Category

News

Oct 16
Love0

Practices of women’s saving and lending groups: Bath University students exchange to Cape Town, South Africa

By CORC, FEDUP, Learning Exchanges, News, Resources No Comments

Nabaa Zaynah, Sophie Moody, Kate Hunt, Hien Le (Bath University Students)

On the 5th of September, SA SDI Alliance facilitated an exchange between International Development with Economics students from the University of Bath and three Federation of the Urban Poor (FEDUP) savings groups. The exchange took place with three different Federation savings groups based in Philippi and Samora Townships – Cape Town – Siyazakha savings group, Hlala uphila, and Thubalethu loan group. The focus of the day was to learn about the micro financing schemes of the Federation of the Urban Poor and understand how the women of Philippi and Samora township are working in small groups to encourage saving and provide access to credit.

Bath University students with Federation of the Urban Poor savers in Phillipi, Cape Town.

Savings groups in Cape Town

The first group visited was Siyazakha savings group based in Siyahlala, Philippi. The second savings group was Hlala uphila based in Philippi a few streets away from Siyazakha savings group. The third and final group visited is Thubalethu loan group in Samora. The former saving group is part of the Federation Income Generation Programme, which assist members to start small businesses, and enabling the movement to generate its own income through landing small amounts of money to FEDUP members to start businesses. 

Siyazakha savings group and Hlala uphila saving group have been around since 2007 and 2009 respectively, and Thubalethu loan group was established in 2014. On average, each of the group’s members ranged between 30 to 40 people, largely all women, ranging in age, both young and old, and included housewives as well as working women who had their own small businesses. Some of the more experienced members of the group take positions of chairpersons or collectors, conducting the group meetings, assisting others and facilitating intake into the groups, as well as liaising with official bodies such as the municipality. 

Federation leaders explaining the origin of their saving scheme and early challenges.

The practices of the Cape Town women’s saving group

The support from FEDUP provides urban and rural poor women with an effective way to keep track of money in terms of both saving and lending. The roles of the different members of the group are also crucial in ensuring the smooth transition process of money, for example the collectors in the group gather the monies due each meeting and ensure its safe arrival in a bank deposit fund.

The savings group began with the organisation teaching one member the numeric skills needed to fill out a saving record book, which lead to that individual teaching others and so on. This depicts the snowball effect FEDUP triggers as its practice result into the doubling and tripling of members in the saving groups, without the need of many resources or support. It shows how if given the chance people can take control and empower themselves.

The FEDUP saving programme demonstrates that it is possible for people to take control in changing their lives. Control, which is difficult to find in a context where one can quickly become unhopeful due to a unresponsive government that has given such women empty promises and little support in these times of hardship. The savings group are built on community trust and unity; also used as a tool by the community to mobilise around the issues affecting the community. One of the savings group, Siyazakha mobilised around formal toilets in Siyahlala informal settlement and electricity. Through engagement and planning the community received formal toilets and electricity. 

Thubalethu savings group members collecting their monthly savings.

Saving groups as a tool for women empowerment

Savings group financially empower women since most households rely on limited income. In most times this income does not cover all house expenses. The formation of savings group has given the women some financial freedom, they are able to contribute to the income of their household and that has balanced out the dynamics at home. The savings gave the women a sense of hope, and encouragement to continue saving as they could see the impact the saving made in their lives.  

Savers of Phillipi emphasis the social benefits or the able to build social capital through saving groups. Since groups meet weekly this gives them an opportunity to be open and honest to each other in discussing issues. Some of the shared information revolved around personal matters such as domestic violence, mental health and other daily concerns, however the women also described how discussing larger matters such as an unreliable electricity supply could drive improvements.

As a group they felt more empowered to make a stand and take action collectively against problems, whereas for an individual it is easy to feel that your problems are only relevant to you and no-one else and therefore the progress of change is likely to be slower without these kind of interactions. Moreover, the opportunity to meet up with other women who are likely to be facing similar challenges is within itself an empowering concept, and generates a space for open discussions which in a busy restrictive society can be difficult to create.

The relationships between members are consequently genuine as a result of the discussions which take place at the weekly meetings. This helps create the trusting relationships between the women of the group which is vital in scenarios like this one which involve peer to peer financial matters such as lending. Interactions between group members help them gain trust among each other which allows them to become more understanding in the way the group lends money.

The “gooi gooi” system, for example is used to support those in the group who need immediate financial assistance. This system describes the way in which each month all group members will pay into a communal pot that is then distributed in full to one member, with each person taking turns in receiving this lump sum. If  one member is in difficulty and struggling to pay back a loan they would dedicate the next month’s “gooi gooi” money to that member. This demonstrates the sense of community and humanity that is evident across the scheme.

Through saving Nontombi (depicted in the picture) has managed to grow her clothes selling business.

Conclusion 

What struck us across all the groups we met with was how passionate and resourceful these women were and we found their stories truly inspiring. We have gained so much admiration for these women who have achieved incredible things despite facing the harsh reality of post-apartheid South Africa. The day forced us to reflect on our personal goals and aspirations in life, to focus on what truly matters. It doesn’t quite feel right simply buying a tea towel sold by these women and saying goodbye as I feel so strongly now that I want to help more. We really hope that one day we will be in a better position to do this not just for the women we met, but for all those in similar positions across Cape Town, South Africa, Africa and the world.

We walked away from three homes feeling inspired, fulfilled, enriched, and hopeful. We learnt so much about how human values can make a major difference in someone’s life. These women have definitely improved their life, not through monetary value, but through a system of love, humanity and compassion. We also found their system of saving scheme interesting to contrast with the United Kingdom’s banking system as overall the understandings of financial services on an individual’s family and private matters is overlooked dramatically unless you are wealthy enough to have a private banking account.

Therefore, we think the United Kingdom and other developed countries could learn a great deal from these schemes in order to deliver a more understanding financial system which takes into account personal circumstances and utilises the community’s knowledge of one another.

Sep 07
Love0

“We are poor, but not hopeless”: Youth mobilisation in Orange Farm, Johannesburg

By Archive, FEDUP, News, Resources, Youth No Comments

Collaboration Saving Scheme (on behalf of FEDUP)

One of the landmark projects of the collaboration youth saving scheme is the street naming project in Orange Farm, Johannesburg. We have taken upon ourselves to name streets in our community. The naming of streets project is a response to the difficult of navigating the settlement. This project is important to us and the community as it give police, emergency services and the general public a way of locating and referencing properties. This project is a product of our youth mobilisation in Orange Farm, in which we have decided as young people to come together to address common challenges.

Most of us have been living in Orange farm for a very long time but still even today our streets are nameless. It is worse when it comes to letters and parcels sent to our people because most of the mail gets lost.  In a place like Orange farm it is very much possible for two sections to have the same number..… since our townships is constantly growing, street naming is crucial to bring order. People have died while waiting for emergency service provider e.g. like fire service and police emergency teams because they couldn’t identify location to render quicker response.

