UN Evictions and the Rights Based Approach to Urban Development

7/29/2019 UN Evictions and the Rights Based Approach to Urban Development

1/176

EVICTIONSAND THE RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO

URBAN DEVELOPMENT


2/176

Copyright United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), 2012An 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.

Cover photos: Housing construction by Hmong people in Sapa, northern Viet Nam, 2008 Rasmus Precht, UN-Habitat

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Team Leader: Claudio Acioly Jr.Task Manager: Channe OguzhanRapporteur: Leilani Farha

Thank you to UN-Habitat staff, in particular Jean duPlessis, Jeanette Elsworth, Mohamed El-Sioufi, Kyle Farrell, Matthew French, Axumite Gebre-Egziabher, Joe Hooper, Gulelat Kebede,Christophe Lalande, Nayoka Martinez-Backstrom, Thomas Melin, Chris Mensah, Ana Moreno,Wachera Muchiri, Helen Musoke, Ivy Mutisya, Christina Power, Remy Sietchiping, NicholasSimcik-Arese, Paul Taylor and Raf Tuts.

Thank you to all participants in the International Expert Group Meeting on Forced Evictions fortheir contributions to making the meeting a success.

Thank you to Maisie Greenwood for editorial support

Design: Jinita Shah/UNONLayout: Catherine Kimeu/UNONPrinting: UNON, Publishing Services Section, Nairobi, ISO 14001:2004-certified


3/176

International Expert Group Meeting

Held at UN-Habitats Global Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya from 2023 September 2011

EVICTIONS

AND THE RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH TO

URBAN DEVELOPMENT


4/176

ii FORCED EVICTIONS: INTERNATIONAL EXPERT GROUP MEETING


5/176

iii

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ADB Asian Development BankACHR Asian Coalition for Housing RightsACHPR African Commission on Human and Peoples RightsAGFE Advisory Group on Forced EvictionsBMA Bangkok Metropolitan AdministrationCEDAW Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against WomenCERD Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial DiscriminationCERD Committee on the Elimination of Racial DiscriminationCESCR Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

COHRE Centre on Housing Rights and EvictionsCRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with DisabilitiesEGM Expert Group MeetingEvIA Eviction Impact AssessmentESCR Economic, Social, Cultural RightsECSR European Committee of Social RightsHIC Habitat International CoalitionIHS Institute for Housing and Urban Development StudiesHR Human RightsHRC Human Rights CouncilHRC Human Rights Committee

HRBA Human Rights Based ApproachHLRN Housing and Land Rights NetworkIAP International Accountability ProjectICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsICESCR International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural RightsIDPs Internally Displaced Persons/PeopleIRR Impoverishment Risks and Reconstruction ModelMDG Millennium Development GoalsNGO Non-governmental organizationOHCHR Office of the High Commissioner for Human RightsSERAC Social and Economic Rights Action Centre

SPARC Society for the Promotion of Area Resource CentresSDI Slum Dwellers InternationalTOR Terms of ReferenceTMB Treaty Monitoring BodiesUN United NationsUNHRP United Nations Housing Rights ProgrammeUNESCAP United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the PacificUDHR Universal Declaration of Human RightsUPR Universal Periodic ReviewWUF World Urban Forum


6/176

iv FORCED EVICTIONS: INTERNATIONAL EXPERT GROUP MEETING

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Acronyms .................................................................................................................................. vi

Executive Summary ..............................................................................................................................ix

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Keynote Addresses ......................................................................................................................... 5

2.1 Keynote address by Dr. Joan Clos, Executive Director of UN-Habitat ....................................................62.2 Keynote adress Raquel Rolnik, UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing .......................................7

2.3 The human rights based approach (Urban Johnsson) ...........................................................................8

2.4 United Nations Housing Rights Programme/OHCHR (Bahram Ghazi) ..................................................10

2.5 Advisory Group on Forced Evictions (Leticia Osorio) ...........................................................................12

2.6 Forced Evictions: Global Crisis, Global Solutions (Leilani Farha) ..........................................................14

2.7 Review of existing eviction impact assessment methodologies (Jean du Plessis) .................................16

2.8 Global Eviction Monitoring (Leticia Osorio) ........................................................................................18

2.9 Videos on forced evictions (Ryan Schlief) ...........................................................................................19

2.10 Guidelines and Practices on Evictions, Acquisition, Expropriation and Compensation(Maartje Van Eerd)............................................................................................................................21

2.11 Housing rights in an international perspective (role and responsibilities of relevant actors)(Esther Kodhek) ................................................................................................................................23

2.12 Promoting standards to counter forced evictions: The role of UN-Habitat (Miloon Kothari) ..................24

2.13 Keynote address by Claudio Acioly Jr., UN-Habitat Housing Policy Section ..........................................26

3. Roundtable on Housing Rights Networks and UN-Habitat ......................................................... 27

4. Workshop presentations .............................................................................................................. 31

4.1 Prevention and alternatives to forced eviction: Cambodia (David Pred) ..............................................32

4.2 Normative Tool development: Enumeration in Port Harcourt (Victoria Ohaeri) .....................................34

4.3 Normative tool development: HIC-HRLN Toolkit (Joseph Schlechla) ....................................................36

4.4 Strategic human rights support for organizations challenging development-induced displacement:the role of networks and partnerships (Thea Gelbspan) .....................................................................38

4.5 Kenya Housing Coalition (Justus Nyangaya) ......................................................................................40

4.6 Asian Coalition of Housing Rights (Arif Hasan) ..................................................................................42


7/176

v

5. Annexes ........................................................................................................................................ 43

Annex A: Agenda ............................................................................................................................................44

Annex B: Concept Note: International Expert Group Meeting ...........................................................................48

Annex C: Formal and Consensus-based Observations and Recommendations to UN-Habitat ............................51

Annex D: List of Participants ............................................................................................................................57

Annex E: Participant Profiles............................................................................................................................59

Annex F: Guidance Note: The UN and Housing Rights The Way Forward ......................................................113

Annex G: Guidance Note: Strategic Priorities for Action ..................................................................................123

Annex H: Guidance Note: Housing Rights Networks and UN-Habitat .............................................................130

Background Notes: Survey Analysis .................................................................................................141

Housing Rights Networks and UN-Habitat .....................................................................................144

Annex I: Participant Evaluation .....................................................................................................................162


8/176

vi FORCED EVICTIONS: INTERNATIONAL EXPERT GROUP MEETING

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

UN-Habitat hosted an EGM on Forced Evictionsfrom 20-23 September 2011 in Nairobi,Kenya. With 50 experts in attendance from40 different countries, participants exchangedviews and contributed knowledge and ideas todiscussions on the ways that UN-Habitat andother relevant actors can prevent, monitor, andassess the impact of forced evictions across theglobe. The EGM was organized in collaboration

with the Office of the High Commissioner forHuman Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva and wasintended to build momentum and elaborate onthe strategies for shaping and strengtheningthe future role of UN-Habitat in the area offorced evictions and housing rights.

Through keynote presentations, plenarydiscussions and workshops, the experts agreedunanimously that the increase in the intensity

and scale of forced evictions across the worldis a trend that has to be reversed and a humanrights based approach (HRBA) is key in thisregard. This was particularly emphasized inplenary keynote addresses throughout theEGM.

The Executive Director of UN-Habitat, Dr. JoanClos, in his webcast keynote address expressedhis full commitment to the United Nations(UN) overarching goals and principles, to theissue of human rights as one of the main pillarsof the UN, and especially to the human rightto adequate housing. Dr. Clos expressed realconcern about the urbanization process and itsimpact on less-developed and poor countries.For this reason he has dedicated himself to astrategic planning exercise within UN-Habitat,to re-energize it in the face of the challengesthat lie ahead as urbanization proceeds.

The Executive Directors powerful address wasfollowed by a video message from Ms. RaquelRolnik, UN Special Rapporteur on AdequateHousing. She noted that interventions aimed

at addressing forced evictions have not yieldedmaximum impact because human rightsstandards and systems have not been fullyintegrated into institutional architecture at thenational level for realizing the right to housingand shelter. National, regional and territorialhousing and shelter strategies generally do notincorporate human rights principles and norms.

Urban Jonsson, an independent expert,provided an overview of key elements to aHRBA to housing and the value-added of suchan approach should UN-Habitat embrace it.

