DEVELOPING TOOLS TO RECOGNIZE INFORMAL RIGHTS BY CLARISSA AUGUSTINUS CHIEF, LAND AND TENURE SECTION GLOBAL DIVISION UN-HABITAT
INTRODUCTION UN-HABITAT s global mandate is human settlement, and it is often known as the city agency, or that slum upgrading is one of its key tasks. That is, security of tenure and land is a key concern of this United Nations agency, whether it is in the capital city, or small towns, in developing and/or post conflict countries. The types of activities UN- HABITAT undertakes broadly falls into 4 inter-related categories namely normative, advocacy, tools and technical assistance. With respect to land and security of tenure I have been arguing that increasing our global understanding, description and analysis of land related issues is necessary, but not sufficient, to be able to deliver land-related changes in countries, regions and at a global level. Instead we have to link the description and analysis of land issues with implementation, drawing from the type of approaches found in surveying, valuation, registration and planning which put an emphasis on the delivery of land and other services. That is, what I am terming tool development is 1/describing, 2/analysing, 3/setting the agenda for research into the creation of tools, 4/developing the tools which allow us to implement large scale changes in the land arena, 5/implementation at scale with evaluation. Given the nature of land, this can generally only be done in-country, with the country, and with multi-stakeholder involvement. However, global best practices are also capable of adaptation. I am defining a tool as a resource for understanding how to carry out and perform actions. Also I am defining informal rights to include informal settlement tenures (illegal, squatters, irregular), customary tenures, rights held outside of registers for a range of reasons, and ambiguous land records where rights are disputed. Also I find Doebele s view of land rights useful in this context. He argues that (c)urrent research, rather than depicting a duality of legal and not legal delineates a real world that contains very complex mixtures of formal and informal systems with infinite variations in between. (1994). That is, the formal (sometimes known as statutory), and local informal and/or customary systems work together and are modified to suit conditions in specific local situations. Land rights therefore need to be understood not simply in terms of legal, formal, illegal, informal, but rather in terms of a continuum model. While this framework is much more applicable in peri-urban areas, it applies both in rural and even formal urban areas in many developing countries. Doebele s continuum framework needs to also be linked to the research being undertaken by people such as Philippe Lavigne-Delville, Alain Durand-Lasserve, Carole Rakodi and John Lindsay who show very clearly that the de facto or social tenures operating on the ground are very different from the de jure tenures. Bringing the social land tenures into the larger land management/administration system of the country is one of the key challenges we face. Some see this as merely extending the existing systems to the majority, but there are very serious problems with this approach in terms of costs, too much focus on individual approaches, the weakness of the central state, the infringement of women s land rights etc. (Augustinus:2003). 2
A better approach has been developed by the International Research Group on Law and Urban Space (IRGLUS), a partner of UN-HABITAT. At an IRGLUS conference in 1999 one of the resolutions was that A right is a claim recognized by a social system. Some rights are informal and only recognized by a local social system, such as an informal settlement and/or customary community. There should be a range of rights in a country, which are legally enforceable claims, and which can be asserted and defended in a forum such as a court. These rights should occupy a continuum from rights evidenced:- Through law, such as anti-eviction laws; By contract, both written and/or oral; By local forms of recordal, such as community registers, local authority voter s rolls, electricity bills; By information held on paper or digitally (GIS/LIS) maps, such as cadastral information, local authority information, village sketch maps; By deed or title registration, in terms of publicly registered title deeds or private conveyancing (freehold, some forms of leasehold); A variety of tools that can be used within a range of technical, social and legal processes should be developed to enable people, especially the poor, to assert their land rights. The role of the state is to legitimate the processes through which these rights are asserted. That is, rather than the state merely extending the local land management/administration system already in place, its role is to legitimate social land tenures through which land rights are asserted. This is especially important with the respect to the poor who rely almost entirely on local land tenure systems to give them tenure security, because they cannot afford and/or are excluded from the formal conventional land management/administration systems. That is, innovative approaches and tools need to be developed to extend the land management/administration system to the majority in a way that takes into account both the continuum model, which describes the reality of the way rights are evidenced and claimed, as well as the need to legitimate the processes by which these rights are asserted. This is a key challenge in both the urban and rural sectors. In regard to the urban sector, the challenge is that in 2001, 924 million people, or 31.6 percent of the world s population, lived in slums. The majority of them were in the developing regions, accounting for 43 percent of the urban population. Sub-Saharan Africa had the largest proportion of the urban population in 2001, namely 71.9 percent. It is further projected that in the next 30 years the global number of slum dwellers will increase to about 2 billion, if no firm and concrete action is taken. There is growing concern about slums as manifested in the recent United Nations Millennium Declaration and subsequent identification of new development priorities by the international community. In light of the increasing numbers of urban slum dwellers, governments have recently adopted a specific target on slums, i.e. the Millennium 3
