Informal Settlement Upgrading Policyscape (ISUP)
Collaboration between Bangladesh Legal Aid and Services Trust (BLAST) and Informal Urbanism Research Hub (InfUr)
Resource Sharing
Key Documents
Evolution of Slum Redevelopment Policy by Deepika Andavarapu, David J. Edelman
The Human Rights-Based Approach to Housing and Slum Upgrading by UN-Habitat
Housing Rights Legislation — Review of International and National Legal Instruments by UN-Habitat
The Urban Housing Manual — Making Regulatory Frameworks Work for the Poor by Geoffrey Payne and Michael Majale
QUICK GUIDE for participatory, city-wide slum upgrading by UN-Habitat ( Bangla version)
more to be updated …
Notes on Anti-eviction Laws
A dominant trend that has been observed in most countries studied is the adoption of anti-eviction laws for the protection of informal settlement residents (FIG/UNCHS:1998:19). Some of the key characteristics and issues associated with these laws, gathered from experience by Habitat International Coalition (1999), Center on Housing Rights and Evictions (1999), in Brazil(Junior:1999), South Africa (Xaba and Beukman:1999), the Philippines (Santiago:1998a) and India (Banerjee:1999a,b) are the following:-
• These laws provide rules to govern the relationship between landowners (public and/or private) and occupiers in respect of the eviction of people from the land and/or house they occupy. Landowners must fulfill required procedures over a specified length of time. This usually includes giving the occupants due notice as to their intentions (South Africa, India);
• Landowners cannot arbitrarily evict illegal occupiers from their land and homes. That is, there can be no eviction without negotiation (FIG/UNCHS:1998; Banerjee:1999a,b);
• Eviction is not sanctioned without an option of the relocation of the occupants (Philippines, South Africa, India);
• Minimum periods of occupation are required, or cut-off dates are set, for falling under the protection of anti-eviction laws (South Africa, India);
• Protection can be in terms of the countries’ constitution (e.g. Brazil) and/or based on a specific law(India, South Africa);
• Even where there are anti-eviction laws in place, often people who have been evicted cannot get legal redress because they cannot afford to take the landowner to court and there is no accessible and cheap legal aid (Brazil, Philippines, COHRE). Also, people have lost cases against landowners because they do not have the required proof of occupation (Brazil -Junior:1999);
• Financial and other forms of assistance need to be supplied when squatters relocate, either voluntarily or involuntarily (Santiago:1998a:119).
Pros and cons of anti-eviction laws
A number of these characteristics are illustrated in India where under the draft national slum policy (January, 1999) slum clearance is ruled out, except under strict guidelines set down for resettlement and rehabilitation in respect of notified slums located on untenable land situations. A slum/informal settlement can be declared untenable only when its existence on the site entails undue risk to the safety, health or life of the residents themselves or where such sites are considered contrary to public interest by the competent authority. Tenure shall be granted to all residents on all the tenable land sites owned or acquired by the government. Private land on which tenable slums exist is proposed to be acquired by the local body (within 6 months) and then individual tenure granted (Banerjee: 1999a,b).
Anti-eviction laws and individual security
Anti-eviction laws are a form of security of tenure at a general level. However, in regard to the protection of individuals where landowners arbitrarily evict occupiers in defiance of the anti-eviction laws, these laws do not provide sufficient protection for the poor, unless legal aid is cheap and accessible and/or special zones for low-income families are declared (see section 1.2.10 below). Alternatively a well-organized campaign by NGOs can also prevent eviction, and/or assist people with resettlement if they have already been evicted (COHRE:1999 and HIC:1999) (see box below).
from:
Augustinus, C. (2003). Handbook on best practices, security of tenure, and access to land: implementation of the Habitat Agenda. UN-habitat.