Youth and Land: young perspectives for city governance

Young perspectives
for city governance
II
Youth and Land: Young perspectives for city governance
© United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), 2016.
Disclaimer
The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any
opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country,
territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or regarding its
economic system or degree of development. The analysis, conclusions and recommendations of this publication do not
necessarily reflect the views of the
UN-Habitat or its Governing Council.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)
P. O. Box 30030, Nairobi 00100, Kenya
Tel: +254 20 762 3120
Fax: +254 20 762 3477
www.unhabitat.org
Acknowledgements
Cover photos: © Escola de Notícias, Ricardo Lisboa Photography.
Texts illustrations and photos: © Freepik.com and promotion photos.
Authors: Alice Junqueira, João Felipe Scarpelini, Talita Montiel, Safira de La Sala.
Contributed with the cases studies: Bruno Santos, Caique Andrade, Cesar Augusto Quental, Diego da Cunha, Emi
Tanaka, Flavio Calado, Henrique Parra, João Amorim, Julia Paiva, Lais Lisandra, Marina Amorin, Pamela de Assis, Patrícia
Guisordi, Pedro Alcântara, Rangel Mohedano, Raul Torres, Regina Meirelles, Ricardo Mello, Escola de Notícias, Ideia em
Pixel, Cidade Democrática, Amigos da Praça Éder Sader, Rede de Moradores da Vila Madalena, Instituto Elos and GVT.
Contributed with information: City of São Paulo Municipal Government – Mayor’s Office, International and Federative
Relations Secretariat, Human Rights and Citizenship Secretariat, Governmental Relations Secretariat, Urban Development
Secretariat, Culture Secretariat, Green and Environment Secretariat, Communication Secretariat; Government School São
Paulo; Participatory Democracy WG Our São Paulo Network; CDHU’s Technical Advisory; Association of Landless Workers
in the West and Northwest of São Paulo; My Sampa; Augusta Park Movement.
Contributed with the online survey: Center of Studies and Research in Management, Policies and Information
Technologies - NGPTI/UFG, Mob Consult and Luiz Bouabci.
Site (http://www.youthandland.org): Kenichi Haramoto and Willian Martinelli.
Visual conception: Alice Junqueira
Graphic Design: Tabitha Obara

Young perspectives
for city governance
IV
TABLE OF
CONTENTS

VTABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................................................................................................VII
GENERAL CONCEPTS: WHAT DO WE UNDERSTAND BY ACCESS TO LAND, TERRITORY, GOOD GOVERNANCE AND PARTICIPATION? ............1
Access to land................................................................................................................................................................................................................................01
Good governance...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................03
THE ACCESS TO LAND IN THE CITY OF SÃO PAULO........................................................................................................................................07
In what conditions youth live and access land in São Paulo?.......................................................................................................................................................07
Youth access to land in São Paulo.................................................................................................................................................................................................10
LEGAL ASPECTS OF YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN BRAZILIAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................21
Constitutional Aspects: ways of public participation in the Brazilian democracy........................................................................................................................21
The National Policy for Urban Development and the Public Participation....................................................................................................................................25
The Right to the City......................................................................................................................................................................................................................26
The Democratic Management of the City ....................................................................................................................................................................................29
The Statute of Youth......................................................................................................................................................................................................................33
The Right to Social and Political Participation and the Strategies to Youth Inclusion.................................................................................................................35
The Right to the City, a Right of Youth..........................................................................................................................................................................................37
Including youth in urban development. Synergies between the Statute of the City and the Statute of Youth...........................................................................38
The participation of youth in Land governance in the City of São Paulo .....................................................................................................................................39
Considerations for formal participation in São Paulo...................................................................................................................................................................45
Informal Participation....................................................................................................................................................................................................................46
Other forms of participation..........................................................................................................................................................................................................51
CASE STUDIES........................................................................................................................................................................................................75
Statements of young people who participated in the activities...................................................................................................................................................81
CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................................................................................................................85
1 How youth-friendly are the participation processes / mechanisms established to enhance city governance?.......................................................................85
2 What are the barriers and opportunities for promoting youth participation in land governance in the urban context?..........................................................87
3 What tools can strengthen the engagement of young people in decision-making processes in São Paulo?...........................................................................89
Final Thoughts................................................................................................................................................................................................................................90
NOTES.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................91
REFERENCES...........................................................................................................................................................................................................94
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Young perspectives
for city governance
VI
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY

VIIEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This publication seeks to share the outcomes
of the project Youth and Land – young
perspectives for city governance. The project
was born as a result of the collaboration
between Global Land Tool Network (GLTN),
whose goal is to contribute to poverty
alleviation through land reform, improved
land management and security of tenure for
all, and UN-Habitat, UN agency responsible
to address housing and sustainable urban
development issues.
In recent years both organizations developed
marks to understanding access to land under
the perspective of gender and grassroots
communities. Those experiences had
originated a third line of research focused
on young people, a gap identified from two
important factors of the present context: the
large number of young people in the world
population and the rising urbanization.
About one quarter of world population
(24,7%) is between 15 and 29 years old (U.S
Census Bureau, 2014), the biggest number of
young people that had ever existed1
. To 2030
the forecast is that 60% of urban population
will be under 18, almost all of them living
in slums and informal settlements (ONU-
Habitat, 2013). However little is said on youth
when the subject is access to land, and even
less when it comes to access to land in the
urban context. What is the relation between
youth and land in the city? How do youth
access land? How do local public policies
incorporate them? Do young people are
more concerned about public spaces than
about housing and property? Those are some
questions that GLTN and UN-Habitat have
been reflecting on and the subjects they have
been seeking to develop referential content
about, with the intention to offer insights to
the creation of a global politic, built from local
experiences articulated by young people.
This way, they promoted research projects
in five cities in Brazil, Yemen, Nepal, Kenya
and Zimbabwe. São Paulo was chosen for the
pilot project in Brazil.
All these countries are part of the regions
that currently have the biggest number
of young people in their populations. It is
estimated that 85% of global youth (15-24
years) live in developing countries (UN-
Habitat, 2011). Additionally, the cities of these
countries are responsible for 90% of the
world’s urban population growth (UN-Habitat,
2013).

Young perspectives
for city governance
VIII
Each project approached one aspect of the relation
between youth and land, and the focus of São Paulo
was the participation of youth in land governance.
This topic was chosen because the GLTN and UN-
Habitat understand that improving land governance
is fundamental to the realization of a wide range of
development outcomes and not marginalization of
some groups of the population (UN-Habitat, 2013).
Also because they understand that given the difference
between the perceptions of adults and young people
about access and rights to land, the voices of youth
need to be heard.
Despite of youth being in political and social agendas –
be considered a key player for the future of nations and
be at the center of recent events of mobilization and
protests around the world– young people still are not
sufficiently involved and/or legitimized in governance
processes.
Thus, the strategies used for the realization of the
project were:
• Understanding the key concepts related to the
subject being researched from academic and
governmental and multilateral organizations
references;
• Legal analysis of existing laws related to the subject
in order to understand how responsive to youth
they are, what is intended with them and what
are the gaps for their implementation (Federal
Constitution, Statute of the City, Statue of Youth);
• Contextual analysis based on official indicators;
• Informal conversations with representatives of
government and social movements to understand
mechanisms and forms of participation that
currently exist;
• Online survey to expand references on the vision
of the youth on the topic and theirs forms of
participation;
• Case studies with young people from the periphery
and downtown areas of the city for surveying
perceptions and practices on access to land and
youth participation in land governance in the city;

IXEXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Data Mining to mapping mechanisms and forms
of youth participation in governance processes and
solutions for cities.
We know this is only a small picture of reality, which
brings limitations, however, it also brings ideas about
ways of political and social action. We hope this is the
beginning of a process that extends and expands youth
participation in the governance of the city of São Paulo.
This way, together we can strengthen existing forms
and find new ways of participation and methodologies
of intervention.
We believe in the collaborative power of people and
sectors to find more effective solutions. Increase
awareness that we live “as a network” is one of the
premises of this work as well as the valorization of
this manner of operation and organization –from the
collective construction, through the encounter between
people in the city and with the numerous possibilities
of Internet.

Young perspectives
for city governance
X
GENERAL CONCEPTS:
WHAT DO WE UNDERSTAND
BY ACCESS TO LAND,
TERRITORY, GOOD GOVERNANCE
AND PARTICIPATION?

