“Housing for All by 2022” Mission – National Mission

for Urban Housing

The Union Cabinet chaired by the Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, today gave its approval for
launch of “Housing for All by 2022” aimed for urban areas with following components/options to
States/Union Territories and cities:- a) Slum rehabilitation of Slum Dwellers with participation of private
developers using land as a resource; b) Promotion of affordable housing for weaker section through credit
linked subsidy; c) Affordable housing in partnership with Public & Private sectors and
d) Subsidy for beneficiary-led individual house construction or enhancement. Central grant of Rs. one
lakh per house, on an average, will be available under the slum rehabilitation programme. A State
Government would have flexibility in deploying this slum rehabilitation grant to any slum rehabilitation
project taken for development using land as a resource for providing houses to slum dwellers.
Under the Credit Linked Interest Subsidy

housing loans availed upto a tenure of 15 years will

be provided to EWS/LIG categories, wherein the
subsidy pay-out on NPV basis would be about Rs.2.3
lakh per house for both the categories. Central
assistance at the rate of Rs.1.5 lakh per house for
EWS category will be provided under the Affordable
Housing in Partnership and Bene􀃖ciary-led
individual house construction or enhancement. State
Government or their para statals like Housing
Boards can take up project of affordable housing to
avail the Central Government grant.
The scheme will be implemented as a Centrally
Sponsored Scheme except the credit linked subsidy
component, which will be implemented as a Central
Sector Scheme. The Mission also prescribes certain
mandatory reforms for easing up the urban land
market for housing, to make adequate urban land
available for affordable housing. Houses constructed
under the mission would be allotted in the name of
the female head of the households or in the joint
name of the male head of the household and his wife.
The scheme will cover the entire urban area
consisting of 4041 statutory towns with initial focus
on 500 Class I cities and it will be implemented in
three phases as follows, viz. Phase-I (April 2015 –
March 2017) to cover 100 Cities to be selected from
States/UTs as per their willingness; Phase – II (April
2017 – March 2019) to cover additional 200 Cities
and Phase-III (April 2019 – March 2022) to cover all
other remaining Cities. However, there will be fexibility in covering number of cities in various
phases and inclusion of additional cities may be
considered by the Ministry of Housing & Urban
Poverty Alleviation in case there is demand from
States and cities and have capacity to include them
in earlier phases. Credit linked subsidy component
of the scheme would be implemented across the
country in all statutory towns from the very
beginning.
Dimension of the task at present is estimated at 2
crore. Exact number of houses, though, would
depend on demand survey for which all States/Cities

assessing actual demand by integrating Aadhar

number, Jan Dhan Yojana account numbers or any
such identification of intended beneficiaries.
A Technology Sub-mission under the Mission would
be set up to facilitate adoption of modern,
innovative and green technologies and building
material for faster and quality construction of
houses. The Technology Sub-Mission will also
facilitate preparation and adoption of layout designs
and building plans suitable for various geo climatic
zones. It will also assist States/Cities in deploying
disaster resistant and environment friendly
technologies.
The Technology Sub-Mission will coordinate with
various regulatory and administrative bodies for
mainstreaming and up scaling deployment of
modern construction technologies and material in
place of conventional construction. The Technology
Sub-Mission will also coordinate with other agencies
working in green and energy ef􀃖cient technologies,
climate change etc.
The Technology Sub-Mission will also work on the
following aspects: i) Design & Planning ii) Innovative
technologies & materials iii) Green buildings using
natural resources and iv) Earthquake and other
disaster resistant technologies and designs.
In the spirit of cooperative federalism, the Mission
will provide 􀃗exibility to States for choosing best
options amongst four verticals of the Mission to
meet the demand of housing in their states. The
process of project formulation and approval in
accordance with Mission Guidelines would be left to
the States, so that projects can be formulated,
approved and implemented faster. The Mission will
provide technical and 􀃖nancial support in
accordance to the Guidelines to the States to meet
the challenge of urban housing.
The Mission will also compile best practices in terms
of affordable housing policies of the States/UTs

