“We pay, but the council isn’t resolving our sanitation issues.”

By Kudzai Chatiza, Hazel Musvovi and Tapiwa Nyamukapa

Kuwadzana 4 Market in Harare is one of the sites for ACRC’s inclusive land tenure and infrastructure financing study. Like many urban markets, it relies on sanitation facilities provided by the City of Harare. Yet the market’s restroom, intended to serve both traders and customers, is frequently non-functional. This persistent failure points not only to operational challenges, but also to deeper governance weaknesses in the way that market services are financed, managed and overseen.

The market at Kuwadzana 4 hosts a diverse range of economic activities, including secondhand clothing sales, vegetable trading, auto repairs, live poultry markets and hardware retail. Over time, trader numbers have far exceeded the market’s original design capacity. Trading activities have spilled into bus stop shelters, service alleys, shop fronts and along the main road.

A locally constituted management committee works with the City to encourage traders to pay monthly subscriptions, in order to address minor maintenance issues. Market traders report paying USD 10 per month and understandably they expect basic services in return.

In response, traders have adopted informal coping strategies. When a pipe in the men’s restroom broke, they pooled their own resources to restore one toilet. While this demonstrates initiative and collective action, it also exposes a governance dilemma. These self-help measures operate outside formal municipal systems, raising questions about liability, standards and sustainability. Traders fill gaps left by the City, yet lack the authority to make durable repairs or manage facilities in a way that is formally recognised.

Unclear accountability and financial shortfalls

Underlying these problems is an unclear division of responsibilities. While the City retains formal authority over market infrastructure and WASH services, it appears to lack the financial flexibility, technical capacity or administrative responsiveness to maintain them effectively. Frontline officials closest to the markets often lack the mandate or resources to act quickly, while escalation processes are slow and opaque. For traders, reporting problems rarely translates into timely action.

Financial governance further complicates the situation. Traders pay regular fees, but there is little transparency around how these revenues are allocated or whether any portion is ringfenced for market-level services such as sanitation. Without visible reinvestment, trust erodes and compliance weakens over time. At the same time, theCity faces the challenge of servicing rapidly growing and partially informal markets, using funding and planning models designed for smaller, more controlled trading environments.

The result is a cycle of underinvestment, informal fixes and declining service quality. From the traders’ perspective, this creates the impression of a City unable or unwilling to perform basic functions. From the City’s perspective, authorising informal solutions may undermine regulatory control and expose it to accountability risks. Both sides are trapped in a governance grey zone, where responsibility is shared in practice but not clearly defined in policy.

The experience of Kuwadzana 4 raises important questions. Why is something as basic as operating market toilets so difficult in Harare? Are existing financial and administrative arrangements fit for the scale and informality of today’s markets? How can trader contributions be governed more transparently to support service delivery? And what mix of policy reform, delegated authority and co-management could deliver auditable, sustainable solutions?

Policy implications

The experience of Kuwadzana 4 Market suggests that market sanitation failures are less about isolated technical breakdowns and more about gaps in urban governance. Addressing these challenges requires policy and administrative responses that recognise how markets function today.

While the detailed study is expected to provide citywide evidence from ten other Harare markets, preliminary insights from Kuwadzana 4 point to a need for the City to:

1. Clarify roles and empower delegated authority – Clearer allocation of responsibilities between municipal departments, frontline market officials and trader committees is needed. Where traders already play an informal maintenance role, policies should explicitly define what forms of delegated authority are permissible, under what conditions and with what safeguards. This would reduce the current grey zone, in which traders act out of necessity but without formal recognition.

2. Improve financial transparency and ringfencing – Trader fees create an implicit expectation of service delivery. Making visible how market revenues are allocated and whether funds are reinvested at market level could rebuild trust and improve compliance. Ringfencing a portion of market fees for routine WASH operations and minor repairs would strengthen accountability and reduce reliance on ad hoc community contributions. A policy on reinvestment of market fees exists, but its practical implementation appears lacking.

3. Adapt service models to scale and informality – Existing sanitation standards and maintenance models appear misaligned with the scale and density of contemporary markets. Policy frameworks need to account for mixed formal–informal usage, high foot traffic and shared facilities that serve surrounding businesses. Flexible service standards, combined with realistic maintenance plans, are essential for sustainability. The case of Kuwadzana 4 shows this to be a serious deficit.

4. Strengthen frontline response mechanisms – Market-level officials require clearer mandates, quicker escalation pathways and access to small operational budgets to address routine failures before they escalate. Without empowered frontline governance, reporting systems alone will continue to frustrate traders, without delivering results.

5. Institutionalise co-management arrangements – Rather than treating trader-led solutions as temporary or problematic, policy could formalise co-management models for market infrastructure. Well-defined partnerships, supported by basic oversight, auditing and technical guidance, could harness trader initiative while maintaining public accountability.

Market sanitation is not merely a technical issue. It is a test of urban governance – of how cities recognise informal economic actors, manage shared resources and deliver everyday services with dignity. Policy responses that bridge the gap between formal authority and everyday practice will be critical if markets are to remain viable economic and social spaces.

Photo credits: Development Governance Institute

Note: This article presents the views of the authors featured and does not necessarily represent the views of the African Cities Research Consortium as a whole.

Author acknowledgement: This blog draws on ACRC supported work but does not represent the views of the consortium or its funder, FCDO (United Kingdom). The contributions of ACRC Harare colleagues – especially George Masimba, Stephan Tafireyi (City of Harare, SMEs Division), Thomas Karakadzai and Tapiwa Nyamukapa, who took part in a meeting at the city’s Housing and Community Services Offices to discuss the Kuwadzana 4 issue following a field visit – are gratefully acknowledged.

Generative AI statement: Copilot was used to process research notes and relevant literature to help prepare an initial draft of this blog post. This draft was then extensively edited by the communications team and approved by the author of the article.

The African Cities blog is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which means you are welcome to repost this content as long as you provide full credit and a link to this original post.

By Shiela Muganyi

As explored in a previous blog post, the city-wide Informal Settlements Network for Climate Change (ISN), established by ACRC’s Informal Settlements Climate Change Action (ISCCA) project, has become a powerful peer-to-peer platform, where communities collectively analyse climate impacts, share practical solutions and take action.

The network’s main innovation is its structure, which brings informal settlements together as a united force for change. By sharing experiences and learning from each other, ideas spread quickly from one settlement to the next. A solution that works in one place can inspire others elsewhere.

The ISN has redefined climate adaptation in Harare by demonstrating that organised informal settlement communities are not only capable of leading resilience efforts, but also of shaping a shared urban response that is inclusive, scalable and grounded in lived experience.

This blog post explores how communities involved in the network have learned from each other and taken action to advance climate resilience in their own settlements.

