Experimenting with multistakeholder reform coalition: The case of the Urban Informality Forum in Zimbabwe


Prepared by: McDonald Lewanika, Accountability Lab Zimbabwe (link ) ; Thulani Mswelanto, Accountability Lab Zimbabwe (link ) ; Thomas Karakadzai, Dialogue on Shelter Trust (link ) ; Kate Lines, ACRC database team (link )

Published: 19 August 2024

Download pdf

Key information

Main cities: Harare, Zimbabwe; Masvingo, Zimbabwe.

Scope: City/town level

Lead organisations: Dialogue on Shelter Trust ; Development Governance Institute

Timeframe: 2018 – ongoing

Themes: Informal settlements; Housing; Informality; Infrastructure; Land; National urban policy

Financing:

Funders: The UIF is a largely self-supported initiative made possible by the contributions of various organisations (see Summary section below). Real/estimated total budget: USD 1,500 per seminar. Finance invested to date: USD 19,500.

Approaches used in initiative design and implementation:

  • A focus on inclusive, cross-cutting and lasting solutions to informal settlement upgrading that are co-produced with informal workers and informal settlement residents.
  • Co-convening a multidisciplinary reflection platform that merges theory and practice.
  • Creating safe and non-confrontational spaces for civic participation (conversation between citizens and government).
  • Inclusion of marginalised groups in policy dialogue processes that recognise the value of community knowledge.

Initiative description

Background and context

Today, 33% of Zimbabwe’s population (or 5.4 million people) live in urban areas. The country has experienced rapid urbanisation and urban sprawl since independence in 1980. Harare, the capital and most populous city, has a population of 1.4 million, rising to 2.1 million across the entire metropolitan area, [1] a figure which has doubled since 1980, along with a 60% increase in built-up area.

The consequence of this growth has been significant socioeconomic and political challenges – increasing unemployment, inadequate infrastructure and political instability – straining the built environment across the country and leading to the emergence of vast informal residential developments, in a context of high unmet demand for affordable housing. In Harare, informal settlements house around one-third of the city’s urban residents, concentrated on its southwest outskirts.

Deep-seated contestations between formality and informality generally characterise the development space in urban Zimbabwe. At the centre of these tensions are perceptions of exclusionary policies, as local and central authorities attempt to enforce law and order on informal settlements and informal trade in cities and towns. The state criminalises informality and as a result its responses are legalistic, with authorities often invoking measures such as evictions and demolitions in dealing with informality (Chiweshe et al., 2013). Such measures have led to the displacement of many informal settlers, forcing them to live in even more precarious conditions.

Despite these challenges, the informal sector is large and resilient, serving as a lifeline for many who view informality as a means of survival. For instance, informal traders, who are often women, face constant harassment and the threat of their goods being confiscated, yet they continue to operate because of the lack of formal employment opportunities.

Given the differences in perceptions of informality, limited space exists in urban Zimbabwe for dialogue between municipal officials and informal traders and residents. Nevertheless, over the years, social movements, civic society and academia have attempted to engage decisionmakers, to create dialogue settings that open the development space and embrace informality. In the aftermath of Operation Murambatsvina (“Clean-Up”) in 2005,[2] residents' associations, such as the Combined Harare Residents Association [pdf], undertook some of the earlier attempts at imploring central and local governments to recognise and regularise informal settlements. While helpful, these efforts had limited results in stopping evictions or igniting policy conversations on slum upgrading, or in dissuading the state from using a legislative framework antithetical to informality that prioritises “order” and elite interests (McGregor and Chatiza, 2019; Chatiza, and Gotora, 2021; Chavunduka and Chaonwa-Gaza, 2021).

In this context, the Urban Informality Forum (UIF or “Forum”) is another attempt to bridge conversational and policy gaps between the aspirations of informal settlers, and municipal and central government. The UIF builds on lessons from previous attempts at engaging the state through dialogue and advocacy, especially efforts to engage local and central authorities around slum upgrading since Operation Murambatsvina (including by UIF’s constituting members[3]). It also drew inspiration from other experiences within the SDI network with similar platforms, such as Uganda’s national and municipal urban forums (Dobson, 2014). The UIF’s formation also took place in the context of a new post-Mugabe government in Zimbabwe, which had started developing a human settlements policy, with one of the UIF’s founding organisations (DEGI) directly steering the process and leading consultations. The Forum was thus understood by founding members as a source of input to that national effort.

