V nekaterih postsocialisticnih mestih je nastajanje neformalnih naselij pojav, povezan z valom urbanizacije v sestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih prejsnjega stoletja, v drugih pa s pritokom priseljencev in beguncev v devetdesetih letih. Obmocja neformalnih naselij nastajajo zaradi razlicnih dejavnikov: neustreznega prostorskega nacrtovanja, zastarele in zapletene zakonodaje, ureditve javne uprave in stanovanjske politike, ki ne zagotavlja cenovno dostopnih stanovanj. Nezakonita gradnja na mestnih obmocjih, ki je pogosto posledica pomanjkanja jasno oblikovanega sistema lastninskih pravic in mestne revscine, je resen problem v mnogih mestih, kot so Tirana, Beograd, Tbilisi in Bukaresta. Clanek predstavlja tipologijo neformalnih naselij v postsocialisticnih mestih in obravnava ekonomske, socialne in okoljske probleme, povezane s tem pojavom. Razlicne vrste neformalnih naselij in njihov razvoj kazejo na zapletenost vprasanja in potrebo po oblikovanju raznolikih resitev, ki bi upostevale razmere danega okolja. Raziskava obravnava odzive politike povezane s tem, med njimi legalizacijo in vkljucevanje tovrstnih naselij v projekte urbanisticnega nacrtovanja, zagotavljanje osnovnih socialnovarstvenih storitev (na primer sole in zdravstveni domovi), izgradnjo tehnicne infrastrukture (na primer varne ceste, omrezja javnega potniskega prometa, vodovod in kanalizacija) in programe preselitve v socialna stanovanja. Ceprav te resitve spadajo v okvir razlicnih politik, je za njihovo ucinkovito izvedbo potrebno veliko politicne volje ter tudi financna zavezanost osrednjih in lokalnih ustanov.
Kljucne besede: postsocialisticna mesta, neformalna naselja, mestna revscina, cenovno dostopna stanovanja, odzivi politike
1 Uvod
V nekaterih postsocialisticnih mestih je nastajanje neformalnih naselij pojav, povezan z valom urbanizacije v sestdesetih in sedemdesetih letih prejsnjega stoletja, v drugih pa s pritokom priseljencev in beguncev v devetdesetih letih. Posamezniki, ki iscejo razlicne ekonomske priloznosti v hitro rastocih postsocialisticnih mestih, se pogosto naseljujejo na periurbanih obmocjih. Ta ad hoc odziv na hitro urbanizacijo se razlikuje od »prve generacije« neformalnih naselij, ki so nastala v socializmu, saj za tovrstna sodobna naselja ni nujno, da imajo znacilnosti slumov. Prav nasprotno, na teh obmocjih zivijo tudi mescanske druzine in gradnja na pogosto zasebnih zemljiscih je velikokrat kakovostna. Neformalna narava teh gradenj je povezana z neupostevanjem urbanisticnega nacrtovanja in/ ali gradbenih dovoljenj. Neformalna naselja nastanejo zaradi razlicnih dejavnikov: neustreznega prostorskega nacrtovanja, zastarele in zapletene zakonodaje in ureditve javne uprave ter neustrezne stanovanjske politike.
Nova neformalna naselja danes pogosto nastanejo zaradi revscine in socialne izkljucenosti. Rastoca mestna revscina v nekaterih postsocialisticnih mestih se kaze v »drugi generaciji« neformalnih naselij, zgoscenih na periurbanih obmocjih velikih mest in tudi v getih v mestnih srediscih. Vojne na Balkanu, ki sta jim sledila begunska kriza in pritok notranje razseljenih oseb, so stanje samo se poslabsale. Nezakonita gradnja na mestnih obmocjih, ki je pogosto posledica pomanjkanja jasnega sistema lastninskih pravic ali neizvajanja obstojecih urbanisticnih predpisov, je resen problem v mnogih mestih, na primer v Tirani, Beogradu, Tbilisiju in Bukaresti.
Clanek predstavlja tipologijo neformalnih naselij v postsocialisticnih mestih in obravnava soodvisne ekonomske, socialne in okoljske probleme, povezane s tem pojavom. Osredotoca se na postsocialisticna mesta Jugovzhodne Evrope, v katerih razlicne vrste neformalnih naselij in njihov razvoj kazejo na zapletenost vprasanja in potrebo po oblikovanju raznolikih resitev, ki bi upostevale razmere danega okolja. Raziskava obravnava odzive politike, povezane s tem, med njimi legalizacijo in vkljucevanje tovrstnih naselij v projekte urbanisticnega nacrtovanja, zagotavljanje osnovnih socialnovarstvenih storitev (na primer sole in zdravstveni domovi), izgradnjo tehnicne infrastrukture (na primer varne ceste, omrezja javnega potniskega prometa, vodovod in kanalizacija) in programe preselitve v socialna stanovanja. Ceprav te resitve spadajo v okvir razlicnih politik, je za njihovo ucinkovito izvedbo potrebno veliko politicne volje ter tudi financna zaveza osrednjih in lokalnih ustanov. Osnovna teza clanka je, da je za izboljsanje stanovanjskih razmer revnega mestnega prebivalstva treba preseci konvencionalno nacrtovanje in resitve, povezane z lastninsko pravico na zemljiscu oziroma z njegovo prijavo. Sistemski problemi trzno usmerjene stanovanjske ponudbe, vse vecje neenakosti v stanovanjskih razmerah in posledicno nastajanje neformalnih naselij samo poslabsujejo polozaj revnega prebivalstva.
2 Neformalna bivalisca in naselja v Jugovzhodni Evropi
Neformalna bivalisca v postsocialisticni Evropi se v okviru neformalnih naselij pogosto obravnavajo ob upostevanju dejstva, da ta pojav zelo narasca in v mnogih drzavah ze zaseda vecji del mestne pokrajine. Dunajska deklaracija o nacionalni regionalni politiki in programih neformalnih naselij v Jugovzhodni Evropi (ang. The Vienna Declaration on National Regional Policy and Programmes on Informal Settlements in South Eastern Europe) neformalna naselja opredeljuje tako: »Cloveska naselja, ki zaradi razlicnih razlogov ne izpolnjujejo pogojev za priznanje zakonske pravice (in so bila zgrajena brez upostevanja formalnih postopkov za pridobitev in prenos lastnistva ter gradbenih in urbanistisnih predpisov), obstajajo v svoji drzavi in ovirajo njen gospodarski razvoj. Ceprav obstajajo pri oblikah teh naselij pomembne regionalne razlike, so zanje znacilni predvsem neformalno lastnistvo oziroma negotove lastninske pravice in neustrezen dostop do osnovnih storitev, kot so socialna in fizicna infrastruktura ter stanovanjsko financiranje.« (Ministrska konferenca o neformalnih naseljih v Jugovzhodni Evropi, 2004: 1.)
Ceprav obstaja vec razlicnih oblik neformalnih bivalisc, mnoge opredelitve kot njihovo glavno znacilnost poudarjajo neformalno naravo naselitve in neupostevanje nacrtov rabe zemljisc. K znacilnostim neformalnih bivalisc pristevamo tudi te (Program Zdruzenih narodov za naselja, ang. United Nations Human Settlements Programme, v nadaljevanju: UN-HABITAT, 2003; Payne in Majale, 2004):
* negotove lastninske pravice;
* pomanjkanje osnovnih storitev;
* krsenje mestnih predpisov;
* gradnja na zemljiscu, ki ni v lasti graditelja;
* neustrezen dostop do osnovnih javnih storitev;
* slabe bivalne razmere, nezakonite in neprimerne gradnje;
* nezakonita parcelacija naselja;
* revscina in socialna izkljucenost ter
* nezdrave in nevarne zivljenjske razmere.
Razprave v okviru stanovanjske politike se vztrajno osredotocajo na neformalno in nezakonito naravo teh naselij. Nezakonitost se nanasa predvsem na neupostevanje nacrtovalskih in gradbenih norm in zlasti na vprasanja lastnistva. Stanovalci neformalnih naselij pogosto nimajo lastninske pravice na zemljiscu ali objektu in jim zato grozi prisilna izselitev. Njihovo ranljivost dodatno povecujejo slabe bivalne razmere in omejen dostop do storitev, prevoza, izobrazevanja in zdravstvene oskrbe, ki so posledica fizicne in pravne marginalizacije z vidika formalne mestne sestave. Taka smer razvoja je znacilna za Albanijo, Makedonijo, Hrvasko, crno goro in Srbijo.
Neformalna naselja pogosto enacimo s slumi, kar ni pravilno. V mnogih predelih res izrazajo revscino, izkljucenost in stisko, vendar pa to ne velja vedno. Ceprav mnoga neformalna naselja nimajo zagotovljenih lastninskih pravic, sta lahko gradnja in infrastruktura vseeno kakovostni. V nekaterih primerih so razmeroma bogati prebivalci in spekulativni izvajalci pri gradnji preprosto krsili gradbene zakone in predpise namenske rabe zemljisc.
3 Prostorske pojavne oblike in proces oblikovanja neformalnih naselij
Zgodovina razvoja neformalnih naselij v Jugovzhodni Evropi je raznolika in se precej razlikuje glede na zivljenjski standard (od slumov do luksuznih stanovanj), lokacijo (od predmestij do mestnih sredisc in zavarovanih obmocij) in velikost (od nekaj manjsih enot do naselij z vec kot 50.000 prebivalci). K nezakoniti in nedosledni gradnji v vecjih mestih je med drugim prispeval tudi val migrantov s podezelja ter pritok beguncev in notranje razseljenih oseb na ta obmocja. Poleg resevanja nujnih bivalnih potreb so mnogi nezakonite nalozbe v nepremicnine izkoristili kot »zascito« pred nestabilnostjo in hiperinflacijo. Vrste neformalnih naselij lahko dolocamo na podlagi stevilnih dejavnikov, kot so na primer velikost, lokacija, znacilnosti prebivalcev in prostorska organizacija. Stevilo mogocih pojavnih oblik je veliko, v literaturi pa so navedene te glavne vrste:
1. ilegalna naselja (ang. squatter settlements) na javnih ali zasebnih zemljiscih,
2. naselja za begunce in ranljive skupine,
3. ilegalna naselja z izboljsano infrastrukturo,
4. ilegalne parcelacije na zasebnih ali javnih zemljiscih v pred mestjih.
3.1 Ilegalna naselja
Ena najtrdovratnejsih oblik neformalnih naselij so ilegalna naselja, zgrajena na zemljiscih, ki niso v lasti graditeljev. V postsocialisticnih mestih bivse Jugoslavije so bila ta naselja zgrajena v sedemdesetih in osemdesetih letih prejsnjega stoletja. V Albaniji so novejsa, saj so nastala v zacetku devetdesetih let. Ta naselja so vecinoma posledica hitrega priseljevanja v mesta zaradi migracij in sprememb v mestnem gospodarstvu, hkrati pa so nastala zaradi postopnega procesa naseljevanja in pospesenega sirjenja mest. Nahajajo se na javnih ali zasebnih zemljiscih periurbanih obmocij, razsirila pa so se do te mere, da so postala ze prave samostojne obcine, v katerih zivi vec sto tisoc ljudi. Ceprav so morda sprva nastajala predvsem zato, ker so oblasti zamizale na eno oko, zlasti med priseljevanjem priseljencev v mesta takoj po zlomu socializma, je danes njihov obseg resen problem. V Albaniji na primer v neformalnih naseljih zivi do 25 % vseh prebivalcev vecjih mest, neformalna naselja pa pomenijo 40 % vseh pozidanih povrsin v mestu. V Makedoniji zivi v takih naseljih 11 % prebivalcev stirinajstih najvecjih mest. V Beogradu neformalna naselja kazijo mestno podobo in zavzemajo do 40 % stanovanjskih povrsin (slika 1).
