[Urbanstudy] Press statement by Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context

[Vinay Baindur]

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=19861&LangID=E




*End-of-visit press statement, New Delhi, India, 22 April 2016*
*Press statement by Special Rapporteur on adequate housing **as a*
* component of the right to an adequate standard of living, **and*
* on the right to non-discrimination in this context*
Ms Leilani Farha

New Delhi, 22 April 2016

I would like to thank the Government of India for its invitation and warm
welcome to me and my team. I have had the opportunity to meet with many
government officials at central, state and local levels and have received
extensive information. I also wish to express my gratitude to civil
society, community organisations, advocates, lawyers and researchers who
devoted time to discuss with me India’s most pressing housing issues,
especially those who travelled from places that I was unable to visit. I am
deeply grateful to the homeless people, the slum dwellers and residents of
housing schemes and projects who generously invited me into their homes,
and shared their living conditions and struggles with me. This was a rich
and intense visit that will stay with me forever.

During my visit I had several discussions about the role of international
human rights law in policy, legislation and jurisprudence. My statement
today is offered as a first step in what I hope will be a constructive and
ongoing dialogue regarding the ways in which the right to adequate housing
can be used as an important and effective tool, alongside others, to
understand housing issues in India and to secure a broad range of human
rights for the most disadvantaged. Addressing several of the key housing
issues in India using human rights principles would, for example, not only
tackle the current housing backlog, but would benefit millions of excluded
residents, and would address increasing unaffordability of adequate
housing. It might also ensure that India is better able to narrow the
inequality gap as it moves forward with its development agenda.

Introduction

India is the second most populated country in the world, with over 1.3
billion people. It is proudly known as the ‘largest democracy in the
world’. Everyone with whom I met celebrates and values its Constitution,
and many of its laws and policies as iconic of its post-independence
democratic evolution. India continues to struggle with the legacy of deeply
entrenched and centuries-old social exclusion and discrimination of
particular groups of people, such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
women. While reservations and legal measures have been developed to combat
exclusion, direct and indirect discrimination is still prevalent. As a
Federal state, with constitutionally devolved powers in the area of
housing, there are many variances between states that must be considered in
developing a national picture.

India is marked by stark contrasts: extreme poverty and deprivation in the
face of extreme wealth, a gap which is steadily growing and overtly
visible. Nowhere are glaring inequalities more evident than in urban
housing. On many streets when you glance down you see the poorest of the
poor – women, men and children – eating, sleeping and playing on sidewalks;
look up and your gaze meets luxury glass and steel skyscrapers purchased
and inhabited by the wealthy.

While the speed of urbanization has been slower than in other emerging
economies, India has on its horizon large scale urbanization for at least
the next decade. During the period 2010-15, the urban population has grown
at a steady 2.4% annual average, while the rural average is just 0.7
annually, indicating the trend towards migration and forced displacement to
urban and peri-urban centers.

India’s population is very young with close to 30%, approximately 380
million people, aged 14 and below. The average size of household is
estimated at 5 members, with variations between rural and urban settings.

India is also a flourishing economy, with estimates of real GDP growth rate
at over 7.3 per cent for 2016. Some predict that India’s GDP will continue
to grow by over 7 per cent annually over the next decade. In other words,
in terms of  its maximum of available resources, India has the economic
capacity to ensure the right to adequate housing is enjoyed by the most
marginalized and vulnerable groups.

Housing and Land Context

India has the largest number of urban poor and landless people in the
world. According to the 2011 census, approximately 13.75 million households
or approximately 65 - 70 million people reside in urban slums. In some
cities, such as Mumbai, those residing in slums represent closer to 50% of
the urban population and cities like Mumbai, Chennai, Hyderabad, and
Kolkata account for more than 50% of total households living in slums in
India. Data on the number of homeless people based on  the 2011 census
appears to under-represent the figure at 1.8 million, while researchers
have indicated that  the figure may be closer to 3 million people.

I met with slum dwellers and homeless people in Delhi, Mumbai and
Bengaluru. From a human rights perspective, I can say that their housing
and living conditions are often inhumane, and an affront to human dignity –
the essence of the right to adequate housing.

