| UPGRADING OF LOW INCOME SETTLEMENTS
COUNTRY ASSESSMENT REPORT |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ZAMBIA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
January 2002
The World Bank ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ABO Area Based Organization TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Background, Problems and Context 2.0 Current Situation 3.0 Policy Context and Institutional Framework 4.0 Upgrading Projects and Programs 5.0 Case Studies 7.0 Challenges and Proposed Next Steps Annexes Background to Study The Africa: Regional Urban Upgrading Initiative, financed in part by a grant from the Norwegian Trust Fund, is examining and selectively supporting urban upgrading programs in Sub-Saharan Africa through a variety of interventions. One component of the initiative focuses on distilling lessons from three decades of urban development and upgrading programs in the region. Specifically, the objective of this component is to assess what worked and what did not work in previous programs for upgrading low-income settlements in Africa, and to identify ways in which interventions aimed at delivering services to the poor can be better designed and targeted. As a first step, rapid assessment reports were commissioned for five Anglophone countries (Ghana, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzania and Zambia) and five Francophone countries (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Cote d’Ivoire, Mali and Senegal). Each of the ten Country Assessment Reports provides an overview of the history of upgrading programs and policies in a given country and presents project or community specific case studies to identify lessons learned. Taken together, these ten reports offer insight into the nature and diversity of upgrading approaches in Africa and highlight some of the challenges in and lessons learned about delivering services to the poor. Acknowledgments This paper is one of a series of ten country assessment reports. The study was managed by Sumila Gulyani and Sylvie Debomy, under the direction of Alan Carroll, Catherine Farvacque-Vitkovic, Jeffrey Racki (Sector Manager, AFTU1) and Letitia Obeng (Sector Manager, AFTU2). Funding was provided by the Norwegian Trust Fund for Environmentally and Socially Sustainable Development (NTF-ESSD) and the Africa Technical Department (AFT). Alicia Casalis and Chris Banes conducted the field work for the five Francophone and five Anglophone countries, respectively, and also prepared the draft reports for each of their five countries. Genevieve Connors provided extensive comments and was responsible for restructuring and finalizing the reports. Nine of the reports were edited by Lisa Van Wagner and the Zambia report was edited by Nita Congress. 1. BACKGROUND, PROBLEMS AND CONTEXT 1.1 The Country Located in south-central Africa, Zambia is a landlocked country surrounded by the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Tanzania to the north; Zimbabwe, Botswana, and the Caprivi Strip of Namibia to the south; Malawi to the east; and Angola to the west. It has an area of approximately 753,000 square kilometers and a population of about 10 million, for a total population density of approximately 13 persons per square kilometer. Most of Zambia is high plateau with a flat or gently undulating terrain. Elevations average 1,000 meters to 1,400 meters; mountains in the northeast exceed 2,000 meters. This high elevation makes for a subtropical climate, and average temperatures range from 17°C in July to 22°C in January. Zambia is divided into nine provinces. Its capital and largest city is Lusaka, which is also a province. Lusaka has a population of almost 1.3 million, with population densities of up to 1,500 persons per hectare and an average population density of approximately 150 persons per hectare. Zambia gained its independence from Britain in 1964. It is today one of the most industrialized countries in Africa, renowned for its copper ore resources, which are processed in the country and whose export made Zambia relatively rich during the 1960s and early 1970s. However, nationalization of the copper mines, years of under-investment in the mines, inexperienced management, and a fall in the world price of copper led to an economic decline beginning in the mid-1970s. Extensive borrowing has made Zambia one of the most highly indebted nations in the world relative to national output and exports, and in 1990, it was classified as a low-income country. Even though most of the mines have since been divested and private investment in the mines is ongoing, the country remains impoverished, with a per capita GDP of approximately US$410. Table 1 summarizes basic data on Zambia and Lusaka. Table 1. Country and Capital Basic Facts
1.2 Urbanization Zambia is the third most highly urbanized country in Sub-Saharan Africa. Of its total population, over 40 percent is estimated to live in urban areas. The country has eight major towns with populations in excess of 150,000; most of these are in the Copperbelt province. During the 1960s and 1970s, the production and export of copper led to an expansion of the urban economy. Zambia experienced high levels of rural-urban migration, as citizens sought to benefit from urban-based employment opportunities and subsidized food and infrastructure. Lusaka wasæand continues to beæthe main destination for rural migrants, closely followed by the Copperbelt province. The remaining provinces are largely agriculture-oriented and do not attract large numbers of migrants. A relatively new immigration phenomenon is the influx of refugees from neighboring countries which have experienced or are experiencing conflict. Zambia’s economic decline has eroded many of the benefits of urban living. Recent poverty assessment reports estimate that almost 80 percent of the