Poleg obseznih periurbanih ilegalnih naselij, opisanih zgoraj, obstaja tudi veliko drugih primerov neformalnih bivalisc, ki so ilegalno zgrajena pod mostovi in nadvozi ter na prostih parcelah v blizini industrijskih con, zelezniskih postaj, strmih recnih bregov in odlagalisc. Ta zemljisca, javna ali zasebna, niso stabilna in niso primerna za mestno gradnjo, hkrati pa nimajo dostopa do osnovne infrastrukture in storitev. Marginalna ilegalna naselja so pogosto zasilna in zgrajena iz odpadnih materialov (slika 2), njihovim prebivalcem pa pogosto grozi prisilna izselitev ali rusenje njihovih bivalisc. Lokacije naselij in razmere v njih se mocno razlikujejo, treba pa je opozoriti na pogosto izkljucenost prebivalcev, ki zivijo v njih. Najbolj znan primer so romske skupnosti v Srbiji, Bolgariji in Romuniji, ki zivijo v mahalah, cetrtih, ki izvirajo iz devetnajstega stoletja (beograjski urbanisticni institut, 2003a; Slaev, 2007).
3.2 Naselja za ranljive skupine
Neformalna naselja, ki so jih v tej regiji pred kratkim zgradili begunci in notranje razseljene osebe, so pogosto podobna ilegalnim naseljem, opisanim zgoraj, nekatera pa so bila zgrajena z dovoljenjem drzave ali ob?ine za za?asno in hitro resevanje kriznih okoliscin, kot so bili na primer vojaski spopadi v devetdesetih letih prejsnjega stoletja. Ceprav so bila ta naselja zgrajena se pred kratkim, so zivljenjske razmere v njih izredno slabe. Pogosto gre za barake, zgrajene iz odpadnih materialov, vecjih kosov plastike, kartona in ostankov gradbenih materialov. V nekaterih naj bi ljudje prebivali le zacasno, dokler ne bi zanje uredili preselitve v begunska taborisca in zbirne centre, vendar so na koncu postala dolgotrajnejsa bivalisca, ki so povrhu privabljala se vec ljudi. Ti slumi imajo omejen dostop do osnovnih storitev in se obicajno nahajajo na mestnem obrobju, na zemljiscih slabse kakovosti ali v blizini begunskih zbirnih centrov (center za spremljanje notranjega razseljevanja, 2007).
3.3 Ilegalna naselja z izboljsano infrastrukturo
Obstajajo razlicni vzorci neformalnih naselij, zgodovinske okoliscine, povezane z njihovim nastankom, pa so prav tako raznolike. Nekatera naselja so bila na zacetku sedemdesetih let prejsnjega stoletja ilegalno zgrajena na periurbanih obmocjih, nato pa so se preoblikovala v uglednejse soseske. Skopje, na primer, ima 27 sosesk, ki so bile ilegalno zgrajene po potresu v sestdesetih letih prejsnjega stoletja. Pravni status teh naselij je razlicen: vecina je bila sprva zgrajena ilegalno, scasoma pa so nekatera pridobila zakonske lastninske pravice (na primer v Srbiji in Makedoniji).
V nekaterih primerih se je dejanska zakonitost uveljavljala na podlagi dejstva, da teh naselij niso porusili in da so v njih zagotovili vsaj del najosnovnejse infrastrukture (na primer vodovod, elektrika in kanalizacija). Obstajajo primeri, v katerih so taka naselja vkljucili v mestne nacrte, med njimi tudi beograjsko sosesko Kalucerico (ponazoritev 1). To je nekaterim boljsim naseljem omogocilo hiter razvoj, saj so prebivalci v svoje domove vlagali in s tem izboljsevali lokalno okolje. Naselja z izboljsano infrastrukturo so pogosto zivahne soseske s cvetocim najemniskim in nepremicninskim trgom.
3.4 Ilegalne parcelacije
Pri nekaterih neformalnih naseljih v obravnavani regiji ne gre za stanovanjska obmocja nizje kakovosti s slabim dostopom do storitev. Veliko stanovalcev ima na zemljiscu lastninsko pravico, vendar so objekti zgrajeni brez gradbenega dovoljenja. Nedovoljene gradnje in ilegalne parcelacije so razsirjene na obrobju mest Jugovzhodne Evrope. Pri ilegalni parcelaciji zakoniti lastnik kmetijskega zemljisca zemljisce razdeli na parcele in jih proda kupcem, ki na njih nato gradijo svoje domove[1]. Lastniki tako periurbana zemljisca brez vsakrsnih uradnih dovoljenj spreminjajo v urbana. V nekaterih drzavah gradbena podjetja ta proces izkoriscajo za gradnjo stanovanj za mescanske druzine. V ponazoritvi 2 je prikazan tak proces v Romuniji. Naselja so ilegalna, ker krsijo prostorske predpise, imajo slabo infrastrukturo, parcelacija zemljisc pa pogosto ne uposteva urbanisticnih standardov za sluznostno pot, dostop do cest in zagotavljanje javnih prostorov.
Druga oblika ilegalne parcelacije v regiji so neformalna naselja na rekreacijskih in obalnih obmocjih. Ta problem je znacilen predvsem za Albanijo, Hrvasko, Crno goro in do neke mere tudi za Bolgarijo ter je najveckrat posledica zelje po dobicku in spekulativnem vlaganju v rastoci trg pocitniskih hisic kot potrebe po stanovanjih. Lahko gre za redko pozidana stanovanjska naselja na podezelju s kakovostno zgrajenimi objekti, vendar slabim dostopom do storitev. Vcasih se razsirijo na rekreacijska obmocja, ki niso uradno dolocena za gradnjo, to pa postane velik problem, ko se naselje zacne siriti in zgoscati.
3.5 Lokacija in velikost
Neformalna naselja se obicajno zgoscajo na dveh obseznih lokacijah: v srediscu mesta in na periurbanih obmocjih. Lokacije v srediscu mesta so pogosto starejse in uglednejse, nahajajo pa se blizu starega dela mesta ali industrijskih con. Stanovalci imajo dober dostop do delovnih mest, vendar pogosto zivijo v slabih stanovanjskih razmerah na obmocjih, ki so izpostavljena okoljskim in zdravstvenim tveganjem. Ta obmocja obicajno niso primerna za razvoj naselij. V vecini primerov se neformalna naselja, zlasti obseznejsa, zgoscajo na obrobju mest, ker so tam zemljisca obicajno cenejsa. Lahko gre za ilegalna naselja na javnih zemljiscih ali nezakonite parcelacije zunaj mestnih/ obcinskih meja. Kakovost in razmere v teh stanovanjih so obicajno boljse, ilegalna prikljucitev na obstojeco infrastrukturo pa vcasih zagotovi prepotrebno dobavo elektrike in vode. Stanovalci teh naselij se razmeroma ucinkovito upirajo preselitvi ali rusenju svojih domov. V preglednici 1 so predstavljene glavne oblike neformalnih naselij s podatki o lokaciji in kakovosti.
4 Ekonomska, socialna in okoljska vprasanja, povezana z neformalnimi naselji
Obravnavanje tezav, povezanih z neformalnimi naselji, zahteva sirse razumevanje silnic, ki prispevajo k povecevanju njihovega stevila, pa tudi upostevanje soodvisnih ekonomskih, socialnih in okoljskih vprasanj. Drzave v preucevani regiji, za katere je znacilna rast neformalnih naselij, se soocajo z enakimi sistemskimi tezavami, povezanimi s pomanjkanjem cenovno dostopnih stanovanj, z neucinkovitimi sistemi nacrtovanja in upravljanja z zemljisci ter narascajoco mestno revscino. Obicajno je v tem procesu skupni ucinek ekonomskega preoblikovanja in vojnih spopadov povzrocil nenadno pospeseno migracijo in sirjenje neformalnih naselij. Drzavna in lokalna raven vecinoma nista bili pripravljeni na obremenitve zemljisc, stanovanj in storitev. Petnajst let po koncu vojne neformalna naselja pokrivajo velika obmocja periurbanih zemljisc, v njih pa zivijo tako socialno ranljive skupine kot razmeroma bogati migranti. Kot navaja Bjoern Gabriel (2007: 5), »to ni preprosto ,urbanisticni problem', ampak bolj zapleten in tezko resljiv problem, ki lahko ogrozi dolgorocni trajnostni razvoj mestnih skupnosti, ce ga ne bomo hitro in ucinkovito resili«.
V okviru ekonomske in politicne liberalizacije, ki jo spremlja zgoscevanje revnih in neprivilegiranih skupin v mestih, je treba resevati eksplozivno rast neformalnih naselij na periurbanih obmocjih. Obstaja splosno prepricanje, da je resevanje »urbanega problema« neformalnih naselij povezano z mrezo izboljsanega dostopa do cenovno ugodnih zemljisc in stanovanj in razvojem ucinkovitih nacrtovalskih ureditev. Raziskava Svetovne banke (2007) o neformalnih naseljih v tranzicijskih gospodarstvih v zgosceni obliki povzema to problematiko (ponazoritev 3).
Poleg omejitev, ki so posledica neucinkovitih nacrtovalskih ureditev ter sistemov prijave in upravljanja zemljisc, so stanovanjski sistemi v Jugovzhodni Evropi zrtev neravnovesij, ki jih povzrocajo pomanjkanje novih najemniskih priloznosti (javnih ali zasebnih) za gospodinjstva z nizjimi prihodki, vrtoglave cene mestnih zemljisc in stanovanj na obmocjih hitre rasti in omejena podpora ranljivim skupinam (na primer starejsi ljudje, razseljeni prebivalci, manjsine in socialno ogrozene skupine) pri dostopanju do stanovanj zadovoljive kakovosti. Zato ni presenetljivo, da na nekaterih hitro rastocih mestnih obmocjih delez socialno ogrozenih prebivalcev, ki zivijo v slabih stanovanjskih razmerah, narasca in da si ti prebivalci stanovanja uredijo popolnoma neformalno ali pa s pomocjo neformalnih izvajalcev, ki delujejo zunaj zakonitega urbanisticnega okvira.
4.1 Ekonomska vprasanja
Raziskave potrjujejo, da se rast »neformalnih mest« v vecini drzav v obravnavani regiji vse bolj sprejema, vendar pa se pri tem ekonomska in socialna vprasanja vecinoma podcenjujejo (Gabriel, 2007; Tsenkova, 2008). Le redko priznamo, da je hitra rast »neformalnih mest« pravzaprav najvecji ekonomski problem na lokalni in mestni ravni.
Z ekonomskega vidika neformalna naselja zahtevajo visoke javne in zasebne nalozbe, ki ostajajo zunaj formalnih ekonomskih in nalozbenih krogov (De Soto, 2003). Poleg tega so povezana z visokimi javnimi stroski, tako eksplicitnimi kot implicitnimi. Prebivalci teh naselij si pogosto prisvojijo javna zemljisca, pri cemer breme stroskov prelozijo na lokalno raven in javne ustanove. Zemljisca, ki so pogosto neenakomerno pozidana z enodruzinskimi hisami, so slabo izkoriscena, saj je zanje znacilna razprsena gradnja. Neformalna naselja vplivajo tudi na drzavno upravljanje in nacrtovanje rabe zemljisc, saj ta naselja nezakonito zasedajo parke, nekdanje industrijske cone, ki niso varne za stanovanjsko gradnjo, ter zemljisca, ki bi se lahko uporabila v produktivnejse komercialne in socialne namene. Neformalna naselja dolgorocno ovirajo urejen razvoj in rast mesta, storitvene potrebe in splosen nepremicninski potencial. Prebivalci neformalnih naselij ne placujejo davka na nepremicnine in se pogosto nezakonito prikljucijo na obstojeco infrastrukturo, zaradi cesar zmanjsujejo dohodek, s katerim drzava zagotavlja osnovne storitve.
Obenem so neformalna stanovanja pomemben del neformalne ekonomije in nepremicninskega trga. Stanovanja in zemljisca na teh obmocjih se prodajajo brez sodelovanja nepremicninskih agencij, prijave v zemljisko knjigo in zahtevanega placevanja drzavnih davkov in pristojbin. Ceprav so zaradi tega stanovanja cenovno dostopnejsa in transakcijski stroski nizji, nanje ni mogoce vzeti hipoteke ali jih uporabiti kot varscino za druge poslovne namene (De Soto, 2003). Za mnoge prebivalce je to njihovo najvecje premozenje (slika 3), vendar so brez lastninske pravice v nenehni nevarnosti, da bodo svojo nalozbo izgubili ali da bo postala »mrtvi kapital«, zlasti zaradi okoljskih tveganj (na primer poplave, zemeljski plazovi ali potresi) ali sodno odrejenega rusenja.
