STRENGTHENING THE KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS OF THE URBAN POOR

Theo Schilderman

March 2002
 

Acknowledgements:

We are indebted to everybody who has contributed to the research, the analysis of data and the production of a series of contributory reports. Our gratitude goes in the first place to the hundreds of residents of informal settlements in Colombo, Kandy, Galle, Epworth, Gadzema, Lima, Tarapoto and Cajamarca, who have given their time, insights and opinions on how they access information and develop knowledge for their livelihoods. Similarly, we are thankful to many other informants and development agencies in Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and Peru, who freely shared their views and knowledge too. We would not been able to obtain these results without the assistance of some excellent field staff and local researchers, particularly Sangeetha Nessiah and Vishaka Hidellage in Sri Lanka; Furious Chitongo and Muroro Dziruni in Zimbabwe; and Carlos Frias and Miguel Saravia in Peru, who all deserve our thanks.

We are also grateful to the 600 participants in the electronic conference on the research issues and to the 200 of them who added their insights to the discussion, to B. Shadrach for moderating and summarizing the conference, and to Darren Saywell and Julie Woodfield at WEDC for providing their expertise and logistical support. Our thanks go also to Otto Ruskulis for his review of the world wide literature and his analysis of a range of cases of strengthening the knowledge and information systems of the urban poor, and to the staff of 11 agencies who produced more detailed case studies: APNET and the Arthacharya Foundation in Sri Lanka; Dialogue on Shelter and Theatre for Development in Zimbabwe; Yancana Huasy and Informando in Peru; Groundwork in the UK; SIDAREC in Kenya; SPARC in India; ARTPAD in the UK and Brasil; and Niños de la Calle in Ecuador.

In the UK, our thanks go to the Department for International Development for funding the research, and contributing their insights. We are grateful to Pat Norrish, Clare O’Farrell and John Lindsay for their advice on modeling and support to staff in the field, and to Andrew Scott, Priyanthi Fernando, Maggie Foster and Stuart Coupe for their expertise at various stages of the research. Our special thanks go to Lucky Lowe, for her close collaboration throughout the research, and to Maristela Coupe for work behind the scenes.

Disclaimer:

The UK Department for International Development (DFID) supports polices, programmes and projects to promote international development. As part of that objective, DFID provided the funds for this research to strengthen the knowledge and information systems of the urban poor (Contract No: 00 1515), under its Resource Centre Scheme with ITDG (Contract No: 00 1558). The views and opinions expressed in this final report are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of DFID.

CONTENTS

SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 4

1.    INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. 7

2.    RESEARCH METHODOLOGY......................................................................... 9

3.    RELATING KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION TO SPECIFIC NEEDS 10

3.1 Pilot phase....................................................................................................... 10

3.2.    A focus on eight livelihood issues........................................................... 11

3.3.    The second phase in Sri Lanka............................................................... 11

3.4.    The second phase in Zimbabwe.............................................................. 14

3.5.    The second phase in Peru........................................................................ 17

3.6.    Factors influencing information needs................................................... 21

3.7.    A complex range of needs........................................................................ 23

4.    SOCIAL NETWORKS: THE KEY SOURCE OF KNOWLEDGE AND  INFORMATION IN POOR URBAN COMMUNITIES.................................................................................. 24

5.    KEY INFORMANTS: THE NEXT RESORT................................................... 27

6.    THE ROLE OF INFOMEDIARIES................................................................... 29

6.1.    Types of infomediaries............................................................................... 29

6.2.    The public sector......................................................................................... 30

6.3.    Non-governmental organisations............................................................ 31

6.4.    The private sector........................................................................................ 33

6.5.    Reflections on infomediaries.................................................................... 34

7.    THE ROLE OF INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES    36

8.    MODELLING THE INFORMATION SYSTEMS OF THE URBAN POOR. 37

8.1.    Preliminary model development.............................................................. 37

8.2.    Modelling in Sri Lanka............................................................................... 38

8.3.    Modelling in Zimbabwe............................................................................. 38

8.4.    Modelling in Peru........................................................................................ 39

8.5.    Reflections on modelling.......................................................................... 41

9.    STRENGTHENING THE KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION  SYSTEMS OF THE URBAN POOR                                                                                                                               41

