The Consequences of Covid-19 On The Sector of Spatial/Urban Planning, Construction, Legalization, and Housing
The Consequences of Covid-19 On The Sector of Spatial/Urban Planning, Construction, Legalization, and Housing
The Consequences of Covid-19 On The Sector of Spatial/Urban Planning, Construction, Legalization, and Housing
All rights reserved ©2021 Sustainable Human Settlement Program (UN-Habitat), Ministry Building “Rilindja” 10th
floor, 10000 Pristina, Kosovo. www.unhabitat-kosovo.org. Maps and diagrams may be reproduced as long as the
source is printed with pictures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
AUTHORS:
Besnike Kocani, Spatial/Urban Planning Advisor
Vigan Osmani, Housing Research Analyst (Intern)
Zana Bokshi, Housing Research Analyst (Intern)
Siyum Gudu, Housing Research Analyst (Intern)
REVIEW:
Omar Siddique, Head of UN-Habitat Office in Kosovo and Chief Technical Advisor
MAIN CONTRIBUTORS:
Modest Gashi, Spatial/Urban Planning Advisor
OTHER CONTRIBUTORS:
Alma Paçarizi, Spatial/Urban Planning Associate
Arta Bytyqi, Spatial/Urban Planning Associate
We would also like to thank all directors and officers from the Directorates of Urbanism (members of Collegia
for Spatial Planning, AKM) and Directorates of Health and Social Welfare, for completing the questionnaire and
providing support during the assessment.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive summary 01
1.1 Main Findings 05
2. Introduction 11
3. Methodology 13
4. Survey Results 17
4.1 Participant municipalities 18
4.2.Office Locations of the Directorates of Urbanism 18
4.3. Residence Locations of Directorate staff 19
4.4. Transport Modalities 19
4.5. Working Methods 20
4.6. Preventive Measures and Protective Materials 22
4.7. Work Focuses (prior to COVID-19) 23
4.8. Work focuses (during COVID-19) 24
4.9. Administrative Works 25
4.10. Coordination and support 26
4.11.Spatial Planning 27
4.12. Public Participation 29
4.13. Building Permits 30
4.14. Legalization Process 31
4.15. Supervisory Works 32
4.16. Housing 32
4.17. Major difficulties (should the pandemic persist) 34
4.18. The Need for Support 35
05
continuously despite the difficult circumstances spread nearly evenly between the following work
associated with the pandemic. activities: compiling/drafting of planning documents
(17.5%), legalization processes (recruiting of staff,
Relative to COVID-19 work disruptions, The Directorates public informing, consultations with interested
of Urbanism have undergone disproportionate stakeholders (15.8%), supervision of capital investment
changes, with 50% of respondents working in their projects and infrastructural services (13.2%), as well
traditional office locations but with limited staff, as participatory meetings with community members
28.5% utilizing rotational schedules (i.e., 8:00 am – (7.9%) and collaborative efforts between local and
12:00 pm, or 12:00 pm – 6:00 pm) whilst only 10.7% central levels of governance (7%).
have continued operating at full capacity.
The pandemic has directly impacted the overall work
It should be noted that out of all the respondent flux of the Directorates of Urbanism, considering that
Directorates in the different municipalities of Kosovo, 77.8% of participants have experienced a reduction
96.4% have taken adequate health measures used to in average daily workload. Nevertheless, these effects
mitigate the impact and spread of the virus at the work are not uniformly distributed, seeing as 18.5% of the
place. A majority of these institutions (82.1%) have Directorates have not perceived a significant change in
been supplied by municipal authorities the required workload levels, with the remaining 3.7% reporting a
material for prevention of the virus while, 3.6% of the slight increase in their day-to-day work activities.
institutions forced to personally purchase the material.
Nevertheless, only 48.1% of the Directorates have re- WORK FOCUSES DURING THE PANDEMIC
organized their offices according to standards set out
by the Ministry of Health with the remaining 51.9% When comparing work focuses of the Directorates
making none or only partial changes. prior to and during the pandemic, the results indicate
minimal changes. The largest share of participants
WORK FOCUSES (PRIOR TO COVID-19) focusing on administrative duties has increased from
20.2% to 23%, while the percentage for issuance
According to the survey results, the Directorates of of buildings permits has remained the same at 18%.
Urbanism have not had a predominant work activity Legalization processes and the drafting of planning
prior to the beginning of the pandemic in Kosovo. documents have experienced insignificant alterations,
The largest share, 20.2% indicated a focus on with both hovering at approximately 17%, whilst
administrative duties (including work plans, report 13% of Directorates have continued to supervise
drafting, legal decisions, project drafting, and public capital investment, and infrastructural projects. As
consultations) whereas 18.4% spent the majority of a consequence of physical and mobility restrictions
their time issuing building permits to relevant citizens/ associated with the pandemic, there has been a
applicants. The remaining percentage (61.4%) is decrease in participatory meetings with community
06
members to 4%, whereas the percentage of staff Spatial Planning
focusing on institutional coordination between local
and central levels of governances remains unchanged Spatial planning in the context of this assessment
at 8%. includes a plethora of activities which the Directorates
have actively worked on despite associated COVID
PRIMARY ACTIVITIES DURING THE PANDEMIC conditions. A majority of the Directorates (75%)
indicate a focus on drafting spatial planning documents
Administrative duties (including primary data collection, participatory
meetings with community representatives, approval
While administrative duties may encompass a of documents, etc.) during the pandemic, while the
variety of activities, the largest share of respondent remaining 25% have focused primarily on coordinating
Directorates (76.5%) have focused on conducting meetings with other municipal Directorates and
work plans, reports, and legal matters. The remaining relevant stakeholders.
