Global Report on Human Settlements 2007 - PoA-ISS

126
Security of tenure
Market-based
evictions … are
increasing both in
terms of scale …
and as a proportion
of the total …
eviction tally
Market-driven
displacements may
also result from in
situ tenure regularization,
settlement
upgrading and basic
service provision
Market evictions …
can easily generate
new homelessness
and new illegal
settlements
position taken on these questions under human rights law
may be one way that a new approach to tenure can be
encouraged, particularly when these evictions are carried
out in ways clearly contrary to human rights law. Reducing or
eliminating what are often referred to as ‘market evictions’,
however, presents another set of challenges.
Evictions of those working in the informal economic
sector have been registered in a range of countries.
Operation Murambatsvina (also referred to as Operation
Restore Order) in Zimbabwe resulted not only in the demolition
of housing, but in mass evictions of informal traders as
well, which, in turn, drastically increased unemployment
and further undermined both the formal and informal
economies in the country (see also Box 5.14). Additional
large-scale evictions of informal enterprises have been
reported in Bangladesh, where at least 10,868 homes and
businesses were demolished in 2004, and in Nigeria, where
some 250,000 traders, kiosks and residences were
destroyed in 1996. 36
Market-based evictions
Moralists used to complain that international
law was impotent in curbing injustices of
nation-states; but it has shown even less
capacity to rein in markets that, after all, do not
even have an address to which subpoenas can
be sent. As the product of a host of individual
choices or singular corporate acts, markets offer
no collective responsibility. Yet responsibility is
the first obligation of both citizens and civic
institutions. 37
Another key trend shared by most countries – regardless of
income – is the growing phenomenon of market-based
evictions. Although precise figures are not available,
observers have noted that such evictions are increasing both
in terms of scale (e.g. the number of persons/households
evicted annually) and as a proportion of the total global
eviction tally. To cite a not untypical case, it has been
estimated that some 80 per cent of households in Kigali,
Rwanda, are potentially subject to expropriation or marketdriven
evictions. 38 Market evictions, most of which are not
monitored or recorded by housing organizations, which tend
to restrict their focus to forced evictions, are caused by a
variety of forces. These include urban gentrification; rental
increases; land titling programmes; private land development
and other developmental pressures; expropriation measures;
and the sale of public land to private investors. Marketdriven
displacements may also result from in-situ tenure
regularization, settlement upgrading and basic service provision
without involvement of community organizations or
appropriate accompanying social and economic measures
(such as credit facilities, advisory planning or capacitybuilding
at community level), and this may give rise to
increases in housing expenditure that the poorest segment
of the settlement population is not able to meet. When
combined with increases in land values and market pressures
resulting from tenure regularization, the poorest households
will be tempted to sell their property and settle in a location
where accommodation costs are less. This commonly
observed progressive form of displacement results in the
gradual gentrification of inner city and suburban low-income
settlements.
Because market-based evictions are seen as inevitable
consequences of the development process in the eyes of
many public authorities, and due to the fact that negotiations
between those proposing the eviction and those affected are
not uncommon, this manifestation of the eviction process is
often treated as acceptable and even voluntary in nature.
Some may even argue (albeit wrongly, in many cases) that
such evictions are not illegal under international law and
thus are an acceptable policy option. However, one view
suggests:
Disguising a forced eviction as a ‘negotiated
displacement’ is usually seen as ‘good governance’
practice. It is less risky, in political terms,
than a forced eviction; it is less brutal and,
accordingly, less visible as it can be achieved
following individual case-by-case negotiations.
Most observers consider that the very principle
of negotiating is more important than the terms
of the negotiations, especially regarding the
compensation issue, even when the compensation
is unfair and detrimental to the occupant. 39
While all forms of eviction, forced and market based, are
legally governed by the terms of human rights law, compensation
in the event of market-based evictions tends to be
treated more as a discretionary choice, rather than a right of
those forced to relocate. Because one’s informal tenure
status may limit evictees from exercising rights to compensation
and resettlement if they are subjected to market
evictions, these processes can easily generate new homelessness
and new illegal settlements. Even when compensation
is provided, it tends to be limited to the value of a dwelling
and not the dwelling and the land plot as a whole, with the
result being greater social exclusion. In the absence of legal
remedies, adequate resettlement options or fair and just
compensation, market-based evictions lead to the establishment
of new informal settlements on the periphery of cities,
and tend to increase population pressure and density in
existing informal inner-city settlements. This usually results
in deterioration in housing conditions and/or increases in
housing expenditure and commuting costs for displaced
households.
Expropriation and compulsory acquisition
International human rights standards, intergovernmental
organizations, a growing number of governments and many
NGOs have embraced the view that forced eviction – or, for
that matter, virtually every type of arbitrary or unlawful
displacement – raises serious human rights concerns and
should be excluded from the realms of acceptable policy. Yet,
all states and all legal systems retain rights to expropriate or
compulsorily acquire private property, land or housing (e.g.