INFO revue des revista sobre de la The manuscripts should have a … · 2021. 2. 8. · La Revista...

LAND TENURE JOURNAL

The Land Tenure Journal is a peer-reviewed, open-access flagship journal of the Climate, Energy and Tenure Division (NRC) of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The Land Tenure Journal, launched in early 2010, is a successor to the Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives, which was published between 1964 and 2009. The Land Tenure Journal is a medium for the dissemination of quality information and diversified views on land and natural resources tenure. It aims to be a leading publication in the areas of land tenure, land policy and land reform. The prime beneficiaries of the journal are land administrators and professionals although it also allows room for relevant academic contributions and theoretical analyses.

Text continues on internal back cover flap

Le texte continue dans la partie interne de la couverture postérieure

El texto continúa en la parte interior de la cubierta posterior

REVUE DES QUESTIONS FONCIÈRES

La Revue des questions foncières est une publication phare, accessible à tous et révisée par les pairs de la Division du climat, de l’énergie et des régimes fonciers (NRC) de l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture (FAO). La Revue des questions foncières, lancée au début 2010, est le successeur de la revue Réforme agraire, colonisation et coopératives agricoles, publiée par la FAO entre 1964 et 2009. La Revue des questions foncières est un outil de diffusion d’informations de qualité et d’opinions diversifiées sur le foncier et les ressources naturelles. Elle a pour ambition d’être une publication de pointe sur les questions relatives aux régimes fonciers, aux politiques foncières et à la réforme agraire. Les premiers bénéficiaires de la revue sont les administrateurs des terres et les professionnels du foncier, mais elle est également ouverte à des contributions universitaires et à des analyses théoriques pertinentes.

REVISTA SOBRE TENENCIA DE LA TIERRA

La Revista sobre tenencia de la tierra es una revista insignia, de libre acceso, revisada por pares de la División de Clima, Energía y Tenencia de Tierras (NRC) de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO). Es la sucesora de Reforma agraria, colonización de la tierra y cooperativas, que se publicó entre 1964 y 2009. La Revista sobre tenencia de la tierra, cuyo primer numero apareció a comienzos de 2010, es un medio de difusión de información de calidad que proporciona opiniones diversas sobre la tenencia de la tierra y los recursos naturales. Aspira a ser una publicación líder en el sector de la tenencia de la tierra, la política agraria y la reforma agraria. Los principales beneficiarios de la revista son los administradores de la tierra y los profesionales del sector aunque también da espacio a contribuciones académicas relevantes y análisis teóricos.

>

1 14

revue des qu

estion

s foncières

revista sobre tenen

cia de la tierraLa

nd

Tenu

re Journ

alFA

O

1

2014

The Land Tenure Journal welcomes articles on land tenure, land policy and land reform that have not been published in or submitted to any other journal. Authors are invited to write articles in English, French or Spanish preferably using Microsoft Word or Open Office. The manuscripts should have a maximum length of 40 000 characters with spaces, excluding endnotes and references. Authors are also requested to write an abstract (maximum 1 200 characters with spaces) and provide the keywords that best define the issue of their article. All references should be cited in brackets in the text by author and year, for example (FAO 2007). An alphabetical bibliography at the end of the article is to be provided, for example (FAO 2007). Good governance in land tenure and administration. FAO Land Tenure Studies No.9. Rome. 57p.

Articles should be sent by e-mail to [email protected]. Authors are requested to provide their full name, affiliation, organization and electronic mail address.

La Revue des questions foncières publie des articles relatifs aux régimes fonciers, aux politiques foncières et à la réforme agraire, qui n’ont pas encore été publiés dans ou soumis à un autre journal. Les auteurs sont invités à rédiger des articles en anglais, français ou espagnol en préférence en format Microsoft Word ou Open Office. La longueur maximale des articles est de 40 000 caractères espaces compris, à l’exclusion des notes de bas de page et des références. Les auteurs sont invités à écrire un résumé (1 200 caractères au maximum espaces compris) et proposer quelques mots-clés qui définissent au mieux le sujet de leurs articles. Toutes les références doivent être mentionnées entre parenthèses dans le texte, par auteur et par année, par exemple (FAO 2007). Une bibliographie alphabétique doit être proposée à la fin de l’article, par exemple (FAO 2007). Bonne gouvernance dans l’administration des régimes fonciers. Études foncières de la FAO No.9. Rome. 57 p.

Les articles doivent être soumis par courriel à [email protected]. Les auteurs sont priés de mentionner leur identité complète, affiliation, organisation et adresse électronique.

La Revista sobre tenencia de la tierra publica artículos sobre tenencia de la tierra y reforma agraria que no hayan sido publicados o presentados en ninguna otra revista. Se invita a los autores a que presenten artículos en inglés, francés o español, preferiblemente en formato Microsoft Word u Open Office. Los artículos no deben superar los 40 000 caracteres contando los espacios y excluyendo las notas finales y las referencias. Además, se invita a los autores a que acompañen sus artículos con un sumario (que no supere los 1 200 caracteres, incluyendo espacios) y una lista con las palabras clave que consideren más representativas del texto. Todas las referencias se deben citar en el texto entre paréntesis indicando el autor y el año, por ejemplo (FAO 2007). Al final del artículo, los autores deben incluir una bibliografía en orden alfabético, por ejemplo (FAO 2007). Buena gobernanza en la tenencia y en la administración de tierras. FAO Estudios sobre tenencia de la tierra nº. 9. Roma. 57p.

Los artículos se deben enviar por correo electrónico a la dirección [email protected]. Es necesario que los autores especifiquen su nombre completo, afiliación, organización y dirección de correo electrónico.

Author guidelines Directives à l’attention des auteurs

Normas para autores/as

+ Info [email protected]

www.fao.org/nr/tenure/land-tenure-journal

+ contact Land Tenure Journal Climate, Energy and Tenure Division (NRC)Natural Resources Management and Environment Department Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 00153 Rome - Italy

LAND TENURE Journal

revue des QUESTIONSFONCIÈRES

revista sobre

TENENCIA de

la TIERRA

SpaTiaL informaTion for addrESSing and aSSESSing Land iSSuES in diSaSTEr riSk managEmEnT

Land vaLuaTion: a key tool for disaster risk management

Land uSE pLanning for diSaSTEr riSk managEmEnT

addrESSing Land iSSuES in diSaSTEr riSk managEmEnT in ThE pacific iSLand counTriES

Land TEnurE and naTuraL diSaSTEr managEmEnT in ThE caribbEan

1 14

ISS

N 2

07

9-7

16

8

I47

12

Tri/

1/0

6.1

5IS

SN

20

79

-71

68

LAND TENURE JOURNAL









>

1 14

revue des qu

estion

s foncières

revista sobre tenen

cia de la tierraLa

nd

Tenu

re Journ

alFA

O

1

2014












LAND TENURE Journal


revista sobre

TENENCIA de

la TIERRA






1 14

ISS

N 2

07

9-7

16

8

I47

12

Tri/

1/0

6.1

5IS

SN

20

79

-71

68

food and agriculture organization of the united nations

OrganisatiOn des natiOns Unies pOUr l’alimentatiOn et l’agricUltUre

ORGANIZACIÓN DE LAS NACIONES UNIDAS PARA LA ALIMENTACIÓN Y LA AGRICULTURA

Land Tenure Journal

revue des questionsfoncières

revista sobretenencia de la tierra

1 14DECEMBER 2014 DéCEMBRE 2014 DICIEMBRE 2014

Les appellations employées dans ce produit d’information et la présentation des données qui y figurent n’impliquent de la part de l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture (FAO) aucune prise de position quant au statut juridique ou au stade de développement des pays, territoires, villes ou zones ou de leurs autorités, ni quant au tracé de leurs frontières ou limites. La mention de sociétés déterminées ou de produits de fabricants, qu’ils soient ou non brevetés, n’entraîne, de la part de la FAO, aucune approbation ou recommandation desdits produits de préférence à d’autres de nature analogue qui ne sont pas cités.

Les opinions exprimées dans ce produit d’information sont celles du/des auteur(s) et ne reflètent pas nécessairement les vues ou les politiques de la FAO.

ISSN 2079-715X (version imprimée)

ISSN 2079-7168 (PDF)

La FAO encourage l’utilisation, la reproduction et la diffusion des informations figurant dans ce produit d’information. Sauf indication contraire, le contenu peut être copié, téléchargé et imprimé aux fins d’étude privée, de recherches ou d’enseignement, ainsi que pour utilisation dans des produits ou services non commerciaux, sous réserve que la FAO soit correctement mentionnée comme source et comme titulaire du droit d’auteur et à condition qu’il ne soit sous-entendu en aucune manière que la FAO approuverait les opinions, produits ou services des utilisateurs.

Toute demande relative aux droits de traduction ou d’adaptation, à la revente ou à d’autres droits d’utilisation commerciale doit être présentée au moyen du formulaire en ligne disponible à www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request ou adressée par courriel à [email protected].

Les produits d’information de la FAO sont disponibles sur le site web de la FAO (www.fao.org/publications) et peuvent être achetés par courriel adressé à [email protected]

Las denominaciones empleadas en este producto informativo y la forma en que aparecen presentados los datos que contiene no implican, por parte de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas para la Alimentación y la Agricultura (FAO), juicio alguno sobre la condición jurídica o nivel de desarrollo de países, territorios, ciudades o zonas, o de sus autoridades, ni respecto de la delimitación de sus fronteras o límites. La mención de empresas o productos de fabricantes en particular, estén o no patentados, no implica que la FAO los apruebe o recomiende de preferencia a otros de naturaleza similar que no se mencionan.

Las opiniones expresadas en este producto informativo son las de su(s) autor(es), y no reflejan necesariamente los puntos de vista o políticas de la FAO.

ISSN 2079-715X (edición impresa)

ISSN 2079-7168 (PDF)

La FAO fomenta el uso, la reproducción y la difusión del material contenido en este producto informativo. Salvo que se indique lo contrario, se podrá copiar, imprimir y descargar el material con fines de estudio privado, investigación y docencia, o para su uso en productos o servicios no comerciales, siempre que se reconozca de forma adecuada a la FAO como la fuente y titular de los derechos de autor y que ello no implique en modo alguno que la FAO aprueba los puntos de vista, productos o servicios de los usuarios.

Todas las solicitudes relativas a la traducción y los derechos de adaptación así como a la reventa y otros derechos de uso comercial deberán dirigirse a www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request o a [email protected].

Los productos de información de la FAO están disponibles en el sitio web de la Organización (www.fao.org/publications) y pueden adquirirse mediante solicitud por correo electrónico a [email protected]

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.

The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

ISSN 2079-715X (print version)

ISSN 2079-7168(PDF)

FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.

All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www. fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected].

FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through [email protected].

© FAO 2015

i i i

1 14R e v u e d e s q u e s t i o n s f o n c i è R e s R e v i s ta s o b R e t e n e n c i a d e l a t i e R R al a n d t e n u R e J o u R n a l

Table of contents Table de matières Indice de materias

Preface Paul Munro-faure and Daniel roberge

Jaap Zevenbergen, Norman Kerle and arbind TuladharSPaTial iNforMaTioN for aDDreSSiNg aND aSSeSSiNg laND iSSueS iN DiSaSTer riSK MaNageMeNT

David Mitchell, Matt Myers and Donald grantlaND valuaTioN: a key tool for disaster risk management

francis roy and Yaïves ferlandlaND uSe PlaNNiNg for DiSaSTer riSK MaNageMeNT

David Mitchell, Helene Jacot des combes, Matt Myers and Darryn McevoyaDDreSSiNg laND iSSueS iN DiSaSTer riSK MaNageMeNT iN THe Pacific iSlaND couNTrieS

charisse griffith-charles, Balfour Spence, Paulette Bynoe, Dianne roberts and levy WilsonlaND TeNure aND NaTural DiSaSTer MaNageMeNT iN THe cariBBeaN

prÉfacepaul Munro-faure et Daniel roberge

Jaap Zevenbergen, Norman Kerle et arbind TuladharL’iNforMaTioN spaTiaLe eN rÉpoNse aux probLèMes foNciers eT à Leur ÉvaLuaTioN DaNs Le caDre De La gesTioN Des risques De caTasTrophe

David Mitchell, Matt Myers et Donald grantL’ÉvaLuaTioN foNcière: un outil fondamental dans la gestion des risques de catastrophe

francis roy et Yaïves ferlandpLaNificaTioN De L'uTiLisaTioN Des Terres pour La gesTioN Des risques De caTasTrophe

David Mitchell, helene Jacot des combes, Matt Myers et Darryn Mcevoyfaire face aux probLèMes foNciers DaNs La gesTioN Des risques De caTasTrophe DaNs Les ÉTaTs iNsuLaires Du pacifique

charisse griffith-charles, balfour spence, paulette bynoe, Dianne roberts et Levy WilsonrÉgiMes foNciers eT gesTioN Des caTasTrophes NaTureLLes DaNs Les caraïbes

1

9

37

71

105

137

1

9

37

71

105

137

1

9

37

71

105

137

prefaciopaul Munro-faure y Daniel roberge

Jaap Zevenbergen, Norman Kerle y arbind TuladhariNforMacióN espacial para aborDar y evaluar las cuesTioNes De TeNeNcia eN el coNTexTo De la gesTióN Del riesgo De DesasTres

David Mitchell, Matt Myers y Donald grantesTiMacióN Del valor De la Tierra: un instrumento clave para la gestión del riesgo de desastres

francis roy y yaïves ferlandplaNificacióN Del uso De la Tierra a favor De la gesTióN Del riesgo De DesasTres

David Mitchell, Helene Jacot des combes, Matt Myers y Darryn McevoyaborDar las cuesTioNes relaTivas a la Tierra De los países iNsulares Del pacífico eN el coNTexTo De la gesTióN Del riesgo De DesasTres

charisse griffith-charles, balfour spence, paulette bynoe, Dianne roberts y levy Wilsonla TeNeNcia De la Tierra y la gesTióN Del riesgo De DesasTres eN el caribe

i v

editors

editorial board

design and layout

rédacteurs

comité de rédaction

conception graphique et mise en page

redactores

comité de redacción

diseño y maquetación

Vladimir EVtimoV, FEdErica GabEllini

piEtro bartolEschi and ElisabEtta crEmona - studio bartolEschi, romE

rExFord ahEnE, moussa djiré, Victor Endo, rEnEE GioVarElli, daVid p. Goodwin, piErrE-YVEs lE mEur, soFia monsalVE, orapan napanGchanG-srisawalak, josEph salukVadzE, mouEn saYEGh, rEEtta toiVanEn,

mika-pEttEri törhönEn and judE wallacE

1

l a n d t e n u R e J o u R n a l R e v u e d e s q u e s t i o n s f o n c i è R e s R e v i s ta s o b R e t e n e n c i a d e l a t i e R R a 1 14

This thematic issue on land tenure and disaster risk management (DRM) stems from the recent work done at FAO on normative aspects of land tenure governance that address natural disasters through the DRM framework. In particular, it reflects work undertaken by FAO in partnership with Commission 7, Cadastre and Land Management, of the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). We are delighted to take this opportunity to acknowledge this important co-operation.

Climate change results in increased frequency of natural hazards and natural disasters, which can have negative impacts on tenure as people can be deprived of their land or access to natural resources. At the same time, the level of tenure security can have an impact on how land and other natural resources are affected by a natural disaster, the response of the tenure rights holders and their ability to recover from the disaster. This thematic issue highlights the important role land professionals can play in disaster management. Firstly, in a preventive mode, by promoting the

Ce numéro thématique sur les régimes fonciers et la gestion des risques de catastrophe trouve son origine dans les activités normatives de la FAO entreprises ces dernières années concernant les aspects de la gouvernance foncière qui tentent de faire face aux catastrophes naturelles à travers le cadre de gestion des risques de catastrophe. Plus spécifiquement, il reflète les travaux entrepris par la FAO en partenariat avec la Commission 7 de la Fédération internationale des géomètres (FIG), portant sur le cadastre et la gestion du territoire. C’est avec un grand plaisir que nous saisissons l’occasion de reconnaître cette importante coopération.

Le changement climatique entraîne une fréquence accrue des phénomènes naturels et des catastrophes naturelles, qui peuvent avoir une incidence néfaste sur les régimes fonciers, en privant les populations de leurs terres ou de leur accès aux ressources naturelles. Parallèlement, le niveau de sécurité foncière peut déterminer la manière dont les terres et les ressources naturelles seront affectées par une catastrophe naturelle, la réponse apportée par les détenteurs de

Este número temático sobre la tenencia de la tierra y la gestión del riesgo de desastres es el resultado de la labor normativa de la FAO de los últimos años dedicada a los aspectos de la gobernanza de la tenencia de la tierra para hacer frente a las catástrofes naturales a través del marco de gestión del riesgo de desastres. En particular, en él se refleja la labor llevada a cabo por la FAO en asociación con la Comisión 7 sobre el catastro y la gestión de tierras de la Federación Internacional de Topógrafos (FIG). Nos complace enormemente aprovechar esta oportunidad para reconocer la importancia de esta cooperación.

El cambio climático tiene como consecuencia una mayor frecuencia de peligros y catástrofes naturales que pueden tener repercusiones negativas en la tenencia, ya que pueden privar a las personas de sus tierras o acceso a los recursos naturales. Al mismo tiempo, el grado de seguridad de la tenencia puede influir en la forma en que una catástrofe natural afecta la tierra y otros recursos naturales, en la respuesta de los titulares de los derechos de tenencia y en la capacidad de estos para recuperarse

Preface Préface Prefacio

2

importance of land tenure systems to mitigate the impact and facilitate disaster management and resettlement, and secondly, after the event, by supporting a tenure-aware resettlement and reconstruction process.

The Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (the Voluntary Guidelines), provide, among other issues, guidance on improving tenure governance and strengthening tenure security of vulnerable people in line with the DRM framework. To raise awareness and share experiences in this field, this issue of the Land Tenure Journal offers three articles that address aspects of spatial information, land valuation and land-use planning in the context of DRM. These are supplemented by two articles on experiences with natural disaster events and suggestions for addressing tenure security issues to improve resilience to natural disasters in two of the most disaster-prone regions of the world: islands of the Pacific and the Caribbean.

droits fonciers et leur faculté à se remettre d’une catastrophe. Ce numéro thématique met en exergue le rôle important que peuvent jouer les professionnels du secteur foncier dans la gestion des catastrophes. Premièrement, de manière préventive, en promouvant l’importance des systèmes fonciers pour atténuer les effets des catastrophes et faciliter leur gestion et la réinstallation, et deuxièmement, après la catastrophe, en venant en appui à une réinstallation des populations qui prend en compte le système foncier et au processus de reconstruction.

Les Directives volontaires pour une gouvernance responsable des régimes fonciers applicables aux terres, aux pêches et aux forêts dans le contexte de la sécurité alimentaire nationale (les Directives volontaires) proposent, entre autres thématiques, des orientations pour améliorer la gouvernance foncière et renforcer la sécurité des régimes fonciers des populations vulnérables, en conformité avec le cadre de gestion des risques de catastrophe. Afin de sensibiliser le public et confronter des expériences dans ce domaine, ce numéro de Revue des questions

de la catástrofe. En este número temático se pone de relieve la importante función que pueden desempeñar los profesionales que se ocupan de la tierra en la gestión de catástrofes. En primer lugar, en modo preventivo, al promover la importancia que revisten los sistemas de tenencia de la tierra para mitigar el impacto y facilitar la gestión de catástrofes y el reasentamiento, y, en segundo lugar, después de la catástrofe, al respaldar un proceso de reasentamiento y reconstrucción que tome en consideración la tenencia.

En las Directrices voluntarias sobre la gobernanza responsable de la tenencia de la tierra, la pesca y los bosques en el contexto de la seguridad alimentaria nacional (en adelante, las Directrices voluntarias), se proporciona, entre otras cuestiones, orientación sobre la forma de mejorar la gobernanza de la tenencia y reforzar la seguridad de la tenencia de las personas vulnerables en consonancia con el marco de gestión del riesgo de desastres. Con objeto de sensibilizar y compartir experiencias sobre esta materia, en este número de la Revista sobre tenencia de la tierra se presentan tres artículos que

3


This thematic issue opens with an article on Spatial information for addressing and assessing land issues in DRM. The authors analyse the crucial, life-saving role and possible impacts of spatial information in all DRM phases: the pre-disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness, the emergency response and the post-disaster recovery and reconstruction. A broader discourse follows on spatial data infrastructure aspects of improving access to spatial information in the context of natural hazards and disaster events, including the capacity of dedicated international interventions to provide near real time spatial information in emergencies.

The second article on Land valuation: a key tool for DRM looks at one of the land administration elements – the valuation of land – and the relationship between land tenure, value and land use in the context of DRM. The authors discuss how effective land valuation can support emergency response and post-disaster activities,

foncières propose trois articles qui abordent les thèmes de l’information spatiale, de l’évaluation foncière et de la planification de l’utilisation des terres dans le cadre de la gestion des risques de catastrophe. Ils sont complétés par deux autres articles qui traitent d’expériences vécues de catastrophes naturelles et proposent des suggestions pour répondre aux questions de sécurité foncière en améliorant la résistance aux catastrophes naturelles dans deux des régions les plus exposées aux catastrophes dans le monde: les pays de l’océan Pacifique et les îles des Caraïbes.

Ce numéro thématique s’ouvre avec un article sur L’information spatiale en réponse aux problèmes fonciers et à leur évaluation dans le cadre de la gestion des risques de catastrophe. Les auteurs analysent le rôle fondamental et vital joué par l’information spatiale et ses effets éventuels dans toutes les phases de la gestion des risques de catastrophe: les mesures de prévention, l’atténuation des risques et l’état de préparation avant la catastrophe elle-même, et les interventions d’urgence, le relèvement et la reconstruction post-catastrophe.

estudian los aspectos de información espacial, valoración de la tierra y planificación del uso de la tierra en el contexto de la gestión del riesgo de desastres. Los complementan dos artículos sobre experiencias en relación con catástrofes naturales y con sugerencias para abordar las cuestiones de seguridad de la tenencia con objeto de mejorar la capacidad de resistencia a las catástrofes naturales en dos de las regiones del mundo más expuestas a catástrofes: los países insulares del Caribe y el Pacífico.

Da inicio a este número temático el artículo Información espacial para abordar y evaluar las cuestiones de tenencia en el contexto de la gestión del riesgo de desastres. Sus autores analizan la función fundamental de la información espacial para salvar vidas y sus posibles efectos en todas las fases de la gestión del riesgo de desastres: la prevención, mitigación y preparación ante una catástrofe, la intervención en situaciones de emergencia, y la recuperación y reconstrucción tras una catástrofe. Luego se amplía el tema tratando sobre aspectos de la infraestructura de la información espacial a fin de mejorar el acceso a esta en

4

considering the impact of natural disasters on property values and the valuation support in estimating damage and loss, effective decisions on resettlement and compensation, and insurance. The article also addresses commonly encountered difficulties and challenges for effective post-disaster valuation that should be addressed in disaster risk reduction programmes.

The third article, Land-use planning for DRM, considers land-use planning as a land policy formulation tool and a process with potential for improving the security and resilience of people – particularly women, the poor and disadvantaged – in disaster-prone areas. The authors suggest that natural disaster vulnerability has a threefold nature: a geographic vulnerability linked to the risk and constraints that limit the use of a zone, a social vulnerability related to the socio-economic characteristics of the population and an institutional vulnerability consistent with the resources available to human

Un discours plus vaste s’ensuit sur les aspects de l’infrastructure des données spatiales pour améliorer l’accès à celles-ci dans un contexte de catastrophes ou de phénomènes naturels, notamment sur la capacité des interventions internationales à fournir des informations spatiales en temps réel lors des opérations d’urgence.

Le deuxième article, intitulé L’évaluation foncière: un outil fondamental dans la gestion des risques de catastrophe, se penche sur l’un des éléments de l’administration foncière – l’évaluation des terres – et sur la relation entre régime foncier, valeur et utilisation des terres dans le cadre de la gestion des risques de catastrophe. Les auteurs analysent comment l’évaluation foncière peut venir en appui aux interventions d’urgence et aux activités post-catastrophe, en prenant en considération l’impact des catastrophes naturelles sur la valeur des biens et l’appui apporté par l’évaluation foncière pour estimer les dommages et les pertes, pour prendre des décisions efficaces sur le repeuplement et l’indemnisation et pour les problèmes liés aux assurances. L’article évoque

el contexto de los peligros y las catástrofes naturales, en particular, la capacidad de las intervenciones internacionales especializadas de proporcionar información espacial prácticamente en tiempo real durante una emergencia.

En el segundo artículo, Estimación del valor de la tierra: un instrumento clave para la gestión del riesgo de desastres, se observa uno de los elementos de administración de la tierra — la valoración de la tierra — y la relación entre tenencia, valor y uso de la tierra en el contexto de la gestión del riesgo de desastres. Sus autores analizan cómo una valoración eficaz de la tierra puede respaldar las actividades de intervención en situaciones de emergencia y posteriores a una catástrofe si se tienen en cuenta las repercusiones que las catástrofes naturales tienen en el valor de las propiedades y el apoyo que presta la valoración a la hora de estimar daños y pérdidas, tomar decisiones eficaces sobre reasentamiento y compensación, y a efectos del seguro. Además, en este artículo se abordan las dificultades y desafíos comunes de una valoración eficaz tras una catástrofe, que deberían

5


communities to face the risks and dangers associated with a disaster.

This issue then turns to regional experiences with an article on Addressing land issues in DRM in the Pacific island countries, where the authors review previous disasters in the Pacific region to identify land issues that have emerged, and consider how land tenure and disaster management are administered in a region where customary tenure predominates and rapid urbanization, conflict over land, and the establishment of informal settlements on disaster-prone sites further exacerbate the problems.

The last article is on Land tenure and natural disaster management in the Caribbean and looks at the level of land tenure insecurity as one of the factors affecting the ability of land occupants to mitigate, respond to, and recover from natural disaster events, based on previous disaster experiences in four countries of the Caribbean – Saint Lucia, Jamaica, Guyana and Grenada – and outlines some steps

également les difficultés et les défis récurrents d’une évaluation post-catastrophe efficace, qu’on peut surmonter grâce aux programmes de réduction des risques de catastrophe.

Le troisième article, intitulé Planification de l’utilisation des terres pour la gestion des risques de catastrophe, considère l’aménagement du territoire comme un outil de formulation de politiques foncières et comme un processus permettant d’améliorer la sécurité et la résistance des populations – notamment les femmes, les pauvres et les personnes défavorisées – dans les zones exposées aux catastrophes. Les auteurs émettent l’idée que la vulnérabilité aux catastrophes naturelles relève d’un triple caractère: une vulnérabilité géographique, liée aux risques et aux contraintes qui restreignent l’utilisation d’une zone, une vulnérabilité sociale, liée aux caractéristiques socioéconomiques de la population, et une vulnérabilité institutionnelle, correspondant aux ressources à disposition des communautés pour faire face aux risques et aux dangers d’une catastrophe.

incluirse en los programas de reducción del riesgo de catástrofes.

En el tercer artículo, Planificación del uso de la tierra a favor de la gestión del riesgo de desastres, se considera a la planificación del uso de la tierra un instrumento de formulación de políticas de tierras y un proceso que tiene el potencial de mejorar la seguridad y la capacidad de resistencia de las personas — en especial de las mujeres, los pobres y los desfavorecidos — en zonas expuestas a catástrofes. Sus autores sugieren que la vulnerabilidad a las catástrofes naturales es de carácter triple: una vulnerabilidad geográfica relacionada con los riesgos y las restricciones que limitan el uso de una zona, una vulnerabilidad social vinculada a las características socieconómicas de la población y una vulnerabilidad institucional congruente con los recursos de los que disponen las comunidades humanas para enfrentarse a los riesgos y los peligros de una catástrofe.

Este número se dedica luego a las experiencias regionales con el artículo Abordar las cuestiones relativas a la tierra de los países insulares del Pacífico en el contexto

6

Ce numéro se consacre ensuite à des expériences au niveau régional, avec l’article Faire face aux problèmes fonciers dans la gestion des risques de catastrophe dans les États insulaires du Pacifique, où les auteurs passent en revue les précédentes catastrophes de la région Pacifique pour identifier les problèmes fonciers qui ont émergé et pour étudier comment les régimes fonciers et la gestion des catastrophes sont administrés dans une région où les régimes fonciers coutumiers prédominent, et où une urbanisation rapide, des conflits liés à la terre et l’établissement d’habitations informelles sur des sites enclins aux catastrophes exacerbent le problème.

Le dernier article, intitulé Régimes fonciers et gestion des catastrophes naturelles dans les Caraïbes, considère le niveau d’insécurité foncière comme l’un des facteurs aggravant la capacité des occupants des terres à atténuer les effets des catastrophes naturelles, à y répondre et à s’en relever, en se basant sur des expériences précédentes dans quatre pays des Caraïbes – Sainte-Lucie, la Jamaïque, le Guyana et

de la gestión del riesgo de desastres, en el que los autores repasan catástrofes del pasado en la región del Pacífico con miras a identificar las cuestiones que hayan surgido en relación con la tierra y estudiar cómo se administran la tenencia de la tierra y la gestión de catástrofes en una región donde predomina la tenencia consuetudinaria y los problemas se ven todavía más exacerbados debido a una urbanización rápida, conflictos en torno a la tierra y el establecimiento de asentamientos informales en lugares expuestos a catástrofes.

En el último artículo, La tenencia de la tierra y la gestión del riesgo de desastres en el Caribe, se observa el grado de inseguridad de la tenencia de la tierra como uno de los factores que afectan la capacidad de sus ocupantes de mitigar los efectos de una catástrofe natural, intervenir en caso de emergencia y recuperarse de ella sobre la base de la experiencia de catástrofes vividas en cuatro países del Caribe — Santa Lucia, Jamaica, Guyana y Granada — y se hace un resumen de algunos pasos que deben seguirse

necessary to improve resilience to natural hazards in the region.

We would like to express our gratitude to the authors and many others who have contributed to this Land Tenure and Disaster Risk Management themed edition of the Land Tenure Journal.

Paul Munro-Faure Deputy Director Climate, Energy and Tenure Division

Daniel RobergeChair of Commission 7,

Cadastre and Land Management (2011–2014)

International Federation of Surveyors (FIG)

7


la Grenade – et décrit certaines mesures nécessaires pour améliorer la résilience aux phénomènes naturels dans la région.

Nous voudrions exprimer notre gratitude aux auteurs et à tous ceux qui ont contribué à cette édition de Revue des questions foncières consacrée aux régimes fonciers et à la gestion des risques de catastrophe.

Paul Munro-Faure Directeur adjointDivision du climat, de l’énergie et

des régimes fonciers

Daniel RobergePrésident de la Commission 7,

Cadastre et gestion du territoire (2011–2014)

Fédération internationale des géomètres (FIG)

para mejorar la capacidad de resistencia a los peligros naturales en la región.

Quisiéramos expresar nuestra gratitud a los autores y a muchas otras personas que han aportado su contribución a este Número temático sobre la tenencia de la tierra y la gestión del riesgo de desastres de la Revista sobre tenencia de la tierra.

Paul Munro-Faure Director Adjunto División de Clima, Energía y

Tenencia de Tierras

Daniel RobergePresidente de la Comisión 7 sobre

el catastro y la gestión de tierras (2011–2014)

Federación Internacional de Topógrafos

> ©

Jes

se a

llen,

na

sa e

arth

obs

erva

tory

9


>L’InfoRMaTIon géogRaPhIquE En RéPonsE aux PRoBLèMEs fonCIERs ET à LEuR évaLuaTIon Dans LE CaDRE DE La gEsTIon DEs RIsquEs DE CaTasTRoPhE

sPaTIaL InfoRMaTIon foR aDDREssIng anD assEssIng LanD IssuEs In DIsasTER RIsK ManagEMEnT

Jaap Zevenbergen University of Twente, [email protected]

norman Kerle University of Twente, [email protected]

arbind Tuladhar University of Twente, [email protected]

InfoRMaCIón EsPaCIaL PaRa aBoRDaR y EvaLuaR Las CuEsTIonEs DE TEnEnCIa En EL ConTExTo DE La gEsTIón DEL RIEsgo DE DEsasTREs

10

R é s u M é

CaTasTRoPhEs

InfoRMaTIon géogRaPhIquE

quEsTIons fonCIèREs

gEsTIon DEs RIsquEs DE CaTasTRoPhE

L’information géographique joue un rôle de plus en plus important à diverses étapes de la gestion des risques de catastrophe, en particulier pour les catégories les plus démunies de la communauté, touchées de manière disproportionnée par les catastrophes. Durant les opérations d’urgence, l’accès aux données préexistantes et en temps réel est fondamental, et peut être facilité par les interventions internationales qui y sont consacrées. Pendant les phases de relèvement et de reconstruction, un volet important de l’information géographique traite des questions foncières et les administrations foncières jouent un rôle important. Enfin, pendant la phase de réduction des risques de catastrophe, qui

a B s T R a C T

DIsasTERs

sPaTIaL InfoRMaTIon

LanD IssuEs

DIsasTER RIsK ManagEMEnT

Spatial information plays an increasingly important role in the various stages of Disaster Risk Management (DRM), especially for the poorer sections of the community, those who are disproportionately affected by disasters. During emergency responses access to pre-existing and near-real time information is crucial, and can be facilitated by dedicated international interventions. During recovery and reconstruction, an important spatial information component relates to land tenure issues, and land administration plays an important role. Finally, during disaster risk reduction, undertaken before the occurrence of a disaster, hazard modelling and vulnerability

s u M a R I o

CaTásTRofEs

InfoRMaCIón EsPaCIaL

CuEsTIonEs RELaTIvas a La TIERRa

gEsTIón DEL RIEsgo DE DEsasTREs

La información espacial desempeña un papel cada vez más importante en las distintas fases de la gestión del riesgo de desastres, en especial en lo que respecta a las secciones más pobres de la comunidad, a las que las catástrofes afectan desproporcionadamente. En la intervención en situaciones de emergencia es fundamental contar con acceso a la información existente, y prácticamente en tiempo real, lo cual puede facilitarse a través de intervenciones internacionales especializadas. Durante la recuperación y la reconstrucción, un componente importante de la información espacial está relacionado con cuestiones de tenencia de la tierra, y la administración de la tierra

spatial inFormation For addrEssinG and assEssinG land issuEs in disastEr risk manaGEmEntjaap zevenbergen, norman kerle,

arbind tuladhar

11

1 14l a n d t e n u R e J o u R n a l R e v u e d e s q u e s t i o n s f o n c i è R e s R e v i s ta s o b R e t e n e n c i a d e l a t i e R R a

mapping are used to compile risk maps, to be included in spatial planning and land management. When a disaster has recently occurred, it should constitute part of the reconstruction effort to ensure reduced risks in the event of another disaster. Several issues concerning access to spatial data, which are well known in the broader Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) discourse, come into play after the initial shock of the disaster. It is apparent that timely access to the appropriate spatial information can prevent loss of life and reduce the aftereffects of a disaster.

démarre avant l’apparition d’une catastrophe, la modélisation des risques et la cartographie de la vulnérabilité sont utilisées pour dresser des cartes de risques, qui doivent être intégrées à la gestion territoriale et à l’aménagement du territoire. Lorsqu’une catastrophe récente a eu lieu, ces méthodes devraient faire partie intégrante des efforts de reconstruction pour garantir une réduction des risques dans l’éventualité d’une nouvelle catastrophe. De nombreuses questions concernant l’accès aux données géographiques, qui sont bien connues dans le débat plus vaste autour des infrastructures de données spatiales (IDS), entrent en jeu après le choc initial d’une catastrophe. Il apparaît qu’un accès en temps voulu à des données géographiques pertinentes peut prévenir des pertes de vies humaines et réduire les contrecoups d’une catastrophe.

desempeña una función significativa. Por último, durante la reducción del riesgo de catástrofes — que se lleva a cabo antes de producirse una catástrofe —, se recurre a la elaboración de modelos de peligros y mapas de vulnerabilidad para compilar mapas de los riesgos, que han de utilizarse en la planificación espacial y la gestión de la tierra. Justo después de una catástrofe, garantizar la reducción de los riesgos en caso de que llegara a producirse otra catástrofe debería formar parte de los esfuerzos de reconstrucción. Una vez superada la crisis de la catástrofe, entran en juego varias cuestiones en cuanto al acceso a los datos espaciales, que se conocen bien en el ámbito más general de las infraestructuras de datos espaciales (IDE). Es evidente que el acceso a información espacial adecuada en el momento justo puede prevenir la pérdida de vidas y reducir las consecuencias de una catástrofe.