9.1.    Involving the poor....................................................................................... 41

9.2.    Effective approaches.................................................................................. 42

9.3.    Important characteristics............................................................................ 44

10. ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF INFORMATION DISSEMINATION.......... 45

11. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............................................ 46

11.1.     Revision of dissemination strategies................................................... 47

11.2.     Reduction of social exclusion............................................................... 48

11.3.     Support to urban communities for building their knowledge and   information capital 48

11.4.     Improvement of the attitude and impact of infomediaries................ 49

11.5.     Development of sustainable ICTs aimed at the urban poor............ 49

11.6.     Investigation of the impact of information dissemination on the  urban poor     50

REFERENCES......................................................................................................... 51

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1:  The demand and supply of information in Dadelle........................... 12

Table 2:  Settlement conditions and information needs in Zimbabwe........... 14

Table 3:  Information needs, sources and media relating to schools in Tarapoto’s informal settlements (Agreda and Contreras, 2001)......................................................................... 17

Table 4:  Information needs, sources and media relating to money in José Carlos Mariategui, Lima (Xjimenez and Castañeda, 2001)................................................................... 18

Table 5:  Analysis of information flows by livelihood issue in Peru................ 19

Table 6.  Summarised comparison of the information strategies of 3 NGOs in Peru         32

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1  The ‘Windmill’ model.............................................................................. 38

Figure 2   Model of Health information in José Carlos Mariategui.................. 40

SUMMARY

A key reason for embarking upon this research was that earlier surveys, evaluations and experience had concluded that development agencies and researchers who possess knowledge on urban development had not been very effective at disseminating that knowledge to the urban poor, resulting in only limited uptake and impact at the grassroots. There appeared to be various reasons for that: they were not spending enough attention to exploring the information needs and resources of the urban poor; dissemination was too often top-down and using inappropriate information resources; and, whilst some successful examples existed, participatory communication methods were still to some extent being developed and certainly needed wider replication.

Where most surveys of access to knowledge and information by the urban poor have looked largely at the supply side, this research project aimed to complement that picture by looking at demand, and how that currently is being met. It explored this through fieldwork in informal settlements in the capital city and at least one secondary town of 3 Third World countries: Peru, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. Local teams of researchers interviewed residents, key informants and information suppliers. 11 cases where local information systems had been strengthened were analyzed in more detail. Literature was reviewed, in those countries and beyond, and 600 people participated in a world wide electronic conference on the issues researched.

In the context of this research, knowledge was defined as information which has been internalized by individuals, a community or a society. Information is different in that it can be shared or transmitted through communication. People often consult different sources of information to develop knowledge. The best way of representing that complexity is through knowledge and information systems (KIS), rather than single flows.

The urban poor do require knowledge and information to improve their livelihoods. In fact, they often have a complex range of information needs. It is difficult to summarize those, except in rather general or abstract terms, such as income or housing. Their specific needs vary from location to location, and in order for development agencies to respond to them effectively, a certain amount of investigation will always be required. Some of the factors which contribute to the variation in information needs have been identified as: politics and the local policy context; the age or degree of consolidation of a settlement; the size of settlements; urban-rural linkages; and target group characteristics. As to the latter, this report concludes that women are often disadvantaged in terms of access to information compared to men; the needs of other marginalized groups, such as the disabled or homeless, are not well served either.

Social networks are the foremost source of information of the urban poor. To some extent, this is by default. Yet, it is also a recognition of the fact that the poor themselves are an important source of knowledge which development agencies should not ignore, but in practice sometimes do. The most important networks are based on kinship, proximity or friendship; more distant ones can be based in the workplace or on association. Individuals who belong to several such networks may be well informed, although there often also is evidence of the information circulating being incomplete, unreliable or otherwise of poor quality. The poor are not always able to check this, but even where they do, they sometimes tend to believe people they trust (close friends or relatives, religious leaders, teachers, etc.) rather than perhaps better informed contacts who are more distant to them.

