Lome – WoeLab

Lome – WoeLab

 HubCité is an alternative and participatory vision of urban planning created by the African architect and which questions classic regulatory and elitist approaches. the initiative was born in TOGO, a West African country with an estimated population of 8 million inhabitants .The initiative offers a participatory model where residents themselves decide the future of their neighborhood. This is possible thanks to the installation in specific locations of a network of tech’hubs accessible to the public, which promotes the sharing and learning of “LowHighTech” technologies which easily include all actors such as low-income people who have frequented these places, with their capacity for collective mobilization over a long period, their capacity to think, design and create the city of tomorrow by themselves.

The objective here is to project the African city into the future with a plus that takes into account the collaborative aspect (ArchiCamps) which represents moments of rituals for the villagers + the collaborative work places (RepLABs) which are equivalent to the places of initiation in a village context in order to have it designed by business projects that will emerge from it. The first example resulting from the RepLABS model is WoeLab#0 which is nothing other than an urbanization space taking into account coworking+marketspace+startups-studio. To be clearer, it is a sort of so-called 2.0 house which has the contract to positively impact its proximity over a radius of one kilometer around the lab in all urban aspects (resources, mobility, waste management , governance…). this model is called Grassroot Technology Incubator.

To move from an entrepreneurship model to the total economic ecosystem, a program called #SiliconVilla was created and gave life to 11 startups, prototyped and incubated at WoeLAB. all these startups are owned by the communities that arise from the Lab and are built on the vision that the entrepreneur is called upon to replace the architect, the urban planner, or the decision-maker in the production of the city. #SiliconVillage, like Hubcité, aims to solve the most problems encountered by cities to become the main driver of their transformation.

The process behind the project : The HubCité was inspired by village society, the methodology is inspired and driven by the reproduction of village and city conditions. Inspiration from the fact that traditional African societies produce very relevant solutions thanks to long experience, social harmony and a very intimate knowledge of their environment. An experience which is very difficult to reproduce in large cities where the decision-making choices are left to the decision-maker and specialists who do not always have solutions adapted to the problems. The vision is therefore to transfer the model of cohesion, adaptation, collaborative work and integration from villages to cities. An example would be Barcamps and Fablabs which have the potential while combining Camps + Lab which could lead us towards the vernacular city of tomorrow. It is therefore the cohesion of the villages both in the work, in the synergy of the actors, in the creation of ideas of the common good that we have in our sights by bringing together well-identified digital solidarity projects and original organizations appearing in the wake of ICT and which forms a collaborative niche. The project elaborators firmly believe that new technologies have the potential to support them in the implementation of urban vernacular. Hence the expression #LowHighTech Theory.

Observation of the villages made it possible to highlight three elements which define their effectiveness and efficiency: Times, places, and long term. The moments representing traditional celebrations, funeral, agrarian, initiation rites etc… which are also opportunities for reunions, sharing, transmission, sharing, assessment of transmission, strengthening the cohesion of village communities. Places of seclusion, initiation enclosures, which promote horizontality within age groups, trust and solidarity through palaver, codified jokes, group fellowship and the obligation to share. the collaboration on work of collective interest that its village spaces offer have the same function of intimacy and symbiosis. These elements guarantee villages a harmonious living environment specific to their requirements. These three elements are rare in cities which struggle to find a certain harmony in their living environments. It is therefore the absence of a so-called genius of the place like the African installations that the fate of the cities finds itself in the hands of the said specialists, politicians, architects and experts. To respond to this absence, Barcamps and Fablabs can compensate for the absence of place and time. Over time, it can be reproduced thanks to the abundance of technologies available to us today such as OpenSourceMap. This is therefore how we are moving towards vernacular cities: by combining technology and citizen collaboration.

The project extends over a long, divided period, inspired by the traditional organic model. Equipped with a generative approach, the project does not rely on a fixed objective on the wall but rather on a clear motive, a motivation and a motivator. It is therefore these factors that define the guidelines to follow for the next steps.

In 2012, upon discovering the Maker movement, a connection between hacker ethics and African traditional building practices was made. This proximity inspired the concept of #LowHighTech and the “HubCité” project, aiming to develop African cities around open innovation. This initiative Evolved into a social framework, fostering the emergence of a local tech scene in Lomé, Togo. The #RepLab program aims to introduce this approach into neighborhoods by creating eco-friendly technology hubs. WoeLab, a multifunctional space, promotes values of open sharing and seeks to reconnect technology with modest African traditions. Its mission includes promoting virtuous technologies like the W.Afate while balancing individualism and collective convergence. WoeLab’s #LowHighTech philosophy acts as a filter, selecting what best suits the African context and rejecting what doesn’t. Overall, it’s a “glocal” framework arbitrating temporalities and external influences to foster vernacular and sustainable development.

