PEOPLE’S COMMUNITY NETWORK
FIJI INFORMAL SETTLEMENT SITUATION ANALYSIS
Women of Nawajikuma settlement (Nadi) show flood affected areas and identify solutions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Fiji Informal Settlement Situation Analysis was prepared by the People’s Community Network with support of the Ministry of Local Government, Housing, Environment, Infrastructure and Transport (MLGEIT) and the United Nations Human Settlements Programme under the Participatory Slum Upgrading Programme, an Initiative of the ACP Secretariat, funded by the European Union
.
The research was undertaken with the time and input of close to 550 residents of informal settlements across Fiji. We wish to thank them for their time, efforts and contributions towards this report. Fieldwork for this project was undertaken by the People’s Community Network staff including, Kasanita Ratulevu, Melania Erenavula, Metuisela Usa, Sereana Rokotuiviwa, Sereima Vakaidia, Tevita Qio, Lepani Cakau, with the assistance of Danny Southcombe and Ian Hay. Constructive inputs provided by PCN management, Semiti Qalowasa, Fr Kevin Barr and Savu Tawake, MLGEIT staff including, Kolinio S.L. Bola and Mere Rayawa and from Bernhard Barth and Katja Dietrich, UN- Habitat.
Report prepared by: Ian Hay and Danny Southcombe: Research and Planning Consultants
Final report dated: 02/09/16
UN Habitat PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive summary ...... 1 1 Introduction ...... 4 1.1 Background ...... 4 1.2 Objectives of SSA ...... 5 1.3 Methodology ...... 6 2 Urbanisation and informal settlements in Fiji ...... 8 2.1 Context of urbanization in Fiji ...... 8 2.1.1 Overall demographic trends, socio-economic conditions and development ...... 8 2.2 Informal settlements: typologies, growth, and scale ...... 10 2.2.1 Drivers for informal settlement growth ...... 12 2.2.2 Types of informal settlement growth ...... 12 2.2.3 Estimating informal settlement numbers ...... 13 2.3 Profile cities and towns ...... 17 3 Citywide situation analysis ...... 22 3.1 Citywide urban analysis ...... 22 3.2 Citywide settlement analysis ...... 25 4 Settlement-level situation analysis ...... 29 4.1 Land and population ...... 29 4.2 Land, tenure and community governance ...... 30 4.3 Housing ...... 32 4.3.1 Household and dwelling characteristics ...... 32 4.3.2 Dwelling size, occupancy and cost ...... 33 4.4 Infrastructure, services and environment ...... 35 4.5 Socio-economic ...... 37 4.5.1 Income and economic activity ...... 37 4.5.2 Residence and future plans ...... 39 5 Settlement profiles...... 41 5.1 Key emerging community priorities ...... 41 6 Typologies of settlements ...... 64 6.1 UN Habitat: Settlement typology ...... 64 6.2 Human rights: key shelter deprivations ...... 66 6.3 Rapid climate vulnerability assessment...... 67 7 Key findings and options for action ...... 70
UN Habitat PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network ii
7.1 Summary of key findings and conclusions ...... 70 7.2 Options for action ...... 74 REFERENCES ...... 77 8 APPENDICES ...... 80 A. Appendix A Definitions and terms ...... 80 B. Appendix B: Land ownership, tenure and community organization typology ...... 84 B.1. Land ownership and tenure ...... 84 B.2. Community governance and organization ...... 85 C. Appendix C: Citywide data ...... 87 C.1. Citywide data comparison tables ...... 87 C.2. Settlement-level data comparison tables ...... 88 D. Appendix D: Settlement list ...... 91 Endnotes ...... 94
UN Habitat PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network iii
Abbreviations used in this report
ADB Asian Development Bank CBO Community Based Organisation CDIA Cities Development Institute for Asia DTCP Fiji Department of Town and Country Planning FBoS Fiji Bureau of Statistics FEA Fiji Energy Authority FLIS Fiji Lands Information Service FRA Fiji Roads Authority GoF Government of Fiji GSUA Greater Suva Urban Area iTLTB iTaukei Lands Trust Board MDG Millenium Development Goals MLGHEIT Ministry of Local Government, Housing, Environment, Infrastructure and Transport NGO Non-government organisation PCN People’s Community Network PCRAFI Pacific Catastrophe Risk Analysis and Financing Initiative PSUP Participatory Slum Upgrading Programme SSA Settlement Situation Analysis UN ESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for the Asia Pacific
UN Habitat PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network iv
Executive summary
Fiji is the first Melanesian country to cross the strategic objectives and outcomes and provide symbolic demographic milestone of more than the evidence base for the development of a Fiji 50% of the population residing in cities and Informal Settlements Upgrading Strategy. towns. Yet, informal settlements have been a major feature of Fijian urban life for at least 40 The methodology for this project included: years. Close to 20% of the urban population lives Identification of and collation of data held by in settlements with diverse range of physical, key agencies, legal and social conditions that often do not meet collection and analysis of spatial, social, basic human rights, are highly vulnerable to economic data citywide and in informal climate change impacts, and represent the settlements through household surveys, extremes of poverty and social exclusion in Fiji. community mapping and site observation This Settlement Situation Analysis (SSA) report surveys. is key component of the multi-phase analysis of key elements of settlement Participatory Slum Upgrading Programme upgrading and identification of key findings, (PSUP). The PSUP is an initiative of the African, conclusions and options for action. Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) secretariat, funded by the European Union and Urban context, informal settlement growth implemented by UN-Habitat in 35 countries including five in the Pacific. The People’s Fiji’s urban growth and change has been Community Network (PCN) has undertaken the historically been fueled by rural urban drift, an research and reporting for this project with the increasing share of economic activity occurring support of the Government of Fiji. The in cities and towns, and an urbanization of rural Programme supports target 11.1 of the poverty. Despite some significant recent Sustainable Development Goals, which is, “By government poverty alleviation initiatives, 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe sometimes poor levels of coordination in urban and affordable housing and basic services and management have resulted in population growth upgrade slums.” The overall objectives of this in urban areas outstripping the supply of project have been to: serviced and affordable land and housing. This has resulted in a continuing expansion of a) Undertake a citywide analysis of the current informal settlements, many without basic situation of urban and informal settlement areas services, inadequate housing, insecure tenure, in six cities and towns (Greater Suva, Nadi, poverty and social exclusion from key Lautoka, Ba, Levuka and Labasa), supported by democratic and economic institutions. on-the-ground research and engagement directly with settlement communities. Informal settlement definitions in Fiji typically are diverse and include many of these key b) Undertake a rapid assessment of the key dimensions, but also incorporate the broad features of informal settlements in Fiji, human spectrum of customary and informal tenure rights issues relating to adequate housing, and arrangements. This diversity of definitions has identify key vulnerabilities to climate change resulted in a situation where some estimates of risks. numbers of settlements and populations are c) Identify key emerging findings and identify double others for comparable years and options for action that align with PCN’s key geographies. This report acknowledges the
UN Habitat PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 1
importance of a comprehensive descriptive slow, ambiguous and/or expensive. There are definition of informal settlements but also uses a clearly efficiencies to be gained by focusing carefully delineated operational definition with upgrading on settlements with active community tenure status at its core. leadership and organisation. There are also important examples of arrangements between Citywide and settlement situation analysis settlement organisations and local governments around solid waste collection. This study identified at least 171 informal settlements included in that definition, which comprise at least 68% of the official figure of 250 Human rights and climate vulnerability informal settlements in Fiji. Those settlements in assessment the urban and peri-urban areas of the six focus Right to adequate housing and disaster cities and towns have an estimated population in sensitivity. This study finds that 36% of dwellings informal settlements of 76,600. This is larger were in poor or average condition and thus than the populations of Nadi, Lautoka and particularly vulnerable to storms and strong Labasa city areas combined. winds and a major disaster risk. 18% of households experienced overcrowding (more Greater Suva, Nadi and Lautoka have 90% of than 3 persons per bedroom), with some having the informal settlement population. Suva and overcrowding rates of 56%. Nasinu (including peri-urban areas) have around half the informal settlement population. Lami, Tenure security. No settlements have tenure Nasinu and Lautoka peri-urban areas have the security, something which can act as a highest proportion of total population in informal disincentive to housing investment to improve settlements (56%-32%). disaster resilience. The average settlement was 407 people, but Access to water and sanitation. 11% of there was a large variation in size. There are a settlement households had insufficient access to smaller number of very large settlements and a improved water. 18% had no access to improved large number of small settlements. sanitation (pit latrines). Latrines are also prone to overspill and health risks in high rain and flood Informal settlements are accommodating growth events which can be exacerbated by climate in urban areas more than rural-urban drift. change. Household formation is also increasing, resulting in a yet greater need for housing. There is a Social and economic sensitivities. Poverty and shortfall of 16,000 residential lots and/or housing unemployment is very high in informal for informal settlements alone at present day settlements, with household income around a needs, not including needs from population third of national rates. The employment to growth in formal areas. population ratio is around a quarter of national rates. Many settlers engage in farming and This study finds that 45% of the informal livestock rearing activities which are also settlement population is on native land, but this sensitive to climate change, particularly drought, figure rises to 84% in peri-urban areas. This floods and increases in animal-human points to the need for a more systematic process communicated diseases. for leasing on native land in peri-urban areas. Flooding. Only one settlement was subject to Many communities are engaged in tenure regular intensive flooding and housing types had negotiations and have active committees, but responded to that through a vernacular housing processes for securing tenure and initiating response, stilted houses. Two other settlements upgrading are unclear and these processes are
UN Habitat PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 2
had significant sections that were regularly flood affected. Roads and paths in most settlements Housing were regularly affected by flooding and high 4) Stilted houses in flood affected and high- rainfall. density settlements. 5) Prioritise house designs for $10,000 ($5,000 Key community priorities USD). There were 28 community identified priority 6) Education, training and technical assistance projects, eight of which were for access (roads, on dwelling construction paths, lights), nine for drainage, waste or utilities projects, four for community facilities and the Services remainder for land, housing, livelihoods and 7) Strategic partnerships between NGOs and environmental projects. In many cases, there is key local governments. existing community skills and capacity to co- 8) Provide employment as part of upgrading deliver these projects. through community contracting in partnership with private-sector operators. Options for Action Citywide initiatives A series of options have been identified for 9) Target upgrading through profiling needs and consideration in the strategy formulation priorities. process. They are under the following four headings. 10) Government in collaboration with NGOs to set guidelines for community-driven Land and population development. 1) Facilitate communal leases by NGO housing providers for five existing settlements per year 11) Institutionalize an exchange platform at a for five years. local government level to share lessons learned on urban development (projects) on a regular 2) Target upgrading projects on the 40 largest basis. settlements in Fiji, which have half the informal settlement population. 12) Enable NGOs to propose new ways of doing upgrading which may include change to 3) Provide 500 lots per year to Residential regulations and funding. This can be through an Upgrade zoning standards for the next 5 years to ‘unsolicited proposal’. divert population growth in formal areas from informal settlements.
UN Habitat PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 3
1 Introduction
Informal settlements have been a major the living conditions of the urban poor towards feature of Fijian urban life for at least 40 years. the achievement of Millennium Development Close to 20% of the urban population lives in Goal (MDG) 7, including: target C, to halve, by settlements with diverse range of physical, 2015, the proportion of people without legal and social conditions that often do not sustainable access to safe drinking water and meet basic human rights and are highly basic sanitation; and, target D, to achieve a vulnerable to climate change impacts. This significant improvement in the lives of at least study shows that the informal settlement 100 million slum dwellers by 2020. With the population is roughly the size of Lautoka, Nadi transition to the Sustainable Development and Labasa combineda. As such, planning for Goals, the programme supports target 11.1, change requires a strategic approach based which is, “By 2030, ensure access for all to on accurate baseline data. This project aims to adequate, safe and affordable housing and provide an important situation analysis of the basic services and upgrade slums”.The three nationwide, citywide and settlement-level phases of the Programme include: Phase 1: context of informal settlements to inform the Participatory Urban Profiling, Phase 2: strategic planning process. Participatory Action Planning & Programme Formulation, and Phase 3 Participatory Pilot Project Implementation Cities. The overall 1.1 Background outcomes of the PSUP include: A) capacity building of national and city stakeholders. B) This Settlement Situation Analysis (SSA) is recognition of slums and political support for key component of multi-phase programme to upgrading. C) resource mobilization for support Fijian stakeholders plan for citywide scaling-up and sustainability of upgrading informal settlement upgrading. It builds on the programmes at national and city levels. D) significant capacity, momentum and leadership networking and exchange of slum upgrading shown by civil society organizations, such as actors at global, regional, national and city the People’s Community Network (PCN), and level1. the Ministry of Local Government, Housing, Environment, Infrastructure and Transport This project is part of Phase II which itself (MLGHEIT). includes five outputs including. 1) a Settlement Situation Analysis (SSA) (this report) 2) The Participatory Slum Upgrading Programme Review of Urban and Housing Policies, 3) a (PSUP) is an initiative of the African, Slum Upgrading and Prevention Strategy, 4) a Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (ACP) Resource Mobilisation Strategy, 5) and Project secretariat, funded by the European Union and Proposals. As such, this report aims to present implemented by UN-Habitat in 35 countries. In information on settlements to inform the the Pacific, the Progamme is active in Fiji, upgrading solutions these later stages seek to Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu plan for. This SSA primarily supports outcomes and Vanuatu. The Programme was initated to around improved understanding of informal significantly contribute to the improvement of settlements situation and improved capacity to make evidence based decisions. a This refers to population in municipal boundaries of these cities only.
UN Habitat PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 4
The People’s Community Network is an active (For key definitions, see Appendix A) participant in informal settlement upgrading in Fiji, a key National Implementation Partner to the PSUP Phase II. PCN was established to 1.2 Objectives of SSA serve the needs of the people and households in informal settlements. Its primary objective is The Informal Settlement Situation Analysis is to empower the communities and households an action-oriented profile and analysis of the in the informal settlements, through training in key urban conditions relating to informal social analysis, community empowerment, settlements in three of the major urban areas human rights, economic literacy and budgeting of Fiji, Greater Suva, Nadi and Lautoka and skills. PCN is also involved in projects such as three regional towns of Ba, Levuka and affordable housing, security of land tenure, Labasa. The purpose of this project is collect, food security, farming, relocation due to analyse and undertake a participatory review climate change and the participatory citywide of information related to the settlement issues upgrading programme2. Given PCN’s key role and opportunities to inform the development of and intimate knowledge of informal settlement a Citywide Settlement Upgrading Strategy and issues in Fiji, they have responsibility for pilot projects. delivering the Settlement Situation Analysis of the PSUP Phase II.
Figure 1: Participants in: in-depth interviews (Niniau Aunima - Caubati Koro), household surveys (Waisea Baleinabua - Valenicina), community mapping and focus groups (Tauvegavega committee).
Source: PCN.
The three key objectives for this report are to: rights issues relating to adequate housing, and identify key vulnerabilities to climate change a) Undertake a citywide analysis of the current risks. situation of urban and informal settlement areas supported by on the ground research c) Identify key findings emerging and options and engagement directly with settlement for action as they align with PCN’s key communities. strategic objectives and outcomes (see Box 1) and provide the evidence base for the b) Undertake a rapid assessment of the key development of a Fiji Informal Settlements features of informal settlements in Fiji, human Upgrading Strategy.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 5
Analysis, findings and options presented empowerment and prevent forced eviction and through this project are to inform in-depth provide alternatives. discussions with settlement communities, government and non-government actors, 7.) Greater understanding and concern for academia, the private sector, and other climate change relevant stakeholders throughout the process. 8.) All households in the informal settlements to be members of a saving scheme for security Box 1: Key PCN strategic aims of land tenure, decent and affordable housing Key PCN strategic objectives, outcomes and and better education for the children and so projects that this project aims to support are increase the quality of life for these families. listed in PCN’s Strategic Plan. These include 9.) A more hygienic living environment in all the following3: informal communities and improved Key objectives understanding and concern towards the elderly and people with disability. 1. To build solidarity among people living in informal settlements, in the Fiji Islands. Programme Area #5: Housing, Land and Prevention of Forced Eviction 501 Objective 2. To encourage peoples’ participation in To facilitate the acquiring of land leases for decision making and project management. building projects. Action. Conduct search for land as needed and network with government 3. To promote gender equality and active departments on lease. Target. At least 50 participation of women in all community percent households in each of the 75 informal activities. settlements have secure land tenure and 4. To facilitate people’s ability to negotiate for housing. security of land tenure and the building of Programme 3 (P3): Savings, Loans and better houses. Investments. 302 Objective To empower all 9. To take a genuine interest in the needs of informal settlements to save, to set priorities people who live in peri-urban underdeveloped and better manage their finances. Action. settlements and formal communities who are Conduct socio-economic surveys pertaining to also experiencing the same difficulties as land and income status. those living in informal settlements.
Key outcomes (numbering from original plan) 1.3 Methodology
1.) More people becoming empowered to This SSA comprises the following stages: overcome culture of silence and naïve consciousness and participate in managing Identification of key data, their own development and raising their own collection and analysis of spatial, social, issues. economic data citywide and in informal settlements, 3.) The provision of secure land tenure and analysis of key elements of settlement decent and affordable housing for informal upgrading, settlements with basic amenities, contributing to a strengthened sense of security and
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 6
Data and information has been collected and discussions with fieldworkers analysed using a variety of methods including identification of settlement boundaries the following: using satellite photos with local knowledge
Primary data collection in six focus settlements in five cities and towns, which included: Secondary data analysis socio-economic household surveys utilising collation and analysis of secondary data tablet technology (513 households with such as the FBoS census, and 2,459 residents). The questionnaire and international data, survey methodology was developed to gain geo-spatial analysis of spatial data using maximum correspondence with national Geographic Information Systems (GIS), indicators and available benchmark data. Literature and document review seven community mapping sessions six focus groups Analysis and assessment 12 in-depth interviews Desktop analysis of findings from primary site observation surveys of settlement research and secondary data using key conditions. planning frameworks.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 7
2 Urbanisation and informal settlements in Fiji
Not surprisingly, education, employment, access 2.1 Context of urbanization in Fiji to services, lifestyle choices, moderate industrialisation and mediocre management of Fiji is the first Melanesian country to cross the economic development potential have all symbolic demographic milestone of more than influenced the movement of population to Fijian 50% of the population residing in cities and cities and towns6. The expiry of agricultural towns. Historically driven in large part by rural- leases has also been a pivotal driver in Fijian urban migration, nowadays, however urban urban growth. Since the 1980’s, Jones notes that population growth and change are, as this urbanisation has changed in scale and intensity research shows, increasingly driven by factors and has seen the following pronounced shifts in: within urban areas. Some municipalities are urbanizing more quickly than others, but all are demographic and population patterns, confronted by challenges related to growth, including high levels of rural urban including urban poverty and employment, migration; environmental risk, land administration and settlements patterns including the mix and infrastructure provision and maintenance4. type of housing, most notably the emergence of informal settlement areas, A series of trends with respect to urbanization in which share many features of rural villages, the Pacific has been noted in the literature, all of including in the forms of dwelling 5 which are relevant to Fiji and are paraphrased construction. as follows. pressures to mobilise land, especially 1. Urbanisation is a comparatively recent customary lands; phenomenon, which was initially seen by behaviour, including values, norms, colonial administrators as a step in the attitudes, and expectations with respect to process of transition of Fijian rural and the role of family responsibilities, agrarian life to a modern economy. expectations of the role of women and the 2. The urbanisation process has been uneven aspirations of young people; and contrasting, being drawn into wider community control systems working patterns by regionalisation and globalisation, alongside state rules and regulation (the including migration to regional and latter often acknowledged by islanders, but international destinations, and social change ignored in practice); coloured by westernisation, modernisation economic development, and 7 and increasingly globalisation. lifestyle, family, and social changes.
