The world is currently facing far-reaching challenges. Millions of people around the world are experiencing massive income losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, are restricted in their fundamental rights, have to leave their homes and thus face an uncertain future.

It is already apparent that the pandemic has a particularly negative impact on a sustainable rural development. Global and regional supply chains are breaking down, and curfews and restrictions to the right of assembly are making it difficult to work in agriculture or sell produce on the market. In addition, the services provided by state authorities must be reduced to a minimum. These challenges will have medium and long-term effects on secure access to land and the land sector in general.

Vulnerable population groups will be particularly hard hit by the effects of the pandemic. In addition to limited agricultural activity, women in particular are at risk of losing access to land if they lose their male relatives as a result of the pandemic. Migrant workers and residents of informal urban settlements are threatened with eviction and forced resettlement.

Restricted freedom of movement and assembly further weakens already fragile institutions and functions of land management and administration. International cooperation in the land sector is not spared from the constraints either.

The crisis will further expose the underlying weaknesses of the sector. It is therefore of particular importance that we analyze current developments in detail and use the lessons learnt for a long-term and more sustainable development of the land sector.

Christian Graefen and Felix Schilling

GIZ Sector Project Land Governance

Hello and welcome everyone to this first session of the online debate focus on  Women’s Housing and Land Rights and Covid-19.  The discussion statement for this week is “COVID-19 poses an accelerated threat to the safety and security of women, and to their ability to exercise land and inheritance rights.” 

What is your response to this statement?

This week the debate focuses on women's land rights and the implications of covid-19 on vulnerable communities and groups who may face additional burdens as a result of the virus. In many countries, women are hesitant to participate in activities and to make claims related to women’s land rights. There is a fear that a consequence of the virus will be that women will be even less likely to make claims (especially related to inheritance) or register their land rights. 

Our first question in this debate is How is COVID-19 affecting women in your country and community?  

In Nigeria, women forms the highest polpulation and indirectly this also implicated that in the labour market women forms a greater part. During this COVID -19 pandermic there has been a great migration of people from the urban to the rural areas, it is believed that moving to their origin it would make them more safer. However during the movement properties are left behind in the urban areas and due to the lockdown the idle ones in the society that has no source of daily income took to the street to start burgling and making properties left behind to be insecured. Also migrating to the rural areas has also created another problem because life in the rural area is less attractive. Women are faced with the challenge of going into the farm to source for food and while in the bush they are exposed to a lot of hazards. Some were raped, some were even killed. The issue of the herdsman killing has really made life in the rural areas less attractive. A woman is also faced with the fact that their land can be taken by the men without notice. Women righst on land is challenged daily especially where the woman is a widow without a male child. The case becomes worse where a widow dies without having a male child, in this case all the property are taken over by the family except on exceptional cases. However it is assumed that after COVID-19 land regulations must be revisited and women right and access to land need to be looked into critically. However it is expected that government should ensure that formulated laws should empower women and protected them in the society.

ELEGBEDE OLUFOLA

Chief Lecturer

The Polytechnic Ibadan.

Nigeria.

In Ghana, all attention is now on dealing with COVID 19. (programs, finances, experts, all resources are now geared toward fighting COVID 19). All efforts and interventions are now on hold for many reasons; the activities cannot be held, funds are not readily available etc. Women are the majority in informal businesses, operating SMEs. They have lost employment or are no longer able to engage in their business because of the restrictions. Stay at home orders places a lot of stress on women in caring for the household.  Information on COVID 19 and support packages are communicated in mediums that are not accessible to women. As with all other issues, the Task Force leading the management of COVID 19 in Ghana is almost an all-male team.  Dealing with toxic masculinity in husbands who flaunt daily precautionary protocols at home and put women and others at risk.  Women are also dealing with stigma.

At risk of sticking my neck out controversially at the very start of this online discussion, I do take issue with the assumptions that lie in this opening statement to frame the discussion on potential impacts of Covid-19 on women’s land rights. This is two-fold. First, if we are assuming women (in general) as a vulnerable/discriminated group with respect to land rights, and that Covid-19 will aggravate that vulnerability/discrimination, then surely we must focus not just on women (in general / as a whole), but instead on particular groups of women in particular contexts whose tenure insecurity may be exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. And, relatedly, we must also look at all vulnerable groups – not just women, but some groups of men in some communities and contexts. The point being that if Covid-19 is going to exacerbate tenure insecurity for vulnerable people, then it will not just do so for women, and in fact may not do so for all women anyway – as wealthier and more powerful women may be able to take advantage of increasing tenure insecurity of more vulnerable people of both genders to strengthen their own tenure security instead.

Second, we must ask how exactly the Covid-19 pandemic can be assumed to aggravate tenure insecurity – and this is something that will come in the other 3 discussion sessions later on. So, my preference would be to look at the specific gender issues in relation to those other topics - (issues for people renting land and housing, impacts of urban-rural migration, and issues around land administration governance gaps) - as this discussion forum progresses, and without making any a priori assumptions that women’s tenure security in general will necessarily be made worse by the Covid-19 pandemic.

These comments are intended as general/theoretical food for thought to help kick start what I anticipate will be a very interesting discussion over the next few weeks. I look forward to reading the contributions of those working directly with grassroots women’s groups in different countries across the world over the next few days, to see what light they can shed on this topic from a deeply contextual and specific analysis of the evidence as they are seeing it, without making an assumption that women’s situation as a whole will necessarily be made worse. Where might the opportunities be instead for positive change and strengthening of women’s rights and land rights of all vulnerable people out of this global pandemic?    

In Indonesia, women have a high risk of contracting Covid-19 due to their role in taking care of old families and their families. Women also need to take care of the household, teach the children, and support the economy. Domestic violence is now more prevalent due to stress from job loss, economic instability, and excessive time at home, Indonesian women were already in a vulnerable position for being laid off from their job compared to men.

In rural areas, women are involved in all agricultural sectors' activities but have no control over land, labor, and new technologies. The Covid-19 pandemic raises the challenge gaps for equality due to a lack of gender-empowerment training or socialization.

In Ethiopia land is owned by state. The people have only use right. In theory, even though, there is no discrimination between men and women the practice is totally different. Women have less access to use, administer, inherit, or do whatever they wanted on their own land. Even under normal circumstance women living in polygamous marriage arrangement are the most disadvantage ones. On top of that the pandemic of COVID -19 has been anticipated to complicate the situation more and more. For now, compared to other countries the prevalence of the COVID 19 is relatively low (of course the rate of test is also smaller per day).

For instance, most of the women headed households in urban areas are leading their families based on the low income they get from renting houses. In most of the cases the lessees are obtaining their income from petty trading and small business. However, due to COVID-19 this kind of business have been limited. This has deteriorated their daily income. They started failing to pay their rental fees. For now, government has decreed state of emergency obligating the landlords not to increase rental price and not evict lessees without their consent. For the last two months this has worked somehow positively to protect the lessee. Some landlords, who have alternative income have also exempted collection of rental fees. However, as the prevalence of the pandemic is mounting from time to time that this has deteriorated women headed households who have no other income other than the rental fee to support their family. Its effect has been started to be observed in some parts of urban areas. 

In most of the cases women will assume the responsibility of taking care of the family members infected by the virus. They will stay at home looking after the patient elderlies and other. They can not go out to work on their land. In the meantime, their land may be taken by someone. For instance, Prime Minister of Ethiopia has advised to cultivate any vacant land to produce more food to prepare for the expected shortage of food in the coming year. However, following the advice of the prime Minister some of the lands started to be farmed by land less urban youths are told to be lands owned by elderlies and women’s who are staying at home in fear of C-19 viral contamination. This has initiated some conflict in same areas.  

IOM Ethiopia is providing Cash for rent for some of the most vulnerable IDPs, returnees and host communities. Furthermore, we are also setting up help desk to counsel and advise on HLP issues encountering its beneficiaries in different response areas.

Information on COVID-19 reminds some women living i n rural Kenya of the early stigmatization and struggles with HIV/AIDS. Lack of information - what is COVID-19? How will it affect me, my children, my livelihood, my community? The silence by the govenment to provide reassuring and not alarming messages created more confusion. The protocols related to survellience eg reporting to your local administration  about your travel, reinforced women's vulnerability to their security and that of their property. Hence, I agree with you about the need for supporting change that benefits countires and especially vulnerable rural communities.

In Liberia, COVID-19 has affected mainly the livelihoods of women. Like many other countries around the world, Liberia declared a state of emergency and came out with restrictive measures: including quarantine (lockdown) in all 15 counties, strict prohibition on movements between counties, curfew (initially from 3pm to 6am but now relaxed a bit from 6am to 6pm) essential items sought from local areas. Generally, a lot of people are more worried about hunger than the virus itself due to restrictions on movements as majority of Liberians, especially women, earn a living on daily basis through selling at the various major markets. However, in the rural areas:

• Productivity is affected 

  • Planting season where crops are planted begin from April and women are those who normally do the planting. The initial curfew restrictions from 3pm to 6am affected how women work on their farms as they have to close earlier than usual. Besides, women in rural Liberia plant crops in groups/association called “Kuu” and due to the restriction on social gathering, not more than 10 can go at a time for the planting. These restrictions have affected the normal planting routine and would eventually affect their productivity/yield even after coronavirus is contained and free movement is allowed again

• Reduced Income: 

  • Farm produce are getting rotten as there are not available markets for them in the rural setting, reducing the income they would have get from selling these farm produce. Rural women usually go to nearby big markets to sell their produce on market days. On the other hand, market women from big cities usually travel to the rural women and buy their farm produce whilst at the same time supplying them with food essentials that rural women cannot get in their communities. However, due to the restriction on movements, these are not happening anymore.

  • Due to bad road networks, most of our women from communities bordering with neighboring countries Sierra leone. Guinea and Cote D’Ivoire get their food and other essentials from these neighboring towns other than in Monrovia. And due to the closed border, this is not happening anymore

• Food scarcity in rural areas – Most of ingredient for cooking eg salt, seasoning, fish, etc are no longer reaching rural women due to closed border and restriction on movement. Besides, as productivity is affected, there will be reduced local food supply in the communities especially   after the Virus is contained.  

• Possibility of land transactions without adequate consultation learning from Ebola epidemic

  • The Ebola epidemic in Liberia in 2014 taught us a lesson. For instance, a company was able to negotiate and signed 9 different agreements with communities whilst at the same time there were restrictions on gatherings and restrictions on movements which could not allow CSO to provide the advisory support that these communities essentially need during those time. 

  • There is therefore the possibility that land transactions would occur, again, without adequate consultation and usually leaving women out because this is what the traditions and culture says.  

My research work is based in rural Bungoma County in Kenya. COVID-19 was first announced nationally in March 2020. At the end of May 2020, the changes brought about by the pandemic have been felt by everyone in the area. Whilst government services have decreased and in some instances non-existence , priority has shifted for all away from key land matters that require institutional administration support to immediate food and health concerns. Further, the linkage in knowledge generated by the 'locusts missing our County' discourses and the Corona 'missing our County' with regard to the need for food sustainability to avoid another calamity ahead cannot be ignored. The absence of the aniticipated locusts in the area plays into a COVID-19 'absence' as a way that the community rationalizes as fate (or a death knoll). Also, the extra surveillance by the local adminstration - nyumba kumi; sub-Chiefs, Chiefs - means that land matters that would elicit disputes have been put-aside for now. Thus far there has been no death in the sub-county related to COVID-19, hence isolating women's land rights concerns is important but when different discourses of calamity are posed as 'attacking' the area, the ubuntu spirit of togetherness seems to take centre place. In general there has been a drop in cases related to domestic violence and other forms of violence against women- but 3 months is still early. Probably from December 2020 then can I begin to note the impact of COVID-19 on women's land tenure rights.

It is extremely scarely that the world risks to  loose so much of the gains made because of this COVID19.  I think this is where increased capacity for  local communities to use technologies to access markets for their produce, to organise and advocate as well collect more and more real time data about their situation will help. But this data must be fully mainstreaimed in publc plans inorder to inform projects and programs to deal with the aftermath of covid. Unfortunately, this calls for hefty resource allocation  that shall need to be targgetd and I am not too sure if development actors are willing to invest here

Enforcement of COVID 19 Regulations poses a threat to safety and security of rural women farmers who sell their produce as informal traders in urban areas: law enforcement in Southern Africa used violence to clear cities of informal traders, including confiscating and burning their produce in countries like Zimbabwe.  In Lesotho, many women lost their produce to theft with these products being sold on the black market. This has led to serious socio-economic consequences for women who depend on their land to ensure schooling for their children as well as support their families.

Limited availability of legal services and civil society support makes the land inheritance rights of women tenuous: The lockdown rules made it difficult for people, including women from rural areas to reach the courts in urban areas in order to lodge cases of violations of their land rights. In addition civil society organisations that normally help women in enforcing their legal rights were unable to do their work, thereby leaving women vulnerable. Men took advantage of the hiatus in access to justice and availability of legal aid through NGOs to advance long standing land disputes in their favour. In eSwatini, the Swaziland Rural Women’s Assembly reported a case to ARISA of a brother in law took advantage of the lockdown to accelerate and assert his claim over land that was under his sister in law’s control following the death of his brother. 

Securing property rights: In many countries in the SADC region women and girls are often highly dependent on male relatives to access Housing Land and Property rights under the customary law. Should their male relatives succumb to the pandemic, women and girls’ tenure security may further weaken due to limited legal protection, lack of documentation, and restrictive social norms. They can be at particular risk of land grabbing by their husband’s relatives. Pandemics may reduce other economic assets, such as wages and savings, making Housing Land and Property an even more important part of overall household assets. This may increase competition and conflict over HLP. In such situations, women may lack the financial resources, information, or support to enforce their property rights.

Domestic violence as a result of lack of resources: Rural women often use the proceeds from the sale of farm produce to buy food and provide for other needs of their families. The COVID 19 pandemic interrupted that source of income. As a result women could no longer serve the kind of food that they normally provided for their families. In eSwatini, the Rural Women’s Assembly gave reports of domestic violence as men abused their wives for failing to give them food generally or the specific type that they were used to and therefore wanted despite the lack of income to buy the specific foods.     

One of the entry-points to this discussion that I would like to put forward is the idea of justice and gender equality when it comes to the continuity of land ownership in certain cultures. My context is focused on Nigeria where there are various cultures that revert ownership of land back to the husband’s family when he dies. This leaves the widow with no significant inheritance. In most cases, the inheritance is forced back from the widow. This is even more complicated in polygamous structures. These inheritances primarily include land. Judging from the mortality rate in northern Nigeria from the Virus, the disproportionate impact of the virus on men can mean that more women are losing their spouses. This in turn mean more land being taken away from women. The lockdowns across have also restricted the access to land from the women who farm. Areas like North East and South West Nigeria may experience more of these problems.

1. The restrictions on mobility undermined women's capacity to work and benefit from the land that they have access to. 
2. The restrictions on movement has undermined women's access to Institutions of justice where they can  defend and depend on to uphold their land rights. 
3. The massive company closures and attendant job losses induce the displacement of urban wage labourers. As these labourers cope by returning to and reclaiming their rural land rights-this will increase competition for the land that poor women rely on. 
4. Women are the majority of lowly paid marginal workers  who rely on opportunistic employment. Covid-  related economic closures undermined these women's access to employment. These women face the risk of eviction from their residence as they struggle to pay the rent. 
5. In South Africa the government initially closed down institutions like public markets and roadside markets that women patronise to generate income.  The government later reopened these markets and traders were allowed to work on condition that they submitted formal documentation and or secured permits. This development marginalised women who are migrants to the city and rely on informal and opportunistic niches.
6. It has been reported that the Covid related stigma has negatively affected women and children's land rights. 
7. The mobility limitations imposed by governments made it difficult for CSOs who are doing work to secure and monitor women's land rights to continue their work of monitoring and holding institutions to account.

Mina, you've outlined a number of practical impacts on women's livelihoods that are resulting from COVID, lockdowns and travel restrictions.  Thank you for sharing these experiences from Liberia. They track some of the comments Patricia shared and some that Nana Ama shared from Brazil and Ghana. Your final point resonates with me:  what transactions are happening today "under the cover of COVID?" and what should we be doing to try to shine a light on potentially harmful land transfers?  Is there something like an early warning system that we might use to direct attention to deals that aren't engaging all needed stakeholders.  Would love to hear what others think.  Thank you for sharing this!  Best, Karol

Stephen thank you for raising concerns around inheritance and the problems some widows may face.  In the US it does seem that the mortality rate for men is higher than the rate for women.  I note this one article that raises these concerns:  https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/05/15/covid-19-much-more-fatal-for-men-especially-taking-age-into-account/.  What, practically, do you believe can be done to help women in Nigeria and elsewhere?  Do you think the Government is in a position to actively strengthen women's claims to land or, is this best left to community leaders, church leaders, etc?  Would be grateful to hear thoughts!  Best, Karol

Hi Gaynor, This is a wonderful summary of how COVID is impacting women in southern Africa; thanks so much. I have also seen reports of COVID stigma.  Here's a story about lessons learned by people who faced stigma associated with TB: https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinero/2020/04/01/the-need-to-avoid-co.... But what I really wanted to highlight from your comments is the myriad ways COVID impacts women's employment/livelihood opportunities - some related to land, many not - and to ask if you think land can provide a solution to the problem?  Is it possible to flip the situation and find ways to help women band together in a crisis and identify lands they might use to create different or new livelihoods or is it even more difficult today for women to work together to leverage skills and land?  Best, Karol

Turkey reported its first positive case of COVID-19 on 11 March 2020 and the first loss of life on 17 March. Similar to other countries responding to the pandemic, the number of positive cases in Turkey has increased daily with an expansion in the number of tests conducted nation-wide.

