community participation Archives

Sep 03

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

By Kwanda Lande 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

Jun 27

Love0

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

By Yolande Hendler 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

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 15

Love0

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

By Yolande Hendler 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.

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:

An approved beneficiary list submitted and accepted by Province
The installation of all infrastructure (civil and electrical)
The construction of a boundary wall (around the development) at the cost of the developer
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

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

May 05

Love0

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

By Yolande Hendler 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.

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.

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.

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 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 Yolande Hendler 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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Feb 26

Love0

Social and Physical Impact of Re-blocking: California Informal Settlement, Mfuleni (Cape Town)

By Yolande Hendler Archive, CORC, ISN, News, Press, Publications, Resources No Comments

by Kwanda Lande and Mariel Zimmermann (on behalf of CORC)

We decided to do re-blocking because we were living in a very congested settlement, we wanted our settlement to be rearranged, we wanted services – we wanted to have roads, toilets, electricity and water. We also wanted this project because it is going to mitigate fire in the settlement, and we have been careful with the building material we have used to build our structures. (Lindiwe Noqholota, community member and member of the project steering committee)

In the upgrading of California there is an advocacy purpose, resources were used for the community to demonstrate good practice around upgrading of informal settlements. The project was done so that the community can build itself as a community that is able to come together around issues because re-blocking is just the start, it’s not the end, it’s the starting point to say what’s next? (Oscar Sam, ISN Mfuleni subregional coordinator)

The story of California informal settlement in Mfuleni, Cape Town is a story of many challenges, but also of many victories and hope. It is through this story where we begin to grasp nuances and multi-layers that capture the impact of re-blocking to the community.This story is told by community members, who have been engaged in a struggle for basic services, land and and housing since 2008.

Look over California informal settlement before and during implementation

California is an informal settlement located in the midst of formal houses in the Township of Mfuleni, Cape Town. The settlement occupies a space of 2,239 m2 between the streets of Umzumbe on the North, Mgwanda on the West, Dutywa on the South, and M Baba on the East. The community of California has been subjected to some threats since 2008, when the settlement started. This includes the fact that the community existed until 2012 without any services. It became worse in 2012 when there was fire that destroyed almost all their houses threatening their existence.

I remember in 2012 after almost all our shacks were burned down we had to build our shacks again because we had nowhere to go. People from this church in our area did not want us to build our shacks in this area again. After the municipality had intervene the church then told us that each household should at least pay R50. But we refused because the municipality had told us that the church does not have rights to do this. This is how we fought to stay in this settlement, after which everything became easy and we were also given house/shack numbers. (Nokuthula Mazomba, community member and member of the project steering committee)

Some of the first signs of collective action and self-reliance

Since 2008 the community of California did not have any legal water source and toilets, people were forced to use water taps provided to people in formal houses. This lack of water and sanitation services led to anxiety and the feeling of insecurity, when using the ‘toilet’ at night. Consequently, there was an attitude that led to restricting access to water from people living in formal houses. The community had to do something as a result they decided to make contributions of R10 each household and installed one water tap for the whole community.

The installation of water tap is one of the first signs of collective action and self-reliance by the community. After which the community organised itself and went to the ward councillor demanding further access to water, in which they were successful. However, the settlement was still lacking services such as toilets and electricity, and the community needed a partner to intensify their struggle to access better services and improve their lives. Against this backdrop, the community of California meet with the Informal Settlement Network (ISN) in 2015 to enforce their voices.

Community members of California, and SA SDI Alliance leaders working together in implementing the project.

Community using Data Collection and Community Exchanges

The Informal Settlement Network, partner in the SA SDI Alliance, brought a number of tools to assists the community in their struggles. This includes the data collection tool, which helped the community to engage municipality with facts and community-determined priorities. As a result, seven toilets were installed for the community, through the assistance of ISN, which helped to do data collection that helped the community to negotiate and to demand all these services.

Community of California doing enumeration of their own settlement

Based on the data collected (profiling and enumeration) in 2015, the population of California is made of 47 households with 108 residents. Furthermore, this profiling and enumeration exercise done by the residents of California assessed community prioritise, which include electricity, water and sanitation. As a result, the community also went to the City of Cape Town to request electricity. Their first request was, however, met with disappointment. The municipality explained that it could not install electricity because of congestion and limited space for installing electricity.

