ONU Losing Your Home 3188 Alt

8/20/2019 ONU Losing Your Home 3188 Alt

1/113

LOSING YOUR HOME

ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF EVICTION


2/113

Copyright © United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), 2011

An electronic version of this publication is available for download from the UN-HABITATweb-site at http://www.unhabitat.org or from our regional offices.

All rights reserved

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT),P.O. Box 30030, GPO Nairobi 00100, KenyaWeb: www.unhabitat.orgEmail: [email protected]

Disclaimer

The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this guide do not implythe expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the UnitedNations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area of its authorities,

or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of the United NationsHuman Settlements Programme, the United Nations, or its Member States.

Excerpts may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source isindicated.

HS Number: HS/097/11EISBN Number:(Volume) 978-92-1-132388-7

Cover design and layout: Jinita Shah/UNONCover photos: Istanbul, Turkey© Cihan Uzuncarsili Baysal


3/113

LOSING YOUR HOMEASSESSING THE IMPACT OF EVICTION

By the United Nations Housing Rights Programme – a collaborative initiative between the United

Nations Human Settlements Programme and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner

for Human Rights


4/113

ii LOSING YOUR HOME ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF EVICTION

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSMain Author: Jean du PlessisTeam Leader: Claudio Acioly Jr.Task Managers: Rasmus Precht, Channe OguzhanContributions: Appreciation goes to all who provided advice, ideas and information and/or

reviewed and commented on drafts of this report, including: Claudio AciolyJr., Julian Baskin, Michaela Bergman, Stephen Berrisford, Natalie Bugalski,Michael Cernea, Laure-Anne Courdesse, Ben Cousins, Talita Dalton-Greyling,Graciela Dede, Alain Durand-Lasserve, Pierre Fallavier, Edesio Fernandes,Anouk Fouich, Francois Gemenne, Bahram Ghazi, Wardah Hafidz, James

Heenan, Marie Huchzermeyer, Ursula Jessee, Steve Kahanovitz, DoloresKoenig, Helen Macgregor, Brooke McDonald-Wilmsen, Channe Oguzhan,Helge Onsrud, Rasmus Precht, Susanna Price, Joseph Schechla, DepikaSherchan, Remy Sietchiping, Florian Stammler, Kai Schmidt-Soltau, BretThiele, Maartje van Eerd, Chris de Wet, Stuart Wilson and the lateTessa Cousins.

English Editor: Roman RollnickDesign and Layout: Jinita Shah/UNONPrinting: UNON, Publishing Services Section, Nairobi, ISO 14001:2004-certified


5/113

iii

PREFACEThe practice of forcibly evicting people fromtheir homes and settlements is a growingglobal phenomenon and represents a crudeviolation of one of the most elementaryprinciples of the right to adequate housingas defined in the Habitat Agenda andinternational instruments. While manycommunities, grassroots organisations andcivil society groups stand up for their rights,

many governments at national, district andlocal levels evict people from their homes everyday. These evictions are, often, carried outin the name of the common public good; tomake way for the economic development ofboth urban and rural areas, without followingdue process and without providing housingalternatives that otherwise would minimize theimpacts and losses incurred by those directlyaffected by evictions.

While UN-HABITAT recognizes and, indeed,advocates for urban development andplanning, and acknowledges that this mayat times necessitate resettlement, it stronglyemphasizes that such resettlement shouldbe a last resort, after consideration of allalternatives, and should be implementedboth in accordance with international lawand in a sustainable and socially inclusivemanner. The Housing Policy Section develops

tools and knowledge that encourages andenables national authorities, particularly at themunicipal level, to create more sustainable andinclusive urban policies.

The social capital and human developmentpotential of resident communities is oftenunder-estimated and under-utilized. Indeed,the practice of forced eviction entailssignificant losses to individuals, households andcommunities alike, from psycho-social impactsto environmental and economic impacts oncommunities and societies. This report arguesthat reliable data and a comprehensive analysisof these significant losses are essential for

the formulation of sustainable alternatives toforced evictions, and presents the state-of-the-art know-how in this field.

This report is the first research of its kind andmaps out existing eviction impact assessmentmethodologies globally. While many goodpractices exist in localized situations, and whilesome tools have been appropriated to suit thespecific needs and contexts, this is the firsttime such practices been pulled together into

a single report. The report is an importantstep towards understanding the tools andapproaches that are required to create a solidevidence base of the actual and potential lossesof forced evictions and thus promoting viablealternative policies and approaches.

Claudio Acioly, Jr.Chief, Housing Policy Section

UN-HABITAT


6/113

iv LOSING YOUR HOME ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF EVICTION


7/113

v

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ACHR Asian Coalition for Housing RightsACHPR African Commission on Human and People’s RightsADB Asian Development BankAfDB African Development BankAI Amnesty InternationalAGFE Advisory Group on Forced EvictionsCALS Centre for Applied Legal StudiesCBO Community Based Organisation

CESCR Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural RightsCOHRE Centre on Housing Rights and EvictionsCTMM City of Tshwane Metropolitan MunicipalityDFDR Development-caused Forced Displacement and ResettlementESIA Environmental and Social Impact Assessment StudyEvIA Eviction Impact AssessmentHIC Habitat International CoalitionHLRN Housing and Land Rights NetworkIAI International Alliance of InhabitantsICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural RightsIHS Institute for Housing and Urban Development StudiesIRR Impoverishment Risks and ReconstructionKLERP Korle Lagoon Ecological Restoration ProjectLARAP Land Acquisition and Resettlement Action PlanLNG Liquefied Natural GasLRC Legal Resources CentreMLL Minimum Living LevelMPP Municipality of Phnom PenhNCAS National Centre for Advocacy StudiesNGO Non-Governmental Organisation

OHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human RightsPME Participatory Monitoring and EvaluationPWS Paguyuban Warga StrenkaliRAP Resettlement Action PlanRAV Resettlement Affected VillageSTT Sahmakum Teang TnautUN United NationsUN GA United Nations General AssemblyUN-HABITAT United Nations Human Settlements ProgrammeUNRoD United Nations Register of Damage

UPRS Urban Poverty Reduction StrategyUPC Urban Poor ConsortiumURC Urban Resource CentreVDB Violation DatabaseWB The World BankYUVA Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action


8/113

vi LOSING YOUR HOME ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF EVICTION

TABLE OF CONTENTSAcknowledgements ii

PREFACE iii

List of Acronyms v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii

1. INTRODUCTION x

1.1 Context: the relentless rise of forced evictions 1

The growing problem of forced evictions 2

Responses 3

The impact of forced eviction on the affected populations 31.2 Objectives 5

2. KEY ISSUES RELATED TO EVICTION IMPACT ASSESSMENTS 7

2.1 From counting to impact assessment Counting numbers 8

Fact-finding missions 9

2.2 The need for a predictive model 13

3. EXISTING METHODOLOGIES 16

3.1 Economic evaluation to determine impact Motivation 17

Methodology 18

Application 21

3.2 The Housing Rights Violation Loss Matrix Motivation 22

Methodology 24

Application and Development 26

3.3 Forced resettlement impact: the IRR Model Motivation 28

Methodology 30

Application 31

Case study: IRR and the Tangguh Liquefied Natural Gas Project: 32

3.4 EvIA through Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation 36

Motivation 36

Methodology 37 Application 38

3.5 Case-specific eviction impact assessments 41

3.5.1 EvIA via key impact indicator analysis: Johannesburg, South Africa 41

Motivation 41

Methodology 42

Findings and application 42

3.5.2 EvIA to prevent eviction and achieve policy shifts: Surabaya, Indonesia 44

Motivation 44

Methodology 44

Findings and application 453.5.3 EvIA to support litigation: Pretoria, South Africa 48

Motivation 48

Methodology 49



9/113

vii

3.5.4 EvIA through investigating resettlement conditions: Cambodia 52

Motivation 52

Methodology 53


4. CONCLUSION 55

4.1 Convergences, gaps and opportunities 56

4.2 Conclusions 59

BIBLIOGRAPHY 61

ANNEXES

ANNEX A: Contacts List 72

ANNEX B: Relocation effects in an economic evaluation 74

ANNEX C: HLRN Housing and Land Rights Monitoring “Tool Kit” 75

ANNEX D: HLRN Housing and Land Rights Monitoring Inventory

Schedule Housing Contents 867 Landlord Lane, Unit 8 Yourtown, IN Paisia 82

ANNEX E: Entitlement Matrix 85

ANNEX F: Impoverishment Risk, Assets/Resources Foregone and Restoration

and Development Strategies for Tanah Merah Households Moving to Tanah Merah Baru 93

ANNEX G: Qualitative indicators of urban poverty in Phnom Penh 98

ANNEX H: PME Analytical matrix to measure success in reaching UPRS objectives

LEVEL OF IMPACT ANALYSIS (as measured by PME indicators and activities) 99

TABLES

Table 1: Relocation effects in an economic evaluation 19

Table 2: Basis of calculation 20

Table 3: Housing Rights Violation Loss Matrix 25

Table 4: The IRR Model 31

Table 5: IRR Model Risk Assessment 34

Table 6: Availability of services/facilities in Surabaya riverside settlements 45Table 7: Commuting distances for residents in Surabaya riverside settlements 46

Table 8: Loss of Income 46

Table 9: Loss of Assets 46


10/113

viii LOSING YOUR HOME ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF EVICTION

(campaigns, litigation, negotiations);formulating alternatives to eviction; planningfor resettlement; reducing impoverishmentrisks of development projects; and creatingnew development opportunities.