Development Goal 7, Target 11, which aims to significantly improve the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by the year 2020. Given the enormous scale of predicted growth in the number of people living in slums, the Millennium Development target on slums should be considered as the bare minimum that the international community should aim for. (United Nations Human Settlements Programme:2003). One of the most critical challenges in slums is land and security of tenure. We need appropriate land management/administration tools to deliver security of tenure to the people living in slums, to make it possible to upgrade slum areas for at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020, and hopefully even more. I am aware, with respect to rural land, of the Millennium Development Goal 1, which is to halve, between 1990 and 2015, the proportion of people whose income is less than one dollar a day; and also halve the proportion of people who suffer from hunger. Land is again an integral part of success of failure on this goal. Based on the challenge facing us in both the urban and rural sector, I am arguing that we have developed some innovative land management/administration tools over the years, and I will review some of the ones with which I am familiar. But we need to develop many more tools, comprehensively and quickly, to deliver on these targets. I will briefly describe a range of land management/administration tools that have already been developed in different contexts, also referring to the key institutions which were involved in their development, and indicating where more information can be obtained about these tools. TOOLS UN-HABITAT s Global Campaign for Secure Tenure: An example of an advocacy tool The Global Campaign for Secure Tenure identifies the provision of secure tenure as essential for a sustainable shelter strategy, and as a vital element in the promotion of Housing Rights. The campaign is also considered as the most important tool together with the Global Campaign on Urban Governance to achieve MDG Goal 7 Target 11 on slums, where as indicated, millions of people have no formal land rights. The Global Campaign for Secure Tenure has carried out national launches in several countries around the world, with the latest being in Brazil. In Africa there have been launches in South Africa and in Namibia, and a number are planned for this year including Burkino Faso and Senegal. Every launch is combined with a concrete action plan for the practical implementation of security of tenure. See www.unhabitat.org/campaigns for more information. Best practices and tools for land administration in Africa Given that there is often less than 15 percent, and often only 1 percent, cadastral coverage in Sub-Saharan Africa, it is important that innovative tenure types, land laws and land management/administration systems are developed, also taking into account costs. I worked with the World Bank, funded by Dfid, to try and identify some of the Best 4
Practices in land administration in 5 countries (Mozambique, Uganda, Namibia, South Africa and Ghana) at the end of 2002, and some of the results are described below. The problems poor users have with conventional systems is outlined in table 1 below. These problems broadly include, a lack of fit with customary tenures, including group and family tenures, cost, lack of access to information and transparency, not gender friendly, and does not address land disputes. Table 1: Poor users problems with conventional systems Poor user problems with conventional system Does not fit customary tenure Focus of land registration based on individual tenure only User access to information difficult/not decentralised Titling system too expensive Titling system not transparent Not gendered Does not solve land disputes/old adjudication approaches Registration system requirements of personal documents too onerous Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana South Africa Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes former homelands Yes Yes Yes Yes Partially Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Partially Yes Partially Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Unknown Yes Unknown Unknown Yes While a range of conventional tenures exist in these countries, innovative tenure types have also been introduced, which include occupancy rights, anti-eviction rights and adverse possession rights (see Table 2). 5
Table 2: Tenure types formal and informal Tenure types Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana South Africa Freehold Yes Yes No Yes Yes Registered leases Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Customary (not necessarily Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes legal) Occupancy rights Yes No Yes Unknown Yes Anti-eviction rights Yes No No Unknown Yes Group/family titles Yes Unknown Yes in law Yes Yes Modern starter /provisional Yes - Not yet No Yes No type titles pilot planned Adverse Unknown Unknown Unknown No Yes possession/ squatters rights State land ownership Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Informal settlement Yes Yes at Yes A few Yes least 30,000 individuals Tenants Yes Unknown Unknown Yes Yes The common characteristics in the new land laws (see Table 3 and 4 below) being passed in Africa, are based on a number