Reconstruction of housing after wars: experience of which countries is important for Ukraine

After a civil conflict or war, housing reconstruction becomes one of the most important tasks for rebuilding a country. Ukraine, which is facing a deep crisis due to the full-scale invasion, is also developing effective plans to restore its housing stock.

According to the latest CEE data, as of the end of May 2023, the war damage to the housing sector amounted to $54 billion and continues to grow every day.

There are many global examples of housing recovery after wars that can serve as useful lessons for Ukraine.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

After the end of the Bosnian war, the authorities faced a major challenge: how to provide housing for displaced persons and refugees. A domestic shortage of residential buildings made this task much more difficult. To solve the problem, restitution (restoration of violated property rights) and alternative housing options for IDPs were introduced.

The Dayton Peace Agreement enshrined the right of displaced persons to return not only to their country but also to their pre-war homes. However, at the time of signing the agreement, about 200,000 houses were already occupied by other citizens.

Many people had to live in collective centres or in houses owned by other people. This situation created significant confusion with the owners of residential properties, which needed to be resolved.

What was the policy on housing restoration?

For internally displaced persons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, there were several long-term solutions: returning to their homeland, resettling in the country where they were at the time, or moving to another area of their own country. The main focus was on returning people to their previous places of residence – most IDPs wanted to return to their pre-war homes.

After the establishment of peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina, about 1 million people were granted IDP status. The Commission for Real Estate Claims of Displaced Persons and Refugees was established to settle property disputes. However, the process of reconstruction and construction of new housing has not always been easy due to the large number of damaged properties and the insufficient housing stock.

For those who could not return to their homes, there was a programme to provide alternative housing. However, these schemes did not include security of tenure, so they were temporary and could cause problems in the future.

Those who did not want to return to pre-war housing could sell or exchange their property and receive some compensation.

All these factors complicated the process of recovery and resettlement of IDPs in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

There were several programmes that provided loans for housing needs. In 1998, USAID and the European Union established the European Fund for Bosnia and Herzegovina to help finance post-war housing reconstruction. The Vig lent a total of €57 million to local banks and microcredit institutions, which then made loans to local residents.

The European Bank for Reconstruction and Development also continues to provide funds for social projects, including housing. At the end of 2021, the EBRD provided a €60 million credit line to a bank in Bosnia and Herzegovina to provide mortgage loans.

In 2013, the Council of Europe Development Bank approved a €60 million loan to provide new or renovated housing for at least 7,200 people who had previously lived in collective centres and other temporary accommodation.

Was the reconstruction of high quality?

In 1996-1997, there were many organisations and companies in Bosnia and Herzegovina seeking donor funding to rebuild the country after the war. As a result, contracts were signed with foreign organisations that were not involved in housing construction and local companies with no experience in construction.

Donors focused on the construction rather than the needs of the owners, and programmes were directed at engineering aspects rather than social or economic aspects. It was assumed that rebuilding houses would automatically ensure the return of people, but this was not always the case.

Some 330,000 houses were reconstructed during the reconstruction, but many of them remained empty. Large sums of money provided by donors were not spent effectively. By 2004, only 43 per cent of the newly built houses had been returned to the citizens.

Another important problem in the housing sector is illegal construction. It has become widespread not only in Bosnia and Herzegovina but throughout the region due to chaotic reconstruction and pressure to build up urban areas. Illegal settlements were built on the outskirts of cities, and later the problems were solved by legalising these developments.

Useful for Ukraine

After the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the main way to solve the housing problem was to return property to its owners. But this approach had its problems:

• Corruption and delays: there were frequent cases of local corruption and delays in the processing of housing repossession cases.
• Conflicts between old owners and new occupants: Sometimes old owners had conflicts with those who had illegally occupied their houses, which complicated the process of housing return.
• Threat of persecution: ethnic minorities returning to their homes faced the threat of persecution.

Housing construction and mass resettlement programmes received less attention. Compensation mechanisms for housing damages did not work properly. Returning to their homes created new challenges for their previous residents, who had to get used to new living conditions. People’s interests were not taken into account in the reconstruction and resettlement process, which jeopardised the country’s recovery.

Therefore, to successfully rebuild Ukraine, it is necessary to pay attention not only to the physical infrastructure, but also to create social infrastructure, provide jobs and educational opportunities. It is also necessary to avoid long-term residence of people in temporary resettlement centres, as this can negatively affect the quality of life.

United Kingdom

After the Second World War, many countries, including the UK, faced a housing shortage. Several factors influenced housing policy:

• The post-war crisis;
• low solvency of the population that did not have housing;
• high rental prices;
• lack of resources and expensive materials for building new homes

In 1944, the UK Parliament created the Ministry of Urban and Rural Planning to plan reconstruction. The main goal was to renovate old, poorly designed cities after bombing damage. In 1945, 750,000 new homes were planned to be built to meet the needs of the population.

Reconstruction began with the construction of temporary housing made of steel and more affordable. The priority was to provide housing for those who had lost their homes. However, the temporary housing programme was not completed due to the rapidly unfolding full reconstruction of the country.

If social housing was unavailable, people sought refuge in mobile trailers, buses, abandoned camps, or created makeshift buildings. This movement emerged in August 1946 and was called “squatting”. It lasted until the 1950s.

What was the policy of housing reconstruction?

After the Second World War, the government created a comprehensive system of reconstruction that included the creation of new cities, relocation of enterprises, redevelopment of territories, and focus on long-term needs.

Housing policy also changed. Instead of temporary prefabricated houses, the construction of sustainable and high-quality homes began. Even before the war, there was a need to clear slums and haphazard housing, and the government addressed this problem by passing the Housing Act of 1930, which allowed local councils to reconstruct and create new homes.

After the war, the government used best practices in urban planning to plan urban reconstruction. For example, the Plan for Greater London, drawn up by Patrick Abercrombie and William Holford, provided for the zoning of the city, road layout and location of green spaces.

To encourage the development of new towns, the New Towns Act 1946 was passed, giving the government the power to allocate land and establish development corporations.

The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 became the basis for modern planning in Britain. It required planning permission and controlled the density and height of buildings. Landlords could no longer build without permission, and construction was controlled by detailed development plans.

During the Labour Party’s rule (1945-1951), special low-interest loans were used for local authorities to build housing. These loans were provided through the Public Works Loan Board (PWLB). The government itself raised money as part of a general borrowing programme.

Useful for Ukraine

The UK’s experience has many useful lessons for Ukraine in terms of housing policy. Its success lies in the fact that they carried out a comprehensive planned reconstruction and solved the housing situation that existed before the war. For example, before the war, multi-storey buildings were not popular, but the destruction and the need for reconstruction led to their active use. As a result, they have ensured the quality, comfort and functionality of new neighbourhoods and cities.

However, it is important for Ukraine to pay more attention to assessing and analysing the housing needs of the population and finding the best ways to meet them with limited resources. Maintaining a balance between the convenience and affordability of housing will be an important task.

Thus, the experience of reconstruction in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the UK can be an interesting case study for Ukraine, which is also on the road to recovery. International cooperation, strengthening of institutions, economic reforms and a focus on transparency can be key elements of a successful recovery. It is important to take into account the specifics of the Ukrainian situation and adapt these principles to the country’s specific needs.

This publication was produced with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of NGO «Institute of Analytics and Advocacy» and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.