Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Welcome to the African Cities podcast. I’m Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael, a postdoctoral researcher at African Cities Research Consortium. Today, I’m joined by Dr Joseph Macarthy to discuss the experiences from Sierra Leone on coalition building for inclusive urban reform. This podcast interview is part of mini podcast series produced in preparation for the Urban Reform Coalitions Conference held in mid-June in Manchester, organised by ACRC in collaboration with Manchester Urban Institute. My guest today, Dr Joseph Macarthy, is executive director of the Sierra Leone Urban Research Centre (SLURC) and professor at the Institute of Geography and Development Studies, Njala University. Joseph also co-leads ACRC’s Freetown city of systems research. Welcome, Joseph.

Joseph Macarthy Thank you very much.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you. To kickstart our conversation, please tell us briefly about yourself, the Sierra Leone Urban Research Centre, or SLURC, and your role in ACRC research in Freetown.

Joseph Macarthy Thanks very much. I think you have said it all. I am the executive director of the Sierra Leone Urban Research Centre, but also lectures at Njala University. The Sierra Leone Urban Centre is one of its kind in Sierra Leone. It focuses specifically on urban research and it’s so much about the level of urbanisation and the challenges associated with it and the implications for city development. So we aim to research seven thematic issues, which I cannot bore you with, but we are also into capacity building, which is so much about providing training and skills. We also undertake knowledge management activities, but we are also into advocacy and policy influencing. So I lecture at Njala University, but that I cannot really go into. With regards to the ACRC, I am the city lead researcher. What this means is that I am responsible for coordinating the Freetown city research team, more or less also working to link up with our external research partners. And I’m also responsible for writing the city’s synthesis report. Beyond that, I am also the research lead for the city of systems report and also for housing domain reports. So I am a three in one person. Thank you.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much. Since the main focus of our interview is about SLURC, may you please discuss, using examples, what SLURC does in partnership with the Federation of Urban and Rural Poor in Sierra Leone, and the local support NGO, Centre for Dialogue on Human Settlement and Poverty Alleviation, in collaboration with public and other stakeholders.

Joseph Macarthy Firstly to say that the Sierra Leone Urban Research Centre is now seven years old. And before that, the Federation of the Urban and Rural Poor (FEDURP) had existed a few years before and also CODOHSAPA, the Centre for Dialogue on Human Settlement, had also existed about a few years before. But basically what existed at the time was really the lack of capacity on their part, especially to drive the kind of desired change. And this is because they were really not so much aligned with, for instance, an academic institution that can possibly improve on their capacity to act, but also in terms of the kinds of engagement that were required. So SLURC came in as part of these same projects that we were together working on, to fill this particular gap, especially in terms of working with these organisations, more especially in terms of improving their research quality, their research capability, because there were doubts initially in terms of the kinds of reports that they were producing, and these were somewhat because it was not quality assured, and all those kind of things. So we came to add value to the kind of work they were doing. So we have been working with them to collect a lot of data on the different informal settlements, especially related to the different projects that we have been undertaking, and this has really involved using a variety of participatory research approaches. And we have kind of improved their experience, but also their skills, especially in terms of engagements like community mapping, but also in terms of the community enumeration and profiling that they used to do more. And over the period, this has actually involved co-learning, especially working together with them, and in one of our research which is tied to the ARISE research working together with Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, we have elevated them based on the level of improvements in their research capacity to work now together as full researchers, which means that their skilfulness, their knowledge, their ability is so much enhanced and now we can even work with the community residents as co-researchers. We have also worked with the community, especially in terms of pilots in certain activities that we have produced as part of our research output. So we have been working with them to pilot some of the implementation actions that have emerged from our different research. And there is also the element of knowledge exchange, which our relationships together have really fostered. We have also worked together with them to even designate some of the research findings that have emerged as part of our outputs, while also in terms of giving out messages or disseminating research outputs to their fellow community residents, we’re also raising awareness, but also mobilising them, driving change within the communities.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much. In relation with this, please tell us about the SLURC-curated multi-stakeholder city and community learning platforms, or CiLPs, in Freetown and their role in Covid-19 response, and also bringing some urban reforms.

Joseph Macarthy The learning platforms were generated especially to build a democratic space within the city. Freetown, like many other cities, suffers a lot, especially in terms of development deficits. And this is also characterised by inequality, poverty and all kind of things. And we consider that people in these settlements, we have two sides to this city. We have that which is planned and better serviced, but we also have that which is really lacking, especially with regards to these. And this amounts to issues of exclusion, whether we find it socially, politically, economically or otherwise. But there is also marginalisation and vulnerability. And this means so much in terms of access – of people to services such as water, such as energy, such as health. But it’s also the fact that these particular spaces have grown without any recourse to planning. And because the city has been overgrowing, it has led to the growth and expansion of informal settlements. The city suffers from housing scarcity, and there is also the problem of affordable housing. And we observe also that a lot of people, especially the low income, really suffer a lot in terms of political representation, they don’t have a voice. And these are the places when there is urban disaster, weather, health disaster, or whatever, the challenges are a lot. So we felt that we needed to create a kind of platform that really bring the voices of the people to anchor or to hear, on the development processes within the city. And we also need to organise them so that they can also start to have a reflection among themselves of the kinds of issues, the kinds of concerns that relate to their communities. So the learning platforms are of two types. We have the community learning platform, which organises the residents to really speak out, to discourse around the challenges that they face and what kind of common front engagements they need to undertake, especially either by themselves or by the city authorities, to be able to bring about change. But also how that can be fed within the city learning platform, which brings together different sets of actors, especially across the city. So the learning platform, I would say, is a creative space, and it is intended to promote genuine dialogue among the different actors. It normally involves people engaging in conversing more or less, having some level of debate, some level of knowledge exchange. So learning from one another, especially in terms of what the city is about, what kind of vision we have about the city. So this co-learning is also a part of the city learning platform. And the idea is actually to propose a kind of pathway to urban equality, one that really serves the needs of all, rather than just a few.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much. And then, keeping on on this question, who are involved within that platform? On the one hand, you mentioned that there is a community level and there is the city level. Who are the partners?

Joseph Macarthy So the community level involves the different stakeholders at the community level. For instance, you have different organisations, but also you have women’s groups, you have youth groups, you have religious groups, you name it. So these are the kinds of persons who really have a lot of membership and who also are a lot knowledgeable about their communities. Then FEDURP taps from within these existing structures. So they come together to really discuss pertinent issues regarding their communities. And that sets the agenda for the city learning platform. At the city learning platform, we draw from either any of the SLURC research, but also research from other actors, like the NGOs, to also bring together a range of organisations, either at the level of the local government but also at the central government. To really see those that are pertinent to a particular issue, to sit together, hear from research outputs around these particular areas, also hear from the communities while also to see how we can converse to really come around a kind of agenda for action that can really work towards addressing some of these issues.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much. Staying on the same lane, what are the added value of building coalitions, anchored on residents of the informal settlements and other disadvantaged groups in Sierra Leone, regarding influencing pro-poor, inclusive reform? Particularly the issue that you mentioned earlier, in knowledge co-production involving academicians, universities and other partners that you mentioned. So, what advantage, what added value would this building reform relations bring?