In the cities I visited, I was struck by the sometimes overbearing presence
of development of high-end real estate. Newspapers and billboards scream of
the better life to be had in new residential complexes, and skylines dotted
with cranes attest to the march forward in this regard. There is no doubt
that construction of this nature plays a significant role in India’s
growing economy, but it also creates divisions on socio-economic grounds.

Thirteen per cent of rural households live in homes known as “katcha”, one
room makeshift places with low quality materials, with no ventilation or
sanitation facilities and not protective of rain, wind or dust. It is
estimated that there is a shortage of 40 million rural housing units and
that 90% of rural households that require housing are living below the
poverty line.

Amidst this housing landscape, there are a number of recent developments
and crucial steps taken by the central and state governments that deserve
mention.

Positive Developments

The Central government has initiated two flagship programs of particular
relevance – a national housing scheme and the “Clean India scheme” – that
could have an important positive bearing on the enjoyment of the right to
adequate housing if they are fully and effectively implemented. Both
schemes are implemented by States, on a cost-shared basis with central
government. The urban housing scheme, Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Housing
for All) is ambitious in scope aiming to house approximately 20 million
households (100 million people) in urban areas and 30 million in rural
areas by 2022.

Based on the principle that in so far as possible slum rehabilitation
should occur in situ, under the urban rehabilitation and redevelopment
portion of Housing for All, eligible slum dwellers are provided temporary
accommodation in transit camps. Once new houses are constructed, households
are provided with a unit with all basic services and amenities, requiring
the payment of a one-time fee. Maintenance costs are covered for 10 years
by the developer after which time residents become responsible and become
full owners of their units.

I visited several residents currently living in rehabilitated units in
Mumbai and Bengaluru – a young professional couple hoping to have children,
a multi-generational family, and an older couple, for example. In terms of
basic adequacy, these units were all far superior to their slum ‘shacks’.
The positive impact on residents who, for the first time, are experiencing
security of tenure, cannot be underestimated. Some expressed a new sense of
self, having been transformed from an “encroacher” to a rightful resident.
Many indicated they were better treated within their broader community as a
result of their rehabilitated accommodation.

An overarching principle in some rehabilitation and redevelopment schemes,
in compliance with international human rights law, is the slight shift away
from treating residents as “encroachers”, “squatters” or otherwise illegal
occupants, towards the notion that at least some slum dwellers are
deserving of property rights and a decent – and formalized – place to live.
The government is encouraged to fully embrace this shift and to encourage
others to do so as well.  Also in keeping with international human rights
law, the schemes appear to be based in the notion that in situ
rehabilitation should be the goal in so far as possible. In other words,
the schemes recognize that most often it will be in the best interest of
slum dwellers to remain on the lands where they have been resident for more
than fifteen or twenty years (a condition for rehabilitation) close to
where they are employed, and attend school.

I was interested to learn about the recent passing of the Real Estate
Regulation and Development Bill (March 2016). While I am mindful that this
bill is not be a panacea, it is essential that controls, regulatory
frameworks and clearer procedures are established to help protect property
buyers. For a society that is highly market-driven and where the
flourishing housing sector is catering to home ownership primarily, it is
crucial that the central and state level government have a firm hold on
their obligation to protect individuals and households from private actors
and that due diligence is exercised.

Though implementation has been a problem, the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act has human rights oriented provisions, providing women
in a domestic violence situation with security of tenure through the right
to reside in their home and barring the violent household member from
remaining on the premises.

India’s Constitution and its interpretation by courts also bears mention.
While the courts have taken divergent decisions with respect to  the
recognition of the right to housing and have recently sanctioned numerous
demolitions, the Supreme Court and several High Courts have issued
progressive judgements in keeping with the right to adequate housing under
international human rights law.