Many networks function on the basis of reciprocity, and those residents who have little to offer in return do risk rejection. Social exclusion is a real problem, also in terms of accessing information. Whilst the internal rules of the game of networking may stimulate exclusion, this can be made worse by external rules or circumstances, e.g. the non-provision of information by the authorities to residents of informal settlements in some countries,  an increase in urban violence creating distrust and preventing people to meet, or politics. The development of community social capital can help to overcome this by generating conditions which make it easier for individuals to access information and for a community as a whole to develop its knowledge capital. 

Key informants are an important further source. They were defined as people inside, or sometimes outside, a community who are knowledgeable in particular livelihoods aspects, and are willing to share that knowledge. Many key informants are respected and trusted, but not always by everyone; some are known to act as gatekeepers and provide information selectively. It is important to notice that key informants do not have all the answers and that the information provided by them can at times be unreliable. This can become a problem when they are blindly trusted, or when the urban poor have no way of checking the information provided. 

In most cases, there is also a wide range of information producers and suppliers, who do so out of duty or desire; we called these infomediaries. There is not always a clear distinction between key informants and infomediaries; some infomediaries go beyond their own initiatives to disseminate information and also act on request; in such cases, their staff is often considered to be key informants. The performance of infomediaries in our research locations proved to be patchy. The public sector is often criticized for selectively refusing people access to information and occasionally for treating them badly; smaller authorities seem to do better than large ones on this point. On the whole, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are considered to perform better than the public sector, but in several locations some were also singled out for gatekeeping, pushing their own agenda, or circulating inappropriate information. Religious organisations are clearly more trusted than others. Some suggest that NGOs have an important role in improving information flows between communities and authorities, in generally strengthening the KIS of the urban poor, and in helping to address social exclusion. In our research locations, the private sector did provide information too, but was not perceived to be a key player. It did not particularly focus on the urban poor, nor always cover their specific needs, though a couple of useful commercial information providers could be identified in Peru.

So far, modern Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have not played a major role in getting livelihood information to the urban poor. The poor rarely have direct access to them, a factor which some think does increase their exclusion. Whilst most key informants are not connected either, most infomediaries do have access to ICTs and global knowledge, but many of them do not make the most of this in transferring information to urban communities. ICTs have worked well in a number of pilot projects, including telecentres, community databases, community videos, radio and television, but many of these were subsidized. The establishment of ICTs that are sustainable remains a real challenge; with the exception of cellular phones, this is likely to take time and considerable effort.

A range of models was developed to represent the information systems analyzed, including supply- and demand-led models and a windmill model combining these with the 8 livelihood issues investigated. These were tested, in slightly different ways, in the three countries. The research team concluded that such models did help to identify the various actors involved, the weak and strong linkages, the direction of information flows, and they were useful to start identifying solutions. However, it did not prove to be easy to capture complex systems in generic models, and researchers found that some issues could not easily be expressed. These included for instance political tensions or a lack of knowledge or response by certain actors.

An investigation of attempts by various development agencies to strengthen the KIS of the urban poor allowed the identification of a number of factors contributing to success. Most prominent amongst those were: the involvement of the poor themselves as equal partners; building on local knowledge; the use of community based communication methods such as  theatre or audiovisual media as well as exchange visits; and building the capacity of CBOs and key individuals within them.

The assessment of the impact of information dissemination activities remains difficult, amongst others because information chains tend to be long and it is often difficult to attribute impact to a single intervention, within a systems context. Development agencies should pay more attention to this issue, and keep learning from each other. ITDG found that following information trails and interviewing beneficiaries did produce useful qualitative data on impact, but it is a rather expensive method. The cost of impact assessment is a concern, particularly for agencies in the South, and they may have to select more affordable methods, using for instance proxy indicators. The involvement of the urban poor was again stressed as an important contributing factor in achieving impact, partly because it empowers them, but also because it targets development efforts at real needs and makes them more effective.