3. PROPOSED INITIATIVES FOR THE 12TH FIVE YEAR PLAN

3.1 A review of the existence and growth of urban poverty, and an analysis of the existing and past
interventions has demonstrated that the share of urban to total population in India will accelerate in
the coming decades. This is likely to be accompanied by an increase in both the numbers of the urban
poor and population living in slum settlement, and population living in slum settlements, unless
concerted and concrete steps are taken to address them directly. So far, interventions by the GoI
under the plans have been fragmented with a focus on infrastructure and environmental
improvement. Where livelihoods have been tackled, this has been done in a silo, separate from issues
of environmental improvement. These had meager financial allocations, with the exception of the
JNNURM which represents the first big budget, mission-mode programme attempting to bring
together slum upgradation and basic services provision. Moreover, the evolution of urban poverty
alleviation programmes until the launch of the JNNURM appears more like a re-packaging of the
content and design of earlier programmes.
3.2 The current context presents a unique opportunity to take stock and recommend much needed
change and bold action to tackle the multiple dimensions of urban poverty as manifested in
vulnerabilities. Urbanisation is inevitable and the growing urban population would continue to pose
challenges for the cities. Appropriate urban management responses can turn these challenges into
prospects for true inclusive economic growth. In the absence of a dynamic urban policy and city
management measures, urban population would continue to mean growing urban poor and slum
settlements. The working group has therefore, formulated a set of principles that any programme,
scheme, or policy in the upcoming plan period must follow. These are detailed below:
3.3 Security of tenure: Security of tenure holds the key to building of assets and utilization of assets
for productive purposes. Insecure tenure forces the urban poor to live without access to network
services and financial markets. Since the announcement of RAY, focus has shifted away from tenure
security and moved towards full-fledged property rights. The Working Group, however, considers
that a graded approach to tenure security with property rights as the penultimate outcome in the
longer term should be the principle for RAY. Assignment of full property rights is a lengthy
processes. Strategies for security of
30
tenure should enable the slum dweller to access his/her dwelling unit as a financial asset that can
guarantee a loan for incremental home improvements.
3.4 Slum-upgradation as the solution of choice: In-situ slum-upgradation is a pre-requiste to
effectively addressing urban poverty in India. For the Group, slum improvement and upgrading is
growth-enhancing and if well designed, could become a key driver of economic growth in the
country.
3.5 Universalization of water and sanitation to all urban areas: It involves the universal coverage
of all urban population with a minimum level of safe drinking and water, a clean toilet, sewerage,
storm water drainage, and solid waste management. The provisioning of basic water and sanitation
should be de-linked from issues of land tenure and legal status. These services should be provided on
the clear understanding that this provision does not translate into legal entitlements of any kind.
Further, any decision as to whether the slums are to be legalized or not should be made irrespective
of the provision of basic services. All city policies and plans should reflect universalization of water
and sanitation services.
3.6 Non-eviction strategy: a no eviction policy should be put in place in combination with a land
policy aiming at the provision of developed lands for the urban poor. A non-eviction policy,
unaccompanied by a proper land policy, will result in further proliferation of slums. Land assembly,
town planning and the building bye-laws regime needs to be revisited to deregulate land markets and
to make timely availability of affordable land. This principles has been advocation by Deepak
Parekh’s Task Force on Affordable Housing for All. This strategy should be implemented with the
caveat that evictions for the purpose of the common social good may occur, but thee should be
commensurate provisions for resettlement and rehabilitation of project-affected persons. The strategy
should cover central government and private lands.
3.7 Effective and institutionalized community engagement: The involvement of the urban poor
community, in schemes affecting their lives, should be the cornerstone of any programme design. It
should include involvement of the community in planning through the institutionalization of
community planners, execution, and analysis/feedback of various schemes. To this end, the creation
and recognition of CBOs in slums, federated at a higher
31
level into an association/federation, eventually working to the administrative level of the ULBs with
clear-cut, institutionalized frameworks mandating dialogue between ULB level functionaries and the
community should be mandated. It should become the cornerstone of the delivery mechanism for
urban poverty alleviation programmes. The involvement of NGOs in programmes and schemes may
be encouraged wherever appropriate to the aims of the scheme. The Working Group would like to
draw attention to paragraph 4.5.17 and 4.5.18 of the HPEC report in this respect.
3.8 Financial inclusion of the urban poor: Unless a deep commitment to facilitating financial
inclusion for the urban poor and informal settlements is undertaken, no strategy can bring in
sustainable and improvements to their livelihoods and habitat. Any strategy, programme and/or
scheme for urban poverty alleviation, must include a component of financial inclusion. At the level
of affordable housing, this includes measures to increase the access of the urban poor to credit for
fresh and incremental housing, including, but not limited to the promotion of housing (micro-)
finance institutions for the urban sector and credit guarantee measures. For livelihoods, it means
access of the urban poor to banking and financial services for micro-enterprise establishment and
sustainability, focusing on community-based finances and loans through SHGs and TCS’. For social
security, it includes the development of specific products for the urban poor including pensions and
insurance as well as financial incentives for the achievement of development goals such as health and
education. The Government of India must also take up the issue of financial inclusion of the urban
poor with national level actors such as the RBI and the Insurance Regulatory and Development
Authority of India. Many schemes and innovations are already in place with a primary focus on rural
