Integrating Marginalized Neighborhoods into Cities: Tomorrow’s Challenge

a Question

17

JUNE 2015

of Development SYNTHESES OF AFD STUDIES AND RESEARCH

SLUMS AND MARGINALIZED NEIGHBORHOODS: PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS AND DIVERSE REALITIES

Urban growth is spreading mainly in the cities of the South, and the populations of marginalized neighborhoods are expected to double and reach 2 billion in 2030. It is unrealistic to imagine a future without slums. This is why approaches have evolved: there is no longer question of “bulldozing slums,” but of rehabilitating them, without neglecting construction of new housing. Researchers and actors in international development cooperation are reflecting on possible sustainable solutions.

Integrating Marginalized Neighborhoods into Cities: Tomorrow’s Challenge Located mainly in developing countries (see Map), so-called “marginalized” neighborhoods* suffer one or more forms of exclusion that can be social, economic, or related to land ownership. Several factors can explain their creation: rapidity of urban growth, insufficient housing supply, or poverty. They are more varied than we may think, and may include: • slums, which according to UN-Habitat (2002) are characterized by inadequate access to basic infrastructures, poor housing quality, and “overpopulation”; • slums in the process of consolidation (upgrading of buildings and infrastructure, such as in the Brazilian favelas); • durable housing developments built without intervention of public authorities (more structured, but unregulated); • old or degraded neighborhoods of the formal city (historic centers, for example).

Specialists are endeavoring to deconstruct the preconceived notions on marginalized neighborhoods (often perceived as “dangerous,” “unhealthy,” or “squats”) and to fight the orders to destroy them—an unsustainable solution if no alternative is offered. Several disciplines have taken up the issue. For example, sociologists and anthropologists are demonstrating the diversity of social situations (especially the presence of middle classes) and the richness of interactions at work there (Deboulet, 2011; Navez-Bouchanine, 2007); urban planners are studying the urban forms and proposing operational improvements (Barthel and Jaglin, 2013; Mansion and Rachmuhl, 2012); finally, land-ownership studies are recommending measures to secure the rights of inhabitants (DurandLasserve, 2010; Soares Gonçalvez, 2006).

*To designate this type of neighborhood, several terms may be used, including: “marginalized,” “low-income,” and, more recently, “precarious.”

pm

ent

on of ti

Develo

A Ques

http://www.afd.fr/home/publications/travaux-de-recherche/ publications-scientifiques/question-developpement

MAP: PROPORTIONS OF URBAN POPULATIONS LIVING IN SLUMS

Source: UN-Habitat, State of The World’s Cities 2012/2013.

No data

From “cities without slums” to “sustainable working-class neighborhoods”: evolution in the international approach

lers” (MDG Target 11) and “upgrade slums” (Goal 11 of the draft SDGs).

When UN-Habitat (the United Nations agency dedicated to cities) was created in 1978, its watchword was to make slums disappear by developing rehousing programs. At the same time, while researchers and “Third World” activists did urge public authorities to offer housing accessible to the poorest, they also at times praised self-building initiatives and self-management by inhabitants. These ideas, advocated in particular by British architect John F. C. Turner, gained acceptance within international institutions such as the World Bank from the 1970s and contributed to changing habitat policies: grassroots solutions were recommended, demolitions were to be limited, and social concerns took on increasing importance.

International doctrine has thus thoroughly evolved in recent decades, from orders for “resorption” of slums towards a preference for on-site upgrading. This evolution was especially noticeable during the 7th World Urban Forum in Medellin, Colombia, in 2014.

Even though living conditions there are often difficult, the qualities of these settlements are now acknowledged: they meet the housing needs of broad sections of society and can offer opportunities in terms of job access and social solidarities.

In the last 10 or so years, AFD has been supporting several rehabilitation projects for marginalized neighborhoods (in Haiti, Madagascar, Djibouti, etc.) and is regularly carrying out reflection with donors, NGOs, and researchers. Some recommendations have emerged from these experiences (cf. box).

In 1999, the goal of the “Cities without Slums” action plan of the multi-donor Cities Alliance was to prevent the creation of new marginalized neighborhoods by supporting public social-housing policies. However, slum-upgrading programs had already started to be implemented.

AFD’s commitment to marginalized neighborhoods

Today, UN-Habitat conducts advocacy targeting states and donors, so that they give priority to rehabilitation in situ, but without neglecting “the provision of increased resources for affordable housing.” The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000 and the draft Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2014 also emphasize rehabilitation, as seen by “Have achieved by 2020 significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwel-

On the occasion of the 2014 World Urban Forum, AFD’s Local Authorities and Urban Development Division published a study based on capitalization of projects funded by AFD in various countries (Morocco, Colombia, Madagascar, Djibouti, etc.) and proposed 10 operational recommendations for action in marginalized neighborhoods, summarized in this article.

