South Africa Supports Swaziland to Engage Government around Upgrading Policy
Last week, a delegation from South Africa travelled to Swaziland to support communities in their work with government around a national upgrading policy currently under review. Read the full report below.
By Kwanele Sibanda, CORC, South Africa
Background of Swaziland
The Kingdom of Swaziland is located in Southern Africa and is land locked (almost completely surrounded by South Africa) with the Republic of South Africa and Mozambique forming the boarders. The Swazi Nation Land, which is communal, is held in trust by the King and parts of it are allocated by Chiefs to individual Swazi families for their use. Swaziland has four administrative regions which are further divided into 55 Tinkhundla Centres (Local Administration) these form the basic unit of political administration. Political parties were banned from the constitution promulgated on 13 October 1978.
Swaziland is one of Africa’s smallest countries yet has an estimated 2014 population of 1.27million which ranks 155th in the world. The country faces several health issues including HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. It has a life expectance of just 31.88years, the lowest documented life expectancy in the world and less than half the world average.
34% of the nation stands unemployed. 70% live on less than a dollar per day. 35% of adults suffer from HIV.
Background of local federation
The federation of Swaziland is known as SLIPO (Swaziland Low Income People’s Organization). No local support NGO has been established as yet. The federation activities are currently being anchored by John Dlamini who has supported the federation from its revival in 2011. In 2008 an exchange was held to Zambia and it was attended by municipal officials and zone leaders. Upon their return, they established the federation with a lot of support from the municipality. An MOU was submitted to the national government in 2012; however no formal feedback was given back to the federation. Out of Swaziland’s total of four regions, the federation is in two regions namely: Manzini and Hhohho. The other two regions that have not yet been mobilized are Lubombo and Shiselweni. SLIPO’s membership is currently at 429 and they have R498 333.00 in savings. The federation is currently in the process of building a federation office that is being funded by SDI.
Purpose of exchange
In 2008, residents of Mbabane were informed that the government is working on a policy around upgrading; however it is asserted that no further consultation was held with the respective communities. Without much knowledge about the implications of the policy; the communities remained relaxed. As SLIPO intensified its engagements with the state in 2014, it came to light that the policy had reached an advanced stage and if it is not attended; its implementation may come with more harm than good for the poor communities. To start off the process, the policy shall be implemented with an intention of upgrading 9 areas around Mbabane and that will affect Ward 1, 2, 3, part of 7, 11 and 12. Each Ward is divided into Zones. The Land Allocations Policy and Procedure went through council and passed. It was recommended that it be forwarded to the Minister and it is currently with him for approval before it is forwarded to cabinet. The first and direct negative implication of the policy especially to the poor is that; he who cannot afford a site estimated at R42 000 shall be required to seek a new place of residence (in a form that can be described as eviction). According to the state, the aim of selling the sites is that of raising funds for service installation. As SLIPO grows to another stage within the SDI alliance; it encountered a challenge that requested support; hence the request for the South African alliance to go and support. Delegated to support the federation of Swaziland from South Africa was Patrick Matsemela, Nomvula Mahlanga, Thandeka Tshabalala and Kwanele Sibanda.
Exchange preparatory meeting
Day one of the exchange started off with a preparatory meeting. The preparatory meeting was between the South African delegates and 6 SLIPO saving scheme leaders.
Introductions were made in the following manner: name of member, saving scheme, component, total saving scheme amount and UPF.
The preparatory meeting had 3 main objectives:
- Introducing some of the South African delegates to the Swaziland federation members and briefing on the federation’s background and current status that prompted the need for an exchange.
- Outlining the programme for the entire period of stay.
- To discuss key issues that had to be focused on in the meeting with the Mayor and the Councillors.
- Introductions were made and John Dlamini from SLIPO shared the background of the federation as indicated under ‘Background of local federation’.
- The programme of the exchange was outlined as indicated below:
- 30/10/2014 – 10:00: Preparatory meeting (S.A and Swaziland federations)
- 30/10/2014 – 16:00: Meeting with the Mayor of Mbabane and the Councillors.