• Domestic violence rises in Turkey during COVID-19 pandemic, In Turkey, where isolation measures were imposed on 10 March, it is estimated that in Istanbul alone violence against women has spiked by 38 percent, according to the city’s Security Directorate.

• In normal circumstances, Turkish women do almost five times as much unpaid care work at home as men. Today, caring for children who are staying at home and relatives if they fall ill, is increasing the burden on women significantly.

• COVID 19 pandemic made existing inequalities for women and girls and discrimination of other marginalized groups such as persons with disabilities and those in extreme poverty, worse.

• Women working in the informal employment sector are hit by the crises first and lose their incomes. As they do not have any social security, they also cannot benefit from unemployment assistance.

Not only is the coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) having serious health impacts around the world, it also has the potential to significantly affect the housing, land, and property (HLP) of women and girls. 

The pandemic is exposing and exploiting existing gender and economic inequalities in food systems globally. The safety requirements to avoid the spread of the coronavirus including travel restrictions, quarantines, social distances have led to major disruptions in daily life. This means the daily lives of small scale farmers and workers are affected. Women are at the centre of food value chains forming part of the small holders, working in fields, plantations. They  comprise on average 43% of the agricultural workforce in developing countries and are estimated to account for two-thirds of the world’s 600 million poor livestock keepers . For women like Lydia a small scale coffee farmer in Zombo Uganda whose coffee prices has  gone as low as one dollar from 2dollars before the pandemic, her income level has reduced. She is  not able to prune her plantation due travel restrictions neither can she access the local coffee buyer  in her community who used to give her a good price.  Many women like Lydia are in the same boat not only in Uganda but also around the World. The pandemic is affecting their fair participation in the food system.

COVID-19 pandemic is one of the latest shocks that has hit people’s lives in various ways. It has far-reaching effects in the exercise of fundamental human rights such as freedom of association, freedom of movement, and the general right to access resources (both land-related and none land-related). So, it is a menace to everyone, not only women. However, it has a specific impact on women’s access to land and natural resources, most of which have been mentioned by other participants. If I were able to pick one thing to do today to help protect women’s land rights that might be threatened as a result of the COVID-19 virus, it will be to design a tenure focused systematic surveys of women’s experiences that can generate data for post-pandemic planning. This can be done through a co-production of baseline pandemic-responsive knowledge of the challenges women have encountered during this period. The outcome of such a survey could help provide information necessary for a post-Coronavirus policy that would enable better protection of women's land rights in the case of future pandemics.

In the main, I would say that the already precarious land tenure situation for women in Ghana is only going to be worse because:

• Fortunately, the rate of infection in Ghana is mainly in the regional capitals, especially, in Accra. Most rural areas have not recorded any cases yet. Additionally, there is also very little, if any, migration to the rural areas by family members except in very few instances where head porters (young women), who had travelled from the northern part of Ghana returned home. 

• They have lost some of their champions because most of them are women themselves and are now juggling with a lot of other responsibilities.

• The current trends in faulty land deals continues without anybody paying attention because of COVID 19. Women risk losing everything including the risk of no compensation. (There are examples of illegal mining operations being done under cover because nobody was watching, and large areas of cocoa farms are now existing on deep gullies.) 

• However, it is also becoming evident that a stronger land rights affords women the opportunity to take the right action to protect themselves and their children against male partners who do not want to comply with preventive measures to minimize the risks of exposure to the disease.

In the rural area, Women are often highly dependent on male relatives to access the right of the land. Many widows and girls lost the right on their land due to limited legal protection, lack of documentation, and restrictive social norms. During the pandemic, the government does not allow the female heirs/widows to sign over their property or land's right.

All advocacy work is now on hold. Research in women’s land rights is now minimal or non-existent. Attention to funding is currently mostly directed to COVID 19. With no attention to women’s land rights during this time, the gains made in advancing women’s land rights might suffer some reversals. Ghana’s land bill is an example.

Great Graceananda that you have raised the issue about Human Rights Defenders. I would like to raise the concern that violent land evictions are still taking place in Central America despite Covid 19 and women are at a higher risk for the multiple reasons the different interventions have already highlighted.

The Honduran Committee of Relatives of the Detained and Disappeared (COFADEH), reported that on 2nd April 2020, the leadership of the Cerro Escondido Peasant Movement, based in Monjarás, Choluteca department (Southern Honduras) denounced before the Investigative Police Directorate (IPD) that agents of private security of the Sugar Company La Grecia, violently evicted a group of families who occupied a property using high calibre weapons. The IDP did not respond to the complaint under the argument that they had received a circular of no attending public matters due to the pandemic. During the attack, Human Rights Defender Iris Argentina Álvarez Chávez and six leaders were killed, including Jacinto Ávila, Iris’ husband. In this case there was total absence of the preventive action of imminent and irreparable violations, leaving the impression of complicity and direct acquiescence.

Unfortunately this is just one example of the multiple land and human rights violations taking place in the region, which have exacerbated during the pandemic, as due to lockdown and strict curfews, HRDs are at home and easier to locate.

Here's an additional question to ponder:  If COVID is deepening vulnerabilities for some women (not all) and having a particularly strong negative impact on women's livelihoods, what actions can government and civil society take in the short-term to identify those most at-risk and provide targeted support AND how can women's land rights be part of the solution to reduce vulnerabilities? 

Women's organizations working on the ground need to act to protect women's land rights during the pandemic. Recognizing the huge gap in women's land rights that combines inequality, informality and a male dominant land administration, it is urgent and imperative to act during the pandemic to protect those in greater vulnerability.

Based on national statistics available in our country and on specific data analyzed from a gender perspective, the overall situation is of an immense and historical inequality that women face in terms of land ownership in Brazil. Therefore, the question we ask is what real threats women face to protect their land rights during the Covid-19 pandemic? First of all, we have to recognize and deal with a land administration and social norms that favors and reinforces the inequality. For instance, according to the National Agricultural Census - IBGE, in 2006 women counted for 12% of land owners but represented only 5,5% of agricultural land.

In 2018 our organization - Espaço Feminista - performed a survey interviewing directly 490 women. Our objective was to understand what the data collected through the national statistics were indicating and clarifying some aspects and nuances of the information collected. Thus, we learnt that the great majority of women in rural areas have access to land through inheritance, however it is all informal and land is transfered for many generations through informal systems. Additionally, we also found that among those who declared that they had a companion, 48% were not legally married.

Our research and data analysis puts light on a big issue that should be the focus of our work during the pandemic, informality affects women greatly - both in inheritance or in marriage or succession. Many women loose their land or house due to the combination of informality and a land administration that favors men as a consequence of a patriarchal society. We cannot ignore that during the pandemic we need to act to protect widows and daughters land rights. But also those who are suffering from another perverse consequence of the social isolation - domestic violence.

So, the answer is the Covid-19 is teaching us a lot, but above all we cannot ignore that many women are loosing their rights now, that many are suffering and need protection now and that as women's organizations and women's land rights defenders, our work is needed and we have to reinvent the way we work because we cannot wait for the post-pandemic, it will be too late for so many women!

True and a very important issue that we all should be concerned with and act in solidarity. The Covid-19 is spreading very fast among the indigenous population in the Amazonia region and  in other areas. But more than that there is a proposal of the law ammendment according to which illegal activities and land grabbing will be protected and able to regularize their land. The situation is really very serious and puts in risk many indigenous peoples living in the Amazon, but also the forest itself. There was an increase of 50% in the deforestation over the last months. The Brazilain Environmental minister propose to his colleagues that they should take advantage of the media coverage of the pandemic to pass deregulation measures in order to facilitate commercial exploration of the forest.

Thank you so much for your comment Karol,

Even though Indonesia's central government issued the same right for land' rights, the patriarchal legal system and culture in Indonesia mean that women still experience discrimination and are marginalized in terms of land ownership and control. Women do not have the autonomy to make decisions for land ownership, or land tenure, a male member of the family will accompany for administration procedure of land ownership.

Many NGOs work in women's right to collaborate with the ministry of women's empowerment and child protection to educate and advocate community, particularly in the rural area, for women's rights on land and manage agricultural land.

The land of the missing person or heir of post-tsunami disaster occurred in Aceh, Sumatera in 2004 causes serious concern in administering available ownership and the right of management, which mounts to enormous scale spread throughout the province of Aceh presumably. In Aceh, as an exclusive province in Indonesia, it applies customary law that adopts from Islam law in all daily activities, including lands right. The Treasury (Bayt al-mâl) role was to decide land ownership and management of the missing owner and heir imposed in Aceh since many documents destroyed after the tsunami disaster. The Treasury manages the property of the disappeared person or unknown heir as a quasi-authority for the interest of the community at large. As an acting agency, the Treasury may be subject to legal precept stipulated in the above regulations.

I'm so pleased to see this contribution from the Global Fund for Widows, shining a strong light on the unique needs of many widows around the world. I also appreciate how the post links inheritance issues, education and food security concerns that are likely amplified as a result of the spread of COVID.  At Landesa we are seeing some of this.  In Tanzania, my colleague Monica Mhoja is helping widows whose land is at risk from wrongful sale by others (and who are not able to travel to protect their asset due to a COVID lockdown) enforce their rights and protect legitimate claims.  More rapid survey work of the type Eugene Chigbu mentions earlier in the thread could be one approach to tracking and supporting claims.  Thanks GFW for your contribution.  Best, Karol 

Good Questions Karen. Solutions, I will imagine will vary spatially across various regions within countries and also across sub-Saharan Africa. As for Nigeria, the political structure is currently consciously or unconsciously gender-bias with a huge gap in female representation across policy reform levels. This does not make the government a forthcoming mechanism builder to effectively engage the issue of land inheritance with respect to gender. At the community level, the possibilities for change hold higher propensity as social institutional structures, conventions, and norms feed directly into the culture and religious structures very strongly. As you have rightly said, if the community-level cultural and religious leaders are made aware of the impact,  deeper discussions can be made to drive change. The agents for change, however, may have to be people or (and) organisations that the people find culturally, socially or (and) religiously compatible. These engagements will have to happen in phases and they may take time to effect change in the notion of how land and other properties are appropriated to women.

Just like with any pandemic, that the COVID-19 pandemic deeply affects women and men differently cannot be gainsaid. As such, the pandemic is affecting women in my country and community in several ways. Women are generally homemakers and perform a big fraction of the total hours of unpaid care work, more than men. While men are the majority of those who have succumbed to the virus, women and girls bear the brunt of care burdens. During this pandemic, they have had the added responsibility and burden of care to the sick, vulnerable elderly family members, and children who are now home due to closure of schools.  This not only exposes them to contracting the virus from infected family members, but also reduces time they would spend generating income, or farming within the limited circumstances, where the opportunity presents itself. There is also the risk of being dispossessed of land and property. For women already living in poverty, this affects their economic stability and their ability to purchase critical necessities, like medicine and food.

We are also witnessing a rise in gender based violence cases due to the pandemic, which has been brought about by increased stress levels. This has been characterized by rape/ defilement cases, sexual assault and early pregnancy which decrease women’s productivity, as they now mostly cede control over earnings to abusers.

We are trying as much as we can to pay attention to women’s needs across our portfolio - not just in land projects but all projects. Because assets are intertwined with economic well-being.  If the pandemic is reducing opportunities for employment and income, then assets become even more important and that may increase competition and conflict.  So we really need to think holistically about this pandemic.  How can we continue our work to protect property rights but also how can other Bank operations support social safety nets and get money into the hands of women; or how can our various infrastructure operations support more land intensive public works and ensure women are part of that employee pool but that they are protected from workplace harassment and unfair wages.  So these are all things we are looking at as a Bank.  

I think things that govt’s can do are - moratoriums on evictions and foreclosures (and this applies here in the US as well) and broad measures to ensure no one loses their home.  And for inheritance, it is important to ensure that women do not sign over their property rights; and that informal marriages are recognized with regard to marital property in case of widowhood.

Women are the ones overburdened with the care of family women are the poor and poverty carries the face of a woman. Since women bear primary responsibility for domestic and farm work, child and elder care, and care for sick family and community members they are uniquely positioned to have an impact on a country’s economic development and success.

Due to pressure mounted on them by the need to produce more food for people back in rural areas, they are actually over worked and their care work is most likely to increase to 85%.

Biased laws, customs and practices play a large role in hindering the legal, socio-cultural and economic advancement of women in Uganda.  Furthermore, the suffering of women caused by discriminatory and/or violent behavior promoted through cultural values and beliefs affects more than the individual woman. Its highly unlikely that culture will let a woman transfer her land rights to another of her choice. Usually most cultures in Africa only give access rights to land/property and access rights are usually un transferable. So when she dies her rights end with her.

The COVID19 has brought to a total stand still of the Land Rights Act implementation process in Liberia. The previous plan by the CSOs working Group on Land Rights has come to a stand still due to the pandemic which is a major hinder to the land Rights Act implementation.
Due to the silent of the CSOs working Group, there are reported continue violence on Land by individuals which result into conflict that led people being wounded. The case of Lofa and River Gee Counties which two persons were reported being wounded over Land crisis in that part of Liberia.

Important point about the vulnerabilities that girls might face. In addition to dropping out of school, we may also find that girls are married off earlier than normal, n increase in child marriage. Parents suffering from lack of employment due to the pandemic and other economic uncertainties may marry off their daughters earlier, contributing to an increase in dangerous livelihoods for these girls. We may also see a decrease in health outcomes for these girls. This is something that governments, NGOs, local organizations need to keep in their radar.  

Your point about ensuring women not signing over their rights is an extremely important one. In times like this, women in patriarchal socieites may find themselves under undue pressure to give up on what is rightfully and legally theirs. Even with legal titles to their lands, they may end up in situations where families may push them to sign over their property to the main head of the household (usually male) or to their husbands, so that the assets could be better controlled due to financial uncertainty. Or for example, she does not even have access to the actual deed/title of her property - it is in the hands of other members of the family. This can worsen the situations that these women will find themselves in.

COVID 19 is likely to lead to forced evictions which largely affect women and their children. Secondly, it can lead to loss of land to unscrupulous investors in the case of large scale land based acquisitions. Just like any other large-scale investment undertaking, these projects, if unchecked, could exacerbate the inequity they are meant to help reverse. Women have been the most disadvantaged due to the land deals since the negotiations tend to be masculine and thereby playing a leading role in undermining the land-based livelihoods of women. The pandemic will reinforce this.

As an organisation, we are engaged in continuous sensitisation of women on their land rights and encouraging them to report any violations. Ignorance on the part of women as to their land rights is to blame. We believe that access to information, awareness of rights, and knowing how to claim them is, indeed, the basis for a strong citizenship demanding transparency and accountability in land governance.

We should promote peaceful resolution of disputes within families, including mediation, to further reduce instances of family break ups and consequently, the threats to women land rights.

In the medium to longer-term, there is need to encourage strict implementation of land laws that safeguard women’s land rights to the latter.

I would encourage inclusion of women in decision making processes in as far as land is concerned. This is because there is a connection between women’s land rights and socio-economic development, peace and security. This will be a starting point towards challenging models of land ownership dominated by cultural norms and practices that are heavily patriarchal, rigid and subconsciously enforced within communities. 

The media is under financial pressure as a result of effects of COVID-19 on media businesses and is not covering stories that are not in the vicinity or urban areas. For rural women, this will mean less attention will be paid to violations occurring in outlying areas such as evictions. The media in a time of COVID-19 is also giving much space to government voices and little to minority groups to voice what the effects of the pandemic are. The voices of minority groups such as rural women, persons with disability, indigenous persons are not being found in media.

My organization is focused on enforcement and implementation of the Land Rights Act (LRA) of 2018.  This is because the Act dedicated a whole chapter on customary land rights which recognizes, protects and guarantees the security of tenure for customary land owners. Most importantly, the LRA, included stronger protections for women’s land rights through the inclusion of provisions for women’s equal participation in local land governance, as well as provisions for spouses with equal rights to be members of land-owning communities. Irrespective of this legal victory mentioned, women will not be able to realize the full bundle of rights given them under the LRA if customary land owners particularly women, are not aware of these rights and how to realize them;  customary norms and practices still pose barriers to women’s rights to land; and land rights actors do not have the required capacity to advance women’s land rights. My organization is mobilizing women land rights actors (those who provided a gender lens and advocated for inclusion of women protection in LRA) to initiate “The Stand For Her Land campaign” in Liberia, to advance a systemic change in how women gain equal access, ownership, and control to land, economic growth, and opportunities.

Where there are no laws, advocacy for a legislation that will provide legal safeguards for women land rights should be embarked on; and afterwards ensures that the legislation is implemented and enforced. Where there is an existing legislation that already gives legal protection for women land rights, attention should be focused on implementation and enforcement of such laws. 

Additionally, legal and technical support need to be given to women whose land rights have been threatened such that can have remedy.

One thing I will do today to help protect women’s land rights that might be threatened as a result of the COVID-19 virus is to increase awareness, in rural communities, on women’s equal rights as men when it comes to land ownership, access and control as enshrined in the 2018 Land Rights Law. In addition to this, I will also provide on the phone technical advisory support to rural women who might face threats to their land rights.

