WHY IS MARIKANA STILL A MINING CAMP IN 2017? SPATIAL IMPACTS OF MIGRATION VS HOUSING DELIVERY [[WORKING UP TO ALT CONCPT MIGRANT LABOUR]]

Transcription

1 WHY IS MARIKANA STILL A MINING CAMP IN 2017? SPATIAL IMPACTS OF MIGRATION VS HOUSING DELIVERY [[WORKING UP TO ALT CONCPT MIGRANT LABOUR]] HSRC PRESENTATION TO HSRC/StepSA PUBLIC SEMINAR SPATIAL/TEMPORAL EVIDENCE FOR PLANNING, S A CSIR/ HSRC/ D S T TSHWANE, 18 JULY

2 INTRODUCTION : MINING CAMP DYNAMICS? Mining camp identity violent, conflict-prone transient settlements, lot corruption, lot crime, weak institutions World-wide usual U.S. Old West & Canadian Yukon, Congo, Latin America also Marikana Turbulent, highly unstable populations Mainly rural-born, less-educated men coming as single migrants Lot of poor rural women on their own, often with children Migrant mining settlements historically tend to what historical U.S. used to describe as wide-open & rip-roaring o Very high migration rates very unstable population, hard to accommodate common high violence risk o Migrant poor desperate for earning & often ready to struggle or fight for that Marikana in-migrants in the informal areas describe endemic criminality and violence, daily physical risk So far delivery has not been effective in resolving tension and potential for violent outbursts political pressures building up 2

3 KEY QUESTIONS? To reduce mine-camp violence and instability, the real challenge is probably not housing it s transience Key questions, StepSA how stabilize Marikana population? So, what is Marikana s migration / housing universe like? Looking at migrants spatial strategies From the household and individual level qualitative component of study o What spatial & economic strategies are migrants using? o How strategies & goals relate to migrants households? o How strategies & goals relate to conditions on the ground? Also looking at migration rates & profiles of migrant population fractions o Quantitative side being modelled mathematically Finally, consider implications for migration and housing policy of near-term shifts in the mining labour market 3

4 LAYOUT 1. TO ESCAPE MINING CAMP IDENTITY? 2. STATE OF PLATINUM MINING 3. GOVERNMENT HOUSING PRIORITIES 4. PLATINUM BELT SPACE ECONOMY 5. DELIVERY, EXCLUSION, ENTRY? 5.1 Table: Renting & owning costs 6. HOUSING DEMAND SEGMENTATION 6.1 Table: Response priorities 6.2 Table: Access to permanent housing 7. TRANSIT HOUSING MODEL FOR MIGRATION? 8. GETTING TO GRAVITY FLOW WITH HOUSING? 4

5 PROBLEM STATEMENT? The national spatial policy challenge for inequality and housing access comes to an acute point at Marikana o Haven t yet been able to shift the mining camp conditions in the informal areas by using existing approaches Might need to reconsider the current migrant labour strategy that households base on what s called transit housing? o Into gravity flow migration with permanent housing available to inmigration? o Promoting current informal land market into semi-formal? o While also stabilizing risky conditions in communities? Government policy approaches have concentrated on housing Raising the issue of what can policy do by using delivery? StepSA (2015) wanting to draw attention to possibilities of the semi-formal housing ladder Can lead up from informal settlement development to middle class status Known cases, it can happen in less than ten years This all goes through re-looking existing migrant labour models 5

6 WHERE DOES LABOUR MIGRATION MODEL STOP? Here to further re-think South African apartheid gave labour migration its bad name Bitter historical injustice hard to see it any other way But it s everywhere now world-wide, and massive In every place the wage economy is spatially differentiated And the rural sector is cash-dependent One result is Bojanala DM has average very high living standards for informal poor better than metro Gauteng (cf StepSA 2015) Plus also extreme high in-migration Bojanala also contains crippling poverty, especially in the in-migrant population So now ask, where are the edges of this economic model/ household strategy? That s, Where is the cutoff between labour migrancy & gravity flow movement as permanent residential migration? One key determining factor is how you get into the destination area settlement conditions + access gates 6

