The former director of SDI (forthwith referred to as ‘National Treasury Official’) who was instrumental in developing and coining the approach, was interviewed to develop a deeper understanding of the origin and methodology of reblocking. This chapter is largely based on his comments and an assessment conducted by Heyer (2015) of reblocking in CoCT.
In explaining the emergence, intention and original model of reblocking, the interviewee emphasised that the process is flexible and one cannot be too rigid in applying it. Instead he noted the following four core building blocks of the SDI reblocking approach:
The first and most important building block is that reblocking is “grounded in community organisation/ mobilisation” (National Treasury Official, personal communication, 25.08.2018). The need for strong grassroots organisations and civil society was discussed in Chapter 3. Although reblocking is critiqued for its inability to scale up due to “cost, time and space limitations” (Heyer, 2015:73) it was concluded that its major strength lies in the process itself, and specifically the mobilisation tools (Heyer, 2015). These include savings groups, enumeration, surveys and mapping. It was found that the mobilisation tools have immense potential to establish social capital and build citizenry (Heyer, 2015). “Re-blocking demonstrates that collaborative planning is possible even with poor and marginalized groups, as long as these are strong and mobilized” (Heyer, 2015:75). For this reason, she claims that the reblocking “process is more important than the product” (Heyer, 2015:73, emphasis added).
The National Treasury Official emphasised that there is a need to agree the following before moving ahead with reblocking: that the particular settlement will be reblocked, and on the proposed layout
41 | P a g e including the opening up of service roads for the provision of emergency services. Last but not least, the community is intended to participate in implementation (Perold and Devisch, 2014).
The second building block is participatory planning. The role of planners, NGO’s and the City must shift “from top-down planning and creating solutions for communities to creating them with communities” (Heyer, 2015:77) and layout planning should be undertaken by working with the community. Reblocking of a settlement is typically undertaken in clusters, as identified by the community (Perold and Devisch, 2014).
“By letting communities decide on layouts, the project goals, and also labour distribution the micro dynamics are in focus yet also acknowledging the communities’ need to be mobilized and economically stabilized in order to change their marginalized position in the long term” (Heyer, 2015:71).
The SDI model recommends for realignment to be such that courtyards are created (National Treasury Official, personal communication, 25.08.2018). In very dense settlements there may be a need to reduce plot and house sizes to allow for roads, a process that will require negotiation of trade-offs (National Treasury Official, personal communication, 25.08.2018). Heyer’s second great praise for reblocking is with regard to the “creation of open space which can be overviewed and shared”
(2015:74).
It was found that the basis of community mobilisation, together with a more ‘communal’ layout and collaborative implementation, fosters cohesion and self-awareness (Heyer, 2015). This, in turn, makes communities more critical towards their environment (Heyer, 2015) and they are more likely to start holding leadership accountable.
The third building block is the contribution of community savings to the project. In the SDI model, the Alliance usually finances the initial improvements. According to Fieuw and Mitlin (2017), there have been informal settlement communities in the past that contributed between ten and twenty per cent of project funds. In this way, community savings have been used to leverage government investment, equal to up to four times the Alliance’s initial investment (Fieuw and Mitlin, 2017).
Heyer’s (2015) research revealed that the savings-based model advocated by SDI is met with much resistance. She says it can be difficult for an informal settlement community suffering from poverty and hunger and a lack of education to “understand and especially except the requirements and time-cost intensiveness reblocking takes for them” (Heyer, 2015:72).
The ethos of savings groups originated from the Indian SDI alliance, born in the absence of housing rights in the Indian Constitution (India, 2017). Tomlinson found that “few communities in South Africa perceive the need to organise due to government’s free housing”, their rights as enshrined in the Constitution, “and the location of informal settlements not attracting the attention of…property developers” (2017:12). Despite the non-delivery of housing, this sense of entitlement coupled with de facto tenure security makes him question the relevance of savings groups in the South African context (Tomlinson, 2017).
42 | P a g e The fourth and final vital building block is education. The SDI model emphasises the importance of educating councillors with regards to the intention and approach of reblocking (National Treasury Official, personal communication, 25.08.2018). It was mentioned during the interview that councillors were particularly opposed to the idea of reblocking when it was first introduced and that their buy-in is critical lest it becomes a stumbling block later on (National Treasury Official, personal communication, 25.08.2018).
The SDI equally emphasises the need to educate the informal settlement community so that they understand that it is an incremental approach intended as an interim measure, with a focus on improving safety. This assists to manage their expectations with regards to formalisation (National Treasury Official, personal communication, 25.08.2018). With the original model, this education was undertaken by CORC and SDI in the form of knowledge exchange (‘a roadshow’) since intensive engagement and education is something for which CoCT lacks the requisite capacity (National Treasury Official, personal communication, 25.08.2018).
When stronger citizenry and collaborative planning are combined, and coupled with education about upgrading policies Heyer (2015) found that residents become enabled to motivate other communities toward similar outcomes. In this way, reblocking “creates opportunities to include the urban poor into the city“, not only physically but, more importantly, psychologically (Heyer, 2015:74).
4.3.2.1 Challenges
Not surprisingly, there are several challenges related to reblocking, illustrating the complexity and
‘messiness’ of incremental in-situ upgrading in practice. Heyer’s primary conclusions were that, “cost, time and space limitations” means that reblocking is not necessarily an ideal solution for all communities (2015:73).
The interviewee (National Treasury Official, personal communication, 25.08.2018), as co-founder of the approach, noted the following key challenges experienced with reblocking, many of which align with Heyer’s finding above:
• It is time-consuming and resource-intensive, particularly with regards to facilitation.
• Political buy-in is challenging since an informal approach is taken, which contradicts the technocratic view of most politicians.
• There is strong competition with the formal housing process.
• The phased development approach, also advocated for by the UISP, stands in contrast to the need and demand for urgent improvement in all informal settlements.
• The UISP is not flexible enough with regards to the informal provision of services, for example NGOs and CBOs struggle to access funding for social infrastructure without being able to provide a formal stand number.
• There is an obsession with formal title registration and not enough consideration of workable alternatives or incremental models of tenure.
• Reblocking on land owned privately or under custodianship of a tribal authority is seen as ‘fruitless expenditure’.
43 | P a g e
• The capacity of many local government officials is limited.
• The traditional mindset of many local government officials is a challenge.
• Although the Spatial Planning and Land Use Management Act (SPLUMA) (RSA, 2013) allows for an area to be designated for incremental upgrading and for more speedy processes, these provisions have not yet been taken up by many metropolitan municipalities.
• Without meaningful participation, there is a risk that the community will not take ownership of interventions and it may even lead to vandalism which is wasted investment.
• If upgrading is just about ‘taps and pipes’ (i.e. basic services provision) and is not accompanied by the provision of social infrastructure or by community building it is likely to have negative consequences. The potential of infrastructure provision to have a social impact must be recognised and maximised.
• Settlement-based projects are less effective than a City-wide programmatic approach that is linked to social and economic interventions, as well as the spatial transformation agenda.
Heyer adds that, “since re-blocking is a practise of collaborative planning, no clear rules can be defined for successful re-blocking as actors have to adjust to varying project environments and…the 'human factor'” (2015:73).