mumbai urban infrastructure project: relocation and rehabilitation of project affected people

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project:

Relocation and Rehabilitation of Project Affected

People

Student Report, Development and Planning Unit, University College London,

June 2007.

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project:

Relocation and Rehabilitation of Project Affected People

Student Report by: Katherine Batanova, Adrian Fenton, Konstantinos Grigoratos,

Takuya Hashizume, Peter Hutchinson, Kiriko Ikeya, Eulaine Ouseley,

Gabriela Sauter and Madhurima Waghmare.

Development and Planning Unit, University College London, June 2007.

Index

Contents

Acronyms................................................................................................................................................. 5

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 6

Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 7

Background.................................................................................................................................... 8

Methodology ...............................................................................................................................10

Transformation: Diagnosis and Proposals...........................................................................10

Limitations.................................................................................................................................12

Diagnosis .......................................................................................................................................13

Problems and Constraints .....................................................................................................13

SPARC, MM and NSDF.......................................................................................................13

MMRDA and Private Developers ....................................................................................14

PAPs ......................................................................................................................................14

Opportunities...........................................................................................................................15

PAPs ......................................................................................................................................15

The Alliance.........................................................................................................................16

Governmental Sphere ......................................................................................................16

Private Sector......................................................................................................................17

Understanding the Diagnosis through the Web of Institutionalization .........................17

Proposal Ia. Strategic Resource Centres ................................................................................19

Context.....................................................................................................................................19

Proposal....................................................................................................................................19

Motivations and Impacts ......................................................................................................20

Resources .................................................................................................................................21

Monitoring and Evaluation. ..................................................................................................21

Proposal Ib. Shopkeeper Cooperatives..................................................................................23

Context.....................................................................................................................................23

Proposal....................................................................................................................................23


Resources .................................................................................................................................24

Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................................................................................24

Understanding proposal Ib through the web of institutionalization .............................24

Proposal II: Housing Competition .............................................................................................26

Context.....................................................................................................................................26

Proposal....................................................................................................................................27


Resources .................................................................................................................................28

Monitoring and Evaluation ...................................................................................................29

Understanding proposal II through the web of institutionalization ...............................29

Conclusions.......................................................................................................................................31

Appendices ......................................................................................................................................32

Appendix A: Schedule of Lectures, Workshops, Presentations ..........................................32

Appendix B: Elements of Transformation................................................................................33

Appendix C: The “Web of Institutionalisation” ......................................................................34

Appendix D : Sub-Criteria and Indicators ..............................................................................36

Appendix E: Limitations .............................................................................................................40

Appendix F: Additional Findings...............................................................................................41

Appendix G: Semi-structured PAP Interviews ........................................................................42

Consulted Texts ................................................................................................................................66

Index

Tables

Table 1: Research Objectives p. 9

Table 2: Transformation Criteria p. 11

Table 3: Proposal II – Outline p. 26

Boxes

Box 1. Diagnosis through the Web of Institutionalisation p. 18

Box 2. Understanding Proposal Ia through the criteria p. 20

Box 3. Proposal Ia. Monitoring and Evaluation p. 21

Box 4. Understanding Proposal Ia through the Web of Institutionalisation p. 22

Box 5. Understanding Proposal Ib through the criteria p. 24

Box 6. Understanding Proposal Ib through the Web of Institutionalisation p. 25

Box 7. Understanding Proposal II through the criteria p. 27

Box 8. Proposal II. Monitoring and Evaluation p. 29

Box 9. Understanding Proposal II through the Web of Institutionalisation p. 30

Figures

Figure 1: Report Structure p. 11

Figure 2: Mumbai a ‘World Class City’ p. 16

Figure 3: Diagnosis through the Web of Institutionalization p. 17

Figure 4: Understanding Proposal Ia through the Web of Institutionalisation p. 22

Figure 5: Understanding Proposal Ib through the Web of Institutionalisation p. 25

Figure 6: Understanding Proposal II through the Web of Institutionalisation p. 30

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People - 5

Acronyms

Acronyms

Alliance Combination of SSNS, NSDF, MM and SPARC

BMC / MCGM Brihan Mumbai Corporation /

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

CBOs Community-Based Organizations

CLIFF Community Led Infrastructure Finance Facility

FSI Floor Space Index

GOM Government of Maharashtra

HI Homeless International

MHADA Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

MM Mahila Milan

MMRDA Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Agency

MTSU Mumbai Transformation Support Unit

MUIP Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project

MUTP Mumbai Urban Transport Project

NGO Non Governmental Agency

NSDF National Slum Dwellers Federation

PAP Project Affected Person/People

SHGs Self Help Groups

SPARC Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres

SRA Slum Rehabilitation Authority

TDR Tradable Development Right

ToR Terms of Reference


Executive Summary

Executive Summary

Mumbai is a city of many contradictions. On the one hand it is the financial capital of India,

generating 5% of its GDP, whilst on the other hand, half the population reside in slum areas

that foster substandard living conditions, and which are at constant risk of demolition.

However, there are aspirations to turn Mumbai into a ‘world-class city’, which has seen major

investment in infrastructure projects, such as the Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project (MUIP).

This project seeks to increase Mumbai’s transport capacity through a large-scale road-

widening scheme in order to facilitate economic growth and the transformation of Mumbai.

However MUIP will displace 35 000 slum and pavement dweller families located along

roadsides. Under current government policy, the implementing body of MUIP, MMRDA, is

obliged to relocate eligible families to free relocation housing under Slum Rehabilitation

Authority (SRA) policies. This report examines the effects of the relocation process on the

livelihoods of project-affected persons (PAPs) and to make recommendations as to how this

process can be transformative in a way that suits the needs of the urban poor. These

recommendations are made considering the involvement of particular actors, namely the

implementing body, MMRDA; a local NGO, SPARC; community-based organizations, MM and

NSDF; and the affected persons themselves.

Through secondary research and a two-week fieldtrip in Mumbai, the report team

constructed a diagnosis of the situation. Apparent in the analysis of the relocation process

are multiple forms of disconnection at social, economic and spatial levels. This was due to

numerous reasons, including:

I. PAPs being under prepared for relocation causing a disruption of social and

economic networks.

II. A relocation process that does not take fully into consideration the needs of PAPs.

III. Pre-constructed relocation sites unsuitable to the needs of PAPs.

Based upon this diagnosis, proposals have been formulated that seek to aid the

transformation of this situation that would allow the PAPs to actively determine the relocation

process in such a manner that would better suit their needs. They consist of:

I. The creation of strategic resource centres which seeks to better prepare PAPs for

relocation.

II. The establishment of shopkeeper cooperatives to build capacity and support the

livelihoods of a pivotal group within the relocation process.

III. The holding of a housing competition to facilitate the needs of PAPs in the design of

the built environment in a manner that will decrease isolation and disconnection.


Acknowledgements

Acknowledgements

We take this opportunity to thank all those who have helped us to produce this report. Most

notably, the hospitability and guidance of the SPARC, NSDF, MM and NIRMAN in Mumbai

was invaluable to our efforts. Especially, we would like to thank Mr. Sundar Burra, Sheila

Patel, Celine d’Cruz, Aseena Viccjee and Jockin Arputham. We are also thankful to

Shekhar, Sangeeta, Riya, Sapna, Shenaz and the rest of the SPARC team for their constant

support during the field work.

We would also like to thank the faculty at the Development Planning Unit, UCL, Caren Levy,

Eleni Kyrou, Pascale Hoffman and Chris Jasko for their consistent guidance and support. We

are extremely grateful to Professor Nigel Harris, David Satterthwaite and Ian Morris for giving

us lectures on various aspects of Mumbai. We are especially thankful to Nadia Taher for her

valuable guidance regarding field research during the workshop at the DPU.

We are thankful to Mr Jain, project manager of MTSU; Swadheen Kshatriya, principal

Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra (GOM); and Mr. Milind Mhaiskar, Joint Metropolitan

Commissioner, MMRDA; for their valuable presentations and time. The presentations and

fruitful discussions with Shirish Patel; V.K. Phatak; Mr S.K. Joshi; Mr Abhisek Khanna, Chief

Manager, ICICI Bank; Neera Adarkar Pankaj Joshi, gave us deeper understanding of the

context. We feel grateful to Mr. D.R. Hadadare, chief engineer of MHADA; Ms. Kalpana

Sharma; and various officials at MMRDA, Mr. Palit, Mr. Patil, and Dr. Madhav Rusekar for

giving us personal interviews and their valuable time.

We are extremely thankful to The Chief Electoral Officer of Maharashtra, Mr. U.P.S. Madan

for his important comments on our presentation in Mumbai. Last but not the least, we thank

all the people at Gautam Nagar, Mankurd for the warm welcome and also for openly

participating in our surveys.

*The photographs presented in this report were taken by students of the DPU, unless otherwise stated.


Background

Background

Mumbai is the commercial and financial capital of India and home to

over 16 million people. It generates 1/3 of the country’s tax revenue

and 5% of its GDP. However, of the entire population, approximately six

million live in slums, alongside roads, railway tracks and on pavements.

Sixty percent of Mumbai’s slum dwellers also operate a large and

robust informal market economy. The lack of housing provision has

occurred in Mumbai for many reasons, however decades of rising

migration has not been met by a governance system or a housing

market that can provide for a large proportion of the urban poor. A

local rent control act, a policy of free housing for slum dwellers that is

cross-subsidized by an inflationary housing market, and political

expediency, it can be argued, has led to rising property prices that

surpass those of more developed cities such as London. These prices

mean that a large proportion of Mumbai’s population has been priced

out of the housing market and have ended up illegally squatting on

private and government owned land.

Governance and the economy in India have undergone structural

adjustment since the early 1990s which has affected Mumbai. The

central government initiated policies to liberalize economic practices

and decentralize power to local government bodies and although it

has sought investment from international monetary institutions, central

government has retained a relatively strong position. In parallel,

decentralization has been implemented in a somewhat limited

manner.1 In Mumbai this has resulted in the State of Maharashtra

having control over much policy, planning and implementation that

affects the city. This has led to problems of duplication of roles

between state and municipal levels and often competition between

different bodies.2 There also appears to be a clear democratic and

accountability deficit; MCGM’s executive arm is run by a state

appointed civil servant; the mayor plays a largely ceremonial role.

Therefore there is not a direct link between the electorate and parts of

local government leading to often unresponsive governance.

Within this context groups in Mumbai3 are attempting to turn it into a

world class city and an even greater financial hub. However due to its

narrow geographical location and an increasing population Mumbai’s

transport systems are under pressure to the detriment of developing the

city. Therefore MMRDA, a parastatal planning body, has implemented

MUIP. This involves widening existing roads and constructing flyovers to

cater for the increasing vehicular and pedestrian population. However,

this road widening scheme will cause the direct displacement of some

35,000 slum and pavement dweller families who live along the road,

and will have consequences for those newly exposed to dangers due

to increased proximity of widened roads. Under Mumbai’s SRA the

1 For discussions of India regarding globalisation and structural adjustment see: Dreze J., and Sen A,

(2002), India Development and Participation, second edition, Oxford University Press, pp.307-310. 2 For example MMRDA and MCGM both have planning roles within the city and have completed

their own plans, the Regional and City plan respectively, within these plans the roles of each group

are not always entirely clear. Likewise with regards to housing policy in Mumbai there is a state

body MHADA and a more local body SRA who have less than complementary policies within the

same jurisdiction. 3 For example MMRDA, MCGM and MTSU along with political parties.


