COHRE Mission Report - Housing Rights in Brazil (2003) by The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE)

The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) undertook an extensive fact-finding mission within Brazil during 2002. This COHRE report concludes that the status of the right to adequate housing in Brazil is a study of contrasts. While many Brazilians reside in adequate housing, far too many live in wholly unacceptable conditions — dwelling in slums (favelas), squatting in large tenement buildings (cortiços) or simply homeless. Furthermore, while Brazil has adopted and implemented some of the best housing rights legislation, it has failed to ensure that everyone within its jurisdiction has realised their right to adequate housing. Indeed, the comparative analysis in this report highlights marked disparities between the various states of Brazil, as well as on gender, racial and ethnic lines. In its conclusions, the report makes concrete recommendations to the Government of Brazil, in particular that it exercise its constitutional powers to ensure that the right to adequate housing is respected, protected and fulfilled without discrimination — for everyone, everywhere within Brazil.

Housing Rights in

The COHRE Americas Programme, based in Porto Alegre, Brazil, is responsible for COHRE’s activities in the Western Hemisphere, including monitoring the status of housing rights, conducting trainings and other educational projects, and assisting locally-based organisations and individuals who seek to enforce their housing rights. The COHRE U.S. Office works in conjunction with the COHRE Americas Programme in utilising the Inter-American human rights system, and in particular the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, in order to better promote and protect economic, social and cultural rights, with a particular focus on the right to adequate housing — throughout the Americas Region.

International Secretariat

Americas Programme

U.S. Office

83 Rue de Montbrillant

Rua Demétrio Ribeiro 990/conj 305

8 N. 2nd Avenue East

1202 Geneva, Switzerland

90010-313 Porto Alegre

Suite 208

Tel: +41.22.734.1028

Rio Grande do Sul

Duluth, MN 55802, U.S.A.

Fax: +41.22.733.8336

Brazil

Tel/fax: +1.218.733.1370

E-mail: cohre@cohre.org

Tel/fax: + 55.51.3212.1904

E-mail: bret_thiele@yahoo.com

www.cohre.org

E-mail: cohreamericas@cohre.org

gomez_mayra@yahoo.com

M I S S I O N

COHRE is an international human rights non-governmental organisation with its International Secretariat based in Geneva, Switzerland. COHRE undertakes a wide variety of activities supporting the full realisation of housing rights for everyone, everywhere. In this regard, COHRE actively campaigns against and opposes forced evictions wherever they occur or are planned, and works in all regions of the world toward the realisation of the right to adequate housing.

R E P O R T

brazil

Gross Inequalities and Inconsistencies

COHRE Americas Programme

Housing Rights in

B r a z i l

Gross Inequalities and Inconsistencies

CO H R E M i s s i o n R e p o r t , 2 0 03

Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions International Secretariat 83 Rue de Montbrillant 1202 Geneva Switzerland tel: +41.22.734.1028 fax: +41.22.733.8336 e-mail: cohre@cohre.org www.cohre.org

COHRE – Americas Programme Rua Demétrio Ribeiro 990/conj 305 90010-313 Porto Alegre Rio Grande do Sul Brazil tel/fax: + 55.51.3212.1904 e-mail: cohreamericas@cohre.org www.cohre.org

COHRE – Housing and Property Restitution Programme International Secretariat 83 Rue de Montbrillant 1202 Geneva e-mail: scott@cohre.org

COHRE – U.S. Office 8 N. 2nd Avenue East, Suite 208 Duluth, MN 55802, U.S.A. e-mail: bret_thiele@yahoo.com (English) e-mail: gomez_mayra@yahoo.com (Spanish)

COHRE – Women and Housing Rights Programme International Secretariat 83 Rue de Montbrillant 1202 Geneva Switzerland e-mail: birte@cohre.org

COHRE – Asia & Pacific Programme 124 Napier Street Fitzroy, VIC 3065 Australia tel/fax: +61.3.98702206 e-mail: ken@cohre.minihub.org

COHRE – Africa Programme International Secretariat 83 Rue de Montbrillant 1202 Geneva Switzerland e-mail: jean@cohre.org

COHRE – Litigation Programme International Secretariat 83 Rue de Montbrillant 1202 Geneva Switzerland e-mail: litigation@cohre.org

© Copyright 2003 Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) Housing Rights in Brazil – Gross Inequalities and Inconsistencies Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE), Geneva, Switzerland All rights reserved The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions is registered in the Netherlands as a not-for-profit organization. Copies are available from COHRE International Secretariat. ISBN: 92-95004-24-8 Prepared by: COHRE – Americas Programme Editing: Rob Stuart Graphic design: Ontwerpburo Suggestie & illusie, Utrecht, The Netherlands, www.illusie.nl Print: Primavera, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Photos: COHRE – Americas Programme

Contents Executive summary

Overview of the Status of Housing Rights in Brazil

Ke y H o u s i n g R i g h t s I s s u e s

a. Inadequate Housing Conditions b. Security of Tenure and Forced Eviction c. Housing Discrimination d. National Legal Protection

10 13 16 16

H o u s i n g R i g h t s i n S e l e c te d S t a te s

a. Sรฃo Paulo b. Rio de Janeiro c. Rio Grande do Sul d. Bahia e. Parรก

22 25 28 31 34

H o u s i n g R i g h t s o f M a rg i n a l i s e d G ro u ps

a. Women b. Afro-Brazilians c. Indigenous Persons and Peoples

40 42 43

Co n c l u s i o n s

R e co m m e n d a t i o n s

Annexes:

Annex 1 Statements given to COHRE by Favela Residents and Leaders Annex 2 United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 4 (1991) on the Right to Adequate Housing Annex 3 United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 7 (1997) on Forced Evictions Annex 4 United Nations Comprehensive Human Rights Guidelines on Development-Based Displacement Annex 5 United Nations Resolution 1993/77 on Forced Evictions

62 68

CO H R E P u b l i ca t i o n s

51 57

Housing Rights in Brazil

Woman doing cleaning in a palafita along the Tucunduba River, Belém, Pará

Executive Summary The Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) undertook an extensive fact-finding mission within Brazil during 2002. This report is one result of that mission and was presented to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in May 2003 during its consideration of the periodic report from the Government of Brazil. The status of the right to adequate housing in Brazil is a study of contrasts. While many Brazilians reside in adequate housing, far too many live in wholly unacceptable conditions – dwelling in slums, known as favelas, squatting in large tenement buildings, known as cortiços, or simply homeless. Furthermore, as the comparative analysis in this report details, marked disparities exist between the various States that make up Brazil. This report, in part, reaches a similar conclusion to that reached by the World Bank in 1995 and reaffirmed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 1997, namely that the significant variation between States with respect to conditions of poverty suggests that economic structure and policies are important variables. Yet, beyond being merely variables, these political choices have important ramifications in the area of human rights. Indeed, State-level policies range from those that have achieved great success in fulfilling the right to adequate housing to those that are clear and intentional violations of that right. The Federal Government of Brazil is obligated, under both the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article 21(XX) of its own Constitution, to ensure that the benefits of its federal system are fully realised and that the detriments and dangers of such a system, such as the “race to the bottom” phenomenon, are controlled and ameliorated to the fullest possible extent. Specifically, the Federal Government of Brazil is obligated to ensure that those housing policies that advance the right to adequate housing be replicated throughout Brazil. Indeed, such legislation should be considered a minimum core obligation of the Government of Brazil.

Housing Rights in Brazil

This report also examines disparities in the enjoyment of the right to adequate housing across gender, racial and ethnic lines. In doing so, it finds that gender, race and ethnicity, and in particular indigenous descent, affect the level of a person’s enjoyment of the right to adequate housing in Brazil. While the Government of Brazil has adopted some legislation designed to ameliorate such effects, much more needs to be done with respect to the adoption and full implementation of such legislation. Clearly, as the situation now stands, the Government of Brazil must take serious steps towards ensuring the full enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to adequate housing, for everyone, everywhere within its jurisdiction. This report originated in part from and complements the Brazilian Civil Society Shadow Report submitted to the Committee by several Brazilian organisations including the Human Rights Commission at the Chamber of Representatives, the National Movement on Human Rights and the Federal Secretariat of Prosecutors of Citizens Rights. Their report benefited from several public hearings undertaken in 17 Brazilian States in the year 2000, an initiative that resulted in input from some 2 000 persons.1 The Brazilian Civil Society Shadow Report was updated in 2002 by the publication of Extreme Poverty in Brazil: The Situation of Housing and Food Rights, under the direction of the Brazilian Platform on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.2 COHRE expresses its sincere gratitude for the work and input of these organisations. COHRE also expresses its gratitude to a number of persons for providing valuable information for this report, including Fábio Mariano Souza dos Santos, Alexandre Correa de Oliveira, Paulo Saad, Paula Ravanelli Lousada, Ellade Imparato, Arlete Moisés, Aldalice Oterloo, Maria de Lourdes da Conceição Nascimento and Jacqueline Menegassi. COHRE also thanks the National Forum of Urban Reform for its valuable contributions.

1 See Center for Global Justice, Pastoral Commission of Land and Landless Rural Workers Movement, National Report on the Situation of Human Rights and Land Reform in Brazil (2002). 2 Nelson Saule Jr. and Maria Helena Rodriquez, Extreme Poverty in Brazil: The Situation of Housing and Food Rights, in Housing Rights, São Paulo: Ed. Loyola (2002).

Housing Rights in Brazil

Woman waiting for the conclusion of the Sepetiba II Housing Project near Rio de Janeiro

1 Overview of the Status of Housing Rights in Brazil Brazil acceded to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Covenant), without reservation, on 24 January 1992.3 Furthermore, with Decree 591, the Government of Brazil proclaimed that “Considering that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was put into effect on 24 April 1992, it will be fully enforced in accordance with its contents.” The Government went on to publish Decree 591, with the Covenant annexed, in the Brazilian Official Diary in 1992. While the Constitution of Brazil does not expressly guarantee the right to adequate housing,4 in Article 6 it does consider housing to be a social right and requires positive action by the State as a means of executing public housing policies.5 In 2000, Brazil was rated at 0.757, on a scale of 0 – 1, on the United Nations Human Development Index. Brazil’s first periodic report to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Committee) was due on 30 June 1994, but was not submitted until 21 August 2001. The second periodic report, due on 30 June 1999, has yet to be submitted to the Committee for its consideration. 3 Brazil is also a State Party to other relevant international instruments including: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women; the Convention on the Rights of the Child; the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the American Convention on Human Rights; and the Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 4 Periodic Report of Brazil, para. 513, UN Doc. E/1990/5/Add.53 (21 November 2001). 5 In January 2000, Constitutional Amendment No. 26 incorporated housing as a social right into the Constitution of Brazil.

Housing Rights in Brazil

The Government of Brazil consists of a Federal Republic and twenty-seven administrative subdivisions – twenty-six States and one Federal District. The Federal Government and the administrative sub-divisions are governed by the Federal Constitution of Brazil. The Constitution was adopted in 1988 by a civilian government which returned to power in 1985 following two decades of military rule. The Constitution highlights the primacy of international human rights law and empowers and obligates the Federal Government to establish, through legislation, general guidelines in the housing sphere.6 These guidelines, if used appropriately, especially as a means of meeting the Government’s obligations arising under the Covenant, can establish minimum standards for housing throughout the country. Thus, the Federal Government is empowered to ensure that Brazil’s administrative sub-divisions respect, protect and fulfil the provisions of the Covenant. In 1995, the Federal Government initiated its National Housing Policy, which entails the following four goals: (1) universal access to housing; (2) expansion of the stock of homes and improvement of existing homes; (3) regularisation of irregular settlements and promotion of access to land; and (4) modernisation of the housing sector by improving legislation and agencies. While this National Housing Policy is a welcome development, the status of housing rights in Brazil continues to be plagued by gross inequalities and inconsistencies with respect to the full enjoyment of the right to adequate housing. These disparities not only have a geographical correlation, but a racial and ethnic dimension as well. Indeed, the disparities are especially striking with respect to the Afro-Brazilian and indigenous populations. Land disputes and forced evictions continue in Brazil, a nation that has one of the most concentrated land structures in the world. The Government’s agricultural census of 1985, carried out by the Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics) showed that 1.2 per cent of landowners own nearly 42 per cent of the land, while 53 per cent of farmers own only 1.2 per cent of cultivated land.7 In terms of the size of land plots, a more recent report from former Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso’s office showed that large land holdings of over 1 000 hectares occupy 50 per cent of the cultivated land. In contrast, small and medium holdings of fewer than 100 hectares occupy only 17.9 per cent of the cultivated land.8 Such unequal land distribution motivates many of Brazil’s five million landless families9 often to occupy areas in order to visibly protest against the fact that 90 per cent of Brazil’s land belongs to the wealthiest 20 per cent of the population.10

6 Federal Constitution of Brazil, Art. 21(XX) (1988). Paragraph 514 of the Government of Brazil’s initial periodic report to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights concedes this constitutional obligation. See UN Doc. E/1990/5/Add.53, para. 514 (20 November 2001). 7 Cited in Amnesty International, “Brazil: The Criminalisation of Rural Activism: The Case of Frei Anastácio Ribeiro,” AI-index: AMR 19/027/1996 (1 October 1996). 8 Presidência da República, Governo Fernando Henrique Cardoso Agrarian Reform in Brazil 1997, p. 56. Source: Instituto Nacional de Colonizacion y Reforma Agraria (INCRA). Cited in Amnesty International, “Brazil: Corumbiara and Eldorado de Carajás: Rural Violence, Police Brutality and Impunity,” AI-index: AMR 23/006/1997 (2 January 1997). 9 Cited in AP Worldstream, “Landless peasants invade 15 ranches in northeastern Brazil,” (2 April 1999). 10 BBC News, “Brazil Jails Police Peasant Killers,” (18 August 2000).

Housing Rights in Brazil

Far from being just a rural issue, the lack of available land forces thousands of Brazilians into urban areas where many of them live in cardboard or tin shacks (barracos) in Brazil’s shantytowns, known as favelas. Many other low-income Brazilians live in cortiços, collective multi-family buildings. The conditions within cortiços are most often unsanitary. The dwellings lack basic infrastructure and are often crumbling and unstable. Each family lives in a room (cômodo) which usually measures at maximum four by two metres. They must share the bathroom and laundry area collectively. It is often the case that residents form large lines to use the scarce bathrooms and that drug trafficking and crime is common around these areas.11 The process of urbanisation continues to have an impact on housing rights in Brazil. Indeed, Brazil is a highly urbanised country, approximately 81.2 per cent of the population being urbanbased, with the rate approaching 93 per cent in some regions. In the 1960s, Brazil was still very much an agricultural country, with a rate of urbanisation of just 44.7 per cent. By 1980, however, 67.6 per cent of the population lived in cities. Between 1991 and 1996 there was an increase of 12.2 million in the number of urban inhabitants, reflected in an urbanisation rate of 78.4 per cent.12 Around 30 million people left the Brazilian countryside between 1960 and 1980, migrating mainly to industrial centres.13 Mass migration combined with high levels of urbanization and inefficient policies relating to agricultural development are some of the main underlying reasons why some three million residents of São Paulo currently live in “illegal” boarding houses, abandoned buildings or squatter settlements.14 However, according to research conducted by the Universidade Católica de São Paulo (Catholic University of São Paulo), the extreme poverty found in the poorest favelas indicates a wider social exclusion that affects three times as many residents. The research indicates that 73 of the city’s 96 designated districts can be described as areas of social exclusion where access to health, education, housing and income is precarious. Approximately 9.9 million persons live in these areas – roughly equivalent to the population of Paris.15 Even though these conditions are deplorable, they are often better than in rural areas of the country. For example, whereas 92 per cent of city dwellers are connected to a central water supply, only 25 per cent of rural inhabitants have potable water.16 While mostly unorganised groups participate in land occupations, other groups such as the Movement of Landless Rural Workers (Movimento Dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra, MST) are highly organised. MST alone has helped establish more than 1 300 new rural settlements since the group was formed in 1984.17 The MST has gained considerable public support for its tactic of occupying unproductive land in order to pressure the Government to implement agrarian

11 Vera Fontes, Centro Gaspar Garcia de Direitos Humanos, São Paulo, E-mail to COHRE International Secretariat (5 July 2001). 12 Contagem da População (1996); Resultados Relativos a Sexo da População e Situação da Unidade Domiciliar Censo Demográfico (1991); IBGE, Rio de Janeiro (1997). 13 Latin American Newsletter Daily Report, “Brazil’s Income Distribution Improves Slightly,” (1 August 2000). 14 Cited in The New York Times, “Sao Paulo’s “roofless” seize downtown buildings,” (7 April 2001). 15 Cited in Movimiento de Defensa dos Moradores da Favela, São Paulo—Uma Cidade Dividida,”In Habitação, Habitat e Direitos Humanos: As Favelas de São Paulo e Sua Luta Visionária Contra o Desabrigo,” (1996). 16 Id. 17 Zander Navarro, “Breaking New Ground: Brazil’s MST,” NACLA, Volume 33 (5), March/April, p. 37 (2000).