© R

ober

t sim

mon

, na

sa e

arth

obs

erva

tory

1 14

12


arbind tuladhar

InTRoDuCTIon

Disasters occur frequently on a global scale and their impacts on lives and livelihoods are substantial. The resource poor are particularly vulnerable because they often live in disaster-prone zones and for them the relative consequences of disasters are greater. Linkages between people and their land (land tenure) under such conditions were discussed recently, including in the manual Assessing and Responding to Land Tenure Issues in Disaster Risk Management (FAO, 2011). In the section on coordinating the use of spatial information, it was made clear that spatial information and spatial data analysis can be used effectively at each stage of Disaster Risk Management (DRM): emergency response, recovery and reconstruction, and disaster risk reduction. The increasing amounts of spatial information being collected around the globe can contribute to reducing the impacts of disasters to some extent and spatial information can support effective land administration (see e.g. the Land Administration Guidelines, UNECE1, 1996). Unimpeded access to information is a basic requirement to secure land tenure and to support management of land-based activities such as DRM from social, environmental and economic perspectives, ultimately to achieve sustainable development (Tuladhar, 2004).

In this article we analyse how spatial data can contribute to improved DRM at each of its stages, and thus potentially save lives as said by Margareta Wahlström in her preface to Geo-information for Disaster and Risk Management: Examples and Best Practices:

“Each year, disasters arising from storms, floods, volcanoes and earthquakes cause thousands of deaths and tremendous damage to property around the world, displacing tens of thousands of people from their homes and destroying their livelihoods. Developing countries and poor communities are especially vulnerable. Many of the deaths and property losses could be prevented if better information were available on the exposed populations and assets, the environmental factors in disaster risk, and the patterns

1 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.

13


and behaviour of particular hazards. Increasingly, this information is becoming available with the help of technologies such as meteorological and earth observation satellites, communication satellites and satellite-based positioning technologies, coupled with hazard modelling and analysis, and geographical information systems (GIS). When integrated into a disaster risk reduction approach, and connected to national and community risk management systems, these technologies offer considerable potential to reduce losses to life and property. To do this requires a solid base of political support, laws and regulations.”

(Jb Gis and unoosa2, 2010)

This article begins with an overview of the development and potential use of spatial data, detailing impact in each of the three phases of DRM, and how spatial DRM data fit into the wider Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) issues.

sPaTIaL InfoRMaTIon

Use of spatial information to support government activities, including land administration, physical planning, housing development and transport, has received considerable attention over the last two decades. Most attention has focused on the supply side of the spatial information, and how to share it among stakeholders. This field became known as SDI, or National Geographic Information Systems. Attention is given to a range of dimensions that need to be in place to make SDI work. SDI is designed to encourage sharing and improving access to spatial information, in a variety of geo-datasets, in a consistent manner for effective uses for application to DRM and associated policy dimensions. This includes spatial data (topographic data, elevation model, administrative boundaries, geographical names, certain thematic datasets, cadastral datasets), standards, access and service technology,

2 Joint Board of Geospatial Information Societies (JB GIS) and United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA).

sDI is designed to encourage sharing and improving access to spatial information, in a variety of geo-datasets, in a consistent manner for effective uses for application to DRM and associated policy dimensions. This includes spatial data, standards, access and service technology, institutional frameworks and policies

14


arbind tuladhar

institutional frameworks and policies (costs and pricing policies) (Groot and McLaughlin, 2000). Although progress has been made at the conceptual level of SDI, the number of countries with functioning SDI are limited, and more work needs to focus on the use and demand side of the spatial information in the move towards a Spatially Enabled Government and Society (Steudler and Rajabifard, 2012). Until geo-ICT3 emerged as a concept around 1990, talk invariably concerned maps. Many different types of map existed, each focusing on a particular set of phenomena: geographic, geologic, geomorphologic, topographic, road maps, city plans and cadastral maps. Aerial photogrammetry helped to map physical features and changes in land cover, and with an increasing number of platforms (geostationary satellites, low orbit satellites, airplanes and unmanned aerial vehicles) and types of sensor (visible, thermal, infrared, radar), an increasing number of features and processes could be sensed remotely. Field verification improves the reliability of the information, but certain features remain unseen, especially socio-economic ones including land tenure relations, size of household, financial situation, etc. However, use of physical proxies has allowed some social phenomena to be assessed, including social vulnerability (Ebert et al., 2009). Geo-ICT not only helps collect information, but also helps analyse the data, by allowing integration of different types of information (via layers) within Geographical Information Systems (GIS). However, this requires that all the information adhere to the same geodetic reference system. Satellite-based navigation systems, such as GPS, have made it much easier to do so, and when Continuously Operating Reference Station (CORS) are in place, field data collection is much easier, faster and more reliable. In the first instance, however, whether a bridge is still standing or not, or a given building has collapsed or not, handheld GPS and mobile devices provide sufficient accuracy to support DRM activities. Increasingly complex models allow combining information in more advanced ways, and make it possible to estimate and predict a growing number of phenomena from a distance. Damage assessment modelling (for terrain and buildings) is a very practical tool to use after disasters.

3 Geo (spatial) Information and Communication Technology.

geo-ICT not only helps collect information, but also helps analyse the data, by allowing integration of different types of information (via layers) within geographical Information systems (gIs)

15


Many of the countries most frequently affected by disasters often have less developed economies, fewer spatial data and very rudimentary data-sharing arrangements. Groot and McLaughlin (2000) indicated that having a facility or organization to act as a broker between data users and suppliers can improve the integrity, timely accessibility and data sharing for the applications in the domain. More globally available spatial data at different scales are generated through national and commercial satellite operators and data processors. Such data, particularly high-resolution data, are normally not freely available and come with copyright restrictions. In the emergency and early recovery stages after a disaster, when time is pressing, specific images are made available to a number of processing agencies via the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters (Stryker and Jones, 2009). Specialized Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) that instantly produce maps on the ground have also emerged (e.g. MapAction). In addition, over recent years ordinary citizens have increasingly been collecting spatial information with handheld devices (smartphones, handheld GPS) in what is termed neo-geography, crowdsourcing or volunteered geographic information (Goodchild, 2007). While rapid information generation on a disaster by affected people has opened entirely new doors for disaster response, as observed in the immediate aftermath of the 2010 Haiti earthquake, the contribution of image-based damage mapping using crowdsourcing approaches is being further developed (Kerle, 2013).

Although numerous opportunities already exist, many issues still limit the impact of spatial data, including satellite orbits, expertise needed to work with the data, lack of pre-disaster maps, damage map standards and limited field validation of, for example, damage assessment models.

EMERgEnCy REsPonsE

Following a disaster that has led to damage that exceeds the coping capacity of the affected site, rapid understanding of the nature, extent and severity of the consequences is needed. The principal reason is that because of the inadequate ability to deal with the disaster consequences external assistance is needed, the type and scale of which can only be determined by having

over recent years ordinary citizens have increasingly been collecting spatial information with handheld devices (smartphones, handheld gPs) in what is termed neo-geography, crowdsourcing or volunteered geographic information

16


arbind tuladhar

adequate intelligence about the disaster. Similarly, spatial information is needed for evacuation and siting of emergency shelters. With power outages, patchy or conflicting field reports, infrastructure typically affected by the event and access to the site impeded, rapid generation of a clear picture of the damage is very difficult. Remote sensing data represent a natural solution as they are not affected by such restrictions, and have additional advantages: (i) a synoptic perspective that potentially covers the entire affected area, (ii) excellent cost-per-unit-area characteristics, (iii) standardized acquisition parameters (often repeat visits at the same time of day and, in standard configuration, with the same viewing angle), allowing for effective multi-temporal monitoring, (iv) provision of an objective record of the disaster scene, ideally augmented with pre-event reference imagery, and (v) availability of a suite of instruments to address a wide range of disaster situations and information needs. Point (v) is particularly noteworthy. Disasters vary hugely in type and physical characteristics. Those can be expressed as spatial (e.g. shape, extent), temporal (e.g. onset, duration, dynamics) and spectral (e.g. visible, thermal) characteristics (e.g. Kerle et al., 2008; Zhang and Kerle, 2008). A suitable remote sensing solution needs to match those disaster parameters, meaning that a high spatial resolution instrument is needed to map detailed structural damage and to identify markers for property boundaries, while an instrument with less detail but wider coverage is more suited to map the extent of vast disasters. Similarly, images in the visible domain show the situation as a human would see it, while a thermal sensor is needed to pick up heat signals. Radar data are suited to detect structural information or ground subsidence and to penetrate cloud cover, while data in the infrared part of the electromagnetic spectrum can detect phenomena such as changes in vegetation health. The ability to customize a remote sensing-based response is a strong asset. However, it also means that for given information need only few instruments may exist that, due to orbital restrictions, are not always immediately available, leading to data acquisition delays of days or even weeks. Furthermore, the vast range of instruments results in very specific data that often require expert knowledge and specialized tools to process and interpret.

To ensure maximum data availability and suitable processing, the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters was established in 2000

17


by three major space agencies (the European, French and Canadian Space Agencies), and has subsequently grown to include virtually all civilian operators of satellites (currently 22 organizations). The Charter is activated primarily for rapid onset hydrological (floods,) climatological (hurricanes, typhoons, drought), geophysical disasters (earthquakes, landslides) and significant oil spills. Complex humanitarian disasters, including civil unrest and famine, and technological disasters other than oil spills, are not included (see www.disasterscharter.org). The Charter is activated through a standardized procedure and satellite image data suitable for a given event type are acquired on a priority basis. The images have traditionally been processed, also on a priority basis, by professional analysts at UNOSAT4, the German Center for Satellite Based Crisis Information (DLR-ZKI) and SERTIT5 (based at the University of Strasbourg, France). Typical results are print-optimized PDF maps showing information such as flood extent, landslide location, wildfire scars, or structural damage distribution. Recently it was announced that the Charter now offers universal access to the data for emergency response purposes (Geospatial World, October 2012). The Charter is generally seen as a successful case of international cooperation, though some limitations in the process have also been identified (Ito, 2005). The high number of annual Charter activations, currently around 40, together with frequent absence of reliable field information, means that results are rarely validated (Kerle, 2010). Moreover, other post-disaster response organizations increasingly get asked to carry out some of the mapping, or national mapping agencies or national remote sensing centres to act as project managers for Charter activation and do some of the mapping. Since the actual satellite images are typically not made available by the processing organizations, they cannot easily be used to address additional questions, such as to detect property boundaries in support of an adjudication process. Additional data acquisition would

4 The Operational Satellite Applications Programme of the United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR).

5 Service Régional de Traitement d’Image et de Télédétection (a regional image processing and remote sensing service).

To ensure maximum data availability and suitable processing, the International Charter on space and Major Disasters was established in 2000 by three major space agencies (the European, french and Canadian space agencies), and has subsequently grown to include virtually all civilian operators of satellites (currently 22 organizations). The Charter is activated primarily for rapid onset hydrological (floods,) climatological (hurricanes, typhoons, drought), geophysical disasters (earthquakes, landslides) and significant oil spills. Complex humanitarian disasters, including civil unrest and famine, and technological disasters other than oil spills, are not included

18


arbind tuladhar

then be needed, possibly via unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) (Kelm, 2014), also to assist in validating and potentially calibrating satellite image based damage maps (Figure 1).

In recent years other organizations have become involved in image-based damage mapping, including Information Technology for Humanitarian Assistance, Cooperation and Action (ITHACA, based at Torino University, Italy), the United Nations Cartographic Section (UNCS), the European Union Satellite Center (EUSC), the Information Management & Mine Action Programs

Figure 1use of high-resolution aerial

oblique imagery of central Port-au-Prince, obtained after

the 2010 haiti earthquake using Pictometry © (a), from which

damage indicators (B) and per-building damage

scores were extracted (C, see gerke and Kerle, 2011).

such detailed damage evidence forms the basis to validate damage maps derived from satellite data in

international charter activations. provided systematic overestimation

or underestimation of damage is detected in such maps, e.g.

for specific building types of neighbourhoods, the damage data

from the airborne platform may also help to calibrate those damage maps.

aErial obliQuE imaGE ExtractEd damaGE indicators

pEr-buildinG damaGE

Vali

dat

ion

cali

bra

tio

n

ministry

a b

part oF satEllitE-basEd damaGE map

house of ministers presidential palace

d ministry

parliament

university

cathedral

hospital

ministry

city hall

c building damage

minormoderatesevereValidated

19


(iMMAP), and the Joint Research Center of the European Commission (JRC). As often in the early stages of new developments, this has led to a confusing situation as to who provides authoritative disaster information, as well as to substantial duplication of damage assessment work (Kerle, 2011).

The 2010 Haiti earthquake led to two additional consequences that are relevant in this regard: (i) a strong focus on multiple image data types, and (ii) the use of volunteered geographic information. While civilian satellite images, which now achieve spatial resolutions of approximately 40 cm, have become a standard tool in damage mapping (e.g. Voigt et al., 2011), airborne data played a more important role. It was shown that about ten times more damage could be mapped with 15 cm resolution aerial images compared with the satellite-based results (Lemoine, 2010). Also airborne pictometry data (imagery with four oblique views and a vertical image) were used for damage assessment, with façade views providing extra information (Gerke and Kerle, 2011). Such images also contain data that (partially) represent property boundaries, as far as they are visible in the immediate post-disaster situation, and can act as evidence of those boundaries in a later adjudication process even when the scene has since been altered due to clean-up operations or secondary disasters. However, very little work has been done to date on the extraction of actual cadastral information from imagery. One example is Ali et al. (2012), who used participatory methods in which people visually interpreted the boundaries on orthorectified satellite imagery to extract parcel information from satellite data. Anderson (2000) and Lemmen and Zevenbergen (2010) previously showed how local participation together with simple aerial images could be used to map land rights, especially when visible (or general) boundaries prevailed (see also Enemark et al., 2014). In crisis situations pre-event images should be used to extract property boundaries to support the post-disaster response and reconstruction process. However, for those situations where no suitable data exist, better conceptual frameworks and methods are needed to derive the maximum amount of information possible from the post-event imagery to settle ownership and property location/boundary disputes.

As was done by Ali et al. (2012), involving stakeholders in the analysis is one option, and many participatory GIS approaches have been developed. This

The 2010 haiti earthquake led to two additional consequences that are relevant in this regard: (i) a strong focus on multiple image data types, and (ii) the use of volunteered geographic information

In crisis situations pre-event images should be used to extract property boundaries to support the post-disaster response and reconstruction process. however, for those situations where no suitable data exist, better conceptual frameworks and methods are needed to derive the maximum amount of information possible from the post-event imagery to settle ownership and property location/boundary disputes

20


arbind tuladhar

collaboration based on face-to-face interaction can be considered as one end of the collaborative mapping spectrum. People can also serve anonymously as distributed sensors and can be experts or laypeople. Following the 2008 Wenchuan (China) and the 2010 Haiti earthquakes, major efforts were made to use spatially distributed groups of remote sensing experts to aid in the image-based damage mapping. The GEO-CAN6 effort following the Haiti earthquake comprised more than 600 experts who mapped damage over vast areas of the main cities affected by the earthquake (Barrington et al., 2011; Ghosh et al., 2011). This information later served as the basis for the post-disaster needs assessment. Equally useful, however, are contributions made by the general public. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) has been using volunteer contributions in its “Did you feel it?” project to map seismic intensities. Other efforts have used neo-geography tools (Elwood, 2009), for example, to aggregate and visualize community damage reports, such as after the 2011 Australia floods, or other crisis field reports as in Ushahidi (Roche et al., 2011).

Following the 2010 Haiti earthquake Google Map Maker and OpenStreetMap also drew the support of thousands of lay volunteers, who mapped roads and landmarks in Port-au-Prince and its environs in great detail in a few days (Heipke, 2010), providing a much needed base map for all subsequent disaster response and rehabilitation work. In addition to mapping roads, many crisis field reports were generated using social media platforms. The growing strength of the citizen mapper is also well reflected in the Crisis Mappers community (http://www.crisismappers.net) that now has nearly 5 000 members, and that largely took charge of coordinating the unofficial Haiti damage mapping. Following the Haiti earthquake this community also showed how a direct engagement between distributed volunteers and both affected people and volunteers on the ground is possible. Famously, a free SMS7 service was established that allowed Haitians in need to send a report or request help. Those were translated by members of the Haitian diaspora

6 Global Earth Observation Catastrophe Assessment Network (GEO-CAN).7 Short Message Service (SMS) is a text messaging service facility of a phone.

21


in many different countries, mapped on Ushahidi, and used to coordinate rescue and support operations on the ground. Such a combined use of spatial data and mapping tools, as well as interaction between local sources and international volunteers, can also be brought into use in solving property ownership disputes (McLaren, 2011; Laarakker and De Vries, 2011).

After a 7.2 magnitude earthquake occurred in southwestern Pakistan in January 2011, the Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission (SUPARCO) of Pakistan provided pre- and post-disaster satellite imagery and maps produced in a rapid mapping exercise. Those maps were provided to the National Disaster Management Authority to support their relief and rescue operations (UN-SPIDER8 January 2011 Updates).

RECovERy anD REConsTRuCTIon

Availability of a variety of pre-disaster maps and post-disaster imagery will help plan for camps, and ideally even for emergency shelter (although that will be needed immediately, depending on the climate). However, when housing is severely damaged or totally destroyed, it takes time to rebuild, and thus siting camps becomes important because the camps will be used for an extended period. It is not unusual for some camps to become permanent settlements. Site suitability depends on numerous topographic issues (size, slope, drainage, access to water, links to road system, etc.), but also whether the area is safe, and is not prone to additional disasters. Finally, the state of pre-existing land tenure is important because emergency shelters and camps are often erected without consulting the host communities. This can lead to land disputes when the site starts to become permanent.

This phase includes planning and building new housing, and eventually dismantling temporary shelters. Satellite data are useful to detect, quantify

8 United Nations Platform for Space-based Information for Disaster Management and Emergency Response (UN-SPIDER) is a programme under the auspices of the United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs (UNOOSA).

22


arbind tuladhar

and monitor refugee and IDP9 camps (e.g. Kemper et al., 2011), and are routinely used to map disaster zones. Data are needed to ensure that camps are not permanently located in hazardous areas (often among the few vacant spaces) and that new housing can be built under safer conditions. As emphasized, careful selection of data and processing type are needed for effective assessment of different hazards (Joyce et al., 2009; Kerle et al., 2008). Finally, remote sensing data are ideally suited to provide a basis for a detailed assessment of reconstruction progress (Guo et al., 2010).

During reconstruction, rebuilding in situ has to be carefully considered from a number of perspectives. In general the aim is to rebuild better. The site should be (re)considered from a hazard perspective. It is possible that parts of the affected area fall within a hazardous zone, but is occupied because of lack of knowledge or lack of alternative. For example, in Aceh an extensive non-building zone along the coast was suggested, which would have created long commutes for fishermen.

If no hazard maps exist, they should be prepared at this stage, and if they do exist they will be required to be updated. A disaster can shed new light on models used during hazard mapping and situations often change after a disaster. Different sets of spatial data contribute to the required analyses, and appropriate models need to be designed.

Access to the necessary spatial information, however, becomes a problem during the recovery and reconstruction phase. Print-ready map images (and not open format spatial data) that were produced earlier in an emergency response are not necessarily in a format that allows reuse for analysis or data-integration. Other aspects such as land tenure become important and require different types of information. An additional issue is that data sharing among agencies can become problematic.

As part of reconstruction, land tenure arrangements of the people affected by the disaster become increasingly important. In certain settings, funds to rebuild a house are only released if formal land documentation can be supplied. This is always a challenge, but is unrealistic in areas where the formal land

9 Internally displaced person.

satellite data are useful to detect, quantify and monitor refugee and IDP camps, and are routinely used to map disaster zones

as part of reconstruction, land tenure arrangements of the people affected by the disaster become increasingly important. In certain settings, funds to rebuild a house are only released if formal land documentation can be supplied

23


sector is not fully developed before the disaster and where land tenures were customary, informal or otherwise extra-legal (section 1.3.4 of FAO, 2011). Spatial data showing land cover can support claims as far as they show which land was in use (and even which type of use), and also demarcate the general, visible boundaries. However, such data cannot help to determine the individual who used or owned the land and property, although aerial images can be a powerful tool in a broader enumeration or participatory mapping projects and community driven adjudication. The images can also be used to monitoring the speed and quality of, for example, housing reconstruction. Figure 2 shows an integrated map of land use and flood zones in Chitwan, Nepal (Charoenkalunyuta, 2011).

In areas well covered by land documentation, including cadastral maps, issues can still arise when some of the land has been lost (e.g. to the sea) or when severe, regional and local displacement has taken place. A first issue that needs attention is to re-establish lost or severely damaged survey control points . New marks may need to be placed and re-surveyed using GPS or conventional surveying techniques. Although GPS (or other GNSS) approaches are increasingly used for cadastral work with CORS stations, land administration systems, including cadastral maps, are legacy systems that contain information collected in the past using technologies appropriate at that time. With restored survey control points, ground-based techniques can be used to survey and demarcate boundaries and position rebuilding activities. GPS can also be used for ground-truthing aerial datasets. In the case of seismic induced disasters, there is also the need to deal with deformation of the earth’s crust, leading to displacement of buildings, engineering infrastructure, local survey control points and even regional survey control networks.

After the 2011 East Japan earthquake and tsunami, post-seismic deformation mapping of the survey control network showed enormous movement (Kaidzu, 2014): 44 000 official survey points were affected, with movements up to 5.6 m. Even the origin of the network in Tokyo had moved 20 cm. With specific geodetic techniques (including a Very Long Baseline Interferometry station and GPS), 600 points were re-established. In the Japanese case, the Ministry of Justice ruled that the boundaries moved with the land, except for the effect of local landslides, and thus made the

24


arbind tuladhar

Figure 2Current land use conditions and flood affected zone in Chitwan, nepal (taken from Charoenkalunyuta, 2011)

cloud_cover_vegetationForestGrass

built-upbushescanal

maizemustardorchard

paddyphapaplantation_banana

plantation_othersriverroad

sandwaterwheat

prEsEnt land usE - classEs

LEgEnD

Flooded_areahazard_areanon_hazard_area

n

0 500 1 000 2 000Meters

25


coordinates relative to the terrain objects, which was an informed and practical approach. The relevant geodetic authorities created software for coordinate transformation to restore the boundaries and control points were re-established to aid the resurveying of boundaries, especially in locally distorted areas with landslides and liquefaction. Furthermore, the Japanese Ministry of Land re-surveyed the boundaries of public properties first so that they could be referred to as reliable known boundaries when private properties were considered. The nearly complete digital data of the land registries and cadastral maps in the area were backed-up in the central database. Similar issues needed attention in Christchurch after the 2011 earthquake. For an overview of how New Zealand dealt with similar issues, see Smith et al. (2011) and Grant and Crook (2012).

DIsasTER RIsK REDuCTIon (DRR)

In line with the saying ”An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”, the attention to DRR has increased substantially during recent decades, especially since the 2005 Hyogo conference, which put the focus on reducing disaster risk and declared it a global issue. Hazard maps are increasingly being prepared that show where and with what intensity various disasters are likely to occur. Mitigation measures can then be put in place where most needed, such as placing buildings on shock absorbers, strengthening dykes and dams, constructing breakwaters, building hurricane shelters, installing early warning systems, identifying evacuation routes and specifying drills. Very hazardous areas, once identified, can even be rezoned to reduce the human population they support.

However, it is much more difficult to have all the necessary spatial information available during the DRR phase (ideally before a disaster occurs and to be revisited subsequently). This includes information on the hazards and the elements at risk. The latter requires information on land tenure relations, such as where people work and live. Increasingly work includes hazard mapping and documenting land tenure relations (see Figure 3). However, large gaps remain for many parts of the world.

hazard maps are increasingly being prepared that show where and with what intensity various disasters are likely to occur. Mitigation measures can then be put in place where most needed, such as placing buildings on shock absorbers, strengthening dykes and dams, constructing breakwaters, building hurricane shelters, installing early warning systems, identifying evacuation routes and specifying drills

26


arbind tuladhar

Figure 3Land parcels (in red) flooded in narayani River in Chitwan, nepal (taken from Charoenkalunyuta, 2011)

aErial photo in 1992

Narayani River

aErial photo in 1992

Narayani River

GEoEYE imaGErY in 2010

Narayani River

n

0 500 1 000 2 000Meters

CoMPaRIson ThE naRayanI RIvER In 1992 anD 2010

LEgEnD

area Gone by Floods

hazard area

non-hazards area

zonE

rivertransportation

27


The disadvantaged and those who lack security of tenure are particularly vulnerable to disasters. They are more often affected by disasters and the relative consequences of disasters are also greater for them.

Meanwhile many countries, partly with support from donors, are working to prepare hazard maps and disaster risk atlases for specific areas, at city or region level and sometimes at country level. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) funded hazard maps of Sri Lanka, focusing on coastal hazards such as landslides, cyclones, droughts and floods (Geospatial World, September 2012). Another example is the Risk Atlas Georgia, prepared as part of the Institutional Building for Natural Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) in the Georgia project of ITC and the Caucasian Environmental NGO Network (CENN). Georgia’s geographic location between the higher and lower Caucasian mountains exposes it to various natural hazards. The main goal of the Atlas of Natural Hazards and Disaster Risks is to provide national and local governments, businesses and the local populations, with information on existing and potential natural hazards, risks and socio-economic vulnerability. The Atlas will also assist government institutions to improve DRM and DRR policies currently in place, develop a relevant strategy for effective planning and efficiently implement development projects. Any interested person or organization will therefore have the opportunity to evaluate the risks and relevant challenges faced by Georgian local communities by utilizing the information contained in the Atlas (the effect on saleability and value of properties was not considered). The maps included in the Atlas were developed based on modern, international and national research and assessment methods. The Atlas addresses ten hazard types (earthquakes, floods, landslides, mudflows, rock falls, snow avalanches, drought, wildfires, windstorms and hailstorms), and eight types of elements-at-risk (populations, buildings, GDP, roads, pipelines, forests, crops and protected areas). Databases were generated of past disasters, exposure maps, physical, social, economic and environmental vulnerability maps, and risk maps for all combinations of hazards and assets. Three different levels of administration were used for aggregation of the exposure and risk results: regional, district and community. Both a paper and a web-based risk atlas were developed (http://drm.cenn.org/index.php/en/).

The focus on vulnerable people will also benefit from spatial data, including cadastral and land use maps, which can help identify areas with small parcels,

The main goal of the atlas of natural hazards and Disaster Risks is to provide national and local governments, businesses and the local populations, with information on existing and potential natural hazards, risks and socio-economic vulnerability

The focus on vulnerable people will also benefit from spatial data, including cadastral and land use maps, which can help identify areas with small parcels, many dwellings, limited exit routes in case of evacuation and many other vulnerability criteria

28


arbind tuladhar

many dwellings, limited exit routes in case of evacuation and many other vulnerability criteria. Combining the hazard maps with such spatially enabled information on vulnerability will help in particular to prioritize areas from a DRR perspective (see Charoenkalunyuta et al., 2011).

BRoaDER sPaTIaL DaTa InfRasTRuCTuRE DIsCouRsE

Spatial data have been produced by many different government departments, agencies and semi-government organizations for a long time. Until a few decades ago this was all in the form of maps, partly based on aerial photogrammetry for airplanes, which limited the reuse and combination of the spatial information among different sectors. Increasingly data are kept and produced in digital formats, which allow for much more reuse and combination than previously. The steady increase in the number of satellites producing spatial data of higher geometric and/or temporal resolution adds greatly to the capacity to support better decision-making in a good governance context for sustainable development, including DRM. However, remote sensing data have traditionally been very expensive, reflecting the high investment needed to launch and operate suitable instruments. For example, a single image custom-acquired by the Geoeye-1 satellite (50 cm spatial resolution) costs US$ 2500. Using commercial data in a post-disaster response situation is thus not very practical for many organizations. The International Charter solves this problem in part by providing for rapid acquisition of suitable data and their immediate processing and analysis. However, as described before, one limitation is that the actual images are typically not made available to third party users, meaning that mapping of additional features (such as evidence of property boundaries) is not possible. In recent years data availability has changed, in response to (i) better and more widely used tools (e.g. Google Earth), (ii) increasing geo-literacy and interest in disaster response issues by lay people and (iii) recognition of the value of volunteer contributions when image data are made available. Therefore, for a growing number of disasters, images have been released, typically using digital globes such as Google Earth. However, there are no assurances that this will also be done

The steady increase in the number of satellites producing spatial data of higher geometric and/or temporal resolution adds greatly to the capacity to support better decision-making in a good governance context for sustainable development, including DRM

29


for future events, hence the development of methods and procedures based on post-event image data runs the risk of those data not being available.

Finally, there has been rapidly growing interest in image data acquired using low-cost unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which have a range of additional advantages: they (i) do not rely on expensive infrastructure (satellites or piloted aircraft), (ii) can be deployed with minimum training, (iii) allow repeat acquisitions at any desired frequency and (iv) allow stereo coverage for 3-D scene reconstruction (Stefanik et al., 2011). After the 2010 Shenzhen earthquake in China, the First Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (based in Xi’an) readied a UAV for deployment within a day, but had to wait for airspace clearance during the emergency phase, with supplies being flown in. Given the limited size and, consequently, payload of such platforms, UAVs typically carry consumer-grade cameras. This minimizes the cost and allows for straightforward visual analysis of the images as an early intelligence source.

Particularly in the DRR phase, and to some extent also in the reconstruction phase, the issues around getting access to the relevant spatial data do not differ from those in other government sectors. More data are usually available within countries, and even within the public sector, than can be easily found or accessed. Specific spatial data might be prepared as part of donor (co)funded projects within various government sectors, including disaster management. Furthermore, public sector players might produce and use certain spatial datasets as part of their specific mandate. Sharing such information among different stakeholders, in this case the disaster management actors, however, is very limited. Causes can be in restrictive mandates (or interpretation thereof) of involved organizations, in protective behaviour of a stakeholder to sit on its data to gain power, legal restrictions that claim to serve (national) security or privacy, lack of applied national standards that hinder data integration or issues of cost recovery and even profit making. All these issues are being studied and addressed in the field of SDI, and need a combination of technological and institutional (re)arrangements. Although politics and specific interests may interfere, there is a global trend towards open access, also in the spatial data field. This calls for consistent use of (inter)national standards, clear funding models and a data sharing attitudes within the

after the 2010 shenzhen earthquake in China, the first Institute of Photogrammetry and Remote sensing (based in xi’an) readied a uav for deployment within a day, but had to wait for airspace clearance during the emergency phase, with supplies being flown in. given the limited size and, consequently, payload of such platforms, uavs typically carry consumer-grade cameras. This minimizes the cost and allows for straightforward visual analysis of the images as an early intelligence source

30


arbind tuladhar

public sector. Sometimes large steps are taken to introduce national spatial data infrastructures, in other cases more specific arrangements are made for different sectors, like that for disaster management. Another example from Sri Lanka relates to the Survey Department and the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs signing an agreement for digital data dissemination, which allows humanitarian organizations to use freely government geographic data for disaster management. The agreement will assist in addressing information gaps in disaster management by improving how disaster related information is analysed, as well as facilitate better decision-making (Geospatial World, October 2012).

At a global level another active player is UN-SPIDER. In addition to supporting agreements for spatial data sharing at national and global level, they also run the UN-SPIDER Knowledge Portal, which includes the Space Application Matrix, an animated information retrieval tool at the centre of UN-SPIDER’s knowledge management efforts. The tool allows the user to combine disaster type, disaster management cycle phase and satellite technology to render relevant search results from a database of case studies. They also carry out frequent Technical Advisory Missions to countries that wish to develop a strategy to use spatial information, in particular derived from satellite data, for more effective DRM.

ConCLuDIng REMaRKs

Spatial data are increasingly available in many formats and through many services around the world. This is making an impact on nearly every element of life, also in the public sector. The opportunities for better informed decision-making in good governance are ample, and ultimately lead to a spatially enabled government and society. This applies clearly also to disaster management, where in every phase of the disaster cycle spatial information has much to offer. Ideally one should start with the DRR phase (section 4) through which much suffering, loss and damage can be prevented. Progress in DRR, and the availability and use of spatial data within it, has been made, but much still needs to be done. There is need for specific spatial information

31


to support hazard mapping, as well as other spatial datasets that help identify vulnerable people. Like any other sector, a well-attuned national spatial data infrastructure can be of great help. For some data types (e.g. surrounding legitimate but unregistered land tenure) crowdsourcing can also be useful.

However, in many cases the issues only get highest priority when a hazard becomes a disaster that causes loss and damage. The Charter allows for spatial data to support emergency interventions, and also national and other stakeholders are very willing to help. Ideally, pre-disaster spatial information and newly acquired spatial data come together to really help determine the hotspots that need immediate assistance and the extent of the damage. There are still issues that can be improved, both related to the pre-disaster information and to quick data collection in the immediate aftermath. Damage assessment models need to be further calibrated and ways to combine official information sensibly with volunteered data from crowdsourcing also can be improved.

In the recovery and reconstruction phase the sense of emergency fades slowly away, even though the need for spatial information does not diminish. If data sharing within the public sector did not work properly, this might be the moment to improve it. At the same time spatial data collected for specific recovery and reconstruction projects should also be made part of an emerging national spatial data infrastructure.

Spatial information is really contributing to disaster management and this can be further improved. Land professionals play an important role in collecting, processing, using and sharing this information and should be more aware of the specific needs of the disaster management sector. We hope that this article has contributed to that. Sometimes a small thing can mean the difference between saving or losing the life of a potential disaster victim, so it is worth trying out.

Progress in DRR, and the availability and use of spatial data within it, has been made, but much still needs to be done. There is need for specific spatial information to support hazard mapping, as well as other spatial datasets that help identify vulnerable people

32


arbind tuladhar

REfEREnCEs

Ali, Z., Tuladhar, A. & Zevenbergen, J. 2012. An integrated approach for updating cadastral maps in Pakistan using satellite remote sensing data. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 18: 386–398.

Anderson, P.S. 2000. Mapping land rights in Mozambique. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 66: 769–775.

Barrington, L., Ghosh, S., Greene, M., Har-Noy, S., Berger, J., Gill, S., Lin, A.Y.M. & Huyck, C. 2011. Crowdsourcing earthquake damage assessment using remote sensing imagery. Annals of Geophysics, 54: 680–687.

Charoenkalunyuta, C. 2011. Land tenure in Disaster Risk Management: Case of Flooding Nepal, University of Twente, Enschede, the Netherlands (M.Sc. thesis).