- 31/10/2014 – 08:00: Meeting with Zone leaders
- 01/11/2014 – 10:00: Meeting Federation leaders + site visit to the office under construction.
3. In preparation for the meeting with the Mayor, the points below were highlighted:
- The meeting with the Mayor and the Councillors was requested by SLIPO.
- The meeting with the Mayor came about in the following way:
- It was prompted by the advanced stage of the Land allocation policy and procedure that is currently a draft; in the swing of being implemented and above all, putting all informal settlers and low income earners at risk of being evicted from their current places of residents.
- The SASDI delegates were requested to focus their presentation on how they partnered with their government and what they have achieved.
- Shared background information on the draft policy and its inevitable implications.
- The team was advised that councillors to be met are from both the formal and informal wards. It was also added that SLIPO does not focus on informal wards only, but also mobilizes and organises members in the formal wards because there is a great percentage that is struggling to pay rates and taxes and run at a risk of having their properties seized.
- SLIPO would like to mobilize, organize communities, use SDI tools and be able to influence policies and the manner in which they are drafted.
- SA delegates were advised to expect challenges from some councillors because in the coordination for the meeting, some councillors were already arguing how South Africans can assist Swaziland and yet they are burdened by their own informal settlements.
- Request to emphasize the non-political aspect of the organization
- Our challenge is that within the Municipality, there is no proper handover of information as a result the change in officials imply starting engagements all over again.
- It was also indicated that even Mayors and Councillors of places that have not yet been mobilized were invited so that they start getting an understanding of the SDI’s approach to development.
Meeting with the Mayors and the councillors
- Benito George Jones – Mayor of Mbabane
- Khetho Dlamini – Mayor of Manzini
- Makhosazana Shongwe – Representing Mayor of Ngwenya
- Sipho Shongwe – Mayor of Piggs Peak
- Four councillors, seven SLIPO representatives and four SASDI alliance delegates.
- The meeting was chaired by John Dlamini
- After introductions the purpose of the meeting was outlined as that of making a formal presentation to the Mayors and Councillors about the SDI Alliance with more focus on SLIPO
- SLIPO’s presentation covered its background, aims and objectives, member, savings UPF, loans, projects as well as areas covered.
- The above was followed by the SASDI alliance’s presentation that gave an overview of SDI, tools used, S.A partnerships with the state and other formal institutions as well as achievements. The various representatives explained how working closely with saving and organized communities results in meaningful development.
RESPONSE FROM THE MAYOR OF MBABANE
- The Mayor started off by indicating that he is impressed with the presentation made and the approach being taken.
- He went on to enlighten the delegates about the differences that are there between S.A and Swaziland.
- While South Africa has three spheres of government (national, provincial and local), Swaziland only has national and local. In addition to the above, the local municipalities rely on rates and taxes payment as funds for development; hence the need to sell plots and install infrastructure.
- The municipalities have a serious budget constraint because they do not get a budget allocation from national for service installation and maintenance. Funds received from national are for subsidizing service provision that is made to areas that do not pay rates and taxes. An example was given of a community that has street lights and waste removal, but does not pay rates and taxes.
- The Mayor furthermore emphasized that if there are such communities that are taking a stand in development; the state and SLIPO have to jointly have a model that clearly states how the process is going to be undertaken.
- Inputs made by Mayors and councillors from other areas showed that they have interest as well as a lot of knowledge about SLIPO. Some councillors even mentioned names of saving schemes within their areas that were not present in the meeting.
- Lastly, it was indicated that for SLIPO to be recognized as a national structure, it has to cover all the four regions of Swaziland.
- In response to the question about the MOU submitted, it was indicated that the MOU was directed to national and not the local municipality. It was recommended that a formal working relationship starts off at a local level and the work done will be able to influence the national level.
- SLIPO has the task of mobilizing, organizing and motivating communities to save in the remaining two regions.
- SLIPO has to draft and present to the Mayor a model that can be used in the purchase of plots as well as infrastructure development.
- Need to draft an MOU directed to the local municipality of Mbabane.