The project considers the common as fundamental taking into account the aspects of sharing, community, collaboration, openness. For example three levels of the urban, space and noise:

At the urban level, startups are designed to be owned and managed by the communities of the different Labs. Not business leaders but rather all the communities belonging to the lab who own it. The startups together generate shared wealth redistributed within the community, including all members belonging to the community. all working on urban themes: waste management, mobility, communication and resource management in order to respond to as many problems as possible.

At the social level of each of the incubators, the common is invited again to the extent that leadership governance inspired by the age class system of traditional African structures, guarantees shared responsibility and collective involvement. The executives of each startup are chosen by the groups and with a specific mandate after which they become mentors. The same structure is valid for the development of projects.

The collectivist model here inspired by village communities, where poverty or property is common goes against the capitalist model which diverts opinion from the notion of sharing, openness and social. For us, the ideal city remains the one produced by the city dwellers themselves and for themselves to the extent that they have the capacity to project themselves into the future and respond to their own requirements.

The initiative currently attracts little institutional interest in Togo. In a perspective similar to a “third industrial revolution” such as the theory by Jeremy Rifkind, each of the labs is supposed to become a source of energy, an attic, the waste recycling center, a 2.0 university, a small factory. .. Instead, programs such as 3DprintAfrica were set up to involve the population, each Lab for the needs of prototyping and manufacturing objects.

The initiative does not receive support from the government, despite its relevance, and the enthusiasm it has internationally. Everything suggests that the project remains marginalized in Togo.

The project has been self-financing for 4 years of existence. Far from an obligation, it is a choice in order to enjoy total independence and keep the same vision conceived from the development of the project. The different aid and financing systems are intended to bring about changes in the structure of projects due to the dependence on funds, a situation which has favored corruption in African states. It is therefore with the aim of avoiding any external hands that could harm the survival of the project that we preferred to operate with our own funds, and our vision while engaging the strength of the communities. Such social and radical innovation owes its strength first of all to the community that composes it before expecting any kind of help or funding and this is our vision.

Sénamé Koffi Agbodjinou, with a diverse educational background in industrial design, art history, ethnology, and architecture (although without official academic credentials), focuses on architecture, emphasizing simple and modest solutions while highlighting local human, natural, and aesthetic resources. In 2010, he established the collaborative research platform L’Africaine d’Architecture, dedicated to promoting what he terms “anchored modernity”. His interest in digital technology, sparked in 2012, stems from perceived parallels between the “Hacker Ethic” and traditional African values. He introduced the concept of #LowHighTech to make technology accessible to all, including the most marginalized populations. Through his urban program HubCité, he established the WoeLab Space of Technological Democracy in Lomé, providing a space for mobilization and collective action. WoeLab aims to support the Togolese tech and startup ecosystem while contributing to the global movement of Collaborative Consumption.

One Kindred One Business Initiative (OKOBI) – An economic philosophy currently practiced in IMO State, the Eastern part of Nigeria

One Kindred One Business Initiative (OKOBI) – An economic philosophy currently practiced in IMO State, the Eastern part of Nigeria

The One Kindred One Business Initiative is a new economic development of the Imo State Government located in Imo State, the eastern part of Nigeria, West Africa. The Initiative kick started at the beginning 2023 as an economic philosophy which is tied to Afri-capitalism and  focuses on common sense belonging. The One Kindred One Business Initiative traps into the roots of the African nature of Kindreds which is a smaller and closer group of people who come together to foster development. OKOBI therefore encourages them to set up businesses and helps them register these community tied businesses as Cooperatives, these businesses varies based on the choice of the group and there are no limitations in choice some of the businesses include poultry, fishery, cassava farming, Pineapple Orchids, Honey/Bee keeping, Transportation, bakery, livestock farming etc, through these businesses they can address their common problems of health, educational and poverty issues while providing jobs and employment opportunities at the same time.  Currently, there are over 100 and counting OKOBI registered in Imo State, with a mantra to spread the news and increase adoption in other Nigeria, Africa and the Globe. These businesses are community/group owned, controlled and managed. And in other for a business to be classified under OKOBI it must correspond to these 5 criteria:

  • It must  be a group-owned business
  • It must be profit oriented
  • It must be a formally registered business
  • It should be able to address the social and economic needs like employment/ job creation of the community it is based.
  • It should be domiciled in Imo State or prioritize a place

It fits into the global common discussion on shared community investment, prosperity and communities coming together to drive an agenda which is inline with the SDGs. The OKOBI agenda is trying to achieve a shift in the constant view of the government as the messiah by the people and it is an eye-opener to the hidden potentials within people when hands are joined together. Also, it is a just transition in the global economy with a mantra that people should not be left behind.

