Government - Community Partnerships Archives

Jun 15

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”.

Mar 06

Love0

Building an organised community through the Shamrock wash trough project in KZN

By Yolande Hendler Archive, FEDUP, ISN, News, Publications No Comments

Kwanda Lande (on behalf of CORC)

Shamrock informal settlement at a Glance

Shamrock informal settlement is located along a portion of Amrisar Road and Gladiola Road in Belfort Estate suburb, northeast of Pietermaritzburg in Kwa-Zulu Natal. This informal settlement is located on municipal owned land and it contains single storey, stand-alone mud and timber shacks. The area is located along the flood line as a result this makes the settlement prone to flooding. The slope analysis for the settlement shows that the settlement is predominantly characterised by moderate to very steep slopes.

Shamrock informal settlement residents have lived in this settlement for more than 20 years without any adequate basic services. The community of 140 people was using one water tap and the nearby river as sources of water. The settlement location on steep slopes makes it difficult for residents to collect water. The settlement also lacks basic services like paved roads and walkways, which makes it even more difficult to collect water because roads that become muddy especially when it is raining. The distance to collect water that residents are expected to travel is also too long and difficult for old people.

Differrent methods that were used before the wash trough, to wash clothes and collecting water.

Different methods that were used before the wash trough, for wash clothes and collecting water.

The area’s close proximity to various primary and secondary schools and a college is one of the reasons people were attracted to Shamrock. In addition, a special needs school is located within a 30 minute walking radius. The residents of Shamrock were also attracted to the area because of job opportunities. This community is made of 52 structures, and a population of 140 people that migrated from rural areas of Kwa-Zulu Natal.

The Shamrock wash trough Project

In 2013, FEDUP and ISN went to Shamrock and mobilised the community through starting a saving scheme. Prior the implementation of the Shamrock wash trough project in 2016, the community was mobilised through profiling and enumeration. This exercise was important, amongst other things to mobilise community member that were not part of the local saving scheme, and for the community to collective identify issues and solutions. The community identified an ablution and drainage system as one of their priorities and made a decision that they want a wash trough facility after some assistance from CORC technical team on different options to address their priorities and challenges.

The project implementation process of the wash trough commenced in 2016, and the project was completed in January 2018. However, the actual implementation of the wash trough took four days to be completed, in a period of two weekends (13-14 and 20-21 January 2018). One of the challenges that were experienced include that some community members did not participate in the implementation of the project. The reason is that these people felt that the project was only for people who are part of the local saving scheme. The community also had to change initial location of the wash trough, which was at the centre of the settlement. It was changed so that an elderly woman in a wheel chair would be able to access it too. The project was then moved closer to her shack, which is approximately 50m from the initial point.

The total cost of the project was R6426.00. The community contributed 20% to the overall cost of this project from their savings scheme. As a result, not all the community members contributed to the project because not all members of the community were involved in savings. Msunduzi Local Municipality’s water and sanitation, and area based management departments contributed with the additional 80% of the overall cost and with some technical expertise, this include environmental studies.

The wash trough is helping the community, it is now very easy for people to wash their clothes. The community has six water taps in the wash trough, which they can use. People are now interested in the project, even those who did not indicate any interest when we started this project. Everyone is now using the facility and people are demonstrating some excitement now that they do not have to wait long lines or go to the river for water. Those who were rejecting the project, now that they see the benefits that it has brought, they are apologising, they are promising to be part of future projects and they also want to be part of the local saving scheme. Ndodeni Dengo (ISN regional coordinator)

The success of mobilising the community of Shamrock informal settlement through the wash trough project also extends to neighbouring informal settlements. As part of the project, the community members and leaders from neighbouring informal settlements such as Crest place and Mayfair sent two community members to assist and observe. As a result, Crest Place has requested a similar project for their settlement. This community has also started contributing towards their project, which is planned to start soon.

Different construction phases of the Shamrock wash trough.

Going forward

The SA SDI Alliance has signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Msunduzi Local Municipality. However, there are challenges in terms of making this MoU work for both parties involved. As a result, FEDUP and ISN, want to use this project to showcase the ability of organised communities to the Municipality and other informal settlements.

The community of Shamrock has made their desire to improve this project known. They want to use the MoU signed with Msunduzi Local Municipality to add shelter, refuse removal, a table for children and other services. This will allow the community to use the wash trough facility even when it is raining, and that they could have a place for their children to do their schoolwork while their mothers are using the wash trough. The community also wish to do community gardening and install a grey water collection facility. Currently the municipality is being engaged by the community to request electricity.