Development agencies can undertake a number of activities that would help in making the knowledge and information they hold more suitable and accessible to the urban poor. These do not always have to be designed as stand-alone dissemination activities; some can be incorporated in existing or future urban development projects. It would also be beneficial for agencies to collaborate on some of the bigger issues, e.g., on establishing sustainable ICTs that do not exclude the urban poor, or pooling the information they hold to better address the range of needs. Agencies should consider to:

·         rethink their information strategies, to ensure that the poor get equal access to information, treat them as equals who are a source of knowledge too, create two-way communication, and address a range of needs comprehensively. Following on from this, they may also want to rethink their knowledge and research strategies.

·         reduce exclusion, by targeting groups of poor people that have problems in accessing information, and by reducing external factors that increase exclusion such as violence, oppressive politics and illegality.

·         support urban communities to build their knowledge and information capital, amongst others by taking stock of existing resources and addressing gaps, building the capacity of key informants, empowering communities, stimulating meeting places and exchange visits.

·         improve the attitudes and impact of infomediaries, by sensitizing and supporting public authorities, producing appropriate information resources and building capacity, by documenting and sharing good communication practice, and using a range of media including traditional and modern ones.

·         invest in developing sustainable ICTs for the urban poor, which will require research into a number of issues, the inclusion of ICT equipment and training into urban projects, and the production of appropriate information materials for ICTs.

·         look at the impact of their information dissemination on the urban poor, develop additional methods and indicators, as well as more knowledge of the cost-effectiveness of alternative communication methods, and document and share the results of urban development work more widely.

INTRODUCTION

E.F. Schumacher, the founder of the Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) once said: “The gift of material goods makes people dependent. The gift of knowledge makes them free”. Knowledge is critical for development (World Bank, 1998). But how do the residents of urban informal settlements access the information and develop the knowledge they need to survive and improve their livelihoods? Do they obtain what they need and is it appropriate? And how could development agencies like ITDG and the Department for International Development (DFID) fill the gaps and strengthen the knowledge and information systems of the urban poor? These were the key questions addressed in an action research project implemented by ITDG with funding from DFID.

The urban poor do have knowledge of their own, but this may be inadequate to cope with the complexities of urban life. To mitigate risk and to move out of poverty, the urban poor do require additional knowledge (Castañeda and Xjimenez, 2001). Access to information and communication are essential to develop that knowledge and thus enable the poor to be aware of and make the most of any opportunities in a dynamic urban environment (Lowe, 2001:1). Lack of information can be a source of concern for poor people (Narayan et al., 2000). The sustainable livelihoods literature emphasizes the many facets of poverty, but also the diverse and dynamic nature of livelihoods strategies which many of the urban poor have adopted (DFID, 1999). According to Stavrou (2001), poor households need to reduce the uncertainty caused by external factors that impact on poverty. They need information to increase the accuracy of their forecasts, reduce their vulnerability and improve their livelihoods. Thus. the urban poor not only need access to resources, but also to the information, knowledge and skills to turn those into positive livelihood outcomes. To access those, poor people interact with family, friends, public and private sector bodies and a range of others. It is the nature and substance of these multi-faceted and complex interactions, which exist in any society, that are being referred to by the term Knowledge and Information Systems (KIS) (Lowe, 2001:1).

In this context, the research team defined knowledge as information which has been internalized by individuals, a community or a society. Information is different in that it can be shared or transmitted through communication; people can consider it in the light of what they know already, and either add it to their knowledge base, or reject it. Social networks can also be used to evaluate information before it becomes knowledge.

It is nowadays often assumed that modern information and communication technologies (ICTs), such as telephones, computers, the Internet and radio, have great potential to significantly improve the urban poor’s access to knowledge and information. But do they, in reality, or are they merely increasing the knowledge gap between the rich and the poor? This was another question this research had to look into. The arrival of these new technologies has certainly increased the need to understand better how popular KIS work, so that they can be introduced effectively and sustained.