Background

policy for relocating PAPS involves the provision of free houses for those

affected in a given site4. This policy is funded by the market with a FSI

program and TDRs5. MMRDA has completed the construction of some

27,5246 tenements and has relocated approximately 15%7. This report

analyzes the effect this relocation process has on the livelihoods of

PAPs and how the process can potentially be improved through the

working relationships between Government and an NGO, SPARC, who

seeks to provide assistance to PAPs through the capacity building of

the CBOs: MM and NSDF within the affected communities.8

The terms of reference for this research were provided through a

consultation between the Development and Planning Unit’s academic

staff and members of the NGO SPARC. The main objectives are

threefold (table 1).

Table 4: Research Objectives

Research Objectives

Objective I

To explore the im pact on livelihoods of the relocation of households and

communities from poor and vulnerable locations to more secure housing in the

city.

Objective II To identify the s trengths and weaknesses of the strategies pursued by the

different actors involved in this case.

Objective III

To explore with the different actors involved proposals which will strengthen

the relocation of slum and pavement dwellers in the future in a manner which

will contribute to their transformative intentions.

4 It must be noted that of the 35,000 affected people only 21,000 are eligible under the project due a

cut off date of 2000, which stipulates that people are only eligible for relocation if they can prove

they have been resident prior to 2000. This leaves 14,000 people potentially homeless. (Mr. Milind

Mhaiskar, May 7, 2007, Appendix A. 5 The FSI system works by requiring developers construct the required free housing for PAPs in return

for extra land to develop the amount of which is dependent on the sites location in the city. If the

extra land is not available on the current construction site a TDR is made available which is

tradable in a market system. 6 MMRDA presentation: Mr. Milind Mhaiskar, May 7th 2007, Appendix A. 7 Oral statement made by Jockin Arputham, President of the national Slum Dwellers Federation of

India and President of Slum/Shack Dwellers International, to the group on 5th May 2007,

Appendix A.


Methodology

Methodology

Research Techniques

Research was performed using secondary sources in the pre-fieldtrip

phase through lectures and readings9, whilst during the fieldtrip the bulk

of the primary research was collected through officials’ and experts’

presentations, transect walks, focus groups with community leaders,

semi- and unstructured interviews of PAPs, MM and NSDF leaders, and

SPARC employees. 10 Fundamental to an understanding of the change

in livelihoods of the affected persons were the interviews and focus

groups; these were key for grounded comprehension of the impacts of

the relocations on PAPs11. The term PAPs has been used throughout the

report, yet it is crucial to understand that this is not a homogenous

group and various differences are present in terms of age, gender,

race, religion which asymmetrically affect their reflexive interpretations

of reality.

Transformation: Diagnosis and Proposals

Taking into consideration the ToRs, it was considered critical to

formulate a definition of transformation with regards to relocations to

set an ideal standard for the process; it has been used throughout this

report in order to guide research, understand the case study and to

evaluate the extent to which the process is transformative.

A transformative process is one that will:

“Strengthen the ability of the affected people to actively

determine the processes and outcomes of relocation, through the

capacity building of actors and of the creation of synergistic and

sustainable links that will live beyond the project.” 12

Criteria were generated from a breakdown of the definition of

transformation. This enabled an assessment of the extent to which the

definition has achieved its transformative intentions. These criteria

elucidate the role of groups of actors13 in what may be considered

transformative processes and outcomes, as demonstrated in Table 2

below.

9 Please refer to Consulted Texts for more detail.

10 Please refer to Appendix G for PAP semi-structured interviews and Appendix A for a schedule and

list of actors consulted. 11

27 of such interviews were performed. 12

Please refer to Appendix B for an elucidation of the logic of the definition. 13

Actors identified in MUIP: PAPs, the Alliance (SSNS, MM, NSDF, SPARC), the Governmental Sphere

(which incorporates GoM, parastatal agencies such as MMRDA and municipal corporations such

as MCGM) and Private Institutions (i.e. private developers and banks such as ICICI).


Methodology

Table 5: Transformation Criteria

Transformation Criteria

Outcome Procedure

Project Affected

People

Improved quality of life of project affected

persons concerning economic/ social/

political/ physical/ environmental aspects

Ability of affected persons to actively

determine the process of relocation

through meaningful participation .

Alliance (SPARC,

SSNS, MM, NSDF)

Strengthening the Alliance’s working

relationship with PAPs, government, private

institutions in o rder to increase the ability to

affect changes in the relocation process

Capacity building of the Alliance and

creating synergistic links between the

Alliance, PAPs, government, private

and international institution s

Governmental

Sphere

An enduring institutional framework that is

inclusive and responsive toward the needs of

affected persons in the relocation proces s

Responsible, accountable, democratic

and transparent practices regarding

the relocation process

Private Institutions

Offering adapted products and services that

are meaningful and suit t he needs of the

urban poo r

Learning the needs and developing

trust of the urban poor and promoting

innovative practices

The formulation of criteria and indicators14 have provided a framework

for structured research, both in secondary and primary source

collection, and have enabled a diagnosis of compiled findings (refer to

Figure 1 below). The diagnosis represents a prioritization of findings

which were then analysed through the use of the ‘Web of

Institutionalisation’15 to identify key opportunities and constraints from

which proposals for future actions may be derived. In this way,

proposals brought forward may help achieve this concept of

transformation.

Figure 5: Report Structure

Definition

Diagnosis

Proposals

Criteria &

Indicators

Research

14 Please refer to Appendix D for a list and brief explanation of sub-criteria and indicators used. 15 Please refer to Appendix C for an explanation of the Web of Institutionalization.


Methodology

Limitations

Inevitable in field research are many forms of limitation. These include

time constraints, sample locations and size, interpreter mediums,

interviewer and interviewee biases, and often conflicting information.

Noteworthy, however, is the female-oriented gender-bias encountered

due to the time of interviews16

as well as the difficulties in

communicating via an interpreter medium. Appendix E provides

greater detail.

16

PAP interviews and focus groups were performed in the afternoon. Few males were present. This

may be due to employment responsibilities


Diagnosis

Diagnosis

Problems and Constraints

Apparent in the analysis of the relocation process are multiple forms of

disconnection at social, economic and spatial levels,17 which shall be

discussed through a prioritization of findings. The lack of preparation

and attention to the needs of the affected households prior to the

relocation has created the disruption of social networks, shop-keeper

cooperatives and livelihoods, and a sub-optimal built environment has

added to isolation within the site and from surrounding areas.

Processes unsuitable to the needs of PAPs have resulted in these three

forms of disconnection which shall be discussed with reference to the

criteria previously established and according to the actors involved in

order to assess the extent to which the relocation process is

transformative.

SPARC, MM and NSDF

However different the context and reasons for involvement, the role of

SPARC in MUIP can be seen as an attempted extension of its role in

MUTP18

. Since funding remains internal to GoM in MUIP, the relationship

between SPARC and MMRDA is largely informal and began when

SPARC approached the latter.19

The prioritization of the efficiency of

the project’s implementation over the ‘soft parts’20

meant MMRDA

would more quickly achieve its goal, and SPARC’s involvement is

therefore only post-relocation. As a result, there was a lack of

community organization and affected families were under-prepared

for the relocations. Many relocated families became aware of the

Alliance only post-relocation and even then, only some were involved

in savings schemes and few, in group meetings. SPARC’s post-

relocation involvement – at which the point of entry is least effective –

stretches resources and capacity which dilutes its ability to effectively

help other areas concerning the urban poor and strengthening their

working relationship with other actors.21

17Please refer to Appendix G for PAP interviews. 18

MUTP is another infrastructure project in Mumbai whereby SPARC was hired as a conditionality for

the WB loan to ensure relocated families were given choice in their relocation sites (and in some

cases, design), communities were identified (in the Baseline Economic Survey) and organized with

the help of MM and NSDF, help was given in the relocation process, all what Sundar Burra has

described as the ‘soft stuff’, ( conversation with Sundar Burra, 10th May 2007, Appemdix A). 19

The motivation behind this was to serve the needs of the (approx.) 5000 pavement dweller

households (of a total 35 000 households), for which the NGO was originally established. 20

‘Soft Parts’: identification, organization, preparation and relocation of the affected families. 21

The organization’s desire to maintain its working size means expansion to work in other areas (i.e.

pre-relocation in MUIP) can only occur if resources are freed up elsewhere. The lack of

organization of project affected individuals seems to have created a dependency on SPARC for

organization and amenity provision in post-relocation sites, as in premise waste collection in

Gautam Nagar, advancing the stretch of resources and capacity of SPARC. Many complaints

were also related to site management, especially in terms of overall cleanliness. Waste collection

was initially managed by SPARC, but the transfer of responsibility to the housing cooperative

appears ineffective.


Diagnosis

MMRDA and Private Developers

These outcomes have resulted from the lack of support and

organization of MMRDA’s practices, which lack transparency and

accountability, as well as from imperfect building environments

produced by private developers. Eligibility and notification

inconsistencies have resulted in a current 1200 households in transit

accommodations,22

increasing pressures on the government and

SPARC in dealing with grievances and inevitably prolonging the

process. The involvement of private institutions has not changed

drastically during the process. The NIRMAN precedents, Oshiwara I/II,

have demonstrated the ability to keep costs low yet to serve the needs

of the poor, and according to Sundar Burra, various designs have been

taken on by private developers. It is however unclear to what extent

the latter are enthusiastic to adapt the designs and to what extent this

is solely an official requirement delivered by the government. This may,

however, also represent an opportunity to meaningfully incorporate the

needs of the poor into their outputs, potentially decreasing the

incidence of sub-letting amongst relocated households.23

PAPs

PAPs were insufficiently prepared in the relocation process, and choice

was not given to PAPs in terms of their ability to actively determine,

through meaningful participation, the location of permanent housing,

the design or layout of the housing, the scheduling of the relocations24

or the groups with whom the families shall be relocated. The

unsuitability of the process to the needs of the PAPs has not resulted in

an overall improved quality of life. The multiplicity of outcomes and

differing affected persons’ perceptions meant the only generalization

that can be made relates to disconnection at various levels. How the

processes described above have affected the PAPs shall now be

elucidated.

Firstly, the breakup of social networks and in some cases the impeded

ability of such groups to integrate into their new communities have

been key factors in the dissatisfaction amongst many relocated

families. Secondly, the built environment has not been conducive to

22

Three general cases were found in terms of the relocation process and the project affected

persons. It was found that approx. 14 000 families were not deemed eligible for relocation. Many

who were eligible were not sufficiently prepared with respect to proper documentation to prove

their establishment prior to the year 2000 due to the lack of support and organization of MMRDA in

the relocations, consequently requiring the transference of many families in transit

accommodations. The third case refers to those families eligible, but not at the site at the time of

demolition, thus unable to prove eligibility and as a result the destruction of their property.

Although many were given warnings years in advance, little notification was given in the medium

term to allow for the organization of project affected families. Please refer to Appendix G for PAP

interviews. 23

12 of 37 households visited. 24

PAPs were treated as individuals, not communities, causing an unnecessary disruption of social

networks. Due to the untimely nature of relocation, children were not able to change school mid-

year and were forced to continue at the same school despite great travel distances (and costs) or

else lose an academic year.