of themes. The first theme consists of the characteristics associated with the PRSPs which have become cross cutting themes also affecting land namely:- poverty alleviation, decentralization, governance and transparency, service delivery, protection of women. The PRSPs are critically important to African governments, and their Departments of Lands, because of the large scale donor involvement in their budgets, and that a key covenant of most donors is poverty alleviation. The PRSP characteristics when applied to land administration take the form of decentralized local land administration offices, cheap/free titles/rights and/or tenure protection for the poor, information campaigns at national levels about people s land rights, transfer of information about land rights during titling and how to obtain them, adjudication procedures that also protect the occupants of the land not just those being titled or holding registered titles, removal of land professionals from routine operations to management, incremental upgrades over time, the adaptation of the conventional land registration system to accommodate the poor and other forms of legal evidence used by the poor to protect their assets, the protection of women s land rights, no systematic titling, no rigid boundaries in customary areas, avoidance/delay of adjudication of individual rights, and the development of spatial information systems as a public good for the delivery of economic and social services. The second set of characteristics relate to dispute resolution. This aspect was central to many of the discussions associated with the laws and their designs even if it was not always explicit in the law. This aspect became a significant cost factor for Uganda that led to an inability to implement at scale. An earlier draft of the South Africa s law was considered too expensive in terms of the institutional structure required to deal with this issue. 6
The third set of characteristics relate to the technical design of the land administration system accuracy of parcels, type of rights allocated, designed in isolation or not from conventional system, adaptation of conventional system to new law. In regard to this, a range of cost avoidance characteristics can be found in the designs. One of the most critical issues to be addressed in the land administration designs relates to the fact that the design has to have national application, be affordable to the poor, and yet not over-ride customary and/or local tenure where it is the tenure of choice. Different countries took different approaches. Uganda chose systematic demarcation for spatial information and dispute resolution with voluntary titling only, with the information being used as a Public Good. Mozambique opted for occupancy rights plus sporadic titling of investors, and not to title the poor but to carefully adjudicate investor titling to ensure it does not infringe on the rights of the poor. Namibia opted for starter titles unsurveyed within outside surveyed cleaned up boundaries for informal settlements, which could be upgraded over time to stronger and more individual titles. That is, innovative non conventional approaches to land administration had to be introduced and conventional systematic titling approaches following the rest of the world were considered to be unaffordable and not relevant to local requirements. Large scale adaptation and rethinking had to take place of a technical nature to be able to implement the general new land law. The degree to which this re-thinking was done by technical people working with land reformers was often an index of the success of the system (Mozambique, Namibia Uganda) and the degree to which the conventional system was linked to the new forms of title also became an index of the success of the system (Namibia, Mozambique). Table 3: Elements of new land laws Elements of new land laws Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana South Africa Protects poor occupants Yes Yes Yes Not specifically Planned Protects women s rights Partially Nothing Yes Not specifically Planned specific Strengthens Yes Yes Yes Yes Planned decentralized land administration Improves governance, Yes Yes Yes Yes Planned accessibility and transparency Information/media campaign Yes Unknown Yes Yes Partial Strengthens service Yes Yes Unknown Yes Unknown delivery Strengthens land tax Yes Yes Yes Yes Unknown Addresses conflict over Yes Yes Yes No Planned land between customary/ investors/state Form of dispute Tribunals, Local Local Courts Planned - resolution mechanisms local property community Existing government office land structures/ local structures, mediators administrator government courts, working on structures land 7
New adjudication approaches Affordability and sustainability Innovative cadastral/registration design Robust design including existing conventional system Convergence between design of general land law and technical procedures Alteration of technical process and restructuring of cadastral and registration system site courts, local leaders, Dept. Land Affairs, private sector Yes Yes Yes Yes Planned Yes Unknown Yes No Unknown Yes Yes Yes Yes Yesplanned No Yes Yes Unknown Unknown No Yes Yes Yes Unknown Partially pilot Requires re-structuring of government to implement land titling etc Accuracy of parcels Handheld GPS with local reference system Rights obtained by poor Sale, lease, mortgage, inheritance, compensation if moved not as individual right but as family/group Partially some procedures in place awaiting law Yes Yes Unknown Yes Yes Yes No Planned None for starter titles, lower for landhold title Right to perpetual occupation, sell, inherit, donate, form of family title Unknown, but very low for community demarcation. Occupancy rights High No rights for informal/squatters Unknown Use, occupation, transfer Customary tenure titled Yes No No Yes Unknown Date when start new 2002- first Not yet 2002/3 1986 titles act Not yet forms of titling pilot Linked to Yes No Yes Unknown No PRSP/equivalent 8