Joseph Macarthy Okay. Firstly, just to say that the platforms provide spaces for lateral and vertical linkages. We have different organisations come in, but also from across Freetown. And of course, we know that there are a lot of power imbalances, especially across, because you have those that are stronger, especially those coming from the states, while you also have those coming from the communities. So there is that kind of linkage, either laterally or vertically, across board. And this particular kind of setting, the interactions that take place, the discussions that take place, really add value, in the sense that it draws attention to the critical concerns, but also the challenges faced by people living in informal settlements, or you can call them low-income households. But also it helps the discussion, especially for these city-level actors getting to hear firsthand from the community members. It really not only draws attention to those particular critical issues, but it also drives a change in the mindset of some of these actors, especially those who are not really aware of the nuances within these informal settlements, the kind of challenges that they experience and all those kind of things. And those particular practices also add value in the sense that it informs, especially in terms of urban development practice. Of course, we have had what we refer to as the community action area plan and during the process of putting together or developing that particular community action area plan, a lot of engagement was done with the community. And what came out from that interaction was the idea that, though they continue to be harassed about issues of eviction, threats of evictions and all those kind of things, but the point is, there is really no alternative to the kind of planning that takes place within the city. One that really focuses on their communities, one that really looks at the neighbourhood as one that really is a little different from what actually obtains or what actually exists within other areas of the city that we regard as planned. So it was so much about what alternative can we provide? So we took them through a range of actions. It was a planning process and it was an alternative kind of planning process that focuses on the community-level realities. And this particular engagement with them kind of developed some design guides, especially one that really can promote order within their settlements, and one that can be used by them to advocate for change, one that really can help them to further the development, the future development of their localities. So the CAAP process was very, very critical, especially in terms of adding value to them because they have used it as a kind of condition, especially to engage NGOs that want to do some spatial development within their spaces, to really guide them, especially in terms of how this can be furthered and all kinds of things. So these are some of the ways in which the platform has helped the community, but individually also it has helped to increase the understanding of residents, because many of them have lived within these communities over the years, but they don’t understand exactly beyond the very places where they live, the don’t understand the broader aspects of the city and, more especially, in terms of how the community is situated within the broader confines of the city. And so we have also, as part of the process, helped to build their capacity, but also to give them a voice. So I think, to a large extent, the city learning platform has significant value to the residents and their groups.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much. With regard to this community action planning and how it’s feeding to the broader city-level planning and what would be the role of SLURC and other partners, in translating, in bringing forward the community-level identified problem and solution to the city level to inform citywide planning?

Joseph Macarthy Well, planning in Sierra Leone is, according to law, to take place at three different levels. There is the planning that takes place at the national level. But you also have that which takes place at the city level. And this normally involves the design of structural plans. You also have what we refer to as neighbourhood plan, which is supposed to be generated especially to ensure that the different sites or localities within the city gets connected within the broader planning framework. But there is also the action area plan, which really has not been considered or been given a lot of attention over the years, and this particular element relates to particular areas that seems to be a lot considered as being disorderly. Those relate so much to the informal settlements that are normally facing threats of eviction. So we felt that the local councils haven’t been using the action area plan for a long time because of lack of capacity. And also even the neighbourhood planning has not been done for a long time because of lack of capacity on the part of the planning institutions. Why does the community, the informal settlements continue to face threat of eviction? We wanted to showcase that planning is still possible even in the absence of those.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael In line with that, particularly these community-level action plans, how do they inform city-level planning? And what is the role of SLURC and other partners in translating these community-identified problems and solutions to inform urban planning at the city level?

Joseph Macarthy So the community action area plan was meant to demonstrate that planning is possible within informal settlements and rather than just threatening to evict them, it is also possible to include them in the city by way of ensuring that some level of planning takes place. So like I said, initially, planning takes place at four different levels, there is the national-level planning, but there is also the city-level planning and there is the neighbourhood planning and there is the local action plan. But then the local action planning and the neighbourhood planning has been missed out for a long time. And this explains why most communities have developed organically without any recourse to planning. And so therefore in the absence of action area planning and neighbourhood planning, we wanted to showcase that planning is still possible within these communities because people here don’t identify themselves in terms of neighbourhoods, they identify in terms of communities – that is, the very places where they live. And these can range, for instance, in terms of settlement from maybe 2,000, as much as 18,000, as the case may be. So we felt that people identify themselves so much with the communities, and so let us see how we can showcase to the city council, but also to the ministry, that planning is possible amidst all the odds. So that particular community action area plan was meant to serve as a design guide, so that the city council can now see that there are a lot of principles that can be undertaken and practised to ensure that these particular communities also become an inclusive part of the city, especially in terms of ensuring that they are spatially planned. So that particular method, that particular planning approach has been already factored within the broader Freetown city council framework of planning, while also within the national level. The only thing is, the city council is still trying to practicalise it into slum communities that they are seeking funding to be able to translate into action and SLURC has been providing a lot of technical guide, technical support, especially in terms of how this can be undertaken.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much. In such platforms, especially bringing in city-level officials, central government officials, NGOs or universities, when you bring them together in the same platform with community groups, there is always this power asymmetry – you have also mentioned it earlier. So what mechanisms are put in place, to ensure the demands of the informal settlement residents and other disadvantaged groups are seriously considered and to enhance their bargaining power, vis a vis the more powerful members of the platform or the coalition?

Joseph Macarthy Yeah, indeed, unequal power relationship is a major factor, especially influencing the platform. But yet, there are what you refer to as demand and supply sides of our engagement. Ultimately, local community dwellers want to have change in their communities. They want to have improvements in their lives and wellbeing. At the same time, politicians need votes from residents within these communities. For instance, the mayor of Freetown can only really be assured of getting a second term if, and only if, the informal settlements are onside, because informal settlements make about 35% of the city population, which is huge. But at the same time, also NGOs wants to ensure community ownership of their interventions. So there is the demand and supply interactions between the local people, the politicians and the changemakers. And we know that there is need for us to really capitalise, SLURC needs to capitalise on these relationships. So SLURC’s mechanism to enhance the bargaining power of informal settlement residents, and especially the poor, and to ensure that their demands are seriously considered by powerful actors, especially the states, the national-level actors and the city-level actors, have been about mediating the demand and supply side elements. And this is carefully crafted and done through strengthening the vertical and lateral relationships that I talked about. Of course, this has involved having periodic city learning platforms, maybe after every three months or maybe after every four months, with follow-up mechanisms to ensure that what were discussed are really being translated into action, some way somehow. But it has also been about building capacity of the residents for advocacy, and to also ensure that they engage the different stakeholders. And so it’s not just about creating linkages, but it’s also about ensuring that there is advocacy on the part of the communities, while also engaging the different stakeholders, either at the level of the state or outside, to ensure that what we have promised, also what we have discussed, are really seen to be informing the kind of actions that we set. So yeah, it has been really a matter of mediating the demand and supply side of our engagement with the different actors, both at the community and at the city level, in terms of strengthening those kind of linkages I was talking about – the vertical and lateral – but also in terms of building capacity for advocacy, while also engaging in continuous learning. At the same time also, in terms of dealing with the power asymmetry, when we initially started the platform, we felt that there was a need to highlight some guiding principles. And five guiding principles were identified for our engagement with the different stakeholders. And so these principles have been the landmarks that really define our engagement, that actually ensure that we remove the power dynamics from the room, ensuring that there is a common playing field. So those five principles that we highlighted, which we put together into these particular principles of engagement for the city learning platform, actually have, number one: to have a shared vision and common purpose. Secondly, to share knowledge and information across the different parties involved and third is to promote sustainable and knowledge-based solutions. The fourth is to promote collaboration, participation and communication, and the fifth one, which is very central to this particular question, is how do we ensure we foster mutual respect and trusting relationships across board, so that nobody feels too big, nobody feels too little? And how do we ensure that once we meet as a platform, we are creating a level playing field, so that we all feel comfortable and have a kind of trusted conversation?