Housing Rights in Brazil

reform.18 However, the growth of this movement and other campaigns has been accompanied by a recent increase in human rights violations in the context of land disputes, with frequent reports of excessive use of force, ill-treatment, torture and extra-judicial executions by military police carrying out land evictions. It has been reported that criminal charges of “forming a criminal gang” appear to be being increasingly used as a means of harassing those campaigning for agrarian reform. For example, in November 1995 in the State of São Paulo, Diolinda Alves de Souza and Márcio Barreto, both members of the MST, were held in custody in high-security prisons for two weeks, charged with “forming a criminal gang.” The detentions appeared to be a manoeuvre to force rural workers to leave an estate they were occupying.19 Recently, areas with high numbers of land occupations have shown an increase in violence. Prominent among these was the southern State of Paraná, where from 1997 to late June 2000, fifteen labourers were killed and twenty others survived attempted homicides. While eighteen were injured in police actions in 1999 – some of them during evictions – this number soared to 232 in the first half of 2000.20 Below, this report examines similar instances of violence in the State of Pará.

18 Amnesty International (2 January 1997). 19 Amnesty International (2 January 1997). 20 Human Rights Watch, “Human Rights Developments: Brazil,” World Report 2001, New York: HRW (2001).

Housing Rights in Brazil

Temporary shelters for families awaiting adequate housing near Rio de Janeiro

2 Key Housing Rights Issues a. I n a d e q u a t e H o u s i n g C o n d i t i o n s Article 11(1) of the Covenant, as informed by General Comment No. 4, requires that housing be adequate, as defined by minimum standards relating to legal security of tenure; availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure; affordability; habitability; accessibility; location; and cultural adequacy. The availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure varies considerably throughout Brazil. The discrepancy between urban and rural areas is particularly prevalent. For instance, as of 1996, while 92 per cent of urban homes had access to water, only 15.7 per cent of rural housing benefited from such access.21 Likewise, while 74.2 per cent of urban housing had either sewer or septic tank waste-disposal, only 18.2 per cent of rural housing had such infrastructure. In 1997, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights found similar disparities with respect to general conditions of poverty between urban and rural areas, finding that 66 per cent of Brazilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s rural population lived below the poverty line, compared to 38 per cent of persons living in urban areas. 22

21 Initial Periodic Report of Brazil, UN Doc. E/1990/5/Add.53 at para. 502, Table 65 (21 November 2001). 22 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Special Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Brazil, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.97, Doc. 29, rev. 1 (29 September 1997).

Housing Rights in Brazil

Geographic disparity is also apparent in availability of adequate services and infrastructure. Due to population distribution, there are corresponding disparities with respect to race and ethnicity. For example, the north and northeast regions of Brazil have disproportionately large relative populations of Afro-Brazilians and indigenous peoples. These same areas have disproportionately low levels of adequate water supply, trash collection and sewage disposal.23 For example, while the percentage of urban housing stock in Brazil adequately served by such infrastructure stood at 49.4 per cent in 1997, only 21.1 per cent of the urban housing stock in the northeast and 6.6 per cent in the north had access to water, adequate sewage disposal and trash collection.24 In comparison, 83.3 per cent of the urban housing stock in the southeast, with a large percentage of persons of European descent, had access to adequate infrastructure.25 The 2000 census shows similar regional disparities. The following tables illustrate the number and percentage of urban housing units that are considered to be inadequate in various categories. Table 1 - Estimated inadequacy in durable urban residences Region

Excessive density

Urban land inadequacy

Lack of infrastructure

Lack of sanitation unit

Inadequacy by depreciation

North

184 822

56 346

1 165 622

162 865

20 124

Northeast

385 916

432 270

4 010 073

714 738

195 798

Southeast

1 133 647

650 406

2 155 271

315 379

505 510

South

198 062

325 923

1 469 648

179 154

100 735

Centre west

122 492

43 799

1 460 462

94 565

14 502

2 024 939

1 508 744

10 261 076

1 466 701

836 669

Brazil

Table 2 - Inadequacy percentage in durable urban residences Region

Excessive density

Urban land inadequacy

Lack of infrastructure

Lack of sanitation unit

Inadequacy by depreciation

North

9.4

2.9

59.6

8.3

1.0

Northeast

5.0

5.6

51.7

9.2

2.4

Southeast

6.2

3.5

11.7

1.7

2.7

South

3.4

5.6

25.1

3.1

1.7

Centre west

4.5

1.6

53.9

3.5

0.5

Brazil

5.5

4.1

28.0

4.0

2.2

23 See id. at para. 502, Tables 66, 67 and 68. 24 Id. at para. 502, Table 69. 25 Id.

Housing Rights in Brazil

The aspect of affordability is also relevant with respect to Brazil, and indeed the poorest sectors of Brazilian society suffer disproportionately from inadequate housing. The amount of land available for housing illustrates this point. While 47 per cent of the population of Brazil lacks adequate land on which to live, those earning less than three times the minimum wage make up 35.1 per cent of those without adequate land. Furthermore, the supply of affordable housing has decreased over the past few years. The housing deficit increased at a rate of 21.7 per cent from 1991 to 2001, with the lowest income brackets suffering the greatest deficiency. Market mechanisms and current public policies have not sufficiently addressed the housing deficit, and now 83.2 per cent of that deficit affects the urban poor. The housing deficit disproportionately affects the rural poor too, with most land being owned by a relatively small number of families and corporations. Unfortunately, the Government of Brazil has failed to provide adequate housing subsidies as a means of ameliorating the housing deficit suffered by the poorer segments of society. Furthermore, Government production of homes has declined over the past fifteen years.26 As for adequate location, it has been estimated that 6 998 677 persons live in substandard areas.27 These homes are located in areas prone to natural disasters and/or are located near polluted sites. Again, disproportionate numbers of the poor live in such hazardous areas.

Table 3 - Percentage of the urban housing deficit by income bracket in 199128 Specification

Household monthly income category (in minimum wages) up to 3

from 3 to 5

from 5 to 10

more than 10

total*

North

84.0

7.2

6.9

1.6

100.0

Northeast

91.3

5.1

2.1

0.7

100.0

Southeast

77.6

11.0

7.1

3.0

100.0

South

80.9

9.4

6.7

2.5

100.0

Centre west

82.9

7.8

6.5

2.0

100.0

Brazil

83.2

8.4

5.4

2.0

100.0

* Includes those with no income declaration

26 See Initial Periodic Report of Brazil, para. 512, UN Doc. E/1990/5/Add.53 (20 November 2001). 27 See Initial Periodic Report of Brazil, para. 508, UN Doc. E/1990/5/Add.53 (20 November 2001). 28 JoĂŁo Pinheiro Foundation (1995), agreement or guarantee with the legitimate owner of the building.

Housing Rights in Brazil

The Federal Government has responded in part to the issues of housing habitability and affordability with the adoption of Federal Law No. 8 245/93, which ensures housing rights for persons residing in multi-family tenements.29 This Law establishes specific norms related to government intervention in the private housing sphere in order to promote improvement in urban buildings. According to Article 2, § 1, tenement occupants are entitled to certain rights in multi-family residences, including the right to demand that the property owner undertake necessary improvements. In the event that the property owner refuses to undertake the requested improvements, and the building is considered to be in an inadequate condition by the government, the residents may deposit their rental fees with a court of law until the improvements are completed. Municipal authorities may supervise the improvements and, if they are not satisfactorily undertaken, may use the rents deposited with the courts in order to undertake the improvements themselves. Another important aspect of this Law relates to affordability of multi-family residences. Article 21 provides that rents charged for sub-leasing may not exceed the rent of the primary lease, and that the sum of the rental fees may not exceed twice the amount of the costs associated with the building. As the above statistics illustrate, however, this Law, although a start, does not go far enough to ensure that all residents in Brazil enjoy their right to adequate housing. The Government of Brazil must ensure that housing adequacy is addressed, both through public expenditure and policy as well as through regulating the private sector, in order to comprehensively guarantee the right to adequate housing for all segments of its population in all areas of Brazil.

b. S e c u r i t y o f T e n u r e a n d F o r c e d E v i c t i o n

Caught in an ambush, Xucuru chief Francisco de Assis Santana, also known as Chico Quelé, was killed on 23 April 2001. He was shot twice with a 12-gauge shotgun, in Pesquerira, Pernambuco State. Chico Quelé was on his way to meet members of FUNAI (the government indigenous affairs office) to discuss the indemnity payments to be made to local landowners whose land was to be demarcated as indigenous land. On 9 July 2001, José Pinheiro Lima was killed, with his wife and 15-year-old son, by two gunmen in their house near the town of Marabá, in the south of Pará. He was a leading member of the rural workers trade union in Marabá which had been acting for 120 families whose legal right to unfarmed land was being contested by a local landowner. – Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Brazil, London: AI (2002).

29 This type of precarious collective residences, where the rental of rooms or whole residences prevails, is frequently found in the central regions of the big cities, especially in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. Usually, dwellers sub-rent rooms from a third person, denominated “intermediary”, who rents from the legitimate proprietary. Frequently, the intermediary does not hand the rental payments made by the dwellers over to the proprietary. The proprietary ends up obtaining in Court the right to displace them, as they do not have any agreement or guarantee with him/her.

Housing Rights in Brazil

Article 11(1) of the Covenant, as informed by General Comments No. 4 and No. 7, requires, inter alia, that “notwithstanding the type of tenure, all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats.”30 Furthermore, Brazil is under a legal obligation, as of the ratification date of the Covenant, to take immediate measures to implement this degree of security of tenure. The Federal Government enacted a beneficial piece of legislation with the adoption of Federal Law No. 6 766/79, as amended by Federal Law No. 9 788/99. This Law allows for the public power to assume land regularisation of clandestine urban lot divisions implemented without compliance with municipal regulations (for example, without the municipal government’s or Real Estate Notary’s authorisation), providing that the regularisation is in the best interest of those persons who purchase their lots in good will. Such legislation thereby protects security of tenure for persons residing in housing or on lots located in irregular settlements. It also establishes punitive measures to be applied against those entities that fraudulently or otherwise unlawfully sell lots to unsuspecting buyers. Notwithstanding such laws, however, the housing rights situation in Brazil illustrates that the Government of Brazil has failed to adequately fulfil its obligation to protect all residents from forced eviction. While some legislation exists with respect to security of tenure, all too often it is not implemented and therefore fails to protect millions of persons who might otherwise have benefited from these measures. For instance, while Law 8 245 of 18 October 1991 (Tenancy Law) provides for due-process protections prior to any eviction, COHRE has chronicled the following instances of forced eviction in Brazil from 1999 through 2002, many of which have been carried out with the use of violent and brutal methods.31 • During the course of forced evictions in 1999, the police in Paraná arrested 173 people, mostly without probable cause, detaining them for extended periods in police lockups and jails.32 Between 1995 and January 2001, 130 evictions occurred in Paraná State alone.33 Following the pattern established in Paraná, the police carried out further forced evictions and in the first six months of 2000 the police arrested 141 persons, again mostly without probable cause, and detained them for extended periods of time.34 • On 19 May 2000 the police used tear gas, rubber bullets and nightsticks to evict some 2 000 residents from the homes they had built on land they had occupied for some 17 years in São Paulo. Many residents told reporters the land from which they were evicted in Guaianazes, a low-income district in São Paulo’s east zone, was legally sold to them by an attorney representing the property’s owners. TV Globo aired footage showing several residents waving what they claimed were receipts proving their purchase.35 None of these residents were relocated 30 General Comment No. 4, at para. 8(a). 31 For more information on forced evictions in Brazil and elsewhere, see COHRE, Global Survey No. 9 on Forced Evictions 2001-2002, Geneva: COHRE 2003; COHRE, Global Survey No. 8 on Forced Evictions 1998-2000, Geneva: COHRE 2002; COHRE, Global Survey No. 7 on Forced Evictions 1994-1997, Geneva: COHRE 1998; COHRE, Global Survey No. 6 on Forced Evictions 1992-1994, Geneva: COHRE 1994. 32 Human Rights Watch, “Human Rights Developments: Brazil,” World Report 2001, New York: HRW (2001). 33 Informativos.Net, “La Comisión de DH de la OEA, investiga pinchazos telefónicos,” (14 January 2001). 34 Id. 35 AP Worldstream, “Police use tear gas and rubber bullets to evict squatters” (19 May 2000).

Housing Rights in Brazil

following the eviction, and 150 families constructed plastic shacks in nearby slums.36 Following the event, José Antonio de Lima Filho, president of the Brazilian housing organisation, União dos Moradores, remarked: “The police tell us that justice is blind. More than that, it is blind to the poor.”37 • In July 2000, Brazilian police carried out an operation to remove rural landless workers from at least two fazendas, or large rural estates, where the peasants had been living. The police forcibly evicted landless persons from two estates: eighty families from the Santa Maria estate, in the municipality of Jaguapitã, in the north-eastern region of the State; and 100 families from the Jacutinga estate. As in previous cases of forced evictions in Paraná, police denied access to the estates, prohibiting the entrance of agents from the Pastoral Land Commission, community leaders, and the press. On a total of twenty-four occasions during the first six months of 2000, the police violently forced labourers off lands in the State of Paraná.38 • The violent eviction of 400 landless Brazilian farm workers who had occupied the Agua da Prata ranch near the town of Querencia do Norte left one person dead and several injured. Although some 300 police troops were sent in to carry out the court-ordered eviction on 21 November 2000, the police maintained that the killing of 36-year-old Sebastiao da Maria was committed by the owners of the ranch. Following these events, a spokesperson for the Movement of Landless Rural Workers (Movimento Dos Trabalhadores Sem Terra, MST) which organised the occupation, argued that da Maria was executed outside the property for being one of MST’s leaders.39 • In 2001, land activists suffered harassment and attacks at the hands of military police carrying out evictions. Such violence was particularly the case in the southern part of the State of Pará, where private security forces often take part in forced evictions and other abuses.40 • On 30 November 2002, the Governor of the State of São Paulo decided to forcibly evict 5 000 otherwise homeless persons who had been squatting in the City of Osasco. While campaigning for office, the Governor entered into negotiations with the affected persons and originally promised a peaceful resolution to their plight and resettlement. After taking office, however, the Governor used security forces to violently evict the squatters.41 • On 10 December 2002 (International Human Rights Day), 2 200 persons were forcibly evicted by the State of São Paulo from the Carlos Lamarca settlement in the City of Guarulhos. The Mayor of Guarulhos tried to intervene on behalf of the evictees, but was overruled by the State Government. The evictees were resettled in the distant suburb of Aracília, in an area with no urban infrastructure.42

36 37 38 39 40 41 42

Soraya Agége, “Famílias expulsas montam barracas de plástico,” Folha de São Paulo, p. C-4 (25 May 2000). Soraya Agége , “Após despejo, 200 famílias acampam em Guaianazes,” Folha de São Paulo, p. C-5 (22 May 2000). Id. AP Worldstream, “Farm Worker Killed During Violent Eviction in Southern Brazil,” (23 November 2000). Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Brazil, London: AI (2002). Movement of Homeless Workers from Osasco (December 2002). Information received from the Municipal Government of the City of Guarulhos.

