Public policies and their importance for the

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. Chapter 4: Public policies, environment and social exclusion Neli Aparecida de MELLO-THÉRY, Louise BRUNO-LEZY, Veronique DUPONT, Marie-Hélène ZERAH Benedito Oscar CORREIA, Marie-Caroline SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, Wagner RIBEIRO

1

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. The debate on environmental protection vs. human development has nothing new, but is being renewed for some decades given the growing urbanisation: issues that had already emerged to be conflict-prone in rural areas turn to be even more burning in cities where actors are more numerous, interests more massive, with political, social and economic stakes even more burning. One central issue, that forms the core of this chapter, is the level and modalities of integration of public policies. Generally speaking, public policies are too sector-based and treat separately the issues of environment and of housing, without taking into account neither the consequences of one sectorial policy on the other sector, nor, even more fundamentally, the existing interrelationships between housing and environment prior to the design and implementation of policies. Hence the matter is crucial in terms of policy definition as much as of the diagnosis to be conducted before the definition of the policies. A traditional approach in understanding public policies is to envisage them as a problem solving mechanism. They comprise a set of laws, norms, rules, institutions, but they also anchor themselves in a set of cultural and social representations. In the last decades, research in social sciences has moved away from an analysis simply based on institutions and laws. It has started to assess the processes leading to the “construction of a problem”, as described in Lascoumes and Le Galès (2007), as the passage from social facts to public issues, which can then become political issues that lead to public action. In this paper, the proposal is to look at public policies in two domains affecting material life in cities, specifically housing and environment preservation, within a comparative approach, highlighting differences and similarities. The ambition is to understand the main content of these policies as well as their (lack of) articulation on the one hand and to assess their role in framing a sustainable urban agenda on the other hand. In other words, can public policies related to urban environment and housing reveal a holistic approach or are they confined to a sector-based approach? What is their place as compared to other factors and actors affecting urban transformation? Are public policies sufficient and able to bring about a coherent and accepted framework to ensure in the long run sustainable and inclusive cities? The “green agenda” refers to those speaking in the name of environment and giving priority to ecological issues in the long term, and the “brown agenda” to those articulating the issues in terms of social justice and satisfying the immediate needs of the poor, in particular in relation to their rights to housing [Bartone et al 1994; McGranahan and Satterthwaite 2000]. Beyond this classical dichotomy, one may wonder how far the studied metropolitan areas may support such constraints and contradictions. This leads to a set of questions: how to provide housing for the poor? How to ensure that real estate markets do not produce environmental externalities? How to bring together various urban actors to agree on a minimum common agenda to preserve specific urban areas from building? To try to answer these questions, we will start with a rapid historical presentation of the cities, focusing on structural factors explaining the conflict between the environment and the urban population. The second part will more specifically focus on the relationships between housing and environment, highlighting the strategies of public policies to use green areas in the city (protected areas, forests, etc.) as a variable to measure quality of life. The third part examines the relative importance of public policies in the conflicts we study, within or around the protected areas. Because this conflict is anchored in a specific “territory”, we will look at the policies related to this territory while keeping in mind that a major flaw is that they do not enough consider the areas in question as territories – with an

2

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. integrated approach made spatially coherent. Finally, by focusing the perspective on institutional actors, we will analyse how public policies have been dictated in a recent time by the influence and the power that some groups enjoy over others. This leads to a reading of public policies as more reactive than active. Our questions are grounded in the empirical analysis of the cities, where there are existing conflicts between environment preservation and housing around parks coming under category II of the IUCN protected areas, namely the Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai (Zérah, 2007), the Serra da Cantareira Park in São Paulo metropolitan region (Mello, Correia, 2009), Tijuca National Park in Rio (Bruno-Lézy, 2007). Two more areas will be studied, the Delhi Ridge and the river Yamuna (Dupont, 2005, 2008) in Delhi, which illustrate the same issue.

1. Housing and environmental policies: a historical view 1.1. Growing urban areas and protected zones Rio and São Paulo The almost complete disappearance of Mata Atlântica (Atlantic Forest) is the result of colonization of the Brazilian coast and the growth of all cities located there, especially in Rio (Dean, 1996). The urban population grew from 31.2 million to 74.8 million between 1940 and 1991 in Brazil, while the rural population has lost 44.3 million people in the same period. Big cities like Rio and Sao Paulo have been growing extensively. The demand for timber, household and other business took place both in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo, causing forest destruction. Deforestation and land use for agricultural production (sugar cane and coffee) generated problems like water supply and slopes. Planning policies of the 19th century used to identify the hills as healthy places, free from the yellow fever that infected the urban lowlands. As such, the division between the neighborhoods of the elite and workers was already identified at that date (Bonduki, 2000, Rolnik, 1988, Raffard, 1977). From the 1930s onwards, the rapid population growth and the need for European workers to work on coffee plantations in São Paulo have caused problems of “social segregation of space”. The speculation led to the emergence of urban voids between 1910 and 1930, without a corresponding increase in population,. Despite the large amount of urban voids, the formation of slums began in this period. Facing this horizontal expansion of urban areas, there were protected areas, like the source of water supply (Serra da Cantareira). In Rio de Janeiro, slums started to appear in the end of 19th century, firstly in the south of the city, since the State was unable to provide adequate housing for the growing population. Progressively the hills (morro) get invaded by poor shelters. This process also took place in the noble areas of the city, as is the case of Rocinha’s slum which is in the neighborhood of São Conrado. The hills of Tijuca began to be occupied with the slum Morro do Salgueiro. The occupation of the hills is one of the few alternatives to face a non existing housing policy, unable to answer the social needs of the poor. According to the Secretary of Planning A. Pinheiro (2008), until the 1990s, local authorities did not have the tools and guidelines to apply relevant public policy. The actions undertaken were part of government plans to contain the growth of slums in protected areas, but they were limited to public works or legislation on the use of land without a global view of the territory nor pertinent approaches related to transportation or housing for the poor.

3

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. Mumbai and Delhi’s spatial expansion and pressure on the environment The existence and the continuing growth of Mumbai can be read as the permanence of a conflict between nature and culture. The Mumbai peninsula is geographically very constrained. Before the very large public and reclamation works carried out by the British in the 19th century, Mumbai was constituted of seven small islands and disconnected from its hinterland. Even today, the peninsula extends over a narrow stretch of 63 km that represents a surface of 440 km². For a modern city of this size, its integration to the hinterland and to the metropolitan region that covers 4375 km² remains limited in the north by insufficient rail and road connections and across the Arabian sea by the absence of a sea link. Consequently, land available, as compared to other large developing cities, is meagre- but did not deter the growth of the city. The growth in the Salsette Island towards the eastern and the western suburbs led to their incorporation in the municipal limits in 1961 to constitute the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The growth of the population agglomerated that first settled along the two major railway lines came to meet the bottom tip of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park. This factor, added to the very expansion of the national park’s boundaries as Bon, Chapelet et al. (2008) suggest, explains that the national park, previously situated far away from the city, got engulfed in a urban environment. Another reason explains the push towards the periphery and the continuous growth of slum pockets. It is the combination of limited housing production, high rents and cost of housing as well as, since the end of the 60s, industrial policies that aimed at deconcentrating industrial zones. These are classical processes of urban expansion and transformation of the urban economy, but particularly acute in Mumbai, that combines three very specific elements: (i) Mumbai remains a poor city where half of its inhabitants live in slums and another large number in very few square meters, therefore requiring massive increase in house production, (ii) Mumbai’s ecosystem is both rich and diverse but it is also vulnerable, and (iii) public policies both regarding housing and environment preservation seem to have failed. The case of Delhi is spatially different. As seen in Chapter 1, Delhi’s spatial expansion has been multidirectional, and extended beyond the limits of the National Capital Territory. The urban spread has followed the main roads and railway lines, crossed the river Yamuna towards the east, and surrounded the Delhi Ridge, the northern extension of the ancient Aravalli Range. This urban sprawl has mainly occurred at the expense of productive agricultural land, and also exerted pressure on the two distinct natural features of Delhi, the Ridge and the river Yamuna. The Delhi Ridge along with its forest tracks serves as the “green lungs” for the population of the capital city. It covers a distance of about 35 km from south-west to north and an area of 7784 hectares, and harbours the only natural forest in the metropolitan area. It does not however cover a continuous spread as several intervening stretches have been urbanized. The role of this forest as a reserve for a rich diversity of plant species, “a sink for many pollutants”, and “a purifier of air and supplier of oxygen” has been acknowledged (Department of Forests & Wild Life, 2007-08, chap. 3: 6), and a large portion of the forest was declared protected in 1980 (see below). However, the Ridge areas had already been under strong pressure due to urbanisation and development activities. The degradation started back in the 1920s and 1930s with the extension of Delhi towards the west, and continued with various types of encroachments, including the construction of public buildings, roads, settlements, parks as well as garbage dumping, lopping of trees, grazing by livestock, mining and quarrying (Dept of Environment and Forest, 2010). As a result,

4

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. according to the NGO Toxics Link, “more than 40% of the Ridge has been destroyed”1.

