societies to encourage self-help incremental housing schemes. The Government did not, however, reform the colonial-era Regional Town and Country Planning Act or the Housing Standard Act. This effectively placed local authorities in an impossible situation as these Acts require municipalities to service plots with infrastructure prior to land allocation for self-help building. It further requires local municipalities to ensure strict compliance with minimum standards prior to authorizing occupation. The norms and standards contained in these Acts, which were applied by the colonial regime as instruments of apartheid, include individual connection to water supply and water-borne sewage for high-density low-income neighbourhoods, previously known as African Townships. Water-borne sewer systems, which are particularly costly to build and to maintain, are not only unrealistic in the present economic circumstances, but are not required of medium and low density areas occupied by middle and high-income segments of the population which are authorized to use on-site sanitation and septic tanks. Similarly, the prevailing building codes and standards are also unrealistic and exceed standards currently used in several developed countries. 43 Despite the gap between supply and demand for housing, Zimbabwean cities remained largely immune to the explosive growth of slums and squatter settlements, characteristic of African cities. Official statistics compiled by UN-HABITAT showed in 2001 that only 3.4 % of the urban population lived in slums, a figure even much lower than that for industrialized nations that had about 6.2% of their population considered to live in slum-like conditions.44 The explanation of this unique case for a developing country is attributable to two factors; firstly, the enforcement of stringent building bylaws and standards, and secondly, the lack of access to public land as most of the land surrounding cities was primarily privately owned farms. The acquisition of peri-urban farms during the Fast Track land reform programme in 2000 provided one of the first opportunities for the urban poor to occupy land in the vicinity of the city and establish slum pockets all of which have now been demolished. Unable to squat on public land, low-income urban dwellers resorted to what is commonly referred to as “backyard extensions” of legal dwellings. These extensions, many of which were built with durable building materials and on serviced plots, proliferated as a form of affordable rental housing catering to effective demand by the majority of the urban population and providing a source of much needed income for their owners. 43 The Act further requires access roads to be 8 to 10 meters in width, tarred or gravel and does not allow for houses to be built out of wood or mud (adobe), a commonly accepted practice in North America and Australia and Oceania. Although water-borne sewage systems may be recommended in areas with high water tables, technological alternatives, such as small diameter sewer systems and bio-sanitary or compositing latrines have not be propagated to date in Zimbabwe. 44 UNHABITAT: Slums of the World: The Face of Urban Poverty in the New Millennium, 2003. Slums are defined by the United Nations as settlements which are lacking one or more of the following: secure tenure, access to improved water, access to improved sanitation, durability of dwelling, and sufficient space to avoid over-crowding. Most of the Zimbabwean backyard extensions could not be considered or captured by this definition as slums, thus the low figure. 25