Title of Event:

Name of Organisation:

Date and time of the session:

CLIFF - The Great Debate. Motion: "This house believes that the urban poor cannot afford to work in formal partnership with the state and with the private sector"

Homeless International

23 rd June 2006, 08.30-10.30

Key Highlights

1. Estimated no of participants: 100
2. Stakeholder group representation at the event: Four members of staff from Homeless International. Representatives from Homeless International's partner organisations in Africa and Asia along with members of urban poor federations. Government officials, banks and other interested parties also represented.
3. What were the expected objectives: To highlight and initiate debate around the issues surrounding the urban poor's access to capital financing for scaling-up community-led slum upgrading. To demonstrate the potential of the Community-Led Infrastructure Finance Facility (CLIFF) in addressing these issues.
4. What did the networking event achieve: Knowledge exchange and information sharing around relationships between the urban poor relations and the private sector, predominantly the banking sector, and the state over access to affordable finance. Examples of positive collaboration were highlighted. Several participants expressed a desire to support the development of urban poor federations in their own countries and foster positive negotiations with the state and private sector.

2. What were the core issues identified in your event as they relate to the theme and sub-themes of WUFIII?

•  CLIFF has assisted in bringing different actors in urban development together, and demonstrated what can be achieved if the urban poor drive the development process. Demonstrating this has not been easy and change does take time.

•  The urban poor are able to deliver housing solutions that are sustainable and have the potential to be scaled up. Government should facilitate this, including through encouraging banks to lend to the urban poor.

3. What were the main points raised by panellists and participants in relation to these different issues? What new ideas have been generated as a result of the discussion?

•  A participant suggested that, based on what people had heard during the week at WUF, the motion should be turned on it's head and instead read "The state and private sector cannot work in formal partnerships with the urban poor".

•  Presentations by the various speakers discussed the activities, capacity-building and risks now being taken by the urban poor. Jockin Arputham, President of India's National Slum Dwellers Federation, asserted that the urban poor are ".laying the table, now all banks have to do is sit down and eat".

•  Anil Kumar, formerly of UTI Bank and now with ICICI Bank in India, gave a presentation on his experience of working with the Indian Alliance (SPARC, Mahila Milan and the National Slum Dwellers Federation). He stated how at first the bank had been concerned about the potential risks of lending on a large scale to the urban poor. However, he is now working with the Indian Alliance on a $20m project and has over 100 other NGO clients. He went on to emphasize the importance of bridge financing and bank guarantees for scaling-up slum upgrading.

•  The replication of CLIFF in other countries was discussed. David Painter, formerly of USAID, argued that the role of donors must be to support the efforts of the poor to organise themselves and build capacity. Once successful models have been demonstrated, local resources can then be used to scale-up these initiatives. Sheela Patel, Director of the Indian NGO SPARC (www.sparcindia.org), highlighted Slum/Shack Dwellers International (SDI - www.sdinet.org) as a firm example of where the poor are already becoming organised. Zoe Hensby of DFID asserted that donors require pressure in order to change to this approach.

•  The Chair, Jean-Pierre Elong Mbassi from Cameroon, summarised some key points that emerged from the debate: 1) the added value of organised and united slum dwellers 2) all actors, including the state, donors and banks, need to take risks and not just slum dwellers 3) informal and formal mechanisms of urban development require flexibility and 4) the importance of demonstrated innovations such as CLIFF, which must be supported by donors.

4. What process steps have been identified in your event that could help turn ideas into operational reality?

•  It was argued that donors need to recognise where the majority of development expertise exists - in-country, on the ground and not with foreign donor agencies. There is a need to avoid the search for constant innovation and instead build on processes that have been proven to work, such as CLIFF (see www.homeless-international.org/cliff for more).

•  Joseph Muturi of the Kenyan urban poor Federation highlighted the need for the state and private sector to be flexible enough to work with the urban poor. Sikhulile Nkhoma, Director of the Malawian NGO Centre for Community Organisation & Development (CCODE), stated that different actors need to understand more about each other and learn to adapt in order to work in effective collaboration with one another.

•  George Mkondiwa, a Malawian Government official, urged state and donor organisations not to be frightened of acting in collaboration with the urban poor.