Informal settlement upgrading in Africa: An introduction from Mirjam Van Donk of the Islanda Institu
Mirjam van donk – Islandla Institute
Informal settlement upgrading in Africa: An introduction
In 2016, 13 % of households lived in informal settlements. This is a marginal decline since 2011
In the Western Cape there was a 2.8% annual growth of the number of households living in informal settlements
In the city of Cape Town, 14% live in informal settlements
Informal cities reveal the inability of towns and cities to come to terms with the legacy of South Africa’s exclusionary past. Post democratisation.
Informal settlements provide critical opportunities for the poor to access education, healthcare, labour markets
Policy makers are only just coming to terms with the fact that informal settlements are not temporary. 80 percent of settlements in city are more than ten years old
In 2015, a baseline assessment was done by government. 50 % of residents had lived in informal settlements for 11 years or more
Places of multiple deprivation manifest in health indicators, issues of safety and security, unemployment and lack of tenure security.
In the western cape levels of income deprivation are very evident
Vulnerability and risks – HIV prevalence in informal settlements is significantly higher in urban informal settlements. Not necessarily about sexual behaviours. Vulnerabilities associated with living in inadequate shelter
Relationships between informal settlement communities and municipalities are strained.
Trust deficit. There has been a growth in protests, yet communities engage with indifference and sometimes frustration
Usually to do with the lack of facilities, but most important reason is governance and the fact that municipalities are not engaging and responding.
From policy to practice? Or not
BNG
Progressive intent
Upgrading a key priority
In situ upgrading
Incremental tenure
Recognition of important role of communities in upgrading processes
Budgetary provision for social facilitation
Practice
Patchy and weak upgrading with emphasis on new housing projects
Evictions, relocations and / or limited to sites and services
Freehold title as dominant paradigm
Top down, target driven approach with little community involvement
Limited uptake, no assessment mechanism re budgetary provision – hard to measure.
Upgrading projects that do support the spirit of BNG often NGO initiated / led. Scale becomes a critical issue
Don’t reach a policy scale
Why disconnect policy and practice
Political ambiguity – re informal settlements; desire to eradicate
Upgrading seen as technical intervention – not a socio technical process
When realities do not conform to set engineering/building design standards.
Inability to enable and support processes of ‘deep participation’ (non deliberative democracy)
Ingrained prejudicial values against poor people
Minister and leaders talking about ‘deserving poor’
Institutional complexity which inhabits innovation, incrementalism and process orientated development.
Institutional complexity does not bode well for innovation
Strong performance culture. Measured in inputs (money spent) and outputs, not results or impact. Quantitative not qualitative.
For municipal official near impossible to divert from quantitative output pressure
Housing subsidy instrument as a restrictive factor
The urban land question – access, who owns, who decides what’s done.
Current policy making – windows of opportunity
New human settlements policy and / or legislation by 2018
Preoccupation with mega projects, state centric and centralising tendency, intolerance of re (informalisation)
Minister is very intolerant of informalisation and re-informalisation such as backyarding. People add to state housing.
Western cape informal settlement support programme 2017
Incremenalism, neighbourhood development, community agency, partnerships , municipalities as enablers of change
Speaks of aspirations, emphasis on neighbourhoods and partnerships
City of cape town human settlements framework (July 2017)
Organisational restructuring disbanded ISU (informal settlements unit) and relocated to utilities (water and sanitation) track record on informal settlements not good in the city
Key Risks
‘ISU fatigue’. Things are just not changing, not fast enough.
Sites and services only
ISU ‘leftovers’ for the ‘undeserving poor’
Self build = DIY. No support
People driven development = stateless development
Overestimating state capability and resources
Ignoring private sector and market forces
Replication of projects – no programmatic approach
Evidence – based or ideology based approach?
REDUCTIONISM - ROMANTICISM - Moralism
Sites and services – ideology – moralistic. Unwilling to collaborate for moralist reasons
What is important is STRATEGIC PRAGMATISM
QUESTIONS
3% if you bid for a tender, 3 % used for social facilitation – no regularisation
Strategic pragmatism – must be clear on what we want to achieve and the outcome must be about productive settlements in all aspects. Mobility safety social economic
Majority of migration – women headed households
How do you measure success – when most of it is around quality of process. Preoccupation currently around process. Langha – interesting community based process with deep governance. SA insular for so long, and now opening up.
Deep governance
Penetrating through levels