In December, the long-awaited draft White Paper for Human Settlements was released for public comment. It’s been 20 years since the ‘Breaking New Ground’ policy was adopted. Since then, there have been significant changes in our political economy, in local and global development realities (including climate change), and in our assessment of the state’s capability to implement housing programmes at scale. After many years of promising a new policy, it is no surprise that the draft White Paper was met with great anticipation, in the hope that it would offer the guidance needed to respond effectively to new realities and stubborn problems.

Unfortunately, the draft White Paper proved to be very disappointing. The document is poorly structured, lacks coherence and is not underpinned by sound analysis, especially why many of the well-established principles it echoes have not been realised in practice. Without an institutional assessment and clear strategies to overcome blockages in the regulatory, fiscal and organisational environment, good ideas will not be executed and ideals/planned outcomes will not be achieved. As such, the draft lacks the clarity of purpose and identification of pathways for change to provide the strategic guidance that the sector so desperately needs.

The Department of Human Settlements and its Minister, Minister Kubayi, have embarked on an extensive national consultation process to engage stakeholders in the human settlements sector. This suggests that they are committed to producing a White Paper that is appropriate to the challenges at hand. Our view is that the feedback received cannot be addressed through an editorial process of the current draft; rather the Department will need to go back to the drawing board and redraft the White Paper.

As part of this redrafting and recasting, Isandla Institute is motivating for the following:
1. A strong evidentiary base, drawing on various (reliable) sources, which includes an institutional assessment to ascertain why intended policy outcomes have not been achieved as intended;

1. A stronger conceptual framing of human settlements, with housing a constituent part, and translating this into an intervention logic and programme design;

2. Linked to 2) above, a clear articulation of what constitutes a well-functioning, safe, resilient and vibrant neighbourhood as a key human settlement outcome;

3. The definition of a ‘minimum package’ for adequate housing for different housing typologies and timeframes for its incremental realisation, to mitigate the risk of a reductionist approach to the Constitutional obligation to progressively realise the right to adequate housing;

4. A clear supportive policy position on self-build as an official housing programme, which includes the institutionalisation of local Housing Support Centres and a commitment to developing a suitable public funding mechanism for those unable to leverage (sufficient) private funds;

5. A strong emphasis on, and the creation of an enabling dispensation for, economic opportunities inherent in human settlement/housing value chains, with particular reference to the circular economy (e.g. community waste management systems), the role of small-scale contractors and local artisans, and households’ ability to leverage their home as an income-generating asset;

6. A strong position on the institutionalisation of partnerships, particularly with civil society organisations, at different levels and a commitment to address legal and other blockages in this regard;

7. Deliberative engagement as a defining feature in human settlement programming and implementation, with particular reference to (but not exclusive to) the social compact in informal settlement upgrading;

8. A more coherent policy position on the backyard housing sector in its variety, one that offers both legal certainty and guidance to municipalities in implementing a supportive response;

9. A clear position on the possibilities and limitations of vertical densification as a potential strategy for informal settlement upgrading;

10. An assessment of institutional capabilities required to drive and implement an ambitious, pro-poor human settlements agenda that effectively advances rights and realises human settlement outcomes and a stated commitment to utilise, and invest in, the required capabilities.

Our full submission on the draft White Paper can be accessed here