Freetown Portee Rokupa Community Profile (2022)

PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

Portee-Rokupa Settlement Profile 2022

1

The settlement profile was compiled by the Sierra Leone Urban Research Centre (SLURC) with the support of Architecture Sans Frontières UK (ASF-UK), in collaboration with the Federation of the Urban and Rural Poor Sierra Leone (FEDURP-SL) and the Centre for Dialogue on Human Settlements and Poverty Alleviation (CODOHSAPA).

The research underpinning this publication was carried out as part of the Knowledge in Action for Urban Equality (KNOW) programme. KNOW is a fouryear UKRI grant funded research programme tackling global inequality, led by The Bartlett Development Planning Unit, UCL.

Suggested citation: Sierra Leone Urban Research Centre. Portee-Rokupa: Settlement Profile (Freetown: SLURC, 2022).

TABLE OF CONTENTS

What is a Settlement Profile?

4

Portee-Rokupa in context

6

Conditions in Portee-Rokupa

10

Settlement demographics, tenure and ownership

16

Public and environmental health

18

Economy and livelihoods

22

Household risk vulnerabilities

26

Community priorities

28

Key findings

29

Towards a Community Action Area Plan

30

References

31

Contributors

32

What is a Settlement Profile?

A settlement profile provides information about an area to encourage community groups, civil society organisations, professionals, and government authorities to better understand the place with the support of a strong evidence base. This settlement profile has been produced to inform and strengthen the outputs of Community Action Area Plans (CAAP): a new planning tool for the upgrading of Freetown’s settlements. A CAAP is a document that provides a framework for future development within a community, and that is produced in partnership with the members of that community and their organisations.

Creating a profile for Portee-Rokupa The content for this profile was produced by the Sierra Leone Urban Research Centre (SLURC), with the support of Architecture Sans Frontières-UK (ASF-UK) and in partnership with the Federation for the Urban and Rural Poor (FEDURP) and under the Knowledge in Action for Urban Equality (KNOW) programme. KNOW is a four-year UKRI grant funded research programme tackling global inequality, led

by The Bartlett Development Planning Unit, UCL. This document was created through a process of community-based settlement profiling, where local community members play a substantial role in all stages of the process and retain control over the information being produced. The collection and analysis of data by the poor for the poor leads

4

to more accurate information, on which to make decisions around resource allocation, policy design and urban development activities. Based on this approach, the residents of Portee-Rokupa and their organisations were fully integrated into the research process that led to this profile, by shaping questions, providing and collecting data, offering interpretations of findings and acting as champions for impact.

The profiling methodology included quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection. Quantitative methods used consisted of household surveys using structured questionnaires. Qualitative methods included individual interviews, in-depth interviews, direct observation and focus group discussions. A range of participatory tools were used, including transect walks, participatory mapping, settlement timelines, photo diary and ranking exercises. These tools combined manual and digital techniques to reveal the diverse needs and aspirations of the community.

This document This document includes three sections. The first section describes what a profile is and how this profile was created. The second and main part of the document presents the findings from the profiling activities that were undertaken in Portee-Rokupa in 2020. This includes its context, conditions, settlement demographics, tenure and ownership, public and environmental health, economy and livelihood, risks and vulnerabilities, and community priorities. The third section highlights the key findings from the community profile and discusses how the profile links to the Community Action Area Plan that the residents of Portee-Rokupa and their organisations developed in 2021 with the support of SLURC and ASF-UK.

A community-based profile contains data, information and knowledge produced together with local inhabitants of the neighbourhood.

The aim is to better understand the issues faced by the community and plan for future improvements.

Participatory Mapping

20 community members involved

32 interviews 365 surveys (91 in each zone) (8 in each zone)

COMMUNITY-BASED SETTLEMENT PROFILE

1

Transect Walk

4 sessions

20

community members involved

2

Individual & Focus Group Discussions group community discussions 32 members involved 4 focus

WC

3

4

Priorities & Ranking (1 in each zone, 8 sessions one general and one for women) 60 community members involved

Timeline (1 in each zone, 6 sessions one general and one for women) 60 community members involved

PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

Household Survey & In-depth interviews

5

Portee-Rokupa in context Where is the community located and how did it develop in time?

Portee-Rokupa is located near a beach nested in a small bay along the eastern coastline of Freetown and surrounded by a cliff, approximately 10km from the city centre with an estimated population 34,502 people comprising both the formal and informal Portee-Rokupa. Recent estimates put the population at 6.049 people, including 2,593 women and children under-five years, among those inhabiting the poorest part of the area, often described as informal (YMCA and CODOHSAPA, 2015).

In the informal areas of Portee-Rokupa, there is limited space for further expanding provision of social infrastructures like schools, health and community centres, markets and sewerage systems. Local dwellers have limited access to essential services such as water and electricity. The settlement does not have access to pipe borne water supply. The major source of water within the community is from hand dug wells located close to the sea and in some instances, the residents had to go out of the community to buy water over long distances. The water sources within the community are usually salty due to salt water intrusion.