As a result, Fijian towns and cities have become 2.1.1 Overall demographic trends, socio- increasingly complex systems of social, economic conditions and economic and environmental determinants that development continue to change and evolve as an important barometer of the state of national development. Population growth in Pacific Island countries is 8 Alongside this has been an urbanization of rural the highest region outside Africa and growth in 9 poverty into urban areas. urban areas can be double national rates . Fiji by contrast has a generally low population growth
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 8
rate (0.5% compared to the Melanesian average process of inclusion of the urban poor. This is of of 2.1%) due in part to a high international particular importance as urban households, migration rate10. Fiji also has lower urban growth experience greater relative income inequalities rates than some Melanesian countries (see than the general Fijian population16. Table 1), despite having substantially higher rates of urbanization (51%). There are a series of social and historical factors that form the backdrop to the more specific Table 1 PIC urban growth rates urban issues mentioned above. PCN’s Strategic 17 Annual urban growth Plan aptly summarized several of these issues, Country rate* and is paraphrased below: Solomon Islands 4.7% Fiji’s recent political history has been tainted by Vanuatu 3.5% violence, conflict and rifts among the ethnic Papua New Guinea 2.8% communities, resulting in significant emigration of Average 2.6% skilled workers. Moreover, violence against women New Caledonia 2.3% is on the increase and family life is breaking down at Fiji 1.5% a rapid rate. While racism may be the most pervasive human rights issue in Fiji, it is unrealised *based on most recent intercensal data development rights that affect people most severely. Source: SDD 2014, author Economic growth is low and several of the country’s major industries (including sugar) are in steep decline, there was a downturn in the tourism Historically fuelled by rural-urban drift, this urban industry following the global financial crisis, a growth has occurred alongside a significantly devaluation of the Fiji dollar, and subsequent increasing share of national economic activity increase in the cost of living. occurring in towns and cities11. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) notes that sometimes Access to land and the cost of housing are also widespread problems, and squatter settlements poor levels of coordination in urban management have mushroomed in recent years. Many people live have resulted in population growth in urban without reliable electricity, telephones or transport. areas outstripping the supply of serviced and The expiry of several thousand agricultural leases 12 affordable land and housing . Consequently, since 1997 – many of which were not renewed due much of this population growth has occurred in to a Native Lands Trust Board (NLTB) campaign for informal settlements, which can house around a better deal for indigenous landowners – has 40-50% of urban populations13. The ADB note caused great hardship for the families of displaced that urbanization of poverty from rural areas to tenant farmers (overwhelmingly Indo-Fijians). urban areas has created a growing urban divide PCN notes the following key problems for informal where large sections of the population living in settlement communities in Fiji: informal settlements are socially excluded from land, infrastructure and services, economic culture of silence; opportunities and participation in state lack of empowerment of households to determine democratic governance processes14 and their quality of life; infrastructure investment decisions15. However, the need for quality education through schools and in recent years Fijian Government initiatives to vocational training; improve housing, infrastructure, introduce a basic skills; minimum wage, and provide welfare for the most poverty, unemployment, economically disadvantaged have started a child abuse and child protection, lack of respect for women,
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 9
refusal to appreciate the ideas and experience of and therefore not widely used19. Where it has young people, been applied, it has been in the context of unequal treatment for the disadvantaged and describing the state of the physical, social and elderly, environmental condition of a squatter or informal climate change and lack of basic amenities, settlement area. Fiji is no exception to unavailability of affordable housing, international discourse, in that there is Phase I of the PSUP in Fiji summarized a range substantial diversity of definitions and conditions of urban issues facing key cities in Fiji, which are which may apply to informal settlements. The likely to be relevant in most cities in this study. most typical definitions in the Fijian context are These included: ‘squatter settlements’ or ‘informal settlements’, with the former more specifically referring to Housing and land. poor access to land and informal settlement on state land. These housing with inadequate amenities; settlement types must not be confused with the Infrastructure. inadequate urban terms native (urban) villages which are the infrastructure such as utilities, including customary lands and settlement enclaves water supply, roads and sewerage systems; formally recognised in Fijian and other Pacific Environmental management. floods and poor towns and cities, and which contain the drainage, solid waste management; indigenous land owners of that locality (and 20 Environmental impact. Extensive newcomers) . Such lands may also contain environmental degradation from human informal or squatters settlements within their activities including, manufacturing, land native (urban) village boundaries. These clearing inadequate sanitation definitional issues are discussed in more detail in 21 private sector coastal development leading to Appendix A, however, Barr summarises the environmental degradation and increasing various definitions as follows: climate change and disaster vulnerability, Squatters can be found on freehold, state or Urban management capacity. These native land – often in marginal areas problems have been exacerbated by (mangroves, creeks, steep slopes). insufficient resources and human capacity Even though permission to settle on the land within local government to respond to the may be obtained, there is no legally binding rapid urban growth in the region. title and so no land security for the settlers. In addition, Barr notes18 issues of: Housing is usually (but not always) substandard. Poverty and social exclusion. Inability for Often a lack of basic services (sewerage, effective participation in urban life due to water, electricity, garbage disposal), however being economically and socially excluded some of these services may be allowed with from key institutions and not empowered to the land owner. have a voice in social and democratic life. This definition is consistent with definitions in regional literature22, that informal settlements: 2.2 Informal settlements: typologies, growth, and scale (i) are often illegal under the rules and regulations of the prevailing formal state system, (ii) the land tenure status is uncertain (which may or may not Use of the generic term ‘slum’ in the in Fiji and cause household insecurity), (iii) built housing the Pacific island region generally is problematic,
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 10
standards and environmental conditions are planned residential and industrial areas. inadequate, and (iv) the level of access to This may include land which may belong services and infrastructure is low. Formal state to institutional land owners, such as the rules and regulations relating to land title church or government departments (including customary law), planning and building and/or have been dedicated for a are bypassed, and as a result, overcrowded particular purpose, for example public housing, health concerns and illegal connections to water and power, are the norm. open space or roads but not yet developed for that purpose.24 Informal settlements are also categorised according to the common land types upon From the analysis it can be concluded that which they have developed which, as a general despite Fiji not using the term ‘slums’, the rule, are those ‘marginal’ or ‘transitional’ land criteria used to define informal settlements types discarded by the formal planning system and squatters are close to the five in Pacific towns and cities as being considered deprivations globally used to define slums unsuitable for development or on which which are: no secure tenure, lack of development is yet to occur23. The typologies of adequate water and sanitation, no durable 25 these land types are: housing and overcrowding . The criteria used in Fiji are broader than this narrower the edges of rivers and estuaries; definition, for example including services accretion lands on ocean and lagoon such as electricity including a wider range of foreshores; land ownership and tenure typologies. electricity easements;
mangrove wetlands; tidal lagoons and swamps; the peri-urban ‘edge’; waste disposal sites, and residual land parcels both small and large within native (urban) villages and formally
Figure 2: Substandard sanitation and housing in two settlements in central Suva: Veidogo and Muanivatu.
Source: PCN (2015), Fiji Coup 2006 (2015)
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 11
2.2.1 Drivers for informal settlement intensified, posing serious challenges to policy growth makers29.
As in the global context, the drivers for growth The resulting increase in informal settlements of informal settlements are diverse, complex has led to increased environmental and often locally specific. In the Fijian context, degradation and vulnerability to climate Barr26 notes that the six major reasons for the change in these settlements and in cities and proliferation of informal settlements include: towns overall as well as worsening environmental health conditions and public Rural-urban migration – the push and pull security concerns – all of which have poverty factors associated with urbanization – as a root cause30. Reinforcing this, United people are looking for employment, better Nations Economic and Social Commission for education and health care for their children the Asia Pacific (UN ESCAP)31 also note that Governments, over the years, have not the key issues to address in settlement provided an adequate supply of affordable upgrading and urban upgrading generally low cost housing; relate to land ownership and mobilisation, Poverty, unemployment and low wages; development financing, tenure security for governments have not established a women and young people, public service minimum wage and have allowed too many delivery, crime and safety, and public health. workers to be paid below the poverty lineb; In this context, finding ways to provide Too many people have lost land leases adequate urban land with tenure security, and been forced to find some sort of housing and services and broaden social and informal housing for themselves and their economic inclusion is a pivotal ingredient in families. inclusive urban development - and national Difficulty in obtaining land through the economic and social development generally. proper channels Rapid escalation in the price of land, housing and rents in urban areas. 2.2.2 Types of informal settlement growth In addition to this, the ADB27 notes that poor levels of coordination in urban management There are several ways informal settlements in have resulted in population growth in urban Fiji grow in size and population. These include: areas outstripping the supply of serviced and Household level. Increased occupancy of affordable land and housing. They note that existing housing, resulting in higher there has been a failure to integrate traditional numbers of people per household and governance processes with formal planning, potentially overcrowding. The Government land and urban management systems – to of Fiji estimates that the average better facilitate the provision of land for urban 28 occupancy of housing is 1.45 households development . As a result, the social issues per dwelling in key urban areas of the relating social inequality, poverty, rapid GSUA (Greater Suva Urban Area) and the urbanization, access to land and housing have Nadi-Lautoka corridor32. Housing consolidation. Increasing the size b The Government of Fiji has since instituted a minimum wage. and/or capacity of a dwelling, e.g. by
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 12
adding additional rooms either for Figure 3: Nawajikuma (Nadi) settlement 12 years household members or as rental property. apart. Red line indicates areas where new dwellings Government of Fiji estimated that 7.5% of have been built by settlement infill between 2003 and households (in either formal or informal 2015 areas) rented out rooms/sections of their dwelling. Infill. Building additional dwellings in the space between existing dwellings within the existing developed area of the settlement resulting in densification. Note that housing consolidation is also a form of infill. Expansion. Development of new dwellings on the peripheries of settlements thus expanding the boundaries of the settlement. Initiation/occupation. Building on and occupying land where there were previously no settlements, either by illegal occupation, negotiation with the landowner or by the landowner themselves.
Source: PCRAFI (2013) and Google Earth. Growth in Fijian settlements also follows similar patterns identified in global literature, 2.2.3 Estimating informal settlement i.e. increasing densification of existing numbers settlements (as described above), occupation of environmentally marginal lands, and Estimates on the total number of people living movements within urban areas. Parts of the in informal settlements in Fiji vary, sometimes GSUA also exhibit the phenomena of some dramatically, Naidu et al. note that estimates of authors have called ‘village cities’33, to the number of informal settlements vary both describe parts of Pacific Island cities and because of their rapid growth and also towns where large sections of the city which because of definitional differences34. Kiddle are characterized by informal development. notes two factors leading to ambiguity around The peri-urban areas of Suva and Nasinu figures, firstly the loose and inconsistent council fit this description. It is likely that terminology applied to informal settlements (as upgrading strategies will need to be aware of discussed above) and secondly, data may and respond to each of these growth simply be missing, erroneous, contradictory, scenarios. misleading, or based on incorrect assumptions35.
General urban population growth rates for Fiji are estimated to be around 1.5%36 per annum, whereas peri-urban areas in the GSUA are
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 13
growing around 25% faster around 1.9%37, that informal settlement patterns present, Informal settlement areas of the GSUA, can alongside a more discretely defined grow up to 4% per annum, for example in operational definition required for spatial Nasinu and Nausori peri-urban areas38. research, policy making and planning at a citywide and settlement level. (see Appendix Estimates of populations in informal #A for further information on definitions). This settlements Fiji-wide range from: report therefore uses four complementary 39 40 41 46,155 (1999), 60,000 (in 2012) , 82,350 methods to arrive at an operational figure of 42 43 (in 2004) to 100,000 , and 129,000 to informal settlements, to triangulate the 44 140,000 (in 2007) . Estimates for the GSUA population estimation process. These include: alone, range from 26,66545 (in 1999), 44,00046, 50,50847 (in 2007), 90,000 (in 2011), to Citywide: Identification of households with 100,00048 (2008). These figures for the GSUA informal settlement tenure characteristics would account for over 30% of the urban from 2007 census results. (step 1 population49. Jones50 notes that up to 80% of Appendix #A) dwelling growth in Suva was in informal Site specific: Identification of informal settlements. UN Habitat51 notes that the settlement locations and boundaries to number of informal settlements in the GSUA calculate dwellings using PCRAFId data. alone had doubled from 2006 to 2011 to now (steps 2-10 Appendix #A) around 100. Nationwide figures on total Externally verified growth figures. Build on numbers of informal settlements range from previous projects undertaken by a key 52 53 54 55 56 57c 106 , 182 , 185 , 200 , 230 to 250 regional research and planning agency (Cities Development Institute for Asia58) This wide variance in figures, where some which generated small area population estimates are double others for comparable growth estimates. These population growth years and geographies, reflects the diversity of rate estimates have also been used for definitions and inclusions and exclusions citywide town and peri-urban estimates. referred to above. This points to the need for Ground truthing. Using primary field work both an encompassing descriptive definition to gain current and on the ground average of informal settlements which reference the household sizes, dwelling and population range of legal, social and environmental issues estimates of selected (focus) settlements. c As noted in more detail in Appendix A, the One response to these figures and the variance they show may simply be to note that whatever the focus for this project has been identifying those actual figure, there is a major issue that demands settlements that have insecure tenure as a immediate action. However, the ADBc notes the primary criterion and those with built lack of accurate projections was ultimately a major environmental and social conditions of stumbling block for the Fiji Low Income Housing concern. Informal settlement figures used in Development Project in the 1990s. The inability of this report are therefore a subset of the total staff to project accurate figures on housing needs informal settlement situation, most obviously and the costs of development alternatives meant as it only includes 171 settlements of the that no clear government targets could be set. official GoF estimate of 25059. This Setting targets in this way can ensure political support and ensure ongoing accountability for program deliverables and outcomes. d Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 14
discrepancy reflects the differences between the operational and descriptive definitions. Thus, the figures in this report aim to firstly focus attention on the priority informal settlements and populations in Fiji, identified via key policy relevant and verifiable data sets. It is important to note that these figures do not represent the 'true' figure of informal settlement population, or informal settlement conditions as would be covered by broader definitions (discussed in Appendix A). There is wide consensus in the literature that figures are likely to be substantially higher than those which have been included in this report as a result of this more targeted research process
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 15
Map 1 Cities and focus settlements (highlighted yellow) included in the study area
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 16
2.3 Profile cities and towns
The six cities and towns included in this project Figure 4 make up the majority of cities and towns in Fiji and fall into three broad categories: metropolitan area (GSUA), major regional centres (Nadi, Lautoka), and regional towns (Ba, Levuka, Labasa). As a key economic, civic and regional hub of both Fiji and the Pacific, Greater Suva accounts for close to two thirds of the study area’s population (63%), with the Nadi-Lautoka corridor a quarter (25%), and Ba, Levuka and Labasa just 13%. The GSUA is likely growing the fastest due to both the presence of enhanced educational and economic opportunities and chain migration. By contrast, the tikinase that Ba and Labasa are located in have experienced a population decline60.
Figure 5
Source: FBoS census 2007, CDIA (2012a), PCN. (Note: includes town and peri-urban areas.).
through manufacturing, tourism, and shipping. They are also government and commercial administrative hubs, and thus have a more diversified economic base than regional towns. Employment and particularly education rates
Source: FBoS census (2007), CDIA (2012a) are higher in the larger centres with Suva, Nadi PCRAFI (2013), PCN. and Lautoka having around 15% higher employment rates and 37% higher tertiary education rates relative to the regional towns Economic. GSUA, Nadi and Lautoka have in this study. Labasa and Ba are regional hubs, active domestic economies as well as an including for key agricultural industries, most notably sugar cane agriculture and processing. industrial base more integrated into Pacific regional and global economies, for example Levuka, Fiji’s first capital city, is a small rural town with a significant tuna cannery and a provincial administration. Towns in the e Fijian provincial administrative sub-division.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 17
Western and Northern Divisions (Nadi, town planning schemes. Councils do not have Lautoka, Ba, Labasa) have been affected by direct responsibility outside their town the downturn in the sugar industry and boundaries in peri-urban areas. In these areas, resulting rural urban migration and expiration building and development is governed of agricultural leases61. separately by local area advisory authorities under the Central Board of Health. The Geography. The towns differ significantly national Ministry of Local Government, geographically with Ba, Lautoka, Nadi and to a Housing, Environment, Infrastructure and lesser extent, Labasa having in generally Transport (MLGHEIT) has a strong role in seasonally dry tropical climates (tropical coordinating urban planning and management savannah) on flat land, some of which is and growth in urban areas, including through severely flood prone. Nadi, Lautoka and Ba two key settlement upgrading programs are also particularly vulnerable to tropical including the Squatter Settlement Upgrading 62 cyclones . Suva is in a wet tropical climate Program and the Townwide and Citywide with steep topography in some areas, as well Informal Settlement Upgrading Programs. as undulating land, and some flat low-lying Agencies responsible for a range of urban riverfront and flood prone land. Suva and management and infrastructure functions Lautoka in particular have low-lying coastal include: Fiji Roads Authority (FRA), Water areas that can be vulnerable to coastal Authority of Fiji (WAF), Fiji Energy Authority erosion, storm surges and flooding – all (FEA) Department of Works. The iTaukei exacerbated by increasing climate change Lands Trust Board (iTLTB) also have a key risks. Levuka is located on a narrow coastal role in managing and administering native land plain with steep mountains behind it that holdings, this can include managing individual significantly inhibit outward urban growth. and communal leases on native land, including for informal settlements. The Ministry of Lands Governance. The role of community and also plays a key role in land management and traditional governance structures in the formal planning and management of urban life is administration. There are several national and relatively limited, and, particularly in the case international NGO/CBOs and development agencies that have had various roles in of informal settlements, exacerbated by housing and urban issues, for example the poverty, social exclusion and minimal or ambiguous pathways for meaningful People’s Community Network, Habitat for participation. Town councils are headed by a Humanity, New Zealand High Commission, special administrator appointed by the national Asian Coalition for Housing Rights, and Miserior. government and are responsible for preparing
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 18
Map 2: Greater Suva Urban Area: town and peri-urban areas, informal settlements and key environmental features (see appendix
Source: FLIS (2016), DTCP (2016), FBoS (2016), PCN (2016).
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 19
Map 3. Nadi urban and peri-urban areas with informal settlements and social infrastructure
Source: FLIS (2016), DTCP (2016), FBoS (2016), PCN (2016).
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 20
Map 4. Lautoka urban and peri-urban areas with informal settlements and social and water infrastructure
Source: FLIS (2016), DTCP (2016), FBoS (2016), PCN (2016).
(see settlement profile sections for Levuka and Ba maps).
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 21
3 Citywide situation analysis
examples of informal settlements that are likely 3.1 Citywide urban analysis to have started as peri-urban fringe settlements, or as occupation of marginal The urban context of the various cities in this lands, but are now surrounded as informal study vary significantly both across and within enclaves by formally sub-divided areas, for each city. In the Greater Suva Urban Area, example in the Caubati area of Nasinu. There growth of the urban area has occurred along are other, less numerous, examples of east-west growth corridors stretching from a settlements, such as Namadai in Samabula metropolitan core on Suva peninsula. Having and Howell Road in Raiwaqa which have been been constrained by sea to the south and regularized and are now part of the urban mountains to the north urban growth has fabric (albeit a different urban typology). incrementally spread out from the spine of the Settlements in peri-urban areas have lower, Kings Road to the east and Queens Road to but typically not completely absent access to the west. The most recent example of this is urban services such as water, electricity, and the formalization of the Nausori Extension public transport. area, bringing sections of non-municipal land into the formal town planned areas. Informal In Nadi, growth appears to have occurred settlement growth has and will continue to along linear road corridors and has been occur along peri-urban boundaries and in constrained by rivers and other low-lying land. environmentally marginal lands within It shows less obvious boundaries between municipal boundaries. There are many urban, peri-urban and semi-rural areas. It has
Figure 6
Source: FBoS census 2007, CDIA 2012, PCRAFI (2013) and PCN.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 22
fewer (if any) informal settlements within the settlements. This issue is corroborated by the town boundaries themselves due in part to the GoF, which notes that in the Suva-Nausori and very contained and narrow shape of the Nadi-Ba urban corridors, occupancy rates municipal areas. It has many informal were higher at 1.45 per housing unit, indicating settlements on the municipal boundaries, and that the supply of affordable housing and land several outside the peri-urban boundary has not kept up with population growth64. altogether (sometimes called exurban growth). Looking just at the informal settlement Ba has a similar pattern edge growth along population in both urban and peri-urban areash corridors, with informal settlements forming an the total shortfall in total number of lots is important way that the town has grown, with some 15,961. some recent regularisations on the western periphery. Lautoka has a more obvious radial The total land required to accommodate these growth pattern with the majority of informal lots is approximately 798 hectares. This settlements on, or within, the peri-urban calculation is based on an assumption of boundary, and some outside in exurban 500sqm per lot (220sqm per residential lot settlements (including fishing communities) which is standard for residential upgrading that are likely still functionally linked to the city. projects, plus land for roads, open space, Labasa shows similar linear growth, and community facilities and other reserved land). informal settlements are discrete village like This figure of 798 hectares equates to around settlements relatively separate from the main 3.1% of the total land in the study area in peri- urban growth corridor. Levuka is a unique case urban and town areas combined. This in that there is only one (identified) informal suggests that there is likely to be land settlement that has had a long history adjacent capacity, particularly in peri-urban areas to to and within the town boundaries and is very accommodate some of this need. Efficiencies close to the centre of the town. in land administration, land use, and development processes may be able to Plot numbers and size. Reflecting the common facilitate meeting such targets. concern of lack of land for housing, this analysis shows a significant shortfall in the Lot sizes in formal areas by comparison are number of residential zoned lots to population. significantly larger, with a median size of Based on assumption of a household size of 622sqm (see figure 7). This could 5.1 persons 63 and one lot per householdf the accommodate close to three standard lots from average number of households per plot in town residential upgrade areas (220sqm) and in areas is 1.32 to 1g. This suggests a shortfall of some localities with large lot sizes, such as a high number of lots across the study area Suva and particularly Lami median lot sizes just in formal areas, not including informal are larger still and could accommodate up to eight residential upgrade lots. Clearly, there f Note that this analysis is an approximate measure, are options to consider enabling infill housing as it does not include the fact that important in a variety of ways to make more efficient use sections of the population are accommodated by of existing urban infrastructure. For example, land and housing in mixed use areas, many lots allowing secondary dwellings/dual occupancy may legitimately include secondary dwellings, and many lots zoned residential, particularly in Lami, are very large and would be expected to be sub- h The non-informal settlement population in peri- divided as part of the normal urban development urban areas is excluded from this calculation as process. peri-urban areas provide important land for rural- g This excludes the informal settlement population. residential land use patterns.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 23
or multiple occupancy in planning schemes economic and governance factors illustrated may be an option. However, it is also notable below. that more recent subdivisions have substantially lower lot sizes. For example, lots Household size. Estimates of household size in a subdivision in the Nausori peri-urban area in peri-urban and town (which includes both are around 450sqm. formal and informal households) contexts are comparable as overall averages (4.9 for town Population density. A key feature of Fijian areas vs. 5.2 for peri-urban areas 65), but there urban environments is the significant are substantial differences within and between differences in population density between some areas. For example, Suva town has a formal and informal areas. household size of 4.6 whereas Suva peri-
The average population density of informal Figure 7 areas is 73 persons per hectarei. When averaged across the areas, population density in informal areas in town boundaries is 92 people per hectare, which is 43% higher than that of general residential areas and seven times higher than peri-urban areasj. Areas with the highest population density are, Suva, Nasinu town areas and Nausori peri-urban areas. However, in areas such as Nasinu and Nausori town, residential densities in formal and informal areas are comparable. Importantly, there are many major settlements which have dramatically higher densities, for example: Caubati – Topline, Nakelo, Wailea, Beaumont/Narere, Waila-Colbelt Ave all located in Suva, Nasinu and Nausori town and peri-urban areas have collective densities of over 200 persons per hectare. While divisions in living standards are stark when only looking at density, these are reflected in socio- Source: DTCP zoning data (2016) i Note that due to the method of combining site- 66 specific and citywide data, means that density in urban areas have an average of 5.4 . Lami certain settlements may be overestimated, i.e. has particularly large household sizes (5.6 apportioning all informal households to the known persons per household) within both town and boundaries in a jurisdiction. This error accounts for the very high density in Ba, where methodological peri-urban areas. There are also notable and other urban features and changes result in a differences within these areas, for example skewed figure, Nasinu towns overall household size is 5.0, but j Note: this calculation is likely to over-estimate certain wards (e.g. Naulu Nakasi ward) have a formal residential density figures as it does not 67 account for account for people residing in mixed rate of 5.3 . use areas, i.e. assumes all the population lives in residential areas.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 24
Dwelling cost and size. Estimated dwelling Figure 8 construction costs in formal areas are $106,565 for the average floor area of 151sqm with build rates of $650 for wood framed dwellings and $750 for concrete framed dwellings68, yet there are substantial differences between areas. Suva town has average building replacement costs of $127,315 compared to Lami $81,606. This is because of the larger dwelling floor area in Suva (Suva: 177sqm, Lami: 118sqm). Notably, based on professional build rate costs for formal areas, informal settlement dwellings with an average of 82sqm would cost $53,950, compared to the average of around $8,000 reported in the settlement survey (see chapter 4).