7 HOUSING POLICY / DELIVERY? What to put dn & who to give it to + seq (not where xax) 7

8 HOUSING POLICY PERSPECTIVES, MARIKANA Critical questions come up around how to address delivery to the simmering crisis on the Marikana mines Housing has been identified by government bodies as the solution to unstable and dangerous conditions on the Platinum Belt Pressure on government to deliver something that will actually help situation And also look solid to voter constituencies But research with the worker population suggests housing is not high priority (Khulumani Support Group 2015, TIPS 2015, StepSA 2016) Critical question then is why not, in the face of conditions that horrify outsiders And also who not who in migrant population isn t prioritizing good housing? Marikana housing situation still horrifies, violates the Mining Charter Social Labour Plan But Khulumani focus groups in 2014 pointed to infrastructure, not so much to housing implications? Government attention now shifting toward providing rental this work? Might want to look again at rental model, as it works for the rural-born poor And also look at the constituencies on the Platinum Belt seen as primary beneficiaries? 8

9 GOVERNMENT HOUSING PRIORITIES? South Africa badly needs to sort conditions on Platinum Belt Need intervention strategy that will work o So far the qualitative view from people on ground & from local structures = little perceived progress with housing and delivery o How migrant labour functions will be critical What government policy tends to leave out is the household response to public and private interventions o o That s agency on the part of migrants and their households and networks And maybe government bodies have not yet looked at how the contemporary household is using housing and labour migration in its strategizing? Should policy consider promoting change in household migrancy strategies? o Findings suggest that s not impossible o The household level may be the critical determinant in how housing demand takes shape in places like Marikana 9

10 H.1 HOUSING MODE PREFERENCE, THEME CLUSTERS Total number of mentions by cluster, Marikana respondents HARD TO GET SHELTER 3 EASY TO GET SHELTER 2 ENTRY SEQUENCE N = 22 RENT SHACK 8 BUILD SHACK 2 FREE STAY W/ CONNECTIONS 5 NO CHANCE TENURE SECURITY 2 INVEST BUY/ BUILD GOOD HOUSE 8 FREE R D P 2 BUY R D P 4 FREE MINE HOUSE 2 ACCUMULATION SEQUENCE = 24 BUILD AT RURAL HOME 4 RENT NOW BUY LATER 2 HOUSING DELIVERY NO 1 NEED 2 HOUSING NO 1 NEED 2 SCHOOLS/ HUMAN SERVICES NO 1 NEED 4 SITES WITH TENURE SECURITY NEEDED 2 DEVELOPMENT/DELIVERY CLUSTER N = 15 DEVELOPMENT BY MINES 4 DEVELOPMENT BY MUNICIPALITY 3 DEVELOPMENT BY TRIBAL AUTHORITY 3 GOOD CHOICE OPTIONS TO OWN HOUSE 2 INVEST BUILD GOOD HOUSE 4 INVEST BUY GOOD HOUSE 4 BUY SITE AND BUILD 5 FREE R D P UNIT 3 BUY R D P UNIT 4 FREE MINE HOUSE 2 STABILIZATION SEQUENCE N=34 NEED SITE WITH TENURE SECURITY 2 NO CHANCE OF TENURE SECURITY 2 SCHOOLS /HUMAN SERVICES NO 1 NEED 4 HOUSING DELIVERY NO 1 NEED 2 BRIBE TO GET R D P BRIBE TO GET MINE HOUSE HOUSING ACCESS, ZERO MENTN REBUILD/ UPGRADE R D P UPGRADE P BELT HOUSE - THEMES ZERO MENTION - DEVELOPMENT BY NATIONAL STATE DEVELOPMENT BY PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT DELIVERY, ZERO MENTION TENURE SECURITY AVAILABLE 10

