Sierra Leone

An ARISE Impact Story by SPARC India

ARISE’s Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) approach to working with community members in Ahmedabad relocation colonies contributed to the identification and prioritisation of community needs and the creation of governance structures within fragmented resident welfare associations. Community peer-to-peer exchanges were held between other relocation and resettlement (R&R) sites, the communities in Ahmedabad and Mahila Milan in Mumbai and Surat. These led to improved relationships among residents, leadership across relocation sites and increased capacities and interest of community members to seek accountability from governance actors in order to improve their living conditions and wellbeing.

Background

Between 2009 and 2012, tens of thousands of residents of riverfront slums colonies in Ahmedabad were displaced to make way for the Sabarmati Riverfront redevelopment project. They were moved to 32 R&R sites in various parts of the city. The relocation process dislocated residents from existing community support structures and mechanisms to hold authorities to account.

People in slum relocation sites in Ahmedabad suffer due to poor institutional support post-relocation, poor access to basic services and caste conflicts among residents. Living conditions at the relocation sites compromise both personal safety and health due to the low quality of building structures and water and sanitation infrastructure. Lack of maintenance further exacerbates poor living conditions for the residents.  

These issues largely emerge due to poor local accountability and weak governance structures, such as Co-operative Societies responsible for operations and maintenance and keeping the colonies in order.

There is a need to bring community members together to demand change from governance actors, addressing concerns of health and safety and the well-being of communities. This is done through collaboration, partnerships and series of consultations with governance actors. However, there is a complex web of power and governance issues that need to be negotiated.

Impact

The Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centers (SPARC) began working with community members in the Ahmedabad relocation colonies in 2019 as part of the ARISE project. At that time there was a sense of distrust in the community toward anyone, including academics and NGOs. As one Surya resident stated, “NGOs just come and go; nothing changes for us.”

ARISE had originally intended to collaborate with community members to address health issues. However, it soon became clear that other social determinants of health, such as badly damaged infrastructure, needed to be prioritised before focusing on human health. Damage to the infrastructure was significant and persistent, with community members losing hope of improvements. One community member said, “The condition of these buildings is like our lives, broken and hopeless.”

ARISE worked with community members to map service infrastructure to identify, prioritise and facilitate urgent infrastructural improvements, including fixing corroded water pipes, overhead water tanks at risk of collapsing and the structural deterioration of buildings including water seepage, corroded exterior walls and peeling off of exterior walls. This helped community members to gain agency and confidence in the process, as they could see tangible results through their engagement with ARISE.

Eight community exchanges were held between the community in Ahmedabad and Mahila Milan, several of which focused on supporting women’s representation and leadership for improved accountability-seeking processes. In relocation colonies, women were generally underrepresented in conversations and decision-making processes. Despite being told by men that women tend not to participate, during a community exchange visit in May 2022, Mahila Milan encouraged women in the colonies to actively participate.

These meetings empowered women to form groups, address local issues and voice their opinions and priorities. As a result, more women began participating in the process, and have begun demanding accountability. For example, when the only water pump in their area was pumping sand and mud, it needed to be fixed immediately. However, there were delays on account of the local governance actors. So about 40 women prevented staff members from leaving the governance offices and refused to budge until their demands were met. Not only did the pump get fixed on the same day, but they also experienced the power of an organised community, setting a precedent for themselves and for the other residents and rekindling their sense of community.  

The experience of, “travelling to learn from other communities that have had similar lives as ours,” was new to the Surya residents. The exchanges were frequent, repeated and staggered for them to be effective. While it took multiple visits to show evidence of what was learned and exchanged, each visit produced micro actions around one community issue and strengthened the residents’ commitment to forming a functional housing society.

Lessons learned

There have been increased numbers of women participating in meetings and other accountability-seeking actions in the Ahmedabad relocation colonies, opening the possibility of women taking on leadership roles going forward. Additionally, there are a lack of organised groups for accountability-seeking in the colonies, and, for the most part, only the people that have always been in leadership roles in their locality volunteer to lead. These may require longer term efforts and relationship-building over time to really make the communities’ organisation streamlined.