For example, in 2010 the Delhi Court released two judgments affirming
Constitutional protections for the right to housing, noting that “adequate
housing serves as the crucible for human well-being and development” and
affirming that prior to an eviction rehabilitation sites with access to
infrastructure, services and amenities and a decent living must be found.
The Supreme Court has also issued several important judgements affirming
the right to housing. In the ‘right to food case’, as it is commonly known,
the Supreme Court took urgent notice of the denial of the right to housing
for persons living in the streets in Delhi, recognizing the threat this
poses to the right to life. The Supreme Court has established detailed
guidelines for states to establish shelters with adequate and appropriate
facilities, and to remain accountable to the court with respect to progress
on this front.

Concerns

While there are indeed these aspects to commend, my conversations with a
variety of stakeholders have assisted me in identifying a number of housing
issues of grave concern requiring immediate attention, as follows:

Discrimination and social exclusion

My mandate includes a focus on non-discrimination in the context of
housing. Discrimination, whether direct or indirect, and inequality were
raised on numerous occasions with me as bedrock issues with respect to
housing and land in India. I wish to underline that under international
human rights law, there is an obligation by all Government authorities to
ensure protection from discrimination by private actors, such as for
example private landlords and developers.

India’s legacy of discrimination against scheduled castes and tribes and
so-called backward classes as well as women, particularly single and
widowed women, and various religious minorities remains apparent. The
majority of those who are homeless or are residing in slums with the worst
housing conditions are members of these and other vulnerable groups.
Scheduled castes and tribes comprise 22% of India’s population but are
over-represented amongst the poor. Despite affirmative action programs and
“reservations”, these groups continue to be stigmatized and discriminated
against. Manual scavenging, though outlawed many years ago, continues to be
a reality for some with implications for their housing status.

Muslims represent 14% of the overall population. Discrimination against
Muslims in housing manifests in different parts of the country in different
ways. For example, studies on access to private rental accommodation in the
NCR shows that discrimination against Muslims (as well as Dalits) is a
barrier to housing access. Private landlords, real estate brokers, and
property dealers will often refuse to rent to someone who is Muslim, or
impose unfair conditions. It is also the case that in some parts of the
country Muslims have felt compelled to leave their homes and migrate to
places where other Muslims are living, often in slums. I visited one such
slum. Residents are living on public lands meant to be serviced by the
Municipality.  The conditions were extreme due to, overcrowding, an absence
of sanitation facilities and the lack of garbage collection.

Widows and single women also continue to suffer discrimination with respect
to housing. I was surprised to learn that even some government officials do
not always see the linkages between domestic violence and women’s housing
conditions. Conversely, I met many women who had fled violent households
and, with few housing options, were left destitute living on the side of a
road. Women face multiple layers of and intersecting discrimination with
respect to access, control and ownership and inheritance of housing, land
and property. Though some efforts have been made by governments, and
schemes set in place, to ensure women can become property owners, for
example, tax incentives and joint ownership of housing, inheritance
practices continue to be used to deny women title to housing, land and
property.

Still often referred to as “encroachers”, or people illegally occupying
lands, homeless people living on the pavements are commonly regarded as
“outsiders” because so many are rural migrants. As such they are often not
welcomed by governments.  These discriminatory attitudes are not just part
of common parlance in policy circles, but have also found their way into
legal judgements, making it increasingly difficult for vulnerable groups to
win injunctions against forced evictions; it has meant that homeless
persons are denied access to long-term housing solutions; and suggests that
the interests of the marginalized never trump the interests of developers
and development.

Discrimination against other groups such as persons with disabilities,
street involved children, persons with HIV/Aids, sex workers, and LGBTI
were brought to my attention and will be discussed in my final report.

Urban Homelessness

Homelessness demands urgent attention in India. Mostly identified as
‘pavement dwellers’, all homeless people live in extremely poor conditions
and exposed to many forms of brutality, violence and health hazards.
Information I have received points to the majority of homeless people
coming from disadvantaged groups.

They endure extreme weather. Mortality rates are 6 or 7 times higher than
for non-homeless populations. Women and children experience particular
forms of violence. Medical services, which are often simply denied to
homeless women because of their homelessness, has a disproportionate effect
on women, particularly those who are pregnant, including during child
birth. Children suffer severe malnutrition.

