Redefining slums in Egypt: Unplanned versus unsafe areas

Abstract

This paper addresses the crucial need to revisit the criteria for defining ‘slums’ in order to present a more precise image of existing slums and categorize them according to the severity of risk they pose to human life and to property, as a means of prioritizing interventions. It reflects on the Egyptian initiative, started at the outset of 2009, to solve the problematic issue of defining what are called ‘slums’, or ‘informal settlements’, or ‘Ashwa’iyyat’, by replacing them with two distinctive terms; ‘unplanned areas’ and ‘unsafe areas’. This approach is considered to underpin the identification of priorities for intervention and drawing up policies and strategies for improving slums’ conditions and the lives of their inhabitants. The paper sheds light on the findings from a survey carried out by the Informal Settlement Development Facility (ISDF) in the period from February to May 2009. This attempted, for the first time to identify unsafe and unplanned areas spatially in all the urban centres in Egypt and classify the former according to degrees of risk based on certain criteria set by the ISDF. The results show substantial discrepancies between previous statistics concerning the size of slums and the more recently produced ones. Areas which are considered unsafe are estimated to contain 1.1 million inhabitants, represents the number of people in great need of immediate action to improve their living conditions. Such statistics would change the position of Egypt on the world map of slums.

Introduction

‘Slum’ is an umbrella concept under which fall numerous categories of settlement, for example, decaying inner-city tenements, squatter settlements, informal settlements and shantytowns. The coverage of settlement types is even more complex when we consider the variety of equivalent words in other languages and geographical regions, such as Favelas, Kampungs and Bidonvilles.¹ To date, defining what constitutes a slum is a controversial issue. The term ‘slum’ not only suggests indecent and miserable living conditions but also implies other important aspects such as informality (The World Bank and UNCHS (Habitat), 2000). Informality also implies more than one meaning; it can mean substandard, illegal or disrespecting building laws and planning regulations.

Within the Egyptian context slums have been known as ‘Ashwa’iyyat’, which literally means ‘disordered’ or ‘haphazard’. It refers to informal areas suffering from problems of accessibility, narrow streets, the absence of vacant land and open spaces, very high residential densities, and insufficient infrastructure and services (World Bank, 2008).

This research addresses the problematic issue of slum definition and how current definitions create confusion around what counts as a slum, focusing on ‘Ashwa’iyyat’ in Egypt, where most of the published figures on the proportion of slums’ dwellers are overestimated the real situation due to such problem. For example, in Mike Davis “Planet of Slums” (2006), Egypt appeared to have 39.9% of its urban population, with total number 11.8 million inhabitants living in slums. Furthermore, Cairo is located on the world map to have 4 out of 30 biggest “mega-slums” in the world; these include Imbaba² (1.0 million), Ezbet El-Haggana (1.0 million), City of the Dead (cemeteries) (0.8 million) and Mansheiet Nasser (0.5 million), as shown in Fig. 1.

These figures present an unreal image of the areas mentioned for many reasons which will be explained in detail later in this paper. Most significantly the criteria used to classify these areas as slums need to be revisited. The majority of these areas are developed in contradiction to building laws and planning regulations, as residents build houses on state-owned land or on privately-owned agricultural land without getting permission to build or fit in with land use plans, if these exist for the area. They can be considered illegal or informal settlements but not slums. In Fig. 1 for instance, Kibera³ and Dharavi appears in the same category with Ezbet El-Haggana, though they have completely different characteristics such as their physical conditions and accessibility to services.

As an attempt to solve the problematic issue of what counts as a slum, the Informal Settlement Development Facility (ISDF), since its establishment by a presidential Decree # 305/2008, has made a substantial change in the Egyptian vocabulary by replacing the term “Slums” or “Informal Settlements” or “Ashwa’iyyat” by two distinctive terms; “Unsafe Areas” and “Unplanned areas”. Unsafe areas are characterized by being subject to life threat, or having inappropriate housing, or exposed to health threat or tenure risks, while unplanned areas are principally characterized by its non-compliance to planning and building laws and regulations.

This research highlights the importance of the approach adopted by the ISDF in defining more precisely the nature of what were formerly called “Ashwa’iyyat” and how this approach dramatically affects the types of interventions to improve their physical conditions and the lives of their inhabitants. Moreover, it reflects on the findings from the first survey carried out by the ISDF to identify unsafe and unplanned areas spatially all over Egypt, along with other relevant information covering the urban, economic, social, environmental and legal status of each area using Geographical Information System (GIS). Previously data was only available as lists containing the name of each Ashwa’iyyat and its corresponding population, with no attempt made to identify and map its shape and boundaries. Therefore, the ISDF survey results can be considered to have added value, and to contribute to efforts made to improve “Ashwa’iyyat”.

The structure of this paper is as follows: Section 1 reviews the literature on what constitutes a slum and explores recent approaches in redefining slums. Section 2 focuses on “Ashwa’iyyat” in Egypt; it describes the main types, the characteristics of each and addresses the main obstacles preventing “Ashwa’iyyat” upgrading. Section 3 explains the ISDF’s strategy and policy and demonstrates the criteria used for identifying degrees of risk. Section 4 explains the survey methodology used by the group of consultants who conducted the survey (of which the author is one of them), on behalf of the ISDF to identify unplanned and unsafe areas all over Egypt and classify the later according to levels of risk. It then reflects on the most significant findings. Section 5 includes the concluding remarks.