23.1% is spread evenly between activities including
consultations with interested stakeholders/community Support from Donators
representatives, drafting internal regulations, and
drafting project concepts. The pandemic has resulted in financial stress in
municipalities due to a reduction in tax collection and
Institutional coordination between local and other incomes generation activities. Cities struggle to
central levels of governance manage and function properly due to limited resources.
The Directorate of Urbanism under the municipality
Governmental restrictions placed to mitigate the also faces a financial struggle that needs to be filled
impacts of COVID-19 have directly impacted central through the support of central government and local
level decision-making including support provision at and international organizations. The survey results
the municipal scale. 36% of respondent Directorates indicate that 22.2% of Directorates have received in-
indicate a reduction in institutional coordination kind contributions, 11.1% have accepted some form of
between the two levels of governance, whereas technical assistance, with only 3.7% receiving financial
52% have not experienced any significant alterations support. The remaining 63% have not received any
throughout the pandemic. Moreover, 8% of form of support from local/international organizations.
Directorates have felt improved coordination, while the
remaining 4% describe a total halting of institutional Public Participation
coordination between local and central levels of
governance. Although mobility restrictions have made it difficult
for the Directorates to conduct participatory
meetings with community representatives, 56% have
07
nevertheless managed to organize meetings in open pandemic considering that 44% of municipalities have
or office spaces. The remaining 44% have engaged not legalized any buildings throughout the spread of
in virtual meetings through platforms such as Zoom the virus in Kosovo.
and/or Skype. Despite the ability of the Directorates
to conduct these meetings, 68% of municipal officials Work Supervision
have declared that overall participation has been
low, with 24% indicating satisfactory levels, and 8% With regards to the completion of supervised project,
claiming no participation whatsoever. the Directorates have focused primarily on supervising
construction works, including infrastructural services,
Building Permits (26.5%), supervision of residential buildings (21.5%)
and the supervision of public/social facilities at
The survey results indicate that 91.7% of the (21.5%). Fewer Directorates have focused on technical
Directorates have continued issuing building permits control of associated projects (16.9%), with the lowest
despite the conditions associated with COVID-19, percent aimed at the architectural design of facilities
with the highest percentage (33.4%) issuing up to (9.3%) and geodetic measurements at 4.6%.
3-5 permits. Only 20.8% have given more than 10,
whereas 8.3% have not distributed any permits during Housing Support
the pandemic. Nevertheless, 68% of the municipalities
have declared that income from building permits has Prior to the spread of the pandemic in Kosovo, the
been reduced as a result of COVID-19. municipalities had received scores of requests for
social housing from various vulnerable communities.
Legalization Processes Although some of the Directorates have not provided
adequate data regarding housing applications, the
The Directorates of Urbanism have indulged in various results indicate that families receiving social welfare
legalization processes during the pandemic, with the assistance contributed to the largest share of existing
issuance of building permits being the predominant applicants (27.3%). The Directorates have also
activity at 28.8%. Similarly, 27.1% have accepted received a high number of requests from homeless
applications and consulted with community members, people (18.2%) and families who for socio-economic
whilst Directorates spent fewer time verifying reasons could not adequately maintain rent payment
applications during field work at 13.5%, as well (13.7%). The remaining percentages cover other
informing the public and recruiting relevant staff, vulnerable communities including repatriated families
including legalization assistants, at 10.2% respectively. (9.1%), families who cannot afford monthly mortgage
The Directorates spent the least amount of time payments (9.1%), returnees (4.5%), families affected
integrating legalized buildings to GIS databases, by natural disasters (4.5%), and other unspecified
factors which coincide with the inhibiting effect of the individuals (4.5%).