Importantly, this knowledge spread beyond Dzivarasekwa Extension. Through documentation and the ISN WhatsApp group, lessons are being shared across settlements, enabling replication without requiring physical movement. Crowbrough settlement quickly adopted the cleanup campaign, mobilising even non-Federation members.

Tafara, Dzivarasekwa Extension and Crowbrough also established community hubs, which are living laboratories of locally-led adaptation. These hubs host community gardens, recycling initiatives and serve as training grounds to institutionalise resilience skills.

The Dzivarasekwa Extension case shows how networking and sharing can strengthen adaptation beyond single settlements – whether through face-to-face collaboration or digital platforms – ensuring disparate communities can learn, replicate and scale resilience together.

Waste as a resource to transform women’s livelihoods

Beyond risk reduction, communities are also turning climate challenges into livelihood opportunities. Across Harare’s informal settlements, waste picking, separating, sorting and recycling have become vital sources of income.

In Dzivarasekwa Extension, a group of women have been using their earnings from recycling to pay school fees, put food on the table and even construct resilient houses. As one waste picker proudly shared:

“We can now drink cold water from the refrigerator in this hot season. Because of our hard work, we now eat good food. Waste is seen as a burden, but to us it is a resource.”

This shift has had profound social impacts. By generating income, women have reduced household tensions that often fuel gender-based violence. Couples are no longer fighting over money for upkeep, as women’s contributions through recycling have eased financial strain.

Complementing these efforts, backyard gardens are flourishing across settlements – strengthening food security and helping families withstand climate shocks. Alongside recycling initiatives, these gardens show how that adaptation is not only about survival but about building sustainable, thriving communities.

Similarly, in Tafara, women’s efforts to manage waste are creating livelihood opportunities, alongside playing a critical role in their environmental stewardship. Waste recycling has started to generate income, supporting families to pay for school fees and buy food.

At the same time, savings groups are making a big difference in the community. Eight savings groups have saved USD 44,000 for water security in Stoneridge Informal Settlement and more than USD 32,000 for resilient housing construction. In Tafara, resilience is something people build every day with their own hands.

One woman participant from Tafara reflected:

“Savings are no longer about money only. They help us survive the challenges of climate change and beyond.”

Strengthening food security in Hopley

Hopley is a settlement located in the south of Harare without electricity. Building resilience in this settlement began with something simple: saving for food. More than 50 savings groups came together to help families get through tough times.

Over time, as savings increased, so did the community’s ambitions. Four groups, with just 40 members, managed to pool around USD 60,000. Instead of using it just to get by, they invested in solar systems and refrigerators. Now, those refrigerators are helping small businesses in the community to fight climate change challenges. Families store and sell perishable food, earn income and create their own energy solutions where there were none before.

A Hopley woman savings group member pointed out:

“We have passed through the phase of buying each other pots and pans. Now we have started saving for refrigerators to reduce the impact of high temperatures in Hopley.”

The road ahead

By coming together, communities are demonstrating that climate change resilience is built through collective action, strategic partnerships and innovative financial models. While challenges remain – such as securing adequate protective equipment and stronger support from city authorities – the way ahead is well defined.

To further scale resilience in Harare’s informal settlements, communities must be recognised and welcomed as legitimate actors in city-wide climate planning. The ISCCA experience shows that peer-to-peer learning platforms, community-driven finance and strategic partnerships can transform everyday actions into systemic adaptation.

By investing in community hubs, supporting savings groups and embedding local innovations into the city’s frameworks, organisations and city officials can ensure that resilience is not only replicated but institutionalised. Through empowering communities and enabling grassroots leadership, a sustainable urban future can be built by and for the residents of Harare’s informal settlements.

Photo credits: Know Your City TV Zimbabwe

Note: This article presents the views of the authors featured and does not necessarily represent the views of the African Cities Research Consortium as a whole.

Generative AI statement: ChatGPT was used to help produce a first draft of this summary blog post. This draft was then extensively edited by the communications team and approved by the author of the article.

The African Cities blog is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which means you are welcome to repost this content as long as you provide full credit and a link to this original post.

By Sejal Patel, Logedi Luhangala, Anna Walynicki, Aaron Acuda, Anwesha Tewary, Bhagavati Adhikari, Philippine Vernes and Joy Amor Bailey, with inputs from Ceilito Bulagsac from the CBA session, Municipal Government of Saint Bernard, The Philippines

Climate change is intensifying root causes of vulnerabilities such as sociopolitical, demographic, economic and infrastructural challenges in many informal settlements (ie rapid urbanisation, weak infrastructure, flooding and heat stress). Yet, climate finance is still failing to reach many of the low-income urban communities most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

This blog post presents reflections from a recent session at the 20th International Conference on Community-based Adaptation to Climate Change (CBA20), which explored this issue through two key lenses: breadth of finance availability (range of instruments); and depth of finance delivery (access).

The session brought together perspectives from local governments, insurers, multilateral financiers and grassroots organisations working directly on the frontlines of urban climate resilience. The session was also part of an ongoing climate finance study across five African cities: Accra, Harare, Kampala, Lagos and Nairobi, under the African Cities Research Consortium (ACRC).

1. Breadth of finance availability: There needs to be a range of financial instruments and products available that service the spectrum of resilience functions to ensure robust coverage for building resilience.

Effective climate finance for informal settlements requires financing that supports communities to anticipate risks, absorb shocks and adapt to changing climate conditions. Different types of finance are required to meet these needs. We can map these against the “three A resilience framework”:

Resilience function	Financial functions	Examples
Anticipate	Preparedness and pre-arranged finance	Adaptation investments, resilience infrastructure, forecast-based financing, contingency planning, resilience funds
Absorb	Shock-responsive finance/risk financing	Parametric insurance, emergency grants, contingency funds, social protection top-ups, emergency liquidity
Adapt	Transformational and long-term investment finance	Upgrading informal settlements, resilient housing, livelihood diversification, climate-resilient infrastructure, access to affordable credit

The financiers for the different resilience functions vary. For example:

> Banks might be able to provide financing across all three functions.

> Community funds and saving schemes can provide financing that helps communities respond to shocks, and can also be for long-term investments (see Box 1).

> Insurers provide insurance products for responding to shocks. These products can act as a tool to transfer the financial burden of a potential catastrophe to reduce risk. For example, parametric insurance provides rapid liquidity after a shock, which strengthens absorptive capacity (see Box 2).

> Investors may be seeking to fund large-scale infrastructure for revenue generation, including by upgrading settlements or strengthening the climate resilience of infrastructure.

The financial coverage across these functions is not consistent and major gaps persist in availability, as well as accessibility for local communities. A key principle for improving the coverage is that funders need to spend more time directly engaging with vulnerable communities to better understand local contexts and priorities, in order to ensure that financial products being provided are relevant and suitable.

