14
K. A. Nakayama and M. S. Machado
5.2 Institutional Approach to Informal Settlements and Risk
Areas
About the institutional approach to informal settlements and as risky areas, it was
found that the MCDPs act together with the population informing the competent
urban planning department about the situation of the residents, mainly, when MCDPs
verify that a certain region is vulnerable to natural disasters. In response to the
informing warning, urban planning department publishes that the risk problem is
much more complex: resources are scarce to solve one of the major problems of
Curitiba Metropolitan Region (CMR).
The same context is not only verified in CMR, but also represents other Brazilian
municipalities. It is evident that the consequences of an environmental disaster have
a direct effect on the municipal budget. Emergency recovery costs are huge and
are rarely foreseen in municipal development plans. All respondents, both from the
municipal Civil Defense agencies and representatives of the local urban planning
departments, report the difficulty of having a budget forecast for the theme and
recognize the small amount of resources applied by the municipalities in this matter.
Despite the fact the conflict of irregular settlements and risky areas is a problem
verified in all municipalities interviewed, it is noted that the structure to resolve it is
still poorly solidified. Regarding the prevention duties of the MCDPs, it is verified
that they inform the municipality about the risk, however they merely reproduce the
alert report and expect the support or supervision from local authorities. As reported
by the agents, the priority is on emergency action.
It was observed on this thematic that the same problems cited before are the
causes of several barriers found in a continuous cycle of public administration, spatial
formation and difficulties to overcome the socio environmental vulnerability and to
consolidate a risk and natural disaster management policy in Brazil.
Interviews were conducted during the review process of some of the municipal
General Plans. Some of the previous General Plans (2010) were still valid and it did
not considered Law 12.608/2012. It is noticed that in cities where MCPD presents a
larger influence in urban planning decisions, there is a more integrated approach in
the commissions related to discuss the general plan reviews. In these cases, most of
public administration decision makers seemed to look for improving the system. In
cases where there was a medium and low level of NPCDP consolidation/integration
there were mainly three scenarios: (1) some municipalities aiming to integrate more
MCDPs into the urban planning process; (2) some MCDPs are participating in the
review process of general plans, but not actively influencing decision about land
use regulation considering risky areas; (3) in the worst cases, there is no formal
participation of MCPDs and civil defense authorities participate only in general plan
review public meetings if they are willing to do so.
K. A. Nakayama and M. S. Machado
5.2 Institutional Approach to Informal Settlements and Risk
Areas
About the institutional approach to informal settlements and as risky areas, it was
found that the MCDPs act together with the population informing the competent
urban planning department about the situation of the residents, mainly, when MCDPs
verify that a certain region is vulnerable to natural disasters. In response to the
informing warning, urban planning department publishes that the risk problem is
much more complex: resources are scarce to solve one of the major problems of
Curitiba Metropolitan Region (CMR).
The same context is not only verified in CMR, but also represents other Brazilian
municipalities. It is evident that the consequences of an environmental disaster have
a direct effect on the municipal budget. Emergency recovery costs are huge and
are rarely foreseen in municipal development plans. All respondents, both from the
municipal Civil Defense agencies and representatives of the local urban planning
departments, report the difficulty of having a budget forecast for the theme and
recognize the small amount of resources applied by the municipalities in this matter.
Despite the fact the conflict of irregular settlements and risky areas is a problem
verified in all municipalities interviewed, it is noted that the structure to resolve it is
still poorly solidified. Regarding the prevention duties of the MCDPs, it is verified
that they inform the municipality about the risk, however they merely reproduce the
alert report and expect the support or supervision from local authorities. As reported
by the agents, the priority is on emergency action.
It was observed on this thematic that the same problems cited before are the
causes of several barriers found in a continuous cycle of public administration, spatial
formation and difficulties to overcome the socio environmental vulnerability and to
consolidate a risk and natural disaster management policy in Brazil.
Interviews were conducted during the review process of some of the municipal
General Plans. Some of the previous General Plans (2010) were still valid and it did
not considered Law 12.608/2012. It is noticed that in cities where MCPD presents a
larger influence in urban planning decisions, there is a more integrated approach in
the commissions related to discuss the general plan reviews. In these cases, most of
public administration decision makers seemed to look for improving the system. In
cases where there was a medium and low level of NPCDP consolidation/integration
there were mainly three scenarios: (1) some municipalities aiming to integrate more
MCDPs into the urban planning process; (2) some MCDPs are participating in the
review process of general plans, but not actively influencing decision about land
use regulation considering risky areas; (3) in the worst cases, there is no formal
participation of MCPDs and civil defense authorities participate only in general plan
review public meetings if they are willing to do so.