We can’t always wait for government to think for us in terms of what will be good for us.The street naming project is the best innovation that can be even adopted elsewhere. The collaboration youth saving scheme has engaged with the City of Johannesburg municipality, where we have suggested that this initiative be supported in the municipality. The youth also went on an exchange in Nairobi to share experience and learn from a youth in Nairobi. This youth is doing a numbering of structures project.

Youth members of Collaboration saving scheme identifying and naming streets in Orange Farm.

Collaboration saving scheme

Members of collaboration saving scheme draw their inspiration from Thusanang Saving Scheme, a federation (Fedup) group of mamas in Orange Farm. It is through this group that we have learned about savings, the culture of federating and other Fedup rituals such as data collection, partnerships, and projects. Some of us, at some point we even participated in the Thusanang saving scheme as a result we have first hand experience from the mamas. 

Collaboration Saving Scheme brings different young people who had travel different directions but faced similar challenges. Some us had spent time seeking for employment with no luck due to limited work experience. Some us had tried going to further our studies but because of our financial status we struggled to access our dreams. As a result, we decided to come together and start our own saving scheme separately from the mamas because we face particular problems that are particular to us as young peopl. 

Our youth group consists of savers and young entrepreneurs ages 16-35. We are very experimental and we are always prepared to push boundaries, but we rely on the guidance of our mamas due to the experience that they have. One of the strongest examples in how we approach savings is introducing different kind of music and dancing in the federation. We are actively involved in small projects and businesses ranging from furniture making to music production. In addition to saving, we eagerly engage the community’s youth through drama, dancing, and sports like soccer. 

Collaboration Saving scheme engaging in different activities.

What we want to achieve

One of the thing we strive to achieve is to alleviate poverty and we believe that this can be done through education. We know that this is an ambitious goal but it is something that we strive towards achieving. For example, we have life skills programme that we have recently started, called “learn4life”. In this programme we encourage young people from Orange Farm to meet on a weekly basis to share knowledge and opportunities. This space is important in the development of our community because the type of knowledge that we get to share is necessary in day-to-day life situations ranging from health, business or environmental topics to social skills and personal development. The learn4life programme also offers curricular activities like acting, drama, choir and dancing.

Fedup has unleashed our hidden talents, it has created space for us to test our potential. Our community is struggling, and many young people are involve in substance and drugs abuse, violence and teenage pregnancy like many other townships in South Africa. Lack of education is another factor, some kids drop out of school. They do not see any value in education because with education you can only see the fruits of your success in the long term. Another contributing factor is lack of leisure activities as a result many young people a lot of free time on their hands which contributes to them engaging in criminal or violent activities. We are trying to change how young people think. We want to shift the thinking that define young people as only leaders of tomorrow – into a thinking that young people can be leaders today and can make change now.

Pipeline projects

As a saving scheme we have agreed to mobilise young people in all informal settlement around Gauteng. We have also decided to engage on projects such as internet café, day care centre, street naming, catering (small l& big events). One of the initiative in this regard include spending Mandela Day doing community work at Little Angels Day Care Center. The youth group immediately thought of Little Angels because it is one of the biggest day cares in Orange Farm and has been running for 11 years. We played with and cooked for the kids so that the teachers could take a break. 

Collaboration saving scheme members visit to Little Angels Day Care Center.

Sep 04
Love0

PRESS STATEMENT: Signing of a MoA with eThekwini Municipality

By News, Partnerships, Press No Comments

MEDIA RELEASE

4 September 2018

The South African Slum/Shack Dwellers International Alliance (SA SDI Alliance) enters into an agreement with Ethekwini Municipality

The SA SDI Aliiance (an alliance of 2 social movements and 2 support NGOs, namely the Federation of the Urban and Rural Poor (FEDUP), the Informal Settlement Network (ISN), the Community Organisation Resource Centre (CORC) and uTshani Fund), is proud of its longstanding partnership with the Durban metro going back over 20 years.  But this Memorandum of Agreement represents a major step upwards for this partnership giving it the basis for significantly scaling our work and improving the lives of tens of thousands of poor households.

We will endeavor to deliver on our side of the agreement across the city. However we must place it on record that we do not have a presence in all informal settlements in Ethekwini Metro. In many of these settlements we will have to work with other Community Based Organisations and networks. We welcome this – besides our international experience tells us that in order to upgrade settlements and build inclusive cities you need inclusive partnerships.

As the UN asserted in relation to the SDGs – we must leave no one behind. Not one single person. Not one family. Not one settlement and not one Organisation.

Issued by SA SDI Alliance
Kwanda Lande
Website: https://sasdialliance.org.za/
Email: research@corc.co.za
Facebook: South African SDI Alliance || Twitter: @SASDIAlliance

Sep 03
Love0

Dream Deferred? Broken trust and the upgrading of Langrug informal settlement

By News, Publications, Resources, SDI No Comments

By Kwanda Lande (on behalf of CORC)

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the White Paper on Local Government. The theme of SoLG 2018, the state of local government – dream deferred?, highlights this critical juncture in the local governance arena. It foregrounds the fact that although achievements have been made in terms of local government service delivery and governance, significant work is still required to ensure that the constitutional objectives of local government are fully attained. As a member of the Good Governance Learning Network (GGLN), we have joined fellow civil society organisations in reflecting on the work that has been done to date. 

CORC’s contribution (on behalf of the SA Alliance) investigates dynamics that have contributed to the destruction and disruption of WaSH facilities in Langrug informal settlement. While our contribution recognises the inherent presence of conflict and contestation in collaborative upgrading processes, it also seeks to uncover ‘the generative potential of contestation’ through which new options and alternatives can arise. In this sense, this contribution is a case specific retrospective that may also have relevance for relationship building between informal settlement communities, local governments and support organisations elsewhere.

The GGLN is an initiative that brings together civil society organisations working in the field of local governance. Once a year the network produces the The State of Local Governance Publication which presents a civil society based assessment of the key challenges, debates and areas of progress with regard to governance and development at the local level in South Africa.

solg-2018-complete

Jul 30
Love0

New Publication: Ruo Emoh – Our Home Our Story

By Academic, News, Publications, uTshani Fund No Comments

“We built the house as a practical statement. Of course we knew that it was illegal. We knew that we would have to suffer the consequences…. We did not try to interrupt negotiations – at every time we were ready to talk. All we wanted… was to ask them to come and look at the house… to see that the people’s process is better.” Janap Oosthuizen

It is with great pleasure that we share the Ruo Emoh booklet, documented in the past 6 months by SA SDI Alliance together with People’s Environmental Planning, UCT & University of Basel Masters students (part of the City Research Studios hosted by African Centre for Cities) and the community of Ruo Emoh. This booklet shares the story of Ruo Emoh (Our Home, spelt backwards) a housing project through which 49 families have moved into homes on a well-located piece of infill land in Colorado Park in Mitchells Plain, Cape Town.