Existing frameworks, approaches and modelsinclude: (1) Economic Evaluation as part ofbroader feasibility investigations to determine

relocation impact; (2) a comprehensiveHousing Rights Violation Matrix whichincludes assessing losses incurred throughforced eviction; (3) the Impoverishment Risksand Reconstruction (IRR) model, developedin the course of the 1990s and incorporatedinto the policies of the World Bank andregional international development banks;and (4) eviction impact assessment throughParticipatory Monitoring and Evaluation.

Case-specific methods identified includecases from South Africa, Indonesia andCambodia, conducted for purposes such aslitigation, academic research, developmentof community-driven alternatives and moregeneral human rights monitoring work.

While existing EvIA methodologies sharecertain commonalities and broad objectives,they have been developed on the basis of

different frameworks, in different contexts andoften for quite specific needs and purposes. Itis important to note and respect the diversity offrameworks and approaches underlying thesemethodologies, and to encourage and supportthe relevant organisations in their endeavoursto improve, fine-tune and implement them.At the same time there is great potential forsynergies and cross-pollination between thedifferent initiatives, even though many of theactors are currently unaware of the ongoing

work of others. More generally, there arepossibilities of consolidation and expansion ofEvIA as a practice in the field of land, housingand development. Given the diversity of

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYForced population displacements are a massiveand growing global problem. Millions ofpeople are affected annually. The majorityof those evicted are poor and marginalisedfamilies and communities living under informalor customary tenure arrangements. The effectsof such forced evictions can have a catastrophicimpact on their lives

In this context, important questions arise foranyone concerned with the plight of thoseaffected. How do we develop a thoroughunderstanding of the nature and extent of theimpacts of this growing phenomenon on thosewho are evicted? Is it possible to determinethe impacts of specific evictions, not onlyretrospectively but also in advance of plannedevictions? Who has been doing this and whatmethodologies have they used? How could this

contribute to the development of strategies toresist or find alternatives to eviction? In caseswhere the relocation of people is completelyunavoidable, due to genuine, compellingpublic interest or life-threatening conditions,how could such an understanding be used tomitigate the negative consequences, or even toturn them into development opportunities thatwill improve the lives and future prospects ofthose affected?

The research showed that good progresshas been made in the past two decades ondeveloping Eviction Impact Assessment (EvIA)methodologies and associated tools. Theseare being used by civil society organisations,UN agencies, academics, multilateral banks,consultancy firms, lawyers and communityrepresentatives for various purposes,including: publicising the consequencesof eviction and displacement; planning for

resettlement; preventing planned evictions(through campaigns, litigation, negotiations);providing information in debates on ‘publicinterest’; seeking restitution and reparation


11/113

ix

different applications, and the importance oftaking account of the specifics of each localsituation, it is important to allow for pragmatictailoring of methods, depending on specificcontext and needs of particular cases. Furtherinvestigation and consultation with relevantparties would be needed to establish whetheror not it is feasible and advisable to combinedifferent methods into a composite EvIA‘toolkit’.

UN-HABITAT circulates the present reportwidely hoping that it can be used as a resourcedocument for a forum bringing together keyactors who have designed and/or implementedEviction Impact Assessment methods andprocedures. This would help to share andcompare methodologies, techniques andtools; discuss gaps and possible improvementsand refinements; assess policy and practiceimplications of Eviction Impact Asssessments

for governments; work towards agreementon a set of basic, agreed methodologicaland analytical standards for Eviction ImpactAsssessments; and promote the developmentof a ‘toolkit’ that can support trainingand capacity building, and formulaterecommendations for further action.


12/113

LOSING YOUR HOME ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF EVICTION

1. INTRODUCTION


13/113

1

1.1 CONTEXT: THE RELENTLESSRISE OF FORCED EVICTIONS

Forced evictions are a global problem. Everyyear millions of people around the world areevicted from their homes and land, againsttheir will and without consultation or equitablecompensation. These evictions are carried outdespite the fact that international law explicitlyrecognises the right to security of tenure andadequate housing; and has repeatedly declared

the practice of forced eviction to be a gross andsystematic violation of human rights. The UNCommission on Human Rights, for example, hasit its Resolution 1993/77 stated that “Forcedevictions constitute a gross violation of humanrights, in particular the right to adequatehousing”. Furthermore, according to theCommittee on Economic, Social and CulturalRights (in General Comment 4):

The problem of forced evictions is growingin spite of the best efforts and strugglesof communities and support groups,organisations and institutions (and somegovernments) who have resisted evictions andadvocated for and developed alternatives. Nocomprehensive global figures are available,but the estimated totals of people forciblyevicted are staggering. According to theCentre on Housing Rights and Evictions

(COHRE), forced evictions affecting 18.59

million people were reported between 1998and 2008 (COHRE Global Surveys, 8-11).This already high number is dwarfed by thecalculations of researchers studying the forcibledisplacement of populations as a result oflarge-scale development programmes aroundthe world. Cernea has calculated that duringthe 1980s and 1990s “the magnitude offorced population displacements caused bydevelopment programs was in the order of10 million people each year, or some 200

million people globally during that period”.(Cernea 2004: 6) During the followingdecade this number reached an estimated15 million people per year (Cernea 2007b:36).1 This relentless process has resulted in thecreation of huge and growing populations of“development refugees” (Partridge 1989: 374).

These mass displacements are almost neverofficially referred to as cases of forced eviction.

They are, instead, elaborately justified inthe name of the broader public good andgiven developmental process names suchas “infrastructural development”, “natureconservation”, “rural development”, “urbanrenewal”, “slum upgrading”, “eradication ofslums” and “inner city regeneration”. This is not tosay that none of the projects are genuinely aimedat the public interest. However, even in such publicinterest projects, the methods of decision-making,design and implementation, and specificallythe manner in which the affected people aretreated, would in the majority of cases qualify asforced evictions as defined under internationallaw, viz.: “the permanent or temporary removalagainst their will of individuals, families and/orcommunities from the homes and/or the landwhich they occupy, without the provision of, andaccess to, appropriate forms of legal or otherprotection” (CESCR 1997: paragraph 3). Theywould, therefore, amount to gross violations of

human rights (Box 1).

Instances of forced eviction are prima facieincompatible with the requirements ofthe Covenant [International Covenant on

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights] andcan only be justified in the most exceptional

circumstances, and in accordance with therelevant principles of international law.”

(CESCR 1991: PARAGRAPH 18)

1 See also Cernea and Mathur (2008: 20): “Globally, the WB estimated in 1994 that, over a twenty-year period and counting only three economic sectors, up to 190-200 million people were displaced by public sector projects alone, at an average of 10 million people annually. By now, thisestimate is outdated. Considering the pace of displacements not only in three sectors, but in all economic sectors, and not only in public but also in

private sector projects, the conservative estimate of development displacements rises to about 280-300 million over 20 years or 15 million peopleannually.


14/113

2 LOSING YOUR HOME ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF EVICTION

BOX 1: FORCED EVICTIONS GROSSLY VIOLATE HUMAN RIGHTS

The Commission on Human Rights,1. Affirms that the practice of forced eviction constitutes a gross violation of human rights, in particular the right

to adequate housing;2. Urges Governments to undertake immediate measures, at all levels, aimed at eliminating the practice of forced

eviction;3. Also urges Governments to confer legal security of tenure on all persons currently threatened with forced

eviction and to adopt all necessary measures giving full protection against forced eviction, based upon effectiveparticipation, consultation and negotiation with affected persons or groups;

4. Recommends that all Governments provide immediate restitution, compensation and/or appropriateand sufficient alternative accommodation or land, consistent with their wishes and needs, to persons and

communities that have been forcibly evicted, following mutually satisfactory negotiations with the affectedpersons or groups.