08
DIFFICULTIES IN CASE THE PANDEMIC PERSISTS
12
3
METHODOLOGY
The restrictive measures taken during the COVID-19 reorganization of offices including the provision of
pandemic have mitigated impacts and the overall protective COVID-19 materials);
spread of the virus, whilst simultaneously dictating the ▸Work focuses prior to the spread of the
selection of tools required to create opportunities for pandemic (types of activities and tasks, work flow/
rapid response systems. In order to preserve the health intensity);
of all, a survey research method (through the has been ▸Main activities implemented by the
chosen as a main tool of assessment in this report; Directorates during the pandemic (administrative
the questionnaire is semi-structured, composed of 26 work, coordinative efforts between the municipal
open and closed questions. and central governments, donation support, spatial/
urban planning and management, public participation,
The main target audience of this survey include building permits, legalization processes, supervision
the Directorates of Urbanism and Environmental work, and housing support);
protection, as well as certain housing questions
▸Difficulties faced by the Directorates should the
directed towards the Directorates of Health and Social
pandemic persist (by category/type of activities);
Welfare. When considering that several of the targeted
▸Necessary support provision for the Directorates
officials have faced technical problems (limited internet
(type of support and from whom i.e., supporting
access, etc.) throughout the online survey completion,
organizations, donators, etc.).
permissions were made for members to complete the
survey on Microsoft Word with results later being sent
The survey analysis will highlight conclusions and
via email. Furthermore, a certain number of officials
opportunities for suggested recommendations in
who have encountered other difficulties in completing
minimizing the challenges faced by the Directorates
the survey online were contacted by phone in an
of Urbanism in spatial planning management during
effort to maximize the number of participants, thereby
the pandemic, as well as the preventative measures
increasing the representativeness of final results.
required to reduce its associated impacts.
14
municipalities have responded to the survey twice; basis, as well as the integration of remote working
ones with more complete information were selected tools.
for the assessment. The open period for completing
the online survey ranged from August to October The survey seeks to classify how these changes have
2020. affected the flux of day-to-day activities, identifying
whether the pandemic has increased or decreased the
ONLINE SURVEY (CONTENT) overall workload of the Directorate staff, and if there
has been a noticeable shift in time spent on major
The semi-structure of the survey ensures that activities pre-and-during COVID-19.
respondents have a variety of options to choose from in
a given question, often including open-ended answers After forming a general understanding of the impacts
should provide options fail to represent the situations of COVID-19 on the Directorates, the survey highlights
faced by respective participants. how the pandemic has affected the Directorates in
the sector of spatial/urban planning, construction,
As such, the survey begins by gathering general legalization, and housing.
information regarding the Directorates of Urbanism
and associated staff members. Emphasis is placed on For instance, Question 15 addresses respondents who
identifying the geographical location of the Directorate have selected spatial planning as a key focus of activity
offices, including current living situations of the during the pandemic, seeking to identify specifically
respondent staff (whether they live at urban/rural what tasks/duties have been most central for the
zones), as well as gathering information on preferred Directorates. Options include data collection and
transport modalities used by staff throughout the analysis on the grounds of Geographical information
COVID-19 pandemic. Systems (GIS), cartographic data composition, internal
consultations with municipal officials and client
Following introductory questions, the focus shifts organizations, etc.
towards understanding how participants in the different
municipalities have been affected by disruptions In the housing related questions, the survey attempts
associated with the pandemic. More specifically, to accumulate data regarding the number of requests
respondents were asked to identify the ways in which for social housing received by municipalities prior to
the pandemic has interrupted the management of day- the start of the pandemic, and how the Directorates
to-day activities, and what measures have been taken have responded to such applications during following
to reduce such impacts. Example answers include the months. Focus is placed on identifying the number
re-organization of work stations/offices according to of requests based on applicant status (repatriated
standards set out by the Ministry of Health, reduced persons, victims of family abuse, homeless individuals,
work hours or conducting work on a staff-rotational social welfare recipients, etc.) whilst simultaneously
15
forming an understanding of how municipalities have by the continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic, and
supported these vulnerable groups. Options included their expectations regarding the provision of support
the provision of financial support for groups in need from relevant stakeholders including local level
of rental payment, shelter provision for the homeless, municipalities (specifically the Ministry of Environment,
other kinds of support dependent upon housing Spatial Planning and Infrastructure), the Association
request category, etc. of Municipalities of Kosovo, and other relevant
institutions such as possible donators and international
The survey concludes by asking the respondents which organizations.
of the four subjects they think is most likely to be affected
0% Other
Completed (28/34)
Completed (28/34)
Question 1: The respondents reside in the following
Not completed (6/34)
municipalities: Gjakova, Gllogoc, Theranda, Viti, South Question 2: Relative to the zonal design of the
Not members of AKM (4 municipalities)
Mitrovica, Istog, Vushtrri, Klina, Decan, Dragash, municipalities, the results show that an overwhelming
Fushë Kosovë, Shtime, Partesh, Malishevë, Lipjan, majority of the Directorates of Urbanism are found
Strpce, Skënderaj, Peja, Rahovec, Kamenica, Elez of in city-centers (92.9% of municipalities), whilst the
Han, Kacanik, Podujeva, Junik, Ferizaj, Gracanica, remaining 7.1% are positioned around the outskirts
Mamusha, and an additional unspecified municipality. of cities.
18
4.3. RESIDENCE LOCATIONS OF DIRECTORATE 4.4. TRANSPORT MODALITIES
STAFF Q4: What transport modalities have been used by
Q3: In which zone do the majority of the respondent staff members during the pandemic?
Directorate staff live in?