Below is an evaluation of the project and its alignment with the principles of  the Quintuple Helix Model :


There is a great inclusivity and active involvement of citizens, citymakers and other social players  like the NGOs, private sectors and civil society organizations in OKOBI. This dimension is highly visible because the initiative encourages the communal setting up of businesses which makes OKOBI a clear manifestation of the commons agenda.

In the case of Government involvement, in the interview on the 30th December 2023, we learnt that the collaboration happens mostly through  legitimacy from the registration of the businesses. But, currently the Imo state Government displayed  a huge interest in facilitating the OKOBI businesses, early this year by introducing the Community Economic Development Initiative CEDI, whereby each community presents a pressing need that will enhance their economic activities. These could be either Water supply , electricity, good roads and means of transportation etc and these means will be certified based on its economic impact, therefore communities that are involved with manufacturing can decide to choose electricity etc. This therefore serves as an enabling state activity.

In relation to Knowledge Institution, this is done through the government’s push where it gives the necessary legitimacy to research institutions and knowledge centers to build the required capacity. But currently the OKOBI initiative is beginning to gain global recognition by reputable educational institutes. The New Institute in Germany has indicated strong interest and has decided to run a fully paid research on the One Kindred One Business Initiative https://nannews.ng/2024/02/15/okobi-german-institute-names-amaeshi-lead-researcher/ . Publications were also made by the London Business School https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2023/03/02/local-communities-can-be-the-source-of-inclusive-economic-development-in-africa/  and La Repubblica which is a prestigious italian newspaper https://firenze.repubblica.it/cronaca/2023/03/15/news/what_we_can_learn_from_collective_economic_empowerment_in_nigeria-392214296/


Within the State, other communities are recreating the model, and more communities want to participate in the project. The idea is for other communities in other cities to also replicate this to help with development in the nation, therefore this variable is Moderate, but growing.

Tech Justice

The potential of digital infrastructures and access to technology to facilitate collaboration is not considered. Here we have a Weak dependent variable for tech justice. But currently ideas to set up digital hubs are being explored.


Adaeze Oluchi Ashaheme

Kigali Masterplan

Kigali Masterplan

Contact Name:  Gabriela Robba e Enrico Moriello

Project:  Kigali Masterplan

Catchment area: Metropolitan Level. Kigali.


Kigali is the capital city of Rwanda a small land-lock country located in East-Central Africa that shares a border with Congo (DRC), Burundi, Tanzania, and Uganda. The Kigali Masterplan is a project that was first approved in 2013 and later renewed in 2015. The updated version of the master plan is structured to accommodate a more participatory process to include all the stakeholders of the city of Kigali.

The master plan is composed of two cardinal focuses which are, to create a vision of the city development and the use of land analysis. The aspirations of the master plan are to be informed about the needs of the inhabitants of Kigali, to have inclusive and participatory decision-making for the city, and to have a socio-economic idea of what the city will be like in the future. Also, the master plan has zoning with a map that consists of the various layers that describe how the land is used and the technical rules of implementing development projects on the land.

Essentially, the goal of the plan is to give a strategic and regulatory plan to the city to make the city a hub for sustainable economic development. Upon approval of the plan, detailed information on the project will be readily available online. Owners and prospective owners of lands within the city will be able to know information about regulations and the rules that govern the development of their land online or via SMS. A detailed discussion of the project aligning with the principles of the quintuple helix model of development is presented below.


The updated version of the master plan is formulated in such a way that will attract inclusive decision-making by all the stakeholders of the city. Of the new actors that were included in the master plan is the “technical advisory group” which are independent decision makers. The representatives of the group consist of local institutions, private sectors, architects, and international organizations such as the UN-HABITAT, etc.

The “technical advisory group” had the objective of managing the entire planning process, not only to endorse the master plan but to help make strategic decisions. It is a decision-making body that makes decisions in consultation with representatives of the local community, and research centers, the municipality of Kigali, public administrations, districts, other administrative units, and the various ministries. The practice of co-governance in this project is part and parcel at all the stages of the process.