Source: United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Resolution 1993/77, 67th meeting, 10 March 1993

THE GROWING PROBLEM OF FORCEDEVICTIONS

Mass forced evictions take place in rich andpoor countries, and in urban as well as ruralareas. There has been a dramatic increase inurban evictions in recent years. Writing aboutChina, Macdonald has pointed out that “thenumber of involuntary resettlers has risendramatically in recent years in response tothe increasing number of projects that arefinanced in cities” (Macdonald 2006: 29). Asimilar trend has occurred in Latin America.According to Mejia (1999: 148-149): “Inthe 1970s and 1980s [World] Bank-financedprojects involving resettlement in the regionwere mostly located in rural locales, but

by the middle of the current decade themajority of such resettlement-related projectswere in urban areas”. However, mass urbandisplacements are nothing new, nor are theylimited to developing countries. Fullilove hasdescribed in detail how in the United Statesthe federal Housing Act has since 1949 beenused for the ‘urban renewal’ of one thousandsix hundred African American neighbourhoodsand the dispersal and impoverishment of their

communities (Fullilove 2005: 223-225).

Whether rural or urban, or in rich or poorcountries, the overwhelming majority of victimsof evictions are members of marginalisedcommunities living under informal orcustomary tenure arrangements. It is often“their very poverty that subjects the poor to

processes of displacement and resettlement”(Oliver-Smith 2009: 18). The fact that the pooroften lack formal tenure security can makethem immediately vulnerable to removal fromland that is needed or desired by the powerful.The fact that they lack power or influence canmake them “targets of least resistance” duringdevelopment planning processes (Oliver-Smith2009: 19). The fact they live under terribleconditions can, in itself, become grounds for

their eviction from an area so that, throughtheir removal, the assets of the wealthy arepromoted. During her research into urbanrenewal in the United States Fullilove foundthat:


15/113

3

Similar processes have taken place in manyother cities of the world.2

RESPONSES

This massive, growing, and destructiveglobal problem of forced evictions has

been met with a range of responses andstrategies by affected communities, supportorganisations, institutions, individuals and(some) governments, as well as concernedinternational bodies, research communitiesand donor institutions. These responses andstrategies have included:

• Protest and resistance by affectedcommunities against their eviction, with or

without external support;• Promotion, development and use of

international normative instruments ontenure security, housing rights, forcedevictions and other related rights;

• Internal and external pressure for policyreform in the major multi-lateral financialinstitutions;

• Research and advocacy aimed atformulation and improvement of nationalpolicies, laws, regulations, guidelines andimplementation programmes;

2 See for example the description and analysis of the Inner City Regeneration Project Johannesburg, South Africa, in COHRE 2005 and Du Plessis2006: 186-187.

Te problem the planners tackled wasnot how to undo poverty, but howto hide the poor. Urban renewal was

designed to segment the city so thatbarriers of highways and monumental

buildings protected the rich from the sightof the poor, and enclosed the wealthy centeraway from the poor margin. New York isthe American city that best exemplifies thistransformation. ourists on Forty-Second Street

now find much to admire.”

(FULLILOVE 2005: 197)

• Collaborative projects with governmentsand other institutions aimed at promotingalternatives and risk mitigation measures.

THE IMPACT OF FORCED EVICTION ON THEAFFECTED POPULATIONS

In 2003, an elderly community leader by the

name of Tawatchai Woramahakun facedeviction by the Bangkok Municipal Authorityfrom his home of Pom Mahakan, a historicalriverside settlement in Bangkok. He warnedthe authorities that if they proceeded withtheir plan “the loss will be more significantthan they think” (COHRE 2003). Thesewords capture a common theme and drivingmotivation shared by a broad range ofgroups, institutions and individuals tryingto combat the problem of forced evictions

worldwide. Community leaders, civil societygroups, national and international NGOs andacademic researchers alike have repeatedlywarned that the impacts of forced evictionson the people affected are severe, debilitatingand far-reaching. As a result of evictionspeople’s property is damaged or destroyed;their productive assets are lost or rendereduseless; their social networks are broken up;their livelihood strategies are compromised;

their access to essential facilities and servicesis lost; and as violence often is used to forcethem to comply, they suffer severe and lasting

If the BMA does take care of thecommunity and allows the communityto work with it, then there will be lots

of good ideas and solutions – not justremoving people from their community. But

if the BMA follows its original plan to evict, the

loss will be more significant than they think.”

TAWATCHAI WORAMAHAKUN POMMAHAKAN COMMUNITY LEADER,

BANGKOK 2003


16/113


psychological effects as a consequence thereof.Indeed, the prospect of being forcibly evictedcan be so terrifying that it is not uncommonfor people to risk their lives in an attempt toresist; or, even more extreme, to take theirown lives when it becomes apparent that theeviction cannot be prevented (Du Plessis 2006).

While the impacts of evictions are traumatic

for all, they are most acutely felt by vulnerablesegments of the community, and in particularthe children. A study on “Urban Children andthe Physical Environment” found that:These impacts go beyond the individual andtheir family to the entire community. In thewords of Mathur (1995: 2): “The labyrinthof broken communities, broken familiesand broken lives remains beyond numericalcalculation.” The consequences can belong-term, entrenching patterns of poverty,exclusion, dependency and disempowerment.According to Cernea and Mathur (2008:5-6): “Displacement involves expropriationand assets dispossession. It de-capitalises theaffected population, imposing opportunitycosts in the forms of lost natural capital, lostman-made physical capital, lost human capital,and lost social capital.” In most cases, thoseevicted receive totally inadequate remedies (ifany) for these losses:

Te impacts of eviction for familystability and for children’s emotional

well-being can be devastating; theexperience has been as comparable to warfor children in terms of the developmental

consequences. Even when evictions are followedby immediate relocation, the effects on childrencan be destructive and unsettling.”

(BARTLETT N.D.: 3)

The social anthropologist W.L. Partridge foundthat:

The impacts of forced evictions are felt evenwider, in society as a whole. South Africansociety is still reeling from the effects of theforced removals of millions of people to theirvarious ethnic ‘homelands’ or ‘group areas’

during the Apartheid era. Fullilove furtherpoints out that the urban renewal processthat destroyed so many poor communitiesin the United States amounted to the“dismemberment” of American cities, with

Te considerably expanded researchin the anthropology of resettlementhas convergently concluded that the

dominant outcome of displacement is notincome restoration but impoverishment.

Te accumulated evidence is overwhelming,and it converges in many countries in Asia,Latin America, and Africa.”

(CERNEA 2009: 50)

From the perspective of displacedpeople, forced displacement is alwaysa disaster. Lifetimes of investment

and generations of achievement areswept away. By destroying productive

assets and dismantling production systems,

resettlement creates a high risk of chronicimpoverishment. Local authority structuresdisintegrate as political, religious and socialleaders lose credibility, either because theycould not prevent the destruction or becausethey assisted in the resettlement operation.

Attitudes of dependency on external authorities,combined with the sullen resentment of victimsof autocratic action, come to dominate thepublic culture of the people. In Mexico I have

seen persistence of such feelings 30 years afterresettlement operations were carried out.”

(PARTRIDGE 1989: 375)


17/113

5

disastrous long-term negative consequencesfor African Americans in particular, but alsofor American society as a whole. “How we arediminished as a nation because we permittedthe rich to remake the city by sending thepoor and the colored away from downtown”(Fullilove 2005: 225).

1.2 OBJECTIVES

Against the background described above,

focussed research and analysis of the impactof forced evictions (or Eviction Impact Assessments – EvIAs) can serve as an importantand valuable resource for the endeavours ofvarious actors to deal with the problem offorced evictions. Such information can and hasbeen used for various purposes including:

• Testing or contesting the feasibility ofproposed resettlement projects and /orplanned or implemented evictions, e.g.through providing vital information neededin negotiations on a proposed resettlementprocess (and, where appropriate, formingthe basis of free, prior and informedconsent by affected parties);

• Promoting the development of creative,viable alternatives to planned evictions andresettlement projects.

• Formulating legal, political and otherchallenges to planned evictions and

resettlement projects;• Formulating risk mitigation and remedial

strategies as part of the planning ofunavoidable resettlement programmes;

• Calculating losses as part of restitutionor reparation claims by victims ofimplemented evictions;

This review focuses on existing EvIAs and theirunderlying methodologies, with the following

three objectives:

1. Document progress made by existinginitiatives in developing and applying EvIAmethodologies;

2. Assess the functionality, usefulness andimpact of these existing methodologies;

3. Develop recommendations on thefeasibility of making an EvIA toolkitavailable to governments and otherstakeholders.

The assignment was tackled through a deskreview of readily available documentation onEvIAs, on the basis of which a set of key issueswas identified for further investigation. At

the same time the author located, liaised withand obtained inputs and information fromorganisations, networks, initiatives and actorsinvolved in the development, application andpromotion of EvIA methodologies. As partof this process a list of contacts, including ashort-list of key resource persons for futurereference was compiled (ANNEX A). A numberof follow-up interviews and correspondencewere then conducted. In light of the collected

information, existing methodologies werereviewed, and specific advances, gaps andopportunities were identified. The authorformulated a set of recommendations forimprovement and further development of EvIAtools for use in eviction, displacement andresettlement cases and assessed the possibilityof promoting an EvIA toolkit through thework of UN-HABITAT. Drafts of the reportwere circulated for comment and an advancedversion was presented at the InternationalResettlement Conference: Economics, SocialJustice, and Ethics, in Development-CausedInvoluntary Migration, a sub-conference ofthe 15th International Metropolis Conferencethat took place from 4 to 8 October 2010 inThe Hague, where valuable comments andsuggestions were also received. This report isthe result.