Diagnosis

an environment accommodating the needs of the poor.25

The

introverted nature of the layout both within the site and with the

surrounding environment, the high-rise building structures and the

absence of attention to the use of spaces has created secluded

islands, re-enforcing the concept of isolation. Thirdly, the absence of a

ration shop near Gautam Nagar resulted in the travelling to previous

areas for the purchasing of cooking fuel and to markets for vegetables,

creating a two-fold disadvantage, including increased expenditure for

the travel costs26

, and decreased sales in site shops hoping to sell their

goods to residents. The assumption that relocations would inherently

cause a loss of employment has been rejected27

, however, significantly

affected were entrepreneurs whose markets were disrupted. Shop

owners previously located along major arterial roads were dependent

on the strategic location, be it for general stores, auto-part shops,

mechanics, tailors, etc. The relocations destroyed markets for many

shopkeepers due to the location of sites, as well as the introverted

nature and layout of sites and the un-strategic situation of shops within

the sites. Networks created by commercial cooperatives were

destroyed in the relocation process, creating a second major

disadvantage to this group.

Opportunities

Despite evidence of multiple problems and constraints, numerous

opportunities exist which can enhance various actors’ room for

maneuver.

PAPs

Precedents set by community organization such as through the

construction and maintenance of toilet blocks28

demonstrate the ability

of the urban poor to address their own problems and needs. This

opportunity has not been realized in the context of MUIP and can

explain the causality behind the various problems highlighted above.

Various opportunities exist for the fortification of communities post-

relocation through the formation of housing cooperatives and the

expansion of MM and NSDF both pre- and post-relocation.

25 For Example high rise housing was considered to be unsuitable by : Mr. Sundar Burra,

(converstation 10th May 2007 and by Mr. U.P.S. Madan, The Chief Electoral Officer of Maharashtra,

(feed back on group presentations, 11th May 2007, see Appendix A). 26

This includes the need for a taxi to carry the cooking fuel which is prohibited on public

transportation. 27

The relationship between keeping employment and relocation challenges assumptions on two

levels. Firstly, it was found that many relocated persons were able to keep their positions of

employment for two reasons: there was no significant change in the distance to work and those

who had to increase their travel time were able to deal with the extra travel time and costs.

Secondly, for those families whose source of income was disrupted due to reasons including

excessive travel time/costs to work, there was a similar impact on both genders’ employment. 28

Patel, Sheela and Diana Mitlin (2004) “Grassroots-driven development: the Alliance of SPARC, the

National Slum Dwellers Federation and Mahila Milan” in Mitlin, D and D. Satterthwaite (eds.)

Empowering Squatter Citizen, Earthscan, London, pp. 216-41.


Diagnosis

The Alliance

SPARC can utilise its experience and proven capacity from MUTP to

strengthen its rapport with MMRDA in MUIP and future projects; the

voluntary involvement of SPARC presents an opportunity to further build

this working relationship with MMRDA. Where community mobilization is

concerned, the expansion of MM and NSDF in pre-relocation sites may

provide an opportunity to aid the preparation of communities in the

process of relocation, as well as in post relocation through the capacity

building of PAPs to adapt to a new living environment. Finally,

increasing awareness at the international level through the creation of

links with various institutions such as the DPU represents a key

opportunity for the development of research and theory building in

anticipation of impacting methodologies.

Governmental Sphere

Notwithstanding the numerous constraints within the governmental

sphere listed above, four clear opportunities have become evident in

the research. Firstly, the existence of a policy, SRA, for the provision of

formal housing requires MMRDA to fulfill its obligations as the

implementing body of MUIP. Secondly, the existence of TDRs provides

a resource for the resettlement of PAPs. Thirdly, MMRDA’s drive to

create a ‘world class city’29

seeks the development of improved

infrastructure, but also a solution to the apparent housing problem, as

demonstrated in Figure 2 below; it seeks to be identified as a brand

standing by these principles.30

Fourthly, the involvement of SPARC in

the relocation process can help deliver can help deliver MMRDA’s goal

and ensure ‘soft parts’31

are taken into consideration which may

potentially lead to a more sustainable outcome.

Source: Presentation by Mr. Milink Mhaiskar, Jt.

Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA

29

Mr Jain, project manager of MTSU, (presentation 7th May 2007, Appendix A). 30 Mr. Milind Mhaiskar, Joint MetropolitanCommissioner of MMRDA. (Presentation 7th May 2007,

Appendix A). 31

As demonstrated through the involvement of SPARC (through MM and NSDF) and its proven

capacity in MUTP.

Figure 6: Mumbai a ‘World Class City’


Diagnosis

Private Sector

The main opportunities from the private sector involve both private

developers and financial institutions. The adoption of Oshiwara housing

designs taken on by private developers has set a precedent for future

designs being incorporated into private sector development for SRA

housing.32

Market opportunities for financial institutions such as ICICI

Bank are constrained by risk adversity. However, these constraints can

be overcome through the promotion of innovative practices and trust

building between the bank and PAPs through projects such as

Oshiwara II. A second opportunity exists for the involvement of banks in

the formation of SHGs or cooperatives post relocation such that a new

market could be ‘tapped’33

Understanding the Diagnosis through the Web of

Institutionalization

The web (Figure 3) illustrates the potentials and constraints of elements,

and relationships between elements in the process of institutionalization

and shall be analysed through the criteria established in the

methodology. As many elements, and links between elements may

represent both opportunities and constraints, both characteristics have

been demonstrated in red and blue in order to demonstrate their

diversity, rather than through the use of ‘weak’, ‘medium’ or ‘strong’

elements and links, which have a tendency to conceal their

multidimensionality (refer to Box 1 for a detailed analysis).

Figure 7: Diagnosis through the Web of Institutionalization

OPPORTUNITIES & PROBLEMS/ CONSTRAINTS

D

I

A

G

N

O

S

I

S

Political Commitment

Pressure of Political

Constituencies

Women Men and Children’s Experience and Interpretation of

Reality

Research Theory

MethodologyDelivery of

Programmesand Projects

ProceduresPolicy/Planning

Mainstream

Responsibility for Social Justice

Resources

Representative Political Structures

Staff Development

OpportunitiesProblems/Constraints

1

2

4

3

5

6

7

32 As mentioned in the constraints section, it is unclear whether this was through an increased

understanding of the needs PAPs or through the requirement by the government. Whichever way,

the result means products are more innovative, meaningful and suitably tailored to the relocated

PAPs. For more detail on SRA and housing for the poor, refer to: Burra, Sundar (2003), Combining

top-down and grassroots land approaches in Mumbai, UN-Habitat, Habitat Debate 2003, Vol. 9,

No4. 33 Mr Abhisek Khanna, Manager, ICICI Bank, (presentation, 9th May 2007, Appendix A).


Diagnosis


Proposal Ia

Proposal Ia. Strategic Resource Centres

Context

An overview of the salient points in our diagnosis highlights that there

has been a change in the practice of relocation from the MUTP project

to that of the MUIP project. The absence of World Bank funding and

their consequent stipulations for the conduct of relocation have left the

process devoid of the ‘soft parts’. This absence has been filled by

MMRDA’s understandable drive to efficiency in road widening. SPARC

is consequentially in a relatively weakened position within its

relationship with MMRDA. It is considered that this has had three major

ramifications:

I. PAPs have been under-prepared for relocation which has led to

socioeconomic problems post relocation.

II. It has created a situation whereby the eligibility and ineligibility

of many PAPs has been brought into question, this has seen a

large number of PAPs being moved to transit camps.

III. The resources of SPARC are being stretched as it has to place

the emphasis of its work on mitigating post relocation problems.

In order to transform this situation it is considered necessary that SPARC

act in a more strategic manner. The fact that MMRDA are not utilising

SPARC as a resource pre-relocation, means that SPARC needs to prove

its utility to MMRDA and set a precedent for a potential new working

relationship that benefits the goals of all parties. It is considered that this

can be done through the introduction by SPARC of strategic resource

centres.

Proposal

The basic logic of a SPARC pre-relocation resource centre

concentrates on building capacity of affected people to deal with

change through facilitating the work of NSDF and MM. Under MUTP,

SPARC had a long period of embedding their ethos and the work of

MM and NSDF in given communities however; this is not the case under

MUIP. Therefore SPARC should concentrate its efforts on groups who

have been identified for imminent relocation and work consecutively

with affected groups until MUIP is completed.34

The resource centres should seek to:

1. Introduce the affected communities to the workings, logic

and potential of SPARC, MM, and NSDF.

2. Create Community Building Committee35

3. Initiate group formation.36

34 Once one group has been relocated SPARC’s resource centre will move to the next affected group. 35A Community Building committee should consist of members of SPARC, MM, and NSDF who have has

experience of relocations, as well as members of the local communities. It role should be to guide

capacity build and monitoring and evaluation. 36 Under MUTP groups of 50 strong households were considered the optimum size to facilitate

meaningful capacity building and cooperation: Burra, Sundar, (2005), “Towards a pro-poor


Proposal Ia

4. Data and document checking.37

5. Facilitation of knowledge sharing-and strengthening the

natural gravitation of social networks to develop coping

abilities.

6. Organise logistics of actual relocation.

7. Prepare those who have to go to transit camps38

.

8. Introduce shopkeepers’ cooperatives39

Motivations and Impacts

For MMRDA this process has the potential to make the relocations more

efficient and sustainable. Potentially, it can reduce the number of PAPs

unnecessarily entering transit camps thus reducing the long-term

commitment of MMRDA. It can also help MMRDA achieve its desired

positive social branding.

SPARC has the potential to implement positive changes in the lives of

affected people in a more meaningful way and introduce a new

working relationship with MMRDA that has the possibility to set a

precedent of a new more flexible practice. They will also be utilising

resources more strategically.

Affected people can mitigate potential relocation problems by

building capacity, social networks and strengthening their negotiating

position with MMRDA.

framework for slum upgrading in Mumbai, India”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol.15, No.2,pp.67-

88. 37 This has the potential to reduce the number of people being unnecessarily moved to transit camps

and reducing the number of grievances. 38 The majority of these points have been outlined by SPARC on previous occasions as goals of pre-

relocation work, see, See, Burra Sundar, (2005), “Towards a pro-poor framework for slum upgrading

in Mumbai, India”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol.15, No.2,pp.67-88. 39 Please see strategy 1b for details of this proposal.


Proposal Ia

Resources

This process will require man power and time; taking into consideration

SPARC’s desire not to expand, resources will have to be redirected from

elsewhere. SPARC can effectively achieve two goals at once by

creating timetables for disengagement from suitable communities

already relocated under the MUTP and MUIP and redirecting resources

towards this new strategy. This is an opportunity to legitimise such a

process and lessen the dependency of certain communities on them.

Time is a crucial element in this strategy as in order to be of benefit to

MMRDA it must work within their timetable. Therefore the practices

outlined above must be flexible enough not to hinder the progress of

MUIP and adversely affect the efficiency of MMRDA which would

reduce the feasibility of the strategy.

Monitoring and Evaluation.

It is envisaged that this process will have three stages of monitoring and

evaluation stages (refer to Box.3 for further information).

1. A comparison with relocations that have already taken

place under MUIP.

2. Monitoring the effectiveness of each strategic resource

centre.