The full text can be consulted on AFD's website

 In 2014, 70%

Some figures

of sub-Saharan Africa city dwellers

PEOPLE WILL LIVE IN SLUMS

were living in marginalized neighborhoods.

pm

ent

on of ti

Develo

NUMber

In 2030, 2 bILLION

17

JUNE 2015

A Ques

Favor in-situ rehabilitation and look for knock-down effects in these neighborhoods

and must be spread equitably so as not to favor certain areas over others. Localized evictions are sometimes inevitable for populations living in high-risk zones or on the sites of planned infrastructures. In this event, priority must be given to resettling them nearby. Furthermore, the risks of gentrification and of excluding the most vulnerable populations must be avoided.

Rehousing all the inhabitants of marginalized neighborhoods would require public authorities to mobilize colossal financial resources and huge land reserves. In situ upgrading, which is less costly and more flexible, can be adapted to the specific characteristics of each situation. It also has a lower social cost compared to population transfer: social ties and proximity to the workplace and to trade venues are maintained.

This is why the actions must be designed with the users and implemented progressively.

Because rehabilitation does not radically transform the neighborhoods, it sometimes leads to disappointment on the part of the inhabitants and to reduced commitment by the public authorities, which prefer full “restructuring” operations that include the upgrading of private housing.

But restructuring is long and costly and does not respond to the current challenges: it is sometimes like a drop of water in an ocean of neighborhoods to upgrade.

This approach does not seek to totally transform the neighborhoods. Rather, it involves identifying the levers (see table) that make it possible to render the neighborhood less isolated, to develop social ties, and to reinforce civil society. In this approach, the inhabitants are encouraged to become personally involved in upgrading their housing, by having them perceive that the threat of eviction is receding. Several experiments (in particular in Colombia and Tunisia) demonstrate the knock-down effect of interventions in the “public space.” Improvement of the road system, for example, facilitates circulation of goods, creation of new business activities, and waste collection.

In addition to rehabilitation operations, it is important to develop a “preventive” approach by increasing production of low-cost housing and by self-building that is “supervised” (technically, financially and socially) on serviced land provided by the public authorities. This implies upstream establishment of systems to facilitate public land purchase.

Precautions must nevertheless be taken. It is important to reach the maximum number of people possible. For this reason, a significant critical mass of investment is required

POTENTIAL LEVERAGE EFFECTS OF IN SITU REHABILITATION Possible in-situ rehabilitation actions, by sector

Direct benefits

Positive outcomes

Roads / drainage

• Less isolation • Mobility • Less flooding • Reduction of health risks

• Economic development • Jobs • Health • Social cohesion

Water / sanitation

• Reduction of health risks • Reduction of costs to inhabitants

• Health • Comfort • Social integration

Public lighting

• Public safety • Activity extended into night

• Public safety • Economic development • Social cohesion

Waste management

• Cleanliness/hygiene • Reduction of health risks and pollution

• Environment • Health • Jobs

Public infrastructure (social or trade)

• Health care, education, leisure activities • Economic dynamism

• Jobs • Social integration • Increased revenues for municipalities

Public spaces (parks, gardens, squares)

• Leisure and social activities • Appearance of neighborhood improved • Measures against heat islands and flooding

• Public safety • Positive image for the neighborhood • Social cohesion Source: the authors

AMANDINE DUKHAN Project manager, Local Authorities and Urban Development Division, AFD

IRENE SALENSON Research officer, Research and Development Division, AFD

JUNE 2015

ent

17

pm

NUMber

on of ti

Develo

A Ques

MATHILDE CHABOCHE Sociologist and urban planner, independent consultant

a Question

of Development

Securing land tenure before regularization A significant share of the inhabitants do not hold official property deeds. They have nevertheless often purchased a “right to occupy” their plot and own the building, whereas other residents are tenants. The property is not always identified: the land may be publicly owned, without necessarily being recorded in land registries; it may belong to families who have migrated or be subject to inheritance disputes; or it may be subject to “customary” and/or collective laws. Property may have been subdivided and sold by private developers outside the official system, leading to a possible juxtaposition of laws on the same spaces.

This situation creates insecurity, complicates transactions, and curbs willing expenditures on housing improvement. It also acts as an obstacle to establishing property tax, which is an essential resource for public investment, and to identifying expropriations needed for building infrastructure.

