Water & Sanitation Archives

Apr 25

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.

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.

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 19

Love0

Reflections on re-blocking: Why community participation is key

By Yolande Hendler CORC, ISN No Comments

By Ava Rose Hoffman (on behalf of CORC)

In this blog, the SA SDI Alliance speaks with Nkokheli Ncambele—ISN Coordinator of the Western Cape—to learn about how the participation process functions on the ground during informal settlement upgrading, and in particular, reblocking initiatives . Reflecting upon the Alliance’s early experiences with re-blocking in Sheffield Road (2010-2011) and Mtshini Wam (2012-2013), Nkokheli highlights the value of building partnerships between informal settlements, support NGOs, and local governments.

How has the re-blocking process enabled residents to better engage with city officials or service providers in the long run? Has the re-blocking process enabled citizens to become more knowledgeable about how to interact with the state?

In our project called Sheffield Road, the government was saying [to community members] that they can’t do anything in the road reserve. But when the community started engaging with the municipality, the community learned how to negotiate with the city, [using] their tools—starting from profiling and enumerations. The enumeration is what helped them identify their problem, and then they start engaging [with the City]. Through the engagement they decided to start reblocking cluster one. When they finished Cluster One, everyone in the community was saying, ‘This thing is working, we want this thing [reblocking.’ Then they started rolling it out in the community. While they were in Cluster 3, the government saw the value of re-blocking, and then they came and installed 15 toilets that were not there before. So, that exercise [served to] teach a lesson to the government, and teach a lesson to the community.

Community members discuss the re-blocked design in Sheffield Road

In Mtshini Wam, each and every winter they [the community] experienced flooding. And when they went to government, government was saying they can’t do anything [improvements] there because there is no space. And the community started organizing their general meetings, and trying to find a solution. Because, remember, they are the ones living in those conditions, so they had to come [up] with the solutions, and their solution was re-blocking. They went on an exchange to Sheffield Road to see what other communities were doing. When they came back, they started engaging with the people [in their community], and the technical teams of CORC and ISN went to Mtshini Wam and started helping them [with] how to design their community [reblocked layout]. At the end of the day, even if you can go today to Mtshini Wam, they will tell you that this re-blocking, it helped us a lot because, they were living in bad conditions. They were affected by their health because of the gray water that was smelling.

How did that engagement or negotiation with the state play out after the re-blocking was complete? Was there any continued engagement between the community and the state after the process was complete?

There is always a question of, ‘What else after this? What are we going to do?’ Obviously engagement is still happening between the community and the municipality, because, remember, these people, they don’t have a title deed. So they have to negotiate for the title deed. So now, their engagement is on another level. It’s not on the level of shelter; it’s on another level of getting houses, adequate houses. I remember they finished their design, where they said what they want: double stories where everyone can fit. And they even went to Joe Slovo in Langa to see how the design of Joe Slovo looked like, because it’s what they want to implement in their community.

Do you think the re-blocking projects have helped to change power dynamics within communities or empower more vulnerable members of communities?

I think firstly, what re-blocking brings to the community is security. It brings the trust between the community itself, because where they were residing before, no one would know their neighbours. But after the re-blocking, now, everyone is known in the community. It’s a community, its not an informal settlement anymore, it’s a community where the people of that community have pride in what they did. It also brings trust to the leadership—the leaders are the ones who will take us to the house.

Who would you define as vulnerable members of a community? Do you think that re-blocking has helped those vulnerable members get more of a voice in their communities?

I’m not going to answer your question directly, but I will always come out with an explanation.

If you go to Mtshini Wam, there were people that were not having income, not even a cent—so they were vulnerable in the sense that they don’t receive anything— [while] other community members were working, and received income. When we started, there were people that were vulnerable, and you can see that their situation is very bad, but once we brought the re-blocking concept, where we manage to employ 45 people, those that were vulnerable earn something. It’s where they change their lives, you know. And now, there is no one—I can guarantee to you today—that is very vulnerable. Everyone is in the same level because of re-blocking. That’s why I’m saying, re-blocking, it brings a lot of things. It brings job opportunities, it brings basic services, it’s not only about changing the structure, it’s about what government can play in your community when you say, ‘I want re-blocking.’