financial inclusion; these could be extended to the urban areas. These schemes need to be promoted
and prioritized for urban areas. Wherever possible, the involvement of private players in finance,
banking and insurance should be encouraged. Funds should also be earmarked for innovation in
urban poverty alleviation across the 3 sub-missions proposed later in this report, and innovative
mechanisms for releasing these funds should be promoted.
3.9 Planning for urban poverty alleviation: Currently urban planning bodies function separate
from bodies planning for urban poverty alleviation. Issues such as land-use, which have a direct
impact on the availability of land for affordable housing for the urban poor, gets decided and planned
for independent of the considerations of the poor. City-level urban
32
poverty alleviation instruments such as city-development plans, city health plans, slum-free city (and
state) plans of action, urban poverty reduction strategies and other such documents must feed into
and collaborate with formal urban planning instruments. In addition to this, special attention must be
paid to poverty and slums in peri-urban areas and the related planning instruments applicable to these
areas. The involvement of the community planners in the urban planning process should be
emphasised. The Government of India should take the necessary corrective action to ensure that
urban planning includes the poor.
3.10 Promotion of livelihoods and skill development of the urban poor: Livelihoods and skill
development of those occupationally vulnerable should be accorded priority under the 12 th plan. This
implies focus on three key areas. First is the continued focus on micro-enterprise and skill
development of the urban poor. Schemes developed should be demand-driven with a focus on what
the urban poor themselves would like training on. Second is the pro-active and mandatory
creation/allocation of spaces within city-boundaries for the lives and work of the urban poor. Special
care should be taken to ensure that these spaces so identified, do not relegate the urban poor
livelihoods to city peripheries or spaces unrelated to natural markets. Finally, appropriate corrective
legislative action should be undertaken to ensure that in the interests of ensuring public safety and
preventing public nuisance, the rights of the urban poor to a productive livelihood are guaranteed.
Special attention should be paid to legal instruments that delegate urban informal sector livelihoods,
especially street vending to the illegal sphere and corrective action taken accordingly.
3.11 Provision of a social safety net to the chronically poor: This includes social assistance in the
form of pensions, insurance and cash and in-kind transfers to target the most vulnerable and destitute
among the urban poor. Universal food security, universal education and universal health care are
already under consideration of the Government of India. However, it is important that programmes
targeting the urban poor converge with the aims of overall social security for the urban poor.
3.12 Capacity Building: As the M/o HUPA is the nodal ministry for issues of urban poverty, this
pivotal role requires improved staffing, deeper intellectual/technical capacity, financial buttressing
and deeper clout to change how cities and states can develop these skills and better monitor the
implementation of schemes. Reinforcing human resource capabilities in the cities and states is also an
important pre-requisite for the success of schemes at the
33
grass-root level. This implies ensuring a steady supply of qualified personnel and regular
training/refresher courses of new and existing personnel, wherein, a sensitization to the needs of the
urban poor is a must moving from viewing slums and poverty as a ‘problem’.
3.13 Monitoring of schemes against outputs: The governmental system monitors scheme
performance based on fund utilization and physical targeting of beneficiaries. This does not indicate
the success of the scheme in terms of its impact on urban poverty. For example, under SJSRY, the
number of beneficiaries targeted vs. the number of beneficiaries actually trained is measured.
Questions of whether targeting exercises actually identified those BPL, or whether beneficiaries
trained were able to find and retain jobs / establish and maintain micro-enterprises remain
unanswered. It is therefore necessary to work towards monitoring of outputs and plugging in the
feedback from such exercises into a dynamic revision of the schemes wherever necessary. Wherever
possible, measurement of outputs against benchmarks should be encouraged.
3.14 The targeting of vulnerabilities of urban poor will require the generation, analysis and
management of data beginning with the national household socio-economic and caste Census,
currently underway to the sub-mission level targeting, issue-based surveys and scheme monitoring
data collected. It is necessary that the centre, state and ULBs have in place the necessary technical
expertise and infrastructure to manage this quantum of data and in the spirit of proactive
dissemination of that information in the public sphere.
3.15 Convergence of approaches: Finally, and most important, is the need for a convergence of
approaches, programmes and schemes at all levels of government, as opposed to the hitherto
approach of different line ministries and departments working in silos. There is a need for a bold
move to work from the identified problem (vulnerabilities) to the solution (unified mission for urban
poverty alleviation). The ring-fencing/earmarking of funds in the plan document for the urban poor
under the budgets of other ministries or departments with schemes applicable to urban areas should
be undertaken; these include the departments dealing with issues of labour, health, education, social
security, women and child development and water and sanitation. At the state and ULB-levels as
well, earmarking of funds under these heads for the urban poor should take place with close
monitoring of the utilization of these funds.
34
Targeting vulnerabilities for urban poverty alleviation: National Urban Poverty Alleviation
Mission (NUPAM)
3.16 Based on the principles outlined above, the Working Group recommends an overarching
mission called “National Urban Poverty Alleviation Mission” or NUPAM at the centre consisting of
three sub-missions on housing and basic services i.e. Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY), livelihoods i.e. the
National Urban Livelihoods Programme (NULP), and social assistance i.e. the National Urban Social
Assistance Programme (NUSAP). A diagrammatic representation of NUPAM and its three sub-
missions is given below.
Graph 7: National Urban Poverty Alleviation Mission (NUPAM): targeting vulnerabilities for
urban poverty alleviation

