Get documents about "Slum Upgrading - UN-HABITAT
Shared by: xiuliliaofz
-
Stats
- views:
- 122
- posted:
- 7/28/2011
- language:
- English
- pages:
- 25
Document Sample
SLUM UPGRADING AND PREVENTION IN
ASIA-PACIFIC
PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES
THEMATIC PAPER
ASIA-PACIFIC MINISTERIAL CONFERENCE ON
HOUSING AND HUMAN SETTLEMENTS (APMCHHS)
NEW DELHI, 13-16 DECEMBER 2006
by
Selman Ergüden and Rasmus Precht1
1
With contributions from Mohamed Halfani, Lucia Kiwala, Prof. Om Prakash Mathur, Toshiyasu Noda,
Markandey Rai and Vasudevan Suresh.
1. The state of slums in Asia-Pacific1
Today, slum dwellers live primarily in the cities of Africa, Asia, Latin America and
Pacific, although a smaller number also live in cities of the developed world. Over the
past decades, there has been an unprecedented growth of slums in Asia-Pacific. In
absolute numbers, Asia has the largest share of the world‘s slum population – in 2005,
the region was home to more than half the world‘s total slum population, or almost 592
million people.2
Map 1:
1.1. Intra-regional differences3
Slum definition
The term ―slum‖4, often used interchangeably with other terms, including ―informal
settlement‖, ―squatter settlement‖ and ―unplanned neighbourhood‖, has not been linked
to specific indicators regularly reported on by governments and stakeholder
organizations. Slums are conceptually complex and methodologically elusive, and
different cultures and countries define the physical and social attributes of slums
differently. While acknowledging this diversity and the fact that slums take many
different forms and names, UN-HABITAT, the United Nations Statistical Division and
the Cities Alliance in 2002 agreed upon an operational slum definition based on the
household as the basic unit of analysis and five measurable shelter deprivation indicators:
“A slum household is a group of individuals living under the same roof in an urban area
who lack one or more of the following five conditions: Access to water; access to
sanitation; secure tenure; durability of housing; sufficient living area”.5
2
This definition and methodology represent a compromise between theoretical and
methodological considerations. It is simple, operational and pragmatic: it can be easily
understood and adapted by governments and other partners; it offers clear, measurable
indicators, provided as a proxy to capture some of the essential attributes of slums; and it
uses household-level data that is collected on a regular basis by governments,
development agencies and non-governmental organizations, which is accessible and
available in most parts of the world.6
Asia-Pacific is a geographically vast and diverse region stretching across more than half
the globe. Thus, the physical and visible manifestations of housing that lacks basic
services, space and security take many forms, resulting in diverse types of slums, referred
to by different names depending on localities and cultures: Chawls, Shanties, Adugbo
Atiyo, Katchi Abadis, Gecekondus, etc.
Slums in Asia-Pacific thus range from crowded and dilapidated tenements to mud-and-tin
shacks; they can be inner-city tenements in cities in developed countries, shanty towns on
the periphery of large cities or densely packed neighbourhoods bordering high-income
areas in developing countries. Individual households located in high- or middle-income
neighbourhoods may also fit the definition of slums. Not all slums are as easily
distinguishable or visible as the shanty towns cramped together on the periphery of cities
such as Mumbai. In some places, slums are less visible to the eye: dwellings may look
durable or permanent from the outside, but living conditions inside the dwelling may
portray another picture. For instance, many multi-storey public housing projects at the
periphery of urban cores or old, dilapidated buildings in inner cities, especially if
overcrowded, could qualify as slums if they have been neglected or ill-serviced for
significant periods of time, as would many workers‘ hostels or dormitories. Such places
typically do not look like slums, but if their residents experience at least one form of
shelter deprivation or insecure tenure, then, according to the UN definition, these
residents qualify as slum dwellers.
Unequal regional distribution of slum dwellers
Asia-Pacific is highly heterogeneous when it comes to slum presence across sub-regions7
and countries: In 2005, Eastern and South-Central Asia harboured 499 million slum
dwellers, which was 84 per cent of the total number of slum dwellers in the region, with
South-Central Asia alone hosting 48 per cent. On the other extreme was Western Asia
with 6 per cent of the region‘s slum dwellers. However, this has to be seen in relation to
the total populations in these sub-regions: With China and India, Eastern and South-
Central Asia include the two most populous countries in the world (together: 2,3 billion
people) that have significant proportions of their urban populations living in slum
conditions8 whereas Western Asia has a population of only 175 million.
3
Map 2: Urban and slum growth rates and proportions in Asia
Source: UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World‘s Cities
Varying slum prevalence
A number of countries in Asia-Pacific have very high proportions of their urban
populations living in slums whereas others have negligible slum prevalence. From the 72
Asian-Pacific countries and territories for which data of 2001 was available to UN-
HABITAT9, six countries had slum prevalence of more than two thirds: in Afghanistan
(98 per cent) and Nepal (92 per cent) only a small fraction of urban residents are non-
slum dwellers; the situation in Bangladesh (85 per cent), Pakistan (74 per cent),
Cambodia (72 per cent) and Fiji (68 per cent) was not much better. Other countries with
more than half of their urban dwellers living in slums included India, Mongolia, Iraq,
Yemen, Oman, Lao, Lebanon and the three central Asian former Soviet Republics
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Western-Asia was the most heterogeneous sub-
region with nine countries where the slum incidence was less than 10 per cent and five
countries where it was more than 50 per cent of their total urban population. While in
most of the Pacific Islands, the slum population accounted for almost one-fourth of the
urban population, high concentrations of slum dwellers could be found, besides Fiji, in
Kiribati in Micronesia (55.7 per cent); in the Melanesia Islands of Vanuatu (37 per cent);
and in Papua New Guinea (19 per cent).10 The OECD countries in the region had low
slum incidences, mainly due to dilapidated residential buildings and/or overcrowded
tenements, albeit mostly located in planned areas.11
4
1.2. Reasons for slum proliferation and prevalent living conditions in slums
The most fundamental reason for the existence of slums in Asia-Pacific, like in other
regions, is poverty. Urbanisation is taking place at a fast rate12, and is either accompanied
by inadequate economic development or an uneven distribution of the benefits of
economic growth.13 Simply put, economic development policies in many Asian-Pacific
countries have failed to cope with both overall national population growth and rapid
urbanisation, resulting in the so called ‗over urbanisation‘.
The other major reason is the lack of effective urban and housing policies. When cities do
not plan for the shelter needs of their growing populations, the poor simply build their
own housing, often on vacant land that does not belong to them, or on environmentally
dangerous land, and without regard to planning and building standards. Many countries in
the region have ineffective urban governance, land use planning and housing policies. As
one of the consequences, slum dwellers are often faced with insecurity of tenure and
vulnerability to forced evictions that are still widely practiced. The threat of eviction
constitutes a real impediment to improvement of living conditions aggravating the
vicious circle of poverty14. When slum communities are under threat of eviction and/or in
cases of eviction and relocation, women are more likely to suffer from intimidation and
violence, inadequate sanitary conditions in resettlement sites, and the loss of income due
to the distant location and the related high costs of transportation.15
In general, vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, i.e. women, children, the elderly,
indigenous peoples, refugees, internally displaced persons, and persons with disabilities,
suffer most from the inadequate living conditions in slums. Especially inadequate
sanitation affects women and children more than men.16 In urban slum areas, HIV/AIDS
has been found to be more prevalent than in rural areas. Particularly women living in
urban areas are more likely to contract HIV than their rural counterparts. The high
prevalence of HIV/AIDS in slums in Asia-Pacific is often attributed to poverty, illiteracy,
political and social repression, exploitation, crime and unemployment. Persons living
with HIV/AIDS, AIDS orphans, widows and family members having to look after AIDS
patients belong to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups and urgently require improved
access to housing, water, sanitation, education, treatment and support to fight
HIV/AIDS.17 HIV/AIDS can severely aggravate the already marginalized situation of
slum households if policies and practices do not guarantee tenure security to those
directly or indirectly affected by the pandemic, especially women and children.18
As shown in Diagramme 1, in Asia slums are primarily the consequence of only one
shelter deprivation, reflecting fewer problems than particularly in sub-Saharan Africa.