A major reason for embarking upon the research was a concern, shared by both DFID and ITDG, about what seemed to be a lack of impact and uptake at the grassroots of the results of urban development research. Two independent surveys funded by DFID, looking at knowledge transfer in the urbanization sub-sector (Max Lock Centre, 1998 & 2000), and at dissemination in water and sanitation and urbanization (Saywell and Cotton, 1999) as well as a range of project evaluations by ITDG and others seemed to confirm that experiences from many development projects did not get widely disseminated and accepted by the urban poor. Thus, their impacts may have been largely confined to the people those projects have been directly working with.  There appeared to be several reasons for this: limited consultation with end users resulting in products that were of not much use to them; the use of linear communication models which relied heavily on intermediaries; information products which were inappropriate or simply wrong; and limitations in access to the information by the urban poor. Other surveys in the natural resources area came to very similar conclusions (Norrish, 2000& Norrish et al.,2001). Most surveys of the access to knowledge and information by the poor seemed to consider mainly the supply side; this research aimed to complement that picture with a look at demand for knowledge and information at the grassroots, and how that is currently being met.  

Where there is formal and informal urban development, the same distinction applies to knowledge and information systems. Whereas the informal KIS, in which the urban poor are key actors, consist of multi-faceted and complex interactions which, in this research, have proven to be difficult to model, the formal KIS tend to be more structured, but this also has its disadvantages. One of the problems in accessing information on urban development is that much of the knowledge in the public domain has been developed and organized on a sectoral basis. This research has established that the information needs of the urban poor are many and varied. This is in line with the current thinking that urban poverty is a matter of multiple deprivations, which only a more holistic or integrated approach can begin to address (Syagga et al., 2001:49&141 and Rossiter, 2000). The urban poor often fail to understand why they have to go to several different sources to solve what they see as a single information need. Another problem is that information in formal KIS is often hard to access particularly for poor people, out of date, in the wrong language or incomplete (Ruskulis, 2001b:3).

There are also problems with how information is disseminated. New communication strategies tend to follow on from new development paradigms, but that takes some time and the old approaches do not always disappear (Norrish, 1998). The earlier development models focusing on economic growth and modernization relied on mass media and technology transfer to generate change (Norrish, 1998). Communication tended to be top-down, developed and controlled by experts, focusing on a single issue, and message or product driven. Whereas it produced occasional results, it was finally recognized that the poor have different needs and cannot be targeted effectively with mass messages. Current development models are based on building the assets and livelihoods of the poor. One of these assets is human capital, but some have argued that knowledge and information ought to be a separate asset (McLeod, 2000:5). Within these models, partnerships and participation have become much more important. In terms of communication, participatory approaches recognize that target audiences have knowledge and ideas of their own which need to be integrated with external ones, that communication is a two-way process and can be a powerful tool for self-expression, analysis and empowerment. Communication is no longer focusing on a single issue, but on a range of livelihoods issues and using several channels. Communication theory has not quite come to grips yet with the complexities of participatory  communication. What is certain is that it implies a change in roles for the main stakeholders, some of whom may be more willing to change than others (Lowe 2001). In rural development, various models of good participatory practice (e.g., Mody 1991, FAO, 1989) and guidelines for practitioners have been developed both in relation to overall strategies and for specific media (e.g. Norrish et al., 2001). But what is good practice in urban development, how it can be disseminated, and how people and organizations can be made aware and trained for their new roles, are all questions that require further attention and to which this research can contribute.

Whilst many researchers have analyzed the dissemination of information to the poor, far fewer seem to have looked at their demand for and access to knowledge and information, and most of this work seems to have focused on rural development. Researchers in The Netherlands, for instance, developed the RAAKS methodology which is a participatory research approach focusing on farmers knowledge and information systems (Engel, 1997 and Salomon and Engel, 1997). RAAKS can be used by researchers to develop an understanding of the social organisation of innovation, based on inputs of those involved, and to use that knowledge to plan further action. According to these researchers, innovations result less from purposeful single interventions, than from diffuse interactions with many actors. There is therefore a need to look at knowledge and information systems (KIS) rather than single flows. Such systems could be represented in maps or diagrams. Pat Norrish and colleagues at the IRDD (formerly AERDD) in Reading have taken this on board in mapping village level information systems in the Philippines, India and Bangladesh (Norrish and Lawrence, 1997). The FAO applied the RAAKS method in the Philippines to get a better understanding of how farmers did get access to essential agricultural information, and the roles played by various intermediaries. In this case, participation and two-way information flows were crucial to the result (FAO, 1996).