3.2 Citywide settlement analysis
Settlements in this study reflect the diversity of Source: FBoS (2007), CDIA (2012a), PCRAFI urban areas, settlement patterns, issues and (2013), PCN. growth trajectories both in Fiji and across the Note: density figures for town areas based on residential PICs. zoned areas only. Settlement areas refer to informal settlements. Analysis for this project indicates that there are around 76,613 people living in informal proportion of people in urban areas living in settlements in the study area, including the informal settlements is 18%. 159 settlements included in this studyk. Thus, there is an average of 475 residents per Location of informal settlement population. At settlementl. Suva town area has the highest the city level, the GSUA has the majority (71%, number of settlements (39) and the highest 54,181) of the study area’s overall informal population of people in living in informal settlement population with 20% of its settlements (14,303). The average of the population living in informal settlements (greater than the total population of Lautoka town area). The largest concentrations in both k There are also seven settlements outside the peri- numbers of population and numbers of urban boundaries of Lautoka with a population of settlements are located in inner municipal around 3,300 and several settlements outside the areas of Suva and Nasinu which together have Nadi peri-urban area. over a third (34%, 26,329 people) of the total l Note the way in which IS populations have been calculated uses a mixed methods approach which informal settlement population in the study includes both the 159 settlements listed here and area. When their peri-urban areas are those indicated in the census.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 25
included, they have close to half (47%, 36,386 urban area also has a high number of informal people) of the total study area population. Lami settlement households (1,146) and a and Lautoka town and peri-urban areas have population of around 6,450. 11% and 12% of the total, with around 16,997 people living in informal settlements. Nadi peri-
Figure 9 Figure 10
Source: FBoS census 2007, CDIA 2012, Source: PCN (2016) PCRAFI (2013) and PCN.
Overall, the GSUA, Nadi and Lautoka town Concentrations of informal settlements. Parts and peri-urban areas contain 90% of the total of the GSUA have the highest percentage of number of IS households in the study area, the citywide population living in informal and are thus a key focus. Despite this, other settlements, Lami peri-urban area (56%) and towns experience key concerns, for example Nasinu (42%) with Levuka peri-urban area settlements in the peri-urban areas of Ba has (primarily Baba) also having a large share of the largest areas, among the highest its population living in informal settlements. An populations and highest rates of poverty of all important feature of settlements in Suva town settlements in this research. area is their large number (36) and relatively small size (average of 56 dwellings). (See
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 26
section 3.1 for description of spatial and 19% are on private land. In town areas, distributions of informal settlements in the however, a higher proportion are on state land citywide area (51% of settlements) and in peri-urban areas a higher proportion are on native land (77% of Tenure. Informal settlements more commonly settlements). fall on native land (45% of settlements), followed by state land (36% of settlements)
Figure 11
Source: FLIS cadastre (2016), PCN (2016).
Access to services and facilities. Informal water pipe and in town areas this is closer to settlements in this project are in relatively good 79%. Areas with the lowest coverage include accessibility to schools, with 82% of peri-urban areas and areas with steeper settlements within 800metres (roughly a ten residential areas, for example Lami and minute walk) of a school. Lautoka and Lami Levuka. Informal settlements actually have, on have the poorest access with only 50-60% of average, better access to water at the settlements in this catchment. (It is important boundary. At least with 87% of settlement to note that this is based on a straight boundaries are within 30m of a water pipe (of calculation and walking distances may be any size). Comparison studies of access to substantially more than this). water across informal settlements in Melanesian countries note relatively good Water accessibility is relatively good in most coverage of water in Fiji69. In particular, they areas, with an average of 69% of cadastral note the innovation and flexibility of the WAF to parcels in the study area being within 30m of a negotiate tenure hurdles through progressive
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 27
regulation to extend services70. However, section 3.14 notes key issues in water provision within the boundary of settlements that are key issues for upgrading.
Waste water. By definition, informal settlements do not enjoy sewerage coverage within the boundaries of the settlement, nor has this study identified those where local systems have linked with formal systems. However as Table 2 illustrates, 26% of informal settlements (30 settlements) in the GSUA are within 30m of waste water pipesm, and thus may present opportunity sites. As Output Two of the PSUP notes, upgrading to higher dwelling densities and in established urban areas is often reliant on achieving sewerage coverage.
Table 2 Settlements boundaries within 30m of waste water pipes in the Greater Suva Urban Area Number and % of settlements within Total no. Area 30m of waste settlements water pipes Suva town 18 (46%) 39 Nasinu peri-urban 4 (33%) 12 Nausori town 1 (33%) 3 Nasinu town 6 (30%) 20 Lami town 1 (7%) 15 Total 30 (26%) 117 Source: DTCP (2016), PCN (2016)
m Note that data provided from the DTCP included waste water pipes of 0cm diameter. These were excluded.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 28
4 Settlement-level situation analysis
This section looks at the key features of Figure 12 the six focus settlements included in the study (see map 1 for location). The aim is to identify key strengths and issues, and key priorities for upgrading. These data are based on fieldwork undertaken by PCN staff in May 2016 (outlined in section 1.3).
Unless otherwise noted all images and settlement-level figures have been derived from the socio-economic survey, site survey, and geo-spatial survey (as noted in 1.3). Source: PCN (2015
Figure 13 4.1 Land and population
Size and population. The focal settlements for this study averaged 15 hectares in area, which is above the citywide average of 7.2 hectares. Tauvegavega and Tomuka had both the largest size and population . However, population density was generally lower in Tauvegavega (33 persons per hectare)...
Population density. Nawakijuma had the highest population density (151 persons/hectare (pph)) at nearly double Figure 14 citywide and focus settlement average (78 pph). Tomuka was also substantially above (94pph) and Caubati Koro was similar to the citywide settlement average for both total population (317 vs. 415 citywide settlement average) and population density (both 78pph). Thus, the three settlements of Caubati Koro, Valenicina and to a lesser extent, Tomuka, are likely to be more representative of the situation in most settlements in Fiji. The focus settlements are therefore generally larger, with a higher population and slightly higher population density than most settlements
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 29 citywide. There were two general types of land, steep sloped land (at least in certain parts of Figure 15: Tauvegavega and Nawajikuma building the settlement) and flat or undulating land. footprint and settlement boundaries illustrate differences in density (both maps same scale)
4.2 Land, tenure and community governance
Settlements and land ownership. Four of the six settlements (Tauvegavega, Tomuka, Nawajikuma, and Baba) had complex ownership, tenure, and location characteristics. These settlements were made up of multiple separate sections (up to six separate locations) which in the case of the latter three, corresponded in part to different landowners. However, Caubati Koro, Valenicina, had clear land and tenure status in that they were in a single location with a single landowner thus fairly straightforward from a land and ownership perspective. The legal and administrative challenges in resolving tenure land ownership issues, particularly in settlements with fragmented areas, are likely to be important determinants in selecting Source: PCRAFI (2013), FLIS spatial data, PCN settlements for upgrading activity. (see Appendix B1 for breakdown of land tenure and community governance characteristics) which adds on average $10-15,000 more to the price. Some settlements are divided Tenure. Reflecting the more common citywide regarding whether they should seek communal situation, all focus settlements were on native or individual leases. land and had vakavanua relationships with various payment and works in kind Community organization. Most settlements had arrangements. Most had started to take some some form of committee in operation and many step toward securing tenure, in one instance had a community leader or coordinator the Ministry of Local Government had taken (sometimes referred to as the transplanted out a head lease in the settlements with the village title of “Turaga ni Koro), and many also intention of issuing individual titles. There are had a government appointed advisory three types of leases that a settler can be councilorn. It was also clear that committees granted. A joint 99 year communal lease, come and go, and are often project related requiring a survey of the entire settlement. A and/or emerge following disasters. In both Tenancy At Will (TAW) lease with an average Baba and Nawajikuma, groups became costing of $2,000 that as name suggests is temporary and can be cancelled at any time. n These are individuals with a high standing in the Lastly, an individual 99-year lease costs general community who typically do not live in the approximately $10, 000 and requires a survey, settlement and act as advocates, facilitators, coordinators and support the community’s activities.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 30 established to support post-cyclone/flood or been formed to support upgrading activities. reconstruction work. Some committees had The fact that it is the norm that there is some experience and skills in legal issues, and form of community level organization suggests financial and project management, whereas there is both the history, inclination and the others’ role and action appeared more defined capacity in many communities to work by specific needs and projects. In most cooperatively on upgrading projects – see settlements, committees had been involved in below box. See also Appendix C
Box 2: Settlement-level governance structures.
Native land ownership types. There are at least three categories of land owner: 1) Yavusa: chief of villages and land owner, 2) Mataqali: village chief and/or land owner, 3) Tokatoka: descendants of mataqali with land that is seperated/parceled out. Each person with one of these titles can be owners of the land on which settlements lie. Land owners may live in the settlement, outside in the village they come from, or in another place entirely. Land claims can also be disputed both between claimant land owners and between land owners and Fijian native land owning structure. the iTLTB. Advisory councilor. This is a government paid position offered to people of good community standing. They can be living within the settlement, but more often, they reside outside in the general community. They liaise and support settlement communities on matters related to the settlement, raising issues from the settlers to upper levels of government, discuss issues with the settlers that comes from government or council, and assist in humanitarian coordination. Committees. These are settlement-based groups that meet with varying regularity and take on a range of roles including: Source: Mitchell et al. (2016) identifying issues and making decisions on settlement matters including tenure, organizing work groups and to undertake upgrades and collecting money for these tasks. They may have different members with particular standing. It may be a PCN ‘community coordinator’ leading with community secretary, committee, and committee members themselves. Community leaders. These are community leaders in settlements typically without committees. In native villages, or village-like land contexts (e.g. Valenicina, Baba) they can be termed ‘Turaga ni Koro’. They tend to be elected and serve terms and some can serve for a decade and may hand over the role to younger members. Because this type of leadership is primarily an iTaukei cultural norm, Indo-Fijian settlements tend not to take on this form of leader, but will instead have a committee leader with more variable status, leadership roles and leadership period. PCN savings groups. Settlements with active PCN savings programs typically have groups of ten households each with a treasurer that collects money for deposits. Each settlement will have a treasurer and coordinator (referred to above) that coordinates all of the groups of ten households. PCN settlement coordinators meet on a sub-regional level, e.g. associated with the central Suva cluster of settlements. Other structures. There are a range of other groups and affiliations that structure community life for example through church, clan affiliation, volunteers.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 31
4.3 Housing Figure 16 4.3.1 Household and dwelling characteristics
This section looks at both the social and the construction aspects of housing. Housing in informal settlements ranges from highly fragile shanty-like makeshift dwellings to well established professionally built structures. Often dwellings will also have a mix of construction types and standards. Housing in informal settlements is typically created through ‘self-help‘ incremental efforts by households themselves to improve their housing; through a process often termed Figure 17 ‘housing consolidation’”71. Previous studies have illustrated the propensity of Fijian informal settlement households to ‘consolidate’ their housing, even in relatively tenure insecure contexts72. Yet despite industrious and cooperative housing improvement strategies, income (and lack of it) is the critical variable that determines the level of consolidation73.
Contrary to several other previous sources74, primary research for this project has shown that informal settlement households are only marginally larger (at 4.8 persons per Source: PCN SES & PCRAFI (2013) household) than Fijian national rates of 4.5 persons per household. This may suggest that Figure 18 the rate of household formationo may be increasing, with a corresponding increasing need for housing. There are however, important differences between settlements, with Valenicina and Caubati Koro showing significantly higher household sizes and Tauvegavega showing substantially lower sizes. This lower household size and lower relative dwelling density in Tauvegavega may illustrate the tendency to build new dwellings and form new households where there is more land available. Supplementary to this, several authors have observed the tendency of o Household formation refers to the creation of a new household, for example, when a child moves out of the parent’s house into their own dwelling.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 32 informal settlers to develop dwellings in a renting rooms out, something noted as more cluster or compounds for extended family or for common amongst Indo-Fijian households75.
Figure 19 Example of a dwelling cluster in Tacirua, Suva that has grown incrementally as finances allow, for example to accommodate additional family members or to rent out a room for income.
Source: the authors
4.3.2 Dwelling size, occupancy and cost number of bedrooms and bedroom occupancy, with settlements such as Baba showing high Dwelling size is notably consistent across all bedroom occupancy rates and lower average settlements including when triangulating on- numbers of bedroomsp. the-ground measurement methods with GIS methods. While there are large dwellings in Cost of dwelling. The settlement average of settlements, over 40% are below 60sqm. dwelling cost is $8,640 which is less than 5% Bedroom occupancy is also remarkably of the average replacement cost of a dwelling 77 consistent across settlements with roughly 2.4 in formal areas, estimated at $106,000 . This people per bedroom. However, 38% of illustrates the role of informal settlements as a households had at least three people sleeping housing option for low or even moderate in the first bedroom and 13% of households income households, with an informal with 4 or more. While there are likely to be settlement dwelling costing less than 80% of a important cultural differences, three people per year’s income. This compares to 10years room is a high bedroom occupancy rate and equivalent of income for formal mainstream four or more is above international standards housing, making it a mathematical impossibility for overcrowding76. Overcrowding can have to achieve in one’s working lifetime for many q important health impacts relating to the spread households . Dwelling costs can differ by up to of infectious diseases, psychological impacts such as anxiety, stress and frustration and p There may be a relationship between housing pressures on family and social relationships issues following TC Winston (which Baba was hit hard by) and rates of overcrowding. (which can also influence tenure security) as q This is based on an assumption of 30% of income well as poor education outcomes for children. for housing costs. This is an industry standard There is an obvious relationship between benchmark for housing affordability, however for most informal settlement households 30% of
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 33
20-25% across the settlements, from $6,406 in Figure 20 Baba (Levuka) to $10,036 in Tomuka (Lautoka) representing a significant variation. The lower cost in Baba is likely to reflect lower labour costs and the ability to use settlement- based labour more effectively, despite generally poorer access to building materials. There appears to be no relationship between dwelling size or number of bedrooms and dwelling cost.
Dwelling materials and utilities The majority of dwellings walls (a proxy for overall construction quality) in settlements are in good condition, with certain locations having high rates of dwellings with walls in good Figure 21: a windowless one room, corrugated iron condition. The rates of tin or corrugated iron walled dwelling in Tauvegavega (Ba). walled dwellings can also be used as a proxy for dwelling quality, and household capacity for expenditure on housing improvements. Informal settlements have 2-3 times the rate of tin or iron walled dwellings to general urban areas in this study. Tauvegavega has the highest rate of both average or poor quality walls and tin or iron constructed walls while Valenicina appears to have better construction quality with the lowest rate of both.
Water connections. Most settlements have around 75-85% of dwellings with a formal connection. Again, in many cases this Figure 22 connection is shared, and likely through relatively low quality PVC piping which are prone to breakage and leakage with overall system impacts. There are important gaps in water connections in certain settlements, in particular, Valenicina where around half have no formal connection. Conversely, some settlements have good coverage, for example, Caubati Koro has comparable coverage to formal areas.
Source: PCN survey & FBOS census (2007)
income is not available for housing after basic needs have been met
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 34
Electricity connections. These are more thanks to the PCN Sanitation Project, had the consistently available across settlements with highest rate of improved sanitation, and around 75% of dwellings enjoying a formal actually above the rate of formal areas. In connection, albeit in many cases shared. Caubati Koro, likewise due to a multi-ethnic Tauvegavega and Baba have the worst fund project, respondents reported good access, something which is likely to be a result access to sanitation, and those viewed as part of general poverty in these settlements and, in of this project were still in good condition. Baba particularly, TC Winston impacts.
Sanitation. At least two of the settlements had 4.4 Infrastructure, services and 20% or more of dwellings with poor or environment inadequate sanitation (pit or shared toilets). Note: See also climate vulnerability assessment in section 6.3
Land type. There were two general types of Table 3 Percentage and number of dwellings with septic tank land, steep sloped land (in all or in certain parts of the settlement) and flat or undulating Caubati 97% 52 land, which were found in the settlements of Baba 95% 109 the north and western areas (Nawajikuma, Tomuka 93% 443 Tomuka and Tauvegavega). Nawajikuma 88% 135 Tavegavega 76% 54 Flooding and drainage. Only three of the six Valenicina 51% 52 settlements reported issues with flooding. However, flooding is an existential and likely
increasing environmental threat in Nawajikuma Figure 23 that will require major action in the coming
Table 4 Households reporting flooding 4 or more times a year no. settlement households % of dwellings Nawajikuma 96 82% Tauvegavega 30 26% Tomuka 20 17% Baba 4 5%
Source: PCN survey & FBOS census (2007) years (as it is with many settlements in Nadi & Lautoka). Many households are already adapting by building methods to avoid the For example, Valenicina had 60% of dwellings property damage associated with the regular with a pit or no toilet for exclusive use (the floods (such as stilted ‘safe houses’ to protect settlement with the lowest amount of flush household goods and occupants at times of toilets with septic tanks). Likewise, flooding). Parts of Tauvegavega and Tomuka Tauvegavega had 32% of dwellings using pit also experience issues with flooding. Most toilets or having no toilet. Notably, Baba,
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 35 reported combined issues of drainage, households reporting their waste was council road/path damage and maintenance needs. collected. This was the result of a unique initiative brokered by Baba’s Turaga ni Koro, Solid waste. Only Baba had a systematic where community members help the waste disposal method with 84% of municipality clean up areas of the town once a month in return for twice weekly council Figure 24: Housing design adapting to regular collections. Tomuka has a partial collection by flooding in Nawajikuma the council as well as one arranged by the
Duavati Community NGO for certain households. Both recent arrangements only cater for a small fraction of the community however. The Nawajikuma residents’ committee has a desire to deal with waste issues, which they see as contributing to flood issues, but find coordination with adjacent communities a barrier.
Figure 26: Baba’s solid waste collection point for Figure 25. Paths on steep slopes requiring council disposal at entrance to the settlement. drainage in Baba.
Access: roads, paths bridges and streetlights. In most settlements, there are issues with roads and paths. Roads are more common in the flatter settlements where dwellings have higher car accessibility (Nawajikuma, Tomuka and Tauvegavega). The key concerns were wash-aways, deterioration, and dangerous conditions in wet weather. In these settlements, roads were seen as a key
upgrading and management issue and often
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 36 one which had gained collective action to centre) the steeper settlement of Valenicina repair. In steeper settlements (with lower levels and the more cul-de-sac located Caubati Koro of vehicle access), key issues were around appeared to have poorer public transport installation of drainage on pathways. Three connections. settlements (Caubati Koro, Tomuka and Water and sanitation. In the three larger, flatter Nawajikuma) listed street lighting as priorities, and less dense settlements in the north and all of which were located in more urbanised west long lengths of PVC piping which are areas. prone to breakage, leakage are an issue with Access: public transport. This was easily substantial expense noted to install the lengths available in three settlements all of which were of piping. Priorities for these settlements were located on flat/undulating land. While less the relocation of meters closer to the dwelling relevant in Baba (due to proximity to the town to reduce this issue.