This booklet documents the project’s long history. It shares the housing histories and experiences of nineteen of the forty-nine families who self organised to change their living conditions and to become homeowners in Ruo Emoh. It narrates their stories and experiences, the hardships of their housing struggles, the challenges of organising to access secure housing, and the emotions and experiences of moving into new homes in this development.

At the heart of the booklet are stories of what is possible when a group of people are willing and able to organise, to build strategic alliances and to negotiate pragmatically over the long term. At the heart of the booklet are family hopes and visions for the future as they continue to build their lives as homeowners in Ruo Emoh. This booklet celebrates Ruo Emoh families who know best the realities of housing struggle and the hopes of home ownership. 

[spiderpowa-pdf src=”https://sasdialliance.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Ruo_emo_booklet_final_booklet_201806291.pdf”]Ruo Emoh, Our Home, Our Story

Jun 27
Love0

Everything Fell into Place: Generations of Saving and Community Participation in Ruo Emoh

By CORC, FEDUP, ISN, News, Savings No Comments

The following narrative is part of a broader and in-depth documentation of the Ruo Emoh project. This documentation includes a video and booklet and is the result of collaborative efforts between the SA SDI Alliance, People’s Environmental Planning, UCT & University of Basel Master students (part of the City Research Studios hosted by African Centre for Cities), and the community of Ruo Emoh. A more detailed description of the Ruo Emoh project can be found here.

Interviewee: Ismaaeel & Mymoena Jacobs
Interviewers and Text: Kaylin Harrison, Lea Nienhoff, Israel Ogundare

The Jacobs (Kaylin, Lea, Israel)

Recently married Mymoena and Ismaaeel Jacobs are expecting their first child -a baby girl- together this year. Having a home in Ruo Emoh came at the most significant time for the Jacobs Family. For Mymoena, it is simply a case of “everything fell in place”. For Ismaaeel, as the first son to get married, he felt he needed this space.  A place of his own and it happened despite all the uncertainty and ups-and-downs of the Ruo Emoh project. The place became available to the growing Jacobs family tree.

“Never mind how small the place is, we got our own space, it’s a home, we can make a home out of this, so, that for me is more important than living in a mansion, or like not appreciating what we have here.” – Ismaaeel

The Jacobs know the burden and expense of renting on someone else’s property since they previously rented in Rylands. They also know what it means to share a house with many family members. In Ruo Emoh, they have a space of their own and Mymoena says, “It’s a nice stepping stone for any new couple.” 
Mymoena was born in Johannesburg and lived there for most of her life. Ismaaeel is from Cape Town and grew up in Lentegeur, where his family still resides. The place is what the Jacobs have constructed and made home for themselves. With Ismaaeel’s expertise lying 
in renovation, tiling and general construction, he took the structure and renovated it into a beautiful home. The beneficiary
 of the house in Ruo Emoh is Ismaaeel’s mother, Jasmine Jacobs. This home plays a significant role in not only the Jacobs currently residing there, but also for any other Jacobs family members. The house may be a home to future generations to come. This is the story of the struggle and the steps taken to finally get the house, in the words of Ismaaeel Jacobs.

It Was Almost Like a Movie

“It is 20 years ago, when the project started, and my mother was there right from the beginning. She was on the board for housing. I was a little boy, when all of this started. Every rand they had put together made a difference at the time. They were raising money with little food fairs. My mother was preparing cakes and boerewors rolls to sell. Later, I became the running guy for her; whenever they were meeting and other things, I would go. Sometimes, I was working, but then you hear at 3 o’clock is a meeting and you have to be there, we had no choice, we just had to move. When I came 
back home from the meetings I told my mother what was happening, what the next steps are, and I also picked up who is trying to run the show. We had so many challenges and everyone of us had their ticks. But nothing major. I remember when I went to the first meeting for my mother. Some of the other members were from around the area and I had known them by face, but not on a personal level. But after going to the meetings more and more, I was befriending people. Obviously, we were going to live together soon. At the time we were hoping to be neighbours soon, but eventually it just went on for a little while. In the recent years there were no fundraisers or these things any more, but when we met we were discussing how things progressed and how we could secure our property, since it was already our land. The challenge was to handle with the delays. Sometimes we needed to put in large sums of money and the committee would promise certain things on certain days, but it just wouldn’t be possible. The issues would linger for a few days, but the committee would sort them out in the end. I respect them a lot for that.”

We Stood Security Ourselves

“We had to put up a fence around the land. But it didn’t take long until parts of the fence were stolen. We had to take it off again. I played a part in that as well. We came in on a Saturday and we just took it off. At some point it was just the two of us, myself and Archie. Then the infrastructure came in and we knew we have to start to stand security ourselves. We came after work, on the weekends, 
to stand security at our grounds – day and night. I think this was when people got a more positive mind-set towards the project again. In the beginning this was an issue, but over time we had the feeling of ‘this is our ground’, we claimed it. If we want to stand security we will stand security because we own this now. Once people heard, once they got the go-ahead that things are happening now, things are going to happen, people had enough of the empty promises. Once things started… I can tell you people were really positive towards everything.”

The hope and aspiration that comes with owning a house, especially after
 a long period of waiting is unmatched. This house has a great significance for Ismaaeel’s whole family. Ismaaeel expresses how he and his brother looked forward to having the house. To both of them it was an aspiration and now it has become a reality, and at the same time a financial security.

Looking towards the future, Ismaaeel hopes to build up the security for the community and can imagine a complex typology. Mymoena has a plan in mind that when the baby arrives and things have settled, she will try to petition for better measures to reduce speed on the roads, for example getting a speed boundary.

When asked about lessons learned in the process the Jacobs responded, “I think to stand more together as a community. Don’t, because you are disappointed by one person, not help the community. That whatever challenges you get, let’s face it together. Don’t leave it to one.”

Jun 21
Love0

Together We Can Achieve More: Solidarity as a Key to Community Building

By CORC, FEDUP, ISN, News No Comments

The following narrative is part of a broader and in-depth documentation of the Ruo Emoh project. This documentation includes a video and booklet and is the result of collaborative efforts between the SA SDI Alliance, People’s Environmental Planning, UCT & University of Basel Master students (part of the City Research Studios hosted by African Centre for Cities), and the community of Ruo Emoh. A more detailed description of the Ruo Emoh project can be found here.

Interviewee: Farida Gester
Interviewers and Text: Majaha Dlamini & Janine Eberle

Farida_Gester

 “Not waiting for others to help you out, but working together for a common goal, that is the key to Ruo Emoh’s success.”

Farida Gester grew up in Wynberg where her parents rented a place. She was happily living with her happy big family. Farida chuckles when thinking back of that time staying with her parents, four brothers and three sisters.

