[DEBATE] : (Fwd) Wolpe Lecture at CCS, 19 April: Miloon Kothari, UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing

[Patrick Bond]

*Topic:* Making Real the Right to Housing
*Speaker:* Miloon Kothari, UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing
*Date:* 19 April 2007
*Time:* 5:30-7pm
*Venue:* Howard College Auditorium

Miloon Kothari is a leading international voice for economic, social and 
cultural rights. Trained as an architect, he was appointed in September 
2000 as Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing, reporting to the UN 
Council on Human Rights. Based in New Delhi, India, he is the 
coordinator of the South Asian Regional Programme of the Habitat 
International Coalition's Housing and Land Rights Network and is 
founding member of the International NGO Committee on Human Rights in 
Trade and Investment, and he is also a member of the UNAIDS Leadership 
Council of the Global Women and AIDS Coalition. In recent years, he has 
been particularly active on issues such as women's rights to land, 
inheritance, property, housing and globalisation, trade liberalisation 
and their impacts on the right to adequate housing and other related 
rights, as well as rights dimension of poverty, water and sanitation. He 
also conducted a major critical study of Zimbabwe's Operation 
Murambatsvina ("Clear out the Rubbish"). He is an outspoken opponent 
neoliberal and militarist policies. (Documents are available under 
http://www.ohchr.org/english/issues/housing.)

***

Kothari spoke with Horst Rutsch of the UN Chronicle in early 2006:
Interview

On the mandate as Rapporteur on adequate housing
My mandate is very broad and includes such issues as access to water and 
electricity, sanitation, land rights, forced evictions and displacement 
due to development and disasters, and post-conflict and ethnic-conflict 
situations. There has also been a very strong focus in the mandate on 
women's rights to housing, land, property and inheritance, as well as a 
very strong human rights perspective, building on the recognition of the 
right to adequate housing in numerous international human rights 
instruments and reaffirmed in the Habitat Agenda. The attempt is to 
project the human right to housing, both in terms of analyzing the 
situation on the ground and proposing solutions, and what steps 
Governments should take to recognize this human right, including the 
need for it to be realized without discrimination. If I were to make an 
overall assessment of my work for the UN, including through eight 
country missions and seven regional consultations on women and housing 
and land, as well as participation at major international conferences 
and quite a bit of research and writing, is that the situation is worse 
than it was five years ago. The right to housing has been receiving 
increased attention, but the situation on the ground is getting worse as 
the number of people living in adverse conditions continues to grow.

On the problem of land speculation
An overwhelming concern for me is the intense property and land 
speculation, and there appears to be no attempt by Governments to 
control this, which makes it very difficult for the poor to access 
affordable housing. It is even affecting the middle class, as you can 
see in New York City and in other cities worldwide. There is no control 
for this rampant land and property speculation. I have been on missions 
and have had discussions with ministers on why there was no affordable 
housing market and why Governments did not intervene and make sure that 
property prices and rentals were not out of the reach of the poor. The 
usual answer is that such intervention would destabilize the economy. I 
find that there is a preoccupation, almost an obsession, with economic 
parameters---looking at growth for the sake of growth, and all the 
criticism that you would have of a neo-liberal Washington consensus-type 
of approach, which I think has become deeply entrenched. It is also 
something that we find at national levels, where Governments are seeking 
to invest and gain returns through privatization of water, electricity 
and sanitation---rights and resources that are critical to make housing 
a human right. I think there is overwhelming evidence worldwide showing 
that this kind of approach does not meet the needs of the very poor. For 
example, I find that the housing finance system does not meet the needs 
of the bottom 20 per cent of the global population; it is geared towards 
the lower-middle and middle classes. When you get this kind of 
assessment, it is very clear that Governments, even of developing 
countries, can no longer make the excuse that they don't have enough 
resources to provide or create conditions for everyone to have the right 
to housing or food. It is not just a question of not having the 
resources but also a step that can be taken by reorienting financing 
that is already available for housing. The second main area of concern 
related to property speculation is land grabbing. It's a phenomenon 
wherein any means possible, including legislative, is used to confiscate 
or grab land. For example, this whole dogma of eminent domain, where you 
have a system that the State can effectively confiscate any land with 
its own opportunistic notion of public purpose, and the people affected 
do not have any legal means to challenge such acquisition, except to 
challenge the amount of compensation they would get. If this is done in 
a way where such actions contain a political element, particularly 
affecting religious minorities such as in Iran, certain communities are 
summarily dispossessed of their homes and lands. Another example are the 
kind of land concession given to foreign companies, for logging, etc., 
approved by the Government of Cambodia, which severely affects the 
housing and land rights of indigenous people. There is this element of 
discrimination, based on race, ethnicity or income levels that comes in, 
where particular groups are affected even more.