Charoenkalunyuta, C., Tuladhar, A. & Zevenbergen, J. 2011. Community Resilience in disaster prone areas based on land rights/ownerships, presented at Asian Conference for Remote sensing (ACRS), Taipei, Taiwan.

Ebert, A., Kerle, N. & Stein, A. 2009. Urban social vulnerability assessment with physical proxies and spatial metrics derived from air- and spaceborne imagery and GIS data. Natural Hazards, 48: 275–294.

Elwood, S. 2009. Geographic Information Science: new geovisualization technologies - emerging questions and linkages with GIScience research. Progress in Human Geography, 33: 256–263.

Enemark, S., Bell, K.C., Lemmen, C. & McLaren, R. 2014. Fit-For-Purpose Land Administration, FIG Publication No. 60, Copenhagen, Denmark.

FAO. 2011. Land Tenure Manuel No. 3 (Assessing and Responding to Land Tenure Issues in Disaster Risk Management, Rome.

Gerke, M. & Kerle, N. 2011. Automatic structural seismic damage assessment with airborne oblique pictometry imagery. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 77: 885–898.

Ghosh, S., Huyck, C.K., Greene, M., Gill, S.P., Bevington, J., Svekla, W., DesRoches, R. & Eguchi, R.T. 2011. Crowdsourcing for rapid damage assessment: the Global Earth Observation Catastrophe Assessment Network (GEO-CAN). Earthquake Spectra, 27: S179–S198.

33


Goodchild, M. 2007. Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69,: 211–221.

Grant, D. & Crook, C. 2012. Spatial maintenance of the New Zealand cadastre in response to earthquakes. FIG Working Week 2012 Territory, environment, and cultural heritage, Rome.

Guo, H.D., Liu, L.Y., Lei, L.P., Wu, Y.H., Li, L.W., Zhang, B., Zuo, Z.L. & Li, Z. 2010. Dynamic analysis of the Wenchuan Earthquake disaster and reconstruction with 3-year remote sensing data. International Journal of Digital Earth, 3: 355–364.

Groot, R. & McLaughlin, J. 2000. Geospatial Data Infrastructure: Concepts, Cases and Good Practice, Oxford University Press.

Heipke, C. 2010. Crowdsourcing geospatial data. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 65: 550–557.

Ito, A. 2005. Issues in the implementation of the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters. Space Policy, 21: 141–149.

JB GIS and UNOOSA (Joint Board of Geospatial Information Societies AND United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs). 2010. Geo-information for Disaster and Risk Management: Examples and Best Practices, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Joyce, K.E., Belliss, S.E., Samsonov, S.V., McNeill, S.J. & Glassey, P.J. 2009. A review of the status of satellite remote sensing and image processing techniques for mapping natural hazards and disasters. Progress in Physical Geography, 33: 183–207.

Kaidzu, M. 2014. Land management issue related to recovery from east Japan great earthquake. Proceedings XXV FIG International Congress: Engaging the Challenges, Enhancing the Relevance, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Kelm, K. 2014. UAVs Revolutionise Land Administration. pp. 35–37, GIM International, December 2014,.

Kemper, T., Jenerowicz, M., Gueguen, L., Poli, D. & Soille, P. 2011. Monitoring changes in the Menik Farm IDP camps in Sri Lanka using multi-temporal very high-resolution satellite data. International Journal of Digital Earth, 4: 91–106.

Kerle, N. 2010. Satellite-based damage mapping following the 2006 Indonesia earthquake–How accurate was it? International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 12: 466–476.

Kerle, N. 2011. Remote sensing based post – disaster damage mapping: ready for a collaborative approach?, Earthzine: fostering earth observation and global awareness.

34


arbind tuladhar

Kerle, N. 2013. Remote sensing based post-disaster damage mapping with collaborative methods, pp. 121–133, In Zlatanova, S., Peters, R., Dilo, A., and Scholten, H., eds., Intelligent Systems for Crisis Management. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Kerle, N., Heuel, S. & Pfeifer, N. 2008. Real-time data collection and information generation using airborne sensors, pp. 43–74 In Zlatanova, S., and Li, J., eds., Geospatial Information Technology for Emergency Response:.Taylor & Francis, London.

Laarakker, P. & de Vries, W.T. 2011. What about OpenCadastreMap? In: Cadastre 2.0 : proceedings of the international FIG symposium and commission 7 annual meeting, Innsbruck, Austria.

Lemmen, C.H.J. & Zevenbergen, J.A. 2010. First experiences with high-resolution imagery-based adjudication approach in Ethiopia. In Innovations in land rights recognition, administration and governance. Joint organizational discussion paper issue 2, proceedings from the annual conference on land policy and administration. The World Bank, Washington D.C.

Lemoine, G. 2010. Validation of building damage assessments based on post-Haiti 2010 earthquake imagery using multi-source reference data, pp. 33–34, Proceedings of VALgEO 2010, 2nd International Workshop on Validation of Geo-information Products for Crisis Management. Ispra, Italy.

McLaren, R. 2011. Crowdsourcing support of land administration. A new, collaborative partnership between citizens and land professionals. RICS Research, London.

Roche, S., Propeck-Zimmermann, E. & Mericskay, B. 2011. GeoWeb and crisis management: issues and perspectives of volunteered geographic information. GeoJournal: 1–20.

Smith, M., Thompson, M. & Grant, D. 2011. Re-establishment of cadastral boundaries following the 2010–2011 Canterbury earthquakes: Proceedings of the Spatial Sciences & Surveying Biennial Conference 2011, Wellington, New Zealand, 21-25 November 2011.

Stefanik, K.V., Gassaway, J.C., Kochersberger, K. & Abbott, A.L. 2011. UAV-based stereo vision for rapid aerial terrain mapping. Giscience & Remote Sensing, 48: 24–49.

Steudler, D. & Rajabifard, A. 2012. Spatially Enabled Society, FIG Publication No. 58, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Stryker, T. & Jones, B. 2009. Disaster response and the International Charter program. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 75: 1342–1344.

35


Tuladhar, A.M. 2004. Parcel-based Geo-information System: Concepts and Guidelines, Technical Universiteteit Delft, ISBN 9061642248, the Netherlands (Ph.D. thesis).

UNECE (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe). 1996. Land Administration Guidelines, with Special Reference to Countries in Transition, New York and Geneva.

Voigt, S., Schneiderhan, T., Twele, A., Gahler, M., Stein, E. & Mehl, H. 2011. Rapid damage assessment and situation mapping: learning from the 2010 Haiti earthquake. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 77: 923–931.

Zhang, Y. & Kerle, N. 2008. Satellite remote sensing for near-real time data collection, pp. 75–102, In Zlatanova, S., and Li, J., eds., Geospatial Information Technology for Emergency Response:. Taylor & Francis, London.

>picture to be chosenphotocredit to be updated

© f

ao

/Jim

Hol

mes

37

l a n d t e n u R e J o u R n a l R e v u e d e s q u e s t i o n s f o n c i è R e s R e v i s ta s o b R e t e n e n c i a d e l a t i e R R a

>1 14

L’évaLuaTIon fonCIèRE:un outil fondamental dans la gestion des risques de catastrophe

LanD vaLuaTIon:a key tool for disaster risk management

David MitchellDepartment of Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, [email protected]

Matt MyersSouth Pacific Property Advisors, Suva, [email protected]

Donald grantDepartment of Mathematical and Geospatial Sciences, RMIT University, Melbourne, [email protected]

EsTIMaCIón DEL vaLoR DE La TIERRa:un instrumento clave para la gestión del riesgo de desastres

38

david mitchell, matt myers,donald Grant land Valuation: a kEY tool For disastEr risk manaGEmEnt

R é s u M é

évaLuaTIon fonCIèRE


aDMInIsTRaTIon fonCIèRE

On a beaucoup écrit au sujet des questions foncières en réponse aux catastrophes naturelles et sur le rôle de l’administration foncière dans la gestion des risques de catastrophe. Il est important de faire face à ces questions à toutes les étapes de la gestion des risques de catastrophe pour contribuer à protéger les droits des personnes vulnérables. Cet article se consacre à l’un des trois éléments de l’administration foncière – l’évaluation des terres – et se penche sur son rôle dans la gestion des risques de catastrophe. Ce travail est axé sur le contexte des interventions d’urgence et des phases post-catastrophe dans le cadre de gestion des risques de catastrophe et s’appuie sur des publications existantes et des études

a B s T R a C T

LanD vaLuaTIon


LanD aDMInIsTRaTIon

Much has been written about land issues in responding to natural disasters and on the role of land administration in Disaster Risk Management (DRM). It is important to address land issues at all stages of DRM to help protect the rights of the vulnerable. This paper looks at one of the three elements of land administration – the valuation of land – and considers its role in DRM. The work is considered in the context of the emergency response and post-disaster phases of a DRM Framework and draws on existing literature and case studies developed by the authors and others in developing countries.

The impact of natural disasters on property values is considered, as well as the relationship among land tenure, land value and land

s u M a R I o

EsTIMaCIón DEL vaLoR DE La TIERRa


aDMInIsTRaCIón DE La TIERRa

Se ha escrito mucho acerca de las cuestiones relativas a la tierra a la hora de intervenir en situaciones de emergencia ante catástrofes naturales y de la función de la administración de la tierra en la gestión del riesgo de desastres. Es importante abordar las cuestiones relacionadas con la tierra en todas las fases de la gestión del riesgo de desastres a fin de ayudar a proteger los derechos de las personas vulnerables. En este documento se observa uno de los tres elementos de la administración de la tierra —la valoración de la tierra— y se estudia su función en la gestión del riesgo de desastres. Este trabajo debe considerarse en el contexto de las fases de intervención en situaciones de emergencia y posteriores a una

39


use control, and how land valuation can support emergency response, recovery and reconstruction after natural disasters. We also consider how land valuation and taxation are related in the context of DRM. This includes valuation to support estimates of damage and loss, effective decisions on resettlement and compensation, and for insurance purposes. We conclude that land valuation and taxation are key tools in DRM.

de cas élaborées par les auteurs et d’autres intervenants dans les pays en développement.

Ce travail prend en considération l’impact des catastrophes naturelles sur la valeur des biens, ainsi que la relation entre régime foncier, valeur foncière et contrôle de l’utilisation des terres, et la manière dont l’évaluation des terres peut venir en appui aux phases d’intervention d’urgence, de relèvement et de reconstruction qui font suite à une catastrophe naturelle. Nous prenons également en compte la mesure dans laquelle évaluation foncière et fiscalité sont liées dans le cadre de la gestion des risques de catastrophe. L’évaluation peut notamment servir à estimer les pertes et les dommages, à prendre des décisions efficaces sur les questions de réinstallation et d’indemnisation, et être utile pour les problèmes liés aux assurances. Nous parvenons à la conclusion que l’évaluation foncière et la fiscalité sont des outils fondamentaux de la gestion des risques de catastrophe.

catástrofe del marco de gestión del riesgo de desastres, y está basado en bibliografía existente y estudios de casos elaborados por los mismos autores y otras personas provenientes de países en desarrollo.

Se toman en consideración las repercusiones de las catástrofes naturales en el valor de las propiedades, así como la relación entre la tenencia de la tierra, el valor de la tierra y el control del uso de la tierra, y la forma en que la estimación del valor de la tierra puede respaldar la intervención en una situación de emergencia, la recuperación y la reconstrucción tras una catástrofe natural. También se considera la forma en que están relacionados la estimación del valor de la tierra y el sistema tributario en el contexto de la gestión del riesgo de desastres. Aquí cabe destacar el apoyo que presta la valoración a la hora de estimar daños y pérdidas, tomar decisiones eficaces sobre reasentamiento y compensación, y a efectos del seguro. Al final se concluye que la estimación del valor de la tierra y el sistema tributario son instrumentos fundamentales para la gestión del riesgo de desastres.

1 14

40


InTRoDuCTIon

Natural disasters have many different causes and include geophysical disasters such as earthquakes and tsunamis, and hydro-meteorological disasters such as cyclones and floods. Many disasters are rapid-onset and little warning is given. The resulting damage takes many different forms, including death and displacement of many people, as well as damage to land, buildings, crops and livestock. Natural disasters occur on widely different scales with different impacts depending on the context. Responses to different disasters are equally varied and the role of valuers reflects this diversity.

This paper provides an overview of the role of land valuation in emergency response, recovery and reconstruction following natural disasters. It includes a review of the potential role and requirements for land valuation in the context of a DRM Framework (see Figure 1), particularly with regard to the way in which land valuation can help address the land issues that can follow a natural disaster. These land issues have been identified in various papers (e.g. UN-HABITAT/FAO/CWGER/GLTN, 2010; Mitchell, 2010) and include the loss of access to land, shelter and livelihoods due to damage from the disaster, resettlement issues, or an inability of people to prove the legal or social legitimacy of their rights to land. The poor and already vulnerable are often most at risk.

The Hyogo Framework for Action 2005–2015 (UNISDR, 2005) aims at substantial reduction in loss of life and economic losses through the implementation of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) strategies in DRM. This includes the incorporation of pre-disaster and post-disaster activities into a DRM approach. DRM is defined by UNISDR (2009) as “the systematic process of using administrative decisions, organization, operational skills and capacities to implement policies, strategies and coping capacities of the society and communities to lessen the impacts of natural hazards and related environmental and technological disasters”. It is a management approach that combines prevention, mitigation and preparedness with emergency response and recovery.

The DRM Framework breaks the process of DRM into three phases: pre-disaster, emergency response and post-disaster. It brings together development activities of mitigation and prevention as well as relief and recovery, with

The hyogo framework for action 2005–2015 (unIsDR, 2005) aims at substantial reduction in loss of life and economic losses through the implementation of Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) strategies in DRM. This includes the incorporation of pre-disaster and post-disaster activities into a DRM approach

41


preparedness linking the development and humanitarian activities. This paper will concentrate on the emergency response and post-disaster stages.

The paper builds upon previous work by the authors and is based on a literature review and the discussion draws on several examples from various countries to illustrate the points made. We consider how effective land valuation can support post-disaster emergency response, recovery and reconstruction activities. The separate disaster response functions that benefit from valuation expertise include insurance, compensation, property tax, compulsory purchase and strategic advice to governments. Issues about

Figure 1Disaster Risk Management framework (Baas et al., 2008)

42


compensation, property rights, resettlement, livelihoods, shelter and food security are all key elements in the discussion. Some of the barriers to effective land valuation in a post-disaster context are also discussed. These include the difficulties of effectively and equitably valuing informal tenures such as customary land, or informal settlements and the impact on disaster management. The research contributes to the existing literature on the impact of disasters on the built environment and food security, and in particular the effect on emerging economies.

how naTuRaL DIsasTERs IMPaCT LanD vaLuE

In this section we explore the relationship between land tenure, value and use in the context of disaster management, and the impact of climate change and natural disasters on land value.

The relationship between land tenure, value and use in the context of disaster managementThe provision of shelter and livelihoods, and therefore food security, depends on access to land. In very disaster-prone areas, where land tenure rights are either legally secure (de jure) or socially legitimate (de facto), people have confidence in undertaking disaster mitigation and preventive actions, and have confidence they can return to their land after a disaster. If, however, their land tenure rights are not secure, they face a real risk of either the government preventing them from rebuilding in the same place, or of being the victims of land-grabbing. Improved tenure security, and therefore access to land, provides an incentive for landholders to invest in measures to improve their land, such as soil protection, tree planting, pasture improvement, irrigation or sustainable cropping (FAO, 2011).

Correa et al. (2011) noted that land use and occupation reflect the prevailing development model in a country and argued that disaster risk is a cumulative result of deficiencies in this development planning. Many countries experience increasingly urbanized populations with pressure for land resulting in informal settlements on unsuitable or unsafe land. The result is that some people are

In very disaster-prone areas, where land tenure rights are either legally secure or socially legitimate, people have confidence in undertaking disaster mitigation and preventive actions, and have confidence they can return to their land after a disaster. If their land tenure rights are not secure, they face a real risk of either the government preventing them from rebuilding in the same place, or of being the victims of land-grabbing

43


more vulnerable because of a higher risk from hazards, insecure tenure (e.g. informal settlements) and also lower land values.

Changes in government policy can affect property value. There are very strong links between changes made under land-use planning or master planning processes and resultant changes in land value. Similarly, releasing information identifying an area as hazard-prone, or as an area to be investigated for potential resettlement, can result in property devaluation. Jha et al. (2010) noted this impact in both urban and rural areas. In urban areas land values are higher and land tenure is more complex. Pre-disaster or post-disaster changes to land-use planning have an impact on property value, meaning a transparent approach to planning is essential. In rural areas, the settlements form a relatively small part of the landscape and values are lower. Land tenure issues tend to be less complex and the sense of ownership is higher in rural areas. Unlike in urban areas land-use planning may not dramatically change rural land values.

Changes made to create development-free (buffer) zones after a disaster can also have a dramatic impact on property values and tenure. For example, in Padang city in Indonesia the land use master plans that created zoning (both the 2004–2024 and 2008–2028 plans) established some of the forested areas as buffer zones. This led to the land office not being able to register the land of people who had been living there for a long period (since before the change in zoning), and issue building permits. The result was a reduction in the tenure security of the people living in the forested area and a resultant impact on the value of property (Syahid, 2011).

The links are also evident in western countries. When Hurricane Betsy struck the New Orleans region in 1965, navigation canals and urbanization of low-lying areas contributed substantially to flood damage. After the hurricane, Congress authorized the construction of hurricane-protection levees, flood-walls and gates to protect developed areas as well as adjacent marshes. The flood protection measures increased real estate values and over 75 000 homes were built over the following years, most of them on concrete slabs at grade level rather than the traditional raised brick piers. This increased the flood risk, as illustrated by the impact of Hurricane Katrina forty years later (Stanfield et al., 2008).

There are very strong links between changes made under land-use planning or master planning processes and resultant changes in land value. Releasing information identifying an area as hazard-prone, or as an area to be investigated for potential resettlement, can result in property devaluation

Changes made to create development-free (buffer) zones after a disaster can also have a dramatic impact on property values and tenure

44


The impact of climate change and natural disasters on land value Climate change is expected to lead to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events (IPCC, 2012). It will potentially magnify the existing patterns of disaster risk and place extra pressure on the capacities of governments and agencies to respond. FAO notes that food security and agricultural livelihoods in vulnerable countries will be among the issues more severely impacted by climate change. They argue for urgent investments in DRR, above and beyond present levels, to support food and nutrition security (FAO, 2011). UN-HABITAT (2011) states that urban development can bring increased vulnerability to climate hazards. Many cities are facing rapid growth due to urbanization, leading to the creation of informal settlements that are often vulnerable to natural disasters.

While the focus of this paper is on the role of land valuation in supporting DRM activities to enhance disaster response and recovery, there are also direct and indirect benefits to settlements and shelter and these are discussed throughout. Quan and Dyer (2005) argued that the more vulnerable within hazard-prone areas might be forced to settle there (such as near a flood-prone river or at the base of an unstable hillside) because of the lack of any affordable alternatives. This includes people with poor security of tenure, such as informal settlers. People who rely on third-party agreements, such as farm labourers, lessees and sharecroppers, can also be vulnerable to loss of access to land if a disaster occurs. Additional vulnerable groups are the elderly, women, children, and minorities. These groups’ rights may not be adequately considered when post-disaster decisions are made.

After a disaster, wherever there are involuntary changes to where a person lives, or the quality of their housing, or their access to livelihoods, land valuation can help estimate those changes for the purposes of compensation. Decisions made to resettle people under a DRM or land-use planning process also impact property values. Those who are resettled require valuations to ascertain that they receive at least as good conditions after the resettlement as they had before. However, others can also be affected. Where people are resettled with a host community there may be an impact on their property value and accurate valuations can help to assess this impact.

after a disaster, wherever there are involuntary changes to where a person lives, or the quality of their housing, or their access to livelihoods, land valuation can help estimate those changes for the purposes of compensation

45


Damage resulting from the impact of a disaster can also have a significant impact on property values. Syahid (2011) reported that following earthquakes in Indonesia in 2004 and 2007 some people left their properties in the high hazard-risk zone, resulting in a considerable depreciation in property values. In post-tsunami Japan, concerns over living in the lower areas near the coast placed downward pressure on property values. According to the Japanese National Land Use Planning Act, the government can declare an area under land price surveillance when concerned about an unusual rise in land prices (Kaidzu, 2011).

In New Zealand, a series of approximately 8 000 earthquakes and aftershocks starting in 2010 caused widespread damage to land and buildings and had a significant impact on confidence in the property market. The relative property values across Christchurch were permanently altered by factors such as the geotechnical classification of soils regarding their suitability for building foundations, and the compliance of building structures with earthquake codes (and the resulting ability to obtain insurance) being the most important determinants of buyer confidence (Sullivan and Grant, 2012).

LanD aDMInIsTRaTIon anD LanD vaLuaTIon

Land administration comprises three components, the administration of land tenure, land value and land use. There are strong interrelationships between each function. In countries with more formal legal systems of land tenure, rights to land are typically managed based on an accepted land policy and legal framework. In many emerging economies, land authorities maintain cadastral maps and records of land ownership, which may be paper-based. Initiatives to convert such land records to digital records increase the security of the records and also increase the protection for the proprietors in the event of a disaster.

As mentioned earlier, the benefits of valuation expertise to the functions of land-use planning and the recording of land tenure cover the areas of insurance, compensation, property tax, compulsory purchase and strategic advice to governments. However, valuations are carried out for a specific

46


purpose, with different approaches used depending on the purpose. In countries with a market economy, property has a value and this is critical for all property-related decisions – by individuals to purchase, by banks deciding to consider what is appropriate to lend against a property, by local government with regard to decisions to deal with land and buildings under its control. Effective property valuation underwrites many aspects of a functioning market economy.

There are three long-established codes of international valuation standards: the International Valuation Standards Council (IVSC) applies internationally, while the RICS Valuation - Professional Standards (The Red Book) and the European Group of Valuers’ Association (TeGOVA) standards have also been adopted widely. However, valuation standards do not specify methods of valuation.

Property is commonly taxed by government at various levels and the basis for this taxation is determination of the value of the property. This taxation may be in the form of an annual charge (e.g. rates) based on an estimate of the value of the property or may be on the basis of a tax on the transfer of property (e.g. stamp duty). Annual taxation forms a significant income source for government and may contribute greatly towards reform to decentralize land administration (Dale et al., 2007; Munro-Faure, 2012).

Valuation (assessment of property values) is typically needed to support:>> Transfer of ownership.>> Financing and credit.>> Gathering of revenues through property taxation.>> Asset valuation.>> Decisions on compensation related to land acquisition or resettlement of people.

>> Cost-benefit analysis of various scenarios related to DRM projects.>> Insurance.

An efficient and transparent land market helps to make the valuation of property more transparent and allows for the implementation of fiscal policy in a way that citizens can understand. Another benefit is that it provides more reliable information on property values. Incorrect valuations can lead to disputes and social tension and processes are required for the adjudication

47


of valuation and taxation disputes (Dale et al., 2007). Property valuation records are important for establishing appropriate levels of compensation when private land is acquired by government, or when people are resettled under a DRM programme.

The aftermath of a disaster poses particular challenges for property valuation. During these periods real property markets in affected areas often exhibit instability, even chaos. Analysing market data after a disaster can be difficult. For example, in many cases destruction causes shortages of properties that people and businesses are willing to occupy and a consequent increase in prices for those that are suitable (see e.g. Sullivan and Grant, 2012). As real property is not a liquid asset, markets for some types of property are small with limited opportunities for transfer. In many emerging economies, only a very small percentage of agricultural land is sold on the open market. This scarcity of evidence may be compounded by attempts at tax evasion that lead to a sale price stated in records that does not reflect the true sale price.

In developing countries and emerging markets the challenges include:>> Inadequate legal frameworks that do not allow for the efficient functioning of the property market.

>> Lack of published information or difficulty in obtaining information regarding transactional as well as other data requisite for proper valuation.

>> Greater volatility of property markets.>> Lack of adequately trained professional valuers.>> Out-dated (or absence of) national standards.>> External pressure.>> Excessive or insufficient government interference.

LanD vaLuaTIon anD TaxaTIon In EMERgEnCy REsPonsE, RECovERy anD REConsTRuCTIon PhasEs

This section outlines some of the ways that effective land valuation and property taxation measures can support post-disaster emergency response, recovery and reconstruction activities. The effect of poor land valuation on land governance in a post-disaster context is also considered.

48


However, in many emerging economies land agencies have inadequate valuation capacity to adequately respond to many natural disasters. For example, in Fiji the Department of Lands and Survey undertakes valuations of all properties within cities and villages under the Local Government Act 1972, as a basis for calculating property rates according to Unimproved Capital Value. Although the majority of properties valued are leasehold, the rates are fixed based on freehold tenure. A 2001 report found that in practice rural areas are not valued for property rates, which has led to many freehold properties being held by land speculators, reducing supply and increasing market values. Valuation records are patchy and undermine the calculation of compensation and rental payments associated with land acquisition for public purposes (Hassan, 2001).

Post-disaster rapid assessments Rapid assessments are made in relation to damage and loss, needs, and gender during the recovery phase and property valuation information (if available) can be very important in estimating the economic losses. These assessments are undertaken to determine the scope, scale and distribution of the impact of the natural disaster and identify issues that may affect the response. They provide information on the needs, possible intervention types and the resource requirements. They can include damage and loss, shelter, livelihoods, agriculture, infrastructure and vulnerability assessments. Land agencies’ valuation departments should be involved to provide valuation information and estimates.

For example, a rapid assessment was undertaken in 2010 for the Government of St. Lucia, shortly after the impact of Hurricane Tomas. The aim was to determine the social, environmental and economic impacts, plus the short- and long-term needs and priorities. In this case there was a strong link to land tenure. While the land tenure in agricultural areas was considered in this assessment, no mention was made of the tenure of the affected agricultural holdings, even though this would have impacted on the farmers’ ability to have acquired insurance and recover from loss (Griffiths-Charles, 2012).

In many emerging economies land agencies have inadequate valuation capacity to adequately respond to many natural disasters

49


Estimating damage and loss Although the emergency response phase is mostly about saving lives and getting basic temporary restoration of transport, communications networks, and preliminary repairs to critical public utilities, there is also need to make preliminary estimates of the loss of public and private property. In completing the damage, loss and needs assessment phases of disaster recovery, valuations are essential to estimate the economic losses. To calculate losses, valuers need to estimate the economic value prior to the disaster (retrospective value) and post-disaster. These valuations can be used for insurance or compensation purposes, for mortgage lending (homeowners need to refinance/borrow to rebuild), rental assessment, and as cost–benefit analysis on where to allocate limited resources in the disaster recovery. The World Bank publication Safer Homes, Stronger Communities (Jha et al., 2010) stated:

“Accurate, comparable, and appropriately scaled information provides the basis for damage and loss assessments (DaLAs), and related decision making concerning recovery and reconstruction. Assessments are time- and labour-intensive, must be conducted rapidly, and must meet quality standards. For these reasons, numerous initiatives have been launched to expand the use of technology to improve the timeliness, quantity, and quality of assessment results”.

In 2010 digital geospatial information and spatial analysis techniques were not used. However, the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR) and the World Bank were developing standards and training manuals for mission teams to integrate spatial analysis into assessments. The authors believe that it is important for post-disaster rapid assessments to include questions on the quality of land valuation records, the legislation with regard to land acquisition and compensation, and for information on land value to be available with other spatial data.

In addition to economic loss, cultural goods and landmarks may be lost. Traditional valuation approaches are not appropriate for such special properties and goods, and thus non-economic valuation methods should be applied such as derived benefits methods, cost-based methods, revealed preference methods, and stated preference methods.

In completing the damage, loss and needs assessment phases of disaster recovery, valuations are essential to estimate the economic losses

50


valuation to support a cost–benefit analysis for recovery planningValuations support post-disaster planning for recovery. Valuation of public assets, such as government buildings, schools, and public infrastructures such as roads and utilities can aid recovery decision-making. In the case of an earthquake for example, information on the cost of repairing or rebuilding damaged public buildings might be urgently required. Valuers will also have a role when land or buildings are acquired for public purposes associated with the recovery, or requisitioned for temporary use by the public sector.

Valuations are essential in needs assessments to determine the financial resources needed to implement recovery, reconstruction and risk management. When planning recovery, valuations can be used to determine best use of available resources and where such funds are best allocated.

Moving from transitional shelter to resettlementThe Pinheiro principles outline that all displaced persons have the right to have restored to them any land and housing of which they were arbitrarily deprived. Resettlement for the long-term should not be the first option as there are many difficulties to overcome. Correa et al. (2011) stated:

“Relocating a population, its economic activities, and its social networks and relations, as well as its natural physical and built environment (buildings, infrastructure, and facilities) is a complex process with significant impacts—direct and indirect—on the population and on governments. A resettlement process may become an opportunity for comprehensive improvement in the quality of life of the population, even exceeding the direct objectives of disaster risk reduction. But if not duly planned or conceived as a complementary action integrated into a comprehensive risk management strategy, it may lead to ineffective and unsustainable processes that create frustration for families and governments alike…. A poorly planned and executed resettlement program can lead to social, economic, and cultural disasters even more serious than the natural disaster risks it is intended to prevent”.

Decisions on whether to resettle hazard-prone people are best made before a disaster as a preventive response (Correa et al., 2011), where the decisions and

valuations are essential in needs assessments to determine the financial resources needed to implement recovery, reconstruction and risk management

51


options can be based on in-depth technical analysis and extensive community consultation. However, often this has not occurred and a disaster can highlight the vulnerability of individuals and communities.

For example, the land governance assessment framework (LGAF) in the Philippines (Eleazar et al., 2013) provides one example of the challenges that can arise where a clear policy on resettlement and compensation is absent. The report notes that existing expropriation policies are inconsistent, and the preparation of Resettlement Action Plans (RAPs) not supported by a national policy. Aside from foreign assisted projects (which have RAPs) agencies have no legal basis to prepare RAPs and the payment of adequate compensation. Other projects use compensation based on assessed values, paying only 15 percent of the total value to acquire the property. The report suggested that the government should formulate a national resettlement policy that provides for prompt and reasonable compensation, grievance redress and a programme for sustainable livelihood restoration.

Studies of the pre-disaster conditions (including property value) make it possible to identify the requirements of people who need to be resettled. These requirements allow a search for suitable locations and existing housing supply. Resettlement options can include:

>> Collective resettlement, where land is provided for more than one family, as well as activities to re-establish the lost livelihoods.

>> Individual resettlement of an individual family to an available dwelling and adequate compensation is sufficient to find decent and safe housing, but does not consist solely of financial compensation (Correa et al., 2011).

The choice of tenure used for resettlement has implications for the process and for valuation. Available land may exist across the continuum of tenure types. Jha et al. (2011) included the following measures to consider when responding to the landless and refugees who need to be relocated:

>> Acquire suitable public land. Using public land for relocation is a common solution because it does not involve acquisition from proprietors and the related compensation. However, this process should be preceded by a good site evaluation and availability is not sufficient justification.

The choice of tenure used for resettlement has implications for the process and for valuation. available land may exist across the continuum of tenure types

52


For example, in many contexts in Africa a public ground inspection and consultations with local communities are necessary to establish that the land is vacant.

>> Market-based acquisition of private land. The process involves a market-based acquisition from people with legitimate tenure rights willing to sell and should be based on the best available land valuation information.

>> Eminent domain (land acquisition) of private land. This includes both formal and informal tenures across the continuum.

>> Government offers limited fiscal incentives to sellers (property tax rebate).

compensation for individual resettlement In cases where the original parcel or holding cannot be returned, the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (FAO/CFS, 2012) call for states to provide prompt and just compensation and to ensure the equitable treatment of all affected people. The Voluntary Guidelines also specify that this compensation should be in the form of money, and/or alternative parcels or holdings. Individual resettlement should include compensation for the property in the at-risk area, plus additional compensation for loss of income, and to cover the costs of moving. When people with legitimate tenure rights do not have land records or their housing is low-cost, a subsidy to purchase a property on the market may be provided. In some cases a combination of these two options is offered. Information is required on the value of the land and structures, indicating the amount invested in the property and therefore the amount of compensation they may receive. It is important for the head of household (or productive unit) to be present at the time of the valuation. Care is needed, however, because for people with legitimate rights living in vulnerable areas, compensation based on a traditional valuation of their land will not be enough for them to afford housing in a different place. They may move to another disaster-prone area where they can afford the land (Correa, 2011).

An example is in Bhachau, India following the 2001 earthquake. Virtually all houses were destroyed and about ten percent of landowners could not produce land records documenting their rights. In 2003 pre-disaster satellite imagery was used to identify and mark plot boundaries with an average plot size of 50–80 m2. A systematic regularization process was developed,

53


with the reconstruction done mostly in situ. A land valuation committee assessed values at substantially less than market prices. The amount to be paid by the informal settlers for the land was about Rs 8 000 for a 25 m2

plot, substantially less than the market price of Rs 30 000–40 000. Based on a housing reconstruction policy that provided for 25 m2, the government recommended people accept this smaller area as the de jure right, and accept that the remaining 25–50 m2 be maintained as a de facto occupation. The policy therefore contributed to undermining security of tenure (UN-HABITAT/FAO/CWGER/GLTN, 2010).

Correa (2011) noted the principle of shared responsibility of the state in which the state has the responsibility to protect people. Under this principle, it is assumed that the human settlement was sited in a high-risk area based on government decisions to grant permits, or that there was a lack of land-use planning to prevent the establishment of these settlements in high-risk areas. They stress that property valuations must not depreciate the property because of the disaster risk, to ensure the compensation is sufficient to purchase suitable lawful and safe housing on the market.

compensation for land acquisition Often public land is chosen for the site where people are to be resettled, or where infrastructure is to be built. Compensation is often required where public land is occupied by people with legitimate informal or customary rights. Where private or communal land is used for resettlement or construction a land acquisition process may be required. However, there is potential for conflict where the land acquisition arbitrarily displaces people and the process does not involve adequate consultation or compensation. Land acquisition and compensation disputes may also delay recovery and reconstruction. The Voluntary Guidelines state that, “States should ensure a fair valuation and prompt compensation in accordance with national law. Among other forms, the compensation may be, for example, in cash, rights to alternative areas, or a combination” (FAO/CFS, 2012). Responsible land governance therefore requires states to have guidelines and regulations for establishing fair compensation and mechanisms to ensure it is paid in a timely manner. In some circumstances compensation will need to be paid in advance to allow people to resettle.

Property valuations must not depreciate the property because of the disaster risk, to ensure the compensation is sufficient to purchase suitable lawful and safe housing on the market

54


The following examples from India and New Zealand illustrate some differences among countries. In Gujarat, India, legislation detailed a process for land consolidation to provide land for infrastructure and other public purposes. The Town Planning and Urban Development Act specifies that the authority can claim up to 40 percent of the land for roads, parks, open space, social infrastructure and for sale by the appropriate authority. The proceeds from the sale are used to provide infrastructure. The act provides mechanisms to value the land being acquired, with some receiving compensation, but others owing money to the authority. Residents were given the option of taking up plots in the re-location sites in return for transferring all rights on their old site to the government. The Act also provides for grievance mechanisms, and the government appointed an ombudsman to keep issues out of court and provide speedy solutions (UN-HABITAT/FAO/CWGER/GLTN, 2010).