Supplying all the inhabitants with individual legal deeds is impossible, but pragmatic solutions have been experimented: usucaption, collective permission, long-term leases, usufruct authorization. A varied range of land security mechanisms exist: land reforms, land registry, street addressing, or geographic information systems. As the former require complicated political decisions and long implementation periods, they must not become a condition for public intervention. The more flexible solutions, on the other hand, make it possible to start up regional planning procedures and to facilitate the management of urban services, while offering a form of security. In all cases, UN-Habitat and Cities Alliance recommend that administrative procedures be simplified.

Marginalized neighborhoods and their inhabitants fully integrated into the city Marginalized neighborhoods are often excluded from official urban planning documents because they are considered “illegal.” A first step would be to include them in discussions on the future of the city, by emphasizing the

social, financial, and environmental cost of inaction.

To become “sustainable,” urban planning must take into account the needs of these neighborhoods and have the goal of integrating them into the city. Unfortunately, many “participative” projects are merely showcase actions due to lack of experience and reluctance on the part of the contracting authority as well as the donors. The rich knowledge of city dwellers must be acknowledged, and more broadly the inhabitants’ “right to the city”. For effective dialogue, technical discourse must be accessible to the layman, the inhabitants’ suggestions must be seriously considered, and consensus building must last for the duration of the project.

Sometimes the representativeness of the whole population is not provided for. Consensus-building measures can be supplemented by surveys and the setting up of urban and social project management (“maîtrise d’œuvre urbaine et sociale”). This involves engaging a social operator (NGO or association) that plays an intermediary role among the inhabitants, the companies carrying out the work, and the public authorities. Cooperation in public decisions can become a systematic form of action, as in the case of participative budgets in Argentina or that of water management by neighborhood committees in Haiti.

Finally, the search for ongoing funding dedicated to urban social policies is an imperative for the contracting authorities and above all requires proven political will.

Ideas to improve on The projects dealing with the sensitive issue of marginalized neighborhoods are complicated to design and implement, especially for the public authorities concerned.

Without the various conditions listed here, the projects often turn out not to last long: infrastructures are not well maintained, and dynamics run out of steam, as has been emphasized in certain ex-post evaluations. The actors of development, including donors, must continue to support the research and operational capitalization work carried out with the actors in the field, paying attention to the critical reflections of the partners concerned.

Bibliographic References BARTHEL, P. AND S. JAGLIN (COORD.) (2013), Quartier informel d'un monde arabe en transition, Conférences & Séminaires, AFD. CITIES ALLIANCE AND UN-HABITAT (2011), Loger les pauvres dans les villes africaines. Le foncier : un rôle crucial dans l'accès des citadins pauvres à un logement.

DEBOULET, A. (2011), “Contrer la précarité par la sécurisation foncière et la légalisation”, Revue Tiers Monde, 2011/2, n°206.

DURAND-LASSERVE, A. (2010), “Réguler les marchés fonciers pour des villes inclusives”, Regard sur la Terre, Presses de Sciences Po, AFD, IDDRI.

MANSION, A. AND V. RACHMUHL (2012), "Bâtir des villes pour tous en Afrique: leçon de quatre expériences, collection Etudes et Travaux en ligne ", n°31, GRET, April, 143p.

NAVEZ-BOUCHANINE, F. (2007), “Évolution de la politique urbaine et résorption des bidonvilles au Maroc : Succès et avatars de la ‘maîtrise d'ouvrage sociale'”, Revue internationale des sciences sociales, 2007/3-4, n° 193-194.

SOARES GONÇALVEZ, R. (2006), “La politique, le droit et les favelas de Rio de Janeiro”, Journal des anthropologues, n°104-105, pp 37-63.

WORLD BANK AND IMF (2013), Rural-Urban Dynamics and the Millennium Development Goals. Global Monitoring Report, Washington, D.C.

A QUESTION OF DEVELOPMENT is an AFD Research Department publication which presents syntheses of studies and research initiated or supported by AFD. This series aims to summarize the questioning, the approach, the lessons and the prospects of the study presented. Thus, it intends to open new avenues for action and thinking. The analyses and conclusions of this document are formulated under the responsibility of its author(s). They do not necessarily reflect the point of view of AFD or its partner institutions • Publication director: Anne PAUGAM • Editorial director: Gaël GIRAUD • Agence Française de Développement: 5, rue Roland Barthes - 75598 Paris Cedex 12 • Copyright: June 2015 • ISSN: 2271-7404 • Conception: • Layout: Elsa MURAT • Translation: Eric ALSRUHE