On discrimination against vulnerable groups
There are vulnerable ethnic and religious minorities, including women 
across the board. So you have a predatory, exploitative system that 
treats land, property and housing as a commodity, essentially something 
out there in the market. It does not give due recognition to the social 
dimensions of housing, land and property. These are essentially human 
rights closely tied to survival and livelihood, something that people 
depend on every day, and their access to these rights, regardless of the 
level of income and which class or religion they belong to, needs to be 
protected. But what we find is a situation where States, instead of 
assuming that responsibility in accordance with international 
instruments and their own constitutions, are withdrawing from their role 
as protector and guarantor. And because in many countries there are 
active land cartels, property developers and politicians who are very 
powerful and can influence States' decisions, the Governments, in a 
sense, lose control of these areas, so land grabbing is becoming a 
global phenomenon. This is very disturbing.

On forced evictions and involuntary displacements
The third area which I have come across intensively is the situation of 
forced evictions---the involuntary displacement of thousands of people 
because of development and disaster-related projects, and also due to 
conflicts. My main recommendation to the UN system is that much more 
emphasis must be given to people who are being displaced because of 
so-called development---by that I mean large dams and mining projects, 
infrastructure development, environmental and city beautification 
projects. I don't know if you are familiar with the situation in 
May-June 2005 in Zimbabwe, where 700,000 people had been displaced 
within six weeks, and between November 2004 and March 2005 some 300,000 
to 400,000 were displaced in a huge slum-clearance drive in Mumbai, 
India. If you look at the manner in which cities in developing countries 
have become the best-practice or are referred to as world-class cities 
such as Shanghai, they have developed, causing large-scale dislocations, 
especially of the elderly and the poor. These forced evictions have 
become really almost an epidemic---it is happening all over the world. 
One of my interventions, in my 2006 report to the Commission, is to 
propose a set of guidelines on steps that Governments need to take to 
minimize evictions, through simple steps like consultations with 
communities and exploration of alternatives---a range of different 
options that are usually not taken. There has to be careful assessment 
of what is to be done. Even from an economic perspective, most of the 
evictions do not make sense because, as experience in different parts of 
the world has shown, upgrading settlements where infrastructures have 
already existed for decades cost far less than relocating a huge number 
of people. In many cases, such as in Zimbabwe or Mumbai, most of those 
evicted become homeless, as they are not offered adequate resettlement 
or are taken away from the centre of the cities and resettled far away 
where there is no livelihood. They have no access to education for their 
children and no adequate water and sanitation. Governments do not have 
the capacity nor the interest or commitment to manage the resettlement.

On the phenomenon of 'urban and rural apartheid'
Forced evictions are becoming more and more routine. The result of this 
is the creation of what I call "urban and rural apartheid"---the 
separation of the rich from the poor in cities and rural areas. More and 
more housing developments are being built only for the wealthy, and the 
poor are being evicted or forced to live in the ghettos. The kind of 
judicious master planning that is called for, with mixed-income land use 
as a principle, is happening less and less. This kind of "apartheid" is 
tragically being supported in many parts of the world by the judiciary, 
which should instead uphold human rights and impose justice, but instead 
is increasingly becoming part of the elite in societies that are 
anti-poor. This is very dangerous, as there is a conflict between human 
rights. For example, a court judgment for a city beautification calls 
for development that would lead to displacement of people, or for an 
industrial plant to be closed without any recourse to rehabilitating 
people who would lose their jobs and their homes, thus placing the right 
to safe environment over the right to housing and the right to work.