What next

After seeing the kind of work that SPARC and ARISE has been doing with communities in Ahmedabad, other neighbouring communities have come forward with their interest to work with us on similar issues related to improvements in structural and housing issues, water supply, safety, open spaces, livelihood, identification documents and accountability mechanisms. This methodology will be replicated and scaled up in three more sites as part of an associated piece of PhD research.

Relevant resources:

Kamila Gojobe (Muungano wa Wanavijiji Community organiser) reports back on a meeting between co-researchers in Nairobi on the participation of co-researchers in research projects.

Have you ever considered the unique perspective of the community before embarking on a research project? What does it take for community co-researchers to meaningfully participate in research, and what ensures that the research benefits the engaged community?

Shack Dwellers International Kenya and Muungano wa Wanavijiji, with the support of ARISE and the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine Jean Clayton Fund, organised a workshop that brought together co-researchers from Mukuru and Mathare, two of the biggest informal settlements in Nairobi, Kenya. Together, they explored these questions from the viewpoint of those who are most affected – the community co-researchers.

Co-researchers workshop on capacity strengthening. The group discussion comprises co-researchers and Muungano wa Wanavijiji leaders from Mukuru.

This blog draws on a dialogue with co-researchers who articulated the gaps and opportunities they perceived in capacity strengthening in research, particularly in Mukuru. Co-researchers are local community members who provide support and hold local expertise, which they share and enhance throughout the research process. Before we delve into their insights, let us explore what the community envisions as a community-led process and the reasons behind their preference for it, using the Mukuru Special Planning Areas as an example.

Mukuru Special Planning Area 

Mukuru is one of the largest informal settlements in Kenya, home to approximately 300,000 people. Like many informal settlements in Kenya, Mukuru faces numerous challenges, such as limited access to basic services—for example, lack of access to clean water, inadequate health services, sanitation, and secure, good-quality housing. This has prompted various organisations to take an interest in its development and community empowerment. Muungano wa Wanavijiji – the largest slum dwellers’ movement in Kenya – organised residents of Mukuru to identify and voice their challenges. Through Muungano wa Wanavijiji’s advocacy efforts with the people of Mukuru, it was finally declared a Special Planning Area (SPA) in August 2017.

Mukuru SPA is the largest informal settlement planning process that the city of Nairobi has ever undertaken. Its main focus is the development of an integrated plan with all eight sectors – Education, youth affairs, and culture; housing infrastructure and commerce; health services; water sanitation and energy; environment and natural resources; community engagement; – providing proposals on the upgrading process. It aimed to transform a 689-acre slum with some of Nairobi’s severest challenges into a healthy and functioning neighbourhood. The community participated in a community-led settlement-wide planning process in collaboration with the county government of Nairobi, Non-Governmental organizations, academic institutions, and other relevant stakeholders (47 organisations).

The upgrading of the informal settlement began with the community co researchers collecting data through settlement profiling, enumerations, and surveys at the household level. After the data collection process, a consortium of diverse partners across different sectors was established. The community designed their settlement proposals in the consortium by understanding the problems and possible solutions. They presented the designs to the government in relevant sectors, e.g., health solutions, to the Ministry of Health. Later, the government implemented various services that followed community designs. This is a prime example of a community-led process where the community owns and drives its agenda.

Mukuru SPA, a community consortium meeting taking place in Mukuru Viwandani.

How can we be more equitable and sustainably strengthen the capacity of co-researchers?

