3.2 Definitions of slums
3.2.1 Secure Tenure
According to Werlin (1999: 1527), the process of attaining land ownership upon which slum residents build their structures tends to be very complex. It is only in very unique cases that residents will own both their houses and the land on which they live. Many residents are often
32
casual squatters, where they settle on vacant land illegally. Sometimes, they work out informal arrangements with the land lords (Amaral, 1994: 85) (cited in Werlin, 1999: 1527). In other cases, slum residents may own various structures or rooms of which they rent out by making illegal negotiations with the land owners (Werlin, 1999: 1527).
Several problems arise from this uncertain and unclear ownership of land. To begin with, there is always the threat of violence between groups of squatters claiming control over the land and profit rights from the rent of structures (Amaral, 1994:85) (cited in Werlin, 1999: 1527). In the cities of Brazil for instance as cited by Werlin, (1999: 1527), this kind of violence has often been associated with illegal drug-trafficking where certain groups claim control of slum areas in order to carry out this and other gangster activity. In other instances, violence erupts when the government tries to intervene such as in the case of Manila, where problems started when the police tried to evict squatters from settling in land that had been vacated temporarily for purposes of upgrading for particular beneficiaries (Viloria, 1998: IV) (cited in Werlin, 1999:1527).
Secondly, because land ownership is unclear, governments cannot recover service delivery costs because it is difficult to get residents to pay for public services that are provided and to improve their dwellings. Officials are then forced to resort to mechanisms such as issuing threats of eviction to get residents to pay bills. Residents on the other hand device ways in which to access some of the services without having to pay for them. For instance in Brazil’s Favelas (slums) as in many slum locations worldwide, illegal connections of water and electricity have become the norm and residents do not feel responsible for the care and maintenance of infrastructure (Mejia, 1994: 7) (cited in Werlin, 1999: 1527). Durand-Laserve (1996) rightly argues that security of tenure is the most convincing way for the government to recover infrastructure as well as service delivery cost.
According to (Alam et al, 2005: 11), in Kenya, contemporary land tenure laws are heavily influenced by the colonial legacy and as such are a vague combination of English property laws and African customary laws. During the colonial period, the British government took control of large swathes of land under the guise of the utilization of unutilized land policy. This appropriation of land by the British left many indigenous Africans displaced. When Kenya gained its independence in 1963, it inherited the land that was under British control as part of the
33
transition efforts thereby making the government one of the largest land owners in the country (Alam et al, 2005: 11). Unfortunately, the government began to use its land ownership as a tool for political leverage. Political patronage was gained through the allocation of public land to private individuals by leaders and politicians while at the same time they appropriated large tracks of public land for their own use. This practice commonly referred to as land-grabbing gained momentum in the 1990s when public land was the main commodity handed out by the ruling party in exchange for political loyalty (Syagga, 2001).
The practice of land-grabbing has had various negative impacts key among them being the displacement of slum residents leaving them destitute and homeless. Furthermore the illegal allocation of land has led to the creation of absentee slum-lords or structure owners in many informal settlements. Structure owners often collect rent from a large number of shacks in slums and have close relations with influential political figures which reinforce their power (Mitullah, 2003: 11). As a result, most households living in informal settlements are tenants of absentee structure owners, with the latter commonly opposed to slum upgrading projects because of the fear that their income source might be jeopardized (UN-HABITAT, 2003).
In Kenya, tenure for many who live in the slums is insecure. Amnesty International did a study in Kibera with an aim of finding out the tenure system. The study found out that majority of the structures is on land that is either government property or owned privately. Many residents are tenants paying rent to landlords or structure owners who are not land owners on which the houses and structures stand. Others own land through a process where they are allocated a piece of land by the area chief either verbally or by written means. None of these processes are legal but they have been practiced with little or no resistance. Such an informal system of allocation, provides benefits to some wealthy and powerful individuals and reinforces a system of patronage (Alder, 1995: 9)
Moreover, according to Amnesty International, (2009: 13) because of the nature of slums growing haphazardly, many structures have been constructed on land that is meant for infrastructure such as roads, railway tracks and electricity lines and therefore faced the threat of eviction or demolition as they did not have any legal or perceived security of tenure. The study’s
34
conclusion was that Kenyan land and housing law is very complex, and many of the slum dwellers do not have secure tenure.
In its slum upgrading strategy of 2005, the government admits that it has faced numerous challenges in providing secure tenure to most of the people residing in slums in the city. The government has however committed itself to improving the physical and economic frameworks of slums to resemble those of urban structures. However this has yet to materialize (Amnesty International, 2009). Amnesty International (2009) perception on secure tenure resonates with that of UN-HABITAT in that if individuals can attain security of tenure, there would be emphasis towards housing improvement and development which will lead to improved living standards and the attainment of housing rights. The lack of secure tenure in most of Nairobi’s slums explains the lack of enthusiasm to providing improved housing and infrastructure.