Through ISN, in 2016 we went on an exchange to another settlement that was re-blocked by the SA SDI Alliance called Flamingo Crescent. We went to that settlement and saw how that settlement was built and how the settlement was redesigned and reconfigured to create space that would ensure the provision of services. After a year without interacting with ISN we also learnt that the City of Cape Town had made some budget for re-blocking in California and this was through the work of ISN that negotiated for budget to be made available for upgrading California. (Lindiwe Noqholota, community member and member of the project steering committee)

However, when the community leaders who visited Flamingo Crescent were reporting to the community some members were not convinced about this project and rejected it as they felt that they were not sufficiently informed. After several meetings and explanations of how the project will look like and what the benefits for the residents will be, the community voted for the implementation. The community also knew that if they will not make use of the budget from the city, these resources would be taken elsewhere.

How has the project impact the Settlement?

The implementation of re-blocking in California begun in May 2017 and 47 structures were upgraded and specific building material that reduces the risks of fire was used. Paved access roads were implemented throughout the settlement. Furthermore, a stormwater drainage system has been implemented and electricity is in the process of being implemented. In the case of funding for the project, there was an agreement with the municipality that they will provide services, including water, electricity, and toilets.

Work in progress that involves structures before implementation and the last phase of the project.

The community contributed 20%, and supported by Community Organisation and Resource Centre (CORC) with 80% towards building their structures. Yet, the community is still waiting for the implementation of toilets and water taps per household from the municipality. The community also managed to negotiate for extra piece of land. This municipal land is located adjacent to the settlement but the community was not allowed to use it before. This extra piece of land has helped the community to have more space for access walkways and space for people to dry their clothes after washing them.

The re-blocking project of California allowed people in the community to ‘break walls’, and start learning and talking to one another. It allowed people to take ownership of the process and start personalising their environment where they have change their community and houses to suit their personal taste. Through this re-blocking process, it became evident that compromises are at the centre of re-blocking, and although some might not like an idea and approach, it is important that people compromise on their differences for the sake of development.

I learned that as residents of California, we do not really know each other, as I though before this project. This project has created a chance for us to learn about each other and to tolerate one another because we differ in a lot of things. As a result, it is helpful that we have community leaders that can speak for everyone and that people can raise their issues through and not to one another or direct to government one by one.(Buhle Mthimkhulu, community member and member of the project steering committee)

What can the future for the community look like?

In regard to the future of the community, the kind of experience that the community has went through is essential because re-blocking is not the end but a starting point. It is a start for individuals to recognise themselves as part of a community. It is a start for the community to establish itself as part of a broader network of informal settlements. The project presents an opportunity for the community to start a saving scheme that will build social capital of the community and allow community members to support each other not only financial but also socially. This project is a start for the community to investigate and make sure that community prioritise are part of government budgets and use that to hold them accountable.

Sep 19

Love0

What does it mean to “Know Your City” in South Africa?

By Yolande Hendler Community-led Data Collection, News No Comments

By Yolande Hendler and Kwanda Lande (on behalf of CORC)

“What’s the difference when we collect data on our own informal settlements?” – a question that Melanie and Nozuko asked to a packed room of 150 people, including the South African Minister of Human SettIements, Lindiwe Sisulu. As urban poor residents and coordinators of social movements (FEDUP and ISN), it was noteworthy that both Nozuko and Melanie shared the stage with the minister as equals.

Nozuko Fulani speaking together with FEDUP Chairperson, Minister Lindiwe Sisulu and ISN's Melanie Johnson in a panel discussion on data collection from vulnerable population.

Nozuko (far right) sharing the stage with FEDUP Chairperson Rose Molokoane (far left), Minister Lindiwe Sisulu (centre left) and ISN’s Melanie Johnson (centre right) in a panel discussion on data collection from vulnerable population.

In a world in which digital data (including data on informal settlements) is increasingly collected and owned by “experts”, Melanie and Nozuko introduced a different narrative: “As FEDUP and ISN we have profiled 1500 informal settlements in South Africa over the past 20 years.” This is close to half the number informal settlements in South Africa (currently estimated at between 2700 and 3200).