[1] Zimbabwe Population Census, 2022. Available online (accessed 12 August 2024).

[2] Which left an estimated 700,000 people homeless or without livelihood, or both (Tabaijuka, 2005).

[3] Two examples of such efforts involving different UIF founding organisations include: (1) Harare Slum Upgrading Programme 2010–2016, a project partnership of the Federation, Dialogue on Shelter (DoS) and Harare City Council, with a US$5 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which was piloted in Dzivarasekwa Extension. And Migrants on the Margins, 2015–2020, a collaborative multicountry field research project involving the Development Governance Institute (DEGI) that examined movements of migrants in and around pressured cities, including Harare.

Summary of initiative

In 2018, five organisations came together to form the UIF as a platform to discuss urban issues of common interest. These were: Development Governance Institute (DEGI, a development consultancy), Zimbabwe Homeless People's Federation (ZHPF or Federation, an SDI-affiliated community network), Dialogue on Shelter for the Homeless Trust (DoS, an NGO providing technical support to ZHPF), Shelter Homage Trust (an NGO), and the University of Zimbabwe Planning School.

This coming together of communities of practice on informality – community groups, civil society, private sector, NGOs and the academy ­– occurred against a backdrop of contestations around informality in urban Zimbabwe and the evident exclusion of poor communities from development planning and policy (as above). There was an identified need to develop clarity, share insights and establish a policy analysis and practice platform.

A second, more specific catalyst was the retirement of a supportive senior Harare housing official with whom different founding organisations had interacted around an evolving agenda for collaborative urban housing in the context of diminished public sector delivery. The Forum’s initial design represented an intention to retain these links with the state (both Harare and national) and to consolidate this ongoing work within a space for learning, teaching, influencing and debating. The choice of the university created a safe space where national and local government officials would feel comfortable to explore ideas, reflect on practice, critique policy and explore change, including discussing and learning from shared experiences.

At formation, the UIF’s objectives were: (1) to create safe spaces for honest policy reflections around urban informality; (2) to lobby, advocate and input into policy changes on urban informality; and (3) to create a dialogue platform that could inform coordinated interventions that safeguard multistakeholders’ interests in urban informality. Recognising the limitations of individual engagements (as above), it sought to present a single multistakeholder, multi-interest and multidisciplinary front for engagement with local and central government. And to create a space to meet and discuss deep-rooted urban development problems in a non-threatening environment, where the state would be motivated to reflect on the impact of its actions and policies.

Seeking a more extensive and inclusive platform, the UIF intentionally included the voices of affected communities, and it became a space for informal settlement groups to voice their aspirations and proposals. Community participants are engaged through ZHPF, and the approach to the Federation’s role in the Forum has evolved, catalysed in particular by the involvement of the federation and other UIF members in the work of the African Cities Research Consortium (ACRC). Initially, the role of Federation members was rather restricted, largely responding to presentations made by government panellists during UIF seminars. This has changed over time, as Federation participants have become more equal discussants and presenters.

The UIF meets regularly and by the end of 2023 had physically convened nine times (and once virtually at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic). Seminars typically last for five hours, with 20–30 participants. They are chaired by one of the founding organisations and involve two or three presentations by well-informed individuals, followed by participants’ responses and reflections (see Figures 2 and 3). A last session usually focuses on recommendations and follow-up actions. The five founding partners share responsibilities in conducting advocacy initiatives and collectively select thematic issues, topics and speakers before each seminar. For example, research findings on the experience of informal settlement communities during and after the Covid-19 pandemic were used during a session to catalyse conversations on communities as first responders to disasters and health crises.

Figure 2. Seminar 8 agenda. Source: Urban Informality Forum.

Figure 3. Seminar 9 agenda. Source: Urban Informality Forum.

As its entry point, the UIF uses urban informality in all its forms and explores how to resolve informality’s challenges into positive contributions towards urban transformation. The primary focus is on government responses to informality and policy reforms related to upgrading informal settlements. A strategic long-term approach seeks to shift piecemeal government efforts towards a more coherent, human-centred national response framework. The broad spectrum of participants allows for merging theory, practice and experience to enrich perspectives and develop policy recommendations that are contextually informed and place the people in the settlements at the centre.