4.5 Socio-economic
Key demographics 4.5.1 Income and economic activity Ethnicity. The average of settlements is Household income. Informal settlement reasonably close to that of the urban study households have on average a third of the area, i.e. with close to 50% iTaukei, a relatively average household income in Fiji. Likewise small minority of other ethnicities and the there are significant differences between remainder at around 40% of Indo-Fijian. Most settlement averages with Tauvegavega and settlements actually have a clear majority of Baba around half the household income of iTaukei or Indo-Fijian people, with all but two Caubati Koro and Nawajikuma. settlements (Caubati Koro and Nawajikuma) having less than around 70% of one specific Figure 27 cultural and linguistic background. Certain settlements are ethnically quite distinct, with Tauvegavega having 83% Indo-Fijian and Valenicina having 91% iTaukei as well as people with Solomon Island ancestry (thanks to its proximity to the former indentured labourer settlement of Matata).
Age. The age structure of settlements is generally similar to the general population, with some important differences:
Baba. Significantly higher proportion of both young children under 5 years, and 3-14 years. Caubati Koro. A somewhat higher proportion of young people (15-24years). Nawajikuma. Somewhat higher share of young homemakers (25-34years). Employment. There is a striking difference between the settlements and national rates for the employment to population ratio (rate of full
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 37 time, part-time or self-employed compared to around 10-20% of households in the majority of total population), with settlement averages rates settlements, in Nadi, Lautoka and Ba 3-4 times lower. Caubati Koro had the highest undertaking this activity while in the GSUA rate of employment and Baba the lowest. these rates are 2-4 times higher. As shown in Employment rates are likely also to reflect the residence chart (figure 32) Caubati Koro broader citywide opportunities for employment, and Valenicina also have higher or double or with Baba and Tauvegavega having the lowest the average proportion of rural/island rates and are likely have the lowest access to immigrants, pointing to a readiness to continue more diverse employment opportunities than rural livelihoods in urban areas. Land and major urban areas provide. The importance of tenure factors are also likely to influence this. livelihood development as part of settlement For example in Caubati Koro, farming lands upgrading will be a key aspect of settlement were included as part of the upgrading programs.
Figure 28 Figure 29 livestock raising in Valenicina
Figure 30 Settlement canteen Valenicina Three of the six focus settlements have higher than average rates of financial assistance, however this does not appear linked to age, household income, or employment to occupation ratio. This suggests that that some settlements and households are either better at accessing social welfare or enjoy relatives who are able to provide financial support. Valenicina (40%), Tauvegavega (32%) and Caubati Koro (28%) are more than or close to double the rates of the citywide average (15%), against which the remainder of the settlements are comparable.
Settlement-based economic activity. Rates vary significantly across the settlements, with only
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 38
previous (expired) native lease and have classic rural-urban drift model of urban continued to be used, although not intensively. population growth and change appears to be In Valenicina, more inter-reliant relationships less significant in the focus settlements. with the landowners through their church may mean greater permissiveness for land use Settlements in the towns of the northern cane generally, including for farming activity. belt of Viti Levu, show smaller numbers of people born in settlements (15-22% vs. 36%
Figure 31
4.5.2 Residence and future plans settlement average). Along with higher proportions Indo-Fijian households, this may Importantly, close to 90% of household heads reflect historical displacement as a result of were either born in or moved from another expirations of Agricultural Landlord and Tenant urban area. This potentially reflects a shift and Act (ALTA) leases in that region. Baba a maturation of the Fijian urban population conversely, clearly has much lower rates of movements, at least in (these) settlements. The mobility with close to 80% having been born in
Figure 32 Figure 33
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 39 the settlement. settlement average). Baba had a higher rate of people desiring decent housing. This again Future plans. This is relatively constant across likely reflects the housing situation post-TC settlements with comparable levels of Winston, but also potentially reflects the higher importance for five of the six themes and only a bedroom occupancy rates observed there. small minority overall noting a desire to return Likely reflective of the higher rates of to the village. Employment and saving were the rural/urban migrants, Valenicina residents most common responses for this, with around reported a much higher rate of households 43% overall, reporting it as a priority. Caubati- intending to return to the village (15% vs. 5% Koro and Nawajikuma residents prioritise settlement average), but also higher rates of employment and saving somewhat higher (56% people desiring education (28% vs. 20% and 53% respectively). On the other hand, settlement average). Valenicina had Tauvegavega residents had double the average correspondingly low numbers of respondents rate of residents desiring decent housing (33% reporting decent housing and tenure as key vs. 15% settlement average), something which priorities. Notably, Valenicina residents’ original is likely a result of the destruction from TC motivation for settling in the area was to be Winston. These settlements also had higher closer to a new school that was established in rates of desiring secure tenure (24% vs. 17% Lami.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 40
5 Settlement profiles
Settlement profiles have been prepared to roads and pathways touch everyone and highlight the local circumstances in individual everyone uses them, they are truly a settlements. communal improvement.
There is also a range of climate change 5.1 Key emerging community adaptation projects related to drainage, priorities disaster reconstruction, and housing improvements. To a lesser extent, tenure, The key community priorities that have come livelihood, and environment projects. out of the profiling process are listed below in figure 35 and table 4. Table 5: Community priority projects Figure 34 Settlement Priority project Baba Access. path upgrades: Drainage is required for paths, around Nosonoso settlement. Access: bridge repairs/replacement. Many settlement bridges are dangerously deteriorated. Community facilities. Kitchen for community hall, this will also provide further income for community committees, Community facilities. New kindergarten (noting that there is a very high proportion of children). Community facilities. Gym repairs Housing. Household repairs following TC Winston: This is only partially covered by the $1,500 Help for Homes Initiative. The majority of these (75%) are municipal services, overwhelmingly for access Land and tenure. Gain a lease. They have been informed by the improvements, typically related to drainage. iTLTB that it would cost $15,000 This is also consistent with the Asian Coalition for a communal lease. for Community Action Program where largest Caubati Koro Access: street lights. Council share of their ‘small projects’ are for roads. plans for street lighting. They note78, Land and tenure. Obtain lease for A good paved road is a potent symbol of settlement legitimacy, since it physically and Solid waste. Would like rubbish symbolically connects a slum with the collection from council. formal world and gives the legitimacy that Nawajikuma Access. Bridge at Nadi Back comes with being connected. And because Road or increasing the culvert
size under Nadi Back Road.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 41
Settlement Priority project Settlement Priority project Nawajikuma General road repairs. Tomuka Access. Improved street lighting (cntd.) Access. Concreting paths. Community facilities. Community centre that can also be used as Access: roads. Fixing wash- an evacuation centre. Community aways, disintegration areas, police post. sealing roads and feeder roads Drainage. Works to prevent Drainage and roads. Improve flooding. Traps to stop rubbish issues with road drainage. from clogging drains Solid waste. The settlement would Housing. Stilted houses. like a rubbish collection. Solid waste. Regular rubbish Valenicina Drainage and roads. Increased collection. culvert sizes on roads for improved drainage. Tauvegavega Access. Improved roads Water. Improved water access Environment. Removal of rubbish and pressure dump (priority only for stage 3) Sanitation. Flush toilets: the need Livelihoods. Livelihood and to replace current pit latrines with income generation projects. (Note improved sanitation. previous chicken raising project, successful in that many households still keep chickens).
Utilities. Improved water supply Utilities. Electricity connections
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 42
Baba profile
Location: Levuka, town and peri- Land area: 13.6 Population: 579 Dwellings: 115 urban. State and native land. hectares 42.7 persons/hectare Baba: settlement map
Source: FLIS, PCN, Google Imagery (2016)
Overview. Baba is a series of 4 settlements located settlements and they are bounded by existing urban less than 1km from the centre of Levuka town and is freehold areas to the east, steep slopes and forested large in both area (13.4 hectares vs. average of 7.2) areas to the west. The settlement was originally and in population (579 people vs. average of 412), formed by ni-Vanuatu (New Hebridean) and yet has a lower population density (43 people per Solomon Islander indentured labourers on a site hectare vs. average of 77). The settlements are closer to the town. In fact, the settlement was located on steeply sloping land in a valley formed previously referred to as the New Hebridean around a stream that flows through the centre of settlement. In the 1940s, settlers were granted a Levuka. The town boundary intersects the communal lease for the land the settlement
▲Baba settlement looking north.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 43
Land tenure and planning status.
The settlements are located on state, freehold and native lands, and land ownership is mixed and complex. The largest settlement of Korovou is owned by the yavusa Totoga having previously been state land now transferred back to that clan. At a ceremony in 2014, the settlers gifted a whale’s tooth to the yavusa (with whom they have a good relationship) to gain a communal lease and are now waiting on notification from the iTLTB. For the settlements of Nosonoso and Nadevo, government spatial data records show that the land belongs to the mataqali Nabukebuke and Naulu. Local ▲Subsistence farming is common in the evidence suggests they lie on land belonging to settlement and surrounds. yavusa Ratu Seru Rokotuinaceva – the head of a major land owning clan on the island of Ovalau.
▲ Many dwellings have generally good quality construction. ▲ Yavusa Totoga, Mat. Nabukebuke & Mat. Naulu land owners (highlighted in yellow).
The smaller settlement of Nadugu lies on private land. Nadugu and parts of Korovou lie within the town boundary on land zoned Residential B, and adjacent to land zoned ‘residential upgrade’. The Korovou settlement paid $100 per year for their previous communal state lease. In Nosonoso and Nadevo, new tenants do not pay anything for plots, or building houses, nor are there monthly/yearly monetary payments with the vakavanua relationship. Tenants only assist with church and village matters, as is common in vakavanua relationships. Korovou residents also assist in church and village matters with Levuka village, ▲ PCN Sanitation Project toilets withstood TC Winston and provided refuge during the storm. despite not residing on land that belongs to the village.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 44
Housing and socio-economic
The key characteristics of the settlement emerging from the research include the following: Dwelling. High bedroom occupancy. Only settlement where the average exceeds international overcrowding benchmarks (>3 persons per bedroom). Slightly higher ‘average’ or ‘poor’ quality dwelling walls. Sanitation. Good sanitation – comparable with citywide. Social. Higher share of iTaukei to settlement average (despite Solomon and New Hebridean ancestry, a large proportion appear to recognize themselves as iTaukei). Significantly higher share of children aged 0-14years. Income and work. Low incomes - the poorest of the six settlements. Low employment to population ratio. Residence and future plans/priorities. Higher ▲Many bridges in Baba are dangerous and in share of people born in the settlement. need of repair. Residence and future plans/priorities. Higher rates of people reporting ‘decent housing’ as a priority. Lower rates of people reporting ‘saving’ as a priority
Infrastructure, environment and services
Access. Rapidly deteriorating bridges pose a major health and safety issue. Pathways are generally good, but many need upgrading, particularly to include the installation of drainage (v-drains) to reduce ongoing maintenance resulting from storm damage.
Electricity. Five of the eight electricity posts (which ▲ Poor town water system pressure means tanks also provide light) in the settlement are damaged as must be used to provide pressure a result of TC Winston. Higher rates of poverty in the community mean that many households, particularly those higher on the hillsides cannot afford to rewire. Costs include 200m of wire at $6 per metre plus supporting posts.
Facilities. One settlement has a community centre which is managed by the Korovou Men’s Group. A weightlifting gym has since been badly damaged as a result of TC Winston. There are two settlement shops.
Previous projects. Previous upgrading projects ▲ Destroyed weightlifters gym. have included:
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 45
PCN facilitated Sanitation Project (2013) installed 30 flush toilets and showers and septic tanks. Total cost of project was $100K at $3,300 per toilet. Part of the Citywide Informal Settlement Upgrading Program. All of the toilets survived TC Winston apart from three. These structures even provided a refuge for families during the storm. Footpaths have been put into the settlement in stages between the years 1994-2005. This was funded by the since cancelled Multi Ethnic ▲ Regular council rubbish collection point Funding. Community organization: partners. Settlements The Community Hall was built with the fund’s financial support in 2005 have an advisory councilor. They have had previous engagement with NGOs, e.g. PCN, and Two Water tanks in 2008 to cover 10 households on the hill who lost pressure as a has accessed funds in the past, e.g. via the multi- result of increased use of town water. This was ethnic fund. also funded from Multi Ethnic funds. WAF supports the rest of the settlement). PAFCO (the fish cannery that employs many women in the settlement) funded one bridge in Community priorities 2016 and due to provide railings for it soon. (Many of Baba’s bridges are in dangerously Key priorities identified in interviews, focus groups poor condition) and community mapping sessions included:
Since 2015 the settlement has had twice Land and tenure. Gain a lease. They have been weekly rubbish collection provided by the council collected (see photo) in return for the informed by the iTLTB that it would cost Baba community cleaning up city and $15,000 for a communal lease. settlement paths, foreshore, seawalls and Housing. Household repairs TC Winston: This creeks once a month will be partially covered by the $1,500 Help for Homes Initiative. Community organisation Services and infrastructure: Community organization: status. One (Kosovo) of Access: bridge repairs/replacement. Many four settlements have two functioning committees, settlement bridges are dangerously one is recent, the other has been established for a deteriorated. long time and deals with tenure issues. One Access. path upgrades: Drainage is required for committee has generally good relationship with the paths, around Nosonoso settlement. landowner of the Kosovo section (as evidenced by Community facilities. a recent whales-tooth presentation). Kitchen for community hall, this will also provide Community organization: skills. Committees have further income for community committees, some legal (around land tenure), financial and New kindergarten (noting that there is a very management activities and experience. high proportion of children). Gym repairs
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 46
Caubati – Koro profile
Location: Nasinu peri-urban, Suva. Land area: Population: 317 Dwellings native land. 4.0 hectares 78.4 persons/ hectare 54
Caubati–Koro - settlement map
Source: FLIS, PCN, Google Imagery (2016)
Overview. Caubati– Koro is a slightly smaller than average settlement, in both population and size, located 6.7km from central Suva, in an area close to three other large informal settlements. The settlement runs approximately 500m along a ridge line on the north-eastern periphery of the formal urban areas of Nasinu LGU. The settlement has a more established section located on flat ridge to the north-west of the settlement. There are two newer clusters of relatively poorer quality houses on steep slopes (35-50% grade) toward the south east, and scattered dwellings toward the north western boundary. The settlement is bounded by existing urban subdivisions to the south east, steep slopes and a creek to the north and west and further sub- division to the north-west. Informal settlement ▲Pathway in established section of the settlement continues to the south west, however this is inside the town boundary. People have lived in Caubati – Koro at least since 1914 with most recent Indo- Land tenure and planning status. Fijian settlers arriving as recently as 2016. The settlement is located on native land held by the Naitisiri mataqali whose land extends along a 0.25 x 3km strip of land that runs adjacent to and within
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 47 the northern boundary of the municipality, some of which is formally sub-divided.
▲Densely developed, relatively good quality housing in the south west of the settlement.
▲ Mataqali Naitasiri (highlighted in yellow).
A lease with the mataqali, granted through the iTLTB ended in 1979 and since then a vakavanua relationship has prevailed. Plans to develop the land by the iTLTB in 2002 did not eventuate, however in 2016 respondents stated that the iTLTB agreed to 99-year individual leases only for those with FNPF as accounts and that those who cannot ▲Good drainage on many paths afford this will not be evicted, but will not gain the security of a lease. Dwellings on steep slopes are not eligible for leases due to minimum land standards for iTLTB leases. The land lies within the ‘comprehensive residential’ zoning of the Nasinu Town Planning Scheme which enables the site to be developed for residential purposes subject to the application of standard planning standards and subdivision processes which could enable it to be incorporated into the town boundaries. . At present, there are two Individual leaseholders in the settlement, an indo Fijian female-headed household and the Assemblies of God church. The settlement also has some tenants that hold a TAW lease.
Housing and socio-economic
The key characteristics of the settlement emerging from the research include the following: Land and population. Small settlement area. Lower population and higher population density compared to other five settlements, but comparable on both to citywide settlement average. ▲ Steep pathways to access dwellings on sloping land.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 48
Dwelling. Generally larger household size. multi-ethnic funds for toilet project, and the Naitisiri provincial development fund for roads. Sanitation. Generally good sanitation – comparable with citywide general urban. Hazards: No issues with drainage were reported. Steep slopes and with difficulty getting access and Utilities. Generally good coverage of electricity and tenure. water. Social. Somewhat higher share of residents aged 15-24 years. Income and work. Higher average household income than settlement average. Higher employment to population ratio. Higher rates of households receiving financial assistance. Higher rates of settlement based economic activity. Residence and future plans/priorities. Slightly higher rural/island migrants. Higher rates of residents reporting ‘employment’ and ‘savings’ as a priority.
Services, infrastructure and environment ▲Comparison of more recent and more established housing The key characteristics of the settlement emerging from the research include the following: Community organisation Access. Some poor quality paths on sloping Tenure status. Some leasing and surveying sections of the settlement. Many paths have discussions have occurred. Dwellings on slopes are culverts reducing drainage issues. not eligible for leases. Half community want Drainage. Not reported as an issue (0% households individual leases, half a communal lease. reporting regular flooding). Many paths have culverts and other design elements that allow for Community organization: status. There is a village runoff. committee with six members and monthly meetings. Solid waste. No solid waste collection. There is an advisory council member. Services. The settlement has a (non-qualified) Community organization: status. There are two nurse, but many use an external nurse station. NGOs with previous interactions: Save the Children There is also a nurse station that is held 2-3 times a and JP Bayley Trust who provide monthly food year in the Assembly of God church. rations. Previous projects. have included: 16 new flush toilets (2013) Community priorities Street lighting by council (2010), Road done with FRA 2013, not done properly. Key priorities identified in interviews, focus groups & 2016 went back and repaired. and community mapping sessions included: Footpath repair Flush toilets, 1998, 20 households with flush Land and tenure. Obtain lease for settlement toilets Access: street lights. Council plans for street Generally, no issues in getting permission from lighting. the landowner for upgrade projects. No major Solid waste. Would like rubbish collection from issue reported in gaining access to national council.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 49
Tauvegavega profile
Location: Ba peri-urban area. Native Land area Population 1,140 (33.2 Dwellings land transferred to MLGHEIT 34.3 hectares persons per hectare ) 307
Tauvegavega – settlement map
Source: FLIS, PCN, Google Imagery (2016)
Overview. Tauvegavega is comprised of six unconnected informal settlements located around 3km from the centre of Ba town, in the north of Viti Levu. At 34.4 hectares it is the third largest settlement in Fiji, and with 1,140 residents it is the 11th most populous. However, it is has a relatively low population density (9.3 persons per hectare vs. 75.0 citywide settlement average). Most parts of the settlements lie on gently undulating land located variously within, lying across and adjacent to town boundaries. The largest westernmost section is located in peri-urban areas. The settlement dates at least from the 1960’s with mainly Indo-Fijian families the first settlers. The Ba province sustained the highest level of damage from TC Winston in Fiji ▲Houses are numbered for issuing of individual leases and the settlement was hit particularly hard by iTLTB
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 50
Land tenure and planning status. will occur soon. Settlers do not yet know the final cost of titles. Expressions of interest are available All sections lie on native land with ownership for those households in the settlement as well as disputed between two family members from Nalaga outside wishing plots, however sitting tenants are to Village, which is located north of the settlement. be given first choice. Upon sub-division, it is The Native land boundary refers to mataqali presumed that the lands will be incorporated into Namono (Tokatoka: Natauvia), Fiji’s Department of the town boundaries and residential zoning applied. Housing have recently acquired a lease for subdivision. Prior to recent events relating to Housing and socio-economic subdivision, the landowner (who resides in stage 03.) asked the settlers from all stages for an initial The key characteristics of the settlement emerging payment of $200 for settling on the land and from the research include the following: building one’s house. Plots did not appear to be Dwelling. Low household size. Slightly higher precisely demarcated. No regular payments were ‘average’ or ‘poor’ dwelling wall condition. Mix asked for nor was assistance with church, or village between extremely poorly constructed dwellings matters sought (as is common for vakavanua through to quite established large dwellings. Slightly relationships). Connection of services, such as higher tin or iron walled dwellings. electricity & water, required the landowner’s Utilities. Lower levels of electricity connection. Poor consent, which included a fee. Permanent water connections and leakages due to low density, structures have never been allowed. long distances to meters and high connection costs. Sanitation. Poor, with high rate of pit toilet use (30%). Social. Higher Indo-Fijian population. Income and work. Low income – the second poorest of the six settlements. Low employment to population ratio. Higher rates of financial assistance. Lower rates of settlement based economic activity. Residence and future plans/priorities. Higher rates of movement from informal settlement or other urban areas. Higher rates of residents reporting ‘decent housing’ and ‘tenure’ as a priority including ▲Mataqali Namono (Tokatoka: Natauvia) land that farming and livestock rearing. settlement lies on (in yellow). Previous projects. Poultry farming livelihood project. There remain many chickens in the settlement. With the recent leasing of the land on which the Mainly used for food rather than income. settlement lies, a meeting was held in April 2016 with the Ministry of Local Government, Town Council, landowners, advisory councilor and the Services, infrastructure and environment Tauvegavega residents committee regarding subdivision – the first meeting of its kind for Utilities. Water supply is an issue in Tauvegavega. Tauvegavega. The settlers were advised that the Water meters are located on edge of the government will be ‘taking care of them’, and that settlements, as such large lengths of PVC pipes lie subdivision will occur in Tauvegavega. They were on open ground resulting constant leakages and also told that for the first 3 years titles will be given repairs. Installation of water meter costs of $300 is for free, and that in the third year payments will be too much for some households who then collect due. Numbers were painted on each of the houses water from the creek which is often polluted by the soon after the meeting. The settlers have been nearby municipal rubbish dump. notified that surveying for subsequent sub-division
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 51
Sanitation. Sanitation is also a significant issue in Tauvegavaga. The quality of latrine structures combined with issues of flies and mosquitos from the rubbish dump make the pit toilets extremely unsanitary places. There is a high level of pit latrines toilets without septic tanks (32 % pit), with no outside funding assistance in the past for sanitation projects.
