Cotton - infrastructure for urban poor.pdf

7/27/2019 Cotton - infrastructure for urban poor.pdf

1/10

Cities 1994 11 (1) 15-24

Infrastructure for the urban poorPolicy and planning issuesAndrew Cotton and Richard FranceysThe Water, Engineeri ng and Development Cent re (WEDC), Loughborough Uni versit y LElI 3TU, U K.Tel: +44 509222885. Fax: i -44 509211079.

Traditional modes of providing physical infrastructure on unimproved settlements for theurban poor are unlikely to meet the ever-increasing demand for services. New policies forimplementation, management and use of more appropriate technologies are required. Conven-tional high levels of service are shown not to be affordable. An alternative policy strategyinvolving a participatory support approach is explored. This plans for the provision of primarylevel services with view to subsequent upgrading, which is to be managed by householders andcommunities. Implications for households, communities and institutions are addressed, andreference is made to the experiences of the low cost sanitation and sewerage programme of theOrangi Pilot Project in Pakistan.

The dramatic growth in the population of urbanareas in developing countries is illustrated in Table1. This implies a doubling in size of many citieswithin 20 years. It is estimated that by the year 2007,400 million new dwellings with supporting infrastruc-ture will be required. A key issue in urban manage-ment is the channelling of resources to deal withinfrastructure requirements; enormous investmentin physical infrastructure is necessary to preventever-increasing numbers of urban dwellers beingdenied access to basic services.

As a result of rapid urbanization, increasing num-bers of people seek some form of shelter on infor-mal, unimproved housing settlements which lackbasic social and physical amenities. The desperatephysical characteristics of many such informal settle-ments bear testament to the lack of physical infras-tructure: waterlogged ground thick with mud due topoor drainage; ill-defined access ways and unpavedroads; long queues to obtain water from a singlepublic tap or an expensive water vendor; openspaces covered with human excrement because thereare no sanitary facilities; heaps of rotting garbagewhich remain uncollected.It is desirable to improve services for low-incomecommunities both to improve environmental healthand for long-term economic growth. Improvementsare usually necessary in the following infrastructuresectors.

0264-2751/94/01/0015-10 0 1994 Butterworth-Heinemann Ltd

Ground preparation to provide the foundation forthe construction of shelter, including the protec-tion of low-lying land from inundation by floodwaters and the prevention of soil erosion andmovement on steep hillsides.Drainage to permit both stormwater and house-hold wastewater to drain away without creatingstagnant pools.Access and roads to define a site layout with clearboundaries for housing plots, access routes, rightsof w8y and emergency vehicle access.Water supply to provide clean water in adequatequantities to cope with basic needs.Sanitation to remove and dispose safely of humanwastes; this is an essential component of environ-mental health.Soli d w aste management to ensure that refusewhich is generated on the site is collected anddisposed of.Power supply for cooking, lighting or to run otherelectrical appliances.

When infrastructure is provided for low-income set-tlements, the conventional method has been forprofessionals to undertake the formulation and de-sign in accordance with pre-defined guidelines forlevels and standards of service. Implementation iscarried out using either the implementation agencysdirect labour organization or contractors appointedby the agency.

15


2/10

Infrastructure for the urban poor: A. Cotton and R. FranceysTable 1 Urban growth

Type ofcountriesLow-incomeLower-middle-income

Percentageof populationwhich is urban22%36%

Annual urbangrowth rate4%3.7%)

Source: World Bank, World Development Report 1989, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, UK, 1989

Two problems have become apparent with thistop-down approach: (1) the levels and standards ofservice provision are frequently modelled on thehigh levels of service prevailing in industrializedcountries; and (2) those implementing the infrastruc-ture have little or no knowledge or interest incommunities residing in the settlement.

This approach to infrastructure provision on low-income settlements has clearly failed to keep pacewith demand and it would appear that radicalrethinking is required if sustainable infrastructure isto be provided. Two important contributing factorsare the high cost of service provision, and theinstitutional arrangements for planning, design andimplementation. This raises two questions which willbe addressed in the paper. Can these net costs bereduced? Are there alternative strategies whichcould achieve greater coverage of service provision?

Infrastructure costsLevels of serv i ceWithin each of the infrastructure sectors describedabove, there exists a range of technology optionswhich offer different levels of service. Let us takeaccess and roads as an example. Clearly definedaccess to plots is the factor of prime importance; aprofiled earth road or path is adequate for thispurpose in certain circumstances. If desired, thereare then a variety of ways in which the access can besurfaced, ranging from gravelling to the provision ofbituminous macadam or concrete. The latter optionsgive an all-weather surface which supports hightraffic loading; a profiled earth road can only take alimited number of vehicles per day and is prone todamage in wet weather. The cheapest option is touse profiled earth, whilst the most expensive arebituminous or concrete pavements.