A community where no one is working, and no one is receiving a grant—that is what I call a vulnerable community, because there is no income.

Community members at work in Mtshini Wam re-blocking

Community members at work in Mtshini Wam’s re-blocking process

How did communities and the City change through the process of re-blocking? What was that mutual learning process like?

What I can say is that, the city has changed through the system that the people brought… The government at that time would tell the community: ‘We are going to put the toilet here.’ But the challenge of that community is not a toilet. The community wants electricity. So, once we start engaging with the government, in 2010, it’s when the government started listening, now that the people know what they want. We are not fighting with their ideas, but we want them to listen to us. Because we are the ones who are residing in those conditions. We are the ones who are walking in the dark at night.

It shows that people learn a lot and the city learned, because the city put a lot of basic services in different communities. The communities that started before 1994, they’ve got basic services now. It shows that the city learned how to listen to the people. And the people know how to engage with the city now. Because the leadership—you will find different leadership going to see the mayor, you will find that the mayor is going to the communities—there is that engagement now. Re-blocking and engagement—having the ISN involved—changed a lot of people.

Deputy Minister of Human Settlements, Ms. Kota-Fredericks, visits the newly re-blocked Mtshini Wam in 2012

Mar 09

Love0

How High-Tech Maps Could Help Urban Slums Plan Better Streets

By Yolande Hendler CORC, SDI No Comments

By Laura Bliss and Aarian Marshall (Cross-posted from CityLab)

In this Jan. 29, 2016 photo, Tainara Lourenco, who’s five months pregnant, stands outside her stilt home that stands over polluted water in a slum in Recife, Brazil. Lourenco became pregnant at a scary moment — the dawn of an extraordinary Zika outbreak, as authorities came to suspect that the virus was causing an alarming spike in a rare birth defect called microcephaly. “If you have to get sick you will get sick,” she said. “It’s everywhere.” (AP Photo/Felipe Dana)

In slums, buildings are often so densely packed that many are cut off from streets and pathways. This creates a literal roadblock to much-needed public resources.

“In South Africa, governments will often say that informal settlements are too dense to install adequate services,” Charlton Ziervogel, deputy director at the Community Organisation Resource Centre, a Cape Town-based slum advocacy and support NGO, tells CityLab. “So you’ll find municipalities that install toilets, but only at the edge of a settlement, because they perceive that there is no space inside.”

It’s a serious matter. Across the global south, hundreds of millions live in slums lacking piped water, proper drainage, and sanitation—ideal breeding grounds for virus-carrying insects and other types of disease. To fight epidemics such as Zika, experts warn, living conditions for the urban poor must be improved. But to do so, many slum communities first need to open up space.

A new tool might help. Open Reblock is a free, open-source platform designed to simplify the process of thoughtfully reorganizing slum communities. Funded through OpenIDEO, it’s the product of a major research collaboration by the Santa Fe Institute, Sam Houston State University,UC Berkeley, and Shack/Slum Dwellers International, a global network of community-based organisations representing the urban poor.

The only input that’s required for Open Reblock is a good-quality map with details on each property inside a community and its access to the street network. The tool uses an algorithm to identify the least disruptive reorganization of a cluster of slum blocks so that each parcel gets access to the street—nudging this house two meters east, extending that road a few meters south. It produces a new map of this “reblocked” community, which residents can adjust to their needs and use to push local government (or other support sources) to begin construction.

“How to change the physical slum? You tap into the knowledge of the people who live in the slum,” says José Lobo, an economist and sustainability researcher with Arizona State University who has worked on the project. The tool, he says, captures that knowledge—physically, on a map—so it “can be shared, examined, revisited, and acted on while minimizing disruption.” Indeed, the philosophy behind the tool is that no one is better positioned to help plan a community than those who actually live in it and have the social knowledge to understand how people need to move around their neighborhoods. In other words: This thing will be very useful in community meetings.

