that lies just north of the disaster response service area. HFHL had an existing relationship with D&D, and chose to partner with the organization for this particular effort because of its extensive experience in rural community organization. D&D was to provide an entry point for HFHL into the southern com-munities. Its primary responsibilities were to help organize and facilitate “leadership committees,” or groups of local leaders act-ing on behalf of the community, and to organize and manage vol-unteer build days. However, the integration of the D&D into the repair model proved to be much more difficult than anticipated. Placing a partner between the implementing organization and the beneficiary community led to several miscommunications with leadership committees, reduced HFHL control and created significant delays at the beginning of the project. Ultimately, HFHL staff had to assume control of the leadership commit-tees, and D&D left the project when the volunteer program was canceled due to security concerns.

Unlike the case with D&D, HFHL had no prior formal relationship with yMCA Lebanon. One of the largest NGOs in Lebanon, the yMCA has been working in the South for more than 10 years. Past projects focused mainly on the organization’s medical dispensary network, but also included periodic work in cooperative development, vocational training and youth-related activities. yMCA was recommended by USAID/OFDA on the strength of the organization’s past performance in grant imple-mentation and a proven track record for successful interventions in the service area. yMCA offered a level of flexibility in design-ing the program that allowed for additional components which

Pragmatic partnerships in disaster response: Lessons learned from LebanonContinued from page 6

more closely addressed OFDA interests in economic recovery in the immediate response environment. yMCA Lebanon designed and implemented an independent vocational training compo-nent within the response program. The two-month training focused on specialized construction skills and resulted in nearly 90 percent employment for the 42 beneficiaries.

In comparing the two partnerships, one theme that emerges is the need for segregated responsibilities during disaster response program implementation. D&D was inserted into the implementation model for HFH Lebanon’s repair program. Because community engagement was central to successful imple-mentation, HFHL’s ability to operate was directly tied to D&D’s success in establishing committees. The delays and unneces-sary tension caused by this relationship made the arrangement impractical in the hectic response environment. Upon review, HFHL would have been better served by simply building this capacity internally.

Alternatively, yMCA Lebanon was subcontracted for the vocational training project. They were responsible for all field op-erations and administration of the project while HFHL provided minimal oversight. The addition of yMCA allowed HFHL to cre-ate a more unique and attractive proposal for potential donors; furthermore, the segregation of the two programs allowed HFHL to concentrate on its repair program while yMCA worked on training.

These brief examples demonstrate the advantages of segre-gated project implementation in disaster response environments. While integrated partnerships can be very beneficial in long-term interventions, the speed and scale of response projects combined with the time-limited housing need in an early recovery environ-ment make integrated relationships impractical. Separate projects allow highly complex programs to be broken down into smaller, more manageable components. Rather than forming partner-ships to enhance HFH’s ability to implement a model, projects and partners can be added for the provision of more diversified services or simply for replication across larger geographies.

Dan O’Brien was the program manager for disaster response in Lebanon following the July 2006 war and is currently providing support to HFH programs in the Middle East. He has worked for HFHI since 2004 in various positions at its headquarters in Ameri-cus, A/ME headquarters and now in Beirut. He may be contacted at DOBrien@habitat.org.

RATHER THAN FORMING PARTNERSHIPS TO ENHANCE HFH’S ABILITy TO IMPLEMENT A MODEL,

PROJECTS AND PARTNERS CAN BE ADDED FOR THE PROVISION OF MORE DIVERSIFIED SERVICES

OR SIMPLy FOR REPLICATION ACROSS LARGER GEOGRAPHIES.

Kim

MacD

on

ald

Habitat for Humanity Lebanon (HFHL) has helped to stimulate regional economic recovery by recruiting local builders and sponsoring livelihood development programs for youth.

8 2008: Volume 15 Number 2 Habitat for Humanity and Strategic Partnerships

Partnerships are key to HFH Nepal’s success. HFH has become the first organization in Nepal to introduce ac-cess to adequate and affordable housing in the eastern

region of Nepal. The success of this program has led to starting a similar one in western Nepal.

Through partnerships, HFH Nepal has been able to accom-plish a lot in the last two years:

• Assisting 1,512 families in two years to get better hous- ing, compared to 830 families assisted in eight years through HFH’s traditional conventional method.• The investment per family by HFH or other donors has been limited to an average of US$300, with the group and home partners contributing an average of US$600 to complete their houses, resulting in 100 percent repayment at 12 percent administrative expense for HFH. • To date we have served 2,214 families and have been instrumental in promoting:

- Better health conditions - Appropriate replicable technology, which is recognized by the communities- Improved living and social conditions for the partner families- Dignity and recognition - A sustainable revolving fund to assist more families as a result of 100 percent repayment- Leadership training, especially for women - Housing solutions

MethodologyHabitat for Humanity strives to construct simple, decent, afford-able houses and adheres to the highest standards of construction to bring about quality housing even to the poor and the deprived.

