CENTRE OF DIALOGUE ON HUMAN SETTLEMENT AND POVERTY ... · dwellers” based on the Slum Dwellers...

1

CENTRE OF DIALOGUE ON HUMAN SETTLEMENT AND POVERTY ALLEVIATION (CODOHSAPA)

&

FEDERATION OF URBAN AND RURAL POOR (FEDURP)

COMMUNITY-LED ENUMERATION AND PROFILING:

THE STATE OF 11 COASTAL SLUMS IN FREETOWN, SIERRA LEONE

IN COLLABORATION wITh FREETOWN CITY COUNCIL

Funded by:

© December 2011

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Preface.............................................................................................................................................................3

Foreword……………………………………………………………………………………………………………5

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................7

Introduction..................................................................................................................................................8

Aim and Objectives......................................................................................................................9

Overview of Slums......................................................................................................................................9

Methodology...............................................................................................................................................10

Results and Discussion………………………………………………………….……………….……..11

Colbot..............................................................................................................................................14

Falcon Bridge..............................................................................................................................18

Government Wharf...................................................................................................................22

Kanikay..........................................................................................................................................25

Magazine........................................................................................................................................29

Marbella..........................................................................................................................................32

Moe Wharf.....................................................................................................................................35

Old Wharf.......................................................................................................................................39

Pamoronkoh.................................................................................................................................43

Portee Rokupr.............................................................................................................................46

Susan’s Bay...................................................................................................................................50

Conclusion and Recommenation………………………………………………………………………..54

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………..54

Recommendation……………………………………………………………………………….…...55

Reference………………………………………………………………………………………………………….56 Annex…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….57

3

Preface

In 2006, the Sierra Leone Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA) in partnership with Y Care

International (UK) conceived a 4-year project titled “Transforming Young People’s Lives in Slum

Settlements in Freetown”. One key activity of this project was “to establish a local association of slum

dwellers” based on the Slum Dwellers International (SDI) model. SDI is a loose transnational network

of NGOs and slum dwellers federations supporting slum improvements in various developing

countries.

This local association has grown tremendously and now positions itself as a national civil society

group representing the voice of the poor, which has been constituted as the women-led Federation of

Urban and Rural Poor (FEDURP) and belongs to the SDI network. SDI has therefore committed itself to

support the expansion, strengthening and integration of FEDURP-SL, through which it can sustain its

operations in Sierra Leone. In the light of this, the Board and Management of YMCA and SDI

established in January 2011 Centre of Dialogue on Human Settlement and Poverty Alleviation

(CODOHSAPA) through which SDI can support her work in Sierra Leone.

CODOHSAPA’s mission is to create space and opportunity through facilitation for the transformation of

lives of poor people in deprived communities. This mission is pursued through the following

programme thrust: settlement planning and upgrading; environmental sanitation and management;

livelihood and reproductive health support; capacity building and empowerment; advocacy and

governance; and, research and communications

FEDURP is the community counterpart of CODOHSAPA with a mission to mobilize the poor in

deprived communities to actively and meaningfully participate in their own development initiatives

and processes. FEDURP’s philosophy is based on three pillars: collecting people through group

mobilization; collecting money through daily and periodic savings; and, collecting information

through settlement profiling, mapping and enumeration. This is justified that these three elements:

people, money and information are key resources for negotiating and lobbying for change.

Given that both city and central government authorities often lack specific data that describes the

socio-economic, demographic and environmental situations of slums and informal settlements,

CODOHSAPA and FEDURP strategically intends to undertake a city-wide profiling as part of their

intended purpose of pursuing their goals. However, this process has been planned into phases in

accordance with the availability of funds. This is the first phase in which we explored and profiled

eleven slum communities along the coast line of Freetown.

4

Additionally, the process was undertaken with the involvement of the Freetown City Council (FCC).

This is important firstly, because FCC is the institution de jure that legitimises the operation of

development agencies in the Freetown Municipality; secondly, to strengthen the relationship that

exists between our institutions; and, thirdly, to verify and authenticate the validity and reliability of

the survey so that the piece of work can gain the legitimacy and authority it requires for planning and

decision making purposes.

Please be informed that the content of this piece of work is an inventory of the socio-economic

situation of these communities. All efforts have been made to make it as simple as possible and user-

friendly particularly for FEDURP who are the real users in the cause of their engagement processes. It

could be relevant for intellectual purposes though little academic analysis of the data was applied, such

that the result stated here were simply translated to give a reflection of the challenging situation faced

by the residents of these communities.

Francis Anthony Reffell

Ag Executive Director

CODOHSAPA

March 2012

5

Foreword

According to United Nations Population Division, 2002 & 2011, over 6 billion people currently inhabit

the world and, despite a reduced population growth rate, this number is expected to increase to 8

billion over the coming decades. It is however, important to note that most of this growth will occur in

cities of developing countries. Also, the UN Habitat’s State of the World’ Cities Report 2006/2007

states: “The global urban population has quadrupled since 1950 and cities of the developing world

account for over 90% of the world’s urban growth” This situation is equally reflected in Sierra Leone

such that, Freetown has a very large number of informal settlements, which have increased from less

than thirty a decade ago to well over 80.

This trend has resulted into an extreme socio-economic divide in Freetown Municipality, via: rich

versus poor; formality versus informality; and, inclusive participation versus exclusive deprivation

such that, the disadvantaged segment of this divide is often outside the development planning

framework of the municipality. In this regard, their living environs are considered as informal

settlements, squatters and slums with terrible living conditions that are unfit for human habitation.

For that reason, FCC should maintain a moral standpoint and guarantee to control the growth of slums

by “removing the slums from the people and not the people from the slums” through inclusive

engagement and decision making processes.

As a matter of fact, the SLUM Strategic Management Agreement is the first recent official guide on slum

issues. It was initiated by the FCC under the study on slum issues undertaken in conjunction with the

Cities Alliance in 2009 One of the clauses for example states its aims to:

Ensure that the SLUM residents are involved in the decision-making process leading to the

development of neighbors they live in, being understood that those decisions are to be taken in the

interest of the SLUM and overall Freetown community, the urbanities and the city as a whole.

The initiative of YMCA and CODOHSAPA to mobilize slum dwellers into Federation of Urban and Rural

Poor (FEDURP) and the support of Slum Dwellers International (SDI) lays the basis to create a

platform for meaningful engagement among slum dwellers, technocrats, policy makers and enforcers,

politicians, etc, which forms an organic process that can lead to sustainable development framework

and processes. As such FCC will continue to support this process and also encourage other MDAs

6

especially, Ministry of Lands, Country Planning and the Environment (MLCPE), Ministry of Works,

Housing and Infrastructure (MWHI), Ministry of Social Welfare, Gender and Children’s Affair

(MSWGCA), UN Agencies and NGOs to also support the process. It is no gain to say that “collaboration

breeds complementarities which in turn maximizes the results of our common development objectives

and efforts”.

This piece of work therefore is a complementary effort to gather information that can help municipal

authorities to take informed decision regarding location and settlements that do not form part of the

planned grids of the municipality. The community-led approach and methodology applied is a

fulfillment of participatory collaboration which is often prescribed by development practitioners and

agencies which in turn encourages community actors to appreciate the outcome of the process

because it often reflects the picture of their situation and conditions. The Council recognized the

importance and relevance of this work, that is why we readily participated in all phases of its conduct,

making technical input into it all to ensure its authenticity and relevance. I must hasten to note here

that the statutory institution for population data collection is Statistics Sierra Leone (SSL) and

therefore, not trying to replace them but to complement them. In reality, the nature of this work is to

provide socio-economic reflections on specific and stand-alone localities (which are often missed out

in SSL data) so that municipal authorities can deal with their specific situations and issues as and when

they emerge. It is no gainsay therefore, that this work is a direct response to that need and

requirement.

To this end, I therefore commend CODOHSAPA and FEDURP for initiating the process of community-

led and inclusive process which is helping the Council to appreciate the role of the slum dwellers in the

development spectrum and programming as well as to take informed decision on their settlements. I

further want to encourage other players to use this piece of information as it contents are trusted and

approved by the Freetown City Council.

