2. 2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction..............................................................................................................3
2. Part I: South African Policy and Praxis.....................................................................4
2.1. South African Praxis in Upgrading Informal Settlements Post 1994 ..................4
2.2. Breaking New Ground: Upgrading Informal Settlement Programme (UISP)
2005................................................................................................................6
2.3. The City of Cape Town’s Approach to Informal Settlement Upgrading .............7
3. Part II: DAG’s Position on Informal Settlement........................................................9
3.1. #1 Multi sectoral approach to informal settlement upgrading...........................10
3.2. #2 Participation and Partnerships: Enabling Cooperative Governance .............10
3.3. #3 Capacity Development ...............................................................................12
3.4. #4 Protect and enhance existing social, economic and physical capital and
respond to development priorities..................................................................12
3.5. #5 Flexible standards and regulations for planning, land, infrastructure and
housing..........................................................................................................13
3.6. #6 Alternative land tenure arrangements..........................................................14
3.7. #7 Community and State Regularization..........................................................15
3.8. #8 Integration and inclusion of areas being upgraded into the wider city..........16
3.9. #9 Identify and mitigate against known and probable risks ..............................16
3. 3
1. Introduction
In 2005, the Development Action Group (DAG) undertook an internal review process to rethink
their urban development strategy. The outcome of this six month process was the re-structuring of
DAG into eight key impact areas or programmes, one of which was the Informal Settlement
Upgrading (ISU) Impact Area.
The decision to include Informal Settlement Upgrading as a key impact area was based on the
realization that the current housing instruments in South Africa no longer cope with the growing
demand and changing realities. In Cape Town alone, the housing backlog is estimated at around
400 000 households and it is widely anticipated that this demand will not be appropriately
addressed. The inability of the housing delivery instruments to address the growing demands of
the urban poor, in part explains the increase in informality within South Africa. However, in
addition to changing demographics (high rates of influx and subdivision of existing households)
and macro, meso and micro economic factors (increasing unemployment in the formal sector);
exclusionary land use regularization (which tends to favour the wealthy) has resulted in the
increase in informality1
.
Most concerning, has been the response by the state to ‘eradicate’ (or most recently reduce)
informality, either through evictions or highly technocratic and often market driven
infrastructure based upgrading programmes2
, which often only have marginal economic
benefits for the poor and do not acknowledge investments which informal dwellers had placed on
their homes3
. This rather neo-liberal approach to informal settlement upgrading results, in part, in
the perception that informal settlements are transitory places, which will be solved through highly
structured, and often generalized programmes of resettlement onto site and serviced plots, such
as those seen in Delft, or in the establishment of Temporary Relocation Areas (TRA’s). More
progressive programmes of insitu incremental housing on selected sites suitable for housing are
far fewer.
Internationally it is increasingly recognized that structural approaches to urban development,
which do not account for the complex factors and processes driving urban vulnerability and which
underlie the growth of informality, will invariably become unsustainable unless complemented with
other strategies which address urban livelihoods, land tenure, cooperative governance, social
inclusion and environmental security. A multi sectoral and people driven approach to urban
development, particularly in the context of urban informality, is imperative if the urban
development process is to be sustainable4
and address/protect the needs of the poor.
In response to this Development Action Group initiated its Upgrading Informal Settlements
programme in 2006. Over the next three years, the ISU programme aims to pilot a people-driven
approach to pro-poor urban development, which is multi sectoral and is driven by the principles of
inclusive participatory development. In order to achieve this programmatic objective, two ISU
projects will be implemented in the Cape Town Metropole. One of the projects in Freedom Park is
in its fourth year of implementation, with the second insitu upgrading project in Hangberg, Hout
Bay. In addition DAG’s approach will be well-documented and disseminated to officials, politicians
and community leaders across the country.
1
Fernandes, Edesio and Smolka, Martim O. Land Regularization and Upgrading Programs revisted.2004
2
Marie Huchermeyer Unlawful Occupation
3
Hardoy, J, Mitlin, D and Sattherwaite, D. Environmental Problems in an Urbanizing World
4
Hardoy, J, Mitlin, D and Sattherwaite, D. Environmental Problems in an Urbanizing World
4. 4
The aim of this position paper was to provide a detailed overview of the South African informal
settlement upgrading policy and praxis, in order to contextualize DAG’s position on informal
settlement upgrading. As such the report has been divided into two parts. The first part of the
report aims to outline the historical development of South African informal settlement
upgrading policy and praxis post 1994 and leading up to the introduction of Breaking New
Ground in 2005. This is then furthermore contextualized in an overview of the City of Cape
Town’s approach to ISU. The second part of the report presents the Development Action
Group’s Position on Informal Settlement Upgrading and explores in-depth nine critical
issues which need to be accounted for in ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of
upgrading programmes.
2. Part I: South African Policy and Praxis
2.1. South African Praxis in Upgrading Informal Settlements Post 1994
In South Africa post 1994 informal settlements have grown rapidly in an urban context where an
increasing demand for housing has not been met despite massive housing delivery programmes.