Clearly, different levels of service have differentcosts and different benefits. If there were sufficientresources and institutional capacity to provide highservice levels with concomitant high benefits foreverybody, all would be well and good. However,the following exploration of the cost implications ofdifferent service levels strongly suggests that this isnot the case.

The conventional approaches to service provisionseem to have lost sight of the fundamental step of

defining objectives and then considering what op-tions are available to fulfil those objectives. That is,levels of service based on those provided in indus-trialized countries have erroneously been assumedto be objectives in their own right. Table 2 thereforeseeks to clarify matters by suggesting objectives andoptions for infrastructure development appropriatefor low-income settlements in each of the majorsettlements.In order to explore the cost issue more deeply, it isuseful to consider the following summary of a de-tailed analysis of infrastructure costs for low-incomeurban settlements (Cotton and Franceys, 1990).Different options for servicing have been assembledfrom the information given in Table 2, and areshown in Table 3. Option 1 represents a convention-al level of service based on that provided in indus-trialized countries; option 2 represents a lower levelof service using different technologies.

Infrastructure costs for low-income housingschemes in India, the Far East and Southern Africahave been analysed. A key issue is that the infras-tructure provided for low-income communitiesshould be sustainable and it is important to define acost indicator which reflects this. The analysis there-fore uses the concept of life cycle cost, which ratherthan simply taking capital cost alone, incorporatesall the costs incurred during the life of a facility,including: planning and design; capital; operation;maintenance; decommissioning. The life cycle costsare discounted in order to obtain their present value;this technique permits expenditure incurred atvarying times in the future to be brought back to acommon base time in order to determine the leastcost option. A discount rate of 5% and a project lifeof 20 years is assumed.Total Annual Cost per Household (TACH) isused as a cost indicator. It is calculated by amortiz-ing the present value life cycle cost of infrastructureand dividing it by the number of housing plots whichthe infrastructure serves. TACH can be thought ofas an annual cost attributable to each plot in order torecover the life cycle cost of the infrastructureprovided. It also provides a convenient means ofcomparing the cost of different technologies andservice levels with household income, thereby enabl-ing affordability to be gauged.The TACH is shown in Figure 1 for both servicingoptions, as a function of plot size. The high servicelevel (option 1) costs approximately twice as much asthe lower service level (option 2). This cost differ-ence is of fundamental importance. While manipu-lating site layout arrangements can reduce servicingcosts, the effect is minimal compared with the reduc-tions from using lower levels of service.Reducing infrastructure costsFigure 2 shows the potential infrastructure costsavings which are possible through the adoption of

16 Cities 1994 Volume 1 I Number I


3/10

In frastr ucture for t he urban poor: A . Cot ton and R. FranceysTable 2 Technical options for infrastructure

SectorDrainage

Roads

Water

Sanitation

Solid waste

Power

ObjectivesSafe disposal of sullage; rapiddisposal of storm waterPedestrian and vehicle accessto all houses at slow speeds

Primaryl evelSoakage pitsLined drains from water pointsEarth storm drainsProfiled and compacted earthroads

Potable water within Water point per 200 people forreasonable distance 20 litres pc

Safe disposal of excreta

Adequate removal anddisposal of solid waste

Household improved pitlatrines Household off-setpour flush latrinesCommunal bin within 100metres

Economic power consumptionFuture power line installation

Allowance for improvedcooking stoves;Clearance maintained betweenplot boundaries and accessroutes for O/H lines

Technical options (increasing service level through upgradingSecondary _levelLined sullage drainsLined road drainsAll drains linedProfiled & compactedgravel roadsWater bound macadamroadsBituminous surfacingWater point per clusterYard connectionsMetered houseconnectionsCommunal septic tanksReduced cost sewerageIncreased number ofcommunal binsStreet corner collectionSecurity street lightingOne-amp semi-conductor fusesFull street lightingFive-amp semi-conductor fuses

-TertiarylevelOpen drains covered inclusterPiped drainsBituminous macadampavementConcrete pavement

Metered householdconnectionsIn-line water storageSolar water heatingConventional sewerage

Kerbside or householdcollectionHousehold energymeters

lower service levels in each sector. The choice ofsanitation technology has the greatest potential toreduce costs through the use of on-plot latrines.Significant but lesser savings have been identified:

limiting the access width within the cluster orstreet;using the road-as-drain option for stormwaterdrainage; andcheaper road construction such as profiled earthor gravel or local paving stone; this leads toconcomitant reductions in drainage cost.is also important to appreciate that the highservice levels incur high recurrent costs for operation

and maintenance which are likely to be beyond themeans of the majority of urban local authorities andhouseholders. The consequence of inadequatemaintenance is that the infrastructure which hasbeen so expensively provided quickly falls into disre-pair and disuse.