Housing can become cost effective when scientific knowledge and expertise are used to transform the traditionally and cultur-ally accepted practices of construction into more environmentally and user-friendly methodologies and when the appropriate use of locally available materials is encouraged.

This is possible when HFH can work with organized groups at the grassroots level by engaging them in decision-making at all levels. In Nepal, this began when we identified some of the well-established microfinance institutions and/or savings groups that were like-minded, with complementary objectives, and have already achieved extraordinary results.

Once identified, HFH Nepal assisted their members by providing training in cost- effective, safe and environmentally friendly construction technology, and advice on different con-struction designs to suit their different shelter needs so as to add housing as another product to their own microenterprise.

Further, HFH facilitated and supported local community groups to elect a management committee for the housing project and then provided training in project management, beneficiary selection, construction, finance, debt repayment, health issues, community development and good governance. The manage-ment committee chooses the home partners regardless of race, religion or gender in keeping with HFH’s policy of equal opportu-nity and non-discrimination.

These organizations were international nongovernmental or-ganizations like World Vision and ADRA SOS Children’s Village; NGOs like Samjhauta Nepal, Sahara Nepal, Nari Bikas, Jeevan

Partnerships key to HFH Nepal’s successby Aruna Paul Simittrarachchi

Continued on page 9

2008: Volume 15 Number 2 �Habitat for Humanity and Strategic Partnerships

Bikash Samaj, Lumanthi and Samuhik Hatemelo Seva Samuha; and CBOs — mainly the network of Village Banks formerly initi-ated by PACT International, but currently facilitated through the network of Samjhauta Nepal.

The aim of HFH was to expand their existing services of microfinance, women empowerment and advocacy, adult literacy and vocational training, clean water and sanitation, and environ-mental awareness and include the opportunity for low-income families to own a safe, decent and affordable home.

Aruna Paul Simittrarachchi has been with Habitat for Human-ity for 11 years. Prior to this, he worked with the UNDP-UNV volunteers and at the Institute of Integral Education in Sri Lanka. He has much experience in savings-led microfinance. Aruna may be contacted at aruna@gmail.com.

Partnerships key to HFH Nepal’s successContinued from page 8

ADRA Nepal, an international nongovernmental organiza-tion, has been working in Nepal since 1987. ADRA is actively involved in humanitarian assistance and in community empow-erment through rural women’s groups focusing on literacy and better health. After a series of exploratory meetings, HFH and ADRA Nepal started to work collaboratively.

ImplementationIn partnership with ADRA, Habitat for Humanity Nepal launched the first pilot program to assist 200 families from remote, rural women’s groups with which ADRA Nepal had worked for more than six years.

Objectives • The introduction of housing microcredit, and the construc- tion of safe, decent, affordable, sustainable, cost-effective housing. • To help empower women from excluded social groups.

Result and impact• We have reached our target number of families, and 206 families are making timely 100 percent repayments. • Having seen the impact made by HFH Nepal, other neigh- boring families are following the methodology of Save and Build in Stages as a means to improve their housing condi- tions. Through the established literacy groups and the coop- eratives, they have promised to meet half of the cost for each house that HFH Nepal would build for every member. Most of the families will opt to improve their housing conditions with the raw materials they have and purchase the rest of the needed materials through their savings, while the Habitat loan will mainly be used for transportation and skilled labor. So the initial loan from HFH Nepal will be US$250 per fam- ily which will be paid back within 30 months. • After the completion of the above mentioned houses, HFH Nepal will be able to assist another 100 families with the revolving fund alone. We will start the second phase with the revolving fund as we have already identified the 100 families among village savings-led women’s groups. • ADRA, being a leading organization in disaster response in Nepal, has requested assistance from HFH Nepal in post- disaster response by providing technical assistance to the flood victims as well as to free bonded labor. With the technical advice and assistance from HFH Nepal, ADRA has already housed 72 members, with another 230 to be assisted within the next two months.• Having seen this impact Caritas International has requested the same type of assistance to provide help to another 1,400 families who have been affected by floods.

Through a partnership with NGO ADRA, HFH Nepal has been able to bring affordable, decent housing to remote, rural communities.

Spotlight on ADRA-HFH Nepal partnership

Alicia W

agn

er

10 2008: Volume 15 Number 2 Habitat for Humanity and Strategic Partnerships

Following the Mongolian government’s land privatization law in May 2003, families were allowed to own land and many benefited from working with Habitat for Humanity

to build their own houses. yet there are many more families in real need, especially those living in the ger districts.

