Holding Their Ground

Secure Land Tenure for the Urban Poor in Developing Countries

Alain Durand-Lasserve, Lauren Royston

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• ISBN:
  9781136564130
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Architecture
• Subtopic: Urban Planning & Landscaping

Security of land tenure for the urban poor is now a major problem for developing cities in Africa, Asia and Latin America. This book presents and analyzes the main conclusions of a comparative research programme on land tenure issues. It looks at how solutions can be found and implemented to respond to the demands and needs of the majority of squatters and informal settlements, and analyzes how urban stakeholders, with different social, legal and economic constraints, find innovative and flexible solutions. The book is intended to fill a gap in the literature on comparative research on tenure policies and should be useful to researchers and professionals involved in defining and instigating tenure upgrading policies and programmes.

Chapter 1

International Trends and Country Contexts – From Tenure Regularization to Tenure Security

Alain Durand-Lasserve and Lauren Royston

Background

Urban land issues and tenure security are emerging as one of the major challenges for decision-makers, planners, professionals and researchers involved in urban management and in the implementation of new land and housing policies for the urban poor. This book presents some of the main findings and conclusions of a comparative research programme on land tenure issues and access to land for the urban poor in developing cities. It was initiated during the preparation of the Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (Istanbul, 3–14 June 1996) and continued until the present by a large group of experts and researchers in Asia, Latin America and Africa. The programme has been supported by various multilateral and bilateral aid and cooperation agencies, especially through the Urban Management Programme.

In its initial stage, the research programme focused on the concepts, procedures and techniques involved in the regularization of irregular settlements, with particular attention being given to tenure regularization policies. A series of comparative analyses were carried out in Asia, Latin America and sub-Saharan African countries, and were presented at two international seminars held in 1993 and 1995 (Urban Management Programme, 1993 and 1995b). These initiatives underlined the key role of security of tenure in all policies aiming to improve access of the urban poor to housing and urban services.

Several parallel research initiatives in the 1990s contributed to the growing concern for security of tenure issues. By the late 1990s, security of tenure was becoming one of the major issues facing officials in charge of planning and housing programmes, especially irregular settlement upgrading programmes. It topped the agenda following the Habitat II preparatory conference on ‘Access to Land and Security of Tenure as a Condition for Sustainable Shelter and Urban Development’, held in New Delhi in 1996 (UNCHS, 1996c). The conference declared an initial commitment from governments at central and local levels, the private sector and the community sector as well as from a broad range of organizations representative of civil society. The New Delhi Declaration (UNCHS, 1996a) recommended that ‘security of tenure should be given to inhabitants of irregular settlements, slums, shack dwellers, and all precarious living environments’. Following this, the Habitat II conference debates and conclusions underlined the importance of tenure issues in the implementation of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat) (UNCHS) Habitat Agenda (UNCHS, 1996b), and specifically security of tenure. Governments committed themselves to the objective of ‘Providing legal security of tenure and equal access to land to all people, including women and those living in poverty’ (UNCHS, 1996b, paragraph 40).

Access to land and security of tenure are strategic prerequisites for the provision of adequate shelter for all and for the development of sustainable human settlements affecting both urban and rural areas. It is also one way of breaking the vicious circle of poverty. Every government must show a commitment to promoting the provision of an adequate supply of land in the context of sustainable land use policies. While recognizing the existence of different national laws and/or systems of tenure, governments at appropriate levels, including local authorities, should nevertheless strive to remove all possible obstacles that may hamper equitable access to land and ensure that equal rights of women and men related to land and property are protected under the law. The failure to adopt, at all levels, appropriate rural and urban land policies and land management practices remains a primary cause of inequity and poverty (ibid, paragraph 75).

In 1999, UNCHS decided to focus its energy on a limited number of key issues. As a result, two global campaigns were launched, one of which is security of tenure (the other being governance) (UNCHS, 1999a).

This was the global context for the organization of an international workshop entitled ‘Tenure Security Policies in South Africa, Brazil, India and Sub-Saharan Africa: A Comparative Analysis’ in July 1999.

Aims and Content of the Book

This book contains edited versions of selected papers on security of tenure policies in South Africa, Brazil and India presented and discussed during the workshop. In this general introduction, in the country introductions and in the general conclusion, the contents of the debates around these papers are described, and major issues relating to the implementation and enforcement of security of tenure policies are identified. The main components, characteristics and achievements of these security policies in South Africa, Brazil and India are analysed and a link established between these policies and the ongoing theoretical debate on security of tenure issues at an international level.

