Mabatini Informal Settlement Upgrading Plan: Towards a Dignified Community

MABATINI INFORMAL SETTLEMENT UPGRADING PLAN

Towards a Dignified Community

A Partnership between the Mabatini Community, Pamoja Trust, University of Nairobi/Center for Urban Research and Innovations, University of California, Berkeley and Department of City Planning, City Council of Nairobi

Mabatini Community University of Nairobi/ UIP University of California, Berkeley City Council of Nairobi





Mabatini inforMal SettleMent Upgrading plan



2

Planning TeamMabatini Community

Pamoja TrustSteve OumaSalma ShebaArch. Joseph MukekuMargaret MathekaArch. Steve GomeSophia KamweruDaina KinyaBabu Mukoko

University of NairobiProf. Peter M. NgauArch./Plnr Charles KarisaArch Joshua NdoliMiriam MainaHenry MihesoBaraka MwauKeziah MweluDennis MwanikiJosephine Karimi

University of California, BerkeleyProf. Jason CorburnLuke PerryLisa ChenOrlando Monegas Jr.Zach Taylor

Department of City Planning, City Council of NairobiJ.H. Barreh

Mabatini Informal Settlement Upgrading Plan:Towards a Dignified CommunityThis Plan was prepared through a collaboration of Mabatini Community with Pamoja Trust, University of Nairobi/Center for Urban Research and Innovations (CURI/UIP),University of California, Berkeley/ DCRP, Department of City Planning, City Council of Nairobi. The essence of the plan is a negotiated community led informal settlement upgrading towards an integrated settlement for a dignified community.

Copyright ©2012 © Mabatini Community, Mathare Valley, 2012

ISBN 978-9966-1662-1-0

Design, Layout & Printing: RESOURCES INTERNATIONAL

Photos © CURI/ UIP

3

LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................. iv

LIST OF PLATES ................................................................................................ iv

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................ iv

Acknowledgements ...........................................................................................5

Foreword ...........................................................................................................6

Preface ............................................................................................................... 7

Executive summary ............................................................................................8

SECTION A: INTRODUCTION.............................................................................9

1.1. Capacity Building: ..............................................................................9

1.2. Objectives of the plan ........................................................................9

1.3. Location and Setting .........................................................................9

1.4. Evolution of Policy .......................................................................... 10

1.5. Methodology .................................................................................. 13

1.6. Participatory Process ...................................................................... 16

SECTION 2: ANALYSIS OF EXISTING CONDITIONS ......................................... 19

2.1. Analysis of Existing Conditions ........................................................ 21

2.1.1. Site Context .................................................................................. 21

2.1.3. Physical & Environmental Characteristics ..................................... 22

2.1.3. Land Use ...................................................................................... 23

2.1.4. Infrastructure Services and Community Facilities ......................... 25

2.1.5. Synthesis of Problems and Emerging Issues .................................26

2.1.6. Local Planning Context ................................................................26

SECTION C: PLAN AND DESIGN PROPOSALS ................................................. 27

3.1. Overview ......................................................................................... 27

3.1.1. Key Guiding Principles .................................................................. 27

3.2. Land budget ....................................................................................28

3.3. Design Concept ...............................................................................28

3.5. Building and Infrastructure Designs ................................................. 34

3.6. Mabatini Design Validation Workshop ............................................. 37

SECTION D: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................... 38

4.1. Overview ......................................................................................... 38

4.2. Project components and phasing ....................................................40

4.3. Construction Phases and Technology .............................................. 41

4.5. Costing ........................................................................................... 43

4.6. Financing ....................................................................................... 43

4.7. Impact assessment .......................................................................... 43

4.8 Monitoring and Evaluation ...............................................................45

CONCLUSION AND WAY FORWARD ...............................................................46

5.1. Emerging Issues ..............................................................................46

5.2. Experiences and Lessons Learnt ......................................................46

5.3. Next Steps .......................................................................................46

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................48

APPENDICES ...................................................................................................49

Appendix A: Settlement Blocking Concept .............................................49

Appendix B: Design Conceptualization Workshop .................................. 50

Appendix C: Community Planning Workshop ......................................... 51

Appendix D: Design Validation Workshop at The University of Nairobi ...52

Appendix E: Stakeholders’ Consultative Forum at The U0N .................... 53

Appendix F: Design Exhibition at The University of Nairobi ....................54

Contents

4

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Location of Study Area .........................................................................4

Figure 2: Planning Approach ...............................................................................8

Figure 3: Participatory Planning Approach ........................................................ 14

Figure 4: Neighbourhood Context of Project .................................................... 16

Figure 5: Mabatini Site Map .............................................................................. 17

Figure 6: Nairobi Climate: Temperature and Rainfall ......................................... 19

Figure 7: Land Use and Site Analysis ................................................................. 22

Figure 8: Site Layout – Streets and Blocks ........................................................ 30

Figure 9: Site Layout by House Type ................................................................. 31

Figure 10: Massing Model ................................................................................. 32

Figure 11: Road network and open spaces & Road cross-sections ..................... 33

Figure 12: Utilization of building roofs .............................................................. 35

Figure 13: Commercial Streets (a) Perimeter road & (b) Internal Street .............36

Figure 14: House Types – Commercial and Core Units ....................................... 38

Figure 15: House Types – balcony and Duplex Units .......................................... 39

Figure 16: Site Phasing .....................................................................................46

Figure 17: Construction Stages, Actors, and Building Cost .................................48

LIST OF PLATES

Plate 1: Site conditions: sinking structures ........................................................20

Plate 2: Storm Water Drainage in the area ........................................................20

Plate 3: Mabatini Settlement & Environs .......................................................... 21

Plate 4: Narrow Circulation Alleys in Mabatini .................................................. 23

Plate 5: Water Supply in Mabatini ..................................................................... 23

Plate 6: Sewerage Infrastructure ......................................................................24

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Source of Healthcare ........................................................................... 18

Table 2: Emerging Issues ................................................................................. 25

Table 3: Land Budget Computations .................................................................29

Table 4: Programme of Accommodation .......................................................... 37

Table 5: Role of Various Actors ..........................................................................44

Table 6: Project Costing ....................................................................................49

Table 7: Impact Assessment Variables ............................................................... 51

5

Mabatini Informal Settlement Upgrading Plan was made possible by the great determination of the community of Mabatini and their leadership. The preparation of the plan was participatory in nature and saw the convergence of the community, civil society, the city planning authority, faculty and students of two universities working in collaboration anchored on three key principles, namely, negotiated and participatory city building process; bridging the urban divide and safeguarding the right to the city; and capacity building. The greatest acknowledgement goes to Mabatini community and their leaders who continuously organized and kept hope in their community against many obstacles and roadblocks. The resilience of the community demonstrated the huge base of social capital that remains untapped in the informal settlements upgrading efforts in the country.

Special acknowledgement goes to the team of Pamoja Trust for their dedication and skills in consensus building and negotiation which enabled the partners to manage the diverse actors and parties with various interests in the project often characterized by conflict and contestations. They comprised of Steve Ouma, Salma Sheba, Arch. Joseph Mukeku, Sophia Kamweru, Margaret Matheka, Arch. Steve Gome Lamech Michuki and the entire Research and Advocacy Team(RAT). Special thanks to Arch. Aditya Kumar(SDI) for his input. The City Planning Department deserves special appreciation for providing an enabling environment. Similar to the break through provided by the current Planning Director, Mr. Tom Ondogo in Kambi Moto Slum Upgrading in Huruma, the Department has shown that planning can be inclusive and pro-poor. Mr. J. Barreh ably represented the Director in reviews during the planning and design process.

Special thanks go to the two Universities, University of Nairobi and University of California, Berkeley for their supportive role during Mabatini planning process. The faculty and students led by Prof. Peter Ngau (UoN) and Prof. Jason Corburn (UCB) shared their planning and design skills with the community, as they learnt to innovate in the non-conventional setting of negotiated slum upgrading. Arch./Plnr Charles Karisa, Arch Joshua Ndoli, Dr.Rose Musyoka, Miriam Maina, Henry Miheso, Baraka Mwau, Keziah Mwanga, Dennis Mwaniki, Josephine Karimi were often team leaders guiding a larger team of young students eager to learn planning and design on the slopes. Prof. Jason guided the team from UCB who shared innovative and comparative ways of settlement analysis and planning. The team from UCB comprised the urban studio classes of 2010 and 2011.

It is the sincere hope of all the partners, and more so Mabatini Community, that Mabatini Informal Settlement Upgrading plan will be implemented and actualized and will draw support from all stakeholders, the Government and from development partners.

acknowledgements

6

Mabatini Informal Settlement Upgrading Plan is an advisory plan to achieve multiple goals for a community that has suffered marginalization for far too long. They seek security on tenure for the land they have lived on for over fifteen years and which is currently public land. They seek to be provided with basic infrastructural services which they are currently deprived of: water, sanitation, electricity, streets, solid waste and storm water. They seek the opportunity to build themselves liveable housing in place of their currently dilapidated structures. Above all they seek to continue living together as families and community which is the biggest asset that sustains them.

Even with the optimist of the new constitution which guarantees the basic rights of water, sanitation and housing Mabatini community today face the greatest threat from land eviction as private developers eye the strategically located piece of about one acre land on which the approximately 400 households live and derive their livelihood. A portion of the land has already been alienated and allocated to an outside developer who has put up a high-rise multi-storey business structure.

Planning for Mabatini was confronted by several challenges, the main among these being insecure tenure that makes it difficult for the community to improve

their housing and living conditions for fear of demolitions and evictions; speculation and encroachment of land by private developers due to the prime location of Mabatini land block; institutional bottlenecks, beginning with general inaccessibility of key offices to institutional reluctance to give audience to the poor residents; and fluidity of baseline information characterized by ever shifting data sets where critical variables for upgrading, such as the number of households existing on site makes the process lengthy and uncertain; and the complexity of resolving competing interests of structure owners and tenants.

This planning initiative provided useful practical lessons underlining key realities of planning for informal settlement upgrading: that the process of informal settlement upgrading varies with settlement context; the need to negotiate and control the diverse actors and parties with various interests in the project often characterized by conflict and contestations; the process of informal settlement upgrading being far from a clean and structured approach; the existence of a huge base of social capital that remains untapped in the upgrading efforts; and that some issues are best left to the community for resolution, for their genesis is deeper than an outsider can precisely comprehend.