The Delhi Ridge. Source: http://www.toxicslink.org/delhiridge/maps.php As for the river Yamuna, it flows across the city from North to South and its large riverbed (width between 1.5 to 3 km) and floodplain constitute a crucial environmental asset, recognised as an “eco-sensitive” zone by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA, 2007 & 2008); it is a groundwater recharge zone, endowed with fertile land used for agriculture and horticulture. The Yamuna basin has been under the pressure of unauthorized colonies and squatter settlements as well as planned urban development (DDA 2008, see below). In addition, its water suffers from extremely high levels of pollution due to the discharge of untreated sewage and industrial effluents. From this lukewarm diagnosis, to say the least, one can infer that in the four cities environment policies have been deficient; they were not missing, however. 1.2. The construction of environment policies in Brazil and India and their consequences in urban areas Two points should be underlined on Brazilian urban environmental policy. On one hand, the shared responsibility between levels of government (federal, national and municipal) since 1988; on the other hand the late appearance of standards for the use of urban land, which emerged only after the deterioration of urban ecosystems and difficulties to control the pressure on lands. In 1981 appears the first integrated policy environment in Brazil, encompassing urban environmental issues (pollution control) like ecosystem conservation, environmental zoning, environmental education. Before, between the years 1930 and 1970, the policy was

1

http://www.toxicslink.org/delhiridge/index.php (accessed on 10-08-2010)

5

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. limited to the regulation of the use of natural resources (forests, minerals, water and fisheries). The control of urban industrial pollution had been initiated in 1975 (Decree-Law 1413), and zoning in critical areas of pollution, indicating the first legal restrictions on land use, started in 1980 (Law 6803/80). But the guidelines were approved only in 2001 with the Statute of the City2 (Federal Law 10.257) : made mandatory for municipalities with more than 20 000 inhabitants, this law created new planning tools that include respect for the public good, the right to urban land, safety and welfare of citizens (access to infrastructure, transport, etc.) and environmental consideration. Conservation of ecosystems implies determining areas which should be protected under the management of federal, state or local level and should have an adjacent buffer zone (art. 2 of the SNUC, 2000). The management of national (Tijuca in Rio) and state parks (Cantareira in Sao Paulo) involves the three levels of institutional power. The management of urban land depends on local rules and is the responsibility of the local government, whereas environmental protection involves local, regional and national governments. No doubt that this situation requires the coordinated use of various instruments, especially those provided in the Master Plans and, especially, negotiation between actors who represent different interests. In both Brazilian cities, municipal regulations forbid construction on the banks of water courses (100 m wide). Despite the interdiction, the cities have expanded, occupying the buffer zones. Only in 1992 the municipality of Rio has established (Order No. 11 301 on 21 August) an area of environment protection and urban renewal (Aparu Alto da Boa Vista) to ensure the conservation and recovery of environmental areas and the adjacent urban park. In Sao Paulo, the new management plan of the Cantareira park defined the buffer zone, restructuring types of use in the park boundaries. In India, till the 1970s, environment has not been a major concern for the decision makers, and “conservation” policies were mostly devoted to economic development by guaranteeing resource extraction. The 1970s appear as a turning point for three main reasons. The first one is the emerging reality of an “ecological crisis” with large deforestation, increased water and air pollution, and depletion of resources. Similarly to worldwide debates, this crisis questioned the relationship between development and environment. Secondly, the pressure from the civil society to better take into account and preserve the environment increased. The Chipko movement, launched in 1973, where villagers, mostly women, threatened to tie themselves to trees in the Himalyan foothills to stop tree felling, is emblematic of the resistance to the natural resource overuse for safeguarding the people’s livelihoods. Thirdly, Indira Gandhi in the 1972 Stockhom Conference on Environment made a strong case for environment preservation. Consequently, a number of legislations have been passed in the following years with the National Wildlife Protection Act and the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution Act), respectively in 1972 and 1974. This was followed in 1981 with the Air (Prevention and Control act). In 1985, the Ministry of Environment and Forests was created, and the following year the Environment Protection Act was enacted ; it included the obligation to conduct Environmental Impact Assessment before starting large projects. Regarding the specific case of forests, the 1927 Indian Forest Act consolidated the laws devoted to conservation, but this hardly detracted from extensive use of forests by the civil administration (colonial and post-colonial) and private actors for commercial purposes, and certainly not from restriction or prohibition of forest access for the local people. This is one of the reasons why in 1977 the forests were included in the Constitutional “concurrent list”, making the Central Government responsible of their management on par with the States. In 2

Law, number 10.257, from July 7th, 2001, that institutes instruments that make it possible for the municipal administration centers to have a better control of use and exploration of the urban land.

6

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. the 1980 Forest Conservation Act aimed at protecting forest and made essential prior approval of the Central Government for de-reservation of forest lands for non-forestry purposes. Some changes appeared first with the National Forest Policy, 1988, that facilitated “joint forest management” – at least in degraded forests. More recently, in 2006, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act recognized the rights of the people who have been residing in the forest for at least 75 years. Yet this legislation, that was adopted after a long debate, is not fully in place. In the case of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, the consequences of this law are very unclear as the question of recognition of rights of the adivasis might lead to serious controversies (see chapter 3, box 2). To sum up, despite or because the growing concern for the environment, as the increasing number of associations and groups push for through various forms of mobilization, the conflict between environment and development remains a burning issue, be the “development” understood as urban and economic growth or as the right to a decent livelihood for people living off the protected areas.

2. The relationships between housing and environmental protection in urban policies To understand how urban policies failed to properly articulate the questions of housing and environment protection, we shall start by the analysis of the major moments where urban growth put pressure on the environment and the manner in which public policies (municipal, national and federal) responded to this pressure. In Brazil, the different stages of growth of São Paulo and Rio express three main phases: in the 1960s, the concept of environmental impact focused on industrial pollution, in 1980 it included the social and environmental impact, and in the 2000’s, sustainable development and socio-environmental governance have been disseminated by Agenda 21. In the 1990s the urban question has been addressed by several federal agencies (the Central Bank, Caixa Econômica Federal, the Special Secretariat for Community Action, which manages the housing program alternatives) just as it was already the case with the environmental sector. Since 1988, according to the decentralization laws, the local government is in charge with the implementation of the programs. In India, the amount of laws protecting the (urban) environment is far from negligible, from the Coastal Regulation Zone notification (a new one was released in 2011), that is supposed to protect in particular the mangroves of Mumbai, to the compulsory environmental assessments that are (in theory) to be sanctioned before any development project. Most of these rules come from the central government, but the regional States are in charge with the implementation of them, be it by the State Coastal Zone Management Authority, by the Forest Department, etc. Specific rules from State Governments can also come into the picture. For housing, the regional States come even more to the forefront – even though some funding agencies such as Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO), incorporated in 1970, are national. Two traits are noticeable: firstly, in both matters, housing and environment, the local (municipal) level has little power, overcome by the State in spite of the decentralization laws of 1993 ; secondly, a sectorial segmentation preventing any efficient integration of housing cum environment policies occurs from the fact that policies are designed by distinct State departments working without real collaboration. 2.1. When the protection of the forest becomes an alibi for building in preserved areas

7

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. In Rio, the poor who were expelled from the city center found their new place on the slopes of forest, which have been occupied over the last century. Currently 102 slums are located in areas adjacent to the National Park (ISER, 2000). However, urban pressure on the forest from illegal settlements is also the consequence of gated communities, whose upper income group look for green forest, amenities and climate. As for Sao Paulo, some poorer sectors, located on the south side and south-west (Anhanguera neighborhood) and east (Guarulhos) of the Cantareira Park have been growing by 80% in five years. Some solutions have been sought in the two Brazilian cities by the instruments of the Statute of the City (a law in favour of a socially more inclusive city, that incorporates environmental values to urban development) (Avritzer, 2007) as well as the National System of Conservation Units that encourages private participation and establishes ways of restoring and incorporate green areas in corridors seeking ways to restore or protect local fauna and flora. Moreover, nature also has a new value for businesses that operate in the real estate market by integrating new values about nature through practices of environmental responsibility and environmental certifications (ISO 14000 and 18 000 ICA). The environmental theme is used for sale: clean air, vegetation, birds. Thus, preserving the environment of the parks is of some interest for the middle and upper class residential inhabitants, and their interest in protecting its ecological characteristics should be seen as positive. In the same way, some policies implemented by governmental actors to preserve the environment are sometimes suspected of serving other interest than the public good. For example, the Municipality Project for reforestation of green areas in Rio de Janeiro has been initiated in 1988. There is a suspicion that this program was not driven by environmental protection, but by public security concern due the violence in these areas. The residents affected by the project are included in the program Minha Casa Minha Vida of the federal government and helped in acquiring a house outside the protected area. The residents organized a protest against this measure of mass removal and have been mobilized to show that many areas to be cleared were not even included in areas of environmental protection3. They accused the government to take out this population from the noble and central areas of the city in order to prepare the World Cup 2014 and the Olympic Games planned in 2016. Similar type of conflicts can be seen in Mumbai. The main focus has been on the impact of the 500-700,000 slum dwellers said to be living in or around the national park in 1995. However, there are as well a number of residential colonies located in the vicinity of the park. Some of them, as our field work demonstrated, are cheek by jowl with slum settlements. Others are located on official forest land that has been converted into residential, industrial and commercial zone decades ago. In both cases, a solution has been evolved where the State government decided that residents have to pay a tax to get their residences regularized. This clearly different treatment of the two populations indicate a conditional access to the city (Zérah and Landy, forthcoming).

3

Defending Complex dos Prazeres, Rocinha (Laboriaux), Ladeira Tabajaras, Vila Autódromo and Canal do Anil, the most important movements involved are: Association of Residents of Morro dos Prazeres, AMAST - Residents Association and Friends of Santa Teresa, Santa Camera, GLOBAL Magazine / Brazil, Citizen Journal, MUCA- Movimento Unido dos Camelôs, Nomad University, SAMP - Society of Friends of the Morro dos Prazeres (http://www.revistaglobalbrasil.com.br).

8

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. 2.2. The “Statute of the City”: housing, urban planning and environment in the management plans in Brazil. Recently, Master Plans have included environmental issues as well as cultural and natural heritage as key points in the urban law. The impact of such an inclusion is mainly on land regularization and controlling the slums. In Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo the transition from a sector-based to an integrated, inclusive vision is noticeable in the review of the older master plans and the review of the current ones. Despite the master plans cities remain full of incongruities. Although land use is now restricted by the Forest Bill (Law 4771 of 1965) which protects springs, riverbanks, streams and slopes steeper than 45°, the legislation does not succeed in preventing the growth of slums. In São Paulo, the share of residents living in "subnormal" shelters, as the poor tenements or slums are called by the statistical agencies, rose from 1.1% to 11.2% of urban population between 1973 and 2000. In 2008 there were 1,565 slums. The Paulista Company of São Paulo Planning (EMPLASA) was created to develop integrated planning and management of shared services, i.e. planning, programming, organization, coordination and implementation of common urban services. The last Strategic Master Plan of the City of São Paulo, approved in 2003, emphasizes the balance between urban and natural areas, highlighting the importance of giving to the citizens the benefits of an urban life without environmental degradation. The rules aim at urban planning, preservation and restoration of the natural environment with social inclusion and access to land and public services. New tools have been defined in order to control the use of land, to fight pollution and environmental degradation, to limit urbanization and regularize the urban sectors occupied by low-income groups. The Serra da Cantareira and its park have been defined as a subsection and the priority has been given to the water supply from the Cantareira’s system, prohibiting new illegal occupation in the area. But, even with the law, high-standard apartments are built in the protected parts of the Serra. Moreover, many slums are spread all over, and do not have the water and electricity network. There is no environmental control and no actual attention to the natural heritage. The master plan of Rio de Janeiro includes the revised master plan of 1992, and pretends to achieve the goal of "compatibility” between urban development and environmental protection through the intelligent use of natural conservation, cultural and built environment. Article 53 has defined the principles and objectives to be achieved for the regular use of urban land, including environmental protection and natural resources. Another principle relies on the non-eviction of slums and their integration within the urban plan (s.53 § II, III, IV). The "model" for the intervention of slum upgrading programs is the result of Favela Bairro and Bairrinho programs. This model combines the guidelines of the National Movement for Urban Reform (MNRU) by inserting the city's economic competitiveness in the urban network (Fernandes, 2005) and by integrating illegal settlements in neighbourhoods. The Favela-Bairro is recognized as one of the most respected social programs in urbanization. The articulation between Departments, especially between Housing Department and Environment Department, is all the more fundamental when it comes to the planning of the areas classified as "zones of social interest" (slums, irregular housing programs, social housing). It is up to the Secretary of Environment to issue regulatory approvals, once the impact analysis has been made, to control the expansion of irregular structures in natural areas and to implement pilot program for reforestation. However, even if laws could be enforced at the three administrative levels, concerning urban land use and the protection of the areas with environmental risk, they remain partly ignored.

