The increasing incidence of informal urban developments in Nigeria has fundamentally been driven by the inadequacies and strengths of the formal and informal urban development systems respectively (Rakodi and Leduka, 2004; Ikejiofor et al., 2004; Onyebueke and Ikejiofor, 2014; Lamond et al., 2015). The relevant literature demonstrates the inadequacies of the formal urban development system in terms of its excessive and prohibitive requirements have led to a substantial portion of the urban population to find alternative forms of development within the informal development system because they are unable to meet the requirements. For example, under the Nigeria’s conventional urban planning arrangement prospective developers must obtain building permits prior to the development of their lands. This requirement demands that prospective developers acquire pre-permit items, such as good and perfect land title (registered title) and architectural designs. However, the majority of the urban population especially the poor and the marginalised often do not have and, therefore, find alternative forms of development arrangement within the informal system. This resonates with the dualist school of thought propositions on the proliferation of the informal economy.
An extension to the above driver is the proposition of the legalist school of thought. Indeed, the country’s formal urban development legislation(s) and policies are often couched in languages that are not easily understood by the majority of people. These legislation and policies prescribe complex technocratic and beaucratic processes and procedures. Consequently, apart from the numerous demands they impose on urban residents and prospective developers, planning and urban development institutions and agencies are weak, inefficient, and do not have the resources both human and material to implement the requirements and enforce compliance (Arimah and Adeagbo, 2000; Aribigbola, 2007; Egbu et al., 2008; Aluko, 2011; Ogbazi, 2013). Closely aligned to this is some politicians and the elites unwillingness to support enforcement of planning and urban development policies for fear of losing elections or truncating the services rendered by inhabitants of informal settlements. Aribigbola (2007), for example, cites an incidence where a politician in Akure, Ondo State had to stop a demolition exercise scheduled by the relevant planning authority for the fear of losing elections.
Another driver for the proliferation of informal urban developments is the high cost imposed by formal planning and urban development policies. The formal urban development system service delivery is often slow and costly. For example, it takes over a year and 36 steps for a building permit to be granted (Egbu et al., 2008). Conversely, the informal urban development processes are said to be expeditious and less costly. For example, between 2006 and 2007, 641 residential layouts under the informal urban
development system were prepared in Akure compared to 20 under the formal development system (Aribigbola, 2007). This driver corroborates the voluntarist school of thought proposition for proliferation of informal developments. A further driver of informal urban developments in Nigeria is the responsiveness of the informal urban development process and the relevance of informal developments compared to the formal system. Unlike the formal development system, which is unable to produce adequate developable lands and tends to serve the needs of the few elite and the affluent (Ikejiorfor, 2006; Egbu et al.,2008), informal urban development processes are flexible and provide lands for various
developments for the greater majority of the urban population including the marginalised, such as the poor (Onyebueke and Ikejiofor, 2014). Indeed, informal developments constiute a larger portion of urban developments in Nigeria (Lamond et al., 2015). The foregoing observation reinforces the stance of the emerging school of thought on the need to incoporate informal development norms and practices in urban
development policies and programmes based on inclusion of all citizens, in particular, the marginalised, such as the poor and women in urban
development process activities and decision making. It also inspires sustainable urban development and governance, which subscribes to inclusion and participation of all urban sector stakeholders in urban development and governance based on collective action and development approaches.
Although some of the informal urban developments in Nigeria are good developments and are provided with some form of planning schemes, infrastructure and services, they are often criticised as a nuisance. This is because they are perceived to be unplanned, and not supplied with infrastructure and services. They, thus, breach planning and urban
development regulations and lead to loss of government revenue (Rakodi, 2007; Lamond et al., 2015). Where infrastructure and services are
provided, they are often sub-standard. Planning schemes prepared for informal developments usually do not incoporate the broad socio- economic development vision of urban areas and their regions. The land owners also often overlook some ancillary land uses, such as community parks, green belts, schools and social centres due to profit considerations or perceptions of their irrelevance. Lamond et al. (2015), for instance, cite such planning schemes in Minna where no provision was made for civic and cultural, educational and institutional land uses for 104 layouts prepared by residents. The schemes comprised 7,893 plots (7164 residential plots, 151 commercial plots and 528 industrial development plots).
In spite of their own social ordering as discussed in the previous sections, the informal urban development processes and activities are often not documented. This has often led to multiple sales of the same parcels of land, with aggrived parties usually harrasing or preventing prospective developers from developing their lands (Ikejiorfor, 2006). Further, with increasing commodification of land and urbanisation, the poor is being priced-out of lands supplied through the informal urban development system (Ikejiorfor, 2006; Lamond et al., 2015). The foregoing suggests that for informal urban development processes and developments to
contribute to the sustainable development agenda in Nigeria, there is a need for suitable policies to address their short comings. In the ensuing discussion, the policy response to informal urban developments in the country is examined.