During the earthquake recovery and reconstruction phases the New Zealand government designated Red Zones (Sullivan and Grant, 2012) (see Figure 2) of land parcels that were unfit for continued residential use due to ongoing risks of earthquake-induced soil liquefaction and the consequent inability to provide secure building foundations or services (water, sewerage, power, etc.) to properties in those areas. Due to the magnitude of the acquisition and the need to provide certainty to landowners as soon as possible, the government announced an offer to acquire residential properties that were no longer able to be occupied (Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, 2013). That offer was based on the most recent mass appraisal rating valuations for Christchurch, which at the time of the first offer in 2011 were the values dated August 1st, 2007. These mass appraisal valuations were assessed using a market value definition for both capital value and land value across a council area and were primarily intended for council rating purposes rather than for compensation (Sullivan and Grant, 2012).

In determining appropriate compensation, the guiding principles of equity and equivalence should be applied. Equivalence in this context means that people should receive no more or no less than their loss. Government should balance interests to safeguard the rights of those who lose ownership or rights while ensuring public interest is not jeopardized, and be flexible with lucid guidelines, but also allow flexibility in a given situation to provide equivalent compensation (FAO, 2009).

55


vaLuaTIon In ThE REConsTRuCTIon PhasE

A major natural disaster will have immediate impact on market values and often for many years following. In some communities there may be looting and other civil turmoil that can also negatively impact values. In other markets, people affected by a disaster may relocate to an area that was not impacted. This creates more demand, resulting in an increase in values in the non-affected areas. This may create a situation where insurance, or government compensation, is not sufficient to assist affected property owners relocate in same community. This is especially true for rental housing because displaced homeowners seek short-term rentals and for the influx of outside aid workers and trades persons working on the recovery. Valuers will be needed in the early economic reconstruction phase to support assessment

Figure 2government-designated Red Zones

in Christchurch, new Zealand where compulsory

acquisition applied (source: sullivan and grant, 2012)

56


of insurance payments, in any processes to regularize the land ownership structure, in the decision to offer taxation incentives, and in the protection of land markets. Valuation will be required for private land and buildings, as well as public land and infrastructure.

Valuation for insurance purposes Insurance can be a very important tool for disaster mitigation and in some contexts is the only available remedy. The valuer and loss-adjuster support the insurance function by quantifying the risk insured before the event and supporting claims after the event. When large-scale disasters occur it is usually difficult to mobilize valuation and loss-adjusting expertise fast enough to settle claims promptly enough to prevent hardship. This is frequently a critical factor.

Insurance is usually, although not always, a private sector function and insurance companies are usually private sector entities. The policy-holders are usually individuals or private companies. It is rare, although not unknown, for the public sector to provide insurance cover or arrange reinsurance for those large-scale risks that private sector insurers refuse to cover at the property level. This can especially be the case for natural disasters where huge financial risks may be realized across a wide area from a single event.

Central governments almost always carry their own risk. In most cases when disasters occur, public sector property is not covered by insurance. The value of the land itself is not generally insurable. Certain risks related to land are commonly insured, such as subsidence and flooding. The risk insured is usually the cost of consequent damage to buildings or structures as a result of subsidence or flooding and it is not the depreciation in the value of the land. The risk covered for real estate is almost always the cost of rebuilding. The insurance industry deals with risks to chattels, growing crops and buildings in a different manner. For example, crop insurance is rarely available in emerging economies.

The loss is generally not calculated in relation to the open market value of the property. The valuer has a role in calculating building costs, a role which valuers share with quantity surveyors, building surveyors engineers and architects. For example, following Hurricane Katrina, many of the recovery efforts that relied on the market were undermined by market failures that

valuers will be needed in the early economic reconstruction phase to support assessment of insurance payments, in any processes to regularize the land ownership structure, in the decision to offer taxation incentives, and in the protection of land markets. valuation will be required for private land and buildings, as well as public land and infrastructure

57


occurred in the post-hurricane conditions. Another market failure was the response of the homeowners’ insurance providers, who raised insurance rates dramatically following the disaster (as much as five-fold). Premiums on a standard US$ 150 000 home increased from US$ 600/month to US$ 3 000/month (Stanfield et al., 2008).

Private individuals can also be uninsured or underinsured when a disaster strikes. Insurance policies cover the losses resulting from the particular insured risks specified in the policy. It often becomes evident when a disaster strikes that some people could have insured against particular risks but either chose not to do so or could not afford to do so. Other cases of underinsurance will exist where the policyholder decides to cover an amount less than the whole loss, and the quantum of the risk insured is not sufficient to cover the loss suffered. The valuer has a role in advising governments about matters of commercial principle and by calculating the cost to the government of making good uninsured losses.

Some risks are not commercially insurable. For instance damage due to war and terrorist action is often not insurable. Damage from known hazards (such as floods in known flood-prone areas) is commonly excluded from the policies for those properties within those areas.

On rare occasions governments may step in:>> After the event to provide reimbursement for risks uninsurable in the market.

>> Before the event where the government underwrites the risks of the commercial insurance companies that would otherwise be uninsurable in the market.

>> Before the event with a government guaranteed and owned insurance fund such as the Earthquake Commission in New Zealand, which is supported by a levy on insurance premiums, accumulated investments and reinsurance.

Valuation may be needed to support insurance claims (reinstatement value) where the property is insured, or liability claims against government for failure to prevent the disaster or for a lack of warning. In assessing a claim, the insurance company will need a valuation to determine the economic loss and therefore their responsibility under the terms of the insurance contract.

valuation may be needed to support insurance claims where the property is insured, or liability claims against government for failure to prevent the disaster or for a lack of warning

58


Some contracts offer full replacement, in which case the insurer will be responsible to fund full replacement of property.

Other insurance policies only pay for the loss of the improvements. If the property is no longer new it will suffer some type of depreciation, such as functional obsolescence, physical deterioration, and sometimes external obsolescence. Under these situations, the insurance payout may not be sufficient for property owners to rebuild their home or business. In the case of an individual property loss (such as following fire) not related to a natural disaster, the property owner can use the insurance proceeds to buy a replacement property. However, in a community-wide disaster often there will not be other properties to purchase. Thus, these underinsured property owners may need additional financial support to rebuild.

Sources of additional financial support can be in the form of traditional bank loans, micro-financing programmes, low interest government loans, government grants, or special government compensation schemes, or any combination of the above.

For example, valuation was essential in supporting insurance claims in Christchurch, New Zealand following the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes. In excess of 120 000 insurance claims were made to the Earthquake Commission for significant damage. The Earthquake Commission is a government-owned crown entity that provides government-guaranteed insurance for up to NZ$ 100 000 for residential properties. It is funded by a levy on private residential dwelling insurance and covers that part of the risk that private insurance companies are not prepared to cover (Earthquake Commission, 2012).

However, Bevere and Grollimund (2012) showed the highly variable contribution of insurance in different countries. The 4/9/2010 and 22/2/2011 earthquakes in Canterbury, New Zealand are estimated to have caused economic losses of US$ 21 billion, including an insurance loss of US$ 17 billion. This insurance contribution of over 80 percent reflects the impact of the government-guaranteed insurance scheme managed by the Earthquake Commission.

The much larger estimated economic loss of up to US$ 300 billion following the Tokohu earthquake and tsunami in eastern Japan on 11/3/2011 resulted in an insurance loss of approximately US$ 35 billion (a 17 percent insurance

59


contribution). While at the other end of the scale, the Haiti earthquake of 12/1/2010 is estimated to have resulted in an economic loss of US$ 8 billion (comparable to the first Canterbury earthquake later the same year), but an insurance loss of only US$ 0.1 billion. This is an insurance contribution of about one percent.

These figures demonstrate that the New Zealand model of government-guaranteed disaster insurance worked well for Canterbury and Christchurch. However, the model of guaranteed disaster insurance supported by well-developed valuation and loss-adjusting professions is not generally available in emerging economies. Therefore, the detailed mechanisms of how that model was applied in New Zealand are not explored further here.

In some communities, particularly small rural communities, after disasters many residents relocate to other communities to find jobs and many never return. Thus such rural towns and town centres are not rebuilt. This can also happen to large cities, such as New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. Many older pre-disaster neighbourhoods become virtual ghost towns with vacant house lots.

Material loss affects different groups in different ways. Compensation may be provided in the form of cash, livestock or building materials. An assessment of the damage and loss suffered is needed in preparing a compensation package. Valuers can provide information to support decisions on financial compensation and provide advice on the breakdown of costs and in-kind support such as materials, labour and tools (Lloyd-Jones, 2009).

We also note that the above comments on insurance may not apply to informal tenures, such as customary land or informal settlements, that are adversely affected by disasters and where there are more difficulties in establishing the value of the property (both pre-disaster and post-disaster). This presents challenges for assessing fair compensation and may lead to disputes over the compensation offered. These challenges are discussed further in Section 6.2.

tax concessions and protection of land markets for affected areasThe impact of a disaster on land values noted earlier also has an impact on the taxation revenue generated by government and the ability of individuals

60


to rebuild. For this reason governments may consider public intervention to protect the land markets in the short- to medium-term.

Stanfield et al. (2008) noted that market distortions are inevitable after a major disaster. This is because property values fluctuate substantially, especially in the affected areas, and the increased demand for labour means that wages can rise dramatically during the recovery and reconstruction period. Also, there is an increase in the replacement cost of materials and credit standards tighten. The resources needed for rebuilding cannot be left to market forces and the primary focus must be on supplying resources for infrastructure investments, and then on homeowner rebuilding (or rental) assistance. Stanfield et al. (2008) argued that, “A doctrinaire commitment to the market driven approach almost guarantees the greatest number of losers and may well be the slowest method to recovery”.

Soon after the 2004 tsunami struck Aceh, the Land Agency (BPN) issued a decree prohibiting the transfer of land as an attempt to protect the tsunami victims from being pressured into hasty transfers (BRR and International Partners, 2005). In another example, following the Japanese earthquake, the land authority provincial government issued a press release stating they would jointly watch land prices. They were concerned that people’s preference for highlands would lead to an abnormal rise in land prices (Kaidzu, 2011).

Tax concessions can remove a disincentive to rebuild after a disaster and may also have a positive distorting effect on property markets. Temporary exemptions have also been granted from land and property taxation in some cases following natural disasters. These effects can include waiving property registration taxes. Following the tsunami in Aceh, this included the annual property assessments within the tsunami-affected areas by RALAS and the adjustment in value for property taxation and rates.

Following the 2004 earthquake that struck Padang in Indonesia, the mayor of Padang City issued a regulation waiving the normal requirement for a retribution tax to be paid for the construction of a new building. According to this regulation, those who wanted to get approval for re-constructing houses affected by the earthquake would not be charged until 2010 (Syahid, 2011).

61


ChaLLEngEs foR EffECTIvE PosT-DIsasTER vaLuaTIon

Limitations in capacity There are numerous barriers for valuers in carrying out essential valuation tasks following a disaster, including:

>> Potential loss of experienced staff.>> Potential loss of facilities.>> Loss of data resources.>> Property market volatility and risk.

Depending on the scale of the disaster, there is potential loss of experienced valuation and land administration personnel. Some losses could be through either incapacitating injury or death, or more often the relocation of qualified local staff and experts to other communities to seek shelter and livelihoods for their families. There is also a potential for loss of facilities, either entire offices, or public infrastructure (e.g. electrical and water systems, roadways to get offices) to access and run the valuation office. Entire offices could be destroyed, along with all professional equipment and especially essential information critical to complete a valuation. Even if a valuer can physically get to the office, a typical valuation office still needs electrical power to power their lights and run their computers and printers. Without power, valuers often will not have access to the equipment and information sources needed to complete competent and fast valuations needed for recovery assessment.

In addition to a valuer’s loss of private resources (e.g. office buildings and equipment), valuers rely on public resources, such as tax and property records, including ownership, land boundaries, and market sales transactions. Thus the loss of public resources or loss of access to public resources will create substantial barriers for valuers to carry out their work efficiently.

A major disaster will have immediate impact on market values that may also last for many years. In some communities there may be looting and other civil turmoil that can negatively impact values. In other markets, those affect by the disaster may relocate to other areas in the community that were

62


not impacted. This will create more demand and thus increases in property values in non-affected areas. This may create a situation where insurance or government compensation is not sufficient to assist affected property owners to relocate in the same community. This is especially true for rental housing, as displaced homeowners seek short-term rentals and for influx of outside aid workers and trades persons working on the recovery.

Other ongoing limitations or barriers for valuers include the lack of current market information following a disaster that reflects the current market values. Property records may be lost and thus there may be no information on specific transactions (sales, leases, etc.) or the properties themselves. In some developing countries, property records are still recorded on paper documents and thus can be easily destroyed in a disaster. Without these documents, valuers, land surveyors and other land administration functions are severely hampered. Loss of documents, or lack of access to reliable public records, may also lead to increased conflict over property ownership. Unscrupulous land dealings may occur where putative owners claim larger areas or even property that was not theirs.

In many developing countries the land administration system is inefficient and this creates barriers to quality market valuations even prior to a disaster. These include the lack of:

>> Detailed public records on properties (ownership, legal boundaries, description of improvements, zoning / planning restrictions)

>> Lack of or ease of access to public records for specific properties>> Lack of any valuation practice standards>> Lack of adequately trained and qualified valuers

Also valuers may be exposed to external pressure from property owners who believe their properties to be worth more, from lenders that need a certain value to provide loans, or government agencies that may be seeking low values to save money or high values for political favours. This may occur when the valuer attempts to adopt formal approaches to valuation in an informal setting.

63


Difficulties in valuing communal and informal tenures

communal and customary tenureThe Voluntary Guidelines (FAO/CFS, 2012) state in relation to indigenous peoples and other communities with customary tenure systems:

“9.1 State and non-state actors should acknowledge that land, fisheries and forests have social, cultural, spiritual, economic, environmental and political value to indigenous peoples and other communities with customary tenure systems”.

The valuation of customary or communal land is a very specialised area not often encountered by most western valuers or those working in formal contexts. Aluko et al. (2008) noted that even where sale of land is not contemplated, many situations require an appraisal. These may be needed to support the allocation of a purchase price to a depreciation base in a merger, the establishment of value for ad valorem tax assessment, land acquisition and compensation. However, on customary or communal land the assessment of compensation valuation for compulsorily land acquisition is complex.

Some authors, such as Aluko et al. (2008), have argued that since indigenous people have a spiritual or sentimental attachment to the land, spiritual values cannot be ignored when valuing native lands or sacred sites for there to be just (equitable) compensation (e.g. Bannerman, 1993; Whipple, 1997; Boydell and Small, 2001; Myers, 2002). In many countries with a large percentage of customary or communal lands (such as many of the South Pacific island countries, and in some countries in Africa) customary lands have often not been formally registered and ownership is held under customary practice. Sometimes this leads to conflict of ownership and use between introduced law and customary law, and often the ownership is unclear. Customary and communal lands may be associated with conflicting claims of ownership and often are inalienable (cannot be sold). There may be no formalized market, and therefore there are little or no market data that valuers can use to estimate value.

Another issue facing valuers is that customary owners often lack knowledge and information about property rights and economic value. This can lead to market volatility and land conflict among neighbouring landowners, within

The valuation of customary or communal land is a very specialised area not often encountered by most western valuers or those working in formal contexts

64


families, and most often with government. In many developing countries there is a risk that customary owners and traditional freehold property owners will suspect government of assigning low values for compulsory acquisition compensation or that government officials and their acquaintances are paying a below-market price for their own financial or personal stake in the value outcome. To minimize land conflicts clear landownership records need to be established and customary landowners need access to immediate, affordable, competent and unbiased property advice.

The aim of the compensation is to restore the person whose land is acquired to the position that they were in before the acquisition, the state that previously existed. In other words, they should not be worse off as a result of the acquisition of their land. National standards, laws and policies should be established, based on consultation with all stakeholders, which provide guidance on the fair and timely valuation of tenure rights.

informal settlementsInformal settlements are often located on marginal lands, such as low-lying coastal areas or steep hillsides and are therefore disproportionally affected by natural disasters. The lack of formal recognition of ownership and registration creates issues for compensation because these properties cannot be bought and sold in a formal market. Thus valuers are challenged to establish the market value using non-formal valuation practices and methods.

Also in markets with significant informal settlements, it may be difficult to find suitable and available lands nearby in which to resettle. However, during the post-disaster recovery period there is potential to formalize replacement settlements and enhance the livelihoods of residents. Along with formal registration, there is potential to assess land taxes that can be used for public services.

The 2011 UN-HABITAT and Global Land Tenure Network (GLTN) publication, Innovative Land and Property Taxation, provides a commentary on informal land occupation and land markets. The authors argue that informal settlers ignore the need to comply with urban regulations and building codes (which can exacerbate their disaster risk). When sold, the buyers purchase the illegal or extra-legal plots in good faith, even though the properties do not meet urban regulations or provide formal tenure security. In some

Informal settlements are often located on marginal lands and are therefore disproportionally affected by natural disasters. The lack of formal recognition of ownership and registration creates issues. valuers are challenged to establish the market value using non-formal valuation practices and methods.

65


countries public authorities are tolerant of informal settlements. The settlers have few, if any, other housing options and are often poor. They argue that the informality of tenure distorts urban land market functioning because clandestine operators reap higher profits by avoiding taxes, protection of the land, or the provision of needed infrastructure and public services. Land prices in informal settlements are often higher than in surrounding areas when allowance is made for the costs of infrastructure and public services. In informal settlements, a premium may be paid for the expectation of future regularization or upgrading. A lack of property title means buyers have no access to formal credit and sellers often allow instalment payments. The buyer gains access to land without the costs associated with building regulations and the seller is compensated for bringing land on to the market.

For example, UN-HABITAT (2005) reported that land value in Kisumu depends on many factors. Demand for residential properties has caused rapid change in Kisumu and valuation data may not reflect the market values of land parcels. However, generalizing the land value distribution based on the valuation roll provides an overview. An expanding inner city and peri-urban area resulted in higher land values in the slum belt, making it more expensive for the local authority to purchase land for the development of access networks (UN-HABITAT, 2005).

Resolving disputes over land valuePoor estimates of the value of a property often lead to disputes. These include disputes over the amount of compensation paid for the resettlement of communities or individuals away from their pre-disaster land, and disputes relating to claims for compensation for the direct or indirect impact of a disaster on land or livelihoods. For example, a community that hosts a resettled community may experience a decline in the value of its property.

Government land acquisition was a major cause of land disputes in Aceh following the 2004 tsunami. A number of roads were blockaded at various times by disgruntled residents who had not received compensation. Other disputes arose as land values in areas slated for infrastructure or resettlement activity substantially increased following the disaster. Landholder expectations for compensation were significantly greater than the official valuations for their land (Fitzpatrick and Zevenbergen, 2008).

66


ConCLuDIng CoMMEnTs

The value of land is an important element of the information required during much of the process of emergency response, recovery and reconstruction. It supports cost–benefit decisions during recovery planning, and helps to protect the rights of people resettled following a disaster. Making decisions on land tenure, land valuation and land-use planning controls are some of the major roles of land administration, which are important post-disaster. Information on the value of land and buildings is critical for all property-related decisions. Valuation underpins property taxation, which generates an important source of income for government. Equally, decisions to offer tax concessions during the response and recovery phase can remove disincentives to rebuild.

This paper has discussed some of the significant barriers to valuation that exist post-disaster and these should be considered in DRR programmes. Responsible governance of land also requires effective and transparent valuation systems and guidance is now provided in the Voluntary Guidelines and the World Bank Land Governance Assessment Framework.

The value of land is an important element of the information required during much of the process of emergency response, recovery and reconstruction

67


REfEREnCEs

Aluko, B., Omisore, E. & Amidu, A. 2008. Valuation of Yoruba Sacred Shrines, Monuments, and Groves for Compensation. In “Indigenous Peoples and Real Estate Valuation”, pp. 145–173 Research Issues in Real Estate, Volume 10.

Baas, S., Ramasamy, S., de Pryk, J. & Battista, F. 2008. Disaster risk management systems analysis: A guide book, Environment and Natural Resource Management Series, No. 3, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.

Bannerman, S. 1993. The ransom method of compensation claims in PNG, World Valuation Congress V, Auckland, New Zealand.

Bannerman, S. & Ogisi, F. 1994. Valuation of customary land in Papua New Guinea (PNG) - principles versus local realities, FIG - International Federation of Surveyors XX Congress, Commission 9, Melbourne, Australia, 5-12 March 1994.

Bevere, L. & Grollimund, B. 2012. Lessons from recent major earthquakes – January 2012, Swiss Reinsurance Company Limited, Economic Research & Consulting Limited, http://media.swissre.com/documents/Exp_Pub_Lessons_from_recent_major_earthquakes.pdf.

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. 2013. Purchase offer supporting information for residential red zone, http://cera.govt.nz/sites/default/files/common/residential-red-zone-purchase-offer-supporting-information-booklet-20130327.pdf.

Correa, E., Ramirez, F. & Sanahuja, H. 2011. Populations at risk of Disaster: A Resettlement Guide, World Bank and GFDRR, Washington, http://www.gfdrr.org/gfdrr/sites/gfdrr.org/files/publication/resettlement_guide_150.pdf.

Dale, P., Mahoney, R. & McLaren, R. 2007. Land Markets and the modern economy, RICS Research.

Earthquake Commission. 2012. Annual Report 2011-2012, http://www.eqc.govt.nz/sites/public_files/eqc-ann-report-2012.pdf.

Eleazar, F., Garcia, B., Guiang, E., Herrera, A., Isorena, L., Ravanera, R. & Serote, E. 2013. Improving Land Sector Governance in the Philippines: Implementation of Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF), http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTLGA/Resources/Philippines_Final_Report.pdf.

FAO. 2002. Rural Property Tax Systems in Central and Eastern Europe, Land Tenure Studies No. 5, Rome, http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/Y4313E/Y4313E00.HTM.

FAO. 2004. Decentralization and Rural Property Taxation, Land Tenure Studies No. 7, Rome, http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5444e/y5444e00.htm.

68


FAO. 2009. Compulsory acquisition of land and compensation, FAO Land Tenure Studies No. 10, Rome, http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0506e/i0506e00.htm.

FAO. 2011. Resilient Livelihoods – Disaster Risk Reduction for Food and Nutrition Security Framework Programme, Rome.

FAO/CFS. 2012. Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security, Rome.

Fitzpatrick, D. & Zevenbergen, J. 2008. Addressing Land Issues after Natural Disasters: A Study of the Tsunami Disaster in Aceh, Indonesia.

Griffiths-Charles, C. 2012. Land Tenure and Disaster Risk Management in St. Lucia, Case Study, Preparatory activities for the Regional Training Seminar on Land Tenure and Natural Disasters in the Caribbean, The Engineering Institute of the University of the West Indies.

Hassan, A. 2001. Review of Local Government Rating System in Fiji, A Preliminary Study, Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Annual Conference, Adelaide, 21 – 24 January 2001.

IPCC. 2012. Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, (eds.) Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley.

Jha, A., Barenstein, D., Phelps, P., Pittet, D. & Sena, S. 2010. Safer Homes, Stronger Communities A Handbook for Reconstructing after Natural Disasters, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, Washington DC.

Kaidzu, M. 2011. East Japan Earthquake and Topics related to Land management, presentation to the FIG Commission 7 Annual Meeting, Innsbruck, 2011.

Lloyd-Jones, T., Kalra, R., Mulyawan, B. & Theis, M. 2009. The Built Environment Professions in Disaster Risk Reduction and Response: A guide for humanitarian agencies, RICS, ICE, RIBA, RTPI, MLC Press, University of Westminster.

Lowry, W.V. 1987. Indian lands: a peculiar market, Canadian Appraiser, vol. 31, issue 1 pp. 30–32.

Mitchell, D. 2010. Land Tenure and Disaster Risk Management, Land Tenure Journal, 1–10, pp. 121–141, June 2010.

Munro-Faure, P. 2012. Property Appraisal and Taxation in the ECA Context: Why and How?, Presentation in the ECA Land E-Learning Session: Property Valuation and Taxation, World Bank, Sept 12, 2012, http://worldbankva.adobeconnect.com/p378nwj5r02/.

Myers, M. 2002. Current Valuation Practices: Thorn or Olive Branch in Reducing Land Tenure Conflict? In South Pacific Land Tenure Conflict Symposium, University of The South Pacific, Suva, Fiji Island.

69


Quan, J. & Dyer, N. 2008. Climate Change and Land Tenure: The Implications of Climate Change for Land Tenure and Land Policy, FAO Land Tenure Working Paper 2, IIED (International Institute for Environment and Development) and Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich.

Stanfield, J., Akuno, K., Campanella, R., Clark, A., Duval-Diop, D., Finger, D., Hardin, M., Koritz, A., Lovett, J., Marcello, D., Quigley, B., Rose, K., Sathe, O., Twitchell, K. & Walker, N. 2008. The Challenges of Sudden Natural Disasters for Land Administration and Management: The Case of the Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, UN-HABITAT, http://www.terrainstitute.org/pdf/CASE%20STUDY_revised.pdf.

Sullivan, N. & Grant, D.B. 2012. Valuation in post earthquake Christchurch, presentation to FIG Working Week, 7-11 May 2012, Rome, Italy.

Syahid, H. 2011. Land Administration and Disaster Risk Management: Case of Earthquake in Indonesia. Faculty of Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation of the University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands (MSc thesis).

UN-HABITAT/FAO/CWGER/GLTN. 2010. Land and Natural Disasters: Guidance for Practitioners, Nairobi.

UN-HABITAT. 2011. Cities and Climate Change: Global Report on Human Settlements 2011, Nairobi.

UNISDR. 2005. Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters, in World Conference for Disaster Reduction. 2005. Kobe, Hyogo, Japan.

> ©

fra

ncis

Roy

71


>1 14

PLanIfICaTIon DE L'uTILIsaTIon DEs TERREs PouR La gEsTIon DEs RIsquEs DE CaTasTRoPhE

LanD usE PLannIng foR DIsasTER RIsK ManagEMEnT

francis RoyDépartement des sciences géomatiques, Université Laval, Québec, [email protected]

yaïves ferlandDépartement des sciences géomatiques, Université Laval, Québec, [email protected]

PLanIfICaCIón DEL uso DE La TIERRa a favoR DE La gEsTIón DEL RIEsgo DE DEsasTREs

72

R é s u M é

aMénagEMEnT Du TERRIToIRE

RégIMEs fonCIERs


vuLnéRaBILITé

CaRTogRaPhIE DEs RIsquEs

ZonagE

noRMEs DE ConsTRuCTIon

PaRTICIPaTIon CIToyEnnE

sExosPéCIfICITé

L’aménagement du territoire (ADT) est considéré à l’heure actuelle comme l’une des meilleures pratiques au cœur de la gestion des risques de catastrophe, pouvant améliorer la sécurité et la résilience des populations touchées. Grâce à une politique d’ADT, une communauté peut prendre en compte les risques de catastrophe et leur site

a B s T R a C T

LanD-usE PLannIng

LanD TEnuRE


vuLnERaBILITy

RIsK MaPPIng

ZonIng

BuILDIng sTanDaRDs

PuBLIC PaRTICIPaTIon

gEnDER

Land-use planning (LUP) is currently considered to be one of the best practices at the core of natural Disaster Risk Management (DRM) that can improve the security and resilience of the people affected. With a LUP policy, a community can consider disaster risks and their spatial distribution, steer more sustainable land development and

s u M a R I o

PLanIfICaCIón DEL uso DE La TIERRa

TEnEnCIa DE La TIERRa


vuLnERaBILIDaD

CaRTogRafía DEL RIEsgo

ZonIfICaCIón

noRMas soBRE ConsTRuCCIón

PaRTICIPaCIón PoPuLaR

génERo

Actualmente se considera a la planificación del uso de la tierra una de las mejores prácticas al centro de la gestión del riesgo de desastres para aumentar la seguridad y la capacidad de resistencia de las personas afectadas. Gracias a una política de planificación del uso de la tierra, una comunidad puede tomar en cuenta los riesgos de catástrofes

land usE planninG For disastEr risk manaGEmEntFrancis roy, Yaïves Ferland

73

use, and reduce the vulnerability of poor people who are often settled on degraded sites with significant risks and constraints. FAO is deeply concerned about this issue, which is addressed in a comprehensive manner through the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure. The Voluntary Guidelines detail five proposals to government

d’apparition sur le territoire, planifier un développement et un usage plus durables des terres et réduire la vulnérabilité des plus démunis, qui sont souvent installés sur des sites dégradés soumis à des contraintes et des risques importants. La FAO est fortement préoccupée par cette question, qu’elle aborde de façon globale au travers des Directives

y su distribución espacial, dirigir un desarrollo y uso de la tierra más sostenible y reducir la vulnerabilidad de las personas pobres, quienes a menudo se asientan en lugares donde los riesgos y restricciones son considerables. La FAO está sumamente preocupada por esta cuestión, que se aborda de manera exhaustiva en todas sus Directrices


© f

ao

/Giu

sepp

e bi

zzar

ri

74

authorities in relation to LUP and its regulatory control by zoning.

In the context of natural DRM, LUP should be considered by government authorities as a procedure for pre-disaster prevention, mitigation, and preparedness for possible disasters, organization of emergency measures, coordination of recovery operations, displacement of populations and reconstruction. The planning process should then aim to reduce, during all phases of intervention, the risks associated with populations exposed to disaster.

LUP concerns land policy formulation, encompassing legal and technical implementation on the ground, a master plan and zoning. The act of planning may result in identification of risk areas and the determination of normative rules, which can prohibit land use or alter property and tenure rights.

The LUP process can improve the capacity of the poor and most disadvantaged by empowering them through public participation and collaborative decision-making. Public participation adds legitimacy and transparency to the process of policy formulation and programme development and promotes social acceptability. Moreover, LUP favours


volontaires pour une gouvernance responsable des régimes fonciers. Les Directives volontaires détaillent cinq propositions à l’intention des autorités gouvernementales concernant l’ADT et son contrôle réglementaire par l’emploi de la technique du zonage.

Dans le contexte de la gestion des risques de catastrophe, l’ADT doit être considéré par les autorités gouvernementales comme une procédure de prévention, d’atténuation et de préparation à d’éventuelles catastrophes, d’organisation des mesures à prendre en cas d’urgence, de coordination des opérations de relèvement, de déplacement des populations touchées et de reconstruction. L’aménagement doit ainsi viser à réduire, pendant toutes les phases d’intervention, les risques associés aux populations exposées à une catastrophe.

L’ADT permet la formulation de politiques foncières, en intégrant aussi la mise en œuvre technique et juridique sur le terrain, le plan directeur et le zonage. L’action d’aménager le territoire peut favoriser l’identification des zones à risque et la détermination de règles normatives, qui peuvent interdire l’utilisation des sols sur des sites

voluntarias sobre la gobernanza responsable de la tenencia. En las Directrices voluntarias se describen con detalle a las autoridades gubernamentales cinco propuestas en relación con la planificación del uso de la tierra y su control reglamentario por medio de la zonificación.

En el contexto de la gestión del riesgo de desastres naturales, las autoridades gubernamentales deberían considerar la planificación del uso de la tierra como un procedimiento para prevenir posibles catástrofes, mitigar sus efectos y prepararse para afrontarlas, organizar medidas de emergencia, coordinar operaciones de recuperación, desplazar a la población y llevar a cabo actividades de reconstrucción. Por tanto, la finalidad del proceso de planificación debería ser, en todas las fases de la intervención, reducir los riesgos asociados con las poblaciones que están expuestas a catástrofes.

La planificación del uso de la tierra supone la formulación de políticas de tierras y también abarca la aplicación jurídica y técnica de estas sobre el terreno, un plan maestro y una zonificación. Gracias a la planificación en sí pueden identificarse zonas de riesgo y determinarse reglamentos

75


désignés dangereux ou modifier la propriété et les droits fonciers.

Le processus d’ADT permet aussi d’améliorer les capacités des personnes pauvres et des populations les plus défavorisées en les rendant plus autonomes grâce à la participation citoyenne et la prise de décision collaborative. La participation citoyenne apporte de la légitimité et de la transparence au processus de formulation des politiques et des programmes de développement et promeut l’acceptabilité sociale. En outre, l’ADT favorise l’égalité entre les sexes, en prenant en considération les besoins ainsi que les capacités des femmes dans l’organisation spatiale des communautés.

Enfin, cet article tente de démontrer que la vulnérabilité subséquente aux catastrophes naturelles relève d’un triple caractère: une vulnérabilité géographique, liée aux risques et aux contraintes qui restreignent l’utilisation d’une zone, une vulnérabilité sociale, liée aux caractéristiques socioéconomiques de la population, et une vulnérabilité institutionnelle, correspondant aux ressources (souvent limitées) à disposition des communautés pour faire face aux risques et aux dangers associés à une catastrophe.

gender equality by taking into account the needs of women with respect to spatial arrangement of communities.

Finally, this article attempts to demonstrate that vulnerability following natural disasters has a threefold nature: geographic vulnerability linked to the risks and constraints that limit use of a site, social vulnerability related to the socio-economic characteristics of the population, and institutional vulnerability consistent with the resources (often limited) available to communities to face the risks and dangers associated with a disaster.

normativos, que pueden prohibir el uso de la tierra o alterar los derechos de tenencia y propiedad.

El proceso de planificación del uso de la tierra puede aumentar la capacidad de los pobres y los más desfavorecidos al empoderarlos por medio de la participación popular y un proceso colaborativo de adopción de decisiones. La participación popular otorga una mayor legitimidad y transparencia al proceso de formulación de políticas y desarrollo de programas y promueve la aceptabilidad social. Además, la planificación del uso de la tierra fomenta la equidad de género al tomar en consideración las necesidades de las mujeres.

Por último, en este artículo se intenta demostrar que la vulnerabilidad que generan las catástrofes naturales es de carácter triple: la vulnerabilidad geográfica relacionada con los riesgos y restricciones que limitan el uso de un lugar, la vulnerabilidad social vinculada a las características socieconómicas de la población y la vulnerabilidad institucional congruente con los recursos (a menudo limitados) de los que disponen las comunidades para enfrentarse a los riesgos y peligros relacionados con una catástrofe.

1 14

76


InTRoDuCTIon

This paper presents an overview of land-use planning (LUP) as a policy approach for effective land tenure that can be applied by authorities and communities to reduce hazards and improve resilience and recovery after natural disasters. It summarizes a research report by Roy et al. (2013), which provided a conceptual basis for implementing section 20 of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (FAO/CFS, 2012) concerning regulated spatial planning (RSP). A key LUP issue is that poor people often have informal tenure and are vulnerable to natural disasters, especially if dwellings are fragile and installed on high risk sites in unplanned areas, and where food security and health are consequently threatened. Vulnerability denotes exposure to risk and an inability to avoid or absorb potential harm (Pelling, 2003).

Over recent years this concern has grown in academic research, scientific literature, case studies, conferences, official reports, and on-line training material (El-Masri and Tipple, 2002; Jha et al., 2010; Williamson et al., 2010; Correa et al., 2011; November and Leanza, 2015; UNISDR, 2015). Many international initiatives have tried to link land tenure with natural Disaster Risk Management (DRM), public health and food security. Information on land tenure and DRM has been produced by organizations including FAO, FIG, IFRC, the UN and WBG1 covering a wide range of thematic and regional interests.

Within a DRM framework, LUP can help address core land issues identified in FAO’s Land Tenure Manual, Assessing and Responding to Land Tenure Issues in Disaster Risk Management (Mitchell, 2011), by acting on a three-part vulnerability:

>> Geographical vulnerability, addressed by measures to support pre-disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness phases. Identification and mapping of risky and disaster-prone areas, integration of natural disaster risks into zoning plans, land-use regulations, land trusts or reserves and building codes.

