* REPORT : 109

Machengautuwa, Federation Village , Malawi

Erin Torkelson, World Habitat Day, 1 October 2007

Participants: Ayanda and Erin ( South Africa ), Sheila and Davius ( Zimbabwe ), Fransisco ( Namibia ), Margaret and Morgan ( Zambia ).

Brief: The main purpose of the exchange was to represent SDI and support the Malawian Homeless People’s Federation to sign a MoU with government on World Habitat Day. During the exchange, we attended the MoU signing, met savings groups, learned about the Malawian housing process, discussed National and International Urban Poor Funds…and, of course, swam in Lake Malawi . We also took part in a passionate discussion about intra-community violence and legal action in some of our affiliates and decided this issue warrants more attention – the Zimbabweans and Malawians are calling for a formal exchange (or a meeting during an upcoming International event) to share experiences and strategize about a way forward for some of our members who have been subject to threats and violence.

1. SIGNING THE MOU

It is still surprising to me that I can arrive in any one of 38 countries to the same warm reception from a group of women engaged in the same rituals of savings and loans. Malawi , of course, was no exception. The Malawian Homeless People’s Federation – dressed to the nines in green cloth, reading “Homeless, but not Hopeless” – planned a large celebration to commemorate the completion of 83 houses and the signing of a MoU with government. This event also coincided with the World Habitat Day Celebrations organised by the Ministry and UN-Habitat.

Singing Federation anthems, the MHPF led many government officials, police officers, and soldiers through single and double story houses in Mchengautuwa. They also displayed housing plans, architectural drawings and community models created by Federation members with professional support. The official event included speeches by National Coordinator of the Federation (Catherine Thempani), the Deputy Minister of Home Affairs and Internal Security (S. Vuwa Kaunda) and the Deputy Minister of Housing, Transport and Public Works (Gift Mwamondwe). There was also entertainment provided by Federation members and the Department of Public Safety.

The Government Ministers boasted of their relationship with the Federation, saying, “ At first, we were unwilling to work with CCODE and the MHPF because we thought the membership was too poor. But now, we understand and applaud the resources and capacity of Federation members.” The Ministers went on to promise to continue working with the Homeless People’s Federation through land allocation and infrastructure construction. They also promised to seek a designated housing fund or subsidy from Parliament.

Though the government agreed to partner with the Federation, the Malawians must be careful to manage this relationship and avoid cooption. The event itself became a showcase for the government and the Department of Public Safety, complete with political sloganeering, skits about community policing, and campaigns against land-grabbing. The State constantly expressed interest in working with the Federation to systematize the distribution of land in order to avoid encroachment. It is important to make sure that the Federation continues to set the terms of this relationship, keeping some distance from the government. The Federation must protect their rituals and community construction processes from being misinterpreted, mismanaged, and used for the benefit of the bureaucrats.

2. LEARNING ABOUT LAND AND TENURE SECURITY IN MALAWI

After the event, we sat down with many of the Malawians from Mzuzu to learn about the process of building Mchengautuwa Federation Village .

Accessing Land

In urban areas, there are two official ways to gain land through the City Assembly: the government can offer available parcels of land; or communities can scout for land themselves and then consult with government to see if the identified land is available.

Of course, there are also many unofficial ways to obtain land as well (e.g. traditional structures or encroachment). Though the government refuses to recognize the authority of traditional leaders in the cities, chiefs still play a major role many urban communities for special ceremonies and religious rites. The government does not appreciate competing for authority with traditional leaders and does not want the chiefs to give away parcels of land. Even so, this remains a very common way to access land in Malawi .

Additionally, since the government is often slow to allocate land and housing, people often encroach on unused land. With an urbanization rate of 6.2%, any available land near cities is rapidly being settled. It is rare that the Malawian government relocates settlers, and so this has become a very attractive method of securing land.