Box 1: Community funds

Community pooled funds and savings – typical of saving groups, cooperatives and women-led networks across the Huairou Commission’s network – play a critical role in building community resilience. Often given as small loans or grants for climate adaptation, livelihoods, emergency relief and housing, and used as social protection and safety nets, these layered instruments allow communities to address multiple intersecting vulnerabilities, as well as build partnerships with the local government. Community-generated data on vulnerability and local conditions strengthen grassroots ability to negotiate with their local governments and seek accountability.

Grassroots groups and landless communities living in informal settlements in Nepal have built three different types of funds – community resilience funds, activist funds and informal solidarity mechanisms (through small daily contributions from residents themselves) – to organise and address climate and development challenges. For example, the activist fund enables community organisers to support advocacy campaigns, protect activists and respond to movement-related needs, while the solidarity fund supports community action during floods, evictions and other crises without waiting for external assistance.

Because of their flexibility, these funds are easily accessible and respond faster to communities’ local priorities during climate emergencies than many formal/institutional arrangements. They strengthen local leadership, collective decision making and mutual accountability. Yet, despite being effective, they remain excluded from support and top-up resourcing from mainstream climate finance because they do not fit formal institutional requirements.

While these funds provide immediate support to communities dealing with climate shocks, they cannot substitute the formal mechanisms required for long-term resilience building and scaling of locally led solutions. Therefore, formal climate finance should recognise, strengthen and invest in these existing community-led mechanisms.

Box 2: Parametric insurance

Parametric insurance is increasingly being used to provide rapid, pre-arranged finance triggered by measurable climate indicators, such as rainfall levels, flooding or extreme heat. Unlike traditional insurance, which requires losses to be assessed before a payment is made, parametric insurance can release funding quickly once an agreed threshold is reached. This speed is particularly important for vulnerable urban informal workers, whose livelihoods can be disrupted by recurring climate shocks and who often have limited access to savings, credit or social protection.

However, experience shows that the effectiveness of parametric insurance depends as much on its design as on the financing itself. Insurance should not be viewed solely as a payout mechanism, but as a resilience tool that enables people to make more informed decisions before, during and after a shock. When people know support will arrive quickly and predictably, they are better able to avoid harmful coping strategies, protect livelihoods and recover more quickly.

Humanity Insured’s experience highlights the importance of community-led design. In India, consultations with female informal workers revealed that the current temperature threshold of 43.7°C used for heat insurance did not align with their lived experience of dangerous heat exposure, with users suggesting adjusting parameters to 40°C – insights that will be embedded into future project design. This reinforces a broader lesson for climate finance: financial instruments designed without community participation are less likely to be trusted, used or effective.

Trust, transparency and accessibility remain critical challenges. Communities often raise concerns about whether insurance triggers are legitimate, whether payouts will arrive as promised and whether products are designed for their circumstances. Successful approaches therefore combine simple and transparent triggers with trusted local delivery partners, such as municipalities, cooperatives and community organisations. For example, flood insurance initiatives supported by Humanity Insured in partnership with Communes of Togo have prioritised community engagement with residents, local government teams led by the mayor, and partners to shape transparent trigger design to strengthen confidence in the mechanism.

Emerging evidence suggests that well-designed, locally grounded parametric insurance can play an important role within broader resilience financing systems. In its first year since launching in October 2024, Humanity Insured used GBP 1.67 million in grant funding to mobilise GBP 33 million of insurance protection for 1.69 million people across 14 countries, resulting in GBP 6.7 million in payouts through pre-arranged risk financing mechanisms. Humanity Insured’s work demonstrates that when insurance is shaped with community engagement, trusted delivery channels and complementary resilience building activities, parametric insurance can help strengthen the absorptive capacity of vulnerable households and communities, while supporting longer-term resilience.

2. Depth of finance delivery: financing needs to be accessible to local actors.

There are calls from across the sector that highlight the need for climate finance systems to fundamentally shift from top-down delivery models towards approaches grounded in co-creation, flexibility and trust. Such approaches enable interventions that can more effectively address the local challenges of climate change. In such systems, communities should not simply be consulted after projects are designed, but should actively shape priorities, financing mechanisms, implementation strategies and accountability systems from the outset.

However, as funding opportunities are still often designed for large institutions rather than community-based organisations responding directly to climate impacts on the ground, there remains a large gap between available financing and financing that communities can access and manage. Often funders argue that the transaction costs of providing small-scale funding across many community organisations is too high.

Climate finance and policy institutions sometimes use terms such as “readiness”, “innovation”, and “transformation” to indicate their willingness to be early investors in building institutional capacities, and in testing new solutions and mechanisms to create systemic shifts in response to the challenges arising from climate change. However, these same principles of investing in capacities and iterative learning processes to build innovative solutions must be applied to climate investments in grassroots organisations and movements, with the recognition that they are continually experimenting with solutions to address the everyday challenges arising from development failures, exacerbated by climate change.

Communities report several barriers to accessing finance, including:

> Tenure, land rights and navigating informality (see Box 3);

> The mismatch between large-scale financing (for example, Multilateral Development Bank minimum transaction size, typically structured into multimillion-dollar investments) and the relatively small scale of community investment needs;

> Needing to complete proposals in English in rigid formats, rather than being able to use local languages and formats;

> Lengthy proposal reviews, procurement procedures and financing approval cycles that require ongoing capacity;

> Limited technical capacity, and inadequate climate information and data; and

> Weak institutional support at the national and local levels.

As well as stronger investments in community capacity development, including proposal writing, monitoring systems, climate data generation and project management support, the financing landscape needs to make more fundamental shifts towards supporting smaller and more local projects, designed and implemented by local actors. This would require a shift in financial institutions’ own frameworks and systems, to become more flexible and open to community-led practices, community capacities and simplified approaches (see Boxes 4 and 5).

Box 3: Reaching communities in informal settlements

The Nepal experience highlights important lessons for climate finance. While community resilience funds established in partnership with local governments can help align investments with public systems, bureaucratic approval processes have at times delayed communities’ access to funds for years. Communities in informal settlements are frequently treated as illegal occupants rather than legitimate urban residents, limiting their ability to access financial services and subsequently public financing or institutional support.

Many vulnerable populations are expected to meet highly technical funding requirements, despite lacking proposal-writing capacity, technical expertise or political recognition. This disconnect continues to exclude the very communities that climate finance is intended to support. Creating more accessible funding processes, including simplified applications and greater acceptance of community-generated evidence such as local data, photographs and videos, can help shape and strengthen urban climate responses.

Climate risk reduction measures themselves can sometimes result in displacement when undertaken without community participation or adequate planning. “Meaningful community participation” must extend beyond consultation to include grassroots leadership in co-planning and co-designing programmes and funds, based on local risk context in urban areas.