Therefore, governments could tackle the slum problem with simple sectoral interventions
to improve the living conditions of slum dwellers and their access to secure tenure. For
instance, in many sub-regions, one of the main shelter deprivations identified is lack of
access to adequate sanitation; by addressing this shelter deprivation, countries can
drastically reduce the number of slum dwellings.
5
Diagramme 1:
Slum Population by Number of Shelter Deprivations, by Sub-
Region (in 2001)
4.5
South Asia (59%
65.8 29.6
slum prevalence)
One
5.1
South-eastern Two
Asia (28% slum 73.9 20.4
Three
prevalence)
Four
6.3
Western Asia
(25.7% slum 76.7 15.6
prevalence)
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0 120.0
Source: UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World‘s Cities
2. MDG Target 11 in Asia-Pacific
2.1. Implications of Target 11 for the region
With the adoption of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in September 2000 19,
Heads of States and Governments of the UN Member States have brought the slum
challenge to the centre stage of the global development agenda, notably under MDG 7
―Ensure Environmental Sustainability‖, Target 11: “to have achieved, by 2020, a
significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers”. However,
knowing that around 1 billion people live in slums today and that about 400 million
additional slum dwellers will add to the existing ones by 2020 if policies remain
unchanged, this target appears very modest. In order to have a wider reach and to
harmonize Target 11 with most other MDG targets, UN-HABITAT advocated for a more
ambitious target, ―to halve, between 1990 and 2020, the proportion of slum dwellers, in
urban areas‖.20
This was reflected in the resolution of the 2005 UN Summit that re-articulated the initial
Target 11 and allocated to prevention an importance equal to upgrading: “In pursuance
of our commitment to achieve sustainable development, we further resolve: To achieve
significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum-dwellers by 2020,
recognizing the urgent need for the provision of increased resources for affordable
housing and housing-related infrastructure, prioritizing slum prevention and slum
upgrading...”.21
6
The United Nations system assigned UN-HABITAT the responsibility of assisting
Member States to monitor progress and gradually attain Target 11.22 While asking the
UN system to support the implementation of this declaration, the Millennium Project has
put the responsibility to achieve this objective firstly on national governments.
Diagramme 2:
Projected Urban Slum Population in Asia-Pacific 1990-2020
Urban slum population
900 if no policy change
800 818
758
700
592 Urban slum
Million Slum Dwellers
600 population, Target 11
(improvement of 100m
500 431 world-wide)
427
400
Urban slum
300 population, modified
Target 11 (reducing
200 proportion by 50%)
100
0
1990 2005 2020
Source: UN-HABITAT State of the World's Cities Report 2006
In 2001, the world had 913 million slum dwellers. Improving the lives of 100 million
would then touch just a little over one out of ten slum dwellers. Translating this
proportion approach into the Asian-Pacific context would mean the following:23
considering that in 2001 the number of slum dwellers in the region was 534 million, the
lives of at least 53 million people already living in slums would have to be improved.
However, in the same period, the number of slum dwellers in Asia-Pacific has increased
by 58 million (to 592 million in total in 2005). If no slum improvements were carried out
in the period 2001-2020, approximately 226 million new slum dwellers are expected to
add to the existing slum population during this period. Therefore, a higher (and more
credible) figure should be targeted for upgrading while developing alternative solutions
to prevent the additional urban poor from living in slum conditions.
Such an expansion of Target 11 would also come closer to the operationalization of a
rights-based approach to housing. All slum dwellers - and not only 100 million - have the
right to adequate housing, as an essential element of the right to an adequate standard of
living, which is enshrined in many international human rights instruments24 and
reaffirmed in the Habitat Agenda.
7
The UN Millennium Project has estimated that the global cost of improving the lives of
100 million slum dwellers will be U$67 billion, i.e. U$670 per person on average.
Improving the living conditions of the Asian-Pacific ―share‖ of the targeted 100 million
slum dwellers by 2020 would thus cost U$35 billion. Based on the assumption that the
cost per person for adequate alternatives to slum formation is in the same range, the cost
of decent settlement for the anticipated 226 million new poor will be in the order of
U$151 billion. Reaching Target 11 in Asia-Pacific and preventing all new slum formation
will cost an estimated U$186 billion. This may look daunting but if stretched over the
next 14 years, this comes down to an annual U$13 billion.25
2.2. Progress towards reaching Target 11 in Asia-Pacific
2.2.1. Country analysis26
UN-HABITAT has assessed the performance of a number of low-income, lower/middle,
and upper/middle income countries throughout the world between 1990 and 2005 in
improving the lives of slum dwellers and reducing slum growth rates to construct a global
scorecard on slums. Countries are found to be doing well if they have managed to reduce
or reverse slum growth rates and if, at the same time, they have succeeded in keeping the
proportion of slum dwellers at relatively low levels.27 Among the countries analysed by
UN-HABITAT are 27 Asian countries (see Slum Scorecard map).
Although many countries in this region have seen economic growth, little has trickled
down to yield reduction in urban poverty and only a few countries have made significant
improvements. In sub-regional terms, slum growth rates have been highest in Western
Asia and South-Central Asia where urbanisation is almost synonymous with slum
growth.
Map 3: “Slum Scorecard”: a look at Target 11 country performance in Asia28
Source: UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World‘s Cities 2006/7
8
Amongst the countries reviewed, only three Asian countries are “on track”, i.e.
experiencing rapid, sustained decline in slum growth rates in urban areas and/or have low
slum prevalence:
Thailand presents the biggest Asian success story: with -18.8 per cent, it has seen the
sharpest decline in slum growth rates among all developing countries, and it has
reduced slum prevalence from 19.5 in 1990 to 0.9 per cent in 2005. Sri Lanka,
following decades of social investment, notably in affordable housing delivery, has
reduced its slum prevalence from 25 to 11 per cent and ranks among the top
performers not only in the region but also worldwide. Georgia has decreased its slum
incidence by two-thirds.
Six Asian countries are “stabilizing”, i.e. starting to stabilise or reverse slum growth
rates but still in need to monitor progress to ensure sustained reductions:
Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan and the Philippines have made fairly good progress in
basic service provision to the urban poor, reflected in low to almost stable slum
growth rates; yet, slum prevalence and need for ever more adequate housing and basic
services are still high in most of these countries. Myanmar, too, has a stabilizing
slum situation.
Slum growth in Turkey declined radically between 1990 and 2001, from 23.3 per
cent to 17.9 per cent, primarily because of an effective policy of decentralization,
which empowered the municipal governments to borrow directly from international
financial institutions to build or upgrade water and sanitation networks.