Through this informal settlement-upgrading project, therefore, residents sharpened their ability to organise (through daily savings). This in turn contributed to building the community’s ability to engage other actors to continue incrementally upgrading their settlement. In this way poor communities want to demonstrate that they can use their projects to shift government policies and practices to the benefit of their communities.

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.

Jan 12

Love0

Southern African Slum Dwellers Strategise Ahead of World Urban Forum 2018

By Yolande Hendler News No Comments

By Kwanda Lande (on behalf of CORC)

On 11 February 2018, the ninth World Urban Forum (WUF9) will take place in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. WUF9 will have a specific thematic focus on the implementation of the New Urban Agenda (NUA). This theme of implementation is particularly important to urban poor residents and federation leaders of SDI’s Southern African countries, especially as the NUA relates to informal settlements.

Twice a year, representatives of SDI‘s Southern African urban poor federations (Namibia, South Africa, Botswana, Malawi, Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Zambia) gather as a regional “hub” to strategise, report, share challenges, and plan for mutual learning. The recent Southern African SDI hub took place between 15 – 18 November 2017 in Johannesburg. Given the timing of the hub ahead of WUF9, the Federations invited Zou Kota-Fredricks, the South African Deputy Minister of Human Settlements, and Parks Tau, president of UCLGA* and SALGA** to open the hub and engage in discussions on the implementation of the NUA.

*United Cities and Local Governments

** South African Local Government Association

Delegates of the Southern Africa Hub welcoming the Deputy Minister of Human Settlement Zou Kota-Fredericks

The experience of Southern African slum dwellers working towards the New Urban Agenda (NUA)

In 2015, SDI was invited through an initiative called the General Assembly of Partners (GAP), to participate in the process leading up to Habitat III, in October 2017. GAP served as a broad-based deliberative platform for non-governmental partners to develop consensus for joined outcomes for Habitat III. The primary intention was for civil society organisations to influence UN member states that adopted the NUA at Habitat III. As a result urban poor federations in the SDI network used this opportunity to ensure that their voice was heard in the development of the NUA and that their experiences and aspirations were known and considered.

In the lead up to Habitat III, SDI’s East and Southern African federations had a strong presence at the UN Habitat III Thematic Meeting on Informal Settlements in Pretoria in April 2016. The meeting culminated in the Pretoria Declaration on Informal Settlements. SDI federations advocated that the NUA commit to

Supporting the self-organising processes of communities (such as data collection and learning exchanges) to partner effectively with governments and other urban actors
Using community-collected informal settlement data as the basis of collaborative informal settlement policy making and development planning.

How Southern African slum dwellers view the NUA

The NUA provides a new framework that lays out how cities should be planned and managed to best promote sustainable urbanisation. It talks about strengthening and creating inclusive partnerships, and people centred development. It suggests that the voice of community organisations be heard. However, for urban poor residents, the challenge, is establishing and maintaining partnerships especially at the level of municipalities where most of community organising activities are taking place and where development is expected to happen. This means that urban poor residents are struggling to gain recognition from municipal systems, and that they have not found ways of institutionalising local government – community partnerships in decision making and planning processes.

In Cape Town, for example, the South African SDI Alliance had established a strong partnership with the local municipality and jointly implemented several upgrading initiatives. However, since the last upgrading project in 2014, it has taken more than three years to progress to the next one. One of the contributing factors to this delays relate to the lack of hand-over of the partnership to successive heads of departments and senior project managers. The consequences of which is the loss of institutional memory and knowledge of the working partnership in a time of high staff turn-over within the municipality.

Parks Tau, speaking at the Southern Africa hub meeting during a discussion on the implementation of the NUA

In conversation with Parks Tau and Zou Kota-Fredericks, SDI’s Southern African federation members highlighted their priority of a NUA that is localised, meaning “that we want partnerships at a local government level”. An example is SDI’s partnership with UCLG on the Know Your City campaign, which promotes community-collected data on informal settlements as the basis for partnerships between slum dwellers and their local governments. The Southern African federations expressed:

we want to work – together with government, UCLG and private sector – on collecting data and using this information to participate in decision making, implementation, and monitoring the implementation of the NUA. For example, in South Africa we want to see the Department of Human Settlements creating a forum that will meet more regularly to monitor the implementation of the NUA. This forum should be inclusive to the level that ensures that poor communities are involved.