Box 4: Financing resilience requires investments in systems, and not just the hard infrastructure

The municipality of Saint Bernard provides a case of how community-based early warning systems can strengthen resilience when local ownership is prioritised. Their approach combined hazard monitoring technology, local radio systems, community preparedness and ecosystem restoration to reduce flood risks. The municipality found that sustaining these systems required blended financing from local governments, national agencies and international partners. The municipality found that resilience was not only about installing equipment; it was equally about trust, preparedness, training and community participation.

Box 5: Building partnerships for enabling action

Strengthening partnerships between communities, local governments, universities and civil society organisations can build stronger project pipelines and scalable resilience solutions.

In Indonesia and Pakistan, multistakeholder partnerships involving communities, research institutions, local governments, utility companies, civil society organisations and development partners enabled the successful demonstration of community-driven and nature-based resilience interventions. A participatory co-design methodology positioned communities as active stakeholders with decision making authority throughout project planning, implementation and operations and maintenance, strengthening local ownership and long-term sustainability.

In Makassar, Indonesia, the technical expertise of Monash University, policy and planning support from the local government and financing from a charitable foundation and Asian Development Bank’s Urban Climate Change Resilience Trust Fund (UCCRTF) facilitated the delivery of green corridors, constructed wetlands, and toilet facilities in informal settlements. These interventions improved human and environmental health and demonstrated the viability of nature-based, decentralised water and sanitation systems. In Pakistan, partnerships with civil society organisations, utility companies and local authorities supported the implementation of community-managed water supply systems, solid waste collection and resource recovery facilities in low-income urban communities in Abbottabad, as well as the gender-sensitive urban green space development in Sialkot.

These initiatives illustrate how collaborative partnerships can mobilise financing for adaptation investments and generate proof-of-concept for scalable resilience solutions. They also highlight that adaptation outcomes depend not only on physical infrastructure but on effective community participation, inclusive governance arrangements, local knowledge integration and sustained institutional capacity to support long-term resilience.

The future of urban resilience will depend not only on how much climate finance is mobilised globally, but on whether those resources can reach communities quickly, equitably and in ways that strengthen local leadership and long-term resilience.

Further reading

• Cities Alliance – Climate finance for the urban poor: A review of global climate funds
• ODI – The 3As: Tracking resilience across BRACED
• Asian Development Bank – Water-sensitive informal settlement upgrading: Overall principles and approach
• Humanity Insured – Building resilience through protection: Humanity Insured learning report 2025
• Humanity Insured – Communes of Togo: Kloto 1, Golfe 1, and Golfe 7
• Oxfam – Rising to the call: Good practices in disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in the Philippines
• Asian Development Bank Institute and Asian Development Bank – Applying systems resilience to deliver poverty alleviation outcomes in vulnerable communities
• IIED – The good climate finance guide for investing in locally led adaptation
• IIED – “Unlocking urban climate finance: Barriers and progress in African cities”

Authors

• Sejal Patel – Senior Researcher, IIED
• Logedi Luhangala – Consultant, IIED
• Anna Walnycki – Principal Researcher, IIED
• Aaron Acuda – Researcher, IIED
• Anwesha Tewary – Learning and Knowledge Management Specialist, Huairou Commission
• Bhagavati Adhikari – Planner, Nepal Mahila Ekata Samaj (a member of Huairou Commission)
• Philippine Vernes – Head of Philanthropy and Partnerships, Humanity Insured
• Joy Amor Bailey – Deputy Team Leader (Consultant), Urban Resilience Trust Fund, Asian Development Bank

Header photo credit: Aaron Acuda. CBA participants visit an urban informal settlement in Manila to observe locally-led adaptation in action.

Note: This article presents the views of the authors featured and does not necessarily represent the views of the African Cities Research Consortium as a whole.

The African Cities blog is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which means you are welcome to repost this content as long as you provide full credit and a link to this original post.

By Kudzai Chatiza

Urban markets are the economic heartbeat of Harare. They provide livelihoods to thousands, supply affordable goods and anchor the city’s informal economy. Yet, they are increasingly vulnerable to disasters, especially fires and flooding, whose impacts cascade through households, supply chains and urban governance systems.

Over the past decade, disasters have become a recurrent feature of Harare’s main urban markets and home industry sites, underscoring the scale and persistence of risk in these critical economic spaces. Recorded data show that 19 fires occurred at just three markets and home industry locations between 29 July 2015 and 29 September 2024. The largest proportion occurred at Glenview 8 Furniture Complex (12 incidents), followed by Mbare Siyaso (five incidents) and Mbare Musika (two incidents).

High risk environments

Urban markets face high fire risk, due to overloaded or faulty electrical wiring, unsafe cooking practices and the presence of flammable materials. These risks are intensified by dense crowds, which can trigger panic, obstruct evacuation and hinder firefighting in emergencies.

Markets also experience regular seasonal flooding and the loss of agricultural and food produce, often linked to poor handling and inadequate infrastructure. These repeated incidents highlight that disasters at Harare’s markets are not isolated or exceptional events, but structural risks embedded in how these spaces are planned, serviced and governed. This raises urgent questions about how to prevent recurrence, rather than merely respond more effectively.

While emergency responses remain necessary, they are increasingly insufficient. Preventing the recurrence of disasters at Harare’s markets requires addressing the deeper governance and technical drivers of risk. This challenge, of managing large informal economic spaces, is one that many other African cities also face.

Research evidence shows that framing disaster risk as a policy and governance problem, rather than just a technical one, helps identify several interlinked areas where current arrangements fall short. Land and tenure insecurity is central. Market operators often occupy land through a mix of purchases and leases that do not always translate into secure, long-term rights. This insecurity discourages investment in safer structures and makes enforcement of standards politically and practically difficult.

Fragmented infrastructure responsibility is another problem. Whole markets or portions may have state-designed and built infrastructure, state-designed but trader-funded, built and managed workspaces, or implemented through private contractors. These mixed arrangements tend to dilute accountability for maintenance, compliance with building codes, and disaster safety measures, such as fire access points.

Workspace design and management further compound risk. Where workspaces are state-designed but densely occupied, or operator-built without consistent oversight, congestion and unsafe layouts emerge. These situations hinder evacuation, firefighting access and everyday risk reduction.

Moving beyond emergency responses

Shifting attention “beyond emergency response”, towards structural reforms that reduce risk before disasters occur, is critical. In Harare’s experience four priority directions stand out:

1. Sustainable tenure and financial models are needed. Clarifying rights and responsibilities, linked to the City’s small and medium enterprise (SME) policy, can create incentives for traders to invest in safer buildings, electricity systems and storage practices.

2. Clear management structures at market and home industry sites are essential. Government ministries, departments and agencies cannot effectively reduce risk without recognised bodies on the ground to work with. Stronger, more accountable market management can improve compliance, monitoring and everyday risk reduction.

3. Land-use planning and rationalisation needs improvement at markets and home industries. Treating these spaces as temporary or peripheral undermines long-term investment in resilient infrastructure and services. A shift at city government level is needed.