On the increasing trend of homelessness
The other phenomenon that is the theme in my report to the Commission on 
Human Rights in 2005 is homelessness. We find this happening across the 
world, including in developed countries like the United States, Canada 
and Australia, and even in countries with very vibrant economies. This 
increasing homelessness is very disturbing due to several factors. One 
is very closely linked to the over-reliance on the market for solutions. 
For example, in the current United States administration policy, there 
is a very direct attack on subsidies provided to low-income, mostly 
African-American communities, such as housing vouchers that will make it 
possible to rent. But then support for public housing is being 
withdrawn, and existing public housing dismantled, and the result is 
that people are forced out onto the street. There is also an increase in 
domestic violence. This is another area I am looking at: the link 
between violence against women and the right to housing. When you look 
at shelters around the world, we find gross inadequacies. There are, for 
example, some 10,000 homeless women in Delhi and only 1 per cent of them 
have access to shelter. There is also a system where people with mental 
or other disabilities are released from an institution without a 
corresponding system of re-housing, and so many of them end up on the 
streets. I find this really disturbing, as the poor are more and more 
stigmatized. For example, in the United States, if you are homeless, you 
can be treated as a criminal. In India, we have a law called the "Bombay 
Vagrancy and Prevention of Beggary Act", which authorizes the police to 
pick up somebody and put them in jail. So, we are finding that it is not 
only a question of neglect of the poor, but we have moved into this very 
dangerous terrain where we are now beginning to see a systematic assault 
on the poor.

On the vicious connection between inadequate housing and violence, 
particularly against women
In a recent regional consultation in Washington, D.C. for the global UN 
study on women, housing and land, we heard the voices of women from the 
United States and Canada. Several testimonies were about the United 
States Government policy that leads to the separation of women and 
children. A single mother who cannot qualify and provide for adequate 
housing has her children taken away from her. So instead of the State 
supporting these women to acquire better housing, or giving them 
subsidies and better support, it takes away their children and put them 
in foster care. There are also many such cases in Canada, especially 
with indigenous people. If you look at statistics there, the indigenous 
women and young girls are proportionately much more prone to violence, 
including rape, on the city streets. And you have a situation in 
developing countries where people are forced to live in inadequate 
conditions, without privacy and with much more incidences of violence. 
So these are some areas of concern and the scale of the problems we are 
facing.

On the silent crisis of housing as a global challenge
Absolutely, I think that the crisis of housing and land is so severe 
that it needs much more global attention and requires to be firmly on 
the global agenda. The UN system needs to take a more careful look at 
it. There is a culture of silence, for example, when it comes to the 
struggle women are facing in terms of equal rights to land property, 
housing and inheritance. This culture of silence, whether at home or in 
the community, exists because the people in power---the partner, 
politicians and bureaucrats, etc.---are mostly men, and it is not in 
their interest to speak openly or admit that they are not allowing women 
the freedom to have their rights to property, or that there is such a 
high incidence and prevalence of domestic violence. There is a huge 
simmering crisis that is affecting millions of women worldwide and we 
are not giving this the attention it deserves. What we are trying to 
bring out in the Commission studies and reports is that there is not 
only a culture of silence but also of neglect in terms of cultures and 
traditions, where the dominance of customary traditions is such that it 
discriminates against women and treats them as much more inferior than 
men. In countries where there are strong traditions stemming from 
religion, whether Islamic or predominantly Christian, it is important 
for Governments to reconcile national and religious laws with 
international human rights obligations, and to ensure that there is no 
pre-eminence given to one specific interpretation of religious laws over 
women's human rights. I saw this clearly in countries like Iran, where 
there is one specific interpretation of religious laws and the Koran 
that leads to discrimination against women in terms of their access to 
housing, land, property and inheritance.

On the trend of claiming exception to international law
It is the legal responsibility of States that have ratified 
international instruments to bring national laws in line and to 
demonstrate that they are implementing these laws. In my reports, we 
call for property inheritance and for recognition of women's equal 
rights to housing, as well as for the implementation of constitutional 
provisions and national law. Around the world, you will find that there 
are more and more laws that recognize women's rights, but there is a 
huge gap between recognition and implementation. We asked Governments to 
supply us with information on these issues and we get answers like: "We 
have this law"; "We are considering this policy"; "We have these 
administrative actions". But there is very little information on how 
these laws, policies or actions have been implemented. If you listen to 
the voices of women from the field, you'll find that there is very 
little implementation. People are not even aware that these laws exist. 
What dominates is customary practice or just neglect.