Electricity. There are issues amongst settlers with sharing electricity costs, and a high number of ▲ Poor quality housing in Stage 3 households have no FEA electricity (32% without electricity).
Roads. In one settlement (Stage 3), roads are sometimes maintained by individual householders, and other times joint funded, but this is rare. In another settlement (Stage 1A) the settlement committee has redone half the amount of roads in 2014. Everyone contributed in this project.
Drainage. There is little to no drainage available in the settlements. With rain, roads become steep dirt roads become extremely muddy and dangerous to ▲ High number of pit toilets. walk along.
Transport. The bus service to the centre of town is good, with services going every 30 minutes.
Environmental: waste. The municipal rubbish dump is located close to the settlements and results in smoke, odours, pollution, and vermin such as flies and mosquitos with associated risks of insect-borne viruses, such as Dengue Fever. The area can be polluted for up to a month after a large burning at the dump, and without consistent rain, the creek becomes more polluted, and the flies worsen. The Ministry of Health spray for diseases and provide ▲Damage and reconstruction post-TC Winston rubbish collection only at times where risk of disease outbreak is high. At time of survey the Ministry of Health was also carrying out a rubbish Previous projects: collection day. Some residents, including children, In 2012, a Fijian NGO, Friends, initiated an are involved in scavenging from rubbish dump. income generating project, i.e. providing chickens and roosters to start a poultry farm. Environmental: Flooding. Flooding is an issue in There are remains a high level of poultry small areas of the settlement. rearing in this settlement.
Community facilities. There are a range of community facilities in or near the settlements including a Hindu temple, Christian church (CRF), mosque (outside settlement), community centre, and a basic sport field. A missionary school and Fiji National University are used as evacuation centres.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 52
Community organization
Community organization: status. There is a committee in Stage 1a, but none in other settlements. The advisory councilor does not hold meetings with Stage 3 residents due to conflict. Stage 3 residents expressed the desire for a committee and an advisory councilor. There have been some previous collective upgrading efforts for road repairs, e.g. pooling funds for repairs.
Community priorities
The key priorities expressed at focus group and community mapping sessions included
Socio-economic. Livelihood and income generation projects Utilities. Improved water supply ▲ Long exposed sections of low quality PVC pipe Utilities Electricity connections get broken, leak and likely become contaminated. Environment. Removal of rubbish dump (priority only for stage 3) Access. Improved roads
▲ Child scavenging in the rubbish dump
▲ Tauvegavega community mapping
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 53
Tomuka profile
Location: Lautoka town and peri- Land area Population: 2300 (93.3 Dwellings urban area. Native land. 24.4 hectares persons per hectare) 476
Tomuka – Settlement map
Source: FLIS, PCN, Google Imagery (2016)
Overview. Tomuka is a large informal settlement may be an intention to incorporate the settlement located 3.4km from central Lautoka. Approximately into municipal areas. half the settlement is within the town boundary. It has a large population and low population density. In 1962, the previous sugar cane farmland that The settlement is accessed via local roads and has Tomuka settlement now lies on was informally a more established section located on flat ridge to parcelled off and leased out by the matagali the north-west of the settlement. The settlement is landowner at the time who was also the Mayor of located on relatively flat land and surrounded by Lautoka. iTaukei relatives and friends of matagali farmland. It is bounded to the east by a small creek, Vidilo purchase plots at $200 each at that time. The another informal settlement, Tukuvuci, to the west, first Indo-Fijian settlers arrived in 1975 and have and formal urban subdivisions to the north. People continued to purchase plots. The original matagali have lived in Tomuka at least since 1962 with Indo- who had initiated the settlement since has given a Fijian settlers arriving in 1975. section of Tomuka to each of his five sons. Of these five sons, only one remains living with the other four Land tenure and planning status. controlled by subsequent grandchildren of the original matagali. The settlement is on native land of the Vidilo mataqali whose land extends along a roughly 0.5 x Today land parcels or plots demarcated by the 5.2km strip of land that runs adjacent to and within landowners (tokatoka) are given to new settlers for the eastern boundary of the municipality along a an initial fee of between $5-10 thousand dependent river, a large component of which is formally sub- on plot size, and a yearly recurring rental payment divided. The adjoining municipal area is zoned of $300. residential B and C. The settlement sits within a recent town boundary extension, suggesting there
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 54
Housing and socio-economic
The key characteristics of the settlement emerging from the research include the following: Dwelling. Slightly higher than settlement average dwelling costs. Utilities. Generally better connection rates to settlement average. Sanitation. Generally good sanitation, comparable with citywide. Social. Higher rates of Indo-Fijian households. Residence and future plans/priorities. Higher rates of previous residence another informal settlement or other urban areas (rather than ▲Tomuka sits on Native land, whose ownership comes rural/island). under Mataqali Vidilo (highlighted in yellow)
Services, infrastructure and environment
Roads. Roads and paths in the settlement are generally poor and subject to washaways and disintegration. The main entrance road to the settlement to the south west, and the feeder roads that come off it are the better roads despite being of poor quality. The northern entrance from MT Khan Road has extremely poor quality dirt track roads that are difficult to even walk along. The last road project occurred in 2004, this included households contributions of $30 each for the road. Solid waste. Monthly rubbish collection has been provided by the Duavati Community NGO for the last 3 years. However, just under 70 households ▲Dwellings in Tomuka range from makeshift to more (out of 476) are involved in this collection. Reasons permanent wealthy structures for the low participation rates included the cost ($2 a bag) and access (only those with road access). Drainage. Drainage is generally poor and a cause of poor quality of roads and spread of disease. Flooding occurs with the constant blockage of settlement drains by household rubbish. The last drainage project was in 2004. Transport. Regular bus service to town centre. Bus shelter was built in 80s. Community structure and organisation
Community organization: relation to land owner. Landowners are very active in settlement and ▲Good connections rates of utilities & generally good operate as settlement managers. Management sanitation committee and president that collect rents, keeps records and undertakes certain maintenance and were reports that people can be evicted for not management. Settlement rules apply and can be obeying settlement rules. policed by landowners and management. There
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 55
Community organization: partners. There is an advisory councilor.
Community priorities
The key priorities expressed at focus group and community mapping sessions included
Access: roads .Fixing wash-aways, disintegration areas, sealing roads and feeder roads ▲Poor condition of feeder roads within settlement, and Access: Paths. Concreting. dirt tracks from northern side of settlement. Access: Improved street lighting Solid waste. The settlement would like a rubbish collection. Drainage. Issues with road drainage.
▲Blockage of rubbish in eroded creek areas on north eastern side of settlement & polluted stagnant drains off main feeder road.
▲Mixed ethnicity settlement with good relationhsips.
▲Community Mapping identifying priority areas.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 56
Nawajikuma profile
Location: Nadi, peri-urban. Native Land area: 14.5 Population: 700 Dwellings: 153 land. hectares 22 persons/hectare Nawajikuma - settlement map
Source: FLIS, PCN, Google Imagery (2016)
Overview. Nawajikuma is a series of four contiguous settlements on the peri-urban boundary of the municipal area around 1.5km from the centre of Nadi. The settlement is located on native land with a complex ownership structure. The settlement is bounded by rural residential land and the Nadi River to the north, Nakawa River to the south, school grounds to the west and further settlement and an intermittent lake to the east. The settlement is on generally flat land and, like much of Nadi town centre, in a very high-risk area for flooding. The settlement has been occupied at least since the early 1970’s by both iTaukei and Indo-Fijian settlers. ▲Woman indicates height of recent floodwaters from Cyclone Zena against her home.4)
Land tenure and planning status. which landowner they individually pay money to. The settlements are made up of four contiguous There are no church or other community settlements of Nawajikuma, Nalagi, Nawakalevu, commitments as is common in vakavanua and Batinareba, of which various parts of relationships. There is a requirement for an initial settlements are owned by five landowners from payment to land owners for Nalagi & Nawajikuma. Nawaka Village. Most households are not clear on They ask between $500-1000 for building a house the boundaries of each settlement, but understand in the settlement. There is also land rental of $360-
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 57
$480 per year, which is the highest across the six focus settlements. However, concrete, brick or stilted dwellings require no consent or consultation with landowners. Landowners do not confer with the notable exception of landowner Panapasa in Nawajikuma. In Nalagi settlement, in 2015, iTLTB recorded house numbers, in order to put in individual leases, however it is unclear what the status of this is now. The municipal land to the west is zoned residential C and for community uses.
Housing and socio-economic
The key characteristics of the settlement emerging from the research include the following: ▲(2) Flood risk map: dark red shows extreme risk Land and population. Larger area and (Source: SPC (2014) population and lower density compared to citywide settlement average, but in the mid- range compared to the six-settlement average. Dwelling. Slightly higher dwelling cost. High proportion of stilted houses due to flood risks. Sanitation. Generally good sanitation that is comparable to general urban citywide standards. Social. Roughly even split between Indo-Fijian and iTaukei. Slightly higher share of people aged 25-34years. Income and work. Somewhat higher income compared to other. Low level of farming and livestock rearing. ▲ITLTB have numbered houses with the intent of issuing individual leases. Residence and future plans/priorities. Higher rates of movement from informal settlement or other urban areas. Higher rates of residents reporting employment and savings as a priority
Services, infrastructure and environment
Roads. Most (76%) have car access, which is the highest across the focus settlements. There are several roads through the settlements, which are subject to washaways and disintegration, particularly after flooding. Some have been maintained by commercial users (gravel company) and other times by individual households, for ▲Old sugar cane train rails are a priority to example households contributed $30 each after remove 2012 flooding for repair. Since the establishment of the settlement committee more systematic road repairs are proposed.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 58
▲Stilted ‘safe’ houses, some constructed by the ▲ Blocked and low capacity drains result in Muslim League, are common in the settlement as flooding at key points in the settlement an adaptation to regular floods
Box 2: Stilted houses. Drainage and flooding 82% of households reported There are 68 stilted households out of 153 flooding in their dwelling 4 or more times per year, households in Nalagi & Nawajikuma settlements which is the highest rate across the six focus built both by settlers and through a Muslim League settlements. Focus groups mentioned that the construction program. settlement floods one to two times per year for • Muslim League dwellings cost $2500-$4000 around six hours. They noted two distinct flood (dependent on family size) and are built in three patterns. Minor more regular flooding generally days by three Muslim league builders. Only Muslims in the settlement are eligible. resulted from water flowing east-west in the • Non-Muslim League, settler-constructed dwellings northern parts (#2 sections) of the settlements and cost on average $3,000-$5,000 for construction backing up from Nadi Back Road (which was raised • There was consensus in the focus group sessions in 1996), and affect these parts of the settlements. that the community could build the dwellings with There is a view that rubbish and weeds in drainage sweat equity if materials we’re supplied canals and inadequate culverts are also to blame • Generally, construction was of quite good for this flooding. Priority: Collective action to standard, with bracing and strapping protecting structures from cyclone winds. manage the drainage lines. Increase culvert size • The arrangement is that while the household under Nadi Back Road and/or build a small bridge owner can on-sell their house once they decide to on Nadi Back Road to bridge the mass of water that leave the community, they cannot sell the stilted collects there during these events. house section which must be on-sold for free with the dwelling. More recently during Cyclone Evan and Zena and • It is clear that households that can afford stilted the 2012 rains, more intense floods have brought constructions are generally wealthier than those flood waters north from the Nawaka River to the without. south of the settlements, something which people said had been exacerbated by the installation of a committee plans to write a letter to WAF and liaise bridge. There was a view that little can be done to with the District Officer to relocate group meters on reduce the risk from these more intense and less tramline road to individual houses. frequent floods. Electricity. 75% of households have electricity connections which is average for the focus Water. 91% of dwellings in the settlements have settlements. This was extended in the 1970’s and shared or individual WAF connections which is there are connections throughout the settlement. above the settlement average. However, water meters are located on the road, a long distance Solid waste. Despite several previous or current from houses as such there are long lengths of PVC initiatives by both current and previous committees, piping which regularly breaks. Nawajikuma no waste removal service exists. Residents
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 59 primarily burn or dump their rubbish either within or Community organization: skills. Stated capacity and just outside the settlements near the road. 12% of interest from several committee members to households reported having a council or private manage construction projects. rubbish collection. Community organization: Networks. In 2013, Community facilities. There is no community centre Nawajikuma had some PCN committee structures, or police post. Given its proximity to central Nadi, such as a savings committee, an education the settlement is near a wide range of social committee and a general committee however these infrastructure, including education, health care, have since become dormant/stopped. PCN also police and other civic infrastructure. provided building materials post TC Evan in 2013.
Community organization: projects. Some previous collective upgrading efforts (for roads). Community organisation
Community organization: relation to land owner. Community priorities Landowners do not confer with the settlers or work together with them on issues (with the exception of The key priorities expressed at focus group and the landowner of Nawajikuma). community mapping sessions included
Community organization: status. A new committee Drainage. Works to prevent flooding. Traps to has now been formed in Nawajikuma post-TC stop rubbish from clogging drains Winston who plans to repair roads, drains and Access. Bridge at Nadi Back Road or improve water supply. The other three settlements increasing the culvert size under Nadi Back have no committee or community leader and do not Road. General road repairs. meet with the Nawajikuma committee. This is Solid waste. Regular rubbish Collection despite being asked to form a larger committee and Housing. Stilted houses. despite being direct neighbours, using the same Community facilities. Community centre, which roads and drainage and shared solid waste issues. can also be used as an evacuation centre. This situation has been identified as a problem and Community police post can cause confusion for residents
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 60
Valenicina profile
Location: Lami, peri-urban. Land area: 10.6 Population: 721 Dwellings: 106 Native land. hectares 68.1 persons/hectare
Valenicina - settlement map
Source: FLIS, PCN, Google Imagery (2016)
Overview. Valenicina is a relatively large settlement (by citywide settlement standards) and is located inside the Lami municipal boundary, around 4.5km from the centre of Suva. The settlement is located on native land with a single ownership by the Nasevou mataqali. The settlement is located along a ridge and valley complex which is bounded by forestland to the north, east and west on often steep land including the Lami River to the west. There is an adjoining settlement, Matata, to the south and vacant industrial extension land beyond that. There is a key student population in the settlement. Settlers also enjoy a special relationship with the landowners through their church which enables a supplementary level of tenure security. ▲ Nasevou Mataqali, highlighted yellow. Land tenure and planning status. move to have the settlement designated as a The settlement is on native land of the Nasevou ‘village’. This provides representation at a provincial mataqali whose land extends from the coast into level and access to provincial development funds. the surrounding mountains. The settlement is Despite some previous issues and disagreements zoned Residential C. Through the strong between the settlers and landowners, there is now relationship with the landowners there is a joint agreement to proceed with the application. This requires at least one landowner to live on the land.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 61
Village designation would also provide the ability to having no formal connection. There are also at have secure tenure and build permanent structures, citywide issues with water supply outages that something which can be an issue under their affect the settlement. As a response, water storage current arrangements. This also enables for vessels, e.g. drums, tanks, are commonly used. individuals wishing to use their own money (in Uncovered water storage vessels were thought to superannuation) towards home construction via the have led to an outbreak of dengue in 2010, and Fiji National Provident Fund (FNPF) scheme. remain of continuing concern.
Settlers need to partake in every community and provincial occasion and participate in church matters. Land rentals are $50 per household per year and primarily seen as a gesture of maintaining good relations. However, the landowners greatly value the settlers participation in church affairs, as the Methodist church they all attend is seen as one of the strongest in the area.
Housing and socio-economic
The key characteristics of the settlement emerging ▲Water storage systems due to water connectivity from the research include the following: issues.
Dwelling. Large household size, slightly smaller dwelling size, higher number of bedrooms. Slightly lower tin or iron walled dwellings. Wide range of dwelling types and apparent pride in maintaining dwelling surrounds, through cleaning and gardens.
Sanitation. Poor, with highest rate of pit toilet use (60%), which is three times the focus settlement average. Social. Higher iTaukei population. Income and work. Higher rates of settlement based ▲ High proportion of pit toilet use economic activity. Higher rates of financial assistance. Relatively high rate of farming in the settlement due to good relations with landowners and their permissive attitude toward this. Residence and future plans. Higher rates of people born in the settlement and rural/island migrants Higher rates of those reporting ‘education’ due to substantial high school student population and ‘return to the village’ as a future plan/desire/priority, Lower rates reporting housing and tenure as a future plan/desire/priority.
Infrastructure, services and environment ▲ Settlement life
Water. The settlement has the lowest access to water of any settlement with half of households
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 62
Community facilities. There is a church, community centre and a community shop.
Solid waste. This is typically burnt and buried and this is well managed with little waste seen anywhere
Environment. Despite sloping land the risk of landslide is considered to be low.
Community organization
Community organization: status. PCN committees existed in past which is now dormant. There was a women’s waste committee established by the ministry of health. There is a desire to reform a road building committee and undertake revenue raising.
Community organization: projects. Road building project in partnership with council in 2006. Good relations with land owners meant that permissions were granted easily. Previous microfinance project for women to buy sewing machines, which is now dormant.
Community priorities ▲Steep paths in many sections of the settlement. Drainage and roads. Increased culvert sizes on roads for improved drainage.
Access. Roads and paths. Generally good Water. Improved water access and pressure condition, with most dwellings having car access. Inadequate drainage at certain points. No concrete Sanitation: The need to install flush toilets and paths in settlement, unlike a neighbouring Matata septic tanks settlement where there were, however the softstone ground has been cut into for stepped paths.
Electricity. Generally good coverage with some dwellings high on the hill without access (likely due to high wiring costs).
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 63
6 Typologies of settlements
Understanding the characteristics of informal geographical, built environment, tenure and settlements in this study is a key first step in an social context factors, 2) human rights to upgrading strategy. Upgrading approach adequate housing, water and sanitation, 3) should be informed by the characteristics of Climate vulnerability. the settlements from three key perspectives: 1)
6.1 UN Habitat: Settlement typology
Table 6 UN Habitat settlement typology. Settlement typology Focus settlement characteristics/assessment Land use within: e.g. urban villages, mixed use All but one have some level of farming and/or livestock with industrial functions etc. raising. There is little settlement based industrial or commercial activity
Housing materials: mud, grass, plastic, multi-story Primarily wooden framed dwellings with tin/iron walls concrete buildings, iron sheets, timber, polythene with low wooden footings. An average of 9% of etc. dwellings have dwellings are in poor quality. Housing type: unmaintained formal housing, Primarily permanent to semi-permanent, few semi-permanent informal housing, temporary temporary dwellings. In one settlement, stilted houses, shacks, etc. and safe houses (one or two room sections of a dwelling on stilts) are common. Source of income: slum economy, city Majority source of income is employment as employment, city entrepreneurship etc. “permanent (wages & salary earner)” (71%) which is likely to primarily be formal sector employment. , There is some settlement based economic activity which is likely to primarily be informal, e.g. farming or shop vending. All settlements have a low employment to population ratio.
Age: traditional village settlement since the Most settlements in this study are well established founding of the city, young slums after the ranging from around 40years old to around one independence, less than 10 years old hundred years. Is the slum considered developing or consolidated? Reason for establishment: next to a factory, This is for diverse reasons. Most commonly, it is as relocation site for demolished slum, internal organic growth via chain migration from other urban displacement site, near a dumpsite, invasion of areas or rural areas. For example, new arrivals come unoccupied land, Refugee camps to join extended family members already living in the vicinity. As such there can often be similar ethnic and clan groups (e.g. from same rural/Island area) residing in a settlement. These occurred in the five general forms of informal settlement growth noted in 2.2.2: i) increasing household occupancy, ii) housing consolidation and iii) infill (including through ‘dwelling clusters as noted in 4.3.1) iv) expansion and v) initiation/occupation. This last form of growth appeared to be less common, with most development occurring within and around existing settlements. Land ownership: on government land, on private All but one on native land. One with a government land (freehold, lease), squatters, Illegal land- head lease on native land. Two settlements have subdivisions/ unauthorized colonies etc. fragmented ownership.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 64
. Location: On the urban periphery, in the city Primarily on town/peri-urban boundary. Some on steep centre, along rivers and steep slopes, along (although not hazardous) slopes and one in proximity dumpsites, within wealthy neighbourhoods etc. to a river that regularly floods.
Size: vast sprawl, small pockets of clustered Two are in relatively regularly organised settlement houses etc., consolidated in growth or still patterns, the remainder are unevenly scattered with expanding small clusters defined by topography.