UN-Habitats re-structuring and theincorporation of a HRBA to its work,particularly in the areas of housing and forcedevictions, was a major theme of discussion. Inparticular, many discussions centered on the

value-added and capacity of UN-Habitat tomainstream human rights into its programmingto achieve sustainable human developmentglobally. Recognizing that it is impossiblefor UN-Habitat to be engaged in evictionshappening around the world, participantsstressed the importance and urgency for theagency to recognize that people living inpoverty and other vulnerable and marginalizedgroups are their core constituency and assuch, its programs and projects must retain aprimary focus on empowering those who aremarginalized, or at risk of being marginalized,in the development process. The adoption of ahuman rights policy and conceptual frameworkfor integrating and mainstreaming of humanrights into its policy development andproject programming in accordance with thecommitments stated in the Habitat Agenda,was also strongly recommended.

In this regard, Mr. Miloon Kothari, the formerUN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing,outlined specific ideas and directions toencourage UN-Habitat to transform into a


9/176

vii

human rights organization. He stated thatthere is an urgent need to restore publicconfidence in UN-Habitat. UN-Habitat needsto understand and highlight the enormity ofthe impact of forced evictions, with particularemphasis on women, children and Indigenousgroups. Mr. Kothari suggested that UN-Habitatcould use its expertise to bring real meaning tothe concept of the Right to the Cityand lastlythat UN-Habitat must launch an aggressivecampaign to challenge the notion of Cities

Without Slums which has often been abusedby governments around the world. UN-Habitatneeds to articulate the content and directionof this campaign to reflect the needs andrealities faced by the urban poor. Mr. Kotharialso noted an urgent need for the UN-Habitatto articulate, clarify and elaborate a normativedefinition of public purpose in response to thegrowing trend where private interests in forcedevictions are disguised as public purpose.

In this regard, it has become imperative forpressure to be put on states and governmentsto put an end to land speculation and reviewland-use and tenancy legislations in a mannerthat affords protections to citizens againstphysical, economic and financial pressures.

The possible future role of the Advisory Groupon Forced Evictions (AGFE) within UN-Habitatand as an independent entity was alsodiscussed at length throughout the EGM. AGFE

was established in 2004, and was comprisedof independent experts and practitioners fromdifferent parts of the world. It carried outa number of missions to investigate forcedevictions across the world, including in: NewOrleans, Istanbul, Port Harcourt, Nigeria,Italy, London and Argentina. Mission reportswere forwarded to the Executive Director ofUN-Habitat with concrete recommendationsfor possible actions that UN-Habitat could

undertake to prevent or address the forcedevictions. To kick-start this conversation onthe future of AGFE, Ms. Leilani Farha providedan overview of forced evictions in the globalcontext, highlighting the work of AGFE, as well

as the challenges AGFE faced in terms of itsleadership, structure, funding and the difficultyin meeting its central mandate: advisingthe Executive Director of UN-Habitat. Theselimitations were underscored in a letter writtento the EGM by Yves Cabannes, the formerChair of AGFE.

Despite the challenges that faced AGFE therewas consensus among experts at the EGM thatan international body to monitor and address

forced evictions similar to AGFE ought to exist.Experts also agreed that UN-Habitat is well-positioned to play more of a leadership role inaddressing situations of forced evictions froma human rights perspective, through morestrategic engagements with governments atboth national and local levels as well as othernon-state actors. EGM participants discussedin some detail, the role UN-Habitat couldadopt in this regard, for example, the provision

of resources to bring together internationaland regional groups working on forcedevictions; the provision of technical, logistical,advisory support to governments; and greaterparticipation in the UN human rights systemand with UN actors engaged in addressing thepractice of forced eviction. EGM participantsalso examined the ways UN-Habitat couldundertake interventions that would lead tocorrective action and reduce the likelihood offorced evictions.

To complement the plenary presentations anddiscussions, nine workshops were held duringthe three days, with three workshops runningconcurrently each afternoon. The workshopsexamined in greater depth three themes: i/the capacity of UN-Habitat to address forcedevictions working within the broader UNhuman rights system including the OHCHR;ii/ UN-Habitats ability to address the issue

of forced evictions and to develop and useappropriate tools while working with localNGOs and in the national context, with a focuson Nigeria, Cambodia and Egypt; and iii/ UN-Habitats role with respect to existing networks


10/176

viii FORCED EVICTIONS: INTERNATIONAL EXPERT GROUP MEETING

working to monitor, prevent and addressforced evictions, for example with ESCR-Net,the Asian Coalition on Housing Rights (ACHR),and the Kenyan Housing Coalition.

The EGM resulted in an outcome document,entitled, Formal and Consensus-basedObservations and Recommendations to UN-Habitat by Participants in the InternationalExpert Group Meeting on Forced Evictions.This document was presented by Mr. Kothari

to the Executive Office of UN-Habitat. Thisdocument makes several observations aboutUN-Habitats role with respect to forcedevictions. For example, it notes UN-Habitatsfailure to adopt an explicit policy on theintegration or mainstreaming of humanrights into its policy development and projectprogramming and the lack of leadership andaction by UN-Habitat to promote the right toadequate housing as articulated in the Habitat

Agenda.

The outcome document provides muchguidance as to how UN-Habitat could betterengage forced evictions. It stipulates forexample, that UN-Habitat should adopt aformal human rights policy and a conceptualframework for how to embed the HRBA in allof its programming and in its specific projects.It also suggests that UN-Habitat engage andcollaborate with the OHCHR and human rightsmechanisms including Special Procedures,Treaty Bodies, the Human Rights Council (HRC)

and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR).

The outcome document further suggeststhat UN-Habitat: facilitate the exchange ofinformation as well as the collection anddissemination of tools amongst relevantstakeholders; demonstrate leadership in thearea of forced evictions when focusing onspecific country contexts; encourage dialoguebetween stakeholders; and, adopt a proactive

approach to addressing forced evictions.


11/176

ix

A MESSAGE FROM MR. MILOON KOTHARI

I was pleasedand honouredto participate inthe Expert GroupMeeting on ForcedEvictions in Nairobi,Kenya from 20-23September 2011.It was hearteningto hear the

Executive Directorof UN-Habitat, Dr.Joan Clos, open this meeting with a strongcommitment to human rights, and to havesenior officials within UN-Habitat embrace hismessage at this meeting.

This meeting allowed us the luxury to dream ofUN-Habitat as a human rights organization, notonly in words but also in deeds, and it providedus with an opportunity to develop practicalrecommendations as to how UN-Habitat couldrestore its reputation and credibility by playinga more prominent role in addressing housingrights violations around the world.

If UN-Habitat is to reach its potential, asa starting point, it will need to engage ininstitutional reflection, re-engage the HabitatAgenda, and re-focus its mission in keeping withhuman rights principles. If UN-Habitat is seriousabout embracing the human rights messagewith respect to development and housing,it has tremendous resources and tools at itsdisposal, be it treaties, interpretive instruments,

or guidelines on forced evictions that havebeen developed by experts. If UN-Habitatbecame more human rights oriented it wouldalso have many institutional partners withinthe UN system. It could more fully developmeaningful partnerships with the SpecialProcedures appointed by the UN Human RightsCouncil, such as the Special Rapporteurs onadequate housing, food, water and sanitation,extreme poverty, violence against women, andIndigenous peoples.

So where should UN-Habitat go from here?The time is ripe for UN-Habitats ExecutiveDirector to issue a clear message to the UNhuman rights system and to the broaderinternational community that UN-Habitat canbe relied upon as a real partner, and that it

is embracing a human rights approach to itswork. In this regard, UN-Habitat must adopt abroad definition and understanding of the rightto adequate housing, one that recognizes thatthe right is about more than just secure tenure(though that is very important) but it is alsoabout freedom from dispossession, and rightsto land and property, information, capacitybuilding, restitution, safety and security, andgender equality.

UN-Habitat could certainly distinguish itself andassist some of the most marginalized peopleliving in abhorrent conditions around the world,if it capitalized on some of its existing strengthswithin a human rights framework. For example,as an entity that has worked so closely withmunicipal governments, it is well positioned tolead on developing a more coherent vision forthe right to the city a concept that has takenhold in many regions. UN-Habitat could alsouse its unique position in the field to challengethe economic policies of governments and theneo-liberal policies of global financial institutionsthat promote land and property speculation,privatization of lands, de-regulation and controlof rent values that facilitate and lead to thepractice of forced eviction.