6

Below: Satellite view of Freetown and Portee-Rokupa

Cotton Tree

Politically, the settlement is situated within two separate wards (Portee in Ward 355 and Rokupa in Ward 354).

The wharf divides the community into two-halves – Portee and Rokupa, unified by a shared space. It shares borders with Kuntolor to the south, Congo water to the east and Grassfield to the west. To the north of PorteeRokupa is the estuary of the Rokel River. Overall, the geographic features consist of sandy soil and rocky slopes. The community is divided into two parts - the upper area located further inland is considered a formal area, while the seafront part along the coast is low-lying and is referred to as informal.

Historically, Portee-Rokupa was first settled in the early 1940s as two separate communities. Since the 1950s, it has become a vibrant fishing community.

Many of the inhabitants migrated from the Port Loko District to trade in ‘Ro-Poti’ (Ro-Poti is the former name of Portee in Temne). Since 2004, PorteeRokupa was formed out of a merger of two fishing communities (Portee and Rokupa).

Overcrowded housing conditions compounded with inadequate sanitation. The residents used hanging toilets, which are generally shared, built with sticks and sacks over the sea. These toilets are poorly built, managed and uncared for by users. A few people who do not have toilets simply use the sea. This is especially the case of some houses which do have sufficient space to build toilets. Poor access to water and sanitation account for the frequent waterborne diseases.

Portee Rokupa

Aberdeen

0

1

2km

Year of moving into Portee-Rokupa

Formal and informal areas in PorteeRokupa

before 1986 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000

LEGEND

2001-2005 2006-2010

Formal settlement

2016 -onwards 0%

“

10%

20%

Before people began resettling in the mid-1990s, the settlement was bushy and primarily used as a fishing harbor. The community was founded by the Portuguese, who used to slam their ships in the area.

Some fishermen used to take a break from their work in the community to drink from the spring water that used to flow from a stone. Following the war, people migrated to the community and began small-scale businesses such as petty trading and fishing, eventually settling there permanently.

- In-depth interview, Benk

30%

Informal settlement

PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

2010-2015

7

Population settled in Mass migration leading to popuRokupa following the 1961 lation expansion following the SL’s independence end of the civil war Relocation of the cemetery at Rokupa led to the expansion of the settlement

Massive beating of community people by police

Sea accident by wood sellers Political dispute between different parties

Political events in the community Disaster events in the community Other Important events in the community Environmental events in the community

8

Conflict between the community members and the SLP

2004

Banking started

1992

1975

1970

1965

The first chief selected

1960

1954

1950

1946

NEGATIVE EVENTS <<

1940

First headman election

Socially positive developments in the community

Quick Action, first CBO, was formed

Biggest fishing boat constructed

1990

>> POSITIVE EVENTS

Forested Rokupa used by the Prison department

Mefleh zone emerged

2002

Benk zone emerged

2001

Fishing activity started

First water well dug for domestic purpose

1979

First fishing boat built

1991

Early settlers (Portee-Rokupa)

1977

Portee-Rokupa Community Timeline

Rock falls

Portee-Rokupa Coastline declared a fishing breeding area including the Sierra Leone River Estuary

Amalgamation of Portee Rokupa for community development purposes GOAL supported Rokupa Wharf Children on education First public toilet constructed by Pa Dick

Construction of footbridge by a councilor

Fire outbreak

Cholera outbreak Fire outbreak

Boundary dispute between Portee-Rokupa

Ebola outbreak (23 deaths – 18 informal settlements)

Fire outbreak and flooding

Landslide Landslide destroyed a lot of houses and properties Political conflict Flooding – 27 houses affected, including nine that were extensively damaged and three that were completely demolished

2021

2020

Boat accident killing 3 people

Fire outbreak – destroying 30 houses and other properties and injury (100 people affected)

PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

Fire outbreak

2019

2018

2016

2015

2014

2012

2011

2009

2008

2007

2005

Water tank donated by councilor

Public tap constructed by Concern Worldwide

Rock falls

Flooding

BRAC working with community members to mitigate disasters Concern Worldwide provides education support to vulnerable girls and children

Training of CDMC by ONS and Concern Worldwide

First hospital constructed Public toilet constructed by GOAL-SL

Recreational centre built by GOAL for children

PERAV (CBOs) Formed to fight Ebola

Drainage constructed by Concern Worldwide

Water well-constructed by community residents

9

Conditions in Portee-Rokupa What are the current conditions of housing and community spaces in Portee-Rokupa?

Portee-Rokupa is characterised by small houses made of concrete blocks or mud blocks with plastering, located close to each other. The housing conditions are generally poorly constructed and predominantly ‘pan bodies’ made from corrugated iron sheets and wooden planks, with other materials being mud bricks, broken stone, zinc, tarpaulin, concrete/cement, cardboard/ plastic/cartoon, and car tyres. Brick houses are mostly found outside the informal parts, specifically in the areas leading to the upper areas of the community.

Access to services and amenities are generally poor.