John A. Conteh

(Chief Administrator)

Freetown City Council

7

Executive Summary

The settlement profiling was initiated with the objective of collecting an inventory of the

target communities which provides a snappy socio-economic profile of these communities. It

is a community-led exercise in which the enumerators are selected from within the respective

communities, so that respondents can give correct information regarding their families and

communities, as they are aware that the enumerators are their peers who are au fait with the

prevailing circumstances.

A purposive sampling technique was employed from which eleven (11) coastal slum were

identified spanning from the east-end to the central part of Freetown. Hence, Colbot, Falcon

Bridge, Government Wharf, Kanikay, Magazine Wharf, Marbella, Moe Wharf, Old Wharf,

Pamoronko, Portee-Rokupa and Susan’s Bay were assessed.

Semi-structured recording schedules and focus group discussion guides were used to elicit

relevant information from slum dwellers in the eleven communities. Primary data were

analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) to generate key findings from

both the household survey and Focus Group Meetings (FGM).

Key findings revealed that there is a very high proportion of the urban population residing in

the slums targeted with their associated social and environmental conditions; including poor

sanitation, illiteracy, low standard of living and extreme poverty. In addition, some of the

communities have never benefited from the operations of development agencies in urban

settlements. Global Positions are also embedded within this report to clearly indicate the

global coordinates of each study community to enhance cartographic mapping.

Multiple recommendations were proffered by respondents and enumerators to ensure

sustainable urban development coupled with achieving the set millennium development

goals, especially the aspect of enhancing environmental sustainability and reduction of

extreme poverty. In addition, this study also recommends enhancing one of the eco-

development strategies (to clean up the urban squalors) to become livable environments of

low-income earners.

8

1.0 INTRODUCTION

One of the United Nations Millennium Development targets is to 'achieve significant

improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers, by 2020'. To enhance this

target the first step is to develop an operational definition to identify slum settlements. The

indicators selected are: access to water and sanitation; sufficient living area; a house with

durable material on a non-hazardous location and with security of tenure.

Experts at a UN-HABITAT meeting held in 2003 agreed on the following definition: “A slum is

a contiguous settlement where the inhabitants are characterized as having inadequate

housing and basic services. A slum is often not recognized and addressed by the public

authorities as an integral part of the city”, (UN-HABITAT 2003c, p. 6). That is one of the

reasons why detailed data on slum dwellers cannot be found. UN-HABITAT therefore

developed a household level definition in order to be able to use existing household level

surveys and censuses to identify slum dwellers among the urban population. A slum

household is a household that lacks any one of the following five elements (UN-HABITAT

2003c, p.7):

Access to improved water;

Access to improved sanitation;

Security of tenure (the right to effective protection by the state against arbitrary and

unlawful eviction);

Durability of housing (including living in a non-hazardous location); and,

Sufficient living area (no overcrowding).

On the basis of this definition, 11 coastal settlements were identified in Freetown, Sierra

Leone, where community-led profiling and enumeration survey was done which includes:

Colbot, Falcon Bridge, Government Wharf, Kanikay, Magazine Wharf, Marbella, Moe Wharf,

Old Wharf, Pamoronko, Portee-Rokupa and Susan’s Bay.

9

1.1 Aim of the Study

The aim of this survey was to explore and describe the socio-economic, environmental and

demographic conditions of coastal slum settlements in Freetown.

1.2 Specific Objectives

Specific objectives were:

To find out the socio-economic, demographic and environmental landscape of the study

communities; and,

To identify governmental and non-governmental agencies providing social services for the

communities.

2.0 SLUM OVERVIEW

Over 6 billion people currently inhabit the world and, despite a reduced population growth

rate, this number is expected to increase to 8 billion over the coming decades (United Nations

Population Division 2002 & 2011). It is important to note that most of this growth will occur

in cities of developing countries. Differences in income, living conditions, access to services

and opportunities for development are seen as a major source of many conflicts facing today’s

world and can be observed at the global level (developed / developing countries), within a

country (rich and poor regions) but also within cities where the gap between the wealthy

living in gated communities and the poor living in intolerable housing conditions is expanding.

In many developing countries, like Sierra Leone, lack of employment opportunities in the rural

areas contributes to urbanization, which is further accelerated by natural population growth.

Often, however, cities do not offer sufficient employment opportunities for their rapidly

increasing population. As a consequence, many cities are characterized by a high incidence of

informal employment opportunities, which are unstable and yield only low incomes. The

resulting poverty in combination with a lack of affordable housing are driving forces behind

the formation of informal settlements commonly known as slums, which offer only sub-

standard living conditions to their inhabitants in Sierra Leone (UN-HABITAT, 2004). The term

10

“urbanization of poverty” describes the process of cities becoming more and more the places

where the poor of the world can be found.

It is a myth that the people in the cities are automatically better off compared to those living in

the rural areas. Recent research (UN-HABITAT, 2003b) has shown that 924 million people, or

31.6% of the world’s urban population, are living under unacceptable conditions, and this

figure will increase unless development agencies scale up their efforts to improve the living

conditions of current and future urban dwellers. The fight against poverty has to take place in

both cities and rural areas or it might well be lost. Still, urban poverty as an issue receives

relatively little attention from donor agencies in Sierra Leone. This is the reality the country

and her key state players and actors have to grapple with.

3.0 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Study Area Description

Sierra Leone is located on the west coast of Africa bounded by the Atlantic Ocean, Gwynne

Jones (1978). The country is divided into four (4) geographical regions; Northern, Eastern,

and Southern regions with Western Area where the Capital city (Freetown) is found. Each

region is divided into districts which account for fourteen (14) political districts. Sierra Leone

has a total population of approximately 4,963,298, (Statistics Sierra Leone, 2004).

Majority of this population is found in the urban centres and more concentrated in the capital

city to access opportunities for improved standard of living but a large number can be found

in the slum communities. The dramatic emergence and proliferation of slums in Freetown

became profound following the 11-year civil conflict.

Slum dwellers are mostly unemployed and poor. Actions inter alia that need to be taken to

address environmental challenges include: community capacity building for environmental

protection; increased community participation in water and sanitation projects; providing

alternatives to firewood consumption; increased regional cooperation in conservation;

economic empowerment for slum dwellers; and reform of land tenure. Sierra Leone already

11

has a relatively good institutional framework to support environmental sustainability (the

Sierra Leone Environmental Protection Agency).

Eleven (11) coastal slums were selected thus: Colbot, Falcon Bridge, Government Wharf,

Kanikay, Magazine Wharf, Marbella, Moe Wharf, Old Wharf, Pamoronko, Portee-Rokupa and

Susan’s Bay. These communities are located on the coastline of Freetown.

3.2 Data Collection

Fifty (50) enumerators from various slum communities and members of FEDURP were

identified to carry out the survey supervised by five (5) technical staff of CODOHSAPA and

YMCA in collaboration with two (2) senior staff of the Freetown City Council’s Development

Office. They were trained in basic data collection to build their capacity in information

gathering and dissemination of the SDI model.

Case study research design was employed to critically assess individual slum community,

considering eleven coastal slums in Freetown, Sierra Leone. Both primary and secondary data

were collected to complement this study. Data were analyzed using SPSS to generate

percentages that were represented in tables detailing all the targeted parameters.

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Results were generated based on individual slum community’s details with respected to the

following parameters;

Brief background of the community;

Basic social conditions of the household heads in community;

Population by age specific disaggregation;

Basic social infrastructures in the community;

Governmental and non-governmental agencies working in the community and their areas

of intervention; and,

12

Community priority felt needs

The above parameters are succinct and visible in this report. The social conditions of

household heads are presented in a table that shows (sex, marital status, education,

employment, tenancy and membership of the FEDURP), followed by the population of each

community, basic infrastructures, development agencies and community felt needs.

Conclusions and recommendations completed this report.

The results are organised by community as follows:

Colbot;

Falcon Bridge;

Government Wharf;

Kanikay;

Magazine Wharf;

Marbella;

Moe Wharf;

Old Wharf;

Pamoronko;

Portee-Rokupr; and,

Susan’s Bay.