In its simplest terms, reblocking has been going on as long as there have been slums—“It’s just playing around with space,” says Ziervogel. In the past decade, organizations like his, operating under Shack/Slum Dwellers International, have worked with slum communities around the world on formal reblocking efforts using hand-drawn maps—translated into design software—to gradually improve street plans.

[vimeo]https://vimeo.com/103700821[/vimeo]

Last year, Flamingo Crescent, an informal settlement outside Cape Town, completed reblocking and installing water, sanitation, and electricity for all of its 104 households. It took nearly three years to get there, and for good reason: Neighbors had to negotiate inherently sensitive changes to their properties, and the community had to work with NGOs and local government align the plan with municipal expectations. Technology will hopefully speed up this process.

“In a lot of formal urban planning, the question is, ‘How do we solve the slums problem?’” says Christa Brelsford, a postdoctoral fellow at the Santa Fe Institute. “The conception is that this is too hard, that the only way is to start over from scratch. People who live in slums don’t agree with that assessment, and don’t want to be resettled.”

The researchers are very clear on what the Open Reblock tool will not do: command community members to raze their houses and rearrange them into straight, neat grids. The source code favors pathways that do not get in the way of existing homes or neighborhood fixtures, which means they sometimes turn out a bit wiggly. And the physical construction process is meant to be gradual, with community members working with government to upgrade clusters of blocks at a time.

The graphic below depicts a sample re-blocking project in the Epworth neighborhood of Harare, Zimbabwe. The far left shows the area before reblocking, with streets in black and properties without street access highlighted in orange. Properties with access are surrounded by dotted gray lines. In the middle is an image of the same neighborhood in the midst of reblocking, with just four properties left still isolated from road access. On the far right is the neighborhood after reblocking: All parcels now have access to the street.

A sample reblocking project in the Epworth neighborhood of Harare, Zimbabwe. (Open Reblock)

Eventually, researchers say, the tool will be available both on and offline. They expect to finish the prototype within three months. Meanwhile, Brelsford will travel with other research team members to Nairobi, to learn more about slums from a design perspective. Eventually, SDI will select a community in South Africa in which to first use Open Reblock.

While the tool’s potential for streamlining reblocking is great, it’s not a silver bullet. “There’s a specific social process that needs to be part of the solution,” Ziervogel says. “Technical solutions cannot be simply dumped on a community. They need to be involved in shaping and leading the process.” Tools like Open Reblock wouldn’t even exist, he adds, without the foundation work of community-driven organizations like SDI and its many affiliates on the ground.

“One of the things that is defining of SDI’s work is helping communities put themselves on the map,” Lobo says. He describes the power and attention slums can draw—from governments, from government services, from other people who live in the city—by creating a way to point to the places where people work and live. “That simple map is an issue of great contention between slum dwellers and the powers that be. [They say,] ‘We are making ourselves visible.’ They want to and need to tell the authorities where they live.”

Nov 06

Love0

Community Voices: “Is BholoBholo a place we can call home?”

By Yolande Hendler CORC, FEDUP, ISN No Comments

By members of Bholobholo Informal Settlement (on behalf of ISN)*

For the SA SDI Alliance community-produced documentation is crucial. Engaging communities with such processes enables them to drive their own development interests and also positions them to share their experiences in community organization processes such as informal settlement upgrading. IN this way communities demonstrate the approach of the SA SDI Alliance: “Nothing for us without us”.

This blog was written by community members of Bholobholo, namely Nosipho Dzingwa,Masixole Siyaphi,Thabisa Kebe,Bulelwa Dunjwa, Thembela Spele,Nosiphathise Halile,Xolani Maqoko,Lulama Giyama,Zingiswa Tshwela and Mrs Duda.

Community Documentation Workshop with BholoBholo

History of the settlement

BholoBholo is located on a traffic circle intersection in Extension 6 in Mfuleni Cape Town. This is one of the smallest informal settlements in Cape Town with a land size of 912m².