Enabling State

The project is run by the municipality of the city of Kigali which receives funding from the central government. That said, the contractual obligation lies on the municipality which has an overall influence on the performance and the running of the project.  There has been a positive economic situation and a great agreement among stakeholders and the government, which is why the municipality has asked for even more innovation. Notwithstanding this, the presence of the central government in enabling local action is always present.


The project was grouped into eight themes which are considered the most relevant for the project. Even though this is said to be important for the realization of the goals and objectives of the project, there is a general lack of foreseeability concerning the resource transfer and creation of a pooling economy. Therefore, there is little presence of pools in the project.


The plan if successfully implemented in 2050 in the city of Kigali, will serve as an example for many cities in Rwanda and Africa in general to replicate it. However, the implementation of it is closely linked to the favorable political-economic situation linked to the co-governmental actors present at the time of its implementation. The experimental nature of the project in other cities is highly likely although subject to the conditions of the city or the country intending to replicate it considering the political and economic situation.

Tech Justice

At the digital level, all the master plans can be viewed and are accessible to the service points throughout the territory. Regarding other residents who might not have smartphones to access the information about the project online, they can also receive information in the form of an SMS. This way, the project is said to take into consideration the city residents who might not have a higher level of computer literacy given that the level of education in Kigali is still considered as low. Therefore, there is a moderate level of tech justice in the project.


Ismaila Saidykhan

The Tragicomedy of the Village Commons in China

The Tragicomedy of the Village Commons in China

This case study on village co-governance in China reveals a very interesting opposite co-governance typology by different village leaders concerning the management of village land use. Management of village land is one of the old if not the oldest practice of co-governance at the village level which was done through the use of social norms before the promulgation of legal rules. Conflict arises when long-term social practices are inconsistent with the laws which oftentimes results in tension between the two systems of control.

Based on the Chinese land reform regime, urban lands are said to be state-owned while rural lands are collectively owned. The development of rural lands and transfer even though collectively or privately owned needs approval from the government. This legal reform received widespread protest and condemnation, especially from Chinese farmers who considered the system as a government land grab or monopoly. As such, Chinese farmers began to construct illegal housing for rent to show their deviance from the system.

According to the Chinese Ministry of Land and Resources, by 2007, Chinese farmers had built over 6.6 billion square meters of houses in evasion of the legal prohibition on private rural land development and transfer, resulting in a huge market of illegal houses. The construction of these illegal houses in China later became known as the “small property houses” business which was very profitable at the time and became very popular among villagers. The management of the collectively owned rural lands is carried out by the village co-op members who are selected by the villagers to run the affairs of the villages and in particular manage the village land. These village co-op members serve as the middlemen between the central government and the villagers.

In essence, the case study talks about the village co-op members (W village) that use mafia-style leadership to manage the village land while the other village co-op (Z village) follows the law to manage the village land. A detailed discussion of these two village co-op management is given below with a concluding remark on the case study.



W village: The mafia-style small property business

W village used to be an example of a very good co-governance or commons system that paved the way for the establishment of village co-ops in other villages in Shenzhen. The village co-op board is a form of collective economic organization responsible for the management of collectively owned lands that are not allocated to individual households and for issuing dividends to villagers each year based on the profits generated from the management of the lands. They used this collectively owned land to build factories and rent them to outsider investors.

The small property business became booming and very profitable within a very short period hence it gave rise to the establishment of a mafia organization in W village and Shajing sub-district in general. This mafia organization became a partnership between corrupt government officials, village co-op leaders, and the mafia. The mafia organization was illegally buying the collectively owned lands from the village co-ops at low prices and reselling them at more expensive prices. The co-op boards in return relied on the mafia to deal with corrupt government officials and guarantee their re-election after every three-year mandate in office thus the mafia influences village elections and grassroots government operations.

As a consequence of the village co-op leadership style in W village, the payment of dividends to villagers came to a halt since the village co-op was no longer making a profit. Again, the village co-op would use the mafia to silence villagers from making any noise for failure to pay dividends through violence. Sadly, W village ended up in a chaotic situation and lost the opportunity for the village redevelopment project from the government because of too many squatters.

Z village: In the name of law

Just like the case in W village, Z village is also into the small property business in which villagers were building houses on their privately owned lands and renting to migrant workers. Before the government’s full prohibition, the village co-op also built several factories on the collectively owned lands and rented them to investors. However, the difference between the two is that W village was disobedient to the established laws for the management and transfer of collectively owned lands while Z village was obedient to the established laws by challenging the meaning and the interpretation of these laws to develop their land.

