year, but it is to be hoped that the UN and government will find an acceptable way forward on the types of structures to be built. Lack of tenure: will IDPs retain ownership of any houses built by donors? Concerns were voiced at the time of the UN house feud and since, both within the donor communities and in the broader Zimbabwean context, that the reason Chombo wanted permanent housing to be built by the UN was that government did not intend UN housing to be ultimately for the very poor - for whom ZANU PF has shown ample contempt in recent years but saw it as part of the ZANU PF patronage system of the near future.114 As this report has shown, the allocation of the very houses built by government in the name of its own OGHK programme, have illustrated graphically that government officials assume the right to subvert every resource in Zimbabwe at this time to their own local patronage systems. There was – and remains – a very serious doubt about the likelihood of any shelter given to IDPs remaining in their hands if government decides it is good enough to house the army, police and CIO. There is an understandable reluctance on the part of donors to be persuaded into providing permanent structures that might be attractive enough to be desirable to the armed forces or others whom government have to keep happy in this collapsing nation. What can be done? The above doubts notwithstanding, the authors were heartened to hear in Harare that some in the international donor community were nonetheless prepared to consider the possibility of donating towards permanent housing construction. The authors share the concerns that many have on security of tenure for such housing, but nonetheless agree with those who are beginning to say that permanent housing is the only solution at this time, considering the scale of humanitarian suffering, and the economic prospects of people providing their own housing to recover what has been destroyed. Both the IOM and the OCHA office of the UN appear to be in favour of building more permanent structures, or temporary dwellings with materials that recipients could upgrade over time. Both offices express a willingness to do battle with officials over tenure in relation to structures financed through them. Both believe that there has been a shift towards a willingness, by some government officials at least, to cooperate on issues of humanitarian relief. The OCHA office reports that some government officials are identifying high need areas around Zimbabwe and are asking for specific urgent help in relieving the humanitarian situations here. These regions include Masvingo and parts of Matabeleland South, where harvests have been poor again this year. While building permanent dwellings may seem risky, what humane alternative is there? Those who favour continued inaction should consider living for a week or two at Hopley Farm, or in Killarney in Bulawayo. They should consider living in 1 square meter of space in a high density house with 18 others in the suburbs of Bulawayo, as illustrated in this report. The conditions of living for hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans are deplorable, and if new housing schemes are not developed, will only deteriorate over the next twelve months. 114 Many people interviewed have expressed this view: this concern is also voiced in Zimbabwe Independent, 6 January 2006, op cit. 70