In Brasil, 1 percent of the population owns 49 percent of land. Source (Financial Times, 0 April 2010)
In Britain, 0.3 percent of the population owns 69 percent of land. Source (Financial Times, 0 April 2010)
Globally, more people now live in cities and towns than in rural areas
Africa is now the World’s fastest urbanizing region and by 2050, 55% of Africans will be living in urban areas (from 38% in 2000)
Over 90% of new urban development in Africa is taking the form of slums
About 70% of urban population in Africa presently live in slums, and yet occupy less than 10% of urban and peri-urban lands
Research shows that in Africa about 60% of GDP is created in cities and towns
Formal land registration and administration have been unable to cope with rapid urban growth and as a result, between 50-70 percent of urban land in Africa is delivered through informal practices
In Zimbabwe, on 19 May 2005, with little or no warning, the Government embarked on an Operation to 'clean-up' its cities. It was a 'crash' operation known as Operation Murambatsvina and affected over 700,000 people.
In Ghana, some 800 people also had their homes destroyed in Legion Village, Accra, in May 2006, while approximately 30,000 people in the Agbogbloshie community of Accra have been threatened with forced eviction since 2002.
In Kenya, at least 20,000 people have been forcibly evicted from neighbourhoods in or around Nairobi since 2000.
In Equatorial Guinea, at least 650 families have been forcibly evicted from their homes since 2004, when the government embarked on a programme of urban regeneration in Malabo and Bata.
In Luanda, the capital of Angola, at least 6,000 families have been forcibly evicted and have had their homes demolished since 2001.
In Sudan, more than 12,000 people were forcibly evicted from Darusalaam camp in August 2006.
58 per cent of all households in South Africa are living without security of tenure.
In Nigeria, some 2 million people have been forcibly evicted from their homes and many thousands have been made homeless since 2000.
More than 3 million Africans have been forcibly evicted from their homes since 2000.
In Trinidad and Tobago, the 1998 Regularization of Tenure Act established a Certificate of Comfort that can be used to confer security of tenure to squatters as the first step in a process designed to give them full legal title.
Some 25,000 evictions are carried out annually in New York City alone.
In Atlanta, some 30,000 people were forcibly evicted prior to the 1996 Olympic Games, while the oldest public housing project, Techwood Homes, was deliberately de-tenanted because it stood in the way of a 'sanitized corridor' running through to CNN headquarters and the city centre.
Between 40 and 70 per cent of the population of Brazil’s main cities are living in irregular settlements.
Some 720,000 people were forcibly evicted in Seoul and Inchon, Republic of South Korea, prior to the 1988 Olympic Games.
The number of people forcibly evicted to give way to dams in India alone since 1950 has been estimated at 50 million.
The economic boom in China has significantly reduced security of tenure. Rapid urban growth is a major cause of forced evictions. 1.7 million people have reportedly been evicted in Beijing (China) in the run-up to the 2008 Olympic Games.
Everyone who returned to Phnom Penh, Cambodia, after the collapse of the Khmer Rouge regime was a squatter.
In Sri Lanka, large numbers of those displaced by the tsunami in late 2004 are still prevented from returning to their original homes and lands.
The Government of Myanmar forcibly evicted more than 1 million residents of Yangon, Rangoon.
An restitution programme in Kosovo has provided legal clarity regarding tenure and property rights to 29,000 disputed residential properties in the province since 2000.
Re:Establishing criteria for gender responsive Large - 2008/09/15 11:27 GMTDD, I agree that this is the time to present a set of criteria to our President on his number 5 out of the 7 point agenda, however as stressed by Rosemary, how do we ensure that the criteria or tools presented are used for the advantage of women? The provision of service land for pro poor housing programmes would be a very welcome idea, but this also depends very much on lobbying by CSOs and the political will of the national governments to implement. Though as stated, many governments are making attempts at poverty reduction and creating job opportunities for the poor in cities, but how much these initiatives have impacted positively on the lives of women is still a huge debate. So my suggestion is that whatever tool being proposed to use in addressing the issue of urban land or housing for the poor must be such that women are beneficiaries and also measurable at the end.
How about the proposing a tool that would accord poor urban people collective land?
| | The topic has been locked.
Ansa Masaud
Re:Establishing criteria for gender responsive Large - 2008/09/15 12:06 GMTHi, this is Ansa here.
Just a thought:If a legislation/policy is a tool, and evaluated against a criteria/evaluation framework, and if it responds to it, what next?How can you impact the process in the manner it is implemented, which involves how institutions function, how burecracies implement the land laws and policies,the land administration system and the manner in which the rules are interpreted and implemented. how does it actually happen, given that from top -down, there will always be lesser knowledge on the gender responsiveness of the tool, and that it actually needs to be implemented.
It is little complex, and hence a process on gender land analysis,policy framework, administration, management and information would help to unlock all these questions.
More later, Regards, Ansa Masaud
Gender Mainstreaming Unit UN-Habitat
| | The topic has been locked.
Ansa Masaud
Establishing criteria for gender responsive Large - 2008/09/15 12:29 GMTDear all , Greetings from Gender Unit, UN-Habitat.