13

4.1 COLBOT

4.1.1 BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE COMMUNITY

Location

The Community is located on the East Coast of Freetown bounded by the sea and adjacent to

Bai Bureh Road connecting Freetown to the Rural Urban District. The topography of the

community is undulated and steep-slope towards the sea.

Origin of Name

This community was originally known as Lower Race Course but was changed to Colbot after

a culvert bridge leading to the community was constructed. The name Colbot is a corrupt

derivative of the word culvert. The piece of land was applied for settlement to the Ministry of

Lands in 1975 but was initially inhabited in 1983. The main reason for the influx was revealed

as the high rent of dwelling houses in the city centre.

Economic Activities

Most of the inhabitants get their income from petty trading such as table-top business and

hawking either within the community or other market places in nearby neighbourhood or in

the centre of town. Other form of source of income particularly for the male youth is to take

menial jobs at Queen Elizabeth Quay which is closely situated to the community.

Socio-cultural Structures

The people exhibit their social and cultural beliefs in the following ways; Bondo, Hunting,

Yearie Bondo societies and National Dance Troupe.

Disaster

It is noted that since the establishment of the community it has been affected once by flooding.

The inhabitant however quickly responded by constructing drainages and retaining walls

which has prevented an occurrence of such disaster.

14

Community Power Structure

Colbot is located in ward 367 constituency 103. It is governed by a parliamentarian, a

councillor, community chief and ward committees respectively.

Population

Population of Colbot is referred to as the total number of people residing in the community at

the period of the study (6,607 Males, Females and Children) see table 2 below. Table 1 shows

the social statuses of the household heads followed by their age disaggregation by sex in Table

2.

Prevalence Diseases

Diarrhea, Malaria, Chicken pox, Fever, and Pneumonia

4.1.2 SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLD HEADS IN THE COMMUNITY

A comprehensive table was developed to show these distributions as shown in table 1:

Table 1 Sex Distribution of Household Heads Sex Number of Household

Heads Percentage of Household Heads

Male 1059 65.7 Female 553 34.3 Total 1612 100 Marital Status of Household Heads Marital Status Number of Household


Single 285 17.7 Married 1108 68.7 Divorced 39 2.4 Separated 98 6.1 Widowed 82 5.1 Total 1612 100 Educational Status of Household Heads Educational Status Number of Household


Never attended School 668 41.4 Primary School 205 12.7 Secondary School 667 41.4 Tech/Voc 23 1.4

15

Tertiary 49 3.0 Total 1612 100 Employment Status of Household Heads Employment Status Number of Household


Unemployed 366 22.7 Self-employed 1021 63.3 In-Paid employed 226 14.0 Total 1612 100 Tenancy Status of Household Heads Tenancy Status Number of Household


Landlord/Lady 1208 74.9 Tenant 404 25.1 Total 1612 100 FEDRUP Membership Membership Number of Household


Yes 129 8 No 1483 92.0 Total 1612 100 Source: Field Survey Data, 2011

4.1.3 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENT IN COLBOT COMMUNITY

The ages of all residents were critically disaggregated and ranged to clearly show the

population in each age group residing in the community.

Table 2 Age Cohort (yrs)

Male Female Total Residents Number of Residents

Percentage of residents

Number of Residents


Number Percent

0-5 727 20.7 697 22.5 1424 21.5 6-10 518 14.8 438 14.1 956 14.5 11-15 426 12.1 435 14.0 861 13.0 16-20 491 13.9 405 13.0 896 13.6 21-25 428 12.2 320 10.3 748 11.3 26-30 317 9.1 305 9.8 622 9.4 31-35 220 6.3 201 6.5 421 6.4 36-40 163 4.6 125 4.0 288 4.3 41-45 106 3.1 79 2.6 185 2.8 46-50 57 1.6 37 1.3 94 1.4 51-55 43 1.2 30 1.0 73 1.1 56-60 12 0.3 21 0.7 33 0.5

16

>60 2 0.1 4 0.2 6 0.2 Total 3,510 100 3,097 100 6,607 100 Source: Field Survey Data, 2011

The table above clearly indicates that there were more 0-5 year old residents in the Colbot

community than other age cohorts. This shows that the community hosts more under five

children (21.5%) and very few >60 years old residents (0.2%)

4.1.4 COMMUNITY SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Table 3

Source: FGM, 2011

4.1.5 DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES WORKING IN THE COMMUNITY

It was revealed by the respondents that no NGOs were operational in the community at the

time of the study. Hence, the need of development projects for the community.

Social Services

Social Service Number Available

Primary School 0 Junior Secondary School 0 Senior Secondary School 0 Health Centre 0 Community Centre 0 Recreational Centre/ Playing ground 0 Public Toilet 0 Source of drinking water 0 Mosque 3 Churches 0 Road network Poor Electricity Available Market place 0 Bar 0 Restaurant 0 Court Barrie 0 Tertiary/ Tech Voc. 0

17

4.1.6 COMMUNITY PRIORITY FELT NEEDS

Table 4 Priority Needs Rank Toilet 1 Safe drinking water 2 Health Centre 3 Schools (Primary & Secondary) 4 Drainage and road network 5 Source: FGM, 2011

4.2 FALCON BRIDGE


Location The Community is located on the coast line of Freetown in Constituency 107, Ward 378.

Origin of Name Falcon Bridge originated after a British called Falcon who first settled closed on that part of the shores of Freetown. He built a very high retaining wall that looked like a bridge, hence the name Falcon Bridge.

Economic Activities Fishing and petty trading are the main economic activities of residents in this community.

Socio-cultural Structures No distinct cultural practice is maintained in this community Disaster The community had experienced fire disaster that destroyed property worth millions of Leones. In addition, Falcon Bridge is highly prone to flooding. Community Power Structure The community is governed by the local council and specifically by community heads namely, traditional chief and tribal heads

18

Population The Population of Falcon Bridge is referred to as the total number of people residing in the

community at the period of the study (819 Males, Females and Children) see table 5 below.

Table 5 also shows the social statuses of the household heads followed by their age

disaggregation by sex in Table 6.

Prevalence Diseases

Malaria, Pneumonia, Chicken Pox, Diarrhoea

4.2.2 SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEADS

Table 5 Sex Distribution of Household Heads

Sex Number of Household Heads

Percentage of Household Heads

Male 182 72.8 Female 68 27.2 Total 250 100

Marital Status of Household Heads Marital Status Number of Household

Heads Percentage of Household

Heads Single 38 12.5 Married 182 72.8 Divorced 5 2.0 Separated 20 8.0 Widowed 5 2.0 Total 250 100

Educational Status of Household Heads Educational Status Number of Household


Heads Never attended School 98 39.2 Primary School 4 19.6 Secondary School 97 38.8 Tech/Voc 1 0.4 Tertiary 5 2.0 Total 250 100

Employment Status of Household Heads Employment Status Number of Household


Heads Unemployed 51 20.4 Self-employed 176 70.4 In-Paid employed 23 9.2

19

Total 250 100 Tenancy Status of Household Heads

Tenancy Status Number of Household Heads


Landlord/Lady 199 79.6 Tenant 51 20.4 Total 250 100

FEDRUP Membership Membership Number of Household


Heads Yes 2 0.8 No 248 99.2 Total 250 100 Source: Field Survey data, 2011

4.2.3 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTS IN FALCON BRIDGE COMMUNITY

Table 6 Age

Cohort (yrs)



Number of Residents


Number Percent

0-5 133 29.6 91 24.7 224 27.4 6-10 70 15.6 83 22.5 153 18.7

11-15 56 12.4 48 13.0 104 12.7 16-20 47 10.4 41 11.1 88 10.7 21-25 51 11.3 46 12.5 97 11.8 26-30 44 9.8 33 8.9 77 9.4 31-35 28 6.2 8 2.2 36 4.4 36-40 7 1.6 9 2.4 16 2.0 41-45 4 0.9 3 0.8 7 0.9 46-50 6 1.3 4 1.1 10 1.2 51-55 4 0.9 3 0.8 7 0.9 56-60 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

>60 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 Total 450 100.0 369 100.0 819 100.0 Source: Field Survey Data, 2011


Table 7 Social Services

Social Service Number Available Primary School 0 Junior Secondary School 0 Senior Secondary School 0

20

Health Centre 0 Community Centre 0 Recreational Centre/ Playing ground 0 Public Toilet 0 Source of drinking water 3 Taps Mosque 1 Churches 0 Road network Very Poor Electricity Available Market place 0 Bar 0 Restaurant 0 Court Barrie 0 Tertiary/ Tech Voc. 0 Source: FGM, 2011

4.2.5 DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES WORKING IN THE COMMUNITY Table 8

Name of Agency/Organisation Main Ares of Intervention Association Rural Development (ARD) Provide Microfinance Concern World Wide Disaster Risk Reduction Save The Children Support children with books and school

uniform Source: FGM, 2011


Table 9 Priority Needs Rank Health Centre 1 Schools (Primary & Secondary) 2 Source: FGM, 2011

21

4.3 GOVERNMENT WHARF


Location The Community is located on the coast line of Freetown in ward 378 and constituency 107. This community serves as one of the main ferry harbours from Lungi Airport to Freetown.