In about 1980 – Farida was around 21 years old – her family was pushed to live further outside the city. “The owners of the house in Wynberg claimed it for themselves. My parents only rented it and that time it was still apartheid.” Farida explains. The whole family moved to Lentegeur in Mitchells Plain, where they lived together for 30 years. When Farida talks about that time, she speaks of her father as a very sociable person, who welcomed all people into their home, regardless of their skin colour. There would always be visitors around the house, especially when her brothers scouted teammates to play football with them. When Farida’s two sons were old enough, they would also play football in her father’s team, with people from different townships. Her mother used to cook for all the people and everybody would have a good time.

Her parents also supported her after she had a bad accident on her way to work. That is now 20 years ago, her children were still little. Farida was working as a machinist in a factory at that time, but after the accident she was forced to live off a disability grant from the state. It was very difficult for her to get by without her regular income, but her parents always supported her, like they did with all their children. With the years, her parents got ill and after her mother’s death, Farida did the cooking for everyone who visited their house or came by to play football. When also her father died, Farida decided to move out. The house in Lentegeur had only 3 rooms and was very crowded. With her siblings, nieces, nephews and in-laws living there all together, she had wanted to find a more spacious place for a long time, but she stayed for the sake of her parents, whom she cared for and looked after. It was important to them that the family stayed together. So after they passed away, Farida’s oldest son who was living in a two-room house in Portland, asked her to move in with his family. That is now 8 years ago. In Portland, Farida shared a room with the 3 grandchildren, two girls and one boy. Meanwhile, her younger son and his family were staying in the backyard of other people in Lentegeur.

A community that might become a family

In December 2017, when Farida could finally move into her house in Ruo Emoh, she decided to take her younger son and his family with her. Farida is very happy to finally have her own house and her family is excited to live there. It will still take a while for her to see how this move will change her life in the long run, she says. For her, the move from Portland to Ruo Emoh was not such a big change, since she was already living in a house before. Also, they’re sharing a room with her other grandchildren. The living situation did not significantly change her everyday life. For her younger son’s family it is different because their former place in Lentegeur was not as spacious and they had to pay a high rent to be able to stay. Their move from the backyard to Ruo Emoh marked a significant shift in their lives. Certainly, everyone is more comfortable here than where we lived before, Farida says.

It was 6 or 7 years ago when Farida joined the Ruo Emoh community. She heard about the project from the beginning when her neighbours in Lentegeur were talking about it. But since she was still living in her parent’s house with her whole family, she preferred to stay there. She cared for her parents when they were not longer fit and needed someone to look after them. It was only when she moved to Portland with her oldest son, she decided to join the community. It wasn’t easy, but her family supported her so that she could contribute to the saving scheme. When there were functions or meetings, she would always be there and help to push forward the project. She appreciates all the hard work everyone in the community has put into its success. The biggest obstacle in the process, in her view, was the city not cooperating with them. It is hard to see why the city didn’t let them build their own houses; why they had to make it such a long and hard struggle. The neighbourhood ratepayers also added to the problem; they did not want Ruo Emoh to be built. Farida says that they thought the new houses would be low-class houses and this would be bad for the area. Their resentment was nothing personal and Farida is positive that the relationship will improve over time, now that they can get to know each other. “It has to.” she chuckles.

Farida has visions for her house, but it will take time to really decide on what to build. For now, she is very happy with how everything look. At some point she would like to extend a veranda, build another wall outside the house and add another room. It is even possible that they will add a second floor at some point. Time will show- for now, they like it as it is. She hopes that this project will spread so that more places like Ruo Emoh will exist in the future.

Social cohesion and the feeling of solidarity are very important for Farida. This is how she grew up living with her family and also how she explains the success of Ruo Emoh. Everyone is like family here and looks after one another. This is how Ruo Emoh has been able to achieve so much. “Not waiting for others to help you out, but working together for a common goal, that is the key to Ruo Emoh’s success,” Farida says.

Jun 15
Love0

Restarting and Regaining Momentum: The Persistence of the Ruo Emoh Community

By CORC, FEDUP, ISN, News, uTshani Fund No Comments

By Mariel Zimmermann and Jaclyn Williams (on behalf of CORC)

Looking back at the two decade history of the Ruo Emoh housing project, we outline the primary political and social challenges the community faced and how they overcame these obstacles together. The main takeaways from the success of the Ruo Emoh housing project allow us to better understand how communities unite and why they continue to persist in the face of constant challenges. (Read the full project profile here.)

Project Overview

The success of the Ruo Emoh housing project was celebrated
 on December 22nd, 2017, when 49 families moved into new homes, built on a well-located piece of infill land on the corner of Weltevreden Parkway
 & Caesars Drive in Colorado Park, Mitchells Plain. The houses are located adjacent to public transport and nearby schools, a community hall, shops and a hospital. The process to bring the project to completion was, however, complex and contested, marked by the community’s persistent battle with government’s administrative and political hurdles, and contestation from the neighboring ratepayer groups.

Obstacles, Restarting, and Regaining Momentum

The struggle of Rou Emoh began in 1997, when backyarders and tenants strained by poor living conditions in Manenberg and Mitchells Plan created the Ruo Emoh Housing Savings Scheme. The savings scheme, established under the South African Homeless People’s Federation (now know as the Federation fo the Urban and Rural Poor), identified strategies to access land and later housing through the People’s Housing Process (PHP), a program initiated by the then Department of Housing.  

The Ruo Emoh group was convinced that they could build more appropriate houses than the contractor and government-led RDP approach. In June 1999, they demonstrated what a people’s housing approach could entail and within  3 days, they built an illegal, formal “show house” on vacant land in Mitchells Plain (read the whole story here). Neighboring residents (who were skeptical of the Ruo Emoh group) approached the Federation about the show house and saw that it offered a real alternative to contractor supplied housing. The next day, however, a bulldozer demolished the show house within 3 hours.

“We built the house as a practical statement. Of course we knew that it was illegal. We knew that we would have to suffer the consequences…. We did not try to interrupt negotiations – at every time we were ready to talk. All we wanted…was to ask them to come and look at the house… to see that the people’s process is better.” – Janap Oosthuizen (cited in People’s Dialogue on Land and Shelter, Negotiating for land: the construction and demolition of Ruo Emoh’s show house in Cape Town in August 1999.)

Archie Olkers presenting the model of the show house that was built in 1999.

Archie Olkers presenting the model of the show house that was built in 1999.

In 1999, the Ruo Emoh group, supported by the South African Homeless People’s Federation and uTshani Fund purchased a piece of undeveloped land in Colorado Park. At approximately 10,000m2 in size, the purchase of the plot enabled the community to begin designing, planning, coordinating and managing their own housing development. Applications for rezoning and subdivision were submitted to the city council and to the provincial government of the Western Cape. This initiated a slow engagement with statutes and regulations necessary to obtain subdivision clearance so that the land could be used for residential purposes.