While more than half of the country’s population live in urban areas, according to a United Nations report,1 poverty is concentrated in the ger districts on the outskirts of the capital Ulaanbaatar and also in the aimag and soum2 centers, as a result of chronic unemployment and low wages.

The distinctive ger districts are long strips of fenced-in land plots that surround a city. Within such districts are gers, the tradi-tional round felt tents that Mongolians have lived in for centuries, or ramshackle structures being set up by families. More than half the population of the capital Ulaanbaatar and at least half of the population of provincial capitals live in these areas. Families who live in the ger districts also have inadequate access to amenities such as electricity, water, healthcare and education.

Many of the families living in the ger districts have a hard time meeting daily expenses, let alone having the resources to build a new house. Getting a loan from the bank is difficult as the impoverished families can not offer acceptable collateral.

Given the extreme poverty found in these districts (the average monthly income for each family is between US$100 and US$150), HFH Mongolia knew it had to develop more than a house-building program. For those families who have land but live in dilapidated housing conditions, Habitat’s solution is house renovation. But the cost of renovation can still be prohibitive, at about US$500. (It costs US$2,300 to build a new Habitat house in Mongolia.)

Enter Vision Fund Mongolia, the microfinancing institution of fellow international nongovernmental organization World Vision. A partnership with Vision Fund Mongolia made sense as Habitat had worked with World Vision in the cities of Ulaan-baatar, Erdenet and Darkhan. Set up at the end of 2004, Vision Fund Mongolia gives small loans of up to US$300 for business and other needs with repayment periods ranging from three to

12 months. In 2006, Vision Fund Mongolia disbursed US$1.2 million to more than 6,800 clients.

After a two-year dialogue, HFH Mongolia and Vision Fund Mongolia teamed up in April 2007 to build 150 new houses and renovate another 150 houses. The partnership aims to alleviate the poverty of families living in the ger districts and to improve their living conditions through microfinance. Loans to the fami-lies are dispensed from a US$231,000 grant from Vision Fund, while Habitat takes care of the construction and renovation side. Families are jointly selected by Habitat and Vision Fund.

To date, 10 houses have been completed under the Habitat-Vision Fund partnership. Construction and renovation of the remaining houses will continue after the winter season.

The partnership with Vision Fund will also pave the way for families to have continual access to financial services that enable them to improve education, health and income-generating abil-ity. Families receiving loans from Vision Fund will become mem-bers of the fund and can apply for further loans from the fund for other purposes, based on their repayment track record.

There are, however, challenges. Chief among them is cost. When HFH Mongolia first began operations in 2000, construc-tion was concentrated in one area, on land awarded by the gov-ernment. The Vision Fund partnership will see Habitat building in different communities, giving rise to higher transportation and labor costs. Families selected to receive Habitat houses are required to repay the loan with a 10 percent administrative cost as well as factoring in inflation and the 1.6 percent monthly inter-est to be paid to Vision Fund.

To address the issue of higher cost, the memorandum of un-derstanding between Habitat and Vision Fund includes a clause that provides for all parties involved to increase their respective contributions if the house cost increases due to inflation or more expensive raw materials.

In the words of Charles Joliffe, HFH Mongolia’s national di-rector: “If poverty housing is to be dealt with and successfully, it can only be done so in partnership with others who have a stake in the communities we all serve and wish to develop.”

Wong Hiew Peng is a writer and editor with HFH Asia/Pacific. She worked in the newspaper industry in Singapore before joining HFH in 2006. She may be contacted at HPeng@habitat.org.

1Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Jean ziegler, on His Mission to Mongolia (14-24 August 2004), page 9. http://www.aidh.org/alimenta-tion/pdf/Rapp.Mongolie%20ziegler.pdf2Aimag and soum are the equivalent of a province and a district respectively.

Partnering with Vision Fund Mongolia by Wong Hiew Peng

GIVEN THE ExTREME POVERTy FOUND IN THESE DISTRICTS, HFH MONGOLIA KNEW

IT HAD TO DEVELOP MORE THAN A HOUSE-BUILDING PROGRAM.

2008: Volume 15 Number 2 11Habitat for Humanity and Strategic Partnerships

In 2005, HFH Europe and Central Asia’s youngest affiliate, HFH Macedonia, and Moznosti, the local implementing partner of the global microfinance

coalition Opportunity International, initiated a partnership through an innovative housing microfinance model. In Feb-ruary 2008, after only two years of project implementation, it was selected as one of the three most innovative development projects worldwide at the ninth Global Development Confer-ence held in Brisbane, Australia.