9

9

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. 2.3. The treatment of environment in the Master Plans f or Delhi (MPD) In Delhi, since the sixties, the successive Master Plans provide the general frame and a comprehensive tool for planning urban space, under which housing policies on the one hand, and environment protection on the other are elaborated. The Master Plans, prepared by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) under the Ministry of Urban Development for approval by the Government of India, is the foremost instrument to implement land policies via zoning and land-use regulations. This is moreover a mandatory document. Master Plans have thus delimitated the urbanisable area of Delhi and various categories of separate land-use and zones, including: residential zones, industrial zones, institutional zones, commercial zones, etc., as well as green zones (protected forests, agricultural green belt, parks…) and the River Yamuna special zone. However, they provide rather a juxtaposition of segregated land uses than a proper articulation and integration of housing and environmental issues. The first two Master Plans (MPD-1962, with perspective 1981; and MPD–Perspective 2001, promulgated on 1-08-1990) recommended an inviolable green belt of agricultural land around the urbanizable limits, but a considerable part of it had been utilized for both planned and unplanned development (DDA, 2007 & 2008). As acknowledged in a recent assessment of the first Master Plan, “The large scale Land Acquisition Policy did not prove very useful, as there was mismatch between the land acquisition and development, resulting into upcoming of unauthorised colonies, encroachments on public land, violation of envisaged landuses, etc.” (Puri, 2007: vi). Since the densities recommended were low, this also favoured the horizontal sprawl of the city at the expense of the green areas. The treatment of the Delhi Ridge The first Plan envisaged the development of the Ridge, as well as the river front, “to provide active recreation to the people” (DDA, 1962: 9). It is only with the Master Plan for Delhi–Perspective 2001 (DDA, 1990) and the Regional Plan of the National Capital Region for 2001 (NCR Planning Board, 1988 & 1996) that the four main parts of the remaining Ridge area were identified and recognized as zones where “no further infringements” should be permitted, and which “should be conserved with utmost care and should be afforested with indigenous species with minimum of artificial landscape” (DDA, 1990: 3 & 35). The Master Plan for Delhi 2021 (notified on 7-02-2007) emphasized again the conservation of the Ridge. In addition, several measures were taken to protect the Delhi ridge, that includes the following4: a) in 1980 the then Lieutenant Governor of Delhi declared a large portion of the ridge as ‘protected’ zone under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; b) in 1994 and 1996 most parts of the Ridge were notified as reserved forest under Section IV of the Indian Forest Act 1927; c) in October 1995, a Ridge Management Board was constituted, consisting of representatives from the government, DDA and NGOs. The pressure of citizens’ groups and NGOs concerned by environmental issues, their campaigns launched to save the Delhi ridge, have also played an important role to prevent further degradation, as well as Courts’ orders to clear the Ridge from illegal encroachments 4

For a comprehensive presentation of the various steps taken and campaigns launched to protect the Delhi Ridge, see the website of the NGO Toxics Link: http://www.toxicslink.org/delhiridge/index.php (accessed on 2008-2010).

10 10

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. in response to Public Interest Litigations filed by citizens. Yet, the legal protection of the Ridge proved to be weak and insufficient to stop encroachments, including by the Delhi Development Authority, although it is part of the Ridge Management Board supposed to protect this forest. Thus, “[i]t is surprising to note that the DDA is responsible for much of the encroachment which includes building new shopping malls, office complexes, hotels and roads” (Toxics Link)5.

The treatment of the river Yamuna zone The approach and recommendations regarding the conservation and development of the river zone has evolved over time. In the first Master Plan for Delhi (1962) the entire river area was identified as floodable, and the Plan recommended the development of district parks, playgrounds and open space. In addition to various measures aimed at making the river “pollution free”, the Master Plan–Perspective 2001 recommended to develop large recreational areas on the big expanses of the river bank and to integrate those “with other urban development so that the river is an integral part of the city–physically and visually” (DDA, 1990: 3). The channelisation of the river was also strongly advocated, with reference to the Thames in London and the Seine in Paris, in order to provide further opportunities to develop the river front (DDA, 1990: 9). The project of channelling the river was abandoned but not the development of the river front, seen as “a unique opportunity for developing a strong city image” (DDA, 2008: 27). The Master Plan for Delhi 2021 recommends a series of measures for the rejuvenation of the river and to address, at the outset, the extremely high level of pollution of the river. At another level, the strategy for the development of the area proposes the “designation and delineation of appropriate land uses and aesthetics of the river front”, taking into account flood occurrence and flood zones, the requirements for ground water recharge as well as the potentials for reclamation of land (DDA, 2007: para. 9.2.1). As stated in the detailed Zonal Development Plan of the river area, its basic goal is “to rejuvenate river Yamuna as ‘CITY LIFELINE’6 by striking a balance between developmental parameters and ecological aspects” (DDA, 2008: 13). “The river front vision includes multiple land uses” and “does not limit the variety of possible uses” providing they do not degrade the existing environment (ibid: 16 & 25). The zonal Plan further introduces a distinction into three “morphologies” in the river zone: the river bed (area under river water), the river flood plain (area between the river water and the embankments), and the river front (area outside the embankments) (ibid: 25). This distinction, along with the possibility of reclaiming land7 and change of land use, opened the way to a controversial treatment of the conservation of this ecological sensitive zone and to a discriminatory treatment of the type of “non-conforming and polluting land-uses” and constructions or settlements to be removed from the river zone –or on the contrary accepted or even planned. As seen above, in the Master Plan of Delhi, environmental considerations are integrated in urban planning through zoning and land use regulations. But on the ground, the use of environmental arguments proved to be discretionary and more often at t he expenses of the

5

The website of the NGO Toxics Links [http://www.toxicslink.org/delhiridge/index.php] provides the details of various court cases pointing the violations by DDA of the Forest Act and protected status of the Ridge. 6

Stressed with capital letters in the original document

By building embankments, part of the river flood plain will not be considered any more as “active floodplain” and may be treated under the category of “riverfront” area. 7

11 11

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. housing needs of the poor. The displayed slogan “Clean Delhi-Green Delhi”8 can be read as a reminder of the precedence of the “green agenda” over the “brown agenda” in the capital, since “cleaning” the city also involves “slum clearance” and thus “cleaning up” the city from its slums and from slum dwellers9. A survey of 67 sites of demolished slum clusters in Delhi, conducted by us in May-June 2007 (Dupont, 2008) provides revealing insights in this respect. Thus, one emerging trend in the change in land use was the conversion of slum sites evacuated, in the name of “larger public interest” 10, into parks and green areas11. 3. The impact of the public policies on the environmental pressure and housing for the poor: problems or solutions? We will consider in this section the disconnection between the public housing policy and the environmental policy, and the consequences of it. Do laws and standards provide a common framework? What barriers exist in the action of the public sector actions? First of all, regarding housing, one shall look at three dimensions: (i) a constraining legal environment, (ii) an insufficient level of housing production and (iii) the inability to bring down the number of slums. In cities like São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Mumbai or Delhi, urban policies are using the usual tools (Master Plans, financing, instruments for environmental control, etc.). But what is the degree of coordination between the policies of housing and the one on urban environment? These are complex issues. In Brazil, for instance, the construction of tenements atracts a significant number of new activities and facilitates the illegal occupation of industries located nearby. The availability of urban service infrastructure benefits both the informal and the formal tenements. Other factors contribute to differentiate access to urban land: the land price, which changes depending on the construction of new residential areas, makes the population that lacks adequate financial resources fill up the interstices, which are generally risky areas. These areas - the sources of rivers and permanent preservation areas, valley bottoms, slopes - have no value in the formal housing market; therefore their vacancy makes them prone to occupation and encroachment. 3.1. The lack of consistency of public authorities in Delhi with regards to environmental concerns

By building embankments, part of the river flood plain will not be considered any more as “active floodplain” and may be treated under the category of “riverfront” area 8

9

Cf. Almitra Patel vs Union of India and the analysis of this court case in Dupont and Ramanathan [2008].

10

As per the slum policy in force in Delhi since 1990, the demolition of squatter settlements established on public land was to take place only if the land were required for implementing projects in the larger public interest—a principle that is also stated in Mumbai slum policies (see Chapter 3). 11

This pattern was also noted by Khosla [2007: 12, referring to the study by Khosla and Jha 2005]. Batra and Mehra [2008] mention too a couple of revealing examples of slum clusters cleared “to make way for ‘a spiritual park’ ” in Nehru Place district or, in the West Colony of Vikas Puri, “a neighbourhood park for middle class residents of the colony”.