The settlement comprises a low-lying area characterised by high levels of poverty and inequality, unemployment, illiteracy, inadequate skills, low political participation, and poor hygiene. Due largely to the prevalent poverty, housing shortages, high rental cost and a shortage of land for housing, most people are involved in land reclamation especially at the seafront to build their dwelling units. The poor living conditions, the high population density and the lack of improvement in services and infrastructure coalesce into worsening socioeconomic conditions in the informal part of the settlement. There is no space for social infrastructure facilities like schools, health centres and markets and there is no sewage system (Macarthy et al., 2018); all sewage from the upper and better planned areas in the east end of Freetown empties near the cliff situated in the informal settlement. Most local dwellers have limited access to essential services such as water and electricity. As a result of lack of easy access to these

10

Conditions of housing and basic facilities How would you rate the condition of this building / of the following facility?

Toilet Bathroom

3.3% Very poor

Kitchen

15.1% Poor

Drainage

46.3% Fair 33.4% Good 1.9% Very good

Housing Housing

Electricity Access to road 0%

20%

40%

60%

80% 100%

Residents are mostly satisfied with their housing overall, but when it comes to facilities, road access and the conditions of drainage, toilets, bathrooms, and kitchens emerge as a main issue.

Above: The wharf area in Portee-Rokupa

Portee-Rokupa Zones Benk The zone was settled around the late 70s. It is by far the smallest in size among the four zones that evolved and serves as a fringe of the Portee wharf zone. The settlement lacks social amenities, safe drinking water, schools, healthcare facilities, and access to improved sanitation. The community is not accessible by road.

Portee Wharf It is the oldest part of the informal settlement established around the early 1940s, as a resting place for fishermen and business before being developed into a residential area. It lies at the centre sharing boundaries with Rokupa Wharf and Benk. It has a high population density compared to other zones. It is not accessible by road as access to the site is by a very steep stairway constructed with huge rocks. It is the main fishing community and serves as a landing site at Kissy, the east end of Freetown.

It emerged after pa Rokupa, a pepper seller called Phybian Cole established the first settlement in 1942/45.

Rokupa wharf is the most densely populated area with poor housing conditions and steep topographic features.

The roads are unpaved and have a very poor drainage system. The community is prone to natural disasters such as flooding along the coastal communities. The main livelihood activities are fishing and petty trading.

Mefleh It was established by a man called Pa Mefleh around 2002. The settlement started developing in the area when Pa Mefleh dug a well where people come from the formal part to fetch water or wash their clothes. It is the largest and most recent zone expanding immediately following the aftermath of the civil war in the early 2000s.

This zone also has accessibility challenges. Its topography and proximity to the sea make it prone to flooding especially during high tides or heavy rainfall.

PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

Rokupa Wharf

11

“

Accessibility map TRANSPORT Kekeh (tuk-tuk) station Okada (motorbike) station Poda poda (bus/van) station

Benk

Taxi station

P Parking space ROUTES Dual carriage road Primary road Secondary road Footpath

Portee Wharf

It is difficult or impossible to access public or private transport of any type in our settlement.

We have to walk from the community to the main road to access public transport. This is because the accessibility to the community is by footpath, and vehicles cannot come into our community as we don’t have good road access.

- Focus group discussion

Stairs Bridge

Rokupa Wharf

Mode of transport to work

essential services, residents have to walk long distances or climb steep slopes in order to access them in the formal part of the settlement.

Access and mobility Mefleh

P

4.9% Government Bus Mini Bus 31.5% (Poda Poda) 4.9% Okada/Kekeh Privately owned 1.1% transport 4.9% Shared Taxi 52.6% Walking

12

The informal part of Portee-Rokupa is not accessible by road; access to the community is by a very steep stairway constructed with huge rocks. Walking is the predominant mode of transport, followed by minibusses/poda poda, okada/kekeh and shared taxis.

Most of the residents in the informal part of PorteeRokupa have their workplace not too far from the community and most of the trek/walk rather than use other modes of transportation.

Accessing transportation in the informal part of the settlement is almost impossible because the settlement has no motorable roads; therefore, people have to trek to the formal part of the settlement to access transportation to other parts of the city.

A steep cliff divides the formal part on top from informal part along Athe steep cliff divides the formal partthe onsea topshore from the informal part along the sea shore Portee Junction, on Bai Bureh road, is where you canPortee get public transport to Junction, on Bai reach the city centre Bureh road, is where you can get public transport to reach the city centre The harbour and marketplace around the confluenceThe of the creekand into harbour the sea constitutes the marketplace around the centre of Portee Rokupa confluence of the creek into the sea constitutes the centre of Portee Rokupa The so-called Gheddafi mosque is one of the largest in town, and a The The so-called Gheddafi landmark the mosque is of one ofarea the largest in town, and a landmark of the area A vast mangrove area, spreading along the shoreline, marks the A vast mangrove area, southern limit of the the spreading along shoreline,settlement marks the southern limit of the settlement

