Governance challenges of regularisation of informal settlements in peri-urban Tanzania: perspectives from local stakeholders

ABSTRACT

The regularisation of informal settlements has become a common initiative for addressing urban development and growth in many cities in Sub-Saharan Africa. Yet, its governance is still complex and unexplored. This study thus aims to examine and understand the governance challenges of regularising informal settlements in peri-urban Tanzania. A case study design with a combination of discussions from two participatory workshops and document analysis was used to collect empirical and theoretical data. Findings show that the regularisation of informal settlements is challenged by existing structural governance operations driven by stakeholders, particularly community leaders and planning and surveying firms. Consequently, regularisation processes are delayed or halted, which demoralises the landholders. To ensure effective and efficient governance structures for regularisation activities, it is essential that responsible actors diligently play their roles as mandated in the policy and legal documents. Accountability and transparency should be reinforced in the operation and implementation of regularisation schemes to ensure adherence to guiding policies and laws.

KEYWORDS:

• Governance structure
• peri-urban
• development
• settlement
• Tanzania

1. Introduction

Cities in African countries have experienced unprecedented growth and expansion of informal settlements accompanied by various challenges. Unprecedented growth has been fuelled by rural-urban migrations, natural growth, the sale of un-serviced customary land and unmodernised rapid urbanisation, which have led to uncontrolled cities transformation (Kombe and Kreibich 2001; Kyessi 2018; Niva et al. 2019; Ono and Kidokoro 2020; Nuhu 2021). The trend has led 50–70% of people in these cities to live in informal settlements (Nuhu 2018, 2021). Informal settlements are associated with unsuitable spatial planning, inadequate land management and administration systems, and a lack of affordable housing (UN 2013; Niva et al. 2019; Zerbo et al. 2020). Consequently, health risks attributed to environmental and sanitation challenges in most African cities are observed (Ehebrecht 2015; Mpambije and Nuhu 2016; Muanda et al. 2020; Zerbo et al. 2020). Other associated ill effects include inaccessibility of livelihood opportunities (Chant 2014; UNFPA 2007), insecurity of tenure as land is owned illegally (Ehebrecht 2015; Nuhu 2019, 2021) and crimes (Mutahi 2011). As a result, different approaches have been used to address informal settlement-related challenges, which are largely context-specific.

Most African countries, including Tanzania, have considered regularisation an important governance initiative for formalising informal settlements in major cities. This is because land regularisation has been increasingly recognised as an emerging and relevant urban planning instrument for tackling informal settlements in African cities (Locke and Henley 2016; Kyessi 2018; Zakayo et al. 2018). As a result, different strategies and policy interventions are established, reflecting the global and national policy agenda. For instance, the New Urban Agenda advocates for upgrading the informal settlements to achieve sustainable city growth in Africa (UN-Habitat 2016a). Similarly, Sustainable Development Goal 11 (Target 11.1) also advocates for slum upgrading. Notably, the global initiatives have been customised to reflect the national and local context, as land policies and regularisation governance challenges cannot be homogenised.

At the national level, Tanzania has adopted various policies and laws guiding the regularisation of informal settlements. These include the Land Act of 1999, the National Human Settlements policy of 2000 and the Urban Planning Act of 2007 (URT 2000, 2007b; A. G. Kyessi 2018). Among other things, these policy instruments aim to establish the regularisation of informal settlement initiatives and encourage the participation of other actors, such as land planning and surveying firms and civil society, in land-related activities (URT 1999, 2000, 2007b; Kyessi 2018). However, despite the established policies and other initiatives, cities in Tanzania are still experiencing rapid growth of informality due to governance challenges.

In Tanzania and Dar es Salaam city specifically, informal settlements are widespread, attributed to several factors. Nearly 80% of land or settlements in Dar es Salaam city are informal (Kombe and Kreibich 2001, 2006; Kombe et al. 2015). It is predicted that the expansion of informal settlements will be on a large scale, especially in peri-urban areas of the city (Kombe et al. 2015). The expansion is attributed to the inability of public authorities to provide serviced land/plots, low priority given to the urban land sector, the co-existence of multiple tenure systems and inadequate or lack of appropriate planning schemes (Kyessi 2018; Nuhu 2021). Other factors include bureaucratic procedures and regulations, which jeopardise and slow the regularisation processes (Magina et al. 2020; Nuhu 2021; Nuhu and Kombe 2021). Considering the multi-faceted governance issues highlighted, researchers and policymakers have increasingly raised questions and discussions about the success or failure of the regularisation of informal settlements in Tanzania and other parts of the global south.