Neformalna naselja povzrocajo vladam posameznih drzav visoke politicne in ekonomske stroske, zlasti pri prisilnih izselitvah, legalizaciji in preselitvah. Prizadevanja za dokumentiranje obsega neformalnih naselij in usmerjanje dodatnih institucionalnih zmogljivosti za vkljucitev teh naselij v nacrtovano mestno obmocje so izjemno draga. Poleg tega se morajo lokalna raven drzave in javne ustanove ukvarjati s prijavami zemljisc in nepremicnin, z resevanjem sporov, v nekaterih primerih pa tudi z odskodninami za zasebne lastnike. Ker visokih stroskov niso zmozni obvladati, pred »neformalnimi mesti« pogosto zamizijo.
4.2 Socialna vprasanja
Raznolike prostorske oblike neformalnih naselij v obravnavani regiji so povezane z mnogimi razlicnimi socialnimi vidiki te problematike, kljub temu pa obstaja vec pomembnih vprasanj, ki so skupna vsem drzavam. Prvic, prebivalci neformalnih naselij so pogosto revni in socialno ogrozeni posamezniki, podvrzeni nezaposlenosti, socialnim stiskam in negotovim lastninskim pravicam (Leckie, 2002; Organizacija za varnost in sodelovanje v Evropi, v nadaljevanju: OVSE, 2006). Drugic, podatki kazejo, da demografske pritiske notranje razseljenih in ranljivih skupin, kot so na primer Romi, resujejo prav neformalna naselja (Razvojna banka Sveta Evrope in Svetovna banka, 2004). S pomocjo raziskave med prebivalci neformalnih naselij v Beogradu so ugotovili, da mlade druzine z nezadostnimi prihodki za pridobitev formalnih stanovanj pomenijo 35 % vseh prebivalcev; s 23 % jim sledijo begunci, z 18 % pa Romi (ministrstvo za kapitalske nalozbe drzavne skupnosti Srbije in crne gore, 2004). Brez financnih sredstev in zanesljive zaposlitve so se mnoge notranje razseljene osebe in begunci, ki so se priselili v Beograd, da bi tam zaceli novo zivljenje, zatekli v neformalna naselja.
Zaradi hitrih sprememb v lokalnem gospodarstvu in vojn se je v drzavah, kot so crna gora, Albanija, Kosovo ter Bosna in Hercegovina, vec sto tisoc razmeroma revnih migrantov in notranje razseljenih oseb priselilo v vecja mesta. Prisleki so se naselili na periurbanih obmocjih, kjer gradijo hise na komunalno neopremljenih zemljiscih, pri cemer nezakonito naseljujejo zasebna ali javna zemljisca. V vecini primerov se revscina in pomanjkanje kazeta v kakovosti objektov in tudi v vzorcu mestne gradnje, za katerega so znacilne slabe stanovanjske razmere brez kakrsne koli socialne ali tehnicne infrastrukture (slika 4). Primer iz Kamze ponazarja nekatere od teh problemov v novozgrajenih soseskah (ponazoritev 4).
Poleg slabega dostopa do sol in socialnovarstvenih storitev prebivalci periurbanih obmocij obicajno nimajo lastninske pravice na zemljiscu in jim tako grozi prisilna izselitev. Kljub temu obstajajo v obravnavani regiji tudi primeri, v katerih navedeno ne velja - na primer v starejsih naseljih v Srbiji, Makedoniji in crni gori -, vendar tudi v teh primerih pomanjkanje socialne infrastrukture (sole, zdravniske ambulante in socialne sluzbe) povzroca prostorsko obliko socialne izkljucenosti.
4.3 Okoljska vprasanja
V vecini primerov so okoljska vprasanja v neformalnih naseljih povezana s slabo osnovno infrastrukturo. Celo bogatejsi prebivalci starejsih, izboljsanih naselij nimajo dostopa do ciste vode, primernih cest, javnega prometa in zanesljive dobave elektrike. Polozaj ima neposredne posledice za prebivalce, polega tega pa negativno vpliva tudi na kakovost zivljenja na formalnih obmocjih mesta, kjer komunalne odplake in dolvodno onesnazevanje kot posledica neposrednega izlivanja odpadne vode in fekalij v reke povzrocajo resna okoljska tveganja.
Neurejena infrastruktura v neformalnih naseljih je velik problem. Nezakonita prikljucitev na infrastrukturo je edini nacin pridobivanja dostopa do osnovnih storitev, vendar ni zanesljiva in ucinkovita. Nezakonita prikljucitev znizuje ucinkovitost gospodarskih javnih sluzb in zakonite uporabnike izpostavlja pogostim izpadom elektrike in vode. Ker vecina prebivalcev neformalnih naselij ne placuje polne cene za uporabo infrastrukture, ni dovolj dohodkov za pokrivanje narascajocih zahtev za izboljsanje in siritev infrastrukture. V neformalnih naseljih v Tirani in Beogradu so velike razlike v dostopu do najosnovnejsih storitev v primerjavi s povprecjem, ki velja za mesto in celotno drzavo (preglednica 2). V neformalnih naseljih v Tirani so osnovne storitve veliko blizje drzavnemu povprecju kot v Beogradu. Romska naselja v Beogradu so veliko bolj prikrajsana: samo cetrtina stanovanj ima dostop do kanalizacije in samo polovica do vodovodnega omrezja.
Poleg pomanjkanja infrastrukture so nekatera naselja neposredno izpostavljena okoljskim tveganjem, povezanim z zemeljskimi plazovi, s poplavami, z neustreznim odvodnjavanjem in onesnazevanjem okolja (Vucksanovic, 2007). Vse to povzroca zdravstvena tveganja za tamkajsnje prebivalce. Sirjenje neformalnih naselij prispeva k okoljski degradaciji na vec ravneh:
* erozija kot posledica netlakovanih cestisc brez urejenega odvodnjavanja;
* prebivalci brez urejene kanalizacije z nedovoljenimi izpusti povecujejo onesnazevanje lokalnih vodnih virov;
* smeti se odlagajo ob cestah ali v lokalnih rekah in jezerih; ponekod neformalna naselja povzrocajo okoljska tveganja s tem, ko se gradijo v naravnih rezervatih in na zavarovanih obmocjih, na primer na obalnih obmocjih Hrvaske in crne gore.
5 Politicne resitve
Dunajska deklaracija o nacionalni regionalni politiki in programih neformalnih naselij v Jugovzhodni Evropi to problematiko oznacuje za prednostno nalogo in drzave spodbuja k oblikovanju pristopa za doseganje trajnostne legalizacije in izboljsanja neformalnih naselij. V njej se zagovarja dejstvo, da je treba v prihodnje razvoj neformalnih naselij nujno preprecevati s pomocjo trajnostnega urbanega upravljanja, nacel dobrega upravljanja in vkljucujoce krepitve zmogljivosti (ministrska konferenca o neformalnih naseljih v Jugovzhodni Evropi, 2004).[2] Iskanje politicnih resitev pri obravnavi neformalnih naselij je seveda vecplastno in zadeva vec razlicnih vidikov. V drzavah Jugovzhodne Evrope je bilo upostevanih ze veliko razlicnih projektov in programov urbanega razvoja, vendar poteka njihovo izvajanje v odvisnosti od posameznega primera in zelo pocasi. Med predlaganimi resitvami so legalizacija in vkljucevanje v formalno urbanisticno nacrtovanje, ureditev in zagotovitev najosnovnejsih socialnovarstvenih storitev (na primer sole in zdravniske ambulante) in tehnicne infrastrukture (na primer varne ceste, javni promet, voda in kanalizacija) ter programe preselitve v socialna stanovanja. Ceprav te resitve spadajo v okvir razlicnih politik, zahtevajo tudi veliko politicne volje ter financne zavezanosti drzavnih in lokalnih ustanov. Poudarek je na teh ukrepih:
1. legalizacija,
2. ureditev in izboljsave,
3. preselitev.
5.1 Legalizacija
Legalizacija neformalnih naselij v regiji se vedno poteka. Pri tem se poudarja vkljucitev trga neformalnih zemljisc in stanovanj v formalno ekonomijo in zagotovitev dostopa do lastninskih pravic prek lastnistva zemljisc. Legalizacija temelji na prizadevanjih za zagotovitev javnih prihodkov in stabilizacijo velikih mestnih skupnosti s pomocjo socialnih programov in programov izboljsanja infrastrukture. V splosnem se odzivi na legalizacijo razlikujejo glede na posamezna obmocja, vrste neformalnih naselij, politicne usmeritve vlade in pritiske vpletenih skupnosti. V nekaterih drzavah (Hrvaska, crna gora in Bolgarija) se legalizacija izvaja kot sestavni del novih prizadevanj za pripravo zakonskih nacrtov za urejanje razvoja na lokalni ravni. V drugih drzavah (Albanija in Srbija) legalizacijo neformalnih naselij ureja posebna zakonodaja, vendar je njeno izvajanje omejeno. Albanski legalizacijski zakon iz leta 2007 vsebuje posebne dolocbe o neformalnih naseljih revnih ljudi, ceprav krsijo obstojeco nacrtovalsko in gradbeno zakonodajo. Druge drzave v regiji uporabljajo podobne strategije, vendar njihovo izvajanje napreduje zelo razlicno (glej ponazoritev 5).
5.2 Ureditev in izboljsave
Urejanje in izboljsanje neformalnih naselij je bolj zapleten poseg. Resitve niso sablonske, preprosto zakonite ali nezakonite, formalne ali neformalne. Izbira legalizacije namesto ureditve je odvisna od politicne volje pristojnih organov, lobiranja in pogajalskih zmoznosti stanovalcev ter lokacije, velikosti in kakovosti stanovanj v naselju.
Pri urejanju in izboljsevanju je poudarjena pomembnost ukrepanja na treh ravneh: v soseski (ali neformalnem naselju), mestu in na metropolitanskem obmocju. Ceprav gre predvsem za nacrtovalske ukrepe, postopek obicajno vkljucuje tudi prijavo zemljisca in nepremicnine ter nacrte za dostop do infrastrukture in socialnovarstvenih storitev. V vec drzavah (Albanija, Srbija in Bolgarija) manjsi pilotni projekti kazejo, da tak pristop prispeva k izboljsavam. Ceprav je ucinkovitost takih projektov tezko oceniti, zahtevajo sodelovanje stanovalcev, nacrtovalcev, obcine in osrednjih drzavnih organov. Na ravni soseske se na podlagi sodelovanja med nacrtovalci, osnovnimi organizacijami skupnosti, druzinami in posamezniki opredelijo neposredni problemi stanovalcev, da bi se poiskale mogoce resitve. Na mestni ravni morajo nacrtovalci in nosilci odlocanja upostevati dinamiko skupnosti in vpliv mogoce vkljucitve v mestno obmocje z vidika prometnih in infrastrukturnih zahtev, stroskov in okoljskih posledic. Na metropolitanski oziroma regionalni ravni je treba za dosego ozavescenih politicnih in nacrtovalskih odlocitev, ki bodo koristile mestu, upostevati vplive in interakcije znotraj urbane aglomeracije, zlasti pri vecjih neformalnih naseljih (Svetovna banka, 2001; Bolay, 2004). Taki strateski pristopi so pogosto del nove generacije glavnih nacrtov in mestnih strategij v obravnavani regiji (na primer Tirana, Durres, Beograd in Skopje), vendar se v praksi le redko izvajajo.