At this stage, however, the Colorado Ratepayers Association (CRA) and other neighbours raised numerous objections. These were based on the assumption that the Ruo Emoh development would lower property values and strain basic service infrastructure for water, electricity and sewage. They also linked backyard dwellers with criminal activity. Ironically, many who objected had erected informal structures in their own back yards to accommodate children and relatives. Finally, after five years of back and forth, the subdivision was approved on 26 June 2006. 

From 2006 to 2010 the project was put on hold due to ongoing objections by neighbors and ratepayers. After 12 years of multiple setbacks, groundwork infrastructure was installed on the Ruo Emoh site on 8 June 2011.Shortly after the contractor initiated the groundwork infrastructure installation, ratepayers supported by
 the local councilor attempted to
 disrupt construction.Under political pressure the city reneged on the in-principle agreement and in July 2011 uTshani Fund (as the developer) received a “cease works order” from the city. The project was stopped at significant cost (and penalties) to the developer with half the infrastructure left incomplete in the ground.

As a result of these objections, the developer and Ruo Emoh community reluctantly ceded to a lower density 
for the project. Whereas the land was originally slated for 100 two-story houses, the project was reduced to 49 single-story houses. This compromise meant that fewer housing beneficiaries 
in the Ruo Emoh group would receive 
a house as part of the project, and those who did would need to pay more. It also meant that at a time when there was a cry for medium to high-density housing across South Africa (which would incorporate cross-subsidization and innovate building methods when using state subsidies), an opportunity was lost to create a people-centered project and process.

Impact

Despite the financial and emotional setback, the Ruo Emoh community, assisted by FEDUP, uTshani Fund, and Peoples’ Environmental Planning, worked to find funding, re-unite, and overcome the institutional and administrative hurdles needed to continue the Ruo Emoh project. After 18 months, the city council’s Spatial Planning, Environment and Land Use Management Committee (SPELUM) approved the extension of subdivision in November 2012. A series of drawn-out internal negotiations between the Ruo Emoh residents and support NGOs followed which resulted in a financial agreement to submit a new application to the Provincial government for an increased subsidy quantum. This amount was approved at the end of 2015. This left just one year to meet the conditions of subdivision that lapsed in early 2017. The most vital of these conditions were:

  1. An approved beneficiary list submitted and accepted by Province
  2. The installation of all infrastructure (civil and electrical)
  3. The construction of a boundary wall (around the development) at the cost of the developer
  4. The submission of a homeowner’s constitution with the local land use management department

What is noteworthy is that the cost of many of the above requirements was born by the community (e.g. constructing the boundary wall and ensuring site security).

Installation of the groundwork and building process of the Ruo Emoh housing project

Installation of the groundwork and building process of the Ruo Emoh housing project

Due to delays in releasing the subsidy and a number of onerous administrative tasks, housing construction only began in August 2017. Given the nature of the project, short time-frames and restriction on state finance, a “sweat equity”
or PHP self-build option was never going to be feasible. Community input in the design and layout was extensive. Mellon Housing was appointed as contractor and all houses were completed by December 22nd, 2017. On the same day, families received their title deeds and moved into their new homes. The Ruo Emoh residents paid the R6 500 per title deed, through a loan provided from People’s led fund, which will be paid back full within one year.

Ruo Emoh residents and PEP celebrating the happy end of the project with a community braai

Ruo Emoh residents and PEP celebrating the happy end of the project with a community braai

May 05
Love0

Whose Land is it Anyway? Unity and Divisions in the Development of Joe Slovo

By Archive, CORC, FEDUP, News, Resources, SDI No Comments

By Evelyn Benekane (on behalf of FEDUP) and Kwanda Lande (on behalf of CORC)

The “land issue” is probably the most debated topic in South Africa today. This is after a motion was passed by the parliament of South Africa to establish an ad hoc Constitutional Review Committee, to “review and amend section 25 of the Constitution to make it possible for the state to expropriate land in the public interest without compensation”. Currently, debates are reduced to land expropriation and neglect related issues such as land management challenges.

In this piece we share what some of these land management challenges look like for FEDUP in the Eastern Cape, where the Joe Slovo community has been struggling to access land for housing. In particular, the Federation experience highlights how conflicting interests around the Joe Slovo Communal Property Association (CPA) acted as a major impediment for Joe Slovo community members to access houses and title deeds.

“For the past 20 years the community of Joe Slovo was divided between two groups contesting the status of the Joe Slovo CPA. This left people without houses. People are struggling to buy electricity because they are not registered owners due to maladministration. There are no individual title deeds…”

(Evelyn Benekane)

This piece is an outcome of desktop research and interviews with Evelyn Benekane (FEDUP regional coordinator), who also wrote down the original content for this piece. She has been a community activist in Joe Slovo since the beginning of the settlement and she led the mobilising process to acquire land for housing since in 1995. Evelyn Benekane also acted as a signatory on behalf of the community when the Joe Slovo Community Property Association (CPA) was established in 1997 as part of the land restitution programme of South Africa . She was also elected as a spokesperson of the land committee, a platform for negotiating with the landowner and the municipality.

Joe Slovo Context and Its Development History

Joe Slovo is a settlement established in 1995 by organised members of the FEDUP. The settlement started as an informal settlement and was later developed into a formal housing (RDP) settlement. It is located on the outskirts of Port Elizabeth CBD and in proximity to the small CBD of Dispatch. The Joe Slovo community has attracted new residents over the past 21 years, mostly coming from the nearby rural areas in the hope of finding a better life in the city.

Taken in 2016 by Joubert Loots, this panorama picture of Joe Slovo demonstrate some of the housing typology and infrastructure.

Taken in 2016 by Joubert Loots, this panorama picture of Joe Slovo demonstrate some of the housing typology and infrastructure.

The idea of establishing Joe Slovo began in 1994, when residents of Veeplaas (an informal settlement in Port Elizabeth) became aware of the idea of coming together to save. This was a result of an exchange organised by FEDUP in the Eastern Cape to bring different informal settlements in Port Elizabeth to share experiences to alleviate poverty. In this meeting FEDUP introduced savings as a pivotal tool for alleviating poverty and accessing housing. In 1995 Injongo Zama Afrika savings scheme was started by informal residents of Veeplaas with the objective to acquire land and build housing by using their savings.

One of the important moments in the existence of the Injongo Zama Afrika savers was in 1995 when they identified 263 hectares of land. This land, owned by Sunridge Estate and Development Corporation (a big land developer that owned land in the area), had been lying unattended for 50 years. As a result, Injongo Zama Afrika members decided to occupy the plot and then, establish their shacks on it. In parallel, members formed the land committee as a platform for negotiations with the owners and Evelyn Benekane was elected as group spokesperson. Sunridge Estate and Development Corporation priced the land at R2million, a price that was too high for the community.