Several studies have investigated different aspects of governance of the regularisation of informal settlements in the African context. The most significant developments in this direction have been focusing on regularisation and sustainable land use or development (Hafsi and Chabi 2019; Ngoga 2019; Matamanda 2020); land grabbing and its influence on formalisation dilemmas, ineffectiveness of regularisation regulations and disputes over tenure regularisation (Rigon 2016; Neimark et al. 2018; Chiodelli and Mazzolini 2019). Attention has also been given to regularisation and poverty reduction (Agunbiade et al. 2015). In addition, studies have also concentrated on explaining the relevance of regularisation or upgrading as a new planning approach for addressing informal settlement difficulties (Locke and Henley 2016; Mwamba and Peng 2020). Studies on Africa reflect the critical role of regularisation in urban development and growth in most cities but do not examine the governance challenges of the regularisation processes.

In the Tanzania context, considerable literature has been written on; the experience of civil society, public and private sectors in providing settlements/land regularisation services (Hassani 2013; Kasala and Burra 2016; Makundi 2017; Kyessi 2018; Nuhu 2021; Nuhu and Kombe 2021). Literature has also discussed technical challenges and opportunities for the regularisation of informal settlements (Magembe-Mushi and Lupala 2015; Kyessi 2018; Magina et al. 2020); community involvement, development and land/settlements regularisation (Magigi and Majani 2006; Zakayo et al. 2018; Chiodelli and Mazzolini 2019; Andreasen et al. 2020). Factors affecting settlements regularisation (Kusiluka and Chiwambo 2018) and services provided in regularised informal settlements (Edmund 2019) have also been highlighted in the literature. However, there is little discussion about the governance challenges, particularly of informal settlements’ regularisation from local stakeholders’ perspectives. Nuhu (2019) advises that different actors’ views on land-related matters are crucial because they may vary.

Therefore, this study aimed to examine and understand the governance challenges of informal settlement regularisations in peri-urban Dar es Salaam based on local stakeholders’ perspectives. Local stakeholders’ tacit knowledge is vital when searching for solutions in the land sector because they are involved in grassroots regularisation activities. Furthermore, this study provides an opportunity to advance governance knowledge based on theoretical and empirical findings, which is vital in social sciences. Theoretically, the study offers a critical discussion of the literature on governance contributing to the body of knowledge. Empirically, this study provides evidence on governance challenges of informal settlement regularisation. The remaining parts of the paper proceed as follows: the second part (Section 2) explains a conceptual understanding of governance and informal settlements regularisation. The third part (Section 3) outlines and describes the methodological framework used for collecting empirical findings. The fourth part (Section 4) presents and discusses the findings of this study. The final part (Section 5) provides conclusions of the study and points out some recommendations.

2. Governance and informal settlements’ regularisation_― a theoretical perspective

Governance as a concept has been used differently by scholars, practitioners, and policymakers worldwide. Even though the concept has been applied and used extensively in different areas and disciplines, it is argued that governance is complex to define, measure and practice (Torfing et al. 2012; Fukuyama 2013). Each discipline adopts a different conceptualisation of governance based on its analytical approach. As a result, the concept lacks a universal definition (Torfing et al. 2012). Fukuyama (2013, p. 350), for instance, defines governance ‘as a government’s ability to make and enforce rules, and to deliver services, regardless of whether that government is democratic or not’. The definition provided by Fukuyama is based on the critical analysis that questions the explanation of governance in relation to democracy. Therefore, Fukuyama recommends that the conceptualisation of governance and democracy must be distinguished because it is ideal for linking the two concepts in theory but not in practice. This is because political nature, policy, and public services are context-specific. The World-Bank (1992) defines governance with respect to authority, actors’ capacity to manage resources, and implement policies while upholding the citizens’ views and mandates of respective institutions. This implies that actors engaged in providing public services, such as the facilitation of regularisation of informal settlements, should have authority and capacity.