This has posed significant challenges to both national and local government on how to effectively
address the housing demand in the context of growing informality. The state’s response to
informal settlements over the last twelve years has been characterized by the neo liberal
perception that informal settlements can be eradicated through large-scale capital intensive
structural interventions, which often assume the form of either ‘Roll-Over’ or Greenfields
development projects. National housing targets set in 2004, optimistically aim for all informal
settlements to be eradicated by 2014.
The nature of this response to urban informality was driven partly by the absence of more flexible
funding mechanisms to enable in situ upgrading and incremental housing. Up until 2005, there
has been a ‘reluctance to accept incremental housing as a legitimate housing process’
(Engelbrecht, 2003:292), especially in the context of limited formal housing delivery, the
expensive costs related to insitu upgrading, the high densities of informal settlements and the
requirement for high levels of participation from local communities. As a result the majority of
upgrading projects tend to be interpreted by municipalities as either the provision of
rudimentary services, such as communal standwater pipes, sanitation, stormwater drainage and
roads (in response to the Grootboom case in 2000)5
; or contractor driven ‘Roll-Over’ or
Greenfields development projects6
, which are perceived as easier to manage and more cost
effective, as they have definitive project parameters and can utilize the housing subsidy to finance
the upgrading/consolidation.
There were however exceptions where insitu upgrading programmes were being initiated by local
municipalities across the country, despite the absence of funding mechanisms. In the Cape Town
Metropole this included New Rest and in Kwazulu Natal this included Cato Crescent, Besters and
Zilweleni.
5
In Cape Town it is estimated that a total of 115 000 households live in informal areas, and the
equivalent of about 30 000 do not have access to basic water and 73 000 do not have access to
basic sanitation. Many of these households in informal settlements share the available on-site
facilities or rely on the availability of services from nearby established areas
6
Marie Huchermeyer Unlawful Occupation (pg 3)
5. 5
Internationally, upgrading is seen as the incremental formalization of settlements in their original
locations7
with the aim to over time improve the conditions of settlements characterized by poor
quality housing and the inadequate provision of infrastructure and services”8
. In most cases
upgrading programmes tend to include the provision of basic services such as piped water,
sanitation, drainage and roads or paths, with more progressive approaches aiming to provide
insitu upgrading with incremental housing.
In 2003 the introduction of the Informal Settlements Handbook for the Western Cape renewed
the state’s interest in informal settlement upgrading, and by 2004 following the 10 year review of
the Housing Subsidy Scheme in South Africa, the need to rethink informal settlement upgrading
was increasingly evident. At the same time extensive research9
and lobbying by the Urban
Sector Network (USN), DAG, academics as well as international exchanges to Brazil by South
African officials also started to highlight the shortfalls in the housing process, which had been
evident since the first housing policy was developed in 199410
.
One of the most fundamental realisations was that the housing subsidy scheme was not
working, as it could not respond to the demand rapidly enough and more seriously, was not
addressing the development needs of the poorest urban families. The consequence was that
informal settlements would continue to be a significant aspect of the urban landscape especially
for those excluded from the housing subsidy scheme or on waiting lists. In addition housing was
not resulting in integrated sustainable development, as it had not been complemented with other
services which allowed for the development of integrated communities. Also problematic was the
reality that many people in informal settlements did not qualify for the housing subsidy, a
prerequisite for upgrading through a ‘roll-over’ or greenfields type development.
At the same time pressures were mounting on the state to address the issue of informality,
with an increasing number of court cases being brought against the state by people in informal
settlements facing evictions11
, as well as the growing number of protests by informal settlement
residents in Cape Town, who were explicit about the slow pace of housing delivery in relation to
the need12
. With South Africa being awarded the 2010 soccer world cup in 2004 it also provided
an additional incentive for the state to rethink the issue of informal settlements.
7
Graham, Nick. 2006 Informal Settlements: A perpetual challenge?
8
Hardoy, J, Mitlin, D and Sattherwaite, D. Environmental Problems in an Urbanizing World
9
DAG Research for the USN position paper for the 2003 National Housing Summit, and the
Housing Rights report commissioned by the National Department of Housing in 2003
10
Interview Warren Smit 8 August 2006
11
Rudolf case and Sheffield Road case are two of these court cases amongst many others which
were happening simultaneously across the country.
12
The public perception is that many of these protests were in demand of housing, but there are
alternative opinions that these may have been triggered by the right to engage in broader city
wide planning processes. Nigel Tapela 18 August 2006
6. 6
2.2. Breaking New Ground: Upgrading Informal Settlement Programme (UISP)
2005
In 2004 the introduction of ‘Breaking New Ground’: A Comprehensive Plan for the Development
of Sustainable Human Settlements’ heralded the first programme on informal settlement
upgrading (ISUP). The programme is progressive in aiming to address housing demand with a
phased-in incremental approach to informal settlement upgrading. The National Housing
Code’s chapter 13 National Housing Programme: Upgrading of Informal Settlements’13
(outlines
the funding instruments for realizing the policy) attempts to shift the paradigm of informal
settlements as ‘housing problems’ to ‘manifestations of structural social change’ which require’ a
multi-sectoral partnership, long-term commitment and political endurance”14
.