01GENERAL CONCEPTS: WHAT DO WE UNDERSTAND BY ACCESS TO LAND, TERRITORY, GOOD GOVERNANCE AND PARTICIPATION?
To think about youth and city governance it is important
to understand some concepts that underlie these
terms and which are associated with their practice.
They are: access to land, territory, good governance
and participation.
ACCESS TO LAND
Traditionally the access to land is linked to access to
the “soil”, “ground”, or the fact of having a property.
However, a new vision, globally disseminated by GLTN
and UN-Habitat, has been increasingly adopted.
This view consists in thinking access and right to
land wholly. In other words, access to land is not only
access to land “itself”, but also to its resources and
infrastructure, such as housing, food, transportation,
recreation and economy.
Consists equally to understand that when we talk
about land, we talk about both rural and urban
areas, and therefore, about the great challenges we
are living: climate change, natural disasters, rapid
urbanization, food security, energy sources, poverty,
job opportunities, governance, among others. All
these challenges are stronger linked to land issues
and demand solutions to problem s such as tenure
insecurity, unsustainable land use, unequal urban
expansion, weak institutional capacity for conflict
resolution etc.
Therefore, the reasons for lack of access to land are
complex and come from a set of situations, not just
issues of land regularization or property cost.
When it comes to the urban environment this is
generational bias in the following areas – gender
inequality, racial inequality, patterns of urbanization and
geographical distribution, power relations, and other.
GENERAL CONCEPTS: WHAT DO WE UNDERSTAND
BY ACCESS TO LAND, TERRITORY, GOOD GOVERNANCE
AND PARTICIPATION?
LAND AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Have you ever stopped to think that to have our rights
effected we necessarily need to have access to land?
Bellow are some examples.
Economic Rights: land for livelihoods, work place,
economic assets, income generation, (renting),
markets/shopping, accessing services, skills training.
Social Rights: land for shelter and family life,
education recreation, open spaces, parks, health.
Cultural Rights: land and public space for community
events, religious practices, entertainment, cultural/art
events.
Civil and Political Rights: land allocated for youth
projects, information, media.

Young perspectives
for city governance
02
Youth and Land Responsiveness Criteria
In their effort to promote inclusion of youth issues in
the land sector, GLTN and UN-Habitat have developed
a tool called Youth and Land Responsiveness Criteria
(YLRC).
YLRC more than about land is about people. It is a
tool to get youth and other stakeholders in the land
sector to enter a dialogue with one other. Its purpose
is to assess land programmes and policies objectively
to ensure that youth and land issues are equitably
addressed in order to achieve tenure security for all.
These issues include defining youth in the land sector
and young people’s land literacy, participation in
land governance and access to land. The tool can be
used to evaluate existing land tools in terms of their
responsiveness to youth and identify where and how
they can be more responsive to young people’s needs
and concerns for land.
The YLRC tool has been designed to be flexible. It is
simple enough to be used with limited facilitation
or training skills and it is acceptable to a variety of
contexts. The different criteria within this tool have
been established following the various consultative
meetings held by the GLTN and UN-Habitat with
youth, partners, practitioners and experts. The criteria
acknowledge the fact that youth can assume adult
responsibilities even if they are still under-aged,
that youth are in a transitional phase with complex
realities, and more particularly that land is not an
adult-only issue.
Territory
To address the issue of land access from the
perspective of cities it is necessary to address it along
with the concept of territory.
That because “territory” is understood as the “place”
where the State exercises its sovereignty; the space
where the Constitution and the laws of that State shall
apply2
. In other words, “it is the space to which it is
circumscribed validity as state law” (DALLARI, 2013, p.
87).
It is in this space –in the territory– that the cities
organize the infrastructure, goods and public
services offered for the population. It is also in this
space that social relationships are developed, both
between individuals and between public and private
organizations.
Therefore, two dimensions are attributed to
territory: its materiality and the feelings it provokes
(HAESBAERT, 2004).
Although the first dimension is the most widespread,
we understand that we need to give special relevance
to the second, because it is in the process of the
appropriation of space –the right to create cities that
meet our needs directly– that many consider to be the
right to the city3
. It is about the creation of affective
bonds and meanings with space and the care with the
collective.
It is from this perspective that also comes the
definition of land/territory of indigenous people, since
“for the Indians, land is a collective good, destined to
produce to meet the needs of all members of society.
Everyone has the right to use the resources of the
environment through hunting, fishing, gathering,
and agriculture. Although the work product can be
individual, existing obligations between individuals
ensure to all the usufruct of all resources.” (MUSEU
DO ÍNDIO, 2014).

Thus, our proposal is to see the territory of the city as
a collective good, where the diversity of people and
relationships need to be valued and the rights of all the
guaranteed.
With this understanding, we begin to better
appropriate the territory, to claim more for our rights
and to participate more in the governance of the city.
GOOD GOVERNANCE
Governance is a concept that has taken on different
meanings over time. According to experts in
administration and regional development,
“Resorting to different conceptions of governance, based on benchmarks authors, some
expressions are recurrent. Without the worry of hierarchy, stand out definitions which refer
to: (1) a new way of governing and policymaking as a process of making decision relatively
horizontal, which includes a plurality of public, semi-public and private stakeholders,
different from the old hierarchical model, no longer sustained by the domination or the
legitimate violence, but by the negotiation and cooperation based on certain principles
submitted to consensus; (2) a complex decision making process that anticipates and
exceeds the government, as a new model of collective regulation, based on the interaction
of a network of public, associative, commercial and community stakeholders; (3) a complex
set of institutions and stakeholders, public and non-public, acting in an interactive process
(STOKER, 1998).” (CANÇADO; TAVARES; DALLABRIDA, 2013, p. 328)
In Brazil, the Sustainable Cities Programme defines
governance as a process that “involves how the
territory is organized politically and the participation of
civil society.” (PROGRAMA CIDADES SUSTENTÁVEIS,
2013).
When it comes to land governance, the GLTN
articulates with such conceptions placing it as a
concept that “concerns the rules, processes and
structures through which decisions are made about
access to and use of land, the manner in which the
decisions are implemented and enforced, and the way
that competing interests in land are managed.” (UN-
Habitat 2010, p.14,).
Therefore, land governance includes not only
government and institutions provided by law, but also
institutions and customary structures and informal
agents, be them community based, religious, or other,
according to the context. It includes all formal and
informal practices that rule the access to land and
power relations. The power structure of a society is,
among other things, reflected in land governance.
At the same time, governance can express the
distribution of power in society.

Young perspectives
for city governance
04
Who benefits from the current legal, institutional and
policy framework for land? How does this framework
interact with formal authorities and informal systems?
What are the incentive structures for land use? And
what are the constraints? Who has what influence on
the way that decisions about land use are made? How
are the decisions enforced? What recourse exists for
managing demands? (ONU-Habitat, 2010).
It is due to reflections like these that it is important
to think about how “good governance” occurs, since
there are many ways of constituting political, social and
power relations.
In view of the UN good governance, within
governments, “promotes equality, participation,
pluralism, transparency, accountability and the rule of
law in an effective, efficient and longstanding way.”
(Ban Ki-Moon, 2009).
Regarding land, UN-Habitat has demonstrated that
when land governance is effective, equitable access
to land and security of tenure can contribute to the
improvement of social, economic and environmental
conditions.
It can ensure that the benefits arising out of land
and natural resources are managed responsibly and
equitably distributed. The land administration can be
simplified and made more accessible and efficient (UN-
Habitat, 2010).
On the other hand, weak governance, whether in
formal land administration or in customary tenure
arrangements, affects in particularly poor women and
men and grassroots communities and may leave them
marginalized.

Often their land rights are not protected and, in
many cities, they live in constant fear of eviction,
today commonly justified by “development.” Weak
governance may also mean that land is not used
properly to create wealth for the benefit of the entire
society or country (UN-Habitat, 2010).
Participation
Although the definitions of good governance differ
in some aspects, most of them bring an element in
common: participation as a structural axis of good
governance.
Participation is a concept that varies and depends on
historical, social and political contexts. Derivations
such as community participation, popular participation,
political participation, social participation, civic
participation etc; evolved into a complex network
of “forms of participation”. Therefore today they
range from the conquest of rights and execution of
the powers given to the population to action and
consciousness of citizens.
Thus, participation is part of social (including cultural
and economic), political and legal fields, varying in at
least three perspectives: 1) the way it is organized; 2)
the way is related to the State and 3) the way the law
requires the government its implementation or not
(AVRITZER, 2008).
We considered in this project, therefore, the word
participation in its broadest meaning: influence
on public policy; community action; or activism;
movements and protests; exercise and definition of
rights; social control; (re) construction of democracy,
and so on. This is because if we do not consider
the whole, we see with limitations the participatory
process.
Because of that, it was observed processes we divided
in to categories: formal participation (provided by law
and/or promoted by the government) and informal
participation (not performed or promoted by the
government).
In this sense, for us, good land governance is a process
of urban development that is accessible, participative,
transparent and measurable that meets the needs and
desires of civil society –including the ones of youth.

Young perspectives
for city governance
06
THE ACCESS TO LAND
IN THE CITY OF
SÃO PAULO

07THE ACCESS TO LAND IN THE CITY OF SÃO PAULO
THE ACCESS TO LAND IN THE CITY OF SÃO PAULO
In what conditions youth live and access
land in São Paulo?
São Paulo is a city where civil society has been
organizing itself the most after the start of the Brazilian
re-democratization and where many important
national social movements were born, such as the
national movement for urban reform (AVRITZER,
2008). However, the population still suffers from great
social and territorial inequalities. Cities are the home
of 11,244,369 people, of which 25.83% are youth,
in an area of 1,521 km² –99.1% urban and 0.9%
rural (IBGE, 2010). A huge space with a municipal
human development index (IDHM) considered
“very high” –0,805– (UNDP, 2013), and the biggest
municipal GDP in Brazil (IBGE, 2015), indicators that
cover up very problematic contexts. The situation in
the peripheries is quite different from the scenario
outlined by the average data of these economic
and social indicators; they are regions of high social
vulnerability. This scenario is even more worrying when
we observe, as shown in the map below, that young
people are mostly concentrated on these regions4
.
YOUNG PEOPLE FROM 15 TO 19 YEARS OLD IN TOTAL POPULATION
Source: Map of Social Vulnerability in São Paulo, 2000

Young perspectives
for city governance
08
SOCIAL VULNERABILITY MAP CENSUS SECTORS OF SÃO PAULO, 2004
Source: CEM-CEBRAP, 2004
The peripheries of São Paulo are regions that coexist
with various types of lack of access. For example,
regarding cultural and sports facilities, there are 236
public cultural facilities in the 96 districts of the city
and in 24 of these districts (many of which are located
in the peripheries) there is no facility, while 6 other
districts (all centrally located) concentrate 83 facilities
–28 in a single district. In the case of sports facilities,
inequality increases. There are 56 districts with no
facility and a single district concentrating 31 of the
459 available facilities for public use. The issue of
mobility is also a problem. Data shows that the average
time spent on commuting in to the city is two hours
and, of course, the ones who take longer live in the
peripheries. (REDE NOSSA SÃO PAULO, 2013).
In other words, in São Paulo, youth are an important
part of the population in areas that face greater social
vulnerability. This is also revealed by a study made by
the Centre for Metropolitan Studies (CEM-CEBRAP)
from the University of São Paulo in partnership with
the Department of Social Work of São Paulo (SAS-
PMSP), which resulted in a Social Vulnerability Map of
the City of São Paulo. This study divides the population
into some groups, constructed on the basis of their
socio-economic precariousness and the percentage of
young families (family life cycle). The map below shows
the variation of this index in space and youth as part of
the most vulnerable groups.

“The real challenge, the one that should be addressed
before anything else, is to reverse the perverse logic
of our urbanization, that ruthlessly and invariably
pushes the poorest as far as possible, in the very act in
which urban space is produced. (...) After twelve years
of the approval of the City Statute, nor São Paulo, nor
any Brazilian municipality applied it in a systemic,
integrated and comprehensive manner.”
João Sette Whitaker Ferreira, 46 years old, architect,
urban planner, economist, professor and member of
the City Council.”5
Specifically regarding the housing issue, the city has
10.8% of its households (386,188) in slums and is
currently facing a context of property speculation and
housing shortage (Municipal Housing Secretariat,
2011).
Housing appreciation in São Paulo was 197.4%
between January 2008 and January 2014 for purchase
and 95.9% in the same period for rental (Fipe/Zap
Index, 2014). Meanwhile, between January 2008 and
December 2013 IPCA inflation was 38.9% (Index Fipe/
Zap, 2014), which shows how much greater is the
appreciation of property in relation to inflation.
Consequently, these data are reflected in the level of
satisfaction of the population with the city. The IRBEM
(Reference Indicators of Well-Being in the Municipality)
reveals dissatisfaction with city aesthetics, social
inequality, youth’s reality, social values, housing,
transparency and participation. Below are the
detailing of the categories surveyed and their average
valuations, determined from a scale of 0 to 10 (IRBEM
2013).
City aesthetics - average 5.0
Appearance of the city;
Appearance of your neighborhood;
Conservation of historical monuments;
Conservation public spaces.
Social Inequality - average 3.8
Equal access to education;
Equal access to employment opportunities;
Equal access to health services;
Equal access to housing;
Equal access to justice;
Income distribution.
Youth - average of 4.8
Access to technical education and university;
First job opportunity to youth;
Degree of access to information for young people in preventing drug use;
Programs for the prevention of pregnancy in adolescence;
How much schools are attractive to youth;
Cultural centers and youth centers in neighborhoods;
Police treatment towards youth.
Social values - average 4.5
Solidarity: group spirit and respect for others and for life among
people in the city;
Culture of peace and violence refusal among people in the city;
Citizenship: citizen participation in city life, exercising rights and duties;
Shared responsibilities, collective consciousness among people
in the city;
Ethical behavior: honest and beneficent human conduct
among people in the city.

Young perspectives
for city governance
10
The second perception, also strongly present, is that
access to land means access to public space, and only
after deepening the discussion, that it means the right
to the city. Thus, we can conclude that the holistic
vision to access to land talked about previously is still
not prevalent.
All perceptions mentioned, housing and property,
public space and right to the city, are connected to the
process of urbanization of the city itself.
Representatives of social movements say that the
housing issue is central because it affects other
services such as education, work and purchase of
consumer goods. Without housing there is “lack of
address” to access other services. They also say,
having a house, and therefore an address, in the minds
of many of the homeless families, is a symbol of
dignity and a “prerequisite” for other rights.
Housing - average 4.5
Quality of your housing;
Supply and quality of sewage in your housing;
Amount of subway stations in your neighborhood;
Public policies that allow housing purchase;
Public policies for re-urbanization of slums;
Offer of housing plans for all salary ranges;
Solutions for housing in risk areas.
Transparency and Participation – average 3.5
Compulsory voting;
Spaces for political participation;
Degree of knowledge of popular media;
Access to useful information by phone and internet;
Information access in the Internet portal of the Municipality;
Form of participation in the choice of district administrators;
Popular participation in councils of district administration;
Monitoring of the actions of elected politicians;
Transparency of public expenditures and investments;
Corruption punishment;
Honesty of governors.
Youth access to land in São Paulo
According to the conversations carried out for the
project with representatives of the government, social
movements and youth of São Paulo, when it comes to
access to land, the most recurrent perception is the
association of the topic with the rural context or, when
it comes to the urban environment, with housing and
property ownership.
“The public administration still has difficulties to
understand the issue. Access to land is closely linked
to the rural struggle.”
William Nozaki, 32 years old, coordinator of promotion
of the right to the city, Municipal Secretariat of Human
Rights and Citizenship

“People that don’t have a house, think they don’t have
any other right. Housing is ‘power’.”
Jô, coordinator of the program Minha Casa Minha Vida
at the Association of Landless Workers of the west and
north-west regions of São Paulo
“For the Movement of Street Population, dignity is
when you have the ‘house key in your hands’. Even
if they cannot deal with all the issues that having a
house entails, the imaginary is that the house is ‘their
place in the world’.”
Andréa Ferreira, 44 years old, assistant coordinator
to the Coordination of Policies to Homelessness
Population at the Municipal Secretariat of Human
Rights and Citizenship
On the government side, the theme is also very
present in terms of policies and challenges.
The housing issue is centered at the Municipal Housing
Secretariat (SMH), but due to its importance and the
existing demand by the population, other departments
coordinate and incorporate housing policies to
contribute to the achievement of specific objectives
such as empowerment of women and racial equality.
However, SMH points out that, as mentioned before,
the high demand for land is the major challenge
for the implementation of housing policies. For the
acquisition of land for housing projects, there is not
only competition with the private sector, but also the
need to liaise with the interests of other secretariats
that require land for their own services.
Moreover, many of the lands examined are discarded
by registration problems, contamination, among other
problems, and several other, already occupied, need
regularization.
The Municipal Urban Development Secretariat
(SMDU) also adds some factors that makes up the
challenge, which include: the high cost of expropriation,
operational difficulties with the bureaucratic structure
of the Municipality, need of technical labor for
evaluation which is not always available and the
uncertainty in relation to the process because it is not
possible to predict the final cost of the property whose
value is disputed by the owner and measured via court
order.

Young perspectives
for city governance
12
“Why land can be private if air and water are not? Why
are we not questioning that?”
Mauricio Piragino, 50 years old, coordinator of the
Participatory Democracy Working Group of Rede Nossa
São Paulo and Director of the Government School of
São Paulo.
“When land is expropriated to build hospitals, schools
etc. nobody disputes it, but when it is for housing
purposes the pressure is huge. Housing faces a lot of
resistance because it is not seen as a right.”
Miriam Hermogenes, 40 years old, Coordinator
of Social Movement Relations at the Municipal
Secretariat for Government Relations.
“There’s a bad culture that understands housing only
as a place to live, especially apartments, while housing
requires the house as well as the rest of the city,
sidewalks, electricity, sewage, recreation areas etc.”
Adele Lamm, 38 years old, technical adviser of CDHU
The argument of housing movements mainly
emphasize the property speculation as the major
problem for access to land in São Paulo. Because
of the intensive exploitation of land and buildings,
many families end up selling their houses and moving
increasingly to the periphery of the city. Others, cannot
buy or keep their houses in the neighborhoods in which
they live or want to live.

“Access to land is so hard that it is almost the dream of
a lifetime and not of an age group. Nowadays it takes a
lot of money to obtain housing.”
Gustavo Vidigal, 40 years old, chief of staff of
Municipal Secretariat of International and Federation
Affairs
“It’s almost impossible for a single person to enter a
social housing program. We started the fight for the
inclusion of “singles” in the Minha Casa Minha Vida
program originally by the vulnerability of the LGBT
segment, but it became a benefit for young people. But
this is still far from being enough.”
Jô, coordinator of the program Minha Casa Minha Vida
at the Association of Landless Workers of the west and
north-west of São Paulo
“Housing security is not necessarily owning property,
but in Brazil they are tied together. Social rental,
subsidized rent, there are other solutions we can start
to think. “
Thomas Wissembach, 33 years old, coordinator of the
Municipal Urban Development
This also impacts existing policies. The Minha Casa
Minha Vida, the main Brazilian federal government
housing program, sometimes cannot be implemented
in the city of São Paulo precisely because of the
cost of land. Because of the prohibitive land prices
it is impossible to build housing units according to
maximum price set by the program.
Thus, two possible paths are seen as essential
guidelines to improve the housing context of the city:
1. Increase infrastructure and job opportunities in the
peripheries;
2. Increase the population density of the expanded
center, meaning, in places where infrastructure
already exists. And with that, seek the balance of
occupation and the containment of the excessive
appreciation of areas.
Finally, housing movements highlight another difficulty
for the creation and implementation of housing
policies, which is the fact that housing is not fully
understood as a right by society. Housing is currently
understood as a consumer good; “I finance it, I buy it”.
As this is the current idea and like most people expect
to access their homes, they encounter many barriers
confronting opinions that other services such as health
and education are priority.
In regards to youth, both government and housing
movements consider housing to be mostly a matter
that concerns only “adults” or “parents”. Similar
perception is also affirmed by the recent UH-Habitat
report: What land means for youth (UN-Habitat, 2014).

Young perspectives
for city governance
14
Some factors can be attributed to this.
Although the decision around housing –purchase,
rental or family property– is considered an individual
decision, it is often done in consultation with the family
or in some cases even with the community.
A part of that, this choice changes over time,
depending on factors such as employment, marriage or
cohabitation, children, and others (UN-Habitat, 2014).
Due to their life stage, most young people cannot
afford to buy a property, however the access to it is not
based just in financial conditions.
Social factors also influence the availability and
possibility of housing to young people, for instance,
prejudice influence, be it generational, racial, gender
based, aiming other.
Rental guarantees for young people are often higher
than for adults, owners give preference to the elders
and/or families with children associating young people
with disorder, lack of trust and so on. (UN-Habitat,
2014) At the same time, it is difficult for young people
to access credit and there is no focus for youth in
housing policies. The SMH, for example, stands from
the goal of meeting all municipal demand, despite
that it has a list of priority groups which are families,
women head of household, elderly, people with
disabilities and people living on the streets.
Another important factor is that the housing public
policy in Brazil is designed from the income point
of view and not age groups, regardless of the fact
that youth is one of the groups with more difficulty
to access housing, as shown by the data presented
before. According to Maria Piedade Morais,
Coordinator for the Urban Sector Studies at the
Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA): “You
have to diversify the housing policy of the country that
has always been grounded in home ownership. In fact,
people don´t need to buy a house. If you are a young
person, for example, and do not know where you will
work in the future, you do not necessarily need to buy
a house, you need to have a place to live.7
” (MORAES,
2008)

According to the IPEA, the factors that lead young people to live or not with their parents are:
Among dependents
• Place of residence: living in a metropolitan area or a large city increases the likelihood of dependency –
which is the reflection of a more expensive housing market;
• Type of housing: young people tend to stay longer living with their parents when their parents own the
property where they live;
• Education: the higher the education of a young person, the greater the likelihood of he/she continuing as a
dependent.
Among the independents
• Social situation: young people that are married and employed are more likely to form a new household;
• Gender: women are more likely to leave the parental home, often aiming to establish a possible relationship;
• Rent: formal rents are the main choice of the independent youth;
• Age: as they get older, young people are more likely to be independent. However, after a certain age just the
opposite occurs –possibly a situation of “conformity”, the lack of alternatives or assistance from young to their
elderly parents. (IPEA, 2012)7
Such perspectives demonstrate that the perception
that housing is not a subject that concerns young
people is incorrect .The difference in focus occurs
because of their stage of life, which makes young
people focus in other priorities, such as study, work
and leisure.
And it is leisure, linked to public space, which arises
when one extends the discussion on youth access to
land.
Access to public space becomes central due to the
sociocultural meaning that land has to young people.
The relationship of youth with the land is linked with
their search for identity, community and cultural
expression (UN-Habitat, 2014). In this sense, occupy
public space is understood as essential to identity
formation and expression of youth.

Young perspectives
for city governance
16
Both municipal government and civil society
movements understand that today there is an
undermining of the “public” sense of coexistence and
the expansion of the culture of fear and that, therefore,
it needs work to reopen and redefine the public space,
as well as to recover the feeling of belonging to the
city. This mainly occurs through failure and unequal
spaces and public facilities, increasing expansion of
private living spaces –malls, gated communities etc.–
bureaucratization of the forms of access to existing
public space and violence.
For private spaces there is an aggravating factor: the
prejudice. The youth from the periphery often comes
across “borders” implicitly established in locations
that, because of economic growth, starts to loose
its “exclusivity” of occupation from the classes with
greater purchasing power –like malls, airports etc.
On the other hand, according to Marco Antonio Silva,
advisor to the Municipal Secretariat for the Promotion
of Racial Equality, with the growth of the city, the
deficiency of the public transport system and prejudice,
the youth of the peripheries began to seek new ways
to have fun, which led them to create a more direct
relationship with the places where they live. Thus,
movements such as “100% Jardim Irene”, “Guaianazes
in veins”, “Love Cidade Tiradentes”, and others, were
born.
In relation to violence, according to the municipal
coordinator of youth, Gabriel Medina, the constraint is
aggravated by the various forms of control, repression
and criminalization of youth, a period of very controlled
life, observed and safeguarded. Exacerbated control,
and often militarized, based on the perception that
“young people is a problem” puts limits on the access
young people have to public spaces, participation and
citizenship.
Regarding public polices, the current municipal
management declares that the access to public space
is one of its main focus, especially the re-qualification
of the spaces at the peripheries and the promotion of
the right to the city.
"Malls are not for the black and the poor. When young
people look for other spaces for recreation etc., because
there are great limitations on the periphery, he /she is
faced with the reality that society offer benefits to a
small portion of the population, realizing that in fact
he/she has no possibility of access to several areas."
Marco Antonio Silva, 41 years old, Advisor to the
Municipal Secretariat for the Promotion of Racial
Equality
"We lack leisure opportunities on the periphery. In the
midst of these “rolezinhos” I heard a lot of testimonials
from people from the “favela” (slums), posting on
Facebook: just because we go to the mall wearing
certain clothes or because it is a group of people,
the security don´ t let us in. A protest happened the
other day at a mall because of it. They do not let us in
because of our clothes, our appearance and our skin
color. Not discriminating, but if 20 people go to the mall
wearing nice clothes they will not be stopped. "
Youth from Campo Limpo Case Study.

“Youth must have the right to manifestation. Often we
are doing art and not vandalizing our town. And the
cops arrive already with repression, without dialogue,
with violence. “
Testimony collected in the event SP Dialogues on the
occupation of public space.
Examples of policies fostering access to
the city that has great impact on youth
• Youth Alive Plan
• Program of Enhancement of Cultural Initiatives – VAI
• Wifi in squares
• Buses 24 hours and Ibirapuera Pakr 24 hours
Finally, the right, and consequently the access to the
city, is the approach that has been growing within
the current government and among civil society
movements. For that reason, in 2013, it was created
the Coordination of the Right to the City within the
Municipal Secretariat of Human Rights and Citizenship.
The intent of this coordination is to give territorial
responses to specific questions. Therefore, it seeks the
territorial dimension of the various areas –youth, labor,
drugs, migrants, etc.
It is worth noting that the Coordination was born out
of the process of developing municipal youth policies,
which are structured around three policy elements:
prevention of mortality of black youth, qualification of
labor and education and the connection of cultures and
modalities of use of the city. It was from the reflection
around the need to better integrate these elements
that it was understood that in order to achieve the
desired objectives, it was necessary to think of the city
as a whole.
“We understand land as territory and our intention is to
install the human software in the urban hardware.”
William Nozaki, 32 years old, Coordinator of
Promotion of the Right to the City, Municipal
Secretariat of Human Rights and Citizenship

Young perspectives
for city governance
18
Access to land and migration
A subject rarely talked about when it comes to urban
development is migration. However, migration is
precisely the basis for access to land. “The higher the
concentration of land, the higher will be migration
of this region. The land and land productivity, the
ability to develop wealth, culture, food sovereignty etc.
underlies the dream of the migrant, but this aspect
is not approached in São Paulo. It focuses more on
the problem of housing and labor issues; the territory
does not enter on the discussion. Furthermore, it is
possible to say that at no time the migrant undergoes
questioning whether he is a citizen or not. And this is
an issue that directly relates to young people. In the
world most migrants are part of the workforce, and
more than 70% are between 17 and 32 years old.”
Paulo Illes, 39 years old, Coordinator for Migrant
Policies, Municipal Secretariat of Human Rights and
Citizenship
Among civil society it is also possible to note the
expansion of awareness about the right to the city.
Besides the National Urban Reform Movement (MNRU)
and the National Urban Reform Forum (FNRU), which
are the main thematic movements, we can increasingly
learn about new movements with specific agendas,
justifying and explaining their demands as part of the
promotion of the right and access to the city.
It is from all these perceptions on how to address the
access to land and to the territory that the path to the
discussion about participation is open.

Young perspectives
for city governance
20
LEGAL ASPECTS OF
YOUTH PARTICIPATION
IN BRAZILIAN URBAN
DEVELOPMENT

21LEGAL ASPECTS OF YOUTH PARTICIPATION IN BRAZILIAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT
To advance the debate about youth participation in
land governance, it is important to note the legal
possibilities for participation proposed by the Brazilian
legal system, as we live in a State of Law where rules
are one of the elements which structures human
relations.
In this sense, these possibilities were analyzed from
three main Laws. Firstly, the Federal Constitution
(1988), the highest Law in the country, focusing on
its regulations about public participation and urban
development. Secondly, the Statute of the City
(2001), emphasizing the regulations referring to the
Democratic Management of the City, which legitimizes
the public participation on the creation of urban, and
finally, the newly established Statute of the Youth
(2013), looking for the proposed mechanisms for youth
participation and the urban issues presented in this law.
This way, it was made an approach between the legal
aspects of public participation, especially regarding
young people and the urban governance, aiming to find
synergies and potentialities.
Constitutional Aspects: ways of public
participation in the Brazilian democracy
After a dictatorship period of 20 years, Brazil’s new
Federal Constitution (FC) was passed in the year of
1988.
Defining Brazil as a Federal Republic instituted under
the Rule of Law, already in the preamble is possible to
notice the legislators’ inspiration when expressed that
the Federal Constitution aimed to “secure the exercise
of social and individual rights, the freedom, the safety,
the well-being, the development, the equality and the
justice as supreme values of a fraternal, plural and
without prejudice society, founded in social harmony,
and committed, in the national and international law, to
the pacific solution of controversies”.
This inspiration resulted in an extensive Constitutional
text, encompassing not only principles, but also real
rules for a wide range of subjects, including economic,
social and environmental issues. These innovative
characteristics contributed to the Brazilian Constitution
become a law researched worldwide in different
aspects.
LEGAL ASPECTS OF YOUTH PARTICIPATION
IN BRAZILIAN URBAN DEVELOPMENT

Young perspectives
for city governance
22
Already on its article 1st
, single paragraph, the so-called
“the Citizens Constitution” defined that “all power
emanates from the people, who exercises it through
elected representatives or directly, in the terms of this
Constitution”.
That way, a wide model of participatory democracy
was established, including multiple mechanisms
for public participation in order to guarantee the
Democratic State. This model of participatory
democracy includes two other models of democracy,
namely, the “representative democracy” (or “indirect
democracy”), which allows the direct election of
political representatives, acting on behalf of population
on decision-making processes and on the development
of policies; and the “semi-direct democracy”, which
a part of the mechanisms of the representative
democracy also includes other instruments, such
as referendum, plebiscite, the popular initiative and
the popular lawsuit. Participatory democracy, on the
other hand, as it is understood nowadays, combines
the direct and semi-direct models, and looks further
to narrow the relationship between citizens and the
elaboration and surveillance of laws and public policies,
being Its main tools the public debates, audiences and
consultations.
Therefore the main characteristics of the constitutional
tools for public participation are:
The election of political representatives is, as
previously mentioned, the main manifestation
of indirect democracy and is directly linked with
“citizenship”, understood as the citizen’s faculty to
make use of their political rights, which are the group
of rights that regulate the forms of public intervention
on the government. It is the main manifestation of the
popular sovereignty, which, accordingly to article 14
of the Federal Constitution, is “going to be exercised
through universal suffrage and through the direct and
secret vote, with equal value to all, and, in the terms
of law, through plebiscite, referendum and popular
initiative”.
In the case of the election of representatives, the
political right in question is exactly the right of suffrage,
which consists in the ability to elect and be elected.
It is, therefore, the right to vote and passive electoral
capacity (eligibility), which is the right to be voted.
Election of political representatives

The elections of representatives are conducted following the Federative structure of the Brazilian State, that is, at
Municipal, State and Federal (Union) levels, and at the Legislative and Executive spheres:
Legislative Executive
City City Councilor
Mayor
Vice-Mayor
State State Representative (State Assembly person)
Governor
Vice-Governor
Federal Union Congressman (Federal Deputy) Senator
President
Vice-President
Finally, for both voting and being elected have minimum requirements to be achieved, including minimum age.
Right to vote
The right to vote is at the same time a right and a duty. Accordingly to article 14, §1º,
I, the vote is obligatory to Brazilians older than 18 years (the civil legal age), while to
vote is optional for Brazilians between 16 and 18 years, for those older than 70 years,
and for the illiterate (art. 14, §1º, II).
Right to be voted
The eligibility conditions for Brazilian citizens are
presented in article 14, §3º: 3: have Brazilian nationality;
be in full exercise of political rights; voter registration;
electoral domicile in the district; party affiliation; and
minimum age variable accordingly to the competitive
position. They are:
• 35 years old: President and Vice-President of the
Republic; Senator.
• 30 years old: Governor and Vice-Governor of the
State and of the Federal District.
• 21 years old: Mayor and Vice-Mayor of the
Municipality; Federal and State Congressman.
• 18 years old: City Councilman/woman.
The plebiscite is a consultation to the people about a
determined subject and, depending on the majority
answer, a legal or administrative measure is taken.
Plebiscite

Young perspectives
for city governance
24
Popular LawsuitIt was the instrument used in in 1993 (under
Constitutional rule) to define if Brazil would
adopt Monarchy or Republic, and consequently
Parliamentarism or Presidentialism, after the dictatorial
period. As is known, Republic and Presidentialism won.
Differently from the plebiscite, which is a previous
consultation, the referendum, as its name indicates,
is a public consultation to ratify or not a rule already
approved; in other words, it is subsequent to the act.
It was the instrument used for the Disarmament
Statute.
The popular initiative is defined by article 61, §2º, and
it regulates the possibility of the people to forward a
project of a law to the Legislative Power. When it is
about an issue that must be regulated at the Federal
level, the project must be presented to the Parliament
after being endorsed by at least 1% of the national
electorate and distributed by at least in 5 States, with
not least than 0,3% of the electors in each of them.
Laws at Municipal level might also be proposed by the
people, accordingly to article 29, XIII. In this case, the
project must be on an issue specifically concerned
to the Municipality, to the city or neighborhoods, and
must be endorsed by at least 5% of the municipal
electorate.
The popular lawsuit is defined by article 5th, LXXIII, and
is regulated by the Law Number 4717/65. It is a lawsuit
that can be proposed by any citizen up with his political
rights for the defense of the collectivity.
It can be used to null an injurious act against the public
heritage, the administrative morality, the environment
and the historical and cultural heritage.
Public debates, audiences and consultations are the
constitutional instruments closest to the “participatory
democracy” envisioned today. These instruments aim
to include the people directly into the decision-making
processes, instructing and hearing their opinions on
specific cases.
With all that was presented, it is possible to notice
that a key aspect of democracy is to define itself as
an ongoing process, a constant construction involving
different goals, desires and demands.
In this sense, it is natural that the participatory
democracy pursues different methods to guarantee the
public participation – both as individuals and groups of
interest in the various policies – which in this occasion
is reflected to the search of youth participation in urban
development policies.
Public Referendum
Popular Initiative
Public debates, audiences and consultations

The National Policy for
Urban Development and
the Public Participation
The National Policy for Urban
Development has its roots on two
major legal diplomas: the Federal
Constitution and the Statute of the
City.
The following will present
introductory aspects to the
understanding of the topic,
focusing on the public participation
as a dimension of urban
governance.
Foundations of the Urban Development Policy:
The Federal Constitution and the Statute of the City
As mentioned above, the 1988’
Federal Constitution is a wide
legal diploma, which includes
several topics that reflects the
society needs and aspirations
in a post-dictatorship period. In
this sense, it was proposed, by
public initiative (SAULE, 2007), the
inclusion of the cities in its text,
which resulted in one constitutional
chapter dedicated to the Urban
Policy, in articles 182 and 183. This
was the first Brazilian Constitution
to directly include this type of
guidelines “and maybe it is the
only one in the world to address it
directly” (PINTO 2010, p.117).
This Constitutional provision
reflects the concerns with urban
issues (housing, transportation
and sanitation) that gained
importance in the 1940’s, when
the urban areas in Brazil started
to progressively and rapidly grow,
since that, initially, “the urban
growth wasn’t understood as an
issue, but rather a reflection of the
country’s development8
” (JORGE,
2009, p. 749). Brazilian urbanization
was so intense that already in the
beginning of the 21st
Century about
80% of the population was living in
cities.
In the constitutional sphere,
article 182 defines that urban
development policies must be
conducted by the municipalities
and must aim to order the full
development of the social functions
of the city and to guarantee
the well being of its citizens.
Accordingly to the Constitution, the
urban development policy has two
essential elements: the property
and the master plan, in micro
and macro scales, respectively.
That way, the Master Plan was
established as the main instrument
of the Brazilian urban development
policy, obligatory to cities with
more than 20 thousand inhabitants.
It is worth saying that the master
plans is an instrument that focus on
assuring the interest of collectivity
through, primarily, the spatial
ordination of the city.
At the other side of urban
development, in the micro scale, is
the fundamental right to property,
defined on article 5th caput, item
XXII, of Federal Constitution,
that deals with guarantees and
ESTATUTO DA CIDADE

Young perspectives
for city governance
26
individual rights. Regarding it, two observations must
be done. Firstly, defining the property as a fundamental
right means it is possible to citizens to be “owners”.
That means, the property is protected as a private
asset: it is possible to acquire and freely manage it;
and this possibility is what the Constitution protects
as fundamental. The second remark refers to the
extension of this right. On its historical roots, the
property was associated to the individual exploitation
of determined space; even its Latin origin mentioned
the landowner was its owner “up to the sky and down
to hell9
” , being totally free to use this space. The rule
of individual will was what prevailed.
With the growing development of cities, the
“collective” started to be highlighted and so was the
comprehension that individual acts, in regard to the
property, are, under certain limits (like building and
use, for example), co-responsible for the collective
well being10
. These limits given to the use of property
right concerning the collective interest are called social
function. It is the social function of property, defined at
both article 5th
, XXIII, and 182, the responsible factor
to balance the public and private interests in Brazilian
urban development policy. Objectively, the article 182,
§2º, establishes that “the urban property achieves its
social function when comply with the fundamental
demands of the city ordination defined by the master
plan”.
To rule what is defined by the Federal Constitution,
in 2001, was approved Law No. 10257, called the
“Statute of the City11
”, which establishes, at the
national level, the urban development policy. Its article
2nd
defines that the urban policy goal is to ordinate
the full development of the social functions of the
city and the urban property and to do so, establishes
goals, guidelines and instruments12
to be applied at
municipal level. However, more than a Law, the Statute
of the City is, accordingly to Maricato (2010), a social
achievement whose conduct extended for decades.
Its history is therefore an example of how sectors of
various social strata (popular movements; professional,
syndicalist and academic institutions; researchers;
NGOs; parliamentarians and progressive mayors)
can persist many years in the defense of an idea and
achieve it, even in a difficult environment. It gathers,
through a holistic approach, in the same text, various
aspects of the democratic government of the city,
urban justice and environmental balance. It brings out
the urban question and inserts it in the national political
agenda in a country until recently, marked by the rural
culture.
In this sense, it is possible to say that the Statute of
the City aims to accomplish the “Right to the City”, a
cultural and political notion which is getting stronger
at the national and international debates about the
urban challenges of an urban world, and at international
institutions such as UN-Habitat.
The Right to the City
The Right to the City is a relatively recent
concept, mainly made known by the speeches
of the geographer David Harvey, which has been
internationally built through different sources, specially
by four documents:

The democratic management of the city; the social
function of the city; the social function of the property;
the full exercise of citizenship; equality and non-
discrimination; special protection of vulnerable
persons and groups; social commitment of the private
sector; and incentive for the solidary economy and for
progressive policies.
i. Treaty “For Fair, Democratic and Sustainable
Cities,Towns and Villages”, prepared during
the Civil Society Conference on Environment and
Development, at the United Nations Conference on
Environment and Development – ECO-92, in Rio de
Janeiro in 1992;
ii. The Habitat Agenda, drawn up at the Global
Conference on the United Nations Human
Settlements-Habitat II in Istanbul in 1996;
iii. The European Charter on Human Rights in the
Cities, compiled by the Forum of Local Authorities
in Saint Dennis, in 2000; and,
iv. The World Charter of the Right to the City, a
process initiated by the World Social Forum in 2004.
In these documents it is possible to identify conceptual
steps that serve as a basis for the Right to the
City which is, as it is worth stressing, a concept in
formation and transformation. Firstly, on ECO-92,
the right to the city was manifested as the right to
citizenship, that is, the right of citizens to participate
in the conduction of their destinations. In the Habitat
II Agenda, signed in 1996, one of the highlights was
the establishment of the “right to housing” as an
international human right, today already accepted by
the international legal community. In the third step, that
is, in the European Charter of 2000, it was affirmed a
list of individual human rights that must be ensured to
the inhabitants of cities.
With these steps, and taking advantage of other
experiences, such as the Brazilian systematization
of its national urban law, the World Social Forum has
articulated the elaboration of the World Charter of Right
to the City, in which the Right to the City is defined
as “the equitable use of cities within the principles of
sustainability, democracy, equity and social justice”.
In this sense, the Right to the City is seeking to
position itself as an emerging right in the sphere
of collective human rights (e.g., the Right to the
Environment), and thus stimulate the adoption of this
concept by the countries, aiming the construction of
more fairs, human, democratic and sustainable cities.
To this end, it proposes eight fundamental principles:
In short, what the Right to the City proposes is,
through the international highlight of the cities and
of the positive impact of the international sphere
in the development of national and local policies,
mainly in developing countries, to provide a change
of perspective for the management and planning
of contemporary cities, focusing on the individual –
especially the ones made most vulnerable13
.

Young perspectives
for city governance
28
In addition to that conceptual approach, the right
to the city issue appears explicitly among the
general guidelines14
, which are meant to guide the
implementation of urban instruments provided by law.
Of these, two stand out: the guarantee of the right
to sustainable cities (Article 2, I.) and the democratic
management of the city (Article 2, II).
The article 2º, I, defines that the guarantee to
sustainable cities must be understood as the right to
urban land, to shelter, to environmental sanitation,
to urban infrastructure, to transportation, to public
services, to work and to leisure –for present and future
generations. Although there is still no consensus
regarding precise technical parameters for the
sustainable city (RUANO 2007; SOUZA 2010), the
Brazilian legislation presents this new right with the
support of other consolidated guarantees –housing,
sanitation–, reaffirming those and fostering debates
about how to think the city we want. Additionally,
the right to the sustainable city –that means, a “step
beyond ‘the right to the city’”– as the name itself
indicates, looks more strongly for the inclusion of the
environmental dimension (and social, and economic)
into the urban policy and production of the city.
If by one side urban spaces have been, by a long time,
understood as a separated structure from the “natural
environment” –it was the “built environment”– the
Federal Constitution, on the other hand, in its article
225 affirms clearly that the population has the right
of an ecological balanced environment, being its goal
precisely to secure their quality of life: “everyone has
the right to an ecologically balanced environment, an
asset of common use and essential to a healthy quality
of life, which imposes to Public Authority and to the
collectivity the duty of defending and preserving it for
the present and future generations”.
To that extent, there is no doubt about the necessity
of applying these environmental criteria to the places
where the majority of the population live: cities. This is
what the Statute of the City aims to include.
A part of it, the constitutional regulation regarding
the environment defines that the responsibility for its
protection is both responsibility of the Public Authority
(legislative, judiciary and executive) and the collectivity.
By including the collectivity in this mission we have
what Nalini (2010) suggests as a “rehabilitation of
the ancient democracy”, that means, to “stimulate
the democracy of participation” in a true “task of
environmental citizenship”, which, in consonance with
the international provisions regarding sustainable
development, highlights the intergenerational
responsibility –something also present in the Statute of
the City.
Because of that, according to Osorio and Menegassi
(2002), it is equally important to consider that “the
sustainability of a city is also defined by the quality
of its governance, [because] only a transparent and
responsible process of urban governance will be able
to assure the sustainable development of cities with
social justice and environmental preservation”.
In this sense, whilst to different social groups are
attributed different environmental costs, the processes
of democratization of cities’ management must
recognize the particularities of the relationships
between citizenship and territories (OSORIO,
MENEGASSI 2002), what implicates in the

understanding of its territorial dynamics: the analysis
of the territory from a social dynamic point of view,
considering the dynamic between stationary and
moving assets (FIORILLO 2008). And accordingly
to Fiorillo (2008), are exactly the moving things that
give value to the stationary things –which it is the
case of the money and the people, in regard to the
establishment of social relations.
It can be said, therefore, that the democracy of
participation is inherent to sustainability and to the
constitutional rules about the environment, and also
to urban management. The Federal Constitution on
its article 29, XII, transforms the right to participation
in a constitutional requirement for the establishment
and control of master plans’ implementations, both
in the Executive and Legislative Power, and also
article 2, II, of the Statute of the City reaffirms it,
when defining “the democratic management by the
public participation and by representative associations
from the various segments of the community in
the formulation, execution and monitoring of urban
development plans, programs and projects”.
That way, this principle –the Democratic Management
of the City–, calls the population to directly take
part in the urban management, both individually and
collectively (through neighborhood associations,
environmental protection organizations etc.),
participating in projects and plans related to the city.
More than that, it concretely manifests the democracy
of participation proposed by the Federal Constitution,
being its comprehension vital to advance in popular
participation.
The Democratic Management of the City
Knowing that people’s participation in public
management is an essential element of Brazilian
democracy that the Federal Constitution outlines, and
of the importance that urban areas have urban have
today to the achievement of personal, community
and political development, the Statute of the City, in
addition to providing popular participation as a guideline
for the urban policy, also devotes an entire chapter to
the subject that, although short, is “full of meaning”
(NALINI 2010).
By breaking apart with the technocratic view of
disciplining the city based in rules imposed only by
the Public Administration (FIORILLO 2008), the notion
of the democratic management proposes the idea
of a new territorial pact, in which the city effectively
become a space for coexistence and full development
for all its citizens (BUCCI 2003). With that, the public
participation goes from being a “principle” to becoming
an “instrument” of the urban policy.