The plan identifies the following actions as necessary follow-up steps: continued mobilization and engagement with community; continued engagement with government agencies; policy dialogues for entrenchment and up-scaling of slum upgrading efforts; networking of actors; and supportive role and place for the Universities in social change.

Peter M. Ngau

University of Nairobi

May 2012

foreword

7

Urban areas in post-independence Kenya have grown in the midst of contradictory and yet independent policy and practices. The underlying policy belies a neo liberal ideology which posts that urbanization has many advantages to a developing country. Yet the emerging urban areas depict simultaneously human prosperity and deep human deprivation. Kenyan slums depict shocking consequences of extreme levels of poverty, unemployment, overcrowding and other manifestations of human deprivation: deficient infrastructure, lack of public services, malnutrition, high infant mortality and disease morbidity.

Kenya is a signatory of numerous international conventions on human rights including water, sanitation and housing; the same ideals being reflected in many of the country’s national policies. However, the country’s neo liberal ideology explains the rhetoric associated with translating housing and related rights into local realities. In most cases, policies are subverted in the process of implementation due to vested interests. There are often repellent reactions in the form of denial, resistance and relativism as regards local receptivity of globally defined conventions and national goals. This is necessitated by socio-economic and political realities on the ground which includes entranced bureaucratic tendencies and practices, and purported

governance and democratic deficits on the part of the government based on patronage. The overall effect is not only policy vacillations and inconsistencies but also rolling back of any attempts to achieve policy goals and international conventions.

As a consequence, planning systems in Kenya have had mixed role in shaping the evolving legacy of informal settlements. Indeed, planning practice has been as much a management tool of the state and very much part of the problem. It has reflected the prevailing state ideology on social change, mainly conservative and rigid on planning standard which are at variance with local realities and context. As such, plans prepared for urban areas, beginning with the 1948 Master Plan for Nairobi, through the 1973 Metropolitan Growth Strategy, to recent theme plans have ignored the reality of informal settlements. Rather than being mainstreamed in city planning informal settlements have been variously treated as (transient) special planning problems.

Only recently has the scope for planning begun to broaden and accommodate the participation of the civil society. A number of planning initiatives have emerged aimed at transforming urban planning education and practice. A few NGOs working in the informal settlements have engaged the services of planners and architects in their work

challenging them to innovate as they work outside the conventional settings. In early 2000, a few progressive planners in City Hall (Department of City Planning) collaborated with Pamoja Trust and other grassroots organizations to launch Kambi Moto as a community led slum upgrading. Kambi Moto remains as a model of sustainable slum upgrading yet both government and development agencies have shown very little interest to upscale it.

The initiative represented here for slum upgrading of Mabatini slum is another collaborative effort of Pamoja Trust with two Universities: University of Nairobi and University of California, Berkeley; Mabatini community; and the Department of City Planning. It aims to demonstrate that planning can be both responsive and effective in addressing challenges of affordable and inclusive informal settlement upgrading. Problems which appear insurmountable can be addressed through negotiation and use of innovative planning and design technologies. Yet planning for Mabatini upgrading has shown the contested nature of slum upgrading in Kenya. It has been confronted by numerous challenges, the main among these being insecure tenure; speculation and encroachment of land by private developers; and institutional bottlenecks, beginning with general inaccessibility (lack of audience)

of key offices to institutional reluctance in collaboration regarding an activity that is largely perceived as illegal.

The implementation of Mabatini plan can only be another phase of struggle for the community of Mabatini, supported by those who wish to challenge the orthodox of vested interest and enable the community attain the benefits of reform ideals provided in the country’s constitution and international conventions. The plan is also a model for reform minded professionals who have looked for an alternative to conventional methods of planning and design in urban based community development.

preface

8

The planning for Mabatini Informal Settlement was initiated in 2008 as a response to the community’s request for a planning undertaking to help in the appeal for, and approval of, a Part Development Plan (PDP) by the Minister in charge of lands, through the City Council of Nairobi. The purpose of the PDP would be to justify the alienation and allocation of land to the community of Mabatini estimated at 400 households, who at the time of preparation of this plan occupied the land without security of tenure. It was a requirement that such an application be accompanied by an indication of how the land in question would be organized and used, hence this settlement upgrading advisory plan.

Preparation of the plan was participatory in nature and saw the convergence of the community, regulatory institutions, civil society, and the university working in collaboration anchored on three key principles, namely, negotiated and participatory city building process; bridging the urban divide and safeguarding the right to the city; and capacity building. Peer exchanges and reviews also helped in the search and appreciation of emerging best practices. This plan is a culmination of four years of such broad-based collaborative work.

The study utilized a broad spectrum of data from various sources; secondary data was largely from review of key policy provisions as enshrined in relevant documents such as The UN Millennium Development Goals, Kenya Vision 2030, The Constitution of

Kenya, Sessional Paper No. 3 of 2009 on National Land Policy, and Sessional Paper No. 3, July 2004 on National Housing Policy. There was also review of relevant upgrading projects such as the Kenya Slum Upgrading Program (KENSUP) and Kenya Informal Settlement Improvement Project (KISIP). Primary data was collected directly from the field using various techniques such as site inventories, enumerations, mapping, and focus group discussions. The main analytical areas articulated in this plan included population and socio-economic characteristics; ownership and tenure status; physical and environmental characteristics; land use; infrastructure and utility services; and community facilities and social living. The analytical and prescriptive stages of this work entailed a series of studio work sessions and community planning forums that culminated in a multi-stakeholder workshop, where the final design was discussed and endorsed with minor modifications.

The plan proposes mixed and compact land use that will accommodate a total of 260 households in high-rise blocks integrated with 20 street-level commercial units and social facilities. The design provides clustered blocks enclosed by terrace/balcony units on two edges along the main roads. The terrace blocks provide commercial functions on the ground and balcony units on the upper floors, while each of the inner clustered units organizes four units around a common vertical circulation (staircase) to a maximum of four

or five floors, giving a total of 16 or 20 units per block.

Implementation of this plan is structured on a public-private partnership model as well as a revolving fund tied to community savings. The project will be implemented in phases to avoid devastation of existing community, but also to allow for necessary exploration of options in areas of physical interventions and financial procurement. The broad areas of phasing include sensitization and mobilization, reblocking, infrastructure development, housing construction, and landscaping and external finishes. The plan is inbuilt with a monitoring component anchored on various dimensions, including community tracking, impact assessment, project audit, and feedback.

Planning for Mabatini was confronted by several challenges, the main among these being insecure tenure that makes it difficult for the community to improve their housing and living conditions for fear of loss of the same through demolitions and evictions; speculation and encroachment of land by private developers due to the prime location of Mabatini land block and the fact that its occupants lack security of tenure makes the land attractive to speculators and private developers; institutional bottlenecks, beginning with general inaccessibility (lack of audience) of key offices to institutional reluctance in collaboration regarding an activity that is largely perceived as illegal; lack of a broad-based framework for mobilization and engagement at the

community, civil society, and bureaucratic levels largely due to difference in interests propagates lack of synergy and potential conflict of parties; and fluidity of baseline information characterized by ever shifting data sets where critical variables for upgrading, such as the number of households existing on site are makes the process lengthy and chaotic

This planning initiative did, however, provide practical lessons underlining key realities of planning for settlement upgrading: that the process of informal settlement upgrading varies with settlement context; the need to negotiate and control the diverse actors and parties with various interests in the project often characterized by conflict and contestations; the process of informal settlement upgrading being far from a clean and structured approach; the existence of a huge base of social capital that remains untapped in the upgrading efforts; and that some issues are best left to the community for resolution, for their genesis is deeper than an outsider can precisely comprehend.

For success realization, the plan identifies the following actions as necessary follow-up steps: continued mobilization and engagement with community; continued engagement with government agencies; technical studies for value addition to construction; networking of actors; policy dialogues for entrenchment and up-scaling of slum upgrading efforts; and continuous Research

executive summary

9

1.0 Introduction and Background

The planning initiative for Mabatini Informal Settlement stems from the community’s request for a planning undertaking to help in the appeal for, and approval of, a Part Development Plan (PDP) by the Minister in charge of lands, through the City Council of Nairobi. The PDP would regularize, and give the community legitimacy of occupation of land they have informally settled on for the last 4 decades.

Initial discussions involved the community and the local authority (City Council of Nairobi) that culminated in a Memorandum of Understanding between the City Council and Muungano wa Wanavijiji. In the MoU it was agreed that the Council shall avail the land for occupation and use by bona fide residents under a collective ownership structure. For this to happen, it required the preparation and approval of the PDP. This called for indication of how the land would be organized and used in a way that will justify the allocation – hence the production of this settlement plan.

Because of limited resources (financial and human) in the planning institutions, as well as the contextual peculiarities inherent in informal settlements, it was necessary to explore alternative and more participatory approaches that ultimately saw the convergence of civil

societies and the university to work in close consultation with the community and regulatory institutions in preparation of this plan.

The process helps to build synergy by bringing together capacities of communities living in informal settlements for self-organization, horizontal learning and self-help; the capacities of civil society for networking, partnership and mobilization; and the capacities of university based institutions for research, experimentation and capacity building. In addition, the capacities of Central and Local Government, in policy guidance, resource mobilization, and in the processes of approval and project implementation shall be included.

Rationale for the plan

The plan for Mabatini was motivated by the following underlying principles:

Negotiated and participatory city building process: this initiative appreciates that urban space is a shared, and sometimes contested, setting across different interests and actors ranging from public to civil society and private sector; through continuous engagement and negotiations, the plan sought to bring these together by tapping the areas of synergies and reducing areas of conflict.

Bridging the urban divide and safeguarding the right to the city: this plan is a response to the need to counter the devastating effects of informality characterized by poverty and uncertainty about the right to be resident of the city.

1.1. Capacity Building:

Beyond the plan as an end state, this process put emphasis on value addition through sensitization, advocacy, and engagement in planning matters. The community was involved in key practical planning activities such as mapping, enumeration, leverage/negotiation skills, and communication. The Local authority, the civil society, and the university all brought in different strengths in enabling the community overcome/manage institutional, social, financial, and technical hurdles that are inherent in their development context.

1.2. Objectives of the plan

• The objectives of this plan were guided by the Physical Planning act Section 24(4) that among others stipulates the following:

• To enhance the level of use of land through compactness and promote variety and integration in development of Mabatini as a place to live and work.