Ten Asian countries are “at risk”, i.e. experiencing moderate to high slum growth rates
but also having moderate incidence of slums that require remedial policies to reverse
slum growth:
Half of them are located in Western Asia and have had higher annual slum growth
rates than the rest of Asia: Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Syria have
witnessed sustained annual growth in the number of slum dwellers (between 2.5 and 4
per cent). This shows that slum growth is not confined to lower-income countries, but
also extends to middle-income and high-income countries that experienced a drop in
economic performance in the 1990s. Some of these countries have in recent years also
been engulfed in political turmoil that has exacerbated the refugee crisis and
worsened conditions in their cities.
Bhutan, India, Mongolia and Viet Nam have brought their slum growth rates down
to between 0.7 and 1.7 per cent) and managed to reduce their respective slum
prevalence, but these still remain at high levels (between 37 and 64 per cent)
highlighting the need for more adequate housing and basic services.
China, despite impressive policy interventions and a tangible reduction in slums, still
has a relatively large slum population (36 per cent) and too high an annual growth
rate (3.3 per cent).29
Eight Asian countries are “off track”, i.e. they have high slum proportions, face rapid,
sustained slum growth rates and require immediate, urgent action to slow down or reverse
slum trends:
9
Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Nepal,
Oman and Yemen all continue to have high slum growth rates (between 4.3 and 6.4
per cent) and alarmingly high large proportions of slum dwellers (60 – 98 per cent).
The total sum populations an all the countries more than doubled in 15 years.
Afghanistan and Nepal, both influenced by conflict, are faring the worst with less
than 10 per cent of their urban populations as non-slum residents. However,
Cambodia – and also Lao People‘s Democratic Republic- have recently initiated slum
prevention policies that might be able to curb slum growth.
Pakistan has performed somewhat better with a slum growth rate of 2.7 per cent and
a modest reduction in slum prevalence (from 79 to 72 per cent).
The mostly Small Island developing states of Oceania with about 8 million people have
not been part of this analysis. In general, the region is off track for nearly every MDG,
and falling back in some areas. Even where there is progress, it is too slow to achieve
Target 11. In the Pacific Islands, slums have been growing and it is expected that this
trend will continue in coming years, particularly in Kiribati and Fiji due to accelerated
urbanization. This will exacerbate the incapacity of local authorities to provide basic
services to meet the growing needs of an expanding population, especially considering
that both countries are facing serious problems of weak local revenue generation and
increased budget deficits, compounded with the difficulties generated by natural
disasters, civil unrest and political disturbance.30
2.2.2. Sub-regional analysis according to the five shelter deprivation indicators31
There are vast differences across Asia-Pacific with some sub-regions having made little
progress or even experienced reversals in slum growth rates. From 1990 to 2003, the
following progress has been made in the four Asian MDG-regions:32
Improving the life of slum dwellers through access to safe water33
Diagramme 3:
Proportion of urban households with access to safe
water source (1990-2003)
100
98 Eastern Asia
96
Southern Asia
94
92
South-Eastern
90
Asia
88
Western Asia
86
84
1990 1993 1998 2000 2003
In most sub-regions of Asia, over 90 per cent of urban households have access to a safe
water source, with the exception of a few countries, particularly Cambodia (58 per cent)
10
and Lao PDR (66 per cent). The most impressive gains in access to improved water
sources were made in South-Central Asia‘s cities fuelled primarily by increased coverage
in India from 88 per cent in 1990 to 96 per cent in 2003.
Improving the life of slum dwellers through access to sanitation34
Diagramme 4:
Proportion of urban households with access to improved
sanitation (1990-2003)
120
Eastern Asia
100
80 South Asia
60
South-eastern
40 Asia
20 Western Asia
0
1990 1993 1998 2000 2003
Asia has made major progress on the provision of improved sanitation in cities. South-
Eastern Asia experienced the highest growth in improved sanitation coverage, increasing
from 67 to 79 per cent. South-Central Asia‘s coverage is also among the highest, with an
increase of 12 percentage points, although it started with the lowest baseline in Asia – 54
per cent in 1990. Growth in Eastern Asia was rather moderate, increasing from 64 to 69
per cent, owing in large part to the increase in China and Mongolia‘s largest cities. In
Western Asia, coverage was quasi-universal in 1990, at 96 per cent, but since then, it has
been difficult for countries to reach the poorest of the poor. In some of the middle-income
countries of the sub-region, a great deal of the infrastructure is in place, but much of it is
in poor condition and does not function reliably.
Improving the life of slum dwellers through better housing durability35
Diagramme 5:
Proportion of urban households with finished main floor
materials (2003)
Eastern Asia 98.4
Western Asia 96.4
South-eastern Asia 93.6
South Asia 84.8
75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0 100.0
11
Access to finished main floor materials is used as a proxy for housing durability. In 2003,
one-fifth of the slum population in the region lacked durable housing – a proportion that
may be higher, considering that these estimates do not include information about other
construction variables, such as walls and roofs. Throughout the region, advances in
housing durability have been less conspicuous than in other developing regions. South-
Central Asia is clearly lagging behind the other sub-regions, with the largest proportions
of non-permanent structures in Bangladesh, Nepal and Pakistan (one-third of urban
households), India (one-tenth), and Afghanistan where housing and physical
infrastructure in most cities need to be rebuilt after the war.
Improving the life of slum dwellers through sufficient living space36
Diagramme 6
Proportion of urban households with sufficient living area
(2003)
Eastern Asia 91.5
Western Asia 91.1
South-eastern Asia 73.1
South Asia 65.0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Sufficient living area is poorly reported in the region, so determining the actual incidence
of overcrowding for the region is difficult. However, some trends are beginning to
emerge. South-Central Asia has the highest prevalence of overcrowding in the developing
world, with a third of its urban population residing in houses that lack sufficient living
area, followed by South-Eastern Asia where over a quarter of the urban population lives
in overcrowded housing.37 Overall, most of the cities in Asia are facing growing trends
toward overcrowding.
Improving the life of slum dwellers through secure tenure38
Security of tenure cannot, in and of itself, solve the problem of homelessness, poverty,
unsafe living environments and inadequate housing. However, secure tenure is one of the
most essential elements of a successful shelter strategy. The launch of UN-HABITAT‘s
Global Campaign for Secure Tenure was an opportunity to confirm political will and
commitment by all stakeholders, including the slum dwellers themselves. Already such
commitments have been made in a number of countries where the campaign has been
launched such as Cambodia (pre-launch), India, the Philippines and Thailand. However,
it has been difficult to establish direct links between the Campaign and subsequent
national or local developments on the issue of secure tenure.39
12
Despite such political commitments by a number of governments, ―forced evictions are
on the rise world-wide‖40 as recent mass evictions of slum dwellers carried out in some
cities (e.g. Jakarta41, Karachi42, Manila43, Mumbai44, Phnom Penh45) show. This trend
suggests that security of tenure is becoming increasingly precarious in cities where
evictions are often carried out to make room for large-scale infrastructure, commercial
development by the private sector, or city ―beautification‖ programmes.