Implicit in the National Housing Code is the call for a phased in insitu upgrading approach, which
is more likely to achieve social inclusion than large scale relocations to Greenfields
developments, as insitu upgrading presents a greater opportunity to protect existing social
and economic networks by allowing households to remain on site, and overtime incrementally
upgrade the settlement. The policy also provides funding for alternative land tenure options,
which do not exclude those who do not qualify for a housing subsidy and may include a
community based or area based subsidy to purchase the land. Layout options for the settlement
can also be tailored, as opposed to standardized layout models which are highly inflexible and do
not account for already negotiated informal settlement layouts. Funding has also been made
available through the programme to support the financing of community participation and
empowerment processes – something which the housing subsidy programmes do not account
for15
. In the case where permanent services can not be provided immediately, interim engineering
services will be introduced.
To date, despite this introduction of the UISP in 2005, there are far fewer insitu upgrading projects
than greenfields or roll over developments, with the exception of cases in New Rest and Kosovo,
Cape Town which was initiated in 1998 and 2005 respectively16
. On the other hand, there are also
several reported cases where informal settlements have independently initiated insitu upgrading
programmes. For example in Hangberg, Hout Bay residents have been building formal structures
as well as linking to water reticulation systems independently of the state for over five years.
Nonetheless the state reconceptualisation of informal settlement upgrading over the last three
years has evolved into a far more progressive policy, supported with a suite of pragmatic
instruments to enable a multi sectoral and people centered approach to urban development.
However, the realization of this policy on the ground will be challenged by two significant issues
at both the macro and micro level. At the macro level the socio political urgency to address
the seemingly insurmountable housing backlog17
, growing informal settlement densities
and the increasing rate of land invasions by backyarders, are all calling for the state to find
rapid and cost effective methods for managing informal settlement upgrading resulting in an
expedient bias toward roll-over and Greenfield type developments. At a micro level the challenge
is finding efficient institutional arrangements to coordinate the process of informal settlement
upgrading in a multi sectoral and people driven manner.
13
Approved in 2005
14
Marie Huchzermeyer Informal Settlements: A Perpetual Challenge?
15
Marie Huchermeyer Informal Settlements: A Perpetual Challenge? (56)
16
Interview Peter Van Heerden 22 August 2006
17
7. 7
2.3. The City of Cape Town’s Approach to Informal Settlement Upgrading
Currently in the City of Cape Town, the relocation and consolidation of informal settlements18
is the most favorable methodology for reducing and/or eradicating informal settlements. However,
the City of Cape Town’s greatest challenge is the availability of land suitable for upgrading.
According to one City official only 30% of informal settlements are located on suitable sites19
.
Land suitable for upgrading is defined as land which can be serviced cost effectively, is ideally
owned by the state and is not at risk of flooding or other risks. Currently the City is prioritizing four
large informal settlements, namely Sweethome, Monwabisi, Kosovo, Imizamo Yethu and Enkanini
for upgrading. They are all large settlements ranging from 5 000 to 10 000 informal dwellings.
Under debate within the City of Cape Town is the introduction of three types of Temporary
Relocation Areas (TRA’s)20
, which are aimed to provide ‘legitimate’ informal sites, as well as act
as a tool to support the ‘decanting’ of households from settlements which are too dense to
develop. A TRAI is a rudimentary serviced site located strategically near industry and
transport, which is funded and managed by the City and allows for the temporary occupation of
informal settlement households who are supposedly in transit. A TRAII is a settlement offering
site and serviced plots, often with electrification and is often funded through the Informal
Settlement Upgrading Programme (ISUP) and/or housing linked subsidies.
In both cases the city legitimises the occupation of the sites, and plays a pivotal role in
managing/controlling the migration in and out of the site. According to the City’s Programme
Management Unit, relocation of informal settlements onto large site and serviced plots (TRA II)
with formal land tenure is promoted as the best macro level strategy to addressing informal
settlement upgrading. For example Delft is considered a Phase I TRA for households in transit to
the N2 Gateway Housing Project and Bardale is considered a Phase II TRA for backyarders and
informal settlements too dense for upgrading, such as Village Heights in Lavender Hill.
The thinking behind the TRAs stems from two major housing and upgrading programmes in the
City of Cape Town, the N2 Gateway Housing Project (initiated in 2004) and the City of Cape
Town’s Emergency Servicing of Informal Settlements Project (launched in 2003). The latter
project divided Cape Town informal settlements into those areas which were suitable for
incremental housing others which would need to be relocated to safer areas. The project adopts a
phased approach as outlined in the table below:
Phase 1 Provision of rudimentary services to all informal
settlements in the Metropole
Phase 2 Provision of individual serviced sites
Phase 3 Provision of housing (consolidation phase)
The City’s ‘relocation and consolidation’ approach to informal settlement upgrading
responds to the insurmountable housing backlog and increasing rate of land occupation by
backyarders. City officials are increasingly concerned over how the City prioritises informal
settlements for upgrading, as they do not want to be seen as giving preference to newly
established informal settlements. The ‘relocate and consolidate’ approach often comes with a
range of hidden tradeoffs for the residents of the informal settlements such as disruption of
local livelihoods, fragmentation of social networks, and the damage of informal dwelling materials.