Individuals, families and communities whohave experienced or are facing housing rightsviolations including forced evictions need astrong, reliable voice within the UN system todraw attention to their experiences, defend theirrights and help fashion solutions. At the same

time, the support of a UN body with developedexpertise on housing rights, would undoubtedlybenefit the work of Non-governmentalOrganizations (NGOs) concerned with housingrights, making their work on the ground thatmuch more effective.

This is a tall order, but under its new leadershipand strategic plan, it is one that UN-Habitat canmeet.

Miloon Kothari, Executive Director, Housing and

Land Rights Network in India, was nominatedby the group of experts to formally present theformal and consensus-based observations andrecommendations to the Executive Office of UN-Habitat on 23 September 2011.


12/176

1

1. INTRODUCTION


13/176

2 FORCED EVICTIONS: INTERNATIONAL EXPERT GROUP MEETING

This report provides a summary and overviewof the Expert Group Meeting (EGM) on ForcedEvictions hosted by UN-Habitat in Nairobi, Kenyafrom 20 - 23 September 2011. The meetingbrought together approximately 50 expertparticipants including independent experts,academics, NGO representatives, inhabitantsnetworks, government representatives, andobservers, to discuss the phenomenon of forcedevictions, international, regional and nationalresponses, and possible roles for UN-Habitat inmonitoring, preventing and addressing forcedevictions within this context.

This report provides a summary of all of thesubstantive sessions held over the course ofthe meeting. Because of the summary natureof the report, not all discussions and nuancescould be fully reflected, the report captures theessence and spirit of the meeting, major themes,concerns and outputs. It is structured as follows:

Section 2 of the report provides a summary ofeach of the keynote presentations, includingaddresses given by the Executive Director ofUN-Habitat, Dr. Joan Clos, the UN SpecialRapporteur on Adequate Housing, Ms. RaquelRolnik, and her predecessor, Mr. Miloon Kothari,Leilani Farha presenting on UN-Habitats globalreport on forced evictions, Ryan Schlief fromWITNESS, Maartje Vaan Eerd from the Institutefor Housing and Urban Development Studies(IHS), Esther Kodhek from the Centre on

Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), LeticiaOsorio on behalf of Hakijamii, and Jean duPlessis and Claudio Acioly Jr. of the HousingPolicy Section of UN-Habitat.

Section 3 provides an overview of a roundtablediscussion on housing and land rights networksand UN-Habitat, with representatives fromCOHRE, ACHR, Society for the Promotionof Area Resource Centres (SPARC), Habitat

International Coalition (HIC), and theInternational Accountability Project (IAP).

Section 4 provides an overview of the nineworkshops that were held which focused on

a range of issues including alternatives toforced eviction, normative tool development,and working with regional or national housingrights coalitions.

The report concludes with an Annex containingall of the pertinent documents that informedthe EGM, including the formal and consensusbased observations and recommendations toUN-Habitat.

1.2 PetitionsParticipants at the Expert Group Meetingpresented several petitions to UN-Habitat duringthe meeting. The petitions were accepted bythe Officer-in Charge and Chief of Staff ofUN-Habitat. One petition requested to includerepresentatives of inhabitants organizationsin the meeting. It was supported by a petitionfrom the East Africa Social Movements andNetworks. Due to the large number of proposedparticipants with very short notice, UN-Habitat

agreed to include three representatives in theworkshop that was facilitated by the KenyaHousing Coalition.

Another petition requested UN-Habitatsactive engagement and possible mediation inCambodia at the Boeung Kak Lake. UN-HabitatsExecutive Director responded favourably tothis request, and instructed the UN-HabitatRegional Office for Asia and the Pacific to carryout a fact-finding mission to the area, which

took place in February 2012. The last petitionconcerned the need for UN-Habitat to presentthe AGFE reports to relevant authorities and takeappropriate action as per the reports. In viewof the recommendations made by experts atthe meeting, UN-Habitat is seeking to re-definethe scope and nature of any future advisorymechanism on eviction to ensure that therecommendations made by such an advisorymechanism be appropriately utilized.

In addition, participants at the meeting also senta petition in support of the gypsy and travellercommunities that faced imminent evictions atDale Farm in the United Kingdom at the time ofthe meeting.


14/176

3

Participants at the International ExpertGroup Meeting on Forced Evictions,held in Nairobi in September 2011Photo: UN-Habitat /Julius Mwelu


15/176


16/176

55

2. KEYNOTE ADDRESSES


17/176


Keynote Speaker: Joan Clos,Executive Director of UN-Habitat

Dr. Clos opened the EGM by expressing his fullcommitment to the UNs overarching goals andprinciples, to the issue of human rights as oneof the main pillars of the UN, and especiallyto the human right to adequate housing. Hewarmly thanked the AGFE for its work underthe former Executive Director of UN-Habitat.

Dr. Clos expressed real concern about theurbanization process and its impact on less-developed and poor countries. It is for thisreason that he is now engaged in a strategicplanning exercise with UN-Habitat, to re-energize it in the face of the challenges that lieahead as urbanization proceeds. He noted thatwithin this context, forced evictions are a gravecalamity yet they are on the rise all around theworld and is an issue that affects basic human

rights. In this regard he noted that UN-Habitatis developing new strategies along three mainlines: i/ urban planning and design; ii/ urbanlegislation and governance; and iii/ urbaneconomy and job creation.

Dr. Clos stated that urban planning has beencriticized, even abandoned, in most parts ofthe world. In his opinion, UN-Habitat needsto return to this crucial area, because without

urban planning there is no way to have a realeffect on the future design, fabric and growthof cities. He indicated that UN-Habitat will alsofocus on urban legislation and governanceand the intervention of the public sector andpolitical institutions in the construction of aproper city. He stressed that protection againstforced evictions should be an integral part ofboth urban planning and urban legislation andgovernance.

Dr. Clos noted that urbanization should not beviewed simply as housing creation and slumprevention, and that it needs to be understoodin broader terms such as the enlargement ofthe city, and as proper urban planning thatprotects peoples rights. This approach willunlock the potential of societies to developaround cities.

Dr. Clos was clear in that we cannot acceptthat the challenge of urbanization is sooverwhelming that we cannot do anythingabout it. He said he intends to address thisattitude by promoting best practice modelsof how to deal with the challenges ofurbanization, including forced evictions, andpresenting Governments with options on howto respond in effective ways. He added that

once a Government has been shown bothproper and improper ways of responding to ahuman rights issue, however it chooses to actis a political and informed choice for which itmust assume responsibility.

Dr. Clos concluded with a clear declaration:there is a way to create a good and propercity, a just city, a city that cares for the poor,a city that defends the rights of its people, a

city that is at the same time politically feasible,environmentally sustainable and economicallyprosperous. This is the approach we mustadopt if we are to successfully tackle thechallenges that lie ahead.


18/176

7

Keynote Speaker: Raquel Rolnik,UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing

The Special Rapporteur expressed herdisappointment at not being able to attendthe EGM, but offered several very concretethoughts about the central causes of forcedevictions and inspired thoughts on the wayforward.

The Special Rapporteur commenced her

substantive comments by noting thatforced evictions should not be regarded asa legal issue somehow separate from urbanand territorial policies. She explained thatthis separation is based on the fact thatinstitutional structures themselves are notintegrated. For example, the human rightssystem and its institutional architecture andprocedures are completely separate from theinstitutional systems of housing, and urban and

territorial practices. This can result in a certaindisconnect. On the one hand a State may haveprogressive legislation to promote humanrights including the right to adequate housingat the national or even local level, but on theother hand, that same territory may have localpolicies that contradict the right to adequatehousing because the right is not integrated intoeveryday practice.

The Special Rapporteur indicated that thisdisconnect poses a huge challenge both withinand outside UN-Habitat. The solution, or mainproject then, is to determine how best tomainstream the human right to housing into allthe programs in which UN-Habitat is involved.

Mainstreaming is a very difficult project; theright to adequate housing is rarely found atthe core of housing policies, and this is knownbecause of the ongoing increase in the practiceof forced evictions globally and other violationsof housing rights. It is a very difficult challengealso because the bulk of housing rightsviolations are the result of the commodification

of housing production.

Despite these challenges, the SpecialRapporteur asserted that the human rightto adequate housing provides a very goodframework for urban and housing policies.The right to adequate housing can constitutea good base and structure for promotingurban and territorial housing policy reform.The Special Rapporteur indicated that now

is an opportune time to implement humanrights based reform because the collapse ofliberal approaches to housing commodificationis proof that these approaches have beenineffective and that reform is required.