Community Map Community Map COMMON SPACES AND SOCIAL SPOTS

Benk

COMMON SPACES Mosque AND SOCIAL SPOTS Church Mosque

Benk

Secret society Church Court Barrie Secret society Court Barrie y Focal area

Portee Wharf Portee Wharf

Rokupa Wharf Rokupa Wharf

Focal area LIVELIHOODS Informal market LIVELIHOODS Shop Informal market Fishing activity Shop Fish smoking Fishing activity Workshop Fish smoking Livestock area Workshop FACILITIES Livestock area

Mefleh Mefleh

Clinic FACILITIES Pharmacy Clinic Pre-school Pharmacy Primary school Pre-school Secondary school Primary school Police post Secondary school Police post Big tree Gardens Big tree Street light Gardens Street light

PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

To the north, a canal is separating Portee from the area of Toneighbouring the north, a canal is Brima Lane separating Portee from the neighbouring area of Brima Lane

13

A walk through Portee-Rokupa FROM MEFLEH TO BENK ALONG THE LOWER PART OF THE SETTLEMENT

Mosque

Pedestrian bridge

Hanging boulder

Two-story house

Meeting place

Shop

Water well

MEFLEH

FROM ROKUPA WHARF TO THE ENTRANCE OF THE SETTLEMENT ON BAI BUREH ROAD

Fishing boats

ROKUPA WHARF

Business Pedestrian bridge

INFORMAL PART

14

Natural water source

M p

Shop

Single storey, multiple families

Relaxation area

School

Informal market

Borehole

PORTEE WHARF

Natural stream drain

BENK 2-storey buildings

Shared toilets

Meeting place

Toilet

Slope (difficult access)

Shops

Poda poda and taxi

Electricity Natural water source

Steps

FORMAL PART

BAI BUREH ROAD

PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

atural ater urce

Football field

15

Settlement demographics, tenure and ownership Who is living in Portee-Rokupa?

Portee-Rokupa is a coastal community located in the eastern part of Freetown which has a total population of 34,502 and like other informal settlements in Sierra Leone, it has experienced significant population growth over the years. Recent population estimates of the informal part of the community are just over 6,000 including nearly 2,600 women and children under 5 (YMCA 2012). The ReMapRisk survey put the population at 7,000 in 2017 (Allen et al., 2018).

During the civil war, a significant proportion of displaced persons from conflict-ridden areas moved into Portee upon their arrival in Freetown (Koroma et al. 2018). A large proportion of the population are within the age range 15-45 years.

Tenure status There is a lack of formal land titles even among landlords in the community. Owing to housing shortages, high rental cost and limited land space for settlement expansion, most of the residents/ migrants population are left with no option but to resort to traditional land reclamation at the seafront to build their dwelling shacks.

Household size

6.62

16

Place of origin

29.9%

Women

persons per household

11%

70.1%

Eastern Province

50.1%

Northern Province

Men

Household composition by gender and age Over 60 years

Men

49%

46 – 59 years 36 – 45 years 26 – 35 years 15 – 25 years 06 – 14 years 0 – 4 years

Women

51%

Reasons for staying in the community Close to friends /relatives

29.3%

Rent is cheap

25.2%

Marriage Located close to the city centre I was born in the settlement I’ve lived here since my childhood days

Next page: a street in the centre of Portee-Rokupa.

Gender of household heads

19.2% 10.4% 7.1% 7.1%

Eviction

0.5%

Others

1.2%

8.2%

Southern Province

“

30.7%

Western Area

I came to this community between 1994-1995 during the military regime of the NPRC when there were very few houses, about six; the community was bushy and full of monkeys and snakes. There was no banking or reclaimed land. There was no electricity, the area was remote, and it was the Temne tribe that was dominant followed by the Susu and Limba and Fula were very minor; the majority of the migrants came from the province.

- In-depth interview, Portee Wharf

9.9% Family owned Own the house

3.0% together with

another household

60% Pay rent

(tenant/lease)

21.9% Privately owned Rent free owner 4.4% with consent (occupied rent-free)

0.8% Squatting

“

Land ownership In the informal part, we have landlords without title deeds [...], most of them grabbed the land they used for constructing their houses.

Generally, the relationship between landlords and tenants is cordial but most of them are regarded as squatters and land grabbers by the authorities of the state.

2.7% Squatting

13.4% Consent from owner

30.1% Owns

53.7% Pay lease/ rent

- In-depth interview

About one third of Portee-Rokupa households have land ownership; the majority pays a lease or rent.

Only 2.7% are squatting.

Fear of risk of eviction from community

66.6% No

33.3% Yes

PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

Housing tenure status

17

Public and environmental health What are the conditions of health, sanitation, and waste disposal in the settlement?

Public and environmental health are critical issues in Portee-Rokupa. The most prevalent diseases/ illnesses experienced in the informal part of the Portee-Rokupa in the community are malaria and typhoid. The informal part of Portee-Rokupa has no healthcare facility which requires residents to walk to the formal part of the settlement to seek medical services. The majority of them walk their way to the health care facilities, while others use other forms of transportation to seek care outside the community.