The fact that government and civil society are working in the same space of local government with similar vision of community development demands a partnership. Both Parks Tau and Zou Kota-Fredericks, agreed for a local forum- South African forum. Parks also suggested for a Southern Africa forum that will sure case a partnership of government and civil society at that level.

At the start of 2018, before the World Urban Forum, we have to work together to convene a meeting to discuss a way forward on how we are going to work together and also to prepare a case study to present at the WUF9. The know your city campaign – data collection by communities is one tool that we are going to use to hold and strengthen our partnership. This will also be an opportunity for all partners to raise their expectations from this partnership. Parks Tau

The state of local government partnerships in some countries in the Southern Africa region

Southern African SDI federations spoke about the state of partnerships between themselves and their local governments as a way of offering some learning points on how to implement the NUA. Some of SDI’s federations have managed to establish well functioning partnerships: In Botswana, the partnership between the local government of Francistown and the Botswana Homeless and Poor People’s Federation involves community members and government collectively collecting community data, identifying and implementing projects. This has allowed the Botswana federation to conduct profiling and enumeration in Francsitown (Somerset West and Somerset East), identify and implement infrastructure projects together with local authorities. A major contributing factor to this work has been the presence of officials on the ground, working hand in hand with federation members around data collection.

In Namibia, slum dwellers have managed to establish local government partnerships with municipalities such as Gobabis where the Shack Dwellers federation of Namibia signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the local authority for upgrading Freedom Square informal settlement. This resulted in the Ministry of Rural Development contributing N$ 8 million and Gobabis local municipality contributing technical expertise. Officials of Gobabis municipality worked with the community of Freedom Square in data collection, community planning and implementation of different upgrading phases. In this project officials made sure that they were always on the ground. As a result they were quick to respond to projects issues. They did not impose solutions or approaches to solving problems but instead provided the necessary support for slum dwellers to implement their plans.

Delegates of the Southern Africa region hub meeting representing Urban poor federations form Botswana, Namibia, Malawi, Swaziland, South Africa, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

What are the main priorities of the Southern African federations ahead of WUF9?

The WUF9 presents an opportunity for urban poor federations of the Southern Africa region to influence how the NUA is implemented. The primary priority for federations in the Southern Africa regions include localised partnerships that are based on community-collected data. The Southern African federations want to work with government and civil society organisations on collecting informal settlement data and using it to participate in decision making, implementation, and to monitor the implementation of the NUA.

Oct 11

Love0

TB community hall – A foundation for community organising

By Yolande Hendler Archive, CORC, FEDUP, ISN, News, Resources No Comments

By Kwanda Lande (on behalf of CORC)

We would like a type of a hall that can accommodate a lot of activities, like church services, cultural activities and office space for the Informal Settlement Network (ISN). It will be a shared space with other communities, but this will depend on the kind of activities they plan to do. We want to encourage activities that are about community development, and activities that would impact people’s lives in a positive way.

Through these words, one community leader of TB Section in Khayelitsha’s Site B explains how the priority of the community was having a shared space for four different communities located in the area (TT, UT Litha park, UT and TB section). The community of TB section have, for some time relied on a community hall that was in a very bad condition, a community hall that was not able to take care of the many of the activities and needs of the community.

The building of a hall for us was very important because the one that we used to have, was in a very poor condition. It was difficult to have meetings when it is raining because of a hall that was leaking, and this prevented us from discussing community issues. We also have our youth that want to do a lot of things but they could not because we did not have a place for them to meet. We also wanted to use this hall as a place that people can be relocated to when it is raining – as a temporary shelter.

Community members, ISN leadership and contractor for the TB community hall

On 24th of June 2017 the community of TB section had an inauguration event to launch the new structure, however the idea around this hall started in 2015 and the actual construction begun in February 2017. Between 2015 and 2017 the community of TB section spent time on mobilising other residents through saving and data collection, and engaging with the City of Cape Town. Thus, after community profiling and enumeration, TB residents used their data to identify that they want a public space that contributes to their activities and, as a consequence, to community building and strengthening.

We wanted to build the TB hall in 2015, but we had to explain to the community how the Federation of the Urban and Rural Poor (FEDUP) and ISN work, for example, we had to explain to people that they support communities that are prepared and committed to organising and building themselves through saving and contributing to their development. This was necessary since people in this community did not know much about ISN and FEDUP.