The UIF's influence is evident in choice of speakers, often from central and local government, including Harare City Council (HCC) officials and the Ministry for National Housing. Government speakers are paired with community presenters or respondents, ensuring a dialogue between the state's position and the lived realities of informality. As a result of its engagements, the Forum has significantly contributed to three key policy processes, two national and one municipal level: the 2020 Zimbabwe National Human Settlements Policy (Government of Zimbabwe, 2020), National Development Strategy 1 (2020–2025) (Republic of Zimbabwe, 2020), and Harare City Council Slum Upgrading Protocol (2022). For both national policies, the Forum consulted with informal settlers and submitted recommendations. It influenced and submitted input on the HCC Slum Upgrading Protocols and, after these were adopted, UIF members established Slum Upgrading Funds in Harare and Masvingo to support infrastructure developments during upgrading.

The UIF has resulted in commendable progress, demonstrating the potential of such initiatives in addressing the challenges of informal settlements. While it has a national focus, so far it has concentrated on the cities of Harare and Masvingo. The ambition, yet to be realised, is to secure funding to fuel growth in Zimbabwe (see Limitations section below). To date, the UIF has been a largely self-supported initiative made possible by member organisation contributions. DoS and DEGI lead logistics, seminar preparation and funding management. DoS, DEGI and Shelter Homage Trust cover financial costs, ensuring the smooth running of meetings, seminars and refreshments, and supporting the attendance of participants from informal settlements on a rotational basis. The University of Zimbabwe's provision of a venue, a significant in-kind contribution, mitigates venue hire costs and provides a neutral, conducive environment for activities. The City of Bilbao has been the only external funder, supporting UIF activities beyond meetings and seminars, such as the exchange visits between Bulawayo and Masvingo city councils, which enabled valuable cross-city learning and catalysed tangible housing policy changes (see Learning section below).

Target population, communities, constituents or "beneficiaries"

Forum participants are state and non-state actors, spanning organised groups of informal settlement dwellers, local and municipal authorities, central government, academia and civil society.

For informal settlement residents, the Forum is a safe, inclusive space to reflect without fear of being judged or threat of eviction. It offers an opportunity for marginalised groups to build political capital and establish critical contacts with officials, and a platform to voice their priorities for governance and service delivery and influence urban development narratives. The UIF also acts as a space for knowledge exchange between community groups, who, by learning from one another, can adapt and implement successful strategies to address their unique circumstances. Inclusive participation is promoted through the involvement of the Federation, ensuring that disadvantaged groups have a voice in seminars and other activities. Often-marginalised groups like women, youth and persons with disabilities are deliberately included: for example, the UIF has incorporated the Federation's gender rights structures, creating platforms to enhance women's participation.

For the five convening organisations, the UIF acts as a critical platform to engage with a diversity of different actors, ideas and insights that can potentially inform institutional frameworks, such as the National Regularisation Framework. DoS representatives have said that they use the UIF to

“[t]alk about issues to do with research, to build a body of evidence that helps to back some of the arguments that we have been talking about in terms of the need for inclusion, the magnitude and scale of informality in the city and also even bringing in different insights from various global experiences that we are connected to as part of the SDI network” (ACRC, 2023).

With the involvement of academia, including as venue, the Forum has also been able to inform and enrich university curricula. It has encouraged planning and engineering students attending UIF seminars to understand the realities in informal settlements.

ACRC themes

The following ACRC domains are relevant (links to ACRC domain pages):

While informal settlements is the primary ACRC domain relevant to the Urban Informality Forum, there are significant overlaps with other domains.

Housing: The Forum places significant focus on the lack of access to adequate, affordable housing faced by informal workers and residents. Through its emphasis on citizen engagement, it provides a platform for residents to understand the legislation governing authorities’ approaches to informal housing, and their rights within spaces characterised by institutional and spatial marginalisation.

Land and connectivity: The influence partisan alignment in informal settlements is detrimental to service access and tenure security. This is particularly in Harare’s political settlement, where the political dynamic often transforms settlements into electoral vote banks and political battlefields, exacerbating the systemic gaps in physical and social infrastructure and social services that the city should provide. This situation underscores the urgent need for intervention.

The UIF places a strong emphasis on fostering economic growth and resilience through neighbourhood and district economic development, prioritising informal enterprises and ways to enhance sustainable livelihoods. This approach is intricately linked to the provision of basic services and the potential for entrepreneurial initiatives in better serviced neighbourhoods within a thriving economy.