We were backyarders in the surrounding formal houses. In 2006, we moved to an open space [which later became BholoBholo]. This was the time that plot owners were going to receive RDP houses. Since then we never moved back because the plot owners claimed that they did not have space for backyarders anymore. The church was built in 2007 and several more people joined as they saw an open space too. Some residents in BholoBholo bought shacks and joined the community in this way. To date we have 15 households with 33 people.

BholoBholo is an isiXhosa name for the intestine called ileum. The name came to the settlement because of the street vendors in front of the settlement that sell meat including intestines called uBholobholo. BholoBholo was an open space separating the meat vendors and the formal houses. This space was used for meetings and other activities such as a soccer field for kids.

This blog was written by the community of Bholobholo.

Bholobholo community leaders and community design team members

Our reality now

Like any informal settlement, BholoBholo community is faced with a number of challenges which include:

Electricity

The community of BholoBholo have used illegal connections for electricity, they pay a high amount to the nearest houses just to get their tap connected. These illegal connections are a danger to the kids that play in the area hence they might touch the wires and be shocked or worse, killed.

Toilets and Taps

There are a total of four taps in BholoBholo of which two do not work properly. There is also a strong need for taps in the community because we share the ones we have with the meat vendors.We don’t have proper toilets, we make use of the bushes or ask to use the toilet in the formal houses.

Multipurpose Hall and Park

We also need a hall to hold meetings and community events and a park for children to play in and be safe.

Proper road access

“I wonder what would happen if our settlement could be in a fire? Who would we turn to?”

Masixole Siyaphi, Community leader in Bholobholo.

We need roads so that emergency vehicles can be able to assist us in time of need. Having roads/streets would make the place look neat and easy to find because now it takes longer to find a house number when needed.

Another major problem we are faced with is the dirt caused by the street vendors who use the dumping site to dump meat that they cannot sell. This causes an odor that can be a health hazard and attracts mosquitoes and rats that later bite the children.

Writing workshop with the community of Bholobholo.

How did we meet ISN?

Nkokheli Ncambele is the one who introduced us to the Informal Settlement Network (ISN) when ISN came to mobilise our settlement. We then attended meetings and learnt the rituals of the alliance. After that we started with the community organisation processes. Our settlement was enumerated by 2 members of the community which we selected ourselves. We also profiled the settlement together as the community. To date we are waiting for reblocking because we have completed the designs together with the CORC technical team. These plans are important to us because

“we want our children to have a place to call home and be safe”

Nosipho Dzingwa, BholoBholo community leader

Community mapping supported by CORC technical team

*Blog compiled by Andiswa Meke (on behalf of CORC)

Sep 18

Love0

What is Area-Based Upgrading? A look at UT Wetland Area, Khayelitsha

By Yolande Hendler CORC, ISN No Comments

By Yolande Hendler & Moegsien Hendricks (on behalf of CORC)

Over the last ten years South Africa’s human settlement’s sector has seen significant shifts in government approach and policy toward rapid urbanisation and the resulting proliferation of informal settlements. Initially informal settlement policy concentrated on clearing housing backlogs through government subsidised houses in the Reconstruction and Development Program (RDP). With the introduction of “Breaking New Ground” (BNG), government’s Comprehensive Plan for the Development of Sustainable Human Settlements in 2004, the in-situ upgrading of informal settlements was introduced. BNG’s accompanying Upgrading Informal Settlement’s Program (UISP) “recognises the value of informal settlement upgrading as a viable strategy for addressing inequality” (Reference).

A view on to UT Wetland

While the implementation of UISP is varied and not without its shortcomings (read more here), informal settlement upgrading is establishing an increasing mark on governmental approach. Notably, national policies related to upgrading are not geared towards area-based or city-wide upgrading programs. Given that previous blogs have shared much of the Alliance’s work on informal settlement upgrading, this blog turns to the question of area-wide upgrading. In so doing, it looks at the SA SDI Alliance’s experiences in the upgrading of UT Wetlands area in Site B, Khayelitsha.

What is Area-Wide Upgrading ?