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you. It’s not only the power asymmetry, it’s not only the communities or the informal settlements on the one hand, and the powerful actors on the other, but also within informal settlement communities themselves, there is a power asymmetry, in terms of gender, ability and other factors. So how do you deal with this power asymmetry within communities and try to bring the community together to have a united voice vis a vis the other powerful actors?

Joseph Macarthy So the community learning platform takes place within the communities, and it is normally driven by the Federation of the Urban and Rural Poor with guidance by the CODOHSAPA, which is their guiding agency. So basically what this means is that it is not luck that really drives that particular process within the community. We drive the city learning platform, but the city learning platform is directly linked to the community learning platform, which is being organised, which is being run by the Federation. So we are aware as an organization, SLURC, which ensures that there is some level of organisation across board. There is always the insistence that the Federation has to ensure that it recognises that these communities are not homogeneous, they are entirely heterogeneous, especially in terms of the demographics, in terms of the socioeconomic statuses and all those kind of considerations. So basically the Federation itself has membership or draws membership from the communities themselves. We have 60 to 72 informal settlements across Freetown. And so each of these communities have their own Federation members, while at the city level we have the Federation, which is situated within each of these communities. So what that means therefore, is that the different communities are represented at the city learning platform, but also what this means is that the different set-ups, especially in terms of the groupings – for instance, the men’s group, the women’s group, the youth group, the religious groups and all those kind of things – also have representation. So it’s not like all the members from the communities will have to meet. But it’s key members who are being selected as part of the Federation, who normally comes to really discuss, because these particular persons are trusted by their membership, they know that these are the persons who normally champion a lot of activities because they have undertaken a lot of reforms within their community, so they are highly respected, they are highly trusted. And so these are the people who normally undertake or organise some of these sessions. Even within themselves, they have a lot of consultations that take place. So before they come to the city learning platform. So we are aware that not everyone can be represented, not everyone can take part, but at the same time it’s possible for everyone to be represented, while at the same time we also know that there are a lot of issues regarding this, and those are issues we normally take up with FEDURP, which they are also a lot open to.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much. What are the other challenges that you face in bringing together diverse partners to stimulate inclusive urban reform, particularly from SLURC’s experience in Freetown and other Sierra Leonean cities?

Joseph Macarthy Yes, so as you ask the question, I am reflecting about the difficulties we really encounter. It’s bringing different actors together to converse or even act on collective issues or given issues. It’s really not an easy one at all, especially when you have different organisations who may be competing with one another or possibly ignoring one another when it comes to different interests. And also, even the approaches of doing things and all those kind of things. Those are critical challenges that exist in almost every society. But basically, I think amidst all those challenges, we have always worked towards ensuring that we really break through and ensure that things work. I think one of the key learnings we have had, especially in terms of the major challenges that possibly can deter organisations or their representatives from coming, is the issue of interests. What’s really the kind of agenda you are setting for discussion within the city learning platform engagement? Does it interest all? What we have done normally around this is to curate discussion points around sectoral or domain issues. And so we know, for instance, that when it comes to particular issues of health, not everyone will be interested. When it comes to particular issues, for instance, maybe livelihoods, possibly it may not attract everyone. But at the same time, there are also certain things that are crosscutting. So what we do is to carefully look across the different sectors and the members that we have been engaging over a period to see whether this particular theme meets their own needs, especially in terms of the kind of work they are doing. And sometimes, even when we feel we may be doubtful as to whether this meets their interests, we sometimes consult them beforehand that this is what we are doing. I mean, are you interested in attending and all those kind of things? So I think fashioning the discussion points to meet the collective interest is very important. Then secondly, also, I think it’s the element of trust because we discuss a lot of issues. But when you discuss and nothing works, people may no longer feel confident to attend. And also people come – especially the city-level actors, especially the local and national-level actors – they come with a hope of getting knowledge, getting understanding. And the kinds of messages that we are giving out, is it something that they can trust to be able to possibly do their programming or that kind of work? I mean, are we just wasting their time? I think the element of trust goes toward also the kind of conversation we are going to open with them, discussing directly with the community residents. I mean, sometimes this generates a lot of challenges, especially in terms of organisations wanting to protect themselves or safeguard themselves. So what particular mechanisms do you put in place to ensure that what they say there stays there and does not go outside of there? But also there is the other element of timing of the event, because every organisation is so busy, everyone is so busy. So how do we ensure that we really schedule the events at a time that really meets the confidence of almost the majority? It may not be all, but at least it does not clash with many other engagements of the other actors. But also we have to be very careful that whatever topic we are going to discuss does not involve taking a political stance because as much as possible we have to be apolitical. Sierra Leone is very sensitive when it comes to politics and people won’t want to associate with anything that is political. So we have as much as possible to ensure that we are apolitical in our engagements. Also the principles of engagement is very, very great. It has been very useful, especially in terms of the elements it provides for us and the assurances it gives, especially in terms of the mutual respect that we endeavour to ensure, also the trusted relationships we endeavour to ensure. And also when people come, especially new members, they want to be sure that the ones that they are going to listen to are really experienced elites that are going to steer the discussion, the conversation and those who are going to present, especially on the critical topics that are being shared, whether they are experienced persons, especially in those particular areas, because they don’t want someone to waste their precious time. So more or less we ensure that all of these elements are really looked at. We may not exhaust all, but as much as possible, we try to ensure that these are really looked at to be able to ensure the participation of all.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much. My next question is, building on what you mentioned about having a non-partisan quality for political stance in the discussion, but broadly, what are the challenges and opportunities of the decentralisation, devolution and broader political, legal and planning regulations in Sierra Leone and Freetown, in particular, for pro-poor urban reform coalition building exercise?

Joseph Macarthy Well regarding the challenges and opportunities, of course, decentralisation and local government are a critical part of our political structure in Sierra Leone. Local councils are considered to be at the delivery end of the platform, in the sense that they are regarded as the highest development authority in their localities. Previously, local councils used to be the highest political authority, but now they are the highest development authority. And what that means is that the element of power seems to be removed a lot from local councils, and so being transferred to the national level. And within the communities, whilst development deficit is very, very key and people expect that when they vote, they are really voting for people to bring about change, in most informal settlements, there seems to be a disconnect between the residents and their political representatives, which means that most of them really in terms of having a voice at the national level, it’s a lot difficult. At the local level, yes, because they have councillors who represent them, even though sometimes the councillors may not live within the settlements, but I think the critical challenge has been really at the national level. Yes, there are a lot of laws, there are a lot of powers that are being exercised in terms of bringing about development. I think a critical challenge has been devolution. Devolution is a critical challenge to the effective functioning of city systems. People want water, people want better healthcare services and all those kind of things. Yes, within the committees, there are ward committees that are provided for by the local government act, which requires that local-level consultation on issues have to be made. But mostly these ward committees are a lot ineffective, which means that the councillor possibly is the major voice that comes from these communities, rather than the communities themselves discussing at what level to inform the councillors, what to take to those particular levels. So we have a number of laws that really exist within the broader development structure of the country and the city. One of these relates so much to even the laws regarding planning, which I was talking about, of which you don’t see the effectiveness, especially in terms of, for instance, translating the action area plans into effect, or the neighbourhood plans into effect. We don’t really see those driving change or being put into effect. And so some of these can exist but only on paper. There are also a lot of reforms taking place within the Land Ministry and there are also intended plans to drive change, especially in housing, because these two matter so much to informal settlements. With regarding water and electricity, there has been a lot of reforms. What is critical is that informality is a major part of our economic processes within the city. In terms of employment, in terms of residents, in terms of livelihoods, informality is a critical part. So its participation, especially in terms of these sectoral issues that are grounded so much in informality. To what extent is participation, especially in decisions regarding the functioning of these systems, how really is participation guaranteed so that the voices of the local people is being included into the kinds of actions? And I think the reason why the city systems have really not been functioning properly, which creates a lot of deficit, which the informalities have always been stepping into, that particular gap has been as a result of the lack of effectiveness in terms of these particular systems operating in ways that can really effect the kind of change that people want to see. More broadly, in terms of really organising coalitions for change, this is not effected so much in policy and it is only a matter of a kind of trial that different organisations within this work have been really working towards, because we think that given the current situation we have to re-organise, we have to re-examine what kind of actions we need to take, especially given the serious level of deficits. How can we ensure that even while participation may not be really guaranteed as such, how can we ensure that we open that particular space? How can we ensure that we do urban development but also the planning engagements in more different ways? So I think this reality is slowly gaining pace. And so therefore I think there is a whole lot of prospect for it.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much. Earlier, you highlighted that the local councils have become the highest development authority. Previously, they had the highest level of political authority, or the political authority was transferred back to the national level. Does this have any impact or what’s its effect on building urban pro-poor  reform coalition, like CLiP, or the community and city-level learning platforms.