18
Interview Steven Erasmus, Director of Informal Settlement Management 21 August 2006
19
Interview Francois Van Niekerk, Programme Management CoCT, 25 August 2006
20
Interview Steven Erasmus, Director of Informal Settlement Management 21 August 2006
8. 8
At the micro level the most serious challenge in achieving an integrated and multi sectoral
approach to informal settlement upgrading is centrally locating responsibilities for coordinating
upgrading in a long term programmatic manner. In many instances informal settlement
upgrading is divided into different stages and depending on the type and time, i.e. once-off
interventions, staged interventions or incremental upgrading, the management of these stages
may be managed as separate projects, each with their own Project Management teams (PMTs).
For example in Phase I of a typical upgrading programme the emphasis is on infrastructure for
rudimentary services, which by virtue, will include the engineering department, roads, stormwater,
sanitation, water and electrification – all of whom will be represented on the multi sectoral PMT.
In the context of incremental informal settlement upgrading the problems of a project based
approach are often most realized in the ‘in-between phases’ of the development, when the
priorities shift from implementation to management/ maintenance.
The following case study from Cape Town highlights that one of the most significant challenges
after Phase I of the Servicing Informal Settlements Project21
, is ‘how to’ ensure a coordinated
multi sectoral approach to the maintenance of services. Subsequent to Phase I, City of Cape
Town’s Programme Management’s responsibilities were reduced to simply maintaining water
services, while waste, sanitation, storm water and roads became the sole responsibility of
different line departments. The implications of this sectoral approach in the ‘inbetween’ phases
of the ISU programme are felt on the ground. It may seem logical to assume that basic
infrastructure decreases health and other risks, but if these services are not adequately and
appropriately maintained the risk is likely to increase22
. In the case of solid waste, the
privatization of this service, compounded by limited monitoring from the City, has in some
instances resulted in poor service provision, which can have direct impacts on health and flooding
risks – which unfortunately also increases the risk of undermining the project’s overall objectives.
The City of Cape Town is however cognisant of this challenge and is exploring how Informal
Settlement Management (ISM), assumed under the role of Municipal Housing/ Human
Settlements, could play a more instrumental role in coordinating the upgrading process as
opposed to Programme Management. Presently, Informal Settlement Management is seriously
under-funded and under-capacitated with only a few staff responsible for informal settlement
project management (with the exception of larger developments such as Wallacedene when the
City contracts in project managers). It is however hoped that with the appointment of the new
Executive Housing Director in late August 2006, that the policy on Informal Settlement Upgrading
will be reviewed and that Informal Settlement Management will be supported in assuming the role
of coordinating the upgrading process.
In conclusion the paradigm shift required to implement such a multi sectoral and people driven
process will also increasingly call on the state to effectively form solid partnerships with informal
settlement communities, and accept their new role in supporting an integrated development
process, as opposed to delivering a development product.
21
The Servicing Informal Settlements Project was initiated in 2002 prior to Breaking New Ground
22
DiMP, Workshop Minutes. 2006 . Managing Health, Flooding and Fire Risks in Masiphumelele.
Attended by Environmental Health, Programme Management, Disaster Management and
community representatives.
9. 9
3. Part II: DAG’s Position on Informal Settlement Upgrading
Over the last twenty years DAG has been actively involved in pioneering a people centered
approach to urban development, mostly notably through Community Housing projects. DAG’s
long-term involvement in grassroots projects and path-breaking research has informed a critical
lens through which they have advocated and lobbied extensively on issues relating to housing
and informal settlements since the early 1990’s. Inherent in all DAG’s work over the last twenty
years has been the strategic imperatives of pro poor urban development, which is multi sectoral,
and driven by the principles of inclusive participatory development.
The introduction of the Informal Settlement Upgrading (ISU) Impact Area or Programme in
2006 is a further realization of these two strategic imperatives. The policy environment in South
Africa, mostly notably the promulgation of Breaking New Ground in 2005, which introduces the
first Upgrading Informal Settlement Programme (UISP), also provides an ideal platform for
initiating upgrading projects which do not require project linked housing subsidies to finance them.
DAG recognizes that the housing subsidy scheme is increasingly inefficient in addressing the
housing demand, which at the current rate of housing delivery will take between 25 to 50 years to
address. The need for a new development approach is thus imperative. In addition it is hoped that
the City of Cape Town’s policy on Informal Settlement Upgrading, which comes under review in
the coming months, will improve support for incremental insitu upgrading.
