Question | Answer | Description | Datasource and Evidence | Comment |
---|---|---|---|---|
# of people living in informal settlements | Strong Evidence | By multiplying the number of households with the city's average household size according to census 2011 data, we get a sense of how many people live in informal settlements |
# HH * household size (2016). 474,615. | |
# HH living in informal settlements | Strong Evidence | The number of households residing in informal settlements across the entire city. |
HDA Report, 2013. 143,823. | |
% of municipal population | Strong Evidence | This figure represents the proportion of the city's population living in informal settlements. In other words, one in ten people live in an informal settlement. |
Census 2011. 13%. | |
Has a department been assigned to take responsibility for the strategy? | Strong Evidence | A leading department needs to take responsibility for the strategy. |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. Department of Urbanisation. | |
Does the council have an official informal settlements upgrading strategy? | Strong Evidence | Every city should have an informal settlement upgrading strategy articulated in their core municipal doucmentation. |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. Integrated Human Settlements Framework 2015 - 2019 (adopted 2014). | |
Timeframe to eradicate backlog conventionally (years) | No Evidence | This indicator seeks to understand if the city government can realistically deliver each informal settlement household a house in a reasonable (<15 years) time period |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. No data. | |
What percentage of municipal capital budget is reserved for upgrading informal settlements? | No Evidence | City governments should clearly indicate the proportion of capital budgets, like the Urban Settlements Development Grant, is reserved for informal settlement upgrading. |
National Treasury evaluation, 2016. No data. | |
Does the budget align with the municipal targets for upgrading informal settlements? | No Evidence | There should be a clear alignment between the strategy and the budgets allocated to implement that strategy. |
National Treasury evaluation, 2016. Requires additional R667m and 100ha per year to meet MSTF targets. Seems under budget on UISP. | |
Is there a clear statement of the assessment and categorisation of informal settlements? | Strong Evidence | The HDA has developed guidelines to assess informal settlements. The following categories are used: A: Full upgrade - consisting of full services, top-structures and formal tenure B1: Interim basic services - where/full upgradingis feasible but not imminent B2: Emergency basic services - Where full upgrading is not viable or appropriate C: Relocations - Where there are urgent health or safety threats |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. Full upgrade (A): 39% Interim services (B1): 4% Emergency services (B2): 32% Relocation (C): 25% | |
Has a systematic assessment and categorisation of informal settlements been carried out? | Strong Evidence | HDA guidelines recommend that city governments conduct a rapid assessment and categorisation of informal settlements. |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. Informal Settlements Development Matrix. | |
% of Provincial total | Strong Evidence | This figure indicates that 41% of informal settlements in the Eastern Cape Province is located in East London. |
HDA Report, 2013. 75%. | |
# of IS (smallest unit defined) | Strong Evidence | Informal settlements are differently defined by cities, and are sometimes called settlements, pockets, or clusters. The number presented here is the smallest measurable unit. |
BEPP 2016 & HDA report. 437. | |
Is the city council's adopted strategy an appropriate response to the scale of informality? | Partial Evidence | This indicator is a qualitative assessment by Isandla Institute when taking into account the nature of the upgrading strategy. |
Qualitative assessment. The strategy responds to the scale of informality. However, the issue of high density settlements will not be resolved through this strategy. | |
Is the rapid assessment and categorisation an appropriate response to the nature and extent of informality? | Strong Evidence | Determining the appropriateness of the city government's assessment and categorisation is a qualitative appraisal by Isandla Institute |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. The city government's response appears appropriate. | |
Annual IS growth rate | Strong Evidence | The growth rate of informal settlements is calculated by comparing census 2001 and 2011 data. |
Census 2011. 3%. | |
How many houses are delivered per annum? | No Evidence | Knowing the annual housing delivery rate will provide evidence of whether the city government can meet the needs of informal settlements through the conventional housing programme. |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. No data on annual housing delivery. | |
Is there a clear indication of the extent of housing demand/ backlog? | Partial Evidence | It is important to know if the city government is prioritising housing as a response to informal settlements. |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. 345 461 households. | |
Is there a clear breakdown of budgets reserved for informal settlement upgrading in the city's capital budget? | No Evidence | City governments should clearly indicate the proportion of capital budgets, like the Urban Settlements Development Grant, is reserved for informal settlement upgrading. |
MTREF Budget 2016/17. There is no clear indication of what budgets are reserved for upgrading informal settlements. | |
Is the essence of the upgrading strategy upfront apparent? | Partial Evidence | Every strategy should be clearly state, without ambiguity and uncertainty, what the city's strategy of upgrading informal settlements is. In this way, citizens can hold their governments to account. |
IDP/ BEPP 2016/17 review. The strategy indicates that incremental upgrading and sites and service is preferred. However, this is never presented as a coherent whole, but rather isolated sections on what will be done. |