A study of slum rehabilitation schemes and policies

1. A STUDY OF SLUM REHABILITATION SCHEMES AND
POLICIES
GUIDED BY:
ARTI PETKAR
MIS NO:
111514008
SY B TECH PLANNING

2. INTRODUCTION:
Slums are often defined as, “buildings and areas that are environmentally and structurally
deficient. A result of multiple deprivations such as; illegal land tenure, deficient environment and
inadequate shelter and are the result of the gap between the demand and the legal and formal supply
in the housing market” (Chauhan, 1996). In 2011, 377 million people (31% of the total population) in
India lived in cities, but of these, 65 million (27% of the urban population) lived in extreme shelter
poverty in areas called slums. This challenge is not unique to India, 863 million people around the
world live in similar squatter settlements. The census estimates the number of slum blocks in the
country to be 110,000. While the number of households in each of these slum blocks varies between
86,000 households in Dharavi, to 1,300 households in Nochikuppam Chennai6, the level of public
services in these areas remain visibly poor everywhere. There are several reasons for such low level of
services, including a low tax base of urban local bodies, poverty debt traps, and a lack of informed
voting.
The government is making attempt to cop up with this degrading scenario through the
implementation of various policies and schemes. After going thoroughly through the schemes the
major drawbacks can be analysed ,one of the major drawbacks that we can easily analyse is , none of
the policy studied here talks about the income sources for those who are rehabilitated and there are
many like this discussed in this paper.
AIM :
To study different slum rehabilitation schemes and policies in India.
To achieve the above aim the following objectives were formulated:
Objectives:
i) To have a synoptic view on the different slum rehabilitation schemes and policies.
ii) To study the evolution of this schemes and policies.
iii) To explore existing slums and understand how slum rehabilitation projects work.
iv) To examine why rehabilitation schemes and policies are not achieving considerable success.
v) To understand the impact of the existing policies and schemes.

3. Literature Review
According to National Commission on Urbanization report 1988 , no systemic studies of government
policies towards the Urban slums and squatters have appeared for the period before independence
perhaps because there were not systemic policies, either nationally or at the local level. The
occasional, often conflicting observations of historians, reflect an erratic quality in policy. For
Bombay, for example, James Masselos argues that squatters were usually allowed to remain. But
Frank Conlon, basing his conclusions, on studies of Police Reports, argues that the Bombay police
were evicting squatters throughout the early 20th
century. Both Susan Neild and Susan Lewandoski
who have separately studied the history of Madras City, report an alternation in policy, sometimes
allowing squatters to stay, sometimes evicting them. Even after independence, Central, State and city
policies continue to vary widely, to lack continuity of purpose, and to be implemented only
erratically, although an overall attitude more sympathetic to the felt needs of slum dwellers seems to
be emerging. Each of the Five Year Plans of the Central Government included plans for subsidized
housing yet they recognized the very limited role which public sector intervention can play.
Many programmes adopting different approaches have been designed and implemented in
India to increase the access of urban poor to land and basic services.
Basic Services Programmes Basic Services Programmes Special Programmes
Urban Community Development
(UCD)
Sites and Services Schemes
(S&S)
Integrated Development
of Small and Medium
Towns (IDSMT)
Environmental Improvement of
Urban Slums (EIUS) / Slum
Improvement Programme (SIP)
Slum Upgradation Schemes
(SUP)
Mega City Project
Urban Basic Services for Poor
(UBSP)
Giving of Pattas
Accelerated Urban Water
Supply Programme
Low Cost Sanitation (LCS)
Basic Services for Urban Poor
(BSUP) / Integrated Housing
and Slum Development
Programme (IHSDP)
Slum Networking Programme
(SNP)
Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY)

4. The Urban Community Development (UCD) programme, launched in 1966 as a centrally sponsored
scheme, got transferred to the state sector in 1969. This programme aimed to involve the community
in the improvement of slum (included provision of facilities such as sewer lines, public stand-posts,
roads, street lights etc.), provision of health facilities and the construction of dwelling units (included
as a part of the project), thereby reducing the cost of the project and for the post-project maintenance.
It was successfully implemented in Hyderabad2 in three major stages, namely, granting pattas (tenure
regularisation), finalising the layout plan of the colony and actual construction of the dwelling units.
The project has delivered nearly 20,000 pattas and upgraded 12,000 houses.
Both Environmental Improvement of Urban Slums (EIUS) and Slum Improvement
Programme (SIP) were concerned with the physical improvement of slums through provision of a
standard package of community facilities, such as provision of water taps, open drains for outflow of
wastewater, storm water drains, community bath and latrines, widening and paving of existing lanes
and street lighting. However, both programmes were restricted to authorised / notified slums .
Launched in 1972 with total assistance from the central government, the EIUS was transferred to the
state sector under the Minimum Needs Programme (MNP) during the Fifth Five Year Plan. Part of the
funds was required to come from the state government.
The Urban Basic Services for Poor (UBSP) was an integrated approach to improve conditions in the
slums. Though, its focus was on women and children, the entire population benefited from it. The
components of the programme were health and nutrition, education for women and children, water
supply and sanitation (included installation of hand-pumps and construction of low cost pour-flush
latrines), training of community workers and development of community organisations in the slums.
Part of the programme cost was also shared by the user. This programme was initiated by the
UNICEF in 1976 .
The Low Cost Sanitation (LCS) Programme, a centrally sponsored scheme for liberation of
scavengers, was started to provide sanitation facilities to 80 per cent of the urban population at the end
of the UN Decade for Water Supply and Sanitation (1980-
81). The main objective was to convert the existing dry latrines into low-cost pourflush latrines and
provide alternative employment to the liberated scavengers. HUDCO came forth with assistance to
cover the slums and old city areas with LCS programme. Owing to several constraints like non-
availability of sufficient space to construct individual latrines, poor loan recovery from individual.,
The scheme was revised in 2008 and is now known as Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme
(ILCS).
The Low Cost Sanitation (LCS) Programme, a centrally sponsored scheme for liberation of
scavengers, was started to provide sanitation facilities to 80 per cent of the urban population at the end
of the UN Decade for Water Supply and Sanitation (1980-81). The main objective was to convert the
existing dry latrines into low-cost pourflushlatrines and provide alternative employment to the
liberated scavengers. HUDCO came forth with assistance to cover the slums and old city areas with

5. LCS programme. Owing to several constraints like non-availability of sufficient space to construct
individual latrines, poor loan recovery from individuals, reluctance of state
The scheme was revised in 2008 and is now known as Integrated Low Cost Sanitation Scheme
(ILCS).
The Slum Networking Programme (SNP)3, a slum improvement programme with theparticipation
of beneficiaries, has been implemented in some of the cities of Gujarat4 and
Madhya Pradesh. This partnership-based slum development programme has community at its core,
partnering with the social institutions, industry organization (private sector), local government (the
implementing agency) and the NGO acting as a facilitator forproviding physical and social
infrastructure and extending education and health facilitieslike non-formal education programmes,
maternal and child health in the slums. The programme had two components: (i) Improvement in
physical environment which contained individual water supply, latrines and sewerage connections,
paving of the streets, garbage collection, street lighting and tree plantation; (ii) community
development and social infrastructure involving formation of neighbourhood groups, women’s groups
(mahila mandal) and youth groups (yuvak mandal) with the active involvement of NGOs.
Giving of land pattas (tenure regularisation) to the slum dwellers was an acceptable policy option,
only few state governments had initiated this policy through legislation. For example, Madhya
Pradesh government passed legislation in 1984 to confer tenurial rights for a period of 30 years on
leasehold basis to households squatting on public land; in Delhi, unauthorised colonies were
regularised which included giving of pattas. However in both cases, achievement levels were low
owing to limited coverage of the policy and problems in the implementation process.
Upgradation (NSDP) (1996-2002)
Advantages:
• Minimal Social Cost: Laying down amenities without uprooting existing houses avoids disturbing
livelihoods.
Public Housing (BSUP) (2006-2012)
Advantages:
• Cost-Effective: Huge subsidies from government help create affordable housing stock for low-
income slum dwellers.
In-Situ Slum Redevelopment (Housing for All) (2015-Present)
Advantages:
• Quality of Construction: Private sector must ensure good quality of construction to win future
project bids.
• Targeting: As private sector has an incentive to create housing for poor, beneficiaries are accurately
identified

6. • Minimal Social Cost: In-situ slum redevelopment ensures the livelihoods of slum dwellers are not
disrupted long term
• Efficient use of tax-payer’s money: Housing for All aims reduces dependency on tax payer’s money
by providing free of cost housing to slum dwellers.
Upgradation (NSDP) (1996-2002)
Disadvantages:
• Inefficient use of tax-payer’s money: Upgradation is typically thrice as expensive as
redevelopment, as they require higher upfront costs and amenities require a lot of maintenance.
• Dissatisfied stakeholders: Urban residents unsatisfied by piecemeal upgradation; Limited funding
results in cheap upgrading solutions (e.g. community toilets) which have low take up rates, furthering
informality; Upgradation creates community assests which historically have seen
ow usage: Community toilet usage averages 6% due of lack of maintenance.
In-Situ Slum Redevelopment (Housing for All) (2015-Present)
Disadvantages:
• Legal delays due to lack of cadastral records: Cadastral maps in most cities in India haven’t been
updated, and present challenges when private players would need to awarded TDR incentives for their
redevelopment projects.
• Non-Robust Property Valuation : While Mumbai has a pretty robust property valuation
framework, other cities do not have similar assessment of property rates due to under-reporting of true
property.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY:
 The study makes a basis for firther detailed study while making the slum
rehabilitation schemes and policies.
 None of the scheme above talks about the economic viability of those who are
rehabilitated ,the study may encourage policies based on this parameter.
LIMITIONS:
 The study is in the Indian context and only talks about the schemes of Indian
government.
 The study of all slum rehabilitation schemes was not possible due to time constraint.
 The study doesn’t include many state level policies.

7. REFERENCES:
1. National Commission on Urbanization, 1988, Government of India
2 .Mahadevia, D. and A.Datey (2014). “From Land Tenure Regularization to Mass
Housing in Bhopal: An Assessment,” in Mahadevia D. , Shelter Security in
Urban India – Pathways, Barriers and Outcomes, forthcoming.
3.“India National Report”: India: National Report Progress of Implementation of the Habitat Agenda
(1996-2000), United Nations.
Ministry of Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, Government of India, 2001. Web. Sept.-
Oct. 2015.
4. Addressing Slum Redevelopment Issues in India, Michelle H., Olivia Lu-Hill, S. Murphy, S. Rao,
Shah Y., Zeqi Z.
5. Slum Rehabilitation Schemes (SRS) across Ahmedabad: Role of an External Agency, Mahadevia D.
Bhatia N. Bhonsal B.