Lowering infrastructure standards is not astraightforward task, and it is often difficult toconvince professionals of the potential benefits fromTable 3 Servicing optionsServiceAccess widthStorm drainsSanitationWater supplySullage disposalRoadsPower

Option 15mLinedSewerageHouse connectionSewerageSealed surfaceOverhead lines

Option 22.5 mRoad-as-drainImproved pit latrinePublic standpostLined sullage drainPaved surfaceOverhead lines

doing so. Local authority insistence on high stan-dards is a particular problem in sites and servicesprojects. What are required are rigorously appliedminimum standards which avoid the all too commonsituation where the facilitating agency places a high-er value on infrastructure than do households (Vander Linden, 1986).

In summary, the answer to the question caninfrastructure costs be reduced is yes; what isneeded is the adoption of lower, more appropriatelevels of service. However, technology choice alonecannot provide a complete solution to the problem.Alternative methods of implementation and man-agement of services which consider how infra-structure costs are to be recovered also need to beexplored.Affordabi l i t y and wi l l ingness to payAt the planning stage it is necessary to ensure that allcosts associated with the development work areaffordable. Affordability is considered as a percen-tage of income; 20% is often used for housing, whichis presumed to include the cost of services. Values of3% of household income for water supply and 3%for sanitation have been used by sector planners,although some studies quote only 1% and 2% intotal. However, where water has to be purchasedfrom water vendors because there is no alternativesupply, it has been reported that people pay up to56% of their income at certain times of the year,corresponding to 120 times the amount paid by thosewith a household connection (Cairncross and Kin-near, 1988).

Cit ies 1994 Volume II Number 1 17


4/10

Infrastructure for the urban poor: A. Cot ton and R. Franceys120

110 -

100 - optknl 1

/! ;

100 200 300PLOT SIZE (square metros)

1400 500

Figure 1 Servicing costs for options 1 and 2, based on data from IndiaInfrastructure costs are very high in relation to the Even allowing for fluctuations in costs and income

income levels of the target groups. The poorest 40% between different countries there is clearly a seriousof the population of low- and lower-middle-income affordability gap for the high service level of optioncountries have annual incomes of less than US$700 1. While it can be argued that the poorest peopleper year. If an affordability limit of 20% is assumed should not have to pay the full economic cost of thefor housing and services, this comes to $140 peryear. For the smallest plot size of 30 m2, the

services from which they benefit, the size of theaffordability gap is so great that even significantminimum cost (expressed as TACH) for housing cross-subsidies cannot solve the problem. Globally,

construction is approximately $100. Thus the afford- the affordability gap amounts annually to aboutable TACH for supporting physical infrastructure is US$62 billion. Income distribution figures indicateonly about $40. Option 1 is clearly unaffordable and that the poorest 80% in low-income countries canlower service levels such as option 2 must be consi- earn only US$1200 per year; the differential be-dered. tween the poorest 40% on US $700 and the poorest

FAR EAST AFRICA

1 Sanitation ~ AccessINDIA

Dram = Road

Figure 2 Potential cost reduction in various service sectors

18 Cit ies 1994 Vol ume II Number I


5/10

Inf rastruct ure for t he urban poor: A. Cot ton and R. Franceysminates the substantial overheads and profits of thelarge contractors (Franceys and Cotton, 1988).

These experiences suggest that householders andcommunity groups should be given a greater directrole in the management of their services. Greaterflexibility in levels of service and infrastructurestandards is necessary if this is to come about. It hasbeen argued above that the unthinking adoption ofconventional approaches to infrastructure provisionhas neglected many of the technical options whichare available. High levels of service are too expen-sive, unsustainable and unreplicable on the scalerequired and do not reflect the needs and prioritiesof the beneficiary community (Bahl and Lin, 1987).

The issue of cost recovery for infrastructure hasattracted considerable debate. In general, the cost ofhigh levels of service provision to low income groupsis very rarely recovered directly from the benefi-ciaries. The need to replicate projects on a largescale has led some authorities to recommend that thefull costs should be recovered (UNCHS, 1984). Theextent to which this is a practical proposition forlow-income people is questionable. Many of theurban poor are neither able nor willing to pay fortotal cost recovery, particularly when they have hadno say in the services which have been provided. Theissue is whether or not the poorest people shouldtherefore be left wallowing with zero infrastructureas a matter of principle.A demand-l ed strat egyThese arguments suggest that infrastructure provi-sion needs to respond to the demand for serviceswhile at the same time minimizing the public healthrisks of living in unserviced informal settlements.This turns away from the long held belief thatconventional service standards are an objective intheir own right.The following approach suggests infrastructuredevelopment in terms of a primary level of servicewhich can subsequently be upgraded in an in-cremental fashion (Cotton and Franceys, 1991).