4. Resilient infrastructure design and emplacement are crucial. There is a need for relevant building codes, fire safety measures and adequate entry and exit pathways. These technical interventions can directly determine whether hazards escalate into disasters.

From a technical perspective, disaster risk management at markets and home industrial sites involves more than installing fire extinguishers. It includes:

> Designing layouts that reduce congestion and allow emergency access;

> Ensuring that electrical systems are safe and fit for high-demand environments;

> Managing drainage and waste to reduce flood risk and secondary hazards.

However, these measures only work when supported by governance systems that can enforce standards, maintain infrastructure and coordinate multiple actors. These measures require multi-level and multi-actor competences across the local authority (City of Harare in this case), traders and relevant national government agencies. 

Harare City governs markets but cannot manage them alone. Organised traders also have limits. Through persuasion and collaborative efforts, where City capacities align with better-organised operators, these vital spaces can become safer and more inclusive, and operators more accountable and economically productive. Disaster prevention in Harare’s markets depends on shared responsibility anchored in a capable and responsive City, and organised operators with a stake in safer, more resilient spaces.

In Harare and across African cities, the challenge is clear. The question is whether disaster risk management will remain reactive or evolve into a core part of how urban markets are governed, designed and sustained.

Photo credits: Development Governance Institute

Note: This article presents the views of the authors featured and does not necessarily represent the views of the African Cities Research Consortium as a whole.

Author acknowledgement: This blog draws on ACRC‑supported work but does not represent the views of the consortium or its funder, FCDO (United Kingdom). The contributions of ACRC Harare colleagues are gratefully acknowledged.

Generative AI statement: Copilot was used to process research notes and relevant literature to help prepare an initial draft of this blog post. This draft was then extensively edited by the communications team and approved by the author of the article.

The African Cities blog is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which means you are welcome to repost this content as long as you provide full credit and a link to this original post.

By Shiela Muganyi

In the global South, many urban residents live in informal settlements. These communities face higher risks from flooding, heat, water shortages, poor sanitation and environmental damage. Still, they are often left out of formal climate funding, infrastructure investment and planning.

Communities are the first to respond to climate threats, using their local knowledge and early warning systems. They also maintain drainage systems, manage waste where official services are unavailable, and keep informal water sources operational. Their work helps cities become more resilient. So when these communities are left out of official decision making, cities miss the chance to create more inclusive and lasting climate solutions.

From global exclusion to local organisation

In Harare, ACRC is working with informal settlement communities to build reform groups and back local climate action. The Informal Settlements Climate Change Action (ISCCA) initiative is helping communities identify climate risks, organise, work together and shape how resilience solutions are designed and put in place. This approach has laid the groundwork for organised, collective action that goes beyond individual settlements.

As part of this effort, the newly established Informal Settlements Network for Climate Change (ISN) serves as a key platform for community-led climate governance. It brings together informal settlement residents to coordinate climate action, share learning and collectively influence decisions affecting their settlements. This enables communities to engage more effectively with the state and other stakeholders, in line with ACRC’s emphasis on reform coalitions and locally-led change.

The network started as a partnership between 11 settlements supported by the ISCCA project to assess their own climate risks, review data and develop local climate action plans. It has now expanded to include communities beyond the original group and is becoming a grassroots platform for climate governance in the city.

The local climate action plans highlight practical priorities that are shaped by the community, such as:

> Climate and disaster savings schemes – Community-led savings for emergencies, food security and rapid response to climate shocks;

> Housing construction and retrofitting – Constructing new and strengthening existing structures to withstand flooding, heat and extreme weather;

> Water access and management – Establishing water committees, drilling and maintaining boreholes and improving water governance;

> Waste management and recycling – Organising community waste systems, reducing pollution and promoting recycling initiatives;

> Drainage management – Clearing and maintaining drainage systems to reduce flooding and improve sanitation;

> Climate-resilient livelihoods – Supporting income-generating activities, such as backyard gardening, soil-in-sack farming and small-scale enterprises;

> Nature-based solutions – Tree planting, greening initiatives and soil conservation to reduce heat and manage flooding;

> River riparian restoration – Protecting and rehabilitating riverbanks to reduce erosion, manage flooding and restore ecological buffers;

> Road opening and access improvement – Clearing and establishing roads to improve mobility, drainage flow and emergency access within settlements.

Grounded in local realities, these plans combine everyday survival strategies with longer-term resilience building, forming the foundation for collective action through the ISN.

Connecting communities across shared challenges

Community-led vulnerability assessments revealed recurring and systemic risks across settlements, including: blocked drainage, leading to recurrent flooding; low-yield or unregistered boreholes and chronic water shortages; heat stress due to overcrowded housing and lack of green infrastructure; illegal dumping, unmanaged waste and pollution; and tenure insecurity, limiting long-term investment.

The network comprises:

> Community leadership committees – Coordinating and governing at the settlement level, these committees work with local authorities, hold community meetings, help resolve conflicts and ensure that climate priorities align with wider development efforts, such as regularisation and service delivery.

> Savings schemes and solidarity groups – Providing financial support for community-led climate action, these groups gather local resources for projects like housing improvements, drainage, food security and emergency response. They also help build trust, accountability and shared decision making in the community.

> Water and borehole committees – These committees handle water access, including drilling boreholes, maintenance and fair distribution. They are important in dealing with drought and water shortages and support sustainability through community management and cost-sharing.

> Climate champions – These are local leaders who raise awareness, mobilise others and take action on climate issues. They lead community-wide adaptation actions, such as clearing drains, managing waste, planting trees, helping communities to understand risks and use practical ways to adapt.

> The Zimbabwe Homeless People’s Federation members and youth groups – Federation members have experience with savings, mobilisation and working with authorities, and help keep the network organised and active. Youth groups add new ideas, energy and leadership around documenting climate impacts and actions.

Strengths of the network

Learning

The network enables rapid peer-to-peer sharing and learning. When Dzivarasekwa Extension cleared drains and dumpsites and partnered with Geo Pomona Waste Management for weekly waste collection, they shared updates and photos via the ISN WhatsApp group, allowing others to learn and respond immediately. Stoneridge replicated the dumpsite cleanup and is currently arranging waste collection services, while Crowborough Paddocks also struck up a strong partnership with Geo Pomona. As a result, waste reduction is accelerating across settlements, as practical examples spread more quickly than formal training.

Savings

Community savings are not only safety nets, but key to funding climate infrastructure. In Hopley, residents formed water committees and used their savings to drill five boreholes, strengthening their position in negotiations with local authorities. Crowborough adopted a similar approach, drilling one borehole and raising funds for another. Savings groups, such as those using the CashFlow model in Dzivarasekwa Extension, collected USD 1,159 in four months – funding building materials and enabling the group to start a poultry business.