The first step of the Macedonian partnership, named Home Improvement Fund, was to set up a credit line that provides microloans for repair, renovation and reconstruc-tion of Macedonian substandard homes through the joint financial contribution of the partners. Nowadays it is a well-established program that takes a holistic approach in dealing with poverty housing and includes construction, financing, community development, volunteer development and advocacy. An additional program component aimed toward capacity building of the target group is expected to be launched later this year.

The Home Improvement Fund offers microloans rang-ing from US$2,400 to US$5,000 with a repayment period up to 60 months. The interest rate applied on the loans is 11 percent on declining balance, which is considered moderate compared to the commercially offered rates for housing loans in Macedonia. The affordability of this loan is even greater while considering the issue of access to finance, especially for the low-income segment of the population.

Tasks and responsibilities regarding program imple-mentation are shared among the partners on both strategic and operational levels. Boards set up principles of coopera-tion through a written partnership agreement. Boards also evaluate the results of the program on an annual basis. At the operational level, boards appoint members for the Joint Credit Committee, which is responsible for the final approval of the loans.

Management teams of the partner organizations are engaged in different phases of loan processing. Generally, Moznosti is responsible for the financial aspects of the pro-gram — screening of the client’s financial reliability, process-ing the loans and monitoring the repayments — while HFH Macedonia determines the target group, provides construc-tion advice and monitors construction.

In practice, loan applications are collected and initially selected by HFH Macedonia through applying basic Habi-tat principles of need identification. Selected applicants are passed to Moznosti for financial evaluation. In the final stage, applications are presented to the Joint Credit Committee for approval.

As a supplement to the loan-processing activities, HFH Macedonia works with selected families, providing them know-how in simple, decent, affordable housing. In a similar manner, Moznosti works separately on the financial monitor-ing of the clients/partner families in order to assure proper and on-time repayment of the loans disbursed.

This way the partners outsource the expertise of the

Addressing poverty housing through microfinance partnershipsby Zoran Kostov

Levent Edipov (pictured right) works on renovating the home in Veles, Macedonia, that he, his wife and three children will soon share with his in-laws. The Roma family participates in Habitat Macedonia’s Home Improvement Fund, a microfinance program in partnership with Opportunity International.

Steffan

Hacker

12 2008: Volume 15 Number 2 Habitat for Humanity and Strategic Partnerships

other, creating an innovative synergy in addressing poverty housing in Macedonia. The current repayment rate of more than 98 percent makes the fund a durable source of funding for the housing microloans designed with the program.

Based on this model, additional families have been served through the parallel, replicated housing microfinance partnership named Roma Housing Fund, developed with the Horizonti Foundation — formerly Catholic Relief Services partner in Macedonia.

In addition to HFH Macedonia and Moznosti’s contribu-tion to the joint fund, in December 2007 HFH Macedonia was approved by the Dutch International Guarantees for Housing for a soft loan of Euro 5 million for five years, fully designated to further lending for the final beneficiaries. This

financial arrangement is currently seen as additional recogni-tion of the functionality of the existing partnership model. Within the next 10 years it is expected to provide housing microloans with subsequent housing improvement for 6,700 poor families in Macedonia.

Dr. Zoran Kostov is a university professor and HFH Macedonia’s executive director since the organization’s establishment in 2005. In addition to his specialization in communications, he has extensive training and experience in microfinance. He is a founder of the first MFI in Macedonia in 1996; from 2002 to 2005 he served as a Global Network board member of Opportunity International; and in 2004 he was selected as an International Policy Fellow on the subject of scaling up in microfinance services at the Central European University. After joining Habitat he was principal project developer of two national housing microfinance partnerships. Dr Kostov may be contacted at kostovz@habitat.org.mk.

Dr. Kostov answered some questions dealing with the practical aspects of maintaining strategic partnerships.

Have any differences in roles and responsibilities emerged? How were they resolved?Roles and responsibilities were defined based on the proven record/expertise of each of the partners. With its 12 years of experience in microfinance, it was easier for Moznosti to prove its expertise in its field — creditworthiness assessment, loan administration and repayment mechanisms. At the time of the program launch, Habitat was a brand-new organization in Mace-donia, but since the people who served (and still serve) on HFH Macedonia’s board were well-known and influential, Moznosti agreed to a partnership. Habitat would deal with need identifica-tion, construction advising and monitoring.

Differences are present, but are manageable. The main tension comes from the fact that Moznosti is a formal financial institu-tion supervised by the Central Bank, while HFH Macedonia is an NGO. Being supervised by the Central Bank means an obligation to follow strict procedures, including imposing strict sanctions over those clients/partner families who fall behind on their repay-ment schedule. In practice, it means that Moznosti gravitates to-ward wealthier clients (more reliable payers), while Habitat looks for those in real need (not very reliable payers due to irregular income, etc.).