12 12

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. i) The Yamuna river The massive evictions along the banks of the river Yamuna (the Yamuna Pushta slum clusters), where the argument of polluting the river was utilised by the Delhi High Court to justify the removal of all slum clusters (last order of 3rd March 2003)12, further exemplify the antagonism between the “green” and the “brown” agendas. In the process, some old village settlements were also considered as “encroachment” and hence bulldozed in 2004 along with the squatter settlements [Jamwal 2004]. As underlined by a Joint Urgent Action Appeal by the Habitat International Coalition-Housing and Land Rights Network (HIC-HLRC) and the World Organisation against Torture (OMCT), the argument used “ignored available evidence from a report on pollution by Hazard Centre13, which pointed out that the total discharge from the 300,000 residents of Yamuna Pushta accounted only for 0.33% of the total sewage released into the river”14. Another remarkable feature is the project to develop a large part of the land cleared from its slum clusters on the western bank into a “Golden Jubilee Park”. Given the concern for protecting the riverbed and floodplain from human settlements, it is somehow paradoxical to find that the colony of Mandampur Khadar, a resettlement site for evicted slum dwellers, including some families from the demolished Yamuna Pushta slum clusters, was planned by the urban authorities and developed from 1999 to 2004 in the floodplain of the same river, downstream on the western bank. The dramatic transformations that took place over the last dozen years along the river banks, as part of the implementation of the plan for development and beautification of the Yamuna riverfront and then the preparation for the 2010 Commonwealth Games15, further shows the lack of consistency with regard to environment protection, as well as social equity in public interventions on the urban space. While, on the one hand, the slums were demolished following a Delhi High Court order on the grounds that, firstly, they constituted encroachment on the riverbed and, secondly, were polluting the river, on the other hand, many other unauthorised constructions which should have been also affected by the court order16, were protected from demolition. This anti-poor bias and pro-powerful preferential treatment was denounced by several activists and researchers, who pointed out the illegal structures already built or under 12

The same argument is found again in the Recommendations of the Committee under Secretary (Urban Development), Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, for Yamuna Action Plan (2004), in its section 5 on ‘Slum Cluster and Yamuna River Bed’, which is annexed to the Chapter 9 on ‘Environment’ of the Delhi Master Plan for 2021: “One of the contributory factors to the flow of untreated sewage into the river Yamuna is the slum clusters that have come up unauthorisedly on both Eastern and Western banks of river Yamuna. Local bodies have already removed several J.J. clusters existing on the Western bank. Such clusters need to be cleared from riverbed.” “Pollution, Pushta, and Prejudices”, Hazard Centre, 2004. Whilst these figures would need further scrutinizing, there was clearly a lack of reliable data to inform the debates and the court’s decisions. 13

14

See OMCT/HIC-HLRN, 2004.

15

Delhi won the bid to host the XIXth edition of the Commonwealth Games in November 2003.

On 3rd March 2003, the Delhi High Court observed: “Yamuna river has been polluted not only on account of dumping of waste, including medical waste as well as discharge of unhygienic material, but the Yamuna bed and its embankment have been unauthorisedly and illegally encroached by construction of pucca house, jhuggies and places for religious worship, which cannot be permitted any more...”.Subsequently, the following order was passed: “We, therefore, direct all the authorities concerned, that is, DDA, MCD, PWD, DJB as well the Central Government to forthwith remove all the unauthorised structures, jhuggies, places of worship and/or any other structure which are unauthorisedly put in Yamuna bed and its embankment within two months from today.” Retrieved from Toxics Watch blog : http://toxicswatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/yamuna-is-cleaned-by-3-billionlitres.html (last accessed on 21-08-2010). 16

13 13

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. construction in the same non-constructible zone: the Secretariat of the Government of the Capital Territory of Delhi (GNCTD), the Metro Depot by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC), the Metro Police Station, an I.T. Park at Shastri Park (by DMRC-GNCTD, the Akshardham temple, and the Commonwealth Games Village. These various projects started in violation of development and environmental laws, and deny of their adverse ecological consequences17; yet they eventually benefited from ad hoc regularisation in the revised Master Plan and Zonal Development Plan. In several cases, notably for the construction of the Games Village, the controversies led to legal battles between the State and citizens’ groups. However, the environmentalists’ argument that the Game Village, being located in the riverbed and floodplain, would hinder the groundwater recharge and environment regeneration, was rejected by the Supreme Court which permitted the construction to continue (last order passed on 30 July 2009)18. Like for other controversial projects, this amounted to the recognition of a fait-accompli, here under an additional pressure, the risk of jeopardising the conduct of the international sporting event projected as a matter of national pride. ii) The abandoned Tejkhand pilot project A last example, the Tehkhand project, illustrates the lack of proper articulation between housing policies and environment protection. In order to tackle the issue of slums and squatter settlements, the Master Plan for Delhi 2021 envisages an alternate approach to the site and service approach favoured till now. This will be based on the provision of built up accommodations in multi-storeyed housing, under private-public partnership, using land as a resource and according to the principle of cost recovery (DDA, 2007: Section 4.2.3. Housing for urban poor). This approach, already implemented in Mumbai, is in line with the new strategy for “Slum Free City Planning” (see above). The Tehkhand project, located in the southern periphery, was a pilot project for slum in-situ rehabilitation. The land (partly occupied by a squatter settlement) belonged to the DDA, which invited bids from private real estate developers in 2006 for the construction of 3,500 tenements for the re-housing of slum dwellers. The developer had also to provide physical infrastructure and basic social facilities, and was allowed –as an incentive– to construct 750 middle or high- income-groups apartments for free sale. In Delhi, this was a pioneering project in the field of slum rehabilitation; it was promoted by the DDA and the Delhi government as a model for further housing projects for economically weaker sections of the population. In 2008, the developer that won the auction19 had already started the land levelling and excavation operations on the site adjoining the slum in order to build a complex of luxury apartments20. However, the project was completely stopped in mid-2009 as the site falls in the protected Aravalli Ridge. In fact, DDA had sold the land for residential purpose without the mandatory authorisation from the Ministry of Environment and Forests; therefore the construction was blocked, and a litigation opposing the developer and DDA filed in the Delhi High Court21. This case reveals the lack of coordination among public agencies; it further reinforces the Regarding environmentalists’ arguments and protests, see for instance the interviews of Ravi Aggarwal of Toxics Link and Vimalendu Jha of We for Yamuna [Sethi 2005]. 17

“SC permits govt to build Commonwealth Games village”, 30-08-2009, Daily New and Analysis (DNAIndia) http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_sc-permits-govt-to-build-commonwealth-games-village_1278562-all (last accessed on 21-08-2010). 18

19

The Delhi Land and Finance Ltd in joint venture with the real estate firm Indiabulls, which eventually took over the entire project. 20

Field visits and interviews on 1.03.2008 and 31-10-2008.

21

Field visit and interviews in December 2009, including phone interview with a Regional General ManagerMarketing of Indiabulls Real Estates Limited.

14 14

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. examples expounded above, leading to question the genuine concern and commitment of the authorities in charge of land and housing policies as regards environment protection.

Just as in Mumbai and Delhi, in São Paulo, the deployment of infrastructures has contributed to the occupation of the boundaries of the Serra da Cantareira. The four bordering municipalities have in their territory a part of the Park of Cantareira, where they conduct distinct urban policies. More generally, housing policies have been based on a peripheral model of housing supply and extension of public transport in São Paulo since the eighties. In this model, one of the instruments was the zoning and control of land use within the city. Thus, while the neighbourhoods located in the center of the city dates back to the second half of the 20th century, the neighbourhoods located in the buffer zone of Cantareira Park grew tremendously during the last decades. The result is a spatial pattern of urban land use presenting heterogeneous kind of occupation, from slums at the city limits of the park, to condominiums in Mairiporã and popular neighbourhoods in Guarulhos. The human pressures threaten the existing biodiversity with growing urban heat, air pollution, etc. In a city lacking of natural vegetation (48% of the large territory of São Paulo is built in), if the population density increases close to the Cantareira Park, the reduction of green areas will get aggravated. 3.2. Environmental protection in Mumbai: a non-integrated sector-based policy leading to the absence of territorial approaches Regarding the case of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park, most of the legislation and regulation that govern its status is decided at levels different from housing policies. Environment preservation laws (see table in annex) are enacted by the Government of India. They proceed from a perception of nature that is to be protected and whose interactions with human should be nil or minimal. The successive acts in India have comforted this preservationist stand and organised a centralized management approach, based on the creation of the Forest Department. The civil servants who are part of this administration are recruited at the Indian level as one of the cadre of the civil service recruitment and are part of the Indian Forest Service (created in 1966 as a successor of the colonial Imperial Forest Service), as prestigious as the Indian Administrative Service. The Forest Department is able to acquire patches of land, even if privately owned, to constitute national parks and protect endangered areas. This is most likely this type of top-down process that occurred in the case of the constitution and the management of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park. Bon et al. (2008) have clearly highlighted how the status of the park was reinforced by the different acts and legislations (table in annex) but also by the amalgam of various patches of land over a period of time. This has contributed to the conflicts surrounding the park by engulfing existing settlements, be they tribal hamlets or housing and structures sometimes build on privately owned land. The regulation concerning the park (and similar conclusions could most probably be drawn for the mangroves of Mumbai), including the transfer of its management to the Forest Department, has not led to its preservation. Encroachment within the park by a number of actors, ranging from industries (public and private), illegal activities, co-operative housing societies and slum dwellers, is a proof of the difficulty to isolate forest from humans, in particular in a metropolitan setting such as the one in Mumbai.

15 15

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. The settlements “in and around” the park are a classical case of housing preceding urban services and, in the Indian case, legal procedures. Regarding the slum settlements within the park, some water and electricity were provided by municipal authorities, giving a (though fragile) form of security to the inhabitants. For the more residential colonies built on forest land, despite ongoing court cases (some of them for more than 20 years), no-objection certificates were provided to builders, who in turn sold flats to thousands of people. Industries, which provide employment and pay taxes, were left to operate. This “de facto” acceptance of human activities in forest land reflects the economic and political benefits derived from urban activities at the overall city level. Above all, it underlines the disconnection between public policy and implementation. Specifically, the existence of stringent regulations lead to bypassing strategies and ad-hoc processes (of land use regularization, special authorization given to builders) that favour unauthorized forms of space occupation. The Forest department condoned for long the residential settlements burgeoning in some tracts of “forest” land, and, though it did go to Court, the issue did not become a public problem. Did some form of arbitration took place at higher decision levels, in an ad-hoc and non transparent manner? To which extent bribes and slum “rents” were collected and dispatched between some Forest Department officials ? At first glance, this process of “laissez-faire” can be read as a classical problem of sector-based policies and institutional fragmentation that lead to non integrated approach. Indeed, urban regulations are managed at the local, municipal level while the Forest Department officials belong to a totally different administrative cadre. Institutional fragmentation can lead to no-objection certificates being provided without verifying the land status with the Forest Department. Regarding slums, municipal authorities provide services in “notified” slums, notwithstanding the land status. A second reading canbe based on the fact that institutions and their personnel not only ignore each other but are also in competition. In any case, ignorance can also lead to some form of collusion. Vaquier (2010) notes that slum dwellers, until the court case, were paying some bribe to Forest officials to stay on “encroached” settlements, demonstrating that at the field level, there must have been some form of nexus between forest and municipal officials, not to speak of local representatives wanting to keep their “vote bank”. One would surely expect the same type of arrangements with co-operative housing societies and industrial activities within the forest. Nevertheless, and even though these phenomena are part of on the ground reality, we do not adhere to a normative view on those processes. We argue, on the contrary, that they are embedded in the existing institutional framework that provides some incentives to public action. This highlights the lack of coherent overall view of the areas in question. It raises therefore the question of the scale at which policies, once defined, have to be implemented, arbitrated and negotiated. An approach based on ‘territory’, that is on areas considered as a whole, as made of various interlinked sectoral aspects that all combine themselves in the local space, could have enabled an integrated action of the various line departments and multi-level actors. The absence of this approach leads to an absence of interaction between administrative lines : a public arena where the management and the role of this ‘territory’ could be discussed is cruelly missing. The only apparent tool to discuss about the Sanjay Gandhi Park territory is the Master Plan at the metropolitan regional scale. Consequently, the Forest Department works on a fairy management plan that (till very recently) tends to the existence of activities within the park. Real estate forces continue to exert pressure on the borders of the park, most probably using slums and tribal hamlets as a process of ‘forest clearing’ (Bon, Chapelet et al. 2008; Bon, Landy et al. 2008) with the tacit approval of some public authorities. The disarticulation between housing and environment preservation in the two countries emerges from classical segmented public policies that are aimed at a specific problem and from the absence of an integrated thought on the city as an urban metabolism. Though public policies provide a framework of action with strict regulations, in reality their implementation is weak and

