Ambiguous Provisioning of Water Infrastructure in Informal Settlements

- A Governance Challenge or Deliberate?

by Abhijit Parashar

Abstract: Perceived as illegitimate inhabitants of the city, informal settlements are often kept out of the city’s water network. When the state fails to provide for its so-called illegitimate inhabitants, their needs are often bridged by other semi-formal or informal means of provisioning. Attempts are made through co-production of urban services, participatory upgradation, covert provisioning, etc. usually with compromised quality, quantity and reliability. Access to clean water is essential for urban life. With a majority of the population in Delhi and Mumbai living in informal settlements, this paper explores ambiguities in the provisioning of water infrastructure in these two megacities of India. The paper discusses how a governance regime, obliged to provide basic urban infrastructure equitably, through the process of its ramifications, deliberately or under constraints, perpetrates and perpetuates inequality and injustice. It is argued that governance must see informality as an integral part of itself and incorporate it into its formal scheme of functioning.

Keywords: Informal settlements, Infrastructure, Water, India

Introduction: Ambiguities of Informality

Often misunderstood as synonymous with slums or squatter settlements, informality lies on the fringe of formality. Not all informal settlements are predominantly poor, or purely illegal. There exists a socio-economic diversity within an informal settlement and each such settlement has its own set of urban challenges. Perceived as illegitimate inhabitants of the city, they are usually kept out of the city’s infrastructure network. Their right to the city is limited to several factors of compliance with the master scheme. Caught up in the web of bureaucracy, political agendas or class-divide, the settlers struggle in their strive towards inclusivity. On the other hand, unplanned, overcrowded or inaccessible settlements make it an arduous task to extend urban infrastructure networks (Roy, 2013). This overlapping of realms creates an ambiguity on a settlement’s claim to avail urban services such as water supply, sewerage, roads, electricity, etc. (Lemansk & Tawa Lama-Rewal, 2013). When the state fails to provide for its so-called illegitimate inhabitants, their needs are often bridged by other means of provisioning that are not confined within the strictly formal means of the provisioning system in place. Attempts are made through co-production of urban services, participatory upgradation, covert provisioning, etc. usually with compromised quality, quantity and reliability. This paper explores the reason for this ambiguity, whether the gap exists attributing to the deliberate use of infrastructure as a governance tool or owing to the social, economic, legal or spatial limitations of the informality itself. Arguably, the two most essential aspects of urban life, and also the most critical for an informal settlement in India are — access to clean water and security of tenure. With almost 75% of Delhi and (Sheikh et al., 2015; Truelove, 2018) and about 60% of Mumbai living in informal settlements (Anand, 2011), the paper explores ambiguities in provisioning of water infrastructure in these two megacities of India.

Governance and Informality

Megacities of the Global South are characterized by high population influxes, high-density developments and vast infrastructure networks. There is a constant influx of a large number of migrants in these cities, in search of livelihood, away from poverty, war, climatic adversities or discrimination, with an aspiration to be included. However, the inflow of the population is too fast for the planning process to respond (Roy, 2009 pg. 77). The cities struggle to accommodate this influx, owing to the scarcity or unaffordability of formal land and housing infrastructure. Regardless, settlements find their place in the crevices of the rationally planned city which did not account for this unprecedented growth. These settlements are not consistent with land use plans or building regulations, hence termed as “informal”. Nonetheless, informal settlements are “human settlements” built by people who claim their right to live in the city (Zárate, 2016).

As per the progress report on United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (2016), over 1 billion people live in informal settlements globally, out of which East, South-East and Central Asia inhabit over 589 million informal settlers. In Latin America, 44% of the total population lives in favelas, slums, informal settlements and poor neighborhoods, often without access to basic urban services. The United Nations predicts informal urban settlements will be home to nearly a third of the global population by 2050 (Milbert 2006; Economic Commission for Latin America, 2004: 6).
It is worthwhile to mention, UN Habitat (2010) defines good urban governance as

“… based on the principle of urban citizenship, affirms that no man, woman or child can be denied access to the necessities of urban life, including adequate shelter, security of tenure, safe water, sanitation, a clean environment, health, education and nutrition, employment and public safety and mobility.”

However, Roy (2003) argues that urban governance is negotiated and manipulated through a process which she terms ‘unmapping’ of cities and informality is an indispensable part of this process of mapping and unmapping, regulation and deregulation. In her own words “informality, allow the state considerable territorialized flexibility to alter land use, deploy eminent domain, and to acquire land”. (Roy, 2009). Roy (2009) further claims that the governance regime in India is itself, an informal establishment. It thus becomes essential to see informality from a governance perspective. Through the case studies of two megacities of India, this paper explores how a governance regime, obliged to provide basic urban infrastructure equitably, through the process of its ramifications, deliberately or under constraints, perpetrates and perpetuates inequality and injustice.

