To begin with this question, how to Reformalize an informal
city – Let address some other questions in brief before jumping into this
question i.e.
· Are they (formal and informal) good or bad?
· Why is it necessary or not necessary to Reformalize an informal city?
· What is the reason of formal cities becoming informal?
· What distinguish formality and informality?
The unplanned and many times more
“organic” city is one of the more visible facets of informality in urban areas.
Are we talking about slums, suburban areas of illegal genesis, or long term in
situ urbanization processes, among other situations, these are urban
settlements marked by informality, which bring complex challenges to planning
practices. This organic city may be unplanned at its origins, but it works and
it has its complex social and economic dynamics. And in a certain extent this
is a utopian city, which expresses the multiplicity and diversity of individual
utopias of each family who brought their dreams to life in those houses. And
this requires an essential preoccupation when dealing with these areas and
planning their “formalization”: we are intervening for people,
and then we have to intervene with the people. Effective
participation and real involvement of population in these
processes is thus fundamental. The right to the city makes the
city of the possible.
Informality was essential in the
development and structuring of many urban areas, despite the extension of
planning practices and of modernist approaches to cities’ development. In
effect, throughout the world, informality coexisted with urban expansion and it
was an essential piece in urban growth mechanisms. In contemporary
post-modernist cities it still plays a key role in mechanisms of economic and
social vitality and brings new challenges to the development of cities. What
sense does it make today to plan the informality of cities? What should we do
with the informal settlements that are part of our contemporary cities? Should
we incorporate them in a city’s mainstream narrative, or should we enhance
their particularities? And, how can we deal with the informal dynamics that are
essential to structure economic and social (re-)vitalization of many areas?
Should we formalize and institutionalize them? Or on the contrary should we “informalize” the
planning of urban spaces?
United Nations has estimated that
in 2050 in every 4 person 1 person on planet will live in informal way in
developed cities. And currently in many develop cities 60% develop their own
facilities and other services in informal structure and living illegally but at
the same time being tolerated and yet being ignored. In private sector side,
people live where they work which is very efficient although a lot live in
informal area and work nearby better off areas. Therefore, besides every
prosperous area you will see an informal area.
The formal or informal models can
be explained as, informal models do not respect rigorous formalism. They are
often free images, media for ideas, or spontaneous means if communication.
There are various degrees of informality. An interesting comparison between
Brasilia and Caracas can be made, although these two cities appear to be in
complete contrast took into account the existing culture of the characteristics
of the locale, whilst Brasilia was founded on the basis that its location had
no culture as the site was empty. However both cities have experienced similar
patterns of urban and architectural resistance.
The incremental and uncontrolled
urban development during the past decades have made the issue of widespread
informality a dominating phenomenon in the territory according to each
socio-spatial context. A complex informality that is attributed to many causes
and covering physical, socioeconomic, behavioral and legal aspects that is
beyond the presence of formal/informal dichotomy in the urban space, is more a
new complex and continuum system in place. Because of this situation,
governmental institutions suffer from serious urban planning deficits.
Moreover, complexities in political decisions and standardized policies
continue to elude the majority of informal settlements that are often viewed as
a marginalized and stigmatized areas in the urban space. However, many attempts
of "formalizing informality" have been applied by policy makers and
professionals which vary across and within countries. Also, researchers discuss
possible actions to deal with informal settlements, such Hernando De Soto (2000)
focused on principles of capitalism perspective, stimulating economic activity
through productive workforce of individuals.
It is interesting to see if
formalization attempts contribute to improve or worse the living conditions of
individuals in particular cities or can cause the establishment of additional
informal settlements. Under this perspective, this study aims to highlight the
process of formalization of informal settlements through the analysis of
different formalization approaches in many exploratory case studies located in
Europe (Mediterranean countries), Africa and Latin America regions to deduce
the impact of governmental actions in informal areas characterized by different
informal typologies and degrees of consolidation. Therefore, the intention is to
focus on the performance on those institutions (the state, municipalities,
local authorities) responsible for the land use regulations and urban planning
in the treatment of the hypertrophic growth of the phenomenon of informality.
This attempt of "formalizing informality" lies a series of challenges
in the urban planning domain. It is particular significant because still
remains as an immediate policy option and a persistent tendency of a clear
post-intervention. The intention is to define what are the successes and
weaknesses from this attempt and the policies 249 Journal of Studies in Social
Sciences have been adopted or implemented in dealing with the informal
practices. This study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the
phenomenon of informality at the turn of the third millennium, and to look in
depth the influence of the institutions in the development and consolidation of
the informal settlements and to seek what are the lessons and implications of
the process of formalization. In this respect, we want to highlight and
question the importance of formalization of informal areas as a provocative
theme for the urban planning domain, which can translate into virtual practices
and experiences of public, and governmental actions, especially if formalization
efforts still remain a work in progress.
Within this context, the first
part of makes a theoretical framework referring to informality as a broader
concept that involves some anthropological, social, cultural and economic
aspects; which is strictly related to land use. We also highlight some informal
typologies in relation with the land use, new emerging trends, the causes of
informality, formalization concept and some standard government solutions. In
the case of European regions, especially cities of Milan, Puglia, Macedonia, etc.
show informal practices characterized by a type of "hybrid"
informality. These reviews show that formalization policies combines practices
of eviction, demolition and amnesty through payment policies. In African
regions, especially the cities of Johannesburg and Cairo which are
characterized by practices of "semi-informal" typology. These reviews
show that formalization approaches are more focused on upgrading services,
facilities and infrastructure, and urban redevelopment. Finally case studies in
Latin American regions, cities such Rio de Janeiro, Bogota and Lima show
practices of informal "squatting" typology. Formalization approaches
have a broader attempt and integrated dynamic that combines legal titling with
other formalization policies, except in the case of Lima city in Peru, as the
most experimented case that involves the narrow legalization of land tenure
through titling. The last part is dedicated to looking at the future, having
new perspectives and responses in the formalization domain.
It is important to notice that
the idea of informality has drawn critical attention from many disciplines.
There have also attempts to define the concept in new ways related to
contemporary global, regional, and local political and cultural transformations
of the last two decades. When thinking about informality, the first image that
comes is one of "slums" occupied by squatters. Several forms of
informality do not, however, involve land invasion. While Roy and AlSayyad
(2004) among others link informality to processes of globalization and economic
liberalization. Appadurai (2000) and other authors studied developing countries
that offer deep insights on informal housing as an aspect of a different mode
of urbanization.
Why
informality emerges?
The causes of the phenomenon of
informality that is directly connected with urban planning disciplines and
issues such as cultural, economic and environmental speculations:
i) A globalized and liberal
economy makes individuals freer, but according to empirical experiences in
Latin America (Gilbert, 1998) does not necessarily improve the conditions of
low-income families. Economic instability of liberalization produces moments of
high levels of unemployment and what worsens their situation is when sometimes
the informal sector is unable to cover them, which contributes to increase the
number of middle and low-income families and informal practices in the
developing countries.
ii) Ambiguous and uncertain modes
of governance affected the continuity of the policies and increased the
permissiveness of authorities to allow illegal practices that avoid laws and
regulations. The lack of rigidity produced ambiguous scenarios related to the
rapid growth of informal areas. This phenomenon is specially emerged in periods
of political election times or economic changes because of the level of
"uncertainty" in the society. In addition, excessive bureaucracy and
inefficiency in the governmental administration reduced the expectations to be
confident due to formal channels. Consequently, informality is the rapid
respond to full-fill their expectations and reduced uncertain conditions (Roy
and AlSayyad, 2004).
iii) Dysfunctional governmental
institutions lack of structural ability of public administration, especially at
the local level, to provide and guarantee sufficient access to affordable and
accessible infrastructural service to housing units or lands in many areas of
the territory located especially in hazardous areas (Fernandez, 2011). In
addition, shortage of affordable housing is affected by the way governmental
institutions have managed the supply side of housing. Public institutions in
many countries had not made efforts to promote innovative financing
alternatives, such as housing microloan programs and noncommercial bank
programs. However other countries have started taking this practices in order to
regulate land markets that is linked directly with the causes of informal
settlements (Duncan, 2005). Also, governmental weakness related to political
clientelism; the longstanding political manipulation in informal communities
that have been encouraged more informal development. Such questionable titles
in public land have been often promised by politicians to low-income families.