Housing Rights in Brazil

c. H o u s i n g D i s c r i m i n a t i o n Articles 2(2), 3 and 11(1) of the Covenant require that the right to adequate housing be respected, protected and fulfilled without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status and that the right to adequate housing be ensured equally with respect to woman and men. The following examinations of the housing rights of marginalised groups and of the selected States indicate that the right to adequate housing has been implemented in a discriminatory manner by the Government of Brazil. Such discrimination is particularly apparent with respect to Afro-Brazilian and indigenous populations. While these disparities are discussed in greater detail below, it is appropriate at this point to highlight the obligations of the Government of Brazil to address housing discrimination through all appropriate means, especially the adoption of legislative measures. The obligation to undertake the guaranteeing of Covenant rights without discrimination is one of immediate effect, and thus is not limited by the availability of resources. Furthermore, States Parties to the Covenant are obligated to undertake affirmative, or positive, measures in order to ameliorate the results of prior discrimination. The Government of Brazil often alleges that racial discrimination does not exist in Brazil, insisting that disparities result only from economic or social factors. COHRE has found that racial discrimination does indeed exist in Brazil. Indeed, it is clear from the present housing situation, as evident in this report and conceded in the Government’s periodic report, that policies and practices have had a disparate impact on racial minorities, including indigenous peoples and Afro-Brazilians. Brazil’s international legal obligations under both Article 2(2) of the Covenant and Article 1(1) of the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination require the Government to eliminate policies and practices that have either a discriminatory purpose or effect. While the Government of Brazil has adopted some legislation designed to ameliorate this effect, much more needs to be done with respect to the adoption and full implementation of such legislation. Clearly, as the situation now stands, the Government of Brazil must take serious steps towards the full enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to adequate housing, for everyone, everywhere within its jurisdiction. Consequently, the Government of Brazil should adopt and fully implement affirmative or positive measures designed to ameliorate the present housing disparities, including those resulting from Brazil’s history of colonisation of lands held by indigenous peoples and from the enslavement of Afro-Brazilians, and to work toward the elimination of all vestiges of discrimination.

d. N a t i o n a l L e g a l P r o t e c t i o n The Federal Government has a Constitutional obligation to ensure that the right to adequate housing is implemented without discrimination in all areas of Brazil. Articles 2(1), read in concert with 11(1), of the Covenant requires that States Parties should satisfy their respective obligations under the Covenant by “all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.” General Comment No. 3 further elaborates on this obligation, stating that not only is

Housing Rights in Brazil

legislation highly desirable in many instances, but “in some cases may even be indispensable.” Under Article 21(IX) and (XX) of the Constitution of Brazil, the Federal Government is empowered “to prepare and carry out national plans … for economic and social development” as well as to “institute guidelines for city development, including housing [and] basic sanitation.” As a party to the Covenant, therefore, the Government of Brazil has an obligation to adopt, implement and enforce policies designed to respect, protect and fulfil the right to adequate housing. Under Article 23(IX), the Federal Government, States and Municipalities share the power “to promote programs for the construction of housing and the improvement of housing and basic sanitation conditions.” The Federal Government has adopted a range of legislation related to housing rights. As mentioned above, in 1995 the Federal Government initiated its National Housing Policy, which entails the following four goals: (1) universal access to housing; (2) expansion of the stock of homes and improvement of existing homes; (3) regularisation of irregular settlements and promotion of access to land; and (4) modernisation of the housing sector by improving legislation and agencies. Since 1995, however, the Government has failed to implement this legislation in a universal manner. For instance, while the State of Rio Grande do Sul has adopted and successfully implemented programmes designed to improve and regularise irregular settlements and promote access to land,43 and thus furthered the goals of the National Housing Policy, the Federal Government has not adequately exercised its Constitutional authority in order to ensure that these successes are replicated in all States. Two bodies of legislation deal respectively with urban and rural settlements. The Statute of the City44 establishes principles and guidelines which express a new conception of urban development and land use. Public and private entities involved in the development of urban areas are required to incorporate principles of justice, democracy and sustainability in their projects. As such, the role of Brazilian cities is now seen as one fulfilling a social function, particularly with regard to access, usage and the fair and equitable distribution of the opportunities and wealth of the urban area. The Statute of the City is supplemented by Provisional Measure No. 2 220 of 4 September 2001, which deals with the concession of public property for housing purposes – essentially adverse possession, or usufruct, of public land. The concepts incorporated in the Statute of the City originated in a proposed amendment presented by the National Movement of Urban Reform during the process of redrafting the Brazilian Constitution in 1988. The ideas embodied in the proposed amendment were based on several principles: the Right to the City and to Citizenship, which embraces the idea of universal access to urban services and facilities, to land, to housing, to a healthy environment, to leisure, to transportation, to sewage removal, to participation in urban planning, to education and to health; the Democratic Management of the City, understood as a form of planning, decision-making, legislating and governing cities with social participation and control, in a way that legitimises and 43 For example, Rio Grande do Sul has initiated a programme whereby favela housing is replaced with publicly constructed adequate housing. The replacement housing is built very near the existing favela to be replaced and the projects are undertaken with full participation of the affected residents. Furthermore, the construction process is carried out in such a way as to provide employment opportunities for the affected favela residents, whose usual means of subsistence is preserved. 44 Federal Law No. 10 257 of 10 July 2001.

Housing Rights in Brazil

offers sustainability to a new legal-urban order that is social in nature; and the Social Function of Property, which entails the avoidance of speculative retention of urban land or inadequate usage of land that results in its under-usage or no usage at all, thereby guaranteeing a socially fair and environmentally balanced usage of urban space.45 This Statute of the City constitutes important legal support for municipal government actions designed to redress the serious urban, social and environmental problems that significant segments of the Brazilian population are presently facing. The Statute recognises the fundamental role of municipalities in the formulation and conduct of a city’s management process, establishing guidelines for the implementation of urban policies. The Statute of the City presents four major fundamental innovations: the consolidation of a new legal-political framework related to urban property in which the formulation of new norms in Urban Law is to be oriented; the institution and regulation of mechanisms that will guarantee a socially fair and equitable urban society; the guaranteeing of democratic management of cities by the persons that plan, build and utilise them; and the enhancement of laws and policies designed to regularise irregular settlements. The Statute defines the means that government, and in particular municipal governments, must use in order to address social inequality and territorial problems in urban areas. The Statute includes: • Regulations designed to guarantee the social function of real property – including those related to the Master Plan, compulsory land-division and building, progressive taxation on urban real estate, condemnation with public debt titles, pre-emption rights, and onerous granting (created land); • Regulations regarding land regularisation46 – in urban areas, security of tenure is guaranteed and based on duration of residence (adverse possession or usufruct), special concesions are made regarding housing needs, and special zones of social interest are created; • Regulations for the democratic management of the city – the creation of urban policy councils, city conferences, participatory budgeting, public hearings, law projects of popular initiative, and neighbourhood impact studies.

45 Letter of Principles to the elaborations of a Master Plan organised by the National Forum on Urban Reform, 1989. 46 In the case of regularising human placements in occupied urban areas of environmental preservation, the environmental norms may not be considered as being an impediment to such regularisation, as this would contradict the constitutional provisions related to housing rights protection.

Housing Rights in Brazil

Regarding protection against forced evictions, the Statute of the City calls for the implementation of two key policies: • Possession and ownership rights due to duration of residence (adverse possession or usufruct) – which may be used as a defence against eviction or destruction of informal housing. After a given period of possession, the resident many register her or his property with the Real Estate Notary and receive legal title; • Special zones of social interest – once instituted over areas of low-income informal settlements, this policy guarantees legal permanent possession by dwellers in the respective areas. Rural property is regulated through the Land Statute (Federal Law No. 4 50464). The Land Statute is a broad law dealing with land reform and agrarian policy. One component allows for the expropriation of some land in order that it can be reallocated as plots suitable for subsistence farming. The Land Statute, however, excludes vast tracts of land and thus does not provide government authorities with land sufficient to meet the needs of the Brazilian rural population. As such, the Land Statute fails to adequately fulfil its purpose, as laid out in its Article 2, to consider land as a social good. Furthermore, the expropriation process is slow and the amounts of compensation paid for expropriated land vary significantly, often with land owners claiming a value set by a speculative market. The problem of determining fair compensation stems from the procedure whereby the calculation of fair compensation is left to judicial determination rather than being calculated from the value claimed by the land owners in their rural territorial tax determinations. While the Statute of the City is in many ways a model piece of legislation, the Government of Brazil must ensure that it is universally implemented in all of Brazil. The Land Statute, meanwhile, should be strengthened and fully implemented so as to achieve its purpose of treating land as a social good and ensuring a fair allocation of this all-important resource.

Housing Rights in Brazil

Girl living in a palafita along the Tununbuda River, Belém, Pará

3 Housing Rights in Selected States COHRE selected five specific political/administrative sub-divisions, or States, to examine as a means of conducting geographically diverse sampling and facilitating a comparative analysis of housing rights across Brazil. The States of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro, Rio Grande do Sul, Bahia, and Pará were chosen for various reasons. São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro were chosen because they include a large proportion, 42.63 per cent, of the Brazilian population and both are dealing with the complex issue of urbanisation. São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro also provide information on the southeast region of the country. Rio Grande do Sul, Bahia and Pará were chosen for their geographic distribution, with Rio Grande do Sul in the south, Bahia in the northeast, and Pará in the north. These three States were also chosen because they have similar urban and rural dimensions, each with a large city, while having vastly different composite populations with respect to race and ethnicity. Rio Grande do Sul has a disproportionately high percentage of persons of European descent, Bahia has a disproportionately high percentage of Afro-Brazilians, and Pará has a disproportionately high percentage of indigenous persons.

Housing Rights in Brazil

STATE Acre (AC)

AREA (sq. km)

Population (2000)

153 150

557 226

Alagoas (AL)

27 933

Amapá (AP)

Capital

Population (2000)

Rio Branco

252 885

2 819 172

Maceió

796 842

143 454

475 843

Macapá

282 745

1 577 820

2 813 085

Manaus

1 403 796

Bahia (BA)

567 295

13 066 910

Salvador

2 440 828

Ceará (CE)

146 348

7 418 476

Fortaleza

2 138 234

5 822

2 043 169

—

46 184

3 094 390

Vitória

Goiás (GO)

341 289

4 996 439

Goiânia

1 090 737

Maranhão (MA)

333 366

5 642 960

São Luís

867 690

Mato Grosso (MT)

906 807

2 502 260

Cuiabá

483 044

Mato Grosso do Sul (MS)

358 159

2 074 877

Campo Grande

662 534

Minas Gerais (MG)

588 384

17 866 402

Belo Horizonte

2 232 747

1 253 164

6 189 550

Belém

1 279 861

Paraíba (PB)

56 585

3 439 344

João Pessoa

Paraná (PR)

199 709

9 558 454

Curitiba

1 586 848

98 938

7 911 937

Recife

1 421 993

253 378

2 841 202

Teresina

Rio de Janeiro (RJ)

43 910

14 367 083

Rio Grande do Norte (RN)

53 307

2 771 538

Rio Grande do Sul (RS)

282 062

10 181 749

Porto Alegre

1 360 033

Rondônia (RO)

238 513

1 377 792

Porto Velho

334 585

Roraima (RR)

225 116

324 152

Boa Vista

200 383

95 443

5 349 580

Florianópolis

341 781

248 809

36 969 476

22 050

1 781 714

Aracaju

461 083

278 421

1 155 913

Palmas

137 045

8 545 416

169 590 693

Amazonas (AM)

DISTRITO FEDERAL (DF) - Brasilia Espírto Santo (ES)

Pará (PA)

Pernambuco (PE) Piauí (PI)

Santa Catarina (SC) São Paulo (SP) Sergipe (SE) Tocantins (TO) Brasil

—

Rio de Janeiro Natal

291 941

595 429

714 583 5 851 914 709 422

São Paulo

BRASÍLIA

10 405 867

2 043 169

(Data Source: IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica - Year 2000 Census)

Housing Rights in Brazil

a. S a o P a u l o São Paulo is the most populous State in Brazil and includes the City of São Paulo, Brazil’s largest city. Located in the southeast region of the country, São Paulo had a population of 36 969 476 according to the 2000 census.47 The racial makeup of the southeast region of Brazil 66 per cent white and 33 per cent Afro-Brazilian,48 with the State of São Paulo consisting of 70.8 per cent white, 27.6 per cent Afro-Brazilian and 0.2 per cent indigenous. Some two million persons, or approximately six per cent of the State’s population, currently live in favelas, or “extreme slums.” Many of the State’s favelas are located in and around the City of São Paulo, where they are home to fifteen per cent of that city’s population. Another two million residents of São Paulo live in cortiços, or inadequate tenement buildings. The favelas in São Paulo, some of the worst in Brazil, usually have very squalid conditions. These include not only inadequate housing structures, but also open sewers and a lack of potable water. As for the cortiços, they are often overcrowded, lacking operable lifts as well as sufficient water and waste disposal. An example is provided in the Armenia neighbourhood, where ninety-two families, constituting 400 persons, reside in one cortiço, sharing three toilets and two showers. Several development projects have been undertaken in São Paulo, some with the specific intention of improving the housing conditions of the population, and others which have had very detrimental impacts on housing. Described below, for instance, are the Apuaná Cooperative Mutual Aid Project, which has helped to fulfil the right to adequate housing in São Paulo, and the Guarulhos Airport Project, which has had a detrimental effect on housing.

Ca s e S t u d y N o . 1 : H o u s i n g R i g h t s F u l f i l m e n t The Apuanã Cooperative Mutual Aid Society Program – developed by the Municipal Secretariat for Habitation together with the São Paulo Metropolitan Habitation Company of São Paulo The Cooperative Mutual Aid Society Program was created in 1989 and implemented from 1989 to 1992 during the São Paulo City Mayoralty of Ms Luiza Erundina (Partido dos Trabaladores or PT) in partnership with 108 Community Associations and 24 technical assistance groups. To date, the program has benefited around sixty thousand persons. The program involved empowering the poor by encouraging them to form associations to manage their own resources. With respect to housing, the program was similar to traditional mutual aid societies, whereby the construction of housing is undertaken by labour provided free of charge by the State. A new aspect of the Apuanã Cooperative Mutual Aid Society Program, however, entails the use of non-governmental organisations to manage the production of housing, with the participation of the actual future residents of that housing. The government facilitates the project by providing public financing, technology, and by taking advantage of the increase in social participation resulting from cooperative efforts. 47 Censo Demográfico 2000. 48 Brazilian Geography and Statistics Institute (IBGE), Research Directorate, Employment and Incomes Department, National Home Sampling Survey.

Housing Rights in Brazil

This type of cooperative system, known as “Mutual Aid,” is having a great influence on the cooperative movement in Uruguay and is gradually being replicated all over Latin America. During the 1993-1996 and 1996-2001 São Paulo City Mayoralties (respectively Mayor Paulo Maluf and Dr Celso Pita of the PPB political party) retrogressive measures were implemented which suspended the Mutual Aid programs and reintroduced the conventional method of promoting and managing construction by contracting private construction companies. Furthermore, from 1993 to 1996 the City Government refused to permit the auto-administration of public funds by those who would be the prime beneficiaries. As a result, many of the Mutual Aid families were obliged to move into their homes before they were finished, generally in poor living conditions. This caused further deterioration of the available infrastructure and buildings, which later, because they were in general only semi-finished, had little commercial or resale value. As a further negative effect, the green areas that had been reserved for future housing projects were taken over and occupied. During those eight years, while the City Administration failed to provide alternative accommodation for these people, the Mutual Aid Associations maintained their unity as best they could, calling on every possible occasion for the restoration of the 1989 programs. They also created a public Forum of the Mutual Aid Societies of the City of São Paulo that took charge of negotiations and discussions with the Mayor’s Office and the City Financial Audit Tribunal. Fortunately, the new government elected in 2001 (Mayor Martha Suplicy, PT political party) decided to reactivate the self-managed Mutual Aid Societies, releasing funds to them from the Municipal Budget. The Societies again began to receive the necessary resources and the São Paulo Metropolitan Habitation Company contracted the infrastructure construction works needed for the completion of the Mutual Aid undertaking. The Apuanã Cooperative Mutual Aid Project is designed to meet the needs of people living in the North Zone of São Paulo City who live on low incomes and/or pay rent. The undertaking is made up of four community associations: (1) The Associação de Construção por Mutirão Chico Mendes; (2) Associação de Construção por Mutirão João de Barro; (3) Associação de Construção por Mutirão Juntos Venceremos; and (4) The Associação de Construção por Mutirão União do Povo. These Associations, made up of future residents, promote and administer the project, contract the necessary technical assistance, set up the construction site, obtain the construction equipment and tools, buy construction materials, contract specialised labour, and organise the future residents’ work groups. The São Paulo Mayor’s Office, via the Municipal Habitation Fund and the Secretariat of Habitation and Urban Development, finances the projects, lays down the rules for implementation, and supervises and monitors social aspects. The São Paulo Metropolitan Habitation Company manages the resources, organises the execution, approval and legalisation of the construction, and handles commercial aspects.