Joseph Macarthy So like I was saying, we don’t really have specific laws for reform or that drives reform coalitions. These are only things that are being experimented by SLURC and a few other organisations working together with communities and the city authorities. So what I was saying is that yes, there is decentralisation, but at the same time there is some level of disconnect between the residents and their representatives. Of course, there is meant to be ward committees within the communities, within each of the wards there is meant to be a ward committee. But these ward committees have been a lot ineffective. And so what that means is that it gives a lot of leverage to the superior voice rather than so much consulting with the community. So at the level of the city, yes, there is some level of representation, even though it maybe a unilateral voice. But at the level of the national, this is what is really missing, because you have members of parliament who may not sit within these communities, but who represent the communities and the extent to which their deals are being really scaled up to the national level is a lot difficult. And the fact that devolution is really not very effective in Sierra Leone is really affecting the effectiveness of systems functioning. And so we have a situation where informality is driving so much of the economy and most of the sectors are saturated by informality. So whilst the public providers exist, they may not be serving the entire city. You have a significant share of the city population that really misses out of the formal services and therefore have to rely on other forms of provision. And so in terms of participation within the broader policies and even the laws that guide, for instance, access to land or issues about housing and all those kind of things, whilst participation may be provided for, exactly how people participate and the guarantees of participation is a lot missing. And so, in the absence of this, we have created the platform as a means of really holding some of the duty bearers kind of accountable. But at the same time, ensuring that we broker that particular gap that’s always existed in terms of the relationship, to ensure that there is what is also called informal settlements, and these are part of the city. And if we have to talk about inclusive cities, these are the kinds of conversations we need to start having. And these are the kind of issues that seems to be missed out, especially in terms of your delivery or your programming and all those kind of things. How can we better shape these things to reflect a more inclusive kind of city?

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much, Joseph. My final question is what’s the progress in identifying and strengthening a reform coalition that would capitalise on ACRC’s Freetown studies?

Joseph Macarthy Yeah, the ACRC study is anchoring into the city learning platform, which was created a few years back. The fact that the ACRC study focuses more on systems rather than isolated strands of engagement which are sectoral, but also a bit more on the political elements that underlie development, I think these are very fundamental to the city learning platform and it’s really reshaping the focus and driving a lot of attention, especially in terms of how do we ensure that we revitalise and make the reform coalition a lot more active in Freetown. And so in view of this, we have had the first ACRC city learning platform, which was held to more or less share some of the ideas that have been emerging from the work whilst looking forward to a final workshop sometime in May in Freetown, which now will bring together all the different actors to really showcase to them really the outputs but also the key learnings that have emerged. And this now will have to be driven at the domain level because, like I said, the domains in Sierra Leone are mostly sectoral and you wouldn’t want to come with someone who is not talking in housing, but who can be a major stakeholder to effect change. So how do we ensure that the different domains, the five domains that we are prioritising in Freetown, how do we build learning platforms around these, and ensure that we broker that relationship between the different audiences but also the different level of concerns, whether at the community level or also within the city? Because all of these people have, for instance, desire for health, they have desire for housing. How can we ensure that this is made better? We have huge challenges in Sierra Leone. How do we ensure that capacity is being built, and what are the key drawbacks that we need to be aware of, and how can we undertake these things in more different ways? Informal settlements are a major problem within the city and the idea of chaotic development, what kinds of actions do we need to undertake? Also, how can this be undertaken? So yeah, there is a whole lot of potential for driving this change and for building coalitions for reform, especially in a city where this has never been the practice before, which have only started in the last two to three years. So I think there’s a whole lot of potential. Thank you.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much. I have finished the questions that I prepared, but if you want to say something, your last message?

Joseph Macarthy Yeah, just to say that we were privileged to have had this particular study in Freetown, because having a political economy approach to the development issues in Sierra Leone not being really done at the urban level. And I think it was really eye-opening for us. And yeah, a lot of learning has taken place and also how do we ensure that the coalitions that we are forming really become really active and in which particular ways and what we need to be aware of and all those kind of things. I think it has really opened up the space for us. I think that’s some of the key issues.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much Joseph, for taking the time out of your busy schedule to discuss your experience in building and sustaining reform coalitions. Joseph, we will be looking forward for your presentation at the Urban Reform Coalitions conference to be held in Manchester between 13 and 15 of June, which is organised by ACRC in collaboration with the Manchester Urban Institute. Thank you very much for being with us.

Joseph Macarthy Okay, thank you very much.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you Joseph. You have been listening to the African Cities podcast. Remember to subscribe for more urban development insights and interviews from the African Cities Research Consortium.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Welcome to the African Cities podcast. I’m Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael, a postdoctoral researcher at African Cities Research Consortium. Today I’m joined by Dr George Masimba Nyama to discuss the experiences from Zimbabwe on coalition building for inclusive urban reform. This podcast interview is part of a mini podcast series produced in preparation for the Urban Reform Coalition conference to be held in mid-June in Manchester, organised by ACRC in collaboration with Manchester Urban Institute. My guest today, Dr George Masimba, is the director of programmes at Dialogue on Shelter, a support NGO for Slum Dwellers International-affiliated grassroots organisation called Zimbabwe Homeless People’s Federation. George also leads ACRC’s Harare City of Systems uptake and Informal Settlements domain research. Welcome, George.

George Masimba Thank you, Ezana.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael I’m glad to have you here and looking forward to our conversation. Just to kickstart our conversation and introduce our audience, what you do and which organisation you represent, please tell us what you and Dialogue on Shelter Trust do with Zimbabwe Homeless People’s Federation. And also briefly tell us your role and Dialogue on Shelter’s role in ACRC’s research in Harare.

