Aashish Misra India Urban Presentation at LSE 2010

3,084 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,084
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
13
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
150
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Aashish Misra India Urban Presentation at LSE 2010

  1. 1. BRIEF REVIEW OF THE SLUM CRISIS AND POLICY MEASURES IN INDIA <ul><li>Aashish Mishra, GY504, R.U.S.P., The L.S.E., February 20, 2009 </li></ul>
  2. 2. India: Disparate Development
  3. 3. India: Disparate Development <ul><li>Indian Cities “New Economy” demands land & services </li></ul><ul><li>Initially, outdated land-use regulation led to economic growth in peri-urban areas and then cities’ urban core </li></ul><ul><li>Krishan (1996) characterises types of urban sprawl: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Urban-rural fringe </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Ribbon development along the major transport routes and urban enclaves in the countryside </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Illegal land sub-division </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Industrial estates and Special Economic Zones </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--“Farmhouses” similar to concept of “Gated Communities” </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. India: Disparate Development <ul><li>“ Satellite Towns” or Peri-Urban Growth Centres Emerge </li></ul><ul><ul><li>--Relaxed land-use & planning regulations for economic activity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Construction of World-class infrastructure from nothing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Land availability/speculation for commercial & residential </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Peri-urban growth led to regeneration of urban cores </li></ul><ul><ul><li>--Realisation that peri- to urban transport/links were essential </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Need to integrate economic bubbles with downtown services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Growth & land prices increased from peri- to urban core </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Net effect, land & housing prices unsustainable for poor </li></ul>
  5. 5. India: Land & Housing Poverty
  6. 6. India: Land & Housing Poverty <ul><li>1/3 to 2/3 of Urban Pop. lives on 1/10 of available urban land </li></ul><ul><ul><li>--Significant inequitable distribution of land hurts urban poor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Grave health & environmental consequences due to the majority of settlements concentrated on small parcel of land </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Limitations of absorption capacity lead to growth of “slums” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Even cheapest formal accommodation unaffordable to poor </li></ul><ul><ul><li>--Compels poor to encroach public / private land </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Creates an “informal” housing market where poor pay to stay! </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--New slums typically on hazardous, low-value, infra poor sites </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Inevitable “densification” of slums by new migrants generates city-wide health & environmental externalities </li></ul>
  7. 7. India: What are Slums?
  8. 8. India: What are Slums? <ul><li>Risbud (2006): GOI definition of “Slum” Settlements: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Apparent physical sub-standardness, irrespective of land ownership or tenure status – legal settlements as Slums? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Unfit for human habitation due to dilapidation, overcrowding, lack of ventilation, light or sanitation facilities – what are water, roads, healthcare, education? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- If conditions met, settlements can be regularised as Slums </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Bapat (1983); Verma (2001): If definition strictly adhered to, vast majority of Indian cities’ settlements & structures would be classified as “Slums” </li></ul>
  9. 9. India: What are Slums? <ul><li>Risbud (2006): Classification of “Slum” Settlements </li></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Freehold land , such as those in the inner city, blighted areas or urban villages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- “Squatter” Settlements , which are encroachments on public or private land </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Illegal Land Sub-Divisions , where quasi/legal land ownership but the land subdivision undertaken illegally; </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Public or Private Leasehold Land , such as cooperative-model in resettlement colonies or urban villages </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. India: Scale of Slum Settlements
  11. 11. India: Scale of Slum Settlements <ul><li>GOI 2001 Census: Inaccurate as does not include “regularised” slum population & inter-jurisdictional urban slum population: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>--14% of India’s total urban population is living in identified slums, and </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Mumbai – 58% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Kolkata – 33% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Chennai – 26% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Delhi – 14% </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Actual % of Slum Population in Indian Cities much larger, but no Govt. System to capture these figures! </li></ul>
  12. 12. India: Scale of Slum Settlements <ul><li>Available data on slum populations’ decadal growth rate (67%) nearly double of total urban populations’ (36%) </li></ul><ul><li>Great variance in State-wise estimations of slum population growth decadal growth rates: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Karnataka – 290% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Kerala – 231% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Orissa – 198% </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Uttar Pradesh – 126% </li></ul></ul>
  13. 13. India: Basic Services in Slums
  14. 14. India: Scale of Slum Settlements <ul><li>2002 Survey data findings on basic services in slums: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>-- 70% of slum dwellings’ were exposed or semi-permanent </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- 25% of slums lacked “safe” drinking water & on average one community tap served 63 households – true access? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- 72% of slums lacked community or individual toilets & on average, 1 seat for 376 persons – forced open defecation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- 68% of slums lacked municipal rubbish facilities & threw garbage in open areas – city-wide health epidemics </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- 45% of slums lacked any drainage infrastructure – floods </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- 85% of slums lacked underground sewerage -- exposure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- 63% of slums had no fully-surfaced internal road – time </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. India: Evolution of Early Slum Policy
