Table of Contents

CHAPTER 2LITERATURE REVIEW2.1.Introduction2.2.Historical Background of Informal Settlements in South Africa2.2.1. Legacy of Apartheid2.2.2.National Housing Policy2.3.Reconstruction Development Programme (RDP)2.4.People Housing Process (1998 – 2008)2.5.New Housing Policy, Breaking New Ground Policy (2004)2.6.Neo-liberal Informal Settlements Solution2.6.1. Case Study: Informal Settlement in South East Europe2.6.2. Informal settlements in countries with economies in transition 2.6.3.Case Study: The World Bank. Kenya Informal Settlements Improvement2.7.South African Experience2.7.1.Case Study: Informal settlement in the Vaal region, South Africa2.7.2.Case Study: Joe Solve Informal Settlement, South Africa2.9.Chapter SummaryCHAPTER 2LITERATURE REVIEW2.1 Introduction Chapter one provided guidelines on what the research was all about, the research method, choices and the research question. This chapter intendes to further the research by obtaining the use of a literature review which focuses on the process of eradication of informal settlement. The aim is to identify similarities and lessons from other African and global communities which can be compared to Alexandra and Diepsloot. The chapter also looks at living conditions in informal settlements around South Africa with more focus on Alexandra and Diepsloot and Internationally. The South African housing and land policies before and after apartheid are also being looked at with the sole aim of identifying the origin of informal settlements, and what went wrong since the dawn of democracy in 1994. The chapter also highlight the role of spatial planning pre and post 1994, the interventions that can be played by spatial planning to eradicate informational settlement in future.Thus, in order to define the research problem clearly, a preliminary literature review was conducted. The reviewed literature consists of various Apartheid Laws on Human Settlement. The aim now is to advance the research by reviewing attempts previously made to answer the research question. The review focused on the actual causes of informal settlements in City of Johannesburg, the legislations and the practical actions both quantitative and qualitative done about since the dawn of apartheid to now. The review also covers available guides and monitoring of the informal settlement trends in the City of Johannesburg.2.2 Historical Background of Informal Settlements in South AfricaApartheid is a system that called for different developments for different racial groups. In South Africa the system was designed to benefit “white” minority group hence most of the developments were directed towards this group. During apartheid, racial groups were only allowed to find accommodation in an area designated according to their race and the state determined whether they qualified (Morris, 1998). Land, housing and basic services which included roads, electricity, water and sanitations were allocated or meant for particular racial groups and the subsequent results of that can be noticed today by the numbers of undeveloped areas which can easily be referred to as informal settlements. Informal settlements can be defined as area where people stay without any form of planning and during apartheid black we forced to stay in such areas. Black people were forcibly and horribly removed from their land and relocated to areas with no access to water, electricity and sanitation (Wickeri, 2004). In 1994 South Africa saw the downfall of the inhumane apartheid system and the beginning of the new democratic system which came up with its own promises which included included “housing for all” (Wickeri, 2004). The democratic system provided hope for all especially black people who have been living in appalling conditions, but 25 years later South Africans still face housing crisis from one province to another, resulting in an increase in informal settlements. Urban migration has also not assisted in alleviating the housing crisis as more people are moving closer to or to the cities looking for access to better opportunities ((Huchzermeyer, 2006). A promise of better life for by democratically elected leaders has not yielded the expected results as millions of South Africans especially blacks continue to face housing crisis, the result is continuing increase in informal settlements (DAG, 2007). In 1994 after being democratically elected to power, the ANC lead government-initiated housing policy known Redistribution Development Program, commonly known as the “RDP”. The program promised to deliver 1 million houses within the first five years of its implementation (Del Mistro, et al., 2009). In 2002, 12.7% of all households lived in 10 informal structures and units increased to 15.9% in 2005 and declined slightly to 14.5% in 2006 (Statistics, 2007). Currently, according to Statistics South Africa more people are live in formal housing versus informal settlement, as compared to 14.5% in 2006, there has been a slight declined to 13.1% (Statistics, 2019). There is a clear indication that history of the apartheid era is slowly been reversed through different interventions by democratically elected government. But to fully understand the background of informal settlements in South Africa one should at the different stages in the history of this country that gave birth to informal settlements, this understand will assist us in answering the key question that is being asked in the research – Will Informal Settlements in Johannesburg ever end.2.2.1. Legacy of ApartheidThe brutal and horrific forced removals of black to undesirable land which had no means of production is the main legacy of apartheid. Blacks were forcibly moved to what came to be known as homelands, where they had to live in overcrowded areas with no electricity and other basic human needs. When the country started to experience both mining and industrial growth, African workers become a demand (Parnell and Hart, 1999). Blacks started migrating to areas and cities where all these opportunities were available, creating overcrowded shantytown settlements around cities (Mkhondo 1993). The apartheid system initially segregated people according to