Origin of Name This settlement came about in 1961 as a small ghetto of youths who would stay there during day and leave for their residences at night. It is a major wharf where government and private-owned ferries berth, hence the name Government Wharf.


Socio-cultural Structures No distinct cultural practice is maintained in this community. Disaster The community had never experienced disasters but seemingly prone to disaster like flooding. Community Power Structure The community is governed by the local council and specifically by community heads namely, traditional chief and tribal heads. Population The Population Government Wharf is referred to as the total number of people residing in the community at the period of the study (472 Males, Females and Children) see table 10 below. Table 10 also shows the social statuses of the household heads followed by their age disaggregation by sex in Table 11. Prevalence Diseases in the Community

Malaria, Pneumonia, Diarrhoea, Fever, Malnourishment

4.3.2 SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEADS

Table 10 Sex Distribution of Household Heads Sex Number of Household


Male 88 66.7 Female 44 33.3

22

Total 132 100 Marital Status of Household Heads Marital Status Number of Household


Single 30 22.7 Married 87 65.9 Divorced 2 1.5 Separated 7 5.3 Widowed 6 4.5 Total 132 100.0 Educational Status of Household Heads Educational Status Number of Household


Never attended School 33 25 Primary School 26 19.7 Secondary School 73 55.3 Tech/Voc 0 0.0 Tertiary 0 0.0 Total 132 100 Employment Status of Household Heads Employment Status Number of Household


Unemployed 16 12.1 Self-employed 104 78.8 In-Paid employed 12 9.1 Total 132 100 Tenancy Status of Household Heads Tenancy Status Number of Household




Yes 6 4.5 No 126 95.5 Total 132 100 Source: Field Survey data, 2011

23

4.3.3 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTS IN GOVERNMENT WHARF COMMUNITY




Number of Residents


Number Percent

0-5 54 21.8 47 21.0 101 21.4 6-10 55 22.2 46 20.5 101 21.4 11-15 28 11.3 27 12.1 55 11.7 16-20 28 11.3 32 14.3 60 12.7 21-25 28 11.3 29 13.0 57 12.1 26-30 27 10.9 20 8.9 47 10.0 31-35 8 3.2 13 5.8 21 4.4 36-40 12 4.8 5 2.2 17 3.6 41-45 7 2.8 4 1.8 11 2.3 46-50 0 0 0 0 0 0 51-55 1 0.4 0 0 1 0.2 56-60 0 0 0 0 0 0 >60 0 0 1 0.4 1 0.2 Total 248 100 224 100 472 100 Source: Field Survey Data, 2011



Social Service Number Available Primary School 0 Junior Secondary School 0 Senior Secondary School 0 Health Centre 0 Community Centre 0 Recreational Centre/ Playing ground 0 Public Toilet 1 incomplete Source of drinking water 1 tap Mosque 1 Churches 1 Road network 1 Electricity Available Market place 0 Bar 0 Restaurant 0 Court Barrie 0 Tertiary/ Tech Voc. 0 Source: FGM, 2011

24


According to respondents, no development agency operates in the community.


Table 13

Source: FGM, 2011

4.4 KANIKAY

4.4.1 BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE COMMUNITY Location The Community is located on the east coast of Freetown bounded by the sea. It is located in ward 369 constituency 103. The topography of the community is steep-slope towards the sea with mangrove vegetation. Origin of Name The settlement site was covered by sea and used as a mini harbour for fishermen and marine officers from Tagrin. In 1957 the first settler called Pa Alimamy, banked the sea side and constructed a shack. Thereafter, other fishermen and business people started settling in the community. Economic Activities In this community, men are economically involved in menial jobs at the country’s natural harbour, Queen Elizabeth II Quay which enhances marine activities. Socio-cultural Structures The inhabitants practice cultural activities such as, Bondo, Hunting, Ojeh societies and also play Jolly as part of their social life. Disaster The community is prone to flooding. However, the incidence of flooding was not revealed as regular. High tides usually affect the normal functioning of the community.

Priority Needs Rank Public toilet 1 Safe drinking water 2 Schools (Primary & Secondary) 3

25

Community Power Structure Kanikay is governed by a parliamentarian, a councillor, community chief and ward committees respectively. Population Population of Kanikay is referred to as the total number of people residing in the community at the period of the study (1515 Males, Females and Children) see table 14 below. Table 14 also shows the social statuses of the household heads followed by their age disaggregation by sex in Table 15. Prevalence Diseases in the Community

Small pox, Fever, Malnourishment, Malaria, Head ache, Pneumonia

4.4.2 SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEADS IN THE COMMUNITY


Sex Number of Household Heads Percentage of Household Heads


Marital Status of Household Heads Marital Status Number of Household Heads Percentage of Household


Educational Status of Household Heads Educational Status Number of Household Heads Percentage of Household

Heads Never attended School

128 34.6

Primary School 65 17.6 Secondary School 159 43.0 Tech/Voc 2 0.5 Tertiary 16 4.3 Total 370 100

Employment Status of Household Heads Employment Status Number of Household Heads Percentage of Household

26

Heads Unemployed 130 35.2 Self-employed 194 52.4 In-Paid employed 46 12.4 Total 370 100

Tenancy Status of Household Heads Tenancy Status Number of Household Heads Percentage of Household

Heads Landlord/Lady 104 28.1 Tenant 266 71.9 Total 370 100

FEDURP Membership Membership Number of Household Heads Percentage of Household

Heads Yes 59 15.9 No 311 84.1 Total 370 100 Source: Field Survey data, 2011 The table above shows that 57.8% of the respondents were male household heads, and 63.4% were revealed married. 43% attained secondary level education, 52.4% self-employed, 71.9% tenant and 15.9% FEDRUP members.

4.4.3 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTS IN KANIKAY COMMUNITY

Table 15

Source: Field Survey Data, 2011

Age Cohort (yrs)



Number of Residents


Number Percent

0-5 235 28.4 196 28.5 431 28.4 6-10 155 18.7 111 16.1 266 17.6

11-15 98 11.9 91 13.2 189 12.5 16-20 63 7.6 83 12.1 146 9.6 21-25 75 9.1 71 10.3 146 9.6 26-30 77 9.3 63 9.2 140 9.2 31-35 52 6.3 28 4.1 80 5.3 36-40 31 3.7 18 2.6 49 3.2 41-45 8 1.0 7 1.0 15 1.0 46-50 10 1.2 9 1.3 19 1.3 51-55 15 1.8 8 1.2 23 1.5 56-60 6 0.7 2 0.3 8 0.5

>60 2 0.2 1 0.1 3 0.2 Total 827 100 688 100 1515 100

27



Social Service Number Available Primary School 1 Junior Secondary School 0 Senior Secondary School 0 Health Centre 0 Community Centre 0 Recreational Centre/ Playing ground 0 Public Toilet 0 Source of drinking water 1 Mosque 2 Churches 1 Road network Poor Electricity Available Market place 0 Bar 1 Restaurant 1 Court Barrie 0 Tertiary/ Tech Voc. 0 Source: FGM, 2011


Table 17 Name of Agency Main Ares of Intervention GOAL Gives out scholarships to school going pupils.