3. The accumulation of information over the duration of the

project in order to assess needed changes and new

directions.


Proposal Ia

Understanding Proposal Ia through the Web of Institutionalization

In this instance we can utilise the web of institutionalisation (Figure 4) to

highlight the methodology and theory behind how such a strategy can

potentially be institutionalised changing the current situation (refer to

Box 4 for further analysis).

Political Commitment

Pressure of Political

Constituencies

Women and Men’s experience and interpretation

of reality

Research Theory

MethodologyDelivery of

Programmesand Projects

Staff Development

ProceduresPolicy/Plannin

g

Mainstream Responsibility for

Social JusticeResources

Representative Political Structrures

P

R

O

P

O

S

A

L

Ia Outcome and Procedures

Impacts

1

2

3

4

5

6

Figure 8: Understanding Proposal Ia through the Web of Institutionalization


Proposal Ib

Proposal Ib. Shopkeeper Cooperatives

Context

Infrastructure projects like MUIP, which deal with the strategic

networks of the city, are also home to important commercial outlets

within the city. The diagnosis exemplifies the issue of the disrupted

economic networks of shopkeepers which is a critical drawback in

terms of the sustainability of the relocation process. Therefore, within

this context a specific area which needs to be concentrated on is the

formation of shopkeeper cooperatives.

Proposal

As an extension of the first strategy of organizing the communities, the

following strategy deals with the formation of shopkeeper co-

operatives in order to strengthen their economic networks. The

proposal is as follows:

I. The resource centres, NSDF and the Community Building

Committee (which has representatives of the shopkeeper

community) together help form the cooperatives.

II. The Community Building Committee further strengthens

these cooperatives at the post relocation sites.

The scale of the proposal depends on each site and the size of the

cooperatives will vary accordingly. The process should be flexible

enough to seek the involvement of actors such as financial institutions

to help determine gaps in the market, and help create investment

opportunities.

The process is initiated at the pre-relocation stage to be most

effective. The process develops further at the post relocation stage

where these local cooperatives can potentially link to area and also

regional cooperatives.


PAPs and project affected shopkeepers should be motivated to

participate as it helps them organise and build community strength

which in turn helps them to actively choose more economically viable

relocations. It also has the potential for local communities along with

shopkeepers to better manage the amenities and enterprises that suit

their areas’ needs in a way that benefits both producer and

consumer. The permanent nature of the enterprise should help

shopkeepers create further links with larger economic networks and

other financing institutions like banks.

SPARC should be motivated by this strategy as it has the potential to

create communities that are less dependent upon them in the long-

term. Moreover, SPARC has already expressed their will to act as a

catalyst for community development in the relocation process, with

Mahila Milan being its greatest example.


Proposal Ib

The Government can largely benefit from a sustainable relocation

process40. This proposal also helps the government in the building of a

more integrated city contributing to their vision of a future ‘world-

class city’ and dealing with issues related to the urban poor.

Resources

In terms of resources, the initial instigation of building cooperatives

would derive from the same redirected resources as in Proposal Ia. A

shopkeeper cooperative by its inherent nature has the possibility to be

more financially viable than other community-based organizations.

This can then be fortified by building relationships with financial

institutions for investment opportunities.

Monitoring and Evaluation

The main actors involved in the monitoring and evaluation are the

Resource centers and Community Building Committee. The process

will be done mainly in lines with the strategy 1a41.

Understanding proposal Ib through the web of

institutionalization

The methodology and theory behind the formulation of strategy Ib

can be presented through the web of institutionalisation (Figure 5).

However, the arrows follow the logic of the proposal through the web

(refer to Box. 6 for further analysis) and should not be considered

prescriptive.

40

This links to the fact that stronger economic networks are directly linked to sustainability. 41

Please see Box 3 for further details on monitoring and evaluation for this strategy. The procedures

outlined in Box 3 can be easily manipulated to monitor the shopkeepers co-operatives utilizing the

same logic with slightly different indicators.


Proposal Ib

Figure 5: Understanding Proposal Ib through the Web of Institutionalization


Proposal II

Proposal II: Housing Competition

Context

Taking into consideration the GoM’s desire to transform Mumbai into a

‘world class city’ it is postulated with some certainty that Mumbai will

under go future infrastructure and road widening projects that will

displace additional slum and pavement dwellers, this will require the

construction of future relocation sites. This proposal seeks to influence the

construction phase of future MMRDA housing/relocation projects in order

to improve the living conditions of affected people and the livelihoods of

shopkeepers.

The proposal is based on the experiences gained by the previous

practices of NIRMAN in the Oshiwara project42

, and SPARC and MM’s

experiences in creating housing exhibitions43

. The outcome of both cases

was the provision of better housing solutions and the setting of a

precedent that influenced practices to suit the needs of PAPs.

The proposal (refer to table 3 for an outline) attempts to build upon the

above experiences in order to:

I. Improve the livelihoods of PAPs through an enhanced built-

environment44.

II. Set-up a new precedent for future relocation projects.

III. Bring the needs of PAPs to the forefront of future relocation

projects.

Table 6: Proposal II - Outline

Proposal II - Outline

Entry point NIRMAN is contracted to build a relocation site for people affected by a MMRDA project.

Phase I A competition for the best proposal is launched; PAPs and their organizations (MM, NSDF), SPARC and MMRDA are invited to form a committee responsible for the ToRs and for selecting the best proposal .

Phase II Submitted proposals by universities are presented in an exhibitio n .

Phase II I A demonstration is set-up when the project has been implemented.

42 NIRMAN was able to produce a housing complex that is regarded to be of a higher standard by all

actors than other relocation sites in terms of a built environment better suiting the needs of the poor

and which enhances connectivity with the surrounding area and city at large. 43 SPARC and MM were able to set-up housing competitions that draw the attention of the

government officials and the public in general. 44 By built environment we mean the set-up of the residential, communal and commercial spaces and

the connections of the complex to the surrounding area.


Proposal II

Proposal

The diagnosis revealed that the sub-optimal built environment is one

element causing isolation within the site and from surrounding areas,

affecting the livelihoods of shop-keepers through decreased revenue45

,

and the feeling of social and spatial disconnection of PAPs from the city.

The introverted use of space has been a major factor in this sense of

disconnection and it is therefore considered that if this proposal seeks to

address this issue in its ToR, many associated problems may be

alleviated.

The formulation of the committee is crucial for the proposal since the

committee is responsible firstly for setting up the ToRs for the competition

and secondly for choosing the most appropriate proposal. The

committee consists of representatives of PAPs and their organizations

(MM, NSDF), representatives of SPARC, NIRMAN, and MMRDA. PAPs,

CBOs, SPARC and NIRMAN should work together to create an exhibition

and demonstration, to which MMRDA shall be invited. The actors

involvement is as follows:

I. PAPs and their organizations (MM, NSDF) and MMRDA present their

priorities regarding the ToRs.

II. SPARC facilitates using its understanding of both sides (PAPs and

their organizations and MMRDA) towards the goal of creating

common ToRs.

III. NIRMAN as a constructor sets up the financial limits regarding the

feasibility of the project.

IV. University faculty and students involved in the competition and

submission of proposals

45 One shopkeeper reported a decrease in revenue of 2/3 from the previous location, see Appendix G.


Proposal II


In order for different actors to work together in such a situation, each

must be motivated and believe the project will help achieve their goals.

PAPs, MM and NSDF’s participation in the setting of ToRs and in

participating in choosing the winner, will allow them to influence the

outcomes that will suit their needs, thus improving their living conditions in

the future. The structure of the whole process allows PAPs to interact with

the various actors building their capacity and contributes to a better

understanding of their needs.

SPARC’s main goal within relocation processes is the improvement of the

livelihoods of PAPs. This proposal increases the capacity of SPARC by

strengthening its links with MMRDA and academic bodies. NIRMAN’s

goals are similar to that of SPARC; however, they will also potentially

receive the best possible design solution within their budget. The extra

publicity and strengthening of relationships with governmental and

private institutions could promote their future growth.

MMRDA has the opportunity to promote its own brand image by

participating in the creation of a better housing stock that will benefit

PAPs and the city at large. This process will be at no extra cost to their

relocation projects.

University faculty and students have the opportunity to heighten their

prestige and enrich their research field by working with clients on a real

case.

The ICICI bank has already shown commitment towards NIRMAN by

providing finance for the Oshiwara II project. There are further investment

and publicity opportunities within this proposal.

Resources

The organisation and manpower required for such a proposal will

necessitate resources. However NIRMAN has already proven that it can

implement programs under SRA that are financially viable. With the

potential help of suitable bank loans this project should also make a

profit and previous funds made under Oshiwara projects have the

potential to be directed into it. Most of the CBOs work on a voluntary

basis and universities through the nature of the project should have other

motivations beyond monetary incentive.


Proposal II

Monitoring and Evaluation

The design of the proposal which introduces a competition

committee seeks a continual practice of monitoring and evaluation

throughout the project, from constructing the ToRs to judging the

winner and the suitability of the constructed design. The long term

success of the project will need to be measured this should be carried

out by practices already in place. Please see box 8 for further details.

Understanding proposal II through the web of institutionalization

The methodology and theory behind the formulation of strategy II can

be presented through the web of institutionalisation (Figure 6).

However, the arrows follow the logic of the proposal through the web

(refer to Box. 9 for further analysis) and should not be considered

prescriptive.


Proposal II

Political

Commitment

Pressure of

Political

Constituencies

Research Theory

Methodology

Delivery of

Programmes

and Projects

Staff

Development

ProceduresPolicy/Planning

Mainstream Responsibility for

Social JusticeResources

Representative

Political

Structures

Women and Men ’s experience and interpretation

of reality

P

R

O

P

O

S

A

L

IIOutcome and Procedures

Impacts

1

2

3

4

Figure 6: Understanding Proposal II through the Web of Institutionalization


Conclusions

Conclusions

By creating a definition of transformation in order to asses the relocation process, a high

standard has been set and it must be questioned whether transformation can occur through the

implementation of any given proposals. It may be argued that these strategies should be

considered ameliorate, rather than transformative. However, by placing these strategies within

the contextual situation in Mumbai whereby infrastructure to provide economic growth appears

as important, if not more so than attempts to meaningfully transform the living conditions of

much of its urban poor, it has become evident that transformation cannot be achieved in the

short-term or through a singular comprehensive strategic solution. The purpose of these

proposals could therefore be considered; the incremental progression toward transformation.

However, to take incremental steps towards transformation one must be sure that they are

going in a transformative direction. Therefore it is considered necessary that a continual re-

assessment of the general direction of policy, power relationships and planning in the context of

Mumbai should be taken on board by all actors involved. Taking this into account, it would be

recommended that each actor reconsider its relationships and strategies pursued regularly in

order to assess whether these are mutually beneficial and meet their own transformative

intentions.