19/176


Speaker: Urban Johnsson, Independent expertKeynote address: The human rights based approach

Mr. Jonssons presentation focused on aHRBA to development, in the context of thework done by the UN, and concluded withconstructive criticisms of the work of UN-Habitat. He stressed the importance of havingthe process and outcomes of the work of UN-Habitat embedded in an HRBA.

Mr. Jonsson commenced with three centralpoints: first that human rights must beunderstood as both morality and legality, notjust one or the other, for a focus on only oneof these elements will lead to a reductionistapproach. Second, he stressed the importanceof understanding the relationship betweenclaim holders and duty bearers, noting thatclaim holders generate duty bearers, not theother way around, and that these are roles

into which individuals enter depending onthe context. For example, in a tenant-landlordrelationship, the tenant is the claim holderrequiring certain duties of the landlord, such asaccess to safe drinking water. Third, he stressedthe importance of defining the outcome fromthe process used. Human rights standards arethe minimum acceptable level of desirableoutcome, while human rights principles arethe criteria for an acceptable process. The

standards and principles are what we use todefine an HRBA.

Mr. Jonsson then demonstrated the differentways in which the HRBA is embedded in thefoundation of the UN. In particular, he notedwhat he refers to as the principles of the UNscommon understanding of an HRBA: i/ equalityand non-discrimination, ii/ participation andinclusion, and iii/ accountability and rule oflaw, as an example of the existing consensus

on human rights at the UN. He then focusedon the essential and unique characteristics ofthe UNs common understanding of an HRBAwhich includes; a situation analysis to identify

immediate, underlying and basic causes ofthe non-realization of human rights (causalityanalysis), the identification of key claim-holder/duty-bearer relationship on all levels of society(pattern analysis), and the assessment andanalysis of the capacity gaps of claim-holdersto be able to claim their rights and of duty-bearers to be able to meet their obligations

(capacity analysis). He concludes this by statingthat the focus of a UN HRBA must be to buildcapacity so that claim-holders can claim theirrights and duty bearers can meet their duties.

He then turned to focus on the right toadequate housing, which he noted isenshrined in almost every covenant and basichuman rights document within the humanrights system. He stated that while General

Comments 4 and 7 by the UN Committee onEconomic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR)about the right to adequate housing andforced evictions are commendable, moreneeds to be done to ensure that the right toadequate housing is implemented in practice.

In his criticisms of UN-Habitat, Urban Jonssonsuggested that in comparison to other agenciesworking on Economic, Social, Cultural Rights

(ESCR), UN-Habitat is lagging behind withrespect to the adoption of an HRBA. He thenprovided ten points as to the value-added of aHRBA to development, summarized as follows:

1. In an HRBA to development, the individualis the subject of the right and has validclaims on others, who have duties andobligations. This is different from anentitlement or basic needs approachwhere there is no duty-bearer.

2. HRBA to development requires attention toboth outcome and process.

3. Human rights can be used to challengepower.


20/176

9

4. An HRBA to development promotesthe rule of law (reduces impunity andcorruption, and increases access to justiceetc.)

5. An HRBA gives more attention to exclusion,disparity and injustice, address the basic(structural) causes of problems.

6. An HRBA gives more attention to legal andinstitutional reforms and national policyreview.

7. With an HRBA, there is an international

monitoring mechanism in place.8. An HRBA implies clear accountability, not

just promises.9. An HRBA rules out some trade-offs, (that so

called economic theory would allow) whichare acceptable in a human developmentapproach.

10. Under an HRBA development assistance nolonger means charity, but is an obligation ofinternational community.

He concluded his address with several criticalcomments suggesting the need for futureaction. He noted that the right to be protectedagainst forced evictions, is both an ESCR anda civil and political right but that the civil andpolitical rights dimensions of the phenomenonhave not been adequately explored andpursued, but should be. He also highlightedthat the Millennium Development Goal (MDG)pertaining to housing is problematic and

that UN-Habitat must interpret the MDGs inkeeping with an HRBA, which would be inkeeping with the Millennium Declaration whichstipulates that a human rights based processshould be used for the achievement of theMDGs. He closed with the following strongassertion: All UNs agencies and staff mustadopt an HRBA. This is not a choice. The onlychoice is with respect to how to do it.

Mr. Jonssons presentation triggered muchdiscussion.

One participant highlighted the principle ofnon-retrogression as being key to an HRBA.It was also noted that UN-Habitat has failedto implement the Habitat agenda that cameout of the 1996 Habitat II conference. It wassuggested that the EGM was an opportunity torevive that work. The participant asked that theEGM reflect on why this happened, what were

the problems in the leadership, what werethe problems in the bureaucracy, why is therereluctance to follow through with the HabitatAgenda and why is UN-Habitat so concernedwith the reactions of governments?

Another participant noted that it is importantthat at every moment we do a reality checkwith what is happening on the ground. It wassuggested that the certainty and the comfort

that we take in having these global principlessigned off by our governments, has absolutelyno relevance to the people who fight thisprocess every day in the local neighborhoods.Such reality check has to come every momentin this discussion.


21/176


Speaker:Bahram Ghazi,Office of the High Commissioner for Human RightsUnited Nations Housing Rights Programme/OHCHR

Mr. Bahram Ghazi of the OHCHR addressed theinternational expert group meeting on forcedevictions offering suggestions as to how UN-Habitat can move forward on human rights aswell as how UN-Habitat can complement thework of the OHCHR.

Mr. Ghazi began with an overview of the

activities of the OHCHR with respects tohousing rights. At several points in thispresentation he emphasized the importanceof going beyond the most obvious places andspaces within the UN system to have abusesof housing rights addressed. For example, hedescribed how the OHCHR supports SpecialProcedures (eg: the Independent Experts andSpecial Rapporteurs appointed by the HRC).He noted that while in the context of the right

to housing and forced evictions there is mostobviously the work of Ms. Raquel Rolnik, theSpecial Rapporteur on Adequate Housing,other mandate holders are also working onissues of housing rights and forced evictions orcould be, including the Special Rapporteurs on:Indigenous People, the right to food, violenceagainst women, human rights defenders andso on. He also described how the OHCHRprovides support to Treaty Monitoring Bodies

(TMBs),

the bodies responsible for overseeingState party compliance with internationalhuman rights treaties, and that while theCESCR is the principle body responsible formonitoring the implementation of the right toadequate housing and forced evictions, otherTMBs also look into these issues, includingthe Committee on the Elimination of RacialDiscrimination (CERD) and the HRC.Finally,he noted that the OHCHR has field presenceswhich do ground work on housing and forced

evictions.

Mr. Ghazi described the institutionalrelationship between the OHCHR and UN-

Habitat through the UN Housing RightsProgram (UNHRP). He noted that this programwas initiated a couple years ago and wasoriginally quite ambitious but recently, dueto the lack of resources, has been reduced tospecific joint activities between UN-Habitatand the OHCHR. Mr. Ghazi then offeredsuggestions on how, apart from the UNHRP,

UN-Habitat could engage housing rights. Hecommended the address of the ExecutiveDirector, Dr. Joan Clos, and the positivedirection of UN-Habitat over the past year withrespect to urban planning, security of tenure,slum upgrading, land and water sanitation,social inclusion, governance, safer cities, postdisaster and post conflict reconstruction,environment, housing and finance. Hesuggested that if all these initiatives were

framed in the HRBA described by Mr. UrbanJonsson, much progress could be made. Hesuggested that UN-Habitat could be a fuse forthe human rights mechanisms and procedures,including the work of the Special Rapporteurs,the TMBs, or the UPR. For example, theexpertise of UN-Habitat would be an asset tothe Special Rapporteurs missions, especially interm of follow-up their recommendations. Hesuggested that UN-Habitats technical expertise

would be valuable to States, especiallywhere States are attempting to follow-up onrecommendations received through varioushuman rights mechanisms. States often needsupport in order to understand how humanrights can be operationalized and integratedin their programs and policies, to fulfill itsobligations.

The human rights mechanisms would alsobenefit from more inputs from UN-Habitat

to increase the quality of their work andrecommendations. He stated that the OHCHRwould be more than happy to receive morecollaboration from UN-Habitat and that there


22/176

11

are many examples where the OHCHR hasused the expertise of UN-Habitat to good ends.

