Slum Eradication

Executive Summary

The slum is not only a manifestation of mismanaged urban planning, but the existence of slums

worldwide is also a sign that the slum is a crucial element of contemporary urbanization. Without

finding appropriate solutions to the housing problems of a majority of urban dwellers, public and

private decision makers will not be able to meet the challenges of sustainable development.

The extension of slums in developing countries is a product of 20th- and 21stcentury urban

growth. Attempts have been made to eliminate slums but they have almost universally failed

because they do not question the urban model

that generates the slum in the first place.

The urban environment is highly complex. In the

past, public policies have aimed at eradicating

slums, without taking into account the potential

of their inhabitants to resolve the very problems

that slums reputedly generate. Especially in the

contemporary era of globalization, it is important

to stress the resources that slums can offer the

‘chaotic’ city. This requires a reassessment of

views on urbanization. Sustainable urban development will only be possible if we concentrate

on solving the problems of the majority of urban populations in ways that make use of their own

creativity and involve them in decision-making.

This paper tries to understand the existence of slums; challenges faced in eradication of slums,

methodologies adopted and lessons from world cities. The paper also provides some

recommendations for effective eradication of slums. The paper will focus mainly on Indian

aspects.

Slums are usually characterized by urban decay, high rates of poverty, and unemployment. They are commonly seen as "breeding grounds" for social problems such as crime, drug addiction, alcoholism, high rates of mental illness, and suicide. In many poor countries they exhibit high rates of disease due to unsanitary conditions, malnutrition, and lack of basic health care.

Slum Eradication – Assignment 2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... 2

1. Introduction:........................................................................................................................................ 4

1.1 Definition of slums and their variants............................................................................................4

1.2 Causes for the emergency of slums................................................................................................4

1.3 Statistics....................................................................................................................................... 6

2. Economics of Slum Eradication.............................................................................................................9

2.1 Undiscovered and Vacant market at the bottom of the pyramid (BOP)............................................9

2.2 Current Indian Context - Public – Private Partnership or Center – State Collaboration..................11

3. Issues faced from the government side................................................................................................15

3.1 Biggest Challenges...................................................................................................................... 15

3.2 Main Obstacles............................................................................................................................ 15

3.3 Issues faced from the slum dwellers side.....................................................................................15

4. A Success Story................................................................................................................................... 17

5. Experiments in slum eradication.........................................................................................................19

5.1 A credible low-income housing policy..........................................................................................19

6. Recommendations.............................................................................................................................. 22

7. References.......................................................................................................................................... 25


1. Introduction:

1.1 Definition of slums and their variantsSlum, as defined by the United Nations agency UN-HABITAT, is a run-down area of a

city characterized by substandard housing and squalor and lacking in tenure security.

The term has traditionally referred to housing areas that were once relatively affluent but

which deteriorated as the original dwellers moved on to newer and better parts of the

city, but has come to include the vast informal settlements found in cities in the

developing world.

According to the United Nations, the proportion of urban dwellers living in slums

decreased from 47 percent to 37 percent in the developing world between 1990 and

2005. However, due to rising population, the number of slum dwellers is rising. One

billion people worldwide live in slums and the figure will likely grow to 2 billion by 2030.

Other terms that are often used interchangeably with "slum" include shanty town, skid

row, barrio, and ghetto although each of these may have a somewhat different meaning.

Slums are distinguished from shanty towns in that the latter initially are low-class

settlements, whereas slums are generally constructed early on as relatively affluent or

possibly prestigious communities.

1.2 Causes for the emergency of slums

Slums come about because of, and are perpetuated by, a number of forces. Among

these are:

Rapid rural-to-urban migration

Increasing urban poverty and inequality

Insecure tenure

Globalization – all contribute to the creation and continuation of slums

In many developing countries, squatters or informal settlers form close to the majority of

urban dwellers and thus live in poverty without civic amenities, because urban

development policies have not kept up with urban growth.


1. Rapid rural-urban migration: Since 1950, the proportion of people working in

developing country agriculture has declined by 20 to 30%. The immigrant urban poor

have largely moved from the countryside to the cities voluntarily, in order to exploit

actual or perceived economic opportunities. Opportunities manifest in part, due to the

growing urban informal sector which in many cities accounts for as much as 60% of

employment.

2. Income-earning opportunities: Throughout Southeast Asia and sub-Saharan

Africa, and in selected countries elsewhere, millions of people move back and forth

between urban and rural places to take advantage of income-earning opportunities -

a phenomenon known as circular migration. Temporary migrants can cause large

swings in population size. In some cities of China, for instance, temporary migrants

are estimated to count for between 1/5 and 1/3 of the total population. Circular

migration is often tied to seasonal patterns or agricultural cycles. Very often

temporary migrants do not have a place to live in and are forced to occupy illegal

settlements.

