Legalization frameworks in building regulations and their relationship with the reconciliation law in Egypt

Abstract EN

The issuance of the building reconciliation law no.

17 / 2019 has imposed a new reality, allowing legalization for illegal constructions which Egypt has been facing its challenges since decades.

new policies require in-depth research especially with the scarce availability of data concerning this topic.

therefore, this paper is an attempt to study the law issuance context and drivers from a legislative point-of-view, seeking answers to the following questions both nationally and internationally.

nationally, how formerly issued building laws in Egypt addressed illegal construction? did they allow for any type of legalization? how does the reconciliation law differ from those laws in dealing with illegal constructions? internationally, are there any similar international examples of reconciliation laws? if yes, how do they differ from the reconciliation law 17 / 2019 legalization’s framework? and how can we benefit from those experiences? the research starts by demonstrating the picture of the long-existing phenomenon, analysing the formerly issued building laws together with the reconciliation law, in terms of the measures of dealing with illegal constructions using an inductive methodology.

then, conducting a comparative analysis between those laws, regarding the allowed and disallowed items for legalization, to understand the difference in the dealing measures.

then an analytic discussion of the law’s framework is conducted, paired with a comparison between the reconciliation law and other similar international examples in terms of the process framework and mechanisms.

results show that; former building laws in Egypt had all set the mechanism for legalization within their frameworks but with varying proportions.

all formerly ruling building laws, with their amendments failed to contain or deter the increasing building violations at their times which is the reason why the phenomenon continued and thus law 17 / 2019 was later introduced.

the law allowed for legalizing most of the building violations in a rather flexible manner than before, but multiple issues appeared throughout its analysis.

therefore, recommendations include the necessity of making quick action plans to maintain and strengthen the rule of law, combining both deterrence-based and incentive-based mechanisms, especially with the delay in the reconciliation process, defining the reasons for the process delay to be eliminated.

plans should be made to protect the rights of law-abiders and special consideration should be made for vulnerable and disadvantaged group.

plans should be made on dealing with unlegalized buildings, those which didn’t apply for legalization, as well as dealing with similar future violations after the law’s process completion to facilitate the incorporation of acceptable violations in the formal realm.

comprehensive studies should be made to find practical means of achieving better urban integration of the legalized buildings, upgrading quality of life, and preserving the planned urban and architectural character of neighbourhoods to overcome the effect of the law’s generalization in dealing with violations of different natures and contexts, as well as overlooking of various important factors such as quality of life indicators, environmental impact controls, sanitation, natural lighting, ventilation, and energy consumption.

supervision and monitoring mechanisms should be included in the law’s framework for higher transparency and increase public trust of the process and the issued decisions.