CHAPTER 3 THE UPGRADING OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS
In the previous chapter, an overall picture of the national framework for the delivery of subsidised housing was provided. In this chapter, the complexity of the informal settlements scenario is investigated. The investigation commences with the concept of informal settlements. This is followed by a brief study of the background to and development of informal settlements to throw light on the historical roots and complexity of the present situation.
The focus then shifts to the detailed provisions of the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme, one of sixteen national housing programmes illustrated in figure 2.11 of this study. This is followed by a brief discussion of the two other housing programmes that could be used to provide economic, social and community facilities in the process of progressively creating sustainable human settlements from former informal settlements. Lastly, departmental factors hampering delivery are organised and combined into various sections, each of which commences with overall housing delivery and then provides examples pertaining to the Upgrading of Informal Settlements Programme.
CONCEPT OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS (ALSO KNOWN AS SLUMS OR SQUATTER CAMPS)
As in most developing countries with limited resources, in South Africa informal settlements have arisen as a result of a process of rapid urbanisation of the poor, who have flocked to the cities in search of work and a better life (National Department of Housing 2008a:104). Lombard (2004:2) concurs, stating that poverty, social disorder, deprivation and environmental degradation have been the stark consequences of urbanisation. Despite decisions to tackle the problem, Housing in Southern Africa (2009b:1) refers to a recent UN-Habitat report which estimates that three out of ten households in South Africa are slum dwellings.
The BNG plan (2004:3–4) indicates that despite the delivery of 1,6 million houses between 1994 and 2004, the significant change in the demand and the pace of urbanisation have resulted in an increased housing delivery backlog. The statistics indicating the changes between 1996 and 2001 are as follows:
The number of households living in shacks in informal settlements or backyards increased from 1,45 million to 1,84 million.
The population increased by 11%.
The number of households increased by 30% as a result of the drop in average household size from 4,5 people per household in 1996 to 3,8 in 2001.
Urban populations increased – in fact 20% of urban residents were first-generation residents – and housing and service provision did not keep up with household formation (National Department of Housing 2004:3–4).
The trend indicated in the above statistics has continued because, according to a National Department of Human Settlements workshop held at the end of 2009 (Parliamentary Monitoring Group 2009c:1; 3), the South African context at large is distinguished by:
rapid and irreversible urbanisation coupled with migration from rural to urban areas smaller households resulting in an increased number of households, and “dual residence” where households temporarily stay in urban areas while retaining a rural base
The effect of the above factors on human settlements is an increase in informal settlements, lack of access to basic services, unbalanced property markets and unsustainable development choices (Parliamentary Monitoring Group 2009c:1, 3).
The rapid migration of people from rural to urban areas is seen as creating a “shifting target” in the delivery of services, which may partly explain the dramatic increase in informal settlements, because housing delivery cannot keep up with unplanned and increased demand. In fact, most of the informal settlements are concentrated in the larger cities and their outskirts. Cape Town, Johannesburg, Pretoria and Durban are specifically mentioned (Parliamentary Monitoring Group 2009c:1, 3). The Development Action Group (2007:1) suggests a reason for this state of affairs. In their opinion, economic growth in cities has contributed to the rapid urbanisation, which in turn has led to an increase in the number of informal settlements. The Development Action Group (2007:1) quotes as follows from the 2006 State of the Cities Report:
44,1% of the national number of jobs were provided by five of the major cities, namely Johannesburg, Cape Town, Tshwane (Pretoria and surrounds), eThekwini (Durban area) and Ekurhuleni (Germiston and surrounds).
The economic growth in cities has not provided enough jobs because:
o 46,5% of national unemployment and
o 77,31% of people “living under the minimum living line” live within 60 km of these cities.
According to Minister Sexwale (National Department of Human Settlements 2009d:2), people living in shacks make up the “lion’s share” of the housing backlog, therefore the housing backlog will be used in this study as the gauge of the number of informal settlement households which need some form of upgrading. As was found to be the case with housing backlog and delivery figures quoted in chapters 1 and 2 respectively of this study, the estimated informal settlement figures often contradict one another.
BACKGROUND TO AND DEVELOPMENT OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS
The challenge of housing people living in informal settlements was identified as early as in the 1994 Election Manifesto, where one of the promises made by the ANC, as discussed in paragraph 2.2, was to house 7 million squatters (African National Congress 1994:4). At the projected average household size in 1995 of 4,97 people per household (National Department of Housing 1994:8), approximately 1,4 million houses would have had to be provided to house the squatters.