the races, but after migration of certain races especially blacks, the 1923 Urban Areas Act was extended into segregating races by cities, restricting African residency in urban areas. The aim of the act was to alienate migrant labour from their land and resources, and this contributed inequality which can be noticed by the current informal settlements.The apartheid economy was based on mining development, agriculture and cheap electricity from coal (South African National State of Environment Report, 2003), in ensuring that blacks to have access to land that has all this economic activities, the Land Act of 1913 was extended to deny property rights to Africans who had purchased land prior to the 1913 Act and moved them to reserves.Various townships were established which today in the eyes of many South Africans are regard as urban areas but in actual fact that were established under Urban Areas Act of 1923 which gave Africans the right to only reside in slumps called townships. The Urban Areas Act of 1923 was introduced together with the terrible pass law intended to separate populations, manage urbanisation and migrant labour (Morris, 1998). Under pass law millions of South Africans were arrested and prosecuted, this law not only segregated populations but only also controlled freedom of movement. This is apartheid legacy, this legacy grossly contributed to the current informal settlements which is slowly being reversed by the democratic government and policy.2.2.2.National Housing PolicyDifferent housing policies adopted by South Africa to eliminate or reduce informal settlement can be identified Prinsloo (1995), though most of them did reduced informal settlement but could not completely eradicate informal settlement.Self-help housing scheme – The Development Bank of South Africa (DBSA) (1994) and Rodell and Skinner (1983) explain self help housing scheme as a method of housing whereby where household in the urban areas which are either employed or have means of resources especially capital can improve their living conditions by building their own homes without any for of subsidy or compensation from the government Sites-and-services housing schemes – is whereby basic infrastructure such as roads, sanitation and lights are minimum requirements where the land or plots will either be leased or owned for human settlements (Srinivas, 2009). The World decided to support this approach (Van der Linden, 1986:18), but the approach existed even before their support Mass housing programs – construction of multiple public housing units (Prinsloo, 1995). Township such as Letlhabile, Mabopane, GaRankuwa in the Brits area examples of mass housing programs. Mass formal housing was constructed in the form of four-roomed ‘matchbox’ houses, at the same time as self-help approaches were being promoted (Lupton and Murphy, 1996, Parnell and Hart, 1999). Mass housing programs were subsidised by government and initially were meant for government employees such as teachers and nurses but at a later stage they were even ordinary citizens were allowed to have such houses.Informal housing – This approach can either reduce informal settlement or can contribute to the problem. This takes places in areas residential areas not designated by government, people can occupy the land and build houses using self-help approach and at a later stage the government will recognise the areas and provide basic human settlements service, or the area can become a complete failure and contribute to the informal settlements where people live in shacks without and form of basic services As can be seen from above, several approaches have been considered to solve the informal settlements but by based on research and other literature, the challenge could not be resolved most of them have as most are focusing on the project-oriented instead of support-oriented housing intervention (Huchzermeyer, 2004a).2.3.Reconstruction Development Programme (RDP)It was in 1994 during a SABC election campaign debate live on television between Nelson Mandela the ANC president and the FW de Klerk that the word RDP was introduced to the country. During the debate Mr Nelson Mandela had the Reconstruction Development Programme which he introduced as a programme that will change South Africans life especially the black, and he requested Mr de Klerk to show what was the National Party Plan (Mackay, 1995: 136). Basically, RDP was the ANC Manifesto during the 1994 elections and the main aim was to address socio economic issues.In 1994 ANC won the election, the RDP was introduced as plan that was aimed at reversing and re-addressing the legacy of apartheid which included the housing issues, this gave birth to what was commonly known as “RDP houses”. As per of an election campaign, the ANC promised to at least build 1 million RDP houses on its first as a party in government (Mistro,2009). These houses were to be fully subsidised by government and they will be provided to the poor of the poorest. Those who can afford to build houses of better quality as compared to the cheap houses by government or buy already built houses they would also qualify for a government subsidy. Between 1994 and 2001, the ANC government managed to build over 1.1 million RDP. This was way below the promised target but at least 5 million poor families who used to leave in shacks were accommodated (Metagora, 2006). More houses could have been delivered to probably 12 million families between 1994 and 2001, but corruption within the system practically brought what could have reverse the legacy of apartheid to a halt. Cheap materials were used build the houses which later were seen with cracks, some projects were left unfinished as the service providers were used funds that were meant for the project for their own personal needs. The system was full of greedy people who were ultimately never interested in eliminating the informal settlements in the country. Also the RDP projects came with a concept of “Free on everything”, free housing, free electricity, free water etc, this concept made people to become by standers and expect the government to pay for everything. On country that was facing economic