There is a lot of conflict among the laws in China for the management and development of lands, for instance, the Chinese Land Administration Law “Prohibits rural land transfer and development”, while the Chinese Constitution and Land Administration Law on land ownership states that “urban land is state-owned; rural land is collective-owned”. These conflicts between the laws coupled with the high cost and hefty procedures to follow to acquire approval from the government make it difficult for some village co-ops to follow the laws for the management and development of rural lands in China.

Fortunately, Z Village later came under the leadership of an ex-real estate guru who was committed to stopping the chaotic housing construction by his villagers and began to apply for legal rights from the government to redevelop Z Village. The first thing done by the new leadership was to build a park of 40,000 square meters. The village co-ops began to redirect their focus on the village environment rather than building more buildings following which house rents were increased and the annual dividends due to the villagers rose to an average yearly increment of 10%. Based on the foregoing, the new leadership was able to persuade villagers to give up on their illegally constructed houses and apply for a village redevelopment project from the government which was successful and villagers held legal rights on their individual properties.


In conclusion, this case study tells a story of co-governance or management of commons at the village level which as a matter of fact can also be extended to the cities and urban settlements. Co-governance requires not focusing on short-term economic benefits driven by the resources of the commons but rather should be focused on sustainable practices to maintain and manage the resources accordingly.

In the first case, short-term economic benefit superseded the collective future interest of the village and as a result, ended up in a chaotic situation and the village became ungovernable.  The second case focuses on the long-term interest of all the villagers and maximizes the immediate economic benefit to create profit in the future for the village. Co-governance although considered as self-governance cannot be successful without the involvement of legal rules. It must follow established laid-down laws to achieve the goals of the common good and interest of all.


Ismaila Saidykhan

Car Next Door – Australia

Car Next Door – Australia


Born to help solve the issues associated with underused vehicles, Car Next Door was the first peer to-peer car share network in Australia. Carsharing is a way to solve problems related to mobility and traffic congestion, especially in large cities. In fact, the main Australian problem is high car dependency, so Car Next Door works well in the inner areas of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane.

CND’s community manager, Will Davies, was looking to start a new business that had a really positive impact on the environment: something that reduced the amount of greenhouse gas caused by human activities. Car Next Door offers people the “mobility-possibility” of having a car nearby when you need it, at a much lower cost than owning one.

Of course, there may be some problems with this mode of sharing, particularly related to the interaction between users. The company addresses the lack of trust and ease that would otherwise discourage people from sharing their cars with others by:
– providing an online forum where vehicle owners and borrowers are registered, vetted, and approved;
– providing a feedback system whereby vehicle condition and member behavior can be assessed and reported by other members;
– providing in-car technology that enables keyless access to the car and a web-based automated reservation platform;
– providing in-car GPS technology that tracks the location of the car, reducing the risk of theft and misuse of the vehicle;
– providing insurance that covers owners and borrowers; and – manage payments between owners and borrowers.

Analysis of design principles:

The Car Next Door project reflects one of the five design principles identified by the co-city methodology.


Collective Governance

We cannot define Car Next Door as an organization with a multistakeholder governance scheme because it has only active collaboration with some actors in the private sector, but we can think of some aspects:

Private actors: as Kate Trumbull confirms, the platform is owned by several shareholders, including the founders, Caltex and Hyundai. Car Next Door has signed a deal with the world’s fifth-largest carmaker, in which its app will be installed on all new Hyundai cars sold in Australia. Partnerships like this are really crucial to the long-term success of Car Next Door.

NGO: Car Next Door has a partnership with an Australian non-profit organization called “Greenfleet “: When someone borrows a car through Car Next Door, all the carbon emissions from driving are offset through indigenous reforestation projects throughout Australia.

Community groups: The community does not have decisional power inside the platform organization, but they are involved in the sense that they own and maintain the cars and borrow them. The community joins CND not only for economic reasons but also for civic care of the urban commons and a specific attention to the environment.


Enabling state

The state and local government in Australian cities in this case are far from embracing what Michele Finck and Sofia Ranchord (2016) call a horizontal approach with actors, still using a command-and-control approach.

Rather, the relationship with the state is quite mono-directional: from Car Next Door come the request to incentivise carsharing with reserved parking in the cities.

Under the City of Sydney’s car sharing policy, the city can list online the location of private vehicles participating in peer-to-peer car sharing, provided the peer-to-peer operator has entered into a written agreement with the city regarding vehicle availability and conditions and provides regular reports on usage.