The following ACRC crosscutting themes are also relevant (links to ACRC domain pages):

Climate change

The UIF has set out to mainstream climate change in its activities, and has developed a written strategy that guides the Forum and its members on how to address climate change-related issues, including climate adaptation, green and just energy transitions, environmental protection, and climate justice. Two specific focus areas are safeguarding wetlands and providing civic education to communities.

What has been learnt?

Effectiveness/success

How does the Urban Informality Forum understand success?

The standard of success is informed by the participating communities and the five partners of the Forum. The founding members’ understanding of success starts with the Forum’s role in convening across different agency categories and levels. Local and national government officials and staff from state-owned enterprises that oversee settlement regularisation have come together with civil society to openly engage and present informed critiques of their experiences. This has even on occasions led to joint reports between UIF-linked researchers and public officials.

The UIF’s understanding of success also overlaps with the themes of mobilised citizens, reform coalitions and building state capacity. These are three of the preconditions that ACRC has identified in its theory of change as catalysts for urban reform.

Mobilised citizens pushing for change. The UIF has become a space where citizens’ voices are heard and where urban dwellers are able to engage with the politics of informality that shape their lives and livelihoods. Arising from a lack of inclusive state-led initiatives to address the underlying issues that produce informality, the UIF’s formation as a response to a power vacuum in governance structures and representation, as well as the lens through which informality is framed at the state and municipal levels, demonstrates the positive effects of participatory initiatives that aim to address pressing urban issues from a citizen-centred approach. Its formation represents an important social and political milestone in the trajectory of Zimbabwean citizen-lead mobilisation. It has been designed as both a platform and a movement that engages with and integrates the agency of informal settlement dwellers and workers. In this, it showcases inclusive participation and policy formulation in regulating and regularising informality.

Reform coalitions. The UIF is a formal reform coalition, established – by a range of agencies with a longstanding collaboration around pro-poor urban development issues – to facilitate the understanding and resolution of urban informality issues. It also demonstrates the value of involving academics in evidence-based policy advocacy to both local and central government (Ouma et al., 2024).

Agencies able to build short- and long-term state capacity. Through national and local government participation, including as invited speakers, the Forum is creating and capacitating government champions with an enhanced understanding of urban informality and potential pathways to regularisation. Forum partners observe, for example, that more officials have been expressing confidence in community roles in providing public services.

How successful has the Urban Informality Forum been?

By striving to bridge the gap between government and citizens, the UIF has actively fostered an inclusive, crosscutting approach to informal settlement upgrading in Zimbabwe. The approach is not just about finding solutions, but about empowering informal workers and residents to be part of the solution, instilling a sense of hope and optimism. The Forum is a platform for residents to easily access their officials and a voice where communities can contribute to thought processes towards urban transformation. As mentioned above, recognition of the community voice has grown over time in the UIF. Federation network representatives have participated as discussants and presenters, providing insights into the community perspective, lived experiences and potential reform pathways. Even without the government directly mentioning it, the UIF can safely claim that it has created safe spaces for conversations on urban informality and is influencing policy decisions around the regularisation of informal settlements and land tenure and security.

Figure 4. A presentation on land tenure and tenure security during a UIF seminar in 2022. Source. Urban Informality Forum.

Policy development and wording. The Forum has had a clear influence on policy development. Zimbabwean authorities’ growing commitment to addressing the issue of informality is evident in the recent development and adoption of key national and municipal policies that are heavily informed by UIF submissions (see also Summary of initiative, above). Below, two text extracts from the 2020 Zimbabwe National Human Settlement Policy (Government of Zimbabwe, 2020) illustrate this influence. One of the UIF’s founding members, DEGI, was contracted by the government to lead consultations in the development of this policy.

“Regularisation and sanitisation of informal settlements shall be employed in order to rectify past mistakes through building back better. In so doing, Government shall be conscious of the constitutional provision on arbitrary evictions” (Zimbabwe National Human Settlement Policy, p. 9).

“The replacement of a culture of multiple mass evictions is possible. It reduces constitutional rights violation and erosion of opportunities for inclusive governance. Regularization and in-situ upgrading of formal and informal settlements engender state–citizen rapport necessary for sustainable settlements” (Zimbabwe National Human Settlement Policy, p. 22).