3. Lessons learnt and challenges
3.1. Lessons learnt
From the review of relevant reports, evaluations and policy statements made at various
forums (such as the sessions of the Governing Council of UN-HABITAT, sessions of the
World Urban Forum), UN-HABITAT‘s publications, publications of the World Bank and
Cities Alliance, and UN-HABITAT‘s own project reviews in the region, it was found that
the countries and cities that have already achieved good results or are, at least, on the
right track, have in common a number of features. They have:
Conducted decisive actions based on a clear vision and a resolute political will and
have put the objective of slum upgrading and prevention very high in their national
priorities, often as a privileged means to combat poverty;
Set national and city targets and engaged communities and local authorities in the
design, implementation, financing and monitoring of slum upgrading, thus concretely
translating good governance principles;
Scaled up projects to large scale programmes at city and country levels facing up
to a double challenge – that of upgrading existing slums and preventing future slums;
Allocated adequate financial resources to slum upgrading and prevention and
facilitated sustainable financing through innovative ways of raising domestic
investment;
Provided security of tenure to informal dwellers as the overarching condition for
success and sustainability; and
Implemented progressive policy reforms to facilitate the setting up of proper urban
planning land regulation systems; the provision of affordable and accessible land and
housing; the improved coverage of water supply and sanitation services; appropriate
institutional frameworks; and - overall – equitable economic policies.
In the following, some of the most crucial issues regarding these successful
practices/policies are elaborated in more detail.46 Furthermore, see boxes in Annex for
concrete and detailed examples of successful slum upgrading and prevention.
Political will/commitment towards slum upgrading and prevention
It is widely accepted that political will in responding to the reality of slums is pivotal in
mobilizing commitment to help the urban poor to gain access to adequate shelter,
livelihoods and services. Thailand stands out among the countries that demonstrated
consistent political commitment over the years to large-scale slum upgrading and service
provision for the urban poor. These countries are the same ones that have been most
successful in reducing or stabilizing slum growth rates in the last 15 years. Other
13
countries like Indonesia and the Philippines, while showing considerable political
determination, were ranked slightly lower due to the political upheavals of the last two
decades that have somewhat undermined slum improvement efforts.
More moderate political support in other countries appears to have held back
governments‘ performance in achieving the kind of turnaround in slum numbers seen in
the top-performing countries, where political commitment was consistently stronger.
At the other end of the spectrum, a number of countries have shown weak political
support for slum upgrading and urban poverty reduction. In some cases, there may be
declared political intention but there is limited evidence to suggest follow-up support
through clear policies, programmes and allocation of public funds; implementation is also
usually weak.47 Afghanistan and Bangladesh are among the countries that appear not to
strongly prioritize shelter and services for the urban poor. Afghanistan has yet to fully
develop and implement its new urban strategy. The National Urban Programme is the
Third Pillar of the Afghanistan Development Forum 2005 and is intended to focus on
upgrading the living conditions of households in under-serviced informal settlements.
Understandably, countries such as Afghanistan that are emerging from conflict have been
less able to mobilize the institutions and political support required for slum upgrading, as
the focus is usually on building the capacity of institutions and governance structures that
were destroyed or failed to perform during the conflict. Hence in Afghanistan, one of the
top priorities of the new government is to build the capacities of institutions and to
rebuild destroyed infrastructure, rather than improve the lives of slum dwellers per se.
Overall, with a greater willingness to improve slums over the last few years, more and
more governments are taking a more enlightened view towards the urban poor and are
increasingly recognizing the ―right to the city‖ of slum dwellers. Nevertheless,
commitment to slum upgrading can be a fickle thing. A well-meaning government that
today shows firm support through new pro-poor legislation, a major land titling push for
the urban poor, or a reinvigorated national upgrading programme, could tomorrow
authorize evictions of the very same communities it sought to help (as for example in the
cities of Jakarta and Mumbai).48
At times, the balancing act becomes a hard one to maintain. In the face of mounting
pressures to make their cities more competitive or to respond to the demand for high- and
middle-income housing or commercial interests, authorities can often slip back to policies
and measures that once again exclude the city‘s poor – and, in the most extreme cases,
revert to some of the worst types of evictions and demolitions experienced in their
history.
Political commitment towards slum upgrading and prevention requires consistency so
that long-term support for slum upgrading can be mobilized. Since 2003, the Government
of Thailand has been implementing programmes for the construction of homes for one
million low-income households in partnership with commercial and public banks. This
commitment is a continuation of almost three decades of attention to low-income
housing, going back to 1977 when the National Housing Authority (NHA) was given the
responsibility for it and carried on as the umbrella body for slum upgrading. Such long-
14
term support for low-cost shelter and slum upgrading has undoubtedly contributed to
Thailand‘s extraordinary success in improving living conditions in slums – the slum
growth rate has fallen by an average 18.8 per cent per year since 1990.
Another indication of strong political commitment for slum improvement is the inclusion
of upgrading and urban poverty reduction policies in the national development agenda.
This has led to prioritizing the urban sector and slum upgrading within national budgets
and macro-economic frameworks. As part of Jordan’s National Strategy for Eliminating
Poverty and Unemployment, adopted in 1998, a major new upgrading programme was
launched. It focuses on improving living and environmental conditions, as well as
promoting employment opportunities and vocational training. It resulted in 29 new sites
being upgraded, which helped to improve living conditions for some 327,000 residents.49
Pro-poor reforms on slum upgrading and prevention
Increasingly, a number of countries are offering pragmatically designed tenure rights
based on a spectrum of formal and informal legal arrangements, ranging from formal
titling to customary rights of tenure. In parallel, these countries are trying to ensure an
adequate supply of well-located, affordable serviced land that can increase the housing
supply in the future and prevent the growth of new slums. They are attempting to make
the land market work better by removing or reducing the legal and administrative rules
and regulations of both central and local governments; this includes establishing a
simpler land registration process, increased flexibility in approved building materials and
standards, and reduced minimum plot sizes and infrastructure standards. Through land-
use planning and zoning, more progressive local authorities are taking action to increase
land supply for future low-income housing and economic activities. Better performing
countries are also increasing investments in water and sanitation and establishing pro-
poor policies and reforms in the sectors, allowing basic services to be provided at rates
affordable to the poor through appropriate design and innovative structures of tariffs and
subsidies.
The performance of Asian countries in carrying forward major pro-poor reforms and
programmes in land and housing provision has also been generally good. In India,
national policy guidelines on housing are being finalized, drawing on the Urban Land
Ceilings and Regularization Act from the 1970s, which allowed municipalities to set
aside land for the shelter needs of the urban poor. Individual states and cities have
undertaken innovations such as the use of transferable development rights to free up land
for low-income housing. In 1996, India‘s Slum Rehabilitation Act allowed state
authorities to offer land development rights to slum and pavement dwellers.
India is also implementing reforms that go beyond the housing sector, but which have
the potential to significantly improve the lives of slum dwellers. India‘s five-year
development plan aims to promote universal coverage of water supply and sanitation. In
pursuit of this goal, several central government-sponsored schemes and programmes have
been implemented. Under this programme, by the end of the first quarter of 2005, a total
of 5 million sanitation units were constructed. Similarly, the National Slum Development
Programme (NSDP) looks specifically into upgrading of urban slums by combining
15
physical infrastructure with social services, including water supply, community latrines,
storm water drainage, community bathrooms, sewers and other amenities. The
government has also recently launched a new programme – the Jawaharlal Nehru
National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) – that aims to bring about mandatory
reforms both at State and municipal levels to improve basic service provision and secure
tenure in urban poor neighbourhoods. The programme, the single largest national
government initiative in the urban sector, was launched in December 2005 and is to be
implemented over a period of 7 years. The programme‘s special components include
water supply and sanitation, sewerage and solid waste management, construction, and
improvement of drains and storm water drainage. However, because of massive backlogs
in housing and basic services, and because of high levels of urbanization, these important
programmes may prove insufficient in the face of the huge challenges that they need to
address, particularly with regard to annual slum growth rates that are estimated to be 1.72
per cent per annum.