While a variety of definitions of the concept of governance have been suggested, this study will use the definition first suggested by Hufty (2011, p. 405), who saw it as ‘a category of social facts, namely the processes of interaction and decision-making among the actors involved in a collective problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions’. Hufty’s conception takes on board many aspects of the governance concept seen by other scholars. These include the position of politics and power in which decisions are made, controlled, and administered (Nuhu 2018) and the accountability of actors (Keping 2018; Mees and Driessen 2019). It also includes neutrality in processing public service delivery and the diversity of actors (e.g. government, private sector, civil society and individuals). Another aspect is the leadership that regulate and monitor specific developments (see also Stoker 1998; Palmer et al. 2009). Within the mentioned aspects, actors interact, negotiate, cooperate, or conflict while providing land-related services (Shen and Steuer 2017; Nuhu 2018). For instance, the land planning and surveying firms may interact, collaborate, or negotiate with the government and communities to facilitate informal settlements regularisation.

Regularisation has been a dominant governance initiative in addressing informal settlements development or growth in many African cities for the past ten years (Andreasen et al. 2020). In the literature, researchers have used the regularisation notion in its broadest sense to refer to processes of formalisation or legalisation of tenure rights through titling and improvement of public services (Fernandes 2011; Zakayo et al. 2018; Manandhar 2019). The same notion is appropriate to this study because land regularisation intends to bring unofficial settlements or land within the legal, official and administrative systems. This may be done through planning, surveying, land registration and improvement of community services within the regularised areas (Zakayo et al. 2018). Tenure security provision and access to title deed is the milestone for informal settlements/land regularisation activities (Ramadhani 2007; Manandhar 2019). Notably, sometimes ‘regularisation’ and ‘upgrading’ are used interchangeably in the literature (see Mwamba and Peng 2020). This is because both processes contribute to inclusiveness by helping communities, especially the urban poor, in various aspects such as; accessing financial services or loans using their title deeds, improving neighbourhoods and housing provision (UN-Habitat 2016b; Zakayo et al. 2018; Nuhu and Kombe 2021).

Development social scientists have long highlighted the central role of governance for effective and efficient regularisation activities and processes. This requires transparency and accountability from responsible authorities. Without making those responsible for settlement matters accountable and open, while protecting the public interests, regularisation activities may not deliver what was/is expected (Nuhu and Kombe 2021). The extent to which governance is adhered to by responsible actors may determine the success or failure of intended developmental activities or projects (Kasala and Burra 2016; Chiodelli and Mazzolini 2019; Nuhu and Kombe 2021). More so, actors’ interaction and power-sharing determine leadership quality and governance outcomes (Nuhu 2018; Adam 2020). In regularisation, community leaders, planning and surveying firms, government authorities and communities interact on different levels. These multiple actors are driven by diverse interests while playing different roles. Therefore, governance structures must be functional to deliver regularisation activities effectively.

3. Research methodology

Having discussed the theoretical perspective, this section explains the methodological approach used to collect empirical data. A qualitative case study design was employed to allow logical understanding of a complex regularisation governance structure of informal settlements from the local stakeholders’ perspectives. The design was found suitable because regularisation activities in Tanzania are characterised by complicated processes where accountability, transparency are driven by actors’ interests and needs. The design enabled an in-depth exploration of the existing governance systems that facilitate or hinder the regularisation of informal settlements. Two wards (Goba and Wazo) in peri-urban Dar es Salaam (See Figure 1) were selected for the following reasons. (i) They are areas where land planning and surveying firms have concentrated which enabled examining the performance of actors who play vital roles in the governance of regularisation. (ii) These areas are undergoing rapid land transformations and show a high need for regularisation to curb the rapid growth of informal settlements. (iii) The two wards experience land or settlement governance challenges relating to regularisation activities as reported in the literature. The stated reasons cannot fit all the informal settlements in urban centres.

Figure 1. Location of Dar es Salaam city and the case study settlements.

