VII. Housing Quality and Suitability Issues

Beaming smiles are fixed on the faces of farmers and herders while they are moving into new houses.

—China’s Tibet magazine, March 2007

Over the past three years, 270,000 herder households have moved to new houses, and not a single one has complained about house quality.

Qinghai Daily, April 14, 2012

There are different views about the new houses among the locals. Some like them, but many do not, because despite spending a huge amount of money they get a poor quality house.

¾An interviewee from Naqu, TAR, November 2008

Chinese state media consistently describe Tibetans as grateful for the new houses they receive under the New Socialist Village policies. According to these sources, the houses are “larger,” “more modern,” “more hygienic,” “respect Tibetan traditional architecture,” and are equipped with “TV receivers, electricity, water, toilets.”[177]

The superior quality of the new housing is used as a prominent justification for the radical change in housing and assumption of related costs. But while some residents have seen their housing conditions improve, many reported problems to Human Rights Watch. Many disliked the regimented rows of identical houses and their standardized size. Relocated residents and those whose house construction was contracted out by local governmental authorities complained about their small size and lack of capacity for growth, poor quality, including design flaws, inappropriate construction materials, and inappropriate design for the local environment and the needs of residents.

Some interviewees reported the new houses were too small to accommodate the household. Because of the rigid design specifications, some households are worse off in terms of size of the house itself. One man observed that:

Some households are losing out because those who are well off had big houses with many rooms, space for their livestock and plenty of land. But now you have to follow the new government regulations and they lose out since they cannot build a new house as big as the old one.[178]

Many complained that they lacked surrounding space due to the design of the villages with rows of identical houses next to each other. One interviewee from Gongbujiangda (Tib. Kongpo Gyamda) told Human Rights Watch:

Before, even though people were all living in one house, they had a lot of land around, and there was sleeping space for visitors, vegetable gardens at the back of the house. Nowadays, in these new houses built along the road, people don't even have enough living space for household members.[179]

Another interviewee from the same area said that the uniform size of the houses meant that large households were now too cramped:

In my area local officials didn’t consider the number of people in the household and the size of the house is the same for everyone. The houses are too small.[180]

A frequent complaint was that the new settlements, with their standardized back enclosure, prevented farmers from keeping livestock:

The old style house was better. For generations people had been living there and you could rear any number of livestock. Nowadays, herders are forced to decrease their livestock by selling some of their sheep, goats, and yaks. The people are losing their right to rear livestock.[181]

Despite the government’s portrayal of the new houses as larger than the old ones, official statistics show extremely limited gains in average size. An article in the China Daily reported in 2011 that the gains in terms of size were only four square meters, a very small increase given the radical requirement to demolish and rebuild one’s house:

As the project nears its end [in 2011], the average amount of space in which peasants and herdsmen in the region live has reached 23.62 square meters, an increase of 4.07 square meters.[182]

Whereas household activities such as drying products in the sun, stocking firewood, repairing tools, keeping livestock, and accommodating visitors could take place in the area surrounding their old house, in the New Socialist villages only the standard-size enclosure at the back is available. In some cases, the location of the houses beside a road means that the area at the front of the house cannot be used for traditional purposes, such as drying crops, preparing food, or washing clothes. The net result, interviewees said, is that while some households have larger houses, many are still worse off and have to buy products that were previously homemade.

Some interviewees said that the new houses were only practical for “old people and kids,” while working herdsman and farmers could not use them.

In one area of Qinghai, a female respondent said that herders relocated over previous years in a settlement built by the government seemed worse off than before resettlement:

I visited one household rehoused by the government. The families do not have enough space so they make shelters outside with plastic sheeting to sleep under and store things […] The houses are made of bricks. They have three small rooms for the whole household. It is plastered inside and the rooms have small windows. There is no courtyard.[183]

Some interviewees cited the long distance to livestock and pasture as inconvenient or insurmountable obstacles to continuing their livelihood.

Many of those interviewed by Human Rights Watch complained about the poor quality of the new houses. Residents interviewed by Human Rights Watch who had supervised the construction of their new houses had fewer complaints about quality, but those organized by the township authorities through contractors, often migrant workers from neighboring provinces, had more concerns. According to a resident from Naqu (Tib. Nagchu):

There are different views about the new houses among the locals. Some like them but many do not, because despite spending a huge amount of money they get a poor quality house.[184]

The use of contractors peaked as local officials tried to meet the targets in the comfortable housing policy set for the end of 2010, apparently worried that rebuilding would take too long if left to the households themselves. In some places the rush was such that officials cut corners on the construction of the new settlements, hiring contractors or using construction materials that are not appropriate for rural Tibet.[185]

According to an interviewee from Naqu (Tib. Nagchu) prefecture, TAR, outside contractors showed “no interest for the durability” of the houses they were building, and major problems surfaced soon after completion:

It is clear that the Chinese builders built the houses only for their profit without concern for the durability of the house. The individual owner was not allowed to intervene during the construction process. Originally the house looked beautiful, but its quality is not good. The back of the house cracked within three years.[186]

Although Chinese state media have stressed the high quality of the new settlements, some of the government’s own reports point to serious problems. For instance, in a 2009 report on the implementation of the Comfortable Housing campaign in the TAR, an inspection team from the Reform Commission of the State Council reported a host of problems, including poor architectural designs that are implemented:

Often, counties are in charge of the architectural design of the houses to be built as part of the comfortable housing campaign. Because many counties don’t have sufficient financial resources to use professional services, they make architectural designs without regard for feasibility, and end up being unable to finish the new construction.[187]

According to the Reform Commission of the State Council team, some designs are ill-suited to conditions of remote and poor Tibetan rural communities:

Some were designed in the style of city houses, with washrooms installed inside the house. But they disregarded the fact that running water is not a given in the countryside, and the inhabitants were put in a difficult situation.[188]

The report also noted that some new settlements had been built on unsuitable and potentially dangerous sites:

In some cases the location for the new constructions was chosen unscientifically. [For example] some settlements have been constructed on mud-rock beds, landslide zones, flood-prone areas or loose ground.[190]

Many interviewees complained about being resettled in unsuitable locations. One respondent told Human Rights Watch that the spot chosen for resettling a community of farmers was unsuitable for agriculture:

The government probably built houses for the relocated people but now they are facing big problems because the land is not good. There is no cultivable land and there is no place for raising livestock. It is sandy, water is scarce, and sand blows into the houses.[191]