In Sri Lanka, the provision of housing has been considered a major priority by
successive governments since independence in 1948. In 1977, the government ventured
into significant and ambitious attempts to increase the housing stock in the country and
increase home ownership. A distinct and separate authority, the National Housing
Development Authority, was established to implement and promote mass housing
programmes such as the One Hundred Thousand Housing Programme and the One
Million Housing Programme, and provide long-term subsidized loans for new
developments and upgrading activities. In 1994, it focused its attention on high density
housing in urban areas. In view of increasing land scarcity, the government decided to
stop slum upgrading and initiate a programme to relocate slum and shanty dwellers in
apartments built by the government. The Indian Ocean tsunami of December 2004 had a
deep impact on housing in the country‘s coastal towns, but the government‘s
commitment to rebuild houses and communities has remained unaltered, which bodes
well for the island nation‘s prospects for recovery.
Cities in Thailand have adopted different kinds of innovative land-use mechanisms.
Local context-specific solutions are designed with close guidance from government,
community groups and NGOs. In the 1980s the ministry of finance reorganized the
Government Housing Bank, which is now a leading institution in Thailand‘s housing
finance system. It has improved housing affordability in the country and enabled large
sections of the population to buy houses. In the past seven years, the economy of
Thailand has grown at a rate of more than 8 per cent per annum. Since public sector
housing has become very common, the private sector has had led to lower the costs of
housing, which is making housing affordable to the majority. The private housing market
has also developed its operations effectively and offers the lowest lending rates in the
market, challenging other financial institutions to lower their interest rates in order to
compete for business.
Dealing with slums in a centralized or decentralized approach?
As shown above, the pattern seems to be: the stronger the political commitment by
national government to slum improvement, the more significant the progress in reducing
16
the growth of slums. However, while national governments‘ political commitment seems
to be a prerequisite, political leadership at the city level is also vitally important in
driving slum improvement programmes and policies. In some countries, cities under
dynamic leaders have gone ahead with innovative citywide upgrading programmes
despite a lack of political and institutional support from the centre.50 But for the most
part, national governments have the power to make or break slum policies and
programmes – it is their political support, legislation, reforms and macro-economic
policies that create the overall environment and framework through which programmes
and policies can operate locally, as well as on a countrywide scale. Moreover,
decentralization to the local level of responsibilities in the areas of land management,
planning and housing delivery and finance – vital to slum upgrading and prevention - can
only be successful if backed by resource flows from the centre. Also, the capacity of local
governments in relation to the scale of the slum problem is a major factor for success.
3.2. Challenges in achieving Target 11 in Asia-Pacific
As mentioned earlier and as has become evident from the above analysis, the
performance of a number of Asian countries in carrying forward major pro-poor reforms
and programmes in land and housing provision has been encouraging. However, for such
slum prevention policies to have an impact on the ground there seems to be need for a
lapse in time. Generally, the replication and scaling up of successful initiatives in a
particular city to national level remains a serious challenge
The analysis has shown that meeting Target 11 is particularly difficult because of its
inherent complexities, the number of actors and their diversity, the pervasive effects at all
levels of inadequate policies, regulations and their enforcement and the need to find
solutions tailored to suit local conditions. The main constraints to meeting the challenge
in the region revolve around the following obstacles:
Legal, institutional and policy frameworks
Over-centralised administration: Formulation and implementation of the regulatory
framework for planning and land management is usually a national responsibility.
Central governments are reluctant to effectively decentralise functions. If
decentralization happens, the general lack of financial and human resources is a major
challenge.
Inadequate legal/regulatory frameworks and weak institutional arrangements without
clear allocation of responsibility lead to duplication, fragmentation, gaps, conflict and
counter-productive competition.
Unrealistic zoning regulations, unattainable standards, as well as complex and
unaffordable procedures obstruct delivery of housing, in general, and make access to
affordable housing, in particular, out of the reach of the poor. For example, unrealistic
spatial requirements (large plot sizes, wide roads and over dimensioned public places)
raise the unit cost of land, reduce densities, and force the urban poor into informal
settlements.
17
Tenure, land use planning and administration
An inefficient land administration makes land use planning, notably the appropriation
of land for provision of public services and for housing, difficult.
The existing land management systems do not adequately cater for diverse tenure
forms, including group and family tenures, are generally not gender friendly, often
lack transparency; and do not address land disputes effectively.
Urban governance
Lack of full recognition of slum dwellers‘ ―Right to the City‖ is a major hindrance to
efficient delivery of services.
Due to lack of capacity, local authorities often fail to proactively guide the
development of new (often informal) settlements or to contain at an early stage their
further growth and consolidation. Instead, they often resort to evictions and
demolition of slums which causes social and political unrest.
There is a shortage of qualified and experienced human resources, often exacerbated
by high staff turnover from central and local government institutions.
Financing urban development and housing
Housing and infrastructure finance mechanisms are often weak or focused rather on
higher and middle income groups. Local governments lack capacity to generate
sufficient and sustainable financial resources.
4. The way forward - recommended strategies for achieving Target 11 in Asia-
Pacific
Given the region‘s relatively high slum prevalence and slum growth rates, the immediate
steps toward meeting the - minimal - 53 million target by 2020 must be accompanied by
actions aimed at reducing the current rate of formation of new slums, that – if unaltered –
would lead to 226 million more slum dwellers in Asia-Pacific by 2020.
It is less costly both in economic, political, and social terms to prepare urban spaces
ahead of need than it is to attempt to catch up later. Slum upgrading efforts are reactions
to the factual situation on the ground and therefore their effectiveness is limited,
particularly with regard to the overall cities-without-slums target. Instead, fighting on two
fronts is required: upgrading of existing slums and prevention of new ones. To this end,
both adaptive and preventive strategies have to be applied simultaneously in addressing
the slum challenge in Asian-Pacific cities: firstly, a participatory approach to upgrading
of existing slums; and, secondly, adoption of urban policies designed to prevent the
emergence of new slums.
Adaptive strategies begin with policy reforms and practical measures to provide security
of tenure to the residents as a precondition to in situ upgrading. Where relocation must
take place, it is vital to do so through a negotiated approach, favouring community-led
initiatives to avoid conflicts, safeguard the livelihood of the poor and ensure
sustainability. Preventive action focuses on capacity-building and provision of affordable,
18
serviced land for housing and access to adapted financial resources. UN-HABITAT‘s
recommendations for a comprehensive approach are based on the following principles:51
DO DON’T
Promote good urban governance systems. Assume that slums will disappear automatically
with economic growth.
Establish enabling institutional frameworks Underestimate the role of local authorities,
involving all partners. landowners, community leaders and residents.
Implement and monitor pro-poor city Separate upgrading from investment planning
development strategies. and urban management.
Encourage initiatives of slum-dwellers and Ignore the specific needs and contributions of
recognize the role of women. women and vulnerable groups.
Ensure secure tenure, consolidate occupancy Carry out unlawful forced evictions.
rights and regularize informal settlements.
Involve tenants and owners in finding solutions Discriminate against rental housing or promote
prioritizing collective interests. a single tenure option.
Adopt an incremental approach to upgrading. Impose unrealistic standards and regulations.
Associate municipal finance, cross-subsidies and Rely on governmental subsidies or on full-cost
beneficiary contributions to ensure financial recovery from slum-dwellers.
viability.
Design and negotiate relocation plans only when Invest public resources in massive social
absolutely necessary. housing schemes.
Combine slum upgrading with employment Consider slum upgrading solely as a social
generation and local economic development. issue.