11 STATE OF DELIVERY? What has housing delivery for Marikana / Rustenburg actually been looking like? As Marikana s mine operator, Lonmin was to deliver on a social plan under the Mining Charter Overcrowded workers hostels would be converted to family and single-occupancy apartments 5500 houses to be built by the mine for workers displaced by the conversion o Lonmin was also required to improve water access and sanitation o Hasn t happened well-known three houses as output no significant infrastructure o Delivery of housing has been coming from Rustenburg and some subsidy housing has been going to poor at Mahumapelo mainly o But respondents are saying mostly elite capture of housing that s delivered o Plus delivery allocation can go by political affiliation? 11

12 TARGET CONSTITUENCIES? Current housing conditions are very bad, and delivery into that need has not been effective It s been pointed out the original social delivery plan didn t recognize the very large share of mine workers living in informal settlements (Marinovich 2015) o It also didn t recognize that the in-migrant male mineworkers are not the only constituency in the area with housing need o And which also exert force on Marikana s settlement conditions Where does delivery need to focus to get to affect underlying conditions? Population instability and the prevailing violence in the informal settlements are factors setting conditions for investment that policy needs to address 12

13 HOW INTERVENE? MARIKANA HOUSING PARADOX National migration challenge concerns large increasingly mobile block of unskilled and less-educated rural-born workers migrating to support households o Economy is not providing enough jobs for this grouping Assessing migration and employment, respondents clearly see two sectors of migrant, separated by education level o Large majority of Platinum Belt labour migrants are trapped on lower tier This less-educated migrant fraction frequently expects to access housing at destination via cheapest informal: their priority is accumulation, not comfort Not possible to cut migration-related inequality without generating economic paths upward for the less-skilled sector? o Current mine interventions are palliative? o Bursaries, training, taking shacks children to school o Tinkering to help individuals, doesn t generate jobs or change fundamental poverty conditions on the ground? 13

14 MIGRATION / HOUSING? 14

15 STATE OF THE PLATINUM NATION? Following the devastating consequences of the Marikana massacre in 2012, platinum prices have been heading downward Major shakeout in progress Acutely unstable conditions on Platinum Belt since 2012 undercutting investment in South African platinum mining Industry is staggering, operations doubtfully sustainable at present price point Major mining houses reshuffling future financing commitments Anglo American making huge divestment & probably pulling out of South Africa Implats maybe emphasizing its platinum mines outside South Africa Lonmin still in financial trouble & failing to meet housing & infrastructure commitments Sibanye as strongest player seems to have turned down opportunity to consolidate South African platinum industry, by buying Lonmin investing in profitable mining overseas instead Mining houses looking to iron & coal + chrome as platinum byproduct to rescue balance sheets Turning away from platinum mines & redoubling efforts at automating production Outlook for improved hiring of workers continues very poor medium term, maybe long-term BUT: HYDROGEN, YH? 15

16 CURRENT MIGRATION FLOWS? The current migration picture is changing due to the collapse of employment and hiring at most of the mines StepSA initial figures showed main South African in-migration flow to Platinum Belt is from North West - o Next largest share from Gauteng, and then Eastern Cape, then KwaZulu-Natal But the Gauteng component probably goes into the Rustenburg local economy not underground in mines, that s heavily Eastern Cape and Lesotho Many migrants reportedly left after 2012 events often replaced by family members inheriting the shack Without modelling results yet, this from qualitative: o Respondents reported significant out-migration o In-migration flows may be dropping as out-migration increases - o But in-migration hasn t stopped you d expect near-stop? 16

17 SPATIAL STRUCTURE, RUSTENBURG Core zone, Royal Bafokeng & Rustenburg town settlemts o Dense, high-end urban, main local metropole for Platinum Belt o Rustenburg as district municipality seat o Phokeng as main town of Royal Bafokeng Tribal Authority very high-end residential, + Bafokeng Civic Centre building Adjoining, earlier areas once informally settled around the older core towns o Inside Rustenburg municipality & directly under Bafokeng authorities o Now consolidated as townships with services Lemonong Further out, Bafokeng outer rural small settlements, semiinformal o Luka, Chaneng, numerous others o Under local councillor or induna reporting to Bafokeng Civic Centre 17