Young perspectives
for city governance
30
In this sense, chapter IV –The Democratic
Management of the City– in its articles 43 to 45,
presents how the direct public participation in
urban governance may happen, by establishing the
instruments to guarantee the democratic management,
the participatory budgetary management and the public
participation for the management of metropolitan
regions.
Regarding the instruments proposed to be used on the
democratic management of the city, article 43 lists:
The first proposed instrument refers to the
establishment of collegiate bodies (“councils”) of
urban policy at different political levels (federative
spheres). It’s understood by collegiate bodies that
the urban policy bodies must have representatives
chosen by the government and members chosen by
civil society (FRANCISCO 2003), creating the “urban
development councils”, which, by the own logic of the
Statute of the City, are more effective at the municipal
context. The composition of these councils is of great
importance for its effectiveness: it is necessary not
only to have a balance between representatives of
government and civil society but also between civil
society itself.
Regarding the representation of governmental,
accordingly to Bucci (2003, p.329): “it is necessary
that the government be adequately represented;
not too much –what would transform the council in
a mere space to ratify the decisions made by the
government–, not too little –what would make the
representatives of the City Hall in the council in mere
“messengers” from the higher levels, without the
power to negotiate solutions and create constructive
alternatives inside the council”.
In relation to the civil society representation, this can
be even more complex, once there is not one single
opinion that represent collectivity; instead, it varies
greatly accordingly to different groups of interest
which might be, for instance, representatives of
neighborhood associations, of housing movements,
NGOs, environmental organizations, professional
bodies of architects and engineers or even real estate
developers and builders –the members of the business
sectors linked to the production of urban space.
(i) collegiate bodies for urban policy, at the national,
state and municipal levels; (ii) public debates, audiences
and consultations; (iii) conferences about urban
issues, at the national, state and municipal levels; and
(iv) popular initiative for laws, plans, programs and
projects for urban development.

This fragile balance between groups of interest
is fundamental to assure that “there is no over
representation of one sector –what could suffocate the
power of the others– or under representation –what
could weaken the representativeness of the council”
(BUCCI 2003, p.329). Under the legal view, the councils
must be established by Law defining its composition,
mandate periods, way of appointment or election of
representatives, their attributions and the definition of
having advice or deliberative powers.
The second instruments established for the democratic
management of the city are the public debates,
audiences and consultations, which must be used
in the processes of elaboration, assessment and
control of urban policies. These are instruments that
are gaining importance in Brazilian Law as grows
the understanding of public policies as processes
(with constant actions and reactions) (BUCCI 2003).
Additionally, as previously mentioned, these tools
might be used also in order to raise the public
awareness about specific issues, especially those
related to collective rights. As mentioned before,
they are constitutionally established and used for
public opinion collection on specific issues, especially
those related to collective rights. On the other hand,
the conferences about urban interest issues, at the
national, state and municipal levels, which are also
part of the list of instruments of the democratic
management of the city, are important instruments to
update the population about government actions and to
raise awareness on specific issues.
Despite the importance of the various instruments
proposed in these items, the big innovation is in
item IV. Inspired by the constitutional provision that
guarantees the people the right to present Bills, the
Statute of the City included the possibility of public
initiative for urban development plans, programs and
projects. Therefore, as Francisco (2003) points out,
it is noticeable the intention of making the public
participation not merely passive, in agreement or
not with the Municipality’ proposals, but proactive,
by the presentation of alternative solutions to the
proposed by the administration; and also, not only a
one-off participation, but a wider process, of true urban
projects.
Concerning the municipal planning in general, the
article 44 included the participatory budgetary
management, which includes “the execution of public
debates, audiences and consultations about the
propositions for the multiannual plan, the budgetary
guideline law and the annual budget, as an obligatory
condition for its approval by the City Council”.

Young perspectives
for city governance
32
This means that instead of the government by itself
deciding the priority areas –and consequently the
amount to be invested– in the various municipal
issues (such as health, education, etc.), such decisions
become a result of a sharing between government and
civil society, which is, that way, called to express and
choose what they understand to be the priorities and
necessities through meetings and discussions that
take into account not only the areas of the city but as
well as the policies that have to be conducted by it
(FRANCISCO, 2003, p. 269).
Finally, the Statute of the City understands the
urban phenomena beyond the physical space of
the city-municipality and includes the metropolitan
regions, which are already a considerable part of
the Brazilian reality, defining that these regions also
need to incorporate participation in its management:
“bodies in charge of metropolitan regions and
urban agglomerations must obligatory include the
participation of the population and its representatives
associations of the various segments of the
community, in order to secure the direct control of its
activities and the full exercise of citizenship (article 45)”.
Explains Francisco (2003, p. 273) that “this article of
the Statute requires to the Federated States, to whom
bears legislate metropolitan and urban areas, that the
managing bodies have direct participation of people
in decisions and monitoring of their determinations
ie, there should also be public participation in the
development of metropolitan or regional development
plans, as well as in monitoring be. “
Through this strategies it is possible to notice that
in the way the democratic management of the city
was proposed there is a clear evolution in order to
assure a permanent citizens’ participation in the urban
development processes (FRANCISCO apud CENEVIVA
2003). If by one side such definitions are important
tools for the democratic and sustainable urban
management “as a process resulting in citizenship
practices aimed at eliminating social inequalities
and obstacles to the realization of the right to the
city” (SAULE JUNIOR, 2002, p.89), on the other, it
is important to keep in mind that the mere opening
channels for participation does not guarantee the
participatory quality.

It is necessary that civil society is aware about the
public participation in politics and take place in such
processes, pushing the governments to recognize
their importance and in fact consider what have been
proposed by such means.
The Statute of Youth
In 2010, in a cycle started in 1990 with the Statute of
the Children and Teenagers (Law No. 8069/90) and
reaffirmed with the Statute of the Elderly in 2003
(Law No. 10741/03), Brazil advances again in the
intergenerational legal-political agenda by the inclusion
of Youth in its Federal Constitution through the
constitutional amendment n° 65/2010.
Such amendment establishes that both the Federal
Government and the State may legislate on the
protection of childhood and youth (article 24, XV), and,
in article 227, that “is the duty of the family, society
and the State to ensure to the child, the adolescent
and the young people, with absolute priority, the right
to life, to health, to food, to education, to leisure, to
professionalization, to culture, to dignity, to respect, to
freedom and to family and community living, besides
putting them safe from all forms of negligence,
discrimination, exploitation, violence, cruelty and
oppression”.
The amendment also defined that the law should
establish the Statute of the Youth, intended to regulate
the rights of young people, and the National Plan for
Youth, with a duration of 10 years, to articulate the
various governmental spheres for the implementation
of public policies for youth (art. 227, § 8, I and II).

Young perspectives
for city governance
34
Three years later, in August 5, 2013, it was approved
the Law No. 12852, named the Statute of the Youth,
seeking to highlight a strategic role for youth in the
development of the country. It demands not only
the development of youth policies at the different
governmental levels, but also the inclusion of young
people themselves in the elaboration of such public
policies, noting them as a group of rights, represented
by people between the ages of 15 (fifteen) and 29
(twenty-nine) years of age (art. 1º, §1).
In this sense, the Section I of the Statute of Youth set
as its guidelines, also applicable to other youth policies
(art.2):
It is possible to notice, therefore, that the Statute has
a dimension that regards to the political inclusion of
youth. Principle II, which provides for the “valorization
and promotion of the social and political participation
directly and by means of representatives”, is a clear
indicator of this purpose, which appears also other
parts of the text: in the need of youth participation
in society’s life (which is, ultimately, the Rule of law
and politics), their participation in the development
of the country (where participation in policy-
making is fundamental to the development), and
in the valorization of intergenerational dialogue and
interaction. These principles are supported equally
by the guidelines for the development of public
youth policies (art. 3), as by the development of an
intersectional approach of structural policies, programs
and actions; the encouragement of wide participation
of the youth in their formulation, implementation and
evaluation; and in the expansion of the alternatives
of social insertion of young people and their active
participation in decision-making spaces (article 3, I, II
and III). These guidelines also include important other
aspects, by defining that public youth policies must
ensure public resources and the necessary facilities to
promote territorial mobility (art. 3, V) and promote the
territory as a space for integration (art. 3, VI). In this
way the Statute of the Youth introduces urban issues
as an interest of young people, bringing an innovative
inter-thematic link, and extending it in Chapter II, when
regulating the so-called “youth rights”.
(i) the promotion of the autonomy and emancipation
of the young people; (ii) the valorization and promo-
tion of the social and political participation directly and
by means of representatives; (iii) the promotion of the
creativity and participation in the development of the
Country; (iv) the acknowledgment of the young as an
individual with universal, generational and specific
rights; (v) the promotion of the well-being, the experi-
mentation and the full development of the young peo-
ple; (vi) the respect to the identity and the individual and
collective diversity of the youth; (vii) the promotion of
a safe life, the culture of peace, the solidarity and the
non-discrimination; and (viii) the valorization of the di-
alog and the close companionship of the young people
with the remaining generations.