Section 2 of the report deals with key

issues and debates related to EvIAs andhighlights the need for a reliable and effectivepredictive model. Section 3 documentsprogress made in development and useof EvIA methodologies, and describes and


18/113


analyses these in some detail. A distinctionis made between generalised frameworks,approaches and models, and methodsdesigned around particular situations andcases. In the conclusion (section 4) the authordiscusses convergences between these variousapproaches, as well as differences, gaps andopportunities for improvement. This is followedby recommendations on the way forward.


19/113

7

2. KEY ISSUES RELATED TOEVICTION IMPACT ASSESSMENTS


20/113


2.1 FROM COUNTING TO IMPACTASSESSMENT COUNTINGNUMBERS

Counting and measuring are importanttools for international human rights groups,organisations and institutions seeking toconfront the problem of forced evictions. Theseactors include Amnesty International (AI);the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions(COHRE); International Alliance of Inhabitants

(IAI) and the Housing and Land Rights Network(HLRN) of Habitat International Coalition (HIC);the Asian Coalition for Housing Rights (ACHR);and the Advisory Group on Forced Evictions(AGFE). Much of the initial emphasis in reactionsto evictions is on the total number of peopleaffected. The estimated totals are usuallycombined with descriptions of the evictionsprocess, an indication of the human rightsviolated in the process, and reference to thevarious adverse consequences of the eviction forthose affected. This information forms the basisof advocacy initiatives such as letters of protest,internet petitions and media releases, issued todraw attention to a planned or implementedeviction process, in the hope that public reactionand protest at the scale of the operation wouldact as a deterrent against the implementationof the planned eviction; an incentive for theformulation of alternatives; or as pressure forthe provision of compensation, reparation or

other remedies for those already evicted.

Given the scale of many evictions worldwideand the sheer brutality of their implementation,this emphasis on numbers to attract globalpublic attention is understandable. There isno denying its ability to drive the point home,particularly when used in conjunction withother information and forms of representation.A compelling and visually powerful example

is the 2006 report Zimbabwe: Quantifyingdestruction – satellite images of forcedevictions, produced by Amnesty International(AI), concerning the forced eviction ofan estimated 700 000 people during the

Zimbabwean Government’s “OperationMurambatsvina” (Operation Drive out Rubbish)carried out in 2005. As indicated in the report:

Between May and July 2005 some700,000 people in Zimbabwe lost theirhomes, their livelihoods or both as a

direct consequence of the government’sOperation Murambatsvina, a programme

of mass forced evictions and demolitions of

homes and informal businesses. In some areasentire settlements were razed to the ground. While the demolitions took place right acrossthe country, the majority of the destructionoccurred in high density urban areas in Harare,Chitungwiza, Bulawayo, Mutare, Kariba andVictoria Falls. In these areas tens of thousandsof poor families lived in what are known asbackyard cottages or extensions – these weresmall, often brick, structures built on residentialplots around the main house, sometimesattached to the main house, and sometimes alittle way separate from it. Tey varied in sizefrom one to several rooms. In urban areas thesebackyard structures were the only source ofaccommodation for poor people, who could notafford to buy a plot of land and build their ownhome. Te government and local authoritiesin Zimbabwe provide almost no cheap rentalaccommodation.


21/113

9

FACT-FINDING MISSIONS

In certain cases the human rights organisationsconcerned also follow through with moredetailed research or “fact-finding missions”,during which both qualitative and quantitativeinformation is obtained from actors in theprocess, including testimonies from someof the many people directly affected (see

UN-HABITAT 2005). In the case of OperationMurambatsvina, AI also produced a moreanalytical and qualitative fact-finding reportentitled Zimbabwe: No justice for the victims offorced evictions (Amnesty International 2006a).The rationale and process followed is describedin the introduction:

Operation Murambatsvina occurredcountrywide. Tis report contains ‘before’and ‘after’ satellite images of four sites affectedby Operation Murambatsvina: Porta Farmsettlement and portions of both Hatcliffe andChitungwiza, all located around the capital,Harare, and Killarney, an informal settlementon the outskirts of Bulawayo in the south ofZimbabwe. Tese images, which representonly a fraction of the demolitions, provide

compelling visual evidence of the scale of thedestruction and human rights violations whichtook place in Zimbabwe during 2005. Usingsatellite technology it has also been possibleto count the number of structures destroyedat these sites, providing quantitative evidenceof the demolitions. In just the four areascovered by the satellite images more than 5,000structures were destroyed.”

(AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 2006B: 1)

Amnesty International investigated anddocumented the human rights violationsthat took place as a consequence of

Operation Murambatsvina, and raised theorganisation’s concerns with the government

of Zimbabwe, the UN, the African Commissionon Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR)and the African Union. One year after themass forced evictions Amnesty Internationalreturned to Zimbabwe to investigate what, if

any, action had been taken by the governmentof Zimbabwe to restore the human rights of thehundreds of thousands of victims of OperationMurambatsvina. Te delegation found thegovernment has failed to ensure adequatereparations to the victims. Te victims’ ownefforts to secure effective judicial remedies havebeen frustrated by the authorities’ repeateddisregard of court orders and obstruction ofaccess to the courts. Despite numerous public

statements about a reconstruction programmeto address the homelessness created byOperation Murambatsvina, almost none of thevictims have received any assistance from thegovernment. On the contrary the governmenthas repeatedly hindered UN efforts to provideemergency shelter and subjected some of themost vulnerable people to repeated forcedevictions.”

(AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL 2006A: 1-2)


22/113


A woman and her children in front of a tent after beingevicted at Murambatsvina, Zimbabwe, July 2005 Photo:UN-HABITAT

Between 1993 and 2008 the Centre onHousing Rights and Evictions (COHRE)produced more than 20 fact-finding reports onhousing rights violations in a range of countriesincluding the Philippines, Latvia, Brazil, South

Africa, Ghana, Kenya, Burma and China. Basedon in-situ visits by small teams of housingrights experts, such reports typically includesome description of the background to theeviction, estimates of the numbers of peopleaffected, a description of the evictions process,an analysis of international and nationalhuman rights violated, and reference to theimpact of the evictions on those affected.3 References to the impact of evictions generallyecho the well-known list given in Fact SheetNo. 25 issued in 1996 by the UN Office of theHigh Commissioner for Human Rights:

3 There are also thematic reports describing the effects of evictions on specific categories and groups, such as women. An example is Violence: TheImpact of Forced Evictions on Women in Palestine, India and Nigeria (COHRE 2002b).

Te human costs of forced evictions areindeed substantial and can involve a

wide range of additional negative impactson the lives and livelihood of those

affected, including the following: multiplyingindividual and social impoverishment,including homelessness and the growth of newslums; physical, psychological and emotionaltrauma; insecurity for the future; medicalhardship and the onset of disease; substantially

higher transportation costs; loss of livelihoodand traditional lands; worsened housingconditions; physical injury or death resultingfrom arbitrary violence; the removal of childrenfrom school; arrest or imprisonment of thoseopposing an eviction; loss of faith by victims inthe legal and political system; reduction of low-income housing stock; racial segregation; lossof culturally significant sites; the confiscationof personal goods and property; substantially

higher housing costs; absence of choice ofalternative accommodation; criminalizingself-help housing options; increased socialisolation; and tension with dwellers already atresettlement sites.”