DAG’s approach to informal settlement upgrading in South Africa is based both on international
and local experiences of upgrading informal settlements23
, which indicate that incremental in situ
upgrading has a higher chance of improving living conditions without disrupting social networks
or livelihood strategies, as the settlement is upgraded where it stands. Informal settlement
upgrading is by virtue of its nature, not simply the sectoral responsibility of either engineering or
housing, but is rather the multi sectoral responsibility of a range of stakeholders/partners who
work collectively to address the community’s development priorities through a range of
complementary social and development initiatives, which may include the provision of healthcare,
day centres or support for micro-enterprise or income generation schemes. In this context
upgrading is seen by DAG as creating an impetus for inclusive and integrated
development, which has the potential to alleviate or in a best case scenario reduce poverty, and
integrate the informal settlement into the wider city.
DAG’s position on informal settlement upgrading is best summarized by the following nine critical
issues which need to be accounted for in ensuring the effectiveness and sustainability of
upgrading programmes24
:
# 1 Multi sectoral approach to informal settlement upgrading
# 2 Participation and Partnerships: Cooperative governance
# 3 Capacity Development
# 4 Protect and enhance existing social, economic and physical capital and respond to
development priorities
# 5 Flexible standards for planning, land, infrastructure and housing
# 6 Alternative land tenure arrangements
# 7 Community and State Regulation
# 8 Integration and inclusion of areas being upgraded into the wider city
# 9 Identify and mitigate against known and probable risks
23
Appendix I Freedom Park Case Study
24
Hardoy, J, Mitlin, D and Sattherwaite, D. Environmental Problems in an Urbanizing World (224)
10. 10
3.1. #1 Multi sectoral approach to informal settlement upgrading
International best practice indicates that upgrading of informal settlements is not just about
structural upgrading, but about the social and economic development of the residents, and about
protecting and improving people’s lives in a meaningful way. This often requires a suite of
complementary developmental initiatives to address the underlying issues of urban livelihoods,
land tenure, cooperative governance, social inclusion and integration. For example this may
include the establishment of savings groups so that residents can self finance structural
improvements to their home. In this case it may also be possible for residents with a sound
saving record to apply for small micro financing loans from organisations such as Kuyasa, who
although at present do not support informal settlement upgrading, may consider exploring this as
an option for the future. In contrast it may involve the establishment of counseling groups, to help
address the growing problems of physical and substance abuse.
As explored later in issue # 5, it is imperative that any upgrading programme aims to both protect
and enhance existing capital and respond to development priorities. In this context DAG
recognises that it is critical to acknowledge that informal settlements are heterogeneous
spaces and so it is likely that different groups of residents may have variable development needs.
In light of this the upgrading process may have different meanings/values to residents and
this could in some instances conflict with the perceptions of the engineers/ planners or the
community leaders.
3.2. #2 Participation and Partnerships: Enabling Cooperative Governance
Inherent in the process of people-driven development is their participation, which implies that
people are actively involved in their own process of development. By empowering people
to participate in their own development process they are able to move beyond simply being
beneficiaries of development to partners in the development process. The benefits of a
participatory development process have been experienced and documented extensively by DAG
over the last 20 years. One of the greatest benefits of participation which enables people to form
cooperative partnerships with other stakeholders - whereby they are able to identify, own and
manage the outcomes of the decisions,25
,- is that interventions have a greater likelihood of being
effective, efficient and sustainable.
For DAG one of the most effective ways of empowering and enabling both participation and
partnerships is through the strengthening of local institutions and providing opportunity for
residents to participate in development activities. DAG endorses a move away from simplified
consultative processes of participation26
to one of cooperative governance, in which
partnerships are integral. Implicit in a multi sectoral approach is the need for strong local
partnerships both across sectors within government and between local residents, the private
sector, academics, NGOs and civil society organisations. These partnerships should aim to be as
open and transparent as possible, and should ideally be established in the early stages of any
upgrading programme to create the platform from which the process can move beyond
participation to cooperative governance.
25
Patrick Wakely, Issues in Upgrading Informal Settlements. Lecture notes. 2006
26
Majale, M. Towards Pro Poor Regulatory Guidelines for Urban Upgrading. ITDG
11. 11
At an institutional level DAG exercises a high degree of caution in not duplicating existing
institutional structures, but rather emphasizes the strengthening of these institutions so that they
are democratically represented and are enabled to form cooperative partnerships with other
stakeholders (refer to issue #3 for more detail on DAG’s role in capacity development).
Understanding the institutional arrangements is imperative, especially in the context of
informal settlements, where there may be conflict or competition between certain representative
groups. In some circumstances it is important to consider the extent to which different
representative groups are politically or economically aligned (UDM vs ANC or local committee vs
shack lords) and how they are gaining access to power and resources. In this context it is
important to consider the historical development of how these institutions were established and
the meaning/ value which is attributed to them socially, as this will determine their scale27
. At the
same time an institutional analysis also needs to explore who is excluded from the decision-
making processes. Some groups may be excluded due to their marginal status within the
community (e.g. woman, immigrants) whilst others may consciously exclude themselves or
undermine the upgrading process due to the benefits they stand to loose if development is
successful (e.g. shacklords, gangsters).
