Welcome to module two of the Housing Justice course and got them pan with the Indian Institute for Human Settlements here in Bangla. When we talk of cities in the south across the world, a set of words is known to all of us, even if we may not always realize it favelas. Colonial popularity, Ashwari besties, katia bodies, ubiquitous in languages across many parts of the world, is a word that tries to capture a housing form. That often gets reduced in english to the slum for a course on housing justice. This existing about vulnerable housing form in one way, meant to mark all that is wrong with cities that the urbanist, jennifer Robinson. Once called big but not powerful, must be a fundamental question we tackle. That's what we're going to do in this module, but what we are going to do is talk about them as popular settlements. Drawing on an english translation from our Spanish colleagues. So, start at the beginning, what are popular settlements in many cities in the world, with state and markets, formal and informal. Unable to provide the option of legal, adequate and formal housing, popular settlements have been the response of people building their own homes. It's important to recognize that this is not a marginal response in many cities of the world. The largest stock of affordable housing where working folks actually live has not been built by the state. It has not been built by the formal market, it has been built by people themselves. Latin America is called this auto construction, the idea of building habitation at scale over time. The question of time is pivotal here. This is not housing that is built in a single unit, where the water is already flowing in the tap when you come in and close the door behind your home. This is housing that is built brick by brick, wall by wall, floor by floor, mirroring the life of people who live in it while it is built. Auto construction is about a form of housing that centrally reminds us that one of the actors of housing justice are people in communities themselves. The state is always present here, the former market is always present here. So popular settlements are not outside of parallel, but their presence of state and market actors is negotiated. Sometimes this negotiation is cooperative developmental. Sometimes it is conflictual putting the state and communities next to each other, deciding how much entitlement at what time. The truth of popular settlements in many ways is they represent precisely the kind of agency and resilience that communities have had to show. But it is equally true that popular settlements face vulnerabilities that we cannot afford to not recognize. One of the core vulnerabilities they face is that the only way to build these settlements is to do them in a tension with the formal logics of law, property and planning. Not that I use the word tension, it is too easy to draw clean lines of legal and illegal, formal or informal. But in the auto constructed landscapes, particularly of cities of the global South, with the state ever present in negotiating, these are not the binaries in which we speak of housing. The tension, however, take specific forms and is ever present. Let's define it a little bit more precisely. We're shifting our question now to think about not what do we do about popular settlements. They are not a problem to be solved. It is instead to say, how can we work with popular settlements to enable them to both back their own agency. But also address and find ways around their vulnerabilities. Look at our framework from the first module we talked about housing justice In four key ways affordability, adequacy, accessibility and viability. The popular settlement is affordable. It is it's core concern, though, we must remember that over time that affordability may shift generations of auto construction. Mean that in different parts of the world, what was once the affordable popular settlement is today a consolidated neighborhood with the risk of changing rent and ownership biographies. The settlement is accessible indeed, popular settlements remain one of the most socially cohesive absorption spaces of cities able to take in a new migrant just getting out of the bus station. But also hold lives for a number of decades. The popular settlements are viable because they are built precisely in locations where transportation linkages to employment proximity actually work. And the longer they consolidate, the longer we have evidence of the fact that these locations are viable. But the viability is threatened in one way, we must not forget very often, if popular settlements use vacant land in cities, that land is vacant for the reason. And that land is often vacant because it holds environmental risk. Think of the settlements, you know, in your cities, on hill slopes, prone to landslides next to water bodies on riverbanks and lake sides. In low lying flood prone areas under high tension power lines next to polluting industrial estates. So therefore in one way, the viability is faced with the question of mitigating and adapting to risk, but also is certainly prioritizing proximity to employment. So where the challenge comes for popular settlements is fundamentally inadequacy. Remember that we defined adequacy on three Clear Parameters. The question of secure tenure, the question of adequate infrastructure and services at the settlement level and the adequacy of the building unit. Now, what's important for us is to think about the fact that making popular settlements more adequate. In fact helping popular settlements improve their own adequacy by supporting them to do so is precisely the work that your interactive dashboard does this week. In this module, there are case studies from around the world that we want you to spend some detailed time in. In thinking about the ways in which different communities, different state actors have tried to work together in order to make popular settlements more adequate. So that their affordability, their accessibility, their viability has a chance to really transform people's lives. There are four kinds of case studies and interactive dashboard. The first takes a tenure based entry point. It does it through land. It talks about giving ownership of land to popular settlements, where they are will take the case of a land titling scheme in two states in India for this, in Punjab in Orissa. The second set of case studies also works on a 10 year based approach, but does so through planning here. We look into Brazil's city statute and the notion of using inclusive zones of special social importance in order to reserve land for adequate and affordable housing. Now, these are both approaches that work one through ownership and the other through regulating the use of land, trying to restructure our markets. The third set of case studies looks at service plus tenure based approaches. In our two of our three companies of adequacy, here will first start with what is called Institute upgradation. A approach that emphasizes improvement in settlement level services and tenure rather than the improvement of the individual dwelling unit. We look at Mexico, we look at Brazil, we look at Thailand, we look at India and we look at South Africa for examples of widespread upgrading at different scales. The fourth set of case studies within service centennial is redevelopment. In redevelopment cases, services and tenure go up. But the dwelling unit also fundamentally transforms. This is a model of housing in which the unit itself becomes an occupation. Often the transformation of built popular settlement landscapes into vertical apartment style buildings that we have begun to see across the world. We look closely at examples from Singapore, Jakarta, India and South Africa on this form of redevelopment. And our final set of case studies will look at resettlement where the popular settlement is moved from its original location somewhere else. Here will look to Addis Ababa and to Delhi cases where resettlement has been happening at a large scale. We'll ask a fundamental question about resettlement. Approximate resettlement can retain viability and improve tenure, as well as improve services and the dwelling unit. But the military settlement becomes peripheral. As you'll see in the case of Delhi, its links in our framework to viability often breaks any gains made, inadequacy and affordability. So think of these four approaches as you work with the interactive dashboard across the different cases. And take apart the idea of helping or solving the problem of the popular settlement. And instead, let us begin to reframe ourselves as partners that are able to work with the agency of people who have always been the ones that have led policy and practice. And built the cities that we are trying now to take to the next articulation of just and equitable outcomes. We'll see you in the next module.