When talking to co-researchers about their engagement in different projects or community initiatives, they see this process, Mukuru SPA, as the best model to use in informal settlements. The co-researchers explained more about the opportunities they see in different projects, challenges, and recommendations for capacity strengthening for future engagement:

1. Support and understand communities’ needs

Understand the community’s needs, support them in driving their agenda, and advocate for different issues. Ensuring the sustainability of projects requires careful planning, budgeting, and resource allocation for capacity-strengthening activities. Projects are often implemented without considering long-term benefits, reducing their lasting impact on the community. The co-researchers explained that before projects begin, it is important to sit with the community to understand if the project will be of importance to them, if there is a gap that the project will offer possible solutions for, and lastly, to involve them to ensure community ownership that will have a long-term impact. This will ensure sustainability, as the community will run it.

2. Monitoring, evaluation and learning

Continuous learning and improvement are key to the long-term effectiveness and impact of any project. Many organisations overlook this, focusing more on project implementation than on monitoring, evaluation and learning. However, implementing a systematic follow-up process, led by the community and co-researchers, ensures that projects remain beneficial and adjustments are made as needed for ongoing improvement. By building the capacity of co-researchers to monitor, evaluate, and share learnings from projects, organisations can ensure that the community’s needs are being met and that the project is having the desired impact.

3. Impact and sustainability

When engaging co-researchers, researchers often treat the process as a box-ticking exercise to achieve the project’s desired objectives. However, community co-researchers often do 80% of the data collection and validation as well as project on-ground implementation, and organisations should aim to enhance community skills and ensure project impact and sustainability in informal settlements. The co-researchers explained that there is often a missed opportunity to build connections among community groups, CBOs, and NGOs engaged in the space, which could enhance resource sharing and collaborative efforts. This would help leverage local skills and knowledge, ensuring project effectiveness and sustainability. Learning from other communities and institutions through, for example, mentorship and exchange programs, can provide valuable insights and enrich local initiatives. Forming partnerships with various stakeholders brings additional resources and expertise. Providing training programs empowers community members to take active roles in development initiatives, ensuring that the community drives its own progress and development.

4. Awareness creation on ongoing and planned projects

Increasing awareness about ongoing and planned projects was also highlighted as ensuring community members understand the project, are able to make informed choices, and actively participate. Reviewing and adapting policies to reflect community needs and realities can create a more supportive environment for development initiatives.

5. Recognition of co-researchers and community

Furthermore, recognition of co-researchers and participants in community projects – such as providing a certificate of participation and being given credit in project outputs – significantly enhances their future opportunities and motivation for participation. For example, being acknowledged by community members and administration officers opens employment opportunities, as it validates their contributions and skills. These steps can enhance the overall impact and sustainability of community projects.

In conclusion, co-researchers have strengthened their research capacity through different initiatives, and they have had the privilege to share their community knowledge and expertise on how to engage communities. This is critical to the development and community-led process. By addressing these challenges and seizing these opportunities, we can create a research environment that truly benefits the communities involved and the future of community-led processes.

Bachera Aktar, Abu Conteh, Surekha Garimella, Caroline Kabaria, Jiban Karki, Robinson Karuga, Blessing Mberu, Linet Otiso, Samuel Saidu, Inayat Singh Kakar, Rosie Steege, Hayley Stewart, Joe Taylor, Sia Tengbe and Neele Wiltgen Georgi report back on discussions from the International Conference on Urban Health.

Earlier this month team members from across ARISE traveled to Atlanta for the 19^th annual International Conference on Urban Health. It was a whirlwind few days, meeting colleagues focusing on all different aspects of urban health and attending plenaries and panels that addressed a wide range of topics and issues. The team has put together a short round up of the key themes and discussions we found emerging over the conference, as a helpful reference and reminder of where the current focus is on urban health.

Community = Power

“Those closest to the problem are closest to the solution.” – Nathaniel Smith, Partnership for Southern Equity

Many sessions we attended spoke about the importance of consulting and engaging with communities – moving from an approach of doing things for people, to with people and by people. We need to not be afraid to share power, and instead “share the mic”. Speakers highlighted the fact that residents in disadvantaged and marginalised urban settings know what they want to change, and urged attendees to recognise that the role of organised community is fundamental to any public health action.