Provides skills training for youths LEO CEM Constructs community centre. Provides

scholarships for school going children. Source: FGM, 2011


Table 18

Priority Needs Rank

Youth livelihood skills training 1 Safe Drinking Water 2

28

4.5 MAGAZINE WHARF

4.5.1 BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE COMMUNITY Location The Community is located on the coast line of Freetown in ward 374 and constituency 105.

Origin of Name Magazine Wharf originated as small boats harbour point in 1948. It was a fishing business Centre. As a fish selling centre, some fishermen decided to settle at the centre. This community is divided into Magazine (1) and Magazine (2).

Economic Activities Fishing and petty trading are the main economic activities of residents in the community.

Socio-cultural Structures The people of Magazine today culturally and socially practice Bondo, Eastern Paddle and Airy Magazine Disaster Two separate fatal fire disasters had occurred in this community and a seasonal flooding occurs in the community in the months of August and September.

Community Power Structure The community is governed by the local council and specifically by community heads namely, traditional chief and tribal heads Population The Population of Magazine Wharf is referred to as the total number of people residing in the community at the period of the study (3,415 Males, Females and Children) see table 19 below. Table 19 also shows the social statuses of the household heads followed by their age disaggregation by sex in Table 20. Prevalence Disease in the Community Malaria, Chicken Pox, Fever, Pneumonia, Diarrhoea

29



Sex Number of Household Heads Percentage of Household Heads Male 509 62.7 Female 303 37.3 Total 812 100

Marital Status of Household Heads

Marital Status Number of Household Heads Percentage of Household Heads Single 139 17.1 Married 569 70.1 Divorced 16 2.0 Separated 36 4.4 Widowed 52 6.4 Total 812 100

Educational Status of Household Heads Educational Status Number of Household Heads Percentage of Household


Employment Status of Household Heads Employment Status Number of Household Heads Percentage of Household


Tenancy Status of Household Heads Tenancy Status Number of Household Heads Percentage of Household


FEDRUP Membership Membership Number of Household Heads Percentage of Household

Heads Yes 65 8.0 No 747 92.0 Total 812 100 Source: Field Survey data, 2011

30

4.5.3 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTS IN MAGAZINE WHARF COMMUNITY

Table 20 Age

Cohort (yrs)



Number of Residents


Number Percent

0-5 353 20.0 364 22.1 717 21.0 6-10 266 15.1 232 14.1 498 14.6

11-15 238 13.5 219 13.3 457 13.4 16-20 253 14.3 256 15.5 509 14.9 21-25 206 11.7 201 12.2 407 11.9 26-30 137 7.8 137 8.3 274 8.0 31-35 108 6.1 94 5.7 202 5.9 36-40 74 4.2 48 2.9 122 3.6 41-45 45 2.5 38 2.3 83 2.4 46-50 17 1.0 10 0.6 27 0.8 51-55 23 1.3 15 0.9 38 1.1 56-60 22 1.2 8 0.5 30 0.9

>60 23 1.3 28 1.7 51 1.5 Total 1,765 100.0 1,650 100.0 3,415 100.0 Source: Field Survey Data, 2011 4.5.4 Community infrastructures


Social Service Number Available Primary School 0 Junior Secondary School 0 Senior Secondary School 0 Health Centre 0 Community Centre 0 Recreational Centre/ Playing ground 0 Public Toilet 2 Source of drinking water 2 Mosque 1 Churches 0 Road network 0 Electricity Available Market place Available Bar 1 Restaurant 0 Court Barrie 0 Tertiary/ Tech Voc. 0 Source: FGM, 2011

31


Table 22 Name of Agency/Organisation Main Ares of Intervention GOAL Provides safe drinking water and mosquito nets Concern World Wide Provides Medicare and sanitation Source: FGM, 2011 4.5.6 COMMUNITY PRIORITY FELT NEEDS Table 23 Priority Needs Rank Health Centre 1 Community Centre 2 Primary school 3 Source: FGM, 2011

4.6 MARBELLA


Location The Community is located on the coast line of Freetown in Constituency 105, Ward 374.

Origin of Name Marbella is a place where piassava was launched and peeled for exporting. One Pa Paul was the original founder of the place and since then it had been inhabited


Socio-cultural Structures They socially entertain themselves with Paddle Ojeh, and Adabba societies.

Disaster The community experiences seasonal flooding in the months of August and September. Community Power Structure The community is governed by the local council and specifically by community heads namely, traditional chief and tribal heads.

32

Population The Population of Marbella is referred to as the total number of people residing in the community at the period of the study (2,195 Males, Females and Children) see table 24 below. Table 24 also shows the social statuses of the household heads followed by their age disaggregation by sex in Table 25. Prevalence diseases in the Community Malaria, Pneumonia, Fever, Malnourishment, Cough in Children

4.6.2 SOCIAL CONDITIONS OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEADS IN MARBELLA COMMUNITY














Tenancy Status of Household Heads

33



Landlord/Lady 119 22.1 Tenant 420 77.9 Total 539 100



Heads Yes 61 11.3 No 478 88.7 Total 539 100 Source: Field Survey Data, 2011

4.6.3 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTS IN MABELLA COMMUNITY

Table 25 Age

Cohort (yrs)



Number of Residents


Number Percent

0-5 258 23.0 236 22.0 494 25.1 6-10 199 17.7 169 15.8 368 18.7

11-15 148 13.2 152 14.2 300 15.3 16-20 126 11.2 149 13.9 275 14.0 21-25 116 10.3 122 11.4 216 11.0 26-30 106 9.4 110 10.3 106 5.4 31-35 61 5.4 45 4.2 76 3.9 36-40 36 3.2 40 3.7 23 1.2 41-45 12 1.1 11 1.0 30 1.5 46-50 20 1.8 10 0.9 26 1.3 51-55 21 1.9 5 0.5 10 0.5 56-60 5 0.4 5 0.5 10 0.5


4.6.4 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE


Social Service Number Available Primary School 5 Junior Secondary School 1 Senior Secondary School 1 Health Centre 1 Community Centre 0

34

Recreational Centre/ Playing ground 1 Public Toilet 2 Source of drinking water 2 Mosque 7 Churches 3 Road network Poor Electricity Available Market place 1 Bar 3 Restaurant 0 Court Barrie 0 Tertiary/ Tech Voc. 0 Source: FGM, 2011


Table 27 Name Main Ares of Intervention GOAL Child’s protection, health care provision and Day care for

deprived children and skills training for youths Concern World Wide Constructs health centre, provides essential drugs and

sensitize on sanitation Save the Children Supports school going children and provides school

materials YMCA Supports youths with skills training Source: FGM, 2011


Table 28 Priority Needs Rank Community Centre 1 Public toilet 2 Livelihood skills training for the youths 3 Source: FGM, 2011

35

4.7 MOE WHARF


Location The Community is located on the coast line of Freetown in ward 371 and constituency 104.

Origin of Name Since the establishment of the Queen Elizabeth Quay, the entire adjacent sea side lands were developed into settlement, and this piece of land was used for the temporary anchoring of boats and as far as 1930 people started settling in this community. The name “Moe” simply means “go moe de boat na waf.” By this the name Moe Wharf was adopted and over time, more and more people migrated from the provinces and other parts of the city and made dwelling in this locality.