3. Lack of finance to afford decent housing: Slums are mainly (not exclusively) a

urban phenomenon. Unlike rural areas, in urban areas unlike rural areas, access to

virtually all goods and services depends on having a cash income. Urban residents

have to buy most of their food while rural residents grow a substantial portion of their

own food and food prices often are higher in urban areas than in the countryside. As

a consequence, low-income people have little or no money to rent houses.

4. Political migrants and refugees: People escaping political conflicts in the rural

areas and smaller cities of such countries as Liberia and Mozambique have

contributed to big-city growth rates exceeding 7% a year over long periods - a rate at

which the population would double in just 10 years. This has often led to a rapid

increase of informal settlements

5. Lack of ownership rights, or secure tenure: The lack of secure tenure is a primary

reason why slums persist. Without secure tenure, slum-dwellers have few ways and

little incentive to improve their surroundings. Secure tenure is often a precondition for


access to other economic and social opportunities, including credit, public services,

and livelihood opportunities. It is particularly difficult for the urban poor to obtain

tenure because property registration processes are complicated and expensive. The

process is even more difficult in the case of informal settlements. Many governments

hesitate to legalize them for fear of encouraging more illegal settlements.

Progressive decay in basic infrastructure such as piped water, electricity, sewerage,

and roads have prompted people in large African cities like Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to

move to unplanned settlements on the urban periphery where land is cheapest

1.3 StatisticsThe U.N.’s Millennium Development Goals Report 2005 reported that urban population

was projected to exceed rural population in developing regions by 2007 and was

growing at more than 3 percent per year, three times faster than the population of rural

areas. In 2005, slightly more than one-third of city dwellers—almost 1 billion people—

lived in slums - most of these were in the developing nations of the world. There is direct

effect and influence on the emergency and increase in slums, by the rate of

unemployment in a nation, and the average per capita income. More important is the

number of individuals who live at below the $1 per day rate that is prescribed to define

poverty worldwide.

Sub-Saharan Africa hosts the largest proportion – 71.9 per cent – of urban population

resident in slums. In terms of sheer numbers, Africa also has the second largest number

of slum dwellers in the world (187 million or 20 per cent of the world's total) after Asia,

which in 2001 hosted a total of 554 million slum dwellers (about 60 per cent of the

world's total slum population). Latin America and the Caribbean, despite being one of the

most urbanised regions in the world, was in third place with 128 million slum dwellers.

Europe and the rest of the developed world are host to some 54 million slum dwellers, or

6 per cent of the world's total. Globally, UN-Habitat estimates that 924 million people, or

31.6 per cent of the world's total urban population, lived in slums in 2001. In the next 30

years, this figure is projected to double to almost 2 billion, unless substantial policy

changes are put in place to significantly alter this projection.

Figure 1: Proportion of working-age population and proportion employed below $1 a day


Source: UN Millennium Development Goals Report 2005

India specific statistics:

Urbanization: 2001 Estimates

Total Population 1025m Urban Population 286m

28% Slum Population 158m

55%Annual Population Growth Rates

Urban 3% Slum 2%

According to 2001 estimates the slum population across various states of India is as

below:

1999 Estimates Total Population 845m Urban Population 216m

26% Slum Population 131m

61%Annual Population Growth Rates

Urban 3% Slum 2%


Figure 2: Slum population in India (2001)


2. Economics of Slum Eradication

2.1 Undiscovered and Vacant market at the bottom of the pyramid (BOP) Bottom of the Pyramid - Eradicating Poverty through Profits

There are two schools of thought on eradication of slums. Economists have always

maintained that societal transformation can happen through government policies.

However, the other school of thought highlights that poverty alleviation can be

approached from another angle i.e., from leveraging the market route by engaging

the business senses of the corporate world rather than just appealing to them for

cheque book philanthropy.

There are substantial developmental processes and practices arising from market

innovations in the developing world which had been largely ignored. The lower most

segment of society are not merely brand conscious, but thanks to modern

telecommunication and television, these markets - 'the BOP market' had constituents

who are equally hungry for better products. There is a need to innovate to fulfill the

needs of the BOP market, by looking at them both as consumers and producers. The

social argument is quite specific: besides financial succor that servicing the BOP

markets offered, it also gave dignity to this class of people who had been largely

neglected by the national development process and were often treated as basket

case situations.