In the meantime, the municipality wanted to evict the people living in the settlement but they managed to stay since they had already started negotiating with the landowner. As the community did not have money to purchase the land, it was assisted by People’s Dialogue (a support organisation to the Federation at the time) that made contact with the Department of Land Affairs (DLA). The community had developed a Residential and Agricultural Plan that they  submitted and which was accepted by DLA. The outcome of this process was the formation of a Communal Property Association named by members as the Joe Slovo CPA.

Community Led Development in Joe Slovo

In 1997, a deed of transfer was granted by the DLA to the Joe Slovo CPA with Evelyn Benekane as the chairperson and signatory on behalf of the CPA. This encouraged the community to start designing their layout plan and, with the support of People’s Dialogue, hired Ulwazi Engineering services to formalise the plan and submit a proposal for housing and infrastructure development. This comprised water and sewer installation, and a total of 1940 houses, which were to be built in different phases. The members wanted to demonstrate how much could be done with little money in a short period of time, as the municipality did not make further plans for development.

The Joe Slovo community meets in 1997. Pictured in the white shirt on the left is community leader Evelyn Benekane.

The Joe Slovo community meets in 1997. Pictured in the white shirt on the left is community leader Evelyn Benekane.

In order to start phase one, Injongo Zama Afrika members accessed R1 million from uTshani Fund in 1997 to finance water and sewer installation for 340 structures. In the same year, the land was rezoned for township and agricultural use. The funds for bulk infrastructure and high mast lights were also approved by uTshani. To assist in paying this loan, the community decided to negotiate with the National Department of Human Settlements and Department of Land Affairs. This was after the community began experiencing some difficulties in repaying their loan to uTshani Fund. 

After 2000, the Injongo Zama Afrika saving scheme struggled to encourage members to save, as the ward councillor convinced people, that the development of Joe Slovo should be taken over by the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro. By this time, the infrastructure for the 340 sites was already installed for phase one but not complete. Struggling to pay back the borrowed money for the infrastructure development, the savers decided to approach the National Department of Human Settlements (DHoS). They explained that the municipality had not made immediate plans for infrastructure development for Joe Slovo. The request was for the community to be given money to install infrastructure as there was no agreement with the municipality to install infrastructure.

Subsequently, the DoHS considered a policy that says all communities that were given land through CPAs must be given money to install infrastructure for the duration that there is no agreement with municipalities. By the time an agreement would be reached with municipalities, including approval of plans to install infrastructure, the money allocated can then be given back to the DoHS. As a result, the R1 million borrowed from uTshani Fund was paid back by the DoHS. Nevertheless, uTshani Fund decided to plough the money back, so that the installation of phase one – water and sewage – could be completed.

Divisions in the Community

Since then, internal conflicts in the Joe Slovo CPA have created challenges. Since 1999, the community became more divided. On the one hand there was a group, led by CPA members that pushed for the CPA to go forward with applications for housing and title deeds. On the other hand, there was a group led by a local ward councillor that wanted to dissolve the CPA and hand over responsibilities for the land and housing project to the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro Municipality. 

Meanwhile, in Joe Slovo, the CPA had already negotiated for phase one infrastructure and pursued agricultural projects. By 2000 the application for service installation in the second portion of the 1600 sites was already complete. However, the remainder who had not received services were getting impatient that it would take a long time to access services through loans. Instead they wanted the municipality to do the installation. This was fuelled by a promise from the local ward councillor that the municipality would install services only after the Joe Slovo land was transferred to the municipality. At one point the community even stopped saving, as word got around that government was giving away free houses.

At the time, the CPA had already applied for Provincial Institutional Subsidies to fast track housing delivery for those that had not received houses. An institutional subsidy is a government grant designed for institutions that provide the option of tenure arrangements to beneficiaries instead of immediate ownership. This housing subsidy was in the process of being approved, but the community did not accept it, because they wanted immediate ownership of their houses with title deeds. After the community had amended their initial application, they applied for People’s Housing Process (PHP) housing in the year 2003, which was approved. PHP is a process where beneficiaries are actively involved in the decision making over the housing process, product and make a contribution towards the building of their own houses.

Taken by Saga, in 2016 shows one of the agricultural project in Joe Slovo and incomplete houses.

Taken by Saga, in 2016 shows one of the agricultural project in Joe Slovo and incomplete houses.

In 2004, when the members of the CPA were preparing to implement phase two of the housing project – conducting beneficiary administration, dividing sites and preparing the community for development – the councillor opposed the initiative. His reason was that he wanted the development to be run by the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro municipality. He argued that the community would lose out on development provided by the municipality, as the community privately owned Joe Slovo. In the community people increasingly believed what the local councillor was saying. This was compounded by the fact that there was an increasing number of new residents in Joe Slovo, who did not understand the history of community organising through savings in Joe Slovo.

Joe Slovo CPA vs. Nelson Mandela Bay Metro Court Case

It was clear by 2005 that there had been a shift of power/influence in the settlement. As a result there was a growing voice demanding the handover of the Joe Slovo land to the municipality. This culminated in community dialogues that were initiated and facilitated by mediators employed by the municipality. A report conducted by the mediators concluded that the community approved that land should be given to the municipality in 2005. This statement, however, did not include the voices of the original founders of Joe Slovo and CPA members who refused to hand over land to the municipality. Additionally, members questioned the neutrality of the municipality-employed mediators.

Soon after the report was published the municipality requested hand over of the title deed, but some members of the CPA refused. Due to these events, the municipality took the refusing members to the Eastern Cape High Court in 2006. Accordingly, the CPA members required support and assistance from Legal Aid for representation. As Legal Aid advised the community, they prepared a memorandum detailing reasons for the refusal as well as a clear statement that members would only release the title deed for the sake of progress of development without letting go of their land.

The High Court welcomed the handing over of the title deed and ruled, however, that both the CPA and municipality would need to follow a process to hand over land. This would mean that CPA members must sign for de-registration of the CPA, however, this never took place. By the time the court case was closed, the councillor was appointed as chairperson of the CPA.

The Aftermath of the Court Case

The local ward councillor in Joe Slovo, as the chairperson of the CPA, further advocated for hand over of the land to the municipality. However, he was faced with a contradiction that made it difficult for him to sign for deregistration of the Joe Slovo CPA. The contradiction was that he was accepted and embraced by the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform as someone who can sign on behalf of the CPA since he was a member of the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro council.

Additionally, the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform requested that if the Joe Slovo CPA elects a new committee it must not only have new members. The request was that the chairperson must add five more people to the top executive from the outgoing committee for continuation. But this was not done. It seemed the councillor was not interested in building the Joe Slovo CPA. 