Gradnja ter vzdrzevanje infrastrukture in javnih dobrin pomenita velik korak naprej k formaliziranju in izboljsanju neformalnih naselij. Ko se ugotovi, da lahko neformalno naselje ostane na obstoje?i lokaciji, je nujno oblikovanje partnerstev, ki pomagajo kriti stroske stanovanj in izboljsav. Pomembno je, da stanovalci sodelujejo v celotnem procesu ter da se jih spodbudi k placevanju stroskov infrastrukture in javnih dobrin, s cimer zacnejo te storitve tudi ceniti. Poleg tega morajo vlade za resevanje problema pomanjkanja osnovne infrastrukture nameniti sredstva iz svojega proracuna. Dober primer takega pristopa je ureditev romskega naselja Gorica v Sarajevu, ki obsega priblizno 60 gospodinjstev. Druzine so zivele na parceli, ki je bila v delni lasti drzavnega podjetja in obcine. Po vojni leta 1996 so razseljene druzine svoje domove obnovile, ceprav je obstajala nevarnost, da jih bodo z obmocja prisilno izselili. Leta 2000 je zdruzenje goriskih stanovalcev zaprosilo vec mednarodnih organizacij, med njimi OVSE, OHR in UNHCR, naj sprozijo postopek regularizacije, s katerim bi spremenili namembnost zemljisc v stanovanjske namene, obcina bi izplacala zemljiski delez lastniku (drzavnemu podjetju), lastnistvo pa bi se preneslo na romske prebivalce. Obnova v Gorici se je zacela spomladi 2002 pod okriljem krscanske humanitarne organizacije World Vision (OVSE, 2006).
5.3 Preselitev
Ena od mogocih resitev vprasanja neformalnih naselij je tudi preselitev stanovalcev v socialna stanovanja ali neko drugo obliko subvencioniranega formalnega naselja. To je verjetno najdrazja resitev in ni presenetljivo, da je izvajanje te v praksi razmeroma omejeno. V vecini primerov je preselitev namenjena revnim prebivalcem neformalnih naselij ali ranljivim skupinam, kot so Romi, begunci in notranje razseljene osebe. Za to tezko nalogo preselitve velikih skupin revnih migrantov in beguncev ter njihove posledicne vkljucitve v obstojeca mesta ni splosnega modela. Ceprav obstaja splosno prepricanje, da so ucinkovite socialne politike in programi, ki zagotavljajo dostop do cenovno ugodnih in varnih stanovanj, izredno pomembni, si jih centralna in lokalna raven, zlasti v drzavah, ki jih prizadenejo vojne ali begunske krize, pogosto ne moreta privosciti. Mnogo resitev, povezanih s preselitvijo, se nanasa na manjse projekte, ki jih financirajo s pomocjo mednarodnih agencij ali z dvostransko pomocjo (slika 5).
Prispevki Razvojne banke Sveta Evrope za preselitev beguncev so bili vecji. S pomocjo projektov, ki jih je financirala ta banka, so leta 2005 preselili vec kot 2.300 ljudi v Bosni in Hercegovini, Srbiji in crni gori, leta 2006 pa so v okviru podobnega projekta pomagali 1.081 nekdanjim stanovalcem zbirnih centrov v Srbiji in crni gori. Podobne projekte je financirala tudi Evropska komisija s pomocjo nepovratnih sredstev, ki jih je namenila Bosni in Hercegovini v okviru svojega programa za vrnitev beguncev in razseljenih oseb. Evropska agencija za obnovo je pred kratkim namenila 2,4 milijona EUR gradnji cenovno dostopnih stanovanj za begunce in notranje razseljene osebe v crni gori.
6 Sklep: neformalna naselja kot problem in resitev
Upostevanje ekonomskih, socialnih in okoljskih vprasanj, povezanih z neformalnimi naselji, je pomemben korak k oblikovanju razlicnih programov in prakticnih resitev za obravnavo problemov. Ob hitri rasti neformalnih naselij in trdovratnosti »neformalnih mest« v vecini drzav Jugovzhodne Evrope so lokalne in nacionalne politike prepozno spoznale, da neucinkoviti stanovanjski sistemi ter sistemi nacrtovanja in upravljanja z zemljisci stanje samo se poslabsajo. Zdaj obstaja splosno zavedanje, da priseljenci v mestih pogosto koncajo kot nezakoniti prebivalci neformalnih naselij, saj si te skupine stanovanj in zemljisc na formalnem trgu ne morejo privosciti (Gabriel, 2007).
Drzavna pomoc, namenjena resevanju stanovanjske problematike revnih mestnih prebivalcev in socialno ogrozenih skupin, se je v zadnjem desetletju zmanjsala, s cimer se je breme prelozilo na lokalno raven, skupine znotraj skupnosti in posamezna gospodinjstva. Nezakoniti ali neformalni nakupi zemljisc so morda naravni mehanizem soocanja s tezavami revnih priseljencev in beguncev, kar nakazujejo tudi hitro rastoca neformalna naselja na periurbanem obmocju Pristine (slika 6).
Drzava zdaj ponuja storitve in usklajuje politike in ukrepe na urbanem podrocju, vendar trg vsem druzbenim slojem ne more ponuditi cenovno dostopnih in primernih stanovanj. Neformalna naselja so jasen pokazatelj tega prehoda v upravljanju. V najboljsem primeru je vse vecja vloga drzave prispevala k izboljsanju zakonodaje, infrastrukture in storitev ter tudi k poskusom ureditve neformalnih naselij na ravni skupnosti, v najslabsem primeru pa se drzava preprosto ni zmenila za rast neformalnih naselij, omejila je ponudbo zemljisc, spodbudila korupcijo in revne prisilila ziveti v prostorsko in socialno izoliranih slumih. Problematiko neformalnih naselij, zlasti tistih, ki jih zgradijo revni mestni prebivalci, je zato treba razumeti v tem kontekstu. Krepi se zavest o tem, da bi neformalna naselja morda morali razumeti kot sprejemljivo »resitev« z vidika socialnega odziva na neucinkovit sistem zagotavljanja stanovanj in zemljisc, ceprav ne moremo zanikati, da so problem z vidika urbanega upravljanja.
Drug problem je ta, da neformalnih naselij ne gradijo samo revni mestni prebivalci, ampak tudi zasebni investitorji in bogati posamezniki. Ni prevec verjetno, da se bo ta smer razvoja linearno spremenila. Nezakonita gradnja na mestnih obmocjih, ki je pogosto posledica pomanjkanja jasne nacrtovalske ureditve ali izvajanja obstojecih nacrtov, je v mnogih mestih (na primer Tirana, Podgorica, Beograd in Pristina) povzrocila resne probleme. Neustrezno upravljanje z nepremicninami in slabi zemljiskoknjizni sistemi polozaj samo se poslabsujejo, saj dodatno poglabljajo tezave urbanega upravljanja s tem, ko ne zagotavljajo preglednega sistema lastnistva zemljisc in lastninskih pravic. Resitve problemov neformalnih stanovanj so najpomembnejse za dobro delovanje nepremicninskega trga in zascito lastninskih pravic, zato se morajo drzave pri svojih pristopih osredotociti na ranljive skupine in se izogibati siroko zastavljenim politikam, ki lahko samo se spodbudijo razvoj neformalnih naselij.
Ponazoritev 1: Neformalna naselja z izboljsano infrastrukturo: Kalucerica
Kalucerica je eno najhitreje rastocih naselij v Srbiji in najbrz najvecja vas na Balkanu. Nahaja se samo osem kilometrov od Beograda in ze od osemdesetih let prejsnjega stoletja hitro raste skupaj z mestom. V osemdesetih je njeno prebivalstvo stelo 12.000 ljudi, danes pa stevilo prebivalstva ocenjujejo na 50.000; povecanje je mogoce pripisati tudi beguncem iz Bosne in Hercegovine, s Hrvaske in Kosova. Ceprav je Kalucerica uradno podezelsko naselje, ki je petkrat vecje od obcinskega glavnega mesta Grocke, gre pravzaprav za neformalno zgrajeno naselje. Vecina objektov nima gradbenega dovoljenja, vendar imajo stanovalci zemljisca v lasti, nekatera pa so celo vpisana v zemljisko knjigo. Scasoma so se prebivalci z odgovornimi pogodili za prikljucitev na infrastrukturo, zgradili ceste in uredili dostop do storitev beograjskega javnega potniskega prometa in Telekoma Srbije.
Vir: beograjski urbanisticni institut (2003b)
Ponazoritev 2: Ilegalna parcelacija kmetijskih zemljisc, ki so bila spremenjena v predmestno stanovanjsko naselje: Pite?ti
Do ilegalne parcelacije v romunskem mestu Pitecti je prislo takoj po denacionalizaciji kmetijskih zemljisc na obrobju mesta. Novi lastniki so takoj razdelili 4,1 hektarja zemlje, ki se nahaja poleg stanovanjskega naselja s 5.000 stanovanji in zascitenega gozda. Novi lastniki, ki so vecinoma stanovali v vecstanovanjskih zgradbah v tem naselju, so si prisvojili vec kot 300 parcel in na njih zaceli graditi svoje sanjske domove. Danes lahko tukaj najdemo ze skoraj 150 novih objektov na razlicnih stopnjah gradnje, ki izrazajo mesanico mestnega in podezelskega zivljenjskega sloga prebivalcev naselja. V nekaj letih je bilo to obmocje zaradi hitro odobrenih prostorskih nacrtov vkljuceno v obcino, zaradi cesar so se povisale cene zemljisc. Stanovalci so uredili zasebne ceste, ki zavzemajo samo 9 % zemljisc, na podlagi povrnjenih stroskov prikljucili svoje parcele na elektricno omrezje ter uredili oskrbo z vodo iz omrezja in greznico. Uspeli so celo zbrati sredstva za oskrbo s plinom, se vedno pa uporabljajo javno socialno infrastrukturo v sosednjem naselju.
Vir: Soaita (2007)
Ponazoritev 3: Omejitve na podrocju nacrtovanja in upravljanja z zemljisci
V okviru analiticnega in projektnega dela Svetovne banke v stevilnih drzavah obravnavane regije so bili ugotovljeni ti skupni dejavniki, ki vplivajo na neformalna naselja:
* Neobstoj novejsega »ureditvenega nacrta« (nacrta rabe zemljisc) in sprejetih lokalnih predpisov o rabi zemljisc. Nacrti so lahko zastareli ali niso popolni. Stevilne podatke, kot so prepreke, sirina glavnih cest, kolicnik med bruto tlorisno povrsino objekta nad terenom in povrsino gradbene parcele ter maksimalna visina, je treba dolociti za vsak projekt posebej. To vodi v visje stroske gradnje, saj povzroca daljse zamude in ustvarja vtis samovoljnosti, hkrati pa je videti kot priloznost za korupcijo. Ce je proces dolgotrajen in ni jasen, veliko drzavljanov nima ustreznega znanja, casa in sredstev, da bi sledili postopkom.
* Pomanjkanje programov za gradnjo primarne infrastrukture, ki bi jih financirala obcina. Brez posodobljenih nacrtov infrastrukturnega omrezja morajo investitorji sami graditi in financirati povezave med svojimi enotami in obstojecim infrastrukturnim omrezjem ali pa siritev tega omrezja. To vodi v razdrobljenost sistema, zaradi cesar je njegovo vzdrzevanje negospodarno in drago. Posamezniki morda sploh nimajo dostopa do infrastrukture ali pa »kupujejo« nezakonite prikljucke.
* Tezavnost uradnega in zakonitega nakupa komunalno neopremljenih zemljisc za gradnjo. Vecino nezazidanih zemljisc po mestih bremenijo lastniski spori in restitucijski zahtevki ali pa so v drzavni lasti in se zato na trgu ne prodajajo. Investitorje in posameznike pri iskanju razpolozljivih zemljisc ovirajo tudi nepopolni podatki ter veliko stevilo odgovornih agencij in ministrstev.
* Visoki transakcijski stroski v formalnem sektorju, zapleteni procesi in neodzivnost ustanov. V mnogih drzavah obiskovanje stevilnih uradov za ureditev potrebnega dovoljenja za uradno izgradnjo in prijavo stavbe zahteva veliko casa in denarja. Dolgotrajni in nepregledni postopki lahko spet »spodbudijo« neformalni sektor, k cemur veliko pripomore tudi nedosledno izvajanje predpisov s strani pristojnih agencij.