Appendices

Appendices

Appendix A: Schedule of Lectures, Workshops, Presentations

Pre-Fieldtrip 2 February The development of the Economy of Mumbai

Professor Nigel Harris

9 February Collective Strategic Action: Some Observations on

Policy and Planning by the Alliance, Caren Levy

16 February The Development and Operation of the Federation in

Mumbai

David Satterthwaite

23 February Community-Led Infrastructure Financing Facility

Homeless International

24 April “Interviewing Techniques and Field Data Recording”

Nadia Taher

Fieldtrip 4 May Sheila Patel, Sundar Burra - briefing/orientation

5 May Celine d’ Cruz – SPARC - strategy, history, position.

Meeting with Jockin Arputham, President of NSDF India and President

of Slum/Shack Dwellers International

7 May Presentations by senior government officials and discussions:

1) Mr. Jain, project manager of MTSU

2) Mr.Swadheen Kshatriya, IAS, Principal Secretary, Govt. of

Maharashtra (GOM): Housing Policy of GOM

3) Mr. Milind Mhaiskar,IAS,Joint Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA,

and Project Director,MUTP: Rehabilitation under MUTP and MUIP

8 May Presentation by Shirish Patel: “Urban Layouts, Densities &

Housing Policies for Mumbai”

Meeting with Sundar Burra: MUIP Clarifications

Discussion with Shirish Patel

Presentation/discussion V.K. Phatak: Metropolitan planning

in Mumbai and Slum Policy.


Meeting with Kalpana Sharma, Journalist from Hindu newspaper

9 May Presentation/discussion Mr S.K. Joshi: Principles of slum

rehabilitation and Transfer of Development Rights

Presentation/discussion by Mr. Abhisek Khanna, Chief Manager, ICICI Bank:

Lending to the poor

Presentation/discussion Ms. Aseena Viccjee, SPARC Finance Manager

10 May Presentation/discussion Neera Adarkar: Mill lands in Mumbai – past,

present, future; exploring power relations across

Presentation/discussion Pankaj Joshi: Situation analysis of

the Eastern Sea-Front of Mumbai; exploring interplay of Central and

State Government powers

Meeting with officials at MMRDA: Mr Palit, Grievences redressal

cell; G.C. Mangale additional collector and joint project director

R&R, MUTP; Dr. Madhav Rusekar, deputy collector R&R, MUTP.

Meeting with D.R. Hadadare, chief engineer of MHADA.


Visit to Oshiwara, meeting a representative of “Genesis Architects”,

Aseena and other members of NIRMAN team. Introduction by and

discussion with Mr S.K. Joshi.

11th May Presentation made by DPU students to, SPARC, Mr. U.P.S Madan Chief

Electoral Officer Maharashtra State and Mr. Abhisek Khanna, Chief

Manager, ICICI Bank: Lending to the poor


Appendices

Appendix B: Elements of Transformation

Elements of Transformation

To “actively determine“ refers to the ability of affected people to not only input into

the R&R process but also have directly influenced the final outcome.

The “processes and outcomes” relates to the procedures of resettlement of PAPs and

the effects of rehabilitation on their livelihoods.

”Capacity building” is a term relating to a positive change in the ability of actors to

undertake actions through the enhancement of knowledge and skills.

“Synergistic links” describe relationships whereby the value of cooperation is greater

than the sum of the values of individual entities working separately. It is also known as

the ‘multiplier effect’.

“Sustainable links” a term which signifies that any created links should not cease at

the end of the project but live beyond the length of the project and continue to function in the R&R process for the affected people of future projects


Appendices

Appendix C: The “Web of Institutionalisation”

The “Web of Institutionalisation”

Source: Levy, C, 1996

The “Web of Institutionalisation” was created by Caren Levy head of the Development and

Planning Unit UCL. It has been used as a critical tool for analysis and strategy construction in this

piece of research. The basic logic behind the tool of analysis is that to affect meaningful change in

a given society or situation change must be solidified into the institutional mechanisms of society.

The web seeks to highlight the areas that this needs to take place within, the change that is

needed and the necessary relationships that need to exist between each area. Therefore the tool

can be used as a diagnostic analytical tool, helping to highlight in a given situation areas of

weakness and potential that can direct and guide future strategies. The “Web of

Institutionalisation” was designed to propose conditions under which changing gender relations

can be institutionalised46, however for this report it is being used as a tool to help affect change

towards our definition of transformation with regards to the relocation process under MUIP.

There exist typically 13 elements to the web each of which represents a site of power47. After one

has analysed each element and the linkages / casual relationships between them they can

“indicate room for manoeuvre for change and can provide a means for directing action to

promote institutionalisation”48. The framework can only be used to analyse snap shots of time since

power relations, economic, social, political conditions may change over time (therefore results

yielded by the web may change over time). The elements can be analysed individually or grouped

together for instance such as the Community, Delivery, Policy and Organisational sphere before

being expanded to include the whole web in order to look at the “big picture”49. The “Community

sphere” encompasses Women’s and men’s experience and interpretation of their reality, Pressure

of political constituencies and Representative political structures. The “Delivery sphere” contains the

46

Levy, C. (1998) ‘Institutionalisation of Gender through Participatory Practice’ in Gujit, I. and M. K. Shah (eds.)

The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in Participatory Development. Intermediate Technology Publications,

London. 47 Ibid. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid.


Appendices

elements research, theory building, methodology and Delivery of projects and programmes; the

“Organisational sphere” includes the elements staff development, procedures, policy and

planning, mainstream location of responsibility; finally the “Policy sphere” includes the elements

political commitment, resources, policy / planning. Actors are placed in the most appropriate part

of the web but can not influence every part of the web for example communities may not have

such a sphere of influence to target changes in resources, therefore understanding the limitations

of each actor and its power relations in relation to other actors is important50.

50 Ibid.


Appendices

Appendix D : Sub-Criteria and Indicators

Sub-Criteria and Indicators

Outcome

PAPs Economic

• income before (income/expenses/savings)

• income after (income/expenses/savings)

• Changes in employment patterns

o What jobs?

o How long to find alternative employment?

• Expenses – changes in:

o utility bills

o transport

o Education (private? Public?)

o health

o miscellaneous (public services)

o food

Social – with respect ethnic/cultural mix

• Physical health – incidence of rates if diseases (diarrheal, air, water,)

• Mental health

• Access to services

• Personal security/safety

• Access to recreational space

• Quality and availability of:

o Public healthcare

o Education

o Water and Sanitation

Political

• Security of Tenure

• Ration Cards

• Voting Rights

• Access and ability to interact with formal government institutions

• Access and ability to interact with financial institutions

Physical

Suitability and Quality of Built Environment

• Housing

• Stairs, etc

• Common Areas

• Maintenance

• Infrastructure

o Access(links) to

transport/sanitation/water/waste/energy/communication

Environmental

• Resources – Availability

• Pollution

o Air

o Water

• Degradation

o Pathogens/Vectors

o Drainage


Appendices

Appendix D : Sub-Criteria and Indicators (continued)

Alliance • Ability to set a precedent

o Have a product

o A precedent better than others

o What are future negotiations for new relocations?

• How many trained staff?

o Internally trained upwards

o Externally – Ex-government officials

o Quality of Staff

o Areas covered (experts with PAPs, government, maps)

• Transparency and democracy in Alliance’s process

• Accountability

• Resources:

o Land

o Floor Space

• International Links for Capacity Building

Future links (DPU, SDI)

Government

Sphere

• At what level of government, time in the process of planning/policy

formulation are project affected individuals asked? (when, where,

who, how)

• What proportion of plans is derived from the input of the urban poor?

• How frequently is the agenda set by the urban poor?

• Who determines who is a PAP?

• What is the criteria to determine ‘affected by the projects’

• What happens to the 14 000 not eligible for relocation?

• What is the reasoning behind picking a date for eligibility?

• What is the criteria for projects getting financed – efficiency of the city,

beauty?

Private sector • Number of bank accounts open to urban poor

• Loans, Mortgages

• Interest rates the urban poor can pay back and extended payback

periods

• Type of Collateral (employment or assets)

• Incorporation in banks’ future plans

• Increased willingness of banks to provide loans for community

developers/developments


Appendices


Procedure

PAPs • How many people voted to be relocated?

o Ethnic/Political/Cultural breakdown?

• Can they choose where they are relocated?

• Can they choose when they are to be relocated?

o Which area

o Which building

o Which room

• To what extent can they choose the layout? Are they happy with that?

• Are they in control of the management of the tenements?

• What are their priorities? Tradeoffs?

• In what way are the PAPs involved throughout the whole process of the

project?

o Political Negotiation

o Future in terms of management of process

o Financial resources

o Actual Implementation –how

• Do you feel involved in the decision-making process in the Alliance?

• What is the position of the PAPs in the decision making process of the

Alliance?

o # meetings

o Agenda of meetings

• How were the PAPs involved in the determination of project priorities

o building, shops, high-rise

What are the criteria/process to become a member of the NSDF/MM?

Alliance • Inclusion in formal government structures (i.e. SRA)

• Increased recognition

o Reputation across city

o Media coverage

o Governmental Agencies

o Respect

• Institutionalizing relationships within government (Practices,

methodology, procedures rather than personal relationships)

• Formal loan from financial institutions

International Links for Political Pressure (ie. USAID now involved, who else?

Potentials?)


Appendices


Government

Sphere

• Access/Availability of city and project plans and reports

• Dissemination of updates on developments

• Mediums of communication: diversity, quality, quantity

• How much practices abide by the law

• How responsive they are to the needs of the urban poor

• How actions are monitored (frequency) and by whom

Private sector • Community consultations on what urban poor need

• Workshops specifically for urban poor (to work both ways)

• Open-mined bank managers and policies

• Precedent setting (the more the better – i.e. Oshiwara)

o Synergistic relationships with Alliance to bridge the gap

In order to analyse the criteria, sub-criteria and indicators were devised to enable the

determination of the extent to which transformation was achieved in the relocation process. For

example the criteria for PAPs relating to the improved quality of life of affected people is analysed

by sub criteria covering the physical, economic, social, political and environmental. An example of

the political aspect was the ability to interact with formal government institutions; the

environmental aspect by the existence of adequate drainage; the social aspect by the existence

of social networks; the economic aspect by income; and the physical aspect by transport

infrastructure links. The ability to actively determine was measured by indicators such as the ability

of PAPs to choose the location and time of relocation. Capacity building was measured by the

indicators such as: the existence of networks / potential networks and the institutionalization of links

with government through practices, methodologies and procedures rather than personal

relationships. Synergy was measured by indicators such as international links for political pressure

and the mutual benefits of created links. Sustainability of practices was be indicated by the

amount of policies which are institutionalized and last beyond the life of the project.


Appendices

Appendix E: Limitations

Time Constraints As a result of the relative brevity of the field visit in Mumbai (three

afternoons for field visits), the questionnaire focused mainly on

indicators related to a change in the quality of life relocation

process of PAPs, perhaps not dealing with each element of the

criteria to the optimum level.

Sample location

and size

It is obvious that situations will be different depending on types of

relocation sites. However, actual time spent in a transit camps was

insufficiently long to gain a thorough understanding of PAPs quality

of life. The diagnosis, however, deals mainly from Gautam Nagar

interviews and focus groups, and is based on an insufficiently large

sample size to achieve a holistic view of the situation.

Interpreter Mediums Interpreter mediums are a common problem in interviewing with

local people through interpreters in the field. Often it was

understood that translations were not word-for-word, incorporating

into the findings additional biases. Thus, secondary influence has

affected the accuracy of obtained information.

Interviewer

and Interviewee biases

Biases derived from both interviewers and interviewees are also an

unavoidable problem in primary research. Interviewer biases may

include loaded or leading questions. Interviewee prejudices may

be present in the form of overly negative complaints about the

situation in the hopes of someone helping change the situation.