In light of this, DAG recognizes that the process of participatory development is inherently a
political process28
, as it implies a complex process of negotiation between and amongst
stakeholders, and which can either become competitive or cooperative. For example in deciding
on the layouts of a settlement there are often tradeoffs which certain residents will have to make,
such as the size of the erf or the location of small businesses such as spaza shops or shabeens.
At a broader community level, participation of residents in the development process can for
example include the establishment of community service maintenance teams, who will be
technically skilled to repair taps, clean stormwater drains and report damage or disruption of
services. Skills training could be undertaken via the Provincial Department of Labour, with funding
for the maintenance teams supplied via the UISP budget. A useful comparative example is found
in Brazil, where community members have been empowered to participate in the monitoring of
services and report damage to the local municipality using very innovative mapping
methodologies. Through the use of a hand-held GPS, for example, the coordinates of a blocked
drain will be sent to the local department responsible.
In the City of Cape Town, officials have noted similar difficulties in locating damaged or destroyed
infrastructure without accurate reporting, as a result they do not respond expediently. Another
important factor to note is that services, such as waste removal are being privatized and as a
consequence standards often decline. The establishment and empowerment of community
service maintenance teams is one example of how cooperative partnerships could be established
between the community, the state and in some instances the private sector. This simultaneously
provides the opportunity for poverty reduction.
Similar examples include the establishment of NPOs who may be funded either by the City or
other donors to support sold waste recycling, home based care (Provincial Department of Health),
food gardening (links to Soil for Life, Abalemi Bezakhaya) or environmental health education
(UWC Environmental Health Seta Accredited courses). In such a case, DAG’s role is to broker,
and facilitate linkages with relevant departments and organisations that offer relevant
programmes, funds and support.
27
Interview Rick de Satge. September 2006
28
Issues in Upgrading. Department of Engineering and Planning. Lecture notes, 2006. UCT
12. 12
3.3. #3 Capacity Development
In most instances, capacity development programmes for local committees and/or community
members are imperative in strengthening their capacity and ensuring that participation occurs
equitably in the upgrading process. The Provincial Department of Local Government and Housing
defines social capital as the ‘institutions, relationships, norms and networks that shape the quality
and quantity of society’s social interactions and enables collective action’. Social capital is
therefore the capacity of networks to mobilize resources to obtain beneficial outcomes of
individuals29
.
In the context of South Africa, the attrition of strong community leaders post 1994 into government
and the private sector, as well the decreasing role of SANCO, has left many communities with
weak local governance, which is often factioned and not broadly representative. Capacity
development at a community level is therefore imperative to empower and enable communities
with the skills to not only participate in the decision making process, but to take appropriate
decisions which shape the upgrading process in accordance with their needs and vision. This may
include influencing the layout designs for the settlement or participating in the appointment of
professionals, such as architects or planners.
DAG facilitates two formal capacity development programmes to build social capital at a
community level. The first is the Leadership Programme which aims to equip community leaders
with skills in leadership, resource mobilization, conflict management, communication and
organisational development and administration etc. The second is the facilitation of technical
skills training with the support of the Provincial Department of Labour. This includes training
community members to become local artisans and builders, who are then employed during the
construction phases of the upgrading process. In the case of an insitu upgrade, which typically
takes longer than roll-over or once-off interventions, the opportunity for longer term employment
over the course of the upgrading programme has a greater potential of alleviating or reducing
poverty.
Complementing this DAG engages in a less formal capacity development intervention through
long-term partnerships established with community groups wherein DAG focuses on
strengthening the local institution through ongoing direct organisational development and
technical support.
3.4. #4 Protect and enhance existing social, economic and physical capital and
respond to development priorities
As informal settlement upgrading requires a range of complementary developmental initiatives to
address the underlying factors of urban vulnerability - which underlie the growth of informality; it is
imperative that these development initiatives are identified in the context of existing social,
economic and physical capital inherent within the specific community as well as the
perceived community needs. International best practice indicates that a developmental
approach which aims to protect and enhance existing community capital and engage
cooperatively in prioritizing needs, is critical if the development is to be sustainable.
29
Workshop notes Social Capital in Civil Society, 25 August 2006, 09h00 to 12h30, Institute for
Social Development, UWC
13. 13
For example in many older well established settlements, residents may have made considerable
individual and community investments into property and social and economic networks. This, for
instance, may include local spaza shops, the rental of a backyard, construction of a brick house,
an ‘informal’ mosque, or social networks to support child care needs.
DAG uses livelihoods assessment methodology to identify existing social, economic and
physical capital investments; this methodology provides a useful framework to identify
existing assets and resources (this may include physical, natural, human, social or financial
capital)30
in a participatory way. For example in Hangberg, Hout Bay informal settlements had
made substantial capital investments (physical and financial) in their informal properties. The
risk of this investment is borne by the households as such structures are typically demolished in th
upgrading process as they do not meet regulated building standards. The question is how to
secure household capital investments in the upgrading process. One suggestion to address this is
to include the establishment of an informal settlement upgrading support office, which
provides advice to informal dwellers as they incrementally upgrade their homes over time.