1 Respectively: Fédération internationale des géomètres, International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, the United Nations, the World Bank Group.

77


>> Social vulnerability, needing measures to support post-disaster emergency response, recovery, reconstruction and resettlement phases, based on pre-disaster information dissemination and training, public participation, alternative titling, facilities design and gender equity.

>> Institutional vulnerability, precluding efficient decision-making processes, public participation, social acceptance, geospatial information provision, land-use control and monitoring, regulation enforcement and adaptive planning.

Because it might rely strongly on strategic planning and public participation, rather than on expert knowledge and policy, LUP must be considered as both a community disaster-preparedness process and a spatial risk mapping and management approach. After passing through an LUP process, a local community becomes more aware of the nature and location of natural disaster risks that can affect land, properties, and livelihoods. LUP is then characterized by the production of rational knowledge of every aspect of land features and spatial location, the establishment of a juridical-political framework to support public decision-making processes for adopting land tenure policies and land-use regulations, and finally, performing field operations. However, implementing an LUP approach for DRM may be problematic in countries where local communities and land-related institutions are weak and lack resources.

Following the trend of recent FAO and UN publications on the topic of natural disasters and land tenure, our objective is to improve local community awareness about land-use administration and planning with respect to actual or potential land tenures. We intend to assist in orientation to consider initiatives within a DRM process, during all phases of disaster risk reduction (DRR) that foresee major types of emergency following a natural disaster. LUP can establish and empower legal opportunities and restrictions for exercising land rights. Improving land tenure security with LUP, even in the simple case of a titleholder in an informal dwelling, preserves access to housing and productive land. It also reduces the loss that future disasters could cause to all holders of housing, land, and property rights, including owners, renters, farmers and even squatters, in particular the most vulnerable groups in the community, such as women.

78


DIsasTER RIsK ManagEMEnT anD LanD-usE PLannIng

In the publication Land and Natural Disasters (UN-HABITAT, 2010) it says that causes of disaster vulnerability are in many respects related to land administration issues, which may be amplified by human behaviours like negligence and speculation, namely: deficient land tenure systems, technocratic LUP, inappropriate distribution of land uses and overexposed human settlements (Baas et al., 2008; November and Leanza, 2015). Sustainable solutions should therefore proceed from good land governance, policies and practices.

“Addressing land issues after a natural disaster can promote resilience by providing (1) secure access and rights to land, especially land for shelter and livelihoods; and (2) effective land use and settlement planning, particularly so as to build back better and safer after a disaster.”

(un-Habitat, 2010)

LUP is both a volunteered collective approach and a local authoritative decision-making process that integrates natural risks and sensitive social concerns into institutional, communal, customary and legal arrangements. The goal is to establish and enforce prohibitions over disaster-prone areas and legal restrictions or alternatives over exercise of land rights. Post-disaster rehabilitation programmes and reconstruction projects should also improve land tenure security by enforcing strict development rules and building standards, in accordance with the assessed level of risks at particular sites.

In the context of DRM, LUP must not be reduced to its sole legal and technical components, such as urban planning maps and zoning regulations. Instead, LUP proposes a comprehensive approach that supports DRM by public land and housing policy formulation, land-use allocation, land distribution and titling, transparent investment, implementation of construction standards, social awareness and acceptance based on public participation (GIZ, 2011). LUP also borrows effective methods and concepts from land-use administration, which implies a strong connection to a range of adapted land tenure possibilities allowed by the law, according to an appropriate juridical system such as common law or civil code and concordance with local customary law and socio-cultural practices.

Causes of disaster vulnerability are in many respects related to land administration issues, which may be amplified by human behaviours

79


In accordance with the Voluntary Guidelines for RSP, the efficiency of preparedness for emergency and resettlement strategies, and preventive actions, depend on comprehensive public participation and information in an LUP process before a disaster occurs. By participating and expressing its views on a decision-making process, a vulnerable population contributes to its empowerment by becoming risk-aware. Hence, responsible authorities can develop LUP proposals and review spatial plans that will ensure, transparently, that priorities and interests of communities are taken into account if, based on risk assessment, decisions made on restricting land use and resettlement become necessary. Participation for preparedness contrasts with emergency decisions made under pressure without a plan. This could include demolishing damaged buildings, restricting access to contaminated land and relocating affected residents to more viable plots. Public participation is recognized as a proven means to encourage social acceptance and awareness of enforced policies on preventive actions, risky planning, title renewal and alternatives for resettlement (that could also be preventive, not only reactive) (Correa et al., 2011). LUP proposals must also be gender sensitive and adopt a pro-poor approach.

LUP could be defined as the collective practice of choosing, for risk reduction, the best location for a particular land use (e.g. residential) and the optimal use for a particular location. A systematic LUP process identifies disaster-prone areas (the risk of natural disaster and the extent of vulnerable social groups), by mapping such areas (the delimited locations) in order to allocate specific uses and enforce legal land-use and construction conditions. It should also identify other areas for appropriate relocation of vulnerable residents.

To maximize opportunities for efficient post-disaster recovery and rehabilitation, one must prepare in advance the conditions of resilience among the populations and institutions (World Bank, 2012, 2013). That means that preparedness and foresight are congruent and consistent with local culture, institutional arrangements and physical resources on site. Public authorities can then introduce new laws and regulations in line with social and cultural practices, particularly with respect to housing, livelihoods, tenure and agriculture.

LUP strengthens local resilience through public participation in designing socially acceptable solutions. This relates in particular to food, water and energy supply disruption and should be integrated within land-use policies that support recovery of local food production to minimize the consequences

80


of the disaster in the short- and mid-term (FAO, 2011). As a socio-economic issue, resilience must be addressed, developed and articulated using practical and adaptive principles and policies. Densely populated regions and urban centres are usually not suitable for rapid resettlement and resumption of former activities and LUP must be adapted to such circumstances (Angel et al., 2011). By reducing the population in risky areas, urban planning could reduce vulnerability to natural disasters while preserving the most productive land for agriculture. However, by doing so, LUP could be opposed by those with property rights and legal interests in the land, and who claiming compensation for loss in value, benefits, and potential development. However, those living in risky zones could argue against plans to move out because of mispricing the risk (UNISDR, 2015) and the potential financial impacts of a disaster on their assets. These issues should be dealt with using LUP positive externalities (Deininger, 2003), such as decreasing local vulnerability, raising resilience to disaster, reducing damage and placing more emphasis on real value.

Concerns about reducing the risks associated with natural disasters are not exclusive to poor regions, although their populations are often more vulnerable. Generally, however, the at-risk populations of developed countries are well prepared and can recover from disasters relatively rapidly, with fewer casualties, because of strong institutional and financial capabilities (El-Masri and Tipple, 2002).

LUP contributes substantially to pre-disaster and post-disaster phases because natural disasters are often closely associated with specific geographical areas (sea coast, steep slopes, desert, wetlands, canyons, faults, storm paths). LUP aims at implementing good governance of occupied land and social and economic development. It should take into account the spatial extension and location of natural disaster risks and numerous potential hazards, as well as the cumulative consequences of disasters according to their land configuration and vulnerability. Examples from Madagascar (November and Leanza, 2015), Viet Nam (Birkmann et al., 2014), Pacific island countries (Mitchell, 2014), and Peru (Leandro and Miranda, 2000) present different DRM cases that strengthened land policies and increased community preparedness for disasters.

81


LanD-usE PLannIng To suPPoRT gooD LanD govERnanCE

Good Land Governance (GLG) is recognized as a basis for human development and the creation of sustainable living environments (UN-ESC, 1998; McCarney and Stren, 2003). It can be defined strictly as a continuous political process, concerned with multi-level public decision-making related to land administration and land development. GLG is comprehensive, aiming at coordinating and harmonizing public, community and private interests in land, livelihoods, housing and real estate (FAO/CFS, 2012). Its practice relies on a coordinated approach to land tenure, LUP, land allocation, land valuation and land information systems. GLG concerns spatial distribution of land uses, infrastructure provision, public facilities and networks, economic development, social acceptability, environmental impact assessment, natural risk consideration, public participation, monitoring and readjustment processes. GLG is linked with LUP in that every use, construction, and facility must be located carefully, trying to minimize future conflicts over use and to reduce risks associated with specific areas (e.g. riparian lots).

GLG comes under the jurisdiction of numerous levels of public authority because it refers to political decision-making processes for allocating and collectively managing land resources and providing necessary means to plan and enforce policies. It encompasses issues related to urban and rural land development, forests, watercourses, minerals, infrastructures, heritage, and environmental degradation. GLG regards territory as a whole and applies to both private and public lands, irrespective of tenures and geographical scales. GLG requires both political stability and democratic participation (Gilbert, 1996).

According to the subsidiarity principle of governance (Marshall, 2008; Colombo, 2012), GLG responsibilities are distributed among various public authorities concerned with the issue. While the protection of the territory and environment, the public domain, land policies, legislation and funding all reside in the hands of the state, LUP operations on the ground are decentralized according to circumstances prevailing at the local level. Meanwhile, in order to manage land problems and control land development,

while the protection of the territory and environment, the public domain, land policies, legislation and funding all reside in the hands of the state, LuP operations on the ground are decentralized according to circumstances prevailing at the local level

82


government departments and institutional agencies provide services, support and information according to their specific mandates. Even if all are involved in LUP in preparing for disasters, coordination of emergency activities in a post-disaster period must be the responsibility of a single authority. Without central coordination authority, time and resources can be wasted in the aftermath of a disaster because of disorganization and turmoil.

LUP is useful for managing public lands, especially in ensuring that resource allocation and exploitation benefits neighbouring communities and does not create unforeseen negative impacts on habitats and the local economy. Because LUP is a voluntary approach and process it can be adapted according to local customs to prevent land shortages, deforestation or invasive settlement.

As a component of GLG, LUP contributes to effective land organization and management by paying close attention to private land-use rights and granting titles. Examples include, attribution to a family or a clan, overlapping of non-conflicting uses, timely restricted seasonal rights of way and control of intensive production to prevent environmental degradation. LUP must also be adaptive, evolving according to new situations that result from, for example, natural disasters and climate change (Birkmann et al., 2014; Edwards, 2014).

LanD-usE PLannIng wITh REfEREnCE To ThE voLunTaRy guIDELInEs

The ultimate purpose of LUP is to design and adopt regulations and technical standards for effective implementation of a land policy. This is generally done by legally restricting, through zones or districts, land and tenure rights to certain types of usage. The regulations and technical standards must be first consistent with other local policies. Then, as part of GLG, LUP represents the comprehensive political approach (land-use policies) to decide collectively legal aspects (land-use regulations) and technical issues (land-use standards). Implementation of LUP policies through legal and technical processes, methods and tools refers to an RSP. According to the World Bank:

83


“[LUP] helps identify the preferred land uses that will support local development goals. The final outcome is allocation and zoning of land for specific uses, regulation of the intensity of use, and formulation of legal and administrative instruments that support the plan.”

(Jha et al., 2010)

This definition underlines that LUP aims at improving physical, economic and social conditions of a community by facilitating better collective decisions about land-use allocation and distribution. LUP is also guided by continuously changing circumstances (climate change, population growth, urban sprawl, desertification, etc.) that affect land-use patterns and their regulation. LUP subsequently allows a systematic assessment of land potential, in order to select, adopt and put into practice the best land-use options to meet the real needs of the people and safeguard resources for the future. Section 20 of the Voluntary Guidelines presents LUP and RSP as activities that legally affect tenure rights by constraining their exercise and the associated land use. According to subsection 20.1:

“States should conduct regulated spatial planning, and monitor and enforce compliance with those plans, including balanced and sustainable territorial development, in a way that promotes the objectives of these guidelines.”

(fao/cfs, 2012)

This refers to complex and continuously changing conditions that determine LUP and RSP, underlying the interconnected and intrinsic relationships among all components of a territory (fields, forests, water bodies, built areas, roads) and general or specific jurisdictions shared across many authority levels and departments:

“States should strive towards reconciling and prioritizing public, community and private interests and accommodate the requirements for various uses, such as rural, agricultural, nomadic, urban and environmental. Spatial planning should consider all tenure rights, including overlapping and periodic rights. Appropriate risk assessments for spatial planning should be required [and] coordinated.”

(fao/cfs, 2012)

84


RSP is more practical in operating norms, procedures and techniques to implement LUP political decisions and regulations. Legal standards and norms affect land use, parcel subdivision, construction, equipment and infrastructure provisions. Zoning techniques provide a complete division of a jurisdictional territory into zones, where specific legal standards, norms and specifications are compulsory. Monitoring procedures apply to building permits, site inspections and standards readjustment.

CoordinationBeing a comprehensive approach, LUP raises important issues regarding coordination among different authorities that share inclusive or exclusive jurisdictions over a delimited territory. In the context of a natural disaster emergency, poor coordination among competing authorities can increase the magnitude and severity of a disaster. As recalled by FAO/CFS (2012), it is highly desirable that ways of inter-institutional collaboration and logical responsibility-sharing processes be managed among different government entities, and different levels of authority (national, regional, metropolitan, local) (El-Masri and Tipple, 2002), diverging orientations, agendas, resources and budgets. In most developing countries the LUP mandate depends on departments that operate in different ministries than those responsible for DRM and there can be little active coordination. Even during normal business there is often competition, jealousy, or mutual ignorance with regard to diverse land interests (transportation, environment, agriculture, housing, commerce, etc.). Prime importance must also be attached to “indigenous peoples and other communities with customary tenure systems, and decision-making processes within those communities” (FAO/CFS, 2012). Concern is similarly acute in situations where an actual settlement is at risk or is coveted by authorities for redevelopment.

Some specific examples are reported for Madagascar (November and Leanza, 2015), with improved coordination of the production and dissemination of information among actors and responsible authorities in the context of disaster relief. In Saguenay, Canada, after the 1996 major flash flooding (an estimated 10 000-year flood recurrence), coordination and reconstruction of all public utilities and infrastructures at any level were put in the hands of a single mandatory agent, the Ministry of Transportation (Proulx, 1998).

85


state responsibilityLUP is a fundamental responsibility of the state to promote equitable, acceptable, desirable and sustainable land allocation and development throughout its territory. It aims to describe a desirable vision of the future and to identify the actions and resources needed to reach it. A strategic LUP approach includes zoning regulations, technical and human resources, budgets and schedules for a long period of time. Political decisions can either be justified by some land uses not being preferred or initiating too much conflict (generating negative impacts on a neighbourhood, such as putting heavy industry in a residential zone) or the area being risky, limiting its use (e.g. water catchment areas).

Risk assessmentLUP is also about risk assessment, constraint identification and contingencies for particular zones or locations (FAO/CFS, 2012). For example, regarding unstable soil (risk of landslide), buildings could be limited to a maximum of one storey, and industrial uses forbidden. Absent or minimal LUP could lead to a situation where settlements and buildings are authorized (or not prohibited) in areas not suited to that use increasing vulnerability (World Bank, 2008; ONU, 2012).

Building in risky areasPopulation growth and rapid urbanization create a situation where poor people face problems of access to land and house building. Often, they have no option other than to settle in empty land in risky areas. This puts pressure on land not suited for such purposes, as explained by Ndiaye (2015) in the case study of regular flooding in Pikine, a borough of Dakar, Senegal. If authorities do not restrict building in such disaster-prone areas the risk is high that disadvantaged people settle on vacant land and become increasingly vulnerable.

The erection of tall buildings in seismic areas, rather than single storey residential units, can be hazardous and result in increased numbers of casualties in the eventuality of buildings collapsing. Enforcement of building standards, adapted to risk-prone conditions, including anti-seismic construction methods (Hamada, 2014), reduces vulnerability and accelerates recovery.

often, the poor have no option other than to settle in empty land in risky areas. This puts pressure on land not suited for such purposes

86


Prospective approachWithout enforcement of coercive and legal LUP measures to organize urban development, anarchical initiatives can prevail. Local institutions must exercise legal authority, administer, organize, mobilize fiscal and financial resources, employ specialized personnel, and use RSP technical instruments to ensure that land-use policies and technical standards are enforced and respected by the population. This can be done through issuing building permits, carrying out field inspections, submitting development plans, mapping and using remote sensing imagery and aerial photos. Provision of geospatial information is nowadays a fundamental aspect of LUP, which can have various specific objectives:

>> Avoid neighbouring conflicting uses (as residential and industrial).>> Reduce nuisance sources (odour, noise, dust, heat, waste water).>> Identify land development objectives for short, middle and long term.>> Impose legal restrictions on land uses.>> Maintain land value in a homogeneous zone by prohibiting conflicting uses.>> Reduce disaster impacts through risk assessment and risk mapping.

In developing countries, national and international assistance is compulsory to compensate for local resources shortages in LUP and operational implementation.

Public participationThe Voluntary Guidelines list public consultation and participation as one of the ten principles for implementation of responsible and good land governance of tenure, followed by important elements of LUP and regulated spatial planning. Public participation is engagement in seeking the support of those people who are affected by LUP decisions. It takes “ into consideration existing power imbalances between different parties and ensuring active, free, effective, meaningful and informed participation of individuals and groups in associated decision-making processes.” (FAO/CFS, 2012)

Public participation provides legitimacy, transparency and social acceptance of comprehensive DRM programming, including preventive actions, relocation schemes and resettlement plans. It addresses preparedness and should be initiated before a natural disaster affects a community. If not, DRR decisions

Public participation provides legitimacy, transparency and social acceptance of comprehensive DRM programming

87


are made quickly under pressure when the required public consultation becomes impossible. Furthermore, DRM complex decision-making relies not just on rational or expert knowledge on risk assessment and vulnerability reduction, but it strengthens individual and community resilience and capacities to react safely in an emergency situation and to comply with authorities in recovery activities.

Public participation should be integrated into final LUP decisions, in land tenure and use rights, in master plans and zoning maps, and in monitoring LUP implementation and community response and adaptation. The principle of community acceptance and prevention of corruption is expressed in the Voluntary Guidelines subsection 20.4:

“[a] wide public participation in the development of planning proposals and the review of draft spatial plans ensures that priorities and interests of communities, including indigenous peoples and food-producing communities, are reflected. States should endeavour to prevent corruption by establishing safeguards against improper use of spatial planning powers, particularly regarding changes to regulated use. Implementing agencies should report on results of compliance monitoring.”

(fao/cfs, 2012)

Nevertheless, public participation can be disappointing when community members or leaders do not behave as stakeholders of the LUP process. Local authority must encourage public participation by advocating LUP.

LanD-usE PLannIng as a CoMPonEnT of LanD TEnuRE

According to Dale and McLaughlin (1999), LUP is one of the three main components of land tenure administration, together with land tenure (real property or possession rights) and land valuation (mainly for taxation and conveyancing). Many professional and academic works (Williamson et al., 2010; Mitchell, 2011) link methodologically the global land tenure concept with what could easily be associated with a GLG approach. LUP is related to the exercise of land rights, mainly the usus (usages of and activities on a

88


possessed parcel-lot), but more rarely the fructus (benefits/gains/revenues) or the abusus (to dispose, mortgage, subdivide, or sell the estate), as these terms are referred to in civil law. Such legal principles concur with the Voluntary Guidelines subsection 20.1. LUP establishes legally what is politically and rationally preferred for any piece of land and what is forbidden or restricted (in a vulnerable area for instance). LUP aims either at segregating or harmonizing, if possible, different competing land uses in accordance with national, regional and local land policies.

As legal forms of land tenure are deeply embedded in the culture and socio-economic structure of a nation, and are developed and defined by practice over centuries, they are relatively stable and considered long-term. In the present post-colonial era, many emergent societies experience new forms of tenure and property introduced by a former power or new international agencies that operate in conjunction with the customary tenure. Forms of land tenure or property rights can be numerous within the same country, from the sovereign public domain down to individual private full-property, through commons, condominium, cooperative, tribal homeland and numerous possibly dismembered rights (tenancy, sharecropping, lease, emphyteusis, etc.)

LUP and land rights must be coordinated within a structured land tenure policy, in order not to create unnecessary (and otherwise avoidable) conflicts or, even worse, increase land risk vulnerability. For example, the land allocation authority (titling agency or county-level municipality) should enforce LUP legal restrictions over an identified flood-prone area and not grant any new right of possession, use, or full property over land-parcels located therein. In sectors where freehold land rights have already been granted without limitations, reconfiguration of land subdivision could be undertaken (as a land consolidation operation), so as to provide a parcel-lot pattern that allows the holders to build houses outside risky areas (Lakrikba, 2015). Public funding and technical assistance to construct safer homes (Jha et al., 2010) could be provided to poor communities to reduce exposure to disaster. Public infrastructures and equipment, such as water retention basins and dams, could also be installed at specific sites to lessen potential damage.

RSP affects tenure rights by legally constraining their future use, and then influences the land value (by preservation, development potential, depreciation,

89


expropriation) of similar land properties located in the vicinity. An unplanned increase in property value can lead to exclusion of the poorest segment of the population (by a too drastic rent increase), and leave them with no other choice than to settle in risky areas (UN-HABITAT, 2010). Without appropriate pro-poor land policies, a pro-development LUP could generate perverse effects and have dramatic social impacts.

Definition of the ‘bundle of rights’ metaphorFrom a North American Common Law perspective on property ownership, there is a complex set of inherent rights that affords to the real estate titleholder as it comes with the purchase of the property. The ‘bundle of rights’ metaphor was the way by which rights would have been awarded to a single owner or different owners. This metaphor, inspired by a ‘bundle of sticks’ in which each stick represents a particular right that can be separated and reassembled, is generally used for understanding and teaching some confused and contradictory facts about real estate, be it private (individual, family, corporation), community (condominium, tribal, etc.) or public domain. It easily illustrates how property can simultaneously be owned by multiple persons. The ‘bundle of rights’ implies legal rules specifying, authorizing, or restraining actions on the part of the particular owner of each right over the same thing within certain authorities’ lawful decisions for land-use administration.

The recognized rights over an object that the holder of a title has on a property include:

>> Possession – by whoever holds the title on the whole or a part of the thing.>> Control – of the uses of the property, within the limits and constraints of laws.

>> Exclusion – of any others from using or entering the property.>> Enjoyment – of the use of the property in any legal manner.>> Disposition – by the titleholder who can sell, trade, rent, or transfer ownership or use or enjoyment of the property at will.

The evidence of a title is a deed, a pledge, an act, or a register (or a combination of some of them as imposed by the custom or the law of the country). Legal evidence provided by any form of land title is a major issue

90


in a natural disaster context, to avoid people losing their right to a land asset after being displaced. Due to lack of legal evidence, poor people will voluntarily stay in destroyed areas so they can claim their rights physically. The 2010 earthquake recovery in Haiti shows this type of behaviour (Gouvernement d’Haïti and OEA, 2010). Haiti also demonstrates the need to protect land registry archives from natural disaster, as its land registry office was destroyed and all land files ruined.

The civil law dismemberments of the right of ownershipFrom a codified civil law perspective, the right of immoveable property (mostly on land and building, as real-estate) is considered as a whole, said absolute right (i.e. standing complete and alone by itself) with attribute characteristics that specify dismemberments of property into practicable named rights. The attributes or prerogatives are traditionally referred to as:

>> Usus – usage and control of the thing, said good as the object of right.>> Fructus – enjoyment of the good and of all it produces.>> Abusus – disposition of the good: to sell, give, cede, convey, transfer, divide, modify its nature, even destroy it.

>> Accessio – acquisition of all accessories related or necessary to own the good.

These property attributes do not match exactly, but cover sufficiently well, the legal rights forming the bundle in common law because the latter are rather functions or aspects of the ownership. The dismembered rights are defined by each jurisdiction’s civil code, in agencing the attributes at will, and are named for exact reference in deeds, for real-estate examples: lease, emphyteusis, antichresis, mortgage, usufruct, servitude, easement, etc. The owner of a property is not authorized to invent a new right in some contract with another person that is not existing and named in the civil code.

Under most civil codes, simple possession of land presumes its ownership, but the evidence of real-estate property and of any dismemberment is a title document like a deed, an act, or a certificate that must be registered by legal authorities (under forms established by the custom or the law) and identified in relationships with some sort of cadastral plan prepared and drawn up by an official division of the land administration.

91


Whether oriented towards civil law or common law, the decomposition of parts of property right are possible according to specified needs in the planning of some land tenures that can help to comply in both pre- and post-disaster situations. For instance, local authorities may issue a restricted title of occupation, superficies, habitation, or enjoyment to the resident of a piece of land among informal and fragile squatter dwellings in a floodplain, valid for the period until the next flooding, with warrant of replacement of the equivalent or improved housing on another safe site. The risky ground would remain public domain or the private property of an absent freehold owner. Hence, LUP plays its role extensively at both locations.

a LanD PoLICy DoCuMEnT CaLLED ThE MasTER PLan

A master plan is a comprehensive document on land development policy and general land allocation of a region, a county or a local community. Its general purpose is to express political preferences for land administration and translate and adapt national policies to regional and local regulations for land development and regulated spatial planning.

Many local issues related to land might be addressed through a master plan, including agricultural production and food security, watershed and water quality, natural disaster vulnerability, informal settlements, desertification, urban sprawl, etc. (Johnson, 2011). Relying on a political decision-making process, the master plan could state that a site is no longer secure for certain types of land use, building or infrastructure (due to erosion, flood, landslide, climate change, etc.), or a large area of fertile farmland will be protected from urban sprawl and against conflicting uses. But a master plan cannot be enforced against people living in risky areas without a well-defined mid-term relocation plan.

Frequently LUP political decisions are constrained by limiting factors such as flooding area, coastal erosion, soil instability, seismic risk and contaminated ground. Opportunities and circumstances are not totally independent and free of preferences (often personal). Land-use decisions reflect a sense of duty by taking into account the very nature of limiting factors and their impacts on land use. Master plans express both preferences and contingencies and illustrate the outline of spatial organization: the location of public equipment

92


and infrastructures, the configuration of road networks and most areas that are vulnerable to disaster. In a strategic planning approach, they should include some provisions for the resources needed for implementation and terms of shared responsibility among public authorities, private developers and citizens.

Design and adoption of a master plan is no longer restricted to experts and elected officials. It is now open to public participation and debate (Thwaites et al., 2007). It could be seen as a community training process oriented towards individual adherence to the final result. In the perspective of GLG, the strategic planning process itself provides the basis for social acceptance and legitimacy of land-use policies thereby adopted and enforced. In a DRM context, a master plan should contain provisions for:

>> Mapping disaster-prone and risky areas.>> Locating sites for rubble disposal and possibly sort and recycling.>> Locating potential zones for relocation and resettlement in the case of destruction.

>> Identifying evacuation areas and safe sites (with services like fresh water and health care) to avoid massive returns on ruined sites.

Local LUP practitioners must translate political objectives and decisions into legal and regulated restrictions that affect land property rights and uses. Even though GLG is highly political, the enforcement on the ground of master plans relies on such technical tools as zoning maps and norms, building standards and regulations. But risk cannot be eliminated (Oudot, 2005). A disaster-prone area will always be exposed to a certain level of risk, even though everything reasonable has been done by the authorities to identify a hazard and be prepared for a natural disaster. Even with the most detailed master plan, implemented with exhaustive land-use regulations, the resident population is generally aware that damage (and loss of life) resulting from an earthquake, tornado, hurricane, flood, etc. cannot be reduced to nothing. To foster their resilience, they should be involved in the preparation of different types of emergency scenario through participating in LUP public consultation.

Design and adoption of a master plan is no longer restricted to experts and elected officials. It is now open to public participation and debate

93


ThE TEChnIquE of ZonIng

Zoning is a technique that was developed in the 20th century in order to translate land-use policies (as expressed in master plans) into effective standards to be applied in the right place. Zoning refers to dividing a local territory into functional zones, and indicating the uses and constructions that would be permitted (or prohibited) therein. It aims at reducing potential conflicts between different types of functions (e.g., residential versus industrial uses). Zoning has two components, a zoning map and a set of regulations and standards enforcing specific legal constraints for each zone shown on that map (Elliott, 2008). Within DRR, zoning can map and enforce hazard risk regulations while discriminating and prohibiting certain uses and constructions in delimited zones at risk.

Zoning is an appropriate method to translate vulnerability into hazards in terms of spatial location and probable extension. Also, a community can reduce its assessed risk vulnerability for such serious issues as anarchic urbanization, watercourse deviation and over-weight construction in a probable landslide area. In some jurisdictions, conformity among national, regional and local LUP is compulsory. That means that risk issues must first be assessed and quantified by experts at the regional or county level, then be translated and integrated into local standards to exert coercive but adapted control of land use at the zone level of risks.

Legally speaking, zoning restricts some land property right uses, but the owner, like the neighbours, is tied to respect regulations on planned land uses. These might be prohibition to build a residence in a flood zone, strict control of permit conditions (like dimensions of parcel allotment), or an obligation to act in a certain way (such as to relocate to a new site after a certain period of time).

Expropriation for public works and land trust consolidation could also be considered as valid options when local authorities possess sufficient economic resources. The state could wisely invoke its ‘eminent domain’ for public safety purposes, with limited land uses clearly signified in the zoning plan, even if not for full expropriation as such. By new acts to adapt the land law, the state can reduce or convert the actual property rights or tenure rights

94


in order to split or remove them in the mid-term, with fair compensation. Holders of such partial but recognized rights would have priority for them and their assignees (including family and tenants) on preventive or forced relocation. After adoption of a local risk-zoning plan, the land value should drop and refusal by any owner of the compensation for keeping unmodified his/her property right could be considered as a waiver to claim monetary or human assistance in the case of a foreseen disaster occurring in that place.

Zoning restrictions related to vulnerable and risky areas might be enforced at least in three different ways: by restricting the use of land rights with coercive public regulations, by expressing provisions in land titles that create a private obligation to respect land-use restrictions and by keeping in the public domain of the state (or the community, or the tribe) those pieces of land identified as vulnerable and risky.

Zoning efficiency relies strongly on LUP and knowledge about land physical features such as geography and topography, type of soil, natural resources, infrastructures and networks, roads and settlements. It also needs good provision of cadastral information that describes for each piece of land its proper characteristics (area, boundaries, land rights and parcel association) and identifies its details to the owner (name, legal title, address). Zoning also supports the enforcement of building codes of standards. Every type of building must then be erected compliantly with specific standards, adapted to assure solidity and resistance to natural disasters, and consequently improving the security of people. Unfortunately, many houses in vulnerable developing country areas are not resistant to cyclones, earthquakes or floods. Without strong building codes, low quality dwellings can be easily and quickly rebuilt at low cost using local materials from destroyed houses.

gEnDER anD DIsPLaCED PERsons IssuEs

Land policies are about equitable access to land and housing, poverty reduction, gender equality, resettlement, etc. In a DRM context, integration of the gender dimension in all phases, from preparedness to reconstruction, is of prime importance. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red

95


Crescent Societies (IFRC, 2010; Enarson, 2009) stated pertinent and nuanced concepts to address gender equity and equality issues in disaster situations.

Paulo Sérgio Pinhero’s Principles (OCHA, 2007) concerning rights of refugees and displaced persons, particularly women, justify post-disaster policies and activities for reduction and recovery according to gender-sensitive, non-discriminatory land and housing laws and regulations on RSP (FAO/CFS, 2012). As such, Pinhero’s Principles became a source of international standards in support of the rights of populations affected by natural and/or man-made disasters that cannot return and recover their former homes and parcels. Otherwise, they may be involuntarily relocated to resettlement sites or camps despite their wish to return home when circumstances so warrant a durable solution, or who may have found temporary and unsustainable solutions to their displacement. Long-term displacement does not extinguish or de-legitimise restitution rights or compensation claims where it appears impossible to resettle due to impartial tribunal or authority decisions (OCHA, 2007).

The key element of restorative justice is compliant with the principle of equality of rights for returnee women in secure access to adequate housing, property and land. But compensation en lieu of return (in-kind and/or cash) or resettlement elsewhere are not automatically acceptable alternatives to restitution rights or physical recovery of original homes and lands. There are three key conditions to be met successively:1. When the restoration of damaged, destroyed or devastated houses and

lands is factually or materially impossible or dangerous. 2. When those possessing restitution rights voluntarily prefer

compensation-based solutions or resettlement; and even then, 3. Only following a determination to this effect by an impartial tribunal

or some legitimate and competent authority without vested interests in it. (OCHA, 2007)

The equality between men and women regarding use of, control of, and access to housing, parcel-lot and property rights, to legal security of tenure, as well as to equal and effective access to inheritance (or succession) is not just to reduce discrimination or implement positive action measures. A family residence or household right might include the conferral of explicit joint

96


and equal ownership or possession rights of both men and women as heads of the household within families, even to a single female adult, a widow or otherwise unaccompanied by a man. Authorities should recognize this in laws, programmes, policies and practices (OCHA, 2007). The current laws must foresee and put into practice an equality-of-rights procedure, among other reasons to prevent the consequences of disappearance of principal men (husband, father, uncle, brother and older son) for the family survivors in post-disaster emergency situations. That should give priority to informal residents in risky areas to get compensation, a more permanent relocation, or a permit to operate small-scale commerce, services or gardening on the new settlement site.

Preferably the types of customary laws regulating marriage, succession, estates and wills would evolve to merge with statutory laws such as civil codes or family, land or housing acts, at least as a supporting or parallel model of legal operation to handle difficult or emergency situations of land tenure and possession disputes. If not practical in statutory laws, competent LUP authorities might extend some kind of housing and place right to residents with fragile and informal tenures (in shanties, bidonvilles, favelas, etc.) and even to illegal squatter families where living in risky sites or zones. In the best public interest, they would concede to them at least minimal titling (e.g., census coupons), without prejudicial discrimination, in prevention and preparedness for a disaster, and then allowing secure access to basic shelter or priority resettlement in the case of relocation. A gender-sensitive approach in DRR initiatives, emergency relief and recovery programmes acknowledges differences in livelihoods, distinct needs and coping strategies between women and men, and takes specific measures to accelerate de facto equality when necessary (FAO/CFS, 2012). Whatever their civil/marital status, enhancing women’s socio-economic and legal status improves individual, family and community resilience regarding hazards and disasters. Women’s views, needs and priorities concerning security, shelter, water supply, sanitation and child care, must be directly heard and recognized by DRM authorities, without using double standards in situation assessment and decision-making.

The challenges are four-fold: preparedness, security, participation and empowerment. Gendered vulnerabilities impede the capacity of households

The challenges are four-fold: preparedness, security, participation and empowerment

97


and whole communities to anticipate, survive, resist and recover from disasters. For example, specific outreach strategies may ensure that relief assistance reaches female-headed households as a priority where the mobility of women is socially or practically restrained. Particular services and activities must be designed and implemented specifically by and for women, especially mothers and grandmothers.

It is a vital strategy that DRM and LUP directors hire women representatives, civil servants and agents in order to proceed correctly with policies and programmes that take into consideration the ideas, feelings and observations of grassroots women about themselves, families and their community. Comprehension by other women is more effective, complete and adapted because collected data, analyses and reports are both objective and subjective. That leads towards desired gender equality, particularly for competency development, social adaptation and empowerment opportunities within most normal pre-disaster situations, including public participation. It becomes imperative that gender-equity, in the emergency and panic situations of a disaster, assumes relationships between authorities and impacted women by other women who understand intimately the survival strategies.

Other main aspects of the gender-sensitive perspective that the DRM administrators can implement in both preparedness and recovery contexts should be:

>> Titling and registration documents must adapt their vocabulary to the level of literacy of the local population, mainly in countries where female education is still weak.

>> Access to and supply of water for drinking, cooking, washing, sanitation and gardening. In most traditional cultures, water is still directly associated with women and installation of wells, tanks and drains in the most convenient places and situations in accordance with the women’s needs as wardens of the vital resource for themselves, families and communities.