urban population lives below the poverty line. Poverty and HIV/AIDS have led to decreased urban growth rates in recent years of between 5 and 6 percent. The city of Lusaka covers an area of 360 square kilometers (the total municipal area is approximately 423 square kilometers). Much of this area is underutilized, and over 20 square kilometers have not yet been urbanized. There is thus room for expansion. About 70 percent of Lusaka’s population lives in poor, unplanned settlements comprising 20 percent of the city’s residential land. 1.3 Problems During the copper boom that followed the country’s independence, Zambia’s cities developed quickly and, from a spatial viewpoint, inefficiently. Previously, towns were not intended to be permanent homes for the majority of the country’s workers; thus, legal tenure and the provision of housing and amenities for informal residents were not priorities. With prosperity and rapid urbanization, the republic’s new government installed sophisticated and costly urban infrastructure, confident that copper export earnings would provide for its support and maintenance. In fact, however, the infrastructure soon became dilapidated, and operation and maintenance costsælet alone those for debt serviceæremain unrecovered. The years of central planning created another, perhaps more significant problem: the development of a culture of dependence on the state and the top-down provision of services, which has resulted in citizens not expecting or wanting to pay for services enjoyed and consumed. Zambia’s 1991 Local Government Act attempted to reverse this centralization, giving the country’s 22 city and municipal authorities greater autonomy and responsibilities. However, it did not provide concomitant resources, thus continuing the decline of urban infrastructure and services. In parallel, poverty and the lack of a sustainable housing policy have led to urban growth being absorbed into informal settlements. The ever-increasing poverty (a recent study showed that in Lusaka’s Kamanga settlement, the lowest income groupæwhich was one-third of the populationæspent over 90 percent of its income on food alone) means that, even if willing, many do not have the ability to pay for the level of service offered. Thus housing is not affordable and authorities have few resources with which to improve or maintain infrastructure and services. The housing, health, and environmental conditions in the growing informal settlements of Zambia’s cities consequently are extremely poor. Lusaka 2.1 Housing Characteristics and Location Lusaka’s total housing stock stands at approximately 300,000 units. Of this, 10 percent, or 30,000 units, is formal housingæi.e., formal dwellings on individual stands, in blocks of flats, or on agricultural holdingsæaccommodating 30 percent (340,000) of the city’s population on about 80 percent of the residential land. The remaining 90 percent consists of squatter units, accommodating about 70 percent of the city’s population on less than 20 percent of its residential land. These informal settlements consist mainly of structures made of substandard materials. In the poor settlements, between 35 and 40 percent of the residents own houses; the remainder are tenants. There are 37 informal settlements in and around Lusaka, made up of 9 old sites and services settlements and 28 squatter settlements, of which 13 have not been regularized (or “declared”) to date. These are located predominantly to the north, northwest, and south of the central business district. Basic data on all 37 settlements, including their current status, are included in Annex A. In 1999, the Ministry of Local Government and Housing declared 10 further informal urban settlements as “improvement areas” under terms of the Housing (Statutory and Improved Areas) Act. 2.2 Profile of Low-Income Community Residents The Status Quo report of the Lusaka Integrated Development Plan provides further information on Lusaka’s informal settlements:
Furthermore, in July 1997, the Research Unit of the Lusaka City Council (LCC), with Irish Aid assistance, carried out a community profiling survey of nine unplanned settlements. Using participatory urban appraisal methods, the exercise aimed to acquire both qualitative and quantitative data on 9 of Lusaka’s 13 illegal settlements to facilitate the formulation of strategies and programs through a participatory process. In summary, the survey found the following:
3. POLICY CONTEXT AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 3.1 Policy Context National In general, there appears to be a sufficient policy and legislative framework in Zambia regarding the legalization of unplanned and informal settlements; additionally, both the central and local governments acknowledge the need to recognize and regularize such settlements. The way this regularization presently works in Zambia is as follows. Currently, the majority of land on which informal settlements are situated is publicly owned. These settlements must be recognized by municipal administrations and regularized (declared) by the national government, through the Ministry of Local Government and Housing (MLGH), so that occupiers of plots within them can obtain tenure. The Department of Physical Planning and Housing in the MLGH considers regularizing an unplanned/informal settlement if (1) 60 percent or more of the land on which the settlement is located is publicly owned, (2) the settlement has been in existence since 1974, (3) development for which the land is zoned on the development plan is not imminent, and (4) 50 percent or more of the dwelling structures in the settlement are constructed of conventional materials. Normally, after a settlement is declared an “improvement area,” the city council is able to issue 30-year occupancy rights. Most occupants of houses in informal settlements deem this