Housing Rights in Brazil

Each Association enters into a financing contract for the construction of the new houses (both two-story homes and apartments) and the related common infrastructure using funds from the Municipal Habitation Fund. The land originally supplied to the Cooperative Mutual Aid Project was unused private property expropriated by the City Administration. All necessary technical and professional assistance was contracted by the Associations themselves, generally in partnership with non-governmental organisations, which design the projects with the full participation of the future residents. The project will result in the construction of 396 homes and will benefit about four thousand persons. At present, the Mayor’s Office is formalising processes for handling the Associations’ demand for habitation and infrastructure projects, with due consideration of the lands available for new projects.

Ca s e S t u d y N o . 2 : H o u s i n g R i g h t s V i o l a t i o n Guarulhos Airport Project – developed by the Brazilian Company of Airports Infrastructure (INFRAERO) and The State Government of São Paulo With 1.1 million inhabitants, Guarulhos is the second largest city in the State of São Paulo. The International Airport São Paulo/Guarulhos André Franco Montoro was inaugurated in 1985, constructed next to a military base of the Brazilian Air Force (FAB), built in 1941. Since 1967, the Urban Plans of Guarulhos had designated the area as being the place where the airport was going to be constructed. It was planned and opened during the period of Brazilian military dictatorship (1964 to 1988). The project was executed in the centre of Guarulhos and resulted in a series of ecological and urban problems unresolved to the present day. The course of the Baquirivu-Guaçu River was altered, causing periodical floods and changing the microclimate of the region. The location of the airport causes severe problems with respect to drainage. Furthermore, the project has never been legally approved by either municipal or state agencies. The airport occupies an area of 14.1 km2, or five per cent of the municipality’s total area of 341 km2. INFRAERO (Brazilian Corporation for Airports Infrastructure), the public corporation that manages the airport, has yet to pay the taxes due to the City of Guarulhos, resulting in a fiscal debt that has mounted to R$140 million. The enterprises that are active inside the airport complex do not have municipal licenses to operate there and also fail to pay taxes to the municipality. The continued expansion of the airport as planned will result in the eviction and displacement of some ten thousand residents. The plan foresees only the provision of compensation rather than the provision of alternative housing. Some 90 per cent of the families to be displaced lack legal title to their homes, even though most have resided in the area for decades. The existing urban facilities in these areas, such as the water system, sewage disposal and energy provision will be rendered useless and the expansion will result in closing two schools, a health centre and a community centre. None of these community losses have been taken into consideration, and thus are not likely to be redressed.

Housing Rights in Brazil

On the one hand, there is no doubt that the airport is important for economic development. With the planned expansion, an increase of R$4 million to the local economy is estimated. On the other hand, it is far from certain that the increased economic benefits will be democratically and equitably distributed among the entire population, and in particular to those detrimentally affected by the expansion. The Guarulhos Airport Project must be undertaken without violating the human rights of individuals and communities. It is imperative that: • Evictions should only be resorted to if no other viable option is available to further a compelling social interest; • If evictions are necessary, they should be carried out in accordance with General Comment No.7, which calls for full consultation with the affected populations and the provision of alternative housing, land, social services as well as compensation; • Any necessary resettlement should include the provision of adequate alternative housing within the sense of General Comment No. 4, including the provision of legal security of tenure, the provision of infrastructure and essential services such as potable water, sewage removal, waste disposal and energy provision essential for heating, cooking and lighting; • Any affected schools, health centres and other social facilities should be replaced; and • Any necessary expansion of the Guarulhos Airport should not pose a detriment to the environment and any environmental degradation caused by prior expansion or construction should be ameliorated.

b. R i o d e J a n e i r o Rio de Janeiro, also located in the southeast region, had a population of 14 367 083 in 2000.49 The racial demographics of Rio de Janeiro indicate a population of 54.5 per cent white, 45.1 per cent Afro-Brazilian and 0.2 per cent indigenous. Some 1.5 million of Rio’s 5.5 million population live in slums, in sub-standard tenement buildings or extensions to existing buildings without infrastructure such as water, sewage removal and electricity.50 Ten thousand families live in high-risk conditions.

49 Censo Demográfico 2000. 50 Urban and Housing Deficit Numbers in Rio de Janeiro, Jornal O Blobo (21 July 1999).

Housing Rights in Brazil

Approximately one third of the residents of the City of Rio de Janeiro live in favelas, many of which line the hills around the city centre. The vast economic inequalities have contributed to social problems including crime and illicit drug activity in and near many of the favelas. Additionally, many of the favelas are in precipitous locations prone to natural disasters such as landslides. In the past, several neighbourhoods have been destroyed by such natural disasters. While the Government of Brazil has taken some steps towards the prevention of such events, much more needs to be done in order to more fully ensure the safety and habitability of the favelas surrounding Rio de Janeiro.

Ca s e S t u d y N o . 3 : H o u s i n g R i g h t s F u l f i l m e n t Ipiúba Housing Project – developed by the Housing Cooperative of Dwellers and the Housing Association in São Pedro de Alcantara in partnership with the NGO Centre Josué de Castro The Housing Cooperative of Dwellers and the Housing Association in São Pedro de Alcântara collectively developed the Ipiúba Housing Project. The Project entails the construction of 40 housing units, in an area of 6.2 hectares of their own property. The location is far from the downtown areas of Niteroi and São Gonçalo, but public transportation is easily accessible. The Centre Josué de Castro, a Brazilian NGO, ensures technical assistance for the implementation of the Project – elaborating the division and infrastructure projects, the housing construction and the urbanisation process. The total area encloses 225 lots, many of which are being commercialised to raise funds to benefit the Cooperative members. The 40 families presently working in the collective have already paid into the Cooperative for their lots. Each family’s construction materials are financed by the Inter American Foundation (IAF) in the following proportional allotments: 85 per cent for the material, 10 per cent for labour and 5 per cent for equipment. The homes will have 42m2 and will cost R$7 000 per unit, with the lots, measuring 10m x 90m, costing an additional R$1 000 each. Wells will be constructed to provide a safe water supply, and sewage removal will be handled by a septic system. The septic system will be designed so as to provide methane gas for up to five hours per day for community purposes. These components are designed to guarantee the sustainable placement of the community as well as to avoid future infrastructure extensions. Labour for the project includes “sweat equity,” with each person working 17 hours per week. On average, two persons from each housing unit provide such labour for the Project. The Project is scheduled for completion in April 2003. COHRE paid a visit to the construction area on 6 July 2002 and concluded that the participants were generally quite pleased with the Project and how it was being implemented.

Housing Rights in Brazil

Project characteristics related to the fulfilment of Housing Rights include: • Adoption of construction and urbanisation patterns compatible with the limits of the area’s environmental and social sustainability; • Democratic participation of the beneficiary families in every phase of housing construction, as well as in the management of the housing cooperative; • Adoption of adequate housing patterns with respect to comfort, safety, health, cultural adequacy, infrastructure, accessibility and costs; and • Adoption of measures aimed at the protection and preservation of the existing natural environment.

Ca s e S t u d y N o . 4 : H o u s i n g R i g h t s V i o l a t i o n Morar Feliz Housing Project – developed by the State Government of Rio de Janeiro The Morar Feliz (“Feel Happy”) Housing Project was initiated in 1999. It is managed by the State Housing Company (CEHAB) and involves the construction of four thousand housing units, funded in part with federal resources from the program “Habitar Brazil.” The land where the project is being undertaken is owned by the State of Rio de Janeiro. The houses are located over 6 km from the nearest regional centre and 60 km from downtown Rio de Janeiro. Access to public transportation, educational and health services, as well as leisure and recreational activities, is severely limited. According to the terms of the project, the houses are to be used to shelter those currently living in at-risk areas. As mentioned above, however, the site of the development is far too distant from the city centre, employment opportunities and urban services. The Project is being developed in two phases. The first phase, Sepetiba I, consists of 2 000 housing units already constructed and occupied. The residents of these houses have not been granted adequate security of tenure, as they are simply recognised as “occupants.” The second phase, known as Sepetiba II, currently consists of 700 unfinished housing units. The land on which Sepetiba II is being constructed remains unregularised. Presently, the State budget has insufficient funds for completion of the project. The Project is being undertaken with similar methods to those used during the 1960s and 1970s. Then, large agglomerations of low-quality housing were constructed along the peripheries of cities, thereby segregating the residents and excluding them from the social services enjoyed by the rest of urban society.

Housing Rights in Brazil

The housing units have been allotted partly on the basis of personal or political favouritism by a previous Government of Rio de Janeiro. In early 2002, many of the persons so favoured occupied the unfinished housing, fearing that a subsequent State Government would reassign the housing. In July 2002, these residents agreed to temporarily vacate the housing so as to allow the construction to be completed. Approximately 300 of these residents are now homeless – living under plastic sheeting in an area near Sepetiba II. COHRE visited the Project on 5 July 2002 and found the former residents living in terrible conditions. Ms Noemia Ferreira da Silva, a 65-year-old former resident of Sepetiba II, is currently homeless while awaiting the completion of the Project. She is caring for a mentally disabled daughter while she waits. She is presently living under plastic sheeting with no water or sewage removal. The lack of accessible transportation has complicated her situation. The Project raises a number of serious concerns, including: • Lack of full consultation with the affected population; • Location resulting in segregation far from the city, thereby compromising economic, employment and educational opportunities, as well as access to health and other social services; • Environmental degradation due to the construction of the Project; • Failure to provide adequate security of tenure; and • Lack of a transparent and objective process by which to select the beneficiaries of the Project.

c. R i o G r a n d e d o S u l Rio Grande do Sul, is located in the southern region of Brazil, and according to the 2000 census has a population of 10 181 749.51 The southern region has a high percentage of persons of European descent, at approximately 82.8 per cent.52 The racial make-up of Rio Grande do Sul is approximately 86.6 per cent white, 13.1 per cent Afro-Brazilian and 0.3 per cent indigenous. The largest urban centre in Rio Grande do Sul is the City of Porto Alegre, with a population of 1 360 033. Rio Grande do Sul has enjoyed a progressive form of government for over a decade due in large part to State Government control by the Partido dos Trabalhadores (Worker’s Party). The State Government has instituted a participatory form of democracy, including participatory budgeting. Leaders from the State’s favelas are able to participate in government decisions affecting their communities, including decisions related to housing. 51 Censo Demográfico 2000. 52 Brazilian Geography and Statistics Institute (IBGE), Research Directorate, Employment and Incomes Department, National Home Sampling Survey.

Housing Rights in Brazil

In Rio Grande do Sul, several innovative housing policies have been developed and implemented. One such policy involved designating twenty per cent of housing with a social purpose to be set aside for households headed by single women.53 Another policy involved replacement of existing informal settlements with regularised adequate housing and the provision of legal title. Such policies have resulted in several new housing developments being constructed in and around Porto Alegre for persons previously living in favelas. These projects were undertaken with the full participation of the affected favela dwellers and resulted in a supply of adequate housing for the residents of former favelas. Ca s e S t u d y N o . 5 : H o u s i n g R i g h t s F u l f i l m e n t São Pedro Residences Project – developed by the Special State Secretary of Housing and the State Secretary of Public Health of Rio Grande do Sul The São Pedro Residences Project, under the auspices of the Special State Secretary of Housing and the State Secretary of Public Health, entails the building of new housing and the providing of legal title for some 450 families currently living in informal settlements known as the São Pedro and Salvador França favelas, which are located near the São Pedro Psychiatric Hospital. The project also entails the building of housing for 144 hospital patients who will benefit from more independent living, as opposed to their current institutionalised setting. Based on the concept of social inclusion, the São Pedro Residences Project will incorporate the residents into the broader community and thereby help transform the relationships that cause social exclusion. The practice of participatory budgeting has resulted in more democratic representation, including representation of favela dwellers and others living in inadequate housing. Through the participatory budgeting process, those living in inadequate housing have been better able to ensure that government funding is used to improve the housing stock of all residents, including the poor. The participatory budgeting process has worked in concert with housing policies, such as the São Pedro Residences Project. Those involved in the project, including the residents, have made the following observations: • The São Pedro Residences Project is an example of a project that not only furthers the right to adequate housing but is one of the least expensive and most efficient means to resolve the problems associated with socially excluded poor communities residing within an otherwise prosperous urban area; • The alternative, namely market-driven development of the surrounding area and the dispersal of the current residents, is both unjust and does not necessarily promote the right to adequate housing or the prosperity of the urban area; and • The problem of social exclusion of segments of society can only be addressed if the underlying causes of such exclusion are recognised and ameliorated. 53 Law 11 574/01.

Housing Rights in Brazil

Ca s e S t u d y N o . 6 : H o u s i n g R i g h t s V i o l a t i o n Salgado Filho International Airport – developed by INFRAERO (Brazilian Company of Airports Infrastructure) and the State Government of Rio Grande do Sul Salgado Filho is the International Airport of Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul. In January 1997 the State Government established, by the means of a convention, a partnership with INFRAERO, the Brazilian Company of Airports Infrastructure, to undertake the necessary steps to expand the airport. The expansion of the airport is considered by many to be essential for economic development, including the tourism industry. According to the contract between INFRAERO and the State of Rio Grande do Sul, the obligations of INFRAERO include the construction of a new passenger terminal, a new cargo terminal, parking lots, and aircraft storage facilities. The State is contractually responsible for the construction of roadways linking the access roads to the passenger terminal, the condemnation of surrounding land, the lengthening of the runway, and the operation of rescue and fire services for a period of five years. The expansion of the airport will directly affect approximately sixteen thousand persons. Of these, twelve thousand subsist on extremely low incomes and live in the favelas known as Vila Dique and Vila Nazaré. These communities are requesting resettlement and the provision of alternative housing, but no resources have been budgeted to meet these obligations. The other four thousand will be reimbursed with an amount based upon the value of their homes. The project was scheduled to be completed in thirty-six months, but completion has been delayed. The Government of Rio Grande do Sul that came to power in 1999 inherited the contractual responsibilities of the prior Government. At that time, the condemnation process had not been completed, the resources necessary for the relocation of the communities of Vila Dique and Vila Nazaré had not been allotted, and the amount originally budgeted for the roadway construction was found to have been substantially underestimated. In order to ensure that social guidelines were met, the new government tried to renegotiate the contract with INFRAERO, attempting to guarantee federal resources to relocate and compensate the displaced communities. INFRAERO, however, refused to renegotiate. The new passenger terminal and roadway construction have now been completed. The resettlement of the affected communities, however, has yet to be resolved. Not knowing whether they will be evicted or not, the residents of Vila Dique and Vila Nazaré have stopped making improvements to their homes and communities, resulting in further deterioration of the housing stock. Vila Dique, with four thousand residents, is located along the edge of an existing dike restraining the River Gravataí and lacks sewage removal infrastructure and public lighting. Furthermore, the water supply is quite precarious. The airport’s planned expansion will affect both Vila Dique and the dike. Vila Nazaré, with eight thousand residents, is located in the buffer zone adjacent to the airport, also near the River Gravataí. The community lacks paved roadways and proper sewage removal and waste disposal. The latter has resulted in open garbage dumps in flood-prone areas,

Housing Rights in Brazil

which have had a detrimental effect on community health. Access to education, health and recreation facilities is highly inadequate. The communities of Vila Dique and Vila Nazaré have organised themselves into Dwellers’ Associations, which advocate for their right to resettlement in safe, secure and otherwise adequate areas. To date, however, the communities have been unsuccessful at reaching an agreement with the State Government. The Government of Brazil should ensure adequate resources so that the Government of Rio Grande do Sul can resettle the communities of Vila Dique and Vila Nazaré to safe, secure and otherwise adequate areas and provide adequate alternative housing. In doing so, the Governments involved should abide by their obligations under the Covenant and in particular those defined in General Comments No. 4 and No. 7.

d. B a h i a Bahia is located in the northeast region, which occupies 18.26 per cent of the territory of Brazil and comprises nine States: Bahia, Maranhão, Piauí, Ceará, Rio Grande do Norte, Paraíba, Pernambuco, Alagoas and Sergipe. There are 1 792 Municipalities in the northeast, which has a disproportionately high percentage of persons of African descent, representing 70.6 per cent of the population,54 with the Afro-Brazilian population of Bahia amounting to 75.6 per cent of the State’s population. This region is also “blighted by the worst economic and social conditions in the country.”55 The region is an ancient plateau smoothed by erosion, and frequently faces long draughts. The total area is 1 156 177 8 km2 and its population of 45 924 812 represents 28.9 per cent of the total Brazilian population. Average life expectancy is 64.22 years and the population density reaches 28.73 inhabitants per km2. The urban-based population composes 60.6 per cent of the region’s total population. In 2000, the State of Bahia had a population of 13 066 91056. It occupies 559 951 km2 in the southern portion of the northeast region. The largest urban area, the City of Salvador, has a population of 2 440 828. Several economic and semi-desert regions exist along the Rio São Francisco, the State’s main river. These regions are known both for their extreme poverty and long droughts. Some irrigation projects, mainly on the banks of the Rio São Francisco, have modernised agriculture, but most people living in rural areas continue to struggle for daily subsistence.

54 Brazilian Geography and Statistics Institute (IBGE), Research Directorate, Employment and Incomes Department, National Home Sampling Survey. 55 Thirteenth Periodic Report of Brazil to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, para. 22, UN Doc. CERD/C/263/Add.10 (22 February 1996). 56 Censo Demográfico 2000.

Housing Rights in Brazil

The fourth-most-populated State in Brazil, Bahia has its population distributed in 415 municipalities, with an average density of 21.6 inhabitants per km2. The demographic composition indicates that 59 per cent of the population lives in urban areas. That the figure has risen to this level in recent years illustrates the on-going Brazilian urbanisation process. Women represent 50.6 per cent of Bahia’s population while men represent 49.4 per cent. As is true of the northeast region in general, Afro-Brazilians in Bahia are disproportionately affected by the denial of the right to adequate housing. Indeed, housing affordability is a concern for most Afro-Brazilians as they often have the lowest paid jobs. For instance, 90 per cent of the domestic servants in Bahia are Afro-Brazilian, 80 per cent of whom receive less than the minimum wage.57 This insufficiency of income makes most Afro-Brazilians unable to afford adequate housing at market rates. As the examination of the situation of Afro-Brazilians illustrates below, there is a significant correlation between race and the degree to which housing rights are respected, protected and fulfilled in Brazil.

Ca s e S t u d y N o . 7 : H o u s i n g R i g h t s V i o l a t i o n Alagados 4 and 5 Project – developed by the State of Bahia and the City of Salvador The Alagados 4 and 5 project is an integral part of a major programme known as Viver Melhor. Viver Melhor involves the suburban area of Alagados. It is being undertaken by CONDER (Company of Urban Development for the State of Bahia). The programme is funded through financial support from the National Programme Habitar Brasil/BID, with the support of the InterAmerican Development Bank. The State Government of Bahia, supported by the Municipal Government of Salvador, is implementing the project. The metropolitan region of Salvador encompasses 2.7 million inhabitants, and is the sixth largest metropolitan region in Brazil. In Salvador, there are 400 areas of concentrated poverty, with more than 1.2 million persons, a disproportionate number of them Afro-Brazilian, residing in inadequate housing or otherwise precarious living conditions – nearly 54 per cent of the population in the city. Alagados is an area of extreme poverty, with the lowest incomes and highest population density in Salvador. The settlement dates from 1948 when urbanisation and industrialisation processes significantly affected Salvador in the post-World War II era. Many of the homes are situated near Tainheiros Bay, blocking natural water flows and resulting in improper drainage and floods. The housing stock in Alagados consists of two main types: those constructed on land and those constructed on stilts in shallow water. Both forms of housing are considered inadequate, the former being constructed of brick, wood or a combination thereof and the latter, known as palafitas, constructed of wood and plastic or paper sheets. The palafitas, constructed in flooded areas, 57 See Report by Mr Maurice Glèlè-Ahanhanzo, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, on his mission to Brazil, from 6 to 17 June 1995, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1993/20 and 1995/12, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/72/Add.1 at para. 52 (23 January 1995).

Housing Rights in Brazil

account for nearly 39 per cent of the houses in the area and are often at risk of catching fire or collapsing. These homes average 12.5m2 and lack proper sewage removal. This inadequacy, along with the waterlogged surroundings, contributes to serious health problems for the residents. The residents of the Alagados area also have inadequate access to schools, health care facilities and other social services. Indeed, some of Salvador’s most serious social problems, including unemployment, poverty, disease, violence, illicit drug activity and teenage pregnancy are concentrated in and around Alagados. The Alagados 4 and 5 Project is divided into two phases and is designed to benefit 2 398 families. The first phase affects the whole area known as Alagados 4 and most of the area known as Alagados 5, and will affect 1 157 families or 35 per cent of the total population living in palafitas. Resources needed for this phase amount to US$2 500 000, of which the State of Bahia is responsible for US$488 333. The plan entails demolishing the existing palafitas and resettling the community out of at-risk areas. Land regularisation is foreseen for the new settlements. The Alagados community has a long history of popular participation and currently has 23 representative entities. These entities are formal associations, very well organised, most of which resulted from the Government’s failure to properly address community needs. Additionally, many NGOs provide social assistance in the area. While the Alagados 4 and 5 Project has some beneficial attributes, the manner in which it has been planned and initially implemented has not met with approval from the affected communities. Indeed, there has been a lack of consultation as required under Article 11(1) of the Covenant and General Comment No. 7. In September 2002, representatives of the affected community partnered with similar organisations elsewhere in Salvador. They issued an open letter to civil society and to CONDER in which they voiced their indignation about the way the project was being implemented. They claimed that CONDER had always intervened in the City in an authoritarian and exclusionary manner. According to these organisations, CONDER does not adequately consult with affected communities, and it conceals this fact in order to obtain international financial resources. The main concerns of the Alagados community are as follows: The Project has been undertaken in a manipulative manner and violates the right to adequate housing as the affected communities have not been consulted during the planning or implementation stages: • Many residents have been insufficiently informed about the Project and are left doubting their future prospects, particularly when their homes are earmarked for demolition with no further explanation; • CONDER has issued statements designed to demoralise and discredit community leaders, and at times has been involved in physical confrontations with members of the communities; • Some members of the communities have been repeatedly evicted and displaced, which demonstrates a lack of concern for proper resettlement;

Housing Rights in Brazil

• Several houses have been demolished in error; and • When alternative housing is provided, it is often inadequate, with structural defects such as cracked walls and unsafe structural support. Consequently, the communities affected by the Project demand that: • Relevant legal provisions be abided by, including the Constitution of Brazil, the Statute of the City, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; • They be fully consulted throughout the entire process of carrying out the Project; • They be given full access to all relevant information, including that related to eviction and resettlement; • The Project be planned and implemented with the needs of the affected communities foremost, including their being allowed to remain in their homes if they so decide. Where resettlement is absolutely necessary, adequate alternative housing must be provided, including proper infrastructure such as potable water, sewage removal, refuse disposal, and energy for cooking and lighting. There should also be adequate access to educational, health care and recreational facilities, as well as transportation networks. Additionally, the alternative housing must remain affordable for the affected communities; and • Just and fair compensation for all damages resulting from the Project be provided to the affected communities.

e. P a r á

“These are, in the main, murders of carefully and selectively targeted rural activists. For too often, violence is the quick and dirty way for the rural elites to dispose of community and union ‘troublemakers’ who dispute their ‘right’ to maintain thousands of acres of land uncultivated or stripped of all forest for cattle pasture (beef for export), while millions of Brazilians, willing to work on land, remain landless and near virtual starvation in rural poverty or urban slums.” – Human Rights Watch researcher, (reporting on the killing of landless peasants and their advocates)

Housing Rights in Brazil

Pará is situated in the north region, which represents 45.27 per cent of Brazil’s total land area, or some 3 869 637 9 km2. The region has 449 Municipalities. It almost entirely incorporates the Amazon River Basin. Seven States – Acre, Amapá, Amazonas, Pará, Rondônia, Roraima and Tocantins – compose the north region. Its population in 2000 was 7 592 118, of which 57.8 per cent reside in urban areas. Average life expectancy is 67.35 years and the region has the lowest population density in the country, with an average of only 2.92 inhabitants per km2. According to the 2000 census, Pará has a population of 6 189 55058 with 1 279 861 residing in its largest metropolitan area, the City of Belém. The Afro-Brazilian community in the north region of Brazil makes up 71 per cent of that region’s population.59 Additionally, Pará has a slightly higher percentage of indigenous persons than Brazil generally: i.e. over 0.3 per cent of the State’s population. The remainder of the State’s population is 27.8 per cent white and 71.6 per cent AfroBrazilian. Significant disparities exist between Pará and the south-eastern and southern regions of Brazil with respect to the adequacy of housing. This is particularly true in the case of adequate infrastructure such as water supply and sanitation. Though some of this disparity can be explained by the large percentage of Pará’s population living in rural areas, the racial component cannot be ignored. The comparisons in Section 2.a., above, illustrate this point, as although they control for, or take into account, urban and rural settlement, they still indicate gross disparities in housing adequacy that are racially based. Violence over land rights occurs frequently in the State of Pará, and these clashes often involve indigenous peoples. According to the Pastoral Land Commission, 1 532 persons were murdered in rural areas from 1988 to 2001, many in the context of land disputes. The assailants often acted with the apparent acquiescence of the police and other local authorities.60 In most of these cases, those responsible have yet to be brought to justice. Many of these abuses were concentrated in Pará, where the Pastoral Land Commission chronicled six such murders in the four-month period from April to August 2001, with hundreds more imprisoned, and more than 1 500 families forcibly evicted and displaced in military police operations. The majority of the displaced families had been occupying areas of land for more than two years and had registered to take legal title to that land. The southern part of Pará has been particularly affected by violence in the context of land disputes. The Federal Commission of Human Rights reported that private security firms were openly offering their services there as hired killers.61

58 Censo Demográfico 2000. 59 Brazilian Geography and Statistics Institute (IBGE), Research Directorate, Employment and Incomes Department, National Home Sampling Survey. 60 See Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Developments 2002: Brazil (2002); see also Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Brazil (2002). 61 See Amnesty International, Annual Report 2002: Brazil (2002).

Housing Rights in Brazil

Amnesty International reported that on 9 July 2001: José Pinheiro Lima was killed, along with his wife and 15-year-old son, by two gunmen in their house near the town of Marabá, in the south of Pará. He was a leading member of the rural workers trade union in Marabá, which had been acting for 120 families whose legal right to unfarmed land was being contested by a local landowner. Two men suspected of ordering the killings were briefly detained, but were released after a few days. Police investigations had made no further progress by the end of 2001.62 Similarly, in March 1998, two leaders of the Landless Rural Workers’ Movement were murdered in connection with land disputes in Pará, allegedly on the orders of large estate owners.63 Two years earlier, 19 landless peasants were killed in Pará, in what has come to be known as the Eldorado de Carajás massacre, when military police fired into a crowd of some 1 500 landless peasants peacefully demonstrating in support of land reform.64 A total of 149 members of Pará’s military police have been indicted with carrying out the massacre, but for some months following the killings were not relieved of their duties.65 The trial of most of the indicted military police officers continues to be delayed.66 In the same year, four squatter peasants were abducted from the São Francisco estate, near Marabá, and interrogated by armed men about a land occupation there.67 The next day, the four men were shot in the head and left for dead outside the estate.68 The continued attacks on landless peasants, including those from indigenous communities, in the context of land disputes and the call for agrarian reform indicate a pattern of impunity that must be adequately addressed by all levels of government in Brazil. Advocates for the landless movement in Pará, as elsewhere in Brazil, have been placed in socalled preventive detention or convicted on politically motivated criminal charges. For instance, advocates for the landless who attempt to organise themselves have been charged and convicted of “forming criminal gangs.” Many of these convictions have later been overturned, but charges continue to be pressed and advocates continue to be harassed and convicted for such political reasons. Ca s e S t u d y N o . 8 : Pa r t i a l H o u s i n g R i g h t s F u l f i l m e n t Tucunduba Housing Project – developed by the Municipality of Belém The Tucunduba Housing Project aims to manage the Tucunduba River, which runs through Belém and into Tucunduba Bay. Some 100 000 persons reside along the river in areas prone to flooding, 25 000 of them in palafitas which lack potable water, sanitation units and sewage removal. Ninety per cent of the dwellings are considered inadequate. The Project entails sanitising and covering much of the river as well as ensuring proper drainage into the bay. 62 See id. 63 See Amnesty International, Annual Report 1999: Brazil (1999). 64 See Amnesty International, Annual Report 1997: Brazil (1997). 65 See id.; Amnesty International, Annual Report 1998: Brazil (1998). 66 See Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Developments 2002: Brazil (2002). 67 See id. 68 See id.

Housing Rights in Brazil

The first phase, rather than resorting to the construction of an urban canal, will involve an environmentally friendly scheme to rehabilitate the natural flow of the river and reconstruct wetlands along the banks.69 Additionally, urban land will be provided for enterprises providing employment and educational opportunities for the affected community. The entire Project will result in the removal of 1 500 palafitas so that the river can be properly rehabilitated. The first phase, involving 500 families, has not provided for alternative housing, but rather compensation not exceeding R$1 000 per house. Unfortunately, that level of compensation is insufficient for a family to afford adequate alternative housing on the open market. The City of Belém claims that its financial agreement with the Federal Government does not allow for investment in housing. As a compromise, the City Government resorted to providing the abovementioned compensation. Such compensation, however, is neither just nor fair. The Project also involves the Local Devepment Plan (PDL), which entails the resettlement of the Riacho Doce and Pantanal favelas, which are also located along the river. The resettlement will benefit low-income families currently residing in Riacho Doce and Pantanal. In full consultation with the affected residents, the PDL will result in the construction of new housing and urban infrastructure, land regularisation, the provision of community centres, and opportunities for employment and income generation. The detailed planning and implementation of the PDL is monitored and supervised by a Popular Council formed from 98 community organisations. The Federal and Municipal Governments have allotted US$3 025 000 for the PDL. Specifically, the PDL will construct 609 new housing units for 7 600 persons living in at-risk housing. Those currently living in stable housing will benefit from land regularisation, including the provision of security of tenure, the supply of building materials, and the construction of wateramenity modules comprising bathrooms, kitchens and laundry facilities. The community will also benefit from the construction of a sewage treatment plant. The Project has the following aspects that relate to housing rights fulfilment: • The PDL component ensures that the communities of Riacho Doce and Pantanal are fully engaged in the process, as the community and the Municipality share management responsibilities. The direct participation of the beneficiary community is guaranteed during all phases of the project, with collective decisions regarding the project being respected; • The flood-control programme ensures the environmental sustainability of the River Tucunduba by enhancing its economic and leisure potential. In particular, better conditions of navigability and the construction of public spaces for recreation are guaranteed along with job and income generation; and • The flood-control programme will also result in the improvement of residents’ living conditions near Tucunduba Bay. This includes storm and sewage-removal infrastructure, which will prevent flooding and environmental contamination. 69 This project received a CAIXA award as one of the Top Ten Local Management Practices.

Housing Rights in Brazil

Concerns related to this project include the following: • While the resettlement of families currently living in at-risk palafitas is welcomed, it must be carried out in full compliance with Brazil’s international human rights obligations. Specifically, the Federal and Municipal Governments should provide alternative adequate housing, in compliance with General Comment No. 7, as well as just and fair compensation for any damages suffered by the affected community.

Ca s e S t u d y N o . 9 : H o u s i n g R i g h t s V i o l a t i o n

Belo Monte Hydroelectric Dam Project – developed by Eletronorte Company70 The 90-metre waterfalls on the Rio Xingu, located between the cities of Altamira and Vitória do Xingu, have for decades been the focus of tentative government plans to construct a dam and hydroelectric power plant. Based upon the argument that the immense area occupied by the Amazon Forest, 5 million km2, should not remain as a permanent natural reserve, many studies have been undertaken and in 1980 Eletronorte issued a final report entitled Hydroelectric and Hydrographic Study Inventory. This was the first step toward the implementation of CHE Belo Monte (Hydroelectric Complex of Belo Monte). In 1989, social movements, mainly consisting of indigenous peoples supported by national and international entities, organised a social resistance movement that led to a halting of the project as initially envisioned. The Federal Government withdrew its first project draft and subsequently elaborated an alternative project which attempted to address some of civil society’s concerns. This second proposal reduced the area of the reservoir (from 1200 km2 to 400 km2), while maintaining the amount of energy that would be produced. The project, it is claimed, would produce the best hydroelectric power plant in the world, in terms of the size of the reservoir as compared to the amount of energy to be produced. In both versions of the project, however, the impact on the City of Altamira is identical. The reservoir as envisaged will displace some 2 000 families living on the shores of the rivers Ambé and Altamira. Residents in other rural areas are also likely to be affected by the reservoir. Brazil is presently facing an energy crisis and feasible solutions have to be found soon in order to avoid what experts say would otherwise be a major blackout in the near future. It is estimated that the country needs to enhance its energy production capacity by 4 thousand megawatts (MW) per year and the Belo Monte Hydroelectric Complex alone would fulfil that capacity need for three years. Notwithstanding the need for electric power and the modifications to the plan, however, affected communities, indigenous peoples and environmentalists continue to resist the construction of the dam. Even with its reduced size, the reservoir is seen as a great threat to the local 70 Eletronorte Company is a subsidiary of Brazilian Electric Central, the holding company of the Brazilian Electrical Sector, which is responsible for the generation, transmission and distribution of electrical energy in all of northern Brazil.

Housing Rights in Brazil

population as well as to forest preservation. Additionally, many fear that the Project will be the first of a series of dams throughout the hydrographic basin. Consequently, the resistance movement calls for further clarification by Eletronorte, along with full access to the Projectâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s plans and environmental impact study. To date, Eletronorte has failed to provide such access. A coalition of organisations has formed to press for more democratic and transparent processes with respect to the planning of any further dams in the region.71 The failings of previous hydroelectric projects in Brazil, such as Balbino and Tucurui, where the displaced communities are still awaiting the promised compensation, have frequently been cited as examples of why better planning and a more democratic decision-making process are essential. Yet another economic, social and environmental disaster is feared, this time in Altamira. Presently, the Foundation for Research Support and Development (FADESP), commissioned by the Government, is conducting an environmental impact study. Opponents of the dam, however, have challenged the impartiality of FADESP. The opposition organisations have elaborated a development alternative, acknowledging that the area and its population require development, but insisting that such development must occur in a sustainable and just manner, so as to improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of all affected populations. Any further development should only take place in a transparent and democratic manner and in full consultation with the affected communities. Furthermore, the Government of Brazil must ensure that it is in full compliance with its international human rights obligations, including those pursuant to the Covenant, and that it abides by the United Nations Comprehensive Human Rights Guidelines on Development-Based Displacement.

71 In addition to community representatives, these organisations include Foundation Live, Produce and Preserve, The Public Prosecutor, International Rivers Network, The Forum of Eastern Amazon â&#x20AC;&#x201C; FAOR, FASE, national agriculture organisations such as FETAGRI and CONTAG, and the indigenous representatives of COIAB.

Housing Rights in Brazil

Ipiúba Housing Project developed by Bento Rubiás NGO, Rio de Janeiro

4 Housing Rights of Marginalised Groups a. W o m e n The Constitution of Brazil provides in Article 5 that: “All persons are equal before the law, without any distinction whatsoever … [and that] men and women have equal rights and duties under this Constitution.” Full implementation of legislation and policies designed to further equality with respect to women and men has yet to be realised, however. Women constitute 51 per cent of the population of Brazil, yet their representation in the government is severely limited. Only six per cent of the Senate and 14 per cent of the House of Representatives is made up of women. Such a lack of direct representation may in part account for an inadequacy of public policy to address housing needs from a gender perspective. For instance, not until 2001 was sexual harassment characterised as criminal under the Brazilian Criminal Code. Additionally, domestic violence has not been adequately addressed, even though it is the most common form of violence against women in Brazil.72 Indeed, criminal laws protecting persons from sexual and domestic violence have yet to be fully enforced. Such protections are critical in the sphere of housing rights, as women often have to choose between having a house in which to live and being free from sexual harassment by landlords or from domestic violence by family members.

72 See Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Special Report on the Status of Human Rights in Brazil, OAS Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.97, Doc. 29, rev. 1 (29 September 1997).

Housing Rights in Brazil

Afro-Brazilian women suffer a greater degree of economic and social exclusion than do men, and this exclusion affects the housing sphere. For example, Afro-Brazilian women, in both urban and rural areas, are often not considered potential owners of real property or creditworthy. Furthermore, there are few affirmative policies designed to ameliorate past discrimination against Afro-Brazilian women.

b. A f r o - B r a z i l i a n s Brazilians of African descent, known as Afro-Brazilians, make up approximately 43 per cent of the total population of Brazil, whereas they make up around 63 per cent of the population living below the poverty line. Centuries of slavery followed by other forms of entrenched racial discrimination have left their mark on the Afro-Brazilians, who generally suffer from greater degrees of poverty, fewer educational opportunities and access only to the most menial and lowest paying forms of employment. Indeed, according to the UN Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the apparant ethnic and racial cohesion in Brazil conceals substantial inequalities between whites, Indians and Afro-Brazilians, which are exacerbated by the unequal distribution of wealth.73 The Special Rapporteur went on to conclude that what is generally considered to be discrimination on economic or social grounds is actually often “exclusion based on race, colour, descent or ethnic or national origin, aimed an Indians, Blacks and people of mixed parentage.”74 In 2002, Brazil was classified as a country with average human development, ranking 73 in the Human Development Index of the UN Development Programme. When human development indicators are disaggregated according to race, however, they illustrate gross disparities. According to 1999 data, the Afro-Brazilian population ranked at 108, while the white population ranked at 49 in terms of material and social conditions.75 As the thirteenth periodic report by the Government of Brazil to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination conceded: The distribution of the main racial groups in Brazilian territory is unequal … [with] the white population … mostly concentrated in the more developed south and southeast regions of the country… [and the Afro-Brazilian] … population concentrated mainly in the impoverished northeast region.76

73 See Report by Mr Maurice Glèlè-Ahanhanzo, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, on his mission to Brazil, from 6 to 17 June 1995, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1993/20 and 1995/12, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/72/Add.1 at para. 26 (23 January 1995). 74 Ibid. at para. 32. 75 United Nations Human Development Report. 76 Thirteenth Periodic Report of Brazil to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, para. 22, UN Doc. CERD/C/263/Add.10 (22 February 1996) (the report sub-divided the Afro-Brazilian population into “Black,” distributed more evenly, and “Coloured,” by far the largest component of the Afro-Brazilian population and concentrated in the impoverished northeast region).

Housing Rights in Brazil

As examined in greater detail above, the populations of the north and northeast regions are approximately 71 per cent Afro-Brazilian. It is clear from the statistical information provided in the periodic report to the Committee and examined above in Section II.a that investment in housing infrastructure is lacking in these predominately Afro-Brazilian areas. As that information controls for urban and rural settlement, again, a racial explanation for the disparity cannot be ignored. In 1995, the UN Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in his report on his mission to Brazil, found that: The majority of Afro-Brazilians live in unhealthy premises and districts, without sewers, running water or electricity. They make up the majority of the inhabitants of the favelas which are built of makeshift materials on the outskirts of the major cities. Each year, during the rainy season, landslides carry away shacks belonging to poor families in the favelas perched on the hillsides, killing many people, most of whom are Afro-Brazilians. On 31 May 1995 a landslide killed 28 people in the Arraial do Retiro district in Salvador in the State of Bahia. Most homeless people who sleep in the streets of Brazil’s big cities are Black or of mixed parentage.77 Presently, there is an effort to give Afro-Brazilians the right to settle permanently on the lands on which their ancestors lived following escape from, or the abolition of, slavery areas known as quilombos. Such lands, however, are also sought by large land-owners and corporations involved in mineral exploration and exploitation. With the assistance of the Palmares Cultural Foundation of the Ministry of Culture, research is underway to locate and demarcate these lands. Over five hundred Afro-Brazilian communities are stall waiting official recognition of their housing rights in these lands. Once boundaries are established, the Afro-Brazilian communities located there will be granted legal security of tenure. While the land areas involved are small, this move towards land restitution should be encouraged and the lands protected from encroachment by outsiders. One specific development detrimentally affecting the housing rights of Afro-Brazilians involves the planned expansion of the Alcântara space port on the edge of the Amazon. The planned expansion, set to occur after the signing of a bilateral treaty between the Government of Brazil and the Government of the United States of America, will result in the eviction and displacement of several communities of Afro-Brazilians including descendents of escaped slaves who settled the lands more than 200 years ago. Most of these communities live by very traditional means and fear being uprooted from the familiar surroundings that support their way of life. The threatened displacement thus threatens their very survival. One such example is the Canelatiwa settlement, which includes some 160 residents who lack formal deeds to their land, although the community settled there more than 250 years ago. The residents rely on their unique surroundings for everything from housing materials and clothing to food and medicines. Unfortunately, the Government of Brazil seems set on expanding the Alcântara space port, even though doing so would put

77 Report by Mr Maurice Glèlè-Ahanhanzo, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, on his mission to Brazil, from 6 to 17 June 1995, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1993/20 and 1995/12, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/72/Add.1 at para. 49 (23 January 1995).

Housing Rights in Brazil

economic interests before the human rights of the affected communities. Presently, a petition is before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights requesting the Commission to exercise its power to take extraordinary measures in order to prevent these evictions and remedy those that have already taken place.78

c. I n d i g e n o u s P e r s o n s a n d P e o p l e s While the indigenous population of Brazil is relatively small, it does comprise some 552 000 persons. Consisting of 206 distinct groups, the indigenous population is concentrated for the most part in the north region. The State of Amazônia is home to 60 per cent of Brazil’s indigenous population, with another disproportionately large percentage in the State of Pará.79 The Constitution of Brazil provides in Article 22(XIV) that the Federal Government has sole authority to legislate on Indian populations. The Constitution provides further, in Article 231, that indigenous peoples “shall have their native rights to the lands they traditionally occupy,” that “the lands traditionally occupied by Indians are intended for their permanent possession” and that it is “incumbent upon the Republic to demarcate them and protect and ensure respect for all their property.”80 This clause furthers the Government of Brazil’s obligation under the Covenant to adopt legislative and other measures designed to facilitate the respect, protection and fulfilment of the right to adequate housing without discrimination. This clause, however, has not been adequately implemented, and thus the Government of Brazil has failed to fully meet its obligations not only under the Covenant but under its own Constitution as well. Furthermore, the budgeted resources designated to implement the rights of indigenous peoples have been reduced over the years, with a 58 percent reduction between 1995 and 1998 alone. The UN Special Rapporteur on racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance visited Brazil in 1995. In his report on his mission to Brazil, the Special Rapporteur found that indigenous peoples face serious problems of discrimination with respect to land ownership. In particular, he found that encroachment by mineral and timber interests have expropriated large portions of indigenous lands. Such encroachment has led to violence against indigenous persons and land rights advocates, including murders and death threats.81

78 See Samucangaua and other communities (Alcântara Spaceport issue) vs. Brazil and the United States of America, filed with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights on 16 August 2001. 79 Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. 80 Constitution of Brazil, Art. 231. 81 See Report by Mr. Maurice Glèlè-Ahanhanzo, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, on his mission to Brazil, from 6 to 17 June 1995, submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1993/20 and 1995/12, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/72/Add.1 at para. 60 (23 January 1995).

Housing Rights in Brazil

Furthermore, in its thirteenth periodic report to CERD, the Government of Brazil conceded that: Indian lands, rich in timber and animal and mineral resources, are coveted by big mining corporations, prospectors, timber interests, squatters, farmers and traders, and are frequently subject to trespassing. The construction of highways and hydroelectric schemes has also triggered conflict between Indians and whites, besides spreading diseases to which they are peculiarly vulnerable. The struggle to gain control of the riches located in Indian territories has often led to killing on both sides. Disputes involving Indians and prospectors have been a serious problem in the Yanomami territories, in Serra Pelada, in the upper reaches of the River Negro and in the State of Rondônia. According to the Attorney General’s Office, more than 1,000 Yanomamis have been killed since 1975.82 In its Concluding Observations on the tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth periodic reports of the Government of Brazil, issued on 27 September 1996, the Committee for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination expressed its “special concern … about unfair treatment of the indigenous populations during land demarcation and distribution, the violent and unlawful means used to settle numerous land disputes, and the violence and intimidation used against them by private militias and even occasionally by members of the military police.”83 CERD went on to expressly voice its concern about the inadequate social protection of, and discrimination suffered by, indigenous persons and peoples with respect to access to housing. Unfortunately, such discrimination against indigenous persons and peoples continues. The situations considered by the Special Rapporteur in 1995 and by CERD in 1996 have not been ameliorated, as indigenous peoples have yet to fully realise their housing and land rights as guaranteed under both the Covenant and domestic laws of Brazil. Many have also been demanding political reform so as to create a more participatory and democratic model, and thereby allow them to better enforce their human rights. Violence against indigenous peoples, particularly over land disputes, has not abated, and they continue to be forcibly evicted, moved off their land, threatened or killed. According to a report released by Guarani leaders, in November 2000 members of the Guarani community were fired on by police allegedly hired by a cattle rancher who had taken over their land.84 Among those injured was a baby, who was hit in the head by a rubber bullet.85 In February, the then-president of the Human Rights Committee of the Chamber of Representatives, Marcos Rolim, reported several cases of alleged sexual abuse by army soldiers against Yanomami women in the Surucucus region of the Amazon.86

82 Thirteenth Periodic Report of Brazil to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, para. 22, UN Doc. CERD/C/263/Add.10 (22 February 1996). 83 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations: Brazil, UN Doc. CERD/C/304/Add.11, at para. 14 (27 September 1996). 84 Human Rights Watch, Human Rights Developments 2002: Brazil (2002). 85 Id. 86 Id.

Housing Rights in Brazil

COHRE Fact-finding mission to the São Pedro Residences Project, Rio Grande do Sul

In 2001 alone, at least ten indigenous people were killed by police or by gunmen hired by landowners, acting with the knowledge or acquiescence of the authorities.87 In one case, Francisco de Assis Santana, a Chief of the Xucuru tribe, was killed on 23 April 2001 while on his way to meet with FUNAI (the Government’s office for indigenous affairs).88 His murder was in connection with his struggles for Xucuru land rights in the territory demarcated as an official reserve in April 2001, and he was to discuss the indemnity payments to be made to local landowners whose land was demarcated as indigenous land.89 It is suspected that a local landowner, responsible for the killing of an indigenous leader in May 1998, was also responsible for the murder of Francisco de Assis Santana.90 On 13 January 2000, some fifty armed assailants in military uniform attacked the village of Potrero Guaçu in an attempt to clear the land of its inhabitants.91 The assailants forcibly evicted thirty-five indigenous families and destroyed their homes by setting them on fire.92 According to reports, they raped several of the women and beat many of the villagers, including a two year-old infant.93 The community has since returned to their land but continues to receive threats.94

87 See Amnesty International, Annual Report 2001: Brazil (2001). 88 Id. 89 Id. 90 Id. 91 See Amnesty International, Annual Report 2001: Brazil (2001). 92 Id. 93 Id. 94 Id.

Housing Rights in Brazil

Conclusions

1. Beneficial housing policies exist in certain administrative sub-divisions while such policies are sorely lacking in others. In addition to these discrepancies there are racially-based disparities, particularly with respect to Afro-Brazilians and indigenous persons and peoples. 2. Brazil is politically sub-divided using a federal model, with 26 States and one Federal District. One of the theories in support of the federal model proclaims that the various administrative sub-divisions will act as laboratories of democracy, whereby they can experiment with various legal, regulatory and policy regimes in order to identify which regimes provide the most benefit at the least cost for the respective population. One of the key drawbacks of the federal model, however, is known as the “race to the bottom” phenomenon. The “race to the bottom” involves administrative sub-divisions controlled by elites which complete for capital investment by allowing greater degrees of exploitation of the subdivision’s population by business interests. Encouraging such exploitation often entails enacting tax, legal, regulatory and policy regimes that provide far less economic and social benefits and protections, in particular those related to the housing sphere. 3. The Federal Government of Brazil is obligated, both under Articles 2(1) and 11(1) of the Covenant and Article 21(XX) of its own Constitution, to ensure that the benefits of its federal system are fully realised and that the detriment and dangers of such a system are controlled and ameliorated to the fullest extent possible. Specifically, the Federal Government of Brazil is obligated to ensure that those housing policy models which have been determined to advance the right to adequate housing should be required by federal legislation to be replicated in all States in order to create the highest attainable enjoyment of the right to adequate housing throughout the country. Indeed, such legislation should be considered a minimum core obligation of the Government of Brazil pursuant to the Covenant. 4. The Covenant requires States Parties, irrespective of the system through which international law is incorporated in the domestic legal order, to give the provisions of the Covenant full effect in the domestic legal order. 5. The Government of Brazil has failed to adequately provide housing subsidies as a means of ameliorating the housing deficit suffered by the poorer segments of society, while the production of homes by the Government has declined over the past fifteen years.