Beyond the absence of any and all services necessary for a life of dignity
such as food, sanitation and health care services, I have been told that
the most difficult aspect of homelessness is the stigmatization, hostility
and indifference homeless people feel from everyone in society: passersby,
police officers, media and government officials.

The neglect of homeless populations in India has been well documented by
the Commissioners of the Supreme Court appointed to track the
implementation of the court decision and subsequent orders on the right to
food nationally. Government at central and state level appear to treat this
very visible population as invisible. They have shown little interest in
addressing the immediate needs of homeless people, let alone reflecting on
the causes of homelessness and adequate policy responses. Despite the fact
that those who are homeless are the “city makers”, providing the informal
labour and services that sustains urban activity, Governments are reluctant
to provide housing, land and basic services to this population.

As a result there are not nearly enough shelters to meet the need, and when
shelters exist they are not always sufficient and rarely cater to specific
population such as children, women, persons with disabilities or persons
who need treatment for addictions.

That being said, through a series of orders, the Supreme Court has provided
detailed guidelines for states with respect to the number of shelters that
must be constructed and the services and amenities that must be provided to
residents therein. The Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation
has also established the National Urban Livelihood Mission – Shelter for
the Urban Homeless.

I also note that there is no national law, policy or programme in place to
ensure homeless people have access to medium and long-term housing options.
They are not, for example, included in the Housing for All Scheme. I did
learn that Rajasthan has adopted a progressive policy whereby emergency
shelters are the first step toward rehabilitation, offering skill training
to residents and assisting them to transition to employment and long-term
housing options, a model that other city authorities are taking on board as
well, for example in Delhi.

Evictions

During my short stay in India three evictions were brought to my attention
and serve as a snapshot of a reality suffered by many poor people across
the country. These evictions took place or were announced: 1) pavement
dwellers living for 30 years on a stretch of Baba Kharah Singh in Connaught
Place had their belongings confiscated and were forced off the footpath,
replaced with potted plants; 2) in Maharashtra, the Mangrove Cell of its
Forest Department announced the eviction of 1500 families, allegedly
without rehabilitation. This site has faced evictions for a year, and a
total of 4000 households have suffered as a result; 3) reportedly, 100
families were forcefully evicted with police batons (lathi) by the
Municipal Corporation in Indiranagar, Shivajinagar, Govandi, Mumbai.

Forced eviction appears to happen frequently  in India – a regularized
practice used most often to move forward the economic development agenda of
the country.  The central Government does not collect national data on the
number of households evicted each year, and neither do specific states.
Information collected by civil society suggests it is extensive, showing
that between 2010-2015, for example, close to 250,000 people in urban areas
have been forcibly evicted from their homes.

I have been told that evictions are most often carried out against the most
vulnerable populations most of whom are living below the poverty line.
Forced evictions are often implemented without any consultation with
residents, without sufficient or any notice, and commonly result in
homelessness.

Genuine consultation with those affected, and rehabilitation and relocation
prior to eviction are seldom guaranteed. While this may vary from state to
state, when rehabilitation occurs, it has often been on the peripheries of
cities. A study conducted in Baprola, a rehabilitation site on the
outskirts of Delhi, found that the housing being provided to those who had
been evicted was basically uninhabitable. The site has no transportation
services and distance from prior employment, schools, healthcare or any
sources of livelihood was over 30kms. The flats are in a state of
disrepair, lacking potable water and other basic services. Many of the
units, as a result, have been abandoned.

Access to legal remedies or recourse to justice for forced eviction appears
to be scant in India. In other words, in most cases, forced evictions occur
in India without a hearing and with impunity. In other cases, the community
may only have a few hours to secure a stay of the eviction.

All of this is contrary to international human rights law under which
forced evictions are considered a gross violation and must be avoided
except in the most exceptional of circumstances and, when implemented, must
be done so in strict compliance with international norms.

I learned that while a few judicial decisions at the High Court level have
delineated the manner in which evictions must be carried out, and the Delhi
government has issued an order that places a moratorium on forced
evictions, no such legislation or order exists at the national level.