The average walking distance to access the health facility takes between 15 and 30 minutes.

Water access and quality There are about 60 water points in total (2 hand pump, 1 public tap, 29 protected wells, 3 unprotected springs, 24 unprotected wells and 1 water tank) serving the 7,000 population in the community.

Households of respondents reported that the quality of water in their settlement was largely satisfactory,

“

Access to health facilities in our community is very poor because there is no health facility down the informal part of the community and the one at the formal part is not well equipped.

- Focus group discussion

18

“

Most prevalent health problems Malaria Typhoid Skin diseases STI’s Diarrhoea /gastrointestinal problem Respiratory Tract Infection Allergies Anaemia 0%

20%

40%

60%

80% 100%

59.2% of respondents reportedly experienced diseases and health problems

The very poor are most at risk of contracting diseases in my community because they live in unhygienic or poor sanitary conditions.

It is we the women who usually work in places where people defecate and throw wastes. I think this is what makes it easy to catch cholera and other transmittable diseases.

- Focus group discussion

Water sources map

Quality of water

Benk LEGEND

7,9%

80%

12,1%

Good

Satisfactory

Bad

Bore hole Pipe water

Sources of water supply Portee Wharf 93%

Wells

6%

Bore holes

1%

Streams

Spring Tank water Well

Rokupa Wharf

Location of water sources 6.8%

In own yard/ 23.3% compound Elsewhere – outside slum

4.1%

Elsewhere – 65.5% somewhere inside slum Others

0.3%

Wells are the main sources of water provision in Portee-Rokupa, with water quality generally considered satisfactory. .

Previous page: people fetching water from a well

Mefleh PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

In own dwelling

19

while 12.1% reported that it was bad with only 7.9% claiming it to be good.

Waste disposal 71%

In the sea

Sanitation The most common toilets in the informal part of Portee Rokupa are hanging toilets which are generally makeshift above the water. These toilets are made from sticks and empty sacks; hang over the edge of the sea/stream, and are connected with pipe directly into the sea; these are mostly shared by residents. These toilet are poorly built, managed, and uncared for by users. A few people who do not have toilets simply use the sea. This is especially the case of some houses which do not have sufficient space to build toilets. A small proportion of the respondents uses flush toilets, buckets, flying and shared public toilets.

Waste disposal Waste generated from the community are disposed of by dumping into the sea and waterways. Others use communal refuse dumps/open spaces, dumping of waste in waterways/drainages and/or dispose of waste in dustbins/own refuse dump. The common practice is to deposit waste in some demarcated areas at the sea edge. Low income level among the households means that they can hardly afford to pay for waste disposal and rather dispose of their waste into the sea. Tricycles provided by the city council are also available for waste collection within the community at SLL 2000 per rice bag volume. Most of the solid waste dumped along the coast is used by seaside dwellers for land reclamation from the sea.

Toilet typologies in Portee-Rokupa: hanging toilet (top), communal toilet (bottom)

20

Communal refuse dump/open space

11.8%

In drainage

9%

Dustbin/ own refuse dump

7.9%

Waste is mainly disposed of in the sea and open spaces,resulting in serious pollution Challenges to improving sanitation arrangements 49.6% Lack of finance 8.8%

Lack of knowledge on how to do this

26.3% Lack of interest of other household members 4.4%

Lack of skilled people to construct

3.7%

Landlord does not want to invest

7.4%

Don’t know

Though sanitation is identified as a major problem, improvements are hindered by lack of finance and interest of other household members

Waste and sanitation map

Access to sanitation and other services in house or compound Yes

No

Water supply

Benk

Toilets

LEGEND

Electricity

Sanitation Hanging Toilet

Bathroom Kitchen

Public toilet (Flush)

Drainage

Public toilet (Pit latrine)

Waste disposal

Portee Wharf

Showers/Wash facilities

Health care 20%

40%

60%

Waste

80% 100%

Most residents have access to toilets and bathrooms, however their quality is not satisfactory.

Improving access to healthcare, clean water and sanitation is among the main priorities in the community.

Toilet facility

Waste disposal site Open dumping Rokupa Wharf

Open sewer/drainage Pit dumping Plastic recycling

Mefleh

Dual carriage road Primary road Secondary road Footpath

1.92%

Bucket latrine

12.6%

Flush toilet

0.55% Flying toilet* 52.6%

Hanging toilet

31.5%

Pit latrine

0.55% Pay to use 0.27%

Others

*Excrements disposed in plastic bags by slinging it away.

PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

0%

21

Economy and Livelihoods How do the residents of Portee Rokupa make a living?