Mr. Ghazi concluded his address on anoptimistic note, commending the ExecutiveDirector of UN-Habitat for articulating a strongcommitment to integrating human rights intoUN-Habitats institutional structures and work.Mr. Ghazi emphasized that the governingcouncil of UN-Habitat and other inter-governmental forums must show consistency

between what they say and what theiragencies do. He finished by expressing hopethat the dialogue generated at the EGM wouldproduce genuine results on the ground.

A lively discussion followed Mr. Ghazispresentation, particularly around the efficacyof human rights in the face of imminenteviction. Some participants queried whetherhuman rights resonate with people who arein the midst of experiencing an eviction. Thepresenter underscored that it is important toassess and determine the most effective waysto engage the UN human rights mechanismsand to then do so in a strategic fashion, usingresources wisely.


23/176


Speaker: Leticia Osorio, the Ford FoundationAdvisory Group on Forced Evictions

Ms. Leticia Osorio presented an overviewof the work of the AGFE highlighting bothpositive and negative aspects of the work ofthe mandate completed from 2008-2010. Sheconcluded with a series of recommendationsand challenges for the next mandate.

The positive aspects of the work conducted by

AGFE as presented were:

i/ Its role in informing the governing council ofUN-Habitat.

ii/ The organization of a database regarding themonitoring of forced evictions.

iii/ The improvement of relations by theSecretariat of AGFE with UN related activities

including progress made in relation to thecoordination of activities with the SpecialRapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing.(It was suggested that more could be doneto coordinate with other UN mechanismsincluding the OHCHR, Cities Alliances, theCESCR, and other relevant monitoring humanrights bodies).

iv/ AGFE was very successful in its missions

carried out between 2008-2012 in GreaterLondon, New Orleans, Argentina, and Istanbul.The success of these missions was based onthe good will and volunteer work of AGFE andlocal team members, and the reports producedserve as an advisory basis, and a wealth ofknowledge and solution.

Ms. Osorio then presented some of theaspects of the work of AGFE that were not assuccessful. For example, AGFE was not able

to complete its primary purpose: to advise theExecutive Director of UN-Habitat in addressingunlawful forced evictions and to promotealternative policies to UN-Habitats normative

work. To date, virtually none of the advice ofAGFE has been taken into account by the ED.This is primarily the case with Greater London,Istanbul, and New Orleans missions. In themost recent meeting between AGFE membersand the former ED of UN-Habitat during theWorld Urban Forum (WUF), the ED told AGFEmembers that she did not have time to read

the reports generated by AGFE and that shecould not advise governments on how to dealwith forced evictions as that was out of thescope of UN-Habitat.

Managerial and financial issues were alsonoted as problematic. The presenter indicatedthat funds were managed without consultationwith AGFE members, without transparency,and solely at the discretion of UN-Habitat.

Ms. Osorio also noted that there was someambiguity as to the role of AGFE as a senioradvisor to the Executive Director of UN-Habitat. AGFE members were treated more asunpaid consultants rather than advisors andthe secretariat to AGFE imposed a top-downmanagement style.

There were also language barriers that were

not addressed whereby the working languageof the group was English, which of courseexcluded any non-English speakers from thegroup.

Ms. Osorio concluded by presenting someof the roles that AGFE could play should itsmandate be continued. She suggested:

AGFE should advise where and howeviction related issues should be taken into

consideration by UN-Habitat such as withrespects to policy making, state of the cityreports, human settlement reports, EvictionImpact Assessments (EvIA) for technical projects


24/176

13

at the regional level, and mainstreamingeviction issues.

The security of tenure index, the only globalindicator that considers eviction, should bereinstated in the UN-Habitat toolbox as withoutit there is no mechanism to measure tenureinsecurity or eviction.

AGFE should establish more regular meetingswith the Executive Director of UN-Habitat

among other processes to provide a moresystematic and constructive two-way dialoguebetween AGFE and the Executive Director ofUN-Habitat.

There should be a more comprehensive andcritical evaluation of AGFE missions developed,including criteria to evaluate validity and followup activities to missions.

Mission reports, executive reports, guidelines,quick assessments, and normative assessmentsmust be made available to the public in atimely and systematically straightforwardmanner.

Internal workings and structures within AGFEmust be developed, including more clearlydefined roles of group coordination andorganization and the development of decision-making mechanisms.


25/176


Speaker: Leilani Farha, Centre for Equality Rights in AccommodationForced Evictions: Global Crisis, Global Solutions

Ms. Farhas address provided highlights fromthe research report, Forced Evictions: GlobalCrisis, Global Solutions of which she wasprincipal author. She began by describing thecontext and complexities of forced evictionsglobally. According to some, between 1998and 2008 forced evictions affected more than

18 million people. Forced evictions occur inboth urban and rural contexts and affect thealready most marginalized and disadvantagedgroups. She stressed that forced evictions arebeing carried out at an alarming rate withrelative impunity. She then described someof the key causes of forced eviction manyof which are interrelated - referred to inthe report: urban development, large scaledevelopment (eg: dams), natural disasters

and climate change, mega events, economicevictions, and discrimination.

Ms. Farha then outlined the 5 principles in ahuman rights approach to forced evictions:

i/ Maintain the needs of the group whoserights are at stake at the centre of everyconversation, meeting, or policy developed toaddress the eviction.

ii/ Ensure the group whose rights are atstake have an opportunity to meaningfullyparticipate in any dialogue, consultation, ordiscussion about the forced eviction.

iii/ Measurable timelines, indicators of progress,and goals must be clearly identified.

iv/ A place or space must exist where rightsclaimers can address their complaints against

duty bearers, noting that this does not have tobe a formal court or tribunal, but an accessiblespace where rights can be claimed.

v/ All work related to forced evictions must

be articulated using human rights law andprinciples. While those affected by the evictionneed not use formal language, human rightslanguage and obligations must be built intopolicies aimed at stopping forced evictions.

Ms. Farha highlighted five common

strategies used across regions to stopforced evictions, including: communityorganization and mobilization, internationalsupport, international human rights law andmechanisms, the development of an alternativeplan, and the use of the media strategically.She stressed that no eviction had ever beenstopped without community organization andmobilization.

Ms. Farha noted that the research reportassessed the constraints on the effectivenessof AGFE to address forced evictions, including:limited political support for AGFE through UN-Habitat Governing Council, limited financialresources, limited number of missions dueto process and resource constraints. She alsonoted that AGFE lacked a coherent humanrights approach to its work and understandingof what such an approach means in practice,and that there was some confusion regarding

AGFEs relationship to UN-Habitat.

Ms. Farha also presented research gapsregarding forced evictions that, if addressed,could support the capacity building of AGFE,including:

s The development of definitions todefine forced evictions in the context ofdeveloped countries,

s Application of international law todetermine how a third party can be heldaccountable,

s Solutions investigating successful strategiesto prevent and halt forced evictions,


26/176

15

s Research on what constitutes adequaterelocation and compensation,

s The feasibility of the development of animpact assessment toolkit, and

s Longitudinal studies to assess the long-term socio-economic and psychologicalimpact of forced evictions which wouldassist in the better formulation ofappropriate remedies to forced evictions.

Ms. Farha concluded her address by describing

what UN-Habitat could do in the context offorced evictions bearing in mind its institutionalstrengths and constraints. She suggestedthat UN-Habitat is in a good position tocreate a global database of forced evictions.Secondly, she suggested UN-Habitat shouldcoordinate further research on issues arisingaround forced evictions. Thirdly, UN-Habitatshould consider ways in which it can integrateeviction prevention policies and human rights

into its urban planning and technical adviceto governments. UN-Habitat could offer itselfas a resource to States on the technical andpractical implementation of human rights. Shealso suggested that UN-Habitat is in a goodposition to use the UN system to promote amore global understanding of forced evictionsand how they violate human rights, referringto UN-Habitats intervention during the UPR ofthe United States as an example.

She closed on a cautiously optimistic notestating that UN-Habitat has made someprogress in recent years in terms of institutionalcapacity building in the area of human rightsand housing and she is confident that UN-Habitat could continue to make progress inthat regard.


27/176


Speaker: Jean du Plessis, UN-HabitatKeynote address: Review of existing eviction impact assessment methodologies

If the Bangkok Municipal Authority (BMA)takes care of the community and allows thecommunity to work with it, there would belots of good ideas and solutions not justremoving people form their community. But ifthe BMA follows its original plan to evict, the

loss will be more significant than they think

Mr. Du Plessis used this powerful quotationfrom a community leader in Bangkok to launchhis overview of a research study he conductedbetween 2009 2011 on methodologies thatare being used to assess the impact of forcedevictions and relocations on individuals, familiesand communities.