Jason Corburn from UC Berkeley spoke about the importance of bringing communities into the building and maintaining of green parks and spaces, and ensuring they are paid to do so. Many highlighted the fact that community-based activists were critical to community-led action for urban planning, which served the dual purpose of meeting the health and wellbeing needs of communities and tackling the issue of the marginalisation of existing communities through gentrification.

City planning

“We know how to build healthy spaces. We just do not do it for everyone who needs these health spaces.” – Gil Peñalosa

There was much discussion around urban planning, and the focus on how cities are built. Speakers impressed the importance of green and blue (rivers/waterways) for mental health and wellbeing, the importance of pavements which encourages walking, and the regreening roads which leads to reduced speeds. Panellists discussed how city planning and transport and construction/development industries are drivers of future urban health outcomes, which can lead to environmental justice.

It was also highlighted that urban planning need not be a responsive event (e.g. city sprawl), but instead can be proactive and long-term. And an emphasis was placed on ‘place-making’, an approach to shaping our environments to make them more comfortable. This process again should be community owned and driven.

Policy, governance and systems

“It’s wrong to think the system isn’t working, the system is working exactly how it’s set up to.” – Nathaniel Smith, Partnership for Southern Equity

Speakers highlighted that public policy is a reflection of the values that people have, and that policies relating to urban environments cannot be separated from work of social justice. Conversations emphasised the importance of multi-disciplinary/ cross sectoral partnerships. Bringing together those have a vested interest in this topic, but making sure to speak the language of each sector in order to tackle common problems – so framing issues as housing problems to those working in housing, but as a health issue to those working in health. Strategically, a whole government approach to issues surrounding urban health is needed, so good communication and engagement with those at local and national levels is key.

Contextual issues

“Why do we treat people and then send them back to the conditions that made them sick in the first place?” – Gerry Eijkemans, PAHO

“Communities do not have a transport problem on Monday, jobs problem of Tuesday. They happen at the same time. We cannot propose siloed solutions for intersectional problems.” –  Nathaniel Smith, Partnerships for Southern Equity

Speakers across the conference spoke about the complexity of urban inequities, and how each society has complex layers of inequality that need to be uncovered. We need to breakdown the dichotomous definitions of urban formality versus urban informality, which gives one power over the other.

Speakers discussed how the Americas are the most inequitable, with structural racism in America as a critical social determinant of health for people of colour. Similar structural injustice can be translated into other contexts as structural neglect, especially in the case of urban informal settlements.

Blog by SPARC

SPARC and its community federations have, for a long time, used research tools such as surveys to learn more about access to basic services in their own and neighboring communities. This is an SDI-wide methodology called ‘Settlement Profiling’, which is now subsumed under a larger campaign called ‘Know your city’. In ARISE, we applied the same methodology to collect data around health and wellbeing in the slum relocation colony action sites in Mumbai and Ahmedabad, India..

As art of the ARISE project, the SPARC team developed a simple survey questionnaire to collect quantitative and qualitative data around the health and wellbeing (H&WB) of respondents. In our sampling strategy, we chose locations where residents of slums displaced by city infrastructure projects had been relocated by SPARC in collaboration with state institutions. The sample covered about 30% of households in four locations in Mumbai and one location in Ahmedabad, covering a total of 3,450 household surveys.

While the federations in Mumbai have used surveys for several years, the H&WB survey was new to them. This was particularly because the H&WB survey process required collecting personal information and because the concept of wellbeing is difficult to articulate in the local language spoken in the communities. Therefore, while they knew that they would be trusted by the survey participants, it was important to follow proper ethical guidelines and anonymize data to the best possible extent.

