Strengths and weaknesses of new urban forms generated by informality and illegality

INTRODUCTION

In the past decades several approaches to informal/illegal settlements in developing cities have been highlighted; strategies ranging from eradication, through tolerance, to glorification of spontaneous settlements have come and, at times gone, or persisted.
Lately a greater sense of realism has been underlying innovative approaches based on an acceptance of realities which, through negotiation, adaptations, incentive measures, provision of land, loans, etc., would over time result in settlements moving from a status of informality/illegality through to a status of being in a process of transformation towards legality and formality. Likewise building codes and planning regulations have often become more realistic, more attuned to local contextual practices, thereby de facto regularizing many settlements.
Which strategies are now seen as more innovative/creative, as guiding policies for future urban development (and which future development ?)? Which lessons can guide practitioners in their daily work also making a strategic long lasting improvement, particularly for the urban poor. And which insights and lessons from the field can stimulate researchers to modify their paradigms or evaluative frameworks and/or substantiate arguments towards strategies of sustainable urban development.

REPORT

We discussed strategies under four main headings and recommend the following:

1. Land tenure

We reject the proposals advanced by De Soto of providing individual land titles, as a simplistic solution to a complex problem. It is vital to offer a range of tenure options, such as customary, secondary/intermediate and rental to meet diverse needs and resource levels. The key consideration is to provide an adequate level of security as perceived by the poor themselves.

All land tenure options should be offered on terms and conditions which create and maintain a 'level playing field' and do not involve hidden incentives, subsidies or other distortions.

Where individual titles are offered, people should be made fully aware of the possible negative consequences, such as obligations to pay property taxes, service charges, maintenance costs, etc. as well as the possibility that property values can go down as well as up.

2. Housing tenure

A multiplicity of tenure options is vital to meet the varied needs for security and mobility, together with access to work and privacy.

Governments should not attempt to create universal home ownership -policies should be 'tenure neutral'.

3. Gouvernance

Improved governance requires a combination of political commitment, better management and increased capacity. Creating a political environment conducive to change is vital.

Decentralisation should be encouraged on a selective basis. It should not be a means by which governments abdicate from their essential responsibilities.

Decentralisation can only be effective if the available resources match the responsibilities of each level of government. Capacity building is vital to enable public authorities to discharge their existing and new roles effectively.

Where privatisation is adopted, the regulatory roles of the public sector need to be strengthened to protect the public interest.

Decision-making and resource allocation procedures should be transparent and inclusive to ensure social legitimacy. Change can start anywhere and be initiated by anyone - enlightened civil servants, politicians, professionals, community groups, etc. Efforts should be made by all these to build constituencies of support for change.

4. regulatory frameworks and services provision

Regulatory guidelines should be realistic and appropriate.

Priority should be placed on those that most impinge on social welfare (such as public health and safety). Those priorities should only include those elements that can actually be enforced.

People are generally willing to pay for services providing they receive the kinds of services that they need and regard as good value for money.

Subsidies should not be ruled out, but should be targeted at those most in need, not distributed on a project-by-project basis.

Emphasis should be given to ways of generating progressive improvement - there is little point in imposing standards which a significant number of people are unable to afford.

5. Research implications

Land tenure

To what extent do people actually need property titles?
What are the negative consequences of distributing titles?
To what extent does legalisation of existing settlements improve local conditions or access to credit and savings?
What alternatives are available that provide security without titles?

Housing tenure

What prevents governments introducing 'tenure neutral' policies?
How might rental tenure be encouraged?

Governance

Under what conditions are devolution and decentralisation effective or ineffective?
When is participatory budgeting appropriate?

Regulatory guidelines and services provisons

How can local people influence official norms and standards for land and housing development and services provision?
How can we identify the minimum standards and regulations to ensure public health and safety in diverse contexts? What methodologies can be both robust and sensitive?
How can we identify and address the constraints to more realistic and appropriate standards?
What has been the outcome of simplified administrative procedures, such as 'one-stop-shops' on local development?

ESF/N-AERUS: International workshop - Leuven and Brussels, Belgium, 23-26 May 2001

N-AERUS: Network-Association of European Researchers on Urbanisation in the South
http://www.naerus.net