Density: one level low/medium/high density, multi- There was substantial variation in the density of the story low/medium/high density focus settlements, but on average were similar to the settlement average of 75 persons per hectare. .
Ownership structure: mostly house owners live in Low rate of house rental. Majority of households own their own structures, absent slum lords, etc. their own dwelling.
Accessibility to other infrastructure: electricity, Most settlements had good accessibility to schools, roads, schools, medical facilities and town water, road and public transport. Generally poor access to sewerage.
Supporting structure: large number of local CBOs, All settlements had some level of engagement with high number of supporting NGOs, main funding NGO’s, many had accessed government development attractor for large international development funds, e.g. provincial or multi-ethnic funds organisations, etc. All had some level (usually a relatively high level) of government services such as water and electricity. Construction: commercial company, small- Most construction occurs with at least some scale/informal contractor, self-constructed, self- assistance of unlicensed carpenters and builders, and constructed with minor external labour involved. a combination of hired and sweat equity labour.
Housing layout: number of rooms, toilet/kitchen Most dwellings have 2 bedrooms and are comprised of inside or outside and separated from the main a single structure. Around 25-30% of dwellings have construction. either two or more bedrooms and/or are made up of two or more detached structures, e.g. a cooking structure, or toilet). Source: UN Habitat (2016)
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 65
6.2 Human rights: key shelter deprivations
The following highlights the settlements against the key shelter deprivations that characterize ‘slum’ conditions in accordance with the definition used by UN-Habitat. Black coloured cells show those with key issues for action. Grey coloured cells show those were the issues are of concern to be factored into immediate planning.
Table 7: UN Habitat slum deprivations typology Percentage of settlements (number of settlements in Caubati Settlement brackets) Baba Koro Nawajikuma Tauvegavega Tomuka Valenicina average Citywide Low/ Low/ Low/ Security of tenure* Moderate moderate moderate Moderate Nd moderate moderate moderate Adequate housing** % of households with insufficient 16% (14) 9% (3) 4% (5) 12% (14) 7% (8) 7% (3) 9% (47) Nd housing (no permanent structure) Overcrowding % of households with insufficient 39% (33) 19% (6) 15% (18) 13% (15) 15% (18) nd 18% (90) Nd living area (more than three people sharing a room) Sanitation % of households with insufficient access to 8% (7) 6% (2) 9% (10) 32% (37) 12% (14) 56% (25) 18% (95) 9.5% improved sanitation facilities Water % of households with 14% (12) 0% (0) 8% (9) 10% (11) 6% (7) 40% (18) 11% (57) 1.9% insufficient access to improved water *Low/moderate: No imminent eviction/land grabbing threat. No security of tenure as in vakavanua relationship. Moderate. In a more established vakavanua relationship or more formalized tenure is imminent. ** Housing with ‘poor’ quality of walls.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 66
6.3 Rapid climate vulnerability assessment.
Based on the UN Habitat framework for assessing climate C) Storms and Wind: Damage to housing and infrastructure vulnerability79 the following hazard exposures have been (flooding covered in A). assessed against key sensitivities outlined in table #7. D) Storm Surge and Sea-level Rise: Flooding, damage to A) Rainfall: Flooding, flash flooding, rapid runoff, drought. structures, land and livelihoods. (Note: No focus settlements in this project were located on coastal areas). B) Temperature: Damage to crops.
Table 8: Climate vulnerability assessment: Vulnerability Sensitivity (capital letters correspond to hazard exposures Assessment and rationale listed above) Ecosystems: Farming. A) Rainfall + B) Temperature: Risk of damage to A + B) Moderate risk, targeted. crops or livestock due to floods, drought, heat There still a relatively low rate of farming, and not main impacts or strong winds. source of income. However, incomes are low and more vulnerable to any loss of household resources. Valenicina and Caubati Koro have higher rates of farming so are vulnerable to impacts, but are not subject to inundating floods. Tauvegavega settlement potentially at risk of damage to chicken coops and loss of stock from high winds.
Physical Systems: housing C Storms and wind: 1) Housing damage. C1) Extreme/very high risk, wide spread. 36% of dwellings and infrastructure damage Settlements average 36% of dwellings with ‘poor’ or have a poor or average quality of wallsr. Baba and from storms, spillage from ‘average’ quality walls that can be destroyed/badly Tauvegavega are at highest risk. sanitation pits/tanks, loss of damaged by strong winds. This is in addition to likely High risk, wide spread. Other 64% of dwellings are unlikely to water pressure in dry periods, structural soundness issues of dwelling frames and meet cyclone rated building code standards or be fully road wash aways. roof structures. structurally sound.
2) Damage to electricity infrastructure. Electricity C2) High risk, widespread. All settlements have electricity r Note table 6 shows figures for only ‘poor’ quality dwellings, which corresponds more closely with the definition of ‘temporary/non-permanent dwellings’ in the UN Habitat shelter deprivations typology. Note that the class of dwellings ‘poor’ and ‘average’ combined is more relevant to consider in the context of climate vulnerability. Average quality dwellings will not meet building codes and be likely to be sensitive to significant damage in storms and floods.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 67
Vulnerability Sensitivity (capital letters correspond to hazard exposures Assessment and rationale listed above) Physical systems (cntd.) poles and wires are likely to be damaged by strong and all are on low incomes and unable to pay toward the cost winds with poor households unable to pay the cost of of rewiring. Baba and Tauvegavega are particularly rewiring. vulnerable settlements given their poverty and location in a high cyclone area.
A) Rainfall and flooding: 1) Major inundating A1) Extreme/very high risk, targeted. Certain settlements as flooding. Several settlements are subject to major a whole (Nawajikuma –82% of dwellings) and in substantial and regular inundating flooding. parts of others (Tauvegavega – 26%, and Tomuka 17%) have major vulnerabilities to inundating flooding.
2) Localised/flash flooding and drainage. Roads and A2) moderate risk. targeted. Lower lying settlements have the paths are subject to damage and wash aways. most consistent issues with rainfall and flooding damaging roads (Tauvegavega, Nawajikuma, Tomuka). Moderate risk. targeted. In certain steeper settlements, roads and paths are subject to damage from rapid runoff that requires engineering works (drains, culverts, bridges), (Baba, Valenicina).
3) Spillage of sanitation pits/tanks. Settlements with A3) High risk. targeted. Tauvegavega has a higher rate of pit high rates of inundating flooding and pit toilet use are toilet use and is subject to flooding in key areas. Nawajikuma of prime vulnerability. is very vulnerable to flooding, but has a relatively low rate of pit toilet use, however all others use tanks. Other settlements with higher rates of pit toilets (Valenicina) do not have major issues with flooding.
A) Rainfall. Drought. Low water pressure or drying High risk. targeted. Valenicina has issues with water supply up of natural water sources. outages and many households also rely on unprotected wells and water storage drums. Many households in Tauvegavega rely on natural sources. These sources also become more polluted from nearby a rubbish dump in low rainfall. Economic systems and A, B & C) Most households in settlements are on low High risk. widespread. Livelihoods. Low incomes, incomes and often also rely on, or supplement, All settlements have a very low employment to population informal economic activity income from the informal sector and subsistence. ratio and household incomes and are vulnerable to impacts results in exclusion from formal of disasters and economic disruption. supports, more unpredictable economic activity. (See ‘ecosystems’ for farming impacts)
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 68
Vulnerability Sensitivity (capital letters correspond to hazard exposures Assessment and rationale listed above) Social Systems. Tenure 1) A & C) Displacement following natural disasters. 1) Moderate risk. widespread. Many communities are not security, dwelling quality 2) A & C) Lack of tenure acting as a disincentive to immediately vulnerable to eviction, however disaster events (addressed in ‘physical housing improvements to provide greater protection could destabilise already weak tenure arrangements. systems’), vulnerability of against, particularly storms and floods. 2) High risk. widespread. social infrastructure. 3) A & C) Community capacity following disasters. 3) Very high to moderate adaptive capacity. Most settlements (Social infrastructure vulnerability not assessed as have some form of active committee. Half of the settlements part of this study.) affected by cyclones Winston and Zena formed reconstruction committees.
Source: Column #1 framework UN Habitat (2016)
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 69
7 Key findings and options for action
This section outlines a summary of key results, key emerging findings and implications and proposes a set of options for consideration in the strategy process.
7.1 Summary of key findings and conclusions
Land and population The shortfall of residential lots for informal Overall informal settlement numbers. settlements around 16,000 lots at present Informal settlement population estimates day needs (not including needs from have ranged from 45,000 to 150,000, total population in formal areas). This is partly a numbers of settlements have ranged from symptom of high allotment prices. 106 to 250. This difference is mainly to do Settlement types. Focus settlements are with different definitions and rapid growth. larger and have a higher population and This study estimates 76,613 informal are therefore good sites for upgrading. settlement population based on an Valenicina, Caubati Koro and Tomuka are operational definition, which uses tenure as more representative of all the settlements the defining factor and combines citywide, in size and density. site specific, externally verified figures. Number of settlements. There were 159 Key conclusions settlements across the study areas with Upgrading strategies will help manage another 12 in areas close to peri-urban overall urban growth. Settlement upgrading areas. The average size of settlement was strategies will increasingly accommodate 407people with a median size of 255, growth from within existing urban areas. which shows both a large variation in size This growth will likely be from new and a smaller number of very large household formation in formal areas, to a settlements and a large number of small lesser from other settlements, and to a settlements. Average settlement density much smaller extent rural urban migration. was 81 persons per hectare. Around half Trial sites for upgrading. Caubati Koro, the total population lived in the largest 35 Valenicina and Tomuka are more settlements, all with over 550 people. representative of the general settlement Percentage of population. Suva and situation in Fiji in terms of area, population Nasinu (including peri-urban areas) have and density. Implication. Upgrading around half the informal settlement responses in these settlements may have a population in the focus areas. Lami (56%), broader application in citywide upgrading Nasinu and Lautoka (32%) peri-urban responses, so positions these as areas have the highest proportion of total appropriate settlements for upgrading population in informal settlements. GSUA projects. and Nadi-Lautoka have 90% of the informal Large settlements. This research indicates settlement population in the study area. that a small number of large sites could be Growth. Informal settlements are targeted to gain maximum impact. accommodating growth in urban areas Evidence-based initiatives. As a result of more than rural-urban drift. Household this project, data now exists in a form that formation is increasing, meaning the need can be shared with communities and for housing is greater. municipalities, documented more clearly,
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 70
and updated to allow participatory integrate and allow formal planning and identification of options and issues for land management systems and upgrading activities. Activities can be community/customary-level governance based on clear evidence and quantifiable structures interact more freely and provide issues that can build a shared ways of blending of formal and informal understanding amongst partners. systems80. This study has illustrated a range of ways that those community level structures interact with customary Tenure and community organization structures and point to options for linking Major settlement population on native land. with formal governance processes. Many 45% of all informal settlements. population of the most successful systems for is on native land, but this figure is 84% of settlement upgradings, including Fiji’s own peri-urban areas. This points to the need Town and Citywide Settlement Upgrading for a more systematic process for leasing Programs, have decentralized, on native land. participatory decision-making structures for Pro-active community organization. Many development and tenure security. communities are engaged in tenure However, as the PSUP Output Two notes, negotiations and have active committees, “The participatory approach, although but processes for securing tenure and considered as a good planning and initiating upgrading are unclear and these management technique is not legally spelt processes are slow, ambiguous and/or out to strengthen its application. [such expensive. initiatives] …. need a good legal backing. Fragmented land ownership an issue. Wide This will strengthen the ‘enabling principle’ variety of tenure and relationships, but and ensure its practicality [for] informal settlements with fragmented ownership settlement communities … to better would be likely to be more difficult to understand and appreciate their role in negotiate tenure. informal settlement upgrading.” This suggests the need for clarity around the Key conclusions process for community-driven Build on familiarity with tenure negotiations development, such as through developing and clarify processes. It is clear that many a guideline. There is an important role for settlements have some familiarity in with the strategy development process to better various processes for negotiating tenure. define these processes as a working There may be opportunities to better guideline in the short term. communicate processes for securing tenure, e.g. flow charts, frequently asked questions, costs and fees. Housing and dwelling. Tenure and community organisation. Most Household size. This study has found that settlements in this research had single land these are smaller (4.8 persons per ownership, active committees and/or household) than previous estimates. These community leadership. There are clearly are highest in GSUA. efficiencies to be gained by focusing s upgrading on settlements with stronger Community Kampung Improvement Project community leadership. Implication. A (Indonesia), the Million Housese Program (Sri Lanka), the Orangi Pilot Project (Pakistan) and consistent theme in Pacific Island country including in the Fiji Government’s own Town and urbanization literature is the need to Citywide Informal Settlement Upgrading Programs (which is closely informed by the ACCA program)
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 71
Dwelling cost, size, materials and quality. dwellings constructed. This pattern is likely Households spent on average of $8,640 on to be more pronounced in the focus their dwelling, and the average size was settlements in Nadi, Lautoka and Ba. It is 80sqm with two bedrooms, 82% had also likely that peri-urban settlements of iron/tin walls and 36% were in poor or Nasinu and Nausori are experiencing a average condition and thus particularly similar phenomenon.. Implication. vulnerable to storms and strong winds and Residential upgrade projects and new low a major disaster risk. cost housing sub-divisions may also need Water and sanitation. 18% had no access to include eligibility for poor households in to improved sanitation (pit toilets) and 11% formal areas, not just informal settlements. with insufficient access to improved water. The overall housing demand is likely to be Sanitation. This study has been able to increasing higher than both existing provide a fine-grained understanding of population growth, and upgrading levels and locations of poor access to strategies and targets will therefore need to improved sanitation, this can help target reflect these trends. initiatives at the highest needs. Cost. The dramatic difference in dwelling cost between standard professional build Key conclusions rates and those in informal settlements illustrates the challenge of conventional Household size and formation. There can dwelling designs and construction methods be higher rates of overcrowding in for the urban poor. This study has identified settlements with recent migrants, e.g. an important affordability benchmark for Valenicina, those with a higher population informal settlement households of $8,600 of children, for example Baba. The fact that for dwelling construction costs. However, the majority of people in informal as an average amount it will still be settlements moved from another urban unaffordable for many households area most commonly the non-settlement Dwelling vulnerability. This research parts of the same urban area, suggest that highlights housing vulnerability. A general informal settlement growth is increasingly rate of 36% of dwellings that are vulnerable accommodating population growth from can provide an important initial benchmark formal areas, rather than rural-urban to inform housing projects. Implication: migration. This study found a lower there is an important option to for training, household size relative to many other guidelines and technical support for studies suggesting, that informal residents to improve their existing settlements are increasingly dwellings and build (back) better. accommodating a trend of increasing household formation in urban areas generally, particularly formal areas. Alongside this, a pattern of incremental self-help housing is likely to be increasing Socio-economic and broadening. Implication. These trends Income. Household income ($212 per together suggest that informal settlements week) averaged a third of national rates may be moving from a pattern of in- with some settlements averaging $112 per migration and high occupancy of existing week. In some settlements, this rate is housing, to a pattern where new closer to half the national rate. 25% receive households are being formed and
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 72
financial assistance compared to the incomes. Those settlements would be national rate of 15%. more able to contribute to upgrading costs Work The employment to population ratio and will be a pivotal driver in selecting is around a quarter of the national rate. locations for upgrading projects. Settlements averaged a 1/3 of households Latent workforce. The significantly lower with a settlement based economic activity, employment to population ratios in with around 20% as the main source of settlements suggest a strong latent income. workforce for community contracting Mobility and residence. 90% of household activities. Implication. It is likely that heads were either born in or moved from procurement using community contracting another urban area. processes will be a key part of the solution. It is likely that these will benefit from private Key conclusions sector partnership arrangements, e.g. through requiring/encouraging local Ethnic diversity. This research suggests employment. There is the potential for that in many case there will be a clear beneficiaries, for example of housing predominance of Indo-Fijian or iTaukei assistance, to be given priority to enable households in any given settlement. This repayment of housing loans, therefore research found that there were often higher recycling project funds from one rates of farming activity in iTaukei component to another component. settlements. This reflects Walsh’s finding Settlement based economic activity vs. that iTaukei households (and settlements) employment accessibility. In most are more likely to use land for growing food settlements a minority of households relied to supplement household resources, on settlement based economic activity as a whereas Indo-Fijian households more likely main source of income (which was in most to construct and rent out rooms. It is cases farming), but around 20% did have it important not to overgeneralize such ethnic as a supplementary form of income. t differences yet, understanding different Implication. While it is likely that there are cultural norms may also point to forms of many settlements where there are specific upgrading and land use options that may economic needs, e.g. fishing villages, be more successful. Implication. Strong settlements close to mixed use areas. consideration should be given to inclusion There are also many (as this research has of farmland in proximity to settlements and shown) where provision for this may not be capacity to expand dwellings, noting the as crucial, and accessibility to employment propensity for iTaukei and Indo-Fijian is more important for livelihoods. households to add to household resources through these respective strategies. Ability to pay. This research illustrates the Infrastructure, services and environment strong correlation between proximity to Flooding. Only one settlement was subject employment opportunities and income with to regular intensive flooding and housing the settlements in the GSUA and close to types had responded to that through a Nadi all having the highest household vernacular housing response, stilted houses. Two other settlements had t For example, an Indo-Fijian majority settlement, significant proportions of the settlements Tauvegavega, had strong rates of poultry farming. that were regularly flood affected. This was introduced as part of a livelihood program several years earlier, pointing to a willingness and successful outcomes of such programs.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 73
Roads, drainage, rubbish and community 7.2 Options for action facilities. The most common issues expressed at a settlement level related to The following outlines the major options these basic municipal services. Many emerging from this study, including those that settlements complained of damage to align with PCN’s and UN Habitat’s strategic roads from minor flooding. priorities. Land and population Key conclusions 1) Facilitate communal leases by NGO housing Solid waste. Most settlements experienced providers for five existing settlements per year solid waste issues, and would likely benefit for five years. The major shortfall in land for from Council coordinated extension of a housing means new ways providing user-pays service for settlements. There incremental tenure security are needed. are examples, in Baba (Levuka) and Communal leases are a tool for gaining a first- Tomuka (Lautoka), where the council and step of tenure security in existing settlements the settlement have come to an without the high upfront surveying and arrangement around solid waste collection. allotment costs. They are a way of providing a This would need to be a user-pays system level of formality on land across a range of and separate to rates payments (which sites to enable coordination of in-situ would require full incorporation into the upgrading and achieve efficiencies in planning municipal area). This form of rubbish upgrading on a larger scale. collection more likely occurs in town areas, which none of the focus settlements were 2) Target upgrading projects on the 40 largest in. settlements in Fiji, which have half the informal settlement population. Close to half of Fiji’s Drainage. While drainage issues were informal settlements are located on the 40 common in many settlements, in steep largest sites. There are major efficiencies and settlements these were either well impact to be gained by focusing on large, and managed or the issues were more to do if possible low-density settlements. with specific items of infrastructure, e.g. paths. Flooding was a very settlement 3) Provide 500 lots per year to Residential specific issue, and in some settlements Upgrade zoning standards for the next 5 years confined to specific localities within the to divert population growth in formal areas from informal settlements. This report shows the settlement. As such, planning for drainage ‘informalisation’ of Fijian urban growth is the upgrades should be based on a fine- major policy issue as rural-urban drift fades as grained data on specific dwellings and a population driver, and urban household infrastructure at risk. This will help estimate formation accelerates. There is a conservative the costs of various interventions. need of 16,000 lots to meet just the existing Water. While many settlements had need in urban areas and informal settlements. reasonably good water connections, flatter A 30-year plan for changing the urban settlements would particularly benefit from landscape of Fiji would require around 500 lots improved piping and selective extension of per year (which could be on sites with the branch lines into the settlements. communal leases granted as a first step) to meet the current needs of informal settlements. On key sites, there should be an expectation of enabling medium density development (2- 3storeys) to maximise the use of the land (the Lagi Lagi development is an example of this).