The primary level of service is defined as thatwhich produces the first and lowest stage of im-provement of physical infrastructure to satisfy basicneeds in each sector. Appropriate primary levelservices are suggested in Table 2. The detaileddesign of primary level infrastructure must be car-ried out with a view to subsequent improvement.For example, provision of adequate access widthsfor future improvements is particularly important.The provision of primary level service is an appropri-ate first stage in slum upgrading; it also enableshouseholders to take up residence on a new site andbegin house construction. In contrast to the full costrecovery model (UNCHS, 1984) referred to above,it is proposed here that the capital cost of primarylevel services which are off-plot should normally beprovided free of charge to the householders; the aim

80% on US $1 200 is not sufficient to provide a taxbase for the redistribution which would be necessaryto fund high service levels for everybody.

Affordability criteria are perhaps too simplistic;the key issue is willingness to pay which dependsnot only upon income levels but also upon theperceived benefits to be gained from the service.Surveys in Zimbabwe show that people are preparedto pay 2.3 times as much for yard connections as theyare for standposts (Briscoe and de Ferranti, 1988).

Willingness to pay for any one service dependsupon the priority given to that sector. In Indonesia,electricity is considered a higher priority than awater connection and users are unwilling to paymore per month for water than they pay for electric-ity (Briscoe and de Ferranti, 1988). Priorities be-tween services and willingness to pay for differentlevels of service are impossible to determine inadvance by top-down planning. New strategies needto be explored which respond to demand and enablehouseholders and communities to make their owndecisions in their own time.

Strategies for implementationChanging approachesThe conventional approach whereby a central orlocal government agency is fully responsible forinfrastructure provision in low-income settlementshas not fulfilled the demand. At this stage it isperhaps useful to draw parallels with the changingapproaches to the provision of shelter for low-income communities.The enormity of the urbanization problem has ledto extensive debate and change in the field of shelterprovision; there has been a significant shift in therole of housing agencies, many of whom have with-drawn from direct construction because it provedtoo expensive, progress was slow and nothing likethe required volume of housing could be delivered(Wakely, 1988). These agencies subsequently tookon the role of facilitators, helping and supportingpeoples own initiatives in house construction. Theconstruction work for new dwellings or improve-ments to existing structures is largely under thecontrol of the individual household concerned. Thenew role of the agency involves facilitating securityof tenure and providing social, financial and technic-al support.

There are cost savings and community develop-ment benefits to be gained from the supportapproach to housing (Keare and Parris, 1982). Sav-ings on construction do not always come aboutbecause of significant labour input from the house-holder; the opportunity cost of labour is surprisinglyhigh (World Bank, 1974). It is the individual controlof a householder over a mason or builder workingdirectly for him which minimizes wastage and eli-

Cit i es 1994 Vol ume I 1 Num ber I 19


6/10

Inf rastruct ure f or t he urban poor: A. Cot ton and R. FranceysTable 4 Effect of incremental upgrading on servicing cost,expressed as discounted cash flow in US$

Mode 1 Mode 2b Mode 3Household loan repaymentor utility charges 106 252 28Agency non-recoverable *costs (capital, operation andmaintenance) 809 186 192Total 915 438 220a Existing approach of high level of service provision by an agency.b Proposed incremental option approach with community take-upof loans (this example assumes individual toilet and leaching pitwith staged introduction of other services above primary levelover a 15-year period). Incremental options approach without community take-up ofloans.Note: Each discounted cash flow is the sum of the capital,operation and maintenance costs for drainage, roads, watersupply, sanitation, power supply and solid waste removal. Thediscounting period is 15 years using a discount rate of 10%

should be to recover only operation and mainte-nance costs of the services.

Incremental upgrading of services beyond theprimary level can take place; various options forupgrading are suggested in Table 2, which eventuallylead to what has previously been described as con-ventional high service levels.

The key point in this strategy is that upgrading ofservices beyond the primary level should be theresponsibility of the householders and the immedi-ate community, with respect to planning, imple-mentation and payment for the improvements. Sucha demand-led strategy benefits both the communityand the concerned agencies, and has importantfinancial implications.