In the case of the Mzuzu, the Malawi Housing Corporation donated land in Mchengautuwa to the City Assembly that was designated to be given to the Federation. The MHPF visited the property and decided that it was suitable – Mchengautuwa is a 20-minute walk from town; it is near a river; and it is close to schools, hospitals, water pipes and electricity. The sand of Mchengautuwa (meaning White Sand) is appropriate for building adobe bricks and a source of clay could be found nearby as well.

This discussion on accessing land helped to explain some of the rhetoric from the MoU signing, as encroachment has lately caused some problems for the Federation in Mchengautuwa. Though the Federation has been given a large parcel of land, they cannot afford to build more houses at present. The empty land has been occupied and developed informally – mostly by individuals who do not practice the rituals of the Federation. The MHPF has asked the government to intervene and secure this land on their behalf. This, of course, is highly problematic – the Federation cannot be advocating for the relocation of these settlers. Instead, the Federation should devise a solution through negotiations with mobilization of the new occupants.

Housing Development

Once the Mchengautuwa land was secured, the building process went very smoothly, although there was some trouble with motivating members to participate in communal work. However, as more and more hoses were completed, neighbours began to focus on the construction of toilets and other community spaces.

At present, people are still getting settled into their new homes and loan repayment has been slow. Since most families had to disrupt informal businesses to build their homes, some have not had a reliable income for many months. In the Malawian experience, the developments in Lilongwe and Blantyre started off similarly – but after about 6 months, residents were ready to begin repayment.

The Malawians have very different loan repayment structures in each development. In Lilongwe , all Federation members took the same loan, and have the same repayment schedule (1.7/month). This has not worked so well – since members were not instrumental in defining their loan, they had less ability and felt less responsibility to adhere to repayment structures organised by the NGO. Learning from this experience, Federation members in Mzuzu and Blantyre have been able to take different loans, depending on the extra features they wanted in their homes. As everyone had the agency to choose their loan, CCODE predicts that payback will be less problematic. Even so, one of the Federation members suggested that she did not know what her loan would be until after her house was complete – this suggests that there might still be some need for consultation and workshops about financing throughout the construction process.

The Zimbabweans suggested that costing should always be agreed upon well before the construction begins and must continue to be discussed throughout the building process. Through such discussions, the Zimbabweans found that their members can only afford to repay very little – so, they decided it was best to build one-room houses and then expand incrementally. Additionally, as in other parts of the SDI network, members are responsible for all finishing touches themselves (windows, doors, floors). As Davius eloquently stated, “every poor person deserves to be under a roof that he or she can afford.”

Admirably, daily savings in Mchengautuwa has continued and even strengthened since community members now stay much closer together – collectors no longer have to walk great distances to reach each other. There has even been some increase in savings and loans for income-generating opportunities, as people are trying to reenter the informal economy with small enterprises. The Malawians have 4 different savings schemes: daily savings, income-generation, health and funeral (set amount), and loan repayment (set amount).

Titling

Now, one of the big questions for the Federation is about title deeds. Using the official channels (e.g. the City Assembly) to obtain land is often very troublesome for poor people as speculation by the middle class is very common. Once the government demarcates land into plots, it becomes attractive to speculators, and the poor rarely apply for access. As such, greenfields developments rarely benefit the poor – so most city dwellers end up relying on urban upgrading projects to improve their housing situation. However, in the last 10 years of democracy, there has only been one upgrading project in Lilongwe .

The Federation then is somewhat nervous about individually titling their properties because the value would increase exponentially and many residents would be tempted to sell. The Federation is exploring a system of communal land holding, whereby the Federation as a whole would own the land, and the individual member would own the house. This would limit middle class land speculation as members could not sell without first consulting the Federation.

The MHPF is exploring the establishment of a Community Trust which would own the land, and a system of matrilineal inheritance where land would pass from mother to child. In this way, the Federation hopes to protect the tenure security of their predominantly female membership, and reduce the ability of the market mechanism to evict the poor. The MHPF also want to show government that they are not looking to make a quick profit, but will retain the land given to them for the public good.