The main source of livelihoods for the community is petty trading and fishing. Fishing is a key component of livelihoods in the coastal settlement of PorteeRokupa, which has good access to fish markets across the city. Over the years, the settlement has become one of the largest fishing communities along the coastline in the east end of Freetown, building an identity as a fishing community. These informal economic activities are growing because of the community’s strategic location, close to the main transport route linking the east and central business district and to the seafront that connects the Port

Main occupation 10.1% Civil servant 5.2% Construction worker 1.4%

Daily wage labourer /porter

1.9% Not working/disabled 1.1% Servant/maid 3.3% Student 41.9% Trader 4.7% Transport worker

Nature of main occupation

Educational status of the household’s heads

18.1%

63.6% Formal education

Formal

81.9%

36.4%

Informal

Informal education

Household monthly income

Manufacturing

0.8% (e.g, Welding, Carpentry, Tailoring etc)

3.3% 4.1%

Private sector worker Services (e.g, Hair dressing, phone charging, Restaurant etc)

22.2% Fishing related activities

Above: women working in the fishing sector.

22

0%

20% 100,000-250,000 251,000-500,000 501,000-750,000 751,000-1,000,000

1,001,000-1,250,000 1,251,000-1,500,000 1,501,000-2,000,000 >2,000,000

40%

60%

80%

51% of Portee-Rokupa’s households’ monthly incomes is below 1.000.000 Leones (100USD at rate in March 2020)

100%

Monthly household income map

1,031,665 Le average monthly income per household

Benk LEGEND 0 - 500,000 Le 500,000-1,000,000 Le 1,000,000 - 1,500,000 Le 1,501,000 - 2,000,000 Le >2,000,000 Le

Number of people with some form of income in household 0% 42.5%

1

4 5

Primary road

5.8%

Secondary road

2.7%

Rokupa Wharf

Footpath

3.3%

With an average monthly income of 1,031,665 Le, almost 3/4 of households don’t manage to meet their basic needs or save some money.

Perception of household livelihoods generally 21.4% Not meeting basic needs Meeting all basic needs but not saving Meeting all basic needs and little saving Meeting all basic needs and accumulating assets

21.4%

Dual carriage road

45.8%

2 3

Portee Wharf

52.3%

Mefleh

PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

No income

23

Loko district. The fishery sector in Portee-Rokupa includes fishing, the processing of fish through smoking and the sale of both raw and smoked fish.

A range of different boat types are used for fishing which can be broadly divided into the large ‘Ghana’ boats (with a crew of 25-30) and the ‘Capital’ boats (with a crew of about 6) (Koroma et al., 2018). Access to fishing areas are good as the fishers have direct access to the more sheltered bay area, as well as being able to indirectly access the open sea.

Monthly expenditures (in Leones) 800,000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0

on port care hing ater ance coal) ricity od ati t r s W h ct ha uc ran ten Clo alt d T Ele E ain od/c He m nt/ rewo Re y (fi erg En

Fo

Difficulty to satisfy the household’s basic food needs

10.1% No

89.9% Yes

Coping strategy Borrow money Take food on credit Reduce food qualities Reduce food quantities Go hungry Others 0%

24

25%

50%

75%

100%

Below: Fishing boats in the wharf

There is no data on the number of people involved in the sector, but interviewees estimated that there are more than 100 boat owners and over 50 fish agents (who broker fish) in the community. Many of those we interviewed had either been born into or married into fishing families. It is also a sector which often employs an entire household with family members involved in different nodes of the fishing value chain (for example, women who are fish agents or processes are likely to have husbands who are boat owners or fishermen).

Meeting basic needs 51.5% of Portee-Rokupa households’ monthly income is Le.1, 000,000 and below. The majority of respondents (52.3%) believe that their income is not meeting their basic needs, while 26.0% said that they met all their basic needs and allows for a little savings. Others expressed that they were able to meet all their basic needs but not enough to save.

Only 0.3% of the respondents reported that their income met all their household needs and at the same time accumulating assets. Food is the largest expenditure for households, with 89.9% experiencing difficulties in satisfying their needs and resulting in coping strategies–especially reducing food intake and borrowing money.

On the right, from top: a small shop near the shore; working in fishing; fishing nets and boats.

“

This is the community where people create everyday livelihood activities to upkeep themselves and their families, there are many livelihood activities like Fishing, Petty trading, Fish smoking, Fish mongers, Tailoring, Driving, Carpentry, House agents, Gardeners, Auto mechanics, Missionary, Food catering, Cookery selling, Security, Dancers, Footballers, etc. most of us in this community are uneducated; therefore we can’t work in the formal sector although few people are working there.

- In-depth interview, Mefleh

PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

Access to fish markets are good due to the settlement’s proximity to the Bai Bureh Road which is both the site of local wet markets and offers access to markets in the city centre. According to interviewees, people come from all over the city and even from other provinces to buy fish from Portee-Rokupa, and the women fish sellers from the community also sell their fish in the main markets elsewhere in the city.

25

Household Risk Vulnerabilities What risks is Portee-Rokupa facing?

The informal part of Portee-Rokupa is exposed to high environmental risk due to the cliff hanging over the settlement and the population living on the plateau send its waste and contamination down to the lowlying parts of the informal settlements. The settlement is also exposed to recurring localised flooding, indiscriminate dumping of waste in drains which reduces the surface flow of water, coastal erosion, etc. Portee-Rokupa also reclaims land at the seafront to cover housing needs. The poor quality of housing structures makes them highly vulnerable to climate change risk.