George Masimba Once again, thank you, Ezana. So my name is George Masimba, as you have already stated, and I’m the director of programmes for an organisation called Dialogue on Shelter, which is an affiliate of Slum Dwellers International, the Zimbabwean affiliate. So basically Dialogue on Shelter works in partnership with the community-based organisation called the Zimbabwe Homeless People’s Federation and a youth network called Zimbabwe Young People’s Federation. And we are an alliance that works around, in general, urban poverty issues and, in particular, focusing on how to support communities in urban areas, particularly those coming from marginalised sections of the city, to have access, or improved access in fact, to urban services. And in relation to the ACRC work, Dialogue’s role has been to support four pillars, if I can put it that way. Firstly, we are focusing on the city of systems, which I lead, and we are also focusing, secondly, on the informal settlement domain, which somehow resonates with the work that we do in terms of our work in informal settlements. Then, thirdly, we are also championing or leading the uptake component. And, lastly, I’m also one of the co-leads for the ACRC research work in Harare. And in terms of our role under the ACRC programme in Harare, basically the way we see our role is that, as Dialogue – being a network that works with communities in informal settlements – our responsibility is to connect this research with the grassroots, connect this research with the experiences of the urban poor in cities. And I think that’s the biggest role that we are playing under the ACRC: providing our experience working in informal settlements, so that we can bridge the gap between the academic side of this research with the grounded experiences from the communities, from the informal settlements that we work with on a daily basis as part of the SDI network. Thank you.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much, George. That’s a lot of responsibility, but I cannot think of a better place for the research you are undertaking. Continuing with our discussion, may you please discuss a few examples of Zimbabwe’s SDI alliance – that is, Dialogue on Shelter Trust and Zimbabwe Homeless People’s Federation and Zimbabwe’s Youth Federation – its role in urban upgrading, housing improvement intervention implemented with various stakeholders, such as central government, civil society organisations or universities. I know you have done a lot, but a few examples.

George Masimba Okay. Thank you, Ezana. So maybe prior to that, I should mention that before these urban upgrading interventions, we have been engaging city governments, we’ve been engaging central government, in terms of trying to push for inclusive responses to the challenge of housing in urban areas, particularly focusing on the marginalised groups. So you will notice that prior to the period of participatory upgrading programmes, we would notice or would witness a lot of cases of exclusionary practices by cities, by central government, in terms of the use of demolitions as a way of responding to the challenge of urban informality. But through the work that we have done as an alliance engaging in sustained negotiations with the city, with the central government, we have been able to enter into relationships or memorandum of agreements, understanding with the city governments and central government around inclusive responses to the challenges that the urban poor face in cities. And as a result, in 2002, for example, we entered into an MOU with the City of Harare around an initiative that was dubbed Harare Slum Upgrading Programme. So this was a citywide informal settlement improvement programme that was anchored on resources that had been made available by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So through this programme, we were able to, for example, conduct citywide profiling of informal settlements as a way of ensuring that the city acknowledges that informal settlements are a reality. And also, secondly, as a way of building capacities within the communities, in terms of ensuring that they have information about their settlements, information about their communities, in terms of opportunities and gaps with relation to urban services. So after that exercise, that citywide exercise, we were then able to zoom in on a particular informal settlement and then rolled out an in-situ upgrading programme in one of the settlements, called Dzivarasekwa, with the city together and communities as a partnership. And that was very critical, because it was the first time when you now had the city partnering with informal settlers, together with civil society organisations, around an inclusive response programme to the challenge of informality. So it was a first, in some respects. And besides undertaking tangible responses in terms of improvement of water, sanitation, access to housing, we were able through this programme to also come up with some institutional frameworks that would then guide subsequent responses to informal settlements in other areas beyond just the pilot that we had focused on. So that’s one example, for instance. Then in another city, Bulawayo, which is the second capital, we’ve been able to partner with the local authority and in partnership with the National University of Science and Technology and the Zimbabwe Homeless People’s Federation. In fact, we signed an MOU again in 2015 before we could start the upgrading activities within the city. Someone may ask why signing MOUs? I think we believe it’s very key to have some institutional framework that then guides the kind of work that you want to undertake with the city. And also even when the officials that you are dealing with, for example, eventually leave office, at least you have some strategy or some institutional framework that would then guide similar responses, even with different officials that would have come into the city. So, following that, we went through a process of identifying informal settlements, then documented and mapped these informal settlements and followed by an intervention that again focused on a particular site, one of the sites that we had enumerated and profiled. And we started working around the upgrading of sanitation in that particular settlement, called Mabutweni and Iminyela. And the significance of this particular response is that besides providing or coming up with your hardware interventions around resolving issues to do with access to sanitation, we were also able then to connect these interventions with a conversation around improving the land tenure security situation in that particular settlement. And so we negotiated with the city that the improvements around sanitation would then pave way for  conversations, engagements around addressing long-term related issues, issues related to land tenure. So making sure that these communities would not face evictions, for example. So that’s the second one. And then the last one that I want to talk about is the Epworth upgrading, which  we started some time around 2009. Again, we came onto the table ourselves, Dialogue on Shelter, the CBO that we work with, Zimbabwe Homeless People’s Federation and the local authority, Epworth local board, together. In this particular case, we then also had central government, in terms of Ministry of National Housing, as well as local government and a private player, in terms of a consultant planner. So some bit of background. Epworth is an informal settlement, or largely informal, about 70% informal, with over 200,000 people. So it’s quite vast in terms of size. And so what we then did in terms of this upgrading, we first proposed an exchange visit to one of the SDI countries with experience around informal settlement upgrading. And we chose Kenya, because of the rich experiences that they have around this particular area. And we went to Kisumu with the officials from Epworth local board and communities as well as central government. And that was a very important visit, in the sense that it opened the opportunity for local authority and central government to see how others were dealing with the challenge of urban informality. That is, instead of resorting to evictions and demolitions, there was scope or opportunity to respond to this challenge in a more inclusive way – in this particular case, coming up with a range of participatory upgrading programmes that incorporate communities. So after that visit, we then came back and conducted a settlement-wide profile and mapping process. And remember I said this is an informal settlement, so there wasn’t no data, spatial data and even socioeconomic data within the official circles about the conditions in these settlements. So we were generating information that would then subsequently inform the Epworth-wide upgrading programme. So we did the surveys, door-to-door surveys, and then the profiles, and then the mapping with communities. I think the most important part is that the communities themselves were involved in this process, enumerating, leading the profiles, because in any case, they are the ones who live in these settlements, so they understand their realities, they understand the challenges in these settlements. They also understand, more importantly, the opportunities that are in these settlements. So the community was part and parcel of this entire process, with central government and local authority supporting and, more importantly, learning from these community members. And so we were able to enumerate, for example, about 6,636 households under this exercise, which then paved the way for an in situ informal settlement upgrading, targeting Epworth. And as we speak right now, the programme has managed to trigger similar processes, in other wards, besides the ward that we were targeting, that is Epworth ward 7, enabling communities that were previously living in conditions of land tenure insecurity to at least have security of tenure, in terms of their status in that particular settlement. So that’s what I can share in respect of the examples that we have undertaken as an alliance. Thank you.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much George. That was really interesting examples and my next question, you have touched upon it, because you mentioned that these interventions are not an end by themselves, but you want to change the laws or reform planning or the policy frameworks, using the examples of these interventions. In that regard, can you please elaborate on Dialogue on Shelter’s and the Federation’s efforts in scaling up these and other interventions, at the city level, or at the national scale? And in doing so, do you try to build an alliance not only with central and local government, but also other stakeholders?

