Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

126Security of tenureMarket-basedevictions … areincreasing both interms of scale …and as a proportionof the total …eviction tallyMarket-drivendisplacements mayalso result from insitu tenure regularization,settlementupgrading and basicservice provisionMarket evictions …can easily generatenew homelessnessand new illegalsettlementsposition taken on these questions under human rights lawmay be one way that a new approach to tenure can beencouraged, particularly when these evictions are carriedout in ways clearly contrary to human rights law. Reducing oreliminating what are often referred to as ‘market evictions’,however, presents another set of challenges.Evictions of those working in the informal economicsector have been registered in a range of countries.Operation Murambatsvina (also referred to as OperationRestore Order) in Zimbabwe resulted not only in the demolitionof housing, but in mass evictions of informal traders aswell, which, in turn, drastically increased unemploymentand further undermined both the formal and informaleconomies in the country (see also Box 5.14). Additionallarge-scale evictions of informal enterprises have beenreported in Bangladesh, where at least 10,868 homes andbusinesses were demolished in 2004, and in Nigeria, wheresome 250,000 traders, kiosks and residences weredestroyed in 1996. 36Market-based evictionsMoralists used to complain that internationallaw was impotent in curbing injustices ofnation-states; but it has shown even lesscapacity to rein in markets that, after all, do noteven have an address to which subpoenas canbe sent. As the product of a host of individualchoices or singular corporate acts, markets offerno collective responsibility. Yet responsibility isthe first obligation of both citizens and civicinstitutions. 37Another key trend shared by most countries – regardless ofincome – is the growing phenomenon of market-basedevictions. Although precise figures are not available,observers have noted that such evictions are increasing bothin terms of scale (e.g. the number of persons/householdsevicted annually) and as a proportion of the total globaleviction tally. To cite a not untypical case, it has beenestimated that some 80 per cent of households in Kigali,Rwanda, are potentially subject to expropriation or marketdrivenevictions. 38 Market evictions, most of which are notmonitored or recorded by housing organizations, which tendto restrict their focus to forced evictions, are caused by avariety of forces. These include urban gentrification; rentalincreases; land titling programmes; private land developmentand other developmental pressures; expropriation measures;and the sale of public land to private investors. Marketdrivendisplacements may also result from in-situ tenureregularization, settlement upgrading and basic service provisionwithout involvement of community organizations orappropriate accompanying social and economic measures(such as credit facilities, advisory planning or capacitybuildingat community level), and this may give rise toincreases in housing expenditure that the poorest segmentof the settlement population is not able to meet. Whencombined with increases in land values and market pressuresresulting from tenure regularization, the poorest householdswill be tempted to sell their property and settle in a locationwhere accommodation costs are less. This commonlyobserved progressive form of displacement results in thegradual gentrification of inner city and suburban low-incomesettlements.Because market-based evictions are seen as inevitableconsequences of the development process in the eyes ofmany public authorities, and due to the fact that negotiationsbetween those proposing the eviction and those affected arenot uncommon, this manifestation of the eviction process isoften treated as acceptable and even voluntary in nature.Some may even argue (albeit wrongly, in many cases) thatsuch evictions are not illegal under international law andthus are an acceptable policy option. However, one viewsuggests:Disguising a forced eviction as a ‘negotiateddisplacement’ 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 achievedfollowing individual case-by-case negotiations.Most observers consider that the very principleof negotiating is more important than the termsof the negotiations, especially regarding thecompensation issue, even when the compensationis unfair and detrimental to the occupant. 39While all forms of eviction, forced and market based, arelegally governed by the terms of human rights law, compensationin the event of market-based evictions tends to betreated more as a discretionary choice, rather than a right ofthose forced to relocate. Because one’s informal tenurestatus may limit evictees from exercising rights to compensationand resettlement if they are subjected to marketevictions, these processes can easily generate new homelessnessand new illegal settlements. Even when compensationis provided, it tends to be limited to the value of a dwellingand not the dwelling and the land plot as a whole, with theresult being greater social exclusion. In the absence of legalremedies, adequate resettlement options or fair and justcompensation, market-based evictions lead to the establishmentof new informal settlements on the periphery of cities,and tend to increase population pressure and density inexisting informal inner-city settlements. This usually resultsin deterioration in housing conditions and/or increases inhousing expenditure and commuting costs for displacedhouseholds.Expropriation and compulsory acquisitionInternational human rights standards, intergovernmentalorganizations, a growing number of governments and manyNGOs have embraced the view that forced eviction – or, forthat matter, virtually every type of arbitrary or unlawfuldisplacement – raises serious human rights concerns andshould be excluded from the realms of acceptable policy. Yet,all states and all legal systems retain rights to expropriate orcompulsorily acquire private property, land or housing (e.g.