Table 4: Gender aspects Gender aspects Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana South New gender friendly land law Procedures implemented Legal systems allowing co-ownership Africa Yes Not yet Yes No Yesfamily law applied to deed and planned new law No pilot No Partial No Yes Yes English based No Roman Dutch based Yes Yes English based No- Roman Dutch based Co-ownership Yes No Yes Yes Yes through family law applied to deed Protection of women s land rights Adjudication procedures to protect women Partial can prevent transfers and coownershi p is new Yes being piloted Unknown Unknown No specific procedures No Partial in procedures but implementation problems No specific procedures Yes No ad hoc, planned protection A very critical aspect of the land programmes for each country included a focus on process and not just product. Multi-stakeholder negotiation at every step was a key to the creation of these new laws and land administration approaches. While this is essential, it has been incredibly time consuming and the multiple steps needed to get to national roll out can take up to a decade. 9
Table 5: Phases and sequence for the development of a new regulatory framework Development of Uganda Namibia Mozambique Ghana South Africa new Regulatory framework Multi-stakeholder Yes Yes Yes Yes No not private consultation at land every level of professionals regulatory framework who guarantee land rights development Land Policy No Yes Yes Yes Yes completed New land law/s Yes No Yes No -planned No in bill form Regulations Partially No Yes No No completed Administrative procedures completed Partially Partially Yes No No Functions sorted No No Partially Streamlining No out planned Training of officials No Partially Partially No No Pilots undertaken Yes - No Yes-completed No No Time taken to implementation of new forms of titling Court cases to test new laws and procedures Substantial donor funding for development new law policy/law Busy At least 8 years and still 9 years and still not law at pilot stage No yet No law yet At least 11 years ready to roll out 17 years (1986 Titles Act) Not yet Yes (1986 Titles Act) At least 9 years and still far from implementation No law yet Yes Yes Yes Yes Partial The approaches identified above are some of the Best Practice tools available at present to bring land rights, many of which are informal, which are outside the present land administration system into the wider system (Augustinus, 2002). Land sector development partner co-ordination in Kenya In Kenya, 60% of Nairobi s population lives in slums with no secure tenure rights, and insecure tenure is also very common in rural areas, also because the land administration system does not include the majority of people resident in the rural areas. In July 2003 UN-HABITAT started working together with other multi-laterals and bilaterals to coordinate the land sector, both rural and urban, in Kenya. Participating donors include DFID, Embassy of Belgium, Embassy of Finland, Embassy of Italy, EU, FAO, Embassy of France, GTZ-STDP, IDRC, IFAD, JICA, Sida (including NALEP), UNDP, UNEP, UN-HABITAT, US AID and the World Bank. While not all the donors are directly 10
funding the land sector, many of them are participating because they see this as a useful tool to address a very politically sensitive issue, namely land and tenure security for the poor. UN-HABITAT was requested by the donors to chair the development partners land sector group and provide the secretariat. This group meets regularly both on its own and with the Ministry of Lands and Settlement. Numerous statements and responses have been presented to the Ministry, at the request of the Ministry, on behalf of the donors namely:- On the draft Strategic Plan of the Ministry; On the Land Information System being developed by the Ministry; As the land sector group as part of the Consultative Group process which recently took place in Kenya; On the land policy formulation process recently started by the Ministry; The Ministry have responded favorably to donor comments and attempted to address many of their concerns relating to poverty issues and gender. The dialogue is continuing. Also, those donors who are comfortable with basket funding are already setting up such a land sector based arrangement prior to a country framework, which will take longer to finalise. Interestingly, donors separately supporting rural land and urban land programmes are moving towards a joint basket funding arrangement because of the synergy of dealing with national land issues. Some donors are starting to try and harmonise their programmes and we are for example, having ongoing meetings of the donors involved in GIS, also at the level of GIS technicians, where the over-laps and gaps can be significantly addressed. UN-HABITAT, working with lead donors in this sector such as Dfid and Sida, hope to be able to also develop normative approaches and specific tools during this Kenyan endeveour, which would then also be capable of being adapted to other African contexts. Information about this coordination can be found in the minutes of the meetings that are distributed to all donor partners and the Ministry of Lands and Settlements, as well as the donor statements to the Ministry and on www.worldbank.org/ke. Immediate measures land management evaluation tool for post conflict societies UN-HABITAT is actively engaged in land management/administration in post conflict societies and one of our biggest projects was setting up the Kosovo Cadastral Agency. Based on our experience there and elsewhere in the world, such as Somalia, Mozambique, South Africa, we have developed a tool which identifies the most critical activities which need to take place in an emergency situation moving through to a development situation in a sustainable fashion, where the country has land records. In post conflict situations it is likely that there will be land and house invasions by the group who are presently victorious in a conflict and/or organised criminals. This includes public land and socially owned housing, as well as private land and/or housing held by the group of people who are currently the losers in the conflict. Some of the key aspects of this tool identify:- 11