It is great to see the dialogue on the criteria development progressing. Hopeful for an output which is useable. The draft criteria is a good start. Having read the proposed framework and for enhancing the clarity on the process of tool development, it may be useful to build understanding on the following issues:
- How do input, process and output indicators help to develop a gender responsive tool - It might be very be useful to define a tool, what includes a tool and analyze the process of tool development AND upscaling the existing ones. There would need to be a clear methodological approach for the constituencies that are part of the process. This methodology should take into account the process and actors and what outcomes it may have on women and men’s relations in access,use and control/ownership of land. It will vary for different types and levels of tools. A concrete example, a legislation may be a tool. If it is, how can a legislation and policy frameworks as a tool be evaluated against the criteria? - It is important to understand that the gendered process of land involves power relations between women and men, between and among institutions, people in institutions, laws and practices. My main point will be to deconstruct gender equality vis-vis land in a society. While participation, information are important ingredients for analyzing the tool, the tool needs to based on a gender analysis for land administration, information, management, policy and law making etc, by taking into account the relations perspective, and how a women’s men’s (girls/boys) access matters? Factors of age, ethnicity, rural/urban/slum residence, health, marital status, income level, education, prevalence of use of violence against him/her, are all variables which help to explain their access to land. Hence these variable should be deconstructed further. At the moment is states different situations of women-What does it mean in reality, will be an interesting research Questions. In the draft criteria, this process of access needs to be elaborated. While merging the list may be useful, what is important is to understand that gendered relations is a process, in any society, which determines women’s access to land (vis a vis men). The point to be made here is that you may need to define the gender land analysis, women and men’s access to land, data and information etc. It will be important to have background work to go unlocking the process itself in enhancing the land rights for women. At the moment this is a missing angle to the criteria development process.Hence the dialogue on how instituitions functions and what needs to change, all cannot come from criteria.That is the goal of interventions at normative and operational levels including designing policy frameworks, cpaacity building, land policies that take into account the gender relations in a specific country/region.The stages defined in the gender mechanism could be a starting point, but each of those needs to be unlocked to give a realistic sense what exactly happens, and hence the criteria for evaluating the tools.Hence this criteria will than be used to develop/assess the existing and new land tools. -Under the framework it is stated that only new tools to be developed will be evaluated against this framework. However what about the amount of work which is being put into existing tools?Where do they stand?Would there be specific gender tools, or any new tool developed will be assessed against this? - It might be useful to think of concrete analysis for each criteria item. The constituencies need to understand the technical gender land analysis, rationale for why a given tool should be like this etc. listing may not explain items, we will definitely have to create a format which is comprehensive. Key bullets can later be taken out, but should be explanatory. - The continuum of land rights is not reflected in the criteria. How can we create an evaluation framework considering the various types of bundles of rights women may need to have than mere titling? - Coming back to methodology: Some of the checklist questions are very generic and mean different things to different people. The word criteria also means different to various groups. How about ‘’Framework for gender evaluation indicators for land tools’’. Hence the drafting of the evaluation indicators must include specifics. Example: Does the data relied upon take into consideration women unique situations and the fact they are non-homogenous? (This is a gender analysis process itself, and hence very broad, and does not deconstruct land from a gender process lens). Another example under participation Does the tool build mutual beneficent relationships/alliances between among power brokers and beneficiaries of tool? (Again, this would need further analysis and deconstruction).
Categories of Criteria: The draft criteria has been divided into information and data, participation and empowerment, land governance, social and cultural, scale and sustainability. What may be useful is first start on a broader analysis for each category And then list types of indicators with an analysis for each: Example: • Does the tool adapt to or where necessary to ensure equity and equality, address and amend customary and/or religious laws impacting on land rights for all, women? • Does the tool consider/adapt to the social realities/dynamics of beneficiaries/stakeholders?
(What exactly is meant here, as this can be an entire theory).
Do we aim at equity (Fairness) for land or equality (Being equal)?If both, both terms should be used careful and under separate analysis showing when do we aim at equity and when is equality needed.
Lastly, I think the empowerment and participation should be elaborated. the empowerment and participation should be split in different sections, as empowerment may be very broad conceptually, and it should include further analysis and indicators. How does the tool raise the economic empowerment of women, for instance could be broken down to financing, income (paid), and informal opportunities (unregulated etc).
In the next few days I will get back on the criteria aspects specifically.
Many Thanks,
Look forward to hearing views on it.
| | The topic has been locked.
diane dumashie
Re:Establishing criteria for gender responsive Large - 2008/09/15 16:30 GMTGreetings Suzanne
Absolutely, your point on conflict resolution between people and also in the context of religion/ practices, is very well put, I've included it into the summary (to follow at the end of today), but
It would be really good to try and explore this issue in more detail to come up with some rigours criteria - thank you and look forward to hearing from you and you fellow passengers on this as well as other points
dd
| | The topic has been locked.
diane dumashie
Re:Establishing criteria for gender responsive Large - 2008/09/15 16:34 GMTThank you Priscilla and Rosemary
Yes I concur the majority of the poor are women, but criteria need to be balanced and any such criteria must indicate the effect on any disadvantaged group
I'd welcome views from All on the possibility of capturing a criteria that is gender sensitive AND benefits the majority of the poor, who are actually women with the use of collective land.
Is this land intervention (i.e the buying of collective land) a tool that is gender sensitive?
Your views are welcome
Best wishes
DD
| | The topic has been locked.
diane dumashie
Re:Establishing criteria for gender responsive Large - 2008/09/15 16:38 GMTGood afternoon Ansa
Pleasure to welcome you on this train, and thank you for your timely thought.
If I may break down your detailed observation into the first step- What is next after developing a criteria? As you are aware in the draft proposed framework, this points to working toward criteria that indicated (in varying degrees) effectiveness and change.
Our train ride continues!
The next steps is a framework to evaluate, as you've alluded. Importantly in Asa's email, highlighting comments from Clarissa, if we gain some success during this journey the expectation will in the not to distant future a Pilot
Look forward to you stay with us and continuing to contribute and develop thinking to reach this complex goal