Evidence

The ISN leverages evidence to engage stakeholders. Community-approved vulnerability maps and climate action plans have improved dialogue with city officials, resulting in continued conversations on the approval of technical drawings, registered boreholes and officially recognised drainage work.

The broader reform agenda

Beyond improving services, the ISN also pushes for wider urban reform. By positioning informal settlement communities as co-producers of climate resilience, it is creating a group that can take part in climate finance talks and helping to build stronger partnerships between organised citizens and government agencies. The network’s strength comes from its collective legitimacy, showing that when settlements present evidence together, they can negotiate more effectively.

But there are still major structural barriers. Tenure insecurity continues to discourage long-term investment. A lack of technical support makes it hard to move from short-term fixes to lasting infrastructure. Blended climate finance tools are needed to match communities’ savings. And there need to be ways for ISN plans to become part of city planning cycles.

The next step is to move from demonstration projects to effecting lasting changes in the city system. With the right support, this grassroots platform could attract investment, direct decentralised climate finance to the communities that need it, and turn climate plans into action.

Photo credits: Know Your City TV Zimbabwe

Note: This article presents the views of the authors featured and does not necessarily represent the views of the African Cities Research Consortium as a whole.

Generative AI statement: ChatGPT was used to help produce a first draft of this summary blog post. This draft was then extensively edited by the communications team and approved by the author of the article.

The African Cities blog is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which means you are welcome to repost this content as long as you provide full credit and a link to this original post.

Evidence leads to commitment

Preliminary evidence from our ongoing research in four districts of Maiduguri suggests commitment from both government (BOGIS) and community leaders to address these costs. Sustained community engagements by our team through townhall meetings and live phone-in radio programme have secured a 50% downward review of the “initial bill” charged by BOGIS.

On the other hand, community leaders have committed to completely waiving rents collected at all levels of local administration. Community volunteers attached to these leaders further support in documentation and serve liaison roles between communities and BOGIS. This means customary titles in these four districts can be obtained for free by women and PWDs who could not afford them before. However, securing waivers for landowners outside ACRC project districts would require sustained action.

Building a reform coalition

The support and commitments garnered from community leaders and BOGIS may just be stopgaps if not sustained beyond our SLTR programming. Our measure of sustainability is how successfully the commitments gained can be scaled. This will ensure that all districts in the city benefit from rent waivers and fee reduction, which can best be achieved through collaboration.

For this to materialise, we are working with the Housing, Land and Property Working Group (HLPWG) – a coalition of international and local partners – as a platform for engaging government and community leaders for reform. Coordinated by the Norwegian Refugee Council with REBHI as a member, HLPWG is cochaired by BOGIS and the Borno State Urban Planning and Development Board. Already, the platform has commenced high-level engagements with BOGIS to make SLTR charges more affordable for Maiduguri’s low-income population. Achieving success may take some time but the engagements need to be sustained.

Sustaining the waivers

To secure waivers for Maiduguri’s low-income landowners, commitment must come from two fronts – BOGIS and customary leaders:

> For BOGIS, the key argument HLPWG is making towards an affordable SLTR is the benefit of scale. Higher government revenues will accrue if more people register at a reduced cost than fewer people at a higher cost.

> Formalising land titles helps to convert “dead capital” to “live capital” if low-earning people can have access to mortgage or loans when properties are properly titled.

> Encroachment into public spaces in customary lands will be checked through SLTR, which is value added to urban planning and development if high registration coverage is achieved.

> Georeferencing of properties and proper documentation of ownership improves security. For conflict-affected cities like Maiduguri, this cannot be taken for granted.

> Currently, HLPWG comprises government, development partners and community organisations working in the housing and property sector, with a clear absence of traditional institutions. Involving customary leaders would be necessary to secure further commitment.

Photo credits: Fatima Adamu

Note: This article presents the views of the authors featured and does not necessarily represent the views of the African Cities Research Consortium as a whole.

The African Cities blog is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which means you are welcome to repost this content as long as you provide full credit and a link to this original post.

By Kudzai Chatiza

Key takeaways

• The City of Harare still “owns” markets on paper but has largely withdrawn in practice. Though it still collects some fees, it is failing to provide reliable governance and basic services, including workspace infrastructure.
• The vacuum the City has left is occupied by informal institutions, which are keeping markets running but making them fragile and exclusionary. This is evident in weak infrastructure, higher disaster risk and access shaped by informal power and payments.
• What is needed is a different City return to markets that it previously receded from, to co-govern, coordinate (not control), secure tenure and use shared revenues tied to visible service delivery.

This blog post arises from research, concluded in May 2025, of Glen View Area 8 Furniture Complex (GV8FC) and Harare’s wider market system. The research was conducted as part of the Pundutso Urban Markets Project (PUMP) under the African Cities Research Consortium (ACRC).

GV8FC was selected as a pilot site for examining institutional, governance and policy dynamics affecting informal manufacturing markets in Harare. Primary data sources included interviews and engagements with GV8FC formal and informal leaders, City of Harare officials, participants in five ACRC‐organised workshops, three Urban Informality Forum seminars, and a review of administrative and policy documentation from the City of Harare.

Understanding the “receding City”

Urban markets are often described as chaotic, informal or even unruly. But beneath this surface activity lies something more profound: a steady withdrawal of the City itself. In Harare, this phenomenon can be described as the “receding city”.

The City – both as a whole and those divisions responsible for markets – remains legally responsible for markets, but has gradually lost the ability to competently govern, provide services and sustain markets overall. The City still issues annual trader permits or licences and collects monthly levies, but not at all markets nor from all traders. Additionally, the most glaring indicator of the receding City is the failure to deliver, operate and maintain appropriate and adequate infrastructure, workspaces and basic services at markets.

In marketplaces like GV8FC, the City’s role did not disappear overnight. Instead, it slowly ebbed away. Permits were issued, then expired without being renewed. Infrastructure was planned but not fully delivered. Revenue systems were introduced and then abandoned. Over time, the City of Harare stopped being the effective authority on the ground, even though it retained legal ownership of the land and policy responsibility for the market. In variable forms, this is the situation at many other city markets.

Into the gap created by this retreat stepped market associations, politically connected committees, cooperatives and informal powerbrokers. These actors now allocate space, collect fees, resolve disputes and organise security. In practical terms, they have become the de facto managers of markets like GV8FC.

However, this is not the same as sustainable self-governance. While local organisation has kept markets alive, it has also introduced new exclusions, blind spots and vulnerabilities. The “receding City” is not simply absent. It is present enough to claim authority, but absent enough to avoid responsibility – leading to shades of strategic and operational unsustainability at markets. This contradiction shapes everything that follows regarding how markets grow, who gets access, how infrastructure is funded and who benefits from urban economies.