to be an acceptable form of tenure that gives them adequate security. The 30-year occupancy license is renewable. However, there does not appear to be a clear policy and strategy as to how to deal with informal or unplanned settlements, and much of the existing legislation needs to be modified and streamlined to ensure that it is relevant and enabling. For example, the National Housing Authority Act, Cap 426, gives the National Housing Authority sole responsibility for managing Zambia’s housing portfolio; this approach should be reviewed with an eye toward allowing for private sector competition in the supply of goods and services. Similarly, the 1975 Housing (Statutory and Improvement Areas) Act, Cap 441, has major weaknesses with regard to its restrictions on private sector participation in housing schemes. This Act provides for the control and improvement of housing (statutory housing areas and improvement areas) and is considered the principal legislative document on upgrading regulations; it also provides for the issuance of certificates of title and occupancy licenses, which give security of tenure. The act precludes other laws from applying to areas of its jurisdiction, however. Amendments are needed to bring the act in line with market-oriented housing delivery mechanisms and to better address the unplanned settlement situation. The Land (Conservation of Titles) Act, Cap 289, also requires immediate review to ensure an efficient land administration system. More recent legislative and policy developments include a National Housing Policy unveiled by the MLGH in 1996, which sets forth an ambitious set of objectives, including allocation of at least 15 percent of the national annual budget to housing to support a sustainable housing development program; making serviced land available for housing development and streamlining the land allocation system; streamlining building standards, regulations, and other controls to meet the needs and capabilities of various segments of the population; encouraging the production and use of local and affordable building materials; helping the poor acquire decent shelter through alleviation of affordability problems; fostering housing areas that are functional, healthy, aesthetically pleasant, and environmentally friendly; and preparing a national housing implementation strategy. At present, however, it appears that few of these objectives are being achieved. The Department of Physical Planning and Housing within the MLGH is also currently drafting terms of reference to aid in formulating a peri-urban strategy policy. To date, a Peri-Urban Water Supply and Sanitation Strategy has been developed with UNDP-World Bank assistance, but important issues of access, drainage, solid waste management, community facilities, and land and tenure still need to be considered. In sum, various attempts have been made, in terms of legislation and policy, to regularize (or declare) informal settlements and bring them into the fabric of the towns and cities, but progress in the implementation of regularization schemes has been slow and hampered by financial and human resource constraints at both the national and local government levels. Numerous government requirements also appear to hamper the provision of basic infrastructure and services to appropriate, affordable standards and the granting of secure tenure to existing informal settlement occupiers. Role of Local Government It is recognized in Zambia that the physical planning of housing is very much a local government matter. To this end, local authorities are responsible, under the 1991 Local Government Act, for the following functions:
Additionally, local planning authorities ensure that land for housing is identified and planned for in good time and that appropriate planning standards are in place for the quick and efficient development of housing. 3.2 Institutional Framework Various agencies are responsible for providing, operating, and maintaining infrastructure and services in Zambia’s urban areas. At the national level, the MLGH, through its Department of Physical Planning and Housing, is responsible for identifying “housing and improvement areas.” The MLGH’s Department of Infrastructure Support Services is responsible for the management of donor projects that support infrastructure development, improvement, and rehabilitation. Local authorities are responsible for the management and provision of council-owned housing and informal settlements. In Lusaka, there are two directorates under the City Council’s Housing and Social Services Department, one for conventional housing and the other for peri-urban housing. All informal settlements fall under the Peri-Urban Housing Directorate. Other city councils have housing and social services or community services departments that are responsible for informal/unplanned settlements. City and town councils are responsible for local planning, development control, provision of local roads, drainage and solid waste management plus other environmental health functions. Water, sewerage, and sewage treatment are now the responsibility of commercial utilities, established in Lusaka some years ago but only very recently established (July 2000) in other towns and cities on a regional basis (e.g., there are three commercial utilities covering the Copperbelt). 4. UPGRADING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS 4.1 Summary of Upgrading Policy Various donors and NGOs, together with local administrations, are attempting to address some of the problems related to upgrading in Zambia and are implementing a number of well-intentioned initiatives, particularly in Lusaka and the community demonstration projects in the Copperbelt. These initiatives are not, however, framed within an overall national policy for low-income, unplanned/informal settlements. It is likely that greater efficiencies and more consistency would come from initiatives being guided by an overall policy and by a clear strategy for implementing that policy. Issues addressed would need to include land, tenure, landlord/tenant rights, standards, service levels, coverage, community participation, operation and maintenance, as well as cost recovery and sustainability. 