Informal or Illegal? A Case of Delhi

In the planned settlements of Delhi, construction of houses by informal workforce under the supervision of unregistered contractors is a common practice. As per a newspaper report (Hindustan Times, 2011), Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) stated that only 5% of all property owners in the city apply for a ‘completion certificate’, a formality which ensures structural safety of a building and officiates its occupancy. With such widespread violations of formal laws and regulations, much of the city can be viewed as ‘unauthorized’ (Ghertner, 2008; Roy, 2009). Yet, certain settlements are classified as ‘unauthorized colonies’ since their land does not fall under the ‘residential zone’ as per Delhi Master Plan. Even though the residents of these ‘unauthorized’ colonies may have legal ownership of the house as per sale deed, yet from the perspective of planning authorities, they are “unauthorized” (Lemanski & Tawa Lama-Rewal, 2013). Roy (2009) fittingly articulates that “informality is inscribed in the ever-shifting relationship between what is legal and illegal, legitimate and illegitimate, authorized and unauthorized.” (p. 80)

Reportedly, almost 75% of Delhi’s population lives within informal urban spaces which include jhuggi jhopri (JJ) clusters (small slum settlements), un-notified slums (Slums not recognized by Government are termed as non-notified/un-notified), and unauthorized colonies (UCs) (Sheikh et al., 2015; Truelove, 2018). Almost a third of Delhi’s total population resides in 1,797 unauthorized settlements, lacking adequate housing and basic services. (Economic Survey of Delhi, 2019). Over the years, the political narrative around slums has also evolved from eviction and clearance to rehabilitation or upgradation. (Dupont & Ramanathan, 2008). Political parties have tried to lure potential voters by promising land ownership rights, regularization and infrastructure provisions for decades (Mehra, 2019). Local politicians benefit from this ambiguity, as it keeps the population unsettled or stalls the relocation of the population away from the politician’s constituency. It is interesting to note that many of these settlers are registered voters but denied basic civic amenities (Roy, 2013).

Truelove (2018) highlights that the Government institutions are well aware of the existence of various provisioning means and yet acknowledge the lack of proper knowledge of uncertainties in provisions that lie beyond the scope of its governance (p. 950). Delhi Jal Board (DJB) is the city’s water department responsible for water supply and distribution through pipelines, tube-wells or delivery through tankers. As per the audit reports (CAG, 2013: 79) besides the piped connections, about 25% of the population receive water delivered through tankers. On average, these tanker deliveries amount to a meager 4 liters per person per day (lppd), approximately (Truelove, 2018), far below the standard estimate of 70–135 lppd required for drinking and domestic use (Central Ground Water Authority, 2016).

In Kathputli Basti (Kathputli is the Hindi word for Puppet. The basti (the slum) and the colony get the name as the inhabitants were mostly puppeteers, magicians among other artists and artisans) — a notified slum in Kathputli Colony, nearly all 2500 households have no access to Delhi’s potable water supply. However, about 100 households access hard water for 3 to 4 hours a day from a nearby borewell, that was facilitated by the mediation by a local politician to the DJB. Residents use this hard water for drinking purposes after boiling and cooling. Alternative sources of potable water include a distant tap with a waiting line of 2–3 hours in peak summers or private vendors selling a liter for Rs 5 per liter (Roy, 2013). Practices of illegal tapping are also prevalent which run the existing pipelines and standpost connections dry (Roy, 2013).

This colony inhabited by puppeteers, magicians, artists and artisans came up around the 1950s on public land. In 2009, an in-situ redevelopment project was announced by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) through Private-Public Partnership. As per a newspaper report, the residents still await the allocation of their homes as the deadline for project completion keeps getting delayed (Times of India, 2019).

A dilemma for the informal settlers to organize against the unjust provisioning of services is that they are often living on public or private land illegally, or on lands with violated land-use regulations. (Swyngedouw 2004, Gandy 2008, Roy 2013). Living in constant fear of being evicted, the settlers try to meet their daily needs through informal means by approaching local leaders or mediators, instead of approaching the official authorities directly (Roy, 2013). These ambiguities in provisioning urban infrastructure to informal settlements is also made evident in the case of Mumbai as explored in the research and fieldwork by Anand (2011) between 2007 and 2010 (p. 560).