The two settlements neighbour each other and have the same demographic characteristics. Among other things, Goba and Wazo accommodate people from the low, middle and high-income status and have migrants from different parts of Tanzania (Msangi 2011; Nuhu 2021). Based on the Tanzania population Census of 2012, Wazo and Goba wards have 90,825 and 42,669 people, respectively (UN 2013). In terms of size, Wazo ward has a 53.27 km² Area and 1,705/km² population density, while Goba has a 47.23 km² Area and 903.4/km² population density (City-population 2017a, 2017b).

A total of fifteen (n = 15) community leaders at the grassroots participated in this study. Eight (n = 8) and Seven (n = 7) of the leaders were selected from Goba and Wazo wards, respectively, as indicated in Table 1. Wards and sub-wards were represented by either a chairman or sub-ward/mtaa executive officer. Leaders were selected based on their intermediate roles in informal settlements’ regularisation activities in their areas. Some of these leaders, especially the ward executive officer, are employed and salaried, while the chairpersons are elected periodically but not entitled to salaries. Despite a lack of mandate to work on land matters, community leaders are engaged in both formal and informal land access processes due to their closeness to members of the communities in their area of influence (Nuhu 2021). Among other duties, these leaders connect different actors engaged in the regularisation activities, such as land planning and surveying firms, ministry of land, local government authorities and communities. They are also responsible for reporting matters related to regularisation activities to actors with whom they collaborate, especially local government authorities.

Table 1. Demographic information and responsibilities of community leaders.

Wazo Ward
Name of sub ward	Demographic information
	Education	Sex	Age	Length of tenure on post	Responsibilities
Nyakasangwe	Secondary	Male	50	8	Witnessing land transactions. Supervising settlements/land regularisation activities. Connecting communities with other actors. Organising community meetings. Solving land-related disputes. Coordinating development programmes. Ensuring peace and security. Report on immediate issues for intervention from responsible authorities.
Kilimahewa	Primary	Male	40	3
Kilimahewa Juu	Secondary	Male	34	3
	Secondary	Female	38	2
Kisanga	Secondary	Female	34	3
Madale	Primary	Female	46	3
Salasala	Primary	Male	55	8
Goba Ward
Kunguru	Secondary	Male	40	3
Goba Center	Primary	Male	52	3
Kulangwa	Primary	Male	38	3
Muungano	Primary	Male	46	8
Kinzudi	Secondary	Male	46	8
Tegeta A	Diploma	Male	42	3
Matosa	Diploma	Male	32	2
Kibululu	Primary	Male	49	3

Furthermore, community leaders are also accountable for overseeing the land planning and surveying firms in their areas of jurisdiction to ensure the effectiveness and efficiency of regularising service provision. Additionally, community leaders are engaged in raising awareness of community members to participate effectively in the regularisation projects. In this case, these leaders are expected to be equipped with administrative and technical leadership on land matters by local government authorities and the land ministry to facilitate their understanding of land-related policy and laws.

Participatory workshops and document analysis were utilised as techniques for data collection to establish the governance of the regularisation of informal settlements. The participatory workshops were conducted through presentations and discussions between the research team and community leaders. The research team comprised three members: the principal researcher and two assistants. The organisation of the workshops started with a twenty minutes’ presentation by the principal researcher. The presentation was to re-orient community leaders on regularisation of informal settlements in peri-urban areas. Presented ideas included the meaning of regularisation, policy, laws, guidelines, and opportunities for the regularisation of settlements. It also included actors and their roles, the land planning and surveying firm participation and communities’ roles in the regularisation activities.

After the presentation, the principal researcher guided the discussions. This was done by posing questions or allowing the leaders to provide any arising issues, while the assistant researchers were taking notes. The main questions posed and discussed included; What are the governance challenges in the regularisation activities? What is the status and organisation of the leadership in the regularisation activities? How do community leaders collaborate or link with other actors in the regularisation activities? What are the roles played by the community leaders in the regularisation activities? How do politics influence or affect regularisation activities? Any research team member was allowed to question, raise and discuss any emerging issues to seek more clarification and understanding of the discussed topic. To capture the opinions of all members in attendance, each leader was given 4–5 minutes to provide their experience of regularisation activities and the participation of private firms in their area of jurisdiction. The workshops were held at the ward offices, and prior information was sent to avoid disrupting the leaders’ schedules. Kiswahili was used in the presentation and discussion because it is the language conversant by most community leaders.