Between 2005 and 2010 the Joe Slovo CPA did not convene any general meetings. This means that the community did not receive any formal feedback about the CPA. As a result, it became clear later that the local ward councillor did not succeed in deregistering the CPA as a result of the contradiction he was faced with. One can assume that the reason why there was no reporting back to the community by the local ward councillor/chairperson was because he did not want to tell people that he did not succeed in deregistering the CPA.

In 2009 it was evident that not everyone on the beneficiary list had received a house. As a result, FEDUP engaged with the Eastern Cape Department of Human Settlements and, via uTshani Fund, submitted an application for subsidies for beneficiaries on the housing list. Some members’ subsidies were never approved, as they needed an agreement of sale from the landowner. At this stage it was not clear to the community who owned Joe Slovo land, between CPA and Nelson Mandela Bay Metro, since there was never a community report back about the status the CPA.

Nevertheless, FEDUP approached the local ward councillor to seek assistance and clarity. The ward councillor replied by referring FEDUP to the municipality as the “owner” of the land. Based on the property register database of the municipality, FEDUP was told that the Joe Slovo land was never transferred to the municipality and that it is still owned by the CPA. Indeed, a copy of the original title deed received from the deeds office in Cape Town demonstrates that the land belongs to the CPA.

Governemental subsidy housing in Joe Slovo picture: saga

Governemental subsidy housing in Joe Slovo picture: Saga 2016

Uniting a Divided Community

Today in Joe Slovo there are people who have not received title deeds. Some never had a chance to receive houses and subsidies to build their houses. This is a direct consequence of conflicting and opposing interests in the Joe Slovo CPA, which are coined by two opposing parties, contesting the status of the Joe Slovo Community Property Association. Despite immense pressure to hand over the land to the municipality, the community was able to retain land ownership in Joe Slovo, which is legally registered under the Joe Slovo CPA.

The main problem in Joe Slovo today is political rather than legal. The question therefore is: How do you ensure that people are supported to access housing and title deeds? Today the community of Joe Slovo believes that this question can be answered by building a united community. Presently, there is a new ward councillor in Joe Slovo and this opens up new opportunities to support community led initiatives.

FEDUP is planning to conduct a community survey and the councilor is providing assistance. This community led survey will involve everyone who was a role player as a step to unite the community. It will show the houses that have been built and who built them. It will reveal who received the house, because some of the people living in these houses are not the owners. 

There is a case whereby provincial housing subsidies were approved and given to Thubeletsha Homes, which was a government-housing agency mandated to build low-cost housing. However, Thubeletsha Homes is no longer building houses and was taken over by the Housing Development Agency (HDA) due to being in “financial distress”. The community survey is the first step towards conducting a follow up on subsidies given to Thubeletsha Homes. The new ward councilor has arranged for the team from the office of the MEC of Human Settlements to provide some assistance in this regard.

Based on the meeting that was held between the community and officials from the office of the MEC of Human Settlements there was a general suggestion to request presidential intervention, since the community has engaged both local and provincial structures with limited success.

Conclusion

The Joe Slovo housing development project has existed for over 20 years. The experiences to date provide vital lessons especially in the current time, where the “land issue” is the most debated topic in South Africa. In the debate of amending laws the experience of FEDUP does not dispute the debate of legal instruments as impediment to access land/housing. However, FEDUPs experience contributes to the debate by demonstrating that there is a political layer which can be an impediment to accessing land/housing. This means that it is not enough to concentrate only on legal instruments and that there is a need to also understand the role of socio-political dynamics on the “land issue”.

Apr 25
Love0

Improving service delivery through partnerships: Lessons from Nelson Mandela Bay Metro

By Academic, Archive, News, Partnerships, Publications, Resources No Comments

By Kwanda Lande (on behalf of CORC)

Partnerships as an approach to service delivery have gained trust in many quarters and are widely acknowledged as a viable solution to a number of service delivery challenges. In implementation, however, partnerships are complex and often associated with vicissitudes characterised by varying victories and challenges. How do these victories and challenges look like, and what can we learn from them? The purpose of this blog is to assess the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro partnership with SA SDI Alliance as an approach to improving service delivery, highlighting different victories, challenges and what can be learned from them.

Some of the SA SDI Alliance team members that were involved in partnership negotiations with the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro

Some of the SA SDI Alliance team members that were involved in partnership negotiations with the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro

Background to the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro partnership with the SA SDI Alliance

Since the formation of the Informal Settlement Network (ISN) in 2008, forging partnerships with local governments for incremental upgrading of informal settlement has been a priority for SA SDI Alliance. Nelson Mandela Bay Metro was one of the first municipalities that were considered, especially, because of the strength of FEDUP in housing developments (e.g. Joe Slovo ePHP project), and the extent of deprivation in the province. Former CORC Director, Bunita Kohler, reflects: 

At first, it was difficult to find a break through and establish a structured way of working together. As a result, the Alliance decided to focus on building its relationship with the municipality through learning exchanges. Senior officials of the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro were invited to join the Alliance on various learning exchanges to places such as Thailand, Stellenbosch and Cape Town. 

One of the first engagements was with the Department of Human Settlements’ Ministerial Sanitation Task Team (MSTT) in 2011. Communities such as Missionvale, Seaview, Midrand, Kleinskool, and Zweledinga, that had already enumerated their settlements, presented their settlements’ data to the MSTT. They highlighted sanitation and water services as one of the pressing priorities for many settlements. Following these engagements, the SA SDI Alliance demonstrated community led development by constructing a water and sanitation facility in Midrand informal settlement. 

In 2016 FEDUP and ISN profiled settlements in Port Elizabeth, as part of an engagement with Nelson Mandela Bay Metro Municipality, enabling the municipality to receive comprehensive data about the status of informal settlements in Port Elizabeth. As informal settlement residents conducted the profiling activity, they came across informal settlements that the municipality was unaware of. This demonstrated that data collected by informal settlement residents has the capacity to be more comprehensive and accurate than outsourced approaches to data collection on informal settlements. Consequently, some of the communities profiled used their data to engage government. 

 Together with previous exchanges and engagements, data collection and projects all culminated into a signed Memorandum of Agreement in 2016.

Midrand WaSH Facility in Midrad informal settlement, one of the projects that the were constructed by the community.

Midrand WaSH Facility in Midrad informal settlement, one of the projects that the were constructed by the community.

The Memorandum of Agreement

In 2016, a Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) was signed between the SA SDI Alliance and Nelson Mandela Bay Metro. This agreement offered an opportunity for the municipality and Port Elizabeth’s profiled informal settlements (supported by the SA SDI Alliance), to achieve service delivery objectives. Experience and expertise in data collection, exchanges and community led projects made the Alliance a strategic partner to promote shared values of improving access to services, transparency, community participation, and trust between the municipality and informal settlement communities.