The post-1994 developments in policy, legislation, procedures, practice and commitments pertaining to informal settlements are briefly discussed in order of occurrence, from the oldest to the most recent.
A New Housing Policy and Strategy for South Africa (1994 Housing White Paper)
The 1994 Housing White Paper attributed the massive growth in informal settlements to high rates of household formation and low rates of housing delivery. It also indicated that the increase in land invasions would have to be addressed in future policy at all levels of government. As stated in paragraph 2.2, the 1994 Housing White Paper refers to projected figures for 1995 of 1,06 million households living in squatter housing on the outskirts of towns and cities and in the backyards of formal houses (National Department of Housing 1994:8).
Development Facilitation Act 1995
To give effect to the RDP White Paper (South Africa 1994:67), the Development Facilitation Act 67 of 1995 was passed (Enviro Leg CC 2009:1). One of the aims of the Act was to introduce exceptional measures to speed up the implementation of RDP projects for land. Section 3 of the Development Facilitation Act deals with general principles for land development, which include the following provisions pertaining to informal settlements, namely that policy, practice and legislation should:
facilitate the development of land for informal settlements discourage the illegal occupation of land
(Development Facilitation Act 67 of 1995: s 3).
Housing Act 1997
In terms of section 2(1)(e) of the Housing Act, the following provision pertaining to informal settlement development must be promoted by the three tiers of government in respect of housing development, namely:
the creation, development and maintenance of socially and economically viable communities and of safe and healthy living conditions to prevent slums
(Housing Act 107 of 1997: s 2(1)(e))
Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 1998
The next major development in informal settlements was the Prevention of Illegal Eviction and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998. According to the minutes of the Parliamentary Monitoring Group (1999:2), landlords were evicting tenants unlawfully and intervention was required. The Act strikes a balance between the needs of landowners who are faced with illegal occupations and those of the landless, who are often victims of wrongful evictions. The Act sets out the procedures that must be followed to evict unlawful occupiers of land while at the same time prohibiting the arbitrary or illegal eviction of occupiers (South African Government Information 2008:5).
United Nations Millennium Development Goals (2000)
It appears that the first step in attempting to upgrade or eradicate informal settlements in South Africa was taken as a result of a United Nations initiative. The United Nations Millennium Development Goals were signed in 2000 by numerous countries and leading development institutions in the world – all committing to a global partnership. There are eight Millennium Development Goals, ranging from halving extreme poverty to preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS and providing universal primary education – all by 2015 (United Nations Millennium Development Goals 2009a:1). In terms of United Nations Millennium Development Goal 7, “Ensure Environmental Sustainability », Target 4 (2009b:1), a significant improvement must be achieved worldwide in the lives of 100 million slum dwellers by 2020. According to Macgregor and Smit (2007:1), this would mean halving the number of people living in slums.
The indicators for the Millennium Development Goals are the proportion of people who have access to secure tenure and improved sanitation (Chenwi 2007:25). Government’s response to the Millennium Development Goals was to include specific strategies pertaining to informal settlements in the BNG plan, as discussed in paragraph 3.3.7 of this study, as well as to make an extremely ambitious commitment, which is discussed in the next paragraph.
South African government commitment (2004)
At the Public Policy Forum Meeting of Cities Alliance (South African Government Information 2004:1–3), the then Minister of Housing, Lindiwe Sisulu, stated that government had decided to contribute to the Millennium Development Goals by committing itself to achievable targets for the eradication of informal settlements. The targets set at the time were to upgrade or eradicate informal settlements within a period of ten years from the launch of the BNG plan, therefore by 2014.
Government has on many occasions reiterated its commitment to the eradication or upgrading of informal settlements by 2014 (South African Government Information 2005:5; National Department of Housing 2006a:1; 2006c:1; 2006d:1; 2007a:31; 2009a:1). Examples of commitment statements are: seeing it as a priority; “there is no issue more urgent and critical”; we are committed even though it will be a “rocky climb”; and, on introducing the new Director-General, saying that his task was to eradicate informal settlements by 2014 (National Department of Housing: 2006c:1; 2006a:1). In fact, while the BNG plan sets out various strategies, according to the strategic statement on the website (National Department of Human Settlements 2010c:1), the BNG’s prime objective is the eradication or upgrading of all informal settlements by 2014/15.