There is a serious inconsistency within India’s policies. On the one hand,
the government is committed to addressing the scourge of inadequate housing
across the country through its “housing for all” policy. On the other, its
drive to become an economic giant through real estate investment and
development of infrastructure is in fact creating homelessness and housing
disadvantage. It becomes a zero-sum game: for every luxury unit created, an
untold number of households may be evicted and rendered homeless.

Housing Policy

Many stakeholders with whom I met indicated frustration with the failure by
governments to include human rights standards in housing schemes and
policy, such as those articulated in General Comment 4 and 7 of the UN
Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Stakeholders also
expressed concern with the single emphasis on homeownership in the Housing
for All scheme to the exclusion of other policy options. For example,
schemes recognizing different types of tenure beyond homeownership, such as
rental housing schemes or usufruct rights over land, have not yet been put
in place. I have been informed that there is currently a draft rental
housing policy in process as well as a draft model tenancy act which
provide an excellent opportunity to include right to housing standards, and
I look forward to their adoption.

Moreover, while the ambitious Housing for All scheme signals national level
interest in addressing the enormous housing shortage and housing needs of
the weakest economic segment, several aspects of the scheme could be
improved upon.  For example:

Some question the affordability of the program for slum dwellers. This can
mean longer stays in transition camps which are meant to be temporary in
nature.
In most schemes units are of a uniform size (for example: 25 sq. metres),
regardless of family size.  Concerns have been raised that these units are
far too small for families with 5-8 members, the average size of most slum
households. Overcrowding, it is feared, will quickly lead to slum-like
conditions in the rehabilitation sites.
I learned of cases where residents have been left to reside in transit
camps for over 3 years awaiting rehabilitation and worse yet, where
residents await rehabilitation and developers, despite having received the
tender from the government, have failed to build the rehabilitation units.
As a nationally driven scheme with State level implementation there is some
concern that there will inconsistencies in terms of quality and efficiency
of implementation between States.

Landlessness and Displacement in Rural areas

In relation to land, two pieces of legislation have been brought to my
attention numerous times. First, in order to protect scheduled tribes, the
Forest Rights Act of 2005 recognizes forest-dwellers rights to land title
and its use, as a collective right; it determines a prohibition against
evictions without adequate rehabilitation. Second, the Land Acquisition Act
of 2013 requires social impact assessments prior to acquisitions and to
ensure rehabilitation and resettlement of affected households in case of
eviction.

I was told that despite this legislation, displacements due to
infrastructure projects, and extractive industries regularly occurr. The
pressure on rural land seems to be growing; some refer to instances of land
grabbing, including in areas where Scheduled Tribes have protected rights.

The construction of large-scale dams, for example, has resulted in millions
of displaced people and of households being rendered landless, many of whom
remain in rural areas.

They live in the most precarious situation as the housing schemes require a
house site in order to be eligible, or they migrate to the urban areas.
Since the majority of these new comers to the cities only are able to
access low-skill manual work and have little or no education, they are
often living in dire conditions and increasing the ranks of those who are
most inadequately housed in the cities. In 2011-2012, the Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Rural development had reported that “only a third of
displaced persons of planned development had been resettled”.

Another critical issue to underline is the lack of a national policy that
includes the provision of housing sites and homestead not just construction
incentives and grants. Considering that the majority of the over 780
million rural inhabitants are landless, there seems to be an urgent need to
address their housing situation in a more comprehensive way, acknowledging
that a plot of land (even as small as 0.10 acres) can play a crucial role
in ensuring both access to adequate housing, and also to a livelihood.

Access to Justice

Most inadequately housed people and homeless people have relatively little
legal knowledge, particularly about human rights related to housing The
legal aid system for those living in poverty is only marginally effective,
which means access to courts is limited to the availability of public
interest representation by civil society litigators, of which there is a
limited number. Pending cases across the board in the judicial system,
which takes years to resolve, has rendered access to justice for the poor,
a continuing challenge.

Based on the information I have received, it seems that there are very few
avenues to challenge government decision-making with respect to housing
matters. For example, slum dwellers who are deemed ineligible for the
Housing for All Scheme have no complaint mechanism. This makes it difficult
to hold governments accountable for their decisions.

