Transcript Slide 1

Urban Infrastructure Services
Experiences in Zimbabwe for
low income settlements
Eng.Fungai Matahwa
Practical Action Southern Africa
www.practicalaction.org
No. 4 Ludlow Road, Newlands, P.O. Box 1744, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Telephone: +263 4 776 631-3
Fax:
+263 4 788 157
Mobile: +263 11 444 960
Email:
[email protected].
Skype address: fungaim2
PRACTICAL ACTION

Practical Action - formerly Intermediate Technology
development Group (ITDG)

An international technology development organization with its
head offices in the United Kingdom.

Founded in 1965 and has offices in Southern Africa, East
Africa, Sudan, Latin America, Bangladesh, Nepal and South
Asia.

Practical Action Southern Africa office based in Harare covers
work in Zimbabwe, Zambia, Mozambique and Malawi
VISION
Our vision is a of a sustainable world free of poverty and injustice in
which technology is used for the benefit of all.
MISSION
To use technology to challenge poverty by:



Building the capabilities of poor people;
Improving their access to technical options and knowledge, and
Working with them to influence social economic and institutional
systems for innovation and the use of technology.

Our work focus on four key areas normally referred to as Programme aims
1. Reducing Vulnerability
2. Markets and livelihoods
3. Access to infrastructure Services
4. New technologies

AIM 1: Reducing vulnerability
-help reduce the vulnerability of poor people affected by natural disasters,
conflict and environmental degradation.

AIM2: Making markets work for the poor
We help poor people to make a better living – by enabling producers to
improve their production, processing and marketing.

AIM3 Improving access to infrastructure services
We help poor communities gain access to basic services – water, sanitation,
housing and electricity.

AIM 4 New technologies
We help poor communities respond to the challenges of new technologies,
helping them to access effective technologies that can change lives forever.
Presentation theme

AIM 3 Access to infrastructure services :- Goal 2

Poor people in slums or low income urban settlements enjoy a
better living environment and income generating opportunities
from accessing or providing infrastructure services.

Shelter, water, sanitation, energy and waste management
services
Zimbabwe Waste management
highlights

2.5 million tonnes of both industrial and
household waste is generated per annum

Collapse of a local governance system

urban waste collection rates dropped from
at least 80% (mid 1990s) to as low as
30% 2008 in some large cities and small
towns *despite a declining economy.

low waste collection levels have triggered
widespread illegal open dumping and
backyard incineration
Key lessons to share

Public health and hygiene training and awareness is key in dealing
with the waste management problem

Value addition of the waste is vital for sustainability of the income
generating groups

Giving up or sub contracting of services in the traditional sector
occupied by LAs has been a challenge taking a cue from past
experiences from the City of Harare

Working in an environments were there is no clear policy at national
level will not bear meaningful results
Housing Experiences in Zimbabwe after OM




On 19 May 2005, with little or no
warning, the Government of
Zimbabwe embarked on an
operation to “clean-up” its cities.
It was a “crash" operation known
as “Operation Murambatsvina”,
(OM)
resulted in the destruction of
homes, business premises and
vending sites.
It was estimated that some
700,000 people in cities across the
country lost either their homes,
their source of livelihood or both.
Factors leading to the clean up campaign
Economic context
 Political context
 Urbanization

Economic context

In 1980 the informal economy - 10%
of the labour force.

The informal sector share of
employment grew to 20% by1986/87,
27% by 1991 and an estimated 40%
by 2004.

The informal economy had effectively
become the mainstay for the majority
of the Zimbabweans.
The Political Factor

Zimbabwe had been ruled by one political party for 20
years before a real opposition could emerge

Against this backdrop of a deeply weakened economy
the MDC emerged, against this background, as a
formidable challenge to the ruling party.

Although ZANU-PF eventually won the 2000
parliamentary elections, Towns and cities emerged as
strongholds of opposition to the ruling party and have
since been viewed with suspicion by the government.
Legal context: Double standards

The national laws were inconsistent

Government policy statements leading to the rapid formation of
backyard extensions from the mid 1990s now dubbed illegal

Local authorities recognizes theses form of structures and collects rates

Then the sudden application of the laws governing towns and cites
under Operation Restore Order
Urbanization
High population growth rate
 30 – 40 people per 200m2 stand
 Over loading of existing infrastructure
 High incidents of disease outbreaks
 High growth rate of illegal settlements

NGO JI Project

In 2006 Practical Action intervened in a relief housing
provision project ‘The NGO joint Initiative “.