Vir: Svetovna banka (2007: 3)
Ponazoritev 4: Zagotavljanje socialne in komunalne infrastrukture v Kamzi
Obcina Kamza je neformalno naselje v Tirani, v katerem je vec kot 90 % vseh bivalisc zgrajenih nezakonito. V zacetku devetdesetih let prejsnjega stoletja je bilo to predvsem kmetijsko zemljisce, danes pa tu zivi ze priblizno 60.000 ljudi. Prebivalci so se sem priselili iz severovzhodnih regij Albanije z upanjem na boljse zivljenje in dobre priloznosti. Polovica ljudi ni zaposlena in polovica vseh gospodinjstev zivi pod pragom revscine. Povprecno stanovanje pokriva 119 m2, kar je dvakrat vec od povprecja v Tirani. Stanovanja se sprva gradijo v obliki kolib, potem ko ljudje pridobijo dodatna sredstva, pa jih dograjujejo in izboljsujejo. Ceprav so nacrtovalska prizadevanja in delo nevladnih organizacij, kot je Co-PLAN, povecala samozavest prebivalcev in omogocila nalozbe v vrednosti 110 milijonov USD, zemljisc za gradnjo socialne infrastrukture primanjkuje.
Vir: Besnik idr. (2003)
Ponazoritev 5: Legalizacija neformalnih naselij v Albaniji in na Hrvaskem
ALUIZNI je pristojna nacionalna agencija za legalizacijo in urbanizacijo nezakonitih gradenj in naselij v Albaniji. Njena naloga je priprava predlogov za odobritev legalizacije neformalnih naselij. ALUIZNI je pripravila pilotski legalizacijski postopek za obmocje, ki pokriva 55 hektarjev. Obmocje se trenutno podrobno pregleduje, saj zelijo pridobiti popolno digitalizirano dokumentacijo z najmanj 30 lastnostmi za vsako zemljisce, ki naj bi se ga prijavilo. Prva legalizacijska dovoljenja so bila izdana februarja 2007. Temu postopku bo sledila prijava zemljisc, in sicer potem ko se placa davek v visini 1 USD/ m2. Skupno govorimo o 681 neformalnih obmocjih, od katerih je za 152 obmocij (23.000 hektarjev zemljisc) tehnicna in pravna dokumentacija ze pripravljena, za 281 pa se ta se zbira. Priblizno 98 obmocij (ali 168 hektarjev) zasedajo obcinske stavbe; ta obmocja se ne stejejo za neformalna naselja. Skupno je ALUIZNI prejela priblizno 350.000 prosenj za legalizacijo, med drugim priblizno 80.000 za vecstanovanjske stavbe in trgovine (Aldoni, 2007). Problem neformalnih stanovanj na Hrvaskem je se posebej zapleten na obalnih obmocjih, kjer vodi do vzpostavitve neformalnih naselij. V vecini primerov gre za pocitniske hisice ali komercialne gradnje, ki krsijo nacrtovalske in gradbene predpise. Problem se je zacel stopnjevati po letu 1995, ko so bili legalizacijski predpisi ukinjeni in se je povecala moznost priklopa na infrastrukturo. Na otoku Vir je bilo zgrajenih na primer 9.000 nezakonitih stavb in na obali Rogoznice se dodatnih 1.800. Zgodovina neformalnih naselij na Hrvaskem sega v obdobje komunizma. Predpisi, sprejeti leta 1992, so dovoljevali legalizacijo vseh neformalnih stavb (takratno stevilo je bilo ocenjeno na 100.000). V treh letih je bilo legaliziranih 35.000 stavb. Od leta 2003 je direktorat za inspekcijske zadeve, ki deluje v okviru hrvaskega ministrstva za varstvo okolja in prostorsko nacrtovanje, sprejel nekatere ukrepe za resevanje teh problemov. Skupno so porusili 1.600 neformalno zgrajenih stavb, 4.000 pa so jih legalizirali. Pred rusenjem se natancno preveri, ali je stavba naseljena in ali imajo stanovalci tudi druge nepremicnine. Legalizacija je vkljucena v nacrtovalski postopek.
Vir: Tsenkova (2008)
Opombe
[1] Na obmocju Beograda na primer prirast na uradnem nepremicninskem trgu znasa 1.500 enot na leto, na crnem pa priblizno 50.000 enot na leto.
[2] Albaniji, Bosni in Hercegovini, Hrvaski, Kosovu, Makedoniji, crni gori in Srbiji krepitev zmogljivosti za izpolnjevanje zavez Dunajske deklaracije do neke mere zagotavljata Pakt stabilnosti in rasti in UNHABITAT v okviru programa krepitve regionalne usposobljenosti na podrocju razvoja mest in stanovanjske politike (ang. Regional Capacity Strengthening Programme for Urban Development and Housing, v nadaljevanju: RCSP).
Zahvala
Prvotna razlicica tega clanka je bila objavljena v: Tsenkova, S. (2009): Housing reforms in post-socialist Europe: lost in transition. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag. V clanku so predstavljena le avtoricina mnenja, kar pomeni, da se ta ne smejo pripisovati agencijam, ki so to raziskavo financno podprle (CEB in UNECE).
Viri in literatura
Aldoni, D. (2007): Legalization of informal settlements in Albania. Prispevek je bil predstavljen na konferenci z naslovom 5th Regional Vienna Declaration Review Meeting, Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, ki je potekala od 22. do 23. oktobra na Dunaju v Avstriji. Tipkopis.
Beograjski urbanisticni institut (2003a): Programme offering solutions for the issue of the unsafe settlements in Belgrade. Beograd.
Beograjski urbanisticni institut (2003b): Generalni plan Beograda do 2021. Beograd.
Besnik, A., Lulo, K., in Myftiu, G. (2003): Tirana - sfida e zhvillimit urban. Tirana, CETIS.
Bolay, J. C. (2006): Slums and urban development: Questions on society and globalisation. The European Journal of Development Research, 18(2), str. 284-298. DOI: 10.1080/09578810600709492
Center za spremljanje notranjega razseljevanja (2007): Global Monitoring Project. Dostopno na: http://www.internal-displacement.org (sneto 26. 10. 2007).
De Soto, H. (2003): The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails elsewhere. New York, Basic Books.
Ekonomska komisija Zdruzenih narodov za Evropo (2002): Country profiles on housing: Albania. Zeneva.
Ekonomska komisija Zdruzenih narodov za Evropo (2005): Country profiles on housing: Serbia and Montenegro. Zeneva.
Gabriel, B. (2007): Informal settlements in SEE - A regional support approach. Prispevek je bil predstavljen na delavnici z naslovom Informal Settlements - Real Estate Markets Needs Related to Good Land Administration and Planning FIG Commission 3 Workshop, ki je potekala od 28. do 31. marca v Atenah v Grciji. Tipkopis.
Leckie, S. (2002): Regional housing issues profile, implementing housing rights in south east Europe. Nairobi, UN-HABITAT.
Ministrska konferenca o neformalnih naseljih v Jugovzhodni Evropi (2004): Vienna declaration on informal settlements in south eastern Europe. Dostopno na: http://www.unhabitat.org.pl/files/300/vienna_ declaration.pdf (sneto 10. 7. 2010).
Ministrstvo za clovekove pravice in begunce (2004): Information on situation in the field of return of refugees from BIH, displaced persons in BIH and returnees. Sarajevo.
Ministrstvo za kapitalske nalozbe Drzavne skupnosti Srbije in crne Gore (2004): The development of informal settlements in Belgrade. Prispevek je bil predstavljen na konferenci z naslovom Ministerial Conference on Informal Settlements in South Eastern Europe, ki je potekala od 28. septembra do 1. oktobra na Dunaju v Avstriji. Tipkopis.
Obcina Tirana (2004): The development of informal settlements in Tirana. Prispevek je bil predstavljen na konferenci z naslovom Ministerial Conference on Informal Settlements in South Eastern Europe, ki je potekala od 28. septembra do 1. oktobra na Dunaju v Avstriji. Tipkopis.
Organizacija za varnost in sodelovanje v Evropi (2006): Report on Roma informal settlements in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sarajevo.
Payne, G., in Majale, M. (2004): The urban housing manual: Making regulatory frameworks work for the poor. London, Earthscan.
Program Zdruzenih narodov za naselja (2003): Global report on human settlements 2003: The challenge of slums. London.
Program Zdruzenih narodov za naselja (2006): Four strategic themes for the housing policy in Serbia. Settlement and Integration of Refugees Programme in Serbia (SIRP). Beograd.
Razvojna banka Sveta Evrope in Svetovna banka (2004): Housing in south eastern Europe: Solving the problem. Pariz.
Soaita, A. (2007): The new housing developments in Romania: Challenges and resident involvement. Prispevek je bil predstavljen na konferenci z naslovom European Network for Housing Research Conference, ki je potekala od 21. do 25. junija v Rotterdamu na Nizozemskem. Tipkopis.
Svetovna banka (2001): Upgrading urban communities: A resource framework. Washington, DC.
Svetovna banka (2007): World Bank responses to the problem of informal development: Current projects and future action. Prispevek je bil predstavljen na delavnici z naslovom Informal Settlements - Real Estate Markets Needs Related to Good Land Administration and Planning FIG Commission 3 Workshop, ki je potekala od 28. do 31. marca v Atenah v Grciji. Tipkopis.
Slaev, A. (2007): Bulgarian Policies towards the Roma Housing Problem and Roma Squatter Settlements. European Journal of Housing Policy, 7(1), str. 63-84. DOI: 10.1080/14616710601134753
Tsenkova, S. (2005): Trends and progress in housing reforms in south east Europe. Pariz, Razvojna banka Sveta Evrope.
Tsenkova, S. (2008): The challenge of informal settlements in the ECE region: A search for adequate policy responses. Zeneva, UNECE.
Tsenkova, S. (2009): Housing reforms in post-socialist Europe: Lost in transition. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-7908- 2115-4
Vucksanovic, Z. (2007): Solutions to informal settlements. Prispevek je bil predstavljen na konferenci z naslovom 5th Regional Vienna Declaration Review Meeting, Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, ki je potekala od 23. do 24. novembra v Podgorici v crni gori. Tipkopis.
Sasha Tsenkova
University of Calgary, Faculty of Environmental Design, Calgary, Kanada
E-posta: [email protected]
Sasha TSENKOVA
Informal settlements in post-communist cities: Diversity factors and patterns
In some post-communist cities, the formation of informal settlements is a phenomenon associated with the wave of urbanisation of the 1960s and 1970s. In others, the phenomenon is connected with the influx of immigrants and refugees in the 1990s. Informal settlement areas are the result of various factors: inadequate spatial planning, outdated and complex legislation, housing policies that do not ensure the provision of affordable housing and outdated public administration structures. Illegal construction practices in urban areas, often due to the lack of a clear system of property rights and urban poverty, have created significant challenges in many cities such as Tirana, Belgrade, Tbilisi and Bucharest. This paper presents a typology of informal settlements in post-communist cities and discusses the interrelated economic, social and environmental challenges associated with this phenomenon. Various types of informal settlements, as well as the evolution of those types, demonstrate the complexity of the problem as well as the need to develop contextually sensitive and diverse solutions. This study presents the emerging related policy responses, including legalisation and inclusion in formal urban planning, the provision of essential social services (e.g., schools and medical clinics), the construction of technical infrastructure (e.g., safe roads, public transit, water and sewage systems) and resettlement programmes as part of social housing. Although these solutions represent various aspects of the policy continuum, they also require significant political will and the financial commitment of central and local institutions to ensure effective implementation.
Keywords: post-communist cities, informal settlements, urban poverty, housing affordability, policy responses
1 Introduction
In some post-communist cities, the formation of informal settlements is a phenomenon associated with the wave of urbanisation in the 1960s and 1970s. In others, the phenomenon is connected with the influx of immigrants and refugees in the 1990s. Individuals searching for diverse economic opportunities in rapidly expanding post-communist cities have often chosen to settle in peri-urban areas. This ad hoc response to rapid urbanisation is different from the "first generation" of informal settlements that formed during communism because the current examples do not necessarily exhibit the characteristics of slums. On the contrary, these areas may be inhabited by middle class families, and they may consist of good-quality housing construction, often built on privately owned land. The informal nature of these settlements is associated with the lack of formal urban planning and/or building permits. Informal settlements are the result of various factors: inadequate spatial planning, outdated and complex legislation, inadequate housing policy and outdated public administration structures.
The new informal settlement formation is often driven by poverty and social exclusion. Growing urban poverty in some post-communist cities is manifested in the "second generation" of informal settlements, concentrated in the peri-urban areas of large cities as well as inner-city ghettos. The wars in the Balkans, followed by a refugee crisis and an influx of internally displaced people, has further aggravated the situation. The practices of illegal construction in urban areas, often due to a lack of a clear system of property rights or the lack of enforcement of existing planning regulations, have created significant challenges in many cities such as Tirana, Belgrade, Tbilisi and Bucharest.
This paper presents a typology of informal settlements in post-communist cities and discusses the interrelated economic, social and environmental challenges associated with this phenomenon. The focus here is on post-communist cities in southeast Europe, where various types of informal settlements, as well as the evolution of those types, demonstrate the complexity of the problem as well as the need to develop contextually sensitive and diverse solutions. This study presents an overview of emerging related policy responses, including legalisation and inclusion in formal urban planning, the provision of essential social services (e.g., schools and medical clinics), the construction of technical infrastructure (e.g., safe roads, public transit, and water and sewage systems) and resettlement programmes as part of social housing. Although these solutions illustrate various aspects of the policy continuum, they also require significant political will and the financial commitment of central and local state institutions. The argument developed here is that it is important to go beyond orthodox planning and land title/registration solutions in order to improve the housing conditions of the urban poor. Their situation is aggravated by systemic problems in the market-based housing-provision systems, exacerbating housing inequalities and resulting in the creation of informal settlements.
2 Informal housing and informal settlements in southeast Europe
Informal housing in post-communist Europe has often been reviewed within the context of informal settlements, recognising that this phenomenon has grown significantly and now shapes much of the urban landscape in many countries. The Vienna Declaration on National Regional Policy and Programmes on Informal Settlements in South Eastern Europe provides the following definition: "Human settlements, which for a variety of reasons do not meet requirements for legal recognition (and have been constructed without respecting formal procedures of legal ownership, transfer of ownership, as well as construction and urban planning regulations), exist in their respective countries and hamper economic development. While there is significant regional diversity in terms of their manifestation, these settlements are mainly characterised by informal or insecure land tenure, inadequate access to basic services, both social and physical infrastructure and housing finance" (Ministerial Conference on Informal Settlements in South Eastern Europe, 2004: 1).
Although there are various types of informal housing, many definitions emphasise the informal nature of residency and non-compliance with land-use plans as the main characteristics. Other characteristics of informal housing include the following (United Nations Human Settlements Programmes (UN-HABITAT), 2003; Payne & Majale, 2004):
* Lack of secure ownership;
* Lack of basic services;
* Housing that violates city bylaws;
* Housing built on land not owned by the housing owner;
* Inadequate access to basic public services;
* Substandard housing or illegal and inadequate building structures;
* The illegal subdivision of settlements;
* Poverty and social exclusion;
* Unhealthy and hazardous living conditions
The housing policy debate insistently refers to the informal and illegal nature of these settlements. References to their illegality primarily refer to nonconformity with planning and construction norms and, most importantly, to questions of ownership. Residents of informal settlements often lack legal rights to the land and/or houses and are subject to eviction. Their vulnerability is exacerbated by housing inadequacies and limited access to services, transportation, education and healthcare, all resulting from physical and legal marginalisation from the formal city structure. These trends can be observed in Albania, Macedonia, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia.
A misconception exists that informal housing equates with slum dwellings. It is true that in many areas its manifestations invoke images of poverty, exclusion and despair, but there are certainly examples where this is not the case. Although many informal settlements lack secure ownership rights, some consist of good-quality housing and infrastructure. In other cases, the construction has been carried out in violation of building codes and zoning regulations by the relatively affluent residents and speculative homebuilders.
3 Spatial manifestation and formation processes
The history and evolution of informal settlements in southeast Europe is diverse and varied in terms of standard of living (from slums to luxurious residences), location (from suburbs to city centres and protected areas) and size (from several small units to settlements of over 50,000 residents). Among other reasons, the flow of migrants from rural areas and the influx of refugees and internally displaced people have contributed to illegal and sporadic construction in larger cities. Apart from addressing urgent housing needs, illegal real estate investments have been used by many as a "shield" against instability and hyperinflation. A number of characteristics can be used to identify types of informal settlements: size, location, resident profiles and spatial organisation. Despite a wide range of spatial phenomena, the literature suggests that there are several major types:
1. Squatter settlements on public or private land;
2. Settlements for refugees and vulnerable people;
3. Improved squatter settlements;
4. Illegal suburban subdivisions on private or public land.
3.1 Squatter settlements
One of the most enduring manifestations of informal housing is squatter housing. It is built by residents of illegally occupied land. Such squatter settlements in the post-communist countries of former Yugoslavia were established in the 1970s and 1980s. In Albania, they have a much more recent origin: the early 1990s. The settlements are primarily the result of rapid movement to cities due to migration and changes in urban economies, but they are also the result of a gradual process of occupation and incremental growth. Located in peri-urban areas and on public or private land, these settlements have grown to become municipalities in their own right, now housing hundreds of thousands of people. Although their initial development may have been the result of the authorities turning a blind eye, particularly during the immediate post-communist influx of migrants into the cities, today their scale presents a severe problem. For example, Albania's informal settlements contain up to a quarter of the population of major cities, and those settlements represent 40% of the built-up area. In Macedonia, they are home to 11% of the population of the 14 largest cities. In Belgrade, informal settlements are a dark mosaic marking the city's structure (Figure 1) and represent up to 40% of the residential area.
In addition to the large peri-urban squatter settlements, there are many other examples of informal housing built illegally under bridges and overpasses and on vacant plots of land close to industrial zones, railway stations, steep riverbanks and landfill sites. This land, whether public or private, is unstable or unsuitable for urban development and has no access to essential infrastructure and services. These marginal squatter settlements are often makeshift, built with temporary materials (Figure 2), and residents often face the threat of eviction and/or demolition of their homes. The locations and conditions are extremely diverse, but it is more important to recognise the exclusion that these residents often face. Roma communities in Serbia, Bulgaria and Romania, living in mahalas dating back to the nineteenth century, are unfortunate examples of this situation (Belgrade Urban Planning Institute, 2003a; Slaev, 2007).
3.2 Settlements for vulnerable groups
The informal settlements that were recently developed by refugees and internally displaced people across the region are often similar to the squatter type, but some have been established with the permission of the state or municipality as a temporary, rapid response to a major crisis such as the war-related conflicts of the 1990s. These settlements, although more recently constructed, often have extremely poor conditions with shacks built of recycled materials, plastic sheets, cardboard and leftover construction materials. In some of these settlements, residents were expected to be there for only a short time before relocation to camps or collective centres was to be provided, but this turned out to be a more permanent solution, even attracting more people to the original group. These slums, with limited access to essential services, are generally found in the urban periphery, in pockets of marginal land or close to collective centres for refugees (Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, 2007).
3.3 Improved squatter settlements
Within the context of informal housing across the region, there are a great variety of settlement patterns and historical circumstances. Some that started as squatter settlements in peri-urban areas in the 1970s have evolved into more established neighbourhoods. Skopje, for example, has 27 illegally built neighbourhoods dating back to the earthquake in the 1960s. The legal status of these settlements is also varied: most begin with illegal occupation of land, but over time some have acquired legal ownership rights (e.g., in Serbia and Macedonia).
Over time, de facto legality has been implied in some cases by the fact that the settlements have not been demolished, and that some infrastructure, such as piped water, electricity and sewage systems, has been provided. There are examples in which these settlements were included in the city plans, as in the case of Kalu?erica (Box 1). This has enabled some of the more established settlements to develop rapidly, with residents investing in their homes and improving the local environment. The improved settlements are often vibrant neighbourhoods with a viable rental and homeownership market.
3.4 Illegal subdivisions
Some of the informal settlements in the region are not poorquality, under-serviced housing areas. Residents in these settlements often possess the title to the land, but the housing is built without a planning and/or building permit. Unauthorised land developments and illegal subdivisions are widespread on the fringes of cities in southeast Europe. Illegal subdivisions refer to settlements where agricultural land has been subdivided and sold by its legal owner to people that then build their homes there.[1] Peri-urban land is thus transformed for urban use by landowners without any official planning permits and licenses. In some countries, the process has been used by homebuilders to provide housing for middle-class families. The example in Box 2 illustrates this process in Romania. The settlements are illegal because they may violate zoning regulations, the infrastructure standard is low and often the land subdivision does not meet planning standards for right-of-way, road access and the provision of public spaces.
Another phenomenon of illegal subdivisions across the region is informal housing in recreation zones and coastal areas. This problem is prevalent in Albania, Croatia, Montenegro and to some extent in Bulgaria, where such responses are often driven by potential profits and speculative investment in a growing market of secondary homes rather than housing need. These settlements can be low-density settlements in rural areas with good quality construction but a low level of services. Sometimes these settlements take over amenity land that is not officially zoned for development and the problems become significant as the settlement grows larger and denser.
3.5 Location and size
Informal settlements tend to cluster in two very broad types of locations: inner-city and peri-urban areas. City centre locations are often older, more established formations, close to the old city or its industrial zones. The residents benefit from the proximity of employment opportunities but often inhabit substandard housing on sites that are exposed to environmental and health risks. Those sites are normally unfit for urban development. In most cases, informal settlements, especially largescale formations, concentrate in the periphery because land values tend to be lower. These can be squatter settlements on public land or illegal subdivisions outside of urban/municipal boundaries. The quality and standards of housing are generally better and illegal connections to existing infrastructure sometimes ensure much-needed electricity and water. Residents of these settlements are relatively effective in resisting attempts to demolish their homes or be relocated. Table 1 summarises major types of informal housing with references to location and quality of the settlements.
4 The economic, social and environmental challenges of informal housing
Addressing the problems of informal housing requires a broader understanding of the driving forces contributing to its growth as well as recognition of its interrelated economic, social and environmental challenges. The countries in this region that are experiencing informal settlement growth are grappling with the same set of systemic problems related to the lack of access to affordable housing, inefficient planning and land management systems, and growing urban poverty. A common element in this process is the combined effect of economic transformation and war-related conflicts, which has provoked a sudden acceleration of urban migration and the proliferation of informal settlements. Central and local governments were largely unprepared to face the pressures placed upon land, housing and services. Fifteen years after the conflicts, informal housing now covers large tracts of peri-urban land, being the home of both socially vulnerable groups and relatively wealthy migrants. As stated by Bjoern Gabriel (2007: 5), "This is not simply an 'urban planning problem', but a rather more complex and intractable phenomenon which, unless rapidly and efficiently addressed, may threaten the long-term sustainability of urban communities."
Within the context of economic and political liberalisation and accompanied by a concentration of poor and disadvantaged groups in cities, the explosive growth of informal housing in peri-urban areas needs to be addressed. There is widespread agreement that resolving the "urban problem" of informal settlements is related to the nexus of improved access to affordable land and housing as well the creation of efficient planning regimes. A study by the World Bank (2007) regarding informal settlements in transition economies succinctly summarises these issues (Box 3).
In addition to the significant constraints imposed by inefficient planning regimes and land registration and management systems, the housing systems in southeast Europe suffer from imbalances caused by the lack of rental production (public or private) for low income households, the spiralling cost of urban land and housing in growth areas, and limited support for vulnerable groups (e.g., the elderly, displaced populations, minority groups and the socially disadvantaged) to access housing of decent quality. Therefore, it is not surprising that in some urban areas experiencing rapid growth the share of inadequately housed low-income residents is increasing and/ or those residents are tending to house themselves either completely informally or through informal contractors working outside of the legal and planning framework.
4.1 Economic challenges
Research indicates that there is a growing acceptance of the "informal city" in most countries in the region, but the economic and social challenges have largely been underestimated (Gabriel, 2007; Tsenkova, 2008). The rapid growth of the "informal city" has only grudgingly been recognised as the largest economic challenge that local governments and cities must face.
In economic terms, informal settlements involve significant public and private investments that remain outside of the formal economy and investment cycles (De Soto, 2003). In addition, they are associated with significant public sector costs, explicit and implicit. Settlements often take over public land, shifting the cost burden to local governments and public institutions. The land, often developed in a sporadic manner through single-family housing, is underexploited due to the low-density sprawling pattern of housing. Informal settlements also impact the government's ability to manage and plan for land usage because the settlement residents illegally occupy parkland, former industrial zones that are unsafe for residential development and land that may have more productive commercial or social uses. Informal housing creates long-term problems for the orderly development and growth of the city, its servicing requirements and the overall real estate potential. Residents of informal settlements do not pay property taxes and often connect illegally to infrastructure, thus reducing the revenue available to the government to provide essential services.
At the same time, informal housing is a vital element of the informal economy and real estate market. Housing and land in these locations is traded without the involvement of real estate agencies, registration in the land registry and the required payments of state taxes and dues. Although this makes housing more affordable and reduces transaction costs, it cannot be mortgaged or used as collateral for other business purposes (De Soto, 2003). For many residents, this is their single largest asset (Figure 3) but, without ownership rights in most cases, this investment is constantly under threat of being lost and becoming "dead capital", particularly due to environmental hazards (e.g., floods, landslides or earthquakes) or the possibility of court-ordered demolition.
Informal settlements pose a high political and economic cost for governments, especially in cases of evictions, legalisation and resettlement. Efforts to document the extent of informal development and to allocate the extra institutional capacity to integrate the settlements into the planned area of the city are extremely costly. Furthermore, local governments and public institutions need to deal with land and real estate registration, dispute resolution and in some cases compensation for private landowners. The inability to handle these costs often perpetuates tolerance of the "informal city".
4.2 Social challenges
The variety of spatial manifestations of informal settlements across the region is associated with the many various social dimensions of the problem. There are, however, several important issues in common. First, residents of informal settlements are often poor and disadvantaged individuals facing higher unemployment, social hardships and ownership insecurities (Leckie, 2002; Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), 2006). Second, evidence suggests that demographic pressures from IDPs and vulnerable groups, such as the Roma population, are met by informal settlements (Council of Europe Development Bank & the World Bank, 2004). For example, a survey of residents residing in the informal settlements of Belgrade found that young families with insufficient income to obtain formal housing constituted 35%, followed by refugees comprising 23% and Roma accounting for 18% (Ministry of Capital Investment of Serbia and Montenegro, 2004). Without financial resources and stable employment, many IDPs and refugees that moved to Belgrade to start a new life resorted to informal housing solutions.
In countries such as Montenegro, Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia- Herzegovina, as a result of rapid shifts in local economies and/ or war, hundreds of thousands of relatively poor migrants and internally displaced people have moved to the largest cities. The new arrivals have settled in the peri-urban areas, where they build houses on un-serviced lots, squatting on private or public land. In most cases, poverty and deprivation are manifested in the quality of the housing being built as well as in the substandard pattern of urban development, it being without any social or technical infrastructure (Figure 4). The example from Kamza illustrates some of these problems in the newly created neighbourhoods (Box 4).
In addition to the lack of access to schools and social services, peri-urban settlers do not generally possess titles to the land and so they face the potential threat of eviction. There are cases in the region where this is not the case; for example, in the older settlements in Serbia, Macedonia and Montenegro, but even in these cases the lack of social infrastructure - schools, medical clinics and social services - perpetuates a spatial form of social exclusion.
4.3 Environmental challenges
In most cases, the environmental challenges in the informal settlements are associated with the lack of basic infrastructure. Even the wealthier residents of older, improved settlements lack access to clean water, adequate roads, public transport and reliable electricity. The situation has immediate consequences for the residents themselves, but also adversely affects the quality of life in the formal areas of the city where urban runoff, downstream pollution from garbage and sewage discharged directly into rivers creates serious environmental threats.
The infrastructure deficit in informal settlements is significant. Illegal service connections are the only means to gain access, and these connections are unreliable and inefficient. Illegal connection lowers the efficiency of public utility companies and exposes regular users to frequent power and water cutoffs. Because most residents in informal settlements do not pay the full price for infrastructure usage, the revenue is unable to support the growing demand for infrastructure improvement and extension. In the informal settlements of Tirana and Belgrade, the differences in access to essential services are significant compared to the average for the city and the country as a whole (Table 2). In Tirana, amenities in informal housing are much closer to the national average than in the case of Belgrade. The Roma settlements in Belgrade have substantial disadvantages; only a quarter of the dwellings have access to sewage systems and only half have piped water.
In addition to the infrastructure deficits, some settlements are directly exposed to the environmental hazards associated with landslides, flooding, inadequate drainage and environmental pollution (Vucksanovic, 2007). These challenges create health risks for the residents. The growth of informal settlements contributes to environmental degradation at many levels:
* Erosion resulting from unpaved and un-drained roadways;
* Residents without sewage systems increase pollution of local water sources through prohibited discharges;
* Garbage is dumped along the road or in the local rivers and lakes. In some cases, informal settlements create environmental hazards through development in natural reserves and protected areas. This often tends to be the case in the coastal areas of Croatia and Montenegro.
5 Policy solutions
The Vienna Declaration on National and Regional Policy Programmes regarding informal settlements in southeast Europe identifies the issue as a priority and encourages countries to make policies to legalise and improve informal settlements in a sustainable way. It argues that the prevention of future settlements' formation is critical through sustainable urban management, principles of good governance and inclusive capacity building (Ministerial Conference on Informal Settlements in South Eastern Europe, 2004).[2] The search for policy solutions to address informal settlements is clearly multifaceted and multidimensional. Various projects and urban development programmes have been considered in southeast European countries, but implementation is ad hoc and quite slow. The solutions suggested include legalisation and inclusion in formal urban planning, regularisation and the provision of essential social services (e.g., schools and medical clinics) and technical infrastructure (e.g., safe roads, public transit, water and sewage) and also programmes for resettlement into social housing. Although these solutions represent various aspects of the policy continuum, they also require significant political will and the financial commitment of central and local institutions. The following major types of policy intervention are reviewed:
1. Legalisation;
2. Regularisation and improvement;
3. Resettlement and relocation.
5.1 Legalisation
Legalisation of informal settlements in the region is in the process of being implemented. This approach emphasises the integration of informal land and housing markets into the formal economy and the provision of access to ownership rights through property titles. This legalisation is driven by efforts to capture public revenue and to stabilise large urban communities through potential social and infrastructure improvement programmes. Overall, the responses to legalisation vary according to local contexts, the types of informal settlements, governments' political orientation and the pressure from concerned communities. In some countries (Croatia, Montenegro and Bulgaria), legalisation is carried out as an integral part of renewed efforts to develop statutory plans for regulating development at the local level. In other countries (Albania and Serbia), legalisation of informal settlements is addressed through special legislation but implementation has been limited. Albania's legalisation law, adopted in 2007, provides special provisions for the informal settlements of the poor despite the violations of existing planning and construction legislation. Other countries in the region have similar strategies, although progress in terms of implementation is not consistent (Box 5).
5.2 Regularisation and improvement
Regularising and improving informal settlements represents a more comprehensive intervention. The solutions are not cut and dry: legal vs. illegal, formal vs. informal. The choice of legalisation vs. regularisation will depend on the political will of the authorities, the lobbying and negotiating capacities of the residents, and the location, size and quality of housing in the settlement itself.
The practice of regularisation and improvement emphasises the importance of intervention at three levels: the neighbourhood (or the informal settlement), the city and the metropolitan area. Although these mostly involve planning interventions, the process usually incorporates land and real estate registration and plans for the provision of infrastructure and social services. In several countries (Albania, Serbia and Bulgaria), pilot projects on a small scale demonstrate the value of incremental improvement using this approach. Although it is difficult to judge its effectiveness, it represents a collaboration of residents, planners, municipalities and central government authorities. At the neighbourhood level, interaction among planners, grassroots community organisations, families and individuals delineates the immediate problems of residents in order to define possible solutions. At the district/city level, planners and decision makers must account for community dynamics and the impact of potential integration into the urban boundary in terms of transport and infrastructure requirements, costs and environmental implications. At the metropolitan/regional level, impacts and interactions within the urban agglomeration are considered, particularly in the case of large informal settlements, in order to make informed political and planning choices for the benefit of the city (World Bank, 2001; Bolay, 2004). Such strategic approaches are often incorporated into the new generation of master plans and city strategies in the region (e.g., Tirana, Durres, Belgrade and Skopje), but they are rarely implemented.
Building and maintaining infrastructure and public amenities is a major step toward formalising and improving informal settlements. Once an informal settlement is deemed fit to remain at its current location, it is essential to create partnerships to help pay for the costs of housing and improvement. It is important for residents to be engaged in the whole process and to leverage their contribution towards the cost of infrastructure and amenities, thus creating an appreciation for those services. In addition, governments need to allocate funds from their budget to address the lack of major infrastructure. The regularisation of the Gorica Roma settlements of approximately 60 households in Sarajevo is an illustration of this approach. The families occupied a parcel of land owned partly by a stateowned enterprise and partly by the municipality. After the war in 1996, displaced families rebuilt their homes although the threat of eviction from the area was still imminent. In 2000, the association of Gorica residents mobilised several international organisations, including the OSCE, OHR and UNHCR, to initiate a regularisation process that included rezoning for residential uses, compensation of the landowner (a state enterprise) by the municipality and transfer of land ownership to the Roma residents. Reconstruction in Gorica commenced in the spring of 2002 under the auspices of World Vision (OSCE, 2006).
5.3 Resettlement
A possible solution to informal housing problems is resident resettlement into social housing or some form of subsidised formal settlement. This is probably the most expensive solution and it is not surprising that its implementation is fairly limited. In most of the cases, resettlement targets poor residents of informal housing or vulnerable groups such as the Roma, refugees and internally displaced people. There is no general model for the difficult task of re-housing large groups of poor migrants and refugees and their subsequent integration into existing cities. The importance of effective social policies and programmes that provide access to affordable and safe housing, while widely recognised, is in many cases beyond the financial capacity of central and local governments, particularly in countries affected by war and refugee crises. Many of the solutions related to resettlement are small-scale projects funded by international agencies and/or bilateral assistance (Figure 5).
More significant contributions towards re-housing refugees have been made by the Council of Europe Development Bank. Bank-funded projects allowed more than 2,300 people in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro to be rehoused in 2005, and in 2006 another project benefiting 1,081 former residents of collective centres in Serbia and Montenegro. Similar schemes have been supported through grants from the European Commission to Bosnia-Herzegovina under its Return of Refugees and Displaced Persons Programme. The European Agency for Reconstruction has recently allocated euro2.4 million to construct affordable housing for refugees and IDPs in Montenegro.
6 Conclusion: Informal housing as a problem and as a solution
Recognising the economic, social and environmental challenges inherent in informal settlements is an important step towards the design of various programmes and practical solutions to address the problems. Against the backdrop of the rapid growth of informal settlements and the persistent presence of the "informal city" in most countries in southeast Europe, local and national policies have been slow to recognise that inefficient housing, planning and land management systems aggravate these problems. It is now widely understood that migrants to the cities often end up as squatters in the informal settlements because the formal housing and land market is unaffordable to these groups (Gabriel, 2007).
Central government support for housing solutions for the urban poor and disadvantaged groups has dwindled in the past decade, shifting the burden to local governments, community groups and individual households. Illegal or informal land acquisitions and other informal solutions are perhaps a natural coping mechanism for poor migrants and refugees as demonstrated by the rapidly growing informal housing in periurban Pristina (Figure 6).
The state now offers services and acts as a coordinator of policies and actions in the urban sphere, but the market alone has not been able to provide affordable and adequate housing for all sectors of society. The informal settlements are a distinct manifestation of this transition in governance. At its best, the state's increased role has resulted in improved legislation, infrastructure and services as well as community-driven attempts to regularise informal settlements. At its worst, however, it has turned a blind eye to informal settlement growth, constrained land supply, exacerbated corruption and forced the poor into spatially and socially isolated slums. It is in this context that the problem of informal settlements, particularly those created by the urban poor, ought to be viewed. There is a growing awareness that informal settlements, while undeniably a "problem" from an urban management point of view, may have to be seen as a feasible "solution" in terms of a social response to an inefficient housing and land provision system.