Document analysis was also used to collect empirical findings, as different legal and policy guidelines guide the regularisation of informal settlements. In this respect, the Land Policy of 1995, the Human Settlement Policy of 2000, the Land Act of 1999, the Urban Planning Act of 2007 and the General Guidelines for the Preparation of Regularisation Schemes of 2007, among others, were reviewed. Other reviewed documents include peer review articles, books and reports on the studied phenomenon. Different search engines such as google scholar, JSTOR, and Emerald were used to search for literature. Soft and hard copies of books were obtained in the library and online. International reports from different organisations (e.g. UN-Habitat, UNEP, UN and World Bank) and government reports were accessed. The analysis of documents was to understand the conditions of the governance structure of informal settlements regularisation. The documents were helpful in identifying the actors who are required to engage in the regularisation activities, their roles, power, and the establishment of the existing state of affairs.

Content analysis was used in analysing data. Through content analysis, determination of words and themes was done. Data were first transcribed into Kiswahili and then translated into English, followed by quantifying and analysing meanings and relationships of the generated words and sentences, which enabled generation of themes. Then, text categorisation and coding, whereby related themes and words were combined to form major themes, as presented in the findings and discussion section, followed.

4. Findings and discussion

This section presents and discusses the governance challenges that emerged from the empirical findings in relation to the regularisation of informal settlements in peri-urban areas. The arrangement of sub-sections is based on the significance of ideas identified by community leaders as crucial in the governance of regularisation in informal settlements. These include transparency, accountability, leadership, and the failure of the land planning and surveying firms. Availability of areas for community services and the politicisation of regularisation activities are also presented and discussed.

4.1. Transparency and accountability shortcomings

Transparency and accountability have become critical issues in the regularisation of informal settlements in Tanzania. Transparency and accountability include widespread access to land and regularisation-related information, while accountability entails actors being accountable for their actions. Findings reveal that regularisation activities have been characterised by delays, conflicts and corruption associated with a lack of transparency and inadequate accountability. In the discussions, most community leaders lamented that responsible government bodies had called them to investigate acts of corruption and accountability of actors in regularisation activities. They further noted that most of the questions raised during the investigations were whether the private firms and/or regularisation committees are transparent while engaging in the regularisation activities. During the discussions, it was revealed that the officials from the land planning and surveying firms are not open because they do not provide timely and adequate information about the stages and challenges faced to the communities and their leaders. Community leaders lamented that they need to be informed of the steps and stages the land planning and surveying firms accomplish in the regularisation activities pertaining their areas of jurisdiction since they are not conversant with the complex and bureaucratic procedures within the land sector. They noted further that inadequate transparency and accountability are blamed on community leaders by community members instigating that they are the ones who delay the processes or bring conflicts in the regularisation activities. Community members blame their leaders because they are the ones who coordinate with the land planning and surveying firms.

Other studies have also revealed that inadequate transparency and accountability have been increasing the complexity of the regularisation services provided by the private firms (see also Durand-Lasserve and Clerc 1996; Nuhu 2021; Nuhu and Kombe 2021). This is also revealed by Kironde (2009), who noted that about 75% of failures of land-related projects in Tanzania are associated with a lack of accountability by public officials and transparency and other associated factors, such as inefficiency and ineffectiveness. Similarly, in this study, one community leader noted that:

In my area, the regularisation project which was started in 2016 has been delayed. Nothing has been done so far, although we collected funds from some community members. Officials from the private firm contracted to provide services in this area are not open about what happened, information is not reported, and if it is reported, it is not in time. This has led some community members to lack confidence in this regularisation exercise, and give up. Some have rejected paying regularisation fees because they are not sure whether anything will happen learning from the experience of those that paid first. To make matters worse, the officers of these private firms are not responsible for their mistakes and we, the community leaders, remain the victims since we are supposed to be answerable to the people.

In addressing this matter, participants revealed that some community members had submitted their grievances to lawmakers, others to local government authorities, the anti-corruption bureau and the central government. It was also noted that community leaders sometimes give communities false information to avoid disappointing their members. As also revealed by UN-Habitat (2010), most schemes for upgrading informal settlements projects and activities in Dar es Salaam lack transparency, where community members have been victims of false information. Based on the community leaders’ argument, it was noted that if community members are informed about the procedures and steps undertaken by the land planning and surveying firms in providing regularisation services in the implementation stage, they may not be demotivated (see also UN-Habitat 2010).