While Millennium Development Goal 7 aims for a target date of 2020 and aims to halve the number of slum dwellings, the earlier date of 2014 appears to come from former Minister Sisulu’s statement that, as African ministers, government would like to see the world making an increased commitment to the target date of 2020 for Target 4 of Millennium Development Goal 7 (South African Government Information 2005:3). In addition to the earlier target date, upgrading appears to have been abandoned at some point and the commitment changed to the eradication of all informal settlements by 2014.
From a delivery perspective, Huchzermeyer (2009:1) argues that the campaign to upgrade or eradicate informal settlements by 2014 is a misinterpretation of the Millennium Development Goals and is unrealistic. She supports her opinion by referring to the Informal Settlements Upgrading Programme pilot projects, which should have been completed by 2007/08. Long after the target date for completion, not one of them has been completed.
From a financial perspective, Misselhorn (2008:21–22) projects that, even without taking all cost variables into account, a minimum amount of R27 billion per annum would be required from 2008 to 2014 to eradicate 1,2 million informal settlement households. Based on the backlog figure of 2,4 million informal settlement households provided by the National Department of Housing (SabinetLaw 2009:2), the minimum amount required annually to eradicate all informal settlements by 2014 would be at least R54 billion.
Misselhorn (2008:7) argues that informal settlement residents make “conscious choices” about where to live, usually linked to the cost of living, transport and proximity to jobs. In further motivation of his point, Misselhorn (2008:8) quotes from a 2007 Urban LandMark survey which found that in 47% of the cases the respondents’ situation had improved because of moving to an informal settlement; in 30% it had stayed the same and in only 20% of cases had it worsened, according to the respondents.
Breaking New Ground (BNG plan) (2004)
Before the launching of the BNG plan, no policy provision was specifically made for informal settlements, other than in section 3 of the Development Facilitation Act, which appears to have encouraged the formation of informal settlements, as it provided for the facilitation of the development of land for formal and informal settlements (Development Facilitation Act 67 of 1995: s 3).
Progressive informal settlement eradication
“Progressive informal settlement eradication”, which is represented by the area shaded in red in figure 2.3 of this study, forms part of Strategy 2 of the BNG plan, namely “From housing to sustainable human settlements”. The broader intention of Strategy 2 of the BNG plan is to address part of the poverty scenario, which comprises three elements, namely: income, human capital (services and opportunity) and assets (National Department of Housing: Breaking New Ground 2004:11).
Regarding “Progressive informal settlement eradication” in terms of the BNG plan (National Department of Housing 2004:17), the time had come to acknowledge the existence of informal settlements and to shift official policy on informal settlements from one of conflict or neglect to one of cooperation – and to integrate these areas into the urban structure. When the BNG plan was launched, there were no existing housing programmes that made specific provision for the upgrading of informal settlements. It was decided to take vigorous measures to upgrade informal settlements and implement a subsidised housing programme that would deliver sufficient houses to progressively decrease the formation of informal settlements (Breaking New Ground 2004:17).
[Developing and implementing] [t]he Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme
“The informal settlement upgrading instrument”, which is represented by the area shaded in red in figure 2.4 of this study, forms part of Strategy 3 of the BNG plan, namely “Existing and new housing instruments”. This strategy indicates that a “New Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme/ mechanism” should be developed and that implementation requires cooperation between the three tiers of government (National Department of Housing 2008a:103).
Macgregor and Smit (2007:1) are of the opinion that, from 1994 to 2004, the government’s response to informal settlements was characterised by disaster management strategies, but since 2004 when the BNG plan was launched, programmes have been put in place to eradicate informal settlements through large capital-intensive interventions. However, Smit (2005:1) expresses the concern that the approach appears to be top-down, focused on targets, and that this has resulted in insufficient community participation.
More flexible qualification criteria
In figure 2.7, which depicts Strategy 6 of the BNG plan, under “Adjusting beneficiary contributions and criteria”, informal settlements have been identified as one of the three areas which should have more flexible qualification criteria than those of other housing programmes. This forms part of Strategy 6, namely “Financial arrangements”, which aims to address increased demand for housing and improve response to this demand (National Department of Housing: Breaking New Ground 2004:19–20).