Shift to
Formalization
Formalization is the process by
which acts, situations, persons, and entities that are not recognized by law or
formal channels, obtain such recognition. This may happen through individuals
taking needed steps to achieve the formal state recognition (titling,
upgrading, urban redevelopment, etc), or by the state moving to confer such
recognition on its own initiative. Informal areas are a reality that many
developed and developing countries have to deal with, because it involves a big
portion of the urban population worldwide, especially in developing countries.
Most of the informal settlements have been avoided by the government for a long
time. In the last 20 years, residents of many consolidated informal areas have
been compensated the insufficiency of basic (public) services and the lack of
public infrastructure. A wide range of humanitarian, ethical, religious,
sociopolitical, economic, and environmental arguments can justify
formalization. Most of the arguments are based on the socio-political and
legalistic domain. Experiences of formalization in Colombia, Peru and Brazil,
have already become a fundamental element of the constitutional social right to
adequate housing. For example, the 1988 Brazilian Federal Constitution,
recognized that those who had lived in informal areas for at least five years
had rights to the regularization of the informal occupation. However, few
policy makers, and specially the state fully understand the nature and dynamics
of informal development processes, often reinforce urban informality and socio
spatial segregation, and deterioration of the territory (Fernandes, 2011).
Legal
recognition
The most important policy
response to informal settlements has been to recognize or legalize informal
land development, specially related to the practice of squatting; through
juridical-administrative tools (indemnity, regularization procedures for
titling) or through public policy (amnesty). This response is the clearest
example of state's necessity to know and recognize what really happens or what
should be under their territory.
Urban
redevelopment
It is common for public
authorities and especially for the government to use forms of repression
(mostly applied through monetary ways than compulsory sanctions) as a policy
response to informal practice. In relation with compulsory sanctions through
demolitions (redevelopment or relocations), the government tries to recover
informal areas (due to the lack of legal requirements) or intended to
discourage and limit the development of unauthorized construction. In the case
of on-site redevelopment through gradual demolition and in-situ construction of
alternative housing, the government policy's response try to guarantee the
security of consolidated informal areas on staying in the same location of the
city in order to access to better living conditions (Fernandez, 2011). This
interventions mostly target deteriorated informal areas were housing conditions
are unsafe and closed to vulnerable urban areas. In many developed and
developing countries this mode is adopted to hazardous squatting informal
settlements, under the justification of environmental and public health and the
need for public spaces (Abdel Halim, 2010).
A closer view to some relevant case studies
The selection of exploratory case
studies has been based on well and experimented examples of formalization with
respect to legal recognition, urban upgrading, redevelopment and planning
reviewing and because they were sociologically, morphologically and
typologically fit with the topics of the study, especially because they show
different typologies of informality. In addition, the availability of
information on desktop research and the institutional support from many
hierarchical actors involved in the formalization domain. From an operative
point of view, it is contrasted between different geographic areas. It is
fundamental to indicate that the most important note of this research involves
the examination of the paradigms for formalization programs that have been used
with mixed results to improve conditions of informal settlements in three
different exploratory areas. First, located in the European area (Mediterranean
regions mostly), concern to practices of hybrid informality, such as informal
"second homes", "shadow occupations in public buildings",
"illegal constructions", etc. Formalization efforts have been made
through demolitions and amnesty practices. Second, located in African area,
cases of South Africa and Egypt with semi-informality typology, such as
"informal subdivision on agricultural land". The operations used by
the authorities are mainly related to urban upgrading in-situ. Finally, located
in Latin America area, exemplified by Peru, Brazil and Colombia, that
formalization efforts involve legal titling with urban upgrading in-situ, socio
economic and socio cultural programs at large scale in informal areas.
Looking at the future
Efforts to formalize informal
areas are still in the agenda of policy makers and substantially a core of
urban planning measures in many large cities of the world. For this reason,
after considering the notion of informality and it is process of transformation
to formality channels, combined with exploration, it is important to indicate
some detailed observations on the similarities and differences in formalization
attempts. These observations can make us formulating new codes and
considerations to improve the efforts in tackling the phenomenon of
informality.