Due to economic pressure as mentioned earlier most women in Africa only have access and user rights to land but do not have ownership rights. So COVID is going to force men or family heads to sell off land cheaply in order to afford basic needs for their extended families. This in turn is going to affect production of food, utilization rights of women and hunger may increase as a result.

Participation: Women need to participate in the  decision-making on community, national and global health preparedness and response. This means their  issues in food systems  are   represented in the most practical, safe and meaningful ways possible. Most Governments task forces, small scale farmers groups, civil society organisations are missing out. Prioritize the safe and meaningful involvement of women, girls, and other marginalized populations in decision-making processes related to COVID-19 responses, relief delivery, and recovery at all levels

Influencing governments to keep Stability in price- To ensure that  the women are not exploited, Governments to ensure that the prices of food are stabilized

Encourage preparedness and response plans to be informed by the Gender impact analysis this will be guidance for gender responsive interventions informed The response work done by Governments and the private sector needs to be guided by  gender analysis and all data must be disaggregated by sex and the implications of covid on different categories ought  to be established so that there is targeted response Government and the private sector to prioritise women in response mechanisms for instance for cash distributions, food we should prioritize small scale female farmers,  women-headed households where women might have had to leave work (formal/informal) to care of relatives in quarantine/isolation

Right now, we need to push for women’s  priorities for equitable access,  ownership and control of land and property in a quest to achieve equality. Mobilize women and raise active citizenry to demand for the recognition and realization of their land rights by the government and Local governments during the pandemic. We need to encourage governments to come up with directives that protect sell of land, and deter massive evictions during this pandemic

The one thing that needs to be done today is to encourage integration of access rights, user rights and ownership rights of land for women.

Experience has shown that gender-neutral laws are not enough.  Women need to be supported proactively and it can be done. And we need to listen to women as they often know what they need.  Organizations such as Colandef and Espacio Feminista have instituted special measure and pathways for women, including those with informal marriages (or unregistered) for their land restitution programs.  And in Aceh, Indonesia after the tsunami, special measures were taken to ensure women were part of the cadsater reconstruction and that their property rights were recognized and secured.  And I want to take this opportunity to mention the Stand for Her Land campaign which is focused on exactly this topic of protecting women’s land rights around the world and you can find out more on standforherland.org.  But I think there is a role for all of us in this and we can only achieve success together.

Zimbabwe recorded its first case on 20/03/2020 and went on to impose a lockdown, which started on the 30th of March to last for 21 days. Women Peasant farmers in horticulture production survive on selling their produce to buyers from all over the country at big markets in the country (Harare – Mbare; Mutare – Sakubva). These open markets offer a readily available vegetable and fruit produce for the working class in urban areas. These fresh produce markets are ideal for the peasantry that has oftentimes limited access to storage facilities.

Peasant livelihoods in Zimbabwe have been largely been characterized by precarity in the last three decades beginning with the adoption of the IMF sponsored Economic Structural Adjustment Programs imposed on developing countries since the late 1980s. The emergence of the Covid-19 pandemic and the resultant State reaction has worsened the plight of the peasantry who relies on agriculture and produce sales. Statutory Instrument 83 of 2020 imposing a 21-day national lockdown coupled with a weak social welfare system greatly affects the peasantry whose livelihoods depend on daily produce sales. As correctly stated by the World Health Organization (WHO) Director Tedros Adhanom, there is a need for Governments to consider the impacts of restriction of movement on such people. The Zimbabwean Government has however been confiscating and destroying peasants’ produce ostensibly to enforce the lockdown, restrict public gatherings and curb the spread of the coronavirus. These acts by the State have been widely condemned by the citizenry as the state’s actions adversely affect, not only peasant livelihoods but the economy and political stability in general. 

Allowing peasants to continue operating during the lockdown would help in the maintenance of social and economic stability and support “social distancing” as it assures people of a constant supply of food during the lockdown. If peasants were to stop the supply of fruits, vegetables as well as other products, citizens would find it difficult to remain under lockdown as they are forced to go out of their homes to seek adequate food supply. It should be noted that people were given a 2 days’ notice on the lockdown, which time was inadequate to stock sufficient food requirements for 21 days. Farm produce cannot be expedited to mature and be ready for sale within a period determined by law – it follows a natural process. If left out in the field and not harvested, farm produce would get spoiled, leading to huge losses for the peasantry. However, it is interesting to note that the State allowed large retail outlets to operate, labeling them as an essential service. Thus, the State deliberately gave a blind eye to the fact that the generality of Zimbabweans relies on the informal economy for survival.

Upon noting its mistake and gross violation of human rights, the State relaxed its lockdown policy and allowed peasants to trade. However, there has been silence on the amount of compensation to be given to those whose produce was confiscated by the state. Also, the modalities of how the peasants and their customers are to meet and transact at designated points have not been publicly stated. Important to note that most of the affected peasants come from the Chimanimani and Chipinge areas which were recently affected by Cyclone Idai. The state’s action invokes questions on the government’s policy towards the peasantry. However, interestingly, the state has been pushing for the peasantry to participate in the tobacco marketing season that is likely to commence in the next few days. Pushing for the opening of the tobacco auction floors, the state has not offered any plausible explanation. However, it is evident that the state is keen to participate in tobacco marketing in which the state has direct monetary benefits.

We argue that the lockdown due to covid-19 has negatively impacted the peasantry who are left with virtually nowhere to sell their produce. Mbare Musika in Harare and Sakubva in Mutare are the largest market-places in the country that distribute fresh produce to other markets in the country. The closure of the markets has adversely impacted the peasantry who are left with rotting fruits and vegetables. Buyers from other provinces cannot travel due to restrictions, which leaves the peasantry at a great loss. This does not only affect their livelihoods but also have a long-run impact on the production patterns.  

Way Forward

This state’s approach in the COVID -19 times demonstrates the underlying problems that the peasantry face in Zimbabwe where market access has become a huge challenge. The open markets act as a buffer and protect fresh produce producers. The measures are taken to combat the coronavirus not only expose the struggles of the peasant producer but also necessitate a rethinking of marketing strategies for fresh produce. We, therefore, propose value addition of the farm produce, which helps in times of uncertainty or disaster (like Covid-19). Value addition allows the peasants not to rush to sell the produce while adding more value to the products.

Nested markets which have been instrumental in product marketing in the Netherlands also offer a good approach to improve and diversify from the open markets that have proven to be fragile in the event of pandemics. Therefore, there need for the State to come up with modalities for compensating the affected peasants as well to ensure that they have access to the market. It is also within the State’s responsibility to ensure that these same peasants are protected from the coronavirus as they conduct their business of feeding the nation. Other countries have come up with methods to ensure that people queue orderly, observing physical distancing in the market place.  Some societies have enhanced peasants and potential clients’ access to the Internet to encourage online shopping and reduce the number of people on the street. It would thus be prudent for the Government of Zimbabwe to consider these and other options to ensure the viability of peasant agriculture.

INTRODUCTION

Masvingo Centre for Research Advocacy and Community Development (MACRAD) embarked on a fact-finding mission regarding government’s proposed eviction of thousands of Shangaan people to pave way for lucerne grass farming in Chiredzi District. Focus group discussions were conducted with some of the community leaders within the affected district. In this position paper, MACRAD commence by giving a brief summary background of the issue at hand and goes on to outline the agricultural, religious and cultural set up within the affected area. The paper looks into relevant domestic and international legislation and concludes with some recommendations.  

Download the full story on the link below

https://macradtrust.org.zw/projects/macrad-enquiry-with-the-xhangaan-spe...

Very important point raised by Banashree and I totally agree with her to look at the urban-rural interconnections of income, investment and land but also how we organize to work and analyze the many and different issues and their connections. 

The only difference that I have or question that I raise is that the dialogue or advocacy effort has to be driven by civil society and women's organization in order to break the silos that governments create. Once again, advocacy and monitoring of public policies have to be made with good evidence and therefore a key investment need to be made in capacity-building and strenghtening of women's organizations and at different levels - from local to national and global.

And thank you for taking time to explain the situation in Indonesia in more detail; I'm sure others have found this helpful!  Best, Karol

Very interesting and important point about the potential for harmful impacts to younger women and girls, in relation to care burdens, household duties and schooling. Taking girls out of school has a notable negative impact on national economies as returns to schooling for women are so positive.  Sharing this USAID infographic that illustrates this point:  https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documents/1869/usaid_lgl_poste... Thanks very much for raising this issue.  Best, Karol

Great points. One of the resources at the community level can be women's Self-Help Groups (SHGs) who could be equipped with more knowledge, information on their rights and could be tasked to disseminating this information to other women in the community. Providing with them the right resources could be a step forward in capacity building and increasing the reach of these SHGs.

To all those who participated in this on-line discussion and to those who joined us for our webinar last week:  Thank You!  It was really inspiring to see the depth and breadth of comments, questions, ideas and approaches related to the issue of women's land rights and COVID-19.  

I wanted to offer a few words to sum up our discussion.  I note that there were several issues raised in terms of the impacts that women (and their families) may be seeing today as a result of the spread of the disease.  A quick list would include the following:  

• Loss of livelihood opportunities - especially for women as farmers and traders but certainly for others as well 
• Exposure to gender-based violence and to the stigma of having or being exposed to COVID
• Increased food insecurity, tied either to loss of income or, potentially, loss of lands
• Increased care burdens which can make it difficult to pursue livelihoods 
• Reduced emphasis of governments on women's land rights issues, given that attention is focused on stopping the spread of the disease
• Increased risks related to eviction and
• Some increased risk of loss of property or burglary due to lockdowns

It may be too early, as some in the discussion noted, to identify if there are substantial changes to women's land rights as a result of losing lands to migrants and/or returnees OR if women are experiencing extra hardships associated with problems of inheritance. Thus, the list above is not exhaustive but does point to the many ways the disease may affect women. 

I also note that many people offered ideas about what to do to address the problems that some women and other vulnerable groups face when it comes to securing or enforcing land rights in a time of crisis.  Ideas included:

• Designating land administration staff as "essential workers" so that registration, transfer or updating services can continue to the extent possible
• Enabling more on-line service delivery so that people may not need to travel to protect lands (recognizing that a continuing digital divide may make this a less feasible option for the poor and those in some more remote areas)
• Developing rapid response surveys to track impacts in real-time or near real-time and better target responses
• Working to find ways to enabling grassroots organizations to continue providing critical services when and where possible 
• Placing a moratorium on evictions and other resettlement actions and
• Recognizing the needs of human rights defenders 

These were just a few of the ideas you shared through the discussion.  I want to end by underscoring the need for some patience and time to gain a deeper and more nuanced understanding of impacts that may be felt quickly in some cases, but may take time to manifest in others.  We may be able to identify short-term impacts in some contexts but we also need to be careful not to assume harms that may be attributable to other factors, and we may only see some impacts (such as the potential harms to girls if they are pulled out of school to attend to those at home or to provide field labor) much later.

Overall, our on-line discussion is off to a terrific start thanks to your contributions.

Best to all, Karol 

Hello! I am thrilled that we are able to continue the discussion from the Webinar on Evictions Response During and After COVID 19 held on May 27^th! If you were unable to attend, I encourage you to check out that exchange.

This week, I hope we can draw from a wider range of experiences and contexts to examine the risks of eviction for vulnerable communities (e.g. renters, to residents of informal settlements, to Indigenous Peoples, to IDPs and refugees, among others) which are being affected by the broader social, political and economic context of the pandemic.  

I also encourage participants to make links to the other two discussions within this series – notably the unique challenges that women face in terms of claiming, exercising, and defending their housing and land rights – and how COVID-driven migration, displacement, and de-urbanization may be driven by/or drive new waves of evictions.

To kick off the discussion, a few questions:

• Some jurisdictions are considering or have implemented measures to mitigate the risk of evictions, with the most common approach appearing to be the suspension of all formal eviction proceedings for the duration of the public health emergency. What are some of the advantages and limitations of this approach? How do we also protect landlords who rely on rent for their own subsistence? What happens when the moratoriums and other measures end and tenants have to pay several months of back rent?
• What is the situation for vulnerable tenants and occupants in jurisdictions where no measures have been put into place (or governments do not have the capacity to implement /enforce their moratoria) to secure their tenure? 
• What are some practical tools and approaches that practitioners can advocate for or deploy on the ground to keep people housed? What are some of the limitations, risks, and challenges around these approaches?
• Evictions are a chronic risk for impoverished and marginalized populations (especially displaced populations), even in non-pandemic times. Anticipating that inequality in terms of livelihoods and housing is being exacerbated by the COVID-19 crisis, what would you like to see in terms of the evolution of law, policy and practice on this issue?

Black Lives Matter has concentrated our minds on race equality. But, the principle extends to every person across all issues of equality. Ultimately all strands of equality must constantly be in the forefront of all our minds. We must use the momentum of the Black Lives Matter movement to work towards lasting outcomes for all disadvantaged and excluded groups. Too often, lack of resources cause disadvantaged groups to fight each other for what they desperately need. Racism and prejudice plays a big part in policy and strategy making. Negative stereotyping continues to damage the cause of actions for equality. In London, temporarily, during the Covid lockdown, the homeless were all taken off the streets and put into hotels etc. Research into homelessness lags behind other themes and lack of evidence undermines policy making. Now with the lockdown easing, it looks like the homeless are to be thrown back on the streets, without adequately addressing why they ended up on the streets in the first place. It is also expected that the entire Covid situation will continue to push more people into homelessness. We must all pull together more effectively to push for research and policies that improve lives for everyone. 

In South Africa, the State imposed a blanket moratorium on evictions, after considerable advocacy by civil society organisation. Even though the South African government introduced regulations to prohibit all evictions, some communities in informal settlements still found themselves facing evictions. The Social Justice Coalition’s (SJC), advocacy and campaign on eviction are focus on ensuring that communities in informal settlements, are safe from illegal evictions.

In South Africa the government and other organs of state will obtain an interdict against occupiers and then destroy any shelters built in violation of the interdict, while also confiscating the materials used by the occupiers. The Government also utilises the services of private companies to conduct the evictions or internal units focused on land invasions. When the government conducts such evictions and/or demolitions in informal settlements, the occupiers have nowhere to go and often simply endeavour to rebuild on the same property. This is especially true in the context of the restrictions on travel under lockdown and COVID -19.

There have been no clear plans by the South African government at a provincial, local and national level how to deal with social distancing in informal settlements. There are still a lot of unclarity how the process of de-densification or temporary relocation will work within informal settlements in order to address the issue of social distancing. Residents in informal settlements has been struggling with social distancing during this pandemic, for example some households in informal settlements have as many as 8 -10 people living together, making social distancing difficult.

See the links below containing articles and videos that demonstrate the situation of eviction in informal settlements during COVID – 19:

https://www.newframe.com/municipalities-defy-covid-19-eviction-moratorium/ [article]

https://www.news24.com/news24/southafrica/news/khayelitsha-residents-win... [ article]

https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/western-cape/evicted-empolweni-r... [ article and videos]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foVMUqRwv2k

The SJC are advocating together with other civil society organisation (that focus on eviction and land issues) to prevent widespread eviction during and after COVID – 19 and the national lockdown. Some of our advocacy strategies focus on:

To monitor the conduct of law enforcement officers that demolished homes and structures in informal settlements during COVID – 19 and the national lockdown in South Africa.

• Effort to ensure people at least know the extent and limitations of their legal protections/options regarding eviction.
• Integrating organisational platforms working on evictions affected by lockdown and COVID-19.
• We are advocating for a blanket moratorium on all evictions for the duration of the national lockdown.
• We still seeking clarity from government how the process of de-densification or temporary relocation for residents in informal settlements will work in order to address the issue of social distancing.

Thank you Jur for your contribution and personal experience illustrating the impact of COVID-19.

Your point on sharing the costs is extremely pertinent. We all agree that, when the economy is put on hold, someone will need to bear the costs. If the cost is solely undertaken by tenants, there would be grim consequences: evictions. But pushing the costs entirely to landlords also have undesirable consequences: indebtedness and mortgage defaults. Relieving landlords from debt would put a strain on financial institutions, with potentially devastating effects on the economy. Saving the banks leaves the burden to Governments, which means that the burden is pushed back onto society – particularly on future generations.

Governments – such as the Costa Rica one that you mention -  have been trying to spare tenants from paying rent and avoid evictions for the moment – a critical measure, especially considering the stay-at-home prescriptions by health authorities. But perhaps a more granular approach may be needed in order to re-balance cost-sharing in the medium to long term.

Thank you Judy for this thought-provoking input. The impacts of COVID-19 on homelessness is multilayered and must be met with a comprehensive response. This issue has been raised by the Special Rapporteur on Housing Rights in a specific guidance note, where States are urged to “immediately provide accommodation to all homeless people living ‘rough’ or on the streets with a view to transitioning them to permanent housing so that they do not return to a situation of homelessness once the pandemic is over.”

The note can be found at https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Housing/SR_housing_COVID-19_guidance_homeless.pdf

Thank you, Elizabeth, for this thoughtful reflection. It is true that the assumption that evicitons will increase as a result of COVID-19 lockdowns does not fit all scenarios. In fact, as you mention, landlords in markets with high demand for rental properties would be more likely to evict a defaulting tenant and swap him/her for a solvent one (civil servants, essential workers and others whose income have not yet been severely impacted). Rental markets with high liquidity are rare and mostly found in weathy urban centres. Like you, I wonder if in areas where the demand for rental properties is weak (structuraly or due to Covid), landlords will prefer to keep/negotiate with existing tenants rather than try their luck finding a solvent one in the market. 