George Masimba Thank you, Ezana. So that’s correct that alongside the upgrading activities that we have been undertaking as an alliance, we have also tied to them a component of making sure that we have the policy framework also dimensions being addressed by the work that we are doing. So, for example, under the Harare slum upgrading programme, for example, which we did in partnership with City of Harare, ourselves, the Zimbabwe Homeless People’s Federation and with the University of Zimbabwe coming in, in terms of that particular programme, so we also focused under this initiative on making sure that we come up with an institutional framework that then would support upgrading responses in the city, realising that the city had no framework or protocol that would guide informal settlement upgrading. And as a result of that, we in 2012 were able to come up with the Harare slum upgrading strategy. It’s part and parcel of the work that we’re doing under the Harare slum upgrading programme, which was very important, it created this framework, like I indicated earlier, that the city adopted, a policy on inclusive upgrading of informal settlements. So the city, as we speak right now, has what we call a Harare slum upgrading strategy, in addition to the hardware interventions that we have been doing. So the idea also is to make sure that we use the experiences and the learnings from the work that we are doing to inform some framework that then becomes part and parcel of the city’s institutional infrastructure that it uses to respond to similar challenges. And that’s one example that I can pick on in Harare. Then secondly, what we have also done as a way of making sure that we institutionalise these experiences and also even pave way for scaling, under the Harare slum upgrading programme, for example, we created what we termed a five city learning platform. What was this? Essentially it was a space or learning platform that brought together five cities that we were working with around this particular upgrading programme. So we identified, for example, Bulawayo City Council, we had Masvingo City Council, Kadoma City Council, Kariba and Epworth. So how were we handling this? We would have routine or periodic exchanges around the Harare slum upgrading programme with these other cities, and the logic was for them to learn and to create a space for sharing lessons, creating space for reflecting around the work that was going on in Harare, as a way also of ensuring that the local authorities that were on this learning platform would then potentially take up these experiences and use them in their own areas. So that was a way of making sure that the lessons under the Harare slum upgrading would then be potentially scaled in other spaces beyond Harare, through creating a learning space. So I think that’s the second one. Then, the way we have also approached upgrading programmes as an alliance is that alongside the interventions around water, around sanitation, around creating road networks, we have also included a very critical component around creating what we call city funds or core money to city funds and how do they contribute in terms of scaling, for example, in terms of institutionalising the work that we are doing. For example, in Harare and at the Harare slum upgrading programme, we were able to create what we called the Harare Slum Upgrading Finance Facility. And the reason, the rationale for creating this, was meant to ensure that beyond the investments that we’re undertaking through the support that had been made possible by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, would then be able to undertake interventions through this facility. So essentially creating a sustainability mechanism that would make it possible to scale the interventions into other areas  beyond the localities that we’re targeting. So that has been very important and how does this city fund, for example, operate?. So it’s co-funded, which means the city has put something into this, the communities have put something into this and ourselves as Dialogue on Shelter together with SDI have put something into this. And it’s also again, the first time that you are coming up with a financial vehicle that is composed of blended finance, which has incorporated within it, mechanisms for co-governance, accountability, etc, all that. So besides addressing issues of scale, the city funds are also a critical tool for promoting inclusive governance in our cities, considering that for a very long time the urban poor have not been part and parcel of the governance processes in cities. So that was key also in that respect. Then the final thing is that we have also led or undertaken processes of co-creating urban upgrading policy frameworks as a way of making sure that we are able to scale the activities that we have undertaken in a particular area. So these are some of the experiences or examples that I can think of, that speak to that desire and need within the alliance to ensure that the work that we’ve been doing in partnerships with local authorities can then be able to be scaled in other jurisdictions beyond where we would have undertaken some pilot.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much, George. On that point, what is the added value of building a coalition or partnership with a different public sector or NGO, civil society or other service-providing institutions with SDI affiliates, communities and, in general, urban informal settlement residents in Zimbabwe, in driving pro-poor and inclusive urban reforms? What advantage that working  in partnership with various stakeholders would bring in?

George Masimba Thank you for that question Ezana. So maybe one thing that I would say first is that the significance or the added value from these coalitions is that the coalitions, they help you to secure buy-in from central government, from local government. For example, you would have set up a coalition that brings together ourselves as the alliance, then you have central government, local government, and then you have the university. So through creating such a space, you create a whole new dynamic in terms of the engagement processes. And the city or  central government is more likely to listen to you when you have the university, for example, legitimising the work that you’ve done. So through that strategy, we think coalitions have been very instrumental in this phase, securing buy-in around the kind of approaches that we are pushing as part of the SDI network, and we think our collaborations with the academia have been very important, insofar as getting that support from the government, in terms of central and local government. So, firstly, securing buy-in. Then, secondly, the added advantage around coalitions has also been the idea or the notion of leveraging resources. Obviously, as a network, we have some resources that we have been directing towards, for example, upgrading, but the resources aren’t adequate, obviously. When I’m talking about resources, I’m also referring not only to financial resources, but I’m also referring to technical resources. So through building collaborations, through building coalitions with other partners – the state, private sector, including the academia – we’ve been able to leverage resources, for example, technical resources. The expertise that we’ve managed to secure from universities around research, for example, has been very key in terms of adding value to the coalitions or to the engagement processes with this stage. Then, besides securing buy-in and leveraging resources, we have also used these coalitions to create more voices around what we are pushing as an alliance. So, you now, beyond being yourselves, talking about the need for inclusion in cities, you’ve created a whole community of likeminded stakeholders that are echoing the same message that you have been pushing through central government, through local government, in terms of the need for a shift, the need for revisiting or relooking, the strategies that have been used to respond to the challenge of informal settlements. So you have more people adding onto your voices, in terms of clamouring for changes or shifts in terms of how we respond to  informal settlements. And that’s very key. And that is likely also to change the way the government would then listen to you, if they also hear the university say, “you know, we think evictions, demolitions no longer work, they are not sustainable”. That for us has been very key, in terms of changing the dynamics around how then the state responds. Then also another added value from the coalitions, I think it has provided us an opportunity to create some reflection space, where we sharpen our solutions, we sharpen our ideas, where we can freely engage with each other, and be willing to revisit some of the things that we have talked about for many years and say, “how do we adjust the kind of things that we have been pushing?” It could be strategies, etc.. So it has provided us with that critical space to reflect and readjust some of the strategies, some of the tools that we are using as part of the way we work as an alliance. So that’s very key, because the urban space has been very dynamic, things are changing. Perhaps what used to work some five years ago may no longer apply now. So it’s always important to have a network of individuals that are ready to share and reflect on what we consider solutions and see whether they really apply on the problems that we are facing as cities. And lastly, I think the collaborations with the university, they’ve also improved the quality of evidence that we are generating through the community-led enumerations profiling processes. So those collaborations have been very key in terms of even the translation of the evidence that we have been producing into some range of analytical products – it could be outputs, for example, journals, policy briefs. So we have managed to leverage on the expertise and skills of the different players that are within this coalition, so that we can reach out to as many people as can be possible, through adding value to the data that communities are generating on a daily basis through the enumerations. Thank you.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank very much for your very eloquent and detailed explanation. You have mentioned one of the key opportunities, but along with these opportunities, what have been the key challenges of  bringing together diverse partners, to stimulate inclusive urban reform from Dialogue on Shelter and the Federation’s experience?