Socio-cultural Structures Community members socially celebrate Sea Marble society

Disaster The community experiences seasonal flooding. Community Power Structure The community is governed by the local council and specifically by community heads namely, traditional chief and tribal heads. Population The Population of Moe Wharf referred to as the total number of people residing in the community at the period of the study (5,337 Males, Females and Children) see table 29 below. Table 29 also shows the social statuses of the household heads followed by their age disaggregation by sex in Table 30. Prevalence Diseases in the community Malaria, Fever, Pneumonia, Diarrhoea Tetanus in pregnant women

36















Tenancy Status of Household Heads Tenancy Status Number of Household





Heads Yes 124 13.9 No 771 86.1

37

Total 895 100 Source: Field Survey data, 2011

4.7.3 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTS IN MAGAZINE WHARF COMMUNITY

Table 30 Age

Cohort (yrs)



Number of Residents


Number Percent

0-5 517 18.5 436 17.1 953 17.9 6-10 287 10.3 278 10.9 565 10.6

11-15 328 11.8 302 11.9 630 11.8 16-20 271 9.7 284 11.2 555 10.4 21-25 285 10.2 284 11.2 569 10.7 26-30 251 9.0 243 9.5 494 9.3 31-35 231 8.3 213 8.4 444 8.3 36-40 219 7.8 158 6.2 377 7.1 41-45 53 1.9 41 1.6 94 1.8 46-50 87 3.1 76 3.0 163 3.1 51-55 102 3.7 74 2.9 176 3.3 56-60 78 2.8 40 1.6 118 2.2

>60 81 2.9 118 4.6 199 3.7 Total 2790 100.0 2547 100.0 5337 100.0

Source: Field Survey Data, 2011



Social Service Number Available Primary School 0 Junior Secondary School 0 Senior Secondary School 0 Health Centre 0 Community Centre 0 Recreational Centre/ Playing ground 0 Public Toilet 0 Source of drinking water 4 Mosque 2 Churches 0 Road network 0 Electricity Available Market place 0 Bar 0

38

Restaurant 0 Court Barrie 0 Tertiary/ Tech Voc. 0 Source: FGM, 2011


According to respondents, no development agency operates in the community.

4.7.6 PRIORITY FELT NEEDS

Table 32 Priority needs Rank Bridge construction between Number and Petrol station 1

Drainage construction 2

Source: FGM, 2011

4.8 OLD WHARF


Location The Community is located on the coast line of Freetown in ward 348 and constituency 97.

Origin of Name This community started as an ordinary harbour for sales of fish from Kambia Island around 1950 and it is the oldest wharf in Freetown, hence the name Old Wharf.


Socio-cultural Structures Inhabitants practice Ojeh, Bondo, and Poro societies as part of their cultural beliefs.

Disaster The community experiences seasonal flooding in the months of August and September. Community Power Structure The community is governed by the local council and specifically by community heads namely, traditional chief and tribal heads

39

Population The Population of Old Wharf is referred to as the total number of people residing in the community at the period of the study (5,662 Males, Females and Children) see table 33 below. Table 33 also shows the social statuses of the household heads followed by their age disaggregation by sex in Table 34. Prevalence diseases in the Community Malaria, Pneumonia, Fever, Malnourishment, Cough in Children





Male 815 65.3 Female 433 34.7 Total 1,248 100



Heads Single 163 13.1 Married 902 72.3 Divorced 28 2.2 Separated 82 6.6 Widowed 73 5.8 Total 1,248 100



Heads Never attended School 543 43.5 Primary School 182 14.6 Secondary School 425 34.1 Tech/Voc 24 1.9 Tertiary 74 5.9 Total 1,248 100



Heads Unemployed 261 20.9 Self-employed 798 63.9 In-Paid employed 189 15.1 Total 1,248 100

Tenancy Status of Household Heads

40



Landlord/Lady 792 63.5 Tenant 456 36.5 Total 1,248 100



Heads Yes 87 7.0 No 1161 93.0 Total 1,248 100 Source: Field Survey Data, 2011 4.8.4 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTS IN OLD WHARF COMMUNITY

Table 34 Age

Cohort (yrs)



Number of Residents


Number Percent

0-5 697 24.0 713 25.9 1410 24.9 6-10 397 13.7 417 15.1 814 14.4

11-15 350 12.0 331 12.0 681 12.0 16-20 391 13.5 338 12.3 729 12.9 21-25 279 9.6 277 10.1 556 9.8 26-30 238 8.2 246 8.9 484 8.5 31-35 160 5.5 150 5.4 310 5.5 36-40 132 4.5 109 4.0 241 4.3 41-45 87 3.0 35 1.3 122 2.2 46-50 31 1.1 40 1.5 71 1.3 51-55 37 1.3 21 0.8 58 1.0 56-60 29 1.0 29 1.1 58 1.0


4.8.3 SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE COMMUNITY


Social Service Number Available Primary School 8 Junior Secondary School 5 Senior Secondary School 4 Health Centre 3 Community Centre 0

41

Recreational Centre/ Playing ground 0 Public Toilet 0 Source of drinking water 4 Mosque 7 Churches 7 Road network 1 Electricity Available Market place 0 Bar 1 Restaurant 0 Court Barrie 0 Tertiary/ Tech Voc. 0 Source: FGM, 2011


Table 36 Name Main Ares of Intervention Christian Brothers

Awards scholarships and provides school materials pupils.

Family Home Movement Provides ice for cooling and preservation of fish.

Source: FGM, 2011 4.8.6 COMMUNITY PRIORITY FELT NEEDS

Table 37 Priority Needs Rank Agricultural supports 1 Public toilet 2 Safe Drinking Water 3 Court Barrie 4 Recreational centre 5 Source: FGM, 2011

42

4.9 PAMRONKO


Location The Community is located on the East Coast of Freetown bounded by the sea. It is located in wards 346 and constituency 96. The topography of the community is steep-slope and fairly flat towards the sea. Origin of Name The name Pamoronko originated from the local Temne word Kaironko meaning ‘too many palm trees’. Over time, the prefix ‘Kai’ was removed and replaced by ‘palm, and hence the name ‘Pamoronko’.

Economic Activities Their main economic activities are fishing and the production of white wash from oyster shells.

Socio-cultural Structures The members culturally practiced Bondo, Ojeh, and theatre dance troupe. Disaster Flooding is seasonal and it affects the agricultural lands Community Power Structure Pamoronko is governed by a parliamentarian, a councillor, community chief and ward committee head respectively. Population Population of Pamoronko is referred to as the total number of people residing in the community at the period of the study (6,130 Males, Females and Children) see table 38 below. Table 38 also shows the social statuses of the household heads followed by their age disaggregation by sex in Table 39. Prevalence diseases in the Community Malaria, Pneumonia, Fever, Malnourishment, Cough in Children

43



Sex Number of Household Heads Percentage of Household Heads Male 686 55.3 Female 554 44.7 Total 1,240 100

Marital Status of Household Heads Marital Status Number of Household Heads Percentage of Household Heads Single 180 14.5 Married 901 72.7 Divorced 23 1.9 Separated 64 5.2 Widowed 72 5.8 Total 1,240 100



Heads Never attended School 472 38.1 Primary School 162 13.1 Secondary School 458 36.9 Tech/Voc 47 3.8 Tertiary 101 8.1 Total 1,240 100




Tenancy Status of Household Heads Tenancy Status Number of Household


Heads Landlord/Lady 423 34.1 Tenant 817 65.9 Total 1,240 100



Heads Yes 97 7.8 No 1143 92.2 Total 1,240 100 Source: Field Survey data, 2011

44

4.9.3 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTS IN PAMRONKO COMMUNITY

Table 39 Age

Cohort (yrs)



Number of Residents


Number Percent

0-5 605 19.0 622 21.1 1227 20.0 6-10 492 15.5 464 15.7 956 15.6

11-15 445 14.0 392 13.3 837 13.7 16-20 424 13.3 400 13.6 824 13.4 21-25 343 10.8 335 11.4 678 11.1 26-30 263 8.3 242 8.2 505 8.2 31-35 178 5.6 145 4.9 323 5.3 36-40 146 4.6 99 3.4 245 4.0 41-45 56 1.8 45 1.5 101 1.6 46-50 48 1.5 36 1.2 84 1.4 51-55 43 1.4 18 0.6 61 1.0 56-60 35 1.1 31 1.1 66 1.1


4.9.4 SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE COMMUNITY


Social Service Number Available Primary School 4 Junior Secondary School 0 Senior Secondary School 0 Health Centre 0 Community Centre Under construction Recreational Centre/ Playing ground 0 Public Toilet 0 Source of drinking water 30 water wells(10 protected Mosque 11 Churches 3 Road network 8 Electricity Available Market place 0 Bar 8 Restaurant 2 Court Barrie 0 Tertiary/ Tech Voc. 1 Source: FGM, 2011

45


Table 41 Name Main Ares of Intervention Action Aid Provides scholarships for primary school going children,

train teachers and sensitizes on HIV/AIDS Oxfam( comic relief support)

Provides health and sanitation services

ACF Supply containers for safe drinking water YDM Rehabilitate wells empower youths with skills training Source: FGM, 2011 4.9.6 COMMUNITY PRIORITY FELT NEEDS Table 42

Source: FGM, 2011

4.10 PORTEE-ROKUPR


Location The Community is located on the East Coast of Freetown bounded by the sea. It is located in Wards 354/355 and Constituency 99. The topography of the community is valley and steep-slope towards the sea. Origin of Name The community emerged after Pa Rokupr, a pepper seller who established the first settlement in 1942, thereafter, a very high population influx during the Sierra Leone civil war has led to the gradual expansion of the community through water banking to formulate land where dwelling houses are constructed.