Develop new urban areas by making land and Provide unaffordable infrastructure and
trunk infrastructure available. services
19
Annex:
Examples of successful measures towards slum upgrading and prevention
implemented in countries in Asia-Pacific
The Baan Mankong Programme in Thailand
Thailand had almost 2 million slum dwellers in 1990; by 2005, this figure had been slashed to just 119,000.
This dramatic decrease in slums is attributed largely to the government‘s long-standing commitment to
slum upgrading, accompanied by strong strategic development planning and monitoring, which have been
an integral part of the development tradition for the last 30 years. But it was largely the activities of CBOs
that led the government to establishing a nationwide slum upgrading programme. Thai urban community
organisations had organised around savings and credit, but also through their networking approach, linking
different communities with each other in order to strengthen their development capacity and learning. The
government supported the mobilisation of slum communities, initially through savings and credit and
subsequently through a broad variety of development activities. This created a sound basis for scaling up to
a national community upgrading programme, called Baan Mekong, and launched in 2003 that set out to
achieve 200 cities without slums within five years. It operates through the Community Organizations
Development Institute (CODI), a nationwide public organisation that provides loans to organised
communities for land acquisition, housing construction, neighbourhood improvement, and income
generation. In the meantime, slum upgrading has become part of the national development agenda.
(Sources: Cities Alliance, Annual Report 2003; UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World‘s Cities 2006/7)
Large-scale provision of affordable housing in Sri Lanka
With an annual decline of 3.7 per cent, the total number of slum dwellers in Sri Lanka in 2005 stood at half
a million, down from nearly 900,000 in 1990. The provision of housing has been considered a major
priority by successive governments since independence in 1948. In 1977, the government ventured into
significant and ambitious attempts to increase the housing stock in the country and increase home
ownership. A distinct and separate organisation, the National Housing Development Authority, was
established to implement and promote mass housing programmes such as the One Hundred Thousand
Housing Programme and the One Million Housing Programme, and provide long-term subsidized loans for
new developments and upgrading activities. In 1994, it focused its attention on high density housing in
urban areas. In view of increasing land scarcity, the government decided to stop slum upgrading and initiate
a programme to relocate slum and shanty dwellers in apartments built by the government. The Indian
Ocean tsunami of December 2004 had a deep impact on housing in the country‘s coastal towns, but the
government‘s commitment to rebuild houses and communities has remained unaltered.
(Source: UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World‘s Cities 2006/7)
A comprehensive policy approach to slums in India
India is implementing reforms that have the potential to significantly improve the lives of slum dwellers.
India‘s five-year development plan aims to promote universal coverage of water supply and sanitation. In
pursuit of this goal, several central government-sponsored schemes and programmes have been
implemented. Under this programme, by the end of the first quarter of 2005, a total of 5 million sanitation
units were constructed. Similarly, the National Slum Development Programme (NSDP) looks specifically
into upgrading of urban slums by combining physical infrastructure with social services, including water
supply, community latrines, storm water drainage, community bathrooms, sewers and other amenities. The
government has also recently launched a new programme – the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal
Mission (JNNURM) – that aims to bring about mandatory reforms both at State and municipal levels to
improve basic service provision and secure tenure in urban poor neighbourhoods. The programme, the
single largest national government initiative in the urban sector, was launched in December 2005 and is to
be implemented over a period of 7 years. The programme‘s special components include water supply and
sanitation, sewerage and solid waste management, construction, and improvement of drains and storm
water drainage.
(Source: UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World‘s Cities 2006/7)
20
Equity grants for slum dwellers in China
Economic growth in China has also led to growing urban disparities. Prior to the economic reforms, the
system made it difficult for villagers to migrate to cities, with the result that slum formation was controlled,
whenever possible. But economic reforms saw a significant increase in migration of unemployed workers
and farmers to cities, with the result that some inner-city and peri-urban areas have been suffering from a
gradual deterioration of living conditions. In 2000 an estimated one-third of the urban population in the
country lacked adequate sanitation. While the economic boom experienced by Chinese cities induced
investment in high and middle segments of the housing market, it posed problems of affordability and
accessibility for families with limited income and savings.
Until the early 1980s, China‘s urban housing market was almost entirely the purview of state-owned
enterprises that were responsible for investing in and allocating housing within a strict command-and-
control economy. High rates of urbanization and economic growth in the last two decades led to major
macroeconomic reforms geared towards a ―socialist economy based on market principles‖ and to the
liberalization of the urban housing market in the late 1990s.
To facilitate low-income people‘s access to the housing market, Chinese cities have been practising a
policy of stimulating supply and demand through the use of equity grants for people living in sub-standard
housing. While land remains the property of the state, leases are auctioned to developers to supply housing
on a homeownership basis. Low-income families living in slums or substandard housing are thus provided
with once-in-a-lifetime equity grants based on the market value of their existing housing, which enables
them to access mortgage instruments. Developers, on the other hand, are provided incentives in the form of
tax reductions or exemptions.
The use of equity grants, combined with incentives for housing developers to provide affordable housing,
led to the production of more than 20 million housing units in the last five years. Chinese cities are hoping
to avert the further proliferation of slums by providing more affordable housing. In large housing estate
developments, many of which attract foreign direct investment, a new level of self-governance has also
emerged, with residents electing committees to oversee and manage urban safety and security,
environmental conservation and the needs of youth and the elderly.
(Source: UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World‘s Cities 2006/7)
Bringing slum upgrading to scale in Vietnam
While Vietnam does not yet have a national upgrading programme, the government is actively engaged in
developing one, addressing the key policy changes that would be required. As part of this process, each
province will be tasked with developing a five-year upgrading investment plan with a budget and financing
proposals. The central government plans to work with donors to address the financing gap. The central
government is already preparing related investment in several of the major cities. In addition, the
government is considering its policy options to deal with an increasing rate of urbanisation, which will
change the face of the country over the next two to three decades—the urban population is expected to
increase by 15 million by 2020. The emerging policy work is based on lessons learned from a number of
small-scale pilot projects, the Vietnamese tradition of locally and community-financed ‗alley upgrading‘
schemes, and the Vietnam Urban Upgrading Project. A key element of these projects is the preparatory
process of citywide, inclusive workshops to discuss the merits of in-situ upgrading and the challenges it
offers in urban development for the country as a whole. The Vietnam Urban Upgrading Project includes the
four cities of Can Tho, Haiphong, Nam Dinh, and Ho Chi Minh City. The initiative deals not only with in-
situ urban upgrading, the provision of loans for housing improvements, and the provision of tenure security
through the issuance of land-use certificates to slum dwellers, but also attempts to prevent the creation of
new slums. Implementation will be the responsibility of the People‘s Committee in each city. Donors and
the local women‘s unions, as well as a local bank for housing micro-finance, will be active partners.
(Source: Cities Alliance, Annual Report 2003)
21
1
The Asia-Pacific region is made up of the all the member countries of UNESCAP and UNESCWA which
are physically in the Asia-Pacific region. The USA, Netherlands, France, the UK and Egypt, which are
members of UNESCAP and UNESWA, respectively, but not geographically located in these sub-regions,
are not included in this analysis. The Asia-Pacific region includes the Russian Federation and the seven
Asian members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, as well as the associated member Turkmenistan. The CIS
countries and Turkmenistan are part of the sub-region ‗South-Central Asia‘. The following countries – in
alphabetical order – have been invited to participate in the conference: Afghanistan, American Samoa,
Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, China, Cook
Islands, Cyprus, Democratic People‘s Republic of Korea, Fiji, French Polynesia, Georgia, Guam, India,
Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao
People‘s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated
States of), Mongolia, Myanmar, Nauru, Nepal, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Northern Marina
Islands, Oman, Pakistan, Palau, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Qatar, Republic of Korea,
Russian Federation, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tajikistan,
Thailand, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan,
Vanuatu, Viet Nam, and Yemen.