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 74
By focusing on planning for the 40 largest 7) Strategic partnerships between NGOs and informal settlements, this can meet the needs key local governments. GSUA and Nadi- for over half of this target. Lautoka are and will increasingly become the hub of Fijian life, a structured partnership
approach is necessary on matters of shared Housing and dwelling concern. In particular, many of the issues identified by communities relate to municipal 4) Stilted houses in flood affected and issues of access, drainage, solid waste and settlements. Housing projects should promote community facilities. culturally appropriate vernacular housing responses to climate change. This research 8) Provide employment as part of upgrading shows that in key climate vulnerable through community contracting in partnership settlements, stilted houses have community with private-sector operators. High rates of support, skills and co-funding in key locations. unemployment in settlements means In high density, non-flood affected land and upgrading must provide livelihood generation can provide additional living space. activities through community contracting. There is a key role for the private sector in 5) Prioritise house designs for $10,000 (USD joining with community-based organizations to $5,000). The research shows that close to deliver projects in partnership. $10,000 is a high, but potentially attainable cost for many informal settlement households. Eligibility for housing may be targeted at those whose housing does not meet several of the Citywide basic human rights as assessed through the 9) Target upgrading through profiling needs profiling process (poor quality dwelling walls, and priorities. Profiling is necessary to target pit toilets, overcrowding, no piped water), solutions to those issues, which will have the and/or is very vulnerable to high winds. ). It is best impact in the context relative to the other important to note that while this threshold is settlements and overall resources available, likely to be more affordable to settlement and avoid a ‘one size fits all’ approach. The households, construction costs for basic house availability of information will also lead to better models are actually closer to $15,000-$18,000 decision making and costs savings as trial and with a reported 10% per annum inflation in error approaches are overcome. Undertake prices81. rapid surveys, mapping and profiling of target 6) Education and technical assistance on settlements to understand key needs and dwelling construction. To support and improve community priorities. This would include as a existing processes of dwelling construction, minimum, community identified priorities, levels guidelines (such as those developed by the of community governance, key human rights Shelter Cluster for Fiji) and training on issues, and hazard exposure. improved self-constructed dwellings, 10) Government in collaboration with NGOs to extensions and home-improvements would set guidelines for community-driven enhance resilience of these structures. Model development. Currently a lack of awareness house designs could also support more efficient construction methods. There are about by communities, landowners and NGOs important and effective Fijian and global on the processes for land management and precedents for programs of this nature. development planning means opportunities to upgrade are lost. As Output Two notes, community driven (participatory) upgrading in Services and infrastructure Fiji is not well understood by many stakeholders. Governments, communities and
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 75
NGOs all want clarity about how to work 12) Enable NGOs to propose new ways of together more efficiently. It is proposed that doing upgrading which may include changes to financial support be given for informal regulations and funding. This can be through settlement communities and their NGO an ‘unsolicited proposal’. Currently partners to define and document their process communities are dependent on governments to for settlement upgrading. This then should review and reform processes that are a barrier inform planning rules and regulations whereby to upgrading. Fijian constitution S. 35(2) notes wide stakeholder participation with the special that “if the State claims that it does not have focus on community development gets a legal the resources to implement the right [to mandate. housing and sanitation], it is the responsibility of the State to show that the resources are not 11) Institutionalize an exchange platform at a available.” There needs to be a formal channel local government level to share lessons for communities to: a) trigger this provision, learned on urban development (projects) on a and in collaboration with government, develop regular basis. It is important to establish a and propose their own changes to make formal communication channel which includes upgrading easier , b) have proposals assessed a range of stakeholders in the development of fairly and with due process, and d) for the state the city, with a specific focus on poor areas. to show resourcing implications and This as well as trigger change in regulations opportunities. and funding mechanisms for improved urban development. It is noted that this should build on lessons learnt from previous approaches in this field.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 76
REFERENCES
Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (ACHR) (2014) 215 Cities in Asia: The Fifth Yearly Report of the Asian Coalition for Community Action Program (ACCA). Bangkok, Thailand.
Asian Development Bank (2014) Country Partnership Strategy Fiji 2014-2018, Manila.
Asian Development Bank (ADB) (1999) Project Performance Audit Report: Low-Income Housing Development Project (Fiji Islands) (Loan No. 1005-FIJ). Asian Development Bank, Mandaluyong, Philippines. Barr (nd) The socio-economic surveys of squatter and informal settlements: phase 1 data collection and data entry, Peoples Community Network.
Barr (2007) Squatters in Fiji: The need for attitudinal change, Citizen’s Constitutional Forum Housing and Social Exclusion Policy Dialogue Paper, n1, 2007 Bedford R. & Hugo G. (2012) Population movement in the Pacific: a perspective on future prospects, New Zealand Labour Immigration and Research Centre. Bryant, J. J. (1990). The acceptable face of self-help housing: Subletting in Fiji squatter settlements - exploitation or survival strategy? In D. Drakakis-Smith (Ed.), Economic growth and urbanization in developing areas (pp. 171–195) London: Routledge.
Cities Development Institute Asia Consultant Team (CDIA) (2012a) Inclusive Urban Development in the Greater Suva Area Draft Interim Report, Cities Development Institute Asia, Metro Manila, Philippines.
Gounder R and Xing Z. (2012) "The measurement of inequality in Fiji's household income distribution: Some empirical results", International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 39 Iss: 4, pp.264 – 280
Government of Fiji (GoF)(2016) Draft Post-Disaster Needs Assessment, Housing Sector Tropical Cyclone Winston, February 20, 2016, (unpublished).
Fiji Department of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) (2016) Zoning geo-spatial data.
Fiji Bureau of Statistics (FBoS) (2011) Report on the 2008-09 Household Income and Expenditure Survey for Fiji, [online], available at: www.statsfiji.gov.fj/, Last accessed: 16/05/16
Fiji Bureau of Statistics (FBoS) (2012) The 2010-11 Employment and Unemployment Survey Preliminary Findings [online], available at: www.statsfiji.gov.fj/, Last accessed: 16/05/16
Fiji Bureau of Statistics (FBoS) (2014) Personal communication.
Fiji Bureau of Statistics (FBoS) (2015) 2013-14 Household Income and Expenditure Survey Preliminary Findings - Release 1, FBoS Release No: 98 [online], available at: www.statsfiji.gov.fj/, Last accessed: 16/05/16
Fiji Bureau of Statistics (FBoS) (2016) Population projections by Tikina (unpublished).
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 77
Fiji Lands Information Service (FLIS) (2016) Geospatial data,
Fiji Ministry of Local Government, Urban Development, Housing and the Environment (2012) Fiji National Housing Policy, Government of
Fiji Ministry of Local Government, Urban Development, Housing and the Environment (MLGUDHE) (2012) The National Housing Policy, The Government of Fiji, Suva. Fiji Ministry of Planning (MoP) (2009) Roadmap for Democracy and Sustainable Socio- Economic Development 2010-2014 A Better Fiji for All, The Government of Fiji, Suva. Fiji National Council for Building A Better Fiji (NCBBF) (2008) Fiji Peoples Charter for Change, Peace & Progress, The Government of Fiji, Suva.
Habitat for Humanity (HFH) (2009) Poverty Housing in the Developing Nations of the Pacific Islands, Habitat for Humanity: Bangkok. International Labour Organisation (ILO) (2015) Key Indicators of the Labour Market (KILM) Ninth edition. [online], available at: http://www.ilo.org/ , Last accessed: 16/05/16
Jones P. (2012). The Challenges of Implementing Millennium Development Goal Target 7d in Pacific Island Towns and Cities, Asia-Pacific Development Journal, Vol..19, No.1. pp.139-162.
Jones, P. (2016) (forthcoming). Explaining Urban Villages - Better Understanding Urbanisation in Contemporary Pacific Towns and Cities. Asian Development Bank, Pacific Studies Series, Manila.
Kiddle L. (2011) Informal Settlers, Perceived Security of Tenure and Housing Consolidation: Case Studies from Urban Fiji, PhD Thesis, Victoria University Wellington
Koto C. (no date) Institutional roles in service delivery: Meeting the housing needs of Fiji’s Namadai community’. Conference paper based on master’s thesis.
McKinnon, J., Whitehead, S., Chung, M., & Taylor, L. (2007). Report of the Informal Settlements Scoping Mission. Wellington: New Zealand Agency for International Development.
Mitchell D, Orcherton D, Numbasa G, McEvoy D, Ericksson C, Arnold A (2016) The implications of land issues for climate resilient informal settlements in Fiji and Papua New Guinea, Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Research Trust, London, UK.
Naidu V., Matandradra A., Osborne J., & Sahib M (2015) ‘Informal settlements and social inequality in Fiji: evidence of serious policy gaps’. Journal of Pacific Studies v35 i1.
Pacific Catastrophe Risk Assessment and Financing Initiative (PCRAFI)(2013) ‘Fiji building footprint’ and ‘Fiji building exposure verified’ geo-spatial data, [online], Available at: http://pcrafi.sopac.org/layers/ (Last accessed: 16/05/16)
Secretariat of the Pacific Community Statistics For Development Division (SPC-SDD) (2014) 2013 population & demographic indicators (Jan 2014 Update), Secretariat of the Pacific Community, [online] available at: http://www.spc.int/sdd/ (last accessed: 14/05/16)
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 78
Walsh, A. C. (1978). The urban squatter question: Squatting, housing and urbanization in Suva, Fiji (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Peoples Community Network (PCN) (2014) Stand Up and Walk PCN Strategic Plan 2014 – 2016. Peoples Community Network, Samambula, Suva.
Pacific Region Infrastructure Facility (PRIF) (2015) Unsettled: Water and Sanitation in Urban Settlement Communities of the Pacific, World Bank, Washington DC, USA
Walsh, A. C. (1984). ‘The search for an appropriate housing policy in Fiji’. Third World Planning Review, 6(2), 185–200.
UN-Habitat (2003) Slums of the World: The face of urban poverty in the new millennium?, UN Habitat, Nairobi.
UN Habitat (2012a) Fiji National Urban Profile, UN Habitat, Nairobi.
UN Habitat (2012b) Suva Urban Profile, UN Habitat, Nairobi.
UN Habitat (2014a) PSUP Brochure, UN Habitat, Nairobi.
UN Habitat (2014b) A Practical Guide to Designing, Planning, and Executing Citywide Slum Upgrading Programmes, UN Habitat, Nairobi.
UN Habitat (2014c), Lami Town Fiji Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment – Abridged Report, Cities and Climate Change Initiative, UN Habitat, Nairobi.
UN Habitat (2016) PSUP programme documentation, UN Habitat, Nairobi.
UN Habitat & UN Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) (2010) Managing Urbanisation in the Pacific, Presentation to the Commonwealth Local Government Forum 2010 Pacific Local Government Symposium.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 79
8 APPENDICES
A. Appendix A Definitions and terms
Settlement upgrading programs UN Habitat82 notes that settlement upgrading can mean regularisation, urbanisation and transformation of informal settlements into residential areas that are spatially, legally, socially and economically integrated into the cities where they are located and form part of the official planning and urban management systems. Core elements can include at least one of the criteria below. A. physical improvement: water supply, sanitation, streets, public spaces, power lines, drainage – which may occur through an area-based plan. B. housing improvement: construction, housing expansion, technical assistance, building loansu. C. tenure regularization: land or housing registration, demarcation, documentation. D. facilities: open space (park, playground), social infrastructure (school, clinic, daycare, community centre). E. development programs: social welfare, economic development, (preventative) health care, cultural development, education.
Defining informal settlements and method for this study Background
Informal settlement Global definitions of ‘informality’, and what constitutes an ‘informal settlement’ are necessarily general and do not capture the unique circumstances in PICs, yet, global definitions are important to consider. UN Habitat2 notes that a slum household consists of one or a group of individuals living under the same roof in an urban area, lacking one or more of the following five amenities:
Durable housing - a permanent structure providing protection from extreme climatic conditions) Sufficient living area - no more than three people sharing a room Access to improved water - water that is sufficient, affordable and can be obtained without extreme effort Access to improved sanitation facilities - a private toilet, or a public one shared with a reasonable number of people; and Secure tenure - de facto or de jure secure tenure status and protection against forced eviction.
u In this study consideration is given to housing consolidation in informal settlements – whether it occurs as part of a program or not, i.e. treating it as a form of settlement upgrading.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 80
Jones83 notes however that reference to global terms, such as ‘slums’, has not been commonplace in the Pacific islands region. Kiddle84 also notes that “UN-Habitat‘s term ‘urban slum‘ is not appropriate for the Fijian context. He suggested that ‘squatter settlement‘ and ‘squatter settler‘ would ideally be replaced by the less derogatory terms of informal settlement‘ and ‘informal settler‘ – indeed these more technically correct terms better encapsulate the nature of these areas.” The Asian Development Bank (ADB)85 proposes that ‘rural villages in the city’ are a more accurate ways of thinking about informal settlements in PICs. As such, this study considers informal settlements both in terms of global definitions around physical conditions and tenure but also integrates concepts of ‘rural villages in the city’, which incorporate many physical and socio-cultural, and governance characteristics of indigenous Fijian and Indo-Fijian traditional and rural communities.
There are locally specific forms and characteristics that should be considered in definitions. Writing of the Fijian context, Barr86 notes that there is some dispute about the definition of squatter settlements, informal settlements and whether vakavanua arrangements can be considered informal settlements. In addition, some city councils consider only as squatters and informal settlers those who are within their own town boundaries. They do not count informal settlements in peri-urban areas. Several definitions have been proposed:
Lingham87 defined a squatter as: “A person who is in occupation of State, Freehold or Native Land illegally or without any form of security of tenure or without consent of land owners.” The Fiji Bureau of Statistics88 have defined squatter households as those: ‘without a legal arrangement’, who ‘occupy native land with formal/informal arrangement’ and ‘other land tenure’v Bryant89 notes that in Fiji the term ‘squatters’ is used loosely in Fiji to include all spontaneous or informal settlements that have substandard and unauthorized structures and lack basic services. It does not apply to those who have solely occupied land illegally.
Barr90 notes that, in fact many people in informal settlements often have consent of landowners to build on their land. They make a contribution to the land owning unit in a variety of ways and continue to live on the land for many years. However, under such vakavanua arrangements, there is no proper legal title and so no security of tenure as they could be asked to leave at any time, particularly if the older generation of village leaders who originally gave permission to settle on the land are now deceased. This category of settlement is of particular importance as a high number of settlements lie in peri-urban areas, the majority of which is native land. It is noted that some writers include statistics on urban villages and urban settlements together with squatter settlements – rightly or wrongly.
These definitions tend to focus first on (A) the legal (tenure) status, followed by (B) physical and social characteristics.w
v This final category is not used in all definitions, however has been included in this study to ensure consistency with the CDIA (2012a) project population estimates have been benchmarked against. w It is noted that there can be substantial differences in tenure security at a within settlements, and at a dwelling and household level that these broader definitions do not reflect. For example, kin relationships, gender and age influence tenure security, as does whether a household or occupant may be renting from a dwelling owner, irrespective or the land tenure of the settlement.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 81
Working definitions for this project
As noted in section 2.2 this method seeks to: a) integrate existing government, professional and academic definitions and data sources, b) verify against on-the-ground local knowledge, and c) undertake selected ground truthing to validate data. The working definitions and steps for identifying and calculating informal settlement: names, locations (and numbers), boundaries, dwelling and population numbers for this project are outlined below. The figures for informal settlements in this project have followed a similar process of: (i) identifying settlements by, normally tenure status, (ii) gathering information on physical and social characteristics. Key steps are those outlined below:
1. Calculate number of informal settlement households from FBoS census 2007 in respective jurisdictions, and apply small area population growth estimates from the CDIA (2012a), and household size data from the survey undertaken for this project and previous PCN surveys. 2. PCN creates selected point and boundary data of settlements based on Community Facilitators’, Community Architects’ and general organisational and local knowledge. 3. Incorporate Fiji Lands Information Service (FLIS) informal settlement points and polygons into the PCN data sets. Incorporate new settlements and cross-check location, boundaries and naming of any conflicting data with PCN Community Facilitators based on local knowledge. 4. Trace settlement outlines using Google Earth based on points. Modify FLIS polygons to correspond to developed area of settlements. Developed area is based only on building structures, and does not include farmland. 5. Cross-check against enumeration areas flagged by the Fiji Bureau of Statistics (FBoS) census as informal settlements. 6. Cross check against other reports covering informal settlements, e.g. the Cities Development Institute for Asia – Greater Suva Urban Area Drainage Report. 7. Visual assessment using aerial imagery of urban areas with a focus on peri-urban areas. 8. Cross check resulting data sets with PCN Community Facilitators 9. Ground truth selected settlement boundaries and dwelling numbers during the course of socio-economic surveys 10. Share data with key stakeholders to seek input additions and modifications. 11. Use GIS to select PCRAFI91 building footprints falling within the boundaries to get total numbers of dwellings in settlement areas. 12. Apply household sizes (4.8 persons per household) and small area population growth rates92 relevant to the area.
It is noted that this process is likely not to capture a range of urban settlement types which may have a form of secure tenure, but may otherwise bear many similar physical and social characteristics to informal settlements. Examples of this include: a) Settlements where there is a formal lease for the land only, e.g. via a communal lease, e.g. through the iTLTB or on state land (e.g. Kalekana, Lami). b) Settlements where there is a formal lease for the land and resident households have individual leases, again, either issued by the iTLTB for example or to the state. c) Settlements which are defined as new subdivision areas by the Department of (e.g. Naidiri, sub-divisions, Nasinu).
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 82
d) iTaukei declared villages in urban areas, for example (Tamavua, Suva; Suvavou, Lami; Kalabu, Nasinu)
As such, the citywide figures provided in this report refer primarily to this legal definition of informal settlements, whereas settlement profiles refer to the physical and social characteristics of informal settlements. (It is noted however that even within this definition, at least one focus settlement in this study, Tauvegavega, would be included under #c above.)
Therefore, a settlement with the same social and environmental characteristics as an informal settlement but with a different tenure, such as a lease, would not be included in this study. As such, this study focusses only on settlements with both tenure insecurity (and vakavanua relationships are considered insecure as there is no legal status of the occupancy) and social and environmental conditions described above.
It will however be an increasingly important feature of planning to encompass strategies for urban upgrading generally, to progressively integrate legally tenure secure settlements with lower built environmental standards into the urban fabric of the city in a way that is culturally appropriate. Similarly, two settlements with the same built environmental characteristics (irrespective of tenure), but one in a peri-urban area and one in a municipal area are considered formal and informal respectively from a housing and infrastructure perspective.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 83
B. Appendix B: Land ownership, tenure and community organization typology B.1. Land ownership and tenure
Caubati Koro Valenicina Tomuka Nawajikuma Tauvegavega Baba Fragmented Single location. Fragmented: 2 Single location Fragmented:. 4 Fragmented:. 6 Fragmented: 4 or single Sections. contiguous sections sections. (3 boundary sections contiguous) Location Peri-urban Peri-urban, with Peri-urban. Peri-urban Peri-urban, with Peri-urban, with adjacent to town section of section of section of boundary. In settlement lying settlements lying settlements lying area which can across town across town across town be zoned boundary. boundary. boundary. residential Ownership Single: native Single: native Single: native Multiple: native Single: Multiple: native, government government and freehold Land owner mataqali mataqali tokatoka yavusa, mataqali mataqali yavusa, tokatoka level most active/relevant Tenure vakavanua vakavanua vakavanua vakavanua. Government vakavanua & leased. squatting. Steps toward Settlers divided Land owners’ No changes Evidence of Proposal to Only the major securing on whether to negotiating the envisaged. activity by iTLTB subdivide & issue section (Korovou) tenure seek individual or conversion of the Somewhat more (house titles. House has sought a communal iTLTB settlement to an formalized tenancy numbering) for numbering has communal lease lease. urban village via management. leasing. occurred. via iTLTB after iTLTB. presenting whale’s tooth to land owner. Payments No upfront fees Yearly rental Yearly land rental Yearly rental Titles will be No payments (apart from 2 payments are.$50. payments are $300. payments are available (sitting required at new Indo-Fijian Upfront payment for One of upfront $360-$600. One tenants given first moment. Paid a
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 84
residents), no plot is unknown? payment for plot is off upfront choice) and cost of communal lease regular between 3,000- payment for plot titles will be of $100 prior to occupancy $10,000 is between $500- needed to be paid its cancellation. payments, when $1,000. in third year after landowners need issuance of them. money, ask via Cost unknown. stamped letter. Required Requirements to Voluntary assist in Only iTaukei settlers No church or No works in kind No commitments works in kind assist in church, church, funeral & assist in Methodist other village to land owners. funeral & village village matters. Church matters only assistance Voluntary matters. for iTaukei residents. required. assistance to Levuka village (adjacent owners) with church and village matters.
B.2. Community governance and organization
Caubati Koro Valenicina Tomuka Nawajikuma Tauvegavega Baba Leadership Settlement leader: Settlement Land owners are One settlement (of One settlement (of Settlement leader: and status Turaga ni Koro leader: Turaga heavily active in four), Nawajikuma, six), stage 1A has a Turaga ni Koro. ni Koro & new settlement. Also a has a committee with committee with a Committee leaders. There is a clan management a committee leader committee leader. One (Korovou) of settlement representative committee with and 5 committee Another stage 3 the four settlements committee with 6 living in president who acts members. This expressed a desire have two committee settlement. with and on behalf committee has a for a committee. functioning members and of landowners. desire to get greater One land owner committees: one is monthly meetings. Previous PCN There is an participation from (however this is recent, the other There is an Committees advisory council. other adjacent disputed) lives in has been advisory councilor. appear dormant settlements. stage 3 of established for a for now. Landowners do not settlement long time and deals confer with the with tenure issues settlers or work There is an and has generally
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 85
together with them on advisory councilor good relationship issues (with the for the settlements. with the landowner. exception of the (Stage 3 currently in Settlements have landowner of dispute with an advisory Nawajikuma). advisory councilor) councilor.