• To allocate sufficient space for all land use activities and infrastructure programmed in the plan to ensure efficient operation and comfort of users

• To promote harmonious structure of land use whose combination will ensure special benefits and conserve the environment

• To provide a framework for plan implementation, organization, and administration, including institutional and resources intervention needed to implement the plan.

1.3. Location and Setting

Mabatini is one of the villages of the Mathare Valley informal settlements located approximately 3Km from the Nairobi CBD within Mabatini ward in Starehe Constituency, Nairobi. The land on which the settlement lies is about 1.1042 acres measuring approximately 69.4 X 64.6 meters. The land is held in Trust by the City Council of Nairobi.

The village forms the North Eastern boundary of the Mathare Valley Settlements and adjoins Huruma residential settlement to the South West. The village is fronted on two sides by two major transport and access spines, Mathare North Road to the North West and Mau-Mau road to the East – off Juja road (see Map 1)

SeCtion a: introdUCtion

10

The settlement began in 1970s when a few people were allocated portions of the land by the then area chief for construction of structures. Since then the population has been growing and is currently estimated to be about 1200 people (512 households) residing in approximately 200 structures.

The village is well located in a neighbourhood within reach of many community facilities including; primary and secondary schools, polytechnics, a special training school, health facilities, administrative facilities and major shopping areas.

1.4. Evolution of Policy

Slums and informal settlements have posed a key challenge to Urban Governments in developing countries, and various policies have been developed over time to address this issue. From the policies, a number of intervention programmes have been developed, which then guide the formulation and implementation of upgrading and improvement projects in the various areas.

Some of the international and national policies governing the processes of intervention in informal settlements are discussed below.

The UN Millennium Development Goals, established in 2000 are aimed at encouraging development in the world’s poorest countries. They include 8 main goals, including Ending Poverty and Hunger, Achieving Universal Education,

Figure 1: Location of Study Area

Source: Field Study, 2010

Locational ChallengesArea is a flood plain

Topographical challenges (Pockets of harsh terrain)Seepage of ground water

High population pressure and gentrification

Locational Strengths Proximity to CBD

Major road networks (Juja and Thika Road)

Trunk Sewer along river valleyProximity to community

facilities (hospitals, schools, colleges, churches, halls)

11

Gender Equality, Child and Maternal Health, Combating HIV/AIDS, achieving Environmental Sustainability and establishing a Global Partnership for development.

Under Goal 7, ‘Ensure Environmental Sustainability, target 10, the MDGs aim to halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable access to safe drinking water; while target 11 aims to improve the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020.

UN HABITAT, the UN’s agency for human settlements is mandated to promote socially and environmentally sustainable towns and cities with the goal of providing adequate shelter for all.

In Kenya, UN HABITAT has partnered with the Government on a number of slum upgrading initiatives, and is a key partner in the Kenya Slum Upgrading Programme [KENSUP], which aims at improving overall livelihoods of people living and working in slums through targeted interventions to address shelter, infrastructure services, land tenure and employment issues, as well as the impact of HIV/AIDS in slum settlements.

Some of the projects under this programme include socio-economic and physical mapping of target communities, capacity building in local authorities and communities, provision of other technical advice to KENSUP partners, and pilot components aimed at finding suitable slum upgrading models for replication and up scaling. One of the pilot projects under this programme is the Soweto East

Land Policy Response to Informal Settlements

The Land Policy defines Informal Settlements as having the absence of security of tenure and planning, and acknowledges the existence of informal settlements on public, community and private land. The Policy proposes to tackle the challenges posed by informal settlements by:

a) Take an inventory of genuine squatters and people who live in informal settlements;

b) Determine whether land occupied by squatters is suitable for human settlement;

c) Put in place appropriate mechanisms for the removal of squatters from unsuitable land and their resettlement;

d) Facilitate planning of land found to be suitable for human settlement;

e) Ensure that land subject to informal settlement is developed in an ordered and sustainable manner;

f) Facilitate negotiation between private owners and squatters in cases of squatter settlements found on private land;

g) Facilitate the registration of squatter settlements found on public and community land for purposes of upgrading or development;

h) Establish a legal framework and procedures for transferring unutilised land and land belonging to absentee land owners to squatters and people living in informal settlements;

i) Develop, in consultation with affected communities, a slum upgrading and resettlement programme under specified flexible tenure systems;

j) Put in place measures to prevent further slum development on private land and open spaces;

k) Facilitate the carrying out of informal commercial activities in a planned manner;

l) Prohibit sale and/or transfer of land allocated to squatters and informal settlers; and

m) Put in place an appropriate legal framework for eviction based on internationally acceptable guidelines. [Source: National Land Policy]

Settlement Upgrading project, which is currently in progress.

Kenya Vision 2030 is Kenya’s development blueprint for the period 2008 to 2030. It aims at making Kenya a newly industrializing, “middle income country and providing high quality life for all its citizens by the year 2030”. The Vision is centred around three key strategies or ‘pillars’, which include: the Economic Pillar which aims at maintaining a sustained economic growth of 10% p.a. over the next 25 years; the Social Pillar which promises a just and cohesive society enjoying equitable social development in a clean and secure environment, and the Political Pillar which targets an issue-based, people-centred, result-oriented, and accountable democratic political system.

Under the Social Pillar, there are 8 key sectors, among them ‘Housing and Urbanization’, whose Vision is to achieve ‘... an adequately and decently housed nation in a sustainable, all inclusive environment.’ The goal for 2012 is to increase the annual production of housing units from the current 35,000 annually to over 200,000. This is by enhancing the role and capacity for planning, better development of and access to affordable and adequate housing; enhanced access to adequate finance for developers and buyers, and pursue targeted key reforms to unlock the potential of the housing sector.

The Constitution of Kenya guarantees all the residents with the right to access adequate housing and to reasonable

12

standards of sanitation. According to Article 43, ‘....Every person has the right to the highest attainable standard of health, which includes the right to health care services, including reproductive health care; right to accessible and adequate housing, and to reasonable standards of sanitation... to clean and safe water in adequate quantities...’

Sessional Paper No. 3 of 2009 on National Land Policy has also provided a framework to ensure the provision of security of tenure and efficient land management structures, both in urban and rural areas. It seeks to address the land use challenges, such as rapid urbanization, inadequate land use planning, unsustainable production, poor environmental management; among others. The policy also addresses the issue of vulnerability, which is defined as ‘... lack of adequate shelter, illiteracy, exposure to ill treatment, lack of power to influence decisions affecting one’s life, and disabilities...’, residents of informal settlements are defined under this category .

Sessional Paper No. 3, July 2004 on National Housing Policy seeks to arrest the deteriorating housing conditions countrywide and to bridge the shortfall in housing stock arising from demand that far surpasses supply, particularly in urban areas. Its overall goal is to facilitate the provision of adequate shelter and a healthy living environment at an affordable cost to all socio-economic

groups in Kenya in order to foster sustainable human settlements1.

The Policy proposes to accord the upgrading of slums and informal settlements a high priority, and plans to cater for proper planning and provision of necessary infrastructure and related services, while ensuring minimal displacement of persons. According to the policy, ‘…appropriate upgrading measures will be instituted for existing slum areas taking into account key upgrading components that cover security of land tenure, provision of basic infrastructural facilities and services, improvement of housing structure and the socio-economic status of the target community…’

Some of the activities include: streamlining of the land-acquisition processes, adoption of appropriate tenure systems, revision of planning standards, upgrading, integrated with socio-economic activities to improve livelihoods of target communities and formulation of efficient institutional frameworks

Related Programmes

Kenya Slum Upgrading Program was initiated in 2001, and launched in October 2004. The Goal of KENSUP is to improve livelihoods of people living and/or working in the slums and informal settlements of Kenya. The implementation strategy for KENSUP includes: participatory

1 Sessional Paper No. 3 of 2009 on National Housing Policy, 2004, Ministry of Lands and Housing

preparation of settlement strategic development plans, tenure regularization, installation of key infrastructure and services, shelter development, including socioeconomic mapping, cluster/neighbourhood identification, organizing and mobilization of communities, engagement of communities to agree on nature of affordable development, relocation, house construction, housing allocation, post construction estates and facilities management and maintenance.

KENSUP is both an instrument and an expression of the methodology underlying conventional, government led housing development process. However, the program has been criticized as being top-down and involving little participation from the beneficiary community.

Kenya Informal Settlement Improvement Program (KISIP) is a new nationwide program which aims to tackle the rapid growth of slums in urban Kenya and focuses on improving living conditions by enhancing security of tenure, investing in basic infrastructure, and supporting mechanisms to prevent the emergence of new slums.

The programme, which is supported by the World Bank, is part of a broader strategy to improve efficiency of Kenya’s urban sector which also includes the Kenya Municipal Programme [KMP], and the Nairobi Metropolitan Support Programme [NMSP]. The program has been slow to take off and its implementation is faced with numerous coordination challenges.

13

Figure 2: Planning Approach

1.5. Methodology

Source: Authors’ Conceptualization, 2010

14

MabatiniTime line

2008 2009 2010

JAN-JUNE JUL-DEC JAN-JUN JUL-DEC JAN-JUN JUL-DEC

ACTIVITIES • Inception of Mathare Valley Muungano

• Inception of Muungano Mabatini-Mwangaza group

• Letter to Director, City Planning requesting for land allocation for upgrading

• MoU between UoN, PT, and CCN regarding planning of Mathare (Focus on riparian)

• Research projects by UoN students on Mathare

• PT negotiates with service providers for formal service provision

• Further communication with City Council regarding upgrading intentions

• Joint UoN-UCB urban studio on Kosovo, Mashimoni, and Mabatini

• Preparatory meetings

• Ranking of priorities

• Meeting at UNEP

• Collaboration Matters: Stakeholder consultations (Nairobi Water Co.; MOU with NCC, KPLC), Community forums and community presentations

• Official visits to Nairobi City Planning, by Universities (UoN/UCB) and Mathare community

• Brief for Planning Studio 2009 released

• Analysis of data to generate preliminary plans

• Collaborative work in Nairobi (ref. Mabatini community records)

• Follow-up visit, follow up work

• Visit to Director of City Planning regarding land allocation

• Revision of plans & reports

• Community education on planning process.