Zimbabwe is exploring similar systems of communal land holding, but is hesitant to enact a system where the children inherit the house directly from the Federation member, offering no protection for the other partner. The Zimbabweans want the house to be family owned and feel that the Federation should have high moral standards and should discourage divorce. They believe the family unit should be the corner stone of the Federation – and thus are trying to stimulate traditional familial and support structures through Federation rituals. In cases of divorce then, the Zimbabwean Federation believes the house should belong to the children.

In Zambia , the Federation feels similarly, but believes whoever asks for a divorce should vacate the house. Obviously, there can be many negative consequences here – women might feel compelled to stay with abusive partners if they risk loosing their property.

3.  DISCUSSION ON NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL URBAN POOR FUNDS

As the Malawians are having some difficulties with their Mchenga Fund (particularly around systems and repayment), they asked Zimbabwe to serve as a consultant to redesign and redevelop their finance facility. Zimbabwe has offered to host (and fund) six months of exchanges with the Malawians. The Zambians will be joining these exchanges as well. The Malawians hope to create new financial and accounting systems for their Urban Poor Fund by the beginning of the year.

Although Zimbabwe will be taking the lead, all three movements have strengths and weaknesses to share. Zimbabwe would like these exchanges to include Federation leaders, NGO representatives, and occasionally government officials. The point here would be for Zimbabwean leaders to learn from Malawian leaders about how to engage with the Federations. The Zimbabwe Federation continues to show much strength and determination in their efforts to partner with government and secure land and housing for their members.

The first exchange will be held October 6-11 in Harare and will correspond with a board meeting of Zimbabwe ’s Gungano Fund. Such meetings are held every other month to discuss the capacity of the Fund, evaluate procedures, review project applications, assess repayment, and confront any challenges (particularly inflation).

We then had a discussion about the International Urban Poor Development Fund, where many ideas and concerns were shared by each Federation.

·        Zimbabwe : There should be solid links between National Funds and the International Fund. Participating countries should make a yearly contribution to the International Fund through their National Funds. This would give each country ownership of and accountability to the IUPDF.

·        Zimbabwe : We have selected three people who will attend the Council of Federation meetings and an additional three people who will be informed of what goes on at all International meetings. In this way, there is always someone who can take over and knowledge is not kept at the very top. We have chosen Council of Federation members who are involved with the Gungano Fund – these same people will be our representatives for any body formed as a board of representatives for the International Fund.

·        Namibia : We think each individual Federation member should contribute 10 dollars per year to the IUPDF.

·        Malawi : We are worried that if some members contribute more money, they will be entitled to more resources. We want every country to make the same symbolic donation to become stakeholders in the Fund – no country should be seen as being more or less entitled to support based on their capacity to contribute.

·        Zimbabwe : The IUPDF should be used for infrastructure, housing, disaster relief, evictions, and federation building. Federations should be able to access both loans and grants. Particularly in cases of disasters, grants should be given.

·        Zimbabwe : We do not want the donors to exclude us from the Fund because of our government. We should be strong together, forcing donors to contribute to the fund without setting conditions.

·        Zimbabwe : We would like to discuss how the International Fund would work in a context of inflation. We would like to consider the capacity of IUPDF to cover the costs of inflation.

·        Malawi : We should keep the rules simple and flexible.

·        Malawi : We should strengthen the hubs to make decisions and vet applications about countries within their regions.

·        Zambia : We should have a grace period for repayment.

·        Zimbabwe : We need to have a discussion on interest rates. It would be hard for the International Fund to charge different interest rates then the local processes. We do not want some projects in a country to be paying more interest (because the loan came from the National Fund) and some projects to be paying less (because the loan came from the International Fund) – or vice versa. We also do not want different countries to be paying different interest rates.

4. DISCUSSION ON THE REGIONAL HUB

We also had a brief discussion on the structure of the Southern African Regional Hub.

·        It was proposed that the regional hub should meet every time there are International meetings or events to discuss regional business.