DAG ensures that a participatory livelihoods assessment is conducted as part of the planning
phase of any project. The methodology also provides informal settlement residents an opportunity
to reflect critically on their development process in order to understand how the settlement
has grown over time, and to understand how land has been regulated for livelihood and other
socio/political activities such as informal housing, spaza shops, creche’s or informal churches.
Whilst the general perception may be that informal settlements are haphazard (disorganized or
unplanned) and developed independently of the state’s regularizations and zoning laws, they are
in fact reflective of very complex and sometimes informal process of negotiation around the use of
space. Understanding this process of negotiation and how this has shaped the development
of a settlement prior to upgrading is critical.
In addition to enhancing and protecting existing capital there is also the need to identify critical
developmental needs. This for example may include the development of green spaces,
community centres, local economic enterprises, savings schemes or crèches. As incremental
insitu upgrading is about upgrading the settlement over time, it is important to prioritize
developmental needs in the context of existing social, physical or economic capital, so as to
prevent duplication. A range of techniques exist such as nominal needs assessments, but most
importantly the needs identification process should be participatory.
3.5. #5 Flexible standards and regulations for planning, land, infrastructure and
housing
DAG recognises that rigid standards and regulations in the context of insitu upgrading often tend
to have a range of adverse effects if not applied cautiously. Building and infrastructure standards
and regulations are often developed and enforced by the state primarily for the reason of ensuring
the safety and security of settlements, and may include standards for road widths, setbacks from
the street, building materials, water reticulation etc. The standards for planning, land,
infrastructure and housing are often defined in the context of efficiency (affordability, finance and
cost recovery), equality (access), quality and sustainability, which are outlined in detail in the
Guidelines for Human Settlement Planning and Design (otherwise known as the Red Book).
Whilst these guidelines are useful, and in the case of the Red Book are far more progressive in
providing recommendations for alternative engineering solutions, they often tend to be too rigid
in the context of insitu upgrading.
30
Majale, M. Towards Pro Poor Regulatory Guidelines for Urban Upgrading. ITDG
14. 14
As insitu upgrading is incremental, the gradual transition from informal to formal is often
predicated on the transition for being unplanned/ unregulated to planned/regulated –and it
is precisely this transition which needs to be managed most cautiously, as formalizing too quickly
and rigidly can potentially have a range of negative impacts. For example when applying
standardized road widths there is often some degree of de-densification required, as the roads
can assume as much as 40% of the informal settlement. Huchzermeyer notes in her book
Unlawful Occupation (2004) how there are many cases in Cape Town, where ‘informal’ brick
structures have been demolished and replaced with other formal structures during the upgrading
process.
In contrast, there are increasing cases where projects have successfully worked around rigid
standards without undermining the integrity of the upgrading programme. In the 1990’s in
Umlazi in Durban, residents opted for small footpaths instead of wide roads as many of them did
not own cars. There were considerable cost savings, which meant that there were more resources
for their top structures. A second example is from Colombo, Sri Lanka were residents opted to
build their homes incrementally using smalls loans to finance the construction of first, floors (to
reduce the flooding risks) and then over time the walls and roof. In the interim many of these
homes would appear to be simultaneously formal and informal. In most cases, where funding
cannot be accessed directly via UISP or a consolidation linked subsidy, households may require
access to credit, facilitated savings or buying materials in bulk. It is important to be aware of
the fact that moving from formal to informal requires an extensive amount of decision
making at both a community and individual level and it is therefore imperative that advice
and support are provided in the upgrading process.
DAG also recognises that one of the most important things to consider when looking at standards
and regulations is to consider possible cost effective alternatives, in participation with the
community. For example this may include the use of waterless toilets, which do not require
sewer lines to operate. It is however important to note that financial affordability is not the main
constraint, but institutional capacity and political will.
3.6. #6 Alternative land tenure arrangements
DAG recognises tenure as one of the most essential aspects of the upgrading programme, as it
provides the social and economic security for informal settlement residents to occupy the land
without being evicted. Security of tenure also provides the impetus for residents to begin
investing, physically, socially and economically in the settlement, which is a fundamental aspect of
incremental upgrading. It is important to note that this is however dependant on a range of factors,
such as access to income (location of the site in relation to livelihood opportunities), social
networks (sense of place – someone identifies with the settlement). Tenure is also one of the
most complicated issues to resolve in an incremental insitu upgrading programme, as tenure
rights in this context need to be flexible as households move between informal and formal and do
so at different paces. Various tenure options exist and the tenure options chosen in an upgrading
should be suited to the local context.
Community based/ area based land tenure provides a group of people with the right to occupy
the land, but is not linked to individual subdivisions. In this case the land is owned communally,
and managed by an institution such as a cooperative. In the late 1980’s informal settlements were
often managed by the local civic associations, who would control the use of the land in a way
described by Huchzermeyer (2004) as similar to that of communal land tenure practices in African
rural areas.