DAY TWO: MEETING WITH ZONE LEADERS
DATE: 31 OCTOBER 2014
VENUE: THOKOZA ANGLICAN CONFERENCE CENTRE
On day two of the exchange, a meeting was held between SLIPO saving scheme leaders, Zone leaders and the SASDI delegates. Zone leaders are equivalent to community leaders in the South African context. The aim of meeting them was that of: sharing the SDI concept with them, reporting on what SLIPO has been doing in form of saving schemes, share report back from meeting with the Mayors and Councillors and also requesting their support in establishing more saving schemes in their respective Zones.
The zone leaders were informed about the upgrading policy and also reminded that it is everyone’s challenge therefore a joint effort is required in finding a better solution. The estimated cost of each plot is around R42 000 and that will require at least a R600 contribution per member per month for at least five years. It was mentioned that the majority of residents are unemployed and for those that are employed they hardly earn R3 000 per month.
The zone leaders gave a positive response and some even shared history of the government’s targeted areas. One of the zone leaders indicated that one of the targeted areas is an area where his parents were born. ‘My father is 86 years old now. He is unemployed and does not receive any pension. How is he supposed to raise the required money?’ The leaders basically denounced the displacement of residents in the name of development and furthermore pledged to support SLIPO in mobilizing communities and engaging the government in a workable solution to the challenge.
The Zone leaders requested SLIPO to visit their Zones so that presentations can be done to each entire structure.
DAY THREE: MEETING WITH SAVING SCHEME LEADERS
DATE: 01 November 2014
On the third day of the exchange, a meeting was held with saving scheme leaders. The purpose of the meeting was to give a report back of the engagements that had taken place on the 31st and the 1st of November, share savings reports, discuss mobilization and establishment of more saving schemes.
All presentations were made and various proposals were made for taking the process forward. Below is what was proposed:
- Establish a team to focus on mobilization. Draft a program that will include meeting the Zone leaders as well as extending to the remaining two regions.
- Write a letter to the Mayor thanking him and the other officials for hosting SDI and also make a request of starting monthly joint meetings to share what SLIPO is doing, request relevant officials to participate in the various SLIPO activities, request for support and to keep constant communication around activities.
- The SLIPO saving scheme leaders have the task of going back to their respective saving schemes to discuss and agree on a reasonable affordable amount that saving scheme members can contribute on a monthly basis towards the purchase of plots.
- The Mbabane Mayor’s comment about financial strain at a Municipal level was noted; however it was proposed that while SLIPO members save and make contributions towards their development, SLIPO should stay determined to tap into useful resources at the disposal of local municipalities. The leaders have a task of drafting an MOU directed to the Municipality of Mbabane as recommended.
- The leaders must start off by choosing one settlement that they will use as a learning centre and work on a project with the municipality.
- It was recommended that the upcoming three enumerations scheduled for January 2015 should be of settlements that have active saving schemes and also fall under the areas that will be affected by the new policy. The policy has defined places were the implementation will start.
- SLIPO must choose a documentation team to compile stories about projects, exchanges, engagements and personal stories from members.
- The leaders should make a follow up on the proposed exchange to South Africa with official that have influence on the policy being drafted.
- FEDUP should assist in the establishment of networks.
Strengthening Civil Society Voices on Urban Poverty
The Indian SDI Alliance, SPARC-NSDF-Mahila Milan, alongside long-standing partner PRIA initiated events in various states in India to seek deeper community participation on government poverty linked programs in cities. Participants explored ways that state and city authorities and NGOs can facilitate effective partnerships with communities, making space for them to be centrally involved in upgrading, infrastructure and design projects.
This small video attempts to share glimpses of initial workshops help in Patna, Bihar, and Ranchi in Chhattisgarh, India. These initial workshops will be followed up more in depth engagements, so stay tuned to the blog for updates.