Incremental upgrading gives householders andcommunity groups the opportunity to upgrade theirphysical infrastructure at their own pace, as andwhen they believe they can afford it. This upgradingis rarely constant and systematic, nor does it con-form to the priorities of planners and donor agen-cies. For example, a mains electricity supply maywell be desired and paid for before less costlyimprovements such as drain lining.

Upgrading of the infrastructure beyond the prim-ary level should not necessarily be a goal for allsettlements. The retention of some settlements withlow levels of service is necessary to provide thebottom rung of a ladder of housing conditions. Asthe populations wealth and status varies there aretherefore options available in the housing market formoving up and down the ladder.

Different modes of financing of these improve-ments are possible:(1)(2)20

The finance is raised entirely by the househol-ders and community groups themselves.Local government taxes are paid by the house-

(3)

holders which cover the full cost of servicesprovided. In reality, the parlous state of manymunicipal bodies means that this is rarely effec-tive.Long-term loans are provided both to individualhouseholders and to community groups to coverthe capital costs of upgrading service levels. It islikely that NGOs could have a key role asfacilitators here. Additional help can be pro-vided through technical advice and demonstra-tion units.

The effect of incremental upgrading on financial costhas been investigated using a case study from SriLanka (Franceys and Cotton, 1988). A summary ofthe findings is given in Table 4; a considerable savingin overall discounted costs of 53% can be achievedwith an even larger saving to the sponsoring agencyof 77%.

The cost of primary level service is relatively low;if people desire higher levels of service, then astrategy of incremental upgrading allows the truedemand to be satisfied. This is diametrically opposedto the practice whereby professionals prescribe highlevels of service regardless of affordability or willing-ness to pay.Community involvementThe issue in question is to what extent the househol-der and community involvement principles de-veloped in the shelter and other sectors can beapplied to urban infrastructure in order to obtainsimilar benefits; that is, to adopt a demand-ledstrategy which enables the people to get the servicesthey actually want and can sustain. Involving peoplein the provision of infrastructure requires a flexibleapproach with the conventional provider agenciesof central and local government becoming facilita-tor agencies.

Community management for rural water supplyand sanitation is now widely promoted. Despite this,a view held by some professionals is that urbaninfrastructure is too complicated to permit the in-volvement of the beneficiaries at planning, imple-mentation, operation and maintenance. However,the poor are good at evaluating and ordering theirown needs and priorities (Tym, 1984); to formulatedesigns and financing proposals without consultingthem is now seen to be courting failure.

It is argued that there are five conditions neces-sary for success in community-based projects (Bris-and de Ferranti, 1988):oe

(1)(2)

the

Cit ies 1994 Volume II Number I


7/10

the community, not as the owner or manager ofthe programme;

(4) the contact between the community and thefacilitator agency should be through staff whoseprimary skills are in organizing and motivatingcommunities rather than in technical matters;and

(5) government agencies need to fulfil their limitedbut vital tasks of motivation, facilitation, train-ing and technical assistance.

In terms of urban infrastructure provision on low-income settlements, the community-based approachdevolves certain responsibilities, including:(1) involvement in planning and choice of technolo-

gy;(2) determining the rate at which improvements aremade;

(3) organizing and managing skilled artisans andsubcontractors to implement the works as andwhen the community thinks appropriate; and

(4) managing the finance of the works.Householders are usually motivated most strongly toprovide and improve services for their own families.In the early years, all available finance is likely to gointo house construction and it is unlikely that house-holders will have surplus monies to invest in im-proved services.

As householders finances allow and as demandfor services increases, site management committees,community development committees and clustercommittees all become important intermediaries be-tween the local authority, any facilitator agency andindividual householders. Great care is required toensure that such committees are representative ofhouseholders, particularly where there are female-headed households or where there is a significantincome variation on site.Community-based infrastructure provisionThere are fewer practical experiences of communityinvolvement with infrastructure provision in theurban sector than in the rural sector; the NGOknown as the Orangi Pilot Project (OPP) in Karachi,Pakistan is an exception in that it provides one of thefew success stories and the experience is well-documented (Hassan, 1992, and Khan, 1992). TheOPP was established in 1980 and embarked on anumber of different programmes in the informallydeveloping area of Orangi; one of these was thelow-cost sanitation programme which involved theprovision of sewerage through self help and com-munity action.An important factor is that OPP views itself as aresearch and extension organization, promotingcommunity organization and demonstration. It doesnot see itself as a construction agency working inparallel or in competition with the Karachi Municip-

Cities 994 Volume II Number I

Inf rastruct ure for t he urban poor: A. Cot ton and R. Franceysal Corporation. It limits its physical contribution toproviding assistance with survey and design andsome tools for construction. It does not handle themoney which residents contribute towards the costof the sewers in their lanes.

