by Nicasio Angelo Agustin
With urbanization comes the problem of informal settlements. Studies show that the annual growth rate of informal settlements is significantly higher than the annual growth rate of urban population. This is particularly true for most cities in developing countries.
Informal settlements are not only a consequence of urbanization, but an indicator of the level of readiness of a city to accommodate the continuous influx of people and activities. Urbanization possesses that strong tendency to pull job seekers and investors from nearby places. Even if there are no actual productive opportunities, the impression created by a city or any urban place because of its seemingly grandiose physical progress is that there is more than enough for everybody and anybody. In reality, however, there are significant limitations to the capacity of these areas to put up with the social infrastructure requirements of each one.
The spatial formation of societies and communities follows some principles of ecology – the invasion and succession of some groups over existing groups and the eventual domination of those who have power and influence. This happens in a very dynamic and continuous process. In this process, those who do not have power and influence get displaced from prime areas of opportunities to the fringes of the urban place or to areas with lesser prospects for individual and household progress.
The common notion of power and influence is economic and social status, or simply put, wealth and position in the social strata. Yet, even those we consider economically poor also have power and influence such as their physical force and strength as well as their close ties with their socio-ethnic groups which give them that undisputable ability to invade, succeed and dominate areas regardless of their capacity to comply with certain documentary and structural requirements to legalize and formalize the possession of areas for their abode.
What makes informal settlers who they are is their inability to acquire ownership of the land they occupy. They do not have the means; they simply do not have the money! However, the Lina Law or RA 7279, some precepts of human rights laws and other pro-poor policies of the government give informal settlers that “temporary mandate” to be who they are, i.e., illegal occupants of lands owned by somebody else, until such time that the government has provided them a place which they could call their own.
They may not have the means but definitely they also have a right to abode just like any one of us.
Some property owners have freely and generously donated their illegally occupied lands to the informal settlers simply because they recognize the helplessness of these poor segments of the community. Some might have resentfully surrendered their lands because of the political and physical impediments of repossessing them.
The mushrooming of informal settlements is also unwittingly triggered by the pro-poor stance of local governments. For example, when local governments provide basic social services and infrastructure facilities in informal settlements even with knowledge that these areas are illegally occupied, the influx of more informal settlers is expected because of the improved livability of these areas. I am not about to say that this is bad. These are all givens – for the government to be caring or specially-concerned with the poor, and for people to seek out areas where life is simply better. What is not good is the fact that the growth of these areas (sometimes referred to as slums when they become eyesores) is not well managed, controlled and regulated. When positive interventions are put in place, it should also be expected that innate negative externalities are carefully eliminated.
Informal settlements are here to stay for as long as we have poor people in our societies. Prescribed strategies such as relocation, resettlement, and slum upgrading and improvement are costly for local governments. A wholistic approach in dealing with informal settlements requires not just commonsensical and palliative remedies but a comprehensive assessment of the interrelated social and economic factors directly exacerbating the problem of informal settlement. All possible solutions entail both money and political will. In the end, a preferred solution is one that promotes cost-efficiency, both in the short and long-term periods, and one that would not render either land owners or informal settlers worse off.
Feel free to send your comments to nic_agustin@yahoo.com.