The book looks at how pragmatic solutions can be found and implemented to respond to the demands and needs of the majority of urban households living in informal settlements, and analyses how urban stakeholders, under particular social, legal and economic constraints, are devising and implementing innovative and flexible responses.

It is hoped that this publication will fill a gap in comparative research on tenure upgrading policies and document the ongoing debate on tenure issues for the urban poor in developing cities. It also aims, first, to consolidate relationships between researchers, professionals and decision-makers involved in defining and implementing tenure upgrading policies and programmes in South Africa, Brazil, India and sub-Saharan African countries; and, second, to contribute to the UNCHS Global Campaign for Secure Tenure (2000–2001). It primarily addresses researchers and academics, students, professionals involved in urban tenure upgrading programmes, officials in charge of urban land management and development aid agencies.

Irregular Settlements and Security of Tenure

The spatial growth of irregular settlements in cities in developing countries reflects increasing disparities in the distribution of wealth and resources. All empirical studies carried out during the last ten years have emphasized the magnitude of the problem. In most developing cities in Asia, Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab States, between 25 and 70 per cent of the urban population is living in irregular settlements, including squatter settlements, unauthorized land developments, and rooms and flats in dilapidated buildings in city centre areas (Durand-Lasserve, 1996 and 1998). Although the situation varies widely from one country to another, the majority of households living in irregular settlements have no formal security of tenure and poor access – if any – to basic urban services.

With very few exceptions, trends indicate a steady deterioration in the tenure status and housing conditions of the urban poor (UNCHS, 2001, pp3–22). Public and private formal land and housing delivery systems simply cannot respond to the needs of the urban poor (UNCHS, 1996a; Habitat Debate, 1997). Despite the multiplicity of poverty alleviation initiatives and safety-net programmes, the total number of people living in informal settlements is still tending to increase at a faster rate than the urban population. As a result, informal settlements frequently account for more than 50 per cent of the spatial growth of developing cities.

In most developing cities, the expansion of informal settlements over the last two decades took place in a context of accelerated globalization and structural adjustment policies, combining deregulation measures, privatization of urban services, massive state disengagement in the urban and housing sector, and attempts to integrate informal markets – including the land and housing markets – into the sphere of the formal market economy (World Bank, 1991, 1993; Harris, 1992). These policy measures, along with the lack of, or inefficiency of, corrective measures or safety-net programmes have tended to further increase inequalities in wealth and resource distribution at all levels (Pugh, 1995, pp34–92; Durand-Lasserve, 1994).

As a result, the urban poor and large segments of the low and low to medium income groups have no choice but to rely on informal land and housing markets for access to land and shelter (Skinner et al, 1987; Hardoy and Satterthwaite, 1989). This situation has led to the rapid spatial expansion of irregular settlements. Informal land and housing delivery systems remain the only realistic alternative for meeting the needs of low-income households (Mathey, 1992).

Public policies aiming to integrate irregular settlements within the city have been undermined by the stagnation or decrease in the revenue of many urban households, and growing inequalities. This situation has resulted in accelerated social exclusion and spatial segregation. The rising cost of urban land in most developing cities over the last two decades has further aggravated the situation (Jones and Ward, 1994). As stressed by most observers, shelter conditions for the world’s urban poor are not improving. Market mechanisms, as well as the lack of protection and appropriate regulatory measures, are tending to consolidate this trend.

Tenure insecurity, threat of forced eviction and poor access to basic urban services, all contribute to further undermine the economic situation of the poor (Fondation pour le Progrès de l’Homme, 1992; Audefroy, 1994).

Residential Tenure Status: Three Main Forms of Irregular Settlements

The need for security of tenure concerns all those living in informal, irregular or illegal settlements. These three terms refer to the same phenomenon. In this introduction the term ‘irregular settlement’ is used. A wide range of residential tenure systems and practices exist. Some are formal or legal, others are not. Many are ‘in between’, with some of the attributes of legality, but not all (Payne, 1997).

The main type of irregular settlement is unauthorized land development. Various other terms are used, depending on the country or author, such as: illegal commercial land subdivision, informal subdivisions, informal land developments, loteamentos (Brazil), and colonias (Mexico). Unauthorized land developments are a widespread phenomenon on the fringes of most developing cities. Most often, such settlements have developed on private agricultural land, frequently outside the municipal boundaries (UNESCAP, 1990). In most sub-Saharan African cities, customary owners are the main providers of land for housing, even if their right to the land is not formally recognized by the state (UNCHS, 1999c).