Housing Rights in Brazil

Recommendations

1. The Government of Brazil, in its domestic legislation, should expressly guarantee the right to adequate housing. 2. The Government of Brazil should ensure that the benefits of its federal system are fully realised and that the detriment and dangers of such a system are controlled and ameliorated to the fullest extent possible. Specifically, the Government of Brazil should require that those housing policy models which have been determined to advance the right to adequate housing be replicated in all States in order to create the highest attainable enjoyment of the right to adequate housing throughout the country. 3. The Government of Brazil should ensure that economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to adequate housing, are incorporated into national domestic legislation and made justiciable. 4. The Secretary of State for Human Rights should be given powers to deal with all human rights issues, including economic, social and cultural rights. 5. The Government of Brazil should adopt fair and equitable solutions for the demarcation, distribution and restitution of land. To that end, where land disputes are concerned, everything possible should be done to prevent discrimination, including protection from violence perpetrated by land-owners against women, indigenous persons, Afro-Brazilians, mestizos or others. 6. Those responsible for violence and other crimes against women, indigenous persons, AfroBrazilians, mestizos, human-rights defenders, the landless or others attempting to protect or enforce their human rights, including their right to adequate housing, should be brought to justice. 7. The Government of Brazil should ratify ILO Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries. 8. The Government of Brazil should adopt and fully implement affirmative or positive measures designed to ameliorate the present disparities including those resulting from Brazilâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s history of colonisation against indigenous peoples and the enslavement of Afro-Brazilians. 9. The Government of Brazil should ensure that housing subsidies adequately deal with the housing deficit caused by a lack of affordability and should increase Government production of homes in order to ameliorate the housing deficit.

Housing Rights in Brazil

10. The Government of Brazil should strive to submit its periodic reports to the Committee in a timely manner. 11. The Government of Brazil should fully implement the National Policy on Housing of 1995 in all areas under its jurisdiction based on the Popular Initiative Bill currently being considered by the Chamber of Representatives.. 12. The Government of Brazil should fully implement the Statute of the City (Federal Law No. 10 257 of 10 July 2001) as well as Provisional Measure No. 2 220 of 4 September 2001 in all areas under its jurisdiction. 13. The Government of Brazil should fully implement the Land Statute (Federal Law No. 4 504/64) in all areas under its jurisdiction and should repeal Provisional Order No. 2 207 as it results in a retrogressive measure. 14. The Government of Brazil should provide access to credit and housing financing to the lowincome population, including credit and financing for all phases of the production process such as land acquisition, urbanisation, construction, housing repair and expansion, renovation of single and multi-family buildings and land regularisation. 15. The Government of Brazil should adopt democratic participation mechanisms with respect to housing policies, including mechanisms such as participatory budgeting, sector councils, bills of popular initiative, and public hearings and conferences.

Housing Rights in Brazil

Annexes

ANNEX 1 Statement of the President of the Favela Vila São Pedro Dwellers Association, Porto Alegre, to COHRE on 7 January 2003 [The President of the Dweller’s Association of Vila São Pedro, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, issued the following statement to COHRE which was delivered to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in May 2003. The President spoke in the context of the São Pedro Residences Project (see Case Study No. 5) which is being carried out by the Government of Rio Grande do Sul. He was concerned that the new Government of Rio Grande do Sul, which came to power in late 2002, may not follow through with its committments.] Mr Ancelmo Selvino Machado, President of the Dweller’s Association of Vila São Pedro, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil sends the following message to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights regarding the housing rights of the families dwelling in the area: That the new government must conclude the work in the first phase of the project that has already been contracted and is ongoing at the present moment; That the beneficiary families receive immediately the special concession for housing purposes as provided in the Statute of the City; That the new government implement the land regularization process and the urbanising plan in the remainder of the community that has yet to benefit from the first phase of the project, in order to guarantee the right to housing for another 277 families; That our housing rights be ensured with security and quality of life for the dwellers, to which end we demand proper procedures from the responsible authorities; That a means of communication for the community to express their requests be established between the dwellers and the new government of Rio Grande do Sul.

Mr Ancelmo Selvino Machado President of the Dweller’s Association of Vila São Pedro

Housing Rights in Brazil

ANNEX 2 G e n e r a l Co m m e n t N o . 4 o n T h e R i g h t t o A d e q u a te H o u s i n g The right to adequate housing (Art. 11 (1) of the Covenant): 12 December 1991 United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment 4 1. Pursuant to article 11 (1) of the Covenant, States parties â&#x20AC;&#x153;recognise the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditionsâ&#x20AC;?. The human right to adequate housing, which is thus derived from the right to an adequate standard of living, is of central importance for the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights. 2. The Committee has been able to accumulate a large amount of information pertaining to this right. Since 1979, the Committee and its predecessors have examined 75 reports dealing with the right to adequate housing. The Committee has also devoted a day of general discussion to the issue at each of its third (see E/1989/22, para. 312) and fourth sessions (E/1990/23, paras. 281285). In addition, the Committee has taken careful note of information generated by the International Year of Shelter for the Homeless (1987) including the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000 adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 42/191 of 11 December 1987.a The Committee has also reviewed relevant reports and other documentation of the Commission on Human Rights and the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.b 3. Although a wide variety of international instruments address the different dimensions of the right to adequate housingc article 11 (1) of the Covenant is the most comprehensive and perhaps the most important of the relevant provisions. 4. Despite the fact that the international community has frequently reaffirmed the importance of full respect for the right to adequate housing, there remains a disturbingly large gap between the standards set in article 11 (1) of the Covenant and the situation prevailing in many parts of the world. While the problems are often particularly acute in some developing countries which confront major resource and other constraints, the Committee observes that significant problems of homelessness and inadequate housing also exist in some of the most economically developed societies. The United Nations estimates that there are over 100 million persons homeless worldwide and over 1 billion inadequately housed.d There is no indication that this number is decreasing. It seems clear that no State party is free of significant problems of one kind or another in relation to the right to housing.

Housing Rights in Brazil

5. In some instances, the reports of States parties examined by the Committee have acknowledged and described difficulties in ensuring the right to adequate housing. For the most part, however, the information provided has been insufficient to enable the Committee to obtain an adequate picture of the situation prevailing in the State concerned. This General Comment thus aims to identify some of the principal issues which the Committee considers to be important in relation to this right. 6. The right to adequate housing applies to everyone. While the reference to “himself and his family” reflects assumptions as to gender roles and economic activity patterns commonly accepted in 1966 when the Covenant was adopted, the phrase cannot be read today as implying any limitations upon the applicability of the right to individuals or to female-headed households or other such groups. Thus, the concept of “family” must be understood in a wide sense. Further, individuals, as well as families, are entitled to adequate housing regardless of age, economic status, group or other affiliation or status and other such factors. In particular, enjoyment of this right must, in accordance with article 2 (2) of the Covenant, not be subject to any form of discrimination. 7. In the Committee’s view, the right to housing should not be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive sense which equates it with, for example, the shelter provided by merely having a roof over one’s head or views shelter exclusively as a commodity. Rather it should be seen as the right to live somewhere in security, peace and dignity. This is appropriate for at least two reasons. In the first place, the right to housing is integrally linked to other human rights and to the fundamental principles upon which the Covenant is premised. This “the inherent dignity of the human person” from which the rights in the Covenant are said to derive requires that the term “housing” be interpreted so as to take account of a variety of other considerations, most importantly that the right to housing should be ensured to all persons irrespective of income or access to economic resources. Secondly, the reference in article 11 (1) must be read as referring not just to housing but to adequate housing. As both the Commission on Human Settlements and the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000 have stated: “Adequate shelter means ... adequate privacy, adequate space, adequate security, adequate lighting and ventilation, adequate basic infrastructure and adequate location with regard to work and basic facilities - all at a reasonable cost”. 8. Thus the concept of adequacy is particularly significant in relation to the right to housing since it serves to underline a number of factors which must be taken into account in determining whether particular forms of shelter can be considered to constitute “adequate housing” for the purposes of the Covenant. While adequacy is determined in part by social, economic, cultural, climatic, ecological and other factors, the Committee believes that it is nevertheless possible to identify certain aspects of the right that must be taken into account for this purpose in any particular context. They include the following: (a) Legal security of tenure. Tenure takes a variety of forms, including rental (public and private) accommodation, cooperative housing, lease, owner-occupation, emergency housing and informal settlements, including occupation of land or property. Notwithstanding the type of tenure, all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats. States parties should conse-

Housing Rights in Brazil

quently take immediate measures aimed at conferring legal security of tenure upon those persons and households currently lacking such protection, in genuine consultation with affected persons and groups; (b) Availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure. An adequate house must contain certain facilities essential for health, security, comfort and nutrition. All beneficiaries of the right to adequate housing should have sustainable access to natural and common resources, safe drinking water, energy for cooking, heating and lighting, sanitation and washing facilities, means of food storage, refuse disposal, site drainage and emergency services; (c) Affordability. Personal or household financial costs associated with housing should be at such a level that the attainment and satisfaction of other basic needs are not threatened or compromised. Steps should be taken by States parties to ensure that the percentage of housing-related costs is, in general, commensurate with income levels. States parties should establish housing subsidies for those unable to obtain affordable housing, as well as forms and levels of housing finance which adequately reflect housing needs. In accordance with the principle of affordability, tenants should be protected by appropriate means against unreasonable rent levels or rent increases. In societies where natural materials constitute the chief sources of building materials for housing, steps should be taken by States parties to ensure the availability of such materials; (d) Habitability. Adequate housing must be habitable, in terms of providing the inhabitants with adequate space and protecting them from cold, damp, heat, rain, wind or other threats to health, structural hazards, and disease vectors. The physical safety of occupants must be guaranteed as well. The Committee encourages States parties to comprehensively apply the Health Principles of Housing e prepared by WHO which view housing as the environmental factor most frequently associated with conditions for disease in epidemiological analyses; i.e. inadequate and deficient housing and living conditions are invariably associated with higher mortality and morbidity rates; (e) Accessibility. Adequate housing must be accessible to those entitled to it. Disadvantaged groups must be accorded full and sustainable access to adequate housing resources. Thus, such disadvantaged groups as the elderly, children, the physically disabled, the terminally ill, HIV-positive individuals, persons with persistent medical problems, the mentally ill, victims of natural disasters, people living in disaster-prone areas and other groups should be ensured some degree of priority consideration in the housing sphere. Both housing law and policy should take fully into account the special housing needs of these groups. Within many States parties increasing access to land by landless or impoverished segments of the society should constitute a central policy goal. Discernible governmental obligations need to be developed aiming to substantiate the right of all to a secure place to live in peace and dignity, including access to land as an entitlement; (f) Location. Adequate housing must be in a location which allows access to employment options, health-care services, schools, child-care centres and other social facilities. This is true both in large cities and in rural areas where the temporal and financial costs of getting to

Housing Rights in Brazil

and from the place of work can place excessive demands upon the budgets of poor households. Similarly, housing should not be built on polluted sites nor in immediate proximity to pollution sources that threaten the right to health of the inhabitants; (g) Cultural adequacy. The way housing is constructed, the building materials used and the policies supporting these must appropriately enable the expression of cultural identity and diversity of housing. Activities geared towards development or modernisation in the housing sphere should ensure that the cultural dimensions of housing are not sacrificed, and that, inter alia, modern technological facilities, as appropriate are also ensured. 9. As noted above, the right to adequate housing cannot be viewed in isolation from other human rights contained in the two International Covenants and other applicable international instruments. Reference has already been made in this regard to the concept of human dignity and the principle of non-discrimination. In addition, the full enjoyment of other rights - such as the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of association (such as for tenants and other community-based groups), the right to freedom of residence and the right to participate in public decision-making - is indispensable if the right to adequate housing is to be realised and maintained by all groups in society. Similarly, the right not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s privacy, family, home or correspondence constitutes a very important dimension in defining the right to adequate housing. 10. Regardless of the state of development of any country, there are certain steps which must be taken immediately. As recognised in the Global Strategy for Shelter and in other international analyses, many of the measures required to promote the right to housing would only require the abstention by the Government from certain practices and a commitment to facilitating â&#x20AC;&#x153;self-helpâ&#x20AC;? by affected groups. To the extent that any such steps are considered to be beyond the maximum resources available to a State party, it is appropriate that a request be made as soon as possible for international cooperation in accordance with articles 11 (1), 22 and 23 of the Covenant, and that the Committee be informed thereof. 11. States parties must give due priority to those social groups living in unfavourable conditions by giving them particular consideration. Policies and legislation should correspondingly not be designed to benefit already advantaged social groups at the expense of others. The Committee is aware that external factors can affect the right to a continuous improvement of living conditions, and that in many States parties overall living conditions declined during the 1980s. However, as noted by the Committee in its General Comment 2 (1990) (E/1990/23, annex III), despite externally caused problems, the obligations under the Covenant continue to apply and are perhaps even more pertinent during times of economic contraction. It would thus appear to the Committee that a general decline in living and housing conditions, directly attributable to policy and legislative decisions by States parties, and in the absence of accompanying compensatory measures, would be inconsistent with the obligations under the Covenant. 12. While the most appropriate means of achieving the full realisation of the right to adequate housing will inevitably vary significantly from one State party to another, the Covenant clearly requires that each State party take whatever steps are necessary for that purpose. This will almost

Housing Rights in Brazil

invariably require the adoption of a national housing strategy which, as stated in paragraph 32 of the Global Strategy for Shelter, “defines the objectives for the development of shelter conditions, identifies the resources available to meet these goals and the most cost-effective way of using them and sets out the responsibilities and time-frame for the implementation of the necessary measures”. Both for reasons of relevance and effectiveness, as well as in order to ensure respect for other human rights, such a strategy should reflect extensive genuine consultation with, and participation by, all of those affected, including the homeless, the inadequately housed and their representatives. Furthermore, steps should be taken to ensure coordination between ministries and regional and local authorities in order to reconcile related policies (economics, agriculture, environment, energy, etc.) with the obligations under article 11 of the Covenant. 13. Effective monitoring of the situation with respect to housing is another obligation of immediate effect. For a State party to satisfy its obligations under article 11 (1) it must demonstrate, inter alia, that it has taken whatever steps are necessary, either alone or on the basis of international cooperation, to ascertain the full extent of homelessness and inadequate housing within its jurisdiction. In this regard, the revised general guidelines regarding the form and contents of reports adopted by the Committee (E/C.12/1991/1) emphasise the need to “provide detailed information about those groups within ... society that are vulnerable and disadvantaged with regard to housing”. They include, in particular, homeless persons and families, those inadequately housed and without ready access to basic amenities, those living in “illegal” settlements, those subject to forced evictions and low-income groups. 14. Measures designed to satisfy a State party’s obligations in respect of the right to adequate housing may reflect whatever mix of public and private sector measures considered appropriate. While in some States public financing of housing might most usefully be spent on direct construction of new housing, in most cases, experience has shown the inability of Governments to fully satisfy housing deficits with publicly built housing. The promotion by States parties of “enabling strategies”, combined with a full commitment to obligations under the right to adequate housing, should thus be encouraged. In essence, the obligation is to demonstrate that, in aggregate, the measures being taken are sufficient to realise the right for every individual in the shortest possible time in accordance with the maximum of available resources. 15. Many of the measures that will be required will involve resource allocations and policy initiatives of a general kind. Nevertheless, the role of formal legislative and administrative measures should not be underestimated in this context. The Global Strategy for Shelter (paras. 66-67) has drawn attention to the types of measures that might be taken in this regard and to their importance. 16. In some States, the right to adequate housing is constitutionally entrenched. In such cases the Committee is particularly interested in learning of the legal and practical significance of such an approach. Details of specific cases and of other ways in which entrenchment has proved helpful should thus be provided. 17. The Committee views many component elements of the right to adequate housing as being at least consistent with the provision of domestic legal remedies. Depending on the legal system,

Housing Rights in Brazil

such areas might include, but are not limited to: (a) legal appeals aimed at preventing planned evictions or demolitions through the issuance of court-ordered injunctions; (b) legal procedures seeking compensation following an illegal eviction; (c) complaints against illegal actions carried out or supported by landlords (whether public or private) in relation to rent levels, dwelling maintenance, and racial or other forms of discrimination; (d) allegations of any form of discrimination in the allocation and availability of access to housing; and (e) complaints against landlords concerning unhealthy or inadequate housing conditions. In some legal systems it would also be appropriate to explore the possibility of facilitating class action suits in situations involving significantly increased levels of homelessness. 18. In this regard, the Committee considers that instances of forced eviction are prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the Covenant and can only be justified in the most exceptional circumstances, and in accordance with the relevant principles of international law. 19. Finally, article 11 (1) concludes with the obligation of States parties to recognise “the essential importance of international cooperation based on free consent”. Traditionally, less than 5 per cent of all international assistance has been directed towards housing or human settlements, and often the manner by which such funding is provided does little to address the housing needs of disadvantaged groups. States parties, both recipients and providers, should ensure that a substantial proportion of financing is devoted to creating conditions leading to a higher number of persons being adequately housed. International financial institutions promoting measures of structural adjustment should ensure that such measures do not compromise the enjoyment of the right to adequate housing. States parties should, when contemplating international financial cooperation, seek to indicate areas relevant to the right to adequate housing where external financing would have the most effect. Such requests should take full account of the needs and views of the affected groups.