Housing Consumer Education Framework (2007)
The next development was the Housing Consumer Education Framework, which identifies the invasion of land and the creation of unsustainable settlements and shacks with a lack of security of tenure as a problem which has developed owing to a lack of knowledge of the choices available to the invaders, as well as the rights and responsibilities that are attached to home ownership. The purpose of the Housing Consumer Education Framework is to establish a comprehensive, uniform and integrated document which creates awareness and educates consumers and other key role players regarding housing matters (National Department of Housing: Housing Consumer Education Framework 2007b:6–7).
Sustainable human settlement planning: a resource book on housing chapters (2008)
Sustainable human settlement planning: a resource book on housing chapters provides municipalities with a practical resource to strengthen their planning for housing delivery in terms of the BNG plan. More specifically, the resource book provides information, guidance and direction to municipal officials in preparing a housing chapter that sets out the housing sector plan as part of the municipal Integrated Development Plan (National Department of Housing: Sustainable human settlement planning 2008a:1; Mpumalanga Department of Housing 2010:9). This book, Sustainable human settlement planning (National Department of Housing 2008a:104), is an important development in relation to informal settlements because it contains details, albeit in the form of a summary, of what was then known as the Informal Settlement Upgrading Programme, the first publication to do so subsequent to the strategy included in the BNG plan of 2004.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES IN TEXT
LIST OF TABLES IN TEXT
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.2 RESEARCH FOCUS
1.3 OVERALL RESEARCH AIM AND INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH OBJECTIVES
1.4 DELIMITATION OF RESEARCH
1.5 NEED FOR THIS RESEARCH
1.6 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
1.7 OUTLINE STRUCTURE
CHAPTER 2: THE NATIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE DELIVERY OF SUBSIDISED HOUSING
2.2 ORIGIN OF SUBSIDISED HOUSING
2.3 SUBSIDISED HOUSING TERMINOLOGY
2.4 THE NEW CONSTITUTION AND SUBSIDISED HOUSING
2.5 FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES FOR HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
2.6 PRESENT NATIONAL HOUSING LEGISLATION AND DIRECTIVES
2.7 NATIONAL HOUSING VISION, MISSION AND CORE VALUES
2.8 NATIONAL HOUSING STRATEGIES
2.9 NATIONAL HOUSING PROGRAMMES
2.10 FACILITATORS AND FUNDING
CHAPTER 3: THE UPGRADING OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS
3.2 CONCEPT OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS (ALSO KNOWN AS SLUMS OR SQUATTER CAMPS)
3.3 BACKGROUND TO AND DEVELOPMENT OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS
3.4 THE UPGRADING OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS PROGRAMME
3.5 OTHER INTERRELATED NATIONAL HOUSING PROGRAMMES
3.6 DEPARTMENTAL FACTORS HAMPERING DELIVERY UNDER THE UPGRADING OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS PROGRAMME
CHAPTER 4:THE BALANCED SCORECARD AS A PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT TOOL FOR THE UPGRADING OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS PROGRAMME
4.2 CHANGES IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT SYSTEMS
4.3 BACKGROUND TO AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE BSC
4.4 WHY THE BSC FOR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT?
4.5 DEFINING TERMINOLOGY
4.6 THE BSC CONCEPT AND FRAMEWORK
4.7 ADAPTING THE BSC FRAMEWORK FOR PUBLIC SECTOR USE
4.8 ADAPTING THE BSC PERSPECTIVES FOR PUBLIC SECTOR USE
4.9 PUBLIC SECTOR TRANSLATION PROCESS VIA THE BSC
4.10 MONITORING AND EVALUATION VERSUS THE BSC
CHAPTER 5:THE BSC FRAMEWORK FOR THE UPGRADING OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS PROGRAMME
5.2 COMPATIBILITY OF THE BSC WITH THE PRINCIPLES FOR HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND CORE VALUES
5.3 SUITABILITY OF THE BSC FOR ADDRESSING THE DEPARTMENTAL FACTORS HAMPERING DELIVERY UNDER THE UPGRADING OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS PROGRAMME
5.4 AVOIDING THE PITFALLS IN BSC IMPLEMENTATION
5.5 POSSIBLE BSC FRAMEWORK APPROACH TO DELIVERY UNDER THE UPGRADING OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS PROGRAMME
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION
6.2 OVERVIEW OF THE BACKGROUND TO AND FOCUS OF THE RESEARCH
6.5 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT