KAMPALA JINJA
PLANING FOR ACTION-ACTION FOR PLANNING
THIS BOOKLET IS ABOUT WHAT MASTER STUDENTS CAN DO & LEARN FROM WORKING WITH PEOPLE
This extended executive summary gives a brief glance into what a group of national and international and students were able to achieve during two months of intensive work in Uganda in 2013. This is not a booklet presenting ‘student projects from Africa’ i.e. well-designed proposals grounded in good intentions, superficial understanding and selective knowledge. These projects are real.
For a number of years we’ve had the privilege of cooperating with the National Federation of Slum Dwellers, Uganda (NSDFU). This year the relationship resulted in the students taking on feasibility studies and project proposals defined by ACTogether, the Federation’s administrative & technical NGO. These were real projects where funding was already committed, or they were early-stage projects where the Federation was looking for alternative approaches and models. These challenges were taken on by a multi-disciplinary group of 23 master students, some with years of practice, some straight out of university, from all together 10 different countries. 6 of the students, from architecture & planning, were enrolled as NTNU students for this semester from Makerere University. On account of the high number of students we had to split the group between Jinja, Uganda’s former industrial center and Kampala, the capital city each location given three projects. Both groups liaised with the local branch of the Federation and ACTogether. The thoroughness of their work emerged from going deep into their cases and their contexts. This required engaging with the slum dwellers themselves whose project they were set to investigate and prepare. Furthermore they had to interact with Senior and Chief Municipal officers in Jinja and high ranking KCCA representatives in Kampala, as well as independent professionals. And they drew benefits from our strong links to the Ministry of Land, Housing and Urban Development. The interaction with their principal client, the slumdwellers , but also with those holding administrative and political power is how students gain insights into ‘rules of reality planning’. We claim that insights are gained through personal discovery, not merely by being taught. This was more than confirmed. It emerged from acting responsibly, responsively as well as strategically, all of it deemed necessary in order to respond to the challenge they were given. The ‘added value’ we hope to have left behind to ACTogether and NSDFU are thus the composite results of the skills and professional knowledge we brought into the cases amalgamating with these in situ-gained insights. This is what distinguishes these students’ work from we above called ‘student projects from Africa’.
As only a third of the students remained in Uganda and continues working there, the rest returned first to Norway and will subsequently go to other parts of the world. How may this semester in Uganda have enhanced their professional capacity? There is no clear answer to this, but former students claim a change in professional outlook, a deeper understanding of what the current urbanization wave requires in terms of appropriate interventions and planning measures, one much more aligned to the interests of the millions left disenfranchised by the ongoing urbanization processes. To act constructively as a planner in improving the lives of slum dwellers, the planner has to understand what makes these settlements tick. The students’ reports – of which this booklet is but a small excerpt – definitely show that some of this crucial understanding has emerged and shaped the proposals. Bingo!
Hans Skotte, prof., course executive
Elena Archipovaite, lecturer, course teacher
N ORWEGIAN U NIVERSITY OF S CIENCE AND T ECHNOLOGY (NTNU)
MS C IN U RBAN E COLOGICAL P LANNING (UEP)
Fist semester fieldwork in Uganda, Fall 2013
The students were divided into six groups and given assignments, or projects, defined by our local partners, ACTogether and the National Slum Dwellers Federation of Uganda , three in Kampala and three in Jinja .
In Kampala one team worked to finalize the feasibility phase of the Land Sharing Project which was started by our previous student group in 2011 and further explored by the a group of students fron The New School of New York in 2012. Our group analyzed financing options, explored design options, and proposed a work-plan for further development and implementation to support the work of the local architects who will follow up the work.
A second team worked with the up-grading of the Kinawataka Market, conducting stakeholder analysis, developing planning options for the area while clarifying ownership issues and financial options and possibilities.
The third team collected local and international information on sanitation issues in preparation for a large scale program of building sanitation structures throughout Kampala. They thus compiled a full-fledged catalogue of options for possible structures to be implemented.
The first team in Jinja also worked on sanitation options for a similar, albeit smaller, sanitation program. Addressing the wider sanitation agenda the Kampala and Jinja teams they documented, analyzed and assessed alternative planning options. Together they compiled a sanitation tool kit that could assist stakeholders in implementation a new sanitation strategy for the urban areas of Uganda
The second Jinja team worked with local housing challenges. They analyzed existing housing and land strategies and documented existing housing projects. This was all done in close cooperation with the municipality and stakeholders involved in housing strategies in the past.
Preparing for the realization of a planned Building Material Training Center was the third project in Jinja. This was a genuine feasibility study where the students also investigated economic assumptions underpinning the project. They made proposals for a phased realization and submitted recommendations on appropriate and sustainable technologies that could support skill and capacity development of communities in the area.
Students:Hailu Bereketab Wondesen (ET), Mohammadzadeh Attar Mehran (IR), Mohan Ashish (IN), Murungi Ronald (UG), Neupane Raju (NP), Nshemerirwe Fiona (UG), Sharma Riny (IN), Shukla Tryambakesh (NP), Sliwa Marcin (PL), Yudono Karina (ID), Syversen Tonje Steffensen (NO), Andersen Signe L (NO),Gunleiksrud Anders (NO), Hellebergshaugen Veronica (NO), Næss Kanutte (NO), Prier Megan (NO), Vrebos Hanne ((BE), Kisembo Teddy (UG), Okia Patrick (UG), Nalule Harriet (UG), Oburah Doryne (UG), Tusubira Solomons (UG), Turinayo Abigail (UG), J. Okoth Lawrence (UG).
Teachers: Hans Skotte, NTNU; Elena Archipovaite, NTNU; Peter Kasaija, Makerere University & Mari Sjaastad, Engineers
Without Borders Norway/Norconsult a/s
Disciplinary background: geography, architecture, urban planning, civil engineering, product design.
Partners: ACTogether /National Slum Dwellers Federation of Uganda, Makerere University: College of Engineering, Design, Art and Technology; College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
Support: UN-HABITAT
LAND SHARING IN KAMPALA
Land Sharing
Land tenure becomes crucial aspect for development. Most of the urban population in developing countries doesn’t have access to land due to their low income levels and high land price. As a result the influx of people living in informal settlements keeps on increasing. People living in these areas are always vulnerable to forced eviction because of continuous efforts of the developing agencies to make city look better. Because these settlements lack the basic characteristics of so called formal settlement they become easy target.
Planning tools like land sharing becomes one of the solutions to these, as it helps in transitioning informal settlement to formal one. In land sharing, landowner comes into an agreement with the beneficiaries and developers on land and the agreement made has to ensure that no parties involved are affected in anyway.
Kisenyi III
Located in South Western part of Kampala´s central business district Kisenyi is one of the largest informal settlements in Kampala. It is also one of the most thriving areas of the city because of its vibrant economic activities. But because of its informal nature the area faces continuous threats of eviction.
Method
The project started with finding the missing components in the work done till now, so that project can move forward on the same ground. First field work on the project area was started by NTNU`s 2011-13 batch followed students from New School of New York in early 2013.
So one of the local NGOs, ACTogether and Slum Dwellers International with one of the land owners Haaji Mulangwa in the area, started exploring options against the eviction. They came up with idea of using land sharing method on the land owned by Haaji. The area is residential place for more than 100 tenants including 21 structure owners and consists of residential and commercial activities.
What we were supposed to do
Our scope for the fieldwork was limited to the extent of management and design aspects of the project, which includes:
• Assessment of project assumption in design and economic aspects.
• Development of project development/ implementation plan.
• Building relationship with technical persons/ institutions that can support the project.
• Continue to strengthen the relationship with government Institutions like KCCA and MOLHUD.
Approach followed
Before going into the details of the project we all decided to develop the framework in such a way that there will be no permanent displacement of people from the area. First step we did is to rename the project which will reflect this objective, therefore we came up with the name In-Situ Redevelopment. As the name suggests
there will continuous development with simultaneous resettling the habitants on the same area.
So we developed a set of guiding questions which divided it into three inter-related sections: 1) design
2) finance 3) implementation from the view point of existing dwellers to make sure that these people suffer minimum tangible or intangible losses.
Site Design
Since project will have to include two development proposals one for the land owner and one for the other inhabitants, so we came out with several options for how the land would be shared and these were in
respect to the needs of land owner and project. Further in deciding over the land use numerous factors like location, surrounding development, master plan of the city and affordability of the units were taken into account.
Another deciding factor for design was the affordability i.e how the dwelling units can be made affordable for the people. Considering the nature of project there was three ways of doing 1) either my making unit sizes smaller 2) by cross-subsidising it with commercial units
3) having the mix of both 1 and 2. In the project context we decided to go with third option as reduces the cost of a unit by 200 USD per sq.m.
‘We don’t need the size of 35 sqm, right now we are living in 9 sqm unit. We will be happy to have a unit of 15 sqm with shared facilities of kitchen and sanitation.’
A resident of Kiti zone, Kisenyi
Considering the above statement we started wondering about the size of dwelling units. As per by laws and public health regulations of Uganda we found out that for a family of six, minimum habitable unit size is 35 sq.m. Taking the overall construction cost at 300 USD per sq.m the cost of this unit would be around 10,500 USD. So the question arises for a family which earns 1,150 USD annually will this unit be affordable. After discussions with the community members we came
down to conclusion that why cannot we have the mix of variable unit sizes of 15, 21 and 36 sq.m so that even family in lowest income spectrum can dream of buying their dream house. But this would have require changes in by laws and regulations, so we came up with idea of having special planning area for the project so that the rules can be changed, but this will require the approval of governing agencies like KCCA, so we came up with two development proposals one by following by laws and another the case of special planning area so that a comparison can be made between the two scenarios and need for the changes in by-laws can be understood.
Implementation Plan
Implementation plan plays an important role in keeping the objective for these kind of project intact. And our main challenge was to find out how this project can be implemented with no eviction and minimum disruption of livelihood of the residents? The solution we came up with is to break down the construction phases and have a simultaneous resettlement plan along with the construction. An analysis was done to establish the sequence of phase wise construction.
ACTIVITY/DEVELOPMENT
Phase
Phase 1
• This phase started with the development of a relatively “free” area represented by the color code blue
• After phase 1 development, tenants in the purple area are relocated to the completed phase 1 before phase 2 commences
• Phase 2 comprises of development in the purple areas.
• These are commercial and mixed use developments
Financial analysis
In order to understand the two cases:
• special planning area
• following by-laws
We did a cost benefit analysis based on the resettlement plan, cash flows in each of the phases and a series of various assumptions. The benefit cost ratio for special planning area came out to be 1.06 with project cost recovery period in between 16 to 17 years and for the scenario following by-laws, it was 1.19 with same recovery period.
Scenario 1
Phase 2
Phase
Phase
• All tenants in the red area are relocated to the purple area (completed phase 2) and to the
Key Assumptions:
Public Sector Discount Rate 2013: 16.00%
Appraisal period (years): 20
Summary of the Results of the Analysis:
Capital Costs: $1,414,400
Whole of Life Costs: $3,826,962
Present Value of Benefits: $3,262,458
Present Value of Costs: $3,076,391
Benefit Cost Ratio: 1.06
Net Present Value: $186,067
Scenario 1
Key Assumptions:
Public Sector Discount Rate 2013: 16.00%
Appraisal period (years): 20
Summary of the Results of the Analysis:
Capital Costs: $1,414,400
Whole of Life Costs: $1,902,285
Present Value of Benefits: $2,094,866
Present Value of Costs: $1,762,819
Benefit Cost Ratio: 1.19
Net Present Value: $332,047
The Way Forward
For the project, it’s important that one should go for having the site declared as special planning area as development in this case will provide more housing units to low income dwellers in the city where no effort has been made to provide house at affordable rate.
SANITATION KAMPALA
INTRODUCTION
We were commissioned to investigate sanitation issues in Kampala’s slums and propose suitable low-cost toilet unit designs. This may sound like a straight forward topic which can be solved by applied engineering, yet it was not so easy. Getting the technology and financing right was not enough, it was more complex than it seemed.
Access to adequate sanitation is among the most basic human needs that apply to everyone. Yet many people, especially in the developed world, take sanitation for granted. For many of us it is just a part of our daily routine; with no need to spend time worrying about it. It may seem that it is simply ‘given’ and that ‘someone’ takes care of providing water and treating our waste.
This does not apply to slums in Kampala, where lack of proper sanitation is a serious issue which causes disease and can make living conditions unbearable. The worst is that the problem is rapidly accelerating, as urban population in Kampala increases faster than ever before.
Deficiency of sanitation facilities and services is adressed by the international community, but so far none of their different interventions provide a simple and
effective solution. Slum dwellers have seen the need to take direct action to improve their own situation. Through community mobilization and saving groups, like the ones organized in Kampala by ACTogether, they construct and operate new facilities. However, this is only a drop in the ocean.
This is where we come into the picture. By working directly with and for the poor communities, we attempt to help them identifying what works well, what does not work at all and what more could be done to raise the sanitation standards and make it more accessible.
METHOD
Our topic was very broad and touched upon a lot of different themes; therefore we had to use a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods in our research which made our field work even more interesting. Some of the methods used in the project include meetings with different stakeholders, informal interviews, site visits in different slums in Kampala, research on relevant policy, analysis of informal settlements’ enumeration data provided by local communities as well as design and mapping exercises.
SANITATION OVERVIEW
Sanitation problems in Kampala are closely related to the city’s topography. During the colonial times, most of its urban development took place on seven hilltops, leaving the valleys in between as forests and open areas. However, when Kampala’s population skyrocketed in the second half of the 20th century, new informal settlements started to develop in those low-laying areas and wetlands.
Only 7% of all Kampala’s residents are connected to a sewer network, which covers mainly the central area (KCCA, 2012). Very few slums have toilets connected to sewer pipes; therefore most of the city relies on onsite facilities, especially primitive pit latrines (see Map 1) in which feces are dumped into unsealed holes. The problem is that those low-laying informal settlements experience frequent flooding, have poor drainage and a high ground water table, all of which makes water mix with human waste and garbage, causing contamination, health risks and bad odor.
In the worst cases when slum dwellers have a very limited access to any kind of toilet facilities, even those unhygienic, self-built pit latrines, they need look for other alternatives. It is estimated that around 22% of all households in informal settlements are practicing open defecation (ACTogether, 2013), which literarily means dumping their waste just outside of their homes.
CHALLENGES
During our research, we identified a number of challenges which make it so difficult to develop sanitation facilities that would bring dignity, safety and hygiene to people of Kampala.
First of all, it needs to be stressed that there is no integrated policy document in Uganda that would address the real sanitation problems and propose a realistic plan to solve them in the future. There are many institutions and actors which have some responsibilities and roles in the water and sanitation sector, but their competences are often unclear or overlapping. There are very few cases in which those institutions collaborate to implement projects and initiatives together.
price for water is much higher than what was originally set by the government. Other municipal services are also expensive, so slum dwellers are hesitant to get their facilities connected to the sewer network or they do not empty their pits and septic tanks when they fill up.
Finally, the inefficiency of solid waste collection also contributes to the problem, as pits, septic tanks, pipes and drainage channels get easily clogged with garbage, which then require frequent and expensive repairs.
L ESSONS LEARNED
Before we started working on solutions and design proposals, we visited a number of toilets in different slum areas to find out what other issues need to be considered. Some of them are explained below:
Another set of issues relates to the lack of proper planning and access to land. Illegal squatting and unresolved land ownership issues are very common in Kampala’s informal settlements, which then may lead to evictions. It is understood that residents, governments and NGOs are hesitant to invest large amounts of money in sanitation facilities before those issues are resolved. In cases when people struggle to secure adequate shelters for themselves, sanitation becomes a secondary priority. The most common types of rentals in Kampala’s slums are the single-room “muzigo” dwellings, which may be occupied by up to 4-6 people. Rent for those units usually does not include access to any form of toilet facilities.
Further, there are challenges related to affordability of water, pit emptying and sewage disposal. Access to water in slum areas is often limited to communal taps, which means that users need to pay by demand. The rates they pay may differ from area to area, but in general the
• Toilets require financial management plans to ensure their uninterrupted long-term functioning
• Proper estimation of daily usage should be incorporated in the planning process in order to get the scale of the unit right and help deciding on the location
• Community members (especially women) that are involved in the financing, design and implementation process tend to take a better care of their toilets in the long term
• Security measures may be necessary to prevent crime (stealing, vandalism, sexual harassment), especially at night
• Sanitation improvement among the poor is only possible when accompanied by campaigns promoting health and hygiene
• Some communities may be hesitant to environmentally friendly toilet technologies, as they may not accept that their waste could be reused for composting or biogas for cooking so there may be no market for the end products
TECHNOLOGY
The following toilet technologies were identified as applicable in Kampala’s slums:
• Traditional pit latrine
• Elevated Ventilated improved pit latrine (V.I.P.)
• Elevated Pour flush latrine
• Double-pit latrine
• Water borne toilet
• Bio gas / Urine diversion dry toilet (UDDT)
Water Table
Recommended sanitation options
OPTIONS ASSESSMENT
The next step in our analysis was to match the appropriate technologies and proposed unit designs to a set of representative informal settlement types and user profiles in Kampala. This was done by identifying the most important criteria that make some solutions work better than others, for example whether it has to be a public or private toilet, what is the settlement’s population density, if there is any eviction threat in the area, how deep is the ground water table and whether there is a chance or willingness to get the toilet connected to the sewer network. All this information needs to be collected before the best technology choice and design is chosen.
DESIGNS
Based on the collected information, we developed three design proposals for toilet units in low-income neighborhoods.
Design 1 : Elevated Compact Double Pit Toilet for high-density residential settlements with high water table
• Size: 2 stances, assumed 50 users, 2 showers
• Incremental
• Requires little maintenance
Design 2 : Elevated Pour Flush Toilet with Septic Tank for more established medium-density residential settlements with high water table
• Size: 4 stances, assumed 100 users
• Caretaker may be present - opportunity for additional income
• Advertising
• Rainwater harvesting
Design 3 : Pour-Flush Biogas Public Toilet for marketplaces, public spaces or high density residential settlements
• Size: 4 stances, 1 handicap, assumed 250 users, 2 showers, 2 urinals, 2 sinks
• Caretaker is present – opportunity for additional income
• Incremental
• Bio gas can be used to lit security lights at night
• Rainwater harvesting
• May act as a centre for activity and environmental learning for children
CONCLUSIONS
Working on sanitation issues in Uganda has definitely been a life changing experience for us; not only because we learned a lot about what works and what doesn’t, but also because we could realize the disparity in living conditions, which then made us appreciate what we have. This fieldwork inspired us to take further action to improve quality of life of all those people who suffer from lack of sanitation and hygiene and other basic human needs.
recommendations for the improvement of sanitation are: long term thinking, getting the users involved, and making sanitation a priority in decision making.
Sanitation should no longer be a taboo, especially if it is deficient, like the example from Kampala shows.
Time is passing by, but some things will never change, like our biological needs. Therefore our general
We feel very fortunate to be given an opportunity to participate in the field work in Uganda and make a contribution. Having any of our proposals realized would definitely be a great reward and encouragement for us and anyone else who would like to have a real impact. We would definitely recommend all of you to take part in similar projects in the developing countries.
Kinawataka market
Markets in Uganda
This section summarizes actions undertaken to plan for the redevelopment of Kinawataka Market located in Kinawataka, an informal settlement found in Mbuya I - Nakawa Division, east of Kampala the capital city of Uganda in Africa. For more than 20 years this market, which consists of 126 business premises divided into stalls and lock-ups, has served the local communities of Mbuya, Kinawataka and some parts of Banda. (ACTogether, 2012) In addition to being important for the supply of food to the neighborhood, the market also employs more than 120 vendors and is therefore an important source of livelihood in the neighborhood.
However, Kinawataka market currently has a poor customer base due to lack of visibility, the deplorable state of the market stalls and narrow circulation passage ways. It also doesn’t live up to the standards for markets set by the planning authorities. The project therefore sheds light on the complex needs of markets in lowincome communities especially that of redevelopment that seeks to maintain the social structures of the market vendors and the community, as opposed to resettlement to a new site. As part of a strategic plan for an inclusive city, it also seeks to demonstrate other alternatives to eviction, mainly through creation of partnerships between the community, planning authorities, concerned ministries and other stakeholders.
Historically, markets in Uganda are open-air in nature characterized by temporary, permanent, semipermanent or no structures at all, depending on the context and whether or not it is located in an area gazetted for the activity. With the expansion of the population, growth of the economy and overall development of the country, newer markets have continued to spring up in upcoming suburbs and urban centers, albeit constructed with temporary/semi-permanent structures. However, the current trend for new emerging/redeveloped markets in Uganda is the construction of market halls, which is being driven by high land market values coupled with the new transformation of the city. However, this trend is not accommodative of low income market vendors.
To understand the importance of market redevelopment projects to the country, it needs to be noted that the Ugandan economy is dependant and dominated by agriculture, and of the population of over 27 million people (est. 2005), 85% live in the rural areas and mainly depend on agriculture for their livelihoods.(Kata, 2006) Therefore the state’s focus on market infrastructure development has been heavily influenced by the need to market agricultural produce internally and enhance the income of the 85% dependent on agriculture as a source of livelihood. This has been made possible through financial commitment, policy development and the creation of conducive working environments that foster strong partnerships between different development partners. Despite these efforts, the government is still grappling with the main challenges of insufficient funding for market infrastructure upgrades coupled with unresolved land ownership issues. (KCCA, 2012)
The development of these market infrastructures is one way of addressing the question of urban food insecurity in cities. In Uganda the existing food security policy relates only to the rural agricultural sector. Therefore, for the case of the urban poor community, the key issues that arise with regard to food security are the need to bring markets closer, making them accessible to everyone, and the need to ensure that food prices are favorable for the average buyer. (Brown, 2013) The approach to this project involved; the understanding of the different stakeholders and their expectations, analysis of different case studies, analysis and understanding of the site and context, all this leading to the development of a new design proposal for Kinawataka market.
Expectati ons of diff erent stakeholders
Lokal Council, Nakawa Division
- Act as a catalyst for further development
- Improved livelihood of the community
- Increased land values
Market vendors
- More customers, leading to more income and a better source of livelihood - Better management
- Form of organization
- Security of tenure - Security of merchandize - Revenue from leasing out spaces
MoLHUD, MoLG
- Streamlining the project to national regulatory frameworks and standards
KCCA
- Source of revenue - Reduce pressure on central markets - Reduce dependency on motorized transport for access to basic products - Safety and sanitation for public health - Project to be in tandem with KPDP
ACTogether, SDI, NSDFU
- Slum upgrading
- Improved structure and infrastructure layout - Secure tenure - Diversify the market - Formalize the marketplace
- Increase security of businesses and occupants
- Act as a catalyst for further development - Facilitate community partners
- Cost efficiency
APPROACH
In analysis of the site and context, different studies were carried out: a neighborhood study, land-use study, microclimatic study and sensory study. These studies aided the understanding of the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the site.
The different case studies analyzed provided different ideas that could be integrated into the proposal for Kinawataka market. These included;
•The provisions of different functions within a market, adding more facilities that the neighborhood needs
•Recycling of waste generated in the market
•The need to focus attention on community participation
•The need to plan for and design public markets that are flexible in nature and can easily adapt to new user
Micro-climate study
Sun
Sensory
An upgrade of Kinawataka market will contruibute to reduction of pressure on the central markets of Kampala.
needs and the changing face of the cities we live in
•The need to create a public market that is much more than successful commercial enterprise but also draws the community in by functioning as a successful public space – a “place”
•Retention of a sense of connection with the outdoors on all sides of the market
In response to the ever changing needs of the vendors and users of the market, it is designed to be flexible in character. The design also incorporates key issues of;
•Access
•Visibility
•Circulation
Sun
Site
Breeze
Nodes
Traffic
Neighborhood study
Undesirable
•Visibility of the energy inside the market by utilizing the structure of the building to create a sense of openness and draw people in from the surrounding area
•Creation of an interior courtyard into which the market stalls open up, allowing people to flow freely between the different functions
The new proposal for Kinawataka market approaches the design of the market from the larger context, ensuring the market is not alien or opposing within its site. As such, the new design ‘grows’ from its site and is influenced by different factors in the immediate neighborhood.
•Waste management
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT
The design of this new proposal is based on the understanding of how an example of a farmer’s market stall functions. The nature of the stall gives the vendor great flexibility with regard to the display of his goods. Reinterpreting this into the design of the market, the market is understood as one big stall consisting of and formed by a structural shell. This shell would then be gradually filled-in with the different functions the market contains.
This approach to design leads to the formation of an incremental market. The use of a structural shell ensures that the open-air character of the current market is maintained albeit reinterpreted. The lockups and other functions contained within the storey structure can then be slipped in as cubes of a more economical and light-weight material that can easily be adapted to the changing needs of the vendors. The use of the shell ensures maximum flexibility as far use and gradual expansion of the market are concerned whilst minimizing costs of construction and operation.
WAY FORWARD
Financing of the project will depend upon a concerted effort from all the stakeholders in many ways either human resource i.e. labor from the vendors and the community, financial resource from SUUBI development initiative, urban poor fund from SDI, a private investor and KCCA availing land for the market development.
In conclusion a way forward is developed that looks into the need to streamline the unresolved market land ownership and transfer issues, understand the management operation of the market that highly rely upon the vendors association and the need to go deeper into detailed design specifying the layout and different functions.
A FFORDABLE HOUSING IN
INJA
Land is a crucial aspect in the development of any area, not only as a means of production. Everything is land based, particularly housing. Hence, if land is not regulated it can result in housing problems which is mostly the case in Uganda. Though in Jinja the land is regulated and is under control of the Municipality, there are still many issues because of no National Policy for Land. This poses greater problems while providing housing for low income earners especially in a place like Jinja where 80 percent of the population is poor. Though the government tried following the ‘enabling approach’ to provide affordable housing and improved living conditions for the poor, it has done so in a very passive way and hence failed to implement it successfully. Affordable housing can be defined in so many ways that we decided to develop a framework for understanding the concept, in the context of Jinja. It helped us understand the implications of the government’s actions on the community in general and provided us a path towards giving relevant recommendations.
It’s not our responsibility
I NTRODUCING K AWAMA
When we went to Kawama, the housing project we worked on, we found that the project is almost at a standstill resulting from conflicts and misunderstandings between different stakeholders. Hence, it was important for us to understand the dynamics of the project first, before proceeding to giving out any suggestions. For this we looked into two case study housing projects for low income earners, in Masese and Mpumudde. They were relevant because of the fact that they all aimed at low cost affordable housing, had Savings Groups in each project and involved almost the same stakeholders apart from donor organisations. By doing this we dug deep into what made each community work. Though all the projects had unique characteristics, the case study method helped us generalise some concepts on affordable housing. By doing this we were able to foresee the future of Kawama if the ways of working of different stakeholders continued in the current pattern. In the course of our study we discovered that the housing in Kawama was not so affordable and suggested ways to improve this situation in the future.
National subsidies are essential
They can come under the form of land or financial support on a demand driven base.
People need to own their house and the land
When it’s their private property, they want to take care of it..
M.T. Diniz (Informal Toolbox)
Clear contracts
MoU signed before anything starts Documented secure tenure human dignity
Open knowledge
Access to information can lead to selbuild and can stimulate initiative
Services & infrastructure need to be designed to Electricity, sanitation, roads, water, schools and health centers
Let people participate in the design of public space
This will lead to higher awareness & commitment
Housing doesn’t stop when it’s built
Lack of maintenance and management can put the project to risk
Water should be a resource, not a hazard
Rainwater can be used to harvest or for irrigation
Garbage for life
Waste management can become livelihood
WHAT CAN BE DONE...
Collect information Good planning requires accurate information on the site (boundaries, topology,...)
Grow local
On site, small scale agriculture can lead to a diversity of crops and provide jobs and income
Importance of location
Location defines market opportunities. Transportation means & proximity to services, jobs and shops.
The best way to achieve affordable housing in the case of Kawama is Incremental housing. We have only reintroduced this concept because the local government has already tried working on it but failed because not much thought was put into it. In our recommendations the residents are free to extend their houses according to their finances and time. They have lesser dependence on each other which is not the case in current design. The most important factor in low cost housing is flexibility in the house design and in site planning. The house should allow for individual choices to build, design and also to choose it’s purpose. For example, in our proposed designs, the houses can be extended at people’s convenience and they also provide opportunity to use the extended spaces as commercial spaces to generate employment. Flexibility should also reflect in the site plan. It should allow for free movement and equal access for everyone, facilitate community interactions and be adaptable to people’s choices to generate income, be it farming on site or
opening small shops. The current plan does not take into account the local topography or dimensions of site, which is an indispensable part of site planning. It could further trigger the expenditure for Municipality because of higher maintenance costs for various services which depend on topography. The training in construction skills that are currently given to the community will also be helpful to achieve incremental housing. Such skills should be integrated with current housing project to generate employment opportunities for the community.
Our recommendations have been open and flexible throughout. We looked into the dynamics of Kawama project and gave suggestions suitable for the site, unlike conventional planning approach. We felt that in order to make a project successful, it is important to identify its uniqueness but also to learn from the success stories of other projects. For us, a combination of both paved the way to recommend incremental housing for the ‘poorest of the poor’ in Jinja.
SANITATION JINJA
INTRODUCTION
Safe sanitation is a universal, daily human need and basic right. With about 2.5 billion people across the world lacking access to safe sanitation and the connection between poor sanitation and waterborne disease, sanitation is an essential, urgent challenge for development (UN).
An enumeration report conducted by ACTogether (2012) found limited access to water and sanitation in Jinja’s settlements. Jinja Municipal Council (JMC) efforts to improve sanitation focus on expanding the centralized National Water and Sewerage Corporation (NWSC) waterborne sewerage network. Although commonly adopted as the solution to sanitation in urban centres of the developing world, centralized supply-driven piping networks are water and energy intensive, expensive and logistically difficult (UNESCAP). The TSUPU Programme (Transforming the Settlements of the Urban Poor) has also recently initiated projects in Jinja that include sanitation units in four the city’s settlements. TSUPU projects are funded by the World Bank and executed through a collaboration between JMC and the National Slum Dwellers Federation of Uganda (NSDFU).
HOW - METHODOLOGY
We started by evaluating sanitation in Jinja today through case studies of sanitation units and analysis of city-wide sanitation practices and programmes. Our analysis was informed by site visits, discussions with savings’ groups and residents, meetings with municipal officials and review of toilet design drawings, bills of quantities and caretaker records. We then derived a set of seven criteria for success, that we believe must all be met to implement and sustain sanitation projects in settlement communities.
RUBAGA MASESE RIPON KISIMA
SANITATION
The criteria then drove our development of city and site level recommendations. We created site-specific designs and maintenance programmes for four of the TSUPU projects sites, which were also informed by discussions with community members and successful projects elsewhere in Uganda and the world. For each site we designed several different options with preliminary cost estimates to encourage a comparative discussion.
TODAY - CASE STUDIES &
JINJA CONTEXT
There are a number of sanitation units recently constructed in Jinja by the NSDFU and other NGOs. Despite the large budget of the NSDFU toilets, they have largely failed to substantially improve access to sanitation. All have experienced a large discrepancy between expected and realized profits and users that can be attributed to poor location, limited sensitization, high pay-per use fees and the presence of alternative, if poor, toilet facilities. And a lack of evaluation of the unit in Masese enabled its almost exact replication in Ripon despite clear faults.
However, the project built with community contracting in Rubaga market shows that incorporating the community in the design and building process increases security and sense of ownership. The ecosan toilet on Kisima Island, also shows that cultural resistance to new technologies can be bridged with proper sensitization and communities are strong enough to collectively manage toilets.
In general, the observed failures of these projects speaks to the limited scope of implementation that fails to see projects holistically with a long-term perspective and fails to acknowledge the importance of adapting to the socio-economic context into which projects are placed. The criteria we consequently developed were therefore not focused on the physical construction of the building, but highlight the importance of appropriate design for a given community and planning for post-construction management. Our criteria are as follows: location and scale, appropriate technology, economy, ownership, security, health and awareness and stakeholders and partnerships.
Our analysis and criteria also respond to the limitations of the existing procedures of project implementation. Currently, projects are initiated only when there is external funding and the process ends with physical construction. In general, stronger emphasis needs to be placed on community involvement and long-term management, demand-driven projects and monitoring and evaluation. Funding agencies need to allow more flexibility and time for participatory processes.
Expected
CITY LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS
JMC and NWSC must acknowledge both their limited financial and managerial capacity and fundamental responsibility to provide basic sanitation to all of Jinja. This suggests a restructuring of municipal policies and financial planning to reduce dependency on donors and creatively use existing resources to extend basic safe sanitation to as much of the population as possible. Donor funds can then be used to strategically support ongoing programmes instead of replacing them.
This requires financial resourcefulness, accountability and partnerships with local organizations and experts to share responsibility and knowledge. Available money should be used creatively to support the entire process with emphasis on creating incentives for reusing waste as an economic resource and diversified waste treatment at different scales.
SITE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
Our site-specific recommendations include designs and cost estimates for decentralized and waterborne units in four of the TSUPU proposed sites in: Loco Housing Estate, Walukuba West Market, Walukuba East Market and Kimaka Market. Decentralized alternatives to waterborne include: ventilated improved pit latrine, permanent double-pit composting toilet and temporary double-put composting toilet and biogas. Wateborne options include manual pour flush and waterborne connected to sewerage or septic.
CONCLUSION
The NWSC network is arguably appropriate for the town center, but should be supplemented with clustered and decentralized sanitation solutions in outlying areas and poor settlements. It is imperative that JMC support exploration into low-cost, ecological alternatives to expensive waterborne toilets that are more financially, logistically and environmentally viable. Toilet waste not reused on site can be collected at regional points around the town and regularly transported to the existing fertilizer facility or NWSC lagoons. JMC could maintain organizational control, but share functional responsibility with the community and other stakeholders.
Our cost estimates suggest higher initial costs with municipal contracting (33 percent compared to community contracting), cost savings with material choice and creative floorplans, lower running costs with composting toilets and prohibitively high running costs with waterborne toilets. Construction costs between different options vary only slightly compared to the large differences in annual costs and ten-year costs. This emphasizes the importance of choosing a technology that is cost-effective in the long-run and incorporating additional functionality to units to increase profits or reduce running costs. These additions include greywater reuse, rainwater collection, greywater gardens, kiosk and rentable storage space and community space.
Because many of the failures in our case studies occurred after construction, we developed frameworks for implementation and management in residential and market settings that include implementation and management plans, financial planning for long-term maintenance and shared stakeholder responsibilities.
Existing sanitation policies and projects are failing to meet the basic need of Jinja’s poorest residents. It is essential for JMC to critically evaluate their existing focus on waterborne sewerage and consider supplementing the existing piping network with costeffective, decentralized alternatives appropriate for poor settlements. This demands redefining human “waste” as a resource, rethinking the convention of waterborne sanitation and re-engineering waste management into a cyclical resource management. We hope our work can inspire exploration and innovation towards a development path that is defined by and for the entire community of Jinja.
superstructure
plywood, papyrus, recycled jerrycans, ferrocement, canvas, etc. stretched on a wooden frame p it
Burnt or interlocking brick with concrete slab u nit size
5 stances, assumed 120 users per unit (4 families per stance)
p it life 2 years p it depth 2,5 meters
D OUBLE PIT C OMPOSTING – TEMPORAR Y SUPER STRUCTURE
UILDING M ATERIALS
RAINING CENTER
INTRODUCTION
Rapid Urbanization, inefficient land administration and inadequate capability to cope with the housing needs of people in urban areas have contributed to the development of the informal settlements, which is a common phenomenon in all developing countries. In Uganda, the apparent need for better housing, basic needs like sanitation facilities, water facilities and skills for employment opportunities resulted in innovations such as use of low cost building materials in construction of housing and sanitation facilities.
The building materials training and community center project (BMTC) in walukuba East settlement is one of the few such projects.
The NSDFU has previously engaged in construction of sanitation units and houses using Interlocking Stabilized Soil Blocks and prefabricated materials known as T-beams and laddys; making housing more affordable for low income groups. Establishing a Building Material Training Center to give training in fabrication of low cost building materials is an idea SDI and NSDFU developed to promote the new found technology that could make housing for the urban poor affordable, durable, environmentally friendly and able to support their livelihood.
Jinja has a total of approximately 9 informal settlements in the periphery of the city center. According to the 2010 Jinja slum profile report by the NSDFU, the settlements are home to over 20,000 people. The need for decent housing and skills for employment is evident in the population that inhabits Jinja’s informal settlements.
OUR ROLE
The Urban Ecological Planning course is an opportunity to study contextual cases and derive lessons that can nudge the urbanization process into a somewhat sustainable future. By creating partnerships with ACTogether Uganda and the National Slum Dwellers Federation of Uganda, the objective of the field course is realized.
Our role was to investigate the need for a Building Materials Training Center and engage stakeholder’s to kick start the project.
LOW COST BUILDING MATERIALS
Low cost building materials have the ability to significantly reduce the overall cost of a building. The materials reduce construction time; amount of mortar used in construction, number of blocks needed for the same structure and in the long term, less maintenance is required.
Examples of low cost building materials include; precast concrete T-beams and laddys, Fiber Reinforced Cement roofing tiles and Interlocking Stabilized Soil Blocks
(ISSB). The ISSBs have various types that serve different purposes depending on the needs of the structure.
For low income earners, reduction in the cost of a building is only realized if the project is seen as a whole and not the cost of a single unit like a brick. The cost of one burnt brick is lower than the cost of one ISSB. However, the amount of cement used in making mortar increases the cost of a building by at least 40% whereas in in using ISSBs, minimal mortar is used because they are 75% dry stacked.
THE BMTC
The Building Materials training center is designed to respond to the need for skills for employment and self-help housing, provide an affordable alternative to housing and contribute to the need for a community space. The stakeholders in the project are SDI, JMC, NSDFU, ACTogether and the community.
• JMC contributed land that had been reserved for a community center.
• SDI has contributed startup capital for the project UGX67million (USD 27000),
• NSDFU has contributed UGX 2.4 million from their community fund (monthly savings).
For SDI, NSDFU, the BMTC is an investment that should aid the establishment of other projects. Based on this the center is designed with three major concepts: Buisness, Training center and Social space.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY
The financial feasibility is done under some assumptions looking at the current market situation. The feasibility is not conclusive but gives a scenario of profit that can be generated by the center.
The center will generate income from; fees charged from training in fabrication of low cost building materials, income generated from sell of building materials, hire of the community center and gardens for social functions.
The center should generate enough profit to repay the loan, to bear overhead charges and to develop the entire infrastructure for the project. In order to do so, the profit should be maximized to at least 40%-45% per annum. Looking at the current scenario at the center, it is only able to generate 7% profit which makes the project highly unpredictable.
DESIGN APPROACH
The site is designed to accommodate the major activities; production of low cost materials and training in fabrication and a community social space. The site layout is based on four aspects; the functionality of the different activities of the center, circulation on site, orientation and optimal use of land. In the site layout, we proposed an arrangement of production shed, curing ponds, storage shelter, demonstration house, a training/community center and community gardens. The design process was done together with the PMC, Mr. Waiswa (ACTogether) and Mr. Kaliro(Architect)
It is estimated that the entire project setup will cost approximately UGX138 Million (USD 55000). However, with a startup capital of UGX 67Million, the project has to be phased and the business part must thrive to enable the completion of the project and the loan repayment. We are proposing to develop the site in 4 phases.
DESIGN
Phase 1: Construct a basic temporary structure in wood with iron sheets which gives shelter for training and production of ISSBs, T-beams and laddys. Construct curing ponds, the foundation of the ground floor of the center, and a temporary toilet.
Phase 2: Moving the storage container closer to the fence to give space for the community gardens and space for the demonstration house. Start the ground floor of the community center building with sanitation facilities, an office and a training room.
Phase 3: Construct a demonstration house and the first floor of the community center- the hostels. The center should be built with few fixed walls to allow flexibility in use of the rooms as well lower the costs of the building.
Phase 4: completion of the center. The second floor of the center will have the community hall. Basically an open room with a roof tilted to the back to allow rain water harvesting.
CONCLUSIONS
Conclusions are drawn from a critical perspective of the project resulting from interviews, observations and analysis of the current situation in Uganda.
There is a market risk for low cost building materials in Uganda attributed to a number of issues which include;
• High cost for initial production.
• Highly saturated market by traditional building materials that are widely produced and are easily accessible compared to low cost building materials.
• The lack of training in fabrication and use of low cost building materials has left room for mistrust for these materials among the public.
• No efforts have been made by architectural and construction institutions in including low cost building materials in curriculum.
To cover the costs of construction and setup of the entire project there is need for more funding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The center holds great potential of achieving its goals both as a business and as a social space. However, the recommendations given below hold a great impact on the ability of the center to function as desired.
The current unreliable market for low cost building materials remains the biggest threat to the project. The federation, ACTogether and JMC must invest in building a market through Projects, sensitization, bylaws. Makerere University through student internship programs can promote the BMTC and stimulate innovation in fabrication and construction techniques.
The center should only produce as per market demand so that there is a balance in demand and production.
The timeline for the loan repayment should be increased to give enough time to establish the business and explore the market.
It is important to phase the project and not use the entire loan before a market assessment is done. Phasing the project protects the investment and allows monitoring and evaluation.
Stakeholders and partners should be integrated into the project with specific roles that would bring the cost of the project lower. This can be done through a Memorandum of Understanding.
The production lines for business and training should be kept separate to have a system that allows optimum production to meet market demands and training that meets the objectives of the training center.