21.4% Walking
17.9% City Center
0% Bicycle/Biking
25% Peripheral zones
75% Vehicles
25% Villages
3.6% Public Transport
28.5% City neighborhoods
0% Taxis
In different (cities or
3.6% 0% Did not use transportation methods
municipalities)
21
4.6. PREVENTIVE MEASURES AND Question 7: Regarding the delivery of protective
PROTECTIVE MATERIALS materials associated with the COVID-19 pandemic
Q7: Who has supplied the staff with protective (protective gloves, surgical masks, anti-bacterial hand
materials (protective gloves, surgical masks, anti- gels, thermometers, etc.) a majority of the respondents
bacterial handgels, thermometers, etc.)? (82.1%) have been supplied by municipal authorities,
with just 10.7% of the Directorates having to personally
82.1% Municipal authorities supply designated resources. Moreover, 3.6% of the
participants have relied on a mix between municipal
0% Donators and personal delivery mechanisms, with the remaining
3.6% failing to take adequate defensive measures
0% Private companies
against the current pandemic. Despite differences in
10.7% Directorate staff resource distribution, it is evident that a majority of the
Directorates (96.4%), have taken adequate measures
3.6% No provision of protective materials
to prevent the impacts of COVID-19 in respective work
offices.
Partially by Directorate staff, and
3.6% municipal authorities Q8: Have you re-organized office spaces,
including those for citizens, according to
standards set out by the Ministry of Health?
48.1% Yes
14.8% Partially
Office spaces have remained the
37.0% same
0% Other
22
Question 8: According to the regulations laid out by
the Ministry of Health, 48.1% of the respondents have
taken the appropriate measures in tackling COVID-19
at the workplace, 37% indicate no changes at all,
and 14.8% report undertaking limited measures. In
a general sense, it is evident that only half of the
municipalities have successfully applied regulations
set by the Ministry of Health, whilst the remaining
municipalities have not been able to do so due to
various reasons not subject to this survey.
4.7. WORK FOCUSES (PRIOR TO COVID-19) Question 9: The results show that the Directorates
were focused on a variety of activities prior to the
Q9: One week prior to the spread of COVID-19,
spread of COVID-19. 20.2% of participants reveal
the Directorates have focused primarily on:
a focus on administrative duties, including work
Administrative duties (working plans, legal matters and decision-making processes,
plans, reports, legal matters, project-concepts, as well as consultations with
20.2% project-concepts, regulatory
matters, consultations with community representatives, 17.5% were involved
community representatives) with drafting and submitting planning documents
Coordination between relevant (Municipal development plans, zonal mappings of
7.0% institutions (ministries, other municipalities, detailed regulatory plans, etc.), 18.4%
municipalities, donators, etc.)
with issuing building permits, 15.8% on legislation
Drafting/Submission of planning
17.5% documents (MDP, MZM, DRP, etc.) processes including staff recruitment, citizen
information provision, and consultations with diverse
Participatory meeting with citizen
7.9% (relative to planning documents) stakeholders, another 13.2% supervised work projects
(infrastructural and capital investment projects),
18.4% Issuing of building permits
7.9% held participatory meetings with citizens,
Legalization processes (recruiting
of staff, informing of citizen, and lastly, 7% of respondents have indulged in co-
15.8% office consultations with intereste operative efforts with various institutions (Ministries,
stakeholders, etc.) other municipalities, donators, etc.). As shown in the
Supervisory works (capital results, none of the Directorates have offered housing
13.2% investment projects, road support to vulnerable communities prior to the spread
infrastructure, etc.)
of the pandemic. It is important to mention that the
Housing support provision for
0% vulnerable groups respondents were asked to select up to three options,
thereby signifying that the municipalities may have
0% Other
focused on various projects simultaneously.
23
Q10: How has the spread of COVID-19 affected 4.8. WORK FOCUSES (DURING COVID-19)
the workload of the Directorates of Urbanism? Q11: Since the spread of COVID-19, in which
activity has the municipal staff spent the most
18.5% No changes
time on?
3.7% Increased
Administrative duties (working
77.8% Decreased plans, reports, legal matters,
23.0% project-concepts, regulatory
0% Has completely stagnated matters, consultations with
community representatives)
Coordination between relevant
8.0% institutions (ministries, other
municipalities, donators, etc.)
Drafting/Submission of planning
17.0%
documents (MDP, MZM, DRP, etc.)
Participatory meeting with citizen
4.0%
(relative to planning documents)
18.0% Issuing of building permits
Legalization processes (recruiting
of staff, informing of citizen,
17.0%
office consultations with intereste
stakeholders, etc.)
Supervisory works (capital invest-
13.0% ment projects, road infrastructure,
Question 10: Considering the impact of the COVID-19 etc.)
pandemic on the Directorates of Urbanism, 77.8% Housing support provision for
0%
of municipal staff report experiencing a reduction on vulnerable groups
average workload, while 18.5% have not highlighted
0% Other
any noteworthy changes. Only 3.7% of respondents
report facing an increased workload during the
pandemic. As predicted, COVID-19 has negatively
impacted the Directorates, considering the majority
of staff that have experienced disruptions in the
management of day-do-day activities.