In Ahmedabad, such processes have rarely been undertaken in relocation sites. Any such attempts of data collection are met with numerous doubts and elicit a sense of anxiety among the residents. People often mistake surveyors for state actors, such as those who notified their houses while living in slums before being relocated. Considerations of privacy and disclosure in this context were paramount.

In this blog post, we share our experiences of the survey process, and those of the federations, particularly the women. who undertook the surveys in their respective localities.

Sampling method and the fun with every ‘third’

In Mumbai, the Mahila Milan members – ARISE co-researchers who carried out the survey – found the idea of surveying every third house as a sampling strategy very humorous. Co-researchers and residents were amused as to why we would drop households in between. In fact, during surveys, the neighbors would peep into the discussion and would express disappointment if their house was dropped. At first, the surveyors felt perhaps that this stemmed from the anxiety around missing out if the survey data was to be used for any immediate benefit. However, over time, it became clear that many neighbors were genuinely interested in participating and wanted to be asked about their health and to share their experience with treatment, safety, and support from state and non-state actors.  

In Ahmedabad, the absence of community-based organisations such as the Mahila Milan meant that researchers from SPARC and prominent community members from the relocation sites had to develop a different approach, where community members were collaborators rather than co-researchers. While influential community members were unfamiliar with surveying tools, they were able to facilitate the process successfully, helping to recruit participants and organising meetings where they explained the purpose, intent, and potential benefits of the surveys. 

Resistance and survey response fatigue

Communities living in informal settlements or in poverty are often subjected to repeated surveys. While the communities at action sites had not been surveyed on issues of H&WB before, they were initially quite reluctant to participate as they saw no value in it. Repeated surveys, especially those for research, have not previously produced tangible outcomes for them. It was not uncommon to find people expressing their perceived futility of these processes and raising issues, resulting in other households turning down the surveys as well.

In Mumbai, the surveyors, being largely people from their own communities, could discuss with leaders and were successful in explaining the benefits of such activities. They gave leaders formal letters explaining the process, intent and future benefits, which were modelled after the information in the participant information sheets, and sought their agreement. Eventually, most households participated and shared information freely.  

In Ahmedabad, the process was similar, although the barriers were steeper; the lack of community organisation meant that a few meetings with the leaders did not suffice and needed much stronger and repeated efforts to elicit participation.

Research ethics and remaining anonymous

One important element of the H&WB survey was to maintain the anonymity of the participants and their families. Therefore, a two-step process was designed to tackle this – each household was assigned a code, and the code and associated respondent name was recorded on a separate sheet for data verification purposes. Data would then appear on the survey forms with the code, which is developed from the initials of the surveyor and the date of survey, ensuring that the participant would remain unidentifiable from the survey data.

However, it was challenging for the surveyors to develop a code and then noting the health data of different family members being shared by the respondent without writing names. It was also difficult to record any action that would require follow-up or re-consultation with individual households. Though this proved to be quite challenging as their first experience, over time the surveyors learned how to overcome it.

Survey questions generating more questions

While a survey question seeks an honest response to the question, with some participants in this process, it raised more questions, and it therefore became a tool to generate a ‘mini discussion’ during the survey. For example, we included a question on mealtimes and what foods were largely consumed in their meals. This was to understand if people were consuming adequate amounts and getting all major sources of nutrition. However, some respondents became inquisitive and asked why we were asking about mealtimes and if the meal times they followed and the food they consumed had any bearing on their health. It generated a small discussion around current eating practices, the change in lifestyle where meals are now consumed at irregular times, the inability of families to consume meat due to its high price, etc.

This also brought forth questions and concerns regarding the quality of produce, and the uneven benefits offered by public distribution schemes and their relation to their current living circumstances. That said, as food habits are deeply cultural and embedded in religious beliefs, survey questions pertaining to this were met with apprehension in some instances.  