On 7 September 2017, the South African SDI Alliance co-hosted the Digital Impact World Tour with SDI and the US-based Stanford Centre for Philanthropy and Civil Society in Cape Town’s Langa township. This one-day “stop” – the eighth on the tour and the first in Africa – discussed the role of data collection in the production of social change in the digital age, and in particular the power of community-gathered data for partnerships with local governments.

Minister of Human Settlements Lindiwe Sisulu, welcoming participants of the conference and setting the Setting the stage for a conversation to share ideas and experiences.

Minister of Human Settlements Lindiwe Sisulu, welcoming participants of the conference and setting the stage for a conversation to share ideas and experiences.

With people in attendance who represent fellow slum dweller social movements, civil society, funders, academics, government at all tiers and private sector actors, the event reinforced a commitment to ensure that urban poor communities are part of and shape the conversation. On behalf of informal settlement residents affiliated to FEDUP and ISN, Melanie and Nozuko spoke about the core of community-gathered data:

To us, data collection is about organising communities. We don’t just collect information but collect people too. The minute we start collecting data about ourselves, we begin to understand ourselves as a collective and in a fairly deeper way.

We understand the context of our settlements and we go deep into the household level when collecting data. When we profile and enumerate settlements, data is collected by community members living in that settlement. We make sure that we count everyone. This is why sometimes when you compare our data and government’s data they are totally different. We also communicate the data back to our communities in a way that communities understand – government does not always do this.

This data helps us to make our own community based plans. It is about looking at problems from our point of view and finding solutions. It is about opening up a space to plan for our own upgrading. It is necessary for government to get involved because we do have solutions on the ground.

Melanie speaking during panel discussion on data collection from vulnerable population

Amidst conversations on digital dependencies and innovative digital organisations, the urgency for government to “get involved” and support community-gathered data was evident. This emerged strongly in contributions made by members of the broader SDI network, South African SDI Alliance, Social Justice Coalition and International Budget Partnership, a fellow social movement and partner in the sector, who spoke about community-gathered data through social audts.

Fellow partners making contributions based on their own experiences and the working that they are doing.

Fellow partners making contributions based on their own experiences and work that they are doing.

The task to the minister and all government representatives in the room was clear, whether local, provincial or national: commit to supporting the Know Your City campaign on community-gathered data for co-productive partnerships between slum dwellers and local governments.

Though organized urban poor communities have been profiling and enumerating their settlements for over 20 years, the campaign (launched in 2014) established a digital platform to house this data and anchor the coproduction of inclusive urban development by communities, city governments and global urban development actors.

We have the power, ability and knowledge to collect data and organise our communities but what we want is for government to walk with us. We already started but we need a partnership to scale up our efforts. We want support from government, non-government organisations, private sector and academia.

Rose participating during the conference and emphasising the importance of partnerships between communities and government.

The minister committed to financially supporting the work of community-gathered data in cities across South Africa. For South African organisations and movements in the sector, THE next steps are clear: “We need to follow up the minister’s pledge to support data collection by informal settlement residents for all organisations” (Rose Molokoane, national SA Alliance coordinator).

Minister Lindiwe Sisulu committing that her department will support communities in data collection of their settlements.

So what is the difference with community-gathered data? “It’s about organizing ourselves, understanding ourselves and our settlements. It’s about making our own development plans, partnering with our local governments and sharing a stage as equals. It’s about Knowing Our City.”

Jul 13

Love0

The importance of saving: the pillow maker in Samora, Cape Town

By Yolande Hendler FEDUP, Savings No Comments

Compiled by Carmen Cancellari (on behalf of CORC)

Through the Federation Income Generation Programme, FEDUP savers have an opportunity to establish small businesses to generate income through accessing and repaying loans.

The financial aspect is crucial, but how can the Federation contribute to building solidarity and sharing among FEDUP business women? The experience of Patience, a resident in the informal settlement of Samora in Philippi, Cape Town, gives us some insights about the impact of FEDUP in the life of women.

My name is Patience and I live here in Samora, Philippi. For a living I have my own business, I make pillows. Now it’s been 7 years that I have been doing this. The first time I heard about the Federation it was in 2013, and that is also when I got my first loan.