The achievements of the sanitation programme inOrangi are impressive; from the viewpoint of thispaper, the most important points are as follows.(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

(9

The inhabitants have paid for the full cost ofhouse connections, lane sewers, and somesecondary sewers from within their own re-sources.The choice of technology was made by thepeople themselves. Their preference was forsewerage, despite strong external advice fromoutwith OPP in the early stages which suggestedthat pit latrines should be adopted. The OPP, toits credit, ignored this and pursued the preferredoption of the people.One criticism of the lane sewerage schemes wasthat they discharged sewage into open watercourses because no trunk sewerage was availablein the district. From the public health viewpointthis simply moved the problem from one loca-tion to another without removing the hazarditself. The OPP subsequently constructed somesecondary sewers, and the Municipal Corpora-tion is now more closely involved in trunksewerage.Of the houses within the original OPP area, 89%are connected to sewers. The total number ofhouses connected is about 39 000; it is believedthat about 38% of these were under the gui-dance of the OPP (GHWMRM Internationaland WEDC, 1991).The cost of lane sewers constructed by theKarachi Municipal Corporation is a staggeringfive to six times more expensive than the OPPcommunity-managed sewers.The OPP has never taken a direct role inmaintenance; its view is that because the resi-dents felt the need to construct the sewers, theywill also maintain them. This is largely whathappens in practice (Reed and Vines, 1992); theusers organize and pay for maintenance.The topography of Orangi is well suited tosewerage as good falls are available. This assistsin keeping the sewers flowing and helps tominimize maintenance problems due to block-ages. Other areas with less favourable topogra-phy may not fare so well.The OPP believes that one of the keys to thesuccess of the programme was focusing on thelane (2&40 houses) as the unit of communityorganization rather than larger neighbourhoodgroups or electoral wards.The OPP has repeatedly emphasized that itsapproach is open-ended and exploratory and

21


8/10

Inf rastruct ure for t he urban poor: A. Cot ton and R. Franceystherefore cannot fit into conventional time-bound and target-oriented urban rehabilitationprogrammes. To this end, it stuck firmly to itsbelief and parted company from the UnitedNations Centre for Human Settlements(UNCHS) in the early 1980s (Khan, 1992). TheOPP was funded through a grant from the Bankof Credit and Commerce International (BCCI).Another important factor in the success of OPPhas been the preparedness of the funders to takea long-term view, accepting that the project wasopen-ended and to a certain extent unpredict-able in its outcomes.

(lO)Community-managed sewers were constructedprior to the formation of OPP, and there aremany current schemes in Orangi which are notunder the OPP. It therefore appears that theOPP has successfully built on a process whichwas already happening.

It is interesting to compare the open-ended OPPapproach with the more conventional target-oriented approach in community management. TheBCCI also funded the Orangi Community Develop-ment Project (CDP), which had technical supportfrom the UNCHS, in a different part of Orangi.According to an evaluation of the sewerage systemin one of the settlements, the CDP had too much ofa construction agency approach (Reed and Vines,1992). It was concluded that the CDP sewerageprogramme was unlikely to be replicable because:l the CDP subsidized the true cost;l the CDP played a central role in construction;l community maintenance was a problem, possiblybecause the CDP had involved itself in mainte-

nance from the outset;l community involvement was very limited in the

early stages of conceptual design, and a feeling ofownership was not engendered (Reed and Vines,1992).

In 1990 the CDP was discontinued.While much has been written about community

development and the experimental approach of theOPP, perhaps the most important single lesson fromthe viewpoint of infrastructure provision is that inOrangi the demand for the service existed. This isthe central tenet of the primary level incrementalupgrading approach described previously. If thedemand is there and people can see they are gettingvalue for their money, they will pay for it. One of theremarkable features of the OPP programme is thatthe full costs for sewerage were found from withinthe lane communities; sewerage was not necessarilythe cheapest option, but was nevertheless the optiondemanded.

Alternative servicing levels also exist in privatesector rented accommodation for low-incomegroups; an interesting example was encountered by

one of the authors in Cuttack, India. The inhabitantsof the settlement pay monthly rent for the 40 hutswhich are arranged in two lines of 20. Services areprovided by the landlord, who recovers the coststhrough the rent charged. Four latrines were pro-vided which the inhabitants maintained; the accessway was paved with stone slabs and a security lightwas provided. Water was obtained from a municipal-ity standpost just outside the settlement. While theseservices did not conform to any government normsor standards, they provided appropriate and afford-able services for the inhabitants. The landlordappeared to have matched the level and affordabilityof service to the aspirations of that particular low-income group.

