Sustainable Human Settlements Delivery in Ekurhuleni

1. Sustainable Human Settlements Delivery in Ekurhuleni Workshop 21 September 2007

2. Why ‘Sustainable Human Settlements’ in RSA? • Concern over ‘quality’ of settlements • Edge locations with poor access • Lack of physical and social infrastructure in these settlements • State investment in housing & services is not leveraging further development of households and communities • RDP houses sold for much less than state investment • Communities remain locked-in to second economy • Financial sustainability implications

3. How did SHS perspective evolve? 1 • 1970s UNCHS: growing recognition that developing countries could not provide public housing adequately - ‘housing is more than houses’ • Emphasis on investment in public environment (services and infrastructure) in support of efforts of residents to improve their lives • In 1980s environmental component is added - idea of ‘sustainable development’ • Public health and safety threats of many human settlements • City-wide environmental concerns (ecological footprints, water shortages, waste)

4. How did SHS perspective evolve ? 2 • Late 1990s stronger link of SHS to ‘pro-poor strategies’: • Scepticism about conventional economic development strategies providing benefits for the poor • Stressed reducing vulnerability of poor and support to survival strategies of the poor (assets, social capital, economic capital, physical capital, natural capital) • Also in 1990s much greater stress on importance of progressive governance structures • Governance stresses mobilisation of government, communities and private sector towards creation of a ‘momentum towards improvement’ • Leads to rights-based approach, inclusionary housing

5. Where is EMM in relation to SHS? Policy Position set out in SHS Strategic Framework: • Draws from Breaking New Ground • Included in EMM IDP and GDS • Housing 5-year Strategic Plan Performance: • Very good rate of housing and sites delivery • Accreditation ‘imminent’ • Relatively focused Housing Department but….

6. Is Housing Department delivering SHS? • Quantitative imperative prevails, so development processes not sufficiently enhancing residents life chances • Failure to integrate housing and integrated development planning in practice • Planning & budgeting is largely sectoral and not spatial – ‘settlements’ are missing • Acknowledges that current institutional arrangements not ideal ‘…need to promote integrated plans for delivery, and focused sector budgets’

7. Imperatives ‘from above’ directives, strategy, policy, budget • Balance • Space for new approaches • Better informed decision making SYNTHESIS Information ‘from below” participatory planning, local involvement Most important factor is Balance

8. Pressure points… • 200 000 houses, 139 000 stands by 2014 • New directives & instruments – ‘inclusionary housing’, ‘Restructuring Zones’ etc • Emerging approaches – U4G • Engagement with national & provincial spheres – help or hinder delivery? (flexible policy instruments, flows of funds) • Who gets squeezed…? • … the ‘Lead Department’, but is anyone following?

9. Minimum elements of SHS • Core = Housing + Planning + Land + Environmental Management (?) • But these functions are spread across all 3 clusters: • Strategic Services – IDP, GIS, City Development • Operations – Housing, Environment • Corporate Services - Land

10. Institutional Possibilities 1 • Restructure to form a ‘super department’ or SHS cluster • Programmatic approach – set up dedicated programme unit with deployed, dedicated officials holding dedicated powers • Strengthened coordination and planning function at senior level (special committee or task group) – note: avoid ‘coordinating bodies’ at implementation level as much as possible. Rather have clearly defined implementation responsibilities, and clear lines of accountability

11. Institutional Possibilities 2 • Province needs SHS proposals, and really hasn’t clear picture of what they are. So avoid ‘coordination delivery’ structures with Province – rather have capacity in city line functions, clear plans and assertive engagement to secure commitments into provincial planning and budgeting processes • Participation is a problem – Ward Committees often dysfunctional, but may be energised at project planning and implementation stages. CDWs may be better channel for community animation.