>> Access to emergency money (to prevent black market inflation) or ration coupons, micro-credit instruments and insurance indemnities must be quickly provided to support economic circulation for traditional or emergent activities, usually performed by women (handcraft, proximity commerce, personal services, gardening, schooling etc.).

98


ConCLusIon

There is no doubt that LUP is now at the very core of DRM and post-disaster policies and programmes of action. Its very significant contribution is recognized by many organizations, including FAO, FIG, the Red Cross, the World Bank, and the United Nations. Embedded within the broader scope of land tenure, LUP contributes to geographical knowledge production, social empowerment and institutional capacity strengthening. Its practice relies on land allocation and use distribution, risk mapping and zoning, construction control, public participation, gender equity, sustainable decision-making, land policy monitoring and dispute resolution over competing land uses.

In the context of DRM, LUP supports a large range of activities, including pre-disaster prevention, mitigation and preparedness phases, as well as post-disaster emergency response, recovery, reconstruction and resettlement phases. It also contributes to reducing a triple vulnerability, geographical, related to spatially located risks, social, characterized by powerlessness of a poor population, and institutional, created by weak policy and legal arrangements, obscure decision-making processes and resource scarcity.

Successful LUP greatly depends on strong institutions and good land governance. The implementation of participatory planning decisions and legal land use restrictions represent the key factor to success. Collaborative and responsive planning is far more preferable than authoritative planning. The main objective is not to draft technocratic plans, but to strengthen local capacities and to influence positively the behaviour of people when settling themselves and reacting to a natural disaster. Going through the process of participative planning, a local population gains more knowledge about their community, its development potentials and limitations, its land issues and its vulnerability to natural disasters. By using an open decision-making process, LUP has a direct positive influence on local populations to adopt sustainable behaviours towards their land, neighbours and community.

Natural disaster management has more to do with people than with land. LUP should be applied in order to make people more responsive to natural disaster issues, and more compliant in reacting in an orderly manner to emergency plans for evacuation, relocation, and resettlement. It should also

99


contribute to shaping a more sustainable, adaptive, and resilient community, especially when exposed to hazards.

The final message is that LUP might be very procedural and technocratic, depending on expert knowledge for risk assessment and mapping, but it is, by its local political nature, fundamentally a social empowerment approach and process based on public participation, gender equity, community-based DRM, and collaborative emergency and resettlement planning and design.

100


REfEREnCEs

Angel, S., Parent, J. , Civico, D. L. & Blei, A.M. 2011. Making Room for a Planet of Cities, Cambridge, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 72 pp. (MA thesis).

Baas, S., Ramasamy, S., DePryck, J.D. & Battista, F. 2008. Disaster Risk Management Systems Analysis: A Guide Book, FAO, Rome.

Birkmann, J., Garschagen, M. & Setiadi, N. 2014. New challenges for adaptive urban governance in highly dynamic environments: Revisiting planning systems and tools for adaptive and strategic planning, Urban Climate, 7: 115–133.

Colombo, A. 2012. Subsidiarity governance: theoretical and empirical models. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, 192 pp.

Correa, E., Ramirez, F. & Sanahuja, H. 2011. Populations at Risk of Disaster: A Resettlement Guide, Washington, DC: The World Bank Group (WBG) Global Facility for Disaster Reduction Recovery (GFDRR), 142 pp.

Dale, P. & McLaughlin, J. 1999. Land Administration, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 169 pp.

Deininger, K. 2003. Land Policies for Growth and Poverty Reduction, Washington, DC: World Bank, Oxford University Press, 239 pp.

Edwards, D. 2014. Land Use Planning for Climate Change Adaptation in Small Island Caribbean States, In 2014 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty, The World Bank Washington, DC, 21 pp.

Elliott, D.L. 2008. A Better Way to Zone: Ten Principles to Create More Liveable Cities, Island Press, Washington, DC, 239 pp.

El-Masri, S. & Tipple, G. 2002. Natural Disaster, Mitigation and Sustainability: The Case of Developing Countries, International Planning Studies, 7: 157–175.

Enarson, E. 2009. Gendering Disaster Risk Reduction: A Working Glossary in Support of the GDN Gender Note Series, Gender and Disaster Network, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK, 5 pp.

FAO. 2011. Resilient Livelihoods: Disaster Risk Reduction for Food and Nutrition Security Framework Programme, Rome, 87 pp.

FAO/CFS. 2012. Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security, Rome, 40 pp.

101


Gilbert, A. 1996. The Mega-City in Latin America, Tokyo, JP: United Nations University Press, 282 pp.

Gouvernement d’Haïti & Organisation des États Américains (OEA). 2010. Foncier Haïti: Modernisation du cadastre et de l’infrastructure des droits fonciers, Port-au-Prince, HT, 44 pp.

GIZ. 2011. Land Use Planning: Concepts, Tools, and Applications, Eschborn, DE: German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, 232 pp.

Hamada, M. 2014. Engineering for Earthquake Disaster Mitigation, Tokyo, JP: Springer Verlag, 328 pp.

IFRC. 2010. A Practical Guide to Gender-sensitive Approaches for Disaster Management, Kuala Lumpur, MA: Asia Pacific Zone Office, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 81 pp.

Jha, A.K., Duyne, J., Barenstein, P. Phelps, M., Pittet, D. & Sena, S. 2010. Safer Homes, Stronger Communities: A Handbook for Reconstructing after Natural Disasters, The World Bank, Washington, DC, 370 pp.

Johnson, C. 2011. Creating an enabling environment for reducing disaster risk: Recent experience of regulatory frameworks for land, planning and building in low and middle-income countries, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, UNISDR – The United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, 43 pp.

Lakrikba, El Mehdi. 2015., La prévention des risques d’inondation à l’aide de la gestion foncière au Maroc, Mémoire de maîtrise, Université Laval, Québec, 117 pp.

Leandro, L.C. & Miranda, L. 2000. Lima: Preparing Communities for Disaster, Habitat Debate, 6: 25–26.

Marshall, G.R. 2008. Nesting, subsidiarity, and community-based environmental governance beyond the local level, International Journal of the Commons, 2: 75–97.

McCarney, P.L. & Stren, R.E 2003. Governance on the Ground: Innovations and Discontinuities in Cities of the Developing World, Woodrow Wilson Center Press, Washington, DC, 288 pp.

Mitchell, D. 2011. Assessing and Responding to Land Tenure Issues in Disaster Risk Management, Land Tenure Manuals 3, Rome, IT: FAO, 103 pp.

Mitchell, D. 2014. The importance of land use control and documenting property rights in Disaster Risk Reduction in Pacific Island countries, Journal of Spatial Science, 59: 107–119.

Ndiaye, T. 2015. La gestion foncière pour la réduction des risques de désastre naturel: le cas des inondations de la ville de Pikine, Sénégal, Mémoire de maîtrise, Université Laval, Québec, 91 pp.

102


November, V. & Leanza, Y. 2015. Risk, Disaster and Crisis Reduction: Mobilizing, Collecting and Sharing Information. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Switzerland, 184 pp.

OCHA. 2007. Handbook on: Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons: Implementing the ‘Pinhero Principles’, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 112 pp.

ONU. 2012. Rendre les villes plus résilientes: Manuel à l’usage des dirigeants des gouvernements locaux, Genève: Organisation des Nations Unies, 98 pp.

Oudot, P. 2005. Le risque de développement: Contribution au maintien du droit à la réparation, Dijon, FR : Éditions universitaires de Dijon, 358 pp.

Pelling, M. 2003. The vulnerability of cities: Natural disasters and social resilience, London: Earthscan Publications, 212 pp.

Proulx, M.-U. 1998. Une région dans la turbulence, Québec: Presses de l’Université du Québec, 239 pp.

Roy, F., Ferland, Y. & Lakriba, El Mehdi. 2013. Background Paper on Land Use Planning for Disaster Risk Management, Unpublished Research Report, Rome, IT: FAO, 46 pp.

Thwaites, K., Porta, S., Romice, O. & Greaves, M. 2007. Urban Sustainability through Environmental Design: Approaches to time-people-place responsive urban spaces, Routledge, New York, 168 pp.

UN-ESC. 1998. Social and Economic Benefits of Good Land Administration, United Nations Economic and Social Council, Economic Commission for Europe, HBP/1998/8, 6 pp.

UN-HABITAT. 2010. Land and Natural Disasters: Guidance for Practitioners, Nairobi, Kenya: UN-HABITAT, IASC Early Recovery Cluster, Global Tools Network, 138 pp.

UNISDR. 2015. Making Development Sustainable: The Future of Disaster Risk Management, Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Geneva, Switzerland, 311 pp.

Williamson, I., Enemark, S., Wallace, J. & Rajabifard, A. 2010. Land Administration for Sustainable Development, ESRI Press, Redlands, 487 pp.

World Bank. 2008. Climate Resilient Cities: A Primer on Reducing Vulnerabilities to Climate Change Impacts and Strengthening Disaster Risk Management in East Asian Cities, Washington, DC, 150 pp.

World Bank. 2012. The Great East Japan Earthquake: Learning from Megadisasters, Knowledge Notes, Executive Summary, Washington, DC, 22 pp.

World Bank. 2013. Risk and Opportunity: Managing Risk for Development, World Development Report 2014, Washington, DC, 343 pp.

103


© f

ranc

is R

oy

1 14

> © W

MC,

Jef

f Sc

hmal

tz,

MO

DIS

Rap

id R

espo

nse

Team

, N

ASA

/GSF

C

105


>1 14

faIRE faCE aux PRoBLèMEs fonCIERs Dans La gEsTIon DEs RIsquEs DE CaTasTRoPhE Dans LEs éTaTs InsuLaIREs Du PaCIfIquE

aDDREssIng LanD IssuEs In DIsasTER RIsK ManagEMEnT In ThE PaCIfIC IsLanD CounTRIEs

David Mitchell School of Mathematical and Geospatial SciencesRMIT University, Melbourne, [email protected]

helene Jacot des CombesPacific Centre for Environment and Sustainable DevelopmentThe University of the South Pacific, Suva, [email protected]

Matt MyersSouth Pacific Property Advisors, Suva, [email protected]

Darryn McEvoyRMIT University, Melbourne, [email protected]

aBoRDaR Las CuEsTIonEs RELaTIvas a La TIERRa DE Los PaísEs InsuLaREs DEL PaCífICo En EL ConTExTo DE La gEsTIón DEL RIEsgo DE DEsasTREs

106

david mitchell, helene jacot des combes, matt myers, darryn mcEvoy addrEssinG land issuEs in disastEr risk manaGEmEnt in thE paciFic island countriEs

R é s u M é

RégIMEs fonCIERs

aDMInIsTRaTIon fonCIèRE


aDaPTaTIon aux ChangEMEnTs CLIMaTIquEs

éTaTs InsuLaIREs Du PaCIfIquE

La région Pacifique est l’une des régions les plus exposées aux catastrophes dans le monde. Une urbanisation rapide, des différends pour l’utilisation des terres et l’établissement de zones de peuplement dans des zones sujettes aux catastrophes exacerbent la situation. Ces problèmes représentent un défi pour les organismes gouvernementaux, qui ont besoin de renforcer leurs capacités afin de réagir de manière adéquate.

Les terres coutumières prédominent dans beaucoup d’États insulaires du Pacifique et le respect de la coutume est primordial pour

a B s T R a C T

LanD TEnuRE

LanD aDMInIsTRaTIon


CLIMaTE ChangE aDaPTaTIon

PaCIfIC IsLanD CounTRIEs

The Pacific region is one of the most disaster-prone in the world. Rapid urbanization, conflict over land, and the establishment of informal settlements on hazardous sites further exacerbate the problems. These issues present a significant challenge for government agencies, which require capacity building to respond adequately.

Customary land predominates in many Pacific island countries and is central to decisions about land. In this paper we review previous disasters in the Pacific island countries to identify land issues that have emerged, and consider

s u M a R I o


aDMInIsTRaCIón DE La TIERRa


aDaPTaCIón aL CaMBIo CLIMáTICo

PaísEs InsuLaREs DEL PaCífICo

La región del Pacífico es una de las regiones del mundo más expuestas a catástrofes. Los problemas se ven exacerbados por una urbanización rápida, conflictos en torno a la tierra y el establecimiento de asentamientos informales en lugares propensos a peligros. Estas cuestiones plantean un desafío importante para los organismos gubernamentales, donde es preciso fomentar la capacidad para intervenir de forma apropiada.

Las tierras consuetudinarias abundan en numerosos países insulares del Pacífico y considerarlas es fundamental para adoptar

107


how land tenure and disaster management are administered.

We conclude that land and national disaster management office agencies must work together to address land issues in the context of natural disasters and that customary groups should be involved in disaster risk reduction activities and efforts to improve tenure security for all legitimate landholders. Capacity strengthening would benefit all groups involved.

les prises de décisions concernant les terres. Dans cet article, nous examinons quelques catastrophes qui ont frappé les États insulaires du Pacifique afin de déterminer les problèmes fonciers qui ont fait surface, et analysons la manière dont sont administrés les régimes fonciers et la gestion des catastrophes.

Nous terminons par la conclusion que les organismes nationaux de gestion des terres et des catastrophes naturelles doivent travailler de concert afin de répondre aux problèmes fonciers en contexte de catastrophe naturelle, et que les groupes coutumiers doivent être impliqués dans les activités de réduction des risques de catastrophe et dans les efforts consentis pour améliorer la sécurité foncière de tous les détenteurs de terres légitimes. Le renforcement des capacités serait profitable à tous les groupes concernés.

decisiones en torno a la tierra. En este documento se repasan catástrofes que se han producido en países insulares del Pacífico en el pasado con objeto de identificar las cuestiones que hayan surgido en relación con la tierra y estudiar cómo se administran la tenencia de la tierra y la gestión de catástrofes.

Se concluye que los organismos nacionales encargados de las tierras y aquellos que se ocupan de la gestión de catástrofes deben trabajar conjuntamente para abordar las cuestiones relativas a la tenencia en el contexto de las catástrofes naturales, y que los grupos consuetudinarios deberían participar en las actividades de reducción de riesgos de catástrofes y los esfuerzos para aumentar la seguridad de la tenencia de todos los propietarios legítimos. El fortalecimiento de la capacidad beneficiaría a todos los grupos intervinientes.

1 14

108


InTRoDuCTIon

There have been calls for improved integration of disaster risk reduction (DRR), climate change adaptation (CCA) and mitigation communities, but there are no specific details about how this could be done (Birkmann and von Teichman, 2010). One challenge that previously hindered effective disaster response, with implications for longer-term adaptation, was the disproportionate impact on the poor and vulnerable, particularly those with limited tenure security. According to Wisner and Luce (1993) disasters produce more marginalized people because many of those who survive are unable to recover their livelihoods, become destitute and are forced to live in even more vulnerable situations than before the disaster. Land-related impacts include land grabbing, involuntary resettlement and loss of access to land. This is evidenced by the growing literature on how land issues are best addressed in the context of Disaster Risk Management (DRM).

This article focuses on the challenges for land and disaster agencies in Pacific island countries (PICs) in terms of the linkage between disaster response and land issues, as well as highlighting lessons for improved DRM and longer-term adaptation to a changing climate. The PICs represent a particular set of geographic, economic and social circumstances and challenges. Firstly, the Pacific region is one of the world’s most disaster-prone regions, impacted by both natural and climate-related hazards. According to the World Bank/GFDRR (2012) extreme events have affected approximately 9.2 million people in the region since 1950, causing 9 811 reported deaths and damage estimates totalling US$3.2 billion. Tropical cyclones are the major cause of loss of life and economic costs, but several other significant threats exist, including tsunamis and floods. For example, the 2007 Solomon Islands earthquake and tsunami caused losses equivalent to 90 percent of the 2006 recurrent government budget. The 2004 Cyclone Heta on Niue caused immediate losses of five times GDP and the 2009 Fiji floods in Nadi, Ba, and the sugar belt area, resulted in losses of F$350 million.

Regional vulnerabilities are compounded by severe limitations in adaptive capacity. Many of the PICs are small island developing states of least developed country status, and include several atoll nations that are particularly vulnerable

The Pacific region is one of the world’s most disaster-prone regions

109


to rises in sea level. Their remoteness, small economic base and geographical spread results in higher energy and transportation costs and they represent unique challenges for responding to natural hazards and climate-related events. PICs invariably have limited capacity to respond to natural disasters and to implement adequate Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) programmes without international assistance. Consequently disaster responses in the region must include a component of capacity building to achieve sustainable results (FIG, 2010). PICs also present unique land tenure challenges. Many PICs have a very high percentage of customary lands, as illustrated in Table 1. In these countries customary authorities are key stakeholders in both DRM and CCA and need to be part of responses.

Urbanization also represents difficult problems for PICs, often resulting in conflict over land. There has been a marked increase in urbanization in the Pacific, where one in four people live in urban areas, and 12 out of the 22 countries and territories in the region have larger urban than rural populations (Secretariat of the Pacific Community, 2007).

Almost half the population in the Pacific (excluding Papua New Guinea) lives in towns and cities and there are very high population growth rates in Kiribati and peri-urban areas in Fiji and Port Vila, Vanuatu (see Figure 1).

Rapid demographic growth in the region has led to migration from smaller outer islands to larger ones and from rural areas to towns, especially national capitals (World Bank, 2000). Where most of a country is under customary tenure, urban expansion is typically not on to freehold land. In some cases the expansion occurs on state land, which while still presenting difficulties can to some extent be managed by the relevant land authorities. Expansion on to customary land, without the permission of the customary leaders, is much more problematic, leading to tensions between migrants and the customary groups.

The location of urban growth contributes to increased vulnerability when houses are built on land with a high level of exposure to potential disaster. There has been a rapid emergence of informal settlements, where people often lack formal tenure rights to occupy the settled land. Sometimes the occupancy is illegal and in some cases extra-legal (not against the law, but not recognized by the law). Often the land that is occupied by informal settlers is the least valued and most hazardous.

110


Against this background, this paper examines the challenges for land and disaster management agencies in responding to land issues while protecting legitimate property rights and access to land for the more vulnerable. The paper first summarizes land tenure and land administration challenges in the PICs that might inform improved DRM before examining existing approaches to DRM and lessons from previous disasters in the Pacific region. We argue

Figure 1Population growth across greater Port vila 1999–2009 (Trundle and McEvoy, 2015)

bauerfield

tagabe north tagabe

south

agathiswest agathis

Eastblacksands

malapoa Estate

sevenstar

tebakorpressing

ohlen

namburucentral

Freswota

stadeGeorges

pompidouusp

le meridien

independence park

bums philptongoa/Futuna

nambatu Eastpublic works

nambatri East

hotel le lagon

pango road

nambatri west

teouma road

LEgEnD

less than -5.0-4.9 to -2.5-2.4 to 0.00.1 to 2.52.6 to 5.05.1 to 20.020.1 to 30.0more than 30.1

zonE

n

0

Kilometers

0.3 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4

111


that land tenure is a critical consideration in the Pacific islands context when addressing disaster risk and longer-term climate change adaptation responses.

The methods used comprise a literature review and consultation with key government staff. Training on land issues in DRM was organized in 2011 in Fiji for 26 participants from land and DRM agencies from six countries: Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. In preparation for the training, case studies were developed for each of the countries based on an extensive literature review and were sent to the training participants for their comments. The case study material scoped the existing governance arrangements, issues and challenges and lessons from previous disasters, but did not present ways forward. The major output of the training activity was an action plan for each country, prepared by their respective country delegates, to address land issues in DRM that were specific to their countries. The discussion and conclusions from this paper are synthesized from the existing literature and the predominant responses recommended in the action plans.

While there is a tendency to generalize issues in discussions concerning the Pacific islands, it is important to recognize that the patterns of land tenure and disaster risk vary considerably from country to country and also within countries. Therefore, the following discussion is generally limited in scope to the six countries involved in the training. We end by emphasizing the importance of tenure security for all legitimate land users and the implementation of responsible governance of tenure as part of an equitable DRR programme.

LanD TEnuRE anD aDMInIsTRaTIon In PaCIfIC IsLanD CounTRIEs

The impact of disasters on those with poor security of tenure, including indigenous peoples, informal settlers, tenants, farm labourers and sharecroppers, is well covered in the literature (e.g. Deutsch, 2008; Mitchell, 2010; Gorapava, 2010). Tenure security is a specific concern in the Pacific region and a major complicating factor in this context is customary tenure.

Peoples of the Pacific islands are passionate and protective about their rights to land and resources. The transfer and administration of rights to customary land depend largely on the social norms and kinship systems of the

Land tenure is a critical consideration in the Pacific islands context when addressing disaster risk and longer-term climate change adaptation responses

112


customary group, which may vary considerably among different groups. Some of the PICs customary land is held at family level (e.g. Samoa), while other lands are held communally at village level (e.g. Fiji). Principles of inheritance and group organization can be complex and can change over time (e.g. Gaua Island in Vanuatu), where elements of inheritance patterns have changed between patrilineal and matrilineal, leading to conflict among men and women. The distribution and exercise of land rights is dependent on social hierarchies and social status.

The Marshall Islands Constitution preserves the traditional rights of land tenure that vest ownership in a hierarchy of three distinct interests, namely that of the Iroijlaplap (paramount chief), Alap (clan head) and Dri Jerbal (workers). Thus a single parcel of land will have customary ownership with three distinct interests. If there is no Iroiji, then those rights are deemed to be exercised by the Alab and the senior Dri Jerbal acting together. Land is passed matrilineally, thus theoretically (and traditionally) no Marshallese should be landless.

Many countries in the Pacific region have a very high percentage of customary lands (Table 1). In countries where the percentage of customary land is high, the customary landholders are central to many of the major decisions about land ownership and land use. Therefore, effective disaster response and land governance requires cooperation and consultation between government and customary landholders. While there is a tendency to focus on the importance of customary groups, there are also many third parties who occupy customary lands (through leases or legitimate informal occupation) and it is important that this group is included in the development and implementation of DRM.

Customary systems have traditionally provided access to land for all group members in some form, and hence have protected vulnerable members from severe poverty. Where customary authority is largely unaffected by external pressures, women have access to land to provide for themselves and their families, especially in subsistence or agriculture-based systems. However, strong gender discrimination may arise due to conflicting customary, social and economic pressures. While the norms related to women’s rights to land vary among PICs, most women access customary land as daughters, nieces or wives rather than in their own right. Women’s rights to land therefore

113


depend on maintaining good marital and social relations. When husbands or male relatives move away in search of employment, or lose their life following a natural disaster, women also become responsible for food and livelihoods (Nelson, 2007; AusAID, 2008).

However, the nature of customary management of land is changing in the PICs. Under the influence of Christianity, customary land tenure variously absorbed concepts of inheritance, colonial rule and post-independence developments. Pressures such as urbanization and changes to traditional crops also caused fundamental changes to customary tenure systems, making adaptation difficult. In some PICs increased interaction with government organizations and Christian missions weakened customary authority and

The nature of customary management of land is changing in the Pacific island countries

publica Freeholdb customarycook islands some little 95%East timorc some some mostFiji 4% 8% 88%Federated states of micronesia

35% <1% 65%

kiribati 50% <5% >45%marshall islands <1% 0% >99%nauru <10% 0% >90%niue 1.5% 0% 98.5%palau most some somepapua new Guinea 2.5% 0.5% 97%samoa 15% 4% 81%solomon islands 8% 5% 87%tokelau 1% 1% 98%tonga 100% 0% 0%tuvalu 5% <0.1% 95%Vanuatu 2% 0% 98%

a includes crown land and land owned by provincial and local governments.b includes land that is not strictly freehold, but similar in characteristics, such as the “perpetual

estates” found in solomon islands.c East timor does not as yet have a separate legal category of “customary land”, even though

most of its rural land remains under customary forms of authority.

Source: compiled and calculated from various sources, including interviews on field trips and published information.

table 1Percentage of customary land in various Pacific island countries

(ausaID, 2008)

114


caused confusion over customary land tenure principles such as inheritance and ownership of customary land. Investors introduced new land uses, large-scale harvesting, agribusiness, tourism, roads and other infrastructure, which had an impact on traditional practices. The result was a weakening of some customary authorities, which led to local conflict. Commercial land development opportunities for customary groups can also reduce the effectiveness of customary authority (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, 2008).

Conflict over land in the Pacific islandsNatural disasters can lead directly to land conflicts and in the Pacific region conflict over land is a major issue. The PICs can learn from international experience on conflict management and post-disaster responses. Table 2 draws on these lessons and provides some examples of the land issues that can lead to conflict after natural disasters.

table 2Potential sources of conflict over land for various natural disasters

(Mitchell, 2011)

type of natural disaster

land issues that may lead to conflict

Floods >> resettlement with host communities may create tensions between displaced people and host families

>> Floods cause damage to land through erosion and debris deposits, making land unusable. people may seek land used by others to resume livelihoods, which can create the potential for conflict.

>> Floods may clear boundary markers, causing disputes over the extent of land ownership or land-use rights.

>> the return of displaced people to their land before it is safe to do so may create tensions with authorities.

>> opportunistic land grabbing can lead to conflict over land rights.

tropical cyclones

>> destruction leads to temporary or permanent displacement. choices of sites for resettlement may create conflicts if there is inadequate local consultation.

>> permanent resettlement away from hazard-prone coastal areas may create tensions if it is on customary lands or previously used state lands.

>> For pre-disaster lands without legal legitimacy, there are risks of land grabbing that may lead to conflicts.

>> resettlement of people with insecure tenure away from coastal areas to allow for development can lead to conflict.

115


Natural disasters can also exacerbate existing tensions over land. In many PICs there are tensions between customary groups and people from outside the customary group. In extreme cases this leads to violent conflict. For example, violent conflict erupted in a number of squatter settlements on the edge of Honiara among residents and settlers from the island of Malaita following World War II and also with migrants working on the Gold Ridge mine and plantations. Much of the land occupied by settlers was high-quality customary land, which caused tensions. If a future disaster were to afflict this area there is potential for existing tensions to escalate if not adequately understood and addressed during recovery and reconstruction phases.

Earthquakes >> destruction of buildings creates many displaced people. inadequate consultation with displaced people of host communities may lead to conflicts within settlement camps.

>> destruction of buildings and markers that defined the extent of pre-disaster ownership can lead to disputes over the extent of ownership.

>> tenants and informal settlers may lose access to land, which may lead to conflict.

tsunamis >> resettlement with host communities may create tensions.>> considerable erosion and movement of lands make some lands

unusable after the disaster. there may be conflict if people use land which is claimed by others, or if displaced people are not consulted in relocation and resettlement.

>> damage to buildings and survey markers may lead to disputes over where pre-disaster land parcels were and the location of boundaries.

>> damage to land records and boundary markers may lead to disputes over ownership and location of boundaries.

>> resettlement onto customary lands or allocated state lands may create tensions and lead to conflict.

drought >> prolonged drought may force pastoralists to search for alternative water sources on land that is claimed by others.

>> recognition of land tenure or land-use rights by government may remove customary rights of migration between seasons, causing conflicts at times of drought.

>> where collective or customary ownership arrangements have broken down due to prolonged drought, there may be increased conflict over land.

116


There can also be tensions among different ethnic groups. For example, in Fiji customary lands cannot be bought or sold, except by the government and only for public use. However, non-reserve land (excess needed for house and subsistence) can be leased to third parties. As less than five percent of Fiji’s land is available as freehold, most farmers (mainly of Indian descent) are forced to lease land. Political intervention that regulated the agricultural land rent at very low levels and resulted in substantial leaseholds led to political instability between the two ethnic groups. Thus some customary landowners did not renew leases and many of the farmers then migrated to the urban areas, often setting up in squatter settlements (typically on government lands such as mangrove swamps). Unfortunately much of the land under agricultural leases was never released and has become overgrown.

Land acquisition and compensationLessons from previous disasters in the Pacific islands confirm that land will need to be acquired by government for rebuilding and for new infrastructure. This may be acquired by agreement and purchase, or by formal land acquisition processes, in which case compensatory payment is made to the landowners. However, there has been a history of disputes in the Pacific islands over the process and detail of compensation offered in relation to land acquisition. One of the challenges is to determine a reasonable market value for the (typically customary) land acquired. There may be conflicting claims of ownership and no formal records of customary lands. There may be no formalized market and little or no market data that valuers can use (Mitchell and Myers, 2013).

Valuation of land in the PICs, even without dealing with a disaster, is challenging because of the small inefficient markets, lack of market data and poor or non-existent property records. Valuation of inalienable customary land is a very specialized and complex field as legal ownership is often not clearly defined and because it often cannot be sold except to the government there are few or no market transactions to inform the process.

With little to no market to estimate value, customary owners tend to be suspicious of government offers for their land, and land owners have been known to block government work until they have received the price they expect. An academic from PNG coined the terms Ransom Method or Payment

117


for Peace (Bannerman, 1993) to value such customary lands. One example was during the Fiji 2000 coup when landowners who had much land taken for the Monosavu Hydroelectric Dam felt they had been cheated because they did not receive compensation for the watershed lands. As they were not allowed to harvest their timber they took over the power plant, causing extensive damage and cutting power to half of Fiji. Eventually the government agreed to pay over $50 million in compensation over a 90+ year annuity.

As a further driver of conflict, there have been several high courts (Canada, New Zealand and Tonga) that have specifically decided that inalienable customary lands are worth less than comparable freehold land. Thus, an outsider may own a piece of freehold land next to an identical piece of customary land, and when both are taken for the same purpose the outsider could be entitled to more compensation than the customary owner.

Thus the unique, complex and often ambiguous issues associated with valuing customary lands means it is a sphere of valuation not often encountered by mainstream valuers. It has been described as a special field of real property valuation that frustrates many of those who accept such assignments and has anomalies that mock the practitioners of valuation.

Several examples are also provided of conflict between landholders and government over plans to resettle people, and over the compensation offered. This is a serious issue for governments to address to improve responses to disasters. At the time of writing, the Global Land Tools Network is developing guidance material on valuing non-formal tenures that will help address gaps in the knowledge.

Capacity challengesPrevious disasters illustrate the increased demands that land agencies face during post-disaster response, recovery and reconstruction phases. After a natural disaster the existing capacity limitations of land agencies are magnified by damage to buildings and land records, boundary markers and surveying infrastructure. This makes adjudication of legitimate rights to land and the identification of pre-disaster boundaries more difficult. Problems are further exacerbated by the loss of experienced staff. For example, after the 2009 Samoan tsunami, resettlement away from vulnerable coastal lands

The unique, complex and often ambiguous issues associated with valuing customary lands means it is a sphere of valuation not often encountered by mainstream valuers

The global Land Tools network is developing guidance material on valuing non-formal tenures

118


required relocation of infrastructure, including water supply. Before this could happen the Department of Lands had to upgrade and extend the geodetic network into the new areas to meet the demand of land development (FIG, 2011). In another example, Papua New Guinea is particularly vulnerable to natural disasters and mapping and assessment of the climate risk areas is important. However, limitations in capacity and problems with land records create significant difficulties in surveying the boundaries of the customary lands that cover 97 percent of the country and represent uncertainty for climate change adaptation.

Most PICs have never formally registered all their land, particularly customary lands. For those that have, records are often poorly kept. For example, in Kiribati all the land records are kept on open area shelves in one office. There are no electronic records, thus a disaster such as a tsunami could result records being lost, as could an office fire. Vanuatu, with the help of AusAID, has been working to convert land records into Geographic Information System (GIS) and other electronic records.

Capacity, as in qualified staffing, has always been a challenge in PICs, as often the most qualified staff emigrate to Australia, New Zealand or the USA. Also, many local valuers came straight from university to valuation offices with little or no mentoring, as is the case for Kiribati.

DIsasTER RIsK ManagEMEnT In ThE PaCIfIC REgIon

Institutional arrangementsDisaster management in PICs is organized under the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO). However, depending on the country, the NDMO is established under different ministries, for example, the Ministry of Rural and Maritime Development in Fiji, the Ministry of Home Affairs in the Solomon Islands, the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment in Samoa and the Office of the President in Kiribati. The overarching mission of the NDMO is to build national resilience to disasters by developing, organizing, coordinating and implementing DRM activities in their respective countries. The responsibilities of the NDMO have increased in recent years. Initially, the

119


NDMO, and its predecessor, focused only on emergency response. For example, the first agency for disaster management in Fiji was created in 1979 and was called EMSEC (Emergency Services Committee). In 1990, this agency was also put in charge of prevention, mitigation, awareness, recovery and rehabilitation and was renamed NDMO. The new responsibilities are recognized in the internal organization of the NDMO. For example, Samoa has two sections, one for DRR and one for DRM. Similarly, Fiji’s office is composed of three units, one focusing on policy, research and disaster management, one on training, education and awareness and one on emergency planning and coordination.

The activities of the NDMO in the different countries are guided by policies and plans describing the roles and responsibilities of the different stakeholders before, during and after a disaster. The Natural Disaster Management Act in Fiji was adopted in 1998 (Fiji NDMO, 1998), in Samoa the guiding policy is the Disaster and Emergency Act 2007 (Government of Samoa, 2007), in Vanuatu the Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Management National Action Plan (2006–2016) was published in 2007 (Government of the Republic of Vanuatu, 2007) and in the Solomon Islands the National Disaster Risk Management Plan was adopted in 2010 (Solomon Islands’ Government, 2010). In Kiribati, the National Disaster Risk Management Plan was published in 2012 (Government of Kiribati, 2012) and the Tuvalu National Strategic Action Plan for Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management 2012–2016 was adopted in 2013 (Government of Tuvalu, 2013).

During emergencies, a specific response structure is put in place. For example, in Fiji, Kiribati, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu, a National Emergency Operation Centre (NEOC) takes decisions and coordinates actions of all stakeholders (Fiji NDMO, 1998; Government of the Republic of Vanuatu, 2007; Solomon Islands’ Government, 2010; Government of Kiribati, 2012). In Samoa, the National Disaster Council chaired by the Prime Minister provides strategic direction and decision-making as required (Government of Samoa, 2007). In Tuvalu, the National Coordination Centre (NCC) is designed to serve as the central control focal point for all response operations (Government of Tuvalu, 2013). In all these countries, the NDMO is strongly involved in the response mechanism. Some of the countries have adopted the new humanitarian architecture, also termed the humanitarian reform,

120


and have organized their emergency responses into clusters, regrouping the various stakeholders according to sectors to improve cooperation and limit duplication and gaps, with the NDMO at the core of the organization. Fiji (eight clusters) and the Solomon Islands (six clusters) are good examples of this new type of organization. However, none of the clusters focuses on the land issue theme.

Links with climate change adaptationAs mentioned above, the policies guiding NDMO actions in some countries are relatively established but are currently being reviewed in the context of climate change. Based on the importance of climate change impacts for the PICs, and on the similarities between some climate change adaptation and DRR activities, several countries in the region decided to follow Tonga’s lead and develop a Joint National Action Plan (JNAP) that includes climate change and DRM actions. Currently 14 countries out of 15 in the region have developed or are developing a JNAP (UNISDR, 2014). Tonga was the first country to endorse a JNAP in 2010 and Fiji is currently devising a JNAP to replace the Natural Disaster Management Act endorsed in 1998 (Fiji NDMO, 1998). This action is led by the countries, but is supported by several development partners, including Council of Regional Organisations in the Pacific (CROP) agencies (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme - SPREP, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, GeoScience Division - SPC-SOPAC) and international partners and donors (e.g. ADB, UNDP).