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The international research team included ITDG staff members and external consultants and assistants with experience in communication, research and urban development, based in Peru, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe and the UK. Given that the knowledge and information systems of the urban poor appeared to be a relatively unexplored area, the team decided to adopt an action research approach, in which cycles of field work, desk study and analysis were alternating with international workshops for the team to reflect on results and plan ahead.

An initial workshop in the UK was followed by a three month pilot phase in early 2000, used to develop a better understanding of the issues involved. It included field surveys in Suduwelle,  a small slum in inner city Colombo, Sri Lanka; Epworth, a very large settlement on the outskirts of Harare, Zimbabwe; and several informal settlements in the secondary towns of Cajamarca and Tarapoto, Peru. These settlements were by and large chosen for their ease of access to the researchers. This phase involved semi-structured interviews and some focus group discussions with over 100 residents in those settlements, who helped to identify key informants and infomediaries. It also included a succinct literature survey in the three countries, and an initial world wide survey; the latter confirmed that relatively little work had been done so far on urban KIS, and that this research therefore appeared to fill a gap (Schilderman, 2000).  

A proposal for a longer second phase was subsequently developed in consultation with the international team and DFID. This started with another international workshop, in September 2000 (Ruskulis, 2000). This phase aimed to widen and deepen the coverage in the same countries. This was achieved by focusing on two or three settlements in each country, at least one in the capital city and one in a secondary town; this would allow for differences in urban KIS to emerge between larger and smaller urban settlements. Thus, the research locations in Sri Lanka included Suduwelle in Colombo, as well as the settlements Dadelle in Galle and Deiyanawelle in Kandy (ITDG South Asia, 2001c). In Zimbabwe, this research phase covered the formal settlement of Overspill and the informal settlement of Domboramwani, both in Epworth, as well as Gadzema near the town of Chegutu. And in Peru, Cajamarca was dropped as research location and replaced by the José Carlos Mariategui settlement in the San Juan de Lurigancho district of Lima; Tarapoto was maintained, and the research there extended with a survey of urban-rural linkages.

A combination of methods was used to achieve greater qualitative depth in the more extensive fieldwork of this phase, including semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions and observations, covering around 200 residents. In Sri Lanka the three target communities were approached through other NGOs and government programmes working in the areas; without that introduction, residents would have been suspicious and not so forthcoming with responses. In Zimbabwe, ITDG had been doing some work in Epworth, though not in Gadzema, but access was less of a problem there. Twenty questionnaires were administered in each of the three settlements, to residents who had been randomly selected, whilst taking care of achieving a fairly representative sample with regards to location, gender, age and ethnicity (ITDG Southern Africa, 2001:6).  In Tarapoto, a first round of in-depth interviews was carried out with sixteen respondents – men, women and young people; these were selected from a total of 25 families identified using 60 filter guides. After an internal workshop, the sample was extended with a further 26 interviews. The settlement in Lima was new, which required meetings with its Board of Directors to get approval for the research. The Board subsequently approached households and key informants. A total of 23 interviews was carried out with a range of residents: male heads of households (12); female heads of households (5); young men (4); and young women (2) (ITDG Latin America, 2001). Besides, four participatory workshops were held: with the Board, young people (2) and women.  In each location, the researchers, local leaders and residents also identified a number of key informants and infomediaries, who were surveyed separately. 