Your point highlights the importance of gathering reliable data on COVID-19 related evictions to test these assumptions outside of western societies' big cities. 

In discussions like this, it is very easy to over-generalise and perhaps adopt somewhat stereotyped pictures of who the landlords and the tenants are and how the COVID-19 crisis will exacerbate evictions. While I don't disagree that are certainly risks of evictions increasing and in some places this is happening, it is not necessarily the case everywhere. Not all landlords are Scrooge-like rent-seekers who are exploiting their tenants. In many of the cities of low and middle-income countries where I have worked, landlords and tenants often share the same structures, and room or house rental forms a major part of their livelihoods. This is particularly so in informal/unplanned settlements. These are not institutional landlords, and they should not be treated as such. 

What this crisis and its associated measures have made very clear is that there are huge gaps in the understanding of the intricacies and complexities of modern urban life, lifestyles and relationships amongst policy makers. Blanket measures, whether a moratorium on rents or some other measure, will never fully reduce all of the impacts of crisis measures. But policy makers should recognise the need to adjust their measures or supplement them to deal with unanticipated emerging phenomena, especially those which affect the most vulnerable. Those persons and households which rely on flexible work arrangements or informal street traders and workers are perhaps the most vulnerable to lockdown measures which restrict normal mobility and economic life. As we have seen in the mass exodus of day-workers and their families from Indian cities when the lockdown was announced, their interests and needs were clearly overlooked.

Hello Judy - thank you for bringing attention to the fact that many people started out this crisis without adequate housing - it is a basic human right that we are collectively failing to ensure. The Homeless Hub has some wonderful guidance resources on this theme - especially related to COVID 19. https://homelesshub.ca/ Please share any resources that you think could contribute to participant's further learning on this topic!

Latin America is facing a migratory crisis as more than 4.2 million persons have left Venezuela as a result of the political turmoil, socio-economic instability and the ongoing humanitarian crisis. The Venezuelan refugees and migrants are widespread mainly in Colombia, Ecuador, Chile and Brazil where they have arrived on foot without any specific destination. 

Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis, thousands of Venezuelans compelled by the lockdowns have lost their jobs and other informal ways to get money to afford food, hygiene items and to pay rent, which worsened their conditions to stay in the host nations. Many have been evicted by landlords, basically because the governments have not allowed the moratoria on eviction for non-payment of rent. Such are the cases of Bogotá and Cúcuta in Colombia, whose Mayors argue that Venezuelans cannot stay in the cities, as well as in Perú and Ecuador. Moreover, the governments have failed to provided effective public assistance to Venezuelans and instead have implemented law enforcement actions to remove temporary camps and gatherings, pushing out elders, children, pregnant women and others to leave their nations. Hence the Venezuelan officials only coordinated a few flights to pick up hundreds of migrants, and several governments have closed the borders, the majority of them are being forced to return to Venezuela by walking throughout main and hidden routes, where several have been attacked and rolled down by xenophobic drivers.

In early March the Venezuelan officials welcomed and offered assistance to migrants. Then, as the flow increased, they imposed a rigorous migratory check up to deny entry, and deployed armed Venezuelan agents on the ground to capture and relocate migrants in camps along the borders. Currently, there are camps in both sides of the borders, ones contained with Venezuelan migrants awaiting to return, and others managed by the Venezuela Bolivarian National Guard, the militia and law enforcement agencies. Thousands of returned migrants are COVID-19 tested and then allocated in tents without the standard rules to avoid contagion i.e. without physical distancing/wearing face masks, and in many cases under water, energy and food shortages. Additionally, they are being stigmatized as ‘biological weapons’ by Venezuelan officials, who periodically insist on reporting the new COVID-19 cases and morbidity by blaming them as a threat and stressing that they are “imported” from Colombia and Brazil. 

The Venezuelan Constitution allows every national to leave and return to the country at anytime, as well as having the right to get a national ID and to access any public institution and shelter. It is unknown how many of those +60.000 returned Venezuelans still have any livelihood asset. The actual collapse of the public services, and particularly the health system, undermines the chances to receive a fast-effective help and increase COVID-19 vulnerability, whilst only the officials are providing access to and controlling the virus testing for civilians. 

It is important to highlight that amongst the vulnerable population, you won’t always find formalized agreements - registered signed contracts - between landlords and tenants. What our team at the Norwegian Refugee Council in Jordan has experienced during the implementation of our projects is that commonly, the agreement might be verbal - and so might be the threat of eviction. It means that although at government level there could be measures implemented to reduce the risk of eviction, such measures might not be effective or helpful to the most vulnerable populations. The suspension of formal evictions doesn’t solve the social cohesion of refugees and host communities. It might actually worsen the relationship between tenants and landlords.

Hello Alexandre, thank you for your question.

Many Venezuelan refugees and migrants do not have a job-contract and a formal lease agreement in the host nation due to their migratory status, as many persons have no ID or no qualify for the requirements. Therefore, they depend on daily informal economic activities and are not protected by the umbrella of any law, moratory (to pay rent) or tenant measure in place by the COVID-19 emergency. In other cases, they have been evicted by local governments, as happened in Bogotá-Colombia, where the Mayor implemented eviction orders arguing safety issues in urban areas (barrios).  After eviction, some migrants gather in the streets and parks, and request public assistance, but the governments argue that they are overwhelmed by the amount of migrants and their demands, and enact law enforcement to clear the streets. Several NGOs disseminated through the borders Colombia-Venezuela and Brazil-Venezuela provide temporary support (water, food) but are not capable of sheltering thousands of migrants, and the UNHCR's camps are full. 

These migrants are allowed to cross the border to Venezuela only three days a week for now, to get retained and isolated in tents for weeks, and supervised only by Venezuelan officials. The NGO's allocated in Venezuela have poor access to the tents, thus the security and info are controlled by the Venezuelan officials who report the national diagnosed new cases daily, and only them manage the statistical data, testing, and so on. The hospitals and clinics are not allowed to release information, and the scientific community is under threat. The rest of the Venezuelan population is still under COVID-19 lockdown. The returned people also face difficulties to get transportation to other destinations such as towns and cities, due to the gas scarcity.

The Federal Government of Somalia, through the National Commission for Refugees Internally Displaced Persons, issued a moratorium in early April this year, effectively prohibiting eviction of any kind.  A few weeks later, the Regional Administration of South West State also announced a moratorium on evictions.  These actions were influenced by joint advocacy efforts by the Protection Cluster and the HLP Sub Cluster.  

The first advantage included reduction in incidents.  Based on analysis data for April, a significant reduction in the number of eviction incidents was observed in regions where the moratoriums were issued. On the other hand, a spike was recorded in non-moratorium locations across the country.  The second of these advantages include moral responsibility.  Public prohibition creates a degree of pressure and moral obligations on property owners, whether it is a moratorium, decree or any other legally appropriate term. A final advantage included a framework for localized interventions.  Evictions will still occur regardless of the moratorium, and people at different levels will try to intervene. Having a moratorium provides a framework to facilitate and advance such efforts.

The limitations of this included enforceability, meaning lack of operational capacity and the legal infrastructure to enforce the moratorium and to punish those who violate.  They also included corruption, as in most contexts, land is not owned by ordinary citizens.  In Somalia, properties are owned by powerful and highly influential individuals with connections at higher levels of society and government.  Finally, these measures also have an economic impact on property owners. While it is true landowners are in a slightly better position, they do depend on the income from the rent of their properties.  Moratorium automatically cuts off this income stream, and this could ignite a situation where landowners defy government and engage in widespread evictions.

We can protect landlords who rely on rent for their own subsistence by issuing tax waivers on properties for the period of the crisis, and potentially additional months.  Furthermore, Limited direct financial contributions to landowners by aid agencies will be expensive and could be abused, but it remains an option to be explored and considered on a case by case basis.

When the moratoriums and other measures end and tenants have to pay several months of back rent, this will impact tenants ability to pursue recovery and durable solutions.  Furthermore, Internally Displaced Persons should be prioritized as the most vulnerable sub stratum of the population and the ones disproportionately affected by evictions.

The discussion on Covid-19 and eviction of renters probably proceeds on the assumption that renters are losing their sources of income but have to pay monthly rent. A second perspective  however is how the eviction dynamics is working out in countries where people pay upfront rent advance for one or two years. In Ghana for instance the Rent Act clearly states that a landlord is not allowed to receive rent in advance for more than 6 months. The practice however is that almost all private landlords require one or in some cases two years rent advance before renting out their property, and yet the government have not been able to enforce the law. Thus, many renters in Ghana at the onset of Covid-19, would already still be holding rental contracts that they had made one or two years rent advance payments. In the short-term, whiles Covid-19 subsists, rental evictions may not be very pronounced in such cases as there would be some level of tenure security. On the contrary, the Ghanaian case also presents a high risk of insecurity and threats of evictions for persons whose rental agreements expired recently or who are now seeking new rentals. In such cases, the expectation is that people would have to pay one or two years rent upfront. It would be interesting for a study, to probe the eviction dynamics in the Ghanaian rental market while paying attention to reasons for evictions which may be unrelated to failure to observe rent obligations such as stigmatization, owner-occupied  self-protection against infections and decongestion.

Hello Alexandre, thank you for your response and your challenging questions. There is great uncertainty about responses and their impacts across the world. Living in the Netherlands, I am also confronted with a lack of direct insight into local practices though some stories do filter through via various platforms of course, so most of what I contribute is not first-hand information. My gut feeling, and it is no more than that at this stage, is that where landlords and tenants who occupy parts of the same house or neighbouring houses, there may be less eviction pressure due to rent defaults.  They are in the same boat as it were and both are confronted with similar problems of income loss, food and water shortages etc. Via some contacts at SDI Kenya in Nairobi I am aware of programmes that try to address food shortages of highly vulnerable elderly residents in slum areas. But I am unaware of whether there is support for rents and possible eviction pressure.

The problem of potential evictions exists also in the USA . This article (https://sf.curbed.com/2020/4/20/21224360/covid-19-evictions-eviction-ren... ) illustrates many of the issues surrounding rent defaults, rent waiving and other issues. Some key emerging problems related to the eligibility for rent waivers, subsidies or interest-free loans, and privacy concerns on the information requested by some landlords to assess eligibility for rent waivers. Moreover, the article highlights that evictions threaten not only housing but also small businesses - those who have lost their daily turnover are also at risk of eviction. And the owners of commercial properties are often institutional landlords.

In a survey related to flood risk perception amongst business owners carried out in 2017 in 2 informal and 1 formal neighbourhood of Kampala one of my PhD students, Simba Chereni, found that most (70%) of the business activities were mico-enterprises with less than 4 employees, and that most of these were tenants. As many such micro-business owners reside in the same are they face multiple challenges due to the lockdown measures: loss of income, inability to pay rent for business and inability to pay rent for housing. To my knowledge, measures that can address these multiple challenges are lacking.

In terms of emerging phenomena, I am thinking in terms of supplementary food services (such as the one I mentioned earlier in Nairobi above), and given that hand-hygiene is so important in the COVID-19 crisis, extra water supplies may be needed in many communities.

Writing about the situation in Medellin, Baum and Sanchez Medina state that the "..measures taken to contain the Corona virus are extremely selective and many sharpen the existing patterns of discrimination." https://blog.prif.org/2020/05/07/it-is-about-structures-not-aid-informal.... They rightly point to the multiple structural inequalities present in many cities and societies that help to shape the spread and the severity of the pandemic locally and globally. Acknowledging this and redesigning the pandemic responses as well as those that will follow the pandemic is vital for structurally reducing inequities.

In terms of supporting the informal traders and day labourers I can see that there could be opportunities, at least in the food sector if not others, to include local store owners and engage day labourers in local food distribution networks. I have no idea to what extent this is being done, however. From what I understand of the situation in India, many day labourers have been returning to the village homes, many even on foot travelling as far as 1500 km. This urban exodus is troubling in many ways: the potential spreading of the virus while on-route, loss of income and urban-rural financial remittances, increased pressure on rural communities for housing, food and water, etc.

W. Gyude Moore, former Minister of Public Works in Liberia has suggested several measures in a recent online article on Quartz Africa (https://qz.com/africa/1836458/curfews-not-lockdowns-will-slow-covid-19-s... ). Two of his suggestions are to impose curfews rather than total lockdowns and to also expand the definition of essential services to include farmers, motorcycle and tricycle taxi riders, food vendors in local markets, farmers, and mobile phone company employees. Typical activities which figure prominently in largely informal economies.

In Rio our primary fear with regard to evictions is about what will happen to favelas just around the corner, once the pandemic has mostly passed. We expect certain government officials will use the high death count to push evictions, arguing it was these communities' unhygienic conditions that produced the deaths from Covid, rather than recognizing its own neglect of sanitation and health.

It's important to pull back and be clear. We are not ignoring the fact that these communities have conditions that can and do encourage Covid spread. At the same time the people who live in these communities have been there, mostly, for generations. Favelas in Rio are really established neighborhoods with deep histories. Some of them are over 100-year-old communities. The average resident wants to stay in their community and see it improved, even now. Favelas are not slums. They are much more consolidated than outsiders realize. And widespread evictions would have a devastating effect on this city, as they have during the three waves of eviction that have taken place since the first favela was settled 123 years ago. 

However, certain current government officials would like nothing more than to have the opportunity to permanently evict these neighborhoods. And they are currently in power at all levels: municipal, state and federal.

We are balancing the threat of eviction with the reality of poor or limited infrastructure and sanitation, and dense housing, on the one hand. And on the other, the fact that favelas house 1.4 million people in this city and most of them care about their communities, have invested heavily in their housing and solidarity networks, and want to stay and see them improve.

So how to solve this? Well, when we think about how to solve this, actually, this Working Group that has been working on Favela Community Land Trusts is really well-situated. This model involves, rather than regularizing land through individual rights, it involves regularizing the land through some sort of association or organization that would own the land and that is run by the community. The community owns the land. The housing is owned by individuals through surface rights. They can buy and sell their homes, they own their gardens, shops etc.  Because the land is collectively owned, not only does that keep it from being of interest to speculators—it protects these areas not only from eviction but also from gentrification—but then on top of that the community controls the land so they can control its development. They can plan its development. They can decide who really should be relocated and identify suitable plots and attractive alternatives for residents within the community, as has been done so effectively in the Caño Martín Peña in Puerto Rico, the leading example of a Favela Community Land Trust. Because they are now are a large property owner instead of isolated individuals, they have bargaining power to get access to public resources and investments.

The Community Land Trust Working Group includes Rio's Architecture and Urbanism Council, technical allies in critical state agencies, urban planners and lawyers from all of Rio's universities, housing movement NGOs, and several dozens of favela leaders and associations. We have many people who are on board with this strategy. And this is what we're really developing now in the coming months as a strategy.

We have also been developing a Favela Community Land Trust legislative proposal to provide support to this and streamline this process. The idea is to say that we actually do have to do something about the sanitation, we've been saying that for a long time. But that doesn't require eviction. It could be much more effectively addressed through land rights that are quite robust, maintain the community fabric, and empower residents to further realize the agency they've already shown historically and even more now during the pandemic, to plan and implement the infrastructure improvements they are entitled to.

What is the situation for vulnerable tenants and occupants in jurisdictions where no measures have been put into place, or governments do not have the capacity to implement and enforce their moratoria, to secure their tenure?  My response is that they risk possible evictions as there are no procedures that guide for non-payments of rent for instances like this.  Some landlords have gone to an extent of ripping of roofs to force tenants out.  The vulnerable are left with little or no choice.  

What are some practical tools and approaches that practitioners can advocate for or deploy on the ground to keep people housed? What are some of the limitations, risks, and challenges around these approaches? My answer to this question is that practitioners can call upon landlords to employ personal discretion to waive the amount of payable rent until the situation stabilizes; to rewrite the land-tenant agreements to include moratorium clauses. This will pose a threat, as in Kenya there is no database to show the number of tenants in a particular locality and the landlords may face a challenge of enforcing the agreements in cases where tenants give wrong information or they skip jurisdiction for whatever reason, hence leaving the landlord with a huge sum of unpaid debt. Banks can also waive interest loans on the loans taken by Landlords. 

This is a very important topic.  I am curious if anyone has looked at this from a legal perspective.  Many countries have constitutional protections ensuring women have equal rights to land and property, but in practice traditional norms often prevail -- and put women at more risk of eviction.  Has there been any discussion of changing traditional norms governing women's rights to land and property in light of COVID-19?

Thank you, Jur, for your thoughtful post.

The example from Costa Rica is very interesting.  

Many jurisdictions (national and subnational) are adopting legislation to protect renters from eviction.  In the case  you cite, rent payments are not "forgiven" or "waived", they may be delayed, though.  Some other jurisdictions, though, seem to be adopting legislation to prohibit eviction for failure to pay rent (without the express provision that the payment is simply delayed).

Do you (or anyone else) know whether there are any protections for landowners who have mortgages?  If they depend on rent to pay the mortgage, and people are not paying rent, are they protected from foreclosure or forfeiture for not being able to pay their mortgage?

Nathalia, you raise a great point.  While this is a risk, it also creates opportunities for a "living" agreement that can adapt to unexpected realities.  Do you (or anyone else) know of any examples where people have renegotiated informal tenancy agreements to allow for delays?  Or, maybe a better question is whether there are any analyses of when, how, and under what circumstances informal tenancy agreements are being amended to reflect inability to pay rent.

Nathalia,

Good points!  In Jordan, are you seeing differences in patterns and rates of evictions of (relatively recent) Syrian refugees and of (more established) Palestinian refugees?

