Access to land and finance for community-led housing (No 2)

Resource context and authorship

Produced by the CoHabitat Network—an informal coalition of grassroots federations, umbrella organisations, NGOs and academic institutions working on community-led, non-speculative housing solutions—this publication is titled “Access to Land & Finance for Community-led Housing (No 2)” (May 2022). It is a CoHabitat initiative led by World Habitat (an independent charity behind the World Habitat Awards, in partnership with UN-Habitat) and urbaMonde (a non-profit founded in 2005 in Switzerland and in 2015 in France, promoting community-led housing locally and internationally). The report is coordinated by Nina Quintas and Pierre Arnold, and authored by Nina Quintas, Pierre Arnold and Léa Oswald (urbaMonde).

Why community-led housing and what the report covers

This is the second issue in a five-part series of short case studies on how community-led housing (CLH) initiatives access land (with tenure security) and inclusive finance. The report frames CLH as collective practices where residents plan, manage and sometimes construct or upgrade housing and shared spaces. It cites an estimate from UN-Habitat that around 40% of the world’s population will need access to decent housing by 2030, and argues that CLH can increase residents’ leverage when conventional finance excludes many low-income households. The publication also notes that CLH is diverse and not automatically low-carbon, but that participatory processes can support innovations in affordability, social inclusion, eco-design and energy efficiency.

Case study: Harare, Zimbabwe (Dzivarasekwa Extension)

In Harare, a 2010 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Harare, Dialogue on Shelter for the Homeless Trust (DSHT), and the Zimbabwe Homeless People’s Federation (ZHPF) enabled slum mapping and upgrading. Construction started in 2011 with 480 families as the primary beneficiary group. A revolving municipal-community facility—the Harare Slum Upgrading Finance Facility (HSUFF)—was established in 2014 with an initial USD 200,000 (USD 120,000 City of Harare; USD 50,000 DSHT; USD 30,000 community savings). Loans are issued via solidarity groups (around five people). The report describes 355 loans through 110 groups, benefiting 550 households; average house cost is about USD 2,400 for a 24 m² basic unit. Outcomes include secure tenure processes, infrastructure (water, sewer, roads), and skills development; the model was replicated in Bulawayo and Masvingo, while currency volatility remains a challenge.

Case study: Montevideo, Uruguay (COVICOFU mutual-aid cooperative)

COVICOFU is a 14-family mutual-aid housing cooperative formed after eviction threats in 2002, supported by FUCVAM (a national federation with around 600 cooperatives and approximately 100,000 residents). Under Uruguayan policy frameworks, the project relied on state loans and subsidies and the cooperative principle of self-construction as equity. Once a state loan was released in 2016, the cooperative purchased its land (from a municipal “land portfolio”), began construction in October 2016, and finished in 2019. The report highlights the long timelines (about 14 years from mobilisation to delivery) and the role of advocacy and technical assistance institutes in enabling delivery at higher quality than comparable “turnkey” programmes.

Case study: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (Grupo/Cooperativa Esperança)

In Rio, a 70-family group mobilised from 2000 with technical support from the Bento Rubião Human Rights Foundation and UNIÃO-RJ. Homes were built through mutual-aid “mutirões,” with each family contributing 17 hours per week and collective procurement of materials; women made up around 70% of participants. The project accessed public land (use concession registered in 2011) and financing via the Minha Casa, Minha Vida – Entidades programme, with first funding transfers in 2012; repayment terms are tied to income (monthly payments capped at 10% of household income over 10 years). The report also documents exploration of a Community Land Trust model (Termo Territorial Coletivo) to preserve long-term affordability.

European cooperative pathways: Zurich and Berlin

Two European examples focus on cooperative finance and land instruments in high-cost cities. In Zurich, “mehr als wohnen” developed a cooperative neighbourhood (370 units, about 1,300 residents and around 150 jobs on site) on city land through a long-term lease (nearly 100 years) under a policy target of one-third non-profit housing by 2050. The project cost is reported as CHF 195 million, financed through diversified public and cooperative instruments (including bond loans and low-interest loans), and includes an internal solidarity fund. In Berlin, the Spreefeld cooperative created a mixed-use development (60 flats, about 140 residents, plus commercial space) financed through cooperative contributions and bank loans, while facing pressures from gentrification and debates over collective versus private ownership.

Overall lessons highlighted

Across contexts, the publication emphasises that secure land tenure and inclusive finance are intertwined, and that supportive public policy (land allocation, guarantees, favourable loans, subsidies, technical assistance) can be decisive. It presents CLH as a practical pathway to affordability and social inclusion, while documenting the institutional arrangements and financial mechanisms that make projects bankable without relying on speculative value capture.