Interviewees were mostly female; this may have created a slight

gender-bias in the diagnosis.

Conflicting Information Although conflicting information is a common problem in fieldwork,

the discrepancies between answers in the Mahila Milan focus group

and the individual PAPs was significant. It seemed negative

attitudes by some respondents were amplified as the session

progressed, demonstrating an overall and comparatively negative

attitude toward the relocation process and site next to individual

PAPs interviews.


Appendices

Appendix F: Additional Findings

There has been a reported increase in expenses for families in relocation sites due to fixed

maintenance costs (300 Rupees/month/tenement), although it has become apparent that the

tradeoffs of increased expenditure meant higher stability of water and electricity provision.

Bank involvement was inexistent in the relocation process. Since banks are keen to ‘tap a new

market’ and if this can be achieved through the formation of SHGs,51

as well as through an

understanding and trust-building of the urban poor, it is evident that this was not included in the

processes of the MUIP relocations.

With respect to private institutions, there is no change in the relationship between project affected

persons and formal mechanisms such as access to bank accounts. There have been reports of

private developers retaining tenure papers to accumulate the most possible TDRs as the market

value increases, although this may be related to the lack of formal registration of housing

cooperatives.

Unapparent were many changes in the governmental sphere, including political representation52

and, according to some sources, formal tenure. As cooperative registration was not completed, it

became apparent that there was no transfer of titles to the cooperatives. This evidence may lead

to the conclusion that little has changed to create an enduring institutional framework that is

inclusive and responsive toward the needs of affected individuals in the relocation process.

51 Mr. Abhisek Khanna, Chief Manager, ICICI Bank: Lending to the Poor. 52 Representative political structures may be connected in various ways, such as through patron-client relationship, however not in the sense that would be transformative to the relocation process in MUIP


Appendices

Appendix G: Semi-structured PAP Interviews APPENDIX 1 Interview Details to Project Affected People (1)

NUMBER 1

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Indu Singh

Location Gautam Nagar

Date 8/5/07

Time 15:00

Household Composition 2

Current Job Housewife(W), Driver(H)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Golibar road, Ghatkopar

2. Distance from previous location? 20 minutes by bus

3. Was the social network preserved? Yes

4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? MMRDA

5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? No choice

6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 15 days in advance of the survey list published on the site. 2-3 month

prior to relocation

7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? NSDF- Yes, not MM before relocation

8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? Are members of the MM and NSDF now

ECONOMIC:

9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? No

10. Distance to the jobs changed? 30 more minutes by bus

11.Change in income? No

12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. 300Rs per month for maintenance, and more amount spent for

the transportation.

13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Difficult to manage

SOCIAL:

14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Better cleanliness at overall level but more mosquitoes and bad water

still give an unhealthy environment

15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Keep previous

16. Has the quality of the water changed? Bad quality now, probably due to stored water supply from the

overhead water tank.

17. How are you able to access water now? Not available for 24 hours as earlier. 2 times a day

18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Better

19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?)

20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Not much, as they are new in the area.

POLITICAL/PHYSICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL:

21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes, but for the previous location.

22. Security of tenure?

23-1. Is there any change in perceptions and treatments of GOM towards you?

23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Self-respect increased

24. Do you have access to financial institutions now? No change

25. Do you have access to market or other services? Not so convinenient as earlier.

26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)?

26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Mixed feeeling. Better for the kids in terms of overall cleanliness but

still it has issues of mosquitoes and garbage dumps.

27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Don’t get the ‘homely’ feeling here due to a 30 year association with

the earlier location.

OTHERS:

28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Safety, hygiene, good society around.

29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Increase in expenditures and no 'homely' feeling.

Note: In the column of Current job, W refers to wife, H refers to husband, GM refers to grandmother, GF refers to grandfather, and B refers to brother.


Appendices

NUMBER 2

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Savita Jadhav

Location Gautam Nagar, Mankurdh

Date 8/5/07

Time 15:50

Household Composition 4

Current Job Tailoring business from home(W), Bank employee(H), College(2 kids)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:


2. Distance from previous location? 30 min travel by bus

3. Was the social network preserved? Relocated with other 160 people but are located in different flats & in

different buildings.


5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? No

6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 1 year in advance

7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation?

8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? Are members of the MM and NSDF.

ECONOMIC:

9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Not because of the relocation.

10. Distance to the jobs changed? Yes, husband has to travel 30 more min. bu bus. No change for the

wife.


12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. 300Rs per month for maintenance, and major amount is spent

for the transportation.to kids college.

13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Yes

SOCIAL:

14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? No

15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Closer now

16. Has the quality of the water changed? Yes, more satisfactory now.

17. How are you able to access water now? 2 times a day 20 min, more then previously.



20. Do you feel safe/secure now?


21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card?



23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you?


25. Do you have access to market or other services?

26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Built a partition in the room, to improve the layout.

26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general?

27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Quite satisfied.

OTHERS:

28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Safety, hygiene, water quality improved.

29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Increase in expenditures



Appendices

NUMBER 3

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Santosh Tupe


Date 8/5/07

Time

Household Composition 5(Wife, Husband, 1 kid Husband’s mother, father, brother

Current Job Housewife(W), No(H), Housewife(GM), Watchman(GF), Company(B)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:


2. Distance from previous location? 30 min. by bus

3. Was the social network preserved? No, was divided in two different sites.



6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 2-3 years prior to relocation

7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? No

8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? Are members of the MM and NSDF now.

ECONOMIC:




12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. 300Rs per month for maintenance, high electricity charges and

more amount spent for the transportation.

13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Yes.

SOCIAL:

14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? After coming here mother’s health deteriorated.

15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Keep previous doctor

16. Has the quality of the water changed? Not much


18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Better.Toilets inside the house


20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Yes


21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes, but for the earlier location.

22. Security of tenure? House allotment letter


23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Self-respect increased.

24. Do you have access to financial institutions now? No

25. Do you have access to market or other services? Keep previous markets


26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Bettter

27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? ‘Dislocated’

OTHERS:

28. Positive aspects of the relocation? No tension here - fear of evictions.

29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Increase in expenditures, distance from jobs and markets



Appendices

NUMBER 4

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Pandurang, Khedekar


Date 8/5/07

Time

Household Composition 5 (wife, husband, 2 sons, daughter-in-law)

Current Job Housewife(W)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:


2. Distance from previous location? 6 Rs for one way bus. 20 min distance

3. Was the social network preserved? yes


5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? Choice about the flat in the building was given

6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 1 year prior to relocation


8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? Are members of the MM and NSDF now

ECONOMIC:




12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes.

Increased by approx. 1000-1500 Rs per month

13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Yes, but difficult sometimes

SOCIAL:


15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation?

16. Has the quality of the water changed? No




20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Not much difference.





23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Yes, positive change.




26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Better here

27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Fine

OTHERS:

28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Good social bonding

29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Increase in expenditure



Appendices

NUMBER 5

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Nanda Bhanudas Sadigne


Date 8/5/07

Time

Household Composition 5 (Wife, Husband, Wife's mother, 2sons)

Current Job Housewife(W), VT office electricial(H), 1 kid going to college, the

other kid disabled

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:


2. Distance from previous location? 30 minutes by road

3. Was the social network preserved? Relocated together but seperated now in different buildings.



6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 5 years with notice 3 times prior to relocation



ECONOMIC:

9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Wife has lost the flower business done at earlier location.

10. Distance to the jobs changed?30 more minutes by bus

11.Change in income? Substantianlly reduced

12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes.300RPs per month for maintenance, and 800 Rs. Spent on

transportation.

13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Yes, but with great difficulty.

SOCIAL:

14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Better, except initial adjustment. Related physological dissatisfaction.


16. Has the quality of the water changed? Yes, have to boil and drink.

17. How are you able to access water now? Not available for 24 hours as earlier. 2 times per day



20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Not much




23-1. Is there any change in perceptions and treatments of GOM towards you? Because of the existence of M.M., relationship is somewhat getting

stronger.

23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Self-respect increased.



26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Bettter due to good sanitation facilities


27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Getting adjusted.

OTHERS:

28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Social life, No hassle here

29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Increase expenses and job loss


Appendices

NUMBER 6

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Noor Amina


Date 8/5/07

Time

Household Composition Wife, Hosband, 4 daughters, 1 son

Current Job Housewife(W), owner of private car(H)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Ghatkopar

2. Distance from previous location? Half an hour by bus

3. Was the social network preserved? Yes, part of it is relocated at the same site.

4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? Themselves


6. How much notice were you given prior to the move?


8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? No

ECONOMIC:


10. Distance to the jobs changed? No


12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes, mainly because of transportation (plus 150rp) and utility bills.


SOCIAL:



16. Has the quality of the water changed? Better

17. How are you able to access water now? All, but specific hours.


19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Keep previous

20. Do you feel safe/secure now? more criminality


21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes

22. Security of tenure? Yes

23-1. Is there any change in perceptions and treatments of GOM towards you? No

23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? No


25. Do you have access to market or other services? reduced


26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Insufficient garbage collection

27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here?

OTHERS:

28. Positive aspects of the relocation? More secure

29. Negative aspect of the relocation? More expenses


Appendices

NUMBER 7

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Hirabai Jadhav


Date 8/5/07

Time 15:00

Household Composition Wife, Husband, 2 kids

Current Job Housewife(W), Watchman in a bank(H)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Siddhart Nagar, Chembua

2. Distance from previous location? One STATION AWAY

3. Was the social network preserved? 20-25 households moved to Gotam Nagar out of 200-300 relocated.

4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? MMRDA negotiated with Assistant Metropolitan Commissioner to

change the site of the relocation.

5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? The family given a different site first, where they refused to go as it

was too far from their previous location.

6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 3-4 notices in advance in 2-3 month prior to relocation

7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? Were aware of SPARC, but did not have a formal interaction.

8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? Are members of the MM.

ECONOMIC:


10. Distance to the jobs changed? One station further


12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. 300RPs per month for maintenance, and some amount spent for

the transportation.


SOCIAL:

14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Better because of the hygiene.



17. How are you able to access water now? 2 times a day 20 min, more then previously.


19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Yes, school is even closer now.

20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Yes, safety increased.








26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Better for the kids.



OTHERS:




Appendices

NUMBER 8

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Krishna Patil


Date 8/5/07

Time

Household Composition Wife, Husband, 1 Kid

Current Job Lab technician, but does not work presently(H), Also in pharmacy(W)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Shelacam - different place in a same area

2. Distance from previous location? 10 minutes away

3. Was the social network preserved? Entirely kept, all community in the same building.


5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? Yes

6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 1 year in advance, every 2-3 months


8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? Member of the MM.

ECONOMIC:

9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Not because of the relocation.




the transportation.


SOCIAL:


15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Closer now.


17. How are you able to access water now? 2 times a day 20 minutes, more then previously.









24. Do you have access to financial institutions now? Not influenced by relocation.


26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Built a partition in the room, to improve the layout.



OTHERS:




Appendices

NUMBER 9

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Jahana Hakimmuddin


Date 8/5/07

Time

Household Composition Wife, Husband, 5 Kids

Current Job Mechanic in the garage(W)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Shelacam - different place in a same area

2. Distance from previous location? Relocation site - 10 minutes away , Transit Camp - 10km away

3. Was the social network preserved? Entirely kept, all community in the same building

4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? MMRDA negotiated with them in order to obtain a house, while

staying in a Transit Camp.