He said the research had once again

demonstrated the extent and seriousness of theproblem of forced evictions. The numbers ofpeople being evicted as a result of urban andrural development projects are staggering, withestimates of up to 15 million people per year.And those evicted are invariably those who arealready the most marginalized.

It is now well understood amongst a varietyof actors and agencies researchers, NGOs,

community representatives, multilateralbanks, litigators, etc. that there is a need tounderstand and predict the cumulative effectsof displacement and relocation. This need wasunderscored by the former Special Rapporteuron Adequate Housing in his 2007 report: BasicPrinciples and Guidelines on DevelopmentBased Eviction and Displacement.

Mr. Du Plessis said the aims of the researchwere to: (1) document progress made indeveloping and applying EvIA methodologies;(2) Assess their functionality, usefulness andimpact; and (3) Explore the feasibility of anEvIA toolkit

The research exposed a number of cases,methodologies and innovative EvIA toolsthat had been used for a number of differentpurposes in the eviction process including: toprovide evidence regarding what constitutespublic interest, to mobilize against planned

evictions, to determine remedies in cases whererelocation was unavoidable, and in seekingrestitution and reparation through campaigns,litigation, and negotiations.

EvIA tools include:i/Once-off, case-specific assessments, forexample to support a particular piece oflitigation;

ii/ Housing Rights Violation Matrix, asdeveloped by the Housing and Land RightsNetwork (HLRN), which is rooted in a humanrights framework;

iii/ Impoverishment Risks and Reconstruction(IRR) model adopted by some of the lendinginstitutions. Though the research found onlyone case where this model was fully applied, itoffers potential for the future;

iv/ Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation(UN-Habitat and partners), used in PhnomPenh, which uses a combination of qualitativeand quantitative indicators measuring changeagainst detailed baseline studies.

Regardless of the EvIA tool used, severalcommon themes emerge regarding the impactof forced eviction:

s The impact of eviction goes well beyondthe individual and family to include theentire community;


28/176

17

s Losses are extensive and extend far beyondproperty to include lost human, social andphysical capital;

s Evictions cast a long shadow that affectsthe whole of society.

Mr. Du Plessis concluded that much progressis being made in the development and use ofEvIA. EvIAs have developed in such a way thatthey include a broad range of assets includingland, housing, property, security of tenure,

livelihoods as well as less tangible losses suchas those that are cultural. While most EvIAs areinitiated externally, there is much to be gainedfrom the active participation of those directlyaffected.

He closed with the recommendation that ameeting of EvIA practitioners be convened sothat they might share, compare and decide onpossible ways forward.

To follow-up, Mr. Kothari noted that theHIC-HLRN is in the midst of field-testingtheir Housing Rights Violation Matrix tool inCameroon and Kenya. The application of thetool in Delhi demonstrated its usefulness as itrevealed very accurately the impact of forced

eviction, documenting for example: the lossof access to housing including documentationregarding security of tenure; significant loss ofwages; substantial increase in costs for water,health care; exacerbation of unhealthy livingconditions; loss of education for children.The presenter was asked whether UN-Habitathad followed-up yet on the research or if therehas been any discussion on how the researchwill be used. And also, whether humanrights indicators such as transparency and

accountability were linked with this research.

It was noted that this sort of tool would bevery useful for OHCHR field officers.


29/176


Speaker: Leticia Osorio, the Ford FoundationGlobal Eviction MonitoringThis presentation focused on the idea ofdeveloping new early warning and urgentprocedures within the UN human rights systemto better protect individuals, families andcommunities against forced evictions and toprevent related disputes from arising or escalating.Such procedures would mean that the practice offorced eviction, which results in massive violationof human rights, could be more quickly and

easily brought to the attention of internationalcommunity and the Security Council.

Hakijamiis proposal is for a new procedure thatwould be based within the Special Proceduresof the HRC which is well placed to raise analarm promptly. The new procedure could alsobe housed within the UN CESCR, given theirexpertise on the issue of forced eviction.

The model proposed is based on existing

mechanisms that have been used successfullywithin the UN system. For example, CERD has aformalized urgent action mechanism.

Ms. Osorio suggested the following possiblecriteria to assess whether a particular forcedeviction would qualify under an urgent procedure:

s The presence of serious, massive or persistentpattern of HR violations of forced evictions;

s Lack of adequate legislative basis for defining

and criminalizing forced evictions;s Lack of resources or procedures;s Presence of a pattern of forced evictions; the

criminalization of social movements;s Discriminatory propaganda being used

against groups of people;s Significant flows of refugees and internally

displaced persons (IDPs).

The presenter suggested that UN-Habitat andAGFE could each play an important role in thisnew procedure. For example, together they couldidentify emerging conflicts and crises related toforced evictions, monitor such situations andstimulate action by the international community.Monitoring activities could include liaising withdifferent stakeholders, verifying different sources

of information, collecting data in a standardizedmanner and format, the development of adata management policy to ensure consistencyin collection and analysis, and using existingnetworks to publicize and advocate against forcedevictions. Through such activities, UN-Habitat andAGFE can assist the work of the formalized urgentaction mechanism on forced evictions.

The presenter concluded her presentations byrecommending that UN-Habitat and AGFE:

s Expand existing Global Forced EvictionsMonitoring Network;

s Collect, record and analyze comprehensive,quality information on evictions around theworld;

s Establish a database for permanentmonitoring of forced evictions;

s Continue to build and consolidate current

and emerging alliances and partnershipsagainst forced evictions;

s Undertake effective joint actions to preventforced evictions in at least fifteen key focuscountries;

s Develop, promote and publicize viablealternatives to forced eviction

The proposal presented by Ms. Osorio wasdebated on the floor immediately following herpresentation. While it was agreed that an early

warning system could, in some circumstances,be useful, there was much discussion on wherewithin the UN system such a mechanism shouldbe housed and how it would function. The criteriaof serious, massive and a persistent patternof forced eviction to trigger an early warningmechanism were noted by one participantas too narrow and dismissive of contextualmatters that must be considered in determiningwhether an eviction warrants early warning andinternational intervention. In answer to thesequeries and concerns, Ms. Osorio suggested thatan international experts meeting be convened toexplore the idea further.


30/176

19

Speaker: Ryan Schlief, WITNESSVideos on forced evictionsWITNESS (www.witness.org) is an internationalnonprofit organization that uses the powerof video and storytelling to open the eyes ofthe world to human rights abuses. They havelaunched a three year Global Forced EvictionsCampaign in partnership with HIC.(More info: http://blog.witness.org/category/campaigns/forced-evictions/).

Mr. Schlief commenced his presentation witha discussion on the ways in which WITNESSuses video as an advocacy tool. In particularhe noted that video is a powerful participatoryand democratic tool for both advocates andcitizens; it helps drive changes in humanrights by allowing the communities affectedto communicate with audiences includingspecific decision-makers; it can complement

other advocacy tools and it can create a spacefor the viewer action after watching the video.

The objectives of WITNESS forced evictioncampaign are to promote the rights ofcommunities affected by forced evictionscurrently in 5 focal countries (Cambodia,Mexico, Brazil, Egypt and India); incorporatevideo advocacy into HICs local, regional andinternational advocacy to end forced evictions,and leverage local campaigns to impact

key policies and decisions regarding forcedevictions at regional and international levels.The campaign focuses on forced evictions infour areas: urban and rural areas (includingland-grabbing) and as a result of large-scaleinfrastructure projects and mega-events.

Mr. Schlief discussed the different ways videocan be used to support advocacy to end forcedevictions:

s To gather evidence of forced evictions;s To lobby decision makers;s Interventions and submissions in formal

human rights monitoring;

s Community organizing offline and online;s Solidarity organizing and mass mobilization

across communities and countries; ands To garner mass and independent media

attention.