decline, the government was never going to be able to continue with subsiding everything with a decline in tax collection, and the RDP project was stopped, and new housing policy and plan had to be developed (Goodland 1996) 2.4.People Housing Process (1998 – 2008)The ANC worn election to govern for the second period and having learnt that RDP projects was unsustainable, a new policy was adopted in 1998 called the “People Housing Process” – PHP. During Peoples Housing Process, the government supported individual families or groups who wished to enhance their subsidy by organising, planning, designing, and building their own houses and their contribution is sweat equity as opposed to hiring a contractor (Sindisiwe, 2012).The PHP was aimed at the following (S.A Yearbook, 2002/3).:mobilising and supporting community effort facilitating access to subsidies in appropriate ways to support people’s housing initiativepromoting the most cost-effective use of resourcesfostering partnership between all level of government: civil society, public sector, and other players regularising settlements and create secure tenure building capacity and skills whenever required promoting culture of saving – Facilitating maximal transfer of skills for economic upliftmentThe PHP had a minimal financial burden on the government as it was mostly funded by United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the UN Centre for Human Settlement, and the US Agency for International Development (S.A Yearbook, 2002/3). But during the PHP process, the country experienced a spike in protests, with people demanding free houses and free electricity. PHP process was never not communicated clearly as compared to RDP and the people were still under the impression that RDP was still a government policy. South Africa population was also growing, unemployment was increasing, and urban migration was on the rise resulting in more informal settlement both in the urban and the rural areas. The PHP process could not do what RDP did and did not come closer in reducing informal settlement, hence the rhetoric by politicians that live was becoming worse and worse for South Africans under the government of the ANC.2.5.New Housing Policy, Breaking New Ground Policy (2004)In 2004, the Department of Housing declared to eradicate informal settlements in South Africa by 2014 following the unprecedented housing backlog, proliferation of informal settlements, social exclusion and the inability of municipalities to provide basic infrastructure to the urban poor households. The 2004 declaration came with the release of the BNG policy which acknowledges the constraints of the Housing Act 107 of 1997 namely the PHP.The BNG document of the DoH released in 2004 seek to achieve seven unique objectives (DoH, 2004a):to speed up the delivery of housing as a plan for poverty alleviationusing housing development as a major job creation planensuring that property can be accessed for wealth creation and empowermentinfluencing growth in the economycombating crime, advancing social cohesionencouraging the functioning of the whole single property market to reduce duality within the housing sectorusing housing as a tool for the creation of sustainable human settlementsThe BNG document was a detailed document which included the upgrading of informal settlement (UISP) which can be defined broadly as the formalization of settlement in the residents’ original locations (Van Horen, 2000). But in South Africa most of the government policies, implementation of policies is a big concern and failure. Researchers such as McLean (2006) state that even after the adoption of the BNG since 2004, the poor are still being located on the urban outskirts. Instead, the BNG implementation focused mostly on social housing, or ‘medium-density housing’ for enhancing mobility and advancement of urban integration (ibid.: 55-30). Basically, the BNG also has not being able to solve or eradicate the informal settlement because of it being focused on social houses which costs more and unaffordable to their poor, giving rise to informal settlements. Some sector of the county refer the BNG as policy for the black middle class and not for the poor. Since 2004, protests in poor urban areas in South Africa have continued to rise, reaching a historical high in 2014 (Powell et al. 2015). These protests are indicative of the ‘governance deficit’ (van Donk 2012) within local government, where ‘meaningful community participation in socio-economic development remains elusive’ (Tissington 2012: 51).2.6.Neo-liberal Informal Settlements Solution2.6.1. Case Study: Informal Settlement in South East EuropeGenerally, one might believe that informal settlements are a South African phenomena or even African phenomena but in fact it is a global phenomenon. According to UNECE Report (2015), informal urban settlement is not a new issue for Europe; the southern part of the continent has long dealt with this problem. However, over the last 25 years, informal settlements have become an increasingly urgent matter in theUnited Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) region.Due to an increase in political tension in Eastern Europe and soviet countries, a spike in informal settlement was realised together with an increase in poverty, political conflicts and destructions of infrastructures. At the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG)/UNECE conference held in 2007 in Greece, it was estimated that more than 50 million people lived in informal settlements in the UNECE region. The bigger challenge in Eastern Europe was that these informal settlements were never registered making it difficult for European government to intervene and solve the issues and therefore in 2007 Greece conference governments we encouraged to embark on solution to register the informal settlements so that data can be collected and solutions to eradicate the problem can be developed.The registration included the following (UNECE, 2015)2.6.2. Informal settlements in countries with economies in transition 2.6.3.Developing country case – eg Kenya, India, etc2.7.South African Experience2.7.2.Case Study2.7.2.Case Study2.7.3.Case Study