Research Proposal - Slum Redevelopment Multi-Stakeholder Framework

Research Proposal

Participation & Conicts in the Multi-Stakeholder Environment of Slum Redevelopment Projects in Mumbai (1970 - present)

Vijay Gopal Vazhoth Palliyil

Research Question How can conicts in the multi-stakeholder domain of slum redevelopment projects be addressed while ensuring beneďŹ ciary participation?

Hypotheses Conflicts in the multi-stakeholder environment of slum redevelopment projects leads to a transformation of the stakeholders’ approaches which negatively affects the quality of beneficiary participation.

Terminology; Slum; UN-HABITAT defines a slum household as a group of individuals living under the same roof in an urban area who lack one or more of the following: 1. Durable housing, 2. Sufficient living space 3. Easy access to safe water 4. Access to adequate sanitation 5. Security of tenure.

Even the term ‘slum’ has negative connotations, but the word is used officially in India by the government to classify settlements.

Terminology Participation; In the research question, the stakeholder participation referred to can be top 3 levels in Sherry Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen participation. (Arnstein et al., 2007) This would in eect mean that some decision making power resides in citizens as well.

Research Aim To analyze the stakeholder politics of slum redevelopment projects in the city of Mumbai, and to develop a flexible Stakeholder Framework for Slum Redevelopment that can be contextualized and implemented.

Objectives 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

To explore the evolution of policies dealing with slums in Mumbai from the 1970s to present.

To identify the stakeholders and understand their roles in slum redevelopment projects in Mumbai.

To identify and analyze the conflicts between stakeholders.

To explore the post-conflict transformation of stakeholders.

To explore conflict resolution techniques that can be implemented without compromising participation quality.

Research Methods Literature Review (academic Papers, articles published in journals, government documents, newspaper articles); 1.

Evolution of Policies 2.

Case Studies (2) Semi-structured Interviews with Stakeholders; 1.

Member(s) of the communities.

2.

Representative of the NGO, SPARC (Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres) 3.

Representative of NSDF (National Slum Dwellers’ Federation) 4.

Scholars who have done prior research connected to the subject.

Questionnaire Surveys; For collection of empirical evidence from the project beneďŹ ciaries & slum-dwellers.

Literature Review

Informal Settlements in Mumbai Population of Mumbai - 12.4 million (Census 2011)

“About 40 % of the population (about 6 million persons) live in slums or other degraded forms of housing. Another 5-10 per cent are pavement dwellers. Yet, according to one recent estimate, slum dwellers occupy only 8% of the city’s land.” (Appadurai, 2001)

Source; https://www.census2011.co.in/ Image source; https://www.dur.ac.uk/geography/everyday_sanitation/the_research_project/

The Slum Policy Timeline of Mumbai Decentralised Private Sector Initiative Cross-Subsidy to house the Urban Poor

Slum Upgrading Program

Adopted Slum Reconstruction Strategy

Slum Redevelopment Scheme

Slum Redevelopment Scheme

1995

1991

1971 Slum Improvement Program

1985

1950s Slum Clearance Program

Sites and Services Program

(Mukhija, 2001)

Prime Minister’s Grant Project

Restrictions on the developers; 1. FAR (Floor Area Ratio) - 2.5 2. Profit Capped at 15%

Further Deregulation (FAR and Profit Limits) to attract developers Formation of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) as the monitoring body for all slum redevelopment projects

Shift in the Development Discourse - Participation gaining popularity “The institutional monopoly of government over the lives of the urban poor had to give away to institutional pluralism, whereby multiple institutions ranging from private firms to community groups, faith based organizations to political parties, governmental institutions to non-governmental organizations, could operate freely pursuing varying strategies to reach the urban poor.” (Sanyal et. al, 2000)

“First, there was a deliberate attempt to make housing policies more market friendly, encouraging market agents to be more involved in housing delivery. And second, there was almost a worldwide effort to engage civil society and its institutions, such as community groups and Non Governmental Organizations, in the housing delivery process.” (Mukhija, 2001)

“In such expectations about NGOs, they were viewed mainly as “catalytic agents”, helping to build synergistic relationships between poor communities and various institutions, private and public.” (Mukhija, 2001)

Current Scenario There is still a gap in the participatory approach as most displaced slum-dwellers are not consulted on the relocation plans. The new locations are often, unsuitable for living because of high levels of pollution or proximity to landďŹ ll sites used for waste dumping.

https://www.groundxero.in/2018/12/11/evicted-slum-residents-take-out-rally-in-mumbai-demanding-right-to-housing-on-intl-human-rights-day/

Stakeholder Conflicts - Perspectives “By March 2000, however, only 3,486 units had been built for housing the slum dwellers through the SRS. Conflicts were still responsible for delays.” (Times of India, 2000) In a redevelopment project within Dharavi, “Even though the various conflicts delayed project completion, ultimately the same conflicts helped the project beneficiaries receive more benefit than originally intended by the project designers. In other words, institutional conflict does not always adversely affect the poor. It can, under certain circumstances, lead to innovative institutional transformations, increasing the poor's’ access to social resources.” (Sanyal et. al, 2001)

“The process was messy, with complicated construction projects that ran over budget and over schedule, generating conflict and opportunism along the way, and yielding housing for fewer than 250 households. But understanding the larger achievement means going beyond the houses actually built to the learning acquired along the way, the innovations experimented with, the relationships forged and drawn on, the legal, financial and design precedents set, and the inclusion of people who would normally have been left out of these projects.” (Patel et. al, 2017)

Case Studies 1.