What changed after receiving the FIGP (Federation Income Generation Program) loans was mainly in relation to the stock for my business. In fact, I was able to increase stock for my business and this also resulted in the increase of my profit. This helped me at home because I was responsible for my child’s education fees, who was studying at University of Western Cape, and since I could pay for her studies, she was able to continue and she graduated last year. So this is what was important, because my intentions and priorities have always been helping her to finish school.

Even at home I was able to fix some of the things. For example I managed to extend our house, I added two rooms and I saved some of the money… if it wasn’t for the loan I can say it was almost impossible to do all of this because I did not make enough profit from my business.

My business grew already a lot but I don’t want to stop here. At the moment, I am busy saving so that I can be able to buy a container. In fact now I cannot employ someone to help me because there is no space for both of us to work. Instead, I want someone who is going to help me because making pillows is very difficult and my business really needs me to hire someone. As a result of the stock which has increased in fact, my job has also increased and this is why I need someone to help me.

With my savings I think I will be able to buy the container next year January. And I do not want to rush it and end up having debts that I will not be able to pay back…I just want to save and know that I will be able to buy it.

Savings in fact is the heart of the Federation. My business improved a lot because through the Federation I learnt a lot about saving. Nolwando, one of the Federation coordinator, always teaches us about saving on top of the loans, and this way I have learnt how to save. There were times where I did not save at all and I was using my money on useless things.

I remember when I was working in Tsusa, there was a lady working with us who used to buy meat on a regular basis. She would make three orders a week! So one day I told her, as a person who was taught how to save, that she could save the R60 that she was spending on buying meat by, for example, eating cabbage and meals that she had prepared at home!

So the federation has helped me because now I am able to save and I can also help other people. And even today that lady has not forgotten me because I really helped her.

Patience (left) with FEDUP loans facilitator, Nolwando (centre)

Jul 26

Love0

Community Voices: “In GxaGxa people know you. And mosquitoes bite your children”

By Yolande Hendler CORC, FEDUP, ISN No Comments

*By GxaGxa Community Members, Compiled by Shelby Lyons (on behalf of CORC)

This blog contributes to a series called Community Voices; a blog space that shares the words of community members themselves. These stories— diverse yet unified – highlight aspects of the history, challenges and daily experiences associated with life in informal settlements.

This blog draws its content from a storytelling workshop in GxaGxa informal settlement in Cape Town. In the post are the voices of: Nobuwe Biyane, Elizabeth Merane, Thembisa Magqaza, Nokwandisa Mhlandi, Peter Somina, Tlotliso Moses, Siphamandla Ntusi, Somila Shumi and Witness Qoqela

In GxaGxa children play on the street

GxaGxa is a settlement located off the N2 highway in Gugulethu, Cape Town. Recently, community members here organised to complete household level enumerations of their settlement as part of gathering settlement wide data and identifying community priorities. Besides quantitative data gathered during the enumeration, qualitative accounts from settlement residents are crucial for understanding both the character of the settlement and social dynamics within it. Therefore on a chilly Tuesday, situated in a bright, turquoise room, a group of GxaGxa community members gathered together to tell their stories of life in the settlement.

Community members were first addressed by Akhona Malangeni, an engaging and passionate leader of the Informal Settlement Network (ISN), who explained to them the importance of storytelling in gaining a community-based account of life in GxaGxa. Below Akhona addresses the community.

SAMSUNG CSC

The first part of the dialogue focused on settlement history:

“The name GxaGxa stems from the birth name of the first man who settled there. As a lone settler, GxaGxa lived in this area for a few years until circumstance caused him to move back to the Eastern Cape”.

Community members seem to speak fondly of the late GxaGxa, who in 1987 was replaced by Mama Thembisa. Pictured below, Mama Thembisa now serves as a clear leader in the GxaGxa community.

After a large group discussion, community members organised in smaller groups. In one conversation circle people were asked: What is the best part about living in GxaGxa?

“The best part of being in GxaGxa is that we are a family. A lot of young people [that] live in this place do things in unity. Everyone knows each other—if you arrive here, people know you before they see you. We live in spirit. Young people respect old people. Old people respect young people. People are also not worried about crime”.

The emphasis on community was echoed in many of the accounts coming out of GxaGxa. Correspondingly, people were asked: What is the difficult about living in GxaGxa?