On the link between property rights and HIV/AIDS
In my last report on housing, we made a link between HIV/AIDS and 
property. It's very common in countries in sub-Saharan Africa that if a 
woman's husband died of HIV/AIDS or she herself has the disease, she is 
stigmatized and thrown out of the house by relatives, and nobody will 
rent her a place. Obviously, in such a situation there should be a 
policy or legal intervention that protects women's right to housing, or 
some positive developments with domestic violence legislation. For 
example, in India and Mongolia, the recent laws call for the man to be 
evicted. Also one of the major problems is that women have no choice but 
to continue to tolerate domestic violence, otherwise they will be 
homeless or be separated from their children. Therefore, we are 
encouraging legislation that protects women's right to housing and 
ensures that they have equal rights and privacy, as well as other steps 
that could be taken. I think there is this situation all over the world 
where women generally are essentially homeless. It doesn't matter what 
their income group is, because they don't have statutory rights in their 
homes. There is a move in legislation to recognize that, but women live 
with a constant insecurity. For example, testimonies of even upper-class 
and middle-class women reveal that they can be thrown out of the house 
and have nowhere to go. So there is no protective system, and for women 
living in poverty the consequences are much more serious.

On the collaboration with other UN agencies
One of the problems that we have in this work is that resources are very 
limited. As you know, it is an honorary position and we are not paid 
staff of the United Nations. The main reason for this is to maintain 
independence and so that we can even be critical of the work of the 
Organization. The support we get from the United Nations is for the 
missions and travel, and a full-time person assisting the Rapporteurs 
out of the High Commissioner's Office in Geneva. This kind of a 
situation places restrictions on how much we can do, how many places we 
can visit and how much research we can get done. Of course, we rely on 
civil society and the UN agencies, so occasionally there are situations 
where I work with UN-Habitat, the United Nations Development Fund for 
Women (UNIFEM) and the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF); but it's 
not systematic. We have to take the initiative, in a sense. There is 
also a need for much more awareness and integration of the work of 
special rapporteurs across the UN system; right now, it is still very ad 
hoc. You will find some rapporteurs working very closely with UN 
agencies. What we find lacking, and where there is a great hope for 
improvement, is a closer working relationship on a consistent basis with 
the UN Secretariat in New York. There is definitely a disconnect between 
what happens in the human rights field in Geneva and the political level 
in New York. With the political, humanitarian and many other areas of 
the United Nations, I see hope for much more collaborative work. For 
example, on internally displaced persons following the tsunami disaster, 
we are closely working with the UN Office for the Coordination of 
Humanitarian Affairs and are in touch with different UN agencies 
involved. But again, that is not something that is built into within the 
UN system. This is an area that is being looked at very closely in the 
reform process of the Organization. I think the whole initiative to turn 
the Commission on Human Rights into the Human Rights Council is welcomed 
by the rapporteurs, as it will bring much more attention to human rights 
issues in general. I think the Secretary-General's initiative, which has 
led to a significant increase in the budget of the High Commissioner's 
Office, will increase the expertise and the capacity of the Office to 
support human rights work---this is very positive. But where I still 
find the biggest obstacle remaining is the reluctance of States, even UN 
agencies, to whole-heartedly and sincerely adopt the human rights 
approach and comply with international human rights instruments, which 
the UN Charter also calls for. In the last ten years, there was 
supposedly much more effort in mainstreaming human rights, but I don't 
see that happening so much in practice. I have found resistance within 
some UN agencies, with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 
for example, and even the UN Habitat---I don't find a very open 
commitment to that. Also in the work of the special envoy on the 
tsunami, you don't find former United States President Bill Clinton 
telling an affected country that in a post-disaster situation one should 
be implementing human rights obligations. But that should be a clear and 
uncompromising message. When we don't do that, very often we gloss over 
some of the realities and don't notice the discrimination on the ground, 
because we don't look at the ground reality through the human rights 
lens. It's not something that is an add-on. These are obligations all of 
us, whether UN agencies and representatives or Member States, should 
have---a primary obligation that even the Secretary-General has 
consistently addressed. I find that hesitation, what I would call 
spinelessness, to hold Governments accountable to their own commitments 
very disturbing.