In the context of eviction, access to justice in India is particularly
limited.  There is no clear national policy or legislation on due process
requirements prior to eviction, compliant with international human rights
law. Persons who have been evicted have no avenue of redress if they are
denied rehabilitation nor do they have access to a complaint mechanism
regarding inadequate rehabilitation.

I was alarmed to learn that in recent years those struggling to defend or
claim the right to housing and land have been targeted by the state and
subjected to violence, defamation, arbitrary arrests, and illegal
detention. It appears that those defending their homes and lands against
large-scale projects like hydro-electric dams and mining projects have been
particularly targeted.

Preliminary conclusions and recommendations

India is at a critical juncture. In my view some important steps have been
taken that, if vigorously and vigilantly pursued, could result in more than
just “housing for all”. It could result in the realization of the right to
adequate housing for hundreds of millions of vulnerable people. This more
robust goal will, however, require governments to make a firm commitment to
human rights in the face of other interests such as real estate development.

In this regard, as an overarching recommendation, I suggest that it is time
for India to adopt national housing legislation based in both its national
and international human rights commitments.

Under international human rights law key principles and guidelines have
been developed that can be used as tools to strengthen and inform housing
schemes and policies. I recommend closer attention to and full
incorporation of human rights principles in the design and implementation
of housing-related legislation and schemes, in line with Article 11 of the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and General
comments 4, 7 and 20 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights. I also encourage the use of two guidelines elaborated by my
predecessors: Guiding Principles on Security of Tenure for the Urban Poor
(A/HRC/25/54), and Development Based Displacement Guidelines.

In this context, I invite the Central government to do more to ensure all
its institutions as well as all states are meeting their obligations on the
right to adequate housing and non-discrimination under international law. I
further invite the judiciary, public interest litigators, and government
lawyers to use international human rights law principles in their
Constitutional interpretation and in litigation.

Addressing several of the most complex housing issues from a human rights
perspective, as a matter of urgency and priority, by all stakeholders would
not only have positive implications for the current housing backlog, the
life of millions of excluded residents, and the increasing unaffordability
of adequate housing, but it would also set India on track for addressing
inequality and rapid urbanization in the years and decades to come. It
would also be timely in light of India’s commitment to implementing the
2030 Agenda (Sustainable Development Goals) and the upcoming world
conference on human settlements (Habitat III) where a New Urban Agenda will
be adopted.

I also wish to offer the following recommendations:

Homelessness should be dealt with on an urgent priority basis with a view
to eliminating it by 2030, in keeping with Target 11.1 of the Sustainable
Development GoalsIn this regard:

The structural causes of homelessness must be identified and addressed by
governments.
The National Urban Livelihoods Mission guidelines must be implemented with
regard to the construction of shelters for the urban homeless.
Shelters for different and particular client populations (eg: families,
women leaving violent relationships, street connected children and youth)
must also be established.
Homeless shelters must be understood in the context of a housing continuum
which includes a range of housing options and supports.

A national moratorium on forced evictions and demolitions should be
introduced by central government on the basis that they constitute a gross
violation of human rights and can only occur in the most exceptional of
circumstances, in strict compliance with international human rights law.

Enhanced policy coherence and convergence between housing schemes in urban
and rural areas and schemes for the provision of water and sanitation.

Central and state governments should put in place effective and timely
mechanisms to collect data on evictions, including with disaggregation of
the persons who are evicted by age, gender, disability, caste, religion.
Similarly, effective collection of data on homelessness, on residents of
slums and on living conditions should be systematically updated. This
information should be made public and serve as a basis for policy design
and monitoring of compliance with national and international human rights
law.

The National Right to Homestead Bill (2013) should be reviewed for
compliance with international human rights standards on the right to
adequate housing and adopted forthwith to provide homestead land to the 8
million poor, landless and homestead-less people estimated to be living in
rural areas.

Schemes and programmes for rural housing should include the provision of
plots of land and not only construction grants, to ensure that the most
deprived and poorest (landless) can adequately ensure their right to
housing and to a livelihood.