More so, some community members may not even be aware of the service provision agreement signed between the regularisation committees and the private firms. Yet, the communities, in collaboration with the regularisation committees or community leaders, are responsible for selecting the firm for providing regularisation services (Nuhu and Kombe 2021). Some community leaders believed that openness is vital to responding to claims raised by the communities. Leaders are the ones who are blamed, and yet sometimes, they are not responsible for such mistakes witnessed in the regularisation services provided by the private firms. Overall, these findings indicate that transparency and accountability are among the critical challenges hindering the private firms effective and efficient provision of regularisation services. These findings are echoed by Mlotwa (2015), who noted that problematic governance institutions, such as a lack of transparency and accountability to the public sector, had challenged land matters in Tanzania and other developing countries.

4.2. Inadequate leadership and implication for regularisation

During the discussion with community leaders, it was noted that guidance and leadership from either local government authorities or the central government/ministry of lands are lacking. Some community leaders lamented that they are not aware or conversant with any land-related policy, law or guideline which regulates regularisation activities and provide a mandate for the private firms to facilitate land-related activities. These leaders also have a low capacity to deal with land-related governance issues (John and Kabote 2017). This is because some are politically elected regardless of their understanding of regularisation activities, land matters and professional competence. It should be noted that there are no training sessions for these leaders organised or planned by the local and central government actors other than those provided by universities, which are primarily academic and not practice-oriented.

Further analysis suggests that community leaders may sometimes make decisions that violate land-related laws due to a lack of clear leadership from higher authorities (local government and central government). This is obvious because no land or regularisation professionals are working at the grassroots level (ward and sub-ward), although there are officials/professionals for health, education and family matters who sometimes are professionals. This may emanate from the fact that land-related policies and laws have not recognised community leaders as key actors at lower levels. It was further noted that despite the lack of a legal mandate, community leaders play a significant role in land-related matters, particularly in the regularisation activities (see also Nuhu 2021; Nuhu and Kombe 2021). During discussions, it was noted that members of the regularisation committees are not selected by merit or professional capability but rather for being either famous or influential within the community, as one community leader said:

Many regularisation committees were formed without clear guidance. For example, the street chairman is the same as the committee chairman. Mind you, the street chairman is elected politically. So things are not running smoothly, as most committee members are not properly selected. The committee is engaged in regularisation activities blindly without guidelines and regulations.

This revelation may imply that due to a lack of proper leadership, decisions made by community leaders, violation of land-related laws may occur, or land-use conflicts may arise, hence delaying regularisation activities. During the discussion, some cases depicting inadequate leadership were reported. These included delays of regularisation activities, private firms receiving money without adequately providing planning and surveying services, violation of regularisation procedures and standards, and contracting non-registered private firms to provide services (see also Nuhu 2021; Nuhu and Kombe 2021; URT, 2021). Collectively, these findings provide important insights into the relevance of leadership in the regularisation of informal settlements at ward and sub-ward levels, particularly in peri-urban areas where land pressure is relatively high.

4.3. Over-ambitious private sector and outcomes

Under the current legal and policy frameworks, the private sector in Tanzania is allowed to engage in the regularisation activities to reduce the government’s burden of providing planning and surveying services to the communities, mostly in urban and peri-urban areas (URT 1999, 2000, 2007b; Kasala and Burra 2016; Nuhu and Kombe 2021). Land planning and surveying firms thus contribute to urban development. Findings from the study are, however, different from what was expected of the private firms in the regularisation activities. It was indicated that private firms had contracted regularisation committees in different sub-wards in the same ward, regardless of their capacity and competence. This is to utilise the same human and financial resources as well as time which may not go as planned because community members pay service fees in instalments. Notably, the expectation of the private firms to finish work in time, depending on the payment plan of the client, often does not work out (Hassani 2013; Nuhu and Kombe 2021). The slow contribution of the community members propels the private firms to engage in contracts with other sub-wards as an alternative source of funds for accomplishing regularisation activities in other sub-wards. It reaches a time when a private firm is overburdened by regularisation activities because of its involvement in many sub-wards simultaneously without adequate financial and human resource capacity (see also URT, 2021).