2
UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World‘s Cities 2006/7
3
Information in this and all following sections of this paper is drawn from UN-HABITAT (2006), State of
the World‘s Cities 2006/7, if not otherwise indicated, as well as comments provided by Vasudevan Suresh.
4
The word ―slum‖ first appeared in 19th century London, when the burgeoning urban working classes
moved into overcrowded and poorly serviced tenements, living close to the factories and industrial plants
that employed them. The term referred to what was initially designated ―a room of low repute‖, but over
time took on the generic definition, ―a squalid and overcrowded urban area inhabited by very poor people‖
(Definition used in Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 10 th Edition, 2002).
5
UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World‘s Cities 2006/7
6
Throughout the world, slum dwellers live in difficult conditions that manifest different forms of
deprivation – material, physical, social and political. Four of the five shelter deprivation indicators measure
physical expressions of slum conditions: lack of water; lack of sanitation; overcrowding; and non-durable
housing structures. These indicators focus attention on the circumstances that surround slum life, depicting
deficiencies and casting poverty as an attribute of the environments in which slum dwellers live. The fifth
indicator – security of tenure – has to do with legality, which is not as easy to measure or monitor, as the
status of slum dwellers often depends on de facto or de jure rights – or lack of them. By knowing how
many slum dwellers there are in cities and what shelter deprivations they suffer most from, it becomes
possible to design interventions that target the most vulnerable urban populations (UN-HABITAT (2006),
State of the World‘s Cities 2006/7).
7
The following UN regions will be used throughout this paper:
Western Asia: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Cyprus, Georgia, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon,
Occupied Palestinian Territory, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkey, United Arab
Emirates, Yemen.
South-Central Asia: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Islamic Republic of Iran, Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.
South-Eastern Asia: Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Viet Nam
Eastern Asia: China, SAR of China, Macao SAR of China, Japan, Democratic People's Rep of Korea,
Republic of Korea, Mongolia.
Oceania: American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall
Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue Northern Mariana
Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu.
8
Although China hosts the world‘s largest slum population – almost 196 million people – its slum
prevalence in 2001 was lower than that of India; UN-HABITAT estimates that 38 per cent of China‘s urban
residents lived in slum conditions that year, compared with India‘s 56 per cent. Note that there is a
mismatch between UN-HABITAT and China‘s official definitions of what constitutes a slum (see also note
below) (UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World‘s Cities 2006/7).
22
9
For some countries, available data is incomplete, unreliable and not up to date. For example, the slum
population in Timor-Leste is completely underestimated (only 12 per cent). Although three quarters of the
people are engaged in agriculture and only 7.5 per cent is considered as urban (500,000 inhabitants), the
capital city and other small urban towns are facing the enormous challenges of post-war reconstruction,
after more than 85 per cent of its infrastructure was destroyed during the civil unrest.
10
Chronic lack of reliable data and up-to-date information on the Pacific Islands makes it difficult to assess
slum prevalence in this least populated and most remote sub-region (UN-HABITAT (2003), Slums of the
world: The face of urban poverty in the new millennium? Monitoring the MDGs Target 11 – world-wide
slum dweller estimation).
11
Slum dweller numbers in these countries have therefore not been considered in the statistical analysis
undertaken for this paper.
12
It is important to note that in the poorest world regions—particularly in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa —
the majority of the population and roughly three-quarters of the poorest people still live in rural areas.
13
In fact, despite the region‘s newly industrializing countries, particularly China and India, which rank
among the world‘s fastest-growing economies, GDP rates have risen much more quickly than national
poverty rates have fallen.
14
WHO and UNICEF (2000), Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation. Global Water
Supply and Sanitation Assessment Report
15
As for example reported for Phnom Penh, Cambodia, where recent large scale evictions have taken place
(Asian Coalition for Housig Rights www.achr.org).
16
UN-HABITAT (2003), The Challenge of Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements; Warah, Rasna
(2002), ―If you want to mobilize people, go to the public toilets‖, Habitat Debate, 8 (2).
17
The Declaration on Cities and other Human Settlements in the new millennium resolved to formulate and
implement policies and actions to address the impact of HIV/AIDS on human settlements and called for
housing for HIV/AIDS victims, especially orphans and the terminally ill (June 2001 at the special session
of the UN General Assembly).
18
Global Land Tool Network (14 June 2006), Themes and Issues. www.gltn.net; UN-HABITAT is in the
process of consolidating these efforts and bringing them to a higher level – that of mainstreaming
HIV/AIDS in the core activities related to improving the lives of slum dwellers, a process that was started
with focus on Africa (International Expert Group Meeting, ―Mainstreaming HIV/AIDS into Actions to
improve the lives of slum dwellers in Africa‖, 28 & 29 November 2006, Nairobi, Kenya).
19
GA Resolution 55/2 of September 2000
20
UN-HABITAT (2005), UN-HABITAT and the Goal of the Millennium Declaration on Slums
21
Article 56.m of the September 2005 UN Summit resolution
22
UN-HABITAT also has responsibilities for promoting the implementation and monitoring of MDG 7,
Target 10, related to water and sanitation: ―Halve, by 2015, the proportion of people without sustainable
access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation”.
23
Slum dwellers in the OECD countries in Asia-Pacific have not been considered in this analysis.
24
Most notably in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (art. 25.1) and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (art. 11.1).
25
Calculations are based on estimates by the Millennium Project Task Force (UN Millennium Project
(2005), A Home in the City. Task Force on Improving the Lives of Slum Dwellers) and UN-HABITAT and
the World Bank (UN-HABITAT/World Bank (2005), The Millennium Declaration: an urban perspective).
26
The data in this section was drawn from UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World‘s Cities 2006/7. The
Millennium Development Goals and Urban Sustainability: 30 Years of Shaping the Habitat Agenda,
Chapter 1.3, How well is your country performing on the slum target? A global scorecard.
27
The cut off points for the annual slum growth rates were: 0%, > 0-2%, > 2- 4%, > 4%. These growth rate
categories were combined with the proportion of slums in the discussed regions. As the incidence of slums
is very different in these regions, different categories for the slum proportions were chosen to characterize
these different conditions. For Africa and Asia, where the incidence of slums is generally higher than in the
other regions, the cut-off points were the same (30%, >30-60%, >60%); for the Central Asian countries
(CIS), the categories are 20, >20-50, >50.
28
This map does not cover the Asian CIS countries, the Russian Federation and the countries located in
Oceania.
23
29
There could be two reasons for this. One is the need for a lapse in time for slum prevention policies to
have an impact on the ground. The other could be the mismatch between UN-HABITAT and national
definitions of what constitutes a slum. While UN-HABITAT considers the de facto status of dwellings in
the cities of China, irrespective of their legal status, national authorities do not consider people who live
outside the de jure residential area or those who do not possess residency permits as bona fide residents of a
city.
30
UN-HABITAT (2003), Slums of the world: The face of urban poverty in the new millennium?
Monitoring the MDGs Target 11 – world-wide slum dweller estimation
31
The data in this section was drawn exclusively from UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World‘s Cities
2006/7. The Millennium Development Goals and Urban Sustainability: 30 Years of Shaping the Habitat
Agenda, Part 2, The State of the World‘s Slums.