Survey and recognize all existing slums, including those where Muslims or
other religious minorities reside, and provide to the best of ability
in-situ upgrading and rehabilitation, with secure tenure for all
inhabitants. Provide existing slums, especially where rehabilitation is not
planned, with regular garbage collection, proper latrines and access to
water.

The National Human Rights Commission and other national commissions should
enhance their attention, within their thematic jurisdictions, to the dire
housing issues confronting millions across the country.

Enact legislation to curb all forms of de facto housing discrimination
against any individual or groups, especially religious and ethnic
minorities, women, dalits and migrants, both for rental and house ownership.

With respect to India’s engagement with the international human rights
system I strongly recommend that India submits its report to the Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; that recommendations related to
housing, living conditions and poverty alleviation from the 2nd round of
Universal Periodic Review be implemented, and that its national report for
the 3rd round (scheduled for 2017) refer explicitly and specifically to
achievements and obstacles to realizing the right to adequate housing for
the most excluded and marginalized.

There were a number of additional issues brought to my attention requiring
additional recommendations but which I am unable to comment here for lack
of time. My final report will be presented to the Human Rights Council at
its 34th session in March 2017, in Geneva.

*******************

Information about the visit
At the invitation of the Government of India, the Special Rapporteur on
adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of
living and on the right to non-discrimination in this regard, Ms Leilani
Farha, visited India from 11 to 22 April 2016. She is grateful for the high
level of cooperation she has received from all levels of government- from
central to Panchayat (local government), as well as for the contributions
and insights from a large number of civil society and community-based
organizations.

During her two-weeks of official visit, the Special Rapporteur went to New
Delhi, Mumbai and Bengaluru. At the Central Government she met with the
Minister of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation and senior officials from
his ministry. She also held meetings with senior officials from the
Ministry of External Affairs, the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, including the Department of Empowerment of Persons with
Disability, the Ministry of Women and Child Development, the Ministry of
Rural Development, the Ministry of Drinking Water and Sanitation, the
Ministry of Law and Justice and the Ministry of Finance. She also met with
NITI Ayog (Planning Department), the Department of Statistics, and the
National Human Rights Commission.

At the subnational level, in New Delhi, the Special Rapporteur met with the
Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board and the Urban Development Department.
In Mumbai, she met with senior state and city officials from the Department
of Housing, the Housing and Urban Development Corporation for the state of
Maharastra, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority, the Shivshahi Rehabilitation
Project, the Dharavi Rehabilitation Project, and the Mumbai Housing and
Area Development Board.

In Bengaluru, she met with the Principal Secretary of the Government of
Karnataka, senior officials from the Department of Urban Development, the
Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, the Department of Women
and Child Department, the Department of Planning, the Mumbai Municipal
Administration, the Karnataka Housing Board, the Rajiv Gandhi Rural Housing
Corporation, and the Karnataka Slum Development Board. She also had the
opportunity to meet with the Panchayat President and former President in
Tumkur.

The Special Rapporteur has also deeply appreciated the engagement of civil
society organisations, slum dweller organisations, academics, researchers,
lawyers, activists and experts with whom she has met. Thanks to their
interest and efforts, she had the opportunity to receive testimonies and
information not only from residents in the cities and towns she visited but
also from other states including Kolkata, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Madhya
Pradesh, Manipur, Uttar Pradesh, Andhra Pradesh, Odissa, Bihar and
Telangana.

The Special Rapporteur wishes to thank the United Nations Resident
Coordinator and his team as well as the United Nations country team; and
her assistants at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights for
their support in planning, preparing and conducting of this visit.

***ENDS***

I have used the term “slum” in this statement as that is the term used in
India. I prefer to use the term “informal settlement”

HLRN, Housing and Land rights in India: Status Report for Habitat III,
Annexure 3.

- See more at:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=19861&LangID=E#sthash.vItctllb.dpuf
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.mail.sarai.net/pipermail/urbanstudygroup_mail.sarai.net/attachments/20160501/b08c104b/attachment-0001.html>