Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

Security of tenure: Conditions and trends133Other vulnerable and disadvantaged groupsA number of other groups suffer detriment and discriminationin terms of access to secure tenure and the benefits thatsuch access can bestow. Such groups include children(including orphans, abandoned children, street children andthose subjected to forced/child labour), the elderly, thechronically ill and disabled, indigenous people, members ofethnic and other minorities, refugees, internally displacedpersons, migrant workers, and many others. Such groupsoften suffer discrimination with respect to their ability toown and/or inherit land, housing and other property (seealso Box 5.16). While this Global Report does not attempt todescribe the problems faced by each of these groups, Box5.17 provides an example of the particular problems faced bymigrant workers in the rapidly expanding urban areas ofChina.SECURITY OF TENURE INTHE AFTERMATH OFDISASTERS AND ARMEDCONFLICTJust as particular groups are more exposed to tenure insecurity,particular events are also major factors affecting security.Natural and technological disasters, as well as armed conflictand civil strife, are major factors threatening the security andsafety of large urban populations every year. This sectionhighlights the links between security of tenure and suchdisasters and conflicts.Disasters and secure tenureNatural and technological disasters – including earthquakes,tsunamis, storms and floods – often result in the large-scaledisplacement of people from their homes, lands and properties(see Part IV of this Global Report). Earthquakes alonedestroyed more than 100 million homes during the 20thcentury, mostly in slums, tenement districts or poor ruralvillages. 64 In some settings, the displaced are arbitrarilyand/or unlawfully prevented from returning to, and recovering,their homes, and/or are otherwise involuntarilyrelocated to resettlement sites despite their wishes to returnhome and to exercise their security of tenure rights.This remains the case, for instance, in Sri Lankawhere large numbers of those displaced by the tsunami inlate 2004 are still prevented from returning to their originalhomes and lands. 65 Tenants and other non-owners are alsofacing discriminatory treatment in Aceh (Indonesia), and arenot being allowed to return to their former homes and lands,even while owners are able to exercise these restitutionrights. Housing and property restitution measures can beused as a means of ensuring secure tenure and facilitatingthe return home of all persons displaced by disaster, shouldthis be their wish.Box 5.16 Forced evictions and discrimination ininternational lawThe most authoritative international instrument on forced evictions, United NationsCommittee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) General Comment No 7 onforced evictions, has the following to say about discrimination against women and other vulnerableindividuals and groups:Women, children, youth, older persons, indigenous people, ethnic and other minorities,and other vulnerable individuals and groups all suffer disproportionately from thepractice of forced eviction.Women in all groups are especially vulnerable given theextent of statutory and other forms of discrimination which often apply in relation toproperty rights (including homeownership) or rights of access to property or accommodation,and their particular vulnerability to acts of violence and sexual abuse when theyare rendered homeless.The non-discrimination provisions of Articles 2.2 and 3 of theCovenant impose an additional obligation upon governments to ensure that, whereevictions do occur, appropriate measures are taken to ensure that no form of discriminationis involved.Source: CESCR, General Comment No 7, para 11Box 5.17 Security of tenure for migrant workers in ChinaThe size of the migrant workforce in China, the so-called floating population (liudongrenkou),may today be as high as 150 million to 200 million. It is likely to increase further to reach 300million by 2020. With the rapid expansion of the migrant workforce, affordable housing optionsin the city centre or on work sites have become scarce. The overflow is now taking refuge ininformal settlements (chengzhongcun) or urban villages. More and more, these resemble in sizeand form peri-urban settlements that characterized rapid urbanization processes in other developingcountries during the 1950s and 1960s. The earliest of these were developed during the1980s on the peripheries of China’s faster growing major cities (i.e. Guangzhou, Shenzhen,Shanghai and Beijing).At first, when they grew large enough to draw the attention of local authorities, theywere suppressed and eventually torn down. Among the largest and most famous of these caseswas Zhejiangcun (Zhejiang village). Before its demolition in December 1995, Zhejiang villagehoused a population of some 100,000 individuals and thousands of enterprises. The villagegoverned itself, establishing health clinics, water and sanitation systems, recreational facilities,schools, etc. It also proved itself to be a major boon to Beijing residents who rented land to thevillage and who bought the village’s prodigious output of low-cost fashionable clothing.By 2002, more than 1 million people were living in Beijing’s 332 informal settlements.The 2002 census estimated that some 80 per cent of these were migrants. Today the numbersare thought to be much larger. What is sure is that many cities around China are planning tosuppress or redevelop informal settlements. In Beijing’s case, the 2008 Olympics are addingurgency to this task (see Box 5.13). Since 238 of these settlements for migrant workers arebeing demolished before 2008, it still remains unclear where the residents will be relocated.While these migrant workers have contributed greatly to urban development in Chinaover the last two decades, the formal housing provision system has made little or no provisionfor them. Even in Shanghai, where policies towards migrants have been relatively progressive,employment and lengthy employment tenure in the city had not yet freed the migrant workersfrom insecurity of tenure to housing.It is no exaggeration to say that once in the city, migrants continue to be on the move.But such mobility is not necessarily driven by the need for tenure or even amenity. Fewmigrants make the transition from bridge headers to consolidators after years of living in thecity, a trend in migrant settlement seen elsewhere in other developing countries. Instead, mostremain trapped in the private rental sector or stay in dormitory housing. Homeownership is yetto become attainable for migrants, and self-help housing is largely absent, primarily because ofthe attitudes of municipal authorities.Source: Westendorff, 2007