·        It was proposed that 1 Federation member from every country should be elected to serve as part of the coordinating body. Though other people would be able to participate, at least 1 person from every country should work to support the hub, being accountable for taking decisions and carrying them through.

·        Everyone is looking forward to discussing the structure of the Southern African Regional Hub with all affiliate countries.

5. DISCUSSION ON LAWSUITS, SAFETY AND LEADERSHIP

In the car ride from Mzuzu to Lilongwe , female Federation leaders from Malawi , Zimbabwe and Zambia began a very passionate conversation about their personal safety. Sheila ( Zimbabwe ), Siku, Catherine ( Malawi ), Vicky ( Malawi ), and Margaret ( Zambia ) have been threatened and targeted by “rebel” or “faction” groups in the Federations. All expressed a desire to have a designated exchange (or a meeting during the next international exchange) to discuss security issues and brainstorm ideas about how best to deal with rebel groups, disgruntled factions, and violence in communities.

• AREA 49: Most Federation members who entered into contracts with the Malawian Urban Poor Fund and CCODE were women – they had been strong savings group members, followed the rituals of the Federation, and were chosen as loan recipients for the Area 49 housing development. Now, however, after the houses have been completed, these beneficiaries (strongly coerced by their husbands) are refusing to repay their loans in accordance with their contracts. The community is divided between those who are and who are not paying, creating a climate of peer pressure, distrust, and violence. The so-called “rebel” groups have also attacked the CCODE office with stones. Because of the excessive violence and militarization, many CCODE employees are afraid to work in Area 49, and Federation members are also scared for their safety.

Many lawsuits have arisen out of the intra-community violence – CCODE has supported Federation members to file lawsuits against violent “rebel” groups; and the “rebel” groups have filed lawsuits to contest their loan contracts. One of these lawsuits has already gone to court and was decided in favour of CCODE. The ministry of Transport, Housing and Public Works is being very supportive, saying, “If you are against CCODE, you are against the government.” This type of coziness with the State is seems to be positive, but still begs the question of cooption: Is the Malawian Homeless People’s Federation getting too close to government? Are these problems that should be negotiated and hashed out within community structures? What damage could be caused by going to the courts? When should SDI and its affiliates resort to legal action? All of these questions should be hashed out by the Federations.

• Zimbabwe : Sheila has experienced similar challenges in Zimbabwe , which are all the more complicated by Zanu-PF and the climate of McCarthyism. Some of the trouble in Zimbabwe stems from a contract with another NGO, Practical Action, who wanted to give money to support the Federation processes. Originally, Practical Action wanted to give grants for house construction, but the Federation leadership (supported by Dialogue on Shelter) asked that the money be given to Gungano Fund, which would then operate a revolving fund for housing loans. Although Practical Action agreed to work through the Federation structures, they have since reneged on this agreement. When community members who received loans began complaining about repayment, Practical Action told recipients that the housing loans were actually grants and repayment was unnecessary. They also began publicly criticizing the methodology of the Federation, and suggesting that People’s Dialogue mismanages money.

This is highly problematic for federation leaders given the current political situation in Zimbabwe . Practical Action and “rebel” groups can retaliate (and have) by going to the police. Already prone to despise NGOs, Zanu-PF does not need much encouragement to cause serious trouble for Federation members and Dialogue on Shelter staff – Sheila and Davius have been summoned to court several times. They are not sure how to respond to Practical Action (should the Federation also report them to the police?) and are concerned about spending so much money on legal fees.

• Namibia and Zambia : There have been similar concerns from the Namibian and Zambian Federations as well.

6. CONCLUSION

All in all, I was very impressed with the work of the Malawian Homeless Peoples Federation, who has experienced so much success in so little time. The Federation was open to dialogue about their accomplishments and their challenges, reaching out to other affiliates for support. The MHPF leadership and CCODE staff show extraordinary enthusiasm, dedication and maturity.

This was my very first exchange – and I want to sincerely thank Siku and the Federation for making it so memorable.