The planning approach evolution in Egypt

The evolution of the Egyptian planning approach can be divided into two main phases: a comprehensive (traditional) planning approach before 2006, and, since 2006, a strategic planning approach.

The comprehensive planning method was the most popular method until the end of 2005. It was based on the old Planning Law No.03/198328.

This approach put forward inclusive objectives, and then tried to achieve comprehensive solutions through the planning process. However, it was difficult to utilise a comprehensive solution to achieve all governmental objectives simultaneously. This is what actually happened to the vast majority of spatial plans developed during this phase. They were technically rational but encountered considerable difficulty in implementation. Moreover, using the comprehensive planning approach led to much waste of resources, effort, time and money in gathering all the information about the community or area and then trying to formulate comprehensive planning solutions (Shalaby 2012). The master plan, which is considered to be the technical product of the comprehensive planning model, is a static product, unable to keep up with the changes occurring in the Egyptian context. Thus, comprehensive development goals and solutions are not required, but rather the Egyptian planning context needs incremental targets that it can access easily and effectively to create real development on the ground (Bayoumy 2007).

In preparing the plans, the national government remained the main actor in control of the planning process in Egypt (Table 4-5). As the central authority, it

27 _{The legal basis for planning in Egypt stems from two different key laws: the Planning Law no. 70/1973,}

which regulates the process of developing the national socio-economic plan; and the Building Law no. 119/2008, which regulates the process of strategic planning at different levels.

134

formulated the plans (through GOPP or TDA), organised the planning work, and determined the technical product of the planning process, in order to achieve government objectives within the national policy framework. Thus, the central government dominated the whole planning process until the middle of the 1990s (Bayoumy 2007). Then the state moved towards using a central-oriented method to manage the planning process through joint technical planning teams and governmental consulting centres to prepare highly technical plans without the participation of either the private sector or local people in the planning process (Shalaby 2012).

The comprehensive approaches to spatial planning largely failed to provide plans commensurate with the continuously changing governance in Egypt (Hassan, Hefnawi & Refaie 2011). The strategic planning approach was used to mitigate these comprehensive deficiencies with the preparation of the Strategic Urban Planning for Small Cities (SUPSC) in 2006. The SUPSC is considered to be the main reason for the preparation of a new spatial planning law (Building Law in 2008). This law included obliging the state to put forward a national framework and the governmental bodies to carry out strategic planning for the Egyptian areas within this frame (Shalaby 2012). The strategic approach is based on an ever-evolving vision, rather than being static, according to the SWOT analysis for existing situations. Furthermore, the strategic planning steps are intertwined and flexible to allow the path, in any phase of planning process, to be corrected and enhanced because they incorporate a continuous process of survey and analysis (Bayoumy 2007).

During this period, the state tried to prepare strategic plans based on the views of the technical planning teams in consultation with the stakeholders29 _{through two}

workshops: one in the pre-planning stage to explain the aim and objectives of the project (the public did not share in determining the objectives); and the second at the end of the planning stage, to discuss the proposed activities within the spatial boundaries of the plan (Haez).30 _{After the Building Law was issued in 2008, Egypt}

focused on widening the role of public participation in strategic planning, with GOPP

29 _{The author has experience of being involved as a team leader of a consultation office in preparing about 100}

strategic plans for villages and cities (2006-2010).

30 _{Haez’s outline encompasses the added and existing area of the villages or cities where the law criminalises}

135

changing its Terms Of Reference (TOR) for the strategic planning of the cities and villages. This tried to prevent centralised decision-making and promote public participation in the planning process. But this has remained largely tokenistic (EC-17).

To conclude, until now the Egyptian planning system has been using approaches and models that other countries, throughout the world, were using in the 1960s. This was due to the nature of the Egyptian government, based on centrality in decision-making and state control of the planning process. This context also had a strong influence on delays in adopting strategic planning approaches and public participation until 2006. After 2006, international NGOs tried to apply a strategic rather than a comprehensive planning approach. This was driven by stakeholders or local communities, but has failed largely owing to state policy. Consequently, Egypt needs to transfer from token public participation (the state is manipulating participation) to real participation and inclusion of different stakeholders to increase networks, partnerships, information sharing and practical strategies (Hassan 2010).

Table (4-5) Planning approach evolution in Egypt

The planning system phases

Planning approaches Procedural

methods Roles (who makes/shares in the plan)

First phase: after the 1952 revolution until 2005 Comprehensive planning approach - Central methods

- It was dominated by central authority - Central-oriented method

Techno-planning team and governmental consulting centres

Second phase: after 2006 until now Strategic planning approach

- Central-oriented method with limited public participation (before 2008)

- Techno-planning team, governmental consulting centres and elected representatives of private sectors.

- Central-oriented method with public participation (after 2008) - Techno-planning team, governmental consulting centres and elected representatives of private sectors, local communities and NGOs but still the government selects them.

Source: The author