Priority Needs Rank Health Centre 1 Market 2 Safe Drinking Water 3

46

Economic Activities Their main economic activity is petty trading and fishing.

Socio-cultural Structures The members culturally practice Bondo society

Disaster The community is prone to seasonal flooding and mud slides. Community Power Structure Portee-Rokupr is governed by a parliamentarian, a councillor, community chief and ward committees, respectively. Population Population of Portee-Rokupr is referred to as the total number of people residing in the community at the period of the study (6,049 Males, Females and Children) see table 43 below. Table 43 also shows the social statuses of the household heads followed by their age disaggregation by sex in Table 44. Prevalence diseases in the Community Malaria, Pneumonia, Fever, Malnourishment, Small Pox

4.10.2 SOCIAL CONDITION OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEADS IN THE COMMUNITY




Male 783 60.1 Female 520 39.9 Total 1,303 100



Heads Single 176 13.5 Married 946 72.6 Divorced 57 4.4 Separated 57 4.4 Widowed 67 5.1 Total 1,303 100



Heads Never attended School 572 43.9

47

Primary School 198 15.2 Secondary School 454 34.8 Tech/Voc 36 2.8 Tertiary 43 3.3 Total 1,303 100




Tenancy Status of 1,303Household Heads Tenancy Status Number of Household





Heads Yes 165 12.7 No 1,138 87.3 Total 1,303 100 Source: Field Survey data, 2011 4.10.3 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTS IN PORTEE ROKUPR COMMUNITY

Table 44 Age

Cohort (yrs)



Number of Residents


Number Percent

0-5 602 19.5 530 17.9 1132 18.7 6-10 404 13.1 368 12.4 772 12.8

11-15 298 9.7 325 11.0 623 10.3 16-20 332 10.8 325 11.0 657 10.9 21-25 247 8.0 312 10.5 559 9.2 26-30 270 8.8 311 10.5 581 9.6 31-35 263 8.5 222 7.5 485 8.0 36-40 204 6.6 152 5.1 356 5.9 41-45 50 1.6 47 1.6 97 1.6 46-50 100 3.2 92 3.1 192 3.2 51-55 79 2.6 99 3.3 178 2.9 56-60 90 2.9 67 2.3 157 2.6

>60 146 4.7 114 3.8 260 4.3

48

Total 3,085 100.0 2,964 100.0 6,049 100.0 Source: Field Survey Data, 2011 4.10 .4 SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE COMMUNITY


Social Service Number Available Primary School 1 Junior Secondary School 0 Senior Secondary School 0 Health Centre 0 Community Centre 0 Recreational Centre/ Playing ground 0 Public Toilet 1 Source of drinking water 2 Mosque 3 Churches 2 Road network 0 Electricity 0 Market place Available Bar 0 Restaurant 0 Court Barrie 0 Tertiary/ Tech Voc. 0 Source: FGM, 2011


Table 46 Name Main Ares of Intervention Concern World Wide Constructs bridges, supply bed nets, provides scholarships

for school going pupils, manages disaster and also provides safe drinking water.

GOAL Awards scholarships to pupils, constructs water wells, and provides shelter for disadvantage children child welfare committee.

Save the Children Forms children’s club and sensitizes on HIV/AIDS. Source: FGM, 2011

49

4.10.6 COMMUNITY FELT NEEDS Table 47 Priority Needs Rank Health Centre 1 Safe Drinking Water 2 Road network 3 4.11 SUSAN’S BAY

4.11.1 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMUNITY

Location The Community is located on the East Coast of Freetown bounded by the sea. It is located in wards 377 & 378 and constituency 107. The topography of the community is steep-slope towards the sea. Origin of Name A British Governor established this settlement and named it Susan’s Bay after the name his wife, hence the name of the settlement. The year of first settlement is however not known by the inhabitants.

Economic Activities Their main economic activity is wood selling.

Socio-cultural Structures The members culturally practice Bondo society and socially participate in Japan Adele and Airy Big Wharf societies.

Disaster The community is prone to seasonal flooding. Community Power Structure Susan’s Bay is governed by a parliamentarian, a councillor, community chief and ward committees respectively.

50

Population Population of Susan’s Bay is referred to as the total number of people residing in the community at the period of the study (7,519 Males, Females and Children) see table 48 below. Table 48 also shows the social statuses of the household heads followed by their age disaggregation by sex in Table 49. Prevalence diseases in the Community Malaria, Pneumonia, Chicken Pox Fever, Malnourishment, Cough in Children

4.11.2 SOCIAL CONDITION OF THE HOUSEHOLD HEADS IN THE COMMUNITY







Single 289 15.6 Married 1353 72.9 Divorced 25 1.3 Separated 85 4.6 Widowed 105 5.7 Total 1857 100



Never attended School 843 45.4 Primary School 282 15.2 Secondary School 680 36.6 Tech/Voc 7 0.4 Tertiary 45 2.4 Total 1857 100



Unemployed 1099 57.2 Self-employed 616 33.2 In-Paid employed 142 7.6 Total 1857 100 Tenancy Status of Household Heads

51





Yes 236 12.7 No 1621 87.3 Total 1857 100 Source: Field Survey data, 2011

4.11.3 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESIDENTS IN SUSAN’S BAY COMMUNITY




Number of Residents


Number Percent

0-5 998 25.7 964 26.5 1962 26.1 6-10 630 16.2 586 16.1 1216 16.2 11-15 487 12.5 487 13.4 974 13.0 16-20 472 12.1 544 15.0 1016 13.5 21-25 409 10.5 420 11.6 829 11.0 26-30 365 9.4 264 7.3 629 8.4 31-35 213 5.5 157 4.3 370 4.9 36-40 150 3.9 97 2.7 247 3.3 41-45 55 1.4 45 1.2 100 1.3 46-50 51 1.3 42 1.2 93 1.2 51-55 32 0.8 15 0.4 47 0.6 56-60 23 0.6 12 0.3 35 0.5 >60 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 Total 3,886 100.0 3,633 100.0 7,519 100.0 Source: Field Survey Data, 2011 4.11.4 SOCIAL INFRASTRUCTURES IN THE COMMUNITY


Social Service Number Available Primary School 1 Junior Secondary School 0 Senior Secondary School 0 Health Centre Under construction Community Centre 0

52

Recreational Centre/ Playing ground 0 Public Toilet 3 Source of drinking water 2 (irregular) Mosque 6 Churches 0 Road network 0 Electricity Available Market place 0 Bar 0 Restaurant 0 Court Barrie 0 Tertiary/ Tech Voc. 0 Source: FGM, 2011 4.11.5 DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES WORKING IN THE COMMUNITY

Table 51 Name Main Ares of Intervention GOAL Provides financial supports to women Concern World Word Wide Forms disaster management groups and guide on

health and sanitation Save The Children Form child welfare committees and sensitizes about

HIV/AIDS YMCA Provide Tec/Voc training for young people Source: FGM, 2011 4.11.6 COMMUNITY PRIORITY FELT NEEDS Table 52 Priority Needs Rank Community Centre 1 Public toilet 2 Court Barrie 3 Source: FGM, 2011

53

5.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSION

In the recent past, there had been repeated calls from the general public and some political figures to enforce eviction and/or relocation of informal settlers and slum dwellers to safer and conducive locations.. However, stakeholders at various levels of authority have realised that it is not feasible due to varieties of social, economic and political reasons.