18 SPATIAL STRUCTURE, MARIKANA Bafokeng outer settlements are semi-informal basic services with self-build housing, dirt roads o o Electricity, water and roads provided from Bafokeng TA Housing only provided for serious indigent cases o Bafokeng citizens hold their land rights from the Tribal Authority at the Civic Centre o Permanent land rights are not officially available to outsiders, non-bafokeng o Renting to in-migrant tenants is important household income throughout Bafokeng TA 30 km east of Rustenburg, Marikana very small mining/farm town, on municipal boundary with Madibeng Most-known informal settlements right at Lonmin mines Nkaneng, Stormhuis, Mahumapelo informal All under relatively poor BaKwena TAs ± no services 18

19 WHO S INVOLVED? INTEREST GROUPS List mines-related housing constituencies? Stakeholder groupings, with competing interests? o Being assumed mineworkers are main constituency in need of delivery not necessarily so o Critical constituencies for exit strategy = in-migrant women, youth & indigenous population Gender interest divide, women men, separate interests, separate plans o Women often don t trust men & often don t want depend on them o Women obtaining grants enables migration & then stabilizes the household at destination autonomy rising o But still not equal for land access and still risking death due violence Local in-migrant families often fragile with old-apartheid hard migrant-labour faultline down the middle Many created for temporary household reproduction requirements Transactional households, temp alliances expected to fall apart within 2-4 years o Plus floating migrant youth population - lots of programmes, not many jobs o Also including indigenous population with demand for jobs & housing & capacity to gatekeep o Under Tswana institutional regime, strong feeling they can claim first place in delivery queue, ahead of outsiders ethnic chauvinism 19

20 HOW DO LOCAL PEOPLE SEE IN-MIGRATION? Qualitative results seem to indicate that the much or most of the general Bafokeng community shares perceptions with the leadership regarding permanent in-migration: 'Our village land belongs to the people of this place. I think we are the ones who have first to be satisfied with housing. Our children need to be employed first, then other people. Our children are struggling, they don't have work, and then people from outside come to take over. It is difficult seeing people benefiting from what you think is yours, and you yourself don't have anything.' Jannine P: Luka rural village 'I think we have a problem with outsiders. They come and find our place developed, we have mines that need to serve our children. Once people get in, they take over and we are left behind. I think outsiders are best off if they go and put up their houses in the places where they are born.' Elisabeth D: Townlands upgraded settlement An alternate view of admitting outsiders appears to be emerging particularly in highmigration areas where a mixed community has become established: the issue of us disliking outsiders is an old-fashioned thing. This attitude was largely established and supported during the discovery of platinum on our land. However, we cannot say that applies any more, because there are Indian and Pakistani shops around here now so if we see they should not be here, why don t we tell them to go? also, plans are being put in place already by the royal house to ensure that there will soon be other industries here that do not depend on the mines. This way people will have choices for their work, we will not be depending entirely on the platinum mines, and employment will not be mine work or nothing. Leander B: Lemonong township 20

21 HOW DO LOCAL PEOPLE SEE LAND/HOUSING ACCESS? Migration is closely affected by the institutional situation on the ground Re whether or not land in the form of building stands available to migrants as outsiders o Royal Bafokeng authorities based at Phokeng do not accept strangers other than as temporary tenants allowed to rent shacks or backyards o The BaKwena TAs at Marikana and Bethanie are under-resourced and lesscapacitated by comparison, and often sell stands to outsiders Feeling a serious threat to its tribal institutional structures from a potential massive inflow of outsiders, the Bafokeng have taken a relatively hard line Stringent rulings that formally bar all non-bafokeng outsiders from obtaining citizenship rights to obtain land, build housing and settle permanently in communities under their control. The motivation cited by respondents in the StepSA izinkinga interviews is fear of losing control of community settlement process to large numbers of outsiders arriving Massive effect on how migration is able to take place in the Rustenburg sector 21