24
residents. The results show that despite a slight flux
in the management of day-to-day duties in the last
week prior to the spread of COVID-19, there has been
a continued focus on administrative duties, legislation
processes, and the submitting/planning of municipal
development projects.
Question 11: Question 11 is closely linked to question 7.7% Drafting internal regulations
9, where the former seeks to identify the work focus Office consultations with citizen and
of the Directorates during the spread of COVID-19; in
7.7%
other relevant actors
this sense, there have been slight changes. 23% of the Drafting project-concepts/project
respondents have continued focusing on administrative 7.7%
proposals
duties, including report writing, work plans, legal rules
and decision-making, project concepts, whilst 17%
0% No activity
26
Question 14: The results highlight that more than half 4.11. SPATIAL PLANNING
of participant municipalities (63%) have not received Q15: At what stage of the planning process
any support from international organizations/donors. did you work hardest during the spread of
22.2% have received contributions in-kind, specifically COVID-19?
protective materials used to minimize the spread of
the virus, food and hygiene kits, as well as assistance Initiated the drafting of MDP, MZM,
and support from KFOR and UNMIK in the municipality 9.5% Detailed regulatory plans, SEA
of Partesh. 11.1% of municipalities indicate that reports
they have received technical assistance or protective Engagement/contracting
materials; the municipality of Viti/Vitina has secured 7.9% of consulting companies or
support from GIZ in drafting a Waste Management international org.
Plan, while the municipality of Junik has also benefited 11.8% Data processing and collection
from assistance by EULEX. Nevertheless, only 3.7% of
participating municipalities have received some form 7.8% Integration of data in GIS database
of financial support, with the Podujeva municipality Internal consultations (between
specifying a donation in its housing sector. 15.0% municipalities, Directorates, and
consulting organizations/companies)
It should however be acknowledged that respondent
staff may not have had the necessary information 11.8% Report Drafting
required to respond, and that the survey question 11.0% Compilation of cartographic parts
could have benefited from including additional options
Participatory meetings with
regarding categorizations of support received. For 3.1%
community representatives
example, the Directorates of Urbanism supported by
UN-HABITAT (Inclusive Development Program), have Submission of first presentation of
4.7%
been assisting several municipalities in developing planning documents to MESPI
cohesive spatial planning databases, drafting MZM, 2.4% Public review
MDPs, Strategic Environmental Assessment Reports
Editing/integration of comments
(SEA), community-based planning, financial/technical 3.9%
(made by citizens, ministires, etc.)
support, as well as supporting in the development and
Document approval in the
implementation of capital investment projects. 6.3%
Municipal assembly
Final submission to the ministry
4.7%
(MESPI)
27
Regarding the initialization of planning documents,
the results indicate that 16.7% of municipalities have
begun drafting MDPs, 33.3% have assisted in the
development of MZM, 41.7% have compiled SEA
reports, 8.3% drafted mobility plans (overall 9.5% in
drafts), and 7.9% engaged in contracting consulting
companies/international organizations. Nevertheless,
none of the municipalities (0%) have initialized
drafting detailed regulatory plans during the spread of
the pandemic.
28
companies/international organizations. Furthermore, On the other hand, 32% have held physical meetings
participatory meetings with community representative in Directorate offices, with the remaining 24% of
and public review session were conducted in 3.1% and meetings taking place in outdoor areas. (D.16)
2.4% of municipalities respectively. After the public
review, 3.9% of municipalities integrate the comments
made by the public into report editing and 6.3% of
the municipalities oversaw document approval in the
municipal assembly.
29
Question 17: In relation to the number of participant Question 18: Despite the difficult conditions associated
citizens during public meetings, 68% of municipal with the pandemic, the respective Directorates have
officials state that participation was generally low, with continued issuing building permits. The number of
24% claiming a satisfactory participation rate, and permits issued varies by municipality: 8.3% have not
the remaining 8% declaring no citizen involvement issued any permit; 20.8% have issued 1-3; 33.4% have
throughout the meetings. issued 3-5; 16.7% of municipalities have issued 5-10,
while only 20.8% have issued more than 10 building
4.13. BUILDING PERMITS permits during the pandemic.
Q18: During the spread of COVID-19, the
Directorates have issued: Based on the cumulative results, during the August-
October period, 91.6% of municipalities have
20.8% 1-3 permits continuously issued building permits, with the
exception of 8.4% municipalities who have not issued
33.4% 3-5 permits
any permits. Despite the ability for a majority of the
16.7% 5-10 permits municipalities to issue building permits throughout the
pandemic, 68% have declared a reduction in financial
20.8% More than 10 income from such activities.
