Download the file - United Nations Rule of Law

142Security of tenureBox 6.7 Land titling programmes and internal conflictLand titling programmes commonly involve formalization and registration of rights to landthrough systematic adjudication, surveying and (if necessary) consolidation of boundaries.While these titling programmes are useful in certain contexts, they often fail to increasecertainty and reduce conflict. In some cases, these programme failures have resulted from thedistributional consequences of land titling itself. Long-term conflict has resulted because pooror otherwise vulnerable land occupiers have been dispossessed by wealthier and more powerfulgroups; yet the new titleholders and state enforcement mechanisms have been unable toprevent encroachment by the former occupiers.This state of grievance and incomplete exclusion then tends to become cyclical inenvironments of political instability. When a regime changes in circumstances of historicalgrievance, old claims often reassert themselves through acts of violence, land invasion or statesanctionedevictions. This phenomenon challenges the economic conception that onceproperty rights are established, there is relatively little likelihood of reversion to open access. Inother cases, titling programmes provoke long-term conflict due to the fluid nature of non-statesystems of land tenure. In these systems, multiple overlapping rights often co-exist in an uneasybalance, and programmes to define and regularize these rights have caused dormant internaldisputes to emerge in the form of open conflict.Source: Fitzpatrick, 2006, pp1013–1014Local governmentsmay be unable tomuster theresources required… to make theprovision offreehold titles toall … realisticLarge-scale grantingof freehold title toresidents of slumsettlements … mayfacilitate dispossessionThe most effective… impliesimplementing anincrementalapproach, focusingon increasing theshort- and mediumtermsecurity forthose living in informalsettlementsother forms of registration are also possible, such as titledeeds registration, and documentation of secondary userights and other claims to land and natural resources. Thesemay not have the same state backing but are cheaper toundertake and maintain, and may be sufficient to protectrights at the local level. 14 Furthermore, it has been notedthat issuing freehold titles may lead to conflicts betweenindividuals and communities, as ‘land registries are so incompleteand inaccurate that moves to provide titles in urban orperi-urban areas may encourage or intensify disputes overwho has the primary claim’ (see also Box 6.7). 15Other observers argue that tenure regularization andtitling approaches can be detrimental to some householdsliving in informal settlements, especially those who have themost vulnerable legal or social status. Among the groups mostlikely to face the negative consequences of such approachesare tenants or sub-tenants on squatter land; newly establishedoccupants who are not considered eligible forregularization (or title); single young men and women; andfemale heads of households. Furthermore, such approachescan also dramatically increase rent levels, which may displacetenants to other more affordable neighbourhoods or forcethem to create new slums and squatter settlements. 16It is, in fact, the very informality of informal settlementsthat has enabled growing urban populations to find aplace in which to live. In a situation where urban populationscontinue to grow and urban areas expand, some observerspoint to potential entry problems of new urban dwellers in aformalized housing market: ‘Will the new urban poor thatwill settle in newly urbanized areas benefit from the formalizationof the land market on the urban periphery?’ There isa danger that they will be confronted by a much more rigid,more regulated and better enforced pattern of landownership.It is questionable whether such new entrants into thehousing market will already have the access to credit necessaryto purchase land (and housing) in the open market atmarket prices.Perhaps one of the most obvious objections to thelarge-scale granting of freehold title to residents of slumsettlements is that it may facilitate dispossession. Fewobservers disagree with the fact that ‘tenure has invariablyproved to be an important factor in stimulating investmentand it may serve as the foundation for developing creditmechanisms, mortgage markets and revenues for urbandevelopment’. 17 The main problem occurs when oneborrows money and uses the title as collateral. If ‘circumstancesarise that prevent repayment, the money lender hasa viable claim against the asset denoted by the title’. 18 Manydeveloping countries have relatively dysfunctional states,where powerful politicians or others may bring about dispossessionof land in a variety of ways. In situations like this, theprovision of titles may, in fact, reduce rather than increasesecurity of tenure. It has been argued that the provision offormal title to the poor ‘means that they must … decide toexchange their embeddedness in one community for anembeddedness in another community’. 19 It is not immediatelyobvious in many countries that the government is ableto provide the poor with more effective protection againstdispossession than what was traditionally provided throughmembership in a family, clan or village. Furthermore, ‘experiencehas shown, time and again, that the urban poor eitherwillingly sell or otherwise lose their land when given individualtitle’. 20There is also increasing empirical evidence that ‘full,formal tenure is not essential – or even sufficient, on its own– to achieve increased levels of tenure security, investmentin house improvements or even increased property taxrevenues’. 21 For instance, a study of legislation introduced toenable low-income tenants to purchase their dwellings inColombo (Sri Lanka) concluded that the residents were toopoor to benefit from the initiative. They could not afford toundertake the necessary improvements without externalassistance, regardless of their level of tenure security. 22Others point out that it is possible – as has been realized inIndia, Indonesia and Peru – to redefine the objectives oflegalization since guaranteeing security of tenure does notnecessarily require the formal provision of individual landtitles. 23 To a certain extent, all of these views are correct. Fewwould argue against the aims and objectives associated withproviding some form of official recognition of rights to slumdwellers who do not currently enjoy such protection. Whatis fundamental is not so much this objective, but how it ispursued and, ultimately, achieved. The most effectiveapproach may thus be to broaden the range of legal optionsavailable. This implies implementing an incrementalapproach, focusing on increasing the short- and mediumtermsecurity for those living in informal settlements. Themost obvious way to initiate such an approach is to banforced evictions for a minimum period (see below). Thismoratorium on forced evictions should be followed by thegradual introduction of some form of statutory tenure. 24Again, in practice, perceived tenure security in informalsettlements is much more important than the precise legalstatus of the land.