Under such circumstances, community leaders lamented that the private firms fail to offer services adequately in terms of time and cost. For instance, it was revealed further that in the study area, most private firms began their activities in 2016 and 2017. However, within five years, some private firms have not yet installed beacons within community plots. This indicates that private firms sometimes contribute to delays creating a lack of trust in the regularisation committee of the local communities. At the same time, others take a long time to provide feedback to the community via the regularisation committees. Additionally, a common view amongst community leaders is that some private firms are engaged in multiple regularisation activities in different sub-wards due to a lack of coordination among community leaders. For example, if a private firm provides services in sub-ward A, it does not notify the remaining sub-wards. Therefore, it is not bound to finish its activities in the respective sub-ward before engaging the others. In this regard, there is no control over private firms. Consequently, it is argued that this may limit the capacity and competence of private firms (Hassani 2013; Makundi 2017). The doings of the private firms, as revealed in this subsection, reflect the ambitious nature of profit-driven actors.

4.4. Lack of consensus on areas for public/community services

Areas for community or public service in regularisation projects have become contentious. Under the current state of settlements, community members need to volunteer some parcel/space of their land for public service without compensation (Nuhu and Kombe 2021). This notwithstanding that some parts of peri-urban areas are already congested, while others are not. When areas for public services (such as street roads) are required to meet the planning standards, and the public is not willing to surrender some land, it constrains the regularisation process (URT 2007a; Nuhu and Kombe 2021). Like in other studies, the present study also noted controversy and lack of consensus among community members regarding the provision of spaces for public use. This is worsened by the fact that, particularly in informal settlements, plot sizes are not uniform. While some people have small plots, others hold big plots. Community leaders noted that in some areas, there are people with plots of 150 square metres or less. In such scenarios, it is difficult to advise the holders to provide some part of their land/plot for public service. Emphasising this point, one community leader narrated:

...in my area, one person has a plot of 100 square meters. Can you imagine even on such a small plot; the holder may wish to construct a house with some parking space. We have been requesting him to volunteer some part of his land for the street road, but we have not reached a consensus. Although the regularisation process is still ongoing, it is stalled when such circumstances are encountered. This is a critical challenge for the community and the contractor facilitating the process.

It is important to note that despite the rapid transformation of peri-urban Dar es Salaam, some people still own more than one hectare (see also Nuhu 2019, 2021). Community leaders revealed that most of these people are educated and rich. Thus, they don’t want to provide part of their plots for public services, arguing that the government has money and should be compensated first. Some of them also don’t want to be included in the regularisation project because they have money; they can plan and survey their big areas individually. Community leaders noted that this is a challenge because the town planning drawing cannot be accepted by living out other members within the regularisation project (see also Nuhu and Kombe 2021).

Additionally, it was revealed that some plot holders do not stay in the areas where regularisation is conducted and may not participate in the collective community consensus over space for public use. It can be seen from the revelations that providing an area for public service is sometimes not possible. This can still be more problematic when the areas are not regularised as people continue building in their plots without following guidelines and standards. In informal settlements, this is common because building houses depends on an individual’s decision and capacity without integrating regularisation activities (Zakayo et al. 2018). Hafsi and Chabi (2019) note that sometimes, access to land for public services by individuals in informal settlements is complex and challenging if the areas are already developed.

Further revelations indicate that community leaders seek alternatives to address regularisation challenges related to areas for public use. For example, community leaders revealed various initiatives for acquiring space for public service. They noted that they convince big plot holders to contribute some piece of land or, raise money from community members or seek help from local government authorities to purchase land for public services, particularly markets, health centres and schools. It was also noted that another alternative used by these leaders was advising holders of big plots to invest in activities related to public services provision. These include; establishing private primary or secondary schools and private health centres and hospitals. Although some holders of big plots may accept to invest in the provision of public services, community leaders noted that acceptance is essentially difficult because of capital shortage. In summary, these findings show that the participation of private firms has been or will still be challenged by the lack of community spaces for public benefit.