Ironically, the City also suffers. When revenue systems break down, income needed for planning, maintenance and service delivery is lost. This feeds a vicious cycle, whereby poor services reduce willingness to pay, and low levels of payment further weaken the City’s capacity. Overall City authority is undermined, as traders lose trust in the City’s ability to uphold the “social contract”.

Equally important is planned land use. Markets in Harare have expanded organically, with incompatible activities. At GV8FC, the main enterprise of carpentry now sits uneasily with catering, storage and retail, creating a crowded space where incompatible uses are adjacent in a complex that lacks formal layouts. This increases disaster risks, reduces productivity and makes markets harder to upgrade. In short, when the City recedes, markets survive but they do so inefficiently, vulnerably and at great long-term cost.

The second major cost of a receding City is exclusion. Urban markets are often justified as tools of inclusion and poverty reduction, providing livelihoods for those shut out of formal employment. But when governance shifts to informal systems, access increasingly depends on power, connections and informal payments, rather than transparent and inclusive rules.

At GV8FC, original permits covered fewer than 500 traders, yet several thousand now operate there. Subletting, informal allocation and politically mediated access have become normal. New entrants often gain space not through waiting lists or public processes, but through market insiders. This system excludes the very groups that social markets were designed to support.

Those at risk of missing out include women, youth and the poorest newcomers, who lack networks or capital to buy their way in. Over time, markets risk becoming closed clubs rather than open ladders which those on low incomes can use to climb out of poverty.

Tenure insecurity deepens this exclusion. Many traders believe they “own” their stalls, even without legal documentation. Others remain perpetually informal. This uncertainty discourages long-term investment, limits access to finance and fuels conflict between traders and the City. A receding City therefore produces a paradox whereby markets grow larger but become less inclusive, more politicised and harder to reform.

Why the City must return, but differently

The solution is not a return to heavy-handed enforcement or mass evictions. Our analysis of GV8FC shows that such approaches fuel resistance and deepen mistrust. Instead, what is needed is a reconfigured City role that recognises markets as permanent parts of the urban economy and invests in governing them collaboratively.

This means treating markets not as temporary poverty measures, but as productive urban assets. It also means moving beyond the false choice between total informality and rigid formality. The City must re‑enter markets as a co‑governance partner, setting clear rules, protecting public interests and enabling local institutions to function within an agreed framework. Without this, markets will remain stuck in limbo, being too informal to upgrade, while too large to ignore.

Three policy messages

Based on the policy analysis conducted at GV8FC, three policy pillars emerge. These align considerably with the City’s SME policy and the national formalisation initiatives.

Policy message 1: Reassert the City’s role as coordinator, not controller

The City of Harare can re‑enter markets to coordinate planning, infrastructure and regulation. This can be done without displacing local institutions. Clear mandates and shared authority are essential for sustainability.

Policy message 2: Secure tenure to unlock investment and inclusion

Transparent, time‑bound and transferable tenure arrangements are critical. Without them, markets cannot attract finance, plan infrastructure or remain inclusive to new entrants.

Policy message 3: Finance markets through shared revenue models

Market sustainability requires reliable revenue collection linked to visible service delivery. Co‑managed revenue systems can rebuild trust and fund infrastructure.

Photo credits: Development Governance Institute

Note: This article presents the views of the authors featured and does not necessarily represent the views of the African Cities Research Consortium as a whole.

Author acknowledgement: This blog draws on ACRC‑supported work but does not represent the views of the consortium or its funder, FCDO (United Kingdom). The contributions of ACRC Harare colleagues – especially George Masimba, Stephan Tafireyi (City of Harare, SMEs Division), Thomas Karakadzai and Tapiwa Nyamukapa, who took part in a meeting at the City’s Housing and Community Services Offices to discuss the Kuwadzana 4 issue following a field visit – are gratefully acknowledged.

Generative AI statement: Copilot was used to process research notes and relevant literature to help prepare an initial draft of this blog post. This draft was then extensively edited by the communications team and approved by the author of the article.

The African Cities blog is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which means you are welcome to repost this content as long as you provide full credit and a link to this original post.

By Evans Banana and Shiela Muganyi

Harare is already facing significant challenges due to climate change, especially in informal settlements, where vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected. The prevalence of hazards such as floods, droughts, heatwaves and heavy rains exacerbates existing vulnerabilities, leading to severe impacts on marginalised groups including women and young people.

Informal settlements often lack adequate infrastructure, making residents more susceptible to property loss and displacement during extreme weather events. The increasing frequency and severity of climate-related disasters, coupled with growing inequalities, have exposed the inadequacies of current adaptation efforts and highlighted the urgent need for innovative infrastructure and financing mechanisms.

Despite policy commitments at the city and national level, informal settlements continue to bear the brunt of climate-induced disasters in the city. As a response, communities in Harare have been devising innovative solutions to reduce the effects of climate change. However, without sufficient policy support and recognition to anchor these efforts, sustainable initiatives remain trapped in a limited pilot mode, hindering their potential for broader city-wide replication.

Co-producing climate action with informal settlement communities

The Informal Settlements Climate Change Action (ISCCA) project in Harare seeks to co-produce climate-resilient interventions and strengthen local capacity to protect informal settlements from climate change.

Based on identified gaps and opportunities, the first phase of the ISCCA project focused on a set of four broad climate change resilience-building actions:

1. Conducting assessments to enhance understanding of climate change vulnerability in Harare’s informal settlements;

2. Climate change capacity strengthening for city stakeholders;

3. Establishing and strengthening urban reform coalitions on climate change issues;

4. Implementing co-produced climate resilient actions.

Transforming learning into climate action

Now into its second phase, the project is building on the gains from the first phase to demonstrate how cities can undertake informal settlement upgrading that prioritises community needs and integrates issues of climate change.

Five major lessons have emerged from the ISCCA action research process so far:

> Land tenure security and resolution of building approval procedures are a key pillar for building climate change resilience – Considering the uncertainty that comes with precarious land tenure, informal settlement residents reported that they struggle to invest in infrastructure and housing improvements. This was particularly the case for residents who were wary of the state’s tendency to deploy evictions and demolitions as the go-to policy for addressing land and housing informality.

> Climate change impacts vary across the city’s informal settlements – Climate change impacts are not uniform across the city. While some areas reported significant knocks from droughts, others recalled disconcerting stories of flooding events. These varied impacts highlight the importance of building settlement-specific resilient infrastructure, such as drainage systems for flood control in areas including Tafara and Budiriro.

> Building climate change resilience requires cross-settlement assessments – Vulnerability assessments are often settlement-specific, but this limits imagining how climate change impacts often transcend administrative boundaries. In Dzivarasekwa Extension, for instance, localised flood measures that were designed excluding adjacent neighbourhoods have illustrated shortcomings associated with such an approach.