Area based-upgrading of informal settlements is about understanding how the informal settlement functions within the broader local area, city wide and even national context. The purpose of the area-based approach is to recognise informal settlements as part of the broader urban neighbourhood and not isolated islands which are spatially and socially disconnected.

The work that the SA SDI Alliance is doing through reblocking, includes projects with an area based approach such as the UT Wetland. This project focuses on upgrading the wetland to a park facility, a community hall, landscaping and improved access pathways. It impacts four settlements that directly benefit from this intervention. It also provides the foundation for the incremental upgrade of these settlements, building on the connectivity and integration provided by the shared facility.

Initial community site analysis and first phase planning for upgrading UT Wetlands (2014)

A look at UT Wetland as area-wide upgrade

Four settlements surround the wetland in UT section: UT Gardens, UT Litha Park, TT Section and TB Section. Thamara Hela, a community leader of UT Gardens, explains the leadership structure: each settlement is organised by a steering committee of 15 members, a total of 60 community leaders for the area. Through engaging with the Informal Settlement Network (ISN), each settlement conducted an enumeration, enabling each community to gather accurate data that it can use for community organisation and development purposes.

The wetland is not only integral to the landscape but also to community life: regularly used municipal toilets and taps surround its borders, as well as a network of main pedestrian paths. Due to structure density in the surrounding settlements, the wetland is often used as a meeting area, particularly by UT Gardens community.

In its current usage, however, the wetland also poses a threat to residents. Thamara speaks about the danger it poses for school children who use its surrounding paths to walk to school. Due to high reeds, visibility is poor so that children and pedestrians become easy targets of crime. The wetland also poses a health hazard: with many mosquitoes and large rats in the near vicinity (if not in structures themselves) cause illnesses. Many residents suffer from eczema and skin irritations.

Poor drainage and municipal toilets on border of Wetland

Due to inadequate meeting space, UT Gardens identified the need for a large community hall, potentially situated on the wetlands. Through its affiliation to ISN the community used the tools of the SA SDI Alliance to organise itself. Supported by CORC’s technical team the steering committee therefore developed a community-centred site analysis and plans for a potential hall in February 2014. Over the next months the steering committee shared these with its surrounding neighbours, Litha Park, TT and TB sections – sparking a discussion on community access and ownership of the land.

After a lengthy engagement with various municipal departments, the wetland was declared a Category Z, indicating that it could not be rehabilitated. With growing disillusionment among community members, the four leadership committees met in April 2015 and developed a joint plan for a “UT Wetlands Park”. This plan was developed with the technical support of the Alliance’s Community Organisation Resource Centre and conceptualised as an area wide development initiative. The plan incorporates reduced flooding in the area, ensuring a play area for children (including a soccer area), partial reblocking, and improved health and quality of life due to drainage and engineering services. All four settlements elected a UT Wetlands Steering Committee, consisting of 17 members, 4 representatives from each settlement and one member on behalf of ISN liaison and communication.

UT Gardens measures shack sizes in preparation.

UT Gardens community members measure shack sizes in preparation.

Profiling & Enumeration in UT Gardens Khayelitsha

With the go-ahead concerning zoning and land use, the Wetlands steering committee and Alliance engaged numerous stakeholders between April and August 2015. This included presenting the plan to UT’s four communities and assessing their willingness for participation. It also included engaging municipal actors, Councillors and relevant line departments such as City Parks and ensuring the source of funding.

Taking stock: Experiences, Challenges, Successes

At present a sizeable amount of groundwork has been covered: in August 2015 the wetland steering committee developed detailed plans with ISN, CORC, Jakupa architects and City Parks. Long consultation delays and uncertainty regarding required permits presented a core challenge in project preparation. Scale is a further factor: working in large informal settlements can be challenging. Through carefully considered social processes, these challenges can be dealt with effectively when communities in the settlements are actively part of the process. In this sense spatial integration afforded by the area-wide upgrading approach in UT wetlands is also facilitating social integration through the collaboration of all four settlements.