As part of the MoA, a number of deliverables in a period of three years were identified. This includes profiling of all informal settlements in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro, enumeration of 14 informal settlements (at least two in each municipal cluster), plan and/or implement small-scale projects in at least 14 informal settlements. To achieve this work, the SA SDI Alliance committed to contribute three million Rand over a period of three years (one million per annum). Nelson Mandela Bay Metro committed to contribute six million Rand over the same period of three years (two million per annum).

Whereas the financial commitments have been clearly determined in the MoA, specificities of how this ought to happen, in terms of delivering services were not clarified. This lack of bindingness leads to uncertainty on how the municipality will use the agreed six million Rand and hampers access to the resources. Accordingly, communities have been struggling to access the funds committed by the metro for incremental upgrading projects. One of the strategies to overcome this challenge has been to present community collected data to municipal officials. This approach aimed to highlight the communities’ priorities and thus, present possible upgrading projects requiring financial commitment from the metro.

The presentations are, however, limited to the Department of Human Settlements because of difficulties to access other departments. This has made it hard for informal settlement residents to get other departments to contribute to the fulfilment of the signed Memorandum of Agreement. It is only the Department of Human Settlements that has taken up the task of ensuring that the agreed objectives are achieved, but informal settlements issues identified require collaboration with other departments as well. This climate of fragmentation has unfortunately successfully frustrated the efforts of service provision and it is a clearly missed opportunity to improve living conditions of poor people.

Service Delivery, and Minimum Norms and Standards in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro

 Service delivery in the informal settlements of Nelson Mandela Bay Metro is in a miserable state. Since 2009/10 when the SA SDI Alliance conducted informal settlement profiling in the Metro, 40 settlements were profiled. These communities have identified water and drainage, and sanitation and sewage as one of the major issues and consequently, priorities were set around these issues.

Profiling of informal settlements taking place in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro

Profiling of informal settlements taking place in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro

In a number of informal settlements, residents do not have any access to water, forcing them to purchase water from groups of people that collect water elsewhere. In a case where households do not have money to purchase water, it becomes very difficult. A further issue is the functionality of existing water taps. Although in some communities, there exists at least one water tap within a 200-meter radius, some of those water taps are not working. In cases where water taps are working, there are interruptions that occur on a regular basis. As a result, people end up not accessing 25 liters of water per day, within a 200-meter radius as prescribed in the Strategic Framework for Water Services 2003.

The Strategic Framework for Water Services of 2003, a comprehensive approach in the provision of water services in South Africa, sets out compulsory minimum technical norms and standards for the provision of water. These include that, in the case of communal water points, 25 litres of potable water per person per day must be supplied within 200 metres radius of a household and with a minimum flow of 10 litres per minute. These specific standards are reflected and considered as compulsory minimum norms standards for water by the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro’s Integrated Development Plan (2016/17 – 2020/21).

Priorities set by informal settlements residents clearly demonstrate a missed opportunity within the municipality. Due to their specific challenges, informal settlement residents propose a number of solutions to the many challenges of water and service delivery in their communities. These include additional water taps closer to their structures. This means that at least one water tap should be provided for a maximum of five households. Currently people wait in long queues to access water taps because of high population densities in their settlements and in some settlements people do not even have access to water. Informal settlement residents believe that their proposed minimum technical norms and standards will fit well to their context.

Across South Africa, municipalities are developing and implementing their water services plans as mandated by the constitution of the Republic of South Africa. Drafters of the constitution had envisaged that from time to time local government, as water services authorities, will have to set minimum technical norms and standards that are locally relevant. In the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro, challenges and priorities identified by informal settlement dwellers clearly demonstrate the need to collectively develop a water services development plan that is well known and accepted by everyone.  

In the case of sanitation/sewage, in almost all 40 informal settlements there are no toilets. Instead, people use bucket systems and pit latrines as toilets, which cause health hazards to children and pose risks to women as they are not well maintained and are located too far away from certain structures. During the night, it is especially dangerous for women to use the toilets because of risks of being raped. Residents have contributed by building their own pit latrines. These, however, are not connected to the sewer system of the municipality. This creates stagnant grey water around toilets that also poses a health hazard. People are also using open fields and bushes to relieve themselves.

Pit latrine toilet used by some residents from Midrand informal settlement

Pit latrine toilet used by some residents from Midrand informal settlement

The impact of data collection

The profiling of informal settlements in Nelson Mandela Bay Metro has helped communities to understand and articulate their needs. Communities now understand the importance of organising themselves, they understand that the more organised they are, the stronger their voice, the more isolated they are, the weaker their voices. 

The idea of using profiling as a mobilizing tool in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro has allowed FEDUP and ISN to engage deeply with more communities about their priority issues. Previously the Alliance was working mostly with settlements around Missionvale, Seaview, Midrand, Kleinskool, and Zweledinga. Because of profiling activity in the municipality, the Alliance now has a footprint in all informal settlements. These include areas such as Uitenhage, Walmer, Colchester, Greenbushes, Joe Slovo, Kleinskool, Kwa Zakhele, Veeplaas, Swartkops, Riversdale, New Brighton, and Motherwell.

“If I could call them today, I know they will ask me when am I coming back, when are we going to have our own forum, when are we going to have our own dialogue around issues that affects us. Communities, now want to start talking about the next step, they want to take action on the issues that affect them. The profiling exercise has mobilized communities to a level where they feel they have a relevant movement/platform of the poor that they can use to address their problems. Communities are ready.”  (Mzwanele Zulu, ISN)

Informal settlement residents coming together to discuss community issues based on profiling that they conducted.

Informal settlement residents coming together to discuss community issues based on profiling that they conducted.

Looking ahead

We currently have a good partnership with the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro that can potentially develop into something great. Communities have been mobilised, and they have presented their challenges and priorities to different  officials of the municipality. However – there are some serious gaps, negatively affecting provision of services, which need to be dealt with as a matter of urgency. (Bunita Kohler, CORC)

In Nelson Mandela Bay Metro, the partnership between the municipality and SA SDI Alliance remain an important approach to improving service delivery. In implementation, the experience of informal settlements dwellers with the municipality demonstrates that partnerships are complex and often associated with varying vicissitudes. One of the main challenges in this partnership is accessing financial resources from the municipality to be used for service delivery in line with priorities identified by communities from their profiling exercise.

Going forward, the Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality has committed to rollover finances, which was supposed to be used in the first year of the MoA. On the side of communities, there is a need to find innovative ways of accessing municipal resources and support for incremental upgrading. In this regard, the SA SDI Alliance is currently working with the International Budget Partnership, to learn about different methods that communities can use to access municipal budgets for incremental upgrading.

The success of the partnership also depends on other departments in the Nelson Mandela Bay Metro taking up the task of ensuring that agreed objectives are achieved. This will require a coherent approach from the city, which encourages city departments to act together. There is also an opportunity for the municipality to commence a process of collectively developing and implementing water services plans together with informal settlement residents, which will be well known and accepted by everyone. This would clarify and sort the disagreements around which standards to use.