“

The quantitative study shows that 66.3% of PorteeRokupa are vulnerable to the threat of loss of jobs/ unemployment, and 59.2% were vulnerable to diseases/sickness/health problems such as malaria, typhoid, diarrhea and skin diseases. These illnesses are associated with poor sanitation infrastructure, localized flooding and the general environmental conditions of the settlement. The community is further exposed to violence and crime, while loss of property, the threats of eviction or actual eviction, and windstorms were less considered by respondents to make them vulnerable to shocks in the settlement.

“One of the main factors that pose risks in our community is the throwing of waste in the drainage that leads to flooding.”

“An important factor that poses a risk for the Rokupa Wharf community is poor electrical wiring of houses. This poses a great risk for houses to catch fire.”

“The factors that pose risks in our community is banking especially those who bank close to the sea”

On top: houses between the cliff and the sea

26

- Focus groups discussions

Household vulnerability to shocks and natural disasters

Diseases/ health problems

Flooding

Fires

Violence

66.6%

59.2%

56.7%

54.8%

48.2%

Crime

Loss of property

Loss of social network

Threat of eviction or actual eviction

Windstorms

44.7%

35.3%

28.7%

25.8%

24.7%

The main vulnerability for Portee-Rokupa households is loss of job/ unemployment, followed by disease/health problems, flooding and the risk of fires.

Issues such as windstorms and loss of social network are less relevant in the community.

PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

Loss of job/ unemployment

27

Community Priorities

#1: Access to health facilities

What are the most important issues for Portee-Rokupa community?

Lack of access to health care services in the informal part of Portee-Rokupa.

There is a need to have health services in the informal area to save time and cost especially for pregnant women and children.

In defining community priorities, four main issues emerged to address in future upgrading of the informal parts of Portee-Rokupa. These were identified based on the following characteristics:

#2: Access to water Portee-Rokupa has limited access to clean and safe drinking water especially from the informal part. Access to safe water will limit the risk of sexual exploitation at water points - therefore reducing the risk of teenage pregnancy and constraints on women and children who travels long distances to fetch tap water. Some zones have access to bore holes and water wells, but they are not pure and safe for drinking due to saltwater intrusion.

Affecting everyone: these issues are affecting the whole community, and dealing with them will improve the lives of all Portee-Rokupa Residents, not only few people.

Community-wide: these issues are observed across the entire settlement, though more serious in some areas than others. Tackling them means working at the settlement scale, and the effects will be felt in the whole PorteeRokupa.

Long-term: these issues need sustained engagement and work and may not be instantly fixed, but dealing with them will have a lasting impact in time, and generate more positive effects on the long run.

28

#3: Market spaces There is no formal market. Access to a formal market will enable community people to do their businesses locally, and reduce the distance, time and cost of travel to access a formal market This will considerably help to address the needs for women and children.

#4: Access to sanitation WC

Access to toilet facilities is challenging in Portee-Rokupa Informal settlement. Lack of improved sanitation facilities have resulted in increased water borne infections in the community. Improving sanitation and hygiene education is essential for the well-being of women and girls and other vulnerable groups.

#5: Waste collection and management There is no sewage system in Portee-Rokupa, and all sewage from the upper and better planned areas in the east end of Freetown empties into drainage near the cliff situated in the informal settlement. There is also a high rate of coastal pollution due to solid waste. The waste collection and management is an urgent issue that needs addressing to help improve the environmental conditions in the community.

Key findings What can we learn from this information?

to be addressed. The fragile ecosystem on which the settlement keeps encroaching has been affected by ongoing urbanization, which in turn had rapid and damaging effects on local livelihoods.

walkways, and no public transport means that for the community inhabitants, accessing transport and the wider city is difficult. Coupled with the absence of basic services within the settlement, this translates into a physical and social isolation.

Precariousness

Environmental degradation Against the backdrop of Freetown’s pollution mismanagement and the global climate crisis, Portee-Rokupa appears to face serious environmental challenges. Water pollution, waste disposal, and sanitation infrastructure urgently need

An overarching theme cutting across the lives of Portee-Rokupa’s inhabitants is the multidimensional condition of precariousness. Multiple factors concur to build up vulnerability, such as insecure land tenure (with the constant threat of eviction), unstable and often insufficient incomes, the risk of natural or manmade disasters, and weak social safety networks.

Land tenure As an unauthorized and low-income settlement, Portee-Rokupa’s households do not own the land where their houses are built and are at risk of eviction due to urban pressures. This is a key element in the community’s condition, as it prevents investment and generates insecurity.

Mobility and accessibility

Wellbeing and quality of life

Due to its position and the way it developed, PorteeRokupa is not easy to access. Steep roads, unpaved

People in Portee-Rokupa face many hardships, both on a daily basis and in more extreme episodes: from the time spent in fetching water to the risk of fires or flooding, from widespread diseases to overcrowded dwellings.