32
The analysis does not include Oceania for which detailed data is not available at this stage.
33
To measure access to safe drinking water, UN-HABITAT adapted the definition of ―improved‖ water
supply developed by the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for Water and Sanitation, to the
urban context: The water should be affordable and at sufficient quantity that is available without excessive
effort and time, i.e. at least 20 liters per person should be available within an acceptable time span (defined
locally) (UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World‘s Cities 2006/7).
34
A household is considered to have access to ―improved‖ sanitation if it has a human excreta disposal
system, either in the form of a private toilet or a public toilet shared by a maximum of two households. This
can be ensured through direct connection to a public, piped sewer; direct connection to a septic system; or
access to pour-flush latrines or ventilated improved pit latrines, allowing for acceptable local technologies.
―Improved‖ sanitation refers to a basic sanitation approach that focuses on securing sustainable access to
safe, hygienic and convenient facilities for human excreta disposal (UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the
World‘s Cities 2006/7).
35
―Durable housing‖ is generally defined as a ―unit that is built on a non-hazardous location and has a
structure permanent and adequate enough to protect its inhabitants from the extreme of climate conditions
such as rain, heat, cold, and humidity”. However, the permanence of housing is defined by different
criteria in different countries and cities. In Mumbai, for instance, non-durable houses may be made of
thatch, bamboo or mud. In Tokyo, a non-durable unit is often the equivalent of a dilapidated house made of
older materials, or an apartment in a substandard building (UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World‘s
Cities 2006/7).
36
UN-HABITAT‘s operational definition of overcrowding: the ―proportion of households with more than
three persons per room‖. As part of the UN-HABITAT monitoring exercise, the indicator is described in
the positive as ―sufficient living area‖ (UN-HABITAT (2006), State of the World‘s Cities 2006/7).
37
For Eastern Asia, not enough information was available for analysis, and levels and trends were
estimated from those observed in South-Eastern Asia and Western Asia. Differentials across sub-regions
should therefore be examined with caution.
38
UN-HABITAT defines secure tenure as “the right of all individuals and groups to effective protection by
the State against forced evictions. People have secure tenure when: (i) There is evidence of documentation
that can be used as proof of secure tenure status; and (ii) there is either de facto or perceived protection
from forced evictions” (as per recommendations made by an Expert Group Meeting on Urban Indicators
held in Nairobi in November 2002).
39
UN-HABITAT (2005), Evaluation of UN-HABITAT‘s Global Campaigns for Secure Tenure and Urban
Governance, Evaluation Report 3/2005, p.10.
40
According to a recent account by the UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, Miloon Kothari,
during the Dialogue on ‗Achieving the MDGs: Slum Upgrading and Affordable Housing‘ at the World
Urban Forum III in Vancouver, 20 June 2006: “forced evictions are on the rise world-wide. There is hardly
any consultation, no alternatives are provided and no human rights impact assessment is undertaken…
Women suffer disproportionately from forced evictions. Forced evictions are making a mockery of the
MDGs.”
41
UN-HABITAT (2005), Forced evictions – towards solutions? First Report of the Advisory Group on
Forced Evictions to the Executive Director of UN-HABITAT; Human Rights Watch (September 2006),
Indonesia. Condemned Communities. Forced Evictions in Jakarta
42
Ibid.
43
Ibid.
24
44
Gulfnews (16/05/2006). Mumbai: The Maharashtra Government has been evicting encroachers on roads
and public land but slum dwellers and social activists are resisting the strong-arm tactics of authorities
45
Asian Coaltion for Housing Rights (17 July 2006), Report on ACHR‘s Phnom Penh Actions and
Strategies to deal with evictions and promote feasible alternatives
(http://www.achr.net/Countries/Cambodia/Evict%20Strategies%20Julty06.html).
46
The analysis and findings in this section (up to the end of chapter 3) are drawn mainly from an in-depth
assessment of seven countries in the region. The scorecard method used by UN-HABITAT on 93 countries
(referred to in the country analysis in the previous chapter) only shows where and by how much there has
been progress (or not) in reducing the numbers of slum dwellers. In order to investigate the reasons behind
good and bad performance, the policy environment in 23 countries, selected to be broadly representative of
the four performance categories, was analysed. The following seven Asia-Pacific countries were amongst
the countries analysed in-depth: Sri Lanka and Thailand (―on-track‖); Indonesia and Philippines
(―stabilizing‖); India (―at-risk‖); Afghanistan and Bangladesh (―off track‖) (UN-HABITAT, State of the
World‘s Cities 2006/7).
47
The case of Cambodia highlights this problem: Politically, a major breakthrough occurred when in 2003
the Prime Minister Samdach Hunsen committed to upgrade 100 slum settlements in Phnom Penh per year
over the following 5 years until all of Phnom Penh‘s urban poor communities would have secure land
tenure and full basic services. However, since the Prime Minister‘s significant announcement there has
been no systematic, large-scale programme to tackle slum upgrading in Phnom Penh. There have been
several smaller upgrading initiatives involving infrastructure upgrading and organizing savings groups
(through various projects, including UN-Habitat and the Urban Poor Development Fund), but nothing on a
larger scale that also formalizes land rights (Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a
component of the right to an adequate standard of living, Miloon Kothari. MISSION TO CAMBODIA,
presented to the COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS, Sixty-second session, 21 March 2006).
48
These cities have shown, to some degree, political commitment by adopting progressive, citywide
policies and programmes – helped significantly by reformed policy and enabling legislation at the national
level. In Mumbai, initiatives such as the Slum Redevelopment Scheme and Slum Sanitation Project, built
on partnerships among the government, non-governmental organizations and community groups, have also
made a difference to the living conditions of slum dwellers in the city. In Jakarta, the Kampung
Improvement Programme (KIP) has been hailed as Jakarta Administration‘s ―best practice‖ response to
slums in the city. And yet a closer look at these cities reveals that many of their slum communities have
recently gone through or are facing the threat of eviction by the same authorities.
49
Hiasat, Y. (2005). ―Jordan‘s commitment to countrywide slum upgrading‖. Habitat Debate, 11 (3).
50
For example in India, issues on slums are State (provincial) subjects and not under central (federal)
government. With the historic 74th amendment to the Constitution, this subject now devolves on the third
tier of government, namely urban local bodies (V. Suresh).
51 Depending on local circumstances and needs, the ―Do‘s and Don‘ts‖ can be expanded. In the Indian
context, for example, the following additions could be made (suggested by V. Suresh):
1) Plan and provide for the informal sector work force, in the spatial planning – through: (i) ‗land bank for
the shelterless category‘; (ii) Reserving a certain percentage of land in all residential development to cover
the needs of the services sector – say 15 to 20 per cent of land for the needs of the 25 per cent population
belonging to the poor by sensitively carving out the spaces in the overall layout.
2) Promote cost effective, disaster resistant and affordable housing options with incremental approach
(horizontal / vertical) to grow over time / improved economic conditions. This should be with low-rise,
high density (up to 5 storeys) planning, design features.
3) Adopt community allotment and community mortgage system to avoid individual sale of plots / housing
units and going back to slums.
4) Adopt initial rental leasing and progressive transformation to hire purchase ownership pattern.
5) Evolve over-arching National / State Slum Policy.
6) Adopt realistic norms and standards for low income housing neighbourhoods planning and design for
‗space‘, ‗specifications‘ and ‗services‘.
25