16 16

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. gives way to a flexible and interest-based form of governance. Further, land use, housing and environment preservation policies are played out at different scales of government, preventing coordination. 3.3. The emergence of the housing-environment conflict around the parks: the “green” and “brown” agendas and the marginalized role of public policy in Brazil In the two Brazilian cities, the process of urban expansion is linked to the destruction of what remains of the Mata Atlantica forest. The areas of the two parks are cut by urban districts, often resulting from illegal occupation, which led to an internal organization of these protected areas into distinct spatial sectors. The urban anthropogenic pressures in the buffer zone of Cantareira and Tijuca parks The Tijuca National Park is structured in four sections estranged by the urban growth, making it even more fragile to protect. The evolution of land use and vegetation cover between 1984 and 1999 based on data of SMAC-PCRJ (2000) shows: a) the reduction by 27.8% and 10.9% of natural forest and grazing lands respectively; b) the appearance by 14.8% of degraded forest; c) the growth of consolidated urban areas by 24.1% and the emergence of new urban areas. The losses are clearly visible on the western slope of the massif (Baixada Jacarepaguá), where the forest has been replaced by fields. On the southern slope, the vegetation is more stable, though the wrecks are already visible around the neighbourhood of São Conrado and Rocinha slum. The city of Rio has put into practice over the past 20 years the program "Reforestation Effort” (SMAC-Rio1) aiming at the restoration of forests and mangroves. This program introduces an innovative element with the direct participation of the slum population, organized into local teams paid by the municipality. The program aims to recover degraded natural resources and prevent urban sprawl on risky areas while creating jobs. Since its inception, 2,500 hectares of degraded natural environment have been retrieved from over 100 slums, with 300,000 people directly benefiting (SMAC, 2007). The program's success is the result of a partnership between government and local people through associations of inhabitants. The Cantareira Park was created in a period of intense industrialization and population growth in the periphery. Most of the migrants went to the remote regions of São Paulo because they could not afford to live in the city center. The first management plan of the Cantareira Park was approved in 1974 and amended in 2009. In 1994 the Park became part of the Biosphere Reserve of the Green Belt of São Paulo (RBCV). It has been divided into three zones and centres of environment education: Pedra Grande, Engordador e Águas Claras. But the neighbourhoods that are close to the park register very high population increases, as the Anhanguera (an increase of over 200% in just 10 years), in contrast with the central districts that are seeing their population declining. Since the use of land in the buffer zone is in constant connection with the interior of the preserved area, it should be controlled as well as the uses of water, energy, transportation, housing. Thus, in all the studied parks, internal and external areas are affected by public policies, their implementation, and by social processes that lead to a number of facts: (i) there are various forms of encroachments in a preserved zone ; (ii) to some extent, these encroachments have been tacitly recognized by the State and did not come out as being a “public problem” for decades. The “problem of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park” came to the forefront towards the middle of the 1990s, mostly through judicial action led by an environmentalist group. Hence there is a need to shift from the analysis of public policies to the understanding of the actors involved in the social construction of conflicts and alliances on urban environment. While the next chapter deals mostly with “actors from below” (actors living in the contested sites, such as the dwellers themselves),

17 17

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. the following section addresses the institutional actors present at a higher level, directly designing or implementing (or neglecting to implement!) public policies.

4. Collaborations and conflicts between institutional actors Who are the main actors (little) interacting for environment housing policies? Are there strategies and guidelines converging thanks to collaboration, or are there conflicts between strategies and public actions that turn to be reflected in the territory of the city or protected areas? State institutions and municipalities, residents' associations, non-governmental organizations, community-based associations and (in Brazil) churches play an important role. In recent decades multilateral agencies (UN-Habitat, UNDP, the World Bank, and in Brazil Inter-American Development Bank, CEPAL, etc.) also contributed with their investments to financing slum upgrading projects with installation of urban infrastructure (transport, sanitation). They have become key players in determining the patterns of urban policy. 4.1. Multiplicity of actors in Brazil The Financial System of Housing and National Housing Bank (SFH / BNH, 1964) have been implemented when the military regime came to power. After 1967 the BNH redirected its investments in favour of the middle classes, ignoring the lower income groups. Ironically, the high urbanization between 1993 and 2002 in the buffer areas of the Tijuca and Cantareira have been largely funded by the BNH. In any case the policies regarding slums hardly refer to the right of the people as citizens: therefore the favelados of Rio de Janeiro started to organize themselves through the Federation of the Slum Associations in the Guanabara State (FAFEG) created in 1963. Along with the authoritarian and assisting institutions that belonged to the State and the Church in Rio de Janeiro, in the 1960’s an alternative experience in favour of the rehabilitation of the slums occurred. This experience reflected the concern with the grant of land ownership which was developed by the Developing Community Company (CODESCO). The CODESCO, however, was destroyed during the military dictatorship in 1964. The period that followed was marked by the authoritarian policy of removal of the slums, under the responsibility of the Coordination of Habitation with Social Interest in the Metropolitan Area of Grande Rio (CHISAM). CODESCO and CHISAM became references of two distinct paradigms in the history of the housing policy in Brazil: urbanização (rehabilitation) vs. removal of the slums. The removal of the slums was justified by CHISAM, especially the ones located in the noble areas of the city, for aesthetic reasons, whereas one of the main objectives was the release of land for more rewarding usages, resulting in the development of the real estate sector. CHISAM did not achieve the extinguishment of the slums. The failure of such intervention, according to Perlman (1997), was due to the defaults of the residents of housing estates built for former slum dwellers, financed by the BNH (National Housing Bank) established by the military dictatorship. This Bank was to provide funds for a housing policy at national level to legitimize the regime among the population and alleviate the social issue that had worsened during that period. This policy, however, became over the years more and more socially elitist. In the 1970’s, a mobilization involving different urban movements started, consolidating, during the period of re-democratization, the National Movement for the Urban Reform (MNRU). In the Constitution of 1988, the right to the city and its democratic management appeared as major principles, and the creation of formal tools for popular participation and decentralization were important steps. The local governments became responsible for the implementation of urban policies. However, the Statute of the City was enacted only in 2001. This period reveals the importance of the political fights of people from the slums, either resisting to the removal projects or taking part in social movements such as MNRU, in favour of more inclusive housing and urban programs. Meanwhile, the conditions of the slum dwellers suffered from the increase of the urban

18 18

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. violence due to the conflicts related to drug dealing: not only this situation makes difficult or even impossible the access to decent living conditions, it also generates obstacles to the recognition of distinct means of production and use of space by the poor. This generates an additional onus to their independent and active political representation. Consequently, they may have difficulties to participate in the urban planning and in the public issues in general. Multiplicity of actors: the case of Rio and São Paulo Parks Based on advancing participatory policy on environmental protection in 2000, the legislation on the National System of Conservation Units of Nature (SNUC, Law No. 9985) introduced a requirement for the participation of citizens in the management of Protected Areas Management Boards. This important change in the Brazilian environmental policy shows a process of democratic decentralization. Hence the administrations of the Parks of Tijuca and Cantareira, started dialogue in the frame of participatory democracy. In 2002 and 2004 respectively, Tijuca and Cantareira organized the first consultation to create the Councils. In Rio, the majority of their members were representatives of government, not of the civil society. In São Paulo, the Consultative Council of Cantareira waited until 2009 for the Park Management Plan for the Forest Fundation (Fundação Florestal) to define the final composition of the Council with the participating institutions and society, groups of technical support, etc. The Councils of Tijuca and Cantareira brought together a large range of actors: representatives of federal and state government have the same number, which did not occur with the representatives of the municipal government who are in smaller number, added to representatives of companies, of religious, environmental, cultural, sport associations, NGOs, slum dwellers.... The two councils are only advisory institutions, although in practice they have assumed the role of supporting decision makers. Initially, joint reflection among government agencies and NGOs about the scientific relations between the forest and the city has led to the establishment of centers of environmental education, which propose oriented training, environmental studies, development projects, tools and methodologies for research and production of educational materials within the two Parks. The objective is to integrate the various players of the Parks and the local residents. The issue of protection of water resources has become a central element of dialogue with local residents in Tijuca Park. The "water in the conservation unit" project (2005) was built around four lines of action for sustainable and participatory management: the monitoring of the water quality of major rivers, the protection and regeneration of the banks and riparian vegetation, the model of financial management of water resources in environmental education and schools, and the restructuring of the advisory board of the park. Therefore, a participatory process, which lasted over a year, was established to create a new advisory council with the objective to mobilize groups of actors and institutions that interact strategically, directly or indirectly, on the park. In total, 141 public and private institutions participated in the process, which took into account differences in ability to participate and / or representing social actors. Therefore, the strategy was based on the principle of strengthening democracy throughout the qualification of persons and strategic groups. The council, chaired by the superintendent, has been active since 2007 and is composed of representatives of public and private institutions involved in its management, as well as representatives of civil society. Along with this experience of participatory management, a new approach for collaboration between state departments and local authorities allowed the establishment of a joint management of the park, between 1999 and 2005, provided by a partnership between IBAMA and the mayor of Rio. A political conflict has led to the interruption of the collaborationin 2005. But their collaboration was resumed in 2009, under the responsibility of the ICMBio, with the signing of a