That adjudication or due process mechanisms need to be incorporated into the technical processes of routine transactions in the Surveyor General and Land Registry to ensure that justice is done in the land market and during inheritance. That it is necessary but not sufficient to build technical capacity in the cadastral office. A key issue relates to development and use of a hierarchy of evidence that uses the cadastre, but goes beyond cadastral evidence, to protect and defend people s land rights. In other words, the modernisation of the land records in a post conflict situation is not sufficient and can in fact cause conflict by entrenching the misappropriation of land, both public and private. The Land and Tenure section and Disaster Management Programme of UN-HABITAT have been developing this tool and it should go onto the UN-HABITAT website soon. Incorporating off register land rights into a land administration system in South Africa Blacks were allocated inferior land rights under apartheid. Many of these rights have been converted to freehold title since 1994. However, in 1994 it was decided that one form of right, known as a Permission to Occupy or PTO, would not be converted to freehold. The land administration systems for these PTOs, mainly in the former homelands of Transkei and Ciskei, have collapsed due to the post-1994 constitutional changes and institutional restructuring and is currently being executed on an informal basis outside of approved and dedicated national and provincial organisational structures. However, in 2003, it was realised that the majority of citizens in these rural areas (numbering millions), rely on PTOs as their only evidence of a right to the land, and that it will not be possible to extend individual freehold rights to these people in the short to medium term. One transitional option that is being discussed in regard to these rights is to fix the land administration systems relating to these rights in the short term to ensure security of tenure now and prepare for new legislation, rather than wait for new legislation to be passed and implemented. This approach involves taking the view that whatever land tenure legislation is created, an appropriate land administration system for the rural poor will be needed, which takes these PTOs into account. Secondly, it is being suggested that the land administration that should be developed to underpin these records should also include what is termed a library of evidence. This would involve the collection of copies of all PTO records, which are presently scattered across district level offices, and other forms of evidence that are being used to protect people s land rights, and housing them in a secure place where there is ready access, also by decision makers. This library is critical for the ongoing adjudication of land rights in this area, where over-lapping rights are a major issue. The legal framework would also have to be re-vitalised for the specific province, drawing from old the pre-apartheid legislation that under pinned these rights. The key tool identified here is, not to wait for the final aspects of the land tenure legislation to be passed, which can take years, prior to building capacity in a land administration system, providing that the general themes of pro-poor, decentralised, dispute resolution, group and family, as well as individual etc are taken into account in 12
the land administration design (South African Government: 2003 - http://www.psc.gov.za). An appropriate land information management system can supply new forms of legal evidence for tenure security The cadastral systems in Sub Saharan Africa are not supplying sufficient tenure security for the majority of people, especially the poor, including those in informal settlements. Another way to give these people tenure security is through utilising adverse possession and anti-eviction laws, linked to evidence supplied by new forms of spatial information associated with an appropriate land information management system. Whereas land surveyors have tended to focus on registered land rights as being the only way of obtaining tenure security, other methods also exist. While registered land rights probably supply the best tenure security, in a number of circumstances and countries other approaches have been adopted namely, anti-eviction laws, strengthening the right of adverse possession and occupancy rights. In a best practices case from UN-Habitat, members of an evicted community, in Mumbai, India, were allowed to return to the land after they had produced evidence, including maps, electricity bills etc, demonstrating their long term occupation in the area. In Brazil, despite the anti-eviction laws, many people have lost cases against landowners because they do not have the required proof of occupation. Also, in Brazil, there have been problems proving some adverse possession claims as it is not always easy to prove the identity of the persons who have occupancy rights, because the state generally does not have good enough records of identity, marriages and births, and/or local forms of identification are not sufficiently formalized. In South Africa it is much easier to defend tenants rights in court where some evidence already exists about their occupation and contractual status relative to a particular registered farm. The same claims on state land are