4.2 Overview of Upgrading Initiatives Since the late 1970s, when the first major scheme was enacted, Zambia has had a long history of initiatives to improve infrastructure, services, the environment, and the general quality of life in its unplanned/informal or “peri-urban” settlements. Many such programs are ongoing, supported by various donors and NGOs as well as by the central government (MLGH) and local authorities (primarily Lusaka City Council). Most have been carried out in Lusaka, as it is the largest city with the most low-income settlements. Key aspects of some of the schemes are discussed below. The World Bank-financed Lusaka Squatter Upgrading and Sites and Services Project, completed in 1981, supported what was probably the first upgrading scheme in Sub-Saharan Africa and provided more than 30,000 new and improved shelter sites in informal settlements in the city. It took a multi-sectoral approach to address housing and housing-related issues for the urban poor. However, it did not achieve financially sustainable operations, no maintenance capability was established, and associated institutional reforms were not fully realized. Moreover, although significant capital investment was expended on infrastructure, there was little community involvement throughout the processæ a not uncommon approach at that time. What the project did demonstrate was that, where a large concentration of well-serviced houses was provided in Lusaka, economic activities in the informal sector emerged. The granting of legal status to the participating compounds enabled them to become centers of economic activity. On the other hand, because plots were allocated through the local authority system, political patronage became a major allocation criterion. This practice apparently has led to the removal of some councilors in the Lusaka City Council (LCC) and the establishment of the Land Commission. The significance of regularizing land tenure is a critical lesson to be learned from the Lusaka project. Another lesson is that the delivery of public services failed for a variety of reasons, including the following: (1) service levels were not based on what residents wanted, (2) technical norms were often unrealistically high, (3) community organizations were expected to operate and maintain facilities although they were not consulted during the planning and implementation process, and (4) cost recovery measures had no sanctions to deal with defaulters. Another early scheme was the Kalingalinga Upgrading scheme funded by the German Technical Assistance (GTZ) and implemented in collaboration with the LCC. This resulted in an upgrading manual, which highlighted lessons learned. Experience from this project showed that the percentage of homes owned by females dropped after upgrading, indicating that women who could not afford to upgrade their houses either moved out of the settlement or became renters. Yet another early initiative was supported by Irish Aid and CARE Zambia, in conjunction with the LCC. This scheme focused on the Kamanga compound in Lusaka and emphasized community participation and capacity building. Experience in Kamanga was that land title issues were of critical importance to residents and were a factor in their decisions on participation in upgrading activities. The Kamanga Upgrading Project tried to encourage debate in the community on landlord-tenant rights to facilitate community decision- making on the subject of upgrading. This proved to be difficult as political issues came to bear and it was confirmed that any policy on plot allocation would need to be weighed against the advantage of council-created regulations, which are standardized and objective, against community-agreed guidelines acceptable to residents and fitting local circumstances and in particular taking account of access by vulnerable groups. In the mid-1980s, a working group was established, driven by Irish Aid and comprising the National Commission for Development Planning, the Lusaka City Council, and CARE Zambia, which aimed to provide proposals for policy guidelines for urban upgrading schemes based on a study of interventions in the field up to that time. In 1994, this working group produced an Urban Upgrading Policy Guidelines Paper in response to a review of the Kamanga project. In 1998 an NGO-donor forum was established to help coordinate and guide the efforts of donors, the government, local authorities, and NGOs in supporting development particularly affecting the urban poor. The World Food Programme (WFP) supported a Peri-Urban Self-Help (PUSH) project that initiated a food-for-work approach for infrastructure upgrading. The more comprehensive, integrated upgrading initiatives attempted in Kamanga and the PUSH initiatives, because of their complexity, were apparently considered by some, to have continued the “top down” approach, and to have achieved limited success. Thus a move to the planning and implementation of more sectoral initiatives appears to have been adopted. In 1994, after the WFP project, a needs assessment involving communities indicated that water was a top priority, more from a cost viewpoint than a health viewpoint. People were most concerned about the time required to collect water and the fact that it often had to be drawn by the poor at night when it was available. Thus a new program commenced, focusing on water supply and micro-finance. The Program of Support for Poverty Elimination and Community Transformation (PROSPECT) was driven by CARE Zambia, with support from ODA (now DiFD), and involved the LCC. Working with the Residents Development Committee in Chipata compound, a community-managed water supply scheme has since been completed and is now operational (see Section 5.0). A major review of the scheme was carried out in March 2000. In parallel with the Chipata scheme, CARE has been involved in upgrading in the George compound where both ODA and JICA have also supported upgrading (predominantly water), but with some environmental health, initiatives. They have also been involved in the Jack, Chibolya, and Kanyama compounds, where a sectoral approach (water supply plus a micro-finance program) is again being followed. In 1997, the Sustainable Lusaka Programme (SLP) commenced under the UNDP’s Sustainable Cities Program. The program’s development objectives were to provide, through an environmental planning and management approach, opportunities for poor communities to initiate activities for poverty alleviation through environmental improvement activities and build capacity at the community level for participation in environmental projects. The program is supported by Ireland Aid, International Labour Organization, Danida, and UNCHS (Habitat). Demonstration projects are being carried out in Ngombe, Kamanga, and Mandevu/Marapodi. SLP is also assisting with water projects in Linda and Bauleni, along with a solid waste project in Kalinginga and a housing material project in Kamanga. In 1998, GRZ and JICA signed an agreement for the latter to support improvements in eight unplanned urban settlements in Lusaka (see section 5.0). The eight compounds were Bauleni, Chainda, Chazanga, Chibolya, Freedom, Kalikiliki, N’gombe, and Old Kanyama. The support was to include the formulation of action plans, guidelines for living environment improvement, and priority projects for short-term development. JICA is also assisting with a water supply project in the George compound. An evaluation of the first three pilot projects (Bauleni, Chibloya, and N’gombe) was carried out in February 2001. The JICA guidelines for approaching the upgrading of unplanned settlements favor an integrated approach to infrastructure/service improvements. No new upgrading projects are currently envisaged; however, a Community Enabling Fund has been established, supported by Ireland Aid and UNDP, through which new community upgrading projects might be channeled. CARE has established a similar community fund. Guidelines for the funds require communities to contribute cash and/or labor and to manage infrastructure (even if it is part of the city network); this management and maintenance should be in perpetuity. Outside of Lusaka, under the URWSP supported by the World Bank, a community demonstration component has recently been completed that has provided water supply improvements in six peri-urban communities in the Copperbelt. Principles for project design included the need for water and sanitation projects to be community generated within the technical, financial, and managerial capacity of the communities, and that municipal “partners” should also be supported. Criteria for participation included the need for communities to provide any cost over a budget ceiling, which at the time was fixed at US$25 per capita, to focus communities on the need for prudence when choosing their desired service level and supply. The works were identified from settlement technical plans prepared by consultants following a participatory process. From these plans, the type of water supply (i.e., borehole, shallow wells, connection to existing municipal supply) to be extended to and within the peri-urban areas was agreed upon. Communities did not choose sanitation. Consultants then designed the schemes, and contractors carried out construction. The Resident Development Committees (RDCs) within the respective communities are to operate and maintain the schemes. Support to the RDCs has come from facilitation consultants as well as the council’s community development departments. A number of communities chose to connect to the municipal supplies and are supplied in bulk from such systems. Others chose borehole systems or shallow well systems (where municipal supply was not available). The municipal supplies are now the responsibility of the newly established commercial utilities (three in the Copperbelt province). These commercial utilities have an interest in those communities to which the commercial utilities are to supply in bulk. Understandable concerns have been raised about the competence of the RDCs to manage systems that include pumping facilities, reservoirs, and considerable reticulation systemsæand indeed as to whether this is the appropriate long-term approach. The communities are not small (e.g., Racecourse in Kitwe covers 4 square kilometers with 20,000 people). Out of this demonstration project and other experiences, the MLGH and Water Sector Reform Unit, in collaboration with the UNDP/World Bank Water and Sanitation program has prepared a report on peri-urban water supply and sanitation strategy. Finally, CARE International has undertaken another initiative that aims to strengthen capacities and refine approaches both within and outside CARE to achieve lasting livelihood improvements through good urban programming. This initiative is called Urban INSAKA (Initiative for Sharing Knowledge in Action) and includes networking, orientation and training, research and documentation, and technical assistance to new and existing urban programs. 