22 Table 1 PERMANENT HOUSING ACCESS, RUSTBRG/MARIKANA Place LEMONONG TNSHP BOITEKONG XT 1 BOITEKONG XT 10 BOITEKONG INFML TOWNLANDS INFML LUKA TRIBL AUTHR MARIKANA TOWNSHIPS NKANENG INFML STOOMHUIS INFML MAHUMAPELO INFML Rented shacks Rented bkyds Rented houses Owned shacks Owned RDP units Self-bld houses Unsrvcd stands Serviced stands X X X - X X X X X X X - X X - - X - - X X - - X X X X - - X - X X X X X - - X X X X X X X X X X X X X X - X X X X X X - - X X - - X BETHANIE TRBL AUTHR X X X MARIKANA HOSTEL

23 BARRIERS TO ENTRY? 23

24 CONSIDERING LABOUR MIGRANCY MODELS? Ask, What holds labour migrancy in place vs attraction of jobs + urban access at destination? What s the relation between circular labour migration & gravity flow? StepSA asking, conditions of gravity flow taking over from circular? o Public order, access to economy, public goods services at urban destinations can pull migration o Poverty & remoteness, bad transport can push Rustenburg has high levels of attraction factors but Marikana is a much more rural place and loses out on most o Mine jobs attract, but public order and public goods are negative factors 24

25 H.1 HOUSING MODE PREFERENCE, THEME CLUSTERS Total number of mentions by cluster, Marikana respondents HARD TO GET SHELTER 3 EASY TO GET SHELTER 2 ENTRY SEQUENCE N = 22 RENT SHACK 8 BUILD SHACK 2 FREE STAY W/ CONNECTIONS 5 NO CHANCE TENURE SECURITY 2 INVEST BUY/ BUILD GOOD HOUSE 8 FREE R D P 2 BUY R D P 4 FREE MINE HOUSE 2 ACCUMULATION SEQUENCE = 24 BUILD AT RURAL HOME 4 RENT NOW BUY LATER 2 HOUSING DELIVERY NO 1 NEED 2 HOUSING NO 1 NEED 2 SCHOOLS/ HUMAN SERVICES NO 1 NEED 4 SITES WITH TENURE SECURITY NEEDED 2 DEVELOPMENT/DELIVERY CLUSTER N = 15 DEVELOPMENT BY MINES 4 DEVELOPMENT BY MUNICIPALITY 3 DEVELOPMENT BY TRIBAL AUTHORITY 3 GOOD CHOICE OPTIONS TO OWN HOUSE 2 INVEST BUILD GOOD HOUSE 4 INVEST BUY GOOD HOUSE 4 BUY SITE AND BUILD 5 FREE R D P UNIT 3 BUY R D P UNIT 4 FREE MINE HOUSE 2 STABILIZATION SEQUENCE N=34 NEED SITE WITH TENURE SECURITY 2 NO CHANCE OF TENURE SECURITY 2 SCHOOLS /HUMAN SERVICES NO 1 NEED 4 HOUSING DELIVERY NO 1 NEED 2 BRIBE TO GET R D P BRIBE TO GET MINE HOUSE HOUSING ACCESS, ZERO MENTN REBUILD/ UPGRADE R D P UPGRADE P BELT HOUSE - THEMES ZERO MENTION - DEVELOPMENT BY NATIONAL STATE DEVELOPMENT BY PRIVATE SECTOR DEVELOPMENT DELIVERY, ZERO MENTION TENURE SECURITY AVAILABLE 25

26 ACCESS THROUGH TRIBAL AUTHORITIES Three main ways for in-migrant population buy in for existing house, or get free RDP etc, or get site for own shack Strategies here determine kinds of migration & if it stays o Bafokeng provide their own local-born tribal members with services = water, electricity, roads, but not with housing other than for relatively few indigent cases o Bapong, BaKwena they don t have the sovereign wealth fund resource & they don t provide any services or any housing o They do sell land to outsiders who can pay Rustenburg & probably all mining towns have functional land/housing market accommodating migrants, semi-legal, semi-formal But you need money to deal in that market Marikana itself is under the Bapong, has no services to speak of, & RDP development is reportedly not going to right beneficiaries in majority of cases 26