> Leveraging and scaling locally-led climate actions is critical for fostering city-wide climate resilience – A wide array of locally-led actions is being implemented in different parts of the city. For example, in Dzivarasekwa Extension, a greening initiative supported by the City of Harare has seen the provision of fruit trees providing shade during high temperatures. Despite many locally-led climate actions, there was little – if any – invested towards institutionalising and scaling these responses.

> The Climate and Environment Policy is an important arena advancing informal settlement climate change reform agendas – Phase one of the ISCCA action research project coincided with the development of the City of Harare’s Climate and Environment Policy, presenting immense scope for realigning this crucial policy with climate change vulnerability issues in the city’s informal settlements. In the project’s second phase, the proposed policy constitutes a useful launchpad for reform conversations with city decision makers.

Scaling up reform efforts

Building on the foundation laid by these findings, vulnerability assessments are being used to explore co-production of upgrading interventions in two further areas. The project is also focused on mobilising citizens and strengthening urban reform coalitions to form a more united front against climate-related challenges. This involves extending the overall capacity of communities and local authorities to access climate finance, implementing sustainable solutions and securing elite commitment – an essential component for ensuring the project’s long-term success.

Crucially, the second phase is also building on institutional processes kick-started by the City of Harare, including the formulation of the Climate and Environment Policy. Phase one incorporated experiences and insights from informal settlements, the policy still needs to be finalised and integrated across city departments. The proposed policy presents huge reform opportunities for reimagining and fostering progressive connections between the informal settlements and climate change impacts.

Photo credits: Know Your City TV Zimbabwe

Note: This article presents the views of the authors featured and does not necessarily represent the views of the African Cities Research Consortium as a whole.

The African Cities blog is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which means you are welcome to repost this content as long as you provide full credit and a link to this original post.

Deliberations and voices from the markets

The indaba unfolded through four sessions:

1. Government perspectives: The acting town clerk opened the Indaba, announcing that “urban markets are the heartbeat of Harare’s economy”. The permanent secretary emphasised formalisation and governance reforms to tackle the pervasive challenge of space barons. Plans for a City SMEs Bank were unveiled by the SMEs committee chair for Harare, to help perform two functions: first, to finance informal enterprises; and second, to build and upgrade existing urban markets.

2. Traders’ experiences: Representatives from GV8FC, Lusaka, Hatcliffe Dust, Kuwadzana 4, Gazaland and Jambanja markets narrated experiences regarding infrastructure gaps, sanitation challenges and land tenure precarity in Harare’s urban markets. They stressed the need for engagement spaces with the council, citing ACRC convenings as vital spaces that had contributed towards improved relations and dialogue.

3. Financial institutions: Small to Medium Enterprise Development Corporation and Infrastructure Development Bank of Zimbabwe outlined financing instruments but cautioned that governance weaknesses made many projects unready and often risky for investment.

4. Group discussions: Participants, working through groups, then tackled four themes – infrastructure, financing, governance, and productivity and growth – consolidating and focusing on the key challenges and priority strategic policy and programming responses for Harare’s urban markets.

Lessons from the ACRC Kampala team

The ACRC Kampala team’s reflections on Ggaba Market underscored common realities in Africa’s urban markets: infrastructure deficits, contested governance and localised data gaps. The Kampala team reported how the ACRC action research had turned out to be an important neutral convener against the backdrop of the contested nature of urban markets.

For instance, the action research findings were leveraged to help articulate issues that ordinarily would be sensitive to tackle. Furthermore, their cautionary tale about potential relocation risks resonated strongly with relocation plans earmarked for Harare’s GV8FC traders, presenting timely lessons on the not-so-obvious complexities of undertaking market upgrades through relocations.

Unintended openings from the indaba

Beyond the formal programme, the indaba also unlocked new opportunities:

> Impromptu technical engagements: Sideline meetings with the SMEs division and the city architect’s division revealed draft designs for Chemhanza market shaped by traders’ inputs, such as stall dimensions tailored to carpenters’ needs.

> Council urban markets engagement: Follow-up meeting with SMEs, town planning, treasury, GIS, and monitoring and evaluation divisions clarified city and government plans for GV8FC, Chemhanza and Hatcliffe Dust markets. The engagement provided the ACRC team with an opportunity to also outline the action research to a wider cross-section of council officials and to stress the need for both the planned relocations and upgrades to be inclusive.

> Provincial government collaboration: Engagement with the permanent secretary’s office led to GV8FC and Chemhanza site visits, showcasing ACRC’s WASH investments and relocation and upgrading plans by the city and government.

Key takeaways

Along with being a space for policy dialogue, the urban markets indaba provided a strong platform for establishing strategic connections, resolving blockages under the ACRC’s urban markets workstream and bridging the gap between traders and authorities. It acted as a launchpad for follow-up engagements with city and government officials to catalyse planned interventions set out under the ACRC urban markets action research project in Harare.

By blending policy-facing deliberations with lived urban markets experiences and a regional exchange, it demonstrated how policy convenings with key public officials can generate both intended outcomes and crucial chance openings.

Key takeaways from the indaba included:

> Convenings should be used strategically – not only for dialogue but also for building relationships, aligning interventions, unblocking blockages and opening new doors for collaborations.

> Co-creation around multistakeholder engagements – involving traders, city officials and regional peers – builds a very rich programme that has potential for multiple spin-offs.

> Understanding council priorities is critical, and the indaba provided a very useful window for gathering insights on council and government plans, enabling the ACRC Harare team to strategically position the action research projects and related outputs.

> Urban markets are central to Harare’s economy and must be treated as core city systems, not peripheral and temporary urban spaces.

> Making traders’ voices central at every stage of market upgrading ensures solutions reflect lived markets realities.

> By meaningfully engaging diverse stakeholders, including traders, the indaba emphasised the importance of acknowledging both formal and informal governance structures as a crucial starting point for making Harare’s urban markets systems work.

> Investing in infrastructure, especially vending stalls and WASH facilities, are foundational elements of resilient markets.

> Relocations constitute a very tricky upgrading pathway for urban markets, with a high likelihood that – if not handled cautiously, with attention placed on inclusion – they can end up leading to displacement and exclusion.

Photo credits: Dialogue on Shelter. Header photo shows the market traders’ panel in session at the urban markets indaba.

Note: This article presents the views of the authors featured and does not necessarily represent the views of the African Cities Research Consortium as a whole.

Generative AI was used to help draft this blog post: The author used Copilot to refine and improve the original draft. This version was then reviewed and edited by the ACRC communications team, before being approved by the author.

The African Cities blog is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which means you are welcome to repost this content as long as you provide full credit and a link to this original post.

Header photo credit: Muhamed Lunyago. CLASK Meeting with MLHUD officials and consultants reviewing the Uganda National Land Policy.

Note: This article presents the views of the authors featured and does not necessarily represent the views of the African Cities Research Consortium as a whole.

The African Cities blog is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which means you are welcome to repost this content as long as you provide full credit and a link to this original post.