“The rain is serious. When it get’s colder the children—everyone—get sick. The water comes into the houses. Dirty water causes rashes that later become sores. There is no electricity. Those who are unemployed are especially vulnerable during this time because they cannot afford heat”. –Siphamandla Ntusi

The conversation about life in GxaGxa continued, including stories about the more trying aspects of daily life such as challenges in access to adequate services, the lack of employment opportunities and the relationship with the municipality.

Some of these challenges regarding services are found below:

The section comes from: Peter Somina, Tlotliso Moses, Siphamandla Ntusi, Somila Shumi and Witness Qoqela

Toilets –“Services [in GxaGxa] are poor and we are struggling because it is hard to get into toilets here. Many people who have their own toilets lock them. It is common for people to have to ask others for the key to the toilet”.

Tap- “Sometimes the water is completely dry in the tap and there is no water all day. These days we don’t eat. So we have to travel very far for water. This can happen 2-4 times a month. It depends. It just happens”.

Electricity- “We don’t have electricity. People share electricity. It becomes a problem when people don’t have money for paraffin. The streetlights are also off, which means it’s completely dark”.

Management- “If it’s hot the sewage smells. There is also a pond in the middle of the settlement [behind Mama Thembisa’s house] that floods and brings in a lot of mosquitos. Drains are also blocked”.

Indeed, references surrounding the danger of the pond were a common theme in settlement accounts.

Above is a photo of the pond in the middle of GxaGxa. Showing the proximity of the pond to her room, Nosipho Magqaza says, “It’s not healthy to live here”.

After sharing about their daily experiences, GxaGxa community members shared what they would like to see happen in their settlement. Community leader Nobuwe Biyane shared her wishes for GxaGxa.

“I have two children ages 15 and 16. There is a lot of suffering in GxaGxa. There is no work. There is too little taps and they must fill the pond because mosquitoes bite our children. [We] want a house with electricity”. –Nobuwe Biyane

Another opinion came from Peter Somina, who shared his wishes for the community.

Peter Somina as he addresses other community members.

“In my mind we must organise something that must be big… we must organise a big something for people to get jobs…maybe we open big things like construction that open doors for opportunity”. – Peter Somina

May 27

Love0

A Photo Story: Community-led Enumeration in Action

By Yolande Hendler Community-led Data Collection, CORC No Comments

By Ava Rose Hoffman and Yolande Hendler (on behalf of CORC)

A variety of methodologies exist for gathering data on informal settlements. The SA SDI Alliance follows the practice of community administered enumerations and community-led settlement mapping using GIS technology. An enumeration refers to a detailed household level surveys that engages community members on socio-economic and demographic data. For the Alliance, the community-led process during enumerations is critical: when a mobilised community collects its own data, the data obtained reflects far higher degrees of accuracy than any census or survey run by ‘outsiders’ would.

In early 2016, the SA SDI Alliance partnered with the Western Cape Department of Human Settlements to conduct community-led enumerations of select informal settlements located along or near the N2 Highway. The settlements included in the ongoing enumeration project are: Kanana, Barcelona, Europe, Vukuzenzele, Lusaka, GxaGxa and Kosovo. The socio-economic information gathered through the enumeration includes demographic data, employment status, education, access to government grants, access to basic services and access to government, social and community infrastructure, among others. The mapping of GIS coordinates includes logging GPS coordinates for every household, for existing basic services, communal facilities, economic points of interest and transport routes.

The enumerations therefore provide an updated settlement profile that can form the basis for any future upgrading plans. The data collection exercise serves as a means of mobilising communities, equipping members with accurate information that can be used to advocate for development priorities. When enumerations are conducted in partnership with organised poor communities, governments gain accurate and more comprehensive data that can be used as a basis for future upgrading plans.

This photo story depicts the enumeration process, from shack numbering and service mapping to training sessions of community enumerators and household-level surveying.

Despite the rain, the numbering team gathers in Kosovo to review their plan of action with CORC’s enumerations coordinator, Blessing Mancitshana.

The numbering team in Kosovo convenes with Blessing on another day.

The numbering team in Kosovo convenes with Blessing on a sunny day before setting out to number shacks for the day.

Before setting out to number shacks, the numbering team reviews the settlement layout map.

One team reviews the settlement layout map.

Each shack in the community is spray-painted with a number. In this case, the number is preceded by “A” to refer to the section of the settlement, given Kosovo’s large size.