Table 1: Percentage of Total Workers to Total Population and Main Workers to Total Workers in Slums in Million Plus Cities in India (2001)

Million Plus Municipal Corporations

States/UTs

Percentage of TotalWorkers to Total

Population

Percentage of MainWorkers to Total

Workers

Person Male Female Person Male Female

Greater Mumbai Maharashtra 36.8 56.4 11.4 93.1 94.2 86.3

Delhi Delhi 35.1 54.9 9.6 93.1 94.1 85.4

Kolkata West Bengal 36.5 56.6 11.6 93.4 94.6 85.9

Chennai Tamil Nadu 33.6 52.4 14.2 88.6 90.0 83.5

Bangalore Karnataka 40.3 56.5 23.1 90.1 92.1 84.8

Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh 30.2 47.7 11.6 90.0 91.7 82.4

Ahmadabad Gujarat 33.6 52.0 12.0 92.9 95.9 78.0

Surat Gujarat 42.1 63.8 11.1 97.5 98.8 87.2

Kanpur Uttar Pradesh 27.8 46.1 6.6 87.1 88.2 78.0

Pune Maharashtra 34.8 50.7 17.7 90.9 92.4 86.4

Jaipur Rajasthan 29.4 47.4 9.1 89.8 91.8 78.5

Lucknow Uttar Pradesh 27.5 46.1 6.6 87.7 88.8 79.0


Nagpur Maharashtra 31.4 49.7 12.0 86.8 89.2 76.4

Indore Madhya Pradesh 32.3 50.9 11.7 91.0 92.6 83.3

Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 31.4 47.1 14.0 79.0 82.2 67.0

Ludhiana Punjab 35.6 57.1 7.3 93.4 95.5 71.7

Patna Bihar 26.1 45.4 4.0 94.7 96.1 76.1

Vadodara Gujarat 33.8 53.4 11.6 93.5 95.5 83.1

Agra Uttar Pradesh 25.3 42.1 5.5 85.2 87.8 61.5

Thane Maharashtra 34.0 53.4 10.3 92.5 93.6 85.4

Kalyan-Dombivli Maharashtra 35.7 51.4 17.1 88.9 90.2 84.5

Varanasi Uttar Pradesh 28.5 45.5 9.2 87.3 91.9 61.5

Nashik Maharashtra 35.0 51.0 17.8 92.4 94.6 85.3Meerut Uttar Pradesh 25.4 43.9 4.3 86.0 87.5 68.4

Faridabad Haryana 30.4 49.5 6.4 89.3 91.2 70.7

Pimpri Chinchwad Maharashtra 34.9 50.8 16.9 92.1 93.6 86.8

Haora West Bengal 36.5 58.0 8.9 93.8 94.9 84.2

Total 34.8 54.0 11.4 92.0 93.4 83.7

Table 2: Category-wise Percentage of Slum Working Populationto Total Working Slum Population in Million Plus Cities in India (2001)Million Plus Municipal Corporations

States/UTs

Agricultural Cultivators

Household Labourers

Other Industry Workers

Greater Mumbai Maharashtra 0.1 0.1 3.7 96.1

Delhi Delhi 0.1 0.1 3.9 95.9

Kolkata West Bengal 0.4 0.5 4.2 95.0

Chennai Tamil Nadu 1.2 0.5 2.3 96.0

Bangalore Karnataka 0.2 0.3 4.0 95.5

Hyderabad Andhra Pradesh 1.1 0.8 3.6 94.5

Ahmadabad Gujarat 0.1 0.3 4.2 95.5

Surat Gujarat 0.1 0.8 1.2 97.9

Kanpur Uttar Pradesh 1.7 1.6 4.5 92.2

Pune Maharashtra 0.1 0.1 3.9 95.9

Jaipur Rajasthan 0.2 0.3 4.4 95.1

Lucknow Uttar Pradesh 1.7 2.7 7.5 88.0

Nagpur Maharashtra 0.3 0.5 4.5 94.7

Indore Madhya Pradesh 0.5 0.3 4.8 94.3

Bhopal Madhya Pradesh 0.9 1.4 2.5 95.2

Ludhiana Punjab 0.6 1.9 6.0 91.4

Patna Bihar 0.0 0.3 9.5 90.2

Vadodara Gujarat 0.1 1.0 1.9 97.0

Agra Uttar Pradesh 3.0 2.9 8.2 86.0

Thane Maharashtra 0.2 0.2 2.5 97.2

Kalyan-Dombivli Maharashtra 0.0 0.0 1.5 98.4

Varanasi Uttar Pradesh 1.1 1.1 29.6 68.2

Nashik Maharashtra 0.4 1.5 2.5 95.6

Meerut Uttar Pradesh 1.7 3.3 5.4 89.6

Faridabad Haryana 1.0 0.4 3.6 95.1

Pimpri Chinchwad Maharashtra 0.1 1.4 1.6 96.9

Haora West Bengal 0.1 0.1 3.0 96.8

Total 0.3 0.4 3.9 95.3


Across the globe, it is evident that governments do not have resources to tackle

large scale basic needs of its people - particularly housing. It is also clear that the

entrepreneurial gene is not a monopoly of the well-heeled. Millions survive in the

urban shanties with their wits and their instinct to trade with the limited resources that

they possess. Housing and realty sector should focus on this segment through PPP

which has been neglected till now.

2.2 Current Indian Context - Public – Private Partnership or Center – State Collaboration

The current UPA government’s ambitious scheme of making the country free of

slums in the next five years by providing proper houses to slum dwellers faces

hurdles with the Planning Commission and Ministry of Finance differing over the

pattern of funding the project. The Planning Commission is for a Public – Private

Partnership for implementing the project, while the Ministry of Finance is insisting

that the Centre and the states should share the cost.