Building Partnerships Between the Urban Poor & the City
**Cross-posted from the SA SDI Alliance Blog**
By Walter Fieuw, CORC
“This is a dream come true in bringing City Councils and communities around a table to talk about possibilities of city-wide informal settlement upgrading,” said Jerry Adlard, the facilitator of the 9th November learning event organised by South African, Namibian and Malawian poor people’s movements aligned to Shack/Slum Dwellers International. Paired with these words, was the call for honest reflection on the objective, structure, achievements, lessons learnt and challenges of unfolding partnerships in the cities of Cape Town, Stellenbosch, Ethekwini, Ekurhuleni, Johannesburg, Windhoek and Lilongwe. The learning event was preceded by two days of site visits to re-blocking, sanitation and relocation projects in the City of Cape Town and Stellenbosch Municipality.
How do various actors implicated in urban development build partnerships to ensure pro-poor and inclusive cities? Contemporary African cities are juxtaposed with multiple layers of social, political, economic and environmental realities, which in many ways are aggravated by its colonial past. On the one hand, cities are the spaces of aspiration, innovation and drivers of social change, and on the other, social polarisation, poverty, conflict and environmental degradation narrate the conditions of large portions of city dwellers. In an age that is characterised by urbanisation, said to transform the cities of Africa, Asia and Latin America, there is arguably never been a time where effective partnerships are more needed.
In many cases, slum dwellers are taking the lead in building partnerships with local authorities with the view to significantly influence the way slum upgrading is conceptualised and operationalised. The full participation of slum dwellers in upgrading programmes is central to meeting the outcomes of sustainable human settlements, tending towards social (and political) change. For instance, slum dwellers of the Homeless People’s Federation of Malawi influenced the Lilongwe City Council’s bureaucracy through its large scale enumeration project which involved churches, tribal chieftaincies and other community based organisations (Lilongwe slums span municipal boundaries and averages in sizes of 50,000 residents). This inclusive project resulted in a shift on the part of the City Council from treating urban development as homogeneous to rural development. The establishment of the Informal Settlement Unit, a department which reports directly to the Mayor, was the result of effective lobbying on the part of the urban poor. This partnership illustrates the limitations of technocrats and the possibilities of communities initiating their own developmental priorities.
In Windhoek, the partnership between the Shack Dwellers Federation of Namibia (SDFN), City of Windhoek and the Polytech is challenging the limitations to transformation implicated in the inherited colonial land use management norms. Space for policy innovation is opening where the contribution and full participation of informal settlements are at the plinth.
Partnerships unfolding in South Africa through the Informal Settlement Network (ISN) and Federation of the Urban Poor (FEDUP) were also discussed at length. Some of the overarching achievements to date have included pilot projects in Cape Town, Durban, Johannesburg and the mining belt in Ekurhuleni whereby communities successfully re-blocked (e.g. Ruimsig (CoJ) and Sheffield Road (CoCT)), installed drainage (Masilunghe (CoCT)), and resettled (Langrug (Stellenbosch) and Lwazi Park (CoCT)). Innovation through upgrading is challenging the enduring (mis)conceptions associated to the subsidised housing paradigm which only looked after the interests of the nucleus family. The SA Alliance’s aspirations for establishing city-wide Urban Poor Funds – funding facilities that support the initiatives of poor communities – have also partially realised when communities successfully leveraged funds from the Stellenbosch Municipality in financing the relocation project and associated service provision.
The institutionalisation of partnerships for city-wide upgrading initiatives is underway. Reports were heard from city officials and community leaders of respective cities. As communities penetrate the seemingly perceived ‘iron towers’ of city bureaucracy and build effective partnerships that influence budgetary allocation and prioritisation, the emphases are shifting from ‘control’ to ‘participation’.
Delegates argued that if the partnership cannot affect political will, for instance to transform the ward councillor structure (in the SA case), then there is no real power to promote the upgrading agenda. One of the Namibian delegates remarked:
“There is a problem to talk about the poor’s ‘self-reliance’ when the issue actually lies with the state’s orientation. Political space is opened to engage around delivery priorities and this is a two-way process; both the state needs to be held accountable, and citizens, demanding basic human rights, need to be proud and organised. One of the main reasons why the partnerships fail to deliver is that the departments don’t understand the difference between upgrading and housing delivery”.