19 19

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. new technical cooperation agreement. The participation of each partner is limited to their skills and opportunities for the integration of the operations of maintenance and conservation activities. Since the management of Parks is a federal or State competence in the two Brazilian metropolises, the participation of municipalities, when it occurs, is seen only as a way to ensure the maintenance and cleaning of public areas. It also implements reforestation and the project "Ecolimits”. We also observed an improvement in safety and delivery of tourism and ecotourism. Public schools have benefited from the activities of environmental education proposed by the National Park. The existence of different categories of conservation, managed by different spheres of government or by private owners (RPPN), may contribute to the creation of biological corridors and a “mosaic” of connected protected areas. True, the component "urban renewal" of APARU (APA), despite its environmental conservation goals, raises concerns about a conflict of interest between the federal government (park managers) and local scales (city managers). Yet the idea of connecting protected areas is particularly interesting in the case of Rio, because it would form a kind of continuous ecological corridor linking the National Park of Tijuca to the western park of Pedra Branca (managed by the state government of Rio de Janeiro). The advantage of this route is not only the conservation of biodiversity, but also management integration and consolidation of facilities and infrastructure for the benefit of all. 4.2. The cases of Delhi and Mumbai In Delhi, the National Capital, the multiplicity of agencies involved in the protection of the ridge, or in the rejuvenation of the river Yamuna area, has been denounced as an obstacle to an efficient management. Thus, the agencies in charge of the Delhi ridge include the Delhi Development Authority (DDA, under Union Ministry of Urban Development), the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Forest Department (government of National Capital Territory of Delhi), Army, Sports Authority of India, Central Public Works Department. Some experts have recommended the transfer of the entire ridge area under a single umbrella, that of the Forest Department in order to ensure its proper management (Department of Environment and Forest, 2010: 113). The complexity resulting from the multiplicity of authorities and the overlapping of three levels of governance and decision (federal, state and municipal), with adverse consequences in terms of accountability and efficiency, is typical of the situation in Delhi due to its status as the national capital (as described in Chapter 3). Hence, land development remains under the purview of the Central government through the DDA, and not that of the government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The courts of justice have also emerged as an increasingly important actor in Indian cities; yet their role is even more critical in the capital city, which is also the seat of the Supreme Court of India. The intervention of the judiciary has promoted a green agenda in Delhi, often at the expense of the “brown” one. Thus, encroachments were cleared from the Delhi ridge following courts’ orders, as well as all slum clusters located along the banks of the river Yamuna (see above)22. As established elsewhere (Ramanathan, 2005 & 2006; Dupont and Ramanathan, 2008; Ghertner, 2008; Bhan, 2009), judicial intervention has been crucial in slum demolitions all over the capital. In many cases the intervention of the courts was a response to petitioners 22

The intervention of the judiciary has been also significant for other environmental issues, such as, in Delhi, air pollution due to vehicular emissions, industrial pollution and hazards, water pollution (see for example Sharan 2005).

20 20

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. representing the interests of industrialists or welfare resident associations, or more generally of upper and middle income groups. They put forward environmental and sanitation considerations through Public Interest Litigation and asked for the removal of neighbouring slums, thus exacerbating the antagonism between the housing needs for the poor and the aspiration for a “clean and green” Delhi. In Mumbai too, the preservation of green areas at the expenses of the housing of the slum dwellers led to a petition filed in the Mumbai High Court by the Bombay Environment Action Group against the encroachers in the Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP) and eventually to the demolition (still under progress) of about 50,000 unauthorised structures (Zerah 2007). The initiation of the courts’ cases also shows that the civil society movements are not necessarily supportive of the plight of the slum dwellers. Thus, the construction of the conflicts around the SGNP as a problem is greatly the result of the action of the Bombay Environmental Action Group and its leader at this time, Debi Goenka, who decided to break the status quo. If we follow the definition that Lascoumes and Le Galès (2007) provide, Debi Goenka is a “entrepreneur for a cause”, in the sense that he and his organisation took charge of the initial costs of a collective action process. First of all, he identified a problem (the dangers faced by the SGNP), built expertise on the issues and gave it a framework of interpretation. His writings and interviews focus on the “breakdown of public policies” and the “corruption of forest officials”23 but mostly put the blame on slum dwellers (even though he recognizes that they are victims of intermediaries). As Lascoumes and Le Galès also highlight, such an “entrepreneur” can flourish only in a competitive sphere with opposing views and differing viewpoints. These differing viewpoints are the claims of slum dwellers put forward by the NGO Nivara Hakk and another association led by a municipal councillor, who jointly defend the right to housing (Indian Peoples Human Rights Tribunal 2000; Chavan, 2007). However, the mediation used to confront these differing viewpoints took the judicial route rather than a more democratic arena. The BEAG filed a Public Interest Litigation that went up to the Supreme Court. The Court decided to ensure that the environment, as per the Constitution of India, would be protected. It based its decision on a committee but most probably with insufficient information and lack of expertise. This questions the ability of the Court to address some sensitive given its available resources. Overall, and even though the Court decided on a rehabilitation policy for a number of the slum dwellers, it subscribed to the view constructed by the BEAG. Consequently, it led to expulsion and displacement of numerous slum dwellers (for more discussion on the exclusion aspect, see Vaquier (2010) and chapter 6). The site chosen for rehabilitation was a non development notified zone, leading to some controversy related to the housing strategy. Other slum dwellers have been expelled to the periphery of Mumbai next to another national park, therefore exporting the problem further away, while the remaining dwellers have seen demolition affecting their daily life and destroying some of the assets they had invested in. This case highlights the increasing role that the Court can play in policy making and the potential power that NGOs or actors from civil society with a cause and a form of expertise can enjoy. As such, these actors are able to bring to the “public arena” issues that ought to be debated. Nevertheless, the mediation chosen is a form of “shrinking arena” as the terms of the debates are constrained by the judicial format. Consequently, public policies turn to have to implement Court orders or to be reactive to a problem for which they have not been able to set up the main components to be dealt with. Even though this case study is specific and the Court does not intervene on all policy matters, it highlights two worrying trends: weak public policies that have increased diffidence of civil society actors willing to active other mechanisms to make their claim - and public policies that turn to be framed in reaction to external actors without being the 23

Interviews by the SETUP researchers, 2007 and 2008.

21 21

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. driving force in the debate. Conclusion: what governance for protected urban areas? This chapter aimed to put a few ideas for discussion in order to contribute to a larger comparative debate on the role of public policies towards housing and environment preservation in Mumbai, Delhi, Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo metropolises. Despite the advances of recent decades, neither the environmental problems nor the lack of housing have been resolved, and the analysis indicates that governments have not fulfilled their role, neither in protecting the individuals, nor in protecting the environment. Particularly in India, the rise of the environmentalists in the governance of cities involves activism and discourses which are neither class neutral, nor politically neutral. Thus, Baviskar (2002: 41) denounces “the increasing powerful presence of bourgeois environmentalism as an ideology shaping the landscapes” – especially the urban ones, while Williams and Mawdsley (2006) question the postcolonial environmental justice. Mawdsley (2006) further highlights from a broader perspective the parallels between the discourses of the Hindu Right and those of ‘neotraditionalist environmentalists’ in contemporary India. While highlighting the tension between the “green” and the “brown” agenda, it should be reminded however that often the conflict between housing for the poor and the protection of environment has been created at the outset by social injustice24: since the poor do not have access to their due share of urban land and housing25, they squat unclaimed urban space, including ecologically vulnerable and fragile zones. As for housing policy, due to the reduced number of houses produced by the state, people find alternative ways outside the formal market. The slums in the cities studied were the result of excessive urban growth and the abandonment of the state. In Brazil, the migration to the periphery becomes the only way for the poor to buy a house. As recalled by Bonduki (2004), it is crucial that these people get access to physical and social infrastructures, and this is the role of government. It is no surprise that clientelism became part of the consolidation process of the periphery by linking vote and access to housing. The complexity of the contradictions between the right to housing and environmental conservation in Brazilian and Indian cities shows the difficulties for actors to properly manage the issue. Local governments have demonstrated their tolerance vis-à-vis the middle and upper class residents and real estate speculators, who can threaten ecologically important areas. They are not prepared technically, administratively nor financially to conduct the management of such areas. How to overcome these shortcomings? How to involve the mayors in the conservation of environmentally sensitive areas? The State can no longer respond alone to the demands related to the protection of the environment which forbid the promotion of housing in the buffer zone of parks. Articulate public policies, shared common goals with the surrounding communities should be the first step to avoid degradation. Administrators should review their concepts in an attempt to mitigate the effects of pressure or at least understand the reasons that impede the joint task of implementing adequate housing and environment policy. The public policies have failed in both goals, the production of housing and environmental protection. The consequence has been the rise of informal strategies and ad-hoc processes to produce the present city, that lead to intense conflicts. Analysing these strategies of the local (and translocal) actors is the topic of the following chapter.

24

This argument was stressed by Amita Baviskar during the debates of the SETUP conference in Paris (1-3 February 2010). 25

We refer especially to the case of Delhi and the non respect by the DDA of its mandate to provide their share of land and housing to the economically weaker sections..