27 THE BOITEKONG MIGRATION NODE The Royal Bafokeng authority owns a very large share of the land in Rustenburg o Re-purchased early under private title o Includes land around the platinum mines, which can look like small villages One effect has been to largely prevent absorption of outside migrants into the central zone of Bafokeng tribal land, which is closely policed Rustenburg in-migration has been pushed to concentrate in the turbulent Boitekong/ Townlands settlement node on the northern edge of town Population inflow into new Boitekong shack areas is continual The township now has 14 extensions, representing areas with new informal occupation continually being sold to the municipality for upgrading and formalization This critical point in the regional space economy represents the main entryway where in-migrants can settle to access the Rustenburg wage economy The alternative routes in go through some outlying Bafokeng villages and through the BaKwena Tribal Authorities adjoining Bafokeng territory in the Marikana area 27

28 Table 2: Platinum Belt informal housing market: Rent vs buy, estimated costs by locality Rent shack Rent bkyd Rent Buy RDP unit Build own Buy Buy unservcd Serviced Place R house house shack stand stand TLHABANE E R 800 R 1500 ±R TLHABANE W R 800 R 1500 ±R R R LEMONONG R 500 ±R 900 R 2000 R R R 2500 R BOITEKONG XT 1 R 800 R 1200 R 2500 R R R BOITEKONG XT 10 R 800 R R R BOITEKONG XT 14 R 300 R 500 R R 2500 R TNLANDS INFML R 1000 R 1500 R 2500 R R KANANA R 300 R 400 R 1000 R R R 1500 R LUKA 1 R 500 R 700 R 1500 R R R 5000 R 1500 R AVGE RUSTENBRG R 610 R 1020 R 1990 R R R 1875 R1750/R7800 R MARKNA TNSHPS R 600 R 800 R 3000 R R R R MARIKANA RDP R 800 R 1500 R 2500 ±R R R NKANENG R 500 R 500 R R STOOMHUIS R R MAHUMAPELO INFL R R ROOIKOPPIES R 500 R R KAFFERSKRAAL R 500 R 800 R 1500 R R SPRUITFONTEIN R 300 R R NORITE R 300 R R AVGE MARIKANA R 455 R 915 R 2125 R R R 6000 R R

29 TRANSIT HOUSING AS PROBLEM SOLVING? 29

30 SEGMENTING DEMAND, DISAGGREGATING STRATEGY Need to work out what each major stakeholder group is solving for when they strategize around migration - list includes o Migrant men mineworkers o Migrant women with children o Floating unemployed youth o Indigenous settled communities o Tribal authorities o Mine management o Local government o National government Solutions of major demand categories are now compatible with each other they all support long-cycle labour migration o Long-cycle migration meets all constituencies minimum conditions for support dispensation they can live with But result is high transience & violent conditions, social anger squalor prevailing in informal mine settlements where housing crisis is concentrated Preference for transit housing as determining basis of migrant labour dispensation may turn out to be key factor? 30

31 TRANSIT HOUSING : HOW MIGRANTS SEE MIGRANT LABOUR? Transit housing = inheritable shacks that give access to Platinum Belt economy to outside migrants Long-term, permanent asset that extends the family s socioeconomic field to stretch between rural home area and mining settlements in different province Transit housing is functionally lot more than a scruffy temporary shack near a mine o It s a cheap, readily accessible solution to challenge of establishing transgeneration entry from rural home area into developed economy o The transit shack anchors the mining end of the migrant job access network o Enables rural home base to retrieve more work when needed by heirs Provides inheritable claim to site located with access to mine employment free of charge, no rent, no services o Mines are right in arguing underground miners don t prioritize good accommodation & don t want to spend their limited resources for better housing Transit housing strategy works for them as generation-to-generation temporary residents Maintains long-term asset in family line but also sustains transience and bad conditions in mines settlements & across wider area Transit housing is migrants lowest common denominator solution what housing delivery is up against 31

32 INCENTIVES AGAINST HOUSING INVESTMENT? Right now the transit housing model of migration is likely to be undercutting informal upgrading And helping to maintain the dominance of shack housing on the Platinum Belt Commitment of the miner s household to transit housing incentivizes against investing at the destination Miners can select shacks preferentially, because of cheaper costs + better long-term family investment returns o o Sticking with the transit housing model means in-migrant miners are solving for living at mines cheaply o While investing wages at home in rural sector For the migrant mine population, the priority of good accommodation appears low compared to accumulation and home investment o Transient, turbulent settlement conditions mean disorder continues in the mining settlements 32