15. 15
Occupancy rights, most suited for insitu upgrading provides individuals with the right to occupy a
particular parcel of land, which is often allocated following the sub division of the settlement, as
part of the town planning. This right can also be transferred should someone leave the settlement.
Formal individual ownership provides individuals with title to an erf and requires a
commissioner of oath to formalize the sale/transaction, which can be very expensive and as a
result transfer/sales are often done informally. The individual owner is also liable for paying rates
and taxes on the land, which in poorer communities can be problematic. Individual land tenure
also has the risk of individualising households, and can contribute to social fragmentation. In
Chile, research has indicated that there is a direct link between the individualism of households
and increased domestic violence. Another issue of serious concern is the extent to which
individual land tenure could potentially drive high risk commercialization, whether through the
informal sale of an informal dwelling – in which case the original owner is still the title deed holder,
or through backyard rentals.
In the case of both community based/ area based land tenure and occupancy rights it is
imperative that a register of occupants is established to moderate and manage the sale or
transaction of dwellings or the use of open spaces, such as courtyards or informal markets. For
example if someone decides to move from the settlement their parcel of land can be transferred to
another household without having to pay the exorbitant costs related with individual land tenure,
but this transaction is still recorded. Another example is where a parcel of land is demarcated as
an open space, ie courtyard which may be managed by a group of households who communally
own the land. In both instances a local residents association plays a critical role in maintaining the
register, and where possible decentralized community control should be enabled.
In every case it is important to acknowledge that informal residents will have their own particular
preferences for tenure and it may be advisable to include a tenure specialist as part of the
upgrading project team.
3.7. #7 Community and State Regularization
Regulations can be regarded as tools (e.g. planning regulations, standards or administrative
procedures) used to enable and manage the growth of urban living environments. The state is
typically responsible for enforcing regulations, but as experience indicates informal settlements
are often solely regulated by their own internal mechanisms. For example access to land in an
informal settlement is often managed by either the local landlords or by a committee. For example
in Cross Roads in the 1970’s young adults were not allowed to occupy their own dwelling until
they reached the age of 28 and were married31
, so as to prevent social fragmentation and
unacceptable behavior.
At a social level this may also include the civic or residents association dictating the time which
shebeens must close at night. In such cases there is often a decision on an acceptable standard
of living conditions, and which may include who has ‘rights’ to the settlement, the distance
between informal dwellings (although this is often prescribed by the council) or acceptable
behavior. There may however also be cases where certain individuals or groups govern
undemocratically, such as shacklords whose own commercial interest may dictate who has
access to the settlement.
31
Interview with Nobom, Ukuvuka. 2004
16. 16
In the case of insitu upgrading the roles of various local level institutions, such as the local
civics, need to be carefully understood in reference to community regulations, as incremental
upgrading will often result in more formal regulations, which the state will impose – and this can
stifle/ undermine the development of the settlement. An example of a regulation that would have
negative impacts on a settlement in the process of being upgraded is a moratorium on backyard
shacks. It is important to find mechanisms for the state and community to co-manage regulations,
as the state alone is not able to undertake this.
3.8. #8 Integration and inclusion of areas being upgraded into the wider city
In order to integrate the area being upgraded into the wider city it is imperative to understand how
historical development planning has defined the boundaries/ parameters dividing the settlement
from the wider city. Many informal settlement residents often describe experiences of isolation
from the wider city and even experience stigmatization from the surrounding neighbourhoods. For
example, a young woman from the Netreg Housing Project explained in an interview in 2006, that
as a community they always felt isolated from even the neighbouring area of Bonteheuwel. Where
possible an insitu upgrading programme should aim to integrate with the wider city through
improved transport networks, access to local livelihood opportunities (ie a market or factory) and
socially through shared communal spaces, such a sport fields or a community centre.
Integration is closely related to improving livelihood outcomes through the upgrading process
through enhancing household assets and capital through improved economic opportunities,
stronger and new social networks and even new dimensions in human capital.
3.9. #9 Identify and mitigate against known and probable risks
DAG recognizes that in the process of upgrading an informal settlement, known and probable
risks must be identified and mitigated against in order to ensure that the upgrading process
realizes itself in sustainable outcomes. Known and probable risks could include disaster risks
(fires, flooding or climate change), economic risks (negative effects of commodification or
disruption of local livelihoods), social risks (crime and domestic abuse) or health risks
(HIV/Aids), which if not identified and mitigated against could potentially undermine the
sustainability of the upgrading. This process of identifying known and probable risks is typically
undertaken in the pre–planning phase of the project in participation with the community, so as to
ensure that mitigation strategies are closely linked to the planning and implementation of
complementary development initiatives, which can then simultaneously reduce vulnerability. For
example, minimizing relocation by opting to develop insitu can reduce costs by as much as 10
to15 times32
and will also help protect existing social networks and local livelihoods. If the
settlement is very dense and is at-risk of flooding, the option of medium density housing or
narrower roads would help address the issue of density, whilst an education programme to help
communities to live with flood risk, would help prevent relocation.
32
http://web.mit.edu/urbanupgrading/upgrading/whatis/alternatives.html