Negotiating Waters — A Case of Mumbai

Citizenship claims do not guarantee access to water reliably, yet many settlers in Mumbai manage their water needs through illegal means (Anand, 2011). Local plumbers are easily available to make these illegal connections to the water pipelines. Only the settlers who can prove their occupancy before January 1995 are allowed to apply for legal or stand-post (Stand-post is a special connection type approved by the city water department for informal settlers where a group of around ten households can avail for one stand-post connection) connections (Anand, 2011). However, the complexity of the bureaucracy makes it near impossible for a settler to apply for a connection directly at the water department. The process involves exhaustive documentation as a prerequisite followed by a Councillor’s mediation for the application to be approved in time. Customarily, one would need a political push to back the application. If the application is approved, the settler can hire a licensed plumber to make the connection from their homes to the nearest mains, at their own expense. These pipes run above the ground and are susceptible to breaking, leaking or getting blocked (Anand, 2011, p. 549). Although this process of provisioning can be viewed as ‘co-production’ of urban services, often seen as a possible solution for building elemental infrastructure and urban services in informal settlements, the quality of the water infrastructure is compromised making the availability of water unreliable.

Through the analogy of “pressure”, Anand (2011, pg. 543) describes the negotiations and manipulations of the political and bureaucratic system to get the engineers of the water department to recognize the validity of a settler’s claim to avail municipal water supply. He describes the ways in which settlers apply various forms of persuasions, delegations and representations made through councilors to facilitate the provisioning, or by expressing dissent by means of protests or filing complaints. His study also reveals how engineers, bound by law, experience “pressure” from politicians and administrators to approve the applications of their areas of influence, without verifying their authenticity. However, city engineers receive only a limited quantity of water to be allocated to their area. Sometimes, the only means by which an engineer can accede to a politician’s “pressure” is by reallocating water supply from another area with lower political “pressure”. Since not all settlements are able to organize themselves to claim their right to water through these means of political and legal negotiations, some settlements get prioritized over others (Anand, 2011). Such ambiguities in the system highlight discrepancies, uncertainties and injustices when it comes to the distribution of urban infrastructure services.

Claim or Right?

Governance often fails in its obligation to ensure adequate provision of basic urban infrastructure to its individuals. Moreover, there are provisions within the legal framework which prevents it from doing so. Government institutions refrain from extending urban services to informal settlements as it is sometimes seen as legitimizing their claim on that land (Truelove, 2018). Hence, to avail basic amenities basic for survival, a settler resorts to means not strictly formal, as the choice of formal provisioning is beyond an individual’s capacity. For example, residents of Bihari Basti — another section in Kathputli Colony, organized themselves and illegally punctured a water main to create a local network to get potable water to individual houses (Roy, 2013). The case of Kathputli colony is one such exemplification which highlights the uncertainties of a settler’s place in a city. For a household that has lived in the same place for over several decades, there is an acceptance of what we perceive as informality. Settlers acknowledge their exclusion from the master scheme of things and learn to negotiate their way around it.

In another example, the Slum Networking project of Indore attempted a multi-faceted strategy. In lieu of connecting individual houses to the sewerage mains, the slum dwellers were offered the security of land tenure (P. Parikh & H. Parikh, 2009). This served as a cost-effective strategy of participatory effort of infrastructure provisioning combined with an incentive that affirms their claim to live in the city. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the right to live for every individual. Access to clean water is a basic necessity to live and hence, access to clean water is an essential human right. As stated earlier, UN Habitat (2010) in its definition of good governance includes security of tenure and safe water as necessities of urban life among others. Hence, in a democratic governance structure existent in India, it is the responsibility of government agencies to ensure adequate provision of clean drinking water to all individuals whether they live in planned colonies, informal settlements or slums (Roy, 2013).

Conclusion

Governance and infrastructure provisioning in informal settlements have several layers of formal and informal relationships between the two. The constant conflict between a good governance’s underlying responsibilities with that of the compliance to the regulations of ‘lawful existence’ often results in the ambiguities in its functioning. By means of self-help or collective action, settlers resort to various means of provisioning basic infrastructure and establish their ‘claim’ to live in the city. But as Roy (2009) argues, these are merely ‘claims’ and not ‘rights’ as they still depend on the ambiguous practices of the state. On the other hand, constant apprehension of eviction looming over a settler’s home can result in a lack of sense of ownership to the settlement. Roy (2013) terms this as a state of “passive acceptance”. This lack of sense of ownership can lead to disregard of the socio-ecological issues of the settlement and diminishes the potential of collective action and initiatives getting successful (Roy, 2013).

