INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS NOT ONLY HUMILIATES PEOPLE BUT ARE PROBLEMATIC TO CITY MANAGEMENT: A Case for South African Public Sector

OUTLINE

One important class of settlement is the so-called ‘Informal Settlement’. South African (SA) cities are faced with a challenge of rapid evolution of informal settlements, that comes with their own parcels of problems that no only degrade people dignity but also impede on private property rights as well as, effective city management. In South Africa, the problem of informal settlement is due, but not limited to urban population influx and/or refugee influx. On account of informal settlements, city authorities are very slow in appropriately managing city land and foster urban development. This results in so many problems that are not limited to private property grabbing; property rights anxieties; as well as, environmental damages. Nonetheless, informal settlements are continually emerging through a dynamic and flexible process. These are demonstrated by more needs, opportunities and a series of adaptations.

Poverty experienced by South African urban poor that live in informal settlements is accompanied by the effects of unemployment, lack of income, inadequate and insecure housing and services, violent and unhealthy environments, limited social protection mechanisms, including limited access to adequate health and education opportunities. All of these makes informal settlements a way of affordable and sociable city-making (Mills, 2012: 3). In most cases, informal settlements rob property owners of their property rights, as informal settlers are people that just come out of nowhere and illegally grab private land (Clerc, 2012: 7). In cases such as these, property owners feel powerless and unable to defend what belongs to them. Similarly, although, there are often good reasons why the government does not utilize specific land for human settlements development at times, in most cases informal settlements are positioned in ‘any’ vacant land available despite the actual zoning and/or factual reasoning for not utilizing it due to improperness for residential convention.

However, informal settlers would use such land any way. Some informal settlement areas are positioned on top of a steep peak with a sewage stream or a channel surrounding the hill. Thus, it is noted that informal settlements disrupt the common law of space conservation, because these are on insecure land, such tenure extends the problem of improper land use changes (Eric et al., 2014: 255). As an example, some informal settlements are positioned on wetlands. Dwellers simply in-fill wetlands with topsoil to facilitate erecting informal structures on such land. Therefore, owing to informal settlements, city management authorities find it difficult to appropriately manage city land and urban development, which results in environmental jeopardies.

INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS DEFINED

Informal settlements have different nomenclature depending on the host country. In different provinces of SA, informal settlements have different names. For instance, in the Eastern Cape Province, Port Elizabeth townships such as New Brighton; Kwazakhele, Zwide or Motherwell, informal settlements are referred to as “Amatyotyombe” or “aMabobosi”. “Amagali” is the term used in East London townships such as Duncan Village; “Eziphunzana” as well as, “iiPozi” in King William’s Town townships such as Zwelitsha and Dimbaza. In the Western Province, Cape Town townships such as Langa; Gugulethu and Khayelitsha refer to informal structures as “iiHoki”, “iiMbacu” or “eZimbacwini” whilst the townships that are most occupied by coloured people refer to them as Bungalows. These are areas such as Manenberg; Heideveld; Hanover Park; or Mitchell's Plain in Cape Town. The Gauteng province refers to informal settlements as “iiZozo” or “imiKhuku” etc. These are Gauteng townships such as SOWETO; Thokoza, Thembisa and the rest. Since informal settlements are popular in SA, their names are recognised in almost all provinces. Nevertheless, generally, in SA, informal settlements are called “shacks” whilst the ‘enlightened’ few call them “shantytowns”, “tin cities”, “slums” or “shelters”.

Another highlight about SA informal settlements is that, inhabitants of informal settlements name their communities after prominent global or local personalities, whether deceased or alive. For instance, SA liberation movement leaders’ names, such as Tata ‘Nelson Mandela’, the late comrade ‘Chris Hani’, or the honorable ‘Joe Slovo’ are continually used as the names of shantytowns around the informal settlements spectrum of SA. Occasionally, names of prominent continents or cities are as well used. These are terms such as ‘Europe’, ‘Barcelona’ or ‘Joburg’. Correspondingly; there is, most of the time, a historical background to naming informal settlement areas in SA. No matter the expectations or names given to informal settlements. Naming informal settlement areas after prominent people or places can be a symbol of HOPE for informal settlement inhabitants. It might also be a symbol of faith, providing assurance that today’s darkness will be tomorrow’s light. Informal settlements dwellers have an expectation that, the government should and will improve their settlement’s wellbeing.