(UN OFFICE OF THE HIGHCOMMISSIONER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

1996: 5)

In some cases such references to impact are

illustrated through information obtainedlocally, through individual or group interviewsconducted during missions. For example,through locally supplied information andtestimonies, a COHRE fact-finding team whichinvestigated 2004 evictions in Nairobi, Kenya,learnt inter alia that:


23/113

11

Fact-finding missions seeking to investigateevictions are by their nature rushed, limitedprocesses which seldom produce verycomprehensive and accurate research results.Their main aim is to draw urgent attention tocrisis situations and to form the basis of joint

remedial actions. While they often refer toand describe the impacts of forced evictionson the people affected, they seldom dwellon the specifics of this in properly researcheddetail. First-hand accounts such as those citedabove can serve to confirm the occurrenceof known trends in particular forced evictioncases. They can also reveal important localvariations (in this case including the effecton neighbouring communities, total absenceof post-eviction support, separation of

families) that would otherwise get lost inthe more generic statements. Further, skilfuluse of such information can even allowfor qualified quantitative inferences andestimates, particularly in the case of smaller,more contained settlements. For instance, inits investigation of a brutal eviction of around150 families in Taguig City in the Philippines in2001, COHRE found that:

• The demolition and evictions took placeon a Sunday morning when many ofthe evictees were in church. They weretherefore unable to salvage much of theirbelongings. Property was also stolen andlooted;

• No alternative housing was provided tothose affected;

• Since the evictions, there has been noprovision of legal remedies, no legalprotection of the affected in their attempts

at obtaining legal redress, and no offer ofcompensation;

• There has been no post-eviction support ofany kind. Instead, institutions – includingthe churches – have been left to pick upthe pieces;

• The evictions have negatively affected theneighbouring communities. For example,the facilities demolished included a clinicthat had served the wider community;

•

The evictions impoverished the affectedpersons, worsening their already precariousexistence. One man interviewed by COHRErelated that upon visiting the area hefound people living in extremely inhumanconditions, with up to ten people (of allsexes and ages) in one room;

• Families have been separated and socialties strained;

• Rents in the area surrounding thedemolition sites have increased, effectivelycreating even greater economic hardshipsfor other poor residents;

• In October 2003, the ministry concerned– now the Ministry of Roads and PublicWorks – prepared a resettlement policyfor communities on other sections of theSouthern Bypass that was to be funded bythe World Bank. However, the Ministry wasnot prepared to extend the same policy tocover Kibera (COHRE 2006a: 55).

Instance of forced eviction in Nairobi, Kenya May 2005Photo: UN-HABITAT


24/113


Most of the affected families lost someor all of their personal belongings andbusiness stock in the demolition, whether

through the act of demolition itself orthrough confiscation, theft or loss after

the event. According to the affected families,the average cost of the demolished dwellings(materials and labour) was approximately20,000 PHP (Philippine pesos) [USD 392].Te average cost of personal and business

belongings destroyed or lost in the demolition was approximately 10,000 PHP [USD 196],making the average total loss per familyapproximately 30,000 PHP (total for allaffected families approximately 4,500,000PHP). [USD 88,200].”

(COHRE 2002A: 5)4

4 2002 Exchange rate between the Philippine Pesos and the US Dollar extrapolated from the historical exchange rate site at www.oanda.com as anaverage of currency conversion in April 2002 (PHP to USD 0.0196)

This approach was taken a step further in a

2003 COHRE fact-finding mission to Ghana,to investigate the threatened eviction of theAgbogbloshie / Old Fadama settlement adjacentto the Korle Lagoon in Accra. In order to assessthe levels of investment by residents in theirown settlement, and so by inference the lossesthey would risk in the event of an eviction,COHRE consultant and urban expert Dr JohnAbbott used first-hand accounts combined withexisting secondary research data as follows:

Housing represents a significant economicinvestment for the community of

Agbogbloshie. […] Discussion of materialscosts (predominantly timber for general

construction, doors and windows, and roofingmaterials) indicated that the current cost ofconstruction of a medium grade dwelling in Agbogbloshie is on the order of 100,000 cedis perm2 of floor area. Tis equates to just over US$11at the current exchange rate (8,850 cedis = US$1).Tis appears to be a reasonable figure based uponthe current cost of second hand materials.”

Such information about investment by

communities into their own housing can becrucial during a pre-eviction situation such asAgbogbloshie in 2003 to argue for alternativesto forced eviction, such as in situ upgrading.Or, failing this, it can at least contribute to thesetting of benchmarks for future restitution,reconstruction and/or compensation claims.Nevertheless, it remains true that in most fact-finding reports on forced evictions by humanrights groups, reference to actual impact hasbeen mostly generic, anecdotal and/or basedon somewhat speculative estimates. There isa growing recognition that this is a gap thatrequires urgent attention.

Tere are a number of different ways toestimate the total land covered by buildings.Te ESIA of KLERP [the Korle Lagoon

Ecological Restoration Project] uses an overallarea for the settlement of 31.2ha and from aerial

photos calculates that the housing covers 20ha.Given the nature of the access network, the absenceof gardens and the high housing density, a coverageof 60 percent will be assumed. Tis gives a coveredarea of 12ha, or 120,000 m2 [in the settlement].

Using the above cost of 100,000 cedis per m2, thisgives a total housing investment cost of 12 billioncedis, or US$1.3 million. o place this investmentin perspective, the governmental housing budget fornew units for low and moderate-income groups (forthe whole country) is given as 175 billion cedis.”

(COHRE 2004: 44)


25/113

13

2.2 THE NEED FOR A PREDICTIVEMODEL

The need for developing a clear and practicalconceptualisation and accurate methods ofmeasurement of the specific impacts of forcedeviction on the people affected has in factbeen recognised for a number of decades.This is thanks in great part to the contributionof anthropologists and other social scientists,and in particular the seminal study The Social

Consequences of Resettlement, published in1971 (Colson 1971, discussed in Partridge1989). Since that time numerous calls have beenmade for the improvement as well as a morewidespread application of impact assessmentmethodologies in attempt to understand anddeal with the problems caused by resettlementprojects and evictions. The aim was for morethan an anecdotal, retrospective or simplyacademic understanding of eviction impacts. In1991, as noted by Cernea and Schmidt-Soltau

(2006: 1813), a publication by sociologists andgeographers on resident people and nationalparks (Brenchin & West 1991) called for apredictive model which could anticipate, priorto implementation, what those impacts wouldbe, so that this could be fully taken into accountin planning and decision-making on proposeddisplacements of people. According to Brenchinand West (1991:17, cited in Cernea 2004: 6):

In the same year a United Nations Centre forHuman Settlements report (UNCHS 1991),entitled Evaluation of Relocation Experience, recognised the need for understanding the

differential impacts of relocations in urbancontexts.5 The study looked at the question ofwho pays and who benefits:

The study also distinguished between twolevels of impact, viz.: (1) impact on the social

organisation of the people relocated; and (2)impact on their employment and financialsituation. It also looked at the impact onwomen, as a third category warranting specialfocus (UNCHS 1991: 38-40). The findings ofthe UNCHS report reinforced the World Bankpolicy guideline of 1988 that whenever feasible,involuntary resettlement must be avoidedor minimized, and alternative developmentsolutions must be explored (UNCHS 1991: 44).The report also proposed guidelines for planningand design of relocation, in cases where it wasunavoidable. These guidelines included animportant guiding principle that “the relocateesshould, on balance, benefit from the relocation”(UNCHS 1991: 47).

To assess and plan for the realisation of such‘benefit’, a predictive relocation impactassessment model as envisaged by Brenchinand West would be essential. In the decades

that followed, some significant progresswas made in developing such as model, aswell as designing the necessary research

It is evident that for none of theactors are the benefits and costs of therelocation in equilibrium. Whereas for

the public, and even to a larger extent, theprivate sector, the benefits far outweigh the

costs of relocation, for the affected families this

picture is reversed. […] It is apparent from thisreview of relocation experiences that relocationis almost always a very disruptive experiencecausing considerable social and economichardship for the inner-city urban poor.”

(UNCHS 1991: 44)

5 UNCHS was renamed the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT) in December 2001.

What is too little understood, bothby professionals and scholars alike, isthe social impact of displacement and

relocation. When resident people areforced to move, certain general impacts can

be expected but the collective social impacton the community differs widely from case tocase; to date, no model exists to predict thecumulative effect.”


26/113


During its subsequent deliberations AGFEresolved that there was much to be gainedfrom a sharing of experiences, comparisonof methodologies and consolidation andimprovement of the available tools relating toeviction impact assessment. These ideas were

taken forward by the AGFE Secretariat and thecurrent research project is an outcome of thisprocess.

Furthermore, following on consultationsduring 2006 with individuals and organisationsworking on the issue, the then SpecialRapporteur on adequate housing, MiloonKothari, included the idea of eviction impactassessments as a requirement in his “BasicPrinciples and Guidelines on Development-

Based Evictions and Displacement” (UnitedNations 2007 – hereafter Special Rapporteur’sGuidelines), as follows:

methodologies. Working from varying yetat times intersecting needs and perspectivesacademics, professional, internationalinstitutions and advocacy organisationscontributed in different ways to this process.The outcomes of this work will be discussed inthe next section.