As per the initial draft of the scheme prepared by Ministry of Housing and Urban

Poverty Alleviation, the financing pattern should be on the lines of the existing

Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, under which the Central

Government provides 50 per cent funds (up to 90 per cent in case of special

category states) and the remaining is matched by the states concerned. However,

officials in the Planning Commission say that if the scheme is implemented based on

Central and state sharing basis, the Centre has to struggle to raise the fund as some

of the states have already pitched for larger share considering large number of slum

dwellers.

As the Centre has been funding several schemes including Jawaharlal Nehru

National Urban Renewal Mission, this scheme should be developed based on Public

Private Partnership mode, the Planning Commission has suggested. Implementation

of the project through Public Private Partnership mode will expedite flow of funds for

the scheme.


The funds released and usage of funds so far is as below:

Table 3: Selected State-wise Funds Released under Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme

(IHSDP) in India (2006-2007 to 2008-2009)(Rs. in Crore)

States/UTsCentral Share Sanctioned

2006-07 2007-08 2008-09Andhra Pradesh 210.57 300.55 253.45Arunachal Pradesh 0.00 0.00 8.66Dadra & Nagar Haveli 0.00 0.45 -Andaman & Nicobar Islands 0.00 4.74 8.90Daman & Diu 0.00 0.58 -Assam 10.79 22.32 23.38Bihar 36.55 23.21 64.21Chhattisgarh 122.01 - 36.82Gujarat 51.54 101.59 73.22Haryana 182.96 - 26.74Himachal Pradesh 0.00 16.19 20.88Jammu & Kashmir 0.00 32.23 27.60Jharkhand 0.00 15.58 66.65Karnataka 41.90 103.86 76.93Kerala 50.10 53.85 41.94Madhya Pradesh 138.00 33.07 21.88Mizoram 0.00 6.21 23.57Manipur 0.00 12.37 8.33Meghalaya 0.00 8.97 13.46Maharashtra 120.71 181.94 827.96Nagaland 44.14 0.00 0.00Orissa 0.00 59.13 117.20Punjab 0.00 25.55 7.07Puducherry 0.00 5.48 0.00Rajasthan 110.08 122.24 48.36Tamil Nadu 112.56 56.64 162.77Tripura 0.00 6.33 17.60Uttar Pradesh 22.11 2.78 485.32Uttarakhand 0.00 2.91 0.00West Bengal 150.57 260.70 269.77India 1404.57 1459.47 2732.67

Table 4: State-wise Expenditure under National Slum Development Programme (NSDP) in India (1996-1997 to 2005-2006)