6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? Given no notice, so spent a week after the demolition of their house

on the road and then 6 months in a Transit Camp.


8. Are you currently a member of any one of them?

ECONOMIC:


10. Distance to the jobs changed? Closer



the transportation.

13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Yes, mentioned that 25% of people living in the same building

cannot afford to pay bills.

SOCIAL:

14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Yes, better. Comparable to the transit camp. Kids get sick less often.



17. How are you able to access water now? 2 times a day 20 minutes, more then previously.



20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Yes, more secure here.






24. Do you have access to financial institutions now? Not influenced by relocation


26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Better than in transit camp.


27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Comfortable, as social networks kept.

OTHERS:

28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Safety, hygiene, cleanliness.

29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Protracted relocation process, i.e. transit camp.


Appendices

NUMBER 10

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Salina


Date 8/5/07

Time


Current Job Housewife(W), Technician, works in Saudi Arabia(H)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Kurla

2. Distance from previous location? 15 minutes by train

3. Was the social network preserved? No, most people left in Vashinaka.

4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? MMRDA. But negotiated themselves relocation to Gotam Nagar from

Vashinaka.

5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? Vashinaka was a previous relocation site where they stayed for a year

and then moved to Gautam Nagar due to a water scarcity in

6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 2-3 months

7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? Knew SPARC before.

8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? No, husband is responsible for the finances.

ECONOMIC:


10. Distance to the jobs changed?


12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. Expenditures on transport to school + maintenance.

13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Consider 300Rs too much to pay for the maintenance.

SOCIAL:

14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Yes, comparable to the transit camp. Kids get sick less often.

15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? More convenient now.

16. Has the quality of the water changed?

17. How are you able to access water now? 2 times a day 20 minutes, more than previously.


19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) No, not convenient to reach school now.







24. Do you have access to financial institutions now? Not influenced by relocation

25. Do you have access to market or other services? Was much better before.

26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Better in terms of amenities being inside the room.


27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Would prefer to go back to initial place if they were able to leave.

OTHERS:

28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Amenities inside the room.

29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Social network not kept.


Appendices

NUMBER 11

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Santosh


Date 9/5/07

Time


Current Job Irons clothes(W)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Ghatkupor living in new residence now for 8 months

2. Distance from previous location? 30-40 minutes by bus

3. Was the social network preserved? Approx 25% of people of community moved, however they were

moved singularly.

4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? Relocated through MMRDA.

5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? No choice as they had problems with papers, transit accommodation

not offered.

6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? No notice but was on list.

7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? Yes

8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? MM

ECONOMIC:

9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Yes husband lost job due to time needed to chase MMRDA for a

home. Wife now irons for a living.

10. Distance to the jobs changed? Lost job but wife works from home.

11.Change in income? Income much less now

12. Is there any changes in your expenses?

13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Difficult as income is very low at the moment. Complains that they

had to pay bills not belonging to them.

SOCIAL:

14. Is there any change in your health since relocation?



17. How are you able to access water now? More frequent but is concerned.

18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.)




21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes not transferred.




24. Do you have access to financial institutions now?




27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? No jobs close by.

OTHERS:

28. Positive aspects of the relocation?

29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Job prospects in surrounding area.


Appendices

NUMBER 12

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Nelson


Date 9/5/07

Time

Household Composition Wife, Husband, 2 sons married

Current Job Housewife(W)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Chembur

2. Distance from previous location? 5km

3. Was the social network preserved? Yes, 200 people are relocated into two different areas.


5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? They requested different site and they got it.

6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 2 months

7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? Yes. One of the members were a member of NSDF.

8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? H+W, NSDF and MM member after coming.

ECONOMIC:


10. Distance to the jobs changed? Yes, 5Km, 18 minutes by walk.


12. Is there any changes in your expenses? 4000-5000rp per month for transportation.


SOCIAL:

14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Deteriorated due to mosquitoes.



17. How are you able to access water now? All but specific hours.

18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Better. Clean.

19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Keep Previous

20. Do you feel safe/secure now? More criminality





23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Better


25. Do you have access to market or other services? Reduced


26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? More polluted.

27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Ill, miss the old way of life.

OTHERS:

28. Positive aspects of the relocation? All facilities of the market.

29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Criminality. They want one police station, school, and hospital.


Appendices

NUMBER 13

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Shantaram Panben


Date 9/5/07

Time

Household Composition Wife, Husband, 2 girls, 2 sons

Current Job Housewife(W), Taxi Driver(H)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Chembur in road side

2. Distance from previous location? 5km

3. Was the social network preserved? Yes, 200 people are relocated into two different areas.


5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? They requested different site and they got it. Then are told to go to

Gautam Nagar.

6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 2 months


8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? H+W, NSDF and MM member after coming.

ECONOMIC:




12. Is there any changes in your expenses? 1500rp per month for transportation.


SOCIAL:



16. Has the quality of the water changed? No

17. How are you able to access water now? All but 1 and half hour.

18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Confortable, but they have to make a queue. Dirty in midnight.

19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Keep Previous

20. Do you feel safe/secure now? No. Do not feel safe.





23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Better


25. Do you have access to market or other services? Reduced. Market is Very far away.


26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? More polluted.


OTHERS:

28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Proud they own a house. Room is sufficient.

29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Maintenance. Market is far.


Appendices

NUMBER 14

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Usha Gudino


Date 9/5/07

Time


Current Job Housewife(W), Temporary worker(H)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Chembur

2. Distance from previous location? 5km, One station away by bus

3. Was the social network preserved? No



6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? Were sent to transit camp at Vadala for a year prior to relocation.

7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? NSDF- yes, Not MM before relocation.


ECONOMIC:

9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Yes, due to being in transit camp before for a year economic network

strongly weekned.

10. Distance to the jobs changed? N/A as husband gets only temporary jobs.

11.Change in income? Substantially

12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. 300RPs per month for maintenance, and more amount spent for

the transportation.

13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Manage with great difficulty.

SOCIAL:

14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Kids fall sick more here.


16. Has the quality of the water changed? Bad quality - oily water here.

17. How are you able to access water now? Not available for 24 hours as earlier. 2 times a day.


19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Children changed their school.

20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Not much.


21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? No

22. Security of tenure? House allotment letter.




25. Do you have access to market or other services? No change


26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Better

27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? OK

OTHERS:

28. Positive aspects of the relocation? They don’t want to go back.

29. Negative aspect of the relocation? They are still getting adjusted here.


Appendices

NUMBER 15

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Rajni Pawas


Date 9/5/07

Time 14:50

Household Composition Wife, Husband, 2kids, father in law, 2brothers in law

Current Job

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Ghatkopar - kanjumar

2. Distance from previous location? 30 minutes by bus



5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated?



8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? MM savings account.

ECONOMIC:

9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Yes, now husband is a driver.

10. Distance to the jobs changed? No as it changes all of the time.

11.Change in income? No.

12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. Vegetables are more expensive here.

13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Yes, but annoyed they had to pay maintenance bills of construction

workers.

SOCIAL:




17. How are you able to access water now?


19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) No.



21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes, but no ration shop close by.


23-1. Is there any change in perceptions and treatments of GOM towards you? Still feels government should be involved more.





26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Cleaner in previous location.

27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Doesn’t like the area.

Would like more transport and social infrastructure.

OTHERS:


29. Negative aspect of the relocation?


Appendices

NUMBER 16

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Vandana Sadu

Location Transit Camp

Date 9/5/07

Time


Current Job Housewife(W), Officer(H)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? City centre, 1 & half year before

2. Distance from previous location? Half an hour by train


4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? MMRDA, SPARC helped their relocation process.


6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? Survey is conducted 2~3 years before for ID number.

As soon as possible in relocation.



ECONOMIC:

9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Yes

10. Distance to the jobs changed? Yes, by train.

11.Change in income?

12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes, market and hospital increased, travelling decreased.

13. Are you able to pay utility bills?

SOCIAL:




17. How are you able to access water now?


19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Keep previous

20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Yes









26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Not good


OTHERS:


29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Environment, water


Appendices

NUMBER 17

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Sharada Kamat


Date 9/5/07

Time

Household Composition Wife, Husband, 3 kids, grandmother

Current Job Sell water(W)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Ghatkopar

2. Distance from previous location? Half an hour by bus

3. Was the social network preserved?

4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? themselves


6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? No notice



ECONOMIC:

9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Yes. Lost his shop.

10. Distance to the jobs changed? Yes, by train.

11.Change in income? Reduced, because the space of shop do not capture as many

customers as before.

12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. 200RPs per month for utility bills and transportation (highway)

13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Can not pay electricity bill.

SOCIAL:

14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Suffered at first when they came here.


16. Has the quality of the water changed? Worse

17. How are you able to access water now? Have to walk 5 minutes.

18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Dirty, not maintaining, mentioning that who is responsible for that?

19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Changed school, 20 minutes away.

20. Do you feel safe/secure now? No, feel difficult to secure because surrounded by strangers.










27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Feel difficult to secure.

OTHERS:

28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Acquired shelter.

29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Job has been lost.


Appendices

NUMBER 18

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Vanita


Date 9/5/07

Time

Household Composition Wife, Husband, 2kids, 1brother in law, 1sister in law

Current Job

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Siddhart colony Chembur to transit camp.

2. Distance from previous location?

3. Was the social network preserved? 27 families moved into transit together, 16 got permanent rooms in

full-accommodation.

4. Who conducted the actual relocation process?

5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? Wadala and here (shown the places).

6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 3 notices, 7,8,15th of dec.

7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? Knew SPARC.


ECONOMIC:

9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Yes, Wife had to leave job.

Husband still has job.

10. Distance to the jobs changed? Distance for husband has increased (+1hour).

11.Change in income? Yes due to wife losing job.

12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes here is more expensive.


SOCIAL:


15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Before yes, after no (has to travel back to original doctor).

16. Has the quality of the water changed? Little water.

17. How are you able to access water now? SPARC brings round tanker every 3-4days.

18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Community Toilets.

19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Keep previous & has to travel further (+30minutes) (45 / 15).



21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes but have to use other place.







26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Not good, environment not good.

27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Atmosphere not good.

OTHERS:




Appendices

NUMBER 19

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Bhimrao


Date 9/5/07

Time

Household Composition Husband, Wife, 4 SONS

Current Job

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Ghatkopar (in transit for 1 year)

2. Distance from previous location?

3. Was the social network preserved? Out of 52, 41 already has housing – community moved to 3 separate

locations goatham nagar, indira, kanjumar.



6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? No notice.

7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? SPARC - A couple of days before the demolitions.

8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? No.

ECONOMIC:

9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? No.


11.Change in income? No.


13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Much less. Water is 50 rupees a day.

SOCIAL:


15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Before he was close to a doctor but now there is no doctor.

16. Has the quality of the water changed? Less water availability.

17. How are you able to access water now? SPARC send water tanker every 3-4 days.

18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Community toilets.

19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Go to new school, had to drop out of old school.



21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes but has to go to old place.





25. Do you have access to market or other services? Getting closer. Kerosene is distributed.


26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Dirty there is a garbage dump close by and lots of flies.

27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Bad smell.