• Initial house designs and blocking out for Mabatini (UoN/UCB/PT/SDI)

• City Council issues enforcement order on illegal development on part of Mabatini land (not executed)

• Re-enumeration

• Community-Led Planning Processes:

• Negotiations and forums between Structure owners, Tenants and Local Authorities

15

MabatiniTime line

2011

2012 COMMENTARY

The community-led upgrading programme is not a straight linear path as may be construed from this framework. What is summarized here concerns the main activities mapped on an approximated timeline.

The process was not without pros and cons. The key among these have been summarized below as milestones and challenges, respectively:

Milestones:

• A sensitized community• Savings culture• Reduced conflict across various interests• Capacity building of community on matters

of organization, advocacy, negotiation, and planning process

• An upgrading advisory plan, complete with building designs and infrastructure layouts

Challenges:

• Unsecured land tenure• Conflict between structure owners & tenants• Fluidity and inconsistency of survey data• Changes in institutional/project leadership• Crude record-keeping techniques• Lengthy and organic nature of the planning

process leading to disillusionment

JAN- JUNE JUL- DEC JAN-JUN JUL-DEC

ACTIVITIES • Field visits to Mabatini, Mathare, Huruma, Kambi Moto, and Kibera decanting site

• Visit by PT to Sweden to explore funding options

• Cost analysis for Mabatini project (with Homeless International)

• Exhibition at UN

• Household survey to determine affordability of housing

• Community presentations on Mabatini

• Technical design meetings: Design adjustment for cost-reduction

• Preliminary designs

• Preliminary report

• Stakeholders’ workshop and plan validation at the University of Nairobi

• Regular project update meetings with Mabatini residents

• Continued mobilization for community savings

• Planning meeting held at Undugu Polytechnic

• Field exchange visits to Mombasa and Kisumu by Mabatini residents

• Regular meetings by Mabatini representatives and PT

16

1.6. Participatory Process

The process embraced community and stakeholder participation as an inbuilt component of its approach. This largely entailed numerous planning workshops, consultative forums, and co-production of activities. Several categories of activities were conducted, namely, sensitization and mobilization workshop, problem diagnosis workshop, profiling and enumeration, surveying and community mapping, data validation workshop, visioning workshop, plan generation workshop, plan validation workshop, and action planning.

Each category of workshop differed from the other in timing, location, content, focus, and at times audience. Despite making the process lengthy and non-linear, the pragmatism engendered by such participation led to highly responsive plan and design interventions.

1. Sensitization Workshop

• Building consensus on Challenges facing community and the need for change

• Dissemination of relevant information among community and stakeholders of Mabatini to help them adopt planning-based intervention to settlement upgrading

2. Problem Diagnosis Workshop

• Self evaluation of community

• What could be wrong?

• Isolation of issues

3. ProfilingandEnumerationWorkshop

• Sharing information on participatory information collection and counts

• Outline information on key variables across households

4. Surveying and Community Mapping Workshop

• Baseline survey

• Investigation and documentation of boundaries

• Documentation of locations of building structures, resources, and community assets

• Locating problem situations

5. Data Validation Workshop

• Brief presentation of some important background details to raise issues for discussion.

• An open discussion of background details involving the workshop participants

• Qualification/disqualification of data

6. Visioning Workshop

• Conception of community and deliberation on matters affecting the same

• Establishment of a common understanding of key issues and a shared position of desired future outcomes

• Creating a roadmap and basis for planning

• Examination of community commitment and ability

7. Plan Generation Workshop

• Framework for the development and use of Mabatini area, based on the translation of broad planning principles and objectives into detailed area-specific guidelines

• Enabling the community and key stakeholders to effectively contribute to the long-term vision and interests of their local area

• Integrating sophisticated planning techniques with pragmatic, reactive execution systems

8. Plan Validation Workshop

• Bringing planning intervention proposals back to the community for deliberation and acceptability determination (endorsement or rejection)

• Employment of resolutions designed to optimize planning solutions

• Review timeline-based planning ideas, and determining the different possibilities to apply

9. Action Planning and Programming Workshop

• Identification and design of programs, works, and actions for coordinated and integrated development;

• Ensuring that programs are based on effective and proactive community participation;

• Identification and prioritization of local improvement projects

• Maximization of the efficient use of resources.

17

2. Savings: Mobilization of community savings groups; mobilization of capital for housing and infrastructure; steered by Muungano wa wanavijiji (Federation for informal settlement dwellers)

3. Organization and Capacity Building: Community-wide networking and sensitization; building of internal governance structure for effective dialogue with policy makers and city government

4. Collaborative planning: Building consensus on upgrading priorities and strategies; involves residents, landlords, structure owners, and government officials. Entails information sharing, building working relationships, and dialogue on contentious issues

5. Upgrading: Effecting the priorities and strategies for value addition to existing settlements with respect to shelter, infrastructure, livelihoods, security, public health, and general living environment

1. Participatory Enumeration: Gathering information about people and their (informal) settlements by involving residents: Counting of people/households and dwelling units (structures); the data gathering process is jointly designed.

COLLABORATIVE

18

INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE

Figure 3: Participatory Planning Approach

19

SeCtion 2: analYSiS of eXiSting ConditionS Figure 4: Neighbourhood Context of Project


20

Figure 5: Mabatini Site Map

BACKGROUND OF MABATINILOCATION

Mabatini Informal settlement is part of the wider Mathare Valley Informal settlement. Mabatini village is located within Mabatini Ward in Starehe Constituency, Nairobi

The Settlement lies along the Mathare North Road off Juja road. It borders Mathare Special Training Schools and Undugu Youth Polytechnic

LAND OWNERSHIPThe land under which this settlement lies is owned by the City Council of Nairobi. In a quest

to improve their residential conditions, the community began a pursue Communal Land Tenure in 2007. This has been going on with the community having written letters to the City

Council of Nairobi seeking allocation of land on which the settlement lies for upgrading. In reply, the City Council of Nairobi promised the community that their matter has been noted and it (CCN) opened doors for negotiations. This was to facilitate them have land ownership

rights before they embarked on actual slum upgrading.

The land under which the settlement occupies is estimates to be 1.1042 acres (0.44 Hectares) measuring approximately 69.4 x 64.6 Meters.

BRIEF HISTORYThe settlement began in 1970s with the locals being allocated portions of land by the area

chief at that time for construction of structures. Since then the population of Mabatini have been growing and it is currently estimated to be about 574 people and 375 households,

residing in about 377 structures

Source: Map digitized from satellite image from Regional Centre for Mapping of Resources for Development: Ruaraka, Nairobi, 2007

21

Chart 1: Ownership Status of residents in Mabatini

Table 1: Source of Healthcare

77%

1%

6%

0%2%

14%

Relative of owner

Structure owner

Tenant

Sub-tenant

Unspecified

Other

Source of Healthcare

FACILITY RESPONSES PERCENTAGE

Church based/NGO funded hospital 22 5.91

Government clinic/hospital 167 44.89

Private facility 151 40.59

Traditional doctor/Herbal doctor 4 1.08

Unspecified 28 7.53

TOTAL 372 100

2.1. Analysis of Existing Conditions

2.1.1 Site Context

Population & Socio-Economic Characteristics

This section was largely informed by a detailed enumeration study of the settlement undertaken in 2008. The settlement has approximately 372



structures and a total population of approximately 832 people. Of this 54% were male and 38% female.

Approximately 73% of the structures in Mabatini are constructed using iron sheets and timber for walls, with cemented floors. About 65% of the structures are used for residential purposes. In the settlement, over 77% of the residents are tenants.

An estimated 44% of Mabatini residents rely on Government facilities for health that are situated in the neighborhood of the settlement. There are also private

facilities in the neighborhood that serve the community, but these were found to be highly inadequate.

22

2.1.3 Physical & Environmental Characteristics

Climatic characteristics

The climate patterns experienced in Mabatini and its environs compares relatively that experienced in the wider Nairobi. Precipitation seasons are mainly two in Nairobi: March- May and October-December seasons. The temperatures are

11.5 11.6 13.1 14 13.2 11 10.1 10.2 10.5 12.5 13.1 12.6

24.5 25.6 25.6 24.1 22.6 21.5 20.6 21.4 23.7 24.7 23.1 23.4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Precipitation mm(inches)

Average high °C

Average low °C

relatively moderate through the year with the coolest period being June-July while the hottest period in January –February. With the settlement having a housing typology dominated by Galvanized iron sheets as the main wall and roof material, the extreme climatic conditions (hot and Wet) and severe implication to the comfort of the households. The following table indicates the general climatic data of Nairobi.

Topography

Mabatini lies in a relatively flat area unlike many other settlements in Mathare Valley. With the topography of the settlement being relatively flat, this has affected its drainage leading to cases of flooding during the rainy season. The area is drained by two storm water drains; one along Mathare North road and another one along the Mau Mau road.

Figure 6: Nairobi Climate: Temperature and Rainfall

Some of the structures have

sunk-this becomes unbearable in the

rainy season

Geology

A detailed geological survey of the settlement is needed before any upgrading. Although the neighbouring area has high rise buildings, there are sections of the settlement where structures have sunk. Along with geological surveys a trial pit will be necessary before commencement of any construction. The settlement and other areas of Mathare had previous quarrying activities and back filling succeeded these activities.

Source: GOK, 2011 Source: Field Survey, 2010

Plate 1: Site conditions: sinking structures

Plate 2: Storm Water Drainage in the area

23

The challenge is how to link the internal drainage of the village to these two main drains. The photograph on the left indicates a section of the drain along the Mathare North Road.

Environmental Characteristics

The environmental conditions of the settlements are characterized by high levels of pollution. With the terrain of the settlement being gentle, waste water is usually stagnant at certain points. The poor solid waste disposal methods have worsened this scenario.

With very high densities and inadequate open spaces the village is generally poorly ventilated. There are residents who opt to burn their waste within the settlement and this leads to external air pollution Another form of air pollution experienced in Mabatini is the indoor pollution; the use of paraffin and charcoal as the a main cooking energies has led into this. This form of pollution exposes the population to high risks of developing respiratory complications.

2.1.3 Land Use

Mabatini settlement is located within an area of mixed uses and densities. This variety is as a result of informal

developments mainly through uncontrolled settlement. These land uses include; public purpose, educational, commercial and residential. From its adjacent properties; a trend that emerges is that development control have not been effective in this area, with buildings have varying character with regards to plot coverage and plot ratios.