In addition, partnerships with local municipalities are an important success factor. In the wetland project, the City of Cape Town (CoCT) and in particular the City Parks Department played a critical role: the land is owned by the CoCT and they will take responsibility in partnership with the community to manage this facility. The Alliance Memorandum of Understanding with the CoCT provided the context for a successful partnership at a local level with the City Parks Department. The lesson is that partnerships with municipalities are required at both a strategic political level and official / project implementation level.

The next steps include appointing an environmental engineer, landscape architect and obtaining an official permit from City Parks for implementation.

Aug 13

Love0

Community Voices – “Welcome to Santini informal settlement”

By Yolande Hendler FEDUP, ISN No Comments

By Santini Community Members (on behalf of ISN)

This blog was written by Santini’s community documenters depicted in this picture: Veronica Lebakeng, Nwabisa Ndzendze, Bathandwa Yengeni, Loniswa Dumbela. Grace Lebakeng, Thobela Nqophiso, Thulie Lebakeng, Thanduxolo Bayibile, Melikhaya Nqopiso, Likuwe Bayibile

For the SA SDI Alliance community-generated documentation is an integral aspect of community-driven process. This means that communities are not only best positioned to take a central role in driving their own development interests but also to speak about and document their experiences in community organisation processes such as informal settlement upgrading . For communities it is evident that

“No one can tell our story better than we can”

In Mfuleni, Cape Town, community leaders in Santini informal settlement have been involved in pioneering a community-centred documentation approach in the Alliance. Through a series of workshops they have used ‘story-telling and writing’ to record and document their story. This includes Santini’s experience of community mobilisation and preparation for upgrading as well as personal accounts of realities, challenges and desired alternatives.By documenting their own experiences, community members are building a voice of the urban poor from the bottom up.

This is the first in a series of blogs entitled “Community Voices”, written by community residents, who introduce their settlement and share their story.

SAMSUNG CSC

History of Santini

Santini is called Santini because it was once an open space with a lot of sand [in isiXhosa “isanti” means “sand”]. We started living in Santini in 2004 with most people coming from the Eastern Cape. We were living as backyarders in the surrounding formal houses before they [plot owners] got RDP houses.

There came a time when the plot owners [formal homeowners] had to move to an open space (which was already called Santini) because their RDP houses were going to be built. The backyarders moved to Santini as well. We [backyarders] weren’t allowed back into their plots when the houses were done, some claimed that they didn’t have space anymore.

In 2004 there were 8 shacks in Santini, but today there are 43 shacks including the ones brought in by the South African National Civic Organisation (SANCO). We don’t feel safe because people in [the formal houses] claim the land [Santini] belongs to their children and not to us [as former backyarders]. Apparently their children are in need of a place to reside, so the people in the formal houses approached SANCO to resolve the matter. It was agreed via SANCO that the residents’ children can reside in Santini too.

Thanduxolo, Santini community leaders with steering committee members record their memory of Santini’s history

Our Reality Now

These are the things we need:

Electricity

We don’t have proper electricity. We rely on connections from the formal houses, and we pay R150 monthly. If the electricity ends before the month ends, we are required to pay more. If we do not pay more money, our tap will be unplugged. The connections are dangerous. When a big truck passes by the wires break, and they can shock the children when they are playing.

Taps

In Santini we have only one tap and there are many people living here so we hold a long queue when we need water. We cannot get water at night because of safety.

Toilets

We have a total of 7 toilets, but only 4 are working and are far from us. We fear to use the toilets at night. We fear to be mugged because of the darkness.

Roads

We don’t have proper roads, so emergency services are unable to assist the community in times of need like when someone is sick or there is a fire.

Proper Houses

We don’t have proper housing, and the structures that we are living in is old. We can’t even extend because we have no land of our own. Some people have extended families, and it’s hard to live in a one-room house with everyone.

Streetlights

Since we have no street lights we fear going outside during the night because it’s dark. It’s risky to go because we fear being mugged.

Dust Bins

Our place is filthy because we don’t have a place or dust bins to drop unwanted materials.

Drains

We don’t have drains so people use toilets as an alternative and that results in the blockage of the toilets.

Solutions

We need electricity, water, toilets, and proper houses. The ideal solution is to get more toilets or each household to get their own toilet to avoid waiting for people when one wants to use the toilet.

