Tell me about your role in ACRC and what you’re working on at the moment?

So I’m Tom Goodfellow and I’m coming into the role of CEO of the African Cities Research Consortium, which means I’ll be working alongside our fabulous senior management team in the consortium – located in various parts of the world – to lead the consortium into the next phase of its work, as we get a load of action research projects to completion, deliver outputs and start thinking about learning between our many projects, which are taking place in seven cities across Africa.

Some of the things I’ve been doing recently particularly are around getting some of the last action research projects in our portfolio to the point where they’re finalised and ready to go, because some of them are only just starting. That includes for example new projects to secure land rights for communities in Kampala in Uganda – building on an earlier study we’re trying to really roll that out on the ground. We’ve got projects around school feeding in Nairobi, trying to ensure that children in informal schools across the city can have access to food. Also, there’s work going on in Lagos, for example, around much more equitable models of property taxation for low-income communities in the city. So those are some of the projects that we’re working to get off the ground.

And I’m also excited because we’ve got a new area of work emerging around rural–urban migration and other kinds of migration into cities, and through this we’re really trying to get a better understanding of mobility patterns in the context of the African cities we work in.

How did you get into urban development?

Well, that’s a very interesting question as it’s not something I necessarily anticipated, having not really studied cities or even geography earlier in my kind of life and career! But I became interested partly through a friend’s mum, who was an academic working on cities in South Africa after apartheid. And I got interested in how cities, particularly divided cities and conflict-affected cities, overcome those kinds of things. And through that work, I ended up doing a PhD, where I was looking at post-conflict cities and rapidly growing cities in post-conflict environments, particularly in Uganda and Rwanda, which is where I did my PhD research.

So I became really interested in cities in Africa in the context of rapid growth, how you manage issues around land and infrastructure and housing in that context. And then from there, I ended up doing more comparative work with colleagues in different parts of Africa, and that leads me to where I am. So it was kind of an accident when I ended up doing a little bit of a favour for a friend’s mum, helping her out with some stuff she was writing for a publication, and just got hooked.

What’s interesting about the ACRC approach?

There are so many interesting things. It’s quite challenging to choose just one. I won’t say anything here about a particular project or a particular theme of the work we do, but one thing that I’m finding really interesting is how projects spin out from something that can be quite small on the ground. It can be a particular site where there’s waste recycling, or it can be one particular part of a neighbourhood where some drains are being put in, and how this kind of small project can spin out into this large network of committed organisations and individuals to get this thing to work, to get this thing to really bring a change.

It grows from something small into something much bigger in terms of all the people who have to be involved and you can see the energy growing, whether it’s government agencies getting involved, communities themselves, organisations they work with, and you start to see those systemic interactions: how waste and climate resilience and water and sanitation all connect to each other through this one small project initially. So I think that’s what I’m really learning: how we see change spinning out from particular sites or particular issues into wider, more systemic forms of change.

What ACRC paper, blog or podcast do you most recommend?

Well, there are many that I recommend and we’ve got this very vibrant blog series, so I do hope that people keep an eye on that because blogs come through very regularly that really showcase the action research projects on the ground. That’s the best way to see what’s happening. We also have many project reports in the pipeline, as most of our reports about the active action research are yet to come, although we have many really interesting studies already online as well.

I’m quite keen on podcasts, not least because I also get involved in making them sometimes, and one that was really interesting to me was when I had a conversation with two of our city managers, Jack Makau in Nairobi and Temilade Sesan in Lagos. They were talking about how they learned from each other and how their cities learned from each other. That’s come out and been put out recently through the African Cities podcast. I do recommend that for people who are interested in that kind of transnational, translocal learning about how urban change happens.

How can cities drive progress?

Very good question – I’m mostly obviously interested in what all of our partners based in the cities we work in have to say about that in their own cities. But thinking across the whole set and the wider issues, I think we see cities learning a lot from each other, in two ways, very obviously. On the one hand, you see city governments and national governments learning about how to market their cities for investment, to sort of position them within regional and global orders as kind of sites of modernity and investment. And there’s a lot of learning that happens there. And secondly there’s a lot of learning that happens between communities about how to try and assert their rights.

What I’d like to see more of, I think, is something in between, which is really about municipalities and city governments learning from each other – not just about how to market and get investment, but about how to really realise the value of their populations, how to work effectively with communities in ways that actually helps to enhance the city without undermining community rights. Because we do see rights being undermined in some of our cities. This is about learning not just between the big cities but also the smaller cities and the secondary cities where most of the growth is happening, to really see more of those cities leading the way sharing examples, as well as learning from bigger ones, so that we get a sense that smaller cities are also celebrated and we can see the innovation happening there. I mean, I’m based in the city of Sheffield, which in the UK is one of those smaller cities, so I often think about how we could be engaging with and learning with smaller places as well.