The adjacent land uses lying across the Mathare North road and the Mau-Mau Road are mainly mixed uses; commercial and residential and are characterized by multi storey building some going as high as seven floors. These buildings house commercial, public purpose and residential uses.

Mabatini is bordered by the two major institutions, Mathare Special Training School and Undugu Youth Polytechnic. The two institutions border two sides of the village while the other sides are bordered by two roads; Mathare north Road and the Mau-Mau road. This scenario has constrained any father growth of the settlement.

The settlement is located in a prime site and is highly sought after by land developers. The settlement is within reach of most services like health, educational, commercial and churches.

Plate 3: Mabatini Settlement & Environs

24

Burning is a common means of waste disposal

Poor storm water drainage and waste disposal

STRUCTURE

Mathare North Reserve is used for informal businesses and has the main storm water drain

Mau Mau Road reserve is used for informal business activities and has the main storm water drain from the village

Passage double as storage, access streets and holds storm water drains

Open areas are used as dumping grounds

Nature of surrounding developments

Figure 7: Land Use and Site Analysis

Public Purpose Education

Residential

Commercial


Community Water Point

New permanent building under construction

25

2.1.4. Infrastructure Services and Community Facilities

Circulation-Access roads and Pathways

Due to the nature of the structure layout and the high densities, Mabatini Settlement is characterized by many narrow pathways which only support pedestrian circulation. Since the structures are laid out in a haphazard manner, circulation routes follow a similar layout.

The village rely on the Mathare North road and Juja road for their transportation. Mathare North road links the village with Thika Road while Juja road links the Village with the CBD and other neighbourhoods like Huruma

and Eastleigh. Since the village is a low income area, parking is not existent within the community. The traders along the Mathare North road park on street but this parking is mainly limited to loading and off loading.

Water supply

Muungano wa Wanavijiji has partnered with donors to provide a communal water tap for the village which is at least accessible and affordable. However individual water connections are lacking and the community and its immediate neighbours continue to rely on this tap. The water is connected form the Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company mains which passes along Mathare North road.

Plate 5: Water Supply in Mabatini

Electricity supply

The settlement is not adequately served with electricity supply though some structure owners have made this service available to their tenants. The structures located along the Mathare north road and the Mau Mau roads have electricity connection. The challenge the village is facing is that the charges for this service are extremely high due to the mode they get it. The charges are normally per bulb going as high as 400 shillings per month according to the agreement with the structure owner. There are also illegal electricity connections and this poses a safety risk.

Street lighting

The settlement lacks street lighting due to the nature it is organized. The only form of street lighting available is the lighting mast located in Mashimoni. This makes the village difficult to access during the night and residents have to rely on portable torches and the risks of being mugged are high.

DrainageMabatini settlement is poorly drained. Being a slum, it lacks a well reticulated network of storm drains and waste water drains. The only drains existing in the village are small shallow channels which often do not flow properly owing to the fact that they are dump place for some of the residents. These drains pose a health hazard especially to the children of Mabatini. There are two main drains along Mathare North Road and Mau-Mau road.

Sewerage

Mabatini lacks a sewerage infrastructure and residents depend on community toilets (charged) that are sparsely located. However the village has a location advantage in that it is located next to a mains sewer the runs along Mau-Mau road and Mathare North road. The community is however undertaking a sanitation project, whereby they are constructing an eco-toilet (IKO-toilet) block next to their water project. This will in the meantime enable the community access to better sanitary services.

Images showing the circulation alleys within the settlement [above] and a detail section of a circulation alley [left]

Plate 4: Narrow Circulation Alleys in Mabatini


26

Solid waste disposal

The village has no organized system of solid waste disposal. This has led to irregular and haphazard waste disposal. Dumping of waste along the access paths is a common phenomenon. The other option is dumping along the Mathare North road and Mau-Mau road drains.

Community Facilities

The village relies on the public facilities located in the neighbouring settlement. These facilities are available at a walking distance, and they include the chief’s camp, Huruma Redeemed Church, the City Council Health centre, the Polytechnic and various primary schools.

2.1.5. Synthesis of Problems and Emerging Issues

Mabatini Village is mainly characterized by Informal residential and commercial developments. A larger section of

the settlement comprises of informal residential structures. These structures are mainly made of iron sheets, and mud walls, with iron sheet roofing.

A section of the settlement has a permanent structure which is currently under construction. The intended use of the privately owned structure is commercial use on the ground floor, and residential use in the upper floors. There is also a public toilet block in the settlement. This is a permanent structure, and is owned and controlled by the community.

2.1.6. Local Planning Context

The key planning issues arising from the settlement include insecurity of land tenure, lack of decent housing and basic infrastructure services i.e. water supply, circulation networks, sewerage, storm water drainage, solid waste management systems and electricity. There is need to provide for adequate vehicular

access into the settlement especially to accommodate fire engines and waste collection trucks. Parking facilities need not be provided for within the settlement as the level of car ownership is low and the main mode of transport is non-motorized transport.

Plate 6: Sewerage Infrastructure


There is no need to provide for community facilities within the settlement because the settlement size of confined, the catchment population is too small, and there are adequate community facilities within walking distances from the settlement.

Table 2: Emerging Issues

Emerging IssuesSection Challenges Opportunities

Location Prime site - pressure from developers.Threats of Grabbing

Accessibility to work areas.Accessibility to community services.

Land & Policy Insecure land tenureThreat of evictionEncroachment & Grabbing

Located on Municipal Land.Ongoing negotiations on land allocation.Settlement candidate for KISIP.

Topography & Environment

Flat terrain – prone to flooding.Former Quarry site – unstable.

Flat Terrain – construction costs lower.Rock FoundationGentle slope to river

Housing, Population & Socio Economic Issues

Informal StructuresHigh population densities.Overcrowded unitsNarrow alleys – threats of fire.High unemployment ratesLow incomes

Willingness to upgrade – community savings, planning, negotiation.High capacity for small business enterprises.Initial servicesCommunity is organized.Building skills among residents

Infrastructure & Services

Inadequate circulation.Inadequate supply of water.Poor solid waste managementSettlement not connected to trunk services. Lack of sewer services.Inadequate electricity services.

Proximity to trunk services [water, electricity, sewer]Accessibility to community services i.e. schools, health, police, religious Facilities e.t.c.

IKO TOILETOPEN DRAINAGE

27

SeCtion C: plan and deSign propoSalS3.1. Overview

This section synthesizes the process in terms of key guiding principles and modelling of design scenarios for upgrading. It is largely informed by emerging procedural aspects and well as findings on existing situations. Both the synthesis and design propositions featured are anchored on a negotiated approach and are sympathetic to pragmatic findings.

3.1.1. Key Guiding Principles

• Participation: This took place at different levels and stages of the planning process; the key features used in this work entailed sensitization, mobilization, involvement, diagnosis, visioning, networking, and ownership.

• Negotiation: the key areas of negotiation pursued in this work focused on consensus building across various parties and actors, but also on appropriateness of planning and building standards to be adopted in the upgrading process.

• Community building: the plan deliberately sought to enhance

social interaction, contact, and cohesion through the design and layout of houses but also by furnishing the design with social assets such as a community centre. The design also gave opportunities for growth promotion.

• Sustainable service provision: the design proposes servicing models that will ensure equitable distribution, adequacy, affordability, and control. Alternative sources were also explored in the area of water (borehole) and energy (solar) supply.

• Minimal displacement: the planning entailed working close with the community to ensure that restructuring of the settlement to pave way for upgrading is largely done in a way to avoid gross spill-over and relocations. Consensus was built to encourage shared responsibility in surrender of space for infrastructure so that those affected are to be accommodated within the cluster.

• Enhanced land use densities: the design explored a more intensive use of land, but guided by specified planning guidelines; evidently, a number of these were exceeded in the final design, but caution was taken through other aspects like infrastructure provision so as not to exceed the land carrying capacity.

• Legal compliance: the design strived to comply with basic planning provisions except where negotiable, including areas such as building heights, building lines, ground coverage, floor area ratio, and construction materials.

• Contextual integration: the upgrading was designed in close reference to the surrounding in terms of prevailing land uses, built form, and community facilities, infrastructure, and other networks such as employment areas. The plan was designed to complement, but also benefit from, the existing situation in the project area.

• Incremental approach: the project will be implemented in phases to avoid devastation of

existing community, but also to allow for necessary exploration of options in areas such as financial procurement and physical interventions. The broad areas of phasing include sensitization and mobilization, reblocking, infrastructure development, housing construction, and landscaping and external finishes.

• Livelihoods and poverty reduction: the project looks at housing largely as a means of livelihood, both during construction and operation phases. Other than providing jobs during construction, the design offers several opportunities for employment and income generation as outlined in the master plan concept.

• Multidisciplinary approach: the project benefitted from a broad range of input in the planning and design phase; it is hoped that the same approach will be embraced during its implementation phase.

• Good governance and institutional support: the project design and implementation

28

were visualized so as to embrace representation, accountability, responsiveness, user values, and leverage between parties and actors. Profiling of various policies, legislations, and institutions were used to generate the framework.

3.2. Land budget

i. Scenario 1: Conventional Standards

This section outlines how the land can be put to use based on the operational conventional planning guidelines and projects the amount of development (number of housing units) that is achievable with the available land. By comparing the computed value to the actual need on the ground the study forms a basis for negotiation in order to close the gap/deficit in housing units.It is evident from the above computation that going by the conventional guidelines, the site can accommodate just about 22% (i.e 66/300) of the households currently on site. It was thus necessary to work out and propose alternative standards for adoption to guide the upgrading of the cluster. These are worked out in scenario 2 below, which is the design model adopted for this project.

ii. Scenario 2: Negotiated Standards

This scenario explores appropriateness through variations in conventional provisions; the areas negotiated include downscaling access roads from widths of

Item Description Area Size

1 Land size/Plot area (PA) - 1.1 acres = 4450m²

2 Plot ratio (PR) – as per Council bylaws 75%

3 Total allowable built area (PR x PA) 0.75 x 4450 3337.5 m²

4 Infrastructure and public spaces @ 15% of land size 0.15*3337.5 667.50 m²

5 Net Housing Area 3337.5-667.5 2670 m²

6 Average floor area per housing unit (adopted)* - 40 m²

7 No. of housing units achievable 2670/40 66

8 No. of households counted on site (Approx.) - 300

9Deficit in housing units (assuming 1household per unit)

300-66 234

*Taken as total floor area for all house typologies studied/total number of house units studied

Table 3: Land Budget Computations

6.5m to 4.5 for main accesses and from 4.5 to 2.4 for cul-de-sacs. The provisions also propose reduction in the distance between building blocks from 4 metres to 2.4 metres. The design also reduces parking provisions to street-level and along the main 4.5 metre access road. In terms of building line, the concept conformed to the precedence set on the ground, where a setback is not provided from the edge of the road reserve. Another area negotiated in the

concept is variation in building heights, whereby some blocks are programmed to accommodate five floors, instead of four as recommended in the conventional standards.

