1. There was limited adherence to IGR (lack of synergy) and co-operative governance. The delegation was able to draw together various stakeholders from different spheres of government, which enhanced the oversight experience. Various stakeholders were able to respond immediately to critical issues and clarify issues where a collective response was required. 2. There was no consistency in the reporting system on projects by the province, districts and local municipalities. 3. A few municipalities had initiated new projects, but most of the projects were due for rectification. 4. Proper co-ordination between the districts and local municipalities were still lacking. 5. Responses to post-disasters did not convince the delegation that municipalities were capable of responding to disasters. 6. The management of beneficiary lists was still a major challenge in many municipalities: only one municipality gave the delegation confidence in its management of the beneficiary list. 7. Stakeholders were not taking full advantage of the support that could be provided by the NHBRC and the HDA. It was suggested that not all stakeholders were well informed of the role of these two important stakeholders in terms of ensuring the achievement of sustainable human settlements. 8. The Cornubia development was still not clear and the participation of other stakeholders' roles was not clearly defined, but the challenges still remained. Stakeholder forums had been established and met monthly, but did not resolve issues on the ground. 9. Municipalities were struggling to cope with the impact of disasters. The province should give support to such municipalities. 10. Some municipalities and province did not show an interest in accessing opportunities offered by DBSA on capacity building support. 11. Public participation remained a challenge in many municipalities. 12. Families were relocated from one site to another and people were left for many years before their housing needs were attended to. Transit camps were made of corrugated iron sheets and the time frame of 18 months was not adhered to. 13. The provincial department did not work closely with the Office of the Registrar of Deeds, despite the fact that such co-operation would significantly reduce the time frames for the transfer of title deeds to beneficiaries. 14. The farm worker assistance programme was still very weak. 15. Hostel upgrading and the payment rate of monthly rentals remained a challenge. 16. Land challenges hindered progress in the delivery of houses. 17. The lack of skilled and adequate personnel, particularly technical employees, was a concern. 18. Some of the municipalities were not accredited, but continued to appoint contractors to build houses. 19. It was alleged that some engineers signed fraudulent geotechnical assessment reports. 20. Projects did not have time frames for delivery to which contractors should adhere. 21. Municipalities did not clearly indicate in their reports how much was allocated to a particular project and how much was spent on that project. 22. Water, sanitation and issues of settlements were inseparable; therefore cooperation between the departments is very crucial. 23. The use of consultants delayed progress. For instance, the municipality would report that there was a scarcity of water. However, during site visits the delegation found that water was available. All that was required were finding ways to pump the water. 24. Rectification projects faced considerable delays. 25. Allegations of corruption and maladministration continued to plague the delivery process.