33 MIGRATION INCENTIVES: SHIFTING TO GRAVITY? Direct offers of better housing to miners may be a non-starter, rental or permanent o Rental diverts household investment out of accumulation o Permanent housing is very attractive if delivered on subsidy o But not if it commits the household s own resources to unstable, violent settlement s To persuade migrant mineworkers to invest in decent Rustenburg /Marikana housing? Need is to change the spatial investment incentives, for the mining towns rural home districts To promote more gravity flow migration and stabilize the informal settlements? o Deliver infrastructure to shack population + floating population housing to lift area housing standard & improve on current social violence o Then align incentives so more poor rural-born miners will consider moving family household into Rustenburg /Marikana area o No schools, no transport mean no family migration 33

34 ADAPTATION/ RESOLUTION? 34

35 MOVING TO RESOLVE? CHECKING ASSUMPTIONS Family housing has been seen as the key housing need for Marikana s workers o By both commentators and government mines have gone along, while insisting mineworkers want owned housing located at their rural homes Converting single-sex hostels into family housing is based on old antiapartheid logic, thinking all workers want to move with families to the city o Then have been prevented by oppressive conditions, lack of housing? But not all rural-to-urban population movement represents permanent urbanization o Research indicates a large part of South Africa s rural population does not want to leave the rural sector The rural sector is not an outer circle of hell has own powerful attraction, in preferred living conditions: Social peace, network support & mutualism surviving, easy housing ownership Accessible institutions that make local sense, sometimes corrupt but not under control of outside elites 35

36 TESTING PLANNING ASSUMPTIONS? Tendency in planning not to test this kind of proposition? o See if the assumptions match to perception of poor migrant population who are not integrated into urban values / priorities Questions world-wide now around what we don t understand re how alienated poor understand own situation o S A mines have always recruited from the most remote districts (Sinwell 2015) to obtain workers with the least degree of urban exposure o Policy doesn t always allow for conservative indigenous viewpoints including problem solutions Ask/test how understand migrant labour now South Africa past apartheid o Marikana should be perfect destination, with thriving migrant settlements Bojanala DM has been pulling the highest migration in South Africa, with relatively very high income levels o It isn t five years after 2012 massacre, it s still an unsafe mining camp o SA comment community may have been wrong about how inmigrant rural poor understand the housing question applying apartheid-era assumptions? o Ask, what exactly to deliver, and who to? 36

37 S.1 SECURING INCOME STRATEGY, THEME CLUSTERS Total number of mentions per cluster, Marikana respondents EDUCN TO IMPROVE QUALIFICATION 4 PRIVATE SKILLS TRAINING 2 FORMAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMMES N = 25 MINES PROGRAMMES 9 MUNICIPAL PROGRAMMES 3 NGO PROGRAMMES 2 GOVERNMENT PROGRAMMES 2 TRIBAL AUTHORITY PROGRAMMES 3 START BUSINESS, WORK UP 8 EDUCATN TO IMPROVE QUALIFICATIONS 5 TRANSPORT INDUSTRY, WORK UP 5 DOMESTIC WORK, WORK UP 2 SEQUENTIAL STRATEGIES N = 31 CRASH-CONNECTIONS JOB STRATEGY 5 CROSS-GENERATION JOB STRATEGY 3 INVEST FOR INTEREST + SAVINGS 2 PRIVATE SKILLS TRAINING 2 FIND PERMANENT WORK 19 MINE WORK UNDERGROUND 7 START INFORMAL BUSINESS 7 START IFML BUSINESS, WORK UP 8 EARNING STRATEGIES N = 67 CRASH-CONNECTIONS JOB STRATEGY 5 RELY SOCIAL GRANT 5 DOMESTIC WORK 4 ABOVE GROUND MINE WORK 3 PAY BRIBE TO GET JOB 3 RENT OUT ROOMS 2 SELLING HOUSES 2 PATIENCE REQUIRED TO SECURE INCOME 2 NO WORK AROUND HERE 2 CONSTRUCTION JOBS JOB OPTIONS, ZERO MENTN PUBLIC SECTOR JOBS RETAIL JOBS TAXI WORK - THEMES ZERO MENTION - PERMANENT JOB & WORK UP SEQUENTIAL STRATEGIES, ZERO MENTION UNDERGROUND JOB AND WORK UP AGRICULTURE/ LIVESTOCK & WORK UP 37