8.3% None Q19: During the spread of COVID-19, income
from building permits has:
68.0% Decreased
8.0% Increased
30
Question 19: As stated in the previous question, 68% applications), 13.5% verified applications vis-à-vis field
of participant municipalities have observed a reduction trips, 10.2% have informed citizen over legalization
in income received from issuing building permits. A processes, whilst another 10.2% recruited relevant
smaller percentage, (24%) state that revenues during staff (including legalization assistants) and necessary
the pandemic have remained the same as before, with equipment. A smaller number of Directorates (8.5%)
only 8% declaring an increase in income from permit have successfully integrated legalized buildings on
activities. the GIS database, with only 1.7% indicating no
engagement in any activity.
4.14. LEGALIZATION PROCESS
Q20: During the spread of COVID-19, the
Directorates have completed the following
activities:
31
A majority of respondent municipalities (44%) reveal Question 22: Within the supervisory works carried out
that they have not legalized any buildings during during the pandemic, a majority of the Directorates
the pandemic, 20% legalized 1-3, 16% legalized have focused on construction works specifically the
more than 10, 12% legalized 5-10, and lastly, 8% of supervision of road infrastructure (26.5%). Similarly,
municipalities have legalized up to 3-5 buildings during 21.5% have supervised construction works of
the pandemic. residential buildings and social/public buildings. Other
supervisory activities have included: Technical control
4.15. SUPERVISORY WORKS (16.9%); Defining of construction lines (9.3%); as well
Q22: During the spread of COVID-19, the as geodetic measurements (4.6%) of municipalities.
following supervisory works have been
conducted: 4.16. HOUSING
Q23: How many cases/requests for housing
Supervision of construction works
21.5% support (family/individual) were registered
(residential buildings)
in the municipality prior to the spread of the
Supervision of construction works
26.5% pandemic?
(road infrastructure)
Supervision of construction works
21.5%
(public/social buildings)
4.6% Geodetic measurements
0% Other
32
municipalities have registered over 10 cases; one with
18.2% Homeless people
5-10 cases, and another with 1-5 requests. A similar
Vulnerable communities/social category includes the provision of support towards
27.3%
welfare recipients families who for socio-economic reasons could not
9.1% Repatriated families afford to pay their monthly rent, and as such have been
evicted from their homes. 13.7% of the municipalities
4.5% Returnees have registered such requests, with one municipality
citing over 10 cases, and two others registering 1-5. At
9.1% Domestic abuse victims
9.1% respectively, the Directorates have also accepted
Expelled families (that could not requests from:
13.7%
afford monthly rent payment)
▸families unable to afford monthly rent payment
Families who cannot afford to pay
9.1% mechanisms (one municipality registered 1-5 cases,
their monthly loan/mortgage
another with 5-10);
Families affected by natural
▸repatriated families (one municipality registered 1-5,
4.5% disasters (floods and strong winds)
another 5-10);
during the pandemic
▸victims of domestic abuse (one municipality
4.5% Other registered 1-5, and the other more than 10 cases).
33
three respondent municipalities have helped more
14.3% Housing (homeless people)
than 10 families. At the same percentage, Directorates
17.9% Social housing
have also provided support for social housing, with one
28.6% Construction of new residences municipality supporting 1-5 families, two with 5-10
Support for reconstruction/ families, and another two helping over 10 vulnerable
17.9% reparation (materials) families.
Payment of monthly rent for
10.6% families who were evicted, or could 14.3% of Directorates have provided housing for
not afford to pay monthly rent
homeless individuals/families, with one municipality
Loan payment or term extension helping 5-10 cases, and three municipalities supporting
0% for families who could not afford to
over 10 families.
pay the monthly loan/mortgage
Other housing support (victims of
7.1% domestic abuse)
10.6% of Directorates have also provided assistance
to families who could not afford to pay their monthly
Other housing support for families
rent/evicted families, with two municipalities helping
0% affected by natural disasters (flood
and strong winds) 1-5 families, and one supporting over 10 families.
Other housing support for new
3.6% cases Out of the total 28 respondent municipalities, only two
of them (7.1%) have provided support to victims of
Question 24: Regarding the provision of support domestic violence, one with 1-5 families, and the other
based on the abovementioned categories, a majority supporting 10 such cases, whilst one municipality
of the Directorates (in association with the Directory of (3.6%) has assisted 1-5 unspecified housing cases.
Health and Social Welfare) have not provided adequate
data, with some revealing a total lack of realized cases. 4.17. MAJOR DIFFICULTIES (SHOULD THE
The remaining municipalities have provided housing PANDEMIC PERSIST)
support for the different vulnerable groups (prior Q25: In which sector do you think you will
to the start of the pandemic). Most of the realized enconuter greater difficulties in supporting the
support (28.6%) has materialized in the form of new citizen, should the pandemic persist?
houses, with one municipality claiming support to 1-5
families, another with 5-10 families, and three others Administrative works and
have helped more than 10 families. coordinative efforts (work plans,
15.3% reports, legal matters, project-
17.9% of Directorates indicate that they have provided concepts, regulatory matters, citizen
support in the reconstruction/repair of existing houses, consultations)
with two municipalities helping 1-5 families, while
34
Drafting/Submission of planning Question 25: When asked about the potential
18.6% difficulties involving public activities, a majority
documents (MDP, MZM, DRP, etc.)
