Global Report on Human Settlements 2007 - PoA-ISS

138
Security of tenure
Box 6.1 The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and
security of tenure
Goal 7, target 11 of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) expresses the aim of achieving
‘significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020’. In terms of
monitoring, the ‘proportion of people with secure tenure’ was selected as one of the indicators
to measure progress in the implementation of this goal. Other indicators are related to access
to safe water and adequate sanitation, as well as the structural quality of dwellings and
overcrowding.
The MDGs are an important attempt to set global targets to achieve improvements in
the lives of a portion of the world’s slum dwellers. The global recognition of the need for such
improvements and the inclusion of security of tenure issues within the monitoring process are,
indeed, welcome developments.
Yet, how does this goal measure up within a human rights framework, which is based on
principles of entitlement, equity and non-discrimination? It is clear that in a world of 1 billion
slum dwellers, improving the lives of only 10 per cent of the world’s poorest citizens has to be
seen as the barest minimum that governments should aim at achieving .
Furthermore, the number of slum dwellers is not static. Projections indicate that the
number of slum dwellers is set to increase to some 1.3 billion by 2020, even if MDG 7, target
11 is achieved (see Table 5.2).
Forced evictions,
demolition of slums
and consequent
resettlement of slum
dwellers create
more problems than
they solve
carried out successfully, can result in the provision of infrastructure,
urban services and security of tenure for residents.
Slum upgrading is also very much an approach that is in line
with the Millennium Development Goal (MDG) on improving
the lives of slum dwellers (see Box 6.1). The Cities Alliance,
which through its Cities without Slums initiative, is directly
linked to the quantification of this target, 3 has developed a
set of essential guidelines for the implementation of slum
upgrading programmes (see Box 6.2).
Onsite upgrading is now seen as a far better option
than improvements requiring relocation and eviction. In fact,
Box 6.2 Essential ingredients for slum upgrading
The Cities Alliance notes that slum upgrading consists of a whole range of physical, social,
economic, organizational and environmental improvements undertaken cooperatively and
locally among citizens, community groups, private-sector actors and local authorities. It has
identified the following essential ingredients for any successful national slum upgrading
programme:
1 Demonstrate political will: both national and local governments must provide the vision,
commitment and leadership required to sustain nationwide upgrading.
2 Set national and city targets: set clear targets and ensure public-sector accountability by
engaging stakeholders in planning and monitoring results.
3 Put it in the budget: support slum upgrading as part of core business, nationally and locally.
4 Implement policy reforms: ensure necessary reforms dealing with land, finance and institutional
frameworks.
5 Ensure open and transparent land markets: reform closed and opaque land markets that
encourage corruption, patronage and exploitation of the urban poor, as well as constrain
capital markets.
6 Mobilize non-public-sector resources: engage slum dwellers themselves, who have both the
ability and the interest in promoting upgrading, and the private sector, which should be
engaged as a risk-sharing partner rather than a mere contractor to the public sector.
7 Prevent the growth of new slums: facilitate access to land and services by planning realistically
for future growth.
Source: Cities Alliance, 2003, p37
there seems to be wide agreement that forced evictions,
demolition of slums and consequent resettlement of slum
dwellers create more problems than they solve. Such activities
tend to destroy, unnecessarily, housing that is affordable
to the urban poor. Meanwhile, the new housing provided
has frequently turned out to be unaffordable. The result has
been that relocated households move back into slum accommodation
elsewhere. Perhaps even more serious,
resettlement frequently destroys the proximity of slum
dwellers to their employment sources. Thus:
Relocation … of slum dwellers should, as far as
possible, be avoided, except in cases where
slums are located on physically hazardous or
polluted land, or where densities are so high
that new infrastructure … cannot be installed.
In-situ slum upgrading should therefore be the
norm. 4
Regularization and upgrading can, of course, take various
forms, and initiatives that provide some measure of security
without necessarily involving the provision of individual
freehold titles are commonplace. For instance, some regularization
efforts simply recognize the status quo, thus
removing the threat of eviction, but not providing formal
security of tenure to dwellers in the community. Such
efforts, which are often more motivated by the possibility of
a positive political spin for the government concerned than
the rights of those affected, can be easily overturned and
generally can only offer temporary protection, without the
accrual of legally recognized rights. A second form of regularization
is the recognition of various forms of interim or
occupancy rights without the provision of formal tenure.
This is a more intensive approach, which provides a higher
degree of protection than simply recognizing current realities
and also strengthens the negotiating possibilities of the
residents of the settlement concerned.
Third, more official processes of regularization that
recognize the legitimacy of the process by which the urban
poor have acquired land for housing (without necessarily
providing legal tenure rights) are also increasingly commonplace.
Such an approach focuses on negotiations between
landowners and residents, rather than government regulation.
Furthermore, the approach requires simplification of
procedures for registering land rights. The main characteristic
of this approach is that property ‘becomes a political
right: a right to build, a “right to the city”’. 5 A major component
of this approach is the involvement of local authorities
in approving the use, location and layout of a particular
residential area.
Regularization efforts that protect people against
eviction, even if this falls short of legal protection and is
purely political in nature, can sometimes be the preference
of communities. In Karachi during the 1970s, for example,
the initiation of public works in low-income settlements led
to major investments in houses in expectation of regularization
and the receipt of long-term leases. In many of the
settlements, however, once the threat of eviction was
removed, people refused to pay for land title documents.