Urban planning solutions for informal cities
While research indicates there is
a growing acceptance of informal cities in the region, their economic and
social challenges have largely been underestimated. In economic terms, informal
settlements mobilize significant public and private investments, which remain
outside of the formal economy. In addition, they are associated with
significant public-sector costs, explicit and implicit. These settlements often
take over public or private land, shifting the cost burden for compensation and
services to local governments. The land, often developed in a sporadic way with
single-family housing, is underused due to its sprawling pattern. Informal
settlements also impact the local government’s ability to manage land use, as
the owners illegally occupy parks, unsafe brownfield sites, or land that may
have other more productive uses. At the same time, informal housing might be
the residents’ single largest asset, composed of their sweat equity and
remittances from family members. The investment is under threat of being lost
and becoming “dead capital,” particularly due to environmental hazards (e.g.,
floods, landslides, earthquakes) or demolition. Informal settlements also pose
a high political and economic risk for governments, especially in cases of
evictions and resettlement of socially vulnerable residents. Often, the
inability to absorb these costs perpetuates tolerance of the informal cities.
The search for policy solutions ranges from legalization and inclusion in
formal urban plans to regularization and provision of essential social services
(schools, medical clinics) and technical infrastructure (safe roads, public
transit, water, sewer), as well as resettlement/relocation programs. While
these solutions illustrate different aspects of the urban planning continuum
discussed earlier, they also require significant political will and financial
commitment from local governments.
Little significance in the
economic aspects: formalization programs improve land-market efficiency and
labor market participation, but generally fail to find an impact on access to
credit, especially for titling policies. However, this does not mean that there
are few economic benefits; inhabitants indicate that it has a great use but in
a different way than the theory assumes. It has helped in the fast
consolidation of their homes and therefore increase the value of the properties
in a significant way (20% to 30%). On the other hand, economic resources from
formalization operations have not been properly used in a sustainable and
financial support from international agencies have been suspiciously
(corruption) spent; especially because there has not been a rigorous evaluation
or control.
I think that the governments
really need to see the need to use their skill to try to make improvements to
the country. I believe there is a real demonization, that informal areas, most
likely people say all that they are criminal that live in informal areas of the
cities. There is a kind of fear of poor people which is extremely unfortunate,
but I would lie to see the government to accept that it is going to be the
important part of the cities for the foreseeable future and not ignore them or marginalize
them and see them as vibrant, very active and hopeful and normalizing the
relationship between the informal areas and the rest of the cities or formal
areas.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdelhalim, K. (2010), Upgrading of informal areas. Guide
for Action. Participatory Development Program in Urban Areas, Egyptian-German
development project.
AlSayyad, N. and Roy, A. (eds.) (2004), Urban Informality.
Transnational Perspective from the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia,
Oxford: Lexington Books.
Appadurai, A. (2000), Spectral Housing and Urban Cleansing:
Notes on Millennial Mumbai, Public Culture.
Bayat, A. (2003), Globalization and Politics of the Informal’s
in the Global South. Oxford: Lexington Books.
Durand-Lasserve, A. (2007), The formalization of urban land
tenure in developing countries. Global Urban Development Magazine 2.
New Urban Agenda (UN 2016) priorities (urban forum)
Ted ( City 2.0 )
USAID (2010), Colombia Country Profile, Property Rights and
Resource Governance. United States Agency for International Development eds.
UN-HABITAT (2003a). The challenge of slums: Global report on
human settlements. Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme
(UN-HABITAT).
UN-Habitat (2007).Situation Analysis of Informal Settlements
in Addis Ababa.Nairobi: United Nations Human Settlements Programme.
UN-Habitat (I am a city changer)
INTERNET WEB SITES SOURCES
Urban LandMark Organization (http://www.urbanlandmark.org.za)
Formalizing informal Settlements (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG_QlUmIkNU)
Planning the informal city today (http://homeland.pt/planning-the-informal-city-today)
No comments:
Post a Comment