22 22

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. References

AVRITZER, L., Urban Reform, Participation and the Right to the City in Brazil, IDS, Brighton, 27 p, (on line) BARTONE, C., J. Bernstein, J. Leitman and J. Eigen (1994), Towards environmental strategies for cities, Policy considerations for urban environment management in developing countries, UMP Paper No. 18, World Bank, Washing DC. BATRA, L and D. Mehra (2008): ‘Slum demolition of slums and production of neoliberal space. Delhi’, In D. Mahadevia (ed), Inside the Transforming Urban Asia, Concept, New Delhi, 391-414. BAVISKAR, Amita (2002), ‘The politics of the city’. Seminar, 516 (August): 40-42. BHAN, G. (2009) “This is no longer the city I once knew”. Evictions, the urban poor and the right to the city in millennial Delhi. Environment and Urbanization 21.1, 127-142. BILLAND, C.J. (1990), Delhi Case Study: Formal Serviced Land Development, New Delhi: USAID. BON, E., F. Landy, et al. (2008). “Stakes, Actors and Strategies in and around" Mumbai's Urban Forests. The case of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park”. Conference Territorial integration and exclusion. Impact of urban policies and law, CSH-India International Centre, New Delhi. BON, E., P. Chapelet, et al. (2008). “Nature in Megacities: An Impossible Challenge? Insights from Mumbai ». Conference Politiques Urbaines, Territoires et Exclusion Sociale. Inde - Brésil, Une Perspective Comparative, University of Sao Paulo. BONDUKI, Nabil (2004). Origens da Habitação Social no Brasil: arquitetura moderna, lei do inquilinato e difusão da casa própria. São Paulo: Estação Liberdade. BONDUKI, Nabil Georges (2000). Habitar São Paulo: reflexões sobre a gestão urbana. São Paulo: Estação Liberdade. BRASIL, Ministério do Meio Ambiente (2000) Lei federal n° 9985/2000, Brasília. BRUNO-LEZY L. (2008) « La forêt au cœur de la ville. Le parc national de Tijuca, Rio de Janeiro », in Revue Géographie et Cultures, n°62, pp. 27-42. CHAVAN, V. (2007. From Krishnagiri to Sanjay Gandhi National Park. Mumbai, Ghar Hakka Jagruti Parishad, 98 p. DDA (1990), Master Plan of Delhi Perspectives 2001, Delhi Development Authority New Delhi. DDA (2007), Master Plan for Delhi 2021, Delhi Development Authority [As Notified on 7th February, 2007. Vide S.O. No 141 published in Gazette of India Extraordinary [Part II – Section 3 - Sub-Section (ii)]. DDA (2008), Draft Zonal Development Plan for River Yamuna/River front, Zone ‘O’, Delhi, Delhi Development Authority, July 2008. DEAN, Warren (1996). A ferro e fogo: a história e a devastação da Mata Atlântica Brasileira. São Paulo: Cia das Letras. Department of Environment and Forest, State of Environment Report for Delhi, 2010, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. DUPONT V., (2005), Residential practices, creation and use of the urban space: unauthorised colonies in Delhi, in Hust E., Mann M. (eds), Urbanization and Governance in India, Delhi: Manohar-CSH-SAI, 2005, pp. 311-341. DUPONT V., (2008), Slum demolition in Delhi since the 1990s. An appraisal.Economic and Political Weekly, Mumbai, Vol. 43, 2008, No 28 (12 July), pp. 79-87. DUPONT, V. and U. RAMANATHAN (2008), The Courts and the Squatter Settlements in Delhi. Or the Intervention of the Judiciary in Urban "Governance". In I.S.A. Baud and Joop de Wit (eds), New Forms of Urban Governance in India. Shifts, Models, Networks, and Contestations, Sage, New Delhi, pp. 312-343. FERNANDES, L. L. (2005) “Política de Habitação Popular e Trabalho Social” In: Política de Habitação e Sustentabilidade Urbana” In: GOMES, M.F.C.& PELEGRINO, A.I.C. (orgs.) . Rio de Janeiro. D P& A. GHERTNER, D. Asher (2008), Analysis of new legal discourses behind Delhi’s slum demolitions, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43, No 20, May 17, pp. 57-66.

23 23

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. GOI (1988), National Commission on Urbanisation Report, Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development, New Delhi. GOI (1992), National Housing Policy, Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development,New Delhi. GOI (2002), Tenth Five year Plan (2002-07). Government of India, Planning Commission. GOMES, M.L. S. (2006). A Floresta Carioca. A Interface Urbano-Florestal do Parque Nacional da Tijuca, Mestrado do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Planejamento Urbano e Regional – UFRJ. Indian Peoples Human Rights Tribunal, 2000. Crushed homes, lost lives: The story of the demolitions in the Sanjay Gandhi National Park. Mumbai, IPHRC: 70 p. JAMWAL, Nidhi (2004), ‘Beautification Drive’, Down to Earth, 12(24), May 07. KHOSLA, R (2007), “Urban Poor and Slum. A critique of Chapter 6 and associated sections in other chapters of the City Development Plan”, in Delhi Citizen Critique of the City Development Plan. Facilitating National Urban Renewal Mission in Delhi, Draft for Discussion, Compiled by Centre for Civil Society, New Delhi, pp 10-15. KHOSLA, Renu and G. Jha (2005), Economics of resettling low-income settlements (Slums) in urban areas : a case for on-site upgrading, Draft Final Report, Centre for Urban and Regional Excellence, South Asia Network of Economic Research Institute, http://www.saneinetwork.net/research/sanei_I/index.asp (last accessed on 22-08-2010) LASCOUMES, P. and P. LE GALÈS (2007). Sociologie de l'action publique. Paris, A. Colin. MAWDSLEY, E (2006), ‘Hindu nationalism; neo-traditionalism and environmental discourses in India’, Geoforum, 37(3): 380-390. MCGRANAHAN G and D Satterthwaite (2000), ‘Environmental health or ecological sustainability? Reconciling the Brown and Green agendas in urban development’, in C Pugh (ed.), Sustainable cities in developing countries, Earthscan, London, pp 73-90. MELLO, N.A.de, CORREIA, B.O.(2009). Pressão Urbana em Áreas de Florestas: História e Conflitos políticos da Proteção Ambiental. in Mercator – Revista de Geografia da Universidade Federal do Ceará. Vol. 8, no. 16. www.mercator.ufc.br/index.php/mercator/article/view/308/237 MILBERT, I. (1998), Politiques urbaines à Delhi, Genève : IUED. NCR Planning Board (1988), Regional Plan 2001, National Capital Region, Delhi: National Capital Region Planning Board, Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India. NCR Planning Board (1996), National Capital Region. Growth and Development, Har-Anand, New Delhi. OMCT/HIC-HLRN (2004): Joint Urgent Action Appeal, “Over 300,000 people to be forcefully evicted from Yamuna Pushta in Delhi: 40,000 homes demolished so far”, Case IND-FE050504, Delhi, Geneva, Cairo, 5 May. PERLMAN, J. (1977). O mito da marginalidade: favelas e políticas no Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro, Paz e Terra. PINHEIRO Augusto I. F. (2008) Políticas públicas urbanas na Prefeitura do Rio de Janeiro, Coleção Estudos Cariocas, Nº 20081101, Secretaria Municipal de Urbanismo, Instituto Municipal de Urbanismo Pereira Passos, PREFEITURA DA CIDADE DO RIO DE JANEIRO PURI V.K. (2007), “Few words about Master Plans of Delhi 1962 & 2001”, in Preface to the Master Plan for Delhi 2021, JBA Publishers, Delhi, pp. vi-viii. RAFFARD, Henrique (1977). Alguns dias na paulicéia. São Paulo: Biblioteca Acadêmica Paulista. RAMANATHAN, U. (2006), Illegality and the urban poor, Economic and Political Weekly, 41(29): 3193-3197. RAMANATHAN, U. (2005), Demolition drive, Economic and Political Weekly, 40(27): 2908-2912. ROLNIK, R.& SAULE JUNIOR, N (1997).Habitat II- assentamentos humanos como tema global. In: Bonduk, Nabil. Habitat – as práticas bem sucedidos em habitação, meio ambiente e gestão urbana nas cidades brasileiras . 2ª. Ed. São Paulo: Studio Nobel.

24 24

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. ROLNIK, Raquel (1988). O que é cidade. São Paulo. Brasiliense. SÃO PAULO (Município) (2004). Atlas Ambiental do Município de São Paulo - o verde, o Território, o ser Humano. SP: SVMA. SETHI, Aman (2005), ‘A site of contestation’, Frontline, 22 (15), July 16-29. SHARAN, A.(2005), ‘New’ Delhi. Fashioning and urban environment through science and law, Sarai Reader: Bare facts, Sarai & Society for Old and new Media, Delhi/Amsterdam, pp. 69-77. SMAC-PCRJ (2000) Mapeamento do uso das terras e cobertura vegetal no município do Rio de Janeiro entre os anos 1984 e 1999. Rio de Janeiro. VAQUIER, D. (2010). The Impact of Slum Resettlement on Urban Integration in Mumbai: The Case of the Chandivali Project. CSH Occasional Paper n°26 Delhi, Centre de Sciences Humaines: 142 p. WILLIAMS G. and E. MAWDSLEY (2006), ‘Postcolonial environmental justice: government and governance in India’, Geoforum, 37(5): 660-670. ZERAH, M.-H. (2007). "Conflict between green space preservation and housing needs: The case of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park in Mumbai." Cities 24(2): 122-132. Websites www.armazemdedados.rio.rj.gov.br, (acessed on 06th November 2000) www.rio.rj.gov.br/habitat/bairrinho.htm, (acessed on 20th November 2008) http://www.vivafavela.com.br, (acessed on 20th November 2008) http://www.brasil.gov.br/pac , (acessed on 06th November 2009) http://www.revistaglobalbrasil.com.br, (acessed on 25th may 2010) http:/www. rio. rj. gov.br/pcrj/reflorestamento (acessed on 20th may 2010) http:/ www. cidades.gov.br (acessed on 20th May 2010). http:/ www.governo.rj.gov.br (acessed on 20th may 2010) http:/ www.governo.rj.gov.br/web/smh (acessed on 22th may 2010) http://cpcb.nic.in/ Central Water Pollution, Control and Prevention Board (Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India) (last accessed on 10th august 2010) http://delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/DOIT_Forest/forest/home/ Department of Forests & Wild Life, Greening Delhi Action Plan, 2007-08, Government of NCT of Delhi (accessed on 20th august 2010) http://www.delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/Environment/environment/home Environment, Government of NCT of Delhi (accessed on 30th mars 2010)

Department

of

http://dda.org.in/ Delhi Development Authority (last accessed on 10th august 2010) http://jnnurm.nic.in/ Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (accessed on 10th august 2010) http://mhupa.gov.in/ Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation (last accessed on 10th august 2010) http://www.urbanindia.nic.in Ministry of Urban Development (accessed on 23th august 2010) https://jnnurmmis.nic.in/jnnurm_hupa/index.html Rajiv Awas Yojana (accessed on 20th august 2010) http://www.toxicslink.org/delhiridge/index.php Toxics Link (accessed on 20th august 2010)

25 25

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. ANNEX (to be put at the end of the BOOK) The environmental public policy and housing: a synthesis of recent past The table below presents a summary of the main strategies and national guidelines, at the Union, States and municipal levels in Brazil (whose national standards are reproduced in the regional and local scales) and at the federal and state governments levels in India. Although the table shows that since the early 2000s, the preparation of master plans (a requirement of municipalities larger than 20,000 people since 1988) is completed in the municipalities of Brazilian cities, it demonstrates that conflicts rise from the institutional limits of public agencies (financial, technical and operational) and from the chronic lack of financial resources . These flaws are presented vertically for each policy. However, it is essential to indicate other elements - horizontal - visible in public policy: the lack of continuity, the absence of long-run political vision and the sectoral segmentation of the visions. Table 1: Summary of major laws and programs related to housing and environment preservation in Brazil Housing Policies in Brazil Municipalities policies in São Paulo and Rio 1965 – COHAB COHAB /RJ 1962 CODESCO- 1968 CHISAM- 1968 1971 : Plan Directeur de Guarulhos 1981 / 1982: popular housing: - Fernão Dias; Elísio Teixeira Leite, - Zona Norte de SP 1976 - Plano Urbanístico Básico (PUB-RIO) 1960 - Doxiadis plan.