Video documentation before, during andafter a forced eviction strengthens housing

and land rights campaigns. When under thethreat of a forced eviction, video can helpdefend rights by documenting family homesand land and by creating an inventory ofproperty to strengthen individual and collectiverights claims. Producing an advocacy videocan be a mobilizing tool for communitiesat risk since there should be a communitydiscussion and consensus on messaging,spokespersons, interview questions and target

audiences. In the event of the forced eviction,video documentation provides evidence ofthe conditions and treatment. Also, videocan show the details of what happens after aforced eviction for example the conditions atthe relocation site to campaign for rights andhow the abuses which follow a forced eviction.Two short videos were presented as examplesof WITNESS work. The first was an exampleof a two-week WITNESS training on forced

evictions in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The secondvideo was used to provide evidence on forcedevictions. This case involved the taking ofindigenous lands from the Endorois (indigenouspeoples) in Kenya for the establishmentof a game reserve. The video was enteredinto evidence at the African Commissionon Humans and Peoples Rights (ACHPR).Although the Endorois won their case in 2010,they do not yet have their land back.


31/176


Mr. Schlief also provided an example of howtechnology can be used to document forcedevictions and promote local campaigns.WITNESS, HIC and other housing and landrights networks recently created a forcedeviction global mapping project for WorldHabitat Day 2011. Communities affected andadvocates from around the world were invitedto report on forced evictions, land grabbingand activists at risk for their involvement inresisting forced evictions. The cases were

presented visually on an interactive onlineworld map where advocates could uploadinformation and actions in their own languagesand share them with others around the world.

Mr. Schliefs presentation was followed bya lively discussion on the different ways andimpacts of using video in advocacy regardingdisplacement and forced evictions. It wasgenerally agreed that video documentation

before, during and after a forced eviction

strengthens campaigns and is an easy-to-learntool.

Participants discussed how video documen-tation has been used to successfully countergovernment denials or mistruths regarding aforced eviction. Several participants highlightedthat videos can also be used as a means ofexchanging vital information between remotecommunities and exposes stories that wouldotherwise not be known by others in the

country or region.

It was noted that there are some limitations totechnology the necessary technology may notalways be available to capture evictions thathappen suddenly, without notice, and manycommunities have no access to the internet toeither stream their videos or watch videos fromother communities. In person screenings withthese communities is therefore very important.


32/176

21

Speaker: Maartje Van Eerd, Institute for Housing and UrbanDevelopment StudiesGuidelines and Practices on Evictions, Acquisition, Expropriation andCompensation

Ms. Van Eerd provided an overview of aresearch study she conducted on behalf of theIHS.

The research commenced approximately 1.5

years ago, and focused on the followingquestion: What international laws and

guidelines exist related to (forced) evictions,acquisition, expropriation, and compensation,how effective are they, should they beimproved, and if so, how?

To answer this question extensive deskresearch was undertaken to examine existinginternational law and guidelines, as well asacademic literature on the concepts of evictions/

displacement, acquisition, expropriation andcompensation. Also NGOs working in the fieldof evictions were included in the study

The researcher then examined the applicationof these laws and guidelines in different regionsusing 10 case studies: Mexico, Venezuela,Nigeria, South Africa, India, Sri Lanka, China,Cambodia, Philippines, and Indonesia.

Ms. Van Eerd reported that her research

uncovered a host of international laws andguidelines pertaining to forced eviction,acquisition, expropriation and compensation,adopted through the UN system as well asby international financial institutions such asthe World Bank and Asian Development Bank(ADB).

The case studies showed that while manyguidelines are available at the international levelto protect the poor against forced evictions,

the number of people being evicted due todevelopment and speculation is growing andthat the scale of people having to leave theirhouses because of natural disasters is alsoaccelerating rapidly.

The presenter noted that justifications regardingthe need for evictions are very controversial.It is not uncommon for natural disasters, thethreat of a disaster or the public interest to beused to justify pushing the poor out of their

homes and from their lands. Measures that aresupposed to be used to protect inhabitants areactually used to discriminate against the poor.For example, in the post tsunami context of SriLanka the government created buffer zoneswhere fisherfolk were not allowed to live, but inthe meantime private developers were allowedto build luxury hotels in those very locations.

The research also examined how those affectedby eviction, acquisition and expropriation should

be compensated, who should be compensated,for what they should be compensated, andwhat kind of legislation is needed at thenational level to deal with compensation.

The report provides 5 conclusions to answer theresearch question:

1. Defining public interest: broadagreement is required on a definitionof legitimate public interest that may

justify expropriation and evictions

The study concluded that vulnerable groupsin society should be key stakeholders indefining public interest at the internationaland national level.

It was suggested by the presenter that UN-Habitat could play a leading role on this.Guidelines and practical tools are needed

that define public good because the termpublic interest is so widely misused.


33/176


2. Focus on institution building toimplement laws and guidelines at thelegal and institutional level

The domestication of international humanrights standards at a national level isconsidered a crucial step in addressingdisplacement as a result of forced evictions,acquisition, expropriation and compensation.

The presenter suggested that the private sectorshould be stimulated to sign standards andsafeguards and UN-Habitat should stimulateawareness raising through training and providesupport to policy makers. For example, UN-Habitat could produce a Quick Guides forPolicy Makers on the issue of forced evictions,acquisitions, expropriation, and compensation.

3. Delivering adequate inputs to localauthorities and civil society in cases ofreal public interest, threat of disaster or

real crisis

Policy makers must design and make availableadequate inputs to ensure resettlement andcompensation are implemented correctly and

justly.

These inputs include a complete set ofinstruments and tools such as nationallegal framework and policies based oninternational guidelines founded on HRBA,agreements with the affected communities,stakeholders on planning, implementation,cost sharing, funding, background research,impact assessments careful implementationand monitoring. UN-Habitat could play rolein this by developing tool kits on how toarrange practical and fair compensation.

4. Strengthening Civil Society

When civil society is more aware of theirrights, they can push for the domesticationof international law and guidelines, andmore enlightened public policy, so they canbetter negotiate to avoid forced eviction,or if necessary, for compensation and

resettlement. UN-Habitat could developtraining packages that would assist NGOs infurther developing negotiation skills.

5 Resettlement with Development

If there are no alternatives to preventevictions, resettlement and compensationshould be used to create opportunities forthe future rather than reproducing or evenworsening past inequalities.

Adequate compensation for householdswithout formal titles should be explicitlyincluded in all international guidelines andpolicies of International Financial Agencies,and at the national level.

Participants discussed what constitutes publicinterest as this is often used by governmentsto justify evictions. It was suggested that theinternational community should better define thisconcept, using the Basic Principles and Guidelines

on Development Based Evictions as developedby the Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing,Miloon Kothari, as a starting point.

A brief discussion followed about the most usefulrole that UN-Habitat could play with respect topromoting and enforcing laws and guidelines toaddress forced evictions. It was generally agreedthat UN-Habitat could play a role in awarenessraising amongst States regarding the existence,availability and responsibility to enforce existing

international human rights laws and guidelines.Any training or development of tools, etc. wouldhave to be done in line with human rightsprinciples. It was felt that any role UN-Habitatmight play, should be done in conjunction withother actors, including other UN agencies andcivil society.

It was also suggested also that guidelines bedeveloped for national and multi-nationaldevelopers.


34/176

23

Speaker: Esther Kodhek, Center on Housing Rights and EvictionsKeynote address: Housing rights in an international perspective (roleand responsibilities of relevant actors)

Ms. Kodhek opened with an overview of theobjectives, mandate and activities of COHRE.Based on COHREs work in the area of housingrights and forced evictions, she then offeredcomments on the role that UN-Habitat couldplay to advance work to prevent forcedevictions.

Ms. Kodhek noted that UN-Habitat hasprovided limited support to governments,and civil society in the national developmentof legislation codifying the right to adequatehousing. She presented the following example:In Kenya a Housing Bill is currently underdiscussion and, once adopted by Parliament,will be important to the implementation of the

right to adequate housing as codified in theConstitution of Kenya. At what point shouldcivil society approach UN-Habitat, and at whatpoint should UN-Habitat become involvedin ensuring that the Housing Bill/ legislationadequately captures the right to adequatehousing as understood in international law?

The presenter also noted that the UN-Habitat structure is not easily understood by

external organizations, whether national orinternational. She suggested that UN-Habitatreduce its bureaucracy and make it clearto governments, and civil society preciselywhat is inside and outside the scope of UN-Habitats mandate. She further suggested thata formalized structure be established withinUN-Habitat to better facilitate national andregional requests for technical support fromUN-Habitat.