The NGO Joint initiative (JI) was an intervention
conceptualised by seven NGOs with a wide spectrum of
experience in addressing acute needs of the vulnerable
groups in urban areas of Zimbabwe through an
integrated programming soon after Operation
Murambatsvina.( Care, CRS, Africare, Oxfam GB, Save
the Children UK, Mercy Corps and Practical Action.
INTERGRATION OF NGO ACTIVITIES
AREA
SUBURB
PRIORITIES
AGENCY
Greater Harare

Mbare
•
•
•
Livelihoods
Shelter materials
Food



Africare
Practical Action
Oxfam

St Mary’s
1.
2.
3.
Livelihoods
Shelter materials
Education



Africare
Practical Action
Mercy Corps

Mzilikazi
1.
2.
3.
Livelihoods
Food
shelter


CRS
Oxfam

Makokoba
1.
2.
Livelihoods
Food


CRS
Oxfam
Mutare

Sakubva
•
•
•
Livelihoods
Shelter materials
Education



CARE
Practical Action
Mercy Corps
Gweru

Mkoba
1.
2.
3.
Food
Livelihoods
HIV/AIDS



CARE
Africare
CARE
Masvingo

Mucheke
1.
2.
3.
Livelihoods
Food
HIV/AIDS



CARE
CARE
CARE
Bulawayo

Shelter having been greatly exacerbated by the Operation
Murambatsvina was singled out as one of the major priority needs in
five urban areas of Zimbabwe.

The shelter project’s objective was to restore dignity to the victims
of Operation Murambatsvina by increasing descent habitable space.

The following strategies were employed to achieve the target;
 Reduce cost of housing construction by adopting community
based models and promoting the use of alternative low cost
materials

Increase household income through shelter services

Foster partnerships with local authorities, and civic organisations
in addressing victims immediate and long term challenges that
include;
 Advocacy for secure tenure
 Child protection and gender mainstreaming
 Disaster mitigation and,
Project Model

Community empowerment ,participation and training as an
integral part of the approach. The project relied on tested
approaches to community empowerment and these were:
Training in participatory methodologies

Enterprise development in shelter related services

Community draughting and space optimisation
Shelter model in response to ORO
DEMONSTRATION OF TECHNOLOGIES



2000- 4000 SSBs per day
Training of material production centered among women
RUTASHI and Vimbayi secured orders to supply Chitungwiza
municipality with building materials worth over Z$10 million
(US$ 1923.00).
Demonstrating technologies

Egg layer cement block

8000- 12000 cement block per
day

Manual operated

On site production
Training in the construction of housing units



Communities establish
shelter construction
groups
Communities are trained
in all the elements of
construction standard
houses
Youth are then sent to
vocational training
centers to complement
the practical experience
Community draughting

The justification in the demolition of structures during the clean-up
operation in 2005 was the non compliance of the structures with the
model building bylaws,

training endeavoured to enhance community’s appreciation of the
building bylaws requirements in housing construction.

Participation of LAs enabled beneficiaries and residents at large to
be aware of the regulatory framework on illegal developments and
on development control mechanisms.

The process culminated in the production and adoption of model
housing plans approved by the Las/ Municipalities and available for
adaptation and uptake by the community.
Tenure Security






Working in these old suburbs beleaguered with strong colonial relics
unearthed unanticipated varying tenure issues which many residents
were not even aware of. Most residents moved into these suburbs
under various housing schemes at independence in 1980 while some
had been there earlier.
The tenure clarification process initially was not prioritised but
progressively the need became more apparent as it emerged that in
all the three sites majority of the beneficiaries were either children
or grand children of deceased owners.
A community driven tenure clarification and awareness programme
was embarked upon which benefited even those that were not
direct beneficiaries of the housing project.
A number of tenure workshops were held with the beneficiaries
resulting in the establishment of a section within LAs to deal with
tenure clarification issues.
In 12 months 1100 cases tenure cases were clarified and 1620
stands were subsequently surveyed in retrospect to facilitate for the
granting of title deeds.
Resource persons for this process came from local authority
departments, Master of the High Court and Community courts, the
Government Rent Board and Wills and Inheritance specialists.
Beneficiary contribution




Material – average of 34%
beneficiary contribution
Ranged form 0 – 61%
contribution
Labour – 20% reduction
on the overall cost of
construction
Costs 10% using
community construction
as opposed to 30% using
conventional contractors
Donor Vs Beneficiary Ow n Contribution
2500
2000
USD783.
USD504.
USD600.
1500
USD512.
1000
USD1650.
Beneficiary
USD1804.
USD1486.
USD1003.
500
0
Mbare
St Mary's
Mutare
Average
Donor
Project outputs to date






488 three roomed houses constructed to date
6120 people benefiting to date
123 houses benefiting form rental income
1265 residential stands allocated to the homeless
1100 households with clarified and secure tenure
38 material production enterprises established
 7 cement block producers
 6 SSBs producers
 4 MCR tiles producers
 13 stone crushers
 6 door carpentries
 2 welding centres
Project Experiences
 Households that benefited from additional accommodation space were able to ease
overcrowding while others began to realise income from rentals.

Meeting accommodation needs of poor communities alone without enhancing
livelihoods options may lead to the beneficiaries opting to remain overcrowded while
they rent out some space to raise income.

The contribution by residents in both materials and sweat equity raised the stakes
and ensured the continued involvement in the initiative. If poor communities are
provided with shell structures and capacity to build , they can complete their own
units

The promotion of appropriate low cost technologies that utilise locally available
materials in enterprise development helped to reduce the service and maintenance
costs.

Nurturing partnerships with local authorities ensured buy- in which enabled smooth
accelerated progress. Participation of local authorities made them appreciate
community driven initiatives and as such became flexible to changing their practices
appropriately to meet the communities

The project initiated the healing and restoration of trust by the communities on the
local authorities following the Operation Murambatsvina
Thank you