Similarly, in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, The Nation-al Water and Sewerage Service (SANAA) has hadremarkable success in providing water to 45 000people in 25 low-income neighbourhoods in less thanfour years. Most slum residents previously had tobuy water from private vendors at prices 10 times theofficial rate for those connected to the water system.With support from UNICEF, SANAA has madeavailable water supply to community tanks which aremanaged by a water assocation which is democrati-cally elected by the people. The association is re-sponsible for charging for water from the tankswhich is delivered at several public standpoststhroughout the community. The association paysSANAA for the wholesale cost of the water.Although the price paid is still higher than theoutdated tariff paid by those with house connec-tions, it is significantly less than the price previouslypaid to the vendors (Aasen and Macrae, 1992).Institutional supportThe improvement of infrastructure on low-incomehousing sites is frequently hampered by the largenumber of central and local government agencieslikely to be involved (Marsden, 1988). There areconsiderable institutional weaknesses to be over-come in order to implement successful schemeswhich involve community management on a widescale.

As new methodologies and procedures for thedelivery of sustainable shelter and infrastructure areexplored, it is likely that NGOs will play an in-creasingly prominent role either directly or indirect-ly. A potentially important role for NGOs is theindirect stimulation of demand for improved servicesthrough increased awareness of health and environ-mental degradation. Their role in enterprise de-velopment and income generation addresses perhapsthe most fundamental issue of all: urban poverty.Improved levels of service which are sustainable areunlikely to come about unless there is both increasedawareness and poverty reduction.

It is nevertheless important not to set up parallelsystems; the key to success is perhaps to intregrate

22 Cit ies 1994 Vo lume I I Nu mber I


9/10

the unique potential of the NGO with the existinginstitutions so that their activities are com-plementary rather than competitive. It is interestingthat one of the reasons advanced for the successes inOrangi is the feeling that the institutions responsiblewould never actually provide the service; peoplerealized that the only way forward was to do itthemselves. The OPP was initially shunned by theformal city institutions, even though it made it clearfrom the outset that it was concerned with researchand extension work and was not itself directly in-volved in construction. Over the years it appearsthat a better understanding has been achieved fol-lowing on from the success of their approach.

Institutional development is a cornerstone of im-proved performance in the sector. Urban develop-ment covers many different departmental responsi-bilities and there will always be difficulties in integ-rating roles. The problems of interdepartmentalconflicts and jealousies, inadequate financial re-sources, low mangement capabilities and underpaidstaff all lead to low performance levels.The role of specialized agencies such as housingauthorities or units can be vital in overcoming inter-departmental delays. They are also very importantin building up a reservoir of trained and experiencedstaff who understand the particular needs of low-income people. However, this experience has to bechannelled through existing structures rather thanbypassing them. It may appear quicker to go outsidethe bureaucratic procedures in order to achieveprogress; as things stand at the moment, the existingdepartments and authorities are responsible for op-eration, maintenance and renewal. They must there-fore be a part of all that is planned and im-plemented, so that when schemes become fullyoperational there does not have to be a completechange of approach or at worst a complete failure inthe supporting institutions.

The success of any project ultimately dependsupon all the actors and participants working effec-tively together. It has been suggested that six groupsof participants may be identified in any shelter andinfrastructure scheme (Angel, 1981):

housers, primarily concerned with actual shel-ter;community development workers interested incommunity organization and empowerment;engineers aiming to improve infrastructure andenvironmental health;politicians who need to be seen to be doingsomething for their voters;international funders who want to be seen to behelping the poor efficiently; andthe people who want to improve their quality oflife and are pleased to get anything they can outof a project.

Infrastructure engineers tend to be too remote from

Cit i es 1994 Vol ume 11 Num ber I

Inf rastruct ure f or t he urban poor: A. Cott on and R. Franceysplanning, conceptual design, implementation andfrom the beneficiaries themselves. The houserspass on a completed site layout with the expectationthat engineers fill in the services according to con-ventional standards. Community development staffsometimes hold stereotyped views about engineers.The work of engineers, planners, architects andcommunity development workers must be fully inte-grated. It is unreasonable to expect low-incomecommunities to take on a major new role withoutappropriate attitudinal changes among the profes-sionals.ConclusionsNew approaches are needed towards the provisionof infrastructure for the urban poor. Conventionalapproaches based on service levels provided in in-dustrialized countries are not sustainable for manylow-income communities. An alternative demand-led approach is needed which harnesses the multi-plicity of resources which households and communi-ties possess and which reduces the overall costs ofinfrastructure.