What do you enjoy doing in your spare time?

Well, it’s interesting because you asked about how I got into urban development, and I didn’t mention this but the friend whose mum got me interested in African cities – she herself was South African – I was in a band with her son and used to play music a lot. Since having children and having a different kind of life for a while, I’ve kind of lost the habit, but I’m getting a bit more into it again now – not least because my children are really interested in music and play quite a few musical instruments between them. So I’ve been getting back into that and making use of the fact that we have more musical instruments around the house. So that’s been nice.

Sign up to our newsletter for regular updates on ACRC action research projects, new publications and expert insights into urban development in African cities.

Header photo credit: Chris Jordan

Note: This article presents the views of the author 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 Shiela Muganyi

In Harare, climate change is reshaping lives, livelihoods and local environments. But while every community feels these impacts, informal settlements face the harshest realities. Weak infrastructure, limited services, insecure land tenure and high levels of poverty make them exceptionally vulnerable to climate shocks.

Yet, within these same communities, effective solutions are emerging – rooted in collective action, local knowledge and community savings for climate resilience.

Barriers to accessing climate finance

Despite the urgency of climate impacts, communities in Harare’s informal settlements face barriers in accessing formal climate finance. International and national funds often require documentation, credit histories or proof of land tenure that they cannot provide. Large-scale financing mechanisms are designed for governments or institutions, not small, community-driven initiatives.

Even when funds are available, lengthy bureaucratic processes delay access, leaving communities unable to respond quickly to shocks. Women, who often lead adaptation at household and community levels, are excluded from formal finance systems, despite being central to resilience-building. 

Solidarity in action in Dzivarasekwa

In Dzivarasekwa Extension, community members formed a solidarity savings group for climate adaptation. Members pooled their contributions and shared the funds at the end of the year to purchase building materials for retrofitting flood-damaged houses and constructing permanent, resilient homes.

They also used their savings to start a poultry project, designed to cushion households against the impacts of drought by diversifying food and income sources. Some groups saved for food, ensuring families would not go hungry during the festive season, while others prepared for school fees, protecting children’s education from climate-related financial shocks.

Saving for water security in Hopley

In Hopley settlement, savings groups have tackled one of the most pressing climate challenges: water scarcity. Through their collective savings, residents have financed and drilled five boreholes. This achievement underscores the power of local finance to deliver critical infrastructure where formal systems have failed.

Building long-term climate resilience

Going beyond supporting emergency responses and short-term infrastructure projects, community climate savings build commitment, solidarity, confidence and long-term resilience among group members. They strengthen social cohesion, foster collective responsibility and empower residents to plan for the future, rather than react to disasters.

Key lessons learned

These two examples reveal some clear lessons:

> Collective action is not just about participation – it depends on aligned leadership, shared vision and the ability to navigate power.

> If local leaders are not united and there is no smart approach to working with those in power, even the most well designed projects might not succeed.

To scale these efforts, significant barriers must be overcome. Savings groups must be acknowledged as legitimate actors in climate finance systems. Stakeholders should co-invest in community-led initiatives, leveraging local finance as a foundation. Climate finance mechanisms must be simplified and tailored to reach grassroots actors directly. And women-led savings groups should be prioritised, given their proven role in driving resilience.

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 Tapiwa Nyamukapa, Hazel Musvovi and Kudzai Chatiza

Key takeaways

• Policy reform has improved institutional recognition of markets, but operational bottlenecks, especially around maintenance and procurement, continue to undermine service delivery.
• A clear disconnect exists between traders and the City, with limited mechanisms for collaboration on small-scale infrastructure management, despite traders’ willingness to contribute resources.
• Emerging financial innovations, such as the City Micro Finance Bank, offer new opportunities, but their impact will depend on inclusive governance and effective integration with market management systems that clearly build trader trust in the City and its various governance instruments.

Dialogue on Shelter (DoS) and the Development Governance Institute (DGI) are collaborating on the Pundusto urban markets project, which is looking at inclusive land tenure and infrastructure financing, implemented under ACRC in Harare.

The action research focuses on selected markets in Harare, examining land and infrastructure tenure, governance arrangements and policy options to support inclusive and productive urban markets. This blog post reflects on insights from a preparatory meeting with the City of Harare’s Small to Medium Enterprises (SMEs) Division.

The engagement took place amid persistent tensions over market governance. While the City of Harare frames markets as municipal assets subject to City policy and administrative authority, traders increasingly treat them as autonomous economic spaces. This unresolved contestation shapes how policy is interpreted, resisted and implemented on the ground.