4.5. Politicisation of regularisation activities

Politics is regarded as a driver of land issues in Tanzania (Sundet 1997; Manji 1998; Nuhu and Kombe 2021). This is the case in many African countries, where power and control over land and its related activities are attached to political power supported by legal and policy frameworks (Kironde 2009b; Nuhu 2018, p. 2021). Consequently, the governance of land matters may also be determined or affected by the political nature of the country (Kironde 2009). As a result, settlements or land regularisation activities cannot be separated from the influence or interests and needs of the politicians at the ward and sub-ward levels (Nuhu and Kombe 2021). In the present study, community leaders noted that politics impact the regularisation activities from the grassroots to the top level. This is because regularisation activities are characterised by the engagement of multiple actors with different and conflicting political interests. For instance, while the state, through the ministry of lands, distantly manages informal settlement regularisation activities in the public interest, the private firms aim at profit-making. In attaining its performance as owners and regulators of regularisation activities, the state and its machinery may sometimes use that position and power for political benefits (Kombe 2010; Nuhu 2021). This does not occur only in Tanzania but also in other areas of Africa (ANRC 2016).

The politicisation of regularisation activities goes hand in hand with political interferences, as also revealed by other scholars (Nuhu 2021; Nuhu and Kombe 2021). Politicians may put their interests first despite the existence of rules and regulations. Community leaders revealed that sometimes politicians might influence people who hold land within hazardous areas and/or protected areas to resist regularisation even though laws and policies prohibit development in such areas. This situation denies normal professional practices of regularisation activities. On the other hand, it was noted that sometimes politicians play a positive role in the regularisation activities, especially members of parliament, who strive to protect public interests. Community leaders further revealed that members of parliament had been reporting to the government corruption cases in the regularisation activities. Members of Parliament may also ask the Ministry of Land to interfere in regularisation activities. For instance, one member of parliament during the parliamentary budget sessions 2021/2022 asked about corruption issues within the regularisation activities in Dar es Salaam. The responsible minister responded that they would go and look through those activities, assuring the session that if they found out that there were elements of corruption or misconduct, the responsible officers would be held accountable. These findings suggest that it is hard to avoid politics in sectors related to public services provisioning in Tanzania and other developing countries, which other scholars also attest (see Batley et al. 2012; Narh et al. 2016; Azadi and Vanhaute 2019; Coulibaly et al. 2021). Politics, if applied positively, may contribute to the effective regularisation of informal settlements, and the reverse is true.

5. Conclusion and recommendations

The paper has argued that the governance of the regularisation of informal settlements is complex because of the associated challenges, such as inadequate transparency and accountability and insufficient leadership. It is also influenced by the failure of the land planning and surveying firms to provide effective, efficient regularisation services and the politicisation of the regularisation activities. The paper’s findings enhance understanding of the governance challenges of regularisation of informal settlements in Sub-Saharan Africa’s major cities with characteristics similar to those of peri-urban Dar es Salaam. The study shows that some imperative changes or practical actions are required to improve the governance of the regularisation of informal settlements. Among other things, training community leaders to enhance their capacity to deal with land-related projects or matters and to work with land planning and surveying firms should be considered. This could be done through orientation seminars by local or central government officials. Building the capacity of leaders strengthens their leadership skills which may facilitate effective and efficient regularisation activities. It enables leaders to ensure accountability and transparency. Establishing negotiation mechanisms or platforms that the community may utilise to reach a consensus is vital, as it will facilitate the provision of areas for public services while avoiding political interference from other groups. This paper recommends further investigation into the governance of financing of regularisation of informal settlements. This would enable an understanding of the governance of mushrooming planning and surveying firms in the regularisation of informal settlements amidst limited financing schemes.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Said Nuhu

Said Nuhu is currently a Research Fellow at the Institute of Human Settlements Studies (Ardhi University). His professional interest is in land governance, public health, gender, environment and globalisation. He has completed a PhD in Urban Governance and Environmental Studies and PhD in Urban Planning. He has a Master of Arts Degree in Development Studies and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Geography and Environmental Studies. He has published several journal articles in the field of; land governance, urban development, public health, environment and community participation. He has also engaged in different projects related to urban planning, land management, food security, natural resources, public health and the environment.