Infrastructure in informal settlements is commonly used as a political tool to garner electoral support (Roy, 2013). We see the informal provisioning of urban services through political influence, however, such solutions can be viewed as ‘band-aid’ solutions to a more critical governance challenge. As stated by UN-Habitat, adequate shelter, security of tenure, safe water, sanitation, a clean environment, health, education, nutrition, employment, public safety and mobility are all necessities of urban life. Governance is obligated to see informality as an integral part of itself and incorporate it into its formal scheme of functioning. Informality is a by-product of urbanization which the rational planning mechanism is expected to incorporate.

About the Author:

Abhijit Parashar is an architect from New Delhi, India. He holds a bachelor’s degree in Architecture from the School of Planning and Architecture, Bhopal. He has worked on projects ranging from affordable housing and educational buildings to adaptive-reuse, preservation and cultural development. His keen interest in environmental economics and socio-economic research led him to pursue MSc. International Cooperation in Urban Development with specialization in Development Economics. He is currently pursuing his specialisation in Development Economics (MESCI) from University of Rome, Tor Vergata, Italy and working on his ongoing research in the field of circular economy in relation to waste management policies in the developing context of India.

References

Anand, N. (2011). Pressure: The politechnics of water supply in Mumbai. Cultural Anthropology, 26(4), 542–564. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2011.01111.x

Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) (2013) Government of Delhi, Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on Social Sector. Report №2 of 2013. Delhi: Government of India.

Dupont, V., & Ramanathan, U. (2008). The courts and the squatter settlements in Delhi — or the intervention of the judiciary in urban ‘governance.’ New Forms of Urban Governance in India: Shifts, Models, Networks and Contestations, May 2000, 312–343. https://doi.org/10.4135/9788132101390.n12

Ghertner, D. (2008). Analysis of New Legal Discourse behind Delhi’s Slum Demolitions. Economic and Political Weekly, 43(20), 57–66. Retrieved January 17, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/40277691

Larkin, B. (2013). The Politics and Poetics of Infrastructure. In Annual Review of Anthropology (Vol. 42, Issue 1, pp. 327–343). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092412-155522

Lemanski, C., & Tawa Lama-Rewal, S. (2013). The “missing middle”: Class and urban governance in Delhi’s unauthorised colonies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(1), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00514.x

Milbert, I. (2006). Slums, slum dwellers and multilevel governance. European Journal of Development Research, 18(2), 299–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/09578810600717222

Parikh, H; Parikh, P; (2009) Slum networking — A paradigm shift to transcend poverty with water, environmental sanitation and hidden resources. In: Water and Urban Development Paradigms: Towards an Integration of Engineering, Design and Management Approaches. (pp. 357–370). CRC Press

Roy, A. (2003) City Requiem, Calcutta: Gender and the Politics of Poverty. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Roy, A. (2009). Why India cannot plan its cities: Informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanization. Planning Theory, 8(1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095208099299

Roy, D. (2013). Negotiating marginalities: right to water in Delhi. Urban Water Journal, 10(2), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/1573062X.2012.709254

Sheikh S, Sharma S and Banda S (2015) The Delhi Jal Board: Seeing Beyond the Planned. Working
Paper. Delhi: Center for Policy Research.

Truelove, Y. (2018). Negotiating states of water: Producing illegibility, bureaucratic arbitrariness, and distributive injustices in Delhi. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 36(5), 949–967. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263775818759967

Online Sources:

Central Ground Water Authority. (2016). Estimation of water requirement for drinking and domestic use. 3. http://cgwa-noc.gov.in/LandingPage/Guidlines/NBC2016WatRequirement.pdf

Economic Survey of Delhi 2018–19 (2019). Government of Delhi. Planning Department. Chapter 14 — Housing & Urban Development. 238–267.

Goal 11 .:. Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform. (n.d.). Retrieved January 17, 2020, from https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg11

Mehra, A. A. S. (2019, November 21). Regularisation of unauthorised Delhi colonies: A massive infra and realty revamp. Retrieved from https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/regularisation-of-unauthorised-delhi-colonies-a-massive-infra-and-realty-revamp-1621440-2019-11-22

Only 5% owners apply for completion certificate. (2011, January 19). Retrieved from https://www.hindustantimes.com/delhi/only-5-owners-apply-for-completion-certificate/story-ioh0v7BPFe6zDDlIKwlWlN.html

Roy, S. (2019, October 21) Delhi’s Kathputli Colony project gets fresh deadline. Retrieved from https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/kathputli-colony-project-gets-fresh-deadline-december/articleshow/71679182.cms

Zárate, L. & Habitat International Coalition. (2016, April 26). They are Not “Informal Settlements”-They are Habitats Made by People. Retrieved from https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2016/04/26/they-are-not-informal-settlements-they-are-habitats-made-by-people/