* Contained in document E/1992/23. a Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-third Session, Supplement No. 8, addendum (A/43/8/Add.1). b Commission on Human Rights resolutions 1986/36 and 1987/22; reports by Mr Danilo Türk, Special Rapporteur of the SubCommission (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1990/19, paras. 108-120; E/CN.4/Sub.2/1991/17, paras. 137-139); see also Sub-Commission resolution 1991/26. c See, for example, article 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, article 5 (e) (iii) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, article 14 (2) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, article 27 (3) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, article 10 of the Declaration on Social Progress and Development, section III (8) of the Vancouver Declaration on Human Settlements, 1976 (Report of Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements (United Nations publication, Sales No. E.76.IV.7 and corrigendum), chap. I), article 8 (1) of the Declaration on the Right to Development and the ILO Recommendation Concerning Workers’ Housing, 1961 (No. 115). d See footnote a. e Geneva, World Health Organization, 1990.

Housing Rights in Brazil

ANNEX 3 G e n e r a l Co m m e n t N o . 7 o n Fo rce d Ev i c t i o n s The right to adequate housing (Art.11.1): forced evictions: 20 May 1997 United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment 7 1. In its General Comment No. 4 (1991), the Committee observed that all persons should possess a degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced eviction, harassment and other threats. It concluded that forced evictions are prima facie incompatible with the requirements of the Covenant. Having considered a significant number of reports of forced evictions in recent years, including instances in which it has determined that the obligations of States parties were being violated, the Committee is now in a position to seek to provide further clarification as to the implications of such practices in terms of the obligations contained in the Covenant. 2. The international community has long recognised that the issue of forced evictions is a serious one. In 1976, the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements noted that special attention should be paid to “undertaking major clearance operations should take place only when conservation and rehabilitation are not feasible and relocation measures are made”. In 1988, in the Global Strategy for Shelter to the Year 2000, adopted by the General Assembly in its resolution 43/181, the “fundamental obligation [of Governments] to protect and improve houses and neighbourhoods, rather than damage or destroy them” was recognised. Agenda 21 stated that “people should be protected by law against unfair eviction from their homes or land”. In the Habitat Agenda Governments committed themselves to “protecting all people from, and providing legal protection and redress for, forced evictions that are contrary to the law, taking human rights into consideration; [and] when evictions are unavoidable, ensuring, as appropriate, that alternative suitable solutions are provided”. The Commission on Human Rights has also indicated that “forced evictions are a gross violation of human rights”. However, although these statements are important, they leave open one of the most critical issues, namely that of determining the circumstances under which forced evictions are permissible and of spelling out the types of protection required to ensure respect for the relevant provisions of the Covenant. 3. The use of the term “forced evictions” is, in some respects, problematic. This expression seeks to convey a sense of arbitrariness and of illegality. To many observers, however, the reference to “forced evictions” is a tautology, while others have criticised the expression “illegal evictions” on the ground that it assumes that the relevant law provides adequate protection of the right to housing and conforms with the Covenant, which is by no means always the case. Similarly, it has been suggested that the term “unfair evictions” is even more subjective by virtue of its failure to refer to any legal framework at all. The international community, especially in the context of the Commission on Human Rights, has opted to refer to “forced evictions”, primarily since all sug-

Housing Rights in Brazil

gested alternatives also suffer from many such defects. The term “forced evictions” as used throughout this general comment is defined as the permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/or communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection. The prohibition on forced evictions does not, however, apply to evictions carried out by force in accordance with the law and in conformity with the provisions of the International Covenants on Human Rights. 4. The practice of forced evictions is widespread and affects persons in both developed and developing countries. Owing to the interrelationship and interdependency which exist among all human rights, forced evictions frequently violate other human rights. Thus, while manifestly breaching the rights enshrined in the Covenant, the practice of forced evictions may also result in violations of civil and political rights, such as the right to life, the right to security of the person, the right to non-interference with privacy, family and home and the right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions. 5. Although the practice of forced evictions might appear to occur primarily in heavily populated urban areas, it also takes place in connection with forced population transfers, internal displacement, forced relocations in the context of armed conflict, mass exoduses and refugee movements. In all of these contexts, the right to adequate housing and not to be subjected to forced eviction may be violated through a wide range of acts or omissions attributable to States parties. Even in situations where it may be necessary to impose limitations on such a right, full compliance with article 4 of the Covenant is required so that any limitations imposed must be “determined by law only insofar as this may be compatible with the nature of these [i.e. economic, social and cultural] rights and solely for the purpose of promoting the general welfare in a democratic society”. 6. Many instances of forced eviction are associated with violence, such as evictions resulting from international armed conflicts, internal strife and communal or ethnic violence. 7. Other instances of forced eviction occur in the name of development. Evictions may be carried out in connection with conflict over land rights, development and infrastructure projects, such as the construction of dams or other large-scale energy projects, with land acquisition measures associated with urban renewal, housing renovation, city beautification programmes, the clearing of land for agricultural purposes, unbridled speculation in land, or the holding of major sporting events like the Olympic Games. 8. In essence, the obligations of States parties to the Covenant in relation to forced evictions are based on article 11.1, read in conjunction with other relevant provisions. In particular, article 2.1 obliges States to use “all appropriate means” to promote the right to adequate housing. However, in view of the nature of the practice of forced evictions, the reference in article 2.1 to progressive achievement based on the availability of resources will rarely be relevant. The State itself must refrain from forced evictions and ensure that the law is enforced against its agents or third parties who carry out forced evictions (as defined in paragraph 3 above). Moreover, this approach is reinforced by article 17.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Housing Rights in Brazil

which complements the right not to be forcefully evicted without adequate protection. That provision recognises, inter alia, the right to be protected against “arbitrary or unlawful interference” with one’s home. It is to be noted that the State’s obligation to ensure respect for that right is not qualified by considerations relating to its available resources. 9. Article 2.1 of the Covenant requires States parties to use “all appropriate means”, including the adoption of legislative measures, to promote all the rights protected under the Covenant. Although the Committee has indicated in its General Comment No. 3 (1990) that such measures may not be indispensable in relation to all rights, it is clear that legislation against forced evictions is an essential basis upon which to build a system of effective protection. Such legislation should include measures which (a) provide the greatest possible security of tenure to occupiers of houses and land, (b) conform to the Covenant and (c) are designed to control strictly the circumstances under which evictions may be carried out. The legislation must also apply to all agents acting under the authority of the State or who are accountable to it. Moreover, in view of the increasing trend in some States towards the Government greatly reducing its responsibilities in the housing sector, States parties must ensure that legislative and other measures are adequate to prevent and, if appropriate, punish forced evictions carried out, without appropriate safeguards, by private persons or bodies. States parties should therefore review relevant legislation and policies to ensure that they are compatible with the obligations arising from the right to adequate housing and repeal or amend any legislation or policies that are inconsistent with the requirements of the Covenant. 10. Women, children, youth, older persons, indigenous people, ethnic and other minorities, and other vulnerable individuals and groups all suffer disproportionately from the practice of forced eviction. Women in all groups are especially vulnerable given the extent of statutory and other forms of discrimination which often apply in relation to property rights (including home ownership) or rights of access to property or accommodation, and their particular vulnerability to acts of violence and sexual abuse when they are rendered homeless. The non-discrimination provisions of articles 2.2 and 3 of the Covenant impose an additional obligation upon Governments to ensure that, where evictions do occur, appropriate measures are taken to ensure that no form of discrimination is involved. 11. Whereas some evictions may be justifiable, such as in the case of persistent non-payment of rent or of damage to rented property without any reasonable cause, it is incumbent upon the relevant authorities to ensure that they are carried out in a manner warranted by a law which is compatible with the Covenant and that all the legal recourses and remedies are available to those affected. 12. Forced eviction and house demolition as a punitive measure are also inconsistent with the norms of the Covenant. Likewise, the Committee takes note of the obligations enshrined in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Protocols thereto of 1977 concerning prohibitions on the displacement of the civilian population and the destruction of private property as these relate to the practice of forced eviction.

Housing Rights in Brazil

13. States parties shall ensure, prior to carrying out any evictions, and particularly those involving large groups, that all feasible alternatives are explored in consultation with the affected persons, with a view to avoiding, or at least minimising, the need to use force. Legal remedies or procedures should be provided to those who are affected by eviction orders. States parties shall also see to it that all the individuals concerned have a right to adequate compensation for any property, both personal and real, which is affected. In this respect, it is pertinent to recall article 2.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which requires States parties to ensure “an effective remedy” for persons whose rights have been violated and the obligation upon the “competent authorities (to) enforce such remedies when granted”. 14. In cases where eviction is considered to be justified, it should be carried out in strict compliance with the relevant provisions of international human rights law and in accordance with general principles of reasonableness and proportionality. In this regard it is especially pertinent to recall General Comment 16 of the Human Rights Committee, relating to article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that interference with a person’s home can only take place “in cases envisaged by the law”. The Committee observed that the law “should be in accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant and should be, in any event, reasonable in the particular circumstances”. The Committee also indicated that “relevant legislation must specify in detail the precise circumstances in which such interferences may be permitted”. 15. Appropriate procedural protection and due process are essential aspects of all human rights but are especially pertinent in relation to a matter such as forced evictions which directly invokes a large number of the rights recognised in both the International Covenants on Human Rights. The Committee considers that the procedural protections which should be applied in relation to forced evictions include: (a) an opportunity for genuine consultation with those affected; (b) adequate and reasonable notice for all affected persons prior to the scheduled date of eviction; (c) information on the proposed evictions, and, where applicable, on the alternative purpose for which the land or housing is to be used, to be made available in reasonable time to all those affected; (d) especially where groups of people are involved, government officials or their representatives to be present during an eviction; (e) all persons carrying out the eviction to be properly identified; (f) evictions not to take place in particularly bad weather or at night unless the affected persons consent otherwise; (g) provision of legal remedies; and (h) provision, where possible, of legal aid to persons who are in need of it to seek redress from the courts. 16. Evictions should not result in individuals being rendered homeless or vulnerable to the violation of other human rights. Where those affected are unable to provide for themselves, the State party must take all appropriate measures, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that adequate alternative housing, resettlement or access to productive land, as the case may be, is available. 17. The Committee is aware that various development projects financed by international agencies within the territories of State parties have resulted in forced evictions. In this regard, the Committee recalls its General Comment No. 2 (1990) which states, inter alia, that “international agencies should scrupulously avoid involvement in projects which, for example ... promote or

Housing Rights in Brazil

reinforce discrimination against individuals or groups contrary to the provisions of the Covenant, or involve large-scale evictions or displacement of persons without the provision of all appropriate protection and compensation. Every effort should be made, at each phase of a development project, to ensure that the rights contained in the Covenant are duly taken into account”. 18. Some institutions, such as the World Bank and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) have adopted guidelines on relocation and/or resettlement with a view to limiting the scale of and human suffering associated with forced evictions. Such practices often accompany large-scale development projects, such as dam-building and other major energy projects. Full respect for such guidelines, insofar as they reflect the obligations contained in the Covenant, is essential on the part of both the agencies themselves and States parties to the Covenant. The Committee recalls in this respect the statement in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action to the effect that “while development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognised human rights” (Part I, para. 10). 19. In accordance with the guidelines for reporting adopted by the Committee, State parties are requested to provide various types of information pertaining directly to the practice of forced evictions. This includes information relating to (a) the “number of persons evicted within the last five years and the number of persons currently lacking legal protection against arbitrary eviction or any other kind of eviction”, (b) “legislation concerning the rights of tenants to security of tenure, to protection from eviction” and (c) “legislation prohibiting any form of eviction”. 20. Information is also sought as to “measures taken during, inter alia, urban renewal programmes, redevelopment projects, site upgrading, preparation for international events (Olympics and other sporting competitions, exhibitions, conferences, etc.) ‘beautiful city’ campaigns, etc. which guarantee protection from eviction or guarantee rehousing based on mutual consent, by any persons living on or near to affected sites”. However, few States parties have included the requisite information in their reports to the Committee. The Committee therefore wishes to emphasise the importance it attaches to the receipt of such information. 21. Some States parties have indicated that information of this nature is not available. The Committee recalls that effective monitoring of the right to adequate housing, either by the Government concerned or by the Committee, is not possible in the absence of the collection of appropriate data and would request all States parties to ensure that the necessary data is collected and is reflected in the reports submitted by them under the Covenant.

Housing Rights in Brazil

ANNEX 4 Comprehensive Human Rights Guidelines on Development-Based Displacement The Practice of Forced Evictions: Comprehensive Human Rights Guidelines on Development-Based Displacement Adopted by the Expert Seminar on the Practice of Forced Evictions Geneva, Switzerland, 11-13 June 1997 P re a m b l e Recalling the human rights standards established pursuant to the International Bill of Human Rights, Whereas many international treaties, resolutions, decisions, general comments, judgments and other texts have recognised and reaffirmed that forced evictions constitute violations of a wide range of internationally recognised human rights, Recalling Economic and Social Council decision 1996/290, Commission on Human Rights Resolution 1993/77, and Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities resolution 1996/27, Reaffirming that under international law every State has the obligation to respect and ensure respect for human rights and humanitarian law, including obligations to prevent violations, to investigate violations, to take appropriate action against violators, and to afford remedies and reparation to victims, Reaffirming that development is a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process, which aims at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom, Whereas the Vienna Declaration and Plan of Action stipulated that while development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgment of internationally recognised human rights, Recognizing the widespread nature of the practice of forced evictions and that when forced evictions are carried out this can occur in a variety of contexts including but not limited to conflicts over land rights, development and infrastructure projects, such as the construction of dams or other large-scale energy projects, land acquisition measures associated with urban renewal, housing renovation, city beautification programmes, the clearing of land for agricultural purposes or macro-urban projects, unbridled speculation in land, and the holding of major international events such as the Olympic Games,

Housing Rights in Brazil

Conscious that forced evictions intensify social conflict and inequality and invariably affect the poorest, most socially, economically, and vulnerable sectors of society, specifically women, children, and indigenous peoples, Conscious also of guidelines developed by international financial and other institutions on involuntary displacement and resettlement, Resolved to protect human rights and prevent violations due to the practice of forced evictions, S e c t i o n o n e : B a ck g ro u n d I s s u e s Scope and Nature of the Guidelines 1. The present Guidelines address the human rights implications of the practice of forced evictions associated with development-based displacement in urban and rural areas. The Guidelines reflect and are consistent with international human rights law and international humanitarian law and should be subject to the widest possible application. 2. Having due regard to all relevant definitions of the practice of forced evictions under international human rights provisions and instruments, the present Guidelines apply to instances of forced evictions in which there are acts and/or omissions involving the coerced and involuntary removal of individuals, groups and communities from their homes and/or lands and common property resources they occupy or are dependent upon, thus eliminating or limiting the possibility of an individual, group or community residing or working in a particular dwelling, residence or place. 3. While there are many similarities between the practice of forced evictions and internal displacement, population transfer, mass expulsions, mass exodus, ethnic cleansing and other practices involving the coerced and involuntary movement of people from their homes, lands and communities, forced evictions constitute a distinct practice under international law. Persons, groups and communities subjected to or threatened with forced evictions form, therefore, a distinct group under international human rights law. 4. Forced evictions constitute prima facie violations of a wide range of internationally recognised human rights and can only be carried out under exceptional circumstances and in full accordance with the present Guidelines and relevant provisions of international human rights law. Section two: General Obligations 5. While forced evictions can be carried out, sanctioned, demanded, proposed, initiated or tolerated by a variety of distinct actors, responsibility for forced evictions under international law, ultimately, is held by States. This does not, however, relieve other entities from