The learning

While the process of survey was not new for the Mahila Milan women, the experience of surveys as part of a research methodology was. Firstly, surveys that elicit personal information require trust between the surveyor and the participant. While ethical processes do safeguard respondents, community members have no prior knowledge of formal safeguarding processes, and mere sharing of information via participant information sheets and having them give written consent does not always ensure that a participant feels confident of data confidentiality. In these circumstances, personal trust becomes most important and therefore good quality data on health and health practices were elicited only from a small proportion of the sample.

The Mahila Milan are important collectives in their localities, and their support groups provide advice and assistance with everyday issues. The survey experience helped the Mahila Milan and the residents to feel that they can also look at health, health access and other social determinants of health within their support work. In addition to the survey being useful as a tool to collect data, the interactions during the survey also improved everyone’s understanding of health as a subject.

Surveyors also unexpectedly found the indirect survey questions helpful to elicit answers on difficult questions. For example, we added in a question about safety at home. While everyone felt it was obvious for anyone to feel safe at home, the surveyors soon found it an easier way to ask about domestic violence.

The Mahila Milan was also initially resistant to ask people about their personal health, as they felt it was ‘not useful’ and ‘nobody shares health data’, and they were concerned about the length of the survey. But their opinion changed when they saw that the first respondents were actively interested in sharing, and the nature of questions and the reasons for them being asked began giving a clearer picture. A senior Mahila Milan leader stated:

“We used to giggle thinking of the kind of questions in the survey. Who would ask such questions, why would anyone answer, and what are we even going to do with this kind of data? But we now realise how the sections and questions are interlinked and come together to tell us a story about health and wellbeing among the people in our localities.”

At SPARC, we fully acknowledge the challenges of data quality issues, as it is unlikely for any data to be 100% accurate. The data being collected over a year on paper, entered into Excel, and then analyzed through manual calculations will seem like any research programme’s nightmare. However, for us, it was important to engage the Mahila Milan actively into the process, to provide this as an avenue to develop thinking around health and wellbeing within their communities, and to help them take actions based on the findings of the data.  Processes encouraging community participation in pushing for health systems improvement also need to acknowledge the long and painfully slow process of understanding the challenges faced by community residents. But it is imperative to drive motivation and collective action towards long term and sustainable change. To us, surveys as a process are an important tool in the hands of communities that enables their active participation in the process of learning. The data collected from it is only one of the byproducts that enhances that learning and pushes for action.

Image credit: SPARC

Sadaf Khan reports on the disconnect between the UN’s definition of slums, and the diverse realities of these informal settlements.

UN Habitat’s definition of slums is comprised of what are known as the “five deprivations”; lack of i) access to water, ii) access to improved sanitation, iii) sufficient living area, iv) housing durability and v) security of tenure. Raise this definition in a roomful of researchers, activists and professionals who work in slum settings – as we did at the last ARISE Annual General Meeting (AGM) in Mumbai – and you will be met with an indignant uproar about the inaccuracy and injustice of such definitions.  

Those present vehemently argued that these spaces and communities are not illegal or dirty, and that this narrative is in fact popularised by the dominant classes, the same people who equate slums with the urban poor. They pointed out that calling slums, or informal settlements, illegal is wrong from a human rights perspective. These are thriving spaces with complex governance structures, that, however informal, work most of the time. These structures ensure that, despite the noticeable absence of the state, people have access to water and sanitation, etc., albeit at exorbitant costs.

Our colleagues in Mumbai went on to speak about how people living in informal settlements make important and essential contributions to the local economy. These include waste pickers and sanitation workers, taxi drivers, and small business owners, without whom, the formal part of the city would flounder. They shared how, despite the critical roles these communities and spaces play, people living in informal settlements regularly struggle to access healthcare and social protection and face unnecessary stigmatisation when they engage with the formal structures and services of the city. They highlighted how overlapping vulnerabilities often further marginalise those already at the margins of society, and how poor planning and precarious or unclear tenure status become a catch 22, relieving service providers and the state of any responsibility to the communities living in slum or informal settings.