of the Directorates (22%) believe that organizing
Participatory meetings (related to
22.0% participatory meetings in relation to spatial planning
planning documents)
documents could prove the most difficult during the
10.2% Issuing of building permits pandemic, whilst 18.6% point towards the drafting/
Legalization processes (recruitment submission of such documents (MDP, MZM, DRPs,
of staff, informing of citizen, office etc.). Moreover, 15.3% rank administrative works and
11.9% coordinative efforts (including work plans, reporting,
consultations with interested actors,
etc.) legal decision making, project concepts, regulations,
Supervisory works (capital and consultations with citizens). Legalization processes
11.9% investment projects, road (recruitment of staff, informing of citizens, in-office
infrastructure, etc.) consultations with potential stakeholders, etc.) and
Housing support for vulnerable supervision of works (capital investment projects, road
10.2% infrastructure) are categorized at 11.9% of Directorates.
communities
At 10.2% respectively, the Directorates rank issuing of
0% Other (please specify) building permits and support for housing of vulnerable
communities as the most difficult participatory/public
activities in case the pandemic continues to persist.
0% Other institutions/organizations
35
During and after the spread of COVID-19, 33.3% of the
Directorates expect support from central level actors
(specifically the Ministry of Environment, Spatial
Planning and Infrastructure). Some emphasize the
need to request financial assistance, various training
provisions, simplifications of administrative procedures,
as well as an overall improvement in the cooperation
between the two levels of governance. 25.7%
expect assistance of various types from international
organizations including financial, technical, human
resources, as well as support in professional programs
(GIS), whilst a smaller percentage of Directorates
(20.5%) emphasize the need for assistance from the
Association of Municipalities with specific mention for
greater municipal cooperation and coordination of
actions and various trainings. The remaining 20.5% of
Directorates request financial support from donators
including the delivery of protective COVID-19 materials,
as well as professional training for their current staff. Source: UN-Habitat Kosovo
5
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
COVID-19 has brought unprecedented challenges for On the other hand, the issue and importance of
the global community, forcing the implementation of public spaces is another topic highlighted during the
restrictive measures to prevent the spread of the virus. pandemic, as they were serving as a crucial instrument
Such has been the case in Kosovo, wherein measures to implement social distancing, relaxation, and healthy
have included the shutdown of all physical retail activity. In some instances, their use extends to serving
businesses, public and private education, mobility as a formal meeting place for organizations with the
restrictions, and lowered support provision towards required social distancing. However, the situation In
local institutions (i.e. Directorates of Urbanism). Despite Kosovo is difficult. Most families live in a very closely
all, the survey ultimately reveal that a majority of the built apartment without greenery and adequate public
directorates have continued to operate their day-to- spaces. For many citizens, the most likely solutions have
day activities with lower levels of human resources and/ been their balconies, the few public spaces available
or working schedules. Among these activities, those within the urban centre, as well as their homes in rural
related with spatial planning, legalization, housing, settlements (for a certain group of citizens).
and construction are mainly assessed in this paper and
recommendations are forwarded thereafter. Therefore, developing a comprehensive spatial plan
in consideration with density, public space and all
Spatial planning and public participation other crucial planning issues is an important step
towards resilient recovery. To this effect the directorate
The pandemic has changed how we see and plan is involved in different activities, including draft of
cities. The critical question of how spatial planning spatial planning document, which it started before the
should be approached to make cities resilient in a time pandemic. These activities have continued without
of similar pandemic and the debates on issues such as significant change during the pandemic, especially the
density and public space, which are indirectly related preparation of spatial planning document including
to the pandemic, are a hot spatial planning topic of drafting reports through data collection, public review
discussion. Especially, the correlation between COVID and approval of documents were common. However,
transmission and high density observed in the city is as the current crisis continues to impact global trends
still debatable. Some studies argue that the availability and livelihood opportunities, participatory practices
of resources and preparedness has benefited densely have notably affected by the restrictions imposed
populated areas in containing the pandemic in under COVID-19 health guidelines, compromising the
contrast with sparsely populated areas. Others think quality of the spatial planning document. It is known
it has become the hot spot for the transmission of the that participatory practices are seen as transformative
virus, although studies show high connectivity rather tools used to strengthen democracy, transparency
than density is the cause of transmission. In Kosovo, in planning, effectiveness of solutions, and public
the situation has been aggravated, especially in large accountability through increased collaboration between
cities, where the density is higher and public spaces different layers of governance and the inclusion of
are scarce. This is especially true for Prishtina where citizen voices in wider decision-making processes. To
a significant part of the citizens lives in high-rise this effect, the majority of directorate tried to conduct
apartment buildings. meeting using online platforms such as zoom and
skype despite its limitation. Few directorate offices
38
conducted physical meeting either in their office or in projects, neglecting the long-term consequences. To
outdoor area. However, in both cases the participation reverse this, the directorate need to implementation
of the community was insignificant in most of the appropriate technical standard and pursue towards
municipalities. On the other hand, weak financial green building standards. Moreover, it needs to
capacity, poor coordination between different layers of encourage construction companies to follow different
government, and change in work mode, which weaken green building standards and use local and energy-
the coordination between staff members have further efficient materials while giving appropriate support
affected the quality of the spatial planning document. and incentive for the private sector to involve in green
Therefore, a more integrated and well-thought spatial infrastructure investment.
planning approach, that is in consideration with the
realities on the ground, is required to overcome these Legalization
challenges.