Infrastructure, trader fees and maintenance

The City is responsible for infrastructure across approximately 60 markets and for ensuring that trading environments meet relevant standards of safety and adequacy. Formal traders pay a monthly licence fee of between USD 10 and USD 25, creating expectations of basic services. Yet these revenues are not readily available for routine maintenance, due to municipal and national procurement requirements, resulting in persistent delays, particularly for minor repairs.

Trader committees and governance tensions

These operational challenges reflect deeper governance tensions, rather than simple capacity gaps. Although the SME policy provides for market management committees, relationships between traders and the City are marked by selective engagement. Traders often mobilise personal resources to maintain facilities but are constrained by rules that prohibit them from intervening in municipally owned infrastructure.

In the absence of formal co‑management protocols, markets operate in a “governance vacuum”, where responsibility is shared in practice but not recognised institutionally or mobilised predictably. The structural governance gaps have constrained delivery of everyday market service needs as well as medium- to long-term infrastructure and workspace management and expansion.

City Micro Finance Bank

The City of Harare has initiated establishment of a City Micro Finance Bank, through which market revenues will be channelled and affiliated traders may access credit. Beyond financing, the bank represents an attempt to re‑anchor markets within municipal governance through financial mechanisms. This raises the prospects of addressing questions on revenue ringfencing, trader inclusion, accountability and appropriate decisionmaking relating to SME support.

Policy pathways to explore

Overall, recent reforms signal a shift towards recognising markets as central economic and employment nodes. However, policy effectiveness continues to be shaped by competing claims over authority and control.

Building on earlier ACRC investments, the next phase of research seeks to strengthen traders’ voice by testing governance and financing arrangements that reconcile municipal responsibility with trader agency. Without negotiated frameworks, the risk is that Harare’s markets remain sites of policy friction rather than inclusive and productive engines of urban economic transformation. As data gathering and analysis progress, it will be critical to explore the viability of the following pathways:

1. Introduction of formal co-management protocols that allow traders and the City to jointly address minor maintenance issues, with clear rules on accountability and cost-sharing.

2. Streamlining procurement procedures for routine market maintenance, including thresholds below which simplified processes can be applied.

3. Strengthening trader organisations and representation, enabling more effective engagement with decentralised City structures and financial institutions supporting market development.

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).

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

Across Harare’s informal settlements, the Informal Settlements Climate Change Action (ISCCA) initiative is showing that responding to climate change is not just about technical solutions, but about how people organise, how decisions are made and how power is navigated.

From drainage issues in Stoneridge to water access in Hopley, communities are taking locally-led adaptation actions. To be effective, such actions require strong leadership and political commitment.

ISCCA’s experience highlights that implementation does not depend solely on resources or plans. In many cases, progress only accelerates when communities, institutions and political leaders align. Conversely, it often stalls when internal power dynamics disrupt unity.

In this blog post, we reflect on two contrasting ISCCA experiences in informal settlements. In Harare South settlement, alignment unlocked action; and in Boko Haram settlement, fragmented leadership slowed progress. These cases highlight the fact that change in informal settlements is not only technical but also deeply political. The speed at which change happens depends on the ability of communities, institutions and political leaders to align.

At the same time, this process highlighted the importance of alignment. When the community, the MP’s leadership and the alliance worked together, it set the stage for things to start happening. When everyone is on the same page and leaders are committed, progress speeds up.

Power dynamics undermining collective action in Boko Haram

The experience of ISCCA in the Boko Haram settlement was very different. The settlement has three cooperatives, each with its own leaders. Two of these groups were ready to work with ISCCA, but one cooperative, led by a very influential chairman, blocked progress.

This chairman used his political position to delay and weaken efforts to reach an agreement, causing division in the community. Because of this, ISCCA found it hard to get everyone on board, and it is now unlikely that the project will move forward in this settlement.

This situation shows that the existence of community groups does not in itself guarantee that people will work together. When leadership is divided or challenged, even good projects can get stuck.

Key lessons learned

These two examples reveal some clear lessons:

> Collective action is not just about participation – it depends on aligned leadership, shared vision and the ability to navigate power.

> If local leaders are not united and there is no smart approach to working with those in power, even the most well designed projects might not succeed.

Building on these lessons, we have identified four key requirements to help us – and others working with communities on climate resilience – to deal with similar situations:

1. Understanding internal power dynamics early;

2. Identifying both enablers and blockers within leadership structures;

3. Investing in social cohesion and trust before implementation;

4. Remaining adaptive where alignment cannot be achieved.

These experiences are a reminder that building climate resilience in informal settlements is about more than infrastructure, funding or technical plans. People, power and alignment are crucial to unlocking progress. Where communities are organised and leadership is committed, change can happen quickly and meaningfully. But where power is fragmented or contested, even the most promising interventions can stall.

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.

“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.