(Rs. In Lakh)States/UTs

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

2005-06

Total

Arunachal Pradesh

0 91.36 96 62.01 108.92

19.23 85 135.21

0 0 597.73

Assam 0 0 213.2 169.73

203.85

80.86 130.94 239.43

4.8 127.75

1170.56

Manipur 44.99 88 100 110 23.07 0 0 0 0 0 366.06Meghalaya

0 55.01 83.63 93.75 33.59 0 88.57 0 0 0 354.55

Mizoram 34 88 88 122 110 110 104 104 0 0 760

Nagaland 0 0 100 80.55 110 60 0 104 100 0 554.55

Sikkim 18.34 20.14 19.2 20 100.12

98.96 28 55.91 121.52

0 482.19

Tripura 39 88 90 110 110 110 104 104 112 0 867Andhra Pradesh

0 0 1270.01

4616.61

1534.16

2196.25

3670.89

4761 4260.27

972.94

23283.1

Bihar 1573.37

0 1541.74

2668 1867.6

0 1183 500 979.09

0 10312.8


Chhattisgarh

0 0 0 0 228.24

151.65

373.34 395.47

354.46

32.14 1535.3

Goa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gujarat 0 2600.6

1368 1500 1500 1303.74

1500.01

1306.55

1382.25

0 12461.15

Haryana 365 469 465 522 167.34

20.76 847.86 731.98

347.37

638.76

4575.07

Himachal Pradesh

50 88 100 110 27.65 100 76.53 0 0 144 696.18

Jammu and Kashmir

0 0422.7

4723.7

5723.9

6 725 687 687 687 04656.4

5

Jharkhand

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Karnataka

1264 1485 1787 2499.32

2174 2174 1650 2472 0 0 15505.32

Kerala 0 51.41 651.54

560.55

1996.5

504.76

725.55 825.49

884.98

715.97

6916.75

Madhya Pradesh

370 1900 1191.27

1275.81

1020.52

2654.33

1558.27

913.68

1745.7

1424.34

14053.92

Maharashtra

0 0 0 1869.01

2767.57

7706.7

11368.12

3333.78

6829.09

0 33874.27

Orissa 112.5 240 620 638.46

397.3 218 116.5 111.54

67.72 73.78 2595.8

Punjab 0 0 0 344.41

758.59

211.79

98.92 0 0 0 1413.71

Rajasthan 0 866.76

1071.86

520.38

2053.09

1180.46

1175.97

1306.83

1138.19

0 9313.54

Tamil Nadu

1905 2233 2674 2711 2259.17

2711 1927.49

2519.9

5457 84.61 24482.17

Uttar Pradesh

0 1778.47

4669.09

4007.26

4586.95

4961.23

4447.64

4122.31

6861.33

2382.85

37817.13

Uttaranchal

0 0 0 0 0 56.32 201.41 270.07

75.17 29.63 632.6

West Bengal

0 1431.84

2690.92

3366.01

4648.75

3738.27

3644.58

3086.37

3119.91

2103.28

27829.93

The state-wise beneficiaries of these schemes are as below:

Table 5: State-wise Physical Progress Achievements under National Slum Development Programme (NSDP) in India

(As on 31.3.2006)States/UTs Towns Covered Slum Pockets Covered BeneficiariesArunachal Pradesh 14 15 13450Assam 71 448 158000Manipur 28 28 539552Meghalaya 6 26 36000Mizoram 12 118 164000Naqaland 4 7 7500Sikkim 20 34 17873Tripura 13 94 63875Other States Andhra Pradesh 116 3668 4133902Bihar 117 10500 1530900Chhattisgarh 55 330 671000Goa 0 0 0Gujarat 48 910 2125519Haryana 68 408 393560Himachal Pradesh 49 304 240661Jammu & Kashmir 67 130 600314Jharkhand 0 0 0Karnataka 178 755 646498Kerala 58 682 65373Madhya Pradesh 337 5800 4671529


Maharashtra 53 3140 4732574Orissa 102 1873 1208000Punjab 23 278 506879Rajasthan 183 1730 925574Tamil Nadu 719 2518 5882910Uttar Pradesh 82 3410 9567000Uttarchnchal 27 333 433953West Bengal 126 31627 6450000India 2576 69166 45786396


3. Issues faced from the government side

3.1 Biggest ChallengesThe biggest challenges facing India in terms of the housing situation are improving the

following:

o Land supply through legislation, governance, and financial management;

o Information systems about housing, data proposals, and construction;

o Infrastructure to serve housing, such as schools, hospitals, and water supply;

o Management and repair of the existing housing stock;

o Public awareness and civil participation in governance regarding housing issues.

3.2 Main ObstaclesThe main obstacles are the following:

o Insufficient supply of land;

o Insufficient data about land and tenure;

o Outdated and rigid planning norms;

o Lack of political accountability;

o Lack of co-ordination among various governmental and semi-governmental

agencies;

o Lack of resources and trained manpower necessary for urban planning.

As the Centre is planning to provide property rights to allottee, it wants the scheme to be

implemented without any legal hurdle.

3.3 Issues faced from the slum dwellers side

1. Civil society and slum dwellers oppose roping private builders for housing projects as

the private builders may hijack the project by denying due share to genuine slum

dwellers.

2. Many a times, anti-social elements run strong in slums. Any cleanup of slums into

more structured housing is opposed by this section of slum dwellers.

3. Ownership issues create conflict within the family.


4. Unorganized businesses within slums would find difficult to re-establish, hence

averse to change.

5. Some Micro finances and SHG are influenced by political parties whose vested

interest creates differences within slum dwellers on the change.

Basic economics of slums

The construction cost of building a 2,000 Sq.mt. 3-storey building on a 1,000 Sq.mt. plot, without

lift, with all basic amenities, will cost about Rs. 2,000/Sq.mt. at the 2003 prices. With lift, and

when construction is done using expensive material like marble tiles etc. the construction cost

would increase to Rs. 3,500/Sq.mt. In most Indian cities, flats sell at the price of Rs.

5,000/Sq.mt. to Rs. 20,000/Sq.mt., mainly due to cost of land. In general, given same

construction quality, the variation in cost is entirely due to variation in cost of land.

A typical urban laborer earns Rs. 2,000/month. And if husband and wife both have work, they

can earn up to Rs. 3,000/month. A family of two can live, with some discomfort but all basic

amenities, in a 25 Sq.mt. flat, and a family for 4-5 would need about 40 Sq.mt. The construction

cost would be Rs. 62,500 to Rs. 100,000 (plus cost of land). Monthly rent is about 0.6% of the

cost. Hence, if cost of land were to be zero, rent on such small flats would be Rs. 400 to Rs. 600

per month. But given the cost of land, the price and rent is much higher.

Now given an area, where land price is very high, some 10-20km away, the land price will be

very low, and so would be the rent. But in India, commute price is about Rs. 0.50 to Rs. 1.00 per

kilometer. If a laborer shifts 10-20km away, he would lose Rs. 10 to Rs. 40 in two-way

commute, and some 30-60 minutes of his time. A typical laborer who earns Rs. 100/day cannot

afford such commute.