The research team also proposed to develop models to describe and explain KIS. There was initially some doubt as to whether people's exchanges of information would be systematic enough to allow modelling, and if so, whether a single model would be able to capture them. It might be necessary to develop two models, whereby a “push model” would represent external influences on poor urban communities, whereas a “pull model” would show the communities’ own needs and resources. The researchers workshop in September combined these two in a theoretical “windmill model” which was to be tested in the field work (Ruskulis, 2000).

This phase also included a three months electronic conference, in an attempt to broaden the coverage of the research and its contents. The dialogue was kicked off with an introductory paper by ITDG and a number of key questions. The conference was moderated by WEDC, following an agenda set with ITDG. The conference attracted about 600 subscribers, of which over 60% came from developing countries; they generated over 200 messages and a number of useful recommendations (Shadrach, 2001).

The literature survey started in the first phase was expanded, in the three countries as well as world wide. The latter sought to further explore six issues raised in previous discussions: social networks; the impact of external agents on urban communities; communication with and between the urban poor; strengthening Community Based Organisations (CBOs); the development of human capital; and  8 specific areas of livelihood information (see section 3). The country surveys each had a more specific focus, often exploring gaps discovered in the earlier research. Thus, the survey in Peru concentrated largely on social networks, the one in Sri Lanka on urban development projects and programmes, and the one in Zimbabwe on the 8 livelihood issues identified in the researchers workshop (Ruskulis, 2001b).

Finally, the research team identified, researched and analysed 11 case studies on strengthening poor people’s knowledge and information systems, two in each of the three participating countries and a further five world wide. These were selected from 40 potential cases identified through personal contacts, the e-conference and the literature. In doing so, the team aimed to select and analyse a fairly broad range of experiences (Ruskulis, 2001a).

The rough data from the research at the level of each country were analysed and presented in draft reports to national workshops, and subsequently discussed by the international team in a workshop in Harare in July 2001 (Ruskulis, 2001c). The present report builds on that overall body of information.

RELATING KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION TO SPECIFIC NEEDS

3.1 Pilot phase

The pilot phase uncovered a wide range of livelihoods issues of importance to the urban poor (Schilderman, 2000).

Researchers in Suduwelle, Sri Lanka, related the issues raised by residents to the Sustainable Livelihoods Framework (SLF). With respect to vulnerability, residents were worrying about eviction, the rising cost of living, the threat of flooding and related illnesses, and prostitution and drug addiction. In terms of assets, the nearby lake with its fish contributes natural capital and income derived from that, which people risk to loose when evicted. Suduwelle also had substantial social capital, with a community development council and several CBOs. Physical capital was very poor and people thus worried about poor housing, water, sanitation, drainage and power. Financial capital was limited as well; employment was a key issue, and this extended to the future of their children; retirement benefits were an issue too. As to human capital, this was largely restricted to unskilled labour which limited employment potential; health problems and the lack of health care in the settlement were important issues too. The key institutions impacting on the settlement were the Colombo Municipal Council, the Urban Development Authority and the National Housing Development Authority. These come together within REEL, an institution pursuing a policy of slum clearance and resettlement of residents in apartments elsewhere; this was also on the cards for Suduwelle, and obviously a major worry for its inhabitants. Lesser institutional issues concern the acquisition of identity cards, birth certificates and voter cards. There were noticeable differences in answers by gender, with men considering housing and resettlement, health care and retirement benefits as priorities, whereas for women these were children-related issues and sanitation. Similarly, there were differences in answers by ethnic group.

In Epworth, Zimbabwe, the key issues raised were housing; land allocation; access to cheap materials and finance; provision of all types of infrastructure; health services; education; child welfare; income generation; and transparency and the clarification of the role of local institutions in providing information and services. Whereas the Zimbabwe based researchers did not relate these issues to the SLF, there is a clear asset link to most. The declining economy is an important vulnerability factor, and relates to the issues of income generation and access to affordable land, materials and finance. In terms of institutions, people were often unclear what to expect or what their rights were.