Carl

Very quickly, this global health emergency has become a housing emergency. “Stay at home, save lives” has emerged as a mantra in the fight against COVID-19 worldwide, underscoring how central the home is to public health during a pandemic. Where for many “shelter in place” means adjusting routines and mindsets, for others it is exacerbating the conditions with which they have struggled for too long. The fast-moving challenge posed by the COVID-19  pandemic adds another urgent reason to ensure that the housing needs of diverse communities, including women, children, persons with disabilities, migrants and refugees, the homeless, the elderly and indigenous people, can shelter with safety and stability to protect their health and their families. In their own global guidance, UN-Habitat has called on governors, mayors and local governments to support the most vulnerable and to work with these communities as a priority.

Many residents do not possess security of tenure, including a lack of title or inadequate rental agreements, which means many live in constant fear of eviction. While incomes decrease and health is impacted by COVID-19, rent and mortgage payments are still due, adding stress and duress to families seeking to make ends meet as livelihoods vanish, schools close, and community members fall ill. Home is taking on a new meaning as simultaneous workplace, school, daycare, and safety net. It is essential that all levels of government consider contextually appropriate solutions to protect the homes of those living formally and informally as we all try to flatten the curve and reduce transmission of this disease.

While banking protections vary greatly around the globe, it is essential that developing economies address the needs of even the smallest borrower, especially individuals, as debts will become increasingly difficult to bear as the economic impacts will affect communities at different times throughout this crisis. Moreover, ninety-three percent of adults globally do not have access to housing finance options, as formal financial services are ineffective in reaching people in the world’s poorest places. Individuals that are unable to engage in the formal commercial banking system rely on a range of other types of financial institutions including cooperatives, microfinance institutions, and housing finance companies. These individuals must continue to be able to access these services to meet their economic needs during this crisis.

In Hungary, Habitat for Humanity, recognized the increased risk of facing evictions during the COVID-19 pandemic and pushed for extending a moratorium on evictions. A national law has places a moratorium on evictions during their winter season. Advocacy efforts to address threats of eviction were driven from assessing the immediate threats to housing security. "We came to the conclusion to prioritize those who are likely to face evictions after the end of the [winter] moratorium, as losing thir homes may also result in stretching the capacities of the social welfare and health care systems alike. Hence, such interventions makes sense for government officials considering financial constraints as well." By pulling on media and social media channels, they popularized their policy change. Keeping families in their homes means that families will have a safe place to social distance and keep their risk of transmission low, face less financial burden and provide stability during an already challenging time, as well as contribute to the overall public health of communities they reside in.

While the Solid Ground global advoacy campaign, focused on access to land for housing, ended in March 2020, I'll share our issue brief on secure tenure. This is created prior to COVID-19, but much why tenure security is so critical, and we are seeing that highlighted even greater in light of COVID-19, is captured in this brief. 

What we really need here in Brazil is to go back to some of the protective legislation that was passed in the early 2000s. We have the largest conditional cash transfer program in history, the Bolsa Família program, it still exists but has been hit at several points in recent years. The return of investment to our national healthcare system. Brazil actually has the largest public healthcare system in the world, but it's been deeply underinvested  inthese last few years, with sharp and permanent impacts from a 2016 provision banning new investments in health and education for 20 years.

Some is going back to what we know reduced inequality: a basic safety net and quality health care. Brazil went from being something like 3rd most unequal income in the world, on the Gini index, to about 21st in a matter of a bit more than a decade. And now we are back down to 8.This is all a process. Brazil went off the World Hunger Map but it is likely to be heading back on.  This was happening before the pandemic, and now with the pandemic it is exacerbated. We would like to see a return to those policies. At the same time, these policies weren’t enough. We cannot only have these federal cash transfers without the complementary investments that should have been made by states and municipalities responsible in education. We have a very poor public education system that has kept people precarious and has kept inequality there, despite everything else.

The Community Land Trust law or legislation opens new horizons and looks at this differently. In the example I mentioned briefly in Puerto Rico, the Caño Martín Peña, where they implemented the Community Land Trust so effectively and its an important institution today. They were able to relocate residents and as a community decide what are the areas, where is it unsafe to be next to the canal, who wants to go to certain houses or areas that were available in the community? They did their own relocation. And it was a win-win situation for the community. They got more public space, they were safer, they got better housing, and no one was evicted. And so the Community Land Trust model, it allows for communities to self-organize. 

There's a community in São Paulo, the largest favela called Paraisópolis. In response to the pandemic they've been incredibly effective at mobilizing and showing how these communities can self-organize so well at scale. They actually separated out units for people who needed to self-isolate within the communities as well as getting the government to keep ambulances on site, etc.

We need to be able to, especially in informal settlements that aren't going to go away because they are established and consolidated, especially in Latin America, I think we need to find ways to actually improve their quality of organizing and empower them. We need to recognize the development they've been able to do historically and how we can actually support that process.

Thank you for your question, Carl.

For house owners and landowners, a similar measure is being prepared as I described for for tenants.  A law is being drafted that allows the borrowers to suspend their monthly mortgage payments (principal and interest) for a maximum of four months - but eventually they will have to pay, nothing is waived.  

Hello - thank you so much for this rich contribution - would you be interested in updating this crowd-sourced map with the example from Hungary?

Hello!

Thank you for this excellent contribution on the various dynamics emerging from different parts of India. Would you be willing to add the moratoria to the crowd-sourced map on measures to protect tenure during COVID -19?

Considering the dynamics you shared about the risks to informal settlements, I was wondering if there are efforts to establish land trusts to secure their collective tenure - a solution currently being explored in Brazil and effectively executed in Puerto Rico? https://nonprofitquarterly.org/the-function-of-land-trusts-in-puerto-ric...

I am also curious to learn more about social housing schemes being planned for migrants - this may be a solution that the colleagues in Colombia and Jordan may find interesting!

Hi MasieMemo,

Thank you for this additional input. I think the questions you ask are exceptionnaly pertinent. I wonder what leverage practitioners might have to be able to convince landlord to introduce these new clauses into their rental agreements?

Building on what Banashree has said about the situation in India, a petition was filed in the Supreme Court seeking direction for the Centre to ensure compliance with the order of the Ministry of Home Affairs directing landlords to neither ask students and labourers to vacate the premises nor to seek rent for a month during the COVID-19 lockdown. However, the Indian apex court dismissed the plea and said it could not implement the orders of the government. Furthermore, the Delhi High Court has held in a case that tenants can't stay indefinitely without paying rent. As a result, many tenants have found themselves in a dire situation, particularly since administrative enforcement mechanisms are weak in India. Plus, most urban property markets are landlord markets, making it difficult for tenants to renegotiate rents or make alternative arrangements during the lockdown. According to legal experts, tenants cannot refuse to pay or reduce the rent unless there is a clause in the agreement between tenant and landlord, exempting either one of them to not perform their obligation under special circumstances. For, even during the lockdown, the usage of the property remains the same and the tenant continues to avail the service, so he cannot seek relief under the 'force majeure clause'. But most contracts don't have any such provision. Besides, as Banashree has mentioned, nearly 90% of rent agreements in the country have no written contracts. So tenants in any case have very little legal protection. 

A possible solution could have been the government announcing some sort of fiscal package for landlords to cushion their loss of rent and prevent evictions during the lockdown. However, much like land registry, property registry in India is a mess with most landlords not having complete set of property papers. Again, add to this weaknesses in administrative enforcement mechanisms, and it is a dire situation indeed. This is precisely one of the reasons why we have witnessed a huge exodus of migrant workers from the cities back to their rural villages. 

This is a really important point made about how lockdowns affect the watchdog groups ability to meet in person to carry out their work in tryign to help women protect their land rights, even as new cases of inheritance evictions come up during the lockdown - and of issues for inability to meet with local authorities to pursue cases. Thank you for drawing this out.

Annie you raise a really important point here about cases where men's roles normally have them more outside the home, while women have more responsibilities inside the home - with lockdowns and curfews, men are 'encroaching' in women's space ahd sphere of responsibility. and this doesn't just have implications for domestic violence, which as many others have commented seems to be increasing as a result of Covid-19. But it has implications too for women's role in the household, and particularly their ability to retain control of household income and budgeting, and proceeds from the use of household property. It would also be harder for women to manage these things without men's knowing, for example in cases where women have their own sources of income that they might have used for household needs - now with their husbands around at home more, women's control here could be threatened. so it is not just women's land rights that could be threatened here but property rights more broadly including the control and decision-making aspects over the incomes arising.

The UNHCR have been set up tents as part of a new refugee camp at the Tienditas bridge on the Colombian side for Venezuelan refugees!

Not unlike what I experienced in the second session of this online discussion (on evictions), I have a hard time finding ‘hard’ information – this time on the (estimated) magnitude of the COVID-19-induced urban-rural migration. In particular, I would have liked to have seen a concrete source or statistic backing up the statement (in question #1) that “As global lockdowns take effect, we see massive amounts of people moving from cities back to their hometowns.” How massive is this phenomenon in actual fact? And where is it most acute? 

Perhaps it is my regional bias, but I have the impression that the return to the countryside is less of an issue in Latin America (I live in Costa Rica) than elsewhere, particularly in Asia, and even more particularly in India, if I have to go by the results of a (very) quick and dirty search on the internet. 

Anyway, it figures that urban-rural migration of the kind we are discussing is most acute in countries where the virus has hit hardest. In Latin America, Peru is a case in point. An exodus from Lima is underway: according to a sociologist at the Universidad de San Marcos, more than 160,000 families have moved back to their hometowns and families or are planning to do so shortly. And perhaps ‘families’ is the key concept here. 

While the risk of losing their Lima dwellings is evident, it is not clear whether these migrants will cause many land disputes in the areas that they are going back to. Families are important networks in Latin America and it is hard to imagine that the ‘returners’ will arrive and start claiming portions of land. Other, not land-related consequences may be more serious: food scarcity in communities that are not very prosperous to begin with, and the spread of the disease. Regarding the latter, many a rural community in Peru had taken their precautions in an early phase, closing bridges and roads that led to their villages and succeeding in keeping the virus out. Similar steps have been taken by indigenous communities in the isolated Talamanca region in Costa Rica. One could say that these steps do generate disputes about access to land, but in another sense than envisaged in this session: people simply cannot get in certain jurisdictions. 

Thus, said communities will have, at best, mixed feelings about the return of their prodigal children, and this is a potential source of serious conflict. In a broader sense, we see this everywhere: inhabitants in Spanish towns on the Mediterranean coast were extremely unhappy with the throngs of well-to-do people from Madrid seeking refuge from the virus in their holiday homes, and the same goes for the people in the Costa Rican province of Guanacaste, who would like nothing more than banning people from San José from their towns, at least for the time being. 

In a deeper sense, the latter examples also speak of a land governance problem (huge coastal areas being converted in holiday resorts, with all consequences – positive and negative - this can have for the ‘locals’), but not, I believe, in the sense of this session – which I will be following attentively because, coming back to what I wrote at the beginning, I am eager to learn the facts and figures concerning this issue: the dimensions of both the urban-rural migration and of the (land) disputes in the areas that people go back to.

Jur, you make an excellent point regarding the availability of data to support theories about COVID-related migration and displacement. As panelist Chris Penrose Buckley pointed out during the webinar, it's difficult to know exactly what is happening with urban-rural migration because the data is missing. One interesting organization to look at in this regard is flowminder (https://covid19.flowminder.org/). In the past, flowminder has used mobile phone data to map population movements after natural disasters, and now it is applying the same model to map population movement in response to COVID. 

With a sudden lockdown in late March In India, we saw migrant workers in urban centers run out of work, out of cash, and without a safety net. The relief services that were offered in the form of food and shelter were highly insufficient in comparison to the distress that was caused and many workers were desperate to return to their villages, The pictures of large groups of migrants walking on feet were noted globally. And even after two months, the exodus continues.

This desperation is an expression of extreme distress but also one of people’s connection with the land where they are born and grow up. That land gives a sense of security, safety, and belonging. They wanted to be there in the adverse times and believed that they can face all difficulties if they are in their own land, surrounded by their own people.

 A lesson within this experience in India is from the state of Kerala that has emerged the leader in providing a better system to manage COVID and flatten the curve relatively early, and with less damage. This has been possible owing to strong village-level governance, a healthy civil society, and women’s active participation in governance in the State. 

Kerala’s Kudumbashree program encourages rural women to form self-help groups and their federations acts as an organised civil society counterpoint to village panchayats. Nearly 65% of all women elected to the panchayats are Kudumbashree members. It’s no coincidence that Kerala happens to be the first state to usher in pro-women land reforms.

These measures were not put in place to fight coronavirus, but rather are a legacy of good state policies that prioritize gender equity and empowerment. As countries begin to rebuild their economies, one of the critical elements- I think -should be to strengthen local institutions and ensure women’s participation - not just in numbers but in spirit.

Hi Justin

Thanks for an important submission and valuable links. For those in search of additional resources Phuhlisani NPC has been tracking a wide range of news items and reports on informal settlements, evictions and Covid-19. Developments across the whole land sector in South Africa are summarised weekly.

Regards

Rick

Social protection programmes are essential in conveying resilience to relatively stable environments, which can however be easily affected by changes in the economic, demographic and security structures.

In stable yet risk-prone environments, social protection can serve as a powerful investment tool, if proper care is put into a mix of policies designed at creating economic opportunities and alternatives for community members.

Policy recommendations in this case should aim at strengthening the capability of those environments to sustain themselves economically, by empowering them to fully access and use the natural resources at their disposal while also diversifying their array of income-producing activities. Social protection programmes are instrumental in reducing rural poverty and food insecurity, either through cash transfers or by supporting increased households’ productivity. Policy recommendations in this case should take into consideration local or national specificities and structural vulnerabilities. For instance, social protection programmes can include investments in agricultural assets, land and related production activities and equipment, as well as regular transfers of cash supporting savings within local communities. Nevertheless, as rural communities tend to over-rely on traditional means and agricultural activities, attention should be paid to social programmes that can support the diversification of income sources, by looking for instance at ways to mix communities’ agricultural, crafts and cultural traditions with touristic potential and agricultural development and turn them into profitable activities. Micro-financing for project diversification is another policy recommendation which may assist the purpose in this case.

In environments characterized by protracted crises, one major role social protection programmes fulfill is to support the economic and social resilience of communities, to combat negative long term phenomena such as food insecurity. Conflicts, natural disasters and globalization have all contributed to shaping up fluid family structures, where women often assume men’s role as providers of incomes for their families. This puts heightened economic and social pressure on rural gender-sensitive entities to access basic goods and services, including healthcare and education, and even more so in the case of displaced communities. Lack of access to these basic services puts not only one individual but entire families and communities at risk, causing a spiral of social and economic insecurity to persist.

We have just concluded field work exploring COVID 19 containment measures and implications on smallholder production and productivity. The land question remains peripheral, raising the need for somewhat a holistic approach to understanding COVID 19 impacts in the land sector.

Thank you for this detailed contribution, Founemakan. I agree, there are a multitude of factors that rural and urban centers must consider when faced with this sort of movement. One important question, that we have not seen answered, is: do we anticipate that most of the migrants will return to the cities once the pandemic has passed, or do we anticipate that this movement out to rural areas will be somewhat permanent? This will have large implications on the solutions proposed. 

Social protection programmes are essential in conveying resilience to relatively stable environments, which can however be easily affected by changes in the economic, demographic and security structures.

In stable yet risk-prone environments, social protection can serve as a powerful investment tool, if proper care is put into a mix of policies designed at creating economic opportunities and alternatives for community members.

Policy recommendations in this case should aim at strengthening the capability of those environments to sustain themselves economically, by empowering them to fully access and use the natural resources at their disposal while also diversifying their array of income-producing activities. Social protection programmes are instrumental in reducing rural poverty and food insecurity, either through cash transfers or by supporting increased households’ productivity. Policy recommendations in this case should take into consideration local or national specificities and structural vulnerabilities. For instance, social protection programmes can include investments in agricultural assets, land and related production activities and equipment, as well as regular transfers of cash supporting savings within local communities. Nevertheless, as rural communities tend to over-rely on traditional means and agricultural activities, attention should be paid to social programmes that can support the diversification of income sources, by looking for instance at ways to mix communities’ agricultural, crafts and cultural traditions with touristic potential and agricultural development and turn them into profitable activities. Micro-financing for project diversification is another policy recommendation which may assist the purpose in this case.

In environments characterized by protracted crises, one major role social protection programmes fulfill is to support the economic and social resilience of communities, to combat negative long term phenomena such as food insecurity. Conflicts, natural disasters and globalization have all contributed to shaping up fluid family structures, where women often assume men’s role as providers of incomes for their families. This puts heightened economic and social pressure on rural gender-sensitive entities to access basic goods and services, including healthcare and education, and even more so in the case of displaced communities. Lack of access to these basic services puts not only one individual but entire families and communities at risk, causing a spiral of social and economic insecurity to persist.

Thanks for the reference to Flowminder, Yuliya. However, I have not been able to find on their site any acual information on population movements, only on the methodology to generate that information. Besides, the whole thing still is under construction. But perhaps I have overlooked a obvious step, or the link to the data... or am I right and is nothing available (yet)? 