3.17 The most vulnerable population, represented by the confluence of all three vulnerabilities will
require a judicious combination of all three sub-missions. The next target population under NUPAM
will be the moderately vulnerable population with a combination of at least two vulnerabilities, and
the final target are those persons affected by only one vulnerability. This approach aims to provide
assistance on the basis of vulnerability and
35
need, implying that depending on the level of vulnerability, an urban poor individual/household
could be covered under multiple sub-missions at a given point in time.
3.18 Targeting of beneficiaries under NUPAM should be contingent on the identification of urban
population that can be categorized under the three aforementioned vulnerabilities. The ongoing
exercise of the socio-economic and caste Census could be used for this purpose. It is recommended
that community-based verification of this list at the local level takes place to promote community
involvement and transparency.
Sub-mission I: Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) for affordable housing & basic services: Residential
Vulnerability
3.19 RAY should tackle residential vulnerability including the provision of affordable housing and
basic services to the urban poor. The Government of India has invested the last two years in planning
the scheme of RAY. The CCEA has approved Phase I of RAY as recently as June 2011 and the M/o
HUPA had a formal launch in July 2011. Phase I is essentially a pilot phase where the principles
outlined in the RAY scheme will be tested on the ground. It is hoped that the learnings from these
two years of pilot implementation will feed into the eventual design of the scheme. In keeping with
the principles of a holistic convergent approach, the Working Group proposes the dovetailing of the
RAY scheme as a sub-mission of NUPAM at the central level in the 12 th Five Year Plan.
3.20 Specific recommendations of the Working Group for the existing scheme include:
RAY is a long-term engagement and its design should take this fact consideration. RAY
should remain an integral component of JNNURM.

The Primary focus of RAY is “in-situ slum improvement and upgradation”, it is a solution of
choice, which entails security of tenure, universalization of basic services, accreditation of
community organizations, and access to institutional finance.

Specific provision should be made to tackle issues of housing and basic services provision in
small and medium towns. Most cities covered under RAY are of a

36
population of three lakhs and above as per the 2001 Census. Either provision for such towns be made
within the auspices of RAY itself, or a separate scheme along the lines of what IHSDP be evolved to
include small and medium towns. City development plans, master plans and service delivery plans,
particularly small and medium towns, should adopt an inclusive approach for facilitating affordable
land, housing and service delivery to the urban poor.

The consensus in the working group was that existing bye-laws are anti-poor as they assume
that cities are formal spatial units. Building bye-laws need to recognize ‘informality’, such that they
lay down standards for informal settlements as well. Any revision of these bye-laws should consider
how incremental housing can be successfully incorporated into such bye-laws

Implementation of RAY would call for major amendments to town-planning laws and zoning
regulations to facilitate in-situ regularization and upgradation.