Shifting the focus: diverse realities in informal settlements

When people who work and live within slums and informal settings are so clear on the necessity of such spaces within cities, why do organisations like UN Habitat, WHO and the World Bank continue to use outdated framings when clearly on-ground realities are so very different?  The rationale given is that these physical indicators; access to water, sanitation, appropriate living area, etc., make it possible to measure improvement within the settlement from household to household, providing a means of assessing the impact development programmes have on the spaces and communities living within them.

Unfortunately, what happens simultaneously, as illustrated by the statements above, is that the delicate and complex socio-economic mechanisms that make these settlements work are overlooked and ignored. This is not to say that issues of service provision, tenure security and poor building materials should be disregarded entirely and that they aren’t a genuine concern. We are simply suggesting that the overwhelming value placed on them undermines more pressing challenges experienced by those living and working in slums and informal settlements. Challenges like the threat of evictions (experienced across all ARISE sites), flooding and landslides  (Freetown), fire  (Dhaka) and gender-based violence, have the power to dismantle communities, disrupt livelihoods and severely impact health and wellbeing of community members.

What we have seen through the process of working with communities across the ARISE landscape is that the needs and challenges of communities vary from site to site and context to context. For example, data from Dhaka and Freetown suggests that age of the settlement may play a role in the level of service provision within a settlement; the more mature settlements seem to be better served. The experiences of ARISE’s Indian partners show that communities find creative ways through which access to services has been gained whilst respecting the prevalent planning and quality standards within the city. These local workarounds provide access, abiding by local bylaws and standards helps evade city authorities looking to shutdown illegal utilities, and the whole process speaks to the intimate knowledge these communities have of the workings of service providers and policymakers. This highlights the ability of communities to be innovative, and to learn and adapt within a system in the hope of achieving formalisation.

Like the sites and contexts they inhabit, communities in slum and informal settings are heterogeneous with internal hierarchies. Marginalised groups dealing with multiple overlapping vulnerabilities – disability, female headed households, ethnic or religious biases – inhabit one end of the socio-spatial spectrum. Whilst those more able, better connected and in positions of power, like local chiefs, elders and community leaders, sit at the other end.

Despite this, or maybe because of it, where the state has failed to provide support and/or services, Community Based Organisations (CBOs), NGOs and Community Advisory Committees (CACs) have been able to organise and mobilise to provide homegrown solutions to service provision challenges related to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and healthcare within the settlements. These informal governance structures often connect outwards to more formal structures, like ward councillors and local politicians, to help facilitate access to basic utilities etc., showing that there are varying degrees of ability to demand accountability from policymakers, service providers and governance actors within these communities.

In essence, what our review of documents from multilateral agencies that speak to definitions for slums and informal settlements shows is a huge disconnect between how these spaces and communities are perceived to be and what they actually are, and, more importantly, are capable of. The uproar and indignation of all those in the room at the ARISE AGM in Mumbai when these definitions were shared was completely justified, as these definitions are flat, broad and focused on deficiencies rather than the heterogeneity and industriousness of the communities and networks within. Additionally, they absolve service providers and policymakers of any responsibility towards the communities within these spaces.  

Moving forward

Whilst these definitions serve a purpose in terms of assessment and impact analysis for donor organisations, they do a disservice to the communities they describe. These definitions are intrinsically linked to programme funding, capacity building within communities and organisations, and knowledge creation. The omissions and over-simplifications built into them limit the ability of funders to acknowledge and to respond to context specific needs. Moving forward, there is a need to revisit these definitions to ensure they more closely reflect the heterogenous and intersectional nature of the people, places, processes and of course problems within slums and urban informal settlements. These definitions need to be developed in an inclusive manner, bringing on board the opinions of those communities most effected, acknowledging not only the challenges but also the successful workarounds that these communities devise to exist within a system that is reluctant to acknowledge them and the overwhelming contributions they make to urban life.

Image credit: Image by Travel Wild is licensed by iStock