Residents of Portee Rokupa and from other communities take part in a community profiling workshop in SLURC’s office

PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

Throughout the profiling process, a few key themes emerged. These are not ‘community priorities’ in themselves, but rather, cross-cutting issues that we can observe from all the data collected.

29

Towards a Community Action Area Plan Key findings (emerging from the Profile) Environmental degradation

Precariousness

Mobility and accessibility

Land tenure

Wellbeing and quality of life

Integrated Principles (from Community Action Area Plan) 1 Resilience from natural disasters

2 Equal access to services and amenities

3

Improve waste management and sanitation to improve public health

4 Improve roads, streets and pathways for an accessible settlement for all

5 Access to quality and safe housing for different family sizes in the community

The Community Action Area Plan (CAAP) contains integrated principles for planning which address the key issues emerging from this profile.

The CAAP is available at SLURC’s office in Freetown or online from SLURC’s website at this link.

30

REFERENCES

Allen, A., Koroma, B., Lambert, R. and Osuteye, E. in collaboration with Hamilton, A. (technical platform assemblage) and Kamara, S., Macarthy, J., Sellu, S. and Stone, A. (coordination of community-led data collection) (2018). ReMapRisk Freetown. Online.

Koroma, B., A. Rigon, J. Walker and S. A. Sellu (2018).

Urban livelihoods in Freetown’s informal settlements.

SLURC, Freetown.

Macarthy, J M; Conteh, A; Sellu, S A and Doughty, T., 2018. Water and Sanitation Challenges and Impact on Health in Informal Settlements. Future Health Systems.

Issue Brief 7.

Ossul-Vermehren, I., Carew, M.T. and Walker, J. (2022). Assistive Technology in urban low-income communities in Sierra Leone and Indonesia: Rapid Assistive Technology Assessment (rATA) survey results.

Bartlett Development Planning Unit - Global Disability Innovation Hub, London.

SSL, (2017). Sierra Leone 2015 Population and Housing Census National Analytical Report.

YMCA (2012). Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment of Dwarzarck Community., YMCA Sierra Leone.

YMCA and CODOHSAPA (2015) Community Profiling, Enumeration, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessment Report. Freetown.

PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

Macarthy, JM, Apsan Frediani, A, Kamara, SF and Morgado, M (2017) Exploring the role of empowerment in urban humanitarian responses in Freetown. IIED Working Paper, IIED, London.

31

CONTRIBUTORS

Sierra Leone Urban Research Centre Braima Koroma, Joseph M. Macarthy, Sulaiman F. Kamara, Ibrahim Bakarr Bangura, Ansumana Tarawally, Abdulai Turay

Architecture Sans Frontières UK Beatrice De Carli, Niki Sole, Francesco Pasta, Sophie Morley, Louisa Orchard

Data collection team and participants to the workshop Kadija Precious Sesay, Andrew Sewa, Lamin Conteh, Hassan Kamara, Marie Kamara, James Hoinn, Francis Koroma, Idrissa H. Sesay, Mohamed Kamara, Alimamy S. Sesay, Osman B,Sesay, Lamin Mara, Karim Kamara, Abdulraman Segay, Issa Kamara, Fatu Sillah, Lamin Kamara, Idriss A. Sesay, James Sesay, Marie Kamara, Katiatu Conteh, Posseh Se say, Isatu Kamara, Mohamed Karabo, Faitmate Kamaro, Kamara lema, Lamin Mansgray, Usman, B. Sesay, Saidu A Conteh, Osman Sesay , Alimamy Sesay, Lamian Kamara, Fatu Sillah, Idriss A . Sesay, Maria Kamara, Katiatu Conteh, Karabo Adama, Hassan Tarawallie, Marie Kamara, James Kanu, Issa Kamara, Lamin Kamara, Osman, B, Swaray, Lamin Mansaray, Fatmata Kamara, Lamin Kamara, James Kamara, Lamin Munu, Mariiatu Kamara, Osman. Kamara, Tamu Kamara, Mohamed

32

Kargbo, Issa Fofana, Emma Kamara, ALinmany Sesay, Morley Sesay, Bangura Amara, Amin Sesay, Abraham I Turay, Memunatu K Turay, Mabinty A Kargho, Abibaby Sesay, Mohamed Turay, Mohamed Karabo, Mustapha Bangura, Fatmata Sesay, Saffie Debora, Julseh A Conter, Ibrahim Fofanah, Kamarra Fuard, Kadiatu Lamara, Mabinty Kamanda, Kadiatu Kamara, Lamin Bangura, Jeneba Suma, Alpha Bangura, Aminata Kuyateh, Himina Mansaray, Abu S Bangura, Ibrahim Kamara, Alhassan Thelley, Issa Sesay, Jenebe Brima, Abibatu Kamara, Ibrahim Kamara, Tamba Pessima, Sorie Sesay, Fatmata Kargbo, Amizo Fullah, Foday Kamara, Amadu Turay, Maioria Kanu, Fatmata Kamara, Amara Tarawallie.

33

PORTEE ROKUPA • SETTLEMENT PROFILE

34