SOUTH AFRICAN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS BACKGROUND

Existence of informal settlements and prejudice against inhabitants of these arears can be traced back to the Apartheid era in SA. This is where the then government ensured control over where people (i.e. the majority) lived and the conditions of their occupancy (Viljoen and Sekhampu, 2013: 733). This resulted in negative urban productivity and performance, where township people missed out on urban property investment. The ‘township people’ that these authors are referring to are actually the majority of SA citizenry; those that are today referred to as “previously disadvantaged” people. These are the justifiable land owners of SA, the black people that are supposedly in their mother-land, a land of their descendants yet the majority of them leave in informal settlements. Viljoen and Sekhampu (2013: 733) further explain that, the process of forced relocation in many areas of SA stole from those that were affected with appropriate property or tenancies whilst disrupting established community structures.

SA apartheid governments’ passion for discriminating black people led to this problem of informal settlements that the majority of SA citizens are facing today. Informal settlements are therefore a government legacy prior 1994. Nonetheless, even today, although SA democratic government celebrates over two decades of total control of SA, the informal settlements’ humiliation to the majority of SA citizenry remain authentic and escalating thereby continuing to rob them of their self-worth, in their homeland. Why is that? Generally urban policy is unable to resolve the issue of land access or affordable housing for the urban poor (Aguila and Santos, 2011: 650). Governments are now experiencing a ‘forced’ accountability to ensure that a large number of poor inhabitants are accommodated in urban spaces. This is caused by informal settlement dynamics that are not limited to urban population and/or refugee influx. Consequently, the problem of rapid development of informal settlements in SA will take some time to resolve, since the developmental aspect in terms of water, sanitation and housing on the agendas of local governments is talked about whereas, implementation of such plans becomes very limited (Bradlow et al., 2011: 268).

CURRENT ROOT CAUSES OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS

Some of the most prominent challenges faced by the SA public sector is urban population and refugee influxes. These are indeed serious threats affecting public sector property and city management today. Urban population and refugee’s influxes negatively affect property owners’ and management organizations' operations, as well as impacting on stakeholders such as private property owners. Poverty as one of the reasons for escalating informal settlements results in new neighborhoods being built daily and pushes the definition of boundaries of cities, while also significantly decreasing the urban density. The reality is that people are rapidly moving from rural to urban arrears in search of greener pastures.

On the other hand, refugee influx has the effect that cities no longer have to formulate strategies for the country’s citizen movement only, but also to accommodate people that come from other countries, often without essential resources. These are people that are running away from their countries of origin due to, civil wars or total breakdown of the economy amongst other factors. In SA, service delivery protests against municipalities end up being diverted to refugees or any other Black-African foreign nationals who are accused of benefiting from services at the expense of the locals (Muzuwa et al., 2013: 36). These result in killings, internal crises, and puts significant strain on security infrastructure. Then there are health issues as well, like delayed immunisation for children, illnesses from fungal, bacteria and many viral diseases. 

On the 20 June 2016 (i.e. world refugee day) at about 07:23 am, on their BEE show (aired by the South African Broadcasting Corporation - SABC, Umhlobo Wenene Radio Station), the hosts, Mphuthumi Mafani – ‘uBhutiza’; Sisanda Phiwe Nozewu – ‘Ta-Mazingi or Pastor’; Mafa Bavuma - ‘Mavaks’; as well as, Mluleki Ntsabo - ‘Coach’, informed their listeners that there are 65 million refugees world-wide. They said that about 2500 people died trying to cross the Mediterranean Sea whilst fleeing from their respective countries. This figure is borne out by the number of refugees seen in SA on a daily basis. The reality is that, SA is currently accommodating refugees from neighbouring countries such as Zimbabwe, Mozambique and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Nigerian foreign nationals are also in SA, in large numbers. Although, refugee influx impact negatively on governmental budgets that were intended for the needs of the citizens but end up being shared with needy refugees. Therefore, the more people in one city, the more unsafe usage of resources occurs, which impacts on the need to escalate informal settlements.