4.3 Upgrading Typology and Approach The objectives for upgrading unplanned communities are now similar across all projects supported by various donors and NGOs. The involvement of communities in deciding, and helping provide, what is required in their respective communities and the provision of solutions that are affordable and thus better able to be sustained, seem to be accepted by most. Despite this commonality of objective, there presently appears to be no consensus on what approach or typology to adopt on a large scale to address all of Lusaka’s (and other cities’) low-income, informal/unplanned settlement upgrading needs in a reasonable time frame. The most commonly applied typology in Zambia appears to be the sectoral, subsidized model without cost recovery (see Annex E). It does not address land tenure but provides for scheme management, with subsequent operation and maintenance being the responsibility of the beneficiary community. The JICA scheme (see Section 5.2) is more multisectoral, which international experience has shown to have considerable advantages, but which is more difficult to plan and implement from an institutional standpoint. 4.4 Process of Regularization A key (and relatively rare) feature of upgrading in Zambia is that land tenure issues are being addressed. As noted earlier, informal communities have to be declared an improvement area before they can be deemed legal and occupiers able to secure a 30-year occupancy right. There is presently a relatively high level of “ownership” in many unplanned communities, and 30 out of 37 informal/unplanned settlements around Lusaka have already been regularized or declaredæ albeit occupiers may not have any formal papers. However, the potential for recouping at least part of the capital costs of provision in return for occupier leases has either not been considered or, if it has, not been pursued. 4.5 Design Principles, Standards, and Guidelines for Upgrading There do not appear to be common standards or guidelines for upgrading in Zambia. Instead, each project has developed its own principles, approaches, and upgrading typology. What “standards” do exist appear to be unnecessarily high for low-income consumers; certainly, they produce infrastructure for whose maintenance and construction loan debt servicing are not affordable by either national or local government or by the majority of citizens. All schemes have, however, embraced key objectives for upgrading such as active community participation, resettlement without compensation, and the need for upgrading initiatives to stimulate economic development. Most accept the need for improvement across all sectors, but actual and perceived implementation difficulties mean that most projects still adopt a sectoral approach to meeting these needs. 4.6 Community Participation The concept of community participation is well understood and has been adopted for all upgrading schemes embarked upon in recent years. An example of what communities are prepared to and can do has been demonstrated in the CARE-supported Chipata Community Water Scheme (see Section 5.0). The Sustainable Lusaka Program focuses on capacity building at the community level to assist communities in planning, implementing, and managing sustainable environmental programs. This long history of and successful experience with community participation should be a positive factor in any effort to scale up upgrading initiatives. 4.7 Financial Aspects The upgrading of declared and regularized low-income, unplanned/informal settlements tends to follow a government “subsidy” approach. In most projects, no attempt is made to recover any of the capital costs of infrastructure provision, down to the secondary and tertiary or local infrastructure. The replicability of most of the current approaches to upgrading Zambia’s unplanned/informal settlements is thus questionable and can only work where government has funds (often supplied by donors) to finance a subsidy. Given the extreme poverty that exists, this approachæwhich is also prevalent in Ghana and many other places may be unavoidable. It is therefore critical that the standards and service levels provided do not exceed what is necessary to serve particular communities. 4.8 Overview of Implementation Arrangements In Lusaka, the LCC has generally been the responsible agency for implementing upgrading initiatives, and acknowledges the need to focus on informal/unplanned or peri-urban settlements. Its housing department partnered with donors in the early schemes and continues to support upgrading initiatives. The SLP is operated out of the LCC, and the JICA study team works with the peri-urban unit of the Housing Department of the Council. The LCC is also involved with CARE. The LCC Research Unit, with Irish Aid support, carried out the community profiling of nine unplanned settlements in 1997. Outside Lusaka, city council community affairs departments liase with communities (e.g., under the UWWSP in the Copperbelt); the MLGH is also involved. Under the URWSP, the Department of Infrastructure Support Services (DISS) within MLGH is the responsible implementing agency. It has appointed consultants and awarded contracts for construction. 4.9 Operations and Maintenance As in other cities in the region, maintenance of infrastructure and services in poor urban settlements in Lusaka is inadequate at best and usually nonexistent. A major argument for increased community participation is that this creates a better chance of adequate maintenance in the future. In fact, community water schemes in Lusaka have as a key element the condition of their being managed by the community after their installation; this includes technical, financial, and responsibility for customer relations. Also, the eight JICA-supported upgrading projects include community training in maintenance skills. What does appear to be lacking, however, is a mechanism to ensure that sufficient funds are generated for adequate maintenance including replacement. Also needed is a review, modification, and strengthening of the formal systems that generate revenues for maintenance of such nonremunerative