In Senegal, Dakar remains by far the main destination for internal migrants. Mainly because of its economic wealth, its percentage in internal migration is still significant and is mainly fueled by the rural exodus (seasonal migration). The urban region of Dakar, which covers 0.3% of the national territory, remains the main area of ​​concentration of the population, economic activities and major facilities in the country. Indeed, Dakar is clearly distinguished from the rest of the country by the size and dynamism of its economy. According to the 2013 report on the economic and social situation in the Dakar region, it concentrates 80% of the country's industrial activity ((Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la Démographie (2016), Situation Economique et Sociale du Sénégal en 2013) and is home to more than 29% of the working population of Senegal (Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la Démographie, RGPHAE 2013).

Dakar currently concentrates more than half of the country's urban population (53.7%) and with a positive migratory balance of 67,994, Dakar is one of the most attractive regions of the country (Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la Démographie 2014).

The seasonal migration of young men and young women from the countryside to Dakar is a response to vulnerability in disadvantaged areas, especially after the rainy seasons which last on average only 3 months. The low employment rate and the high unemployment rate explain, by location, the high level of poverty and social vulnerability in the country. Even if it has fallen in recent years from 55.2% in 2001 to 48.3% in 2005, the poverty rate remains high until 2011 with 46.7% according to ANSD.

The very rural departments, mainly in the south, east and center, which are highly dependent on seasonal agriculture, are the most affected by monetary poverty and the most affected by the phenomenon of rural exodus and emigration (Agence Nationale de l’Aménagement du Territoire (2020): Plan National d’Aménagement et de Développement Territorial, Horizon 2035).

Covid-19 appeared in Senegal since March 2, 2020. From 1 case in March 2, 2020, the number of cases is 5247 in June 16, 2020, with 1251 healed. Today Dakar appears to be the epicenter of the pandemic (Ministère de la santé et de l’action sociale, juin 2020).

More than 60% cases of Covid-19 are located in the Dakar region, marked by the existence of community cases whose sources of contamination are unknown.

With the approach of the rainy season, the first stage of which is the preparation of the fields (June-July), the seasonal workers who were in Dakar will move to their regions of origin to prepare for the agricultural campaign. Currently, after more than two months of lockdown, Senegal allows travel between different regions of the country and the resumption of inter-territorial transport.

As every year, these seasonal workers find family farmland. The agriculture subsector employs approximately 73.8% of the rural population, concentrating 65% of the total population in 2013 in a country where 49.5% of households are agricultural (Agence Nationale de la Statistique et de la Démographie, RGPHAE 2013). Agricultural resources are the main source of food, employment and income for more than 60% of the working population in Senegal. As a result, the agricultural sector plays a key role in achieving the objectives of economic growth, food and nutrition security, job creation and poverty reduction.

Back in their territory, these workers join their land which was unoccupied during the dry season which lasts on average 7 months (from November to May). Unless these are internal problems, there are not really any land disputes related to their return to the land.

However, given the prevalence of the disease in Dakar, mainly, these agricultural workers (men and women) can probably be healthy or sick carriers and infect the communities of destination, in areas with no cases yet or with few case. Barrier measures (wearing masks, hand washing, social distancing) are hardly respected by everyone, especially in rural areas because of community life (each concession can include two or three households and even more and one household is made up on average 10 people) and the lack of means to have barrier masks. They may also be stigmatized and not welcome as they return from a location very affected by Covid-19.

This situation can have negative repercussions on agricultural productivity and jeopardize the supply of the national market with products, the achievement of food sovereignty and cause the reduction of incomes of peasant-producers. In the long run, this will cause the contribution of agriculture to the GDP of the primary sector to drop (to 61.4% in 2017).

In India, it is clearly visible that this rural migration will create new pressures - more mouths to feed, and more people sharing living spaces may result in greater frustration, domestic violence, and child abuse. There will also be pressure on the commons. With more people back in the villages, there will be greater demand for agricultural work. Existing agricultural land will see intensification as well,. In remote areas, we may also see pressure on forests to make land available for agriculture. Given this, state governments should make plans to allot common lands to returning migrants. Criteria for identification of landless and land allocation to landless should be revisited and revised to embrace more people. There should be explicit guidelines to recognize and prioritise women as the titleholder.

Governments should also prioritize stronger rights and clear records for people. India, for example, has recently launched a land rights scheme called svamitva (or ownership) which will map previously undocumented rural property boundaries and provide ‘property cards’ to rural households across the country. It is important to actively engage communities when field validation of the property owners is being conducted. Without effective community participation, conflict and discontent are bound to result from processes that attempt to define land rights. And efforts such as these must prioritise clear rights to women.

Hi Jur, I have contacted Flowminder to see what they have by way of data, and have not heard back yet. I too could not find anything by way of actual data, so perhaps it is still under construction. 

The rural people depend on the family network between the urban poor and the rural family.   COVID-19 lockdown was globally never planned for.   As we say in Africa that, “COVID-19 has demonstrated how all human being are equal”.      Whereas governments have intervened with varied strategies in support of citizens especially the poor, population from the South has suffered the most, because of lack of reserves that could assist the poor population in terms of livelihood.     A period of almost four months’ lock-down characterised a challenge to both the government responsible for the provision of food security and other basic and social provisions especially to the poor; and the rural poor who depend on food security chain with the rural members of the family.    Lockdown, remain a big shock to the urban poor who depend on informal jobs for income that has been lost with the lockdown.   Easing lockdown in Rwanda has seen a good number of population especially the youth, both girls and boys, going rural in search of better livelihood, because this is where their land (family land).   COVID-19 situation has seen increase of informal land sales transactions which might lead to landlessness and heighted land related disputes.

Thanks to everyone for your excellent contributions so for. Let us move on to the next two questions. What will be the anticipated impact on food systems, health services and education of adding so many new residents into sparsely populated areas? Many people in rural areas rely on remittances from relatives in cities to build and maintain their homes. What will happen as these remittances dry up? As levels of remittances drop, how can these investments be protected?

There are already impacts on food systems and health services. Supply chains are disrupted and this has immediate impact on smaller-scale producers dependent on timely arrival of inputs.

Information coming from our programs shows that the nutrition status of women and children in particular is at high risk due to immediate price shocks (mostly seen in higher value foods and not yet in staples).

Our east and southern Africa Rapid Gender Analysis (RGA) shows that, in populations where women’s responsibility for food security within the household is higher, food shortages and increased food insecurity places them under heightened pressure and could expose them to intimate partner violence or reliance on negative coping mechanisms, such as resorting to transactional sex, sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) or the forced entry of girls to child marriage. Our from RGA in Uganda includes early marriage as a coping mechanism and an increase in levels of gender-based violence.

We must ensure access to diverse and nutritious food among the urban and rural poor, especially women, pregnant and lactating women and girls, older people, displaced persons and refugees during lockdowns via food aid, cash-or-voucher based support. The promotion of nutritious value chains will be important, including the use of orphan or neglected crops – this means that access to land for women will be key for nutrition.

Pre-COVID-19, remittance incomes from migrants in the cities were usually used to provide stability to the fluctuations of the agri-economy. In the absence of this, there will be a need to stabilise farm incomes and there will be pressure on agriculture. To this end, the farming sector will see a new demand as well – for irrigation, insurance, and climate adaptivity. There will be a greater demand for contract farming arrangements. 

COVID has disrupted supply chains that cross state and national boundaries, which could provide the impetus for agro-processing to happen closer to production centres. Focusing on agri- and allied processing facilities, supporting micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), and creating a space for more financing institutions and non-banking financial companies (NBFCs), can really strengthen local economies and provide opportunities for both existing and returning inhabitants.

There is also a need to provide them with the necessary skills for the emerging times and at the same time support them through wage programs. The Government of India has a program called National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme for assured employment for 100 days to rural people. There is certainly a need to widen its scope as well as strengthen its implementation.

It’s also important to remember that the migrants who are returning to the villages will bring back a new set of skills, experience and perspective from their urban backgrounds. I am hoping they will bring lot of innovation to the rural lives, markets and economies. The adversities they have been through will likely make them even more resilient.

The pandemic has drawn attention to the urban-rural interconnectedness of income, investment and land. In India the loss of income and uncertainty of resumption of work caused by the nation-wide lock down has created a new class of the poor, who had incomes but have lost their jobs and are now impoverished. Most of these were migrants in cities, both men and women, engaged in informal work. Hundreds of thousands have had to go back to the village under extreme hardship, as Shipra has pointed out. Studies in Indian cities - Delhi, Ludhiana, Surat, Bangalore and others- have shown that a majority of such migrants practiced a frugal lifestyle in the city so that they could save money for remittances to the family in the village and investment in housing and agriculture. For most migrants, working in the city is perceived as a temporary hardship for a better future back in the village– very often, the transition from landlessness to land ownership, or bigger and more productive land. The loss of income has undoubtedly affected such aspirations and the impacts need to be studied.

Really interesting insights Rick, and seems encouraging that temporary moves back to rural homes, because they are perceived as temporary (with the pandemic) rather than permanent, will focus on identity and the social support at a time of crisis rather than being economically driven or seen as permanent. And therefore not necessarily going to aggravate land conflicts in rural areas. The issues though would be if economic effects of the pandemic are so great or prolonged as to cause more lasting loss of the former urban livelihoods, thereby creating a need for land in rural areas for survival. And, second, depending on the length of the pandemic / lockdowns / population displacement - as this affects whether a temporary move in a crisis ends up becoming more permanent. So perhaps the conclusion is that we could hope for not necessarily an increase in rural land struggles, but, as others have said in this discussion, it's still too early to tell.

I'm not sure if protecting properties is the right question to be asking right now as very little many actors can do this during the lockdown itself. People will want to return as soon as they can and the job/work opportunities open up again and that is a big questions given the economic downturn.

At the moment it is still being treated as a temporary issue but what will mass unemployment and, potentially rising food prices in some countries, do? This may quickly lead to sustained evictions from people unable to pay rent and growth in informal settlements or return to rural homes with longer-term challenges that will bring.

The biggest threat in the short term may be that governments take advantage of the lockdown and reduced national or international presence and attention to implement mass evictions in informal settlements. Already some reported that seem at least in some way to be linked to the ‘opportunities’ that the crisis provides.

The challenge is how to mobilise and organise during the lockdown to protect legitimate tenure and human rights. BUt this could also be an opportunity in some cases to work with local municipalities to support the crisis response and in the process take one step closer to formal recognition of rights in informal settlements. Example of DFID’s partner Cadasta in Kenya/India. 

One way I think this can be achieved is by expanding the scope of Self-Help Groups who are financial intermediaries. Approaching these groups to add some more responsibilities, including helping women understand their rights will be an efficient use of the already existing network they have. Given that land and inheritance rights have direct financial consequences, the SHGs would be the natural resource to target. 

This is an extremely important point that you have brought up. One thing I thought of while reading your post is that efforts should be focused on understanding how these migrant population are using their savings right now. What kind of expenses are they prioritising right now? How do they compare to those who already have invested in some land in their villages? Are they worse or better off by some measure? This can help us further the idea of land being a valuable asset. This is where Shipra Deo's post on Svamitva can also help fill in the gaps. This exercise could give us some insight into the financial gaps in coping with a sudden and unexpected shocks, especially for this population. It can also be used to formulate certain temporary cash transfer programs to help these migrant workers, so that they don't spend their savings completely. 

Hello Everyone,

Thank you for your rich contributions to this week’s discussion about Migration, De-urbanization and Displacement during and after COVID – 19. Reaching through these contributions, the following themes seem to emerge: 

1. The need for better data– much of the conversation around the risk of evictions in the era of COVID remains anecdotal. We need to better understand who is on the move, where they are going, and how long they intend to stay there.
2. The need for governments to proactively think through how to receive urban-rural migrants. This includes potentially allocating land, but also thinking through stresses on other social systems, schools, food systems, health care and transit.
3. Disputes are likely to arise and so we must set up responsive dispute resolution mechanisms. Many of these mechanisms may not exist in rural areas, or coverage may be patchy.
4. Many rural families rely on remittances from urban areas to survive. So, urban-rural migration isn’t only an extra mouth to feed, it’s a loss of an income. Government welfare and social programs must take this loss of income into account as they think through distributing aid. This drop in remittances, coupled with supply chain disruption, will also create pressure on agriculture.
5. With an eye towards eventual return once the crisis settles, we must start to think about how to protect properties people are leaving behind as they flee. Will there be a meaningful way for them to return? What happens if the properties are occupied by squatters in the meantime? This question will come into focus once we better understand the duration of the crisis and the extent to which populations wish to return to urban centers.

Issues for land governance as a result of the specifics of the Covid-19 pandemic and how it is playing out in different countries around the world, are in broad terms the same issues for land governance that exist in all those same countries already. Lack of transparency, corruption, complexity, lack of accessibility to data, service centres, forms, records, archives etc. How much Covid-19 might potentially contribute to exacerbating some of these issues in different countries will entirely depend on how long lockdowns last for and to what extent/whether the pandemic increases the number of land transactions and transfers - it might actually do the reverse, as markets stall while people are locked down. 

My point being that the first impacts of the pandemic are unlikely to be an increasing demand for land administration services, and therefore we should perhaps not assume that lack of transparency, corruption etc would worsen at least in the short term. In the longer term, the context specific details are what will then determine whether communities do indeed suffer as elites take advantage of a (growing?) governance gap. Alternatively, the pandemic presents a potential opportunity for communities to step up, call out injustices and work together to create a new and fairer normal, based on improved, more transparent and more gender-equitable land governance and administration. Whether that happens or not is up to all of us, as individuals and collectively, and In personally really welcome the opportunity this online discussion has created for us to start having these important conversations.

A second pandemic: how COVID-19-induced regulatory rollback threatens land rights and public health

As the world heads toward half a million COVID-19 deaths, a second pandemic is unfolding: companies in the fossil fuel, mining, energy, transportation, and agricultural sectors are scrambling to unwind regulations protecting land rights, forests, and the climate. They have also secured more than $500 billion in bailout funds for carbon-intensive activities—more than 17 times the funding that has supported green recovery. The work of these “coronavirus climate profiteers” to exploit COVID-19 to change the rules of the game threatens land responsible land administration efforts and compounds the threats COVID-19 poses to the indigenous peoples and local communities essential to protecting land, forests, and the climate. 

The advocacy group Mining Watch Canada, for example, has documented dozens of cases of mining companies seeking to profit off the pandemic, including by continuing operations despite the health risks this poses to local communities and by colluding with governments to secure favorable regulatory change while stifling public protest. Meanwhile, in the agricultural sector, beef producers and traders are continuing to destroy forests and threaten indigenous and community land rights at one end of their supply chain while exposing plant workers to COVID-19 at the other. A closer look at Brazil and Indonesia show how corporate practice and government policy combine to threaten good land governance and put indigenous peoples and local communities in a double bind—increasing their risk of COVID-19 infection while also increasing the threats to their lands, territories, and resources.

As Brazil’s environmental enforcement officials scaled back operations in response to the pandemic and indigenous groups scrambled to lock down their territories, illegal loggers, illegal miners, and other land grabbers moved into high gear, threating both land and lives. For example, a recent  report from Instituto Socioambiental shows that 40% of the Yanomami in communities within 5 km of illegal mining invasions (are now at serious risk of exposure to COVID-19. These and other land invasions have happened with the tacit approval—and even overt encouragement—of the government. The Brazilian Environment Minister Ricardo Salles told Brazil’s cabinet they should take advantage of the media’s focus on COVID-19 to “push through and change all the rules and simplify norms” –in other words, to roll back human rights and environmental protections while the public looks elsewhere. This has included sacking effective enforcement agents and continuing efforts to weakening or dismantling already cash-strapped enforcement agencies. At least one enforcement official has been violently assaulted with impunity. A new policy from FUNAI removes protections for unrecognized indigenous lands and, along with other proposed (but now stalled) legislation, could incentive land grabbing and forest conversion. Predictably, deforestation in the legal Amazon has continued to surge and stands 40% higher than it did a year ago, and at least 2,400 indigenous people have contracted COVID-19. 

In Indonesia, two proposed omnibus bills offer up 1,000 amendments to nearly 80 existing laws, some designed to weaken environmental and community rights protections under the guise of improving the ease of doing business. Some provisions would roll back requirements for conducting environmental impact assessments and reduce environmental enforcement capacity. Meanwhile, a new mining law may roll out the welcome mat for expansion of mining into forests and customary lands, scrapping size limits for mining concessions and allowing for their automatic renewal, even if required mine site remediation has not been completed.  And palm oil companies continue to grab customary land and murder those who stand in their way. As in Brazil, an expected peak in land-clearing forest fires this summer driven by irresponsible business practices and poor regulatory enforcement is likely to compound the public health threats already posed by COVID-19.

Several areas of land administration in Burundi function as a hybrid between democratically elected positions and locally recognized elders. Elected positions in land governance have been particularly vulnerable during Covid-19 to manipulated policies by national and provincial leaders. Unlike other countries which have enforced widespread lockdown measures, the Burundian government largely maintained a view of Covid-19 as an external threat. These policies shut down borders with Tanzania, Rwanda and DRC along with the suspension of international flights. Internally, the Burundian government largely allowed the free movement of people and avoided lockdown measures. While reported cases of Covid-19 remained low in Burundi, many suspect the actual number of cases were much higher. Despite growing concerns of spreading Covid-19, Burundi permitted campaigning and held elections for key national and local government positions on 20 May 2020.

