Global Report on Human Settlements 2007 - PoA-ISS

140
Security of tenure
It would be foolish
to pass from one
distortion – that the
slums are places of
crime, disease and
despair – to the
opposite that they
can be safely left to
look after
themselves
Legalization through
amnesties …
provide varying
degrees of political
security of tenure,
rather than legal
security of tenure
channels government funds, in the form of infrastructure
subsidies and soft housing loans, directly to poor communities.
These communities are then responsible for the
planning and carrying out of improvements to their housing,
environment and basic services and manage the budget
themselves. 8
As argued in Chapter 5, while the question of security
of tenure and access to the registration system can be
complex and cumbersome for poor communities, in-situ
upgrading of settlements has been widely used as an entry
point for improving living conditions. The practical negotiations,
dialogues and interfaces undertaken between
authorities and communities in a number of such settlements
upgrading initiatives have in fact contributed to
exploring and establishing more acceptable and viable tenure
systems at the country level (see Box 6.4).
Limits of community-based upgrading and
regularization
In the decades to come, programmes similar to those
described above may or may not prove to have been the
wisest policy route. But whether it succeeds or fails, this
approach arose due to the historical and (perhaps even)
structural inabilities of either the state or the market to
provide safe, secure, affordable and accessible housing to
everyone within a given society. Again, as if by default,
governments now turn to the people themselves as the only
sources of energy and resources that can hope to transform
the informal city into an increasingly desirable place in
which to live and work. To a degree, such an approach has
much to offer: it can empower people and communities to
determine their own fate; it can ensure that people are
active participants within an increasingly democratic urban
development process; and it can ‘enable’ them to build
housing and communities that best suit their needs and
wishes.
And yet, it can also be simply that neither the state
nor the private sector are sufficiently interested in undertaking
legal reforms and making the infrastructure and other
investments needed to actually transform poor communities.
Thus, the poor have no other option than organizing and
pooling their common resources and resolving to improve
the places where they reside. It would, however, be unwise
to disregard the reservations raised to increasing emphasis
on sweat equity: ‘It would be foolish to pass from one distortion
– that the slums are places of crime, disease and despair
– to the opposite that they can be safely left to look after
themselves.’ 9 It is widely recognized that the withdrawal of
the state from many of the public provision sectors, coupled
with the privatization of previously public goods, has had a
major impact on increases in poverty and inequality during
the 1980s and 1990s. The growing weakness (or unwillingness)
of central and local governments in many countries
means that good governance with respect to securing
housing, land and property rights for all, including security of
tenure, is increasingly absent. When this is combined with a
lack of democratic decision-making and democratic participation,
as well as inappropriate regulatory frameworks that are
increasingly anti-poor in orientation, the result is the cities
we see today in most developing countries (i.e. in which
growing numbers of people are forced into informality
simply because they have no other option). In such contexts,
upgrading and regularization will be of limited assistance.
Within a truly democratic city, existing in a truly
democratic nation, where the rule of law and human rights
flourish and are taken as seriously as they are intended to be,
the importance of community-based action is, of course,
beyond question. However, there is a danger in relying too
heavily on the poor to help themselves without a corresponding
increase in commitment by governments and the
international community to develop legal and regulatory
frameworks that are appropriate, that are consistent with the
scale of the problem and which actually succeed in providing
security of tenure for everyone, everywhere. This will only
result in current trends of slum growth continuing into the
future. Involving the community in the security of tenure
process is one thing; but supporting policies that place an
over-reliance on the community, however, is another issue
entirely.
TITLING AND
LEGALIZATION
During the last few years there has been an increasing focus
on titling to achieve the goal of security of tenure for all. The
primary argument has been that the provision of property
titles to the world’s slum dwellers and those living ‘illegally’
will not only give them rights to land and property, but
because of the ability to use land as collateral, will also facilitate
their access to credit. 10 Issuing of freehold titles is,
however, not the only way to achieve security of tenure in
informal settlements. Many countries have years of experience
with simpler and less expensive responses.
Countries such as Turkey, Egypt and Brazil, in particular,
have seen years of official tolerance of illegal settlements
followed by periodic legalization through amnesties (see Box
6.5). Such approaches are often quite pragmatic responses
to political problems. Moreover, they provide varying
degrees of political security of tenure, rather than legal
security of tenure. In practice, however, the perception
within the communities concerned may well be that their
level of security of tenure is quite high (see Box III.1).
However, without simultaneous regularization measures
being undertaken, such legalization does not generally result
in greater access to services and infrastructure, nor does it
simplify the registration of housing, land and property
rights. 11 Land titling with the provision of freehold title is
closely linked to the commonly recognized process of
adverse possession (see Box 6.6). This is a mechanism for
awarding secure land tenure in a way that is associated with
minimal institutional requirements. The requirement that a
beneficiary has to have had possession and use of the land
for a specified period of time has several positive consequences.
It eliminates the risk of past owners suddenly
surfacing and claiming the land, while at the same time