However in spite of this progress, therehas been a growing recognition of theneed for methodological consolidation and

improvement, and for more widespread andextensive application of eviction assessmentmethodologies. For example, there isrecognition of a need to improve economicresearch on the impacts of forced resettlement(Cernea 1999: 8-13), particularly with regardto the urban context (Mejia 1999: 148). Otherurgently necessary improvements include:

• to broaden the categories of information

regarded as valid in assessing impact(Seymour 2008: 299-301);• to interrogate and reform the economic

and financial foundations of resettlementto ensure that the full extent of potentialnegative impacts is accounted for (Cerneaand Mathur 2008: 1-10);

• to improve understanding of hithertounder-researched causes of forced evictionincluding privately funded developmentprojects, urban renewal and nature

conservation (Oliver-Smith 2009: 9);• to acknowledge, investigate and deal

with the predicament of huge populationsfalling outside both traditional andformalised land tenure systems, who areoften ignored in resettlement programmes,particularly in urban contexts (Mejia 1999:154).

In its first report the Advisory Group on Forced

Evictions (AGFE), established in 2004 to advisethe Executive Director of UN-HABITAT, notedthat:

Another issue that AGFE hasinsufficiently addressed thus far is thesearch for innovative ways to face the

economic and social costs related to therelocation of families. […] Tis relocation

implies significant economic costs, whichusually comprise the cost of the urbanised sitein addition to compensating people for whatthey had built over time. Tere are also socialcosts for the affected communities, such as

loss of social, familial, religious and culturalnetworks; access to education, health and othersocial services; and the potential increase intransportation costs for work and purchase offood and other commodities. All these issueshave to be factored into both the assessment ofthe necessity for relocation and, where deemedinevitable, the financial and other forms ofappropriate compensation to be paid to thefamilies affected by relocation.”

(ADVISORY GROUP ON FORCEDEVICTIONS 2005: 150)


27/113

15

During a video conference discussion withthe members of AGFE on 1 September2008, the current Special Rapporteur on theright to housing, Raquel Rolnik, stated herintention to take these requirements furtherin the course of her work. Parallel to this,work is underway by Habitat InternationalCoalition’s Housing and Land Rights Networktogether with two partner organisations Youthfor Voluntary Action (YUVA) and NationalCentre for Advocacy Studies (NCAS), who

have undertaken to build on the SpecialRapporteur’s Basic Principles and Guidelines inorder to “develop the modalities of evictionimpact assessment as an operational tool.”(HLRN et al. 2009: 1).

32. States must give priority to exploringstrategies that minimize displacement.Comprehensive and holistic impact

assessments should be carried out priorto the initiation of any project that could

result in development-based eviction anddisplacement, with a view to securing fully thehuman rights of all potentially affected persons,groups and communities, including theirprotection against forced evictions. “Eviction-

impact” assessment should also includeexploration of alternatives and strategies forminimizing harm.

33. Impact assessments must take into accountthe differential impacts of forced evictions on

women, children, the elderly, and marginalizedsectors of society. All such assessments shouldbe based on the collection of disaggregateddata, such that all differential impacts can be

appropriately identified and addressed.”

(UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ONADEQUATE HOUSING 2007)


28/113


3. EXISTING METHODOLOGIES


29/113

17

3.1 ECONOMIC EVALUATION TODETERMINE IMPACT MOTIVATION

The publication of Evaluation of RelocationExperience (UNCHS 1991), discussed in theprevious section, was followed by an expert groupmeeting in 1992 which inspired the publication in1993 of the Relocation and Resettlement Manual:A guide to managing and planning relocation, bythe Institute for Housing and Urban DevelopmentStudies (Davidson et al. 1993). The purpose of

this manual is “to help those involved in possiblerelocation to achieve a result that helps developrather than harm those who may have to bemoved from their existing locations”. The authorsobserve that “performance in relocation hasoften been poor, and considerable suffering hasresulted.” The approach suggested is essentiallypragmatic and technical, firstly by trying toencourage all parties “to avoid relocation”,and where this proves impossible, to find waysthrough proper management and planning “totry to minimise it”. They place emphasis on “theprocess of decision making and who is involved init”, during which key questions to be consideredinclude:

• Is relocation necessary?• Can it be minimised?• What is necessary for rehabilitation of

those affected?• How do you prepare a relocation plan?

• With whom should the plan be prepared?• How should the process be managed?• What support is necessary to rehabilitate

those who are relocated?(Davidson et al. 1993: 1)

For those last resort cases where relocationis genuinely necessary and unavoidable,such as where people are “living in adangerous location, for example a river bed,

or on the only possible site for needed cityinfrastructure”, the manual examines “howthe relocation can be pu rsued in such away that the interests of those affected areprotected”. This would require a “commitment

to rehabilitation of those affected so that theydo not become impoverished through theprocess” (Davidson et al. 1993: 1).

The manual therefore tries to show whatconditions are needed for a relocation to be‘successful’, and more importantly how thoseconditions can be met. ‘Success’ is defined interms of the objective “that those relocatedshould benefit from the process on a sustainablebasis. At a minimum they should be no worse

off” (Davidson et al. 1993). Taking guidancefrom the Evaluation of Relocation Experience research, the authors focus on five broad areasrelevant to this objective, namely a sound policy,legal and institutional framework; participatoryplanning and management of the process;good location of the relocation; good physicaldevelopment; and effective socio-economicdevelopment (Davidson et al. 1993: 5).

Using the definition of ‘successful’ relocationclearly implies the ability to measure the extentof loss or benefit – what we are referring toas EvIA. The question of assessing impact isdirectly addressed in section 3: “Feasibilityand Economic Evaluation”, which inter alia“illustrates how to apply the various elementsof an economic evaluation to relocationprojects to make costs more explicit” (Davidsonet a. 1993 13). The section describes thenature and purpose of determining feasibilityin advance of implementation, naming the keyareas of physical and environmental factors;legal framework; institutional questions(responsibilities, attitudes, capability andcapacity); political issues; social issues; and riskanalysis of possible changes.

A true test of the feasibility of the ‘push’project causing relocation requires anunderstanding of the full costs of the entire

process, something that cannot be deliveredby a traditional financial evaluation. Theauthors propose the use of a significantlybroadened conception of costs, specificallyincluding social costs: “narrow definitions of


30/113


financial costs will not incorporate the realeconomic burdens of resettlement. This maylead to inefficient solutions especially for thosenegatively affected” (Davidson et al. 1993:15). The feasibility study therefore needs to becombined with a broader economic evaluation:

Te purpose of an economic evaluation isto illustrate the most likely consequencesfor society as a whole of strategies

proposed. Tis should be independentof whether the changes have any financialconsequences for the implementing agency.Compared to a financial analysis, the scope ofan economic analysis is broader. For example,implementing agencies seldom assumeresponsibility for families’ increased commutingcosts during decades following resettlement.Similarly, they do not attempt to levy charges

where resettlement reduces those commutingcosts. No entries of outlays or revenues will

appear in the financial accounts. Despite this,these elements influence the net benefit. Teydetermine whether groups that gain fromthe project can compensate groups that lose(the latter groups very often belonging to theeconomically weaker sections of society). […]If the benefits of redevelopment from the pushproject cannot compensate the economic lossesof resettlement, other options need to beconsidered at an early stage (including no

resettlement).”

(DAVIDSON ET AL. 1993: 15)

METHODOLOGY

The Relocation and Resettlement Manual doesnot offer a detailed, step-by-step methodology,but rather presents a broad approach basedon the methodological principles involvedin conducting a feasibility study, includingthe need for a full costing of the process.Importantly for our purpose here, it identifieskey categories of information that would needto be gathered during an economic evaluation.Typically, at the commencement of a feasibilitystudy, the various options to be considered arelisted and prioritised, but these will lack muchof the information needed for the economicevaluation. According to the authors, this earlystage “is the time for setting up a specificevaluation model that traces the variousmechanisms through which resettlementaffects the communities involved. After thisit is necessary to use it to help identify criticaldata requirements” (Davidson et al. 1993:15).

Though data category headings may differfrom case to case, they would normallyinclude: (1) change in housing and other livingconditions; (2) employment and earnings;(3) community effects; and (4) other costsand benefits. The manual then lists a set ofimportant issues arising under each of theseheadings, plus a useful conceptual breakdownof relocation effects in an economic evaluation,as well as a framework for the basis of

calculation of relocation costs. These are givenin Table 1 and Table 2 below. At various pointsin the report the authors provide suggestionson how particular aspects of costs are to becalculated (Davidson et al. 1993:16-21).