Another difference arises with regard to setting the goals, in terms of what each partner considers a “goal.” For Moznosti, it is the number of loans disbursed and for Habitat it is the number of reconstructions completed. Ideally, these two numbers should match but, in practice, there are partially misused loans. Clients who are repaying their loans regularly are not sanctioned by Moznosti, while Habitat insists on controlling and sanctioning mechanisms in cases where the loan is being misused.

Addressing poverty housing through microfinance partnershipsContinued from page 11

So, to resolve these differences, the only way is to reach a com-promise with the partner, but also to set limits for these compro-mises. For example, if HFH monitoring finds out that more than 50 percent of the housing loan amount is spent for non-housing purposes, HFH can ask for activation of a sanction, which means immediate repayment of the whole amount of the loan. For those that spent more than 50 percent but less than 90 percent, we nego-tiate without sanction.

What makes this organization a good “fit” for Habitat?Moznosti is a good fit for Habitat in many respects. Both Op-portunity International and its Macedonian branch, Moznosti, share a similar vision and mission to that of Habitat, and most of the same values. This creates synergy that can transform the lives of those in need. Additionally, Moznosti was willing to contribute both reliable expertise and significant financial resources (twice of Habitat’s contribution) to the partnership.

How is the partnership being evaluated? The initial partnership agreement set out that the program should be evaluated after the first year of implementation. This took place from July 2006 to October 2006, with all program stakeholders involved: HFH Macedonia, Moznosti, HFH E/CA office, partner families/clients and construction advisers (at that time external). Based on that evaluation HFH Macedonia initi-ated scaling up of the program and, in February 2008, we signed a loan agreement worth Euro 5 million with another party, Dutch International Guarantees for Housing, to provide new finances for re-lending to those in need.

2008: Volume 15 Number 2 1�Habitat for Humanity and Strategic Partnerships

This article focuses briefly on strategic alliances and advocacy in the Latin America/Caribbean region. Following are examples of five HFH LA/C national

organizations that have aligned with organizations that are effec-tively making a difference in housing policy in their communities. Through dialogue with various organizations, building a con-sensus toward a social agreement with institutional and political commitments, raising a common agenda to tackle relevant issues (concerning national, community or vulnerable populations), and formulating common actions, they have been able to influence opinion and exert pressure in institutional political arenas.

Beyond changes in constitutions, new inclusive policies, pub-lic budgets, and so on, these alliances are enabling public spaces for dialogue which allows for the social construction of knowl-edge and emerging new conceptions of the role of city and gov-ernance to respond to social demands and make interventions. These alliances also allow for the creation of a collective force (civil society/network) that, positioned in a political scenario, claims the rights and political ethics to legitimately dialogue with the state and the political power as well as advocate for common issues and interests.

Advocating for housing as a human right in the new political constitution of BoliviaAlejandra Domínguez, advocacy coordinator, HFH Bolivia: adominguez@habitatbolivia.orgIn 1995, several civil society organizations (NGOs, CBOs, research institutes) and individuals formed an alliance called National Network of Human Settlements (RENASEH) with a common mandate to contribute to the consolidation of partici-patory democracy by developing inclusive public programs and policies. In 1999, HFH Bolivia became an ally in RENASEH to advocate that social housing become a key priority in the Bolivian government’s national agenda.

The cohesion within the alliance was possible due to the political ecumenism that guarantees the consensus for action. The constitutional reform process in 2006 opened an opportunity to advocate for housing as a human right. This process included analysis and proposals for constitutional reforms, marches and political negotiations with assemblies. The primary outcomes of this strategic alliance have been social awareness on causes of poverty, 7,500 signatures endorsing the proposal to the Constitu-tional Assembly, and the recognition of housing as a human right in the new Bolivian Political Constitution (2007) which must now be approved by voters in a national referendum.

Advocating for the “right to the city”1 to overcome social exclusion and urban segregation in BrazilAdemar Marques, national director, HFH Brazil: ade.marques@habitatbrasil.org.brDemóstenes Moraes, program coordinator, HFH Brazil: dmoraes@habitatbrasil.org.brIn the 1990s, various NGOs, grassroots movements and trade unions formed the National Movement for Urban Reform (MNRU) to produce an amendment to the new Constitution (1988) called the Urban Reform Grassroots Amendment which was endorsed by 150,000 signatures from all over the country. The fundamental principles of this reform were the “right to the city,” the promotion of the “social function” of the city, urban land reform, as well as democratic and participative management of the city. The MNRU became the National Forum for Urban Reform (FNRU) and, eventually, HFH Brazil joined the forum.

