Editorial: Documenting by the undocumented

Abstract

Environment & Urbanization Copyright © 2012 International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED). Vol 24(1): 1–10. DOI: 10.1177/0956247812438364 www.sagepublications.com Sheela Patel and Carrie Baptist were invited to write the editorial for this issue of Environment and Urbanization, which is on “Mapping, enumerating and surveying informal settlements and cities”. The theme was suggested by Sheela Patel, who is on the Journal’s Advisory Board and who has worked for more than two decades with lowincome communities in India in developing communityled documentation. Sheela Patel and Carrie Baptist also encouraged many individuals and organizations they know and who work on this topic to submit papers, and we the Editors are very grateful to them for their help in developing this issue of the Journal as well as for writing the editorial. The “Adapting cities to climate change” and “Feedback” sections in the editorial were written by the Editor. To be counted in city surveys and to have documents to prove that you have been counted and have an address implies that you (and often your neighbourhood) are considered part of the legal city. To have no official document to prove your identity or your address often means being denied access to public services and entitlements in urban areas – for instance, connections to piped water supplies and sewers, household waste collection, and even schools, health care services and the rule of law. It often means having no possibility of opening a bank account, of obtaining insurance or of getting on the voter’s register.(1) A legal address can provide some protection against your house being bulldozed or, should it be, of getting some compensation as opposed to none. Perhaps as many as one billion people live in informal settlements in urban areas where most lack identity documents and official documents confirming their right to live there. There is also a lack of data about informal settlements – their scale, boundaries, populations, buildings, enterprises – and the needs of their inhabitants. This also implies their exclusion from government policies and public investments. All informal settlements exhibit some aspects of illegality, but they cannot be considered marginal or exceptional when they house between one-third and twothirds of the population of so many cities. This also means that they provide a very large proportion of these cities’ workforce. They represent important and persistent forms of urbanism that have multiple and complex links with the rest of the city. Many also have long histories. A lack of documentation about these informal settlements contributes to a lack of understanding about their importance to city economies. It serves as an excuse for public sector agencies not to provide infrastructure and services. It also means that there is no evidence to counter the inaccurate claims by politicians or civil servants that those living in informal settlements are law breakers or unemployed migrants who should go back to rural areas. This issue of Environment and Urbanization has 11 papers on the mapping and documentation of informal settlements. All but one relates to the engagement of the residents of these settlements and their own organizations in this mapping and documentation, and most include one or more authors who were engaged in the process the papers describe. This focus on communityled documentation might seem unusual. Why should the inhabitants of informal settlements, who almost always have difficult relations with local governments, document themselves? For what purpose? Since all informal settlements show some aspects of illegality, might not this documentation be used against them? And surely such documentation is the responsibility of government bodies? Shouldn’t household surveys be designed and implemented by professionals in order to be accurate, objective and implemented across the whole city? There have been some papers on community-driven mapping and documentation in previous issues