infrastructure as roads, drainage, and sanitation (e.g., user charges and property taxes), along with a review of the system for allocating central revenues to local bodies for infrastructure (capital works) provision. In summary, Zambia, like other countries with low-cost recovery of capital costs, mustæapart from adopting low technical standardsæensure that upgraded infrastructure and services can be operated and maintained. Thus, funds for adequate operation and maintenanceæincluding replacementæmust be generated either through community structures or through local authority and commercial utility structures. One option is to grant residents secure tenure, and, where the city operates a property tax system, to rate properties in order to generate revenues for operations and maintenance. This section presents two representative case studies of ongoing upgrading projects in Lusaka. Chipata Community Water Supply Scheme Description The Chipata Community Water Supply Scheme, which commenced operation in mid-1997, is one of several projects supported by CARE under its PROSPECT initiative. Chipata covers some 1,000 hectares and has a population of approximately 45,000 (about 10,000 households). The Chipata compound is a squatter settlement and was declared an improvement area under the Housing (Statutory and Improvement Area) Act. The community considered water supply to be its highest priority need, and a scheme was developed by the stakeholders. The scheme proposed three boreholes (located within the community area) supplying a distribution center (comprised of three ground tanks, a small pumping station, and an overhead reservoir and chlorination facility) which was to supply 40 communal water points by gravity. CARE provided the infrastructure and the whole scheme is being managed by the community with CARE and LCC support. Construction is now completed, and one borehole is now in operation. Water is supplied for two hours in the morning and two in the evening, and residents collect water from the standpoints. There are no individual connections to the system. The system is managed by the community (48 staff are engaged). People must register before being able to draw water from the system. An initial registration fee of ZK6,000 is required, along with a monthly payment of ZK3,000. Each user is issued a quantity used card; when water is collected, the standpoint operator ticks the card to indicate that the user has taken his/her seven buckets for the day. An office has been established within the compound from where the scheme is managed and the Revenue section of this office collects payments and carries out the accounting functions (i.e., takes and accounts for user payments as well as pays bills such as the electricity bill from ZESCO). Monthly bills average approximately ZK640,000 per month (ZESCO and others). Total outgoings for all operational costs are estimated to be about ZK8 million per month that is similar to the revenues collected. At present no repair and replacement funds are accruing. Of the 10,000 households only about 3,000 are said to be participating. Reasons are that some poorer families are sharing cards and also others are being supplied (illegally and without payment to LWSC) from the LWSC mains supply that runs through part of Chipata. Outcomes and Evaluation An evaluation of the water supply scheme was carried out early in 2000 as CARE-PROSPECT was reducing its day-to-day involvement in the scheme. This assessment identified issues, arrived at conclusions, and made suggestions, which were subsequently discussed in a workshop with all stakeholders. The issues identified revolved around operational topics and wider conceptual issues (e.g., other sectoral needs, linkages with other sectors, tenure, etc.) were not addressed at this time. Identified needs included the following: (1) a tiered system/differential tariff, with people paying nearer to what they consumed rather than a flat rate of supply and payment; (2) flexible payment arrangements to help the disadvantaged; (3) establishing a replacement fund, as the scheme is presently not viable in the longer term; (4) involving LWSC more when agreeing on tariffs to ensure consistency and compatibility with other areas; and (5) establishing a trust to own and manage the scheme, due to legal uncertainties. Issues Apart from the management issues addressed in the evaluation, several other items clearly need to be considered before embarking on similar schemes. These are outlined below.
A citywide issue relates to institutional arrangements in the water sector. Given that LWSC is a recently established water supply company in Lusaka and that informal/unplanned communities make up about 20 percent of the city’s and about 70 percent of its population, the Chipata modelæin which ABOs or RDCs become the water supply body for the respective communityæmay not make for a replicable or efficient approach in the long term. Pilot Projects in Bauleni, Chibolya and N’Gombe Communities Description In 1998 JICA, MLGH, and LCC agreed to perform a study on environmental improvements in unplanned urban settlements in Lusaka. The study aimed to prepare action plans and guidelines for effective service delivery, and short-term pilot projects. Programs and Pilot Projects JICA-appointed consultants produced an Inception Report in April 1999. Following this, social surveys in eight unplanned settlements were carried out. Next, three communities were selected for pilot projects based on their community organization and on the LCC presence and donor presence in the communities. Based on a needs assessment by the RDC, several kinds of pilot projects were conceived and ultimately matched to the target communities. The following table outlines the nine pilot projects implemented (the numbers in the boxes represent the nine pilot projects).