The cost of infrastructure provision for low-income settlements can be reduced by approximate-ly 50% if lower levels of service are accepted.Provision of primary level infrastructure whichmeets the basic requirements of environmentalhealth and safety is proposed; capital costs of off-plot services are funded by the implementing agen-cy,The primary level infrastructure can be upgradedover a period of time. It is the householders and thecommunity who should decide what the future ser-vice levels will be, thereby reflecting the prioritywhich they give to the greater benefits which resultfrom improved service levels. The costs of suchimprovements should be paid for by the benefi-ciaries, although a facilitator agency may be re-quired to assist with financing arrangements. Fullinvolvement of the people at all stages should engen-der a sense of ownership of the services with greaterlikelihood of satisfactory maintenance.

The experience of the Orangi Pilot Project (OPP)in Karachi, Pakistan, provides an interesting exam-ple of community-managed infrastructure provision.The OPP has successfully built on a process whichwas already occurring; by supporting communityorganizations rather than acting as an implementingagency, it has facilitated a successful community-managed sewerage programme.ReferencesAasen, S. and Macrae, A. (1992) The Tegucigalpa model, Water-front, UNICEF, FebruaryAngel, S. (1981) Infrastructure improvement in slums and squat-ter settlements: divergent objectives in search of a consensus,Report of the ad hoc Expert Group M eeti ng on Appropriate

23


10/10

Inf rastruct ure fo r t he urban poor: A. Cot ton and R. FranceysInf rastruct ure Servi ces, Standar ds and Technologi es, UNCHS,Nairobi, pp. 15-22Bahl, R. and Lin, J. (1987) Intergovernmental fiscal relations indeveloping countries, in Tolley, G.S. and Thomas, G. (eds) Theeconomics of urbani sati on and urban pol icy i n develop in g coun-tries, World Bank, Washington, DCBriscoe, J. and de Ferranti, D. (1988) Wat er or rural communiti es- helpi ng peopl e to help t hemselv es, World Bank, Washington,DCCairncross, S. and Kinnear, J. (1988) Measurement oft he ela sti cit yof domesti c w ater demand, Report for Overseas DevelopmentAdministration, Proiect R4285. London School of Hveiene andTropical Medicine, London _ICotton, A.P. and Franceys, R.W.A. (1991) Services for shelter,Liverpool University Press, UK, Chapter 1Cotton, A.P. and Franceys, R.W.A. (1990) Infrastructure forurban l ow- income housing i n developing countri es, Report for theOverseas Development Administration, Project R4404, WEDC,Loughborough UniversityFranceys, R.W.A. and Cotton, A.P. (1988) Services by a supportapproach - infrastructure for urban housing in Sri Lanka, OpenHou se In ternat ional , 13(4), pp. 43-48 -GHWMRM International and WEDC. (1991) Evaluat ion ofupgrading ini ti ati ves n Pakistan, Project ReportR4696A, Over-seas Development Administration _ .Hassan, A. (1992) Manual for rehabil it ati on programmes forinform al sett lements based on the Orangi Pil ot Project model,

OPP-RTIKeare, K.G. and Parris, S. (1982) Evaluafi on of shelt er pro-grammes for the urban poor, World Bank Staff Working Paper,No 547, World Bank, Washington DCKhan, A.H. (1992) Organi Pil ot Project programmes, OPP-RTIMarsden, D. (1988) The role of community development in aslum improvement project, Manchester Papers on Development,4(2), April, pp. 159-88Reed, R.A. and Vines, M. (1992) Reduced cost sew erage i nOrangi, Project Report R4555, Overseas Development Adminis-trationReed, R.A. and Vines, M. (1992) Reduced COSI ew erage i n thecommunit y developmentproj ect of Orangi, Project Report R4555,Overseas Development AdministrationTym, R. (1984) Finance and affordability, in Low-incomehousing in the devel opi ng w orl d: t he rol e of sit es and servi ces andsettlement upgrading, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UKUNCHS (1984) A review of technol ogies for theprovi sion of basicinfrastructure in low -income sett lements, Nairobi, KenyaVan der Linden, J. (1986) The sit es and servi ces approachreviewed, Gower, Aldershot, UKWakely, P. (1988) The development of housing through thewithdrawal from construction. Habit at Int ernati onal. 1213).pp. 121-131 \ IIWorld Bank (1974) Sites and services projects, Washington, DCWorld Bank (1989) Wo rl d development report, 1989, OxfordUniversity Press, Oxford, UK

24 Cit ies 1994 Vol ume I 1 Number I

Cotton - infrastructure for urban poor.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Cotton - infrastructure for urban poor.pdf