Tracking and documenting Santini’s solutions thus far

We, as a community of Santini, decided to seek help from the Informal Settlement Network (ISN). We told them about our living conditions and challenges as a community.Nkokheli Ncambele [Western Cape coordinator of ISN] is the one who introduced us to ISN. After the introduction to the [SA SDI] Alliance, we attended their meetings [and understood the processes] . [After some negotiation] toilets were installed by the municipality. We then began [Alliance] processes like enumerating our settlements. ISN also introduced us to the tools of profiling, community designing and learning exchanges. During profiling, we measured the existing structures. We used the enumeration to record the number of people living in Santini and their activities. A group of us went on a visit to see Flamingo Crescent and to be educated about the re-blocking of Flamingo Crescent.

Jul 16

Love0

How Sporong community negotiated service delivery in Gauteng

By Yolande Hendler ISN No Comments

By Kwanele Sibanda (on behalf of CORC)

According to how the Informal Settlment Network (ISN) demarcates Midvaal informal settlements; Sporong informal settlement falls under cluster 3. Sporong is a relatively small informal settlement with 17 households and holds a population of about 70 people. The settlement falls under Boltonwold that is about 10kms out of Meyerton. It is one amongst a number of Midvaal informal settlements located in secluded farm areas with residents living in abject poverty.

Many hands make light work – installing toilets in Sporong.

The first tenant of Sporong is Ntate Tladi Mokgobo. He has lived in the settlement for over 50years. He settled on the land when he was given permission by the owner to construct a shack and pay a monthly rental fee. The steady growth was experienced as more farm workers from nearby farms needed accommodation. Currently, all tenants pay R100 per month to the landlord, for the informal structures they reside in (shacks). The R100 per month rental fee might be viewed as affordable; however the recent eviction of one of the tenants suggests that affordability is not for all. The provision of informal structures by a private landlord to rent coupled with no basic services was insidious. The first settler expressed an in depth understanding of the alliance and its approach to ameliorating challenges in informal settlements. He furthermore asserted that any community’s failure to cooperate with such interventions makes a folly act.

From each one of the three clusters of Midvaal, one settlement was chosen for a pilot project. Out of the profiling exercise, prioritized projects were identified. The main objective of undertaking the pilots is that of demonstrating to the Municipality what is of interest to the communities and their efforts with the aim of negotiating and scaling up relevant service delivery.

Savings mobilization

In the context of Sporong, the prioritized project was that of toilets. The settlement of about 70 residents has been using a nearby bush as their toilet and they describe the situation as demeaning. The two pit toilets that were put up by the Municipality got filled up years back and have never been drained. The sanitation challenge is one that is mirrored in informal settlements across Midvaal.

ISN and FEDUP’s intervention was that of engaging the community leaders and community at large with the aim of motivating them to start working towards self-sustenance. Upon verifying with the leaders that the toilet project is a priority as indicated in the profile; the project was then scheduled. Community participation and resources in form of tools were put to good use and the top structures of the full pit latrines were repositioned. The toilet project ran concurrently with the savings mobilization. The savings team was led by Rosy and Nompi. With the women of Sporong, the two aforementioned; shared the history of the SDI alliance, savings and how they have personally benefitted from being members of savings groups. The FedUp leaders currently await a date for the savings implementation.

Full pit toilet dismantled

Repositioning and assembling the top structure

Water & Sanitation Archives - SASDI Alliance

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

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

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

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

Reflections on re-blocking: Why community participation is key

How High-Tech Maps Could Help Urban Slums Plan Better Streets

Community Voices: “Is BholoBholo a place we can call home?”

What is Area-Based Upgrading? A look at UT Wetland Area, Khayelitsha

Community Voices – “Welcome to Santini informal settlement”

How Sporong community negotiated service delivery in Gauteng

Other Posts

Categories

Quick Links

Newsletter Signup

Water & Sanitation Archives - SASDI Alliance

Other Posts

Categories

Tags

Quick Links

Newsletter Signup