The ruling CNDD-FDD party largely ignored international trends towards lockdown measures, yet blocked opposition requests on several occasions to campaign due to the threat of Covid-19. This limited campaigning by opposition political parties for elected positions and subsequent dominant election results in favor of the CNDD-FDD may alter land governance dynamics in Burundi where ruling party members are over-represented in these institutions. These strategic local positions, along with those in higher areas of government, permit ruling party authorities to influence land governance by appointing positions according to political preference rather than merit.

This will likely have further effects on land mediation teams which attempt to resolve conflict during registration. Returning refugees often feel these mediation teams of “locals” and CNDD-FDD loyalists discriminate against them as “outsiders” for fleeing during the 2015 election violence. Further bias towards ruling party members in land mediation institutions can fuel distrust, ultimately perpetuating court cases and the potential for violence.

The Burundian case opens up a number of questions for other countries where Covid-19 policies have been strategically employed to benefit those in power. Using public health measures to stop the activities of opponents allows ruling elites to act without the checks and balances of political contestation prior to coronavirus. Land governance institutions, actors and policies may be tipped in favor of those in power during coronavirus for years to come.

What you point out is a very good lead into further research and policy and on an immediate basis, cash transfer programmes. Right now there is only anecdotal information on how savings and land ownership are playing out. A migrant worker from Ludhiana lamented that now he will have to use the money he was saving for buying land for family expenses. For others, who have already buoght land, the option of cutting short urban employment and going back to farming seemed to be a reality. There were some whose land deals had not been fully transacted, even though most of the money had been paid. They were left with no savings and no land to till and an uncertain furute.

Thank you Teddy for your input and for sharing how the lockdown in Uganda has an effect on land administration services. The current crisis might indeed increase the need for the digitalisation of, or ICT-based land administration.

While the land administration services in Uganda went into lockdown, did you notice if people have found ways to work around it?

Hi Karin, thank you for pointing out some weaknesses in the current land governance system and for providing practical examples of more sustainable and inclusive land use approaches such as regreening and Analog Forestry.

I am glad that there may be silver linings as Shipra Deo has eluded to here for innovation in rural life. I wish to also add that the pressure for smallholder farmers pushed into the global markets for 'better opportunities' are now also paying a significant price. The trade routes have stopped, and when once subsistent and resilient to shocks through adaptive farming techniques and or access to alternate food, the exensive reliance on cash crops and producing to quotas under contracts have emerged as yet another desperate situation from restrictions caused by COVID. The example here is from Myanmar. 

It beckons the question of the impacts of contract farming, foreign investment and conversion to cash crops and the reduced resilience and independence that rural farmers end up with. In this tea case, it is the reverse issue of workers and traders from towns being unable to access farms in the rural areas and continue with trade. I thought that this provided another perspective on how interconnected the rural economy is, and that we may think more broadly on the pressure of smallholder farmers who convert to cash crops which often reduces their resilience.    

I think we need to develop two forms of strategies. The first covers vulnerable groups within households, such as women, the elderly, children, strangers who are at risk of eviction by powerful individuals and groups with the household or broader family. The second is vulnerable groups and groups of of households, such as  women, child-headed households, strangers, foreigners, foreign owned shops, and refugees. Tenants also need protection. However, in my field work I have also observed tenants using a conflict to grab the landlord's land by refusing to pay rent and later demanding title to that land. The landlord cannot pay the taxes and they lose their investment or family land which may have been passed on through a number of generations as a consequence.

After having read previous posts, it is not easy to add something new. However, my feeling is the following:

In the international arena the asymmetries of power have increased in these last years and not in favour of weaker actors. Peasant movements have less capacities to lobby for better conditions (in terms of securing access and what follows). 

Big actors as FAO have lost ground in the field (and I say this after having passed almost 30 years with the Land group in FAO). The strategy of pushing VGGT as the core instrument to preserve local rights has been a clear failure. VGGT have eliminated all other areas of work, particularly the field projects we used to enter into policy arena in countries like Mozambique, Angola, Kenya and others. 

With these elements in mind, I’ll try to answer the first sub-question: for LA services certainly the lockdown has not had a positive impact and I guess that their strategy is simply a survival one, which will not be easy because it might be expected a reduction in international aid (I think this will be the combined effort of the economic crisis that is starting in the North together with Donor’s fatigue on land issues after having invested millions in the VGGT programme) and also because there will be less possibility to provide direct (physical) technical assistance in the coming future as a result of the overall “greening” strategy to reduce carbon print and to reduce health risks (few field missions will be approved and financed because of that).

The last sub-question makes me feeling that local communities and/or IPs will not be affected by this interruption, simply because the LA services are, in many cases, designed as a top-down governance instrument. The recognition of historical/ancestral land rights by communities and/or IPs needs an approach that combine both NGOs type of work and, later, formal LA systems, as we demonstrated in Mozambique, Angola, Bissau. The lockdown and the economic crisis will reduce drastically the support that NGOs can provide, thus leaving formal LA alone: this was the main bottleneck, because what they lack is a paradigm shift from what their hierarchical superiors tell the LA officers, towards one that is exactly the opposite. Starting from the bottom with the communities, understanding the variety and complexity of their territories, and then transforming these info into the documents needed by the LA services. Leaving the (weakened) LA alone will only worsen the situation. 

In theory this period could have been an interesting opportunity for the world players to stop and open their minds but, as is happening for the critical problem of deforestation, nothing is happening. In few years we will have new Covid, resulting from the anthropic pressure that human beings (corporations) are exerting into tropical/subtropical forests. The same cycle will continue.

My personal dream would be for UN, Donors and other important players to make serious political pressures over Gvts in order to change completely the way tenure security is tackled. We need to start from the people below, and certainly not from the “investors”. Only when local communities/IPs will be secured with their historical/ancestral rights, then it will be possible to open a serious discussion on the type of LA services they need. 

The answer to the question of protecting the properties people are leaving behind depends on multi factors. It is obvious that it has a time spec element which if becomes longer may eventually reduce the tenure security rights on ground especially if they are in informal settlements. Depending on strength of social nexus or bonds among the community members in the area where mass shifting is happening, the properties will be secure as long as these  neighbourhood protection systems will hold their stand.  In addition, we have to see the threat of squatters could have a direct correlation with the location of the property and its market value. In real democracies, one big factor contributing towards the protection of such empty properties cannot be ignored. This is the power of vote. If the migrants continue to have their voting power, the local political figures will always try to save their vote bank. In Delhi, the capital city of India, with more than 1500 unauthorized colonies and more than 600 slums, mass migration has taken place and the high value of property is always going to be a threat factor  to the tenure security of the real owners but the continuum of voting rights will provide a protection along with a strong social bond of neighbourhood to maintain the land tenure rights continuum. Besides there extra-legal rights, these socio-political and economic factors will contribute in protection of properties and subsequently deciding the retun of people. I would say its too early to assess in such cases the actual property right implication of this.

It is clear from the reactions so far that the impact of COVID19 and the mitigation measures (the lockdowns) on land administration - and with that on security of tenure- is not straightforward. An important question is who is loosing out as services close down. I would like to add an element to this debate: How are pressures on land changing in particular places as a result of COVID19? Where many people may see their livelihoods severely threatened, others might be in fact gaining from the situation. Will this lead to distress sales and the ' squeezing out'  of poorer houdeholds from access to land? And what will the move to the city, registered in some countries, mean for local pressures on land and the configuration of local land markets? How will a weakened, disrupted land administration respond to this? I would be curious to hear about any experiences or observations participants have regarding this issue- including perhaps those of you who might say that these shifts seem to be only minor for the moment.

In Costa Rica, COVID is not without consequences for land administration. Some activities of the Institute for Rural Development (INDER), the public institution that is also responsible for the management of land redistribution mechanisms, have been put on hold: particularly field visits and meetings.  In other words, one can certainly speak of a (land) governance gap in the country.

Whether one can also speak of elites taking advantage of that gap is another question. But what cannot be denied is that a small but important segment of the Costa Rican population is jeopardized by the partial lockdown: the indigenous communities. For over 40 years now, they have had a hard time reclaiming their ‘ancestral territories’ that they have lost over the past five centuries. In 1977, a law was passed that ordered the government to restitute those lands, but the results have been limited: not just for bureaucratic reasons but also because other, non-indigenous, peasants refused to leave those territories, or invaded them after having left. Despite several verdicts by the Interamerican Commission for Human Rights (CIDH) ordering the Costa Rica government to enforce the 1977 law, progress has been slow: the government is remarkably passive in the face of the invasions and other conflicts.

Just as in a football match with a pusillanimous referee, such passivity is a fertile ground for persisting conflicts and antagonism between indigenous and non-indigenous peasants, none of which can be called elites. Things have gotten worse in the past year, with two indigenous leaders having been murdered over land conflicts, despite supposedly enjoying police protection: Sergio Rojas Ortiz (18 March, 2019) and Jehry Rivera (24 February, 2020). The suspects are free on bail; local judges are seldom of indigenous origin.

Following new remonstrations by the CIDH (who were quick to condemn the murders and put even more pressure on the authorities), last March president Alvarado signed an executive order exhorting all relevant pubic institutions  to speed up land restitution and ensure protection of indigenous land rights, as well as of the activists defending those rights. Passivity was no longer an option; all media condemned the murders and the way they were dealt with by the judiciary. However, the Corona crisis could not have come at a worse time: for a while, it looked as if finally something was going to be done (although, on past performance, one should not be too confident), but the indigenous population will have to wait - again. Without INDER field visits, conciliatory meetings and on-site enforcement measures (all rendered inviable by the crisis), delay seems, once more, inevitable.

This relates to Question 1, but not quite. Many institutions related to land governance in India seem to have found a way of functioning partially and selectively, but the pandemic has closed avenues for justice and democratic processes, which the poor often use to fight for the right to occupy land.

Several Indian courts have directed state and local institutions not to evict people or demolish homes during the COVID-19 lockdown. Despite orders and advisories, Housing and Land Rights Network (an advocacy that campaigns against forced evictions) has recorded at least 22 incidents of forced eviction across India during the national lockdown (25 March to 31 May) and after it ended (1 to 16 June). These incidents have affected over 13,500 persons (conservative estimate calculated by HLRN) and resulted in the violation of multiple human rights. The reasons for these evictions include ‘beautification’ projects, government land clearance, and ‘smart city’ projects. (https://www.hlrn.org.in/documents/Press_Release_Evictions_COVID19_June_2...)

What is more alarming is that many of these evictions did not follow the due process of law accepted in the country and internationally. Advance notices were not always served and proper resettlement and rehabilitation was not carried out. (https://www.article-14.com/post/under-cover-of-covid-india-s-poor-lose-t...)

Why this contradiction?

To look into this question, we will briefly review land governance in India. National and state governments in India can be credited with many reforms, including institutional innovations and adoption of new technologies to improve land governance and administration. In a three-tier national, state and local system, land is a state subject with the land revenue department as the responsible institution. In practice actual responsibility is shared by a number of departments and agencies at the national, state and local levels, making land governance complex and layered with overlapping jurisdictions, often resulting in contradictory institutional actions and disputes. The courts are called upon to settle land related disputes and also protect the rights of individuals and communities to occupy and use land. The protection of rights can emanate from the right to a particular property or fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of India or various international human rights conventions.

During instances of forced evictions, people, communities and civil society organisations invariably approach the courts, which ensure due process of law at the very least and are also known to delay or stop evictions altogether. But courts were not working during the pandemic lockdown and even now they are not fully functional. The pathways of protest or collective representation to elected representative or government offices were also blocked by the curfew-like restrictions imposed during the lockdown.

So, state and local government agencies faced no resistance in carrying out evictions during the pandemic to “free up land” for projects – beautification, smart city, roads and flyovers. In the process 13500 were deprived of their homes at a time when staying at home was supposed to be one of the effective ways of countering COVID-19.

Thank you, Banashree, for drawing our attention to the role of the courts and how their current inactivity removes or weakens those measures meant to protect the poor against evictions. This situation may serve certain parties very well, the crisis as a "window of opportunity". And what is very worrying about it is that these forms of dispossession may be hard to revert once the courts re-open, making the effects of this crisis felt long after the lockdown is over.

Thanks for your contribution, Tarungh. I was wondering whether you are referring to a specific context ? (I cannot see what country you are from). I would be interested to know what country you are referring to and whether this is a about a rural or urban context. Not in all contexts, people might be so dependent on formal services to register transfers/sales, but it is good to know what is happening in settings where this is the case.

I agree, widows will be forced to be magnanimous to accommodate new arrivals.  Already in a vulnerable position, this weakness may be exploited.  There is need therefore to ensure that there are community institutions that can be reached out to ensure that we protect their interest and provide the necessary oversight to ensure there are not victimized. 

Thanks, Gemma, for pointing out the long term impacts of dispossession during the lockdown. The evicted people will not get back the lands they occupied. At best, they will be resettled somewhere else, which might affect livelihood opportunities and lead to further impoverishment.

In your earlier post you had raised the question of the opportunistic bahavior of land markets during the pandemic. The examples from India show that this applies equally to state agencies. It would be interesting to see if this kind of behaviour is observed in other counries as well.

You are both providing very relevant examples of how the disruption and dislocation associated with lockdown is indeed taken advantage of by state agents or other powerful actors. Your statements reminded me of what happened after the 2004 tsunami. A somewhat similar process was seen there: for example, in Sri Lanka, fishing families were not allowed to return to the coastal strip in order, it was said, to protect them from similar disasters in the future. This was also a way to vacate that land for tourism development. Such dispossession is sold us as 'resilience building', 'development' etc etc. What this also means is that we have to be very attentive of the 'building back better' rhetoric that is also popping up in the debates on COVID19: better for whom exactly? We might potentially see numerous examples similar to the ones you contributed.

Thank you for your contribution, David. I think it provides a good example of how the current crisis might exacerbate already existing challenges within land governance and land administration, and even erode progress that had already been made, in this case on integrating or bridging the gap between statutory and customary systems of land governance. Your follow-up question also provides a good bridge to move our discussion forward.

Thank you all for your contributions so far! While we have identified several challenges for land governance and land administration services under lockdown, what are your observations what happens in the face of these challenges? ;

• ·        

  Who is jumping into the gap left by state services? Who is taking action when the official land service is not? Are the chiefs filling in the gaps? Are land agents attending the population informally (e.g. from their homes)? Are there any stories of unexpected cooperation?

• ·        

  What can be done to prevent the lockdown from resulting in a lasting, irreversible erosion of capacity and legitimacy of land administration services?

How should we respond? First, we need to shore up support for the indigenous, Afro-descendent, and local community land and forest owners and managers and their organizations. This includes providing emergency funding for COVID-19 prevention and response as well as well as to support the continued financial and administrative sustainability of organizations critical to land and forest protection. Groups like the Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA), Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB), and Indonesia’s Indigenous Peoples Alliance of the Archipelago (AMAN) have launched fundraising campaigns to provide additional support to grassroots members struggling to manage COVID-19 while pushing back against new threats to their rights. Other similar fundraisers have been compiled here. 

Second, we need to continue to engage with companies, investors, and national policy processes to help shut down the coronavirus climate profiteers. In part, this means showing why existing efforts to stop land grabbing and deforestation are also essential for slowing COVID-19’s spread. There are signs of hope despite the pandemic. For example, major supermarket brands pushed back against proposed regulatory rollback in Brazil that would impact forests and land rights. The Norwegian sovereign wealth fund announced it would divest from Electrobras because of land and human rights violations associated with the Belo Monte dam and mining giant Vale because of destruction caused by the collapse of two tailings dams. And interest is growing in the European Union on how its trade levers and due diligence requirements could help protect land rights. 

Finally, we need to amplify the vision and voices of indigenous peoples and local communities in discussions of green COVID-19 recovery. Experience from Indonesia, Mesoamerica, and elsewhere show how organized indigenous communities have prevented the spread of COVID-19 while helping address food security challenges in neighboring areas and continuing to protect the integrity of their forests and territories. Just as tenure security for communities is essential for protecting forests and mitigating climate change, it will also be essential in enabling communities to recover from COVID-19 and in preventing the risk of new emerging disease. Secure land rights might be front and center in discussions of pandemic recovery and prevention. 

Getting land administration services back on their feet will require boosting their operating capacity, by resumption of support to help them tackle arrears and new demands, expected to come in numbers. This will most likely be difficult as the pandemic has affected practically all sectors, priority would be put on regularizing cases which concern the reinstallation of vulnerable categories, those involving the risk of losing land rights and imminent conflicts.  

Dear Rosine, thank you so much for your contribution to the discussion. You share your insight on possible actors that may jump into the registration gap. Can you specify your solution to the registration gap more to the dilemma's mentioned in the discussion before on registration? This will allow us to place your solution better in the right context. I look forward to that. Kind regards, Alke

Dear Camille,

Thank you so much for contributing. Can you ellaborate a little bit more on the difficulties that you see in 'boosting the operating capacity of land administration services in your country' (from?...) What do you mean exactly with regularizing cases which concern the reinstallation of vulnerable categories, those involving the risk of losing land rights and imminent conflicts? 

And who could in your opinion help to prevent the irreversible erosion? Are that the Courts, as mentioned by Banashree for India? Or do you see other opportunities in your country?

I'm very curious to learn from you and look forward to further ellaborate and discuss,

Alke

Dear Kevin,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on how the land registration gap should be filled. Am I correct to read that you seek solutions in filling this gap through the support of indigenous leaders, and by pressure from abroad?