OTHERS:




Appendices

NUMBER 20

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Chandralekha Hagade

Location A household now closer to widened road after MUIP

Date 9/5/07

Time


Current Job

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Cembur

2. Distance from previous location? 15 minutes on foot







ECONOMIC:

9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation?



12. Is there any changes in your expenses? 10 RPs monthly for toilet. 10 - 500 RPs for water.

13. Are you able to pay utility bills? No. Did not pay for electricity in last 5 years.

SOCIAL:


15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Kept previous


17. How are you able to access water now? Tap from BMC. Quantity is sufficient.

18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) They have community toilet, but have to walk 5 - 6 minutes.

19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) 10 minutes walk.

20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Quite secure in area.







25. Do you have access to market or other services? No change. 10 - 15 minutes walk.


26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Dangerous, because road is quite close to their house.

27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Very much scared about relocation.

OTHERS:




Appendices

NUMBER 21

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Habiba


Date 8/5/07

Time 15:30

Household Composition 7 (2 females, 2 males, 3 children)

Current Job

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Chuna Bhati

2. Distance from previous location? 3 stations away, half an hour by train

3. Was the social network preserved? 6 families from the slum were moved together into the same building.

4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? MMRDA without explanation, surveying names of people and told

them to move.


6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 15 days notice. Hadn’t heard anything before.

7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? No. They knew 1 – 2 months after relocation.

8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? Are member of MM.

ECONOMIC:


10. Distance to the jobs changed? Was closer to job before.


12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Expenses before was Rs120 now Rs160. Consumption increased.


SOCIAL:

14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Better

15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Before – private clinics (more expensive). Now – Doctor in compound

(cheaper)


17. How are you able to access water now? Water is stored in overhead tanks and released for 1 hour (decided by

the committee) per day – 2 hours for some buildings.





21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes, but ration card not transferred so have to purchase groceries at

previous location.



23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? People have more respect for both husband and wife.



26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Like it here. Didn’t like it before.

26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Cleaner environment. safer for kids to play on balcony and in

compound.


OTHERS:




Appendices

NUMBER 22

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Deepak Shelar


Date 8/5/07

Time 15:55

Household Composition 6 (5 males, 1 female)

Current Job

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Chembur, Eastern Express Highway

2. Distance from previous location? 10 – 15 minutes


4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? MMRDA, not mentioning that there were 2 different relocation sites.

5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? Had a choice about the area but not of the building.

6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 3 months notice

7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? No (2 – 3 months after)


ECONOMIC:

9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Yes. Husband kept the same job. 3 kids were able to get jobs after

relocation.

10. Distance to the jobs changed? Yes, increase in distance (30 minutes).


12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Before expenses were less, Now – RPs 300 for maintenance plus food.


SOCIAL:


15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Yes. Before - had a family doctor (cheaper). Now -This doctor more

costly.

16. Has the quality of the water changed? Water is more consistent now.

17. How are you able to access water now? 1 – 2 hours per day from storage tanks.

18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Very satisfied – have own toilet.

19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Kids finished school. 1 children will attend college.



21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes, but food is more costly now because ration card is not

transferred.



23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Get more respect now.



26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? It is better than before.


27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Kids played around slum but have no friends here now.

OTHERS:




Appendices

APPENDIX 1 Interview Details to Project Affected People (23)

NUMBER 23

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Jahana Begum


Date 8/5/07

Time 16:15

Household Composition 5 (2 kids, 3 adults – 3 female, 1 male)

Current Job

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Chembur, Eastern Express Highway

2. Distance from previous location? 30 minutes



5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? Protested – given choice of transit camp.

6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? Heard rumours of the relocation for about 2 years; given 2 weeks

before actual relocation.

7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? Heard about SPARC at transit camp.


ECONOMIC:

9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation?



12. Is there any changes in your expenses? More or less the same.


SOCIAL:


15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Keep previous.


17. How are you able to access water now? Before 10 family shared one pipeline so cost was shared (cheaper).

Now – no family to share cost with (expensive).








23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Before - discriminated. Now - status has improved.



26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Like it better here, quieter, more peaceful.



OTHERS:




Appendices

NUMBER 24

FACE SHEET

Name of interviewee(s) Waheeda Shakil


Date 8/5/07

Time 16:35

Household Composition 4 (2 males, 2 females)

Current Job Dress maker(W), Road construction(H)

QUESTIONS

PROCESS:

1. Where were you previously located? Chembur (6 months in transit camp)

2. Distance from previous location? 10 – 15 minutes

3. Was the social network preserved? 15 – 20 households came but not at the same time - all relocated

here.



6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 1 week (sufficient time)


8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? No. Not interested.

ECONOMIC:

9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? No. Both kept job and no effect on customer.





SOCIAL:


15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Before - more expensive. Now - cheaper, nice.


17. How are you able to access water now? Before - Water was shared. Now - More expensive here.





21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes, but no ration shop here.



23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Remained the same – the say I got a house free of cost.



26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Feel much better here.



OTHERS:




Consulted Texts

Consulted Texts

Appadurai, Arjun (2001), “Deep Democracy: Urban Governmentality and the Horizon of Politics”,

Environment & Urbanization, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 23-43.

Bartlett, Sheridan (n.d.), The work of the Alliance in Mumbai and other cities: an alternative

model for responding to urban children in poverty, Save the children Sweden.

Burra, Sundar (2005), “Towards a pro-poor framework for slum upgrading in Mumbai, India”,

Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 67-88

Burra, Sundar (2003), Combining top-down and grassroots land approaches in Mumbai, UN-

Habitat, Habitat Debate 2003, Vol. 9, No4.

Burra, Sundar (1999), SPARC Housing Exhibitions, November 1999, DPU working papers No 104.

Chaplin, Susan E. (1999), "Cities, seweres and poverty: India’s politics of sanitation", Environment

and Urbanization, Vol.11, No.1, April.

Das, S.K. (1980), "Bombay", in Mahdu Sahrin (Ed.), Policies Towards Urban Slums, ESCAP, Bangkok,

pp. 101 113.

Deaton, Angus and Kozel, Valerie (2005), “Data and Dogma: The Great Indian Poverty Debate”,

World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 20, issue 2, p.177

Desai, Vandana (1999), “Anatomy of the Bobay NGO sector”, Environment & Urbanization, Vol.

11, No. 1, pp. 247-265.

Dreze J., and Sen A, (2002), India Development and Participation, second edition, Oxford

University Press, pp.307-310,

Government of Maharashtra (1997), Guidelines for the implementation of slum rehabilitation

schemes in Greater Mumbai, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.

Grant, R. and Nijman, Jan (2002), “Globalization and the Corporate Geography of Cities in the

Less-Developed World”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92 (2), pp. 320-

340.

Harris, Nigel (1995), "Bombay in a global economy; structural adjustment and the role of cities",

Cities, Vol.12, No.3, June, pp. 175 184.

Harris, N. et al. (1996), “Bombay and the international experience”, in Harris, N. and Frabricius, I.,

Cities & Structural adjustment, UCL Press, London, pp. 80-92.

Homeless International (2005), An Interview with Anil Kumar, Assistant General Manager, ICICI

Bank.

Levy, C. (1998) ‘Institutionalisation of Gender through Participatory Practice’ in Gujit, I. and M. K.

Shah (eds.) The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in Participatory Development.

Intermediate Technology Publications, London.


Consulted Texts

McKinsey (2003), Vision Mumbai - Transforming Mumbai into a World Class City, A Summary of

Recommendations, Bombay First, Mumbai and McKinsey and Company, Mumbai.

Mitlin, Diana (2003), “A Fund to secure land for shelter; supporting strategies of the organized

poor”, Environment & Urbanization, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 181-192.

MMRDA (n.d.), Regional Plan for the Mumbai Metropolitan Region 1996-2011

Mutatkar, Rohit (2005), Social group dispartities and poverty in India, Indira Gandhi Institute of

Development Research, Working Paper Series No WP2005-004, Sept. 1.

Mumbai Property Exchange (n.d.) Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Projects – MUIP Report.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (n.d.), City Development Plan.

Neuwirth, Robert (2004), 'Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World', Routledge,

London, ISBN 0 415 93319 6, Chapter 3: Mumbai: Squatter Class Structure, pp.101-142

Nitti, Rosanna and Shyamal Sarkar (2003), Reaching the Poor through Sustainable Partnerships:

The Slum Sanitation Program in Mumbai, India, Urban Notes, WB.

Patel, Sheela, Celine d’Cruz and Sundar Burra (2002), “Beyond evictions in a global city: people-

managed resettlement in Mumbai”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol 14, No 1, April 2002,

pp 159-177.

Patel, Sheela and Diana Mitlin (2001), The work of SPARC and its partners Mahila Milan and the

National Slum Dwellers Federation in India, IIED Working Paper 5 on Urban Poverty Reduction,

London.

Pugh, C. (1990), Housing and Urbanisation: A study of India, New Delhi and London, Sage.

Chapter IX: Bombay, pp. 253-286

Ruet, Joël, Saravanan V. S. and Zerah Marie-Hélène (2002), The water & sanitation scenario in

Indian Metropolitan cities, Centre de Sciences Humaines Occasional Paper No6.

SPARC (2003), Cities Alliance Project on Pro-poor Slum Upgrading Framework for Mumbai, India,

Revisited Report Submitted to Cities Alliance/United Nations Centre for Human Settlements,

June 2003.

SPARC Society for the promotion of Area Resource Centres (n.d.), Bringing citizens’ voice and

client focus into service delivery, case study Low Cost Housing in Urban Communities, India.

Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.

SPARC, NSDF and Mahila Milan Alliance (2005), Citywatch: India, selected articles.

Swaminathan, Madhura (1995), "Aspects of urban poverty in Bombay”, Environment and

Urbanization, Vol.7, No.1, April, pp. 133 143.

Tiwari, Piyush and Parikh, Jyoti (1999), “Housing paradoxes in India: is there a solution?”, Building

and Environment, vol. 35, issue 1, pp.59


Consulted Texts

Patel, Sheela (1990), "Street children, hotels boys and children of pavement dwellers and

construction workers in Bombay: how they meet their daily needs", Environment and

Urbanization, Vol. 2, No. 2, October, pp. 9-26.

Patel, S., (2004), “Bombay/Mumbai: globalisation, inequalities and politics”, in Joseph Gugler

(ed), World Cities Beyond the West: Globalization Development and Inequality, Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge pp.328-349.

Patel, Sheela and Celine D'Cruz (1993), "The Mahila Milan crisis credit scheme; from a seed to a

tree", Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 9-17.

Patel, Sheela and Mitlin, Diana (2004), “Grasroots-driven development: the Alliance of SPARC,

the National Slum Dwellers Federation and Mahila Milan”, in Mitlin, D. and Satterhwaite, D.

(Ed.), Empowering Squatter Citizen, Earthscan, London, pp. 216-241

SPARC (1990), “Developing new NGO lines”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 2, No. 1, April,

pp. 91-104.

SPARC (2003), Cities Alliance Project on Pro-poor Slum Upgrading Framework for Mumbai, India,

Revisited Report Submitted to Cities Alliance/United Nations Centre for Human Settlements,

June 2003.

SPARC (2004), extracts from Citywatch:India 2004 and Citywatch: India 2005.

mumbai urban infrastructure project: relocation and rehabilitation of project affected people

Documents

understanding proposal

rehabilitation of project

people student report

planning unit

university college london

web of institutionalization

private developers

private sector