Fundamental reforms across states and cities are needed for the process of approvals and
clearances with a sensitivity to the different requirements of slum-related housing projects. There is a
need to rationalize the process of approvals for such housing projects, by drawing parallels with
industrial licensing systems by establishing a single window approach and simplifying the
documentation requirement i.e. an integrated approach needs to be adopted for all the components of
housing, health, education and commercial space. Planning standards/norms applicable for general
housing real estate projects may be reviewed, and modified norms evolved by rationalizing
stipulations relating to parking and other facilities in respect of affordable housing projects meant for
slum dwellers.

There is a need to revise master planning practices, which do not recognize the development
of informal spaces, let alone provide for them. The Working Group felt strongly that master plans are
adverse to the interest of the urban poor. It was further felt that master plans should remain a public
responsibility; outsourcing its preparation could be counter productive. The central government
should lead this and drive its implementation in the states

37
 RAY should learn from ‘informal settlements’, particularly the manner in which the urban
poor invest in shelter upgradation incrementally, and incremental housing should form a significant
component of the strategy under RAY. Incremental housing solutions are cost-effective when
compared to provision of subsidized public housing. It also enhances community engagement and
ownership of the project. Finally, this approach consolidates individual households’ housing efforts,
existing housing investments and social capital in slums, promotes local livelihood options and usage
of local building materials as well as the close supervision of the community leading to better quality
of construction. Under RAY, for the promotion of incremental housing, the GoI must lay down
minimum standards for housing and infrastructure as well as the environmental and social
infrastructure. Community structures must be strengthened for land pooling for network services and
social facilities, planning and O&M of services.

Involvement of all stakeholders in the process of delivering housing for the urban poor is
important. The family/household being the ultimate beneficiary, their participation in the entire
process of affordable housing delivery is a pre-requisite for successful implementation of such
programmes. This has to be supported by technical support and counseling services to community
groups (building on the concept of `community architects/barefoot engineers’ which has been very
successful around the world), while being complemented by the technical cell in the local bodies /
public agencies The contributions that can be made by NGOs and CBOs is immense and needs to be
institutionalized. Some measures suggested are the empanelment and listing of CBOs/NGOs based
on their institutional strengths and interests, and creation of a forum for NGOs for establishing a
formal dialogue process to facilitate implementation across different parts of the city.

The Working Group appreciated the initiative of M/o HUPA in issuing guidelines for
community mobilization, participation, encouraging social audits, and concurrent evaluations. It was
felt that it needs to be strengthened considerably and CBOs should be accredited in order to enable
them to play a meaningful role in initiatives such as RAY.

38
69 Forexample, the homeless population of hawkers and/or rickshaw pullers who sleep on their carts/rickshaws to
protect them from theft and seizure.
Concerted effort must be made to involve housing [micro-]finance institutions (HMFIs) in
this effort to fund housing projects on a PPP basis. There is a need to develop new products suited to
this business line since urban communities are heterogeneous when compared to rural areas. Further
housing loans would have to be larger with a longer amortization period. This is a major thrust area
to ensure that the urban poor are not left without access to credit for housing solutions. The
Government of India should explore this with institutions such as the National Housing Bank (NHB)
which already has the responsibility of providing Housing Finance Companies (HFC) with the
licenses for setting up of HMFIs after a thorough due diligence on the promoters and any of their
prior micro-finance/finance operations. There is a need for creation of Shahari Awas Kosh, on the
same lines as Rashtriya Mahila Kosh, which will provide low interest, long-term (3 to 5 years) loans
to poor households for improvement/ construction of houses.

RAY should also make provision for affordable housing for the urban poor in peri-urban
areas. The provision of affordable housing in peri-urban areas must be accompanied by the provision
of basic services (as set out in the principles above) as well as functional transport linkages into the
city
 In addition to incremental and fresh housing stock, the Working Group acknowledged the
focus of RAY on the provision of rental/social housing stock for the migrant population as a key
arsenal in its long-term preventive strategy. It was felt that social rental housing needs to form a vital
component of every city’s housing strategy for the urban poor and must include individual rental
units, shared rental units as well as the provision of dormitory and night shelter options, wherever
possible taking into consideration the livelihood needs of the homeless 69. The delivery mechanism
and maintenance arrangement would need to be designed in view of the poor track record of public
housing agencies in assets management