George Masimba Thank you, Ezana. Yeah, I totally agree that besides the successes that we have witnessed under these collaborations, under these coalitions, we have also encountered some challenges in terms of the collaborations. For example, firstly, it has not been a part of urban development practice that communities play a very key role in terms of coming up with solutions to the challenges that they face. And yet under these coalitions, under these collaborations, as is SDI, as is Dialogue on Shelter and Zimbabwe Homeless People’s Federation, we are championing or pushing the fact or the view that communities should be part and parcel of these coalitions, because they provide the experience, in terms of what needs to be done and how it should be done. And yet, some of our colleagues may not have yet that experience in terms of providing space for communities, because they are schooled or they were taught that solutions come from professionals. So that obviously presents some contestations in terms of how you then work together as a coalition. And I’m happy to say that even though this was the case, these are some of the things that we then managed to get around, to solve. And how do you solve them on a very practical level? How do you address these anxieties that other professionals may have? So, for instance, as part of these coalitions, one of the things that we have included is providing or making room for community exchange visits, where we bring along these professionals, so that they can see what the communities are doing back in their settlements. And that’s very key in terms of changing mindsets. That’s very key in terms of creating confidence amongst these professionals that communities, after all, they have the capacity to transform their neighbourhoods, in as much as they may not have gone to the universities, but communities are actually universities where professionals can actually learn, in terms of how to respond to the multiplicity of challenges that they face in the informal settlements. So that’s one area, the role of communities in these coalitions. And then secondly, when you bring a number of players on the same chessboard, they are collaborating around a particular agenda, I think there’s always initially some level of suspicion, in terms of what’s driving this party, what’s the interest behind them coming on board? You don’t know at the onset and it’s only after you’ve travelled together over some some period of time that some confidence and comfort is created around these coalitions. And it’s something that we have learnt through the various collaborations that we are having here with central government, with the academia, with private sector, that in the very beginning there’s obviously some level of suspicion. But as you move along, it’s something that you then manage to address. Then, thirdly, something which is also obvious, when you bring together different parties, they are also inspired by different ideologies. They are also coming from institutions that have different approaches. And that also presents some challenges, in terms of how do you then harmonise these different approaches into some kind of common approach, or common agenda that you begin to push as a collective? And it’s no easy task to get around that – it takes a lot of time, it takes a lot of engagement, until you get to a point where you agree in terms of how should be the urban question addressed. So that’s another area also, how do you then harmonise different institutional approaches, so that you can all be working towards one goal as a collective? So that’s the one. Then, last but not least, in terms of challenges around these reform coalitions, the issue of financial resources. I think, in terms of the donor landscape, there hasn’t been, I guess, sufficient resources that are directed towards supporting financially reform coalitions, collaborations. I think there’s an interest towards supporting interventions. But I am not convinced there is equal interest in terms of supporting collaborations or coalitions that then help to undertake interventions. So that presents a challenge, in terms of how to then sustain these coalitions in the absence of resources, in the absence of financial resources. Because it takes resources, for example, to host a seminar, to do research, etc., all  that. So that’s one area that also needs to be addressed, in terms of generating sufficient interest within the donor community, in terms of saying that it’s equally important to finance spaces that promote reflection, spaces that promote learning, so that you then use those lessons, those experiences to ultimately undertake the interventions that we do as different organisations. Thank you.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much George. You have really highlighted the most pressing challenges that need to further work on and further analyse. Again, dealing with one of the challenges in such platforms, when you involve different public, private and civil society organisations, there is always power asymmetry among coalition members. So from your experience, what are the mechanisms that are put in place to ensure that the demands of informal settlement residents are seriously considered and to enhance their bargaining power during those negotiations or platforms.

George Masimba Thank you, Ezana. I totally agree with you that whenever you have collaborations, whenever you have reform coalitions, indeed there are power imbalances, power asymmetries that are associated with coalitions. And how have we handled that as an alliance, in terms of dealing with that challenge? So, for example, what we have done is that most of the collaborations that  we have anchored or supported by an MOU, for example, an agreement, for example, which is signed by all the parties, including communities. And that’s very important, because by ensuring that communities are on the table, you are also making a statement in terms of them being recognised that they are an equal partner, just like your professionals, just like your central government, your local government. So those MOUs, they’ve also been critical in terms of defining how you relate, in terms of the different parties that have come together around that particular coalition. Then secondly, and related to that, what we’ve also done in terms of our experiences around the reform coalitions or coalitions that we have built as an alliance, is that we’ve also set up committees, for example, around the work that we will be doing around the projects that we will be undertaking. For example, under the Harare slum upgrading programme that I spoke about earlier, we created what we called the project management committee, which was overseeing the work that we were doing as a collective. And under that project management committee we had representatives drawn from the different organisations. So you had your city, ourselves, the communities coming together, being part and parcel of the structure that we created. So creating structures that become institutionalised around the collaborations, the coalitions, is also key, because then you are also defining specific roles and obligations for all the parties that are involved. And we did the same with the other upgrading programmes that I mentioned earlier, in terms of creating that structure that brings together all the parties, including communities being represented, as a key stakeholder, bearing in mind that the central government, local government, ordinarily they would not have recognised communities. So if you then go a step further and create structures that include communities, I think it’s also very key. But I also admit that having structures alone is not enough. You need to have structures that then are operationalised, in terms of making sure that you stick to the agenda, you stick to the way in which you have agreed, in terms of ensuring that all the parties to this collaboration are equal. So that’s what we have done. Then secondly, we have also used the exchange programmes, exposure programmes or learning visits as a way of addressing the power imbalances that may take place within these collaborations. And how have we gone about that one? So, for example, in terms of the learning, when you create a learning space, that is hosted by the communities, in communities, in informal settlements, where you have people learning or hearing stories about how communities have transformed their neighbourhoods through bringing in water, through bringing in sanitation and creating roads, and all this happening within the communities, not at the university, not at the town halls. I think that changes also the whole dynamics around engagement and ultimately dynamics around power. So you’ve taken these officials away from their offices with their air conditioners and you have put them in an informal settlemen, where they are seated under a tree, listening to stories from these communities. That also is a way of changing the core dynamics around power. And we think it has contributed significantly in terms of creating confidence within communities that we are, after all, we are equals. They may be officials, but who we are also equally contributing solutions towards the challenges that the city is facing. So those are some of the examples that I can think of that have contributed towards addressing potential power imbalance issues. And maybe, lastly, I can also talk about the issue of contributions by communities through savings, the contributions towards what I talked about, area city funds, all that has a role in terms of realigning power issues. When you have communities that have come on to the table not with empty hands, but with resources through the savings that they’ve put together under the saving schemes or under the Federation networks, that changes also the dynamics of engagement, because they are not coming in begging the city, but they are also saying “this is what we are contributing towards transforming our neighbourhoods”.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael And also, the community organisation that comes with the saving groups. Another challenge is that even within the informal settlement communities and other excluded groups, there is always conflict of interests, conflict of or diverging aspirations. So what is the experience of Zimbabwe SDI Alliance in identifying widely supported reform proposals among the diverse communities, and presenting that reform proposal to policymakers and other partners and other decisionmakers?