Different programmes and projects are now integrating climate change adaptation and DRR activities at community or local government levels. As one example, the USAID-funded Coastal Community Adaptation Project (C-CAP) focuses on building the resilience of vulnerable coastal communities to withstand more intense and frequent weather events and ecosystem degradation in the short term, and sea level rise in the long term (DAI, 2012). The activities under this project cover 12 countries and combine risk mapping, DRR and adaptation to future climate. Similarly, the recent Pacific Risk Resilience Programme, funded by the Australian government and implemented by UNDP, aims to strengthen the resilience of selected Pacific island communities to disasters and climate change related risk (UNDP, 2012).

121


ChallengesChallenges faced by NDMOs in the region are varied. One major challenge is the capacity of NDMO. The number of staff is generally low for the sectors they are responsible for. For example, there are 12 staff in Fiji (Tagicakibau, 2014) and nine in Samoa (Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment, 2013). Moreover, some of the staff are more administrative than technical (Tagicakibau, pers. comm., 2014).

Another challenge, especially for countries such as Kiribati, Tuvalu and the Solomon Islands, is the provision of timely help to islands that are far away from the main island. Several stakeholders have pre-positioned supplies in different areas that can cover the needs of the population for a short time, but transporting large quantities of relief supplies to distant islands is still difficult. This was the experience after the earthquake and tsunami that devastated the Solomon Islands in 2007 (IRFC, 2009).

Another challenge is represented by the many actors in the DRM sectors, especially at a community level, who do not transfer information on their projects to the NDMO. As a result, information is fragmented and community DRR plans may not be aligned with national procedures (Dobui, pers. comm., 2014).

LEssons fRoM PREvIous PaCIfIC IsLanDs DIsasTERs

The growing international literature on addressing land issues in DRM emphasizes that needs vary according to type of disaster and local context. Hydrometeorological disasters are common in parts of the Pacific region and can lead to extensive damage to land and homes, with people displaced for prolonged periods. However, geo-physical disasters are less predictable and can come with little warning and result in extensive damage and displacement of people. The level of risk is more difficult to identify because of their infrequent nature (Mitchell, 2011). Water security and salinization also represent major long-term threats to the Pacific islands, with direct implications for land tenure.

However, there are some common themes for most disasters, including the risk of loss of access to land and property rights for displaced people with

122


poor tenure security. This often disproportionally affects the poor, women, elderly, children, ethnic minorities, indigenous persons and people who were internally displaced prior to the disaster. A central argument of this paper is that all legitimate rights to land tenure and resources should be formally recognized by government and other stakeholders, including being explicitly considered in national DRR programmes. A review of the impact of previous disasters in the Pacific islands indicates that these issues also apply to PICs. A serious consequence of loss of land and migration caused by displacement has been violent conflict over land.

Short-term displacement and long-term relocation have occurred in the Pacific region after disasters and climate-related impacts. In most of the cases, the population is moved to evacuation centres where they remain for a few days, a few weeks at a maximum, before going back to their homes. This was the case in Fiji after the floods in 2009 (Government of Fiji, 2009) and 2012 (Fiji NDMO, 2013), and Tropical Cyclone Evan in 2012 (Government of Fiji, 2012). The situation was slightly different after the flash flood that affected Honiara in early April 2014. More than 7 000 people were moved to evacuation centres (radionz.com, 2014), but by mid-April the government was encouraging and supporting repatriation, although about 1 500 refugees remained in the evacuation centres in Honiara past Mid-June 2014 waiting for the government to organize land for them to move to (radioaustralia.net.au, 2014).

Where possible, it is easier to relocate affected people on state-owned land because it limits land disputes and allows faster transfer of land ownership, illustrated by what was done on Gizo Island after the earthquake and tsunami affected the Solomon Islands in 2007. Gizo Island has over 2 000 hectares of alienated land held by the Commissioner of Lands, excluding the Gizo township. The affected settlements along the southern coastal areas of Gizo Island comprised freehold or perpetual titles held by some of the settlers. Subdivisions along the southern coastal area were all freehold tenure, also known as perpetual title. The Ministry of Lands, Housing and Survey agreed that in terms of relocating displaced settlers on Gizo, the responsibility rested solely with the Provincial Lands Task Force who were responsible for preparing a local planning scheme of the areas occupied by the displaced population. A survey of the proposed settlement areas included peripheral surveys, with

all legitimate rights to land tenure and resources should be formally recognized by government and other stakeholders, including being explicitly considered in national DRR programmes

123


the option of formally legalizing the occupation of the public land and granting fixed-term estate leasehold titles to the displaced settlers at a later date. In the context of land tenure and climate change, the insecurity of tenure resulting from the resettlement of coastal communities on both state owned lands and customary land is a policy matter for the government and key stakeholders. Shifting occupation status played significantly to the displaced families and individuals affected by the disaster (Gorapava, 2010).

Relocation and resettlement of rural communities is complex and where coordination and implementation of the processes towards reconstruction are lacking, resentment and illegal activity can be expected. These adverse situations often contribute to the cost of securing a title on government-owned land. In the case of Gizo there were very few secured titles in the rural areas and therefore any relocation had to be absorbed by the customary lands. The active participation of the rural landowning groups and community leaders was important in addressing the relocation of disaster stricken communities. The involvement of the Provincial Lands Task force and relevant sectors, in this case both Western and Choiseul provincial chief physical planners, was critical in identifying suitable low risk sites and taking responsibility for initiating a village planning scheme (Gorapava, 2010).

The customary land tenure system offers flexibility for relocation in some situations. In Samoa coastal villages and infrastructures located along the coast were destroyed by the tsunami in 2009 and needed to be permanently relocated inland. Infrastructure networks (roads, water, electricity and sanitation) to support relocation also had to be planned. For example, the District Hospital of Poutasi was damaged, and the primary school next to it was destroyed and had to be relocated. Since those facilities could not be rebuilt safely at the same site, they had to be relocated. Regarding the allocation of new land to build the facilities, it needed to be cleared before starting to build. These issues have been resolved and the hospital and school are now in use.

Villages and people also needed to be relocated. Some people spontaneously relocated inland to another land parcel owned by their community, but the relocation of others required pressure from the authorities, and those people returned later to their original land. This was for various socio-cultural reasons: ocean-based livelihood, social organization, extended family ties, strong

124


community structures, customary land ownership where occupation is the basis for right to tenure, powerful links to the village church and emotional ties with ancestral grave sites on traditional land. All these reasons make it difficult for a community to relocate away from their original location voluntarily. In most cases the topography, with cliffs near the coastline, allowed the resettlement of villages close to their original location, on community-owned land. Most families who lived on the coast also owned farmland inland. The initial observation was that the majority of the affected families who remained inland occupied their own lands. There was however a small percentage of persons who remained in host family properties on which they were not able to place a long-term claim. They were also not able to buy rights for such land or alternative land because customary land cannot be sold. The authorities felt that such problems could be resolved through interventions of self-governance mechanisms at the local level and through the customary land tribunal, where the affected parties could be helped to negotiate an exchange of land rights.

Climate change impacts can also require permanent relocation, though with a longer time period available for planning. A positive example of such relocation is the Vunidogoloa Village in Fiji. The major threat faced by the village is sea level rise, which was common during storm surges. The villagers asked the state to relocate their village. The new location is at Kenani, about three kilometres from the previous location, further inland and on higher ground. The new location is safer for the villagers, closer to the main road, and also provides more land for farming and the establishment of fishponds. Because of the natural resources at the new village site and the short distance from the previous location, it was considered that the livelihoods of the villagers (fishing, agriculture, forestry) would not be affected by the relocation. The government organized this relocation as an integrated action by the Ministry of Local Government, Urban Development, Housing and Environment, the Ministry of Rural and Maritime Development and iTaukei Affairs. Although no specific indication is given regarding the land issues for this relocation, the new site was installed on land that was also owned by the same mataqali, so no specific negotiation with another landowner was needed. The construction work at the village was completed in 2014 and the villagers have since moved to their new homes.

125


The risks associated with future climate change, together with overpopulation in the urban centre of Tarawa, Kiribati, led to the development of a programme funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the Japan Special Fund, called the Integrated Land and Population Development Program on Kiritimati Island (ADB, 2006). One of the goals of the programme was to encourage voluntary resettlement of about 30 000 settlers from the main island of Tarawa to Kiritimati Island, an atoll that represents 70 percent of Kiribati’s land mass, but which is located 2 000 km away from the capital. This programme would have resolved the severe overcrowding on Tawara (with the area of Betio Islet having a population density of nearly 8 000 persons per square kilometre, similar to that for Hong Kong). While the government of Kiribati has been particularly pro-active in addressing the severe climate-induced displacement crisis by focusing on resolving current overcrowding and adopting creative policy measures designed to promote domestic relocation to islands such as Kirimati, it remains unclear as to what extent the measures will be adequate in the longer term. Problematically, Kiritimati is only four metres above sea level, which means that people will eventually be forced to abandon the island due to rising sea levels. This programme was not completed due to a lack of commitment from the government to provide the essential infrastructure on Kirimati Island (ADB, 2009).

Case study – Resettlement away from gaua Island in vanuatuSome of the difficulties associated with the displacement of people because of natural disasters can be alleviated if planning is done in advance. A good example is the contingency plan for the relocation of Gaua Island (Vanuatu) inhabitants in the case of eruption of the island’s volcano (Vanuatu and OCHA, 2010). The plan was developed after the eruption of Mount Gharat on November 18th 2009 resulted in evacuation of 423 people from the western side of the island, with plans in place to evacuate an additional 200 people if necessary. However, continuing activity of the volcano led to preparation of a contingency plan to evacuate the entire population (2717 people) to Vanua Lava Island. The evacuation process would need to be implemented urgently because the worst-case scenario suggests that the volcano could erupt shortly after the first early warning.

126


One of the major issues was the availability of land on Vanua Lava Island, which hosts a population the same as that of Gaua and is relatively small to accommodate such a large additional population. The identification of available land by the provincial disaster committee of Torba, preferably public land free from land disputes that could be used for medium to long-term relocation, was the key gap to fill in the relocation plan. Decisions were taken that indicated land ownership would remain the same and would not transfer to the Gaua people. One piece of land located in the west of Vanua Lava, owned by the Anglican Church, was considered for medium to long-term (up to one year) relocation, while another, mostly undeveloped and located in the northeast, was selected for long-term relocation. Emergency facilities and assistance will be provided for relocation at both sites, including health, WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene), site planning, site management and shelters, food and non-food items, agriculture, education and protection. Logistics, communication and coordination to support relocation are also considered. The first site was deemed the most viable short-term option for relocation (Vanuatu NDMO and OCHA, 2010), but is only four hectares and with addition of 1 900 people would allow only 21 m2 per person or 112 m2 per family, which is below the SPHERE standards (The Sphere Project, 2004). Special care was taken to ensure that the most vulnerable groups, such as children, elderly, disabled and pregnant and lactating women, would be a priority (Vanuatu NDMO and OCHA, 2010). Special information was disseminated, indicating that individuals or families with family members from these groups have to ensure that they were properly accompanied to evacuation points and at the transit and relocation sites by able and informed community members.

ways foRwaRD

Responses to the particular challenges outlined above can be considered in the context of a DRM framework that commences with DRR followed by a cycle of emergency response, recovery and reconstruction, and which then informs further DRR. The following discussion considers how land issues might be addressed in the PICs at each of these stages.

127


Disaster mitigation and preparednessGreater disaster-resilient development requires grounding risk considerations in development decisions. According to the World Bank/GFDRR (2012), current governance arrangements at regional and national levels make it difficult to facilitate integration of risk considerations into development. In many cases separate institutional, legal and policy frameworks exist for CCA and DRR, and have weak links with the development sectors. An exception is the development of the National Green Growth Framework for Fiji, which incorporates climate change adaptation and DRM into development.

More resilient development requires stronger coordination among the multitude of stakeholders in the fields of DRR, CCA and development. Improved coordination is needed among donors, development partners (including NGOs) and regional organizations to improve harmonization and resource use. This will also reduce the burden on national capacities, and boost responsiveness to needs and priorities.

An outcome focus is needed, and among the important contributing tools are land-use planning, building codes and hazard-risk assessment. Another key challenge in the context of climate change for the land sector is decisions about resettlement. Resettlement is inherently complex and poor decisions can have devastating effects on livelihoods and social frameworks.

The FAO regional assessment recommended that governments “ensure that displaced people receive long term security of tenure in the areas in which they are relocated.” Intergovernmental cooperation would be required if it becomes necessary to resettle large numbers of people in other countries. This consultation also noted the importance of reducing hazard risk in the process stating, “Governments should adopt adaptation and mitigation policies and risk management strategies for tenure of land and other natural resources that do not further exacerbate the impacts of climate change”.

Emergency responseThe focus for all government agencies during the early stages of an emergency response is saving lives, protecting health and providing shelter. Land agencies need to assess the damage to land records and the capacity of land agencies and customary groups to respond. Land tenure is not an immediate concern,

128


but in the early recovery phase it can inform decisions about the location of shelter. Spatial data on land tenure (especially customary areas and informal settlements) and the extent of the damage can assist the response. Land agencies and customary groups should be involved in providing information on land availability and decisions about which land to use for emergency shelter. Given the history of conflict over land in the Pacific islands, care is needed to ensure that any provision of alternative land does not jeopardize the rights and livelihoods of others. During this process, government agencies should ensure that the legitimate tenure rights of displaced persons are recognized, recorded and protected. This may involve a low-cost method of recording rather than issuing formal land titles.

Recovery and reconstructionEarly on in the recovery phase land agencies may need to reinstate the survey infrastructure to support later boundary surveys and associated resettlement and rebuilding. In some cases, as in the example from Vanuatu, extensive surveys may be required to reinstate or extend survey networks and ground marks.

Disputes and claims over land must be resolved through adjudication. The Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (FAO/CFS, 2012) recommend that all legitimate rights to land be recognized, respected and protected. In the recovery and reconstruction phase this means that every attempt should be made to establish all the legitimate pre-disaster rights to land. Where public records are out of date, lost or damaged, other forms of evidence may be needed and the knowledge from customary groups will be important in many cases. Given the oral nature of customary tenure, problems may exist where the person with the knowledge dies in the disaster.

Resettlement decisions are a key issue in the Pacific region. In many PICs in the tropical cyclone region, a large percentage of the population lives in coastal zones. In those countries careful consideration is being given to decisions about relocation away from the coast. In extreme cases, such as in Kiribati and Tuvalu, sea level rise will place enormous pressure on a large proportion of the population to relocate, in some cases to another country. Section 24.5 of the Voluntary Guidelines calls on states and other parties to address tenure during the reconstruction phase:

129


“Persons who are temporarily displaced should be assisted in voluntarily, safely and with dignity returning to their place of origin. Means to resolve disputes over tenure rights should be provided. Where boundaries of parcels and other spatial units are to be re-established, this should be done consistent with the principles of consultation and participation of these Guidelines. Where people are unable to return to their place of origin, they should be permanently resettled elsewhere. Such resettlement should be negotiated with host communities to ensure that the people who are displaced are provided with secure access to alternative land, fisheries, forests and livelihoods in ways that do not jeopardize the rights and livelihoods of others”

(fao/cfs, 2012).

Reconstruction will require restoring capacity in land administration agencies and also that of customary groups. These limitations, with increased demand on land agencies following a disaster, mean that land agencies may require significant support and capacity building to meet demand. Lessons from other jurisdictions indicate that land institutions face the greatest demand during reconstruction when decisions need to be made on rights to each parcel of land prior to rebuilding. The best results are achieved when the appropriate land agency is able to coordinate an adjudication process that actively includes the community in all decisions in a manner that is consistent with public records of the rights existing prior to the disaster.

Land governance and disaster risk managementGiven the predominance of informal tenures in the Pacific islands, addressing tenure insecurity is central to the implementation of DRR. One of the main challenges is reducing land disputes following disasters. This will require improved recording of all legitimate land rights, improved land use control and effective valuation of non-formal tenures so that the determination of adequate compensation for resettlement and land acquisition is equitable. The case study on the relocation of Gaua Island’s inhabitants clearly indicates that planning in advance for relocation reduces sensitivity disagreements over land issues during the relocation.

given the predominance of informal tenures in the Pacific islands, addressing tenure insecurity is central to the implementation of DRR

130


AusAID (2008) recommended that governments support customary land dealings by creating an enabling environment for recognizing and enforcing customary tenure, and enforcing fair dealings in the use of land, as well as resolving land conflicts. Land governance priorities include:

>> Providing safeguards for vulnerable groups.>> Formalizing existing settlements on state land.>> Formalizing existing settlements on customary land.>> Making more formal land available for urban growth in consultation with customary groups. This may involve partnerships between customary authorities and government.

Tenure insecurity is an issue for an increasing number of people in the Pacific region, which impacts customary groups, individual members of customary groups, informal settlers, people with leases and others. The result is fear of investing in land or improving land that might be lost. Loss of access to land and livelihoods often results in conflict. Policy reform to improve access to credit may not succeed until people have secure tenure. Also, a combination of high hazard risk and poor tenure security on informal settlements increases vulnerability of residents. Therefore, tenure security is a high priority for all people and particularly for the more vulnerable.

The Voluntary Guidelines call for states to address tenure in disaster prevention and preparedness programmes. Measures for addressing tenure include:

>> Undertaking hazard-risk maps and assessments.>> Providing information to vulnerable people about their rights to land.>> Protecting land records. Systems for recording rights should survive natural disasters and could be stored off-site.

>> Developing legal and policy frameworks that recognize the legitimacy of informal rights to land and provide protection from land grabbing in the event of a disaster.

>> Developing land-use plans that delineate areas of hazard-risk and enforcement of these plans, and which identify areas for the temporary resettlement of people who may be displaced by natural disasters. Rules

131


for providing tenure security in such areas should be agreed upon and included in land policies.

>> Developing baseline information on legitimate but informal land tenure rights. This information should be collected for areas that could be affected by natural disasters.

The fit-for-purpose approach to land administration advocated by the multi-lateral agencies is very appropriate for PICs (FIG/World Bank, 2014). Fit-for-purpose approaches to recording land rights could be trialled in larger economies, such as Fiji, to provide lessons for the smaller nations.

However, as AusAID (2008) noted “The capacity of government institutions in many Pacific countries to coordinate and implement policy reforms often falls short of their ambitions. Therefore, governments should intervene in customary land systems only if it is absolutely necessary – for example, to improve tenure security, to resolve conflict or to develop public infrastructure…. Unnecessary interventions can create new problems. For example, drawing lines on a map to delineate ownership can lead to disputes over land when there was no previous disagreement about ‘unwritten’ boundaries. Because recording such information can be expensive and take a very long time, governments should consider limiting this sort of work to urban areas, or where disputes have arisen between customary groups, or where customary owners are seeking to develop some of their land…. Governments should also be wary of trying to change aspects of customary land systems that are working effectively or if there is no demand for change from the community. The tenure systems of most customary groups continue to insure members against the risks of landlessness, crop failure, environment stress, income loss and illness or disability. Close-knit groups often create, through custom and law, land regimes that are highly efficient and that adapt to changes in the requirements of their members (Ellickson, 1993). These systems may be providing sufficient tenure security at little cost to encourage all of the available forms of investment”.

132


ConCLusIons

Pressures such as urbanization in parts of the Pacific region are weakening customary authority. Therefore, joint responses to climate change and disaster risk involving customary groups and government will be important. The land agencies and NDMOs must work together to address land issues in DRM. Overlaps between CCA and DRM provide opportunities for synergies that are especially important for smaller PICs and atoll states such as Kiribati and Tuvalu. Limitations in institutional capacity highlight the importance of addressing land issues as part of a DRR approach rather than after a disaster occurs.

One of the key issues to emerge from the discussions during the training in Fiji was the need for land and NDMO agencies to work together to address land issues in the context of natural disasters. Given the large areas of customary land in many PICs, the customary groups must be involved in DRR and also in addressing the land issues identified in this paper. However, capacity development is needed for both government agencies and customary groups.

Another key issue to emerge was that care is needed when making decisions about resettlement. One of the lessons from recent disasters in the Pacific islands is that relocation is complex and should be seen as a last resort. In the case where long-term relocation is required, the customary land tenure system may be flexible enough to provide reasonable solutions. However, this is not the case everywhere and planning must include responses that explicitly address and limit potential conflicts by providing secure tenure for the host community as well as for those resettled. Often the most vulnerable people (including women, elderly, children, poor and outsiders) face the greatest impact and uncertainty and have the least resources to cope with and recover from disasters. Measures to protect these people from land grabbing and eviction must include improvements to their tenure security. Implementing responsible governance of tenure will help protect the vulnerable from the impacts of natural disasters and climate change.

Capacity development is needed for both government agencies and customary groups

133


REfEREnCEs

ADB. 2006. Technical Assistance Report - Republic of Kiribati: Integrated Land and Population Development Program on Kiritimati Island, ADB,15 pp.

ADB. 2009. Technical Assistance Completion Report, ADB, 2 pp.

AusAID. 2008. Making Land Work, Volume 1.

Bannerman, S. 1993. The ransom method of compensation claims in PNG, World Valuation Congress V, Auckland, New Zealand.

Bannerman, S. & Ogisi, F. 1994. Valuation of Customary Land in Papua New Guinea - Principles Versus Local Realities, FIG - International Federation of Surveyors XX Congress, Melbourne, Australia, 5–12 March 1994.

Birkmann J. & von Teichmen, K. 2010. Integrating disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation: key challenges—scales, knowledge, and norms. Sustainability Science DOI 10.1007/s11625-010-0108-y.

Connell, J. 2012. Population Resettlement in the Pacific: lessons from a hazardous history? Australian Geographer, 43: 127–142.

DAI. 2012. Coastal Community Adaptation Project (C-CAP). Available at http://dai.com/our-work/projects/south-pacific-islands%E2%80%94coastal-community-adaptation-project-c-cap.

Deutsch, R. 2008. Project Implementation and Beneficiary Assessment, Indonesia Reconstruction of Aceh Land Administration System (RALAS) Project, Badan Pertanahan Nasional (BPN) with support from Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Aceh and Nias.

Ellickson, R.C. 1993. Property in Land. Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 411. http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/411/.

ESCAP, UNISDR. 2010. Protecting Development Gains: Reducing Disaster Vulnerability and Building Resilience in Asia and the Pacific, The Asia-Pacific Disaster Report, 2010, http://www.unisdr.org/files/16132_asiapacificdisasterreport20101.pdf

FAO/CFS. 2012. Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security, Committee on World Food Security, UN FAO, Rome.

FIG. 2010. Sydney Agenda for Action Small Island Developing States and the Millennium Development Goals: Building the Capacity. (eds.) S. Enemark and D. Dumashie, FIG Publication No. 53.

Fiji NDMO. 1998. Natural Disaster Management Act, Government of Fiji, 24 pp.

Fiji NDMO. 2012. 2012 January Flood Report, Government of Fiji, 19 pp.

Fiji NDMO. 2013. Post-Disaster Needs Assessment- Tropical Cyclone Evan, 17th December 2012. Government of Fiji, 79 pp.

134


Gorapava, E. 2010. Recognizing the Capacity Limitation of Small Island Developing States. A Case Study on Land Tenure and Climate Change, FIG Congress – SIDS Workshop, 11th to 16th April 2010, Sydney, Australia.

Government of Fiji. 2009. Consolidated Report on Flash Floods - 8th -16th January 2009 - Damages Sustained and Necessary Responses, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction, Office of the Prime Minister, 80 pp.

Government of Kiribati. 2012. National Disaster Risk Management Plan, Part 1, Government of Kiribati, 36 pp.

Government of Samoa. 2007. Disaster and Emergency Act 2007, Government of Samoa, 17 pp.

Government of the Republic of Vanuatu. 2007. Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Management National Action Plan (2006 -2016), Government of Vanuatu. 64 pp.

Government of Tuvalu. 2013. Tuvalu National Strategic Action Plan for Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management 2012-2016, Government of Tuvalu, 55 pp.

Iese, V. 2012. Early Recovery: Relevant Case Studies and Lessons Learned, Presentation at Training on land tenure and Disaster Risk Management, AusAID funded project, The University of the South Pacific, July 9-13.

IFRC. 2009. Solomon Islands Earthquake and tsunami – Final Report, Solomon Islands Red Cross, 13 pp.

Mitchell, D. 2010. Land Tenure and Disaster Risk Management, Land Tenure Journal (ISSN 2079-715X), 1-10, pp121-141, June 2010.

Mitchell, D. 2011. Assessing and Responding to Land Tenure Issues in Disaster Risk Management, FAO Land Tenure Manual Number 3, FAO, UN-HABITAT, Global Land Tools Network, Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery.

Mitchell, D. & Myers, M. 2013. Land valuation and taxation: important tools for Disaster Risk Management, FIG Working Week 2013 - Environment for Sustainability, Abuja, Nigeria, 6–10 May.

Mitchell, D. 2014. The importance of tenure security and land use control in disaster risk reduction in Pacific Island Countries, Journal of Spatial Science (ISSN 1449-8596), Published online: 20 Jan 2014.

Myers, M. 2001. Valuation of Inalienable Customary Lands: Fair Compensation to Indigenous Land Owners. Paper presented at the 1st World Congress of the International Real Estate Society, Girdwood, Alaska.

Myers, M. & Shah, K. 2004. Why Native Lands are Worth Less Than Freehold: A Review & Analysis of Three Recent High Court Rulings, Australian Property Journal May 2004.

Nelson, G. 2007. Review of the Gender Dimensions of Land-Based Conflict in the Pacific, Land Management and Conflict Minimisation Sub-Project 2.6, The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat LMCM project is supported by AusAID and UNDP.

135


OHCHR. 2011. Protecting the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons in Natural Disasters: Challenges in the Pacific, http://pacific.ohchr.org/docs/IDP_report.pdf.

Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat. 2008. Customary Land Management and Conflict Minimisation: Guiding Principles and Implementation Framework for Improving Access to Customary Land and Maintaining Social Harmony in the Pacific, Land Management and Conflict Minimisation Project, Suva, Fiji. http://www.forumsec.org/resources/uploads/attachments/documents/LMCM%20synthesis%20report%20COMPLETE.pdf.

Radionz.org. 2009. 7,000 in evacuation centres after flooding in Solomon’s capital. Available at: http://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/240773/7,000-in-evacuation-centres-after-flooding-in-solomons-capital.

Radioaustralia.net.au. 2009. Solomon Islands flood victims given assurances Honiara evacuation centres not closing. Available at http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/pacific/2014-06-11/solomon-islands-flood-victims-given-assurances-honiara-evacuation-centres-not-closing/1324950.

Solomon Islands’ Government. 2010. National Disaster Risk Management Plan, 2010, Solomon Islands’ Government. 69 pp.

Tagicakibau, M. 2014. NDMO Brief, presentation at the EV424 Mid-Semester Workshop, The University of the South Pacific, April 7-11.

The Sphere Project. 2004. Humanitarian charter and minimum standards in disaster response, Geneva, Switzerland. Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response (SCHR) and InterAction with VOICE and ICVA.

Trundle, A. & McEvoy, D. 2015. Port Vila, Vanuatu Climate Vulnerability Assessment – Abridged Report, UN-Habitat, Fukuoka, Japan. Available at http://www.fukuoka.unhabitat.org/programmes/ccci/pdf/Vanuatu_PVVA_Abridged_March9.pdf

UNDP. 2012. Pacific Risk Resilience Programme – Working toward resilient communities in the Pacific – Project Brochure. Available at http://www.jp.undp.org/content/dam/rbap/docs/cpr/UNDP_PC_PRRP_brochure.pdf.

UNISDR. 2014. The Pacific Experience in Developing Policy and Legislation on Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation, United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction, Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand, 35 pp.

Vanuatu NDMO and OCHA. 2010. Gaua Island Contingency Plan for the Mass Evacuation and Relocation of the Population of Gaua Island, Draft 5, 65 pp.

Wisner, B. & Luce, H. 1993. Disaster vulnerability: Scale, power and daily life. GeoJournal 30(2): 127–140.

World Bank, Government of Samoa, GFDRR. 2009. Samoa Post-Disaster Needs Assessment Following the Earthquake and Tsunami of 29th September 2009.

> ©

bal

four

spe

nce

137


>1 14

RégIMEs fonCIERs ET gEsTIon DEs CaTasTRoPhEs naTuRELLEs Dans LEs CaRaïBEs

LanD TEnuRE anD naTuRaL DIsasTER ManagEMEnT In ThE CaRIBBEan

Charisse griffith-CharlesThe University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and [email protected]

Balfour spence Brandon University, Manitoba, [email protected]

Paulette Bynoe University of Guyana, Georgetown, Guyana [email protected]

Dianne RobertsRoberts Caribbean Ltd, Grenada [email protected]

Levy wilson Stamp Duty and Transfer Tax Division, Government of Jamaica, [email protected]

La TEnEnCIa DE La TIERRa y La gEsTIón DEL RIEsgo DE DEsasTREs En EL CaRIBE

138

charisse Griffith-charles, balfour spence, paulette bynoe, dianne roberts, levy wilson land tEnurE and natural disastEr manaGEmEnt in thE caribbEan

R é s u M é

RégIMEs fonCIERs


PhénoMènEs naTuRELs

Le degré d’insécurité des régimes fonciers est l’un des facteurs qui entravent la capacité des occupants des terres à atténuer les catastrophes naturelles, à y faire face et à s’en relever. Les catastrophes naturelles affectent le niveau de cette insécurité foncière. Des problèmes fonciers spécifiques, communs à quatre pays des Caraïbes – Sainte-Lucie, Jamaïque, Guyana et Grenade –, illustrent les conséquences d’épisodes précédents de catastrophes naturelles sur les régimes fonciers. Ces exemples ont permis d’identifier les prochaines étapes à suivre pour faire face aux problèmes de sécurité foncière dans le but d’améliorer la résistance aux catastrophes dans ces communautés des Caraïbes. Ces

a B s T R a C T

LanD TEnuRE


naTuRaL haZaRD

The level of land tenure insecurity is one of the factors that affect the ability of land occupants to mitigate, respond to and recover from natural disasters. Natural disasters impact the level of this tenure insecurity. The particular land tenure issues common to four countries of the Caribbean – Saint Lucia, Jamaica, Guyana and Grenada – illustrate the impact on land tenure from previous experiences with natural disasters. From these examples, the next steps for addressing security of tenure issues to improve resilience to disasters in these Caribbean communities are identified. These next steps can include education and building awareness about the relationship between security of land tenure and natural disaster impacts.

s u M a R I o



PELIgRo naTuRaL

El nivel de inseguridad de la tenencia de la tierra es uno de los factores que afectan la capacidad de los ocupantes de las tierras de mitigar los efectos de las catástrofes naturales, intervenir en caso de emergencia y recuperarse de ellas. Las catástrofes naturales repercuten en este grado de inseguridad de la tenencia. Las cuestiones concretas relativas a la tenencia de la tierra que son comunes a cuatro países del Caribe — Santa Lucía, Jamaica, Guyana y Granada — ilustran el impacto que tuvieron en la tenencia de la tierra experiencias de catástrofes naturales en el pasado. A partir de estos ejemplos, se identifican los pasos que deben seguirse para abordar las cuestiones en torno a la seguridad de la tenencia y mejorar la capacidad

139


Capacity building is among the range of land administration tools that could be applied to mitigate the impact of land tenure on effects of natural disasters. Collaboration between land tenure and disaster management agencies can also help to address the issue of land tenure and its effect on natural disaster impacts.

étapes comprennent notamment des campagnes de sensibilisation et d’information sur la relation entre sécurité des régimes fonciers et catastrophes naturelles. Le renforcement des capacités est l’un des nombreux outils qui pourraient être utilisés par les administrations foncières pour atténuer l’impact des régimes fonciers sur les effets des catastrophes naturelles. La collaboration entre les organismes de gestion des catastrophes et des régimes fonciers peut également contribuer à répondre aux problèmes fonciers et à leurs conséquences sur les effets des catastrophes naturelles.

de resistencia a las catástrofes de estas comunidades del Caribe. Entre estos pasos cabe destacar la educación y la sensibilización acerca de la relación que existe entre la seguridad de la tenencia de la tierra y las repercusiones de las catástrofes naturales. El fomento de la capacidad se cuenta entre la gran variedad de instrumentos de administración de la tierra que podrían aplicarse para mitigar los efectos de las catástrofes naturales en la tenencia de la tierra. Asimismo, la colaboración entre los organismos encargados de la tenencia de la tierra y aquellos que se ocupan de la gestión de las catástrofes puede ser de utilidad para abordar la cuestión de la tenencia de la tierra y mitigar las repercusiones de las catástrofes naturales.

© b

alfo

ur s

penc

e

1 14

140


InTRoDuCTIon

The link between security of land tenure and resilience to natural disaster impacts is not always recognized or given the importance it deserves. In this paper, examples of this linkage are identified in four countries in the Caribbean, Saint Lucia, Jamaica, Guyana and Grenada (see Figure 1). The case studies in the four countries examine similarities and differences in land tenure and land administration systems, and the impacts of past natural disasters. Since empirical data regarding the relationship between land tenure and natural disasters are not available in the limited land administration systems of the region, much of this examination stems from anecdotal and qualitative evidence. The analysis leads to recommendations for addressing the vulnerabilities by targeting land tenure issues.

BackgroundSecurity of land tenure and land access can be factors that affect the ability of land occupants to survive and recover from natural disaster impacts (FAO, 2011; Barnes and Riverstone, 2008). The land occupant with insecure tenure prior to the impact of a natural disaster may not be able to use the land holding to fund disaster risk mitigation strategies. In general, such mitigation strategies can include engineering and construction processes on roofs, such as tying roofing sheets to the building to prevent removal by hurricanes. Mitigation can also involve construction of large storm drains in the urban residential environment and construction of terraces and retaining walls in the rural, agricultural sector to reduce the impact of floods, landslides and erosion. Even when land occupants have funds other than credit, having insecure tenure can make them reluctant to invest in mitigation strategies for fear of losing the investment and the land to counterclaimants before and after the disaster (FAO, 2011; Barnes and Riverstone, 2008).

Insecure tenure can make land occupants reluctant to evacuate during a disaster for fear of losing their land. The occupant therefore remains in danger (FAO, 2011; Barnes and Riverstone, 2008; Reale and Handmer,

The link between security of land tenure and resilience to natural disaster impacts is not always recognized or given the importance it deserves

Even when land occupants have funds other than credit, having insecure tenure can make them reluctant to invest in mitigation strategies for fear of losing the investment and the land to counterclaimants before and after the disaster

141


2011). In the face of unrecorded occupation and insecure tenure, the state or national and international aid agencies are also unsure as to what land can be used to site emergency shelters without imposing on pre-existing land rights, as was the case in Haiti after the earthquake of 2010 (Giampaoli and Freudenberger, 2010). Later in the impact cycle, when recovery and reconstruction are underway, insecure tenure again restricts funding reconstruction and introduction of mitigation strategies for potential events. Previous occupants and their heirs would have no documentary title evidence to support their claim to the land. The state

Figure 1Location of case study countries in

the Caribbean

Caribbean Sea

Cuba

Colombia

Guyana

Suriname

Venezuela

Jamaica Haiti

Dominican Republic

St. Thomas

St. CroixNevis

St. MartinSt. Eustatius

Tobago

GrenadaCuracao Barbados

Saint Lucia

GuadeloupePuerto Rico

St. Christopher

142


organizations or other judicial and aid agencies have little evidence to support land adjudication and land conflict resolution strategies. Orphans, widows, minorities, the poor, and the differently-abled are most at risk in conflicts and contestations over land and typically have no documentary evidence of ownership. In Bangladesh in 1991 after cyclones and floods, five times as many women as men died because women were not allowed to leave home without a male relative (Huq and Ayers, 2007). In Yogyakarta and Central Java Provinces, six months after a devastating earthquake in 2006, landless labourers and sharecropper farmers were still homeless, while landowners had recovered (Herianto et al., 2007).