So, the labor seeks to find a place close to his place of employment. But land price in such area

is often expensive, and he cannot afford to stay 10-20km away. As a result, he has no option

but to stay in a slum.


4. A Success StoryHousing for urban poor in City’s 76 slums to be completed by 2011 JnNURM houses ready sans

basic infrastructure – Satish Shile, Bangalore, April 22, DH News Service

Thousands of poor in Bangalore, who are entitled to houses under the Jawaharlal Nehru

National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM), will have to wait for a few more months in

their temporary shelter. Though the work under the Basic Services to Urban Poor

(BSUP) was approved four years ago only 10 per cent of the sanctioned houses for the

city have been completed.

The aim of JnNURM is to improve basic amenities in urban areas. Providing facilities

under BSUP is a major component of this mission. The Central Clearance Committee of

the mission has sanctioned construction of 19,939 dwelling units (houses) in 76 slums of

Bangalore City.

The programme includes construction of dwelling units (houses) with basic facilities -

water supply, electricity and underground drainage. The BBMP took up construction of

1,759 houses in 18 slums, while Karnataka Slum Clearance Board has been entrusted

with the construction of 18,180 houses in 58 slums.

Only 56 houses: The BBMP has built only 56 houses in Kalyani and Kodihalli slums and

the Slum Board has constructed 2,237 houses. Of the houses constructed so far only 56

houses constructed by the BBMP have been occupied. Basic amenities are yet to be

provided to houses constructed by the Slum Board. As a result the dwellers are provided

with temporary shelter in nearby grounds belonging to the BBMP or other government

properties. Under the mission each family is entitled to 300 Sq. ft. house in the

complexes with ground plus three floors.

No dearth of funds: Even though the project was approved in 2006, the work began in

2009. Under the JnNURM, the Centre offers 35 per cent of funds, while the State

government and Urban Local Body contribute 15 per cent and 50 per cent respectively.

There is no dearth of funds. The Slum Board has Rs 188.81 crore in its account and only


Rs 92.59 crore has been spent till now. According to the officers what is lacking is

cooperation from the general public.

The construction of houses was stalled at Netaji slum following a High Court order. The

locality’s rich people had moved the Court against the project, as it is very close to their

residential area. The Slum Board argued in the court that the housing complex to be built

for the slum dwellers would be on par with any other apartment in a private layout. The

court’s verdict was in favor of the Board. Another impediment in the implementation of

the project is locating suitable sites and providing temporary shelter for the slum

dwellers.

Temporary shelter: As the slum dwellers have hesitated to go to far-off places, they

should be provided with temporary shelter within 5 km radius of their present locality. AS

per current plans, all the people entitled to houses under the mission will be able to

occupy houses by March 2011.


5. Experiments in slum eradication

5.1 A credible low-income housing policyCreating products and services for the bottom of the pyramid is the sweet spot where

social objectives marry economic benefits. After cars and mobile calls, developers and

social entrepreneurs are looking at creating ‘Nano’ homes.

On the anvil are houses for between Rs. 300,000 and Rs. 500,000 for a constituency as

diverse as domestic help, taxi drivers, plumbers, senior citizens, graduates, newlywed

couples - basically, those who earn between Rs. 6,500 and Rs. 13,000 a month.

Janaagraha founder Ramesh Ramanathan, MphasiS founder Jaithirth Rao and CSC

Constructions are some whose plans have gone beyond the drawing board. Till now, the

onus was on the government to cater to the needs of the under-privileged. The initiatives

of Rao and Ramanathan are driven more from a social-equity point of view, while CSC’s

is more commercial. A combination of this, multiplied many times, can make the dream

of the urban poor of owning a home come true.

For Rs. 300,000, one can get a 250-sqft home at an EMI of Rs. 3,000, and a 400-sqft

home for about Rs. 500,000. Over 3,000 homes, each under Rs 500,000, are in various

stages of planning and development in a 20-km radius of Bangalore.

CSC has just announced three housing projects of 2,180 units, half of which are for the

Rs. 300,000 to Rs. 500,000 market. CSC says it will also offer amenities like swimming

pool, gym, children’s play area, and jogging tracks as these units will be part of larger

projects.

Adaptation to the Indian context and recommendations

The Government of India has an ambitious program of eradicating slums in major cities

of India within seven years. It has come out with a slum free city planning guidelines

under the Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY). The methodology prescribed under this guideline is

as below:


Figure 3: Methodology for preparation of slum-free city under RAY

As per the answers to Lok Sabha question in July 2009, there are over 839 projects approved at

a total project cost of Rs. 8455.66 Cr under Rajiv Awas Yojana.