The FNRU understands that capacity building, advocacy work and networking among grassroots organizations and NGOs are key strategies to strengthen and empower the target popula-tion so that they can influence decision-makers and public poli-cies. FNRU’s work strongly aims at altering the power relations existing in Brazilian cities. As a result of the many struggles led by the FNRU, legal and regulatory mechanisms are quite advanced — housing is treated as a social right; a city statute was ap-proved; social control mechanisms have been created; the Ministry of Cities has been set up and there is a National Popular Housing Fund for poor families. Leaders from urban community-based organizations and NGOs have access to discuss urban policy and can directly influence the priority setting for policymaking through the FNRU.

Continued on page 14

Building strategic partnerships for advocacy in LA/Cby Maria Luisa Zanelli

1� 2008: Volume 15 Number 2 Habitat for Humanity and Strategic Partnerships

Advocating for housing subsidies in Ecuador and changes in the political constitutionOscar Veintimilla, national director, HFH Ecuador: direccionna-cional@hphecuador.orgIn 2005 HFH Ecuador and five other organizations initiated conversations to advocate for the reinstatement of the national housing subsidy program in response to its elimination from the national Ecuadorian public budget. An alliance was formed called the Social Contract for Housing (CSV). Currently the CSV has 20 allies, including grassroots organizations and movements, NGOs, universities and their research centers, private promoters of social housing, U.N. Habitat Ecuador, and professionals. To-gether, they have established these common goals: i) to advocate for housing as a human right; ii) to influence the Constitutional Assembly to add more specific enablers in housing to alter the profile of Ecuadorian cities; and iii) to promote an inclusive housing policy as one of the priorities in the political national agenda.

More than 80 activities have been developed by the CSV including public forums; workshops with academic, political and social actors; lobbying Congress and public authorities; street marches to pressure the ministries; and activities with the press. The main achievements of the CSV have been: i) to reinstate, increase and expand the housing subsidy as well as the creation of a land tenure subsidy; ii) to define a consensual proposal on hous-ing as a human right presented to the Constitutional Assembly; and iii) to build a platform for social participation, dialogue and consensus among civil society and the public sector for an inclu-sive, equitable and sustainable housing policy.

Advocating for housing policies for the indigenous population in Chile Luis Santivanez, national director, HFH Chile: luis@hphchile.clFor four years, HFH Chile has been working with Mapuche2 communities. In 2004, a strategic alliance was formed between HFH Chile and the Anglican Church to build houses within these communities. The Pehuenches Mapuches from the Alto del Bio–Bio region and, later, the Newen Ruka Committee — mostly Huilliches Mapuches in the Valparaiso region — joined the alli-ance.

Working through this alliance, HFH has been an advocate for housing rights and an inclusive perspective. The first output of the alliance was the construction of houses including cultural values. A second output was an agreement signed between HFH Chile and the Major of the Mapuche Community of the Saavedra Port in the Araucania Region. This agreement is the beginning of an advocacy campaign led by the Mapuche people and community

authorities, and supported by HFH Chile. While the campaign will raise awareness of the Mapuches’ housing problem, the goal is to deliver practical actions including: i) the design and con-struction of housing incorporating the ancestral wisdom of the Mapuche Ruka (housing); ii) involving the Rukafes Mapuche builders in the construction of community centers and houses; and iii) formulating and proposing a housing policy that includes indigenous people and their cultural values.

Advocacy, a question of institutional ethic Alberto Benitez, national director, HFH Honduras: hphalbesa@mail.habitat.hnIn response to the failure of the state and the commercial housing construction sector to respond to the needs of the poor popula-tion in Honduras, a conceptual and strategic change of current public housing programs has been pursued. This brought the initiation of the Network for Cooperative Housing (REDVISOL) by a diversity of social housing development organizations. HFH Honduras joined the network in 2005. REDVISOL works closely with the Honduras Council for Cooperative Housing (COHVI-SOL), which was formed by Honduras’ urban dwellers organiza-tions that lacked access to adequate housing. COHVISOL led the advocacy actions for the creation of the Citizens’ Housing and Cooperative Credit Public Program in Honduras (PROVICC-SOL). This program allows NGOs and cooperatives to channel public financial resources into the participative construction of social housing benefiting families with an income of less than three minimum salaries that are organized in cooperatives or some level of association.

The main achievement of REDVISOL has been to influence the definition of a new housing policy that involves the popula-tion in the solution of the problem. The organizations allied in REDVISOL share experiences and take advantage of each one’s strengths to participate in an advocacy process to influence public policies. The alliance is consolidating and formulating 20 housing projects to build 3,000 housing solutions. In addition, bylaws are being written and the procedures to legally recognize REDVISOL have been undertaken. REDVISOL is formulating a project ori-ented to guarantee the sustainable functioning of the network as a services body (entrepreneurial vision) for the construc-tion of social housing.

