Ismailia sites-and-services and upgrading projects — A preliminary evaluation

Abstract

The Hai el Salam Project in Ismailia is the first upgrading and sites-and-services project to be implemented in Egypt. Its acceptance marked a significant shift in the approach to housing in Egypt. Although not enshrined wholly within the Government’s present Housing Plan, the Government has set aside funds for sitesand-services type projects and other similar schemes are now being implemented in Alexandria, Cairo, Asyut, Port Said and Suez. The approach being tried in Ismailia was first suggested in the UNDP-funded Ismailia Master Plan in 1976.’ Later, with funds from the UK Ministry of Overseas Development and the Ministry of Housing, Egypt, detailed plans were developed for two demonstration projects: El Hekr (now renamed Hai el Salam) and Abu Atwa. Hai el Salam is an area to the north of the formally-planned city where it had for a long time been possible for people to build their own houses on condition they paid a small annual charge (el Izekr) to the city. This payment gave no security but legalised their squatting. In 1967, the ‘Six Day War’ concluded with the Suez Canal forming the front line. Consequently the civilian population of Ismailia, along with those of Port Said and Suez were evacuated. Following the 1973 War, the residents were allowed back to Ismailia. Many returned and found a city damaged by six years of retaliatory shelling and bombing as well as by neglect. Some of the more fortunate, mainly Government workers, were given new flats constructed with the financial assistance of the Gulf States. Others, especially those from Sinai who, as refugees, took the opportunity to move closer to their estranged homes, squatted on the vacant land around Hai el Salam. With the rapid re-occupation and expansion of the city, it was clear that the Government’s traditional approach to housing namely, that of the Governorate and other public agencies providing subsidised rented accommodation was insufficient to meet the growing and varying needs of the population. The problem was exacerbated by the fact that many of those in the lowest income groups, especially those employed on a casual basis or selfemployed, were ineligible for this type of housing. The only available housing was provided either by the private rented sector or by squatting. The Master Plan concluded from studies that “from the point of view of national economic resources and consumer satisfaction, there are serious reservations to a policy of direct government provision of housing . . . and that the alternative of provision through the existing housing systems must be investigated.” The Master Plan, therefore, proposed that government intervention should be concentrated in subdividing land, providing basic infrastructure, assistance with