Environment Policies in Brazil

State

Federal

CECAP, in 1967, starts housing production for low income groups. CODESPAULO et CDHU FUNDHAP _ Fundo de Habitação Popular (in provincial States) 1975 – EMPLASA

1964 – BNH (National Housing Bank) + SFH (System for Funding the Housing) 1973 – RMSP 1973 : PLANHAP - Plano Nacional da Habitação Popular 1974: more than 30 billiards cruzeiros) to finance 173,900 housings between 1964 and 1977

Municipalities policies in São Paulo and Rio

State

1963 – Creation of the Parque Estadual da Cantareira (PEC) 1968 – Creation of the CETESB (Centro Tecnologico de Saneamento 19 Basico)

26

Federal

1965 – Forestry Code 1972 – SEMA 1975 – law 1413/75: control of pollution.

26

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. 1986 – 1989: Conjuntos habitacionais Nova Cachoeirinha, Nossa Sra. Da Penha e Santos Dumont – zona Norte, SP Rio 1982. SMDS Regularização Fundiária, Projeto Mutirão, Cada Família MASTER PLAN RIO DE JANEIRO 1992 1993-2006 – program Favela Bairro26 e Bairrinho, in Rio. The amount invested is US$ 600 million (US$ 340 million of loans from BID and US$ 260 from the Municipality) + US$ 300 million for the Favela Bairro III. 1996 and 2004 – Strategic Plans I and II 1997-2000 – Bairrinho’s Fund: R$ 28 million (with European Union and the Caixa Econômica Federal) (SMH à Rio – Morar Legal, Morar Carioca, Morar sem Risco e Morar no Centro/novas Alternativas 1997 – conjuntos habitacionais Jardim das Camélias e Jardim das

26

1989 - CDHU (exCECAP) starts housing programs for LIG

1994 PMDI Metropolitan Plan of Grande São Paulo 1993-2010 Emplasa, São Paulo

1985 - Caixa Economica Federal and Secretaria Especial de Ação Comunitária 1986 – closure of the BNH

1985 – PMDIPlano Municipal de Desenvolvimento Integrado COGEP, São Paulo (protection of the water supply in Guarapiranga et Billings

City Code 2001

1992 –Planning of the City (Cuty Code) – every 10 years in Rio. 1993 – The municipal green & environment secretary is created and CADES in São Paulo (for debating and formulating municipal policies) 1996 – Local Agenda 21 , with participation of the municipality of Sao Paulo: Codigo Ambiental do Municipalities

1983 – CONSEMA – Conselho Estadual do Meio Ambiente, first draft of the Sistema Estadual do Meio Ambiente, with creation of the SMA (Secretaria de Meio Ambiente) in 1986

1994 – Secretary for environment of Rio, responsible for about fifty protected areas, programs of forest recovery and control of urbanisation on natural areas

The program implements urban infrastructure, services, amenities and social policies in beneficiary communities.

27

27

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. Orquídeas – zona Norte SP 2001 – Master Plan of São Paulo 2003 – Strategical Master Plan –revised in 2006 2004 – Master Plan of Guarulhos 2006 – Master Plan in Mairiporã and Caieiras 2000-2008: Program PAR (Arrendamento residencial) in Rio Revision of the Rio Master Plan. 2009 – continuation in Rio: Favela-Bairro (covers the slums with 500 to 2500 houses) Regularização Fundiária, Prómoradia, Projeto Mutirão Remunerado, Novas Alternativas, PAC, Programa Minha Casa Minha Vida e Gerência de Loteamentos

2008-2023State Plan for Housing (foccued on low income groups) State Law nº 12.801/2008

2001 – Statute of the City Act (Master plans compulsory for cities with more than more 20,000 inhabitants)

2001 – Fundo Especial do Meio Ambiente 2004 – Révision PDSP pour inclure l'environnement dans les décisions des subprefeiturasof the submunicipalities

2002sustai – l’Agenda XXI national 2003 – Politique national Du sustainable development

Source : IBAMA, Secretarias de Habitação e Meio Ambiente, Prefeituras municipais of São Paulo and Rio. Websites from Municipalities of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro

Table 2. Significant policies, laws and decisions related to housing and environment preservation in India (Mumbai et Delhi)

Urban planning, housing and slums India 1687: Madras receives its municipal

Delhi

State of Maharashtra & Mumbai

Environment India

Delhi

Sanjay Gandhi National Park

1845: Creation of the Forest Department

28

28

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. charter 1863: establishment of Delhi Municipality 1888: Bombay Corporation Act 1894 :

Municipal

1860 then 1883: Vihar then Tulsi lakes’ catchment areas under Bombay Municipal Corp.

Land Ac qui siti on Act 1911-12: the capital of the Indian British Empire is transferred from Calcutta to Delhi 1915-1931: planning and construction of New Delhi 1927: Forest Act

Indian

1933: establishment of New Delhi Municipal Committee 1937: Improvement Trust Act (established Delhi Improvement Trust for acquisition of land, development & construction of housing) 1947: Independence of India 1950: Constitution of India Establishment of the Planning Commission 1951-56: First

1947 : Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act

1947-8: Krishnagiri area acquired by the State Department of Parks and Gardens. 1950 creation of Krishnagiri National Park (under the Bombay National Park Act, 1950): 21 sq.km.

1954: amendment to the Bombay

29

29

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. Five Year Plan - Establishment of Town and Country Planning Organisation (TCPO) 1956 : Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act

Municipal Corporation Act, empowering the BMC to clear slums

Slum Areas Act in force in Delhi

1957: preparation of the first Master Plan for Delhi - Delhi Development Act (established the Delhi Development Authority) Delhi Municipal Act (established the Municipal corporation of Delhi)

1962: The Planning Commission advocates the preparation of urban Master Plans

1958: Delhi Rent Control Act 1960: (first) Jhuggi-Jhompri Removal Scheme 1961: Scheme for large Scale Acquisition, Development and Disposal of Land in Delhi 1962: first Delhi Master Plan

1964-1967: Development Control Rules

1966: Creation of the Indian Forest Service to implement the country’s National Forest Policy.

1967: Development Plan for Bombay 1969: Bombay Buildings Repairs

1968: Borivali National Park (47 sq.km)

30

30

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. and Reconstruction Act 1970: Slum Improvement Programme

1970: establishment of HUDCO (Housing and Urban Development Corporation)

1971: Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1972: Scheme for Environmental Improvement of Urban Slums

1972: Delhi Societies Act

Cooperative

1974: Delhi Urban Commission set up 1975-77: State of Emergency 1976: ULCRA (Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation) Act

Art

1972: National Wildlife Protection Act 1974: Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act

1975: Maharashtra Vacant land (Prohibition of unauthorised structures and Summary eviction) Act ULCRA in force in Delhi and Mumbai (500 sq.m as maximum property)

1976: Borivali is declared a National Park (69 sq.km) 1977: The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act 1980: Forest Conservation Act

31

1980: a large portion of the Delhi Ridge is declared ‘protected’ zone under the Forest

31

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. (Conservation) Act, 1980 1981: The Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act 1983: beginning of the study works for reforming urban and housing policies 1984: Indian National Trust for Artistic and Cultural Heritage (INTACH) set up

1981: Renaming into Gandhi National Park

1985: National Capital Region Planning Board (NCRPB) Act

1985: Slum Upgradation Programme - Prime Minister’s Grant Project (focus on reconstruction projects in Dharavi)

Sanjay

1985: Creation of the Ministry of Environment and Forest 1986: The Environment Protection Act (under this act,: Coastal regulation Zone, 1991 and Environmental Impact Assessment Notification, 1994 amended in 2006)

1988: Report of the National Commission on Urbanisation - (first) National Housing Policy approved by the Parliament -Establishment of

National Capital Region Plan (1988-2001)

32

32

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. the National Housing Bank 1990: notification of the Master Plan for Delhi, Perspective 2001 1991: the Union Territory becomes the National Capital Territory of Delhi - adoption by the Government of Delhi of a three-pronged strategy to deal with squatter settlements (relocation, in-situ up-gradation, improvement upgradation)

1991: - Slum Redevelopment Scheme - Creation of Slum Rehabilitation Authority

1992: 74th Amendment to the Constitution (urban decentralization) National Housing Policy

1993: launching of the Yamuna Action Plan

1995 :Slum Rehabilitation Scheme

1995: Establishment of the National Environment Tribunal (accidents due to mishandling of hazardous substances).

33

1994 & 1996: most parts of the Delhi Ridge notified as reserved forest under Section IV of the Indian Forest Act 1927 1995: Ridge Management Board constituted

1995-1996: Final notification of the National Park Public Interest Litigation filed for the removal of slums located in the park

33

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. 1997: National Environment Appellate Authority Act (cases in which environment clearances are required in restricted areas) 1997: National Slum Development Programme 1998 : National Housing and Habitat Policy 1999: - repeal of the ULCRA - Draft National Slum Policy

1998: Management transferred to the Forest Department

Repeal of ULCRA in force in NCT of Delhi

1999: Cessed Building Reconstruction Policy - Maharashtra Rent Control Act (replaced the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1947) 2001: second Amendment to the Maharashtra Slum Areas Act, making encroachment a cognizable offence 2002: Slum Sanitation Programme + Mumbai Urban Transport Project (MUTP) launched

2002: The Biological Diversity Act

2005 Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, including a submission “Basic Services for the Urban Poor” (BSUP)

34

34

Publicado em: SAGLIO-YATZIMIRSKY, M-C., LANDY, F. Megacity Slums. Social Exclusion, Space and Urban Policies in Brazil and India. London: Imperial College Press, 2014. 2003: Delhi won the bid to host the 2010 Commonwealth Games, whose preparation works will entail major infrastructure projects and massive slum demolition 2006: NCT of Delhi (Special Provisions) Act (declared a moratorium on demolitions and sealing of unauthorized and illegal structures) 2007: National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy 2009: National urban poverty reduction strategy (20102020) & Slum Free City Planning – Rajiv Awas Yojana

7-02-2007: notification of the Master Plan for DelhiPerspective 2021

2010 (October Commonwealth Games

2006: Policy for Special Township + Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project (MUIP) launched

2006: The Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights)

2007: Government of Maharashtra repealed the ULCRA + Dharavi Redevelopment Plan launched (not implemented yet)

3-14):

Sources: Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Lea Associates International Ltd 2007; Bon, Chapelet et al. 2008) Billand 1991, Milbert 1998, updated with various documents and websites from Delhi Development Authority, Government of India (Ministry of Urban Development, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation), Department of Environment and Forest, Toxics Link.

35

35