Table 6: State-wise Total Projects Approved under Integrated Housing and Slums Development Programme

(IHSDP) in India(As on 15.07.2009)

(Rs. in Crore)

States/UTs

No. of Towns/ ULBs

Total No. of

Projects Approv

ed

Total Project

Cost Approv

ed

Total No. of Dwelling

Units Approved

(New+Upgradatio

n)

Total Central

Share Approv

ed

Total State Share

Approved

Total ACA

Released by M/o

Finance

Andhra Pradesh

57 77 1139.10 47896 764.57 374.53 416.08

Arunachal Pradesh

1 1 9.95 176 8.66 1.29 0.00

Andaman and Nicobar Islands

1 2 15.15 40 13.64 1.52 2.37

Assam 15 15 67.07 7377 56.48 10.59 28.24Bihar 16 16 194.11 9764 123.97 70.14 61.99Chhattisgarh

17 18 225.60 17922 158.83 66.78 79.41

Dadra and Nagar Haveli

1 1 0.50 0 0.45 0.05 0.23

Daman and Diu

1 1 0.69 16 0.58 0.11 0.29

Gujarat 37 37 365.90 27168 235.43 130.47 113.04Haryana 14 18 272.26 16426 209.70 62.57 104.85Himachal Pradesh

6 6 55.34 1616 37.07 18.26 18.54

Jammu and Kashmir

27 27 91.23 6670 62.95 28.28 29.92

Jharkhand 7 7 143.34 7868 82.24 61.11 41.12Karnataka 32 34 379.66 17237 222.69 156.97 111.34Kerala 36 37 192.20 18691 145.89 46.31 91.74Madhya Pradesh

34 37 270.37 18870 192.96 77.41 96.48

Mizoram 6 8 39.27 1950 29.78 9.49 14.89Rajasthan 32 34 418.82 25857 287.90 130.93 146.75Meghalaya 3 3 41.48 912 22.43 19.05 11.21Manipur 4 4 28.59 1906 21.33 7.27 10.35Maharashtra

83 103 1789.29 89939 1130.60 646.17 572.47

Nagaland 2 2 90.13 2761 45.33 44.79 22.07Orissa 30 31 267.68 12593 176.33 91.36 88.18Punjab 2 3 63.42 4658 32.62 30.79 16.31Puducherry

1 1 17.03 432 5.48 11.55 2.31

Tamil Nadu

82 83 495.00 36706 341.19 153.80 175.84

Tripura 3 3 27.20 1550 23.94 3.26 11.97Uttar Pradesh

122 133 805.05 31969 510.21 294.85 267.55

Uttarakhand

2 2 5.85 231 2.91 2.95 1.45

West Bengal

84 95 944.36 52686 681.36 263.00 392.50

India 758 839 8455.66 461887 5627.50 2815.64 2929.47

Source : Lok Sabha Unstarred Question No. 3986, dated on 31.07.2009.


6. Recommendations

Give the poor a voice; build support for improvements; eliminate administrative

and legal barriers

The voice of the poor is often not heard, and misperceptions about the poor persist.

Getting the poor engaged is essential. Project designers and service providers often

assume they know what type of services the poor want and are willing to pay for. Their

assumptions are not always correct and often result in costly and unsustainable supply-

driven public programs to provide services. Giving the poor the opportunity to participate

in planning and design can make the difference between success and failure. This can

happen only if adequate time and resources are allowed for meaningful consultation

during the preparatory phases of projects. The poor are often unaware of official policies

and their attitudes and behavior may impede their access to services. Educational

programs that provide information develop skills as well as promote constructive

attitudes and behaviors are an essential component of any effort to improve services

and give the poor a voice.

A number of well documented cases demonstrate the willingness and ability of the poor

to create and/or manage their own services. Community-based organizations (CBOs)

and federations of CBOs can help the poor take action on their own behalf. Simplified,

client-friendly procedures for connection, billing, and collection help the poor to gain and

retain access to services. Creating a dedicated unit within the utility and/or engaging

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to communicate with poor communities and

facilitate access to services has also been effective.

Strengthen and regulate service providers

Public service providers sometimes lack the autonomy, financial and human resources,

and incentives to provide services to the urban poor. Municipalities and utilities are not

held accountable for the provision of satisfactory supply of services. The services

provided by small private service providers (SPSPs) are not recognized, encouraged or

regulated. Many governments have taken steps to restructure the sector by separating


and clarifying the roles of policymakers, regulators, and service providers and adopting

accountability mechanisms. In a number of countries, the largest service providers have

been converted into autonomous public or private companies. In a few, more attention is

being devoted to improving the performance and sustainability of services in the smaller

towns. Such restructuring entails far more than a change in legal status—substantial

internal restructuring, including management reforms and performance incentives for

staff, is required to create a sustainable service provider. Training must focus on

improving service quality, access and sustainability—rather than on engineering

solutions.

Effective accountability and performance monitoring systems need to be put in place and

pro-poor regulatory approaches should be adopted to ensure the availability,

affordability, and sustainability of services for the poor.

Adopt appropriate investment finance, cost-recovery, and subsidy policies

Tariffs do not cover the full cost of efficient services. Poor households find it difficult to

pay upfront fees. Poor households find it difficult to pay monthly bills. Increasing block

tariffs penalizes households that share a service. Small-scale service providers lack

adequate finance to extend networks into peri-urban informal settlements and small

towns.