Influencing and monitoring progress. During the fifth UIF seminar in 2021, Forum partners initiated and subsequently led the crafting of a policy paper to inform government processes to develop a national slum upgrading and regularisation framework. The seminar was themed “Formulating a National Slum Upgrading Protocol for improving access to basic services in urban Zimbabwe”. The Deputy Minister for National Housing and Social Amenities was the keynote speaker. The theme was continued and consolidated in subsequent seminars. In seminar 6 (2022), participants analysed connections between proposed national slum upgrading protocols and appropriate land tenure and tenure security arrangements. Seminar 7’s (2023) theme was informal settlement regularisation, with presentations from the Ministry of Local Government and discussants from the financial sector. The Forum also provides a space to monitor policy implementation. Seminar 8 (2023) had two main themes: (1) progress to date in implementing Zimbabwe National Human Settlement Policy; and (2) land titling in emergent peri-urban settlements.

Focus on land and tenure security and service provision. The UIF has enabled informal settlers and non-state actors to collectively demand an audience with the state and communicate sensitive issues in a non-confrontational way. At times, this has had some success in changing the narrative assigned to informality in the city. For example, Forum contributions have highlighted the various forms of tenure in informal settlements. Through the Human Settlements Policy (Government of Zimbabwe, 2020), government introduced definitional wording in line with UIF aspirations for regularisation “[a] staged process of upgrading informal settlements to improve quality of life through provision of requisite on site and off site services and tenure” (p. 5). This meant officials could place their processes within existing informal settlement tenure arrangements. Agreements of sale with developers (cessions) and sometimes letters from political elites were being taken as secure tenure guarantees by informal settlement residents, yet were not recognised as legitimate tenure by municipal or central government. With the policy changes, government now recognises some (but not all) of these forms of tenure. The UIF has also led discussions on solutions to inadequate service provision in informal settlements – in a context of widespread non-state provision of basic services in both formal and informal settlements – such as in Dzivarasekwa Extension, where the city of Harare has not provided services, arguing that the land is under a different local authority, yet its electoral boundaries are in the area.

Figure 5. UIF participants visit an upgraded neighbourhood in connection with seminar 2. Source. Urban Informality Forum.

Approach to community data and knowledge. UIF analysis is not based on assumptions or personal opinions, but on facts and empirical evidence. The approach centres on community knowledge and community-generated data, leveraging the Federation’s close relationship with informal communities. This provides critical insights into issues that inform urban informality questions in Harare and Zimbabwe, and grounds co-developed solutions, ensuring they address the real issues that communities face.

Learning beyond seminars. As well as the policy influence mentioned above, UIF reach beyond meetings is also in facilitating learning exchanges between seminar participants, such as a visit by Masvingo City Council officials to their counterparts in Bulawayo. This was funded by the City of Bilbao and was instrumental in providing Masvingo with knowledge and impetus to undertake significant housing reform. Officials were able to study a Bulawayo programme converting council-owned rental housing stock into homeownership opportunities for tenants. This enabled them to understand the legal framework, administrative processes and resident engagement strategies that were utilised. After the visit, Masvingo City Council was inspired to replicate a similar programme and has passed a resolution and begun the process of converting hostels in Tanaiwa, a council-owned rental housing development, into individually owned homes for current tenants.

Demystifying and managing tensions. It is clear from local and national government officials’ presence on attendance records and speaker lists that the state values the UIF highly. It has created and maintained a safe and independent space, where formal government institutions engage with informal residents and other stakeholders in open conversation and collaborative problem-solving. This provides decisionmakers and duty-bearers an avenue to gain clarity around the challenges faced by those living in informality, and insights into what inclusive decisionmaking can look like, considering the inherent potential these groups possess for structural transformation. In this, the Forum has both demystified and effectively managed the tensions that usually characterise centre–local and state–community/civil society relations in Zimbabwe. This inclusive engagement is crucial.

Understanding limitations

The organisations spearheading the UIF are passionately committed to building a robust coalition of partners. However, this process is undeniably resource intensive. Despite impressive achievements, the UIF is yet to secure the necessary funding to expand its stakeholder base and remit in Zimbabwe beyond Harare and Masvingo, or to disseminate its knowledge and techniques more widely. Full institutionalisation is a crucial next step to both attract financial support and funding partners and ensure the sustained involvement of key stakeholders. At the time of writing, self-sponsorship, collaborative activities and contributions have been the UIF's lifelines (as above).