Skills Committee has Able to Committee collects Stated capacity and Committee Committees have capacity to handle collectivise on rents, keeps desire from several undertakes some legal (around projects & various projects. records and committee members maintenance of land tenure), maintenance. undertakes certain to manage certain financial and maintenance and construction projects. infrastructure in 1 management management Collects rents. section only. activities and including policing Advisory councilor experience rules. has experience in sub-division of settlement (Clapcott) Partners Previous Have accessed Engagement with Some previous Some previous They have had and engagement with funds through AusAID in collective upgrading collective upgrading previous projects two NGOs. Have multi-ethnic providing support efforts (for roads). efforts (for roads) engagement with accessed funds fund. to elderly in NGOs, e.g. PCN. through multi-ethnic community. Have accessed fund. Sanitation multi-ethnic fund and roads projects funds for upgrades. with government departments.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 86
C. Appendix C: Citywide data C.1. Citywide data comparison tables
Study Ba Labasa Lami Lautoka Levuka Nadi Nasinu Nausori Suva area Peri- Peri- Peri- Peri- Peri- Peri- Peri- Town Peri-urban Town Peri-urban Town Town Town Town Town Town Town urban urban urban urban urban urban urban Population (2016) 12,948 7,686 23,565 8,456 8,716 12,704 9,742 48,951 1,501 956 35,360 13,696 15,117 89,015 25,104 29,299 13,121 78,341 434,276 Population density 4.6 19.0 4.5 16.3 3.6 18.5 6.7 30.7 1.4 14.3 5.3 16.0 9.4 66.3 5.2 33.3 7.6 28.3 11.8 (persons per hectare) Total no. households in informal settlements 673 257 341 211 1022 822 739 958 135 54 1344 71 1327 2505 819 1044 768 2980 15961 Total population in informal settlements 2710 1233 1635 1013 4908 3945 3546 4598 647 262 6450 339 6371 12026 3930 5011 3686 14303 76613 % total population in 21% 16% 7% 12% 56% 31% 36% 9% 43% 27% 18% 2% 42% 14% 16% 17% 28% 18% 18% informal settlements Number of settlements 4 1 2 2 13 15 8 11 1 1 14 Nd 12 20 4 3 11 39 161 Total land area covered by slums (hectares) 64.7 16.1 18.4 24.4 90.3 59.3 64.5 61.6 10.4 2.9 117.2 175.1 96.6 37.7 49.9 53.6 108.6 1051.3 Population density in slum areas (persons per hectare) 41.9 76.5 88.9 41.5 54.4 66.5 55.0 74.6 62.3 90.0 55.0 - 36.4 124.5 104.2 100.4 68.8 131.7 72.9 Average household size x 4.9 5.2 4.9 5.2 5.6 5.6 4.9 5.2 4.9 5.2 4.9 5.2 5.4 5.0 4.9 4.9 5.4 4.6 4.5 at city level Average residential plot size in formal areasy - 1,767 - 2,141 - 1,376 - 901 - 1,713 - 1,513 - 613 - 1,916 - 1,216 1,473 (sqm)** Total area in residential zones in formal areas - 157 - 162 - 367 - 616 - 29 - 207 - 655 - 199 - 1,067 3,092 (hectare)** Total no. plots in residential zones in - 891 - 759 - 6,837 - 6,837 - 172 - 1,367 - 10,680 - 1,036 - 8,767 37,346 formal areas (hectare) ** Median floor area of dwellings in formal - 151* - 151* - 118 - 151* - 151* - 165 - 122 - 116 - 177 151 areas (sqm)z Median construction $205,56 $205, $127,6 $205,56 $205,5 $218,8 $142,8 $205,5 $272,7 $205,56 cost of house in formal ------aa 5* 565* 80 5* 65* 91 42 65* 56 5 areas ($FJD, 2010) * Study area median. No data comparable data available at geography. ** Source: Fiji Lands Information Service: cadastral data Note: Lami has 367 zoned residential whereas only 268 is registered in the cadastre
x Source: CDIA (2012). Notes: In non-GSUA areas, the respective GSUA town (municipal) or peri-urban rate has been applied. y For this project formal areas have been taken to be municipal residentially zoned areas. z Source: PCRAFI data (2013). Based on verified ‘Residential - Permanent dwelling single family’ buildings in residential zoned municipal areas in relevant study area geographies only. aa Source: PCRAFI 2013. Based on replacement cost of dwelling.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 87
C.2. Settlement-level data comparison tables
Citywide or Caubati Vale ni cina / Matata Tomuka Nawajikuma Tavegavega Baba Settlement all (Nasinu) (Lami) (Lautoka) (Nadi) (Ba) (Ovalau) average settlements Land, population and tenure Hectares 4.0 10.6 24.4 4.6 34.3 13.6 15.3 7.2* Total population 317 721 2300 700 1140 579 959.5 412* Number of dwellings 54 106 476 153 307 115 202 368*
Population density (persons per hectare) 78.4 68.1 94.3 150.9 33.2 42.7 77.9 75.0* 57% Korovou - Yavusa Totogo 100% (Native Land, 100% Mat.? (Nailaga 9% Nosonoso - 45% native land 100% Mat. Vidilo, 5 5 land owners control 100% Mat. Naitisiri 100% Mat. Nasevou Native Land before Mat.Nabukebuke, 36% state land Land Tenure Distribution Tokatoka land 4 settlements, all (Native Land) (Native Land) subdivision 31% Nadevo - Mat. 19% private owners (Native Land) land owners from agreement) Naulu land Nawaka Village) 4% Nadugu - State Land
Vakavanua Vakavanua Vakavanua Vakavanua Contested Vakavanua & Squatting or vakavanua tenure Vakavanua ND Relationship Relationship Relationship () Relationships ( Vakavanua Squatting
$? (Yes - 2 New $5,000-$10,000 for $200 for plot (focus $0 for plot (focus Initial One off Land Payments. $50 per year for plot $500-$1000 for plots $2,816 ND Indian HHs) plots group) group)
$0 for all settlements ($100 per yr. $0 (No Regular $360-$480 per yr. Communal Lease for Land rental payments* $50 per yr. each HH $300 per yr. each HH $0 (focus group) $233 ND Payments) each HH Korovou - but finished with Lease expiry) Dwelling
Household size (n. persons)* 5.9 6.8 4.8 4.6 3.7 5.0 4.8 4.5*
Dwelling size (sqm)* 80.3 73.5 76.2 81.6 80.7 80.0 78.7 151*
Number of Bedrooms 2.75 4.02 2.46 2.11 1.91 1.85 2.5 ND Persons per bedroom* 2.13 2.24 2.38 2.14 3.33 2.4 ND
Dwelling cost* $10,036 $9,592 $8,525 $6,406 $8,640 $106,047*
Dwelling walls tin or corrugated iron 75% 73% 82% 85% 93% 84% 82% 26%*
Dwelling walls in average or poor condition 34% 16% 38% 38% 47% 46% 36% ND
Dwellings with Piped Water (WAF Metered or 100% 53% 94% 91% 89% 85% 85% 96%* Shared) Dwellings with No WAF Meter Connection (Either Sharing Neighbours, Using Communal 3% 49% 15% 23% 27% 21% 23% 3%* Standpipe, Roof Tank, Well Water, River or Creek, Borehole or Water Vendor) Dwellings with metered electricity (FEA 81% 84% 82% 75% 68% 72% 77% 89%* Metered) Dwellings with No FEA Meter Connection 19% 16% 18% 25% 32% 28% 23% 11%*
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 88
Citywide or Caubati Vale ni cina / Matata Tomuka Nawajikuma Tavegavega Baba Settlement all (Nasinu) (Lami) (Lautoka) (Nadi) (Ba) (Ovalau) average settlements Dwellings with shared electricity connection 3% 2% 6% 11% 2% 4% 5% nd
Dwellings with No Access to Electricity 13% 11% 11% 13% 30% 25% 17% 4%*
Dwellings with flush toilet for exclusive use 91% 40% 88% 86% 70% 92% 78% 86%* Dwellings with pit or no toilet ownership (no 9% 60% 8% 12% 32% 8% 22% 9%* flush toilet or septic tank connection) % of HHs Sharing Toilet 6% 16% 3% 9% 3% 5% 7% ND Dwellings with septic tank 97% 51% 93% 88% 76% 95% 83% ND Waste collected by council 6% 0% 27% 3% 0% 84% 20% ND Waste collected by Private Garbage 3% 0% 6% 9% 2% 0% 3% ND Collection Dwellings with car access 38% 56% 69% 76% 67% 0% 51% ND 6 HH's located in Four Times a Year or Frequency of flooding** Never (97%) Never (100%) Never (82%) Never (69%) Flood Area (focus nd ND Less (62%) group answer) Household and socio-economic
Female headed households 16% 9% 18% 17% 18% 9% 15% ND iTaukei 53% 91% 39% 40% 16% 82% 54% 50% Indo-Fijian 3% 0% 69% 58% 83% 0% 36% 42% other (incl. Kai Solomoni) 44% 9% 0% 20% 1% 15% 15% 8% Ethnicity Kai Solomoni 41% 4% 0% 0% 0% 6% 9% ND Ethnicity Kai Loma (Part European) 3% 2% 0% 2% 1% 8% 3% ND 0-4yrs 9% 10% 10% 10% 7% 12% 10% 9% 5-14yrs 17% 24% 21% 17% 16% 27% 20% 17% 15-24yrs 24% 23% 16% 22% 19% 11% 19% 21% 25-34yrs 14% 10% 17% 20% 19% 15% 16% 18% 35-59yrs 30% 24% 27% 25% 31% 24% 27% 28% 60+yrs 7% 10% 10% 7% 8% 10% 9% 7% Total household income (Average) $292 $244 $199 $278 $146 $112 $212 $631
Total household income (Median) $255 $160 $150 $170 $130 $80 $158 ND
Financial assistance (social welfare, 28% 40% 17% 16% 32% 19% 25% 15% relatives…)
Employment to population ratio[4] 20% 16% 14% 16% 12% 7% 14% 51%
Settlement-based economic activity (shop, 44% 84% 21% 21% 9% 20% 33% 3% farming, rent room, services) Settlement-based activity as main source of 34% 44% 12% 17% 4% 10% 20% 0% income Settlement-based subsistence farming 34% 58% 8% 11% 3% 12% 21% 0%
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 89
Citywide or Caubati Vale ni cina / Matata Tomuka Nawajikuma Tavegavega Baba Settlement all (Nasinu) (Lami) (Lautoka) (Nadi) (Ba) (Ovalau) average settlements
Settlement-based livestock rearing 16% 29% 7% 3% 22% 4% 14% x% Residence and mobility
Length of residence (years)* 38 30 17 15 18 41 26 ND % Born in Settlement 59% 27% 15% 22% 17% 78% 36% ND Previous residence another settlement 0% 6% 22% 21% 25% 6% 13% ND Previous residence urban (not settlement) 22% 6% 51% 45% 55% 11% 32% ND Previous residence rural/island 19% 21% 12% 13% 2% 6% 12% ND Future plans (reason #1 - Secure Tenure) 16% 11% 8% 19% 20% 16% 15% ND Future plans (reason #2 - Education) 21% 26% 16% 13% 14% 18% 18% ND Future plans (reason #3 - Employment) 26% 14% 23% 23% 12% 17% 19% ND Future plans (reason #4 - Saving 26% 25% 24% 18% 10% 10% 19% ND Future plans (reason #5 - Back to the Village) 0% 14% 6% 6% 1% 1% 5% ND Future plans (reason #6 - Decent Housing) 5% 4% 11% 14% 28% 17% 13% ND Resettlement (option #1 HA) 16% 7% 12% 21% 2% 16% 12% ND Resettlement (option #2 PRB) 0% 0% 0% 2% 8% 0% 2% ND Resettlement (option #3 PCN 25% 9% 17% 5% 0% 0% 9% ND Resettlement (option #4 Koro I Pita) 0% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% ND Resettlement (option #5 HART) 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% ND Resettlement (option #6 Farm) 0% 9% 1% 4% 5% 1% 3% ND Resettlement (option #7 Back to Village) 16% 38% 19% 18% 6% 22% 20% ND Resettlement (option #8 Already in Housing) 0% 0% 2% 0% 2% 4% 1% ND
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 90
D. Appendix D: Settlement list
Code Code # Town Settlement name # Town Settlement name 146 Ba peri-urban Tauvegavega 121 Nasinu peri-urban Wakanisila 1 Ba peri-urban Bangladesh 85 Nasinu peri-urban Veikoba west 34 Ba peri-urban Vutuni 150 Nasinu peri-urban Veikoba east 2 Ba peri-urban Clapcott 76 Nasinu peri-urban Caubati Koro 64 Ba town Khaisetera 79 Nasinu peri-urban Matanikoravatu Labasa peri- 140 urban Namara 1 29 Nasinu peri-urban Nairevurevunicagi Labasa peri- 6 urban Namara 2 97 Nasinu peri-urban Maravu 8 Labasa town Bouma 78 Nasinu peri-urban Delaivalelevu 49 Labasa town Siberia 71 Nasinu peri-urban Nepani Flats Lami peri- Caubati - Mamas 1&2 - 144 urban Qauia 91 Nasinu town NOT YET DEVELOPED Lami peri- 15 urban Veisari (Rabi) 39 Nasinu town Narere Pt (River Road) Lami peri- 117 urban Wailuku: Koio 135 Nasinu town Muanikoso/Laqere Lami peri- 11 urban Naivikinikini 82 Nasinu town Newtown Lami peri- 10 urban Bilo 92 Nasinu town Caubati - Topline Lami peri- 118 urban Wailuku: Marata 94 Nasinu town Kinoyakoro Lami peri- Veiraisi (Nasinu Land Coop 7 urban Namuka Ilau 86 Nasinu town - Land Owner) Lami peri- 74 urban Vuniivi 58 Nasinu town Omkar_Narere Lami peri- Wailuku: Waitabala 120 urban (Balibuka) 89 Nasinu town Burekalou Lami peri- Veisari (Indian 104 urban Community) 5 Nasinu town Kilikali Lami peri- 157 urban Wailekutu 88 Nasinu town Beaumont/Narere Lami peri- 81 urban Naisogowaluvu 54 Nasinu town Nasole Lami peri- 35 urban Waidinu 66 Nasinu town Lagere 138 Lami town Nadonumai 62 Nasinu town Wainivula 148 Lami town Valenicina 83 Nasinu town Samabula River 147 Lami town Uciwai 93 Nasinu town Caubati - Veiniu 106 Lami town Kalekana 90 Nasinu town Caqiri 18 Lami town Waigasa 134 Nasinu town Maqbol 23 Lami town Delainavesi Nausori peri-urban Kalabo 151 Lami town Vugalei ? 36 Nausori peri-urban Waila-Colbelt Ave 27 Lami town Matata 75 Nausori town Wainibuku 4 Lami town Waibola 152 Nausori town Vunivivi Hill
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 91
24 Lami town Delainavesi #2 108 Nausori town Davuilevu 80 Lami town Matanisivaro 105 Suva peri-urban Waisasa (Naviloulou) 25 Lami town Delaivisama 16 Suva peri-urban Veivauceva 139 Lami town Nakori 17 Suva peri-urban Vunijaina 109 Lami town Vunivutu 20 Suva peri-urban Wailuku: Korolailai Lautoka peri- Vunamaoli 33 urban Tavakubu 21 Suva peri-urban Wailuku: Vataleka Lautoka peri- 3 urban Tokavuci 59 Suva peri-urban Savutalele Lautoka peri- 26 urban Kaleli 111 Suva peri-urban Dokanisuva (Rabian) Lautoka peri- 115 urban Velovelo 119 Suva peri-urban Wailuku: Wai Lautoka peri- 55 urban Natabua 19 Suva peri-urban Wailuku: Biliwai Lautoka peri- 141 urban Naqiroso 113 Suva peri-urban Dokanisuva 2 Lautoka peri- 51 urban Veidogo 112 Suva peri-urban Dokanisuva 1 Lautoka peri- 37 urban California 155 Suva town Wailea Vutuwaqa Lautoka 132 exurban Lauwaki 128 Suva town Duavata communiy Lautoka 133 exurban Lovu Seaside 126 Suva town Cunningham Lautoka 45 exurban Lauwaki Hilltop 136 Suva town Muslim League Lautoka 99 exurban Narikoso 13 Suva town Nanuku Lautoka 114 exurban Saweni 12 Suva town Nakelo Lautoka 50 exurban Vativa 156 Suva town Wailea Vutuwaqa #2 Lautoka 149 exurban Vatamai 42 Suva town Veidogo 52 Lautoka town Delai Tauraka 98 Suva town Muanivatu 53 Lautoka town Field 40 46 Suva town Lovoni 69 Lautoka town Navutu 30 Suva town Namadai 44 Lautoka town Vunato 28 Suva town Matuka 73 Lautoka town Saru Settlement 47 Suva town Mandir 296 40 Lautoka town Natabua Tramline 32 Suva town Valenimanumanu 48 Lautoka town Nasinu 95 Suva town Komave 110 Lautoka town Wainivakasoso 153 Suva town Wailea Raiwaqa 67 Lautoka town Nasowata 56 Suva town Nauluvatu 145 Lautoka town Taiperia 124 Suva town Bangladesh 101 Lautoka town Nuvutu Stage 2 143 Suva town Phase 2 Lagilagi Levuka peri- 158 urban Baba 102 Suva town phase 1 Lagilagi Nadi peri- 70 urban Nawaka pt 116 Suva town Vunimoli
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 92
Nadi peri- 131 urban Korociri Nawaka 125 Suva town Bureta Nadi peri- 142 urban Navakai 122 Suva town 296 Rewasa Nadi peri- 65 urban Korociri pt 43 Suva town Villa Maria Nadi peri- 14 urban Rhombic Navakai 154 Suva town Wailea Raiwaqa #2 Nadi peri- 57 urban Nawaka 137 Suva town Nacovu Nadi peri- 38 urban Kerebula_Nawaka 130 Suva town Fulaga Street Nadi peri- Fletcher 68 urban Navo 129 Suva town (Toa)_Maritime_Muanivatu Nadi peri- 103 urban Saravi 127 Suva town Deodutt Estate Nadi peri- 100 urban Nasoso 96 Suva town Lakeba Nadi peri- 22 urban Waimalika 9 Suva town Suva Cemetery Nadi peri- 61 urban Vunayasi 84 Suva town Tuitaleva Nadi peri- 63 urban Bila Nadi 123 Suva town Ararata Nasinu peri- 41 urban Tovata 60 Suva town Tamavua-i-wai Nasinu peri- 72 urban Sakoca 31 Suva town Unknown Settlement Nasinu peri- 77 urban Delaitokatoka 107 Suva town Wailailai
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 93
Endnotes
1 UN Habitat (2014a) 2 PCN (2014) 3 ibid 4 UN Habitat (2012a) 5 Jones (2016) 6 ADB, (2012): Connell and Lea (2002), Jones and Cocks (2003) 7 ADB, (2012): Connell and Lea, (2002, Jones, (2011: 2012a) 8 Bedford R. & Hugo G. (2012) 9 Ibid and United Nations Statistics Division (2013) 10 SPC-SDD (2014) 11 ADB (2012) 12 ibid 13 Jones (2012) 14 ADB (2012) 15 CDIA (2012a) 16 Gounder & Xing, (2012) 17 Peoples Community Network (PCN) (2014), p7. 18 Barr (2007) 19 Kiddle (2011) 20 Jones (2016) 21 ibid 22 Jones (2012), p142 23 Jones (2016) 24 ibid 25 UN-Habitat(2003), p19 26 Barr (2007) 27 ADB (2012) 28 ADB (2012) 29 Naidu et al (2015) 30 ibid 31 UN Habitat & UN ESCAP (2010) 32 GoF (2016) 33 Jones (2016) 34 Naidu et al (2015), p29. 35 Kiddle (2011) 36 SPC-SDD (2014) 37 CDIA (2012a) 38 ibid 39 Fiji Department of Housing Squatter Resettlement Unit in Barr (2007) 40 Fiji Ministry of Local Government, Urban Development, Housing and the Environment (MLGUDHE) (2012); CDIA (2012) 41 Walsh (2006) in Barr (2007) 42 Lingham D (2007) in Habitat for Humanity (2009), p38; (MoP, 2009) 43 Mckinnon et al (2007) in Barr (nd) 44 UN Habitat (2012a); ADB (2014); Kiddle (2011) 45 Fiji Department of Housing Squatter Resettlement Unit in Barr (2007) 46 CDIA (2012a, 2012b) 47 Barr (2007), p7.
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 94
48 NCBBF (2008) 49 UN Habitat (2012b) 50 ibid 51 ibid 52 Barr (2007) 53 Chung (2007) in Naidu et al (2015) 54 Kiddle (2011) 55 Naidu et al (2015) 56 Barr (nd) 57 GoF (2016) 58 CDIA (2012a) 59 ibid 60 FBOS (2016) 61 PCN (2014) 62 TBC 63 CDIA (2012a) 64 GOF (2016) 65 CDIA (2012a) 66 ibid 67 ibid 68 GoF (2016) 69 PRIF (2015) 70 Ibid 71 Kiddle (2011), p2 72 Ibid 73 Walsh (1984) 74 Mckinnon (2007), CDIA (2012), Barr (2007) 75 Kiddle (2011), Bryant (1990), Walsh (1978) 76 UN Habitat (2014b) 77 GoF (2016) 78 ACCA (2014), p11 79 UN Habitat (2014c) 80 ADB(2012) 81 Barr (2016) personal communication. 82 UN Habitat (2014b), 83 Jones (2012), p141 84 Kiddle (2011) 85 ADB (2012) 86 Barr (nd) 87 in Barr (nd) 88 FBoS (2014) 89 1989 in Barr (nd) 90 Barr (2007) pp5-6 91 PCRAFI (2013) 92 CDIA (2012)
PSUP Phase II Settlement Situation Analysis Final Report – People’s Community Network 95