3.3. Design Concept

i Site Layout

The layout was basically organized around two units: the commercial and the residential. The commercial units

have been lined along the main roads Mathare North road and Mau Mau for ease of business and access. An internal spine connects Mau Mau and Mathare north road with the residential blocks being arranged in rings around the internal spine. The main ring connects three open communal spaces that are the focal points of the three clusters. There are also small pockets of open spaces between mirrored blocks that would serve individual interests of the facing blocks.

29

MAT

HA

RE N

ORT

H R

OA

D

KEY/ NOTES

Figure 9: Site Layout by House TypeFigure 8: Site Layout – Streets and Blocks

COMMERCIAL UNITS=28

CORE UNITS (4 LEVELS)=24 X 5 = 120

TOTAL = 260 RESIDENTIAL UNITS = 28 COMMERCIAL UNITS

CORE UNITS (4 LEVELS)= 18 X 4 = 72

BOUNDARY UNITS (3 LEVELS)= 4 X 3 = 12

BALCONY UNIT [ABOVE COMMERCIAL UNITS LEVEL 4]

= 14 X 4 = 64

PROPOSED COMMUNITY SPACECONTESTED EXISTING 2 STOREY PERMANENT BUILDING COMMUNITY FOLLOWING UP TO RECLAIM OWNERSHIP

30

ii. Form and Massing

The design provides clustered blocks enclosed by terrace/balcony units on two edges along the main roads. The

terrace units are the highest, achieving a maximum height of 5 floors, while the units on the inner boundary are the lowest. The latter flush at the boundary with blank walls (no openings) due to

Figure 10: Massing Model

MASSING

1. Blocks are at various Heights

2. The lower blocks allow for lighting & ventilation to the higher blocks

3. The highest blocks are arranged around the main circulation spine and open spaces

4. Water receivers provided on top of the stair case to maximize on structural provision

5. Provision of the pitched roofs for rain water collection and mounting of solar panels

6. Provision of flat roofs for airing clothes [drying yards], social gathering and urban agriculture

CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT

1. Image and character.

2. Sustainable technology:

- Material efficiency

- Energy efficiency

- Water efficiency

uncertainties of the impact of future neighbouring development. The low heights would also ensure better ventilation and lighting of the higher blocks, especially those occupying

inner sites. Each inner block organizes four units around a common vertical circulation (staircase) to a maximum of four or five floors, giving a total of 16 or 20.

31

iii. Access, Circulation and Parking

The design provides for two access points, the main one being along Mathare North road, while a subsidiary entrance is provided along Mau Mau road. There is one internal motorable road (4.5 metres wide) connecting the two access points

to allow for emergency access such as that by a fire engine. All other internal accesses are provided at 2.4 metres wide and are non-motorable. There is limited off-street parking along Mau Mau road and Mathare North road as well as the 4.5 metre road within the cluster.

Figure 11: Road network and open spaces and Road cross-sections

Utilization: Predominantly pedestrian circulation as well as other community activities

Paving: the surface finish will be non-slip, durable, easy to maintain and cost effective. Continuous surface with shallow depressions or ditches for channelling rain water

Utilization: Both vehicular and pedestrian circulation as well as other community social (tree planting) and economic activities

Paving: Continuous surface with shallow depression or ditches for channelling rain water

COMPONENTS:

COMPONENTS:

32

iv. Utility Services

The main utility services - water, sewerage, and electricity- shall all be supplied from the neighbourhood grid of public services and will be laid along the 4.5 metre road; from here, the services shall be reticulated and branch into individual connections to each of the housing blocks. The design also provide for solar panels and roof level water storage tanks at the block level. There is also provided a community utility point with borehole and elevated water reservoir. A common solid waste collection point is provided for every 3 housing blocks.

v. Safety and Security

The most anticipated safety concern is fire-related then other types of evacuations such as medical emergencies; the design provides for access by fire engine and ambulance to at least halfway into the development site. The 4.5 metre wide road is aligned approximately along the mid-line positions of the site to allow for 50% motorable access in case of emergency. The principle of defensible space has been pursued using two concepts, surveillance and enclosure mainly to address security of the housing design.

vi. Environmental Response and Sustainability

The design puts orientation of majority of the buildings off the east-west direction to avoid excessive heating; likewise where main elevations have to face east

or west, there is sun-shading provided for outer units exposed to direct East-West sun. There were design efforts to ventilate building clusters using internal streets (funnel effect) and staircases (well effect). Solar energy will be utilised by provision of roof-top panels. Rain water harvested and solar energy tapping have been considered and provided for. The pitched roofs will enable installation

Figure 12: Utilization of building roofs

Pitched roof sections for water collection

And mounting of photovoltaic cells

Flat section for social engagements and planting

of photovoltaic cells besides collecting water. The flat roofs will serve a communal function as a cluster meeting area but could also be used for laundry purposes and small-scale sustenance urban agriculture. Solid waste receptacles will be provided for each 3 housing block and at strategic cul-de-sacs, while greening will be done along 4.5m road and common areas.

33

vii. Community and Livelihoods

In addressing objectives of community building and safeguarding livelihoods, the plan endeavours to integrate existing social and livelihood practices by providing for:

• A community centre: this facility, measuring approximately 192 m², is

located along Mathare North road; it accommodates an integrated water and sanitation (WATSAN) point on the ground floor, while the upper level caters for community functions such as a meeting place (Figure 15). The WATSAN point will feature shared taps and washrooms that

will be accessible to the community using the common areas and street level. The community will also be responsible for its operation and management.

• Street-level commercial development: Shopping outlets will be provided along both perimeter

Figure 13: Commercial Streets (a) Perimeter road & (b) Internal Street

roads, that is, Mathare North road and Mau Mau road, as well as the internal (4.5 metres) road. These facilities will be floated to the market to cross-subsidize the cost of construction and will be open for acquisition to both residents and non-residents (Figure 15).

34

TYPE NUMBER LEVELS/STOREYS TOTAL

Commercial Units 28 1 28

Boundary Units 4 3 12

Core units 18 4 72

Core Units 24 5 120

Balcony Units 14 4 56

Total residential 260

Total units 288

1.1. Programme of Accommodation

There are about 256 beneficiary households qualified through the enumeration process of the participatory planning. About 16 of these are business people with no residential interest while 15 are resident business households. The proposal however gives provision for residential units to all enumerated

3.5. Building and Infrastructure Designs

i. The Building Units

Functionally, there are two main building typologies, namely, residential and commercial. However, the residential function is further varied into 3 typologies, namely, core unit, boundary unit, and balcony unit. The variations in unit typologies are mainly influenced by location and orientation, whereby the layout slightly varies at instances where the units (hence dimensions) are rotated. In terms of location, the balcony units lie above the commercial area; they are provided with balconies as they front the main roads hence can slightly cantilever above the street level. Boundary units are provided on the back site boundary, featuring four blocks per level; they are designed with a blank wall facing the

Table 4: Programme of Accommodation

neighbouring plot, since the nature and character of development could not be anticipated at the time of preparation of this plan. The core units are the predominant typology in the design; they occupy the inner site locations and are organized into blocks of four units per level. Each block of the core and boundary units features duplex units within them; these are designed to enable phasing and hence deferring of construction costs. Variation notwithstanding, the footprint of a typical residential unit is maintained at about 30m2 (i.e 6mx5m). The residential units are partitioned into a sitting area, kitchen, two bed spaces, and a combined toilet and shower. The commercial units are, as a module, half the size of residential units (15m2) with options to double or triple depending on the space needs.

households with the extra commercial units being left out for rental purposes to the free market to subsidize the houses construction. Broadly, there are three house typologies provided in the design; these are commercial unit, core unit, and balcony unit as explained under 10.5. The schedule of accommodation by house type is as follows:

35

Figure 14: House Types - Commercial and Core Units

58 IN NUMBER

HALF THE SIZE OF A RESIDENTIAL UNIT

LOCATED ALONG THE TWO MAIN ROADS (MAUMAU & MATHARE NORTH ROAD)

TO BE RENTED OUT FOR PURPOSES OF CROSS SUBSIDIZING THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS

MOST OF THEM TO BE DONE IN THE FIRST PHASE TO GENERATE INCOME FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS

INTERNAL PARTITIONS & WALLING FLEXIBLE FOR ADJUSTMENT OF SPACE

154 IN NUMBER

RISE TO FOUR & 5 LEVELS

TYPE 01 COMMERCIAL UNITS TYPE 02 RESIDENTIAL UNITSCORE UNITS

36

108 IN NUMBER

LOCATED ABOVE THE COMMERCIAL UNITS

THEY ARE A MODIFICATION OF THE CORE UNITS BY INTRODUCING THE BALCONY

BALCONY UNITS THE DUPLEXES: Ground Floor First Floor

GROUND & FIRST FLOOR

A MODIFICATION OF THE CORE UNITS BY SPLITTING THE LAYOUT INTO A VERTICAL ARRANGEMENT

HAS INTERNAL ACCESS STAIRCASE TO THE BEDROOM ABOVE

THE GROUND FLOOR CAN BE THE STARTER UNIT

Figure 15: House Types – balcony and Duplex Units

37

ii. The Infrastructure Service provision envisioned in this design entails installation of local area utility lines – water, sewerage, storm drains, and electricity – along the 4.5 m road. From here service lines will branch off and be connected to individual blocks of buildings.

• Roads: Mabatini cluster is bounded by two planned roads, that is Mathare North Road (18 meters wide) and Mau Mau road (12 meters wide). Beyond this, the design proposes two categories of access roads within the cluster; these are the 4.5 metre motorable internal road that forms a T-structure at almost mid-point and the non-motorable 2.4 metre access roads extending to the block level. The former will also be lined with commercial and business activities at the street level. The streets will also be integrated with key infrastructure such as water, sewerage, storm drainage, and electricity (Figure 17)

• Water Supply: Water reticulation involves a 75mm diameter local area supply pipe designed based on loop to minimize decline in pressure with

distance from connection point. In addition a standard borehole and two raised reservoir tanks (each of 15,000 litres or 15 cubic metres) have been proposed as part of water services.