An important contribution of the Evictionand Relocation Manual to the subject ofEviction Impact Assessment is its recognitionof categories of cost that would normally havebeen lost to feasibility analysis. Some of the

more obvious examples would be “differencesin [the] cost of services, such as water andpower, and costs and commuting”, whichwould in principle at least be easy to calculate,


31/113

19

present houses, their neighbours, and thelocal customs of their communities. Movingmay break up strong systems of social supportwithin their neighbourhoods. Being forced tomove somewhere else, among strangers andaway from their familiar patterns of life, is areal loss” (Davidson et al.1993: 20). Whilesuch losses are not “economic in the ordinarysense”, they argue that they have “definite,objective economic value”. Determining thisis difficult but not impossible. Community

effects “seldom enter market valuationsbecause they infrequently play a role in currenttransactions”, which means that conventionalquantification techniques don’t necessarilyapply. However they can be determinedthrough “dialogue with the community”(Davidson et al. 1993: 20-21).

for example: “Without relocation a familywould spend USD 10 a month on commutingto work and have to devote 25 hours in travel;with relocation travel to work would requireUSD 14 and 30 hours”. In an economicevaluation, both these additional outlays,including the value of additional time spent,would count as “costs of relocation” (Davidsonet al. 1993: 18-19).

The manual goes further to include

“community effects”, which are equallylogical but more challenging to determine:“Some people will suffer intangible, butstill significant, personal losses when theymove. This is especially true of the olderresidents and many of their children, whohave a strong emotional attachment to their

1. Housing and other living costs(or benefits)

Housing costs

Other living costs

a) Location and rents of stock outside the area; city or district wide price elasticities ofhousing demand for distinct categories of housing.

b) Price elasticity of long-run supply, cost estimates for resettlement options, costsof resettlement assistance, and ideally estimates of cost savings achieved byassistance.

c) Change in living costs e.g. price of food and services.

a) Commuting costs: added time in travel and the shadow prices of commuting time,added pecuniary expenses.

b) Public utilities’ supply costs at other likely locations or, where these are notavailable, estimates of loss associated with this.

2. Employment and earnings Amount and nature of locationally sensitive employment and associated earnings,including proprietors’ income; availability of similar employment opportunities elsewhereat other potential resettlement sites outside the standard commuting perimeter.

3. Community effects a) Useful indicators: ethnic and religious composition of the population; tenure andlength of residence in present houses and within the present neighbourhood;income transfers within the neighbourhood.

b) Estimates of value: blind factors for preliminary sensitivity tests; empiricalestimates available only through bilateral negotiations and negotiations withincommunity groups and between community groups and the agency responsible forcompensation.

TABLE 1: RELOCATION EFFECTS IN AN ECONOMIC EVALUATION


32/113


4. Other costs (or benefits)Acquisition costsMoving costs

Administration/institutionaldevelopment costsEnvironmental impact

Rental value of land and buildings.Quantities and distance of goods to be moved, including scrap metals of demolishedbuildings, if applicable, available means of transportation, charges for commercialservices.The costs of staff time and expenses and any institutional development required tomanage relocation and its follow up.An environmental impact assessment should be made as part of the “push” project.

Element Analysis Purpose Estimation or Calculation

Housing andother living costs

Housing andShops

Financial Budget estimates for assistanceor planned relocation

Outlays depend on form of assistance or plannedrelocation.

Economic Estimating value of alternativehousing and business premisesafter eviction

For families and businesses moving without plannedrelocation to new neighbourhoods, the value dependson the rents of stock outside the project area once theproject area has been cleared and redeveloped; hencethe changes in values that will occur as a result of theproject; if planned relocation is to new sites, or privatedevelopers respond to additional demand elsewhere, coststhen include investments in new housing and businesspremises.

Other LivingCosts

Financial Budgeting estimates ofrelocation assistance andplanned relocation

Depends on the specific form of assistance considered andliability accepted.

Economic Estimating the value of addedcommuting costs, costs ofadditional public services orlosses of services

i. Commuting costs; value of added time in travel(reference to texts on planning of transportationprojects), added expenses and subsidies and on publictransport or personal transport.

ii. Public utilities’ supply costs at other locations, and, wherenot already available, estimates of the loss associated

with this and of the costs of extending services.Employment andEarnings

Financial Budgeting assistanceprogrammes, new facilities, andbusiness oriented public servicesin planned relocation sites

Depends on the type and extent of assistance; whereassistance involves on-going grants, credit, and theprovision of public utilities, the annual expenses for theadministration of these elements are included.

Economic Estimating the value of job andrelated earnings losses that willoccur without assistance, andthe benefits in reduced lossesfrom assistance

i. Amount and nature of relocation sensitive employmentand associated earnings, including proprietors’ incomesand availability of similar employment opportunities atother potential relocation sites.

i. For planned relocation sites outside the standardcommuting radius estimates of costs of creating new

employment centres.ii. Resources for administration of various forms of

assistance such as credit programmes, job training.iii. Where quantitative assessment is not attempted, a

sensitivity analysis can be carried out.

TABLE 2: BASIS OF CALCULATION


33/113

21

Element Analysis Purpose Estimation or CalculationCommunityEffects

Financial Budgeting special compensationand assistance for dealing withsocial conflict and psychologicallosses caused by eviction andbreaking of community ties

Depends on the nature of community effects and meansadopted for dealing with them, likely an estimate.

Economic Estimating the value ofcommunity effects

i. Estimation of value available only through structurednegotiations with individuals or with communitygroups; negotiations aimed at discovery of forms andamounts of compensation required to make relocationvoluntary.

ii. For qualitative evaluation, useful indicators of theprobability of strong community effects includeinformation about ethnic and religious compositionof the population, tenure and length of residencein present houses within the neighbourhood, andevidence of mutual support among kin or communitygroups.

Other Costs

Site acquisition

Financial Budgeting compensation forpurchases of land and buildings

Depends on legal formula for compensation and agencypolicy, typically based on after-tax rental value or marketsales price.

Economic Estimating economic value of

land and buildings

Pre-tax rental value of land and buildings capitalised at

the social discount rate; for non-marginal projects whereclearance and redevelopment will effect rental valueselsewhere in a city, rental increases must be included andare typically estimated from studies of how much rentsvary in relation to changes in the supply of the type ofhousing and business premises involved.

Moving Costs Financial Budgeting compensationand planning componentsfor assistance with moving ororganising moving

Depends on legal formula or agency policy; elementsinclude removal of household and business goods,temporary storage, and costs of accommodation duringthe move.

Economic Estimating resource costs ofmoving

Costs depend on quantities of goods to be moved,including scrap materials of demolished building, ifapplicable, available means of transportation, and chargesfor commercial services.

(Source: Davidson et al. 1993: 19)

APPLICATION

The Relocation and Resettlement Manualis intended as a “support and stimulus toimproving local thinking and practice whenrelocation is a possibility”. Its deliberate

intention is to try to minimise relocationand to ensure, when relocation is genuinelyunavoidable, that it is done through properplanning, financing and management. Itdoes not present or prescribe a specific

methodology, on the grounds that differentcontexts will require different solutions.Instead it focuses on the basic principles thatneed to be applied (Davidson et al. 1993:

51). Thorough testing of the feasibility ofprojects that may involve relocation of peopleis regarded as essential. This has to includean economic evaluation which identifiesand either calculates or estimates all costs,


34/113


including the impacts on all individuals andcommunities that may need to relocate. Someof these costs are intangible, and can onlybe determined through dialogue with thecommunity. The authors acknowledge that“[f]or this to work it is important to have asound basis for participation of the community,and safeguards against arbitrary eviction”(Davidson et al. 1993: 21). However, it isnot made clear how one would proceed incontexts where such safeguards do not exist

or where there is no basis for participation butrather a relationship of antagonism and fear, asis often the case when people anticipate beingforcibly removed.

The manual provides good pointers on how toensure that the information relevant to projectfeasibility is obtained, analysed and properlypresented. The aim of this is to “informdecision makers clearly on the implications

of alternative lines of action” (Davidson etal. 1993). It is important to investigate andpresent a broad range of options:

There is, again, lack of clarity on theeffectiveness of this approach in contexts offear or a breakdown of trust, where the Stateis perceived to be acting in bad faith as a resultof previous or ongoing violations of land andhousing rights. The other serious inherentlimitation in this approach is the absence of

any attempt to list, compute and calculate thesocial costs of such relocation processes.

Relocation is only one of several optionsand should be evaluated as consistentlyas possible against the others. Finally, it is

essential to communicate the results of thefeasibility study clearly to decision makers so

as to encourage a fair and equitable decision.”

(DAVIDSON ET AL. 1993: 21)

3.2 THE HOUSING RIGHTS VIOLATIONLOSS MATRIX MOTIVATION

The Housing Rights Violation Loss Matrix wasdeveloped by the Housing and Land RightsNetwork (HLRN) of the Habitat InternationalCoalition (HIC). HIC is an independent,international, non-profit alliance oforganizations and individuals working in thearea of human settlements (HLRN 2010a).