Targets for cost recovery that are realistic and charging methods that take the

constraints faced by the poor into account can lead to financial viability as well as

improved access for the poor. Cost recovery can be improved by reducing costs through

increased efficiency, improving commercial performance, and charging an average tariff

that reflects all costs. If a large tariff increase (in real terms) is required, even after taking

into account the effects of efficiency improvements and increased services, the increase

should be phased over a period of time and accompanied by perceivable improvements

in service.

Overcome physical and technical barriers

Physical and technical challenges and the high investment cost of conventional

technologies make extending formal services into informal and unplanned settlements

more difficult. Economic pricing of services are needed to ensure efficient use of the

resources. Most governments are still operating in the reactive mode—responding to

near disasters. Public authorities and utilities should adopt comprehensive forward


looking strategies for reducing water losses and encouraging the adoption of water

saving technologies and low-cost sanitation at the household and community level.

A number of low-cost and physically adaptive alternative technologies have been

developed for poor and marginal communities. These have already been successfully

used in many places. Modular planning, by which system components are initially

designed with only limited excess capacity, has been advocated as a method to reduce

initial investment costs. The underlying principle is to construct only when the investment

leads to increased revenues in an acceptable timeframe. Subject to certain

considerations, such as economies of scale, components are designed so that they can

be expanded or upgraded as needed.

Inform and educate poor communities

The poor are often unaware of official policies, and their attitudes and behavior may

impede their access to services. Like many users, they may have misperceptions about

the need to pay for public services. Many are illiterate and unaware of their rights.

Educational programs that give the poor the information and skills they need to

participate as well-informed citizens are an essential component of any effort to promote

their participation in planning and management of services. Programs to promote

constructive attitudes and behaviors that will enhance their chances of getting good

services and making effective use of them.

Empower the poor to act within and beyond their own communities

Community-based organizations (CBOs) and federations of CBOs can help the poor

take action on their own behalf. All of the strategies described above involve some form

of outreach to the poor. These are essential to ensure that the formal structures and

decision making activities actively seek to serve the poor better. But it is equally

important and effective for the poor to take action for themselves. By doing so, they gain

self-respect and important skills as well as better services. They also dispel commonly

held notions that the poor are helpless or lack initiative. Self-help activities can be

initiated by a dynamic individual within the community and/or a nongovernmental

organization (NGO) that is committed to the interests of the community.


7. References

1. “Guidance Notes on Services for the Urban Poor”, Water and Sanitation Program Report, August

2009.

2. “Rajiv Awas Yojana Guidelines for Slum-free City Planning”, Government of India, Ministry of

Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation.

3. “Slum Upgrading Experiences of Six Cities”, The Cities Alliance, October 2008.

4. “STATE OF THE WORLD’S CITIES 2008/2009 Harmonious Cities”, United Nations Human

Settlement Programme (UN HABITAT), Earthscan, 2008.

5. “Poverty lines and lives of the poor Underestimation of urban poverty - the case of India” , Meera

Bapat, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Poverty Reduction in

Urban Areas Series, Working Paper 20, February 2009.

6. Statistics from http://www.indiastat.com/

7. “Slum as theory: the South/Asian city and globalization”, Vyjayanthi Rao, International Journal of

Urban and Regional Research, Blackwell Publishing, March 2006.

8. “Enabling Slum Redevelopment in Mumbai: Policy Paradox in Practice”, VINIT MUKHIJA

University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), USA, June 2001.

9. “Slums and Urban Development: Questions on Society and Globalisation”, JEAN-CLAUDE

BOLAY, The European Journal of Development Research, Vol.18, No.2, June 2006.

10. “The Slum Upgrading Myth”, Herbert Werlin, Urban Studies, January 1999.

11. “The Millennium Development Goals Report”, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, United

Nations, 2008.

12. “Affordable Housing – A key growth driver in the real estate sector?”, KPMG in India

13. “Are architects and planners obstacles to slum upgrading?”, Dick Urban Vestbro, Papers from a

seminar in Barcelona in April 2008,October 2008

14. “An Information-Based Model of NGO Mediation for the Empowerment of Slum Dwellers in

Bangalore”, S. Madon and S. Sahay, Information Society, Taylor & Francis, 2002

15. “Bootstrapping India: Slums”, Rahul Mehta, http://www.rahulmehta.com/articles/prob_slums.htm

16. “Strategizing Slum Improvement in India: A Method to Monitor and Refocus Slum Development

Programs”, Robert M. Buckley, Mahavir Singh, and Jerry Kalarickal, Global Urban Development

Magazine, Volume 3, Issue 1, November 2007.

http://www.rahulmehta.com/articles/prob_slums.htm

http://www.indiastat.com/

Slum Eradication

Documents

Transcript of Slum Eradication