George Masimba Thank you Ezana. True, whenever you are pushing a particular reform agenda, in terms of urban upgrading, for example, you are bound to encounter some challenges, because there are also a multiplicity of interests that may be indeed divergent. And we have some experiences or examples that I can talk to in terms of that one. So I will give an example for Epworth, the Epworth upgrading programme, for example, which we started in 2009. And so we were pushing for an in-situ upgrading programme that would result in regularisation of this informal settlement. And we proposed a settlement-wide enumeration that would document each and every household. And in this settlement, so we had landlords together with their tenants. And what we discovered was that the landlords were not very keen to have the tenants recognised in this upgrading programme. Why? Because one of the conditions of the upgrading was that the plot sizes would be reduced. So in order to accommodate, for example, infrastructure, your sewer, your water and road networks, you had to reduce the plot sizes because then people had staked sizes like 1,000, 4,000 square metres. And the upgrading was coming in at a cost, so to speak, in terms of the sizes of the plots and, one, with the need to include the infrastructure but also even the tenants, we were arguing as an alliance that the fact that these are community members who’ve have been part and parcel of this settlement, they actually also signify a demand for housing. In other words, they are genuine home seekers that do not have anywhere to call home. But because the communities linked this with the idea that their plots were going to be reduced in size and yet they’d been used for years to these massive plots, it created some bit of tensions and we had to go through a series of negotiations, engagements with these communities. For example, we were arguing that if we are to proceed with this upgrading, one thing that we are surely assured of is that it’s going to improve your security of tenure. But if we are not to proceed with the upgrading, then your tenure will remain insecure. So we went through a process of negotiating that, until we had to agree with this community, supported of course, with the local authority. So that’s one example where people had divergent views, in terms of the plot sizes, in terms of pushing for an in situ informal settlement upgrading in the case of Epworth. Then I will also cite another example in one of the settlements here in Harare in Dzivarasekwa, under the Harare slum upgrading programme, where we noticed some different interests also clashing to a certain extent. So, for example, under that particular project that we are undertaking with City of Harare, the proposal was to go the densification route. And in this particular case, it meant building vertically, building upwards, instead of horizontal. We had to reserve some plots where we were making a proposal together with the city that in order to maximise space, let’s go up. And we had resistance from the communities and obviously the resistance is also as a result of cultural issues that are unique perhaps to our society, where when you talk about land tenure security, when you talk about land access, people want to really exactly point to these four pegs, that I own this particular plot and people are not used to the idea of going up in multistorey buildings. So people were very, very much against the idea. They resisted the idea of going up, densifying, which would have ultimately increased the number of beneficiaries for that particular project. So this is just meant to share with you some of the challenges that you need to navigate around, negotiate around with the community, until you get to a point whereby you agree on something. And we eventually, in the case of Dzivarasekwa, we ended up densifying horizontally instead of densifying upwards. So we ended up having cluster houses, rather than having multi-storey residential buildings. So those are some of the examples that I can give in this particular case. Another example, also from a project that we did in a high density settlement called Crowborough North in Harare – again, it involved issues to do with densification. Why densification? Because access to land is very difficult. There’s so much demand for land here in Harare, being the capital, and also densification on the basis that considering the communities that we work with, it would be affordable for these communities to go the densification route. So again, we also encountered differences, divergent interests, with some group of members saying “no, we want a single plots”, whereas we were pushing for, as a collective that “let’s densify and create two plots from a single plot”, resulting in each household having 150 square metres from a 300 square metre plot. So those are some of the experiences that I could share in terms of some of the challenges that we encountered through these upgrading programmes in terms of reform coalitions. Thank you.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you, George. One interesting thing in my stay in Harare that I saw was the urban informality forum. Can you please tell us about the urban informality forum? What’s the rationale of establishing it? Who are the participants and what’s its contribution and what has been planned going forward?

George Masimba Thank you, Ezana. So in 2018, ourselves, the Alliance of Dialogue on Shelter together with Zimbabwe Homeless People’s Federation and the Planning School from the University of Zimbabwe and a private consultant company called Development and Governance Institute, and Shelter Homeless Trust, we came together and set up what we called the urban informality forum. Essentially it’s a reflection space, it’s an urban lab, where we periodically meet and reflect around a whole range of urban themes that are relevant for Zimbabwe in general and Harare in particular. And also, more importantly, we saw this space as an opportunity to have conversations around policy and, more specifically, policy related to informal settlement upgrading, because as a country we don’t have a protocol or a framework that governs or speaks to issues of inclusive, informal settlement upgrading. So we see this space as a very critical platform that can allow us to engage with different actors, pull together ideas and insights that can potentially inform institutional frameworks such as the National Regularisation Framework that I made reference to. So that’s one element also. Then, secondly, we also use the space to talk about issues to do with research, to build a body of evidence that helps to back some of the arguments that we have been talking about in terms of the need for inclusion, the magnitude and scale of informality in the city and also even bringing in different insights from various global experiences that we are connected to as part of the SDI network. So that’s how we have been utilising the space. And in terms of the specific activities that we have done, for example, we have held close to ten seminars using this urban informality forum, where we have identified a range of different topics, where we invite different speakers to present. And amongst the speakers that we’ve heard, for example, we’ve heard speakers from central government, speakers from local governments, City of Harare in particular. We give them a topic, so that they can share, for example, the city’s position regarding informal settlements. For example, the city is currently talking about regularisation. We requested the city to share with the stakeholders in terms of what’s the kind of regularisation that they are talking about? What does it entail? What is motivating the regularisation? So inviting the city to this space, where they talk about their approaches, their experiences, and then the stakeholders, the participants engage with the city around some of the things that it’s pushing or it’s driving, in a very comfortable, non-confrontational space, where the city hopefully can take some of the ideas that come from these engagements. And the same applies with central government. We have invited, for example, the Deputy Minister of National Housing to present on informal settlement issues in the country, and as a result of that particular seminar, the Ministry then invited the urban informality forum to spearhead the formulation of the framework or protocol on slum upgrading regularity by coming up with the concept paper, essentially, which defines the scope of what should ultimately encompass the regularisation framework for informal settlements. So that’s how we have been utilising this space. It also has been helping communities, more importantly, communities coming onto this space, making presentations about their experiences, in terms of the work that they’ve done around informal settlement upgrading or the data that they’ve collected around the challenges that they face with respect to access to water, sanitation and many other things. So having communities presenting to city officials, central government officials and academics is one way through which we have used this space. And the significance of that is that it has also been able to inform curricula at the university and also helping enable students to have a feel of what is happening in informal settlements. Because nowadays students do not have the opportunity, for example, to get into the field, understand the realities in these informal settlements, and yet they are being taught to be planners, to be engineers, etc., all that. And having a space where you bring a whole lot of stakeholders coming together helps in terms of enriching the kind of courses that are being taught at the university. So it is also been useful in that regard.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you, George. One final question that I have is, as you know, the theory of change of ACRC is strengthening and building reform coalitions. In that regard, the ACRC Harare study, what’s the progress in terms of identifying and sensing reform coalitions that will capitalise on the ACRC Harare city study?

George Masimba Thank you Ezana. So what we have done under the ACRC programme here in Harare is I mentioned earlier, that as Dialogue on Shelter we are also leading in terms of the uptake work. And the conversation that we are having today has some very strong connection to the uptake work that we are working on, as Dialogue on Shelter. So under the ACRC programme in Harare, we have created, for example, a platform that brings together different stakeholders with the main key stakeholders in the City of Harare. So we have a team of professionals from the City of Harare that we engage with on a routine, regular basis around the work that we are doing under ACRC. So the importance of that is that the City will not eventually come at the end of the study, but the City has been part and parcel of the study from the very onset. And they are also involved intimately in terms of feeding back into the processes that we are undertaking here in Harare. So that has been very crucial, creating a space, a platform composed of the different departments from the City of Harare and beyond that, also, even stakeholders, likeminded stakeholders from university, for example, and even central government, they have been part of the conversations that we are having as we begin to think of how do we ensure that the findings, the insights that are coming from this research that we are doing here in Harare and at the ACRC programme, can be translated into tangible benefits for the residents in Harare, can be used to then transform the neighbourhoods that we have in Harare who do not have access to water, who do not have land tenure security, who do not have access to improved sanitation. So we have created this space, this platform, that is led by a technical team from the city, together with other stakeholders, where we periodically meet, engage with the different researchers presenting their findings, the city challenging some of the findings that are coming. And then we have some conversation, so that ultimately the city can then say “this is our study”. Because eventually that’s what should happe – that the ACRC work in Harare should contribute towards enabling the city to address the structural problems that it is facing, in terms of providing services to its resident. So one step towards that is making sure that the city is right at the core of this process, and that space has enabled that to happen.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael Thank you very much George, for taking the time out of your busy schedule to discuss your experience in building and sustaining reform coalitions. George, we’ll be looking forward for your presentation at the Urban Reform Coalition conference to be held in Manchester between the 13th and the 15th of June, which is organised by ACRC in collaboration with Manchester Urban Institute. Thank you very much, George.

George Masimba Thank you for having me Ezana.

Ezana Haddis Weldeghebrael You’ve been listening to the African Cities podcast. Remember to subscribe for more urban development insights and interviews from the African Cities Research Consortium.