In Tarapoto, Peru, key issued raised by residents included the lack of sanitation in the settlement as well as unemployment, and the resulting difficulties to pay for school and health fees. Other issues were the increasing competition in the informal sector, access to and the repayment of credits, the lack of organisation and politics leading to competing groups in the neighbourhood, the lack of institutional support, as well as domestic violence. In Cajamarca, residents faced similar problems with employment, markets for the informal sector, health, education and institutional support, and roads and services, as well as with exploitation in some types of employment.

The pilot phase also confirmed that, where the urban poor relied heavily on information sources within their settlements, they also did get hold of some information from external sources, but at times this was unreliable or in the wrong format. In all cases, important information gaps remained.

3.2.      A focus on eight livelihood issues

The second international workshop of the research team, in September 2000, considered the above results and concluded that there were four broad areas where the urban poor required information: income; housing; infrastructure; and facilities. To achieve a more detailed understanding, these were broken down into eight more concrete issues of everyday concern; these were (Ruskulis, 2000):

·         House

·         Money

·         Water

·         Waste

·         Illness

·         School

·         Getting places

·         Security.

By focusing on these eight livelihood issues in each location, the research team aimed to achieve greater comparability and to avoid a dilution of resources by focusing on too many issues. However, this also meant that some of the richness of the first phase was lost. The selection provided for good coverage of the physical and financial assets within the SLF, and partial coverage of the human and natural assets, whereas social assets were particularly considered as a means to access knowledge and information.

3.3.      The second phase in Sri Lanka

A more in depth picture was obtained of information needs in the above eight livelihoods issues, of who were providing this information, and where gaps remained. This resulted in a number of tables, of which the following, for the peri-urban informal settlement Dadelle in the secondary town of Galle, is an example (ITDG South Asia 2001a; 2001b and 2001c):

Table 1:  The demand and supply of information in Dadelle

In the settlement of Deiyanawelle in the secondary town of Kandy, quite a few needs emerged that were similar to those of Dadelle. But there were some differences too. Some households had had their houses demolished to allow road construction, and had needed to get information about compensation and building loans; this is where politicians got involved. The community was also concerned with the dumping of refuse by Kandy hospital in a nearby canal and with its flooding; in turn, they were afraid this affected water supplies and public health in general. An NGO is now providing information and supporting action on these issues.  

When comparing the above two settlements with Suduwelle in Colombo, which was also surveyed in the first phase, a number of additional differences emerge. These are particularly related to the fact that Suduwelle is considered an illegal settlement and is therefore targeted for relocation. The need for information on resettlement and housing was therefore particularly acute. Besides, with the nearby lake providing a major source of income, there was a need to obtain information about alternative employment after relocation. Being an illegal settlement, waste was not collected, resulting in pollution of the Beira Lake and its surroundings. The community was also not entitled to water, electricity or other public services, and only managed to get two water taps installed after much lobbying of politicians. Similarly, there were also only two toilets for the whole community. In terms of security, the residents have to cope not only with the Police, but also with the Air Force, which is occasionally looking for suspected terrorists; this can be both and advantage and a problem.

3.4.      The second phase in Zimbabwe

The issue of legality is equally crucial in Zimbabwe. Amongst the three survey locations there, the Overspill area of Epworth is formally recognised (although it contains pockets where informal densification has occurred), but Domboramwari is not. The same applies to Gadzema, a large squatter settlement about 15 km from the secondary town of Chegutu. The Zimbabwe authorities, such as the Epworth Local Board, do not provide services to informal settlements, out of fear that this might attract more migrants. Almost by extension, they do not provide them with information either; the only message such informal settlers are provided with is to move out. Over the past 1-2 years, political developments in the country have also negatively affected a free flow of information. Residents in urban low-income settlements have therefore given up going to the authorities, and rely largely on neighbours, friends and relatives. Many of these people have important information needs which often remain unfulfilled. Unfortunately, other development agencies, mostly NGOs, who could have helped to fill this gap, seem to concentrate their efforts more in the formal than in the informal parts of Epworth. The following table summarises the settlement conditions and resulting information needs in those three locations (ITDG Southern Africa, 2001):

Table 2:  Settlement conditions and information needs in Zimbabwe