  16. 16. India: Evolution of Early Slum Policy <ul><li>Rao & Risbud (2006); Verma (2001) argue that past and current Govt. of India policies for slum settlements primarily focused on “quick-fix” measures such as slum clearance, improvement or regularisation </li></ul><ul><li>More importantly, they it has historically failed to address “preventive” or even longer-term solutions to slum settlement proliferation, such as: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>--Increasing legal housing supply for low-income groups </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Steering slum policy back to Urban Master Plans </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Vigilance against encroachment of public/private land </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. India: Evolution of Early Slum Policy <ul><li>From 1946 – 1976, slum settlement eviction & clearance with limited relocation were the predominant national policy </li></ul><ul><li>Risbud (2006): Slum clearance was justified for a plethora of reasons, including:  </li></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Incompatibility to urban Master Plans’ land use regulations – but firstly why were land use and zoning regulation not enforced? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Location on hazardous sites – Govt. accountable to allow this? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- City beautification – are the urban poor & their coping an “eye-sore?” </li></ul></ul><ul><li>From 1975 – 1977, National Emergency declared as unpopular & notorious Indian slum clearance experience incited public </li></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Also declared due to emerging threat of concentration of prime urban land owned by few wealthy in the cities & being speculated upon </li></ul></ul>
  18. 18. India: More Recent Slum Policy
  19. 19. India: More Recent Slum Policy <ul><li>1972 Environmental Improvement of Urban Slums </li></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Marked policy shift of providing a “minimum standard” of basic service improvements & continues for 30 Years </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Provision of community taps, community latrines, pathways , drains and streetlights; but no tenure issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Subsidy based on per capita ceiling cost, irrespective of the disparate densities of individual slum settlements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Mainly failed as fixed grant funding inadequate for more densely populated settlements where geo-spatial specifications for infrastructure engineering design more expensive </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. India: More Recent Slum Policy <ul><li>1980s – 1990s, international donor agencies supported central and state governments for piloting of several city-wide In-Situ slum upgrading initiatives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>--Most considered failures due to excessive “hand-holding” and lack of an “exit strategy” after the project </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Lack of good post-project monitoring & evaluation mechanisms & social/environmental impact assessments </li></ul></ul>
  21. 21. India: More Recent Slum Policy <ul><li>1972 Environmental Improvement of Urban Slums </li></ul><ul><ul><li>--Marked policy shift of providing a “minimum standard” of basic service improvements & continues for 30 Years </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Provision of community taps, community latrines, pathways , drains and streetlights; but no tenure issues </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Subsidy based on per capita ceiling cost, irrespective of the disparate densities of individual slum settlements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Mainly failed as fixed grant funding inadequate for more densely populated settlements where geo-spatial specifications for infrastructure engineering design more expensive </li></ul></ul>
  22. 22. India: More Recent Slum Policy <ul><li>1997 National Slum Development Programme </li></ul><ul><ul><li>--Marked shift to a development-oriented approach by converging multi-sector support, allowing States flexibility to design projects & community-based organisations to assist in implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Limited “success” due to weak public sector capacities to design projects, mobilise communities and achieve cost recovery through collection of user charges </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. India: More Recent Slum Policy <ul><li>2001 VAMBAY Programme </li></ul><ul><ul><li>--Targeted Below Poverty Line & homeless urban poor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Promise of granting land tenure prerequisite for funds </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Central/State matching grant for provision of built dwellings with trunk infrastructure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Failure as States either no policy or willingness for granting land tenure to slum households </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Also, requirement for States’ matching grant-component made the scheme unattractive & often unfeasible </li></ul></ul>
  24. 24. India: More Recent Slum Policy <ul><li>2001 GOI Draft National Slum Policy </li></ul><ul><ul><li>--Advocates large-scale In-Situ slum upgrading to all “regularised” slums & “under-serviced” settlements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Provision of individual trunk infrastructure to all relevant households </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Improvements with or without the transfer or formalisation of tenure and land ownership rights to these households </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>-- Convergence of upgrading with cities’ trunk infrastructure systems </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Controversial as upgrading onto tiny and unsustainable plots & units in extremely high-density settlements has failed in Indian pilots </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>--Also, “notified” slums will become mixed-use areas where there is likely to be a substitution effect of more polluting industries shifting </li></ul></ul>
  25. 25. India: Key Slum Issues?
  26. 26. India Slums: Final Thoughts? <ul><li>Risbud (2006, 210) states, “Improvement policies for existing slum squatter settlements have been implemented as softer, populist and cost effective political and administrative options without any long-term environmental consideration for empowering the poor. Each slum has become vote-bank and stronghold of a political party; and hence there is implicit tendency on the part of politicians to exaggerate the slum problem and resist sustainable improvement with secure tenure...” </li></ul>
  27. 27. India Slums: Final Thoughts? <ul><li>How can the international community, including the Academia, Donors and Civil Society, put pressure on the Govt. of India to adopt more relevant, slum-specific and community-driven programmes that will gives these poor children hope for a better quality of life and future? </li></ul>

×