CONDITIONS OF INFORMAL HOUSING

SA informal housing is generally constructed, either partially or entirely, from sheets of tin or corrugated iron and, when temperatures are high outside (e.g. during summer), ‘ityotyombe’ (i.e. an isiXhosa name for an informal structure) becomes excessively hot inside. The minute the temperatures drops (e.g. during winter), ‘‘ityotyombe’ is very cold, with wind entering on the corners of the structure. Then again, the minute it’s cold and windy outside, the structure wobbles alarmingly and horrifying occupants to the core, especially the children. Additionally, storms and strong winds have a tendency of regularly demolishing informal structures. Likewise, when it’s raining outside, depending on whether the rain is light or heavy, most of ‘amatyotyombe’ roofs cannot handle the water. If occupants do not have sufficient amount of buckets or wash basins, the water drips inside make large ‘Swimming Pools’ that wet the limited resources (e.g. furniture; clothing and/or food) that occupants have. Overall, informal structures are a hazardous type of housing.

The other challenge is that most informal settlements do not have power supplies. As a result, occupants depend on risky energy and lighting methods such as the use of candles. When a candle or lamp is not safely secured, it can easily burn-down the entire settlement in just few minutes, no matter how large the community is. This is because the community is a compressed one with flammable building materials such as corrugated fibreboard; chipboard, plastic; tyres etc. Fumes from such conflagrations are detrimental to the environment, but a more serious problem is, there are usually numerous deaths from fires in such settlements. Subsequently it is also safe to conclude that informal settlements give rise to CO2 emissions, particularly because fire is the major source of warmth and cooking. The density of construction and lack of roads also makes access by emergency personnel such as firefighters difficult, so they are often unable to provide effective assistance when these fires occur.

The outcome is that informal settlement occupants lose the little that they have and the local government works 24/7 mitigating the loss through disaster management. On the subject of power supply, most shantytowns’ inhabitants illegally connect to the power grid for lighting, cooking and to run various appliances. Such illegal power supply connection is dangerous. Numerous tangled and naked wires hang short distances from the roof of each shack, which has a low roof to begin with. This means that naked wires are very close to people. Bare wires pose a significant hazard to people, particularly children at play.

Moreover, informal settlements are not hygienic since they are pest-infested, by rats, cockroaches, rodents and snakes. This is a definite challenge to people’s health, safety and environment. For hygienically aware households, an informal structure could be swept and/or swabbed more than five times a day since informal structures are too dusty. On top of it all, due to the compactness of these settlements, the area is too noisy, there is no privacy at all, in such a way that a radio broadcast or conversations coming from the next three to five neighbours could be overheard by majority of people around, resulting in endless infightings that are at times associated to gossip. Indeed, informal settlements still people’s dignities, these settlements humiliate people affected by this type of occupancy.

Another one of the disturbing aspects of informal settlements is that, these areas are not attractive dwellings at all. For instance, in Cape Town city there is a low cost housing township called Nyanga. The township is about 20km from Cape Town (CBD) and about 4km from the Cape Town International airport. The portion of Nyanga township closely neighboring the airport has many informal structures that are visible during aircrafts lending. Subsequently, there is a ‘humorous-tale’ shared by some ‘Black’ people in and around Nyanga township or Cape Town as a whole? It is said that, when Michael Jackson (MJ) toured SA, guessing that was in 1997, just after the inaugural of the democratic government in SA, MJ visited Cape Town. It is said that on his lending in the ‘Mother City’, he commented saying: “Wow, what a huge Scrap Yard, in my whole life, I’ve never seen such a big Scrap Yard”, referring to Nyanga townships’ informal structures.

Now, whether this visit by MJ and/or alleged comments are factual or not, the reality is, many SA informal settlements look ugly…, like scrap yards! The unappealing appearance of informal settlements is owed to the fact that, these settlements are compressed areas with no proper streets or paths in between the houses; and no uniformity in dwellings structure. Shantytowns community grounds are often covered in standing water since there are usually no drains to channel wastewater. Even worse, human waste is often open to the air, causing unpleasant odors and health issues all day long.