• Sewerage: A 160 mm diameter local area sewer line will be laid along the 4.5-metre road from which connections to individual blocks will branch. This will then be directed to join the neighbourhood trunk system by the Nairobi Water and Sewerage Company that runs along the riparian reserve and ultimately leads to the treatment works at Dandora.

• Storm water drainage: Storm water shall be directed off-site through a system of 250mm-wide (diameter) open drains aligned with the access road system into the neighbourhood drainage leading to Mathare river. The storm drainage system will be maintained through occasional clean-ups to avoid clogging with solid waste.

• Electricity: The supply will require 1 step down transformer on two poles around the entrance along Mau Mau road, where a 3-phase national grid

already exists; from here the main line will run along the 4.5 metre access road using underground ducts with branch connections to individual blocks. Street lighting shall be installed along the 4.5-metre road at 50m spacing.

• Solid waste management: A total of eight (8) waste collection receptacles will be provided; these will be logically distributed at block levels fitting these at cul-de-sacs and staircase alcoves, the largest of all receptacles being at the eco-toilet/community centre near the entrance along Mathare North Road for ease of servicing.

3.6. Mabatini Design Validation Workshop

On 7th December 2011, a joint planning workshop was hosted by the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Nairobi. The workshop created a common forum for all the collaborating partners – Mabatini community, Pamoja Trust/civil society, and the University to review and validate the completed plan and design for upgrading of Mabatini settlement.

Over 200 participants were drawn from the community, civil society, private sector, multi-national organizations, and institutions of higher learning. The workshop seating was preceded by an exhibition of the plan and building designs, fully illustrated using posters and models. This was followed by a sit-in session that entailed a brief technical presentation on the proposed plan and design, followed by a plenary session of critique and brainstorming.

A larger part of the deliberations dwelt on appropriateness of design, plan approval and tenure regularization, building technology and cost, financing and cost recovery, and post-occupancy management. Whereas members in attendance were largely agreeable to with the appropriateness of design provisions, there was consensus that completion of the plan and design was just but the beginning of an uphill task of advocating for securing and upgrading of Mabatini. It was resolved that success of the Mabatini initiative calls for good understanding of the political economy and a multi-pronged approach to engaging the relevant authorities, involving all the partners.

38

SeCtion d: proJeCt iMpleMentation4.1. Overview

The implementation component of this project is anchored on core principles seen as prerequisite to successful upgrading of informal settlements:

• Participatory city building process: There is need for effective mobilization and strategic preparation that will ensure substantial involvement, commitment, and ownership by all actors during operationalization of the upgrading. This targets the collective effort of the local authority and related government agencies,

development partners that include the private sector investors, civil society organizations, and the community as the prime movers. This is a cross-cutting feature that was entrenched at all stages of this process. The role of the various key actors is summarized in Table 5 below.

• Negotiated city building process: this initiative appreciates that urban space is a shared, and sometimes contested, setting across different interests and actors ranging from public to civil society and private

sector. Through continuous engagement and negotiations, the plan will seek to bring these together by tapping the areas of synergies and reducing areas of conflict.

• Bridging the urban divide and safeguarding the right to the city: this plan will seek to respond to the need to counter the devastating effects of informality characterized by poverty and uncertainty about the right to be resident of the city.

• Capacity Building: Beyond the plan as an end state, this process

will emphasize on value addition through sensitization, advocacy, and engagement in planning and development matters. The community will be involved in key practical implementation activities such as reading the plan drawings, space translations, building components, basic construction systems and technologies, building materials.

• Fabrication of building components, site inspections, and record-keeping and reporting.

39

ACTIVITIES

• Regularization and approvals• Quality control• Regulation and enforcement

of standards• Monitoring and audit

• Building materials and construction technology research

• Capacity Building• Impact assessment• Documentation• Information dissemination

and up-scaling design• Monitoring and audit

• Capacity building• Technology transfer• Resource mobilization &

project financing• Investment partnership

• Sensitization• Community mobilization• Networking• Advocacy• Negotiations and conflict

mitigation• Monitoring and evaluation

• Mobilization• Subsidized labour• Savings• Networking and community

building• Neighbourhood watch• Monitoring

OUTPUTS

• Tenure regularization• Plan approval• Part development plan• Development regulations• Inspection reports• Audit reports

• Appropriate building materials

• Appropriate building technology

• Project Impact reports• Project documents and

publications• Posters, newsletters, media

features and articles• Audit reports

• Effective community participation

• Project partnerships• Project memoranda• Project grants

• Project awareness and ownership

• Community-based organizations

• Conflict resolution structures• Progress reports

• Community consensus and project ownership

• Social capital• Community savings• Neighbourhood groups• Progress reports

Table 5: Role of Various Actors

Local Authority & Related

Public AgenciesResearch Institutions

Development Partners & Private Sector

Civic Society Organizations

Community

40

4.2. Project components and phasing

The implementation of the upgrading process has been visualized in the following phases and activities: Plan approval, adoption, and sensitization;

Plan approval, Sensitization and Adoption

Re-blocking and Infrastructure Layout

Building Construction Monitoring, Evaluation, and Impact Assessment

ACTIVITIES

• Preparation and approval of Part Development Plan

• Approval of physical/master plan• Approval of building plans• Specifications of approval conditions

and development control standards• Sensitization of community and

stakeholders on provision and conditions of plan

• Adoption of plan by local authority, community, and stakeholders

• Setting out of plan on the project site

• Identification and marking of structures affected by infrastructure reticulation

• Blocking out of the settlement to align with infrastructure network

• Negotiating the relocation of affected structures

• Site preparation• Construction and installation

works

• Identification of early phase construction areas (blocks)

• Negotiating the relocation of building structures

• Site screening (hoarding) and securing• Site management and Safety provisions• Site preparation, including traffic

management plan and areas to accommodate materials, storage, and support activities

• Ground-breaking• Routine construction management/

supervision

• Routine inspection• Post-occupancy evaluation• User surveys• Project restructuring• Cost recovery assessment• Project auditing

OUTCOMES

• Approved Part Development Plan• Approved Master Plan• Approved Building Plans• Development control standards• Adopted Plan and its regulations

• Shack relocation strategy• Blocked out site• Construction and installation of

key infrastructure

• Shack relocation strategy • Construction of early phase buildings• Site management plan

• Inspection reports• Post occupancy survey reports/user

satisfaction surveys• Project modifications• Cost recovery progress and projection

reports• Project audit reports

Table 6: Project Components

re-blocking and infrastructure layout (roads, sewer, storm drains, electricity); building construction; and monitoring and evaluation. The specific activities and outcomes are as summarized in Table 6 below.

41

4.3. Construction Phases and Technology

Project phasing has been articulated at two levels; first is based on site construction by location and, to some extent, house typology. The other phasing is based on building construction by components – from foundations to finishes. The two types of phasing will, however, run concurrently.

i. Site/Typology Phasing

The implementation of site construction is proposed to be done incrementally in four phases. The structure of phases is mainly in response to needs for securing the site but also primacy of locations and prioritization of function (Figure 18).

• Phase 1 seeks to mitigate site encroachment from private speculators and is located next to site of a private development whose land is said to have been curved out of the Mabatini cluster.

• Phase 2 is a response to primacy of site and is mainly composed of commercial units lined along the two main perimeter roads as well as the main internal street.

• Phase 3 and 4 seek to secure the site from the inner boundary

• Phase 5 and 6 are simply infill designs to complete the inner site locations.

Figure 16: Site Phasing

42

ii. Building Construction Phasing

The proposed construction is largely based on blocks of 4-storey 16 units as on the proposed layout. Building technology will be a mix of conventional in-situ concrete construction and precast elements. The columns, beams, and staircase construction are to be done by a contractor, while the laying of floor

Figure 17: Construction Stages, Actors, and Building Cost

the services to be done by a qualified contractor after tendering. The rest of the membrane and internal partitioning is to be done incrementally over time by limited skilled labour drawn from the community and as per the original building layout.

infill slabs and walling can be done by the community on a self-build basis, thus reducing the labor cost. In terms of building construction, two options have been provided:

Option 1: Construction of the shell

This prescribes the construction of a structural shell and installation of

Option 2: Incremental construction

In this model, the lounge, the kitchen and the toilet are built in the first phase. The second phase covers the construction of the two bedrooms. This will still involve skilled contractor in construction of the critical load bearing structures but drawing the unskilled and semi-skilled community labour to subsidize the final house cost.

43

4.5. Costing

A major assumption taken in this project is that the infrastructure cost component shall be the responsibility of a wider government-driven infrastructure upgrading programme (Kenya Informal Settlement Improvement Programme). Thus the project cost computed here is mainly that of housing units, with highly subsidised labour cost. Building cost have been projected using bench-marked working rates (cost/unit area), based on comparable projects, from building financiers and developers.

4.6. Financing

The financing structure adopted in this work combines two components, mainly community savings and a revolving fund

linked to the community through the civil society. The community is required to mobilize 10% while the rest will be given as loan by development partners at an interest of 10% per annum and repayable over 10 years. For the house costing Ksh. 518, 606, to be constructed in 3 stages as shown in figure 23, the repayment for each of the stages would amount to about Ksh. 3470 monthly (i.e Ksh. 870 weekly, or Ksh. 125 daily) for stage one; Ksh. 1900 monthly (i.e Ksh. 475 weekly, or Ksh. 68 daily) for stage two; Ksh. 1485 monthly (i.e Ksh. 371 weekly, or Ksh. 85 daily) for stage three. Compared to findings of a social mapping exercise by Pamoja Trust, the resident’s average savings stand at Ksh.30 per day. This is still below the required savings level to sustain the housing upgrading loan, and

alternative avenues for mobilizing savings are on-going.