The Directorate of Urbanism is involved in different
Housing and construction legalization process and activities. Especially processing
of building permit, recruiting staff and assets
The pandemic has put a spotlight on the need for legalization are the most common. However, the
affordable housing to reduce the inequality gap and crucial work of integrating the legal buildings into GIS
protect low-income and marginalized communities was given little attention due to the restrictive nature
from the risk of infection. It has disproportionately of the pandemic. Moreover, lack of awareness raising
affected these groups due to lack of housing, medical campaign to encourage people with legal documents
service, sanitation, and overcrowding, which makes to apply for building permit has impacted the rate of
social distancing a challenging task. Although it is in legalization. Therefore, awareness campaign in the
a disintegrated way, the government of Kosovo put areas where the communities live and work is essential.
in place different mechanisms to help low income On the other hand, the financial and technical
and marginalized communities get adequate housing capacity of municipalities also need to be assessed
support. Moreover, eviction is minimized and support and upgraded/supported to seamlessly operate the
mechanism is provided for those who can’t afford rent legalization process.
in some municipalities. The Directorate of Health and
Social Welfare also engaged in receiving social housing Institutional coordination between local and central
request from different groups that are affected during levels of governance
the pandemic. Especially families receiving social
welfare constitute the largest share of request followed The survey revealed a reduction in institutional
by homeless people and those who can’t afford rent coordination between municipalities and lack of
for socio economic reason. support from local and international organization,
affecting their capacity in battling the pandemic.
On the other hand, the directorate get involved in the This shows the importance of implementing multi-
supervision of construction projects, infrastructures, level regulatory governance as a critical planning tool
and public facilities. However, it gives little attention wherein cooperative mechanisms between central
to technical control of the different construction and local level officials can be effectively utilized to
39
develop more integrated, inclusive, and innovative reasons could not afford to pay their monthly rent.
support frameworks for various regional communities. However, an integrated and coordinated approach
As such, it is vital to ensure the strengthening of in dealing with inequality is crucial to maximize the
capacities including trainings, human resources, impact and to quickly recover from the pandemic.
financial supports, as well as the development of
cohesive regulatory and institutional policies at local Necessary support provision
levels of governance. Considering their role as frontline
responders as well as suppliers of local goods and As per insinuations throughout the report assessment,
services, it is imperative for local governments to receive it is pivotal for the Directorates of Urbanism within
financial and technical support as a means of reducing the respective municipalities of Kosovo to receive
regional inequalities whilst simultaneously increasing the necessary support required for the continuous
the efficiency of service delivery. A study conducted management of development planning within the
by UN-Habitat (2020) also signal “mapping the flow fields of spatial and urban planning, construction,
of goods, labor, and market and strengthening and legalization, and housing. More specifically, there is an
enhancing links between cities, states, and regions as enhanced need for a synergetic relationship between
an important step in building socio-economic resilience local and central level actors, whilst simultaneously
where mitigation measures can be expedited, and ensuring the inclusion of public opinion through
alternative can be sought to minimize disruption”. participatory tools as a means of redeveloping the
way in which decision-making practices are shaped.
Addressing COVID-19 related social inequalities In strengthening the capacities and resiliency-
building tools at local and national contexts, through
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance the support of donators and regional/international
of socio-economic status as a determinant of health organizations, Kosovar institutions will be better
and general quality of life. Social inequalities irrevocably equipped in responding to emergency situations such
affect the distribution of various epidemiological risks as COVID-19, other future pandemics, and potential
including lower levels of awareness as well as limited natural disasters.
access to service provision including housing. It should
be highlighted that adequate housing represents a tool As suggested throughout the report assessment, UN-
for socio-economic integration wherein the disparities Habitat strongly promotes aspects of good governance,
faced by marginalized communities could be effectively security of tenure, and access to basic services and
reduced. amenities, based on the ethos of sustainable human
settlement development, and socially inclusive spatial
The survey results (although very few municipalities planning processes in Kosovo. The COVID-19 pandemic,
responded on questions related to sheltering/housing) despite its negative implications in everyday settings of
have revealed that majority of the municipalities have life, should therefore be seen as a potential catalyst for
managed to provide some form of relief including transformative change, rooted in an acknowledgment
reconstruction/repair of existing households, provision of the nexus between social, environmental, cultural,
of shelter to homeless individuals/families, as well as political, and economic contexts.
assistance towards families who for socio-economic
40
Source: UN-Habitat Kosovo
Ministies Building “Rilindja”
10000, Prishtina, Kosovo
Tel: +383 38 200 32611
info@unhabitat-kosovo.org