The Housing Rights Violation Loss Matrix wasdeveloped as part of a broader methodologyor Housing and Land Rights Monitoring Toolkit,which seeks to put the legal specificity of thehuman right to adequate housing into practicalterms where authoritative information guidesyou through the process from developmentthrough monitoring to implementation. It isintended for a wide range of actors, includingpractitioners, policy makers, and researchers.The HRLN Toolkit takes the user through a seriesof ten steps, conceived as coinciding with thefunctions of human rights monitors. These are:

1. Explanation of the basic entitlementslinked to the right to adequate housing;

2. Introduction to key sources, both legaland popular, substantiating claims to eachentitlement;

3. Explanation of the applicable over-ridingprinciples;

4. Discussion of the guarantees underlyingthe entitlement;

5. Examination of the threats, obstacles thatmay impede the fulfilment of the right;

6. Identification of victims and vulnerablepersons likely to suffer violations;

7. Quantification of impact and lossesof violations using the Housing RightsViolations Loss Matrix;

8. Identification of duty holders responsible

for remedying specific violations;9. Exploration of actions that can be taken;10. Evaluation and follow up. (HRLN 2010d)


35/113

23

Step 7 is regarded as crucial: “Very importantto portraying the whole picture with the focuson the victims’ experience is a methodologyfor quantifying losses and costs of a violation / deprivation. This ‘Quantifying losses’ guideintroduces the methodology for capturingthe costs and quantifying the deprivation asmuch as possible” (HLRN 2010c). Its potentialapplications include legal defence, advocacy,policy analysis, feasibility analysis, reparationcalculations and others. It is particularly well

suited to the violation of forced evictions.

The HRLN Loss Matrix was designed forapplication to a variety of housing rightsviolations including evictions. However furtherwork has recently been done to make it moreeviction-specific. Building on the 2007 releaseof the Special Rapporteur’s Guidelines, whichincluded a call for the widespread, systematicuse of eviction impact assessments, HLRN and

two partner organisations, Youth for VoluntaryAction (YUVA) and National Centre forAdvocacy Studies (NCAS), produced a conceptnote and arranged an expert seminar in Indiaduring July 2009 “to develop a workable

Given the potential usefulness of this toolas a means to help assess and minimizeforced evictions in India, we feel it would

be worthwhile to develop the modalities of

eviction impact assessment as an operationaltool. Tis would entail examining and studyingexisting available mechanisms and adaptingrelevant components of them to create a specificeviction impact assessment tool. One suchavailable tool is the Loss Matrix developed bythe Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN)to assess damages / loss / compensation in theevent of housing and land rights violations. Tisloss matrix enlists components to be factoredinto the calculation of both material and non-material losses and also includes steps to befollowed in the process.”

(HLRN 2009: 1)

eviction impact assessment mechanism” (HLRN2009: 2). The concept note stated thatthis methodological development and redesignprocess is still underway with ongoing fieldtesting and improvement. A follow-up expertseminar is planned (Schechla 2010a). It is important to note that HLRN’s HousingRights Violation Loss Matrix and their morerecent work on eviction impact assessmentare firmly and explicitly rooted in a normative,

human rights framework, with primaryemphasis on the right to adequate housingand related rights. A key purpose of the HLRNToolkit is to “return the legal achievements” ofestablishing this framework “to the people”(HLRN 2010d). A cornerstone of the frameworkis the status of the right to adequate housingas a fundamental human right, as well asthe fact that the practice of forced evictionsconstitutes a gross violation of human rights, in

particular the right to adequate housing. Thisimplies specific entitlements and obligations;and also implies the right to remedy andreparation in the event of a gross violation,such as forced eviction. HLRN presentationstherefore strongly emphasise the “BasicPrinciples and Guidelines on the Right to aRemedy and Reparation for Victims of GrossViolations of International Human RightsLaw and Serious Violations of InternationalHumanitarian Law” (United Nations GeneralAssembly 2006), which specify seven differentdimensions of the right: 1. Restitution; 2.Return; 3. Resettlement; 4. Compensation:physically unrecoverable costs / losses; 5.Rehabilitation (economic, social, psychological,medical, cultural, etc.); 6. Promise of nonrepetition; 7. Satisfaction.

HLRN considers the corresponding UN GeneralAssembly resolution A/60/147, 22 March 2006

important in providing an authoritative basisfor calculating damages (i.e. costs and losses)as well as projecting programs and budgetsneeded for such reparation components associal, cultural, economic and other forms of


36/113


rehabilitation. In its networking meetings of the“African Human Rights Spaces” project HLRNhas urged that applying such quantificationmethods also provide a practical contributionto the broader goals of transitional justice,of which reparation provides one essentialelement. The Housing Rights Violation LossMatrix is a tool through which the extent of afuture or past violation can be conceptualisedand, to the extent that this is possible,calculated. This can serve either as a prevention

initiative to anticipate consequences and so towarn against and hopefully deter the violation,or as a remedial tool for a retrospectiveinvestigation of formulating claims for remedyand reparation (Schechla 2010b),

METHODOLOGY

The methodology of the Housing RightsViolation Loss Matrix is presented by HRLN asan 11-page component of a 1067 page Toolkit

document under the heading: Section 1.7Losses / consequences (HLRN 2010d – extractattached at ANNEX B). What follows is aselection of extracts to illustrate the basics ofthe methodology.

• The loss matrix tool can be used forany and all categories of housing rightsviolation (including evictions);

• The aim of the process is to quantify both

personal costs experienced by victims andpublic or social costs or housing rightsviolations;

• The material and otherwise calculablecosts resulting from the violations aredetermined for each unit (e.g. household)affected and then added together;

• In the case of multiple units affected,a representative sample is obtained todetermine the average values, which thenare to be multiplied by actual numbers ofunits affected;

• Incalculable losses are recorded andreported in narrative terms. Such narrativeexplanation and analysis is used as anaccompaniment to the quantificationtable;

• Both short term / immediate and long termvalues are assessed and included;

• Personal injury and pain-and-sufferingdamages can be calculated using methodsderived from applicable local jurisprudence,legal cases, actuary science or international

practice;• Accurate and thorough quantification of

costs and losses requires a great deal ofcooperation with the affected communityand a sustained relationship with them;

• A loss matrix quantification table is usedto record the values and other information(the full excel version can be downloadedvia the scroll bar at the top right of thefollowing webpage: http://www.hlrn.org/

old_hlrn/toolkit/English/explore/index.htm). The structure of the HLRN loss matrixquantification table is shown below:6

6 For reasons of space we are showing just a sample of the different types of measured violation impacts given on the full table. The full table isattached ANNEX C, for more detailed reference. Under the heading of “Method” the table also includes commentary on the contents of thecalculated costs/losses and provides guidance on how they could be calculated. This may need to be adapted to suit a particular case. In thecompleted table the actual calculation method used would be described, together with any other information that would be relevant for analysis.


37/113

25

TABLE 3: HOUSING RIGHTS VIOLATION LOSS MATRIX

HLRN Housing and Land Rights Monitoring “Tool Kit” Housing Rights Violation Loss Matrix*

Type of violation Forced eviction Confiscation Demolition

Inheritance Access denial Other

Type of cost/loss Method Short-term Long-term Cumulative

Victims’ Material Losses

(e.g.) Structure Replacement value,based on reliableestimates from local

contractors.

At the time of theviolation and duringthe following 30 days.

The projected or actualcosts following theinitial 30 days after

the violation andthe subsequent 11months.

Combined short-termand long-term values.

Subtotal: x

(e.g.) Contents Replacementvalue of contentsinventories provided byinhabitants, preferablytaken before the loss.


The projected oractual costs followingthe initial 30 daysafter the violationand throughout thesubsequent 11 months.

Combined short-termand long-term values.

Subtotal: x

Subtotal of victims’ material losses: x

Victims’ Nonmaterial Losses

(e.g.) Health (your full description of consequences here)

(e.g.) Socialmarginalization

(your full description of consequences here)

Other than Victims Material Costs

(e.g.) Collateraldamage

Physical damageto home, property,infrastructure,

landscaping orother material valuebelonging to neighborsand others affectedby the violation.These could involvematerial losses in anycategory considered inquantifying the victim’smaterial losses/costs.


The projected oractual costs followingthe initial 30 days

after the violationand throughoutthe subsequent 11months (covering thecombined period ofone solar year).

Combined short-termand long-term values

Subtotal: x

Total costs/losses to other than victims: x

Grand total:

Other than Victims Nonmaterial Costs

(e.g.) Civil order (your critical analysis narrative here)


38/113


* NOTES:

• Material losses can include: the structure;the plot; contents; collateral dam

Documents

ONU Losing Your Home 3188 Alt