Land, Housing and Property IssuesLimited access to land and housing
Internal displacement inevitably results in people
losing their homes and land, often their main source of subsistence.
Access to land and shelter during displacement is critical to ensure
minimum food security and self-reliance and limit dependence on
humanitarian assistance.
Access to land is often limited for political or
security reasons. In several countries, such as Somalia, Uganda and the
Philippines, IDPs are at risk of being attacked or caught in cross-fire if
they venture too far from their camps. In other countries, including
Georgia, Indonesia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Sri Lanka, authorities have
been tempted to limit access to land and/or housing in efforts to prevent
the integration of IDPs at their new places of residence.Although
governmental or local initiatives to distribute land to IDPs exist in
countries like in Colombia, Guatemala, Indonesia, Somalia, Sudan and
Uzbekistan, the size and the quality of the land provided is often
insufficient to meet the needs of IDPs.
Land distribution and reconstruction programmes have also
been designed to provide an incentive for IDPs to return in Algeria, Iraq,
Indian-administered Kashmir and Rwanda. The example of the Rwandan
“villagisation” programme illustrates, however, how such initiatives can
actually result in even worse access to land. IDPs were forced to settle
in newly constructed villages without sufficient land plots, which
allegedly forces some of them to work as wage labourers for military
officers who grabbed their former land.
Conflicts and tensions triggered by lack of land
The difficulty to find satisfactory solutions
to land and housing deprivation is linked to the political and economic
value of land. Since land and housing determine people’s survival, those
elements can be used to limit the influence and presence of certain groups
(Burma, Balkans, Turkey) and/or reward political supporters (Rwanda,
Zimbabwe, Kenya). Land scarcity and unequal distribution of land have
triggered conflict and displacement in numerous situations, including
Bangladesh, Guatemala, Nigeria, Cote d’Ivoire and Rwanda. In Colombia,
people have been displaced by armed groups in search of new lands for drug
cultivation. The grabbing of land left behind by IDPs in countries like
Afghanistan and Rwanda is also a common phenomenon creating tensions and
compromising return.
Restitution and
compensation key to sustainable peace
In recent
years, there has been growing recognition that land, housing and property
issues are key to building sustainable peace, and that it is essential to
find remedies for the injustices that provoked displacement and the
destruction or occupation of land and houses through restitution or
compensation. Consequently, provisions for the resolution of property and
land problems have been included in peace agreements or documents setting
up the post-conflict environment in 16
of the countries affected by internal
displacement.
Guiding
Principles and housing, land and property issues
The Guiding
Principles on Internal Displacement clearly recognise the right of
IDPs not to be displaced out of their homes arbitrarily (principle
6), the right not to be arbitrarily deprived of property and
possessions (principle 21) and the right to return to their homes
voluntarily and in safety and with dignity (principle 28). They also
reiterate the right of IDPs to restitution or, if not possible,
compensation (principle 29). In addition, principle 9 emphasises the
special dependency and attachment to land of certain groups of IDPs
which creates a particular obligation to protect these groups from
displacement. |
The lack of fair and efficient restitution and
compensation mechanisms is a clear obstacle to post-conflict
reconciliation since restitution is perceived as an element of restorative
justice in response to violations of rights leading to or resulting from
displacement. Restitution and compensation not only facilitates the
exercise of the right to return but it also makes it sustainable and
provides a remedy to the violation of property/possession rights and the
right to adequate housing . Several universal and regional instruments, as
well as UN resolutions and principles confirm these rights (see legal resources).
Principles on Housing
and Property Restitution
At the normative level,
the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights in
August 2005 endorsed the Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees
and Displaced Persons presented by
the Special Rapporteur, Sergio Paulo Pinheiro. In view of the multiplicity
of ad hoc restitution mechanisms in various countries, the Principles
represent an effort to increase the consistency of responses as well as
their conformity with international standards. A parallel initiative to
integrate property restitution programmes into the UN institutional and
policy framework is also ongoing.
The “Pinheiro Principles” were
drafted to address a wide variety of displacement situations, ranging from
countries with comparably well-developed administrative system and land
registries, such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, to others with much more
fragile or incomplete systems. In most countries affected by internal
displacement land and houses are used under customary law and are not
registered. In some of these countries, including Afghanistan, Rwanda and
Uganda, state, customary and religious laws overlap and sometimes
contradict each other. Other countries do not have a unified legal
framework governing property ownership accepted by all parties, and
legislation depends on who controls a particular region (Sudan and Sri
Lanka).
Such complexities explain the difficulty to establish
efficient property dispute resolution mechanisms and the necessity to
adapt mechanisms to the cultural and legal context of each country.
Creative solutions are required to establish possession in the absence of
land registries and to implement the related right to restitution or
compensation. This is particularly difficult in situations where
long-standing displacement has led to competing legitimate claims over the
same land, such as in Afghanistan, Cyprus, and Iraq. In many cases,
traditional dispute resolution mechanisms can be quicker and, if in line
with international standards, more effective than a system based on
statutory law.
Land titling
programmes
IDPs whose possessions depend on
customary law are particularly vulnerable to land grabbing and face
difficulties repossessing their land and housing. In several countries,
including Indonesia and Sudan, unoccupied land is considered state
property that can be freely sold. An increasing number of countries
affected by internal displacement have initiated land reforms through
individual land titling to develop land registries. In order to promote such
initiatives, a High Level Commission on Legal Empowerment of the
Poor was established by a group of industrialized and developing
countries in September 2005. The Commission works on the assumption that
formal titles will improve security of tenure and enable the owners to
access loans as a means of reducing poverty. There are concerns, however, that the
most vulnerable will not be able to afford or keep land and housing once
it acquires a market value. Women tend to be particularly disadvantaged by
the land titling system, as the titles usually bear only the name of the
husband. Privatisation can also contribute to the legalisation of land
grabbed from IDPs as it has been the case in Colombia, Sudan and Rwanda.
While formalisation of land ownership can have positive effects when used
to fight discrimination, for example that of the Roma minorities in
southeastern Europe, the cases of Colombia and Sudan, where IDPs were
rendered homeless as a consequence of privatisation, demonstrate the need
to use this solution with caution.
Women
As stressed in the 2005
report on women and the
right to adequate housing, by the UN Special Rapporteur Miloon Kothari,
the rights and interests of women require special consideration in the
design of land reforms. Although, women’s rights are legally protected in
most countries, in practice social and cultural pressure often lead women
to give up on their rights to avoid exclusion from the group. In addition,
statutory law often defers to customary or religious law for inheritance
issues leaving women with limited means to defend their
rights.
The issue of access to land,
property and right to inherit affects all women but is particularly
significant in IDP situations which often result in women becoming widows
and/or heads of household. In Rwanda, it is estimated that widows
represent 50 per cent of all women, and 30 per cent of the claimants in
land disputes. Their difficulty to inherit their husbands’ property leaves
them in precarious situations. Several studies confirm the link between
the lack of secure tenure and violence against women or prostitution. A
beaten woman will hesitate to leave her husband if she has no property and
if she might be forced into prostitution to survive. In this context, the
entry into force in November 2005 of the Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in
Africa, which includes provisions
regarding ownership and inheritance rights of women, is a noteworthy
development.
Read more on the Land,
Housing and Property situation per region
See also our
Land, Housing and Property resources
page | 