We also had to engage with the City of Cape Town about building a partnership – not only for this project, but for long term planning and development of the community of TB section. This include engagements that we had with the city’s officials – about asking for permission to build the hall, installing electricity and other services. We also had engagements with our ward councillor who endorsed the building of this structure.

Community members with FEDUP and ISN leaders during inauguration event to launch the new structure

ISN has been working with the community of TB section since at least 2011, and the building of the hall came out of the process of mobilising through the tools of saving, collecting data, and partnership. The utmost achievement of this work by both ISN and FEDUP is that the community has begin to organise itself, identify priorities and established some sense of self-reliance. These are aspects which the community can hold onto and use long after the construction of the hall is complete.

The existence of this hall in an informal settlement like this also makes it easy for us to challenge the municipality and tell them that if we can do something like this with FEDUP and ISN what is stopping you from doing something of the same level like building houses for us?

People on the ground are really motivated and they now understand that you do not have to wait for government for your things to happen. We are now aware that community development only happen for people that work for themselves, if you are sitting at home you do not go out and demand things very limited chances that you will get those things.

Community members working together with contractor to build their own hall.

This community hall represents a building block for the ‘formalisation’ of the whole sub-region over time. It is a space for this community and surrounding communities to start building themselves as organised communities and start discussing the next step for their community. The community is in a better position, it has developed confidence to confront public issues that have direct and indirect impact on their lives.

The community of TB section, in the process of building the hall – has also demonstrated that it has capacity to collectively confront obstacles and can with time be in a position to do things for themselves with no external assistance. The community was able – during the implementation phase – to manage community dynamic on their own and there was almost no need for external intervention. The community was also able to collectively convince the ward councillor to support the project. As a result through this project a foundation for community organising has been formed and the community is build on it.

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.”

Sep 05

Love0

PRESS RELEASE: Digital Impact World Tour

By Yolande Hendler News, Press No Comments

Date: 7 September 2017
Time: 9am – 5pm
Location: Guga S’thebe Arts and Cultural Centre | Langa Cape Town

SDI is proud to co-host the 8th stop on the Digital World Impact Tour, and its first stop on the African continent. The event will be launched by the Minister of Human Settlements, Lindiwe Sisulu.

Anchored by the South African SDI Alliance, the event will focus on the role community-gathered data plays in the production of social change in a digital age. The event will be held in the township of Langa, reinforcing a commitment to ensure urban poor communities are part of the conversation.

With the launch of the Know Your City campaign in 2014, slum dweller federations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America firmly entered the digital age. Though organized slum dweller communities have been profiling and enumerating slums for over 20 years, the campaign established a digital platform to house this data and anchor the coproduction of inclusive urban development strategy by communities, city governments and global urban development.

The event will bring together close to 150 people representing slum dweller social movements, civil society, funders, academics, city, provincial and national government, and private sector actors to explore the possibilities and responsibilities for using digital data to inform inclusive urban development policy and practice.

For the event programme and registration please visit https://dataworldtour.org/sessions/cape-town/.

Issued by SA SDI Alliance
Yolande Hendler
Website: https://sasdialliance.org.za/
Email: documentation@corc.co.za
Facebook: South African SDI Alliance || Twitter: @SASDIAlliance

Jun 30

Love0

Co(mmunity)-finance facilities as a tool for local democratic space

By Yolande Hendler CORC, Publications No Comments

By Yolande Hendler (on behalf of CORC)

With the 2016 municipal elections around the corner, the relationship between elected representatives and local citizenries could not be more topical. For some, the relationship is a largely passive space, which has lead to mistrust between different groups. For others it is a space that requires the building of meaningful partnerships, participation, and an active citizenry. As a member of the Good Governance Learning Network (GGLN), we have joined fellow civil society organisations in exploring these questions in the 2016 State of Local Governance Publication: (Re)claiming Local Democratic Space.

CORC’s contribution (on behalf of the SA Alliance) engages with the notable lack of community participation and in-situ practice in the national Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme (UISP). The paper is titled Co(mmunity) finance as a tool for local democratic space: The Cape Town City Fund and is based on robust experiences of community saving as a lever for co-finance and an enabler of inclusionary practice (See p.51-61). It suggests the need for an innovative co-finance instrument that enables a collaborative platform between urban poor communities, intermediary organisations and local governments to co-navigate in-situ informal settlement upgrading projects.

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.

http://ggln.org.za/state-of-local-governance-reclaiming-local-democratic-space-2016.pdf

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.