Another challenge is that informal housing is built not only by the urban poor but also by the private housing industry and affluent consumers. This pattern of development is not likely to change in a linear fashion. The practices of illegal construction in urban areas, often due to the lack of a clear planning regime or the lack of enforcement of existing plans, have created significant challenges in many cities such as Tirana, Podgorica, Belgrade and Pristina. Poor land administration and land registry systems aggravate the situation, adding to the problems of urban management by not providing a transparent system of land ownership and property rights. While solutions to the problems of informal housing are critical for a well-functioning real estate market and the protection of land and property rights, in their approaches governments need to target vulnerable groups and avoid broad-based policies that may also perpetuate informal urban development.
Box 1: Improved informal settlements: Kaluderica
Kaluderica is one of the fastest-growing settlements in Serbia and arguably the largest village in the Balkans. Located just 8 km from Belgrade, it has grown rapidly together with the city since the 1980s, when it was home to 12,000 people. Its population today is estimated at 50,000 with the influx of refugees from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia and Kosovo. Although officially classified as a rural settlement, five times the size of its municipal seat Grocka, Kaluderica is a city built by its residents in an informal manner. Most of the houses do not have a building permit, but the residents own the land and it might be even registered in the land registry. Over time, people have negotiated connections to infrastructure, built roads and arranged for services by Belgrade's City Public Transportation Company and Telekom of Serbia.
Source: Belgrade Urban Planning Institute (2003b)
Box 2: Illegal subdivision transformed into a suburb: Pitesti
The illegal subdivision in the city of Pitesti, Romania, emerged very quickly following the denationalisation of agricultural land on the outskirts. The new owners quickly subdivided the 4.1 hectares of land conveniently located next to a housing estate with 5,000 flats and a protected forest. The new owners, mostly residents from the multifamily housing in the estate, took possession of over 300 plots of land and started to build their dream homes. Today, close to 105 new houses in various stages of construction have a mix of urban and rural lifestyle. Within a few years the area was included in the municipal boundaries with a hastily approved zoning and planning regime resulting in higher land prices. Residents provided private roads, which take up only 9% of the land, connected their land to electricity on the basis of cost recovery, and arranged for piped water supply and septic tanks. They even managed to pool resources to provide gas, but still use the public social infrastructure in the neighbouring housing estate.
Source: Soaita (2007)
Box 3: Planning and land management constraints
The analytical and project work of the World Bank in a number of countries in the region points to the following common factors that influence informal settlement:
* The absence of a recent "regulatory plan" (land-use plan) and approved local regulations for land use. Plans may be outdated or incomplete. Many specifications such as setbacks, width of major roads, floor area ratio and maximum heights may have to be negotiated project by project. This practice increases the cost of construction by causing lengthy delays and creates the impression of arbitrariness and opportunities for corruption. If the process is lengthy and unclear, many citizens may not have the knowledge, time or funds to follow the procedures.
* The lack of funded municipal programs to build primary infrastructure. Without the benefit of current infrastructure network plans, developers are obliged to build and finance their own off-site links between their units and the existing network, or extensions of the network. This leads to fragmentation of the system, making it uneconomical and expensive to maintain. Individuals may have no access to infrastructure or may "buy" illegal hook-ups.
* The difficulty of acquiring undeveloped land, officially and legally, for construction. Most vacant land around cities is either encumbered by disputes over title or claims for restitution, or belongs to the government and is therefore not on the market. The ability of developers and individuals to find out about available land is hampered by incomplete records and multiple agencies/ministries responsible.
* High transaction costs in the formal sector, complex processes and unresponsive institutions. In many countries the costs - in time, money and number of offices visited - to formally construct and register a building are substantial. Again, lengthy and confusing processes may "encourage" the informal sector, and the absence of strong enforcement by the responsible agencies also contributes.
Source: World Bank (2007: 3).
Box 4: Provision of social infrastructure and community facilities in Kamza
The Municipality of Kamza is one of Tirana's informal settlements with over 90% of all dwellings being constructed illegally. The settlement was primarily agricultural land in the early 1990s but has grown substantially to around 60,000 residents today. Residents have migrated from the northeast regions of Albania, with the hope of a better life and greater opportunities. Half of the people are unemployed and half of all households live below the poverty line. The average home is 119 m2, twice the average for Tirana. Housing is initially built in shack form and then improved as remittances are received and resources are found. Although planning efforts and the work of NGOs such as Co-PLAN have boosted the confidence of residents and led to investments worth $110 million, there is no land for social infrastructure.
Source: Besnik et al. (2003)
Box 5: Legalisation of informal housing in Albania and Croatia
ALUIZNI is the relevant national Agency for Legalisation and Urbanisation of Illegal Construction and Settlements in Albania. Its work is to put together the proposals for approving legalisation of informal settlements. ALUIZNI has prepared a pilot legalisation process for an area of 55 hectares. The area is being processed for complete digitalised documentation containing not less than 30 characteristics for each property to be registered. The first legalisation permits were granted in February 2007. The registration of properties will follow the process, after duties are paid equivalent to $1/m2. In total there are 681 informal zones, out of which for 152 zones (23,000 hectares of land) the technical and legal documentation is ready, while for 281 the process is underway. There are also some 98 zones (or 168 hectares) that are occupied by communal buildings (not classified as informal settlements). In total, ALUIZNI has recorded some 350,000 requests for legalisation, out of which some 80,000 are multi-apartment dwellings and shops (Aldoni, 2007). The problem of informal housing in Croatia is particularly significant in the coastal areas, where it leads to informal settlement formation. In most cases these are second homes or for-profit developments in violation of planning and building permits. The problem escalated after 1995, when legalisation regulations were revoked and possibilities of connection to infrastructure increased. For example, 9,000 illegal buildings were constructed on the island of Vir and another 1,800 in the coastal area of Rogoznica. The legacy of informal settlements in Croatia dates back to its communist days. Regulations introduced in 1992 permitted legalisation of all informal buildings, estimated at 100,000. Within three years 35,000 building were legalised. The Directorate for Inspection Affairs within the Ministry of Environmental Protection and Physical Planning has taken measures to solve some of the problems since 2003. A total of 1,600 informally constructed buildings were demolished and 4,000 were legalised. Prior to demolition, a detailed verification is carried out on whether the building is inhabited and/or if the residents also have other real estate. Legalisation is integrated in the planning process.
Source: Tsenkova (2008)
Notes
[1] For example, in the Belgrade region recent annual production by the formal housing market has been around 1,500 units per year, whereas informal production stands at around 50,000 units per year.
[2] Some capacity building is provided to Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia in order to meet Vienna Declaration commitments by the Stability Pact and UNHABITAT through the Regional Capacity Strengthening Programme for Urban Development and Housing (RCSP).
Acknowledgement
An earlier version of this paper was published in: Tsenkova, S. (2009) Housing Reforms in Post-Socialist Europe: Lost in Transition. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag. The opinions expressed here are those of the author and should not be attributed to the funding agencies supporting this research (CEB and UNECE).
References
Aldoni, D. (2007) Legalization of informal settlements in Albania. Paper presented at the 5th Regional Vienna Declaration Review Meeting, Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, 22-23 October, Vienna, Austria. Typescript.
Belgrade Urban Planning Institute (2003a) Programme offering solutions for the issue of the unsafe settlements in Belgrade. Belgrade.
Belgrade Urban Planning Institute (2003b) Generalni plan Beograda do 2021. Belgrade.
Besnik, A., Lulo, K. & Myftiu, G. (2003) Tirana - sfida e zhvillimit urban. Tirana, CETIS.
Bolay, J. C. (2006) Slums and urban development: Questions on society and globalisation. The European Journal of Development Research, 18(2), pp. 284-298. DOI: 10.1080/09578810600709492
Council of Europe Development Bank & The World Bank (2004) Housing in south eastern Europe: Solving the problem. Paris.
De Soto, H. (2003) The mystery of capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails elsewhere. New York, Basic Books.
Gabriel, B. (2007) Informal settlements in SEE - A regional support approach. Paper presented at Informal Settlements - Real Estate Markets Needs Related to Good Land Administration and Planning FIG Commission 3 Workshop, 28-31 March, Athens, Greece. Typescript.
Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre (2007) Global Monitoring Project. Available at: http://www.internal-displacement.org (accessed 26 Oct. 2007).
Leckie, S. (2002) Regional housing issues profile, implementing housing rights in south east Europe. Nairobi, UN-HABITAT.
Ministerial Conference on Informal Settlements in South Eastern Europe (2004) Vienna declaration on informal settlements in south eastern Europe. Available at: http://www.unhabitat.org.pl/files/300/ vienna_declaration.pdf (accessed 10 Jul. 2010).
Ministry of Capital Investment of Serbia and Montenegro (2004) The development of informal settlements in Belgrade. Paper presented at the Ministerial Conference on Informal Settlements in South Eastern Europe, 28 September-1 October, Vienna, Austria. Typescript.
Ministry of Human Rights and Refugees (2004) Information on situation in the field of return of refugees from BIH, displaced persons in BIH and returnees. Sarajevo.
Municipality of Tirana (2004) The development of informal settlements in Tirana. Paper presented at the Ministerial Conference on Informal Settlements in South Eastern Europe, 28 September-1 October, Vienna, Austria. Typescript.
Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (2006) Report on Roma informal settlements in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Sarajevo.
Payne, G. & Majale, M. (2004) The urban housing manual: Making regulatory frameworks work for the poor. London, Earthscan.
Slaev, A. (2007) Bulgarian Policies towards the Roma Housing Problem and Roma Squatter Settlements. European Journal of Housing Policy, 7(1), pp. 63-84. DOI: 10.1080/14616710601134753
Soaita, A. (2007) The new housing developments in Romania: Challenges and resident involvement. Paper presented at the European Network for Housing Research Conference, 21-25 June, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Typescript.
Tsenkova, S. (2005) Trends and progress in housing reforms in south east Europe. Paris, Council of Europe Development Bank.
Tsenkova, S. (2008) The challenge of informal settlements in the ECE region: A search for adequate policy responses. Geneva, UNECE.
Tsenkova, S. (2009) Housing reforms in post-socialist Europe: Lost in transition. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-7908- 2115-4
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2002) Country profiles on housing: Albania. Geneva.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (2005) Country profiles on housing: Serbia and Montenegro. Geneva.
United Nations Human Settlements Programs (2003) Global report on human settlements 2003: The challenge of slums. London.
United Nations Human Settlements Programs (2006) Four strategic themes for the housing policy in Serbia. Settlement and Integration of Refugees Programme in Serbia (SIRP). Belgrade.
Vucksanovic, Z. (2007) Solutions to informal settlements. Paper presented at the 5th Regional Vienna Declaration Review Meeting, Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe, 23-24 November, Podgorica, Montenegro. Typescript.
World Bank (2001) Upgrading urban communities: A resource framework. Washington, DC.
World Bank (2007) World Bank responses to the problem of informal development: Current projects and future action. Paper presented at Informal Settlements - Real Estate Markets Needs Related to Good Land Administration and Planning FIG Commission 3 Workshop, 28-31 March, Athens, Greece. Typescript.
Sasha Tsenkova
University of Calgary, Faculty of Environmental Design, Calgary, Canada
E-mail: [email protected]
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Copyright Urban Planning Institute of the Republic of Slovenia Dec 2010
Abstract
In some post-communist cities, the formation of informal settlements is a phenomenon associated with the wave of urbanisation of the 1960s and 1970s. In others, the phenomenon is connected with the influx of immigrants and refugees in the 1990s. Informal settlement areas are the result of various factors: inadequate spatial planning, outdated and complex legislation, housing policies that do not ensure the provision of affordable housing and outdated public administration structures. Illegal construction practices in urban areas, often due to the lack of a clear system of property rights and urban poverty, have created significant challenges in many cities such as Tirana, Belgrade, Tbilisi and Bucharest. This paper presents a typology of informal settlements in post-communist cities and discusses the interrelated economic, social and environmental challenges associated with this phenomenon. Various types of informal settlements, as well as the evolution of those types, demonstrate the complexity of the problem as well as the need to develop contextually sensitive and diverse solutions. This study presents the emerging related policy responses, including legalisation and inclusion in formal urban planning, the provision of essential social services (e.g., schools and medical clinics), the construction of technical infrastructure (e.g., safe roads, public transit, water and sewage systems) and resettlement programmes as part of social housing. Although these solutions represent various aspects of the policy continuum, they also require significant political will and the financial commitment of central and local institutions to ensure effective implementation. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