The Right to Social and Political
Participation and the Strategies to
Youth Inclusion
Within the logic proposed by the Statute of Youth the
so-called “youth rights” deal with a range of subjects,
such as: education, work, health, equality, culture,
sports, communication and freedom of expression,
public safety and access to justice. Interpreted in
harmony with the entire legal system, it is possible
to understand that the Statute of the Youth does
not propose the creation of new rights, considering
that everyone is equal before the law. However, in
some way, it is possible to say that when providing
a compilation of themes that were considered as a
priority for the Brazilian youth in this beginning of 21st
Century, the Statute provides a new and affirmative
approach that might contribute to near the Brazilian
youth to these important aspects of life in society.
In this list of youth rights brought by the Statue of
Youth, it was included the “Right to Citizenship,
to Social and Political Participation and Youth
Representation”, which can be understood as the
workhorse for the consolidation of all other rights.
Accordingly to article 4, this means “young people have
the right to participate in social and political activities
and take part in the formulation, implementation and
evaluation of public policies for the youth”.
In the Statute of the Youth, youth participation is
understood in four main areas:
1. The inclusion of young people in public and
community spaces from the conception as they
being an active, free and responsible person
dignified to occupy a central position in political and
social processes;
2. The active involvement of young people in actions
of public policies that aim their own benefit, or the
benefit of their communities, cities, regions and the
Country;
3. The individual and collective participation of young
people in actions that include the defense of the
rights of youth or subjects related to them; and
4. The effective inclusion of young people in public
spaces of decision with the right to voice and vote.
By such definitions it is noticeable the public interest
in strengthening the citizen participation of young
people, who shall be understand as an important actor
in political and social processes, and must be formally
heard and respected. In this sense, these processes
must not refer only to public policies for youth, but
also for themes that affects the young, as individual
or collective members, in the various administrative
governmental spheres. Those are, therefore, measures
seeking the multidimensional participation of young
people in formal spaces of participation.
To this end, article 5 provides that the dialogue
between youth and public authorities will be held
through associations, networks, movements and youth
organizations. This means young people who recognize
themselves as part of the collective and seeks to
represent the collective interests; social engagement is
required.
As a mean to facilitate this dialogue, it was defined that
each government must point a specific government
agency for the management of public policies for youth

Young perspectives
for city governance
36
and the encouragement for the establishment of youth
councils at the different governmental levels.
Regarding the subject, the Statute of Youth is the
creation of Youth Councils, since it is a successful
format of public engagement in different areas of
social rights, such as health, environment and urban
development. Defined in the articles 45 to 47 of
the Statute, it established that youth councils are
permanent and autonomous bodies, non-judicial,
responsible to deal with public policies for youth and to
ensure the exercise of the rights of the young.
The Statute sets yet nine goals for the Youth Councils:
(i) assist in the preparation of public policies for youth
that promote the full exercise of young people’s rights
established in this Law; (ii) use instruments so that
the State ensures to young people the exercise of
their rights; (iii) collaborate with administration bodies
in the planning and implementation of youth policies;
(iv) study, analyze, develop, discuss and propose the
development of means of cooperation, aiming at the
development of programs, projects and actions to
youth; (v) promote studies related to youth, in order
to subsidize the planning of youth policies; (vi) study,
analyze, elaborate, discuss and propose public policies
that allow and ensure the integration and participation
of the young people in the social, economic,
political and cultural processes in the corresponding
federative entity; (vii) propose the creation of forms of
participation of the youth in the bodies of the public
administration; (viii) promote and participate in related
seminars, courses, congresses and events to debate
issues related to youth; (ix) develop other activities
related to public policies for youth.
In addition, it was assigned to each entity of the three
levels of the Federation to define the organization,
functioning and composition of its Youth Councils,
which must observe a parity criterion between
representatives of public authorities and civil society.
The Youth Councils have, therefore, a structure that
provides wide possibilities of action, and, following
the proposal of the democratic management of the
city, have a proactive conduct and are able to propose
means to advance the participation of youth in regard
to the rights listed in the Statute, in accordance with
the reality and the activities of each governmental level.

The Right to the City, a Right of Youth
Funneling the social and political activity of young
people under the Statute of the Youth, there are the
already mentioned “rights of the young”.
As pointed out before, these refer to a wide range
of subjects, which now earn new approaches, and,
among them, is The Right to the City.
The Right to the City appears more clearly on the
Statute of the City in two sections: Section IX – the
Right to the Territory and Mobility (articles 31 to 33),
and Section X – the Right to Sustainability and the
Environment (articles 34 to 36).
Although the right to the city encompasses a variety of
rights that are expressed within the urban space, the
territory –where we “occupy”– and the sustainability
–that is part of the Statute of the City’s “right to the
[sustainable] city”– are essential aspects of urban
development.
The Statute of the Youth at first presents the “right
to territory and mobility” (art. 31) that unfolds in the
promotion of public housing policies, mobility and
public facilities (i.e., schools, kindergartens, hospitals,
etc.) at both rural and urban areas, presenting greater
emphasis on mobility, from the viewpoint of the
possibility of the youth make use of public transport
systems –that is, by financial means, tariff reduction,
with a view to reducing inequality in access to these
services– and not exactly the reformulation of such
systems, what have been so questioned now a days.
It is worth noting that, if by one side the claims
regarding the possibility of decent housing in Brazilian
cities are historical –but not necessarily directly
identified as a youth cause–, by the other side the
claim for better mobility by young people is a newer
phenomenon, bringing an interesting symbiosis of
contemporary youth’s vision.
Regarding the “right to sustainability and the
environment”, the Statute repeats the established in
the Federal Constitution, emphasizing that “young

Young perspectives
for city governance
38
people have the right to sustainability and an
ecologically-balanced environment, a good of common
use by the people, which is essential to a health and
quality life, and the duty to defend and preserve it for
the present and future generations” (art. 34). It also
addresses the necessary environmental education
(art. 35) and emphasizes different parameters for
the elaboration, implementation and evaluation of
public policies that incorporate the environmental
dimension (art. 36), pointing to a vital breakthrough in
the understanding of the environment, in a sense to
approximate the human being from the subject.
In this sense, public authorities should consider: the
encouragement and strengthening of organizations,
movements, networks, and other youth collectives that
act within the framework of environmental issues and
sustainable development; encourage the participation
of young people in public policy-making about the
environment; the creation of environmental education
programs targeted for young people; and encourage
the participation of young people in projects of job
creation focused on the sustainable development of
rural and urban areas.
It is possible to identify that way a synchronicity
between the main elements of the right to the city
proposed by Statute of the Youth and the concept of
the right to a sustainable city brought by the Statute
of the City: the right to urban land, housing rights,
environmental sanitation, to the urban infrastructure,
transport and public services, to work and leisure, for
the present and future generations.
Including youth in urban development.
Synergies between the Statute of the City
and the Statute of Youth
By all the presented, it is clear that the Statute of the
City and the Statute of the Youth, based on the Federal
Constitution, have synergies.
These are undeniable when considering its essential
pillars: the democratic management of city –social
participation in decision-making– and the right to the
sustainable city –right to territory and mobility and the
right to sustainability and the environment).
If on one hand the Statute of the Youth is explicit in
the inclusion of urban issues, the Statute of the City,
an older law, is not so clear about the youth. So where
would precisely lie the rights of the urban youth?
Considering the propositions made by the Statute of
the City, urban management must be responsible for
an ongoing inclusion of the people, in a more generic
way, without the presentation of special groups
of interest, to discuss and decide about the space
where they wish to live in a sustainable way. And it is
precisely in this point where youth lies: sustainability
was born from an understanding of intergenerational
responsibility, to ensure the natural resources for
present and future generations.
Therefore, when it comes to governance, it is
unacceptable nowadays to think about excluding
society from the decision of key issues. Regarding
sustainability, expecting to reach it without the

Councils (Advisory Boards)
inclusion of children and youth –who largely respond by
the present and future generations– is a contradiction
itself. In addition, if Urban Development Councils
must be representative of the various sectors of the
population, it is mandatory to also think about young
people representativeness in such spaces.
There is, however, the ever-present prejudice when
working on the inclusion of emerging major groups
of interest. In such cases, the Statute of the Youth is
indeed the element of change, since it establishes the
obligation of the existence of Youth Councils including
at the municipal level –the main responsible for the
urban development. By the inclusion of the territory
and the sustainability, the members of the councils
themselves, even if not deeply familiar with the subject
–after all, property has always been an “issue of grown
people”– must get educated and instructed to gradually
conquer the space of youth in urban development
policies.
The remaining challenge is how to ensure the quality of
participation and the good use of such structures. It is
now up to youth to overcome the “unwritten rules” in
force: the possibilities for participation were formalized,
there is the legal background and there is the will. Now
it is about to make it happen.
The participation of youth in Land
governance in the City of São Paulo
As previously mentioned, we divided participation in
São Paulo into formal and informal participation. Formal
participation considers laws and/or actions promoted
by the government and informal is participation not
conducted or promoted by the government.
Formal Participation
If the Public Administration in Brazil has instruments
for social participation that are provided in the Federal
Constitution and the Statute of Cities, as well as in
other specific laws, in matters of urban nature, each
municipality has management autonomy and therefore
can establish specific participation instruments.
The main existing instruments in São Paulo, are listed
below.
The Councils (Advisory Boards) in the city of São Paulo
are instruments for formulating and verifying sectorial
public policies. They can be consultative or deliberative
bodies, with pluralistic and equal composition of
members from the municipal administration and/or civil
society. Among the different Municipal Councils there
are some we consider to be particularly relevant to
youth participation in land governance, they include:
• Municipal Council of Culture (currently being
restructured)
• Municipal Council of Education (CME)
• Municipal Council of Urban Policy (CMPU)
• Municipal Council for the Rights of the Child and
Adolescents (CMDCA)

Youth and Land: young perspectives for city governance

Youth and Land: young perspectives for city governance

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Youth and Land: young perspectives for city governance

Similar to Youth and Land: young perspectives for city governance (20)

More from Alice Junqueira

More from Alice Junqueira (9)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Youth and Land: young perspectives for city governance