Occupants have purchased the land – or sometimes rented it – from an informal developer, an individual or communal landowner, either directly or through an intermediary. The sale of the plot is generally legal, although not always registered, but the land may not be considered suitable for urban development or housing, or the development may not comply with planning laws and regulations, or with norms and standards regarding infrastructure and services (Durand-Lasserve and Clerc, 1996). Householders who consider themselves to be owners usually occupy such settlements. The large-scale existence of unauthorized land development for rent seems to be more frequent in cities that are facing the pressure of demand for land for housing from new migrants with very low income levels.

Squatter settlements are found on the urban fringes or in centrally located areas, mostly on public land but also, less frequently, on private land, especially when disputed. These can be the result of an organized ‘invasion’, or a gradual occupation. Contrary to common belief, access to squatter settlements is rarely free. An entry fee must generally be paid to an intermediary, or to the person or group who exerts control over the settlement, and sometimes also rent. Every country, even every city, has its own term for squatter settlements.

Informal rental housing covers a wide range of situations and levels of precariousness. Rental is the most common form of tenure in formal as well as in informal settlements (Gilbert, 1987; Gilbert and Varley, 1990). Tenants and subtenants form a heterogeneous group. They can be found in unauthorized land developments, in squatter settlements or in dilapidated buildings in city centres.

The social structure of irregular settlements is far from homogeneous within a single city or even within one settlement. Irregular settlements are not always occupied exclusively by the urban poor (Fernandes, 1996). Middle income households settle in these areas when the formal housing market cannot meet their demands and in such cases a certain ‘right to irregularity’ may be recognized; the situation is periodically set to rights through mass regularization using legal measures. However, in general terms, the map of urban poverty can be superimposed on that of irregular settlements with a fair degree of accuracy.

Considering population dynamics at a global level, the total number of squatters is tending to decrease in most developing cities, whereas unauthorized settlements are on the increase. This closely follows the trend that has been observed for almost two decades; there is no longer free access to land. The main reason for this is the ever-increasing commodification of land delivery systems for the poor of the cities and the fact that there is less and less public land available for occupation by squatters (Baross and van der Linden, 1990; Jones and Ward, 1994).

If we look at the full range of irregular or informal tenure options for the urban poor, there is a great deal of interaction between formal and informal land delivery systems, and between subsystems within each of these systems. It is important to note that when an informal land delivery subsystem becomes saturated, or is no longer able to operate to produce internal or external results, then the demand for land shifts to another subsystem which is supposed to offer comparable advantages at an equivalent cost (Urban Management Programme, 1995b).

The Need for Secure Tenure

Populations living in irregular urban settlements are all confronted with the same set of interrelated problems: they have no access – or limited access only – to basic services, and they have no security of tenure. Their situation is precarious as they usually belong to the poorest segment of the urban population (Cobbett, 1999). However, it must be stressed that informality does not necessarily mean insecurity of tenure.

Some forms of residential tenure arrangement can guarantee a reasonably good level of security. This is the case, for example, in sub-Saharan African countries, in communal or customary land delivery systems, even when these are not formally recognized by the state (Urban Management Programme, 1995b). Recognition by the community itself and by the neighbourhood is often considered more important than recognition by public authorities for ensuring secure tenure. However, this arrangement can deteriorate under some circumstances, for instance:

• when the customary system is in crisis, with leadership conflicts within the group of customary owners, especially between those who allocate the land and others members of the group (Rochegude, 1998);
• when multiple allocations of the same plot generate a series of conflicts within the community (this may be the result of illicit land sales by unauthorized persons, a common phenomenon in the absence of any land information and record system);
• when a major conflict arises between customary owners and public authorities about the ownership and use of the land, or about the legitimacy of the customary claim. In such cases, alliances often develop between customary owners and the community against the public authorities (Rakodi, 1994; UNCHS, 1999c).

Unauthorized land development on private land offers various levels of protection, depending on the public authorities’ perception of the degree of illegality of the settlement. Even if the area is not suitable for residential development, occupants can generally produce a deed of sale or a property title for the land they occupy. It is worth noting that, in such settlements, middle and upper-middle income groups are w...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of Tables, Figures and Boxes
• About the Editors
• About the Contributors
• Acknowledgements
• List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
• 1. International Trends and Country Contexts – From Tenure Regularization to Tenure Security
• Part 1: India
• Part 2: Brazil
• Part 3: South Africa
• Part 4: Conclusions
• Index