Ms. Kodhek suggested that UN-Habitat focusits efforts in areas where it can most makea difference and that civil society wants UN-Habitat to show leadership and solidarity inthe area of forced evictions. In this regard,UN-Habitat could support local, and nationalgovernments, and national networks todevelop and implement policy related to theright to adequate housing. UN-Habitat is alsoin a good position to assist national networksto negotiate or dialogue with government toprevent forced evictions, issues of relocation,and post eviction compensation. She alsosuggested that UN-Habitat could directly insome instances monitor evictions to ensurethey are implemented within the scope of

human rights.

The presenter also commented on the future ofthe AGFE. She suggested that an independentgroup at the international level that has thecapacity to speak strongly against forcedevictions is established. She indicated that ifAGFE is going to play this role, it needs to berestructured, and strengthened so that it mightbecome more of an international mechanism

that works closely with local civil society toprevent threatened forced evictions as well asprovide support remedy to evictions that havealready taken place.

A short discussion followed this presentation.One participant noted that UN-Habitat has thepower to convene meetings, but does not havethe power or capacity to coordinate groups.


35/176


Speaker: Miloon Kothari, Former Special Rapporteur on Adequate HousingPromoting standards to counter forced evictions: The role of UN-Habitat

Mr. Kotharis presentation focused on whatUN-Habitat will have to do if it genuinelywants to become a human rights organization.He indicated that before becoming a morehuman rights oriented organization, thecurrent Executive Director, Dr. Joan Clos, hasa tremendous task ahead of restoring the

credibility of UN-Habitat with governments,civil society and within the UN system. Henoted that UN-Habitats reputation was marredfor its failure to embrace the United NationsHabitat Agenda, for its decision to give awardsto both cities and individuals that have violatedhuman rights, and for its unclear mission.

The presenter noted that the ExecutiveDirectors comments at the commencementof the EGM seemed to indicate that UN-Habitat may be ready to fully embrace thehuman rights message. Mr. Kothari notedthat if thats the case, there are a tremendousnumber of resources available to assist andguide UN-Habitat, such as: the internationalhuman rights treaties, interpretive instrumentssuch as guidelines and General Comments,and well articulated principles such as: non-discrimination, inclusive participation of thoseaffected by housing rights violations, and the

principle of non-retrogression. He also notedthat there are a number of mechanisms andbodies within the UN human rights systemupon which UN-Habitat could rely for supportand develop stronger partnerships such as:the Special Rapporteurs (eg: on adequatehousing, indigenous people, extreme poverty,food, violence against women, and internallydisplaced people), the OHCHR, the HRC, theUPR, and TMBs. He also noted that national

and regional mechanisms and instrumentscould be of assistance to UN-Habitat.

Mr. Kothari suggested that there are a numberof activities that the UN-Habitat Secretariat

could do with these UN mechanisms tobecome a more human rights orientedorganization, UN-Habitat could, for example,regularly monitor (including assisting inimplementation) of recommendations madeby TMBs, Special Rapporteurs and through theUNHRC Universal Periodic Review, regarding

housing and forced evictions in particularcountries.

He concluded by naming a number of actionsand positions UN-Habitat would have to takefollowing the EGM in order for it to becomemore human rights oriented and to restore itsreputation.

1. UN-Habitat will have to articulate whatit understands the right to adequate

housing to mean drawing on existing legalinterpretations, guidelines and what UN-Habitat has learned through its work. It hasto move beyond a narrow understandingof the right to adequate housing, limited,for example, to security of tenure or goodgovernance. UN-Habitat must challengeitself to understand and then act uponthe differentiated meaning of the right toadequate housing for women, men, youth,children and different communities?

2. UN-Habitat should embrace the workbeing done around the world on the rightto the city, and bring to it a human rightsperspective whereby the rights to the cityare based in international human rightslaw.

3. UN-Habitat is in a good position tochallenge governments that are misusingthe MDGs cities without slums asa justification for the eviction of slumdwellers.


36/176

25

4. Finally, UN-Habitat must start challengingthe economic policies of government andglobal institutions particularly with respectto land speculation, privatization, anduncontrolled rent increases. UN-Habitatmust find and suggest best practices onhow states can control land and propertyspeculation and, in the event of increasinghousing costs ensure protective measuresfor vulnerable groups.

Mr. Kotharis presentation generated livelydiscussion on a number of themes. Therewas much interest in the idea that UN-Habitat could challenge governments on theireconomic policies and international financialinstitutions. Questions were raised as to howthis could be done practically. It was suggestedthat the Arab Spring offers UN-Habitatan opportunity to engage these issues in ameaningful way.

A number of participants commented on thedifficulty of controlling land speculation. Mr.Kothari mentioned a good practice in SaoPaulo where a graduated tax policy was beingimplemented where the taxes from richerneighborhoods were being used to subsidizepoorer neighbourhoods.

A number of participants indicated that UN-Habitat would have to make sure that theyintegrate a gender perspective as well as

the rights of other marginalized groups likechildren in all of their work.

Though it was agreed that the right to cityis a concept that lends itself to mobilizingcommunities, one participant challengedthe efficacy of using the right to the city tomove UN-Habitat toward a more rights basedapproach to their work given that the rightto the city has not been defined using human

rights. UN-Habitats own report on the rightto the city does not adopt a human rightsapproach.


37/176


Speaker: Claudio Acioly Jr., UN-Habitat Housing Policy SectionKeynote address: Potential role and possible ways forward for UN-Habitat on forced evictions

After providing background on the evolution ofhuman rights, and more particularly the right toadequate housing in international law, Mr. Aciolyindicated that housing needs to be understoodas an important part of the economic sector;to understand housing we need to understand

markets and what influences supply, and demand.

In contemplating the way forward for UN-Habitat in terms of its work on forced evictions,he noted that though UN-Habitat and othersremind States of their obligations under treaties,General Comments and general UN guidelines,urban planning rules and decisions continue tobe the deep rooted causes of forced evictions.The presenter also suggested that there is greatdisparity of knowledge about housing policy,programs and laws and expertise around theworld by stakeholders. As a result, a lot of policyand decision making in the area of housing isbased on anecdote rather than on evidence.

The presenter disputed the notion that therole of UN-Habitat is to implement the HabitatAgenda, remarking that the implementation ofthe Habitat Agenda requires many actors, andpartnerships between governments, civil societyand UN-Habitat among other UN agencies. Heasserted that the proper role of UN-Habitat

should be to hold countries accountable to theright to adequate housing, and to call upontheir commitments and obligations in this regardand provide advice and recommendations forimprovement.

The presenter also noted that there are a numberof trends in the housing sector about whichUN-Habitat must be mindful. For example,cities are rapidly expanding, especially in thedeveloping world, and as cities expand so do

informal settlements. This means it is essentialthat urban planners and policy makers generallyunderstand that every person in the city has theright to sanitation, water, secure tenure, and otherrights. As cities continue to grow, UN-Habitats

ability to map, and to collect data and then usethis information to determine potential policyimplications will be essential. In this way UN-Habitat can support government, civil society,and other partners in developing evidence basedhousing and urban planning.

Where is UN-Habitat going from here?Mr. Acioly concluded by saying that he believedthat in future years there will be more of a rightsbased approach to development. UN-Habitat isundergoing its own internal strategic planning.There are many meetings and conferences on thehorizon that require momentum: Global UrbanCampaign (GUC), two WUFs, the Rio+ Conferenceand Habitat III in 2016. Each of these presents anopportunity to put urban issues on the forefrontof political discussion.

The presenter suggested that there is much workfor UN-Habitat to do to be an effective presence,including, enhancing its knowledge of whatis going on in the field of housing, and in thecities. A rights based approach could provide aninteresting framework for UN-Habitats AdequateHousing for All Programme, which consists ofthree areas of work:

1. Housing Sector Reforms.

2. Global Eviction and Monitoring Prevention.

3. Slum Upgrading and Prevention.The discussion that followed focused on theimportant role of government in ensuring theright to adequate housing is enjoyed by the mostvulnerable populations, in light of their legalresponsibilities as well as the resources they haveavailable.

Others discussed the difficulties and barriers thatUN-Habitat might encounter in creating modelsthat integrate rights components, and UN-Habitats ability to influence decision-making.


38/176

27

3. ROUNDTABLE ON HOUSINGRIGHTS


39/176


This roundtable provided an opportunity forEGM participants to learn about interestingwork and developments on the housingrights front being led by organizations andmunicipalities in different parts of the world.

Ms. Joanna Levitt described the IAPsinvolvement in the development of the newsingle Safeguard Policy of the ADB regardinginvoluntary r

Documents

UN Evictions and the Rights Based Approach to Urban Development