Even in instances where land tenure is secure and supported by adequately documented titles and land registration systems, vulnerabilities in the land administration systems can result in damage to or destruction of land information, which can result in new insecurities in the tenure system (Benny et al., 2006; Haroen et al., 2006). Conflicts over land and inequitable treatment of vulnerable groups can result. For example, after the tsunami in Aceh in 2004, paper-based records at the state repository were damaged or destroyed, leading to 300 000 affected land parcels, 25 percent of which were probably archived in the land registry.

The land tenure of many Caribbean countries includes informalities, both through illegal occupation on state or private land of recent or long standing duration and through legitimate but undocumented possession of interests in family land. Family land is a communal tenure form in the Caribbean defined simply as rights held by virtue of membership in a descent line from the original occupant of the land (Besson, 1984; Besson, 1987; Griffith-Charles, 2004; Griffith-Charles, 2011; Barnes and Griffith-Charles, 2007).

The land administration systems of the Caribbean are also not sufficiently comprehensive and current to support formal security of tenure. Much of the informality is accepted and allowed to continue undisturbed. Table 1 gives the score and the rank of two of the case study countries on the International Property Rights Index (Property Rights Alliance, 2014), which represents values based on perceptions and procedures in property rights registration and credit access.

orphans, widows, minorities, the poor, and the differently-abled are most at risk in conflicts and contestations over land and typically have no documentary evidence of ownership

The land administration systems of the Caribbean are also not sufficiently comprehensive and current to support formal security of tenure. Much of the informality is accepted and allowed to continue undisturbed

143


InDEx InDICaToR RangE saInT LuCIa JaMaICa gREnaDa guyanaInternational Property Rights Index (2014)

physical property rights score and rank

range 0–10; 0 = worst

rank – out of 97 countries 1=best

no data

no data

6.4

46th

no data

no data

6.0

59th

world Economic forum’s global Competitiveness Index (2013)

property rights score and rank

range 1–7; 1 = poorly defined

rank – out of 144 countries 1=best

no data

no data

4.2

72nd

no data

no data

3.6

105th

International fund for agricultural Development, Rural Poverty Report (2011)

Gini index range 0–1; 0 = equal distribution

0.65 (1996) 0.46 (2008) no data 0.45 (1998)

world Bank group Doing Business survey (2014)

registering property – overall world ranking

rank – out of 183 countries; 1 = best

132 126 128 103

The World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index also indicates perceptions of property rights for two of the countries. The scores and ranks place the countries in the lower half of countries globally (World Economic Forum, 2011). The Rural Poverty Report of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD, 2011) gives figures for three of the countries, indicating distribution of income is not close to being equitable. The World Bank Group Doing Business Survey (2014) (World Bank, 2014a) also indicates that all four countries are in the lower half of countries globally in terms of speed and efficiency of procedures in land registration.

Geomorphology and location in the hurricane zone are factors that predispose Caribbean countries to flooding, landslides and erosion of hillsides and coastal areas (Ahmad, 2012; Boruff and Cutter, 2007). The small size of most Caribbean islands also makes the countries particularly vulnerable to impacts of climate change, rising sea levels and coastal inundation. The

table 1security of land tenure and poverty indicators for the case study countries

144


Caribbean countries must therefore address the impacts of insecurity of tenure on disaster risk and resilience over the shorter term.

The following four case studies examine the physical vulnerability to natural disasters for each country. Then the particular land tenure arrangements in the four countries are described and the experiences each country has had related to the link between insecure tenure and natural disaster impacts on informal occupants of land is discussed. Conclusions are drawn on how the link between land tenure and natural disasters can be used to improve systems in the countries.

saInT LuCIa

BackgroundSaint Lucia is similar in geomorphology to many of the volcanically formed islands of the Lesser Antilles. This 616 km2 country rises to 950 metres in the interior, the steep slopes being vulnerable to slippage and difficult to develop. The relatively high population of 165 595 people on the limited usable land makes it challenging to provide equitable access to land for residential use and sustainable agricultural production (population density is 299 people per km2 (World Bank, 2014b). The land administration is challenged to maintain records that support security of tenure. The colonial history of the island resulted in large disparities in access to land and disparities in the quality of land held. Fortunately, Saint Lucia benefitted from the land administration intervention of a successful systematic land adjudication and registration programme in the 1980s. The programme quickly and efficiently titled 33 000 parcels over the entire island (Vargas and Stanfield, 2003; United Aerial Mapping Inc., 1988). In order to meet the rigid schedule, the programme was forced to title family land as communal holdings even though one of the aims of the project was to individualize and clarify titles on all family land parcels so that economic development would improve. Many parcels were titled in the name of ‘Heirs of Smith’, for example, with an undefined number of owners. The continued existence of family land tenure has proven to be beneficial, however, in that security and support for lower income family members was

145


provided during the economic slumps that came afterwards (Dujon, 1995; 1997). Family members who fell on difficult times could occupy the land as a buffer from homelessness.

Current status of land tenure and land accessDespite the earlier systematic adjudication and titling of all land, there now exist large numbers of people who occupy state land illegally or informally. The state (or Crown) in Saint Lucia owns 20 to 38 percent (Johnson, 2008; ECMC, 2007) of the land, much of which is informally occupied in the absence of any affordable land-owning option. More than 33 separate informal settlements exist over the island (ECMC Ltd., 2007). At least ten of the settlements are urban in and around the capital city of Castries. There have been periodic initiatives embarked on by the state to regularize the informal occupation. Some of the more notable programmes include the Programme for the Rationalisation of Unplanned Developments (PROUD) and the Settlement and Tenantry Upgrade Revolving Fund (STURF), which were part of a Shelter Development Project (SDP) co-financed by the Government of Saint Lucia and the Caribbean Development Bank (CDB) to reduce the level of informal and inadequate housing and settlement infrastructure. The programmes were established in 2000, but because of the difficulties encountered in trying to regularize standard planning specifications before regularizing tenure, the process only titled 200 households by 2005 (Engineering, Construction and Management Consultant (ECMC) Ltd., 2007). The process is therefore an inefficient one and squatting continues to intensify and to become established in new areas.

There has been no decrease in the number of family land parcels since the systematic registration project. Having family land tenure can also provide insecurity of tenure for the occupants because they have no documented evidence of their land rights (Griffith-Charles, 2004). Even on parcels formally registered in the titling project of the 1980s, subsequent inheritances are sometimes not formally registered, leading to a deformalization of registered parcels (Barnes and Griffith-Charles, 2007). This may make it difficult to obtain credit for constructing or retrofitting homes to withstand potential disasters. Family land parcels are distributed across the island, although they are more prevalent in the rural and agricultural areas. The family land parcels are

having family land tenure can also provide insecurity of tenure for the occupants because they have no documented evidence of their land rights

146


generally large tracts that remain inaccessible to subdivision and development because potential purchasers and investors cannot transact with the entire ownership group of ‘Heirs of Smith’.

The land administration system remains largely manual, which makes it vulnerable to loss or destruction in a disaster since there are likely to be no copies of the registry records. This makes it extremely difficult to support or re-establish ownership, occupation and use rights after a natural disaster such as a hurricane. This situation occurred in Haiti after the earthquake of 2010 because the building where the, albeit limited, title documents were held was badly damaged (Giampaoli and Freudenberger, 2010).

Experiences with insecure tenure and disasterSaint Lucia is in the hurricane belt and has experienced numerous destructive events. The worst damage was sustained from Hurricane Allen in 1980, Hurricane Debby in 1994, Hurricane Lenny in 1999, Hurricane Dean in 2007 and Hurricane Tomas in 2010. The events resulted in landslides, storm surges and flooding that affected the entire population, but disproportionately the low income inhabitants with insecure tenure on both agricultural and residential lands. Subsequent to Hurricane Tomas it was recognized by the World Bank that some of the buildings that had been retrofitted using external funding for disaster mitigation had safely weathered the hurricane (World Bank, 2010). The occupants of buildings would not have been able to fund the mitigation procedures themselves and would not have had them funded had they not had some type of formal tenure. No documentation was found of the type of tenure held by the beneficiaries of this initiative to confirm this assumption.

In addition to hurricanes, tropical storms and lower level weather systems can also result in heavy losses due to floods and landslides. The most recent occurrence was the weather system of December 24th 2013, which resulted in flooding and landslides that left five dead and caused millions of dollars worth of damage. The housing sector suffered US$490 485 (EC$1 314 500) in damage and most of the loss occurred in homes of the low income and poor families situated in flood and landslide prone areas along and adjacent to riverbanks (World Bank/GFDRR/GoSL, 2014). Their location in areas not approved by planning authorities for building indicates informality in both land tenure and

147


building construction. Retrofitting is less expensive than relocation of occupants and should be the preferred option for disaster mitigation, particularly if occupants have to use their own labour to help in retrofitting. Acknowledging their tenure rights formally would encourage their efforts according to the ‘assurance effect’ of formalization because it imbues the rights holder with the assurance that he/she will obtain long-term benefits from the land and leads to the investment of his/her energies in the land (Brasselle et al., 2002).

The Environment and Sustainable Development Unit (ESDU) of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) Secretariat, located in Saint Lucia, undertook vulnerability and risk assessment studies in informal/squatter communities throughout Saint Lucia. The steep topography in Saint Lucia has resulted in numerous environmentally sensitive areas throughout the island, many of which have been occupied by squatters. Informal occupation does not hold a monopoly on all informal construction that increases vulnerability and risk to natural disasters. Studies have indicated that even the formal sector in Saint Lucia is sometimes rendered vulnerable as a result of poor building practices (Gencer, 2013; WB/GFDRR, 2010). The link between tenure and credit availability to mitigate risk means that the informal occupant is more often at greater risk.

There is a nexus between informal occupation and impacts from disasters, although informality is usually linked to low incomes and impacts are exacerbated in vulnerable areas. Informal landholders are more likely to occupy and use vulnerable areas, thus increasing the vulnerability and any subsequent impacts on the occupied area and informal occupants.

JaMaICa

BackgroundJamaica, with an area of 10 991 km2 and a population of 2.6 million, is one of the largest and most populous islands of the Caribbean. While the geomorphology is different from that of the volcanic islands, landslips are still common on steep slopes in the mountainous areas, and are exacerbated by poor agricultural practices such as slash and burn clearing prior to cropping.

148


Jamaica, having recognized the interconnectedness of sustainable development and the impacts of disasters prioritized disaster risk reduction (DRR) in its land policy (Government of Jamaica, 1996). However, limited financial resources have restricted the ability to operationalize the policy.

Approximately 30 percent of land in Jamaica is held in family lands, a form of freehold tenure where rights are jointly shared among an entire kinship group. Traditionally, three rules governed family lands: (1) all offspring, regardless of gender, birth order or legitimacy, shared inherited lands equally; (2) absentee owners did not forfeit their rights, but rather perennially reserved the right to return and claim their share of the plot; and (3) family lands could not be sold or permanently subdivided. In current reality, the rules governing family land are more fluid: a family plot is generally shared among siblings or first cousins and is managed and used only by those who remain to farm. It is not shared in any meaningful way with those who have left the area. The farming household on family land often appears to be its full owner. It is usual for this household to work the land exclusively, harvesting the crops and building a house on the land. Nonetheless, many continue to believe that family land is only temporarily divided and that all rights holders retain rights to the entire land area (daCosta, 2003; USAID, 2010).

The main extra-legal form of tenure is squatting. Jamaica has a long history of squatting, dating as far back as the emancipation period in the nineteenth century. Following the abolition of slavery in 1834, landless former slaves acquired illegal holdings, not only from vacant Crown land but also from land abandoned by planters due to a shortage of farm labour. The squatted land was used both for building homes and for subsistence agriculture. An estimated 20 percent of the population lives in squatter settlements, and 82 percent of squatter settlements are in urban areas, although rural agricultural squatting is not uncommon. Seventy-five percent of squatters occupy Crown Land (state-owned lands). These lands are also referred to as ‘captured lands.’ Squatting has become an institutionalized form of tenure and squatters may acquire possessory rights to private land after 12 years and rights to state land after 60 years, although the rate of formalization of squatter rights is unknown (daCosta, 2003; USAID, 2010).

In some cases, large areas of land are held in common by a community. Common lands are often the result of collapsed plantation systems and

an estimated 20 percent of the population lives in squatter settlements, and 82 percent of squatter settlements are in urban areas, although rural agricultural squatting is not uncommon

149


include common treaty land held by a group known as Maroons, who are descendants of escaped slaves (Barker and Spence, 1988).

Current status of land tenure and land accessThe pattern of land concentration in the higher income sectors of society, which typified land access throughout the colonial period, has persisted in Jamaica in spite of a long history of attempts to promote more equitable distribution of and access to land. This disparity in the levels of land concentration characterize the tenure profile as reflected in the status of land tenure indicators shown in Table 1. Jamaica gets average scores on both the International Property Rights Index (Property Rights Alliance, 2014) and the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Index (2011), indicating that property rights are not being supported for the whole population and all categories of tenure. The Gini Land Concentration Index (GLCI) also indicates that there is disparity in holdings among the population, and this is prevalent in many of the post-colonial, post-slavery societies of the Caribbean. The GLCI moved from 0.79 in 1971 to 0.81 in 1981 (Spence, 1996) to 0.46 in 2011. These figures reflect some improvement in the ratings, possibly as a result of initiatives implemented to provide more equitable access to land. The World Bank Group also ranks Jamaica’s land registration and transactions in land status moderate to poor.

Despite there being 680 000 parcels of land listed on the property valuation roll in Jamaica, land professionals familiar with the activity on land, without having reliable land tenure statistics to draw on, believe that if illegal sub-divisions of land are taken into account, the number of land parcels exceeds one million. It is estimated that less than 50 percent of parcels have formally documented titles of ownership (Table 2) (daCosta, 2003).

tEnurE catEGorY pErcEntaGE oF parcElsindividually owned (documented title) 45Family (collective entitlement) 30state (crown lands) 22rented unknownsquatting unknown

compiled from usaid country profile: property and resource Governance, jamaica 2010.

table 2Estimate of distribution of tenure

by category in Jamaica

150


Experiences with insecure tenure and disasterThere are few empirical data relating to the relationship between land tenure and disaster in the land administration systems of many Caribbean countries, including Jamaica. Therefore, the consequences of land tenure on disasters, and vice versa, are implicit rather than explicit. The absence of such data and analyses is a result of a lack of recognition of the linkages between land tenure and disaster risk management. Much of the discussion of the land tenure disaster relationship therefore must be supported by reference to squatting, which is better documented than family land or other tenure (Government of Jamaica, 2004, 2008).

From a disaster management perspective and underscoring the link between insecure tenure and disaster impacts, squatting usually occurs on susceptible, marginal hazard-prone lands (Government of Jamaica, 2008):

>> Steep slopes prone to landslides and other forms of mass movement.>> Low-lying areas prone to flooding from perennial as well as seasonal waterways.

>> Coastal wetlands prone to riverine and coastal flooding and epidemiological hazards resulting from poor drainage and sanitation.

>> Urban fringe locations that lack basic amenities.

The marginal nature of informally occupied lands and the temporary nature of housing material exacerbate the high level of vulnerability associated with insecure land tenure in squatter communities. Berke et al. (1993), in a study of the institutional design implications for recovery and development in relation to Hurricane Gilbert, which impacted Jamaica in 1988, identified insecurity of tenure as a major factor in explaining the relative level of damage sustained to housing among different tenure groups. The study found that the incidence of homes destroyed by the hurricane was six times greater for squatters than for those who formally owned their homes.

Disaster risk management planning in Jamaica does not directly address land tenure, but the poverty-sensitive focus of the disaster risk management planning process targets communities with marginal land access and insecure tenure, especially the most vulnerable squatter communities. Immediately following a natural disaster, irrespective of types of tenure, impacted

151


communities were provided with emergency shelter and other relief as required by the National Emergency Welfare and Shelter Plan or, where they existed, community-based plans. Following Hurricane Gilbert in 1988, it became evident that the whole question of welfare management would have to be addressed and a specific Disaster Relief Policy put in place. The first step in this process was in 1990 with the National Disaster Committee approving the engagement of the Red Cross, the Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA) and the Salvation Army as the official relief distributors for the island. All of these organizations had previous experience in Jamaica and were part of the grassroots human resource network. The Emergency Shelter/Welfare Plan for Jamaica outlines procedures for dispensing relief and eligibility for such assistance. The plan is aimed primarily at providing emergency relief to the poor who invariably are those with insecure tenure and access to land.

Several strategies for vulnerability assessment and measures for risk reduction have been formulated and implemented in Jamaica. While the land tenure disaster risk management paradigm has been implicit in these initiatives, the most explicit has been the National Squatter Survey of Jamaica 2010, which provides comprehensive data on squatting in the country (Government of Jamaica, 2010).

guyana

BackgroundThe Co-operative Republic of Guyana is an anglophone country on the Caribbean coast of South America. It is relatively large in comparison with the Caribbean island countries, occupying an area of 215 000 km2 with a population 763 719. The land in the most populated coastal region is generally 2.5 metres below mean high tide sea level, leading to vulnerability to coastal flooding. More than 90 percent of the country’s population resides on the coast.

Current status of land tenure and land accessFor private land there are predominantly formal systems of deeds and leases, but on state land there is an informal land tenure system that comprises

152


two groups: those with links to the formal system (e.g. application for a lease but not yet formalized), and those that work totally outside the formal system (i.e. squatting). The result of these informal tenure arrangements is the sub-letting and sale of public land with no formal title documents (Bishop, 2003). The Government of Guyana (GoG), through its Central Housing and Planning Authority, has embarked on a comprehensive regularization programme, which has covered both the agriculture and human settlement sectors. In the agricultural sector, emphasis has been placed on land tenure regularization to facilitate the conversion of leasehold state land to privately owned freehold lands. In the settlement sector, the emphasis is on security of tenure for informal settlement/communities based on in situ regularization, as well issuance of land titles to recipients of low income housing plots and private housing developers (Bishop, 2003).

Experiences with insecure tenure and disasterFloods represent the major natural hazard in Guyana. The geologic and geomorphologic characteristics of the coast make Guyana vulnerable to flooding. Firstly, the area is below mean high tide sea level and becomes submerged during periods of heavy rainfall or when there are sea defence breaches during high tides. Secondly, the clay soil drains poorly and allows water to accumulate much faster, and to remain on the land much longer, thereby giving rise to flooding. Thirdly, the gradient of the land slopes from the more elevated old coastal plain in the south to the Atlantic Ocean where built up sea defence structures exist. This creates a slight depression that allows floodwaters from the back lands to move northwards and to accumulate in the surrounding housing areas (Daniel, 2001; Bynoe et al., 2009). Between 1998 and 2010 Guyana was affected by floods on five separate occasions (1989, 1996, 2005, 2006 and 2008). The two events that could reasonably be classified as natural disasters are the drought of 1997 and the 2005 floods. In each case more than 50 percent of the total population of 760 834 was affected (UNDP/ECLAC, 2005).

The case of Plastic City is illustrative of the experiences of informal occupants and natural disasters in Guyana. Plastic City is an informally occupied area located along the shoreline of the Atlantic, 60 metres past the seawall in Vreed-en-Hoop, on the West Coast Demerara. This area has gained

153


the attention of both the Government of Guyana and the public since the ‘squatters’ were offered housing lots in safer areas, but have refused to relocate to areas designated by the government. In many cases, squatters who refused to relocate based their decision on ‘pull factors’ such as livelihood security, access to education and health care for their children, and transportation costs to school and workplaces associated with increased distance. For example, if squatters have assets such as a garden (with cash crops) and animals (cattle, sheep and chickens), it is difficult to relocate the assets or establish a new livelihood in another area.

A baseline study conducted in 2006 (Bynoe, 2006) in six communities on the East Coast of Demerara documented the experiences when the squatters’ homes were flooded for at least three weeks when the water rose to approximately a metre, enough to put both children and adults at risk. The floods affected communities physically, economically, socially and psychologically. The communities suffered loss of livelihoods (primarily agriculture), increased income poverty, loss and damage to property and even further losses after the floods had receded. Physically, communities were rendered almost inhabitable: pit latrines (used extensively by residents) overflowed and caused water pollution, residents used plastic bags to dispose of human excreta, which further increased health risks, garbage was disposed of indiscriminately in the vicinity, offensive odours pervaded the immediate environment, thereby changing the air quality, and the aesthetic quality of the environment was furthered affected. A number of households experienced health problems, including skin rashes. In a few cases, people died of leptospirosis. In addition to water-borne diseases, women in particular were affected psychologically due to the trauma resulting from flooding and the burden of caring for their families.

gREnaDa

BackgroundGrenada, part of a tri-island state (Grenada, Carriacou and Petit Martinique), is the southernmost Windward Island in the eastern Caribbean. The island group covers approximately 344 km2, with Grenada comprising an area of

The floods affected communities physically, economically, socially and psychologically

154


307 km2 or 89 percent of the total island group. The population density is the highest of the eastern Caribbean countries, at 311 persons per km2. This, coupled with the steep topography, increases the vulnerability of both residential and agricultural land.

Current status of land tenure and land accessGrenada differs from some of the other eastern Caribbean countries in that there is a lower percentage of state owned lands (ten percent) leading to fewer squatters who could occupy that land to end their landlessness. However, a strong culture of family land predominates. This represents a fundamental challenge due to its informality. It was reported as the most common problem affecting land tenure in Grenada. Recent estimates state that family land accounts for about 15 percent of interests held in land in Grenada (Williams, 2003) and could be more prevalent (Barnes and Riverstone, 2008, 2010). In addition, many owners of private lands do not hold any formal document to evidence their ownership. It has been said that Grenadians remained mistrustful of the state and lawyers and avoided having them prepare deeds or wills to document ownership of rights that they and the community already knew as fact. In terms of land administration, there is no cadastral system to give a comprehensive visualization of the parcel information in the country. Despite the small area of state lands, squatting still occurs on state and private lands. Lands most commonly used for squatting are located in hazardous areas; very steep slopes, limited soil depth and high vulnerability to coastal surges. Moreover, the infrastructure to support community development, such as drainage and roads, is almost non-existent. The problem is compounded because government, in most cases, regularizes land rights in squatter communities and/or in relocated communities without addressing the inherent deficiencies to ensure proper planning of the settlements (See Figure 2.).

Experiences with insecure tenure and disasterHurricane Ivan, a Category Three hurricane, impacted Grenada in 2004. It claimed 28 lives and devastated Grenada’s economy, with total damage estimated at EC$ 2.4 billion dollars, 200 percent of GDP. Ten months later,

Lands most commonly used for squatting are located in hazardous areas; very steep slopes, limited soil depth and high vulnerability to coastal surges

155


Hurricane Emily, a Category One hurricane with sustained winds of 90 mph, affected Grenada, killing one person and causing damage estimated at EC$ 140.02 million, representing 12.9 percent of GDP.

An assessment was commissioned by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) in Grenada in 2004/2005 to investigate the impact of land tenure and administration on housing reconstruction after Hurricane Ivan. It identified a number of formal, informal and quasi-formal systems of tenure in both state and private lands. USAID, despite being amenable to building sixty houses for the poor who had lost their homes in Hurricane Ivan, did not wish to build homes for those who had no title and could cause subsequent conflict with counter-claimants. Consequently, they did not build the homes (Barnes and Riverstone, 2008, 2010). This is a clear impact of lack of documentary evidence of tenure negatively impacting recovery from disaster.

anaLysIs anD ConCLusIon

The relationship between land tenure and disaster impact is seldom investigated and seldom acknowledged. Land tenure was not factored into disaster risk management planning in the four case studies even though it

This is a clear impact of lack of documentary evidence of tenure negatively impacting recovery from disaster

Figure 2Left: squatting in

grande anse valley. Right: resettled squatting

community in La saggesse with little infrastructure

or planning input. (Photographer Dianne Roberts)

156


is apparent that some of the problems experienced after the disasters could have been mitigated by addressing tenure issues prior to the events. In Saint Lucia this mitigation could have taken the form of acknowledging the tenure and allowing and supporting households to access funds to reinforce their roofs prior to the disaster.

In Grenada, occupation rights could have been documented and recorded by the state, allowing the householders to have documentary security of tenure to allow them to access the funds offered or to provide for their own mitigation and adaptation measures. Regularization and resettlement is also ongoing without planning infrastructure being established to take into account the vulnerability of the slopes.

Jamaica’s efforts at improving equity in land access and tenure security, for example, is being implemented independently of disaster risk management initiatives.

In Guyana, tenure, livelihood and poverty all interact to prevent occupants of land from moving out of vulnerable coastal areas.

In all cases the land tenure issue is intricately interwoven with livelihood and poverty issues. The need for an interface between these efforts is evident. Where tenure is insecure, there is little incentive to engage in DRR measures. This also means that efforts invested in risk reduction are likely to fail in environments where tenure is insecure. If the tenure of those who have been in occupation for a long time, or those who are on family land, is recorded or recognized using low cost and quick new tools and procedures, then communities can be encouraged to put their own efforts into mitigation. In this way the energies within the communities and the individual households can be harnessed to assist in hazard and risk management.

In light of the existing conditions, there are recommended actions that can be taken to reduce the negative impacts of anticipated events:

>> Build capacity and awareness of the link between insecure tenure and severity of impacts from natural disasters. The awareness at both state and community level in these countries can lead to consideration of planned initiatives to address vulnerability.

>> Invite community centred activities, such as construction of physical mitigation structures or informal tenure recording. This can support the

If the tenure of those who have been in occupation for a long time, or those who are on family land, is recorded or recognized using low cost and quick new tools and procedures, then communities can be encouraged to put their own efforts into mitigation

157


resource challenges of state institutions while empowering communities to support their own mitigation.

>> Acquire, record and track land slope, soil types, mean sea levels and locations of previous events of slippage and flooding. This can provide empirical evidence of linkages between insecure tenure and disaster impacts.

>> Archive, duplicate and store digitally all tenure data, whether formal or informal, to support recovery efforts and access to external funding for reconstruction.

>> Provide more secure tenure for those on family land and in informal occupation to incentivize investment in mitigation works at the household level.

>> Include the links between insecure tenure and natural disaster impacts in national land policy and national land use policy plans to inform the direction of these policies.

>> Introduce, monitor and enforce legislation and regulations proscribing occupation of vulnerable areas to reduce future impacts.

>> Examine the factors (economic, social, cultural, and political) that impact on land rights and land access and thus drive landlessness and informal occupation so that these can be addressed at source.

>> Support the provision of resources for land administration institutions to enable them to better maintain current and comprehensive datasets.

>> Coordinate activities among institutions for land tenure (cadastre, land registration) and those for disaster risk management so that the links can be considered and addressed in all plans.

>> Support the provision of resources for communities so that they can manage and monitor land use and land tenure at a local level.

These recommendations are based on the land tenure and natural disaster history status of the four case study countries. The recommendations can however, be considered for other Caribbean countries with similar circumstances.

Include the links between insecure tenure and natural disaster impacts in national land policy and national land use policy plans to inform the direction of these policies

158


REfEREnCEs

Ahmad, N. 2011. Soils in the Caribbean, Ian Randle Publishers, Jamaica.

Boruff, B. & Cutter, S. 2007 .The Environmental Vulnerability of Caribbean Island Nations. The Geographic Review, 97: 24–45.

Barker, D. & Spence, B. 1988. Afro-Caribbean Agriculture: A Maroon Community in Transition, The Geographical Journal, 154: 198–208.

Barnes, G. & Griffith-Charles, C. 2007. Assessing the formal land market and deformalization of property in St. Lucia. Land Use Policy, 24: 494–501.

Barnes, G. & Riverstone, J. 2008. Post-disaster Land Issues Case Study: Hurricane Ivan (2004) in Grenada. Final Report.

Barnes, G. & Riverstone, J. 2010. Exploring vulnerability and resilience in land tenure systems after Hurricanes Mitch and Ivan. Proceedings of XXIV International Federation of Geomatics (FIG) Congress, Sydney, Australia.

Benny, H., Haroen, T. & Heryani, E. 2006. Post-Tsunami Land Parcel Reconstruction in Aceh: Aspects, Status and Problems. Proceedings of the XXIII FIG Congress, Munich, Germany, October 8–13, 2006.

Berke, P., Beasley, T. & Feagin, C. 1991. Hurricane Gilbert Strikes Jamaica: Institutional Design Implications of Recovery and Development. College Station: Hazard Reduction and Recovery Center, Texas A&M University. Retrieved from http://msld.tamu.edu/hrrc.

Besson, J. 1987. A Paradox in Caribbean Attitudes to Land. In Besson and Momsen (eds.) Land and Development in the Caribbean. London: Macmillan, pp. 13–45.

Besson, J. 1984. Family land and Caribbean society: Toward an ethnography of Afro-Caribbean peasantries. In Perspectives on Caribbean Regional Identity, edited by Elizabeth Thomas-Hope. Liverpool: Centre of Latin American Studies, University of Liverpool.

Bishop, A.R. 2003. Guyana: Land Policy, Administration and Management. In Williams, A.N. (Ed). Land in the Caribbean. Issues, Administration and Management in the English Speaking Caribbean. Land Tenure Centre, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA.

159


Brasselle, A-S., Gaspart, F. & Platteau, J-P. 2002. Land Tenure Security and Investment Incentives: Puzzling Evidence from Burkina Faso. Journal of Development Economics, 67: 373–418.

Bynoe, P. 2006. Reaching Youth and Communities: Good Practices for Promoting Disaster Risk Management Initiatives in the Caribbean. Presented at CDEMA conference December 9 2009 Montego Bay, Jamaica.

Bynoe, P., Johnson, L. & Simmons, D. 2009. An Integrated Assessment of Georgetown. Study conducted for UNEP/ROLAC. Panama.

daCosta, J. 2003. Jamaica: Land Policy, Administration and Management: A Case Study. In Land in the Caribbean. Proceedings of a Workshop on Land Policy, Administration and Management in the English-Speaking Caribbean, Trinidad, March 2003.

Dujon, V. 1997. Communal Property and Land Markets: Agricultural Development Policy in St. Lucia. World Development, 25: 1529–1540.

Dujon, V. 1995. National Actors against World Market Pressures: Communal Land, Privatisation and Agricultural Development in the Caribbean, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison (PhD Thesis).

Engineering, Construction and Management Consultant (ECMC) Ltd. 2007. National Report on Housing and Resettlement in St. Lucia. Ministry of Physical Development Environment and Housing.

FAO. 2011. Manual 3, Assessing and responding to land tenure issues in disaster risk management, Rome.

Gencer, E.A. 2013. The Interplay Between Urban Development, Vulnerability, and Risk Management, Mediterranean Studies, 7, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-29470-9_2,

Giampaoli, P. & Freudenberger, M. 2010. Land Tenure and Property Rights in Haiti. Property Rights and Resources Governance Briefing Paper 6. US Agency for International Development (USAID).

Government of Jamaica. 1996. National Land Policy of Jamaica. Government of Jamaica.

Government of Jamaica. 2004. National Squatter Settlement Survey. GoJ: Kingston Jamaica.

Government of Jamaica (Ministry of Housing). 2008. Rapid Assessment of the Problem of Squatting in Jamaica. GOJ, Kingston, Jamaica.

160


Griffith-Charles, C. 2004. The impact of land titling on land transaction activity and registration system sustainability: a case study of St. Lucia, Geomatics Program, University of Florida (PhD thesis).

Haroen, T., Achmad, C. & Rusmawar, W. 2006. Cadastral Reconstruction in Aceh: A Newborn Concept of Adjudication. Article of the Month. International Federation of Surveyors.

Herianto, A., Suparta, I., Pranasari, M., Chessy, V., Arief, F. & Yudono, P. 2007. An Assessment of People’s Livelihoods in Yogyakarta and Central Java Provinces Pre- and Post-Disaster: July-November 2006. Project TCP/INS/3101 (E). Jakarta, Supported by FAO.

Huq, S. & Ayers, J. 2007. Climate Change Impacts and Responses in Bangladesh, European Parliament’s Temporary Committee on Climate Change: London.

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2011. Rural Poverty Report. IFAD http://www.ifad.org/governance/index.htm.

Johnson, S. 2008. Building the Cadastral Framework: Achievements and Challenges in the English-Speaking Caribbean. Proceedings of GSDI 10, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago, 25-29 February 2008.

Property Rights Alliance. 2014. International Property Rights Index, 2014. Property Rights Alliance. http://internationalpropertyrightsindex.org/.

Reale, A. & Handmer, J. 2011. Land Tenure, Disasters and Vulnerability. Disasters, 35: 160–182.

Spence, B. 1996. The Influence of Small Farmers’ Land Use Decisions on the Status of Domestic Food Security in Jamaica. Caribbean Geography, 7: 132–142.

UNDP and ECLAC. 2005. Guyana, Socio-Economic Assessment of the Damages and Losses caused by the January-February 2005 Flooding. Georgetown, Guyana.

United Aerial Mapping Incorporated. 1988. Land Registration and Titling Project: Final Report, UAM.

USAID. 2010. USAID Country Profile: Property Rights and Resource Governance, Jamaica.

Vargas, A. & Stanfield, D. 2003. St. Lucia: St. Lucia Country Study of Land Administration and Management Issues. In A. Williams (ed.) Land in the Caribbean: Proceedings of a Workshop on Land Policy, Administration and Management. Madison, WI: Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison, pp. 281–314.

161


Williams, A.N. 2003. Land in the Caribbean. Proceedings of a Workshop on Land Policy, Administration and Management in the English-Speaking Caribbean, Trinidad, March 2003.

World Bank. 2014a. World Bank Group Doing Business Survey, 2014. World Bank. Retrieved from http://www.doingbusiness.org/reports.

World Bank. 2014b. Data: Population Density. World Bank http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST.

World Bank Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR). 2010. Disaster risk management in Latin America and the Caribbean region: GFDRR country notes.

World Economic Forum. 2011. Global Competitiveness Report, 2010–2011. http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2014-2015/.

World Bank/GFDRR/GoSL. 2014. Saint Lucia Flood Event of December 24–25, 2013. A Report by the Government of Saint Lucia and the World Bank.

© f

ao

/tru

ls b

rekk

e

Land Tenure Journal

revue des questionsfoncières

revista sobretenencia de la tierra

© U

.S.

Nav

y ph

oto

by M

ass

Com

mun

icat

ion

Spec

iali

st 2

nd C

lass

Gin

a W

ollm

an

LAND TENURE JOURNAL









>

1 14

revue des qu

estion

s foncières

revista sobre tenen

cia de la tierraLa

nd

Tenu

re Journ

alFA

O

1

2014












LAND TENURE Journal


revista sobre

TENENCIA de

la TIERRA






1 14

ISS

N 2

07

9-7

16

8

I47

12

Tri/

1/0

6.1

5IS

SN

20

79

-71

68

LAND TENURE JOURNAL









>

1 14

revue des qu

estion

s foncières

revista sobre tenen

cia de la tierraLa

nd

Tenu

re Journ

alFA

O

1

2014












LAND TENURE Journal


revista sobre

TENENCIA de

la TIERRA






1 14

ISS

N 2

07

9-7

16

8

I47

12

Tri/

1/0

6.1

5IS

SN

20

79

-71

68

Date post:	26-Mar-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

INFO revue des revista sobre de la The manuscripts should have a … · 2021. 2. 8. · La Revista...

Documents