I would be very interested to learn more on your views related to this, and look forward to further discussion and exploration on the possibilities that you see,

Alke

You are 

Hello Benjamin,

Thanks for your contribution in which you draw our attention to the economic challenges for women that the pandemic and lock down measures pose. I would invite you to further think through how these challenges increase the risks for women to lose access to land as a consequence of this, how a reduced acquisition power means they get squeezed out of local land markets for example, or how their bargaining power at houseold or community level dimishes. Have you seen any of that, or see other connections?

What happened around ebola might suggest interesting leads to think through these connections, but I would expect there are also differences, as COVID19 seems to hit harder on men than on women, and more on the elderly and less on the economically active segment of the population. Bargaining power is, as I mentioned, an issue to consider, but so are care duties.

If I may venture a premature analysis of gendered impacts of COVID19 in the Netherlands (where I live and work), I would suggest for the moment that the lockdown has shifted the burden of care back onto the shoulders of working women, relatively speaking. Even as both men and women started to work from home, the burden for home schooling (as schools were closed) was in many cases not shared evenly between husband and wife... I am aware this cannot be mapped one on one onto setings where the reliance on the informal economy is stronger, but we should not be surprised to find strongly gendered effects in terms of the types of employment lost and the distribution of care giving tasks.

Land rights and Land tenure security are central to the daily dignified living for millions of people in agrarian setting across the countries, regions and the world at large. People to land relations have been experiencing disturbance for a quite some time from now given the continuous erosion of the power of comparatively weaker section in the society to maintain the usual control over the productive land. Unprecedented Lockdowns introduced to contain the spread of the COVID-19, has currently put heavy pressure over already exhausted land administration services of less developed countries like Nepal.

Since early 1960s, the demand for 'land to the tiller' put forth to counter the ages old feudalistic land distribution system in the country. With the introduction of Land Act in 1964, government announced a comprehensive land reform program with prime objective to conclude the dual land ownership and implement legal limit to land ownership. Attempts have been made to deal with the various problems such as landlessness, tenancy land rights, and unequal land distribution over the last 70 years or so, but with a nominal success.

Following the constitutional provision of providing everyone with land rights, last year government announced to distribute land to landless Dalits within 3 years and to conclude tenancy land separation by September 2020, in addition to that early this year the government formed a high level Land Issues Resolving Commission (LIRC) with the mandate to solve all the problems related to land by 2023.

Around 25% of the population is landless, 25% of the land being cultivated is said to be not covered by the national land administration system, around 300 thousand tenant families have not received their land share and several tenure practices of communities are yet to be recorded and recognized. In order to solve above mentioned problems land administration has central role to play the range from the identification of real landless and land to be distributed to issuing land certificates. Given the extended movement restrictions duet to COVID-19 and fixed deadline for the assignments, there are higher chances for elites capturing the increased land, meanwhile the landless and informal settlers have to wait further for their land rights.

Huge number of work force went to India and Overseas for employment has now started returning back home and only agriculture sector is seen reliable to employ them. However the government has neither actual data on people returning to home from abroad and available land that can be made available to those who want to do agriculture. Amidst this data scarcity, government has announced a controversial 'Land Bank' program, which, we doubt, may make land available for business rather than for landless and small peasant families. There are speculations for post-lockdown food crisis and the Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock has already requested local governments not to leave land fallow. Following the request many of the local governments have started cultivation in all arable empty lands without thinking on its sustainability and environmental aspects.

Finally, the unprecedented reverse migration – Urban to rural – has already created massive upheaval to existing land tenure arrangements ultimately leading to landlessness, unemployment and slum creation. Though the land administration services are partly open under lockdown, they may not be able to deal successfully with this bulk of the challenges with limited financial, technical and human resource capacities.

The issus of hallenges increasing the risks for women to lose access to land as a consequence of this is very common in Liberia. Now, the focus of most women is how they and their children will survival from the virus. The governance of land is being underminds by high level official of Government. Official of Government are using this time to aquire properties illegally because of economic burden COVID-19 has post on people. The daily survival rate is high among people in the country. Most people are now sell out their properties in order to secure funds for their survivabiliy. This is true, people are selling properties because they don't know when this crisis will come to an end. The Government on yesterday announced the extention of the lockdown period for additional one month. Peope are given out things on a daily basis just to secure funds for survival. 

I don't know about your country, for us things are hard in the country. 

Alternative Dispute Mechanism remain an attractive option for a number of women in the rural areas, especially where they do not have any title to the land.  Communities have created structures where people go to when they wish to have some arbitration and these structures have worked, however, there remains challenges of enforcement once in a while and for quite a number it is the only place to go to within the community for relief, redress, reparation or compensation.  COVID-19, has disrupted this community justice system and because of lock down, curfew and social distancing,  members who were sitting in these community structures are scattered, left and migrated to their rural areas, are stigmitized and therefore staying at home or since the resources that was supporting their sittings are no longer available, their lack of income means they cannot meeting their own expenses.  It means these structures are collapsing and in their place, the provincial adminstration office is emerging as the alternative structe and the space that people reach out to for relief, even though it is not fully represented.  So land matteres are listened to, judged and resolved by sometimes on or two people and for land cases sometimes women complain that they get a moral and empathy lecture as opposed to one that addressed their rights.  The  effect of this is that these structure will at some point lose credibility and legitimacy to handle land matters.  We may start witness an increase in women, especially when it comes to issues of succession, complaining about being forced out of their land, negotiated down of their inheritance or because of their vulnerability, may compromise their health to fulfil cultural rites in order to protect her land. 

Thank you for your contribution Dharm, and for providing such detailed information on the current situation in Nepal. I would be curious to learn more about the Land Bank program that is currently being launched, is there already some information available that you could share with us?

Also thank you for pointing out the current pattern of reversed migration from urban to rural, this also links back to statement #3 of this discussion.

Kate, you make a really good point here on the issue of the security of continuing funding for the implementation of major land projects, that will have a direct impact on the extent to which land governance can be strengthened in different contexts. Budgets will undoubtedly be constrained for all aspects of development programmes, as governments focus on immediate economic recovery and adjustments, as well as sectorally on health rather than land. The tendency will be for national development partner governments to look inwards - as we have seen in recent days with the abolition of the UK's DFID as an independent UK government department.

for me the strongest argument for promoting the continuation of efforts and funding to land governance and improvements in land administration is that it's so essential for tackling global environmental and climate change issues that we can cannot afford to lose sight of. We all as practitioners in the field of land and natural resources have a responsibility to future generations to find ways to build a better world out of the current global pandemic crisis, and efficient and equitable land governance and land administration is essential.

Dear Chantal, there is a very little information available regarding the 'land bank' program. Let me begin with a brief background that may help readers to understand the latest development in this regard.

There are a good deal of progressive provisions for people centered land reform in the Constitution promulgated in 2015 and the subsequent land related Acts and Policies such as the 8th Amendment to the Land Act 1964, National Land Policy 2019, and Land Use Act 2019. These legal documents ensure land and housing rights for Nepalese People.

To translate the policy provisions into action in the ground, government has started some of the very good initiatives such as establishing Land Issues Resolving Commission (LIRC) with a mandate to distribute land to landless and formalize the land rights of informal settlers even in this difficult time.

When the attentions of people centered on the LIRC, the government brought the 'Land Bank' in it's fiscal policy and program for 2020/2021 with priority and allocated significant budget [4.16 million US$] to establish land banks in 300 local governments out of 753 in in this fiscal year. The government has been so quick to brought this program neglecting numerous other people centered programs.

Land Bank is said to have a mandate to facilitate optimum utilization of the agricultural land that has been left fallow to contribute to the food production and employment generation. To do so It can acquire public land, community land and land under the ownership of the government from degraded forest and etc.

Private owners who own land but do not do farming can deposit their land in this bank and the bank looks for the user capable to pay rent/lease to the owner.

Government authorities also claim that this Bank can facilitate the access to agricultural land for land poor communities and the creation of employment opportunities for the returnee migrants. Land communities are not convinced because they rejected the the program called 'land bank' in 2004 while World Bank brought it to Nepal.

Government is claiming it to be innovative and home grown concept brought forth specially to respond the post COVID -19 food and employment crises. Meanwhile Civil society organizations and land rights advocators argue that this program is brought to derail the overall land reform agenda.

Last year, the Government has introduced fine system for the land owners who leave land fallow for three consecutive years and local governments are now implementing this provision effectively at local level. LIRC is identifying land to be distributed among landless people. The land banks has conflicting mandate that it protects interest of land lords by taking their land from being fined in case their land remain fallow.

Similarly, as it also seeks to acquire state owned lands including public, community and governments land for leasing purpose, it can create a shortage of land to be distributed among landless, and agricultural laborer by the LIRC. In this context, people doubt that, this can be a mission to make agricultural land accessible to businesses investors.

The mandate of the bank seems stark as it basically focuses on protecting the land of individual landlords at the expense of the state/peoples' resource.

Let me stop here, it may be too early to go further as the modality of the bank and its working procedures are yet to be agreed. I can say that till now, land community is not happy with this arrangement though the government hastened for it. It can be bridding ground for land based conflict, and corruption as well. So, people demand serious consultations among wider stakeholders before taking further action.

Dear Kevin,

I believe you covered very well the situation in Brazil. Thank you!

The Movement for Popular Sovereignty in Mining (MAM) denounces situations in which local polititians take advantage of the impossibility to organize public gatherings to aprove decrees authorizing mining activities without the consent of the population. The organization also published a study concluding that in the state of Minas Gerais, the regions with the highest levels of COVID infections are those where there are mining activities. MAM argues that the insalubrity that characterizes mining facilitates the proliferation of the virus. More detail of this study can be found here: https://mamnacional.org.br/2020/06/17/coronavirus-avanca-em-municipios-c...

In addition, the bill that Kevin mentions as a potential factor of stimulation of land grabbing was initially presented as a Provisory Measure (MP 910) and was known as "the land grabbing bill", because it allowed illegal invaders to regulate the land they grabbed  from both indegenous peoples and  peasants simply through a self-declaration. Because of the mobilization of social movements, environmentalists organizations and some celebrities, the president of the Chamber of Deputies decided not to put the bill to voting on time and the bill ended up expiring. However, soon after its proponents represented the same bill with some small changes (PL 2633/2020), which means that the bill can still be approved and wide extensions of illegally appropriated land can be turned regular.

More information can be found here: https://news.mongabay.com/2020/06/illegal-farms-on-indigenous-lands-get-...

Hi Alke - this is the second part of my post called "Regulatory rollbacks threatens land rights and public health" - was posted in two parts. Makes more sense when read all together. I tried to highlight how corporate capture is allowing the private sector to undermine good land administration efforts under the guise of COVID but end with some signs of hope. Of course good land administration requires a lot more than strong communities and external pressure but I see those two things as especially important for fighting against this current moment of COVID-disguised regulatory rollback. Thanks for your comments!

Land agents and local administration are the risky-entities in dispossessing the poor of their land. Many of these look at their ‘cut’ at the bargaining table. Land Rights advocacy groups such as NAMATI who have paralegals in the rural areas, are themselves overwhelmed, considering paralegals are volunteers and as of now, cannot present a case at the court of law.

Unless we have a volunteer lawyer or a family member aware of Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to seek pauper’s brief , justice won’t be served. Sadly commoners aren’t thus informed.

Not much, if at all, of civil society, the 4th estate and academia can work with international organisations such as LANDac, Land Portal and Landesa. This is so since it’s the multinational corporations that dispose of Africans off their land. Through Double Taxation Agreements (DTA), and tax havens due to Financial Secrecy, our countries enter into unfavourable trade dealings with the Occident and now the Oriental. Only the international organisations just named and others like OXFAM and Action Aid can counter PWC on its misguidance on Foreign Direct Investment tax avoidance.

In a word, the answer does not lay here but in the Developed World. With fair trade, less of Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) will be needed. Our industries will thrive and employment would shove off dependent entirely on land. With less pressure on land, food security will be assured.

For the near-past, Kenya’s Ministry of Land has endeavoured to digitize its land information. This also meant that to seek land services, we ought to seek it online. As much as this cuts the corruption chain, many of us are not tech savvy, and thus need 3rd party’s assistance. Some of those we turn too tend to take advantage of our digital illiteracy to con us.

About 17 African countries are joining other worldover to ensure that international economic dealing are made transparent. International Tax Justice Academy (ITJA) makes effort to address some of the international imbalance of trade by the biennial Fiscal Secrecy Index (FSI) reporting, that kind of shame the nations involved in such money laundering schemes. This seems to work as countries such as Switzerland that are deemed incorruptible, are now forced to expose entities from Kenya or Nigeria with hidden loot in their off-shore accounts.

The challenge is enormous. So few people are affording the newspapers, yet these are the commonest mode of communication between the government and the public. In Kenya, we have Kenya Gazette, as the authentic government communication document. This is least known and hard to reach for those away from the national and regional headquarters. If digitalisation of this document can be followed with its distribution online and through popular channels, then we would have taken a positive step towards land protection.

Land matters should be devolved to community level. Some land documentation being in the public domain helps in ‘Due Diligence’ and an escape from fraudsters during these hard times.

The government here is the major threat to poor people with its Urban Renewal and regeneration Program. This Affordable Housing Project (AHP) is already being dogged with scandals. Already a highrise slum has been put up at formerly Nairobi’s Park Road government staff quarters. Coincidentally they take shape at Sars Cov 2 pandemic and show how an unplanned housing project is just as dangerous as informal settlement.

In about four acres of land that had 80 houses, the government is putting up 1,370 housing units. 228 housing units on the lower six storey project are now done. These are squeezed and high. Poor lighting and limited recreation spacing is already exhibited. Likewise, a major cause of traffic jams proves to be. Sadly this project is to be carried throughout the eastlands of nairobi. Thanks to CoVid 19, the rapidity of this gentrification practise has been reduced.

Funding of such major projects that lead to massive displacement of the poor cannot be done without Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and loopholes in Direct Tax Agreements (DTA). We see the hands of the World Bank and UN Office of Projects Services in the so-called Affordable Housing Project in Kenya. UK and France are amongst the European countries who have been courted in offering billions to this housing scheme. Such entities must do due dilienence in the scope of outcomes from such grand projects. How affordable is a one bedroom house going for 1.5 million Kenya shillings when the government agrees that unemployment is a major problem in the country? www.bomayangu.go.ke

Housing projects must be to a standard level; with adequate space for recreation, rooms well ventilated and good lighting, besides being big enough rooms. Densification of the working class through displacement of the unemployed is equivalent to soving a problem by another problem. Ideally, we vouch for Community Land Trusts (CLTs) where houses are privately owned but land remains a communal property.

Summing up our discussion

Thank you to those who participated in the last part of this online discussion! We have received many valuable contributions and specific examples of the (potential) impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on land administration and land governance institutions.

Looking back at our discussion, we first would like to emphasize, as was also already noted in the previous discussions above, that the impact of Covid-19 on land administration and land governance institutions will of course vary across locality, regions and context. To fully grasp the impact of Covid-19 on land administration and land governance institutions in specific contexts, we need to systematically gather and monitor data and do so over a longer time frame.

Moreover, it is also important to recognize, as many of us did, that the Covid-19 pandemic not only poses new threats to and concerns about land administration and land governance institutions, but rather exacerbates and/or uncovers challenges that were already present, including the complexity of land governance systems, a lack of transparency, corruption, and lack of accessibility to data.

However, based on your contributions, we have collected several challenges of and concerns about the impact of Covid-19 on land administration and land governance institutions, including:

At the (inter)national level

• there is a widely shared concern amongst our contributors on the shift or withdrawal of donor funding away from land administration and land governance institutions to health care services, without a well-though through exist strategy. This might reverse any progress that has been made so far. There are worries about donor commitment to land governance programmes as the (expected) global economic crisis reduces GDPs and with that budgets for international development.
• Land administration programmes and informational campaigns have come to a halt under several countries’ lockdown measures, and lockdown measures have greatly reduced the opportunities for CBOs to provide support to local communities.
• Regulatory rollbacks in several countries (including Brazil and Indonesia) threaten land rights as regulations to protect land rights are unwound.
• The lockdown calls into question paper-based land administration systems in several countries and the resilience of the land administration sector in general
• National guidelines to address the health crisis may offer an opportunity for ruling elites to tip (land) policies in their favour, reinforcing inequalities and exclusion – or it can be used as an excuse no to act.

At a regional and/or local level

• Distress sales of land due to loss of income, which causes greater impoverishment on the longer term and loss of bargaining power of women.
• The inability to access land under lockdown measures, halting production on the land and increasing the likelihood that unused land of absentees is grabbed.
• The inability to formally register transfer and land sales – though it remains important to stress that not everywhere people are dependent on such formal services.
• Obstacles to verification and validation of land transfers as a consequence of lock down

Looking at what the land governance community can do to address these preliminary challenges and concerns, several contributions proposed to look for opportunities for ICT-based land administration, especially Fit-for-purpose land administration. While the use of technology can definitely strengthen land administration and land governance institutions, it is not a panacea – a digital divide, digital illiteracy and the use of technology to benefit those who can work the (digital) system are important concerns that we need to (continue to) take into account. Another element also has proven important: locally trusted actors -whether community leaders, CSOs or customary authorities- present on the ground to monitor and validate land transactions (or enforce a local moratorium at moments where upheaval becomes too strong).

Lastly, to address the challenges above, we need to ensure that sustainable and equitable land governance remains a priority on the agenda of donors and (inter)national organizations, emphasizing how well-functioning land governance institutions can help build national and local resilience, and eventually will be essential in our response to and recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic.

We would like to thank you again for your valuable contributions, also on behalf of Gemma van der Haar and Alke Gijrath!

Now I understand