Clear urban land acquisition strategies need to be evolved with due consideration to city size
and slum and urban poverty figures. This implies four inter-related strategies. First, in cities where
land is more likely to be available, land banks should be

39
70 Presently, the average monthly income norm to be categorized as EWS is up to Rs.5000 and for LIG category it is
from Rs 5001 to Rs 10000. Accordingly, the unit cost of EWS and LIG houses can be up to Rs 2 lakh and Rs 4.25
lakh respectively. In line with the affordability norms, the loan amount that could be availed, as per HUDCO norms
is up to Rs 1.5 lakh for EWS and Rs 3 lakh for LIG category. Presently, the subsidy is extended for both EWS and
LIG category for an amount of Rs 1 lakh, and any additional loans if needed would be at normal rates. Currently, the
ISHUP scheme is limited to the beneficiaries who approach the banks or the other identified Primary Lending
Institutions (PLIs). In the context of the weaker sections, it has been seen that the willingness of the banks is limited
to mobilizing a large number of beneficiaries
developed so that the state/city can use them for infrastructure development and/or social rental
housing development as the size of the cities increases over the long term. Second, the urban poor
need to be seen also in terms of occupational segments, e.g. bidi workers, on the basis of the
predominant livelihood of the area. Land acquisition and development strategies should consider the
space needs of various occupational segments identified. Third, in all such efforts, the allocation of
land for housing for those living on un-tenable land must be prioritized without which approvals of
projects for land development should not be given. Finally, in an acknowledgement that not all those
living in slums are poor being a reflection of poor land management in urban areas, higher FAR for
low and middle-income housing development should be promoted to encourage those living above
the poverty line in slums to move into the formal housing market.

With a view to strengthening the PPP approach under RAY to increase the supply of
affordable housing, the following measures are recommended:

Revamping ISHUP: Fine-tuning of the on-going ISHUP Programme for increased coverage
is called for70. First, in order to restrain these low income beneficiaries from availing additional funds
from other sources, which may ultimately weaken the purpose of the ISHUP scheme, it has been felt
that for the additional loan requirement of these beneficiaries, a slab/graded subsidy system with 4%
subsidy for loans between Rs 1 lakh and Rs 2 lakh, and 3% subsidy for loans beyond Rs 2 lakh and
up to Rs 3 lakh could be adopted. Second, it could be possible for the public Institutions of the State
Governments such as Housing Boards, Development Authorities, Improvement Trusts, etc., to
mobilise a larger beneficiary group. Accordingly, it may be worthwhile to consider incorporating
these Institutions as well, as PLIs, to the extent they perform/agree with all the stipulations as
applicable to PLIs;

40
 Strengthening HUDCO: In the context of the need to increase manifold HUDCO’s lending
for weaker sections at concessional terms, and also maintaining its sustainability so as to retain its
credibility for borrowing from the market and also to earn a reasonable level of profits to ensure
payment of dividends as required by the government, GoI may consider an Interest Subsidy to
HUDCO for increased lending to social housing.

Revitalizing and reorienting the role of public sector institutions like housing boards
and development authorities to focus on housing the urban poor: There is a vacuum at the
institutional level in the provision of affordable housing because Housing Boards and Development
Authorities, agencies traditionally involved in the provision of EWS/LIG Housing have been on the
decline. Efforts should be made to revive the role of these agencies and also encourage them to have
multiple partnerships with the private sector towards construction of affordable housing. To this end,
the following actions are proposed:

State Housing Boards (SHBs) should focus primarily on social housing

State governments to evolve a state-level housing action plan clearly delineating the specific
roles of SHBs
State governments should provide a larger quantum of guarantee to social housing
programmes to enable SHBs to access a larger quantum of loan assistance from HFIs.
A strong community-based, people-friendly and transparent recovery mechanism should be
put in place and enforced in letter and spirit
SHBs should work with state governments to acquire land at appropriate locations, creating
land banks that could be used for the creation of affordable housing stock.
SHB activities must be broad based so that cross-subsidization opportunities may be availed
by them
In addition to ‘facilitating’ the provision of affordable housing, SHBs should also be
responsible for ‘providing’ social housing
SHBs should be provided with extensive capacity building support for technical, financial
and legal aspects of affordable housing delivery

41
Lending terms should be extremely competitive and affordable to the target groups.