4.7. Impact assessment

There is need to provide for the assessment of the impact that this upgrading project could have on the welfare of the population and how the project can be improved to meet the needs of the urban poor. Similarly, actors will need to understand which specific interventions are more effective than others because of the many facets of slum upgrading interventions and the complexities of implementation, impact assessment has been elusive. A comprehensive impact assessment will involve a multitude of variables to be observed and measured at the community, household and individual

Table 6: Project Costing

Item Unit TypeAv.Size (m²)

Rate (Ksh/m²)

AverageUnit Cost (Ksh)

No.Provided

Total Cost(Ksh)

COMPONENT COST(Ksh)

Foundation Staircase Superstructure Roof

1 Commercial 15 10,600.00 160,000.00 28 4,480,000

2 Residential 108 4,800.00 518,606.00 260 134,837,560

3 GRAND TOTAL 139,317,560

levels. For this reason there has been an increase in the role of random evaluations and lessons learnt from the past. The need to control variables, which may necessitate the identification of a control case (community), further complicates such a framework. The ultimate impact will also depend on implementation efficiency.

This project uses housing, social facilities, and livelihood assets as means to improve the well-being of low income communities. The project also paves way for a range of infrastructure interventions (including water, sanitation, waste management, access roads, footpaths, storm drainage, and lighting) to be undertaken in conjunction with social interventions, such as tenure regularization.

44

AREAS OF CHANGE ACTIONS OUTCOMES AND INDICATORS

Physical • Land improvement and optimization• Servicing• Security

• Development intensity; House densities• Good and adequate infrastructure• Territory markers

Social • Crime reduction• Upgrading of living conditions• Social cohesion and inclusion

• Defensible spaces• Decent housing conditions• Common spaces and community facilities

Economic • Enhanced livelihoods• Dependency reduction• Work creation and employment• Investment attraction and diversification

• Livelihood assets• Debt reduction• Low dependency ratio• Enhanced savings• Higher employment levels• New investments and new investment sectors

Organizational • Regularizing security of tenure • Leverage• Good governance• Development control

• Property mapping; titling; land registration• Negotiation and institutional engagement• Accountability – record-keeping, audits• Enhanced participation• Development regulations

Environmental • Pollution control and waste management• Disaster and accident mitigation• Aesthetic enhancement

• Waste management infrastructure• Emergency response provisions and installations• Community clean-ups• Beautification sites

Table 7: Impact Assessment VariablesThe project targets both qualitative and quantitative techniques to impact assessment. The qualitative framework will attempt to compare initial ambitions with actual outcomes. Qualitative comparisons will also be used to gauge institutional roles and community cooperation, including residents’ roles and relationships in the community. The quantitative framework will seek to establish statistically that there is a significant difference between groups in the outcomes the program was planning to affect, and that this difference can be confidently attributed to the upgrading program. This approach will rely on selection of variables prior to project implementation; evaluators will then gather baseline data, assign one or more project components to randomly chosen participants (individuals or groups) and assess changes over time relative to control populations with follow-up data.

The impact assessment framework proposed in this project is anchored on 5 broad areas of change - physical, social, economic, organizational and environmental (Table 7). These may be influenced by a wide range of actors, namely, citizens, community groups, businesses, and local and national authorities.

45

4.8 Monitoring and Evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation of the project will be anchored on the following four components:

Community monitoring and Evaluation: The community shall be equipped with skills for observation, documentation, and assessment of characteristics prevailing at the project site during implementation and operation phases with the aim

of interpreting these against project objectives.

Project tracking and verification of areas of success: The project components for tracking and gauging of success shall be aligned to the main areas of change identified in Table 7 above. The tracking will be in terms of project inventories, post-occupancy user survey, and project programme reviews.

Project and environmental Auditing: This will also be carried out during the post-occupancy phase, preferably within the first five years to gauge the soundness of the project across a number of dimensions – environmental, technical, social, and economic. Both technical and user survey techniques shall be employed to execute this component.

Feedback and Adjustment: outputs from the various monitoring components – evaluation, tracking, and auditing – shall be fed back into the project implementation to enable project review and, where necessary, adjustment of project components to allow for sustainable implementation.

46

5.1. Emerging Issues

Efforts in upgrading of Mabatini informal settlement is faced by several key obstacles:

• Insecure tenure: the land is still public held in trust by the City Council of Nairobi; the fact that the community does not have ownership and user rights make it difficult to significantly improve their housing and living conditions for fear of loss of the same through demolitions and evictions. The land can neither be used as collateral to secure funds that could otherwise be used for improvement of the same.

• Speculation and encroachment of land by private developers: the prime location of Mabatini land block and the fact that its occupants lack security of tenure makes the land attractive to speculators and private developers. About ½acre of the land was hived off for private development and the act is at present disputed in court. A search on the excision process facilitated through a part development plan revealed critical irregularities.

• Institutional bottlenecks: efforts to engage government institutions, especially the City Council, in the community-led upgrading has been difficult due to a wide spectrum of bottlenecks, beginning with general inaccessibility (lack of audience) of key offices to institutional reluctance in collaboration regarding an activity that is largely perceived as illegal.

• Lack of a broad-based framework for mobilization and engagement: it has been difficult to craft an appropriate and overarching framework for convening all the parties interested in the upgrading at the community, civil society, and bureaucratic levels. This has largely been due to difference in interests and propagates lack of synergy and potential conflict of parties.

• Fluidity of baseline information generated through repeated enumerations: there has been ever shifting data sets where critical variables for upgrading, such as the number of households currently living on site are concerned. This makes the process move back-and-forth, out of the need to carry out

fresh enumerations while having to deal with the contention arising from such disputable information.

5.2. Experiences and Lessons Learnt

A review of the Mabatini upgrading project and the comparison of the same with other upgrading efforts in Mathare area reveal the following realities:

• That the process of informal settlement upgrading varies with settlement context; for instance, interventions and strategies that seemed to have worked in neighbouring projects like Huruma-Kambi moto were ruled out in the Mabatini project.

• There is need to negotiate and control the diverse actors and parties with various interests in the project often characterized by conflict and contestations. It is advisable that such parties should first be met separately so that they can register their interests in a free environment, after which collective and moderated forums can be held to chart the way forward.

• The process of informal settlement upgrading is far from a clean and structured approach; instead it is lengthy, iterative, incremental, and negotiated. The bulk of sustainable solutions have evolved through a series of experimentation, negotiation, and piloting.

• Some issues are best left to the community for resolution, for their genesis is deeper than an outsider can precisely comprehend. However, there need to be clear incentives that will motivate the community to conclude such negotiations in realistic time lines.

• There is a huge base of social capital that remains untapped in the upgrading efforts. This can be directed to, among others, semi-skilled labour, advocacy and leverage, awareness creation, and community mobilization.

5.3. Next Steps

As at this stage, there are several actions that remain to be taken in the short and medium time, key of which are:

ConClUSion and WaY forWard

47

• Continued mobilization and engagement with community – this is necessary in order to promote awareness on upgrading, enhance savings, and enrich advocacy. The community shall be engaged further on design revisions and finalization, financing, and implementation frameworks.

• Continued engagement with government agencies – this will seek to secure land allocation, security of tenure, and preparation of a Part

Development Plan (PDP) that will legitimize the product of upgrading and safeguard user rights.

• Technical studies – value addition to construction of the project will benefit from technical input on geotechnical surveys and appropriate building materials.

• Networking of actors: There is still need to converge the activities of various actors cutting across community, civil society, government

agencies, and development partners. This will help negotiate a common agenda, tap synergies, and make it easier to explore solutions based on consensus.

• Policy dialogues – There is need to constantly engage relevant agencies to influence policy on informal settlement, with the ultimate goal of entrenchment and scaling up of informal settlement upgrading efforts. The university will hold an

important role in this endeavour as neutral convenor.

• Continuous Research: further research on building technology and construction materials will be necessary to seek ways of realizing efficient, safe, and cost-effective building models for sustainable slum upgrading. This agenda will be spread across various actors in government, institutions of higher learning, multinational agencies, and the private sector through partnerships.

48

AfreenAlam, NishaBaliga, GesangDeji, Alexandra Lenton, FumiSugeno and Jennifer Witriol (2004).Enabling a Community-led Process: Pamoja Trust’s Approach to Slum-upgrading in Nairobi, Kenya; Unpublished Report, School of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University.

Clara Greed and Marion Roberts (1998).Introducing Urban Design: Interventions and Responses, Longman, London.

Graham Atkins (2010). Plan! Build! Principles of Town Planning and Economic Layout Design for Low Income Housing Development in Zimbwabwe: An Urban Design Manual for Africa.

Homeless International (2004). “Muungano Evaluation”, Paper Prepared for Pamoja Trust.

Kevin Lynch (1960). The Image of the City, The MIT Press, Cambridge

Kevin Lynch and Gary Hack (1984). Site Planning, The MIT Press, Cambridge.

Marie Huchzermeyer (2011). Tenement Cities: From 19th Century Berlin to 21st Century Nairobi, Africa World Press, London

Mwara, Jackson (2002). Creating Sustainable Livelihoods through Housing Cooperatives: A Case Study of Huruma Informal Settlement, Unpublished Report.

Ngugi, Mumbi (2002) “ Appropriate Land Tenure Systems for the Huruma Informal Settlement Upgrading Initiative”, Prepared for Kenya Land Alliance/Pamoja Trust, Nairobi, Kenya.

Otiso, K.M. (2001). State, Voluntary and Private sector partnership for slum upgrading and basic service delivery in Nairobi City, Kenya.Cities, Vol. 20 (4), 221-229.

Robert Riddell (2004). Sustainable Urban Planning, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, U.K

Syagga, P., Mitullah, W., and Gitau, S. (2001). Nairobi Situational Analysis: Consultative report. Nairobi. Nairobi: Government of Kenya and UN-HABITAT.

Weru, Jane (2004) “Community Federation City Upgrading: the work of Pamoja Trust and Muungano in Kenya”. Environment and urbanization, Vol16, No. 1, April 2004, pp.47-62.

William Marsh (1998). Landscape Planning: Environmental Applications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.

referenCeS

49

appendiCeSAPPENDIX A: SETTLEMENT BLOCKING CONCEPT

50

Appendix B: Design Conceptualization Workshop

51

Appendix C: Community Planning Workshop

52

Appendix D: Design Validation Workshop at The University of Nairobi

53

Appendix E: Stakeholders’ Consultative Forum at The University of Nairobi

54

Appendix F: Design Exhibition at The University of Nairobi

Mabatini Informal Settlement Upgrading Plan: Towards a Dignified Community

Documents

Transcript of Mabatini Informal Settlement Upgrading Plan: Towards a Dignified Community