38 MOVING TO STABILIZE MARIKANA? Government seeing resistance to moving in, + barriers from indigenous population BARRIERS: Three things mainly hold back level of destination violence & absence of schools for migrant population, + need for land release to permanent migrants TRANSIT HOUSING: incentivizes migrant investment away from work destination How address promote stable gravity flow migration for enough of migrant population to stabilize the Marikana area? o o o Change the disincentives to stabilization Successfully attract migrants, and pull in family households Filter migrant population on preference for oscillating migrancy model vs preference for (permanent) gravity flow This is the swing grouping that is now on osc transit housing model Try shift this category to gravity if destination conditions can be made to compete successfully vs rural home location (Lipton 1998) Marais & Venter 2008 asked a similar question for the gold mines for gold, it looked like ± 50% might stabilize? 38

39 STABILIZATION PRIORITIES? 39

40 RESOLUTION? PLANTING THE HOUSING LADDER? There s enough money in poor households in the Marikana area to do this Seen owned housing ladder to middle class happen at Boitekong at Rustenburg But also Soshanguve, Jane Furse, Bushbuckridge & others rural & urban Needs the engaged citizens, but they re out there, all over People saying on survey they can never get housing unless it s govt RDP? Partly because fear of committing all network resources to unstable locality These are communities of strangers to take the risk, need to obtain reliable asset Other shacks populations wade in & commit own resources once got own stand, municipal title & servicing to guarantee market value of self-build house Not totally change transit housing model now in use Instead, put incentives to use it on the upper path, through owned housing not the low path through shacks That has capacity to lift the current population up to middle class standing Which will simultaneously work to control or exclude criminality & violence as shacks residents see selves becoming goal of up-market township identity 40

41 TOWARD IDENTIFYING DYNAMICS FOR MARIKANA Prioritize the floating populations on the Platinum Belt who are the most poor Key target constituency may not be the miners o Miners are a settled population and went on strike over wages, not delivery Primary target groups are the in-migrant women with children and the inmigrant unemployed youth Plus the indigenous poor population in Marikana o Women migrants are the ones who want to move in and stay, build household home at the Marikana destination o But they work in informal businesses or as domestic workers o They do not have the resources the male miners do weaker networks And women migrants have a new, different self-reliance migration strategy Aimed at permanence at the destination Quality rental housing delivery goes over the heads of all three in-migrant groups that are living in informality women, youth, and mineworkers They can t afford government rentals, and they can t afford to divert their limited resources into rent payments for longer than necessary 41

42 PULLING IT TOGETHER? TOWARD ACTIONS Rentals will help the better-off urban-born in-migrant population, especially the segment from Gauteng they re not the root of turbulence To help the informal settlements that are the epicenter of turmoil, start with schools and roads to promote stable family in-migration Plus serviced sites available to outsiders And then government subsidy help for in-migrants to commit to self-build housing, investment quality Result can be up-market township like Soshanguve (StepSA 2015) and middle class standing for shacks population Successful accumulation is the only realistic platform to reach for population stabilization against attraction of transit housing oscillating model Need for policy & delivery to get behind the direction chosen by poor household strategies Aligning public delivery with household strategizing can release the energy in citizen commitment finally bring Marikana to NDP s engaged citizenship? 42

43 THANK YOU! StepSA JOINT SCIENCE COUNCILS INITIATIVE SPATIAL-TEMPORAL EVIDENCE FOR PLANNING, SOUTH AFRICA CSIR/HSRC 18 JULY 2017 TSHWANE/ PRETORIA 43