harder to prove because the land is not parcelled/classified in the same way. An appropriate land information management system for urban management including informal settlements, which included information from a range of sources such as the electricity billing system, planning information, mapping of the as built environment rather than only the legal situation etc, could go a long way to supplying evidence for use by the courts to protect the land rights of people in terms of occupancy, anti-eviction and adverse possession laws. If this spatial information was the product of a land information management system it is more likely to be routinely available, consistent, have useful temporal dimensions, and be supported by knowledgeable officials, all of which are important for the courts. This approach, of using information from other public sector information systems and not the cadastral system to supply evidence of occupation rights, already exists in some countries where there is insufficient cadastral evidence. In parts of Egypt electricity bills are important evidence when a cadastral parcel is adjudicated and created. 13
Developing countries need non cadastral spatial information for decision makers as a priority and an appropriate land information management system should be able to deliver this. However, such a system, once in routine operation, could also be used to give a form of tenure security to informal settlement residents before, during and after regularisation. This would be a step forward along the tenure security continuum, where every step along a continuum from complete illegality to formal tenure and property rights is a move in the right direction, and should be made on an incremental basis. Also, over time, the spatial information held on the land information management system could be used as the first evidence when, and if, the land was titled, thereby minimising the expensive process of adjudication. The next set of challenges we need to face is how to insert this kind of thinking into regulatory frameworks, including land and land information policy, law and regulations and to expand implementation to cover the whole city and country (Augustinus: 2003). These are just a few of the tools I would like to speak about, and there are many others which I would also liked to have discussed, such as one on using land readjustment for conflict management in Botswana (work funded by Dfid) (Home and Lim: 2004); the use of handheld GPS by NGOs in Mozambique and South Africa, to create early evidence of occupancy rights (personal J.Negrao, D.Rawlins); pioneering work using ArcCadastre in Uganda (Government of Uganda and Swedesurvey); and UN-HABITAT has just produced a global review on national and urban land administration trends which both identifies new tools, as well as the type of tools that Member States still need; and so on. CONCLUSION The tools referred to briefly above are just the start of what is required to give the majority of people in the world tenure security and access to land, and to reach Target 1 and 11 of the Millennium Development Goals. We need to immediately start with a large scale research and development initiative for pro-poor land management/administration tools. As we have discovered with our work in Kenya, there is enormous synergy between the rural and urban land sectors, especially when working at the national level with national Ministries, in undertaking systems reform, rather than at project level. Land management/administration tools have national application with urban and rural subsystems. The Land and Tenure Section of UN-HABITAT will be launching a network of research associates and partners for the creation of knowledge and the development of land management/administration tools for the implementation of the Millennium Development Goal 7 Target 11 and the Global Campaign for Secure Tenure. It will focus on urban land law, land tenure, land management/administration and gender. A network of partners and research associates producing relevant research and tool development outside of UN- HABITAT is envisaged, where UN-HABITAT plays a central but not eclipsing role, also in setting the agenda, reviewing, evaluating and disseminating information to Member States. Such a network is likely to consist of a number of different and over-lapping 14
networks with different focuses, with an emphasis on partner ownership. This is an invitation to participants here to become part of building this endeavour. REFERENCES Augustinus C, 2003, Comparative Analysis of land administration systems: African review with special reference to Mozambique, Uganda, Namibia, Ghana and South Africa, produced for World Bank, funded by Dfid (unpublished). Augustinus C, 2003, Surveying and Land Information Management for Secure Land Tenure. Paper presented at Commonwealth Association of Surveyors and Land Economists, Nairobi, Kenya, 2003 Doebele W A, 1994, Urban Land and Macro Economic Development: Moving from "access for the poor" to urban productivity, Chapter 4, in Methodology for Land and Housing Market Analysis, Jones G & Ward P.M (eds.), University College Press, London. Home R and H Lim (eds.), 2004, Demystifying the Mystery of Capital, Glasshouse Press, London (forthcoming). South African Government, 2003, Report on the Evaluation of Land Administration in the Eastern Cape, Public Service Commission, http://www.psc.gov.za United Nations Human Settlements Programme, 2003, The Challenge of Slums, Global Report on Human Settlements, Earthscan, London. United Nations Human Settlement Programme, 2003, Handbook on Best Practices, Security of Tenure and Access to Land, UN-HABITAT, Nairobi. United Nations Human Settlement Programme, 2004, An immediate measures land management evaluation tool for post conflict societies (forthcoming publication). www.unhabitat.org www.worldbank/ke 15