Social and economic pooling


It completely represents the “pool” concept by avoiding exclusive ownership of cars and it perfectly embodies the “share” concept by sharing it with members of one’s community. People who share their cars participate in the pooling economy, particularly being part of a “collaborative economy” related to the promotion of a peer-to-peer approach that follows the transformation of customers/users into a community.




They were the first to provide peer-to-peer car sharing services in Australia, so they are pioneers in this area. Their main innovation is in the way they provide unattended access to cars using the electronic lockbox, a product designed to resist theft and environmental conditions. Theoretically, the project could be absolutely scalable and replicable in every motorized community in the world. However, in practice, attempts have been made to adapt the project in a small regional city, Newcastle, but there has not been much take-up.



Technological justice


The digital platform enables collaboration among members of a community, using apps or web apps to match drivers to passengers and even cars. Using existing vehicles, they aim to increase mobility. However, they do not explore any solutions to bridge the digital divide. Access to the Car NextDoor service is provided to anyone with a smartphone and good connectivity.




Referring to the case study of CND, we can define it as a “sharing enterprise.” According to the definition provided by Sheila Foster and Christian Iaione (2016), it is an enterprise intending to contribute to the solution of social problems (such as economy, welfare, culture, environment, and traffic) through sharing practices.


Ultimately, CND is a sharing practice between the narrow definition of genuine sharing economy that excludes those primarily driven by profit.

The state, along with local governments, needs to explore how to facilitate these initiatives and how cities should rethink them to embrace beneficial sharing economy practices.

In this context, car sharing is an established transportation service that could combat car dependence, even in Australia, where the level of car dependence is high.

The Car Next Door is a community-based mobility service that, together with an increased supply of networked alternatives, could change the mobility paradigm to meet society’s current and future needs. The initiative grows community cohesion, solves the mobility problem, and helps the environment by optimizing how cars are used in the city.


Community-led Solid Waste Management, Koregaon Bhima -India

Community-led Solid Waste Management, Koregaon Bhima -India

The non-profit CHF India has been operating in India for roughly 11 years. The organization primarily works with urban poor areas in several cities, enlisting locals in participatory waste management and sanitation initiatives. A business entity approached CHF for assistance in developing an innovative solid waste management initiative and this is where CHF’s community-led solid waste management spun off.  It took off in Pune, a slum neighborhood with available land, and hired women to lead the effort in solid-waste management. Fortunately, the approach has been replicated in three additional locations in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Koregaeon Bhima in Maharashtra. This story focuses on Koregaon Bhima and discusses its work, methodology, and the approach it applies to promote sustainable waste management in the city.


3 out of the 5 design principles of the Co-cities methodology are highlighted in Koregaon Bhima’s project.

Collective governance was rated strong in Koregaon because between 3-4 actors were involved in the initiative as the Quintuple helix suggests by scholar, Carayannis and later by Foster & Iaione in their study of polycentrism. The project was initiated and funded by a corporation and implemented by a non-profit organization.


The case of Koregaon Bhima represents an intriguing blend of urban and rural characteristics. It is officially recognized as a “census town” by the Census of India, implying urban features, but lacks formal government recognition as a town. As a result, the state government treats it as a village, maintaining a rural local government (panchayat) rather than a municipal board. This unique administrative status has proven advantageous for the CHF project. Working with the panchayat has been more accessible than dealing with municipal corporations, and it has allowed for changing local habits and educating officials about solid waste management in preparation for future municipal governance. Additionally, the project benefited from the federal Swachcha Bharat Abhiyan, which incentivizes corporate donations to sanitation efforts. Despite no public funds being invested, this project is classified as Moderate on the Enabling State principle.


Regarding social and economic pooling, the project demonstrates moderate pooling within the communities where it operates. CHF’s intention is to empower community residents to continue the project without direct involvement. While the success in Koregaon Bhima is still uncertain, Pune, where a similar approach was taken, has shown promise. Community residents took ownership and continued the project when corporate funding decreased, and CHF withdrew. Thus, the project rates as Moderate on the Pooling design principle.


In terms of experimentalism, the project is not particularly innovative on its own. Household-level recycling and composting have long been practiced in rural India. Although the community-led approach is commendable for urbanizing areas with limited local government resources, it is not considered highly experimental. This project is rated as Weak in Experimentalism.


Lastly, regarding tech justice, technology did not play a role in this project, as indicated in the interview with CHF.