Markandeya Housing Project in Dharavi Mumbai;

“Despite the challenges, disputes and breakdown in leadership, the project showed it was possible for an NGO–grassroots partnership to work with communities of the poor even in the context of a large government programme. The Alliance’s evolving role was to provide a flexible, responsive interface between the needs of its members and the government perception of those needs, negotiating workable solutions.” (Patel et. al, 2017 )

2.

Relocation of slums because of the MUTP (Mumbai Urban Transportation Project);

“AROUND 60,000 PEOPLE were resettled in just over a year without any municipal or police force, although the need for rapid implementation meant that it was not possible to have permanent accommodation ready for all those who moved. As in the 1999 resettlements, sites were developed which had permanent buildings (small apartments of around 225 square feet in four- to seven-storey buildings) and “transit accommodation” (Patel et. al, 2002)

Tentative Stakeholder Network Responsibilities can be classiďŹ ed into; 1.

2.

3.

4.

Social Financial Construction-related Administrative

Community Based Organization

Financing Institutions

NGO

Government Agency/ Local Govt.

Research Institutes

Conflict Resolution Body

Higher Levels of Government

Private Developer

Tentative Conclusion 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Dharavi and many other older slums in Mumbai sits on prime real estate in the centre of the Mumbai metropolitan region and a few hundreds metres away from Bandra-Kurla Complex, the new financial centre of Mumbai. This is the reason for the increased interest of stakeholders and hence rise in conflicts. (Echanove et. al, 2010) There may be overlaps of stakeholder roles and policies should ensure elimination of conflict of interests (eg; The NGO can be the developer too) A clear and legally binding definition of stakeholder responsibilities will help minimise conflict in slum redevelopment projects.

Flexibility of key stakeholders is vital for the effective implementation of the project.

Self-Enumeration (survey by the community) with NGO/expert monitoring can help communities become more cohesive. ”They are active, generative and self-defining practices that, through their repeated use and improvement, become part of the political self-consciousness of these communities, reminding their members that their communities are greater than themselves.” (Appadurai, 2012) Political party in power and the one in opposition should work on the housing policies together so that each time the government changes, the continuity of projects do not get affected.

Further Question The ‘cut-off date’ concept for eligibility of households is exclusionary, but without it the influx of migrants will uncontrollably increase. How can slum redevelopment policies be made inclusive without encouraging an influx of migrants?

Broader Scope Exclusionary policy environments are present in almost all developing contexts.

Understanding stakeholder politics and dynamics can enable the civil society to engage eectively in dialogue with the government and other stakeholders.

Lessons from Mumbai can be useful in other cities if contextualised. The Stakeholder Framework for Slum Redevelopment, once developed can be modiďŹ ed for a city similar to Mumbai in terms of population, density, form of government and real estate market.

Image Source; https://www.archdaily.com/900023/social-inequality-as-seen-from-the-sky/5b6da675f197cc4b620001e7-social-inequality-as-seen-from-the-sky-photo?next_project=no

References Appadurai, A. (2014). “Deep democracy: Urban governmentality and the horizon of politics”: Environment and urbanization (2001). Cities of the Global South Reader, 13(2), 242–247 Mukhija, V. (2001). Enabling slum redevelopment in Mumbai: Policy paradox in practice. Housing Studies, 16(6), 791–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673030120090548.

Sanyal, B., & Mukhija, V. (2001). Institutional pluralism and housing delivery: A case of unforeseen conflicts in Mumbai, India. World Development, 29(12), 2043–2057. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(01)00082-1 Subbaraman, R., O’brien, J., Shitole, T., Shitole, S., Sawant, K., Bloom, D. E., & Patil-Deshmukh, A. (2012). Off the map: The health and social implications of being a non-notified slum in India. Environment and Urbanization, 24(2), 643–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247812456356 Patel, S., & Bartlett, S. (2017). II : Three construction projects that advanced the learning and credibility of the Indian Alliance. 28(1), 495–514. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247816644399 Patel, S., d’Cruz, C., & Burra, S. (2002). Beyond evictions in a global city: People-managed resettlement in Mumbai. Environment and Urbanization, 14(1), 159–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/095624780201400113 Matias Echanove & Rahul Srivastava. (2010). The High Rise & The Slum: Speculative Urban Development in Mumbai.

Patel, S., & Arputham, J. (2007). An offer of partnership or a promise of conflict in Dharavi, Mumbai? Environment and Urbanization, 19(2), 501–508. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247807082832 Appadurai, A. (2012). Why enumeration counts. Environment and Urbanization, 24(2), 639–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956247812447511 Programme, U. I. (2006.). Slums : Some Definitions Slums : Neither Bricks nor Mortar , Non-Durable Housing. 3–4.

Arnstein, S. R., & Arnstein, S. R. (2007). A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. 8991(1969). https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Thank you! :)