Guidelines and Action Area Plans As the project guidelines strongly recommended an integrated approach, the action area plans developed by the study team in the eight settlements included water supply, community/home ventilated improvement pit (VIP) toilets with health education, garbage management, community schools, roads and drainage and income generation. These priority projects also included those that were being addressed by other donors/NGOs as well as by JICA. Summaries of the priority projects proposed in the eight settlements are set out in Annex B. The total development costs are estimated at approximately US$25.7 million. Due to financial constraints, further prioritization would need to be made. The pilot projects were evaluated in late 2000 by a JICA evaluation team in terms of efficiency, effectiveness, impact, relevance, and sustainability. The evaluation results were fairly detailed; many were technically specific. The following technical outcomes are worth noting in the present context of determining the most important items to consider in scaling up upgrading initiatives:
Issues Firstly it is unclear what is proposed in terms of cost recovery, whether beneficiaries are to make any contribution to capital costs (it appears none) and what is proposed for operation and maintenance costs. Linked with this is the question of standards - what are the minimum standards/service levels that are functional and affordable by the beneficiaries and how has the balance between sectoral interventions and investment between communities been arrived at? Also what debate took place with communities on standards, costs, willingness to pay etc.? It is also useful to differentiate between “trunk,” “bulk,” or “primary” infrastructure and secondary, tertiary, or “local” infrastructure. Trunk infrastructure (e.g., water treatment works or major distributor road) is normally paid for by governments and financed through taxes. It is unreasonable to expect the poor to contribute directly for this. Thus upgrading schemes should be very clear on what is trunk and what is local infrastructure and what should be included in the cost recovery mechanisms. However if the capital costs for all infrastructure (trunk and local) for upgrading schemes are to be funded on a “grant” basis (as the CARE and JICA schemes), is this affordable by government and donors for all needy communities and, if not, is it setting the correct precedent? This section summarizes the lessons identified, by project, in evaluation reports. 6.1 Lusaka Squatter Upgrading and Sites and Services Project
6.2 PUSH Project
6.3 George Compound Water Scheme (JICA)
6.4 Kamanga Compound Water Scheme (Irish Aid)
6.5 Chipata Community Water Project (CARE)
6.6 Pilot Project in Three Unplanned Urban Settlements (JICA)
7. CHALLENGES AND PROPOSED NEXT STEPS 7.1 Overview Numerous past and ongoing initiatives have addressed the upgrading of informal settlements in Lusaka and, to a much lesser extent, Zambia’s other cities. In more recent years, support agencies (i.e., donors and NGOs) have seemed to make more of an effort to work togetheræor at least to keep each other informed on what is happening and to get some measure of consistency in upgrading programs. Because informal settlements in Lusaka are generally very large, a number of different donors and NGOs are at work therein, making this coordination and consistency critical. Carrying out works together often avoids one sectoral initiative being disrupted by a subsequent initiative (e.g., the old story of a newly constructed road being excavated to lay a new water main). Thus, apart from the need for upgrading schemes to be visible and to create an impact to assist community and government “buy–in” hence improving the chance of sustainability (e.g., for maintenance, communities paying dues and authorities making budgets) there are also strong technical arguments for a more comprehensive sectoral or integrated approach to upgrading. The recently competed Lusaka Integrated Development Plan (LIDP) provides a good database for Lusaka as well as a means for analysis; moreover, it proposes many development strategies and mechanisms for their delivery. It also has a useful and interesting list of issues identified by community representatives. More specific initial tasks in the planning for upgrading programs that reinforce a number of these strategies and proposals for their delivery included in the LIDP are set out below. 7.2 National Task 1 – Policy for Low Income (Unplanned/Informal/Peri-urban) Communities A review of planning and housing policy and legislation and framing of proposals to better enable central government departments, local governments, utility undertakings and communities themselves to respond to community needs. Following this review, a policy for upgrading such areas should be framed with concrete implementation strategies. 7.3 City Level Task 1- Declaration of settlements Of the 37 informal settlements, 13 are still not “regularized” and are thus “illegal.” For all sites not considered to be hazardous, LCC should request MLGH to regularize and “declare” the settlements as improvement areas under the relevant legislation. Task 2- Socioeconomic/Basic Data Collection and Dimensioning of Problem Building on the profiling done in nine settlements by the LCC in 1997 a similar, expanded exercise should be carried out in all settlements to ascertain the magnitude of upgrading needs. The exercise should be expanded to include not only socioeconomic information but demographic and physical data including an inventory of existing infrastructure and its condition. A service level/standards matrix should also be prepared and costed (i.e., cost/ha, cost/cap, cost/hh). With this and data on population, households, and physical area, order of magnitude costs and budgets may be determined for different service level provision scenarios. This would be a positive first step in dialogue with donors to organize major funding for such programs. Task 3- Local policies and legislation Review existing local policies, by-laws, regulations etc. governing unplanned/informal settlements and propose amendments which should be embraced in a new “peri-urban” policy, the drafting of which MLGH is currently seeking support for.
NB. Those settlements with areas shown were the latest “declared” (i.e., legalized) settlements (1999). Annex B: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT IN EIGHT UNPLANNED URBAN SETTLEMENTS IN LUSAKA (JICA)-PROJECTS AND COSTS
(US$’000)
Legend Projects
Annex E: SUMMARY OF UPGRADING TYPOLOGIES (ALL COUNTRIES IN SSA) In general scheme typologies might range from the “classic” model (e.g., Swaziland), where the cost of infrastructure is regained from the existing beneficiaries by offering them 99 year leasehold title to their existing plots (often with some physical adjustments) the cost of which covers the cost of infrastructure improved, through the multi-sectoral “infrastructure” model without cost recovery (e.g., Ghana), a largely government subsidized typology which does not address land tenure and cost recovery issues to the single sector without cost recovery or land tenure. Thus affordability issues range from those affecting the individual through communities, to local government and central government, with each typology having different affordability considerations for the respective stakeholders.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||