Having understood the conditions associated with informal settlements, the imperative questions that we should be asking ourselves are: what kind of behaviors are encountered in informal settlements? What is the emotional state of their occupants? What does the future hold for them and the country? What is their impact on the country’s development? Is it a positive or negative impact? How do informal settlements impact on formal land use? The response to these questions lies in the implementation of informal settlement governance and improvement strategies and goals, currently in the hands of public sector leadership. All of these unfortunate informal settlements conditions are detrimental to affected people; city management as well as, the environment.

For instance, in 2013, Cape Town experienced what was referred to as ‘Poo War’ from ‘poo protesters’ referred to as Ses’Khona Movement. The protesters claimed that their municipality’s council were not taking care of informal settlements or township residents’ health, as the municipality allegedly did not clean bucket system toilets for three months and so they often overflowed. These protesters then decided to dump buckets filled with human faeces in various significant properties of city, such as public sector properties and the domestic and international zones of the Cape Town International Airport in that city.

This resulted in considerable public outcry and debate. Many people thought that an act of that nature was insane and ridiculous. However, careful thought process would figure it out that, it was actually a sign of a high level of desperation reached by the protestors, people that are actually used to seeing and smelling people waste. While the act itself cannot be encouraged or condoned, it was an act carried out by people that are made to lack human dignity and self-worth. This is clear evidence that the public sector has a responsibility of ensuring that informal settlement inhabitants’ human dignity is to a certain extent restored, by simply providing people with basic human needs whilst also effectively managing the cities.

Generally, it cannot be ignored that in most instances, people backgrounds, including dwellings and communities defines who ‘we’ are. Commonly, a person coming from a dignified dwelling or home is a confident person that has a sense of vision, goals and proper values: these people have direction in life. Most of these people are not prone to long-lasting societal emotional or psychosomatic conditions such as criminal or violent behaviors. Can we confidently say the same in case of informal settlers under highlighted conditions? Well, fixing informal settlements challenges would achieve many goals, including reducing the high crime rate currently experienced in SA.

FINALE

Informal Settlements take away the dignity of human race. People leaving under current informal settlements conditions are actually very humiliated. Then again, informal settlement challenges really threaten city management, public sector is affected in so many respects. As informal settlements give rise to challenges associated with public sector property ownership, it automatically becomes a key driver of change in city management estate today. This is because, although the government is the rightful owner of its properties, it is easy for underprivileged groups to suddenly and illegally take ‘ownership’ of government property such as vacant land destructing land use implementation. Once this happens it becomes very challenging for the property’s rightful owner to enforce eviction of such land occupiers, as land grabbers are actually people who depend on government for housing and are in a sense forced to this course of action by the failure of the government to speed up programs that are directed and resolving these issues.

On the other hand, poorer and less politically-influential groups are time and again evicted (i.e. dispossessed) from the land on which they live. For an example, in June 2014, in Lwandle Township, an informal settlement community in the Somerset West area, near Cape Town, residents living in that area were accused of dwelling on land belonging to the South African National Roads Agency Limited (SANRAL) and so, they were evicted and their homes removed. Anger associated with such evictions results in many disruptive actions, including discontent that in most cases fosters chaotic conflict, hence the public unrest and protests. When urban poor protests, the whole city comes to a standstill and public sector properties are threatened, since in many cases protestors demand service delivery, a constant problem in informal settlement environment. Public sector properties including roads are vandalized, destroyed or degraded during a public protest.

Consequently, local government has no other choice but to examine new ways of dealing with the problem of increasing informal settlements in cities. City management or municipalities have a responsibility to protect local ecosystems and, where necessary, to facilitate the regeneration of natural resources. Therefore, no matter the demand for land, housing, water and food, ecological requirements necessitate undivided attention as well. After all, In SA, everyone has the right to an environment that is not detrimental to their health or well-being (South African Government: The Constitution of the Republic of SA, 1996: s. 24). Likewise, everyone in SA has the inherent dignity and right to have their dignity respected and protected, according the South African Constitution. The government is therefore responsible for preserving its people’s rights (South African Government: The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996: s. 10). The government should therefore practice what is stipulated in the country’s constitution by treating people with dignity that they deserve by improving current conditions of informal settlements in South Africa.