Best intentions that are not undergirded by solid terms of reference and institutional statutes can lead to disruption. So far, the Forum has thrived on trust, which is excellent but insufficient to sustain the initiative beyond its founders. Notwithstanding the co-convening organisations’ unwavering commitment, the UIF needs clear terms of reference for its partners. The current ambiguity can lead to situations where individual and institutional self-interest among the organisers overshadows collective interests, necessitating action. Or partners with limited capacity to contribute materially may misconstrue voluntary provision of support and leadership as attempts to hijack and “own” a multistakeholder platform.

As a reform coalition, the UIF holds vast potential in its extensive database of participating organisations and individuals. This potential, however, is largely untapped. By identifying, analysing and classifying these partners, the UIF can foster deeper and more strategic conversations – for instance, on the pivotal roles of private sector and government actors in the Forum, a current priority.

Potential for scaling and replicating

Currently, the UIF is issue-based, focusing mainly on creating spaces for discussion and identifying further areas for reflection. Efforts to operationalise these discussions through, for example, co-creating slum upgrading protocols, have materialised in Harare and could be replicated in other cities. The vision remains to create spaces for dialogue. Implementation then takes place at the level of the membership, albeit catalysed by the role of the forum, in, for example, fundraising, advocating for and implementing precedent-setting interventions and providing the framework for their scaling up.

Participating agencies

Name
Type
Role in Initiative
Private sector
Lead organisation; Documentation; Event logistics and preparation; Knowledge management
Community-based NGO
Lead organisation; Documentation; Event logistics and preparation; Knowledge management; Reporting
Government (municipal)
Funder
Civil society
Sponsor
Academic/research
Documentation; Knowledge management; Venue (host)

Further information

Further resources

References

ACRC (2023). “Urban reform coalitions in Harare: A conversation with George Masimba”. Podcast, 27 March. African Cities Research Consortium. Available online.

Chatiza, K and Gotora, P (2021). “The Varying shades of settlement informality in Zimbabwe ‘s urban areas and how this impacts public sector regularisation attitudes and responses”. Journal of Urban Systems and Innovations for Resilience in Zimbabwe-JUSIRZ 3.2 (2021): 38-67.

Chavunduka, C and Chaonwa-Gaza, M (2021). “The political economy of urban informal settlements in Zimbabwe”. In AR Matamanda, V Nel and IChirisa (eds.), Urban Geography in Postcolonial Zimbabwe. Cham: Springer, Cham.

Chiweshe, M, Mutopo, P, Ncube, MJ and Mutondoro, F (2013). Analysis of Transparency and Accountability in Land Sector Governance in Zimbabwe 2013 (edited by T Murisa). Transparency International Zimbabwe.

Dobson, S (2014). “Municipal Forums for Kampala: ‘If not now, then when? If not us, then who?ʼ” SDI blog,. Slum Dwellers International. Available online (accessed 12 August 2024).

Government of Zimbabwe (2020). Zimbabwe National Human Settlements Policy (2020). Harare: Ministry of National Housing and Social Amenities. Available online [pdf] (accessed 12 August 2024).

McGregor, J and Chatiza, K (2019). “Partisan citizenship and its discontents: Precarious possession and political agency on Harare City’s expanding margins”. Citizenship Studies 24(1): 17-39.

Ouma, S, Beltrame, DC, Mitlin, D and Chitekwe-Biti, B (2024). “Informal settlements: Domain report”. ACRC Working Paper 2024-09. Manchester: African Cities Research Consortium, The University of Manchester. Available online: www.african-cities.org

Republic of Zimbabwe (2020). Towards a Prosperous and Empowered Middle Income Society by 2030: National Development Strategy 1, January 2021-December 2025. Harare. Available online [pdf] (accessed 12 August 2024).

Tabaijuka, AK (2005). Report of the Fact-finding Mission to Zimbabwe to Assess the Scope and Impact of Operation Murambatsvina. Geneva: United Nations.

Urban Informality Forum Seminar Series, Urban Informality Forum: Introducing the Think Space, Edition 2, April 2023.

Cite this case study as:

Lewanika, M, Mswelanto, T, Karakadzai, T and Lines, K (2024). “Experimenting with multistakeholder reform coalition: The case of the Urban Informality Forum in Zimbabwe”. ACRC Urban Reform Database Case Study. Manchester: African Cities Research Consortium, The University of Manchester. Available online.


Comments


Thanks for your contribution. Comments are moderated and we may remove any sensitive content. Name and organisation will be displayed with your comment. Email addresses are not displayed.