Key among these reasons includes the following:

It is financially and economically costly for the government and municipality to enforce relocation due to the dense population of these settlements; and,

There will a disruption of the social and economic life of the inhabitants as their livelihoods and survival is closely tied to the city centre where jobs, schools, market, etc, are located and accessible.

Notwithstanding some of these views, it is becoming clear that life in these eleven (11) communities are plagued with diseases, pollution, environmental hazards as a result of the lack of water, sanitation and hygiene for the growing population.

In the area of sanitation, it was observed that Susan’s Bay and Marbella particularly, have the worst drainage systems. Most of the household wastes and human faeces are thrown into the unplanned drainages. During the day children and pigs are seeing recreating in the drainages, thus exposing them to an obvious risk of water born diseases. In the rainy season, part of the area is flooded as the water from the city is emptied into these areas before getting into the ocean. With this, there have been reported cases of flooding and loss of life and properties.

Crime rate is apparently high in these communities, simply because there is no proper building planning which makes it impossible for security personnel to patrol the neighbourhoods and track down potential criminals or prevent acts of criminality. In essence these localities serve as safe havens for criminals who carry out their criminal enterprises in the centre of the city or rich neighbourhoods, and safely return to their ‘covens’ or hideouts. This situation therefore, has the tendency to serve as a threat to internal security and the safety of the citizenry, which in turn discourages investments and hence cripple the pursuant of social and economic programming and development of the country.

Additionally,, because of the unplanned nature of the settlements where the shacks are closely located to each other with little or no access routes, incidence of fire have often been disastrous, mostly resulting into loss of lives and properties worth millions of leones.

54

5.1 RECOMMENDATION From the foregoing, it is obvious that there is an urgent need for the government and her development partners and agencies to respond to the emergence and compelling realities of slums and informal settlements especially in Freetown. The following recommendations have been proffered to serve as guide to setting up a response mechanism or develop agenda for improvement and transformation of slums:

To set up a multi-stakeholder platform inclusive of politicians, social development agents, technocrats, financial institutions and slum dwellers where discussions, planning and decisions are made to address the problems of slums. Through this platform a long term strategic relocation and development plan can be designed within the framework of acceptable international standards on eviction and relocation. By so doing, international development partners and financiers can be willing to support;

A short and medium term upgrading intervention in areas such as provision of good health facilities, good drinking water sources, sanitation, education for children and youths, financial services and opportunities for women and settlement planning to eke out additional spaces for increased accessibility for recreation and improvement on security in these communities. This provides a quick response to addressing a potential disaster so that lives can be saved now. Also such interventions can gradually “remove the slum from the people rather than removing the people from the slum”; and,

To conduct similar survey in other informal and slum settlements in the entire Freetown municipality, as such government, the municipality and development partners and agents should support financially and technically to achieve this objective.

55

ANNEX REFERENCE 1) APHRC (2002): Population and Health Dynamics in Nairobi’s Informal Settlements. Report

of the Nairobi 2) Cross-Sectional Slums Survey (NCSS) 2000. Nairobi. 3) UN-HABITAT (2003a); The Challenge of Slums, Global report on Human Settlements 2003.

Nairobi. 4) http://hq.unhabitat.org/register/shop.asp 5) UN-HABITAT (2003b); Slums of the World: the face of urban poverty in the new

millennium. Nairobi. 6) http://www.unhabitat.org/publication/slumreport. 7) UN-HABITAT (2003c): Guide to Monitoring Target 11: Improving the lives of 100 million

slum dwellers, Nairobi. 8) UN-HABITAT (2004); Urban Poverty and slums, intra-city differential study of Nairobi,

internal report.

56

List of Participants No Name Position/Savings Group Organization/Community

1 Umu Hawa Bah Tawopaneh Savings Group Kroo Bay

2 Jeneba Kallon Sinavah Savings Group Dworzack

3 Samuel Cox Kamara Tabenu Savings Group Kroo Bay

4 Mabinty Sillah Tamaraneh Savings Group Kroo Bay

5 Aruna Bayoh Agape Savings Group Dworzack

6 Victor M. Kamara Tamemsu Savings Group Pamoronkoh

7 Daniell Koroma Tamemsu Savings Group Pamoronkoh

8 Sallu S. Koroma Tamemsu Savings Group Pamoronkoh

9 Adikalie S. Kamara Tamemsu Savings Group Pamoronkoh

10 Jamiatu Sesay Self Help Savings Group Dworzack

11 Kadiatu Kanu Takilie Savings Group Magazine

12 Abigail Kamara Takilie Savings Group Magazine

13 Morgan M. Kamara God Bless Savings Group Dworzack

14 M’balu Kamara Tamaraneh Savings Group Kroo Bay

15 Kadiatu Kamara Sorbeh Savings Group Dworzack

16 Mary Turay Love One Another Savings Group Dworzack

17 Albert Kaytoeh Mimboinadae Savings Group Dworzack

18 Yirah O. Conteh Mimboinadae Savings Group Dworzack

19 Amara Alpha Sesay Aliafuf Savings Group Colbot

20 Ibrahim S. Sesay Sapobah Savings Group Colbot

21 Osman Bangura Aliafuf Savings Group Colbot

22 Hawa Sesay Sapobah Savings Group Colbot

23 Abu Bakarr Suma Tawopaneh Savings Group Moe Wharf

24 Osman Caulker Tawopaneh Savings Group Moe Wharf

57

No Name Position/Savings Group Organization/Community

25 Mohamed K. Kamara Tamaraneh Savings Group Marbella

26 Abu Sesay United Friends Savings Group Magazine

27 Mustapha Vandi Sipotima Savings Group Susan’s Bay

28 Yusuf Kargbo Tamaraneh Savings Group Marbella

29 Ibrahim S. Kamara Tamaraneh Savings Group Marbella

30 Alie Bangura Tamaraneh Savings Group Marbella

31 Momoh Mansaray Hope Savings Group Magazine

32 Victoria Kargbo Tamaraneh Savings Group Marbella

33 Abdul Bangura Tamaraneh Marbella

34 Abdul Rahman Kargbo Together As One Savings Group Old Wharf

35 Alimamy M. Kamara Together As One Savings Group Old Wharf

36 Safinatu Dumbuya Yamapa Savings Group Old Wharf

37 Amara Bangura Yamapa Savings Group Old Wharf

38 Zainab Bangura Self Help Savings Group Dworzack

39 Samuel K. Kamara Self Help Savings Group Dworzack

40 Lamin S. Bangura Sipotima Savings Group Susan’s Bay

41 Ibrahim M. Sankoh Sipotima Savings Group Susan’s Bay

42 Mayenie Bangura Tamaraneh Savings Group Kroo Bay

43 Marie Bangura Sipotima Savings Group Susan’s Bay

44 Fatmata Sowe Dynamic Savings Group Kroo Bay

45 Samuel Sandi Tawopaneh Savings Group Moe Wharf

46 Foday Swarray Dimdin Savings Group Funkia

47 Haja Marrah Dimdin Savings Group Funkia

48 Konie Samura Limaniya Savings Group Funkia

58

No Name Position/Savings Group Organization/Community

49 Hawa Kanu Limaniya Savings Group Funkia

50 Andrew Williams Unity Savings Group Kolleh Town

51 Sibella Swarray Community Development Worker YMCA

52 Tom Menjor DRR Project Coordinator YMCA

53 Paul Ndoko Field Officer CODOHSAPA

54 Samuel Sesay Field Officer CODOHSAPA

55 Ben Turay Programme Coordinator CODOHSAPA

56 Abdul Marah Development Officer/FCC-EU Urban Planning Project Manager

Freetown City Council

57 Issa Mohamed Jalloh Economist Freetown City Council

CENTRE OF DIALOGUE ON HUMAN SETTLEMENT AND POVERTY ... · dwellers” based on the Slum Dwellers...

Documents

Transcript of CENTRE OF DIALOGUE ON HUMAN SETTLEMENT AND POVERTY ... · dwellers” based on the Slum Dwellers...