ConclusionsIn these five examples, the housing problem was made visible through the consolidated efforts of the various groups.

In the last decade, the LA/C region has seen the highest urbanization rate (80 percent of the population now live in cities), the highest level of decentralization, and the highest

Building strategic partnerships for advocacy in LA/C Continued from page 13

Continued on page 16

2008: Volume 15 Number 2 15Habitat for Humanity and Strategic Partnerships

While advocacy has always been a part of Habitat’s mission, we have only recently become more intentional about this process of changing systems, policies and attitudes to achieve decent housing for all (HFHI’s advocacy definition). Currently, HFHI is supporting several advocacy pilot projects in the United States in order to build advocacy capacity for other U.S. affiliates and sup-port organizations. The materials created by these initiatives and the lessons learned from the pilot projects will be made available for the benefit of all HFH organizations.

An old African proverb tells us that if you cross the river in a crowd, the crocodile won’t eat you. Three of these U.S. advocacy pilot projects have sought out key partners with whom they are “crossing the river.” Three of these partnerships are highlighted in this article.

Hawaii Habitat for Humanity Association Although the state of Hawaii is mainly known as a tourist desti-nation with beautiful beaches, a housing crisis exists there as well. The lack of affordable housing options for Hawaiians has strained the resources of the seven Habitat for Humanity affiliates within that state as well as the resources of other housing providers.

In recognition of this problem, the Hawaii Habitat for Hu-manity Association (a state support organization representing these seven affiliates) has launched an effort to establish a state housing trust fund. Housing trust funds are distinct accounts established by state or local governments that support affordable housing initiatives with a dedicated source of public funds. The proposal, put forth by Hawaii HFH, would create a “self-help” housing trust fund to benefit providers like Habitat and increase the number of affordable homes developed in Hawaii.

In order to create a strong case for this type of housing trust fund, Hawaii HFH knew it could not be the only group advo-cating for this solution. Hawaii HFH spearheaded the creation of a self-help housing coalition by reaching out to the six other self-help housing programs in Hawaii, many of whom had not collaborated previously. Through public awareness and lobbying efforts, the coalition has secured the introduction of a bill in the Hawaii State Senate that would establish a self-help housing trust fund.

U.S. Advocacy pilot projects and strategic partnershipsby Colleen Fitzgerald

Metro Louisville Habitat for HumanityMetro Louisville Habitat for Humanity, the affiliate in Louisville, Kentucky, began its effort to establish a local housing trust fund by building on a successful state housing trust fund advocacy campaign. In 2005 the “Open the Door Kentucky” campaign had succeeded in obtaining a dedicated source of revenue for the state housing trust fund; accordingly, the Louisville-located members of this campaign formed the “Open the Door Louisville” effort to create a local housing trust fund.

The efforts of Open the Door Louisville began to pay off on Thursday, February 28, 2008, when an ordinance was introduced in the Louisville City Council to establish a local housing trust fund. Open the Door is continuing to meet with council members to lobby for the passage of this legislation.

Habitat for Humanity St. Louis One of the most collaborative advocacy pilot projects is being led by the affiliate in St. Louis, Missouri. Several years ago, Habitat for Humanity St. Louis joined a key group called the FOCUS St. Louis Affordable Workforce Housing Coalition; other group members included bankers, university professors and com-munity developers. This task force met for nine months and closely examined the issue of affordable housing which led to the publication of a policy report “Affordable Housing for the Region’s Workforce.” One of the solutions identified in the report was inclusionary zoning which is a land-use policy in which local ordinances encourage or require private developers to include a certain percentage of affordable housing in new developments.

Based on this policy report, HFH St. Louis is now advocating for the adoption of inclusionary zoning ordinances in key munici-palities in the St. Louis area. However, HFH St. Louis is not alone in this work; in partnership with a subset of the FOCUS St. Louis Affordable Workforce Housing Coalition, it is working across public, private and nonprofit sectors to promote inclusionary zoning as one part of the solution to the affordable housing crisis in St. Louis. More information about their efforts can be found at www.workforcehousingstl.org.

Colleen Fitzgerald has worked for HFHI for more than two years. She began her career with Habitat as associate director of Congress Building America, a program that links members of Congress with Habitat affiliates in their home district. Before coming to Habitat, she worked on Capitol Hill for a U.S. senator. She attended Penn State University where she was involved in the campus chapter of Habitat. She may be contacted at CFitzgerald@habitat.org.

1� 2008: Volume 15 Number 2 Habitat for Humanity and Strategic Partnerships

The mandate for partnerships Continued from page 2

levels of social and economic inequality in the world. Cities have grown up in a disorderly, unplanned fashion, with enormous urban contrasts, social exclusion and urban poverty. The living conditions of the excluded population become more uncertain and precarious every day. The poor live in under-served, insa-lubrious areas, which are often environmentally at risk. Such settlements lack basic services and urban infrastructure (housing, sewage, sanitation, solid waste collection, transportation etc.). The price of urban land in relation to families’ incomes is the highest in the world (World Bank 2007). The failure of traditional public policies and the market exclude the most vulnerable — 38 percent of families headed by women see their rights limited due to regu-latory frameworks and discriminatory practices (Best Practices, U.N. 2003).

The success of some of these strategic alliances was fueled by key developments which created the appropriate scenario for change including: i) political processes at the national level such as the fall of the military dictatorship and the beginning of the democratic period in Brazil (1990s), and new governments in Ecuador (2006) and Bolivia (2006); ii) periods of constitutional reforms in Brazil (1985/1988), Bolivia (2007) and Ecuador (2007); and iii) key international events such as the Environment Confer-ence in Rio de Janeiro (1992), preparatory meetings for the U.N. Habitat Istanbul Conference in Bolivia (1995), and the Social Forum of the Americas in Ecuador (2004).

Matching interests among the different allies builds the base for the alliances, where the potential for consensus and action to place issues in the public agenda lies. Existing differences among allies enable dialogue, concept renewal, clarity in political posi-tion, interventions and messages, strengthening the collective actors and their commitments.

The strategic alliances presented have contributed to qualify-ing and enriching political processes and facilitating sustainable results including the democratization of public sector decisions in relation to housing, the increased capacity for social participa-tion, the development of communities as protagonists of change, the creation of channels for dialogue not only inside the alliance but also with external actors, the ability to raise awareness and develop responsibility and commitment of civil society in relation

to social problems, an increase of the influence of excluded groups such as women and indigenous populations in debates and deci-sion making, a strengthening of the accountability of state institu-tions to civil society groups, and, finally, open spaces for others to become involved.

The legitimacy of the alliances as a collective and influential actor has been based on these key components:

• the advocacy action targeted a specific issue such as subsidies, new constitutions, social inclusion;

• the alliance as a whole achieved social and political recognition which enhanced dialogue with the govern- ment and the public sector; and

• a diversity of tactics was employed including social mo- bilization, street marches, formulation of proposals, lob- bying and communication.

It is also important to recognize the role of NGOs and univer-sities in facilitating alliances by supplying the technical expertise to formulate norms and public policies as well as the generation of knowledge, methods and tools to feed the alliance and possible solutions to housing problems.

It is a challenge for alliances such as these to build a regular and systematic functioning. It is particularly difficult since an advocacy process with governmental agencies may require diverse strategies among allies.

Maria Luisa Zanelli is advocacy outreach coordinator with HFH LA/C. She may be contacted at MZanelli@habitat.org.

Building strategic partnerships for advocacy in LA/C Continued from page 14

1 Increasingly, academics and NGOs are considering fault for inadequate housing in LA/C countries to lie with a system of laws, regulations and enforcement institutions that effectively exclude the poor from middle- and upper-class society . Based on this premise, international housing origina-tions have begun to promote policies embracing “inclusion” of the poor into mainstream urban life, also called a “right to the city” by the poor . This trend supports citywide government intervention, rather than a focus on specific projects with the city . The movement to address housing problems in a way that establishes broader social, economic and political inclusion is strong and appears to be growing .2 Mapuche (from Mapudungun mapu “land, earth” and che “people”) are the indigenous inhabitants of Central and Southern Chile .

In the fall of 2004, he was a Fellow at the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University, where he conducted research and analysis positioning Habitat for Humanity in the context of affordable housing initiatives and, with Professor Jane Wei-Skillern4 of the Harvard Business School, researched the role of networks in multi-site nonprofits. He holds a bachelor’s degree in social work from Dordt College. He may be contacted at MKooistra@habitat.org.

1 Winer, M . and Ray, K . (1994) . The Collaboration Handbook: Creating, Sustain-

ing and Enjoying the Journey. (Amherst H . Wilder Foundation/Fieldstone

Alliance, p . 33) .

2 Strategic Alliances (www .hfhu .org) .

3 “U .K . Department for International Development” (www .dfid .gov .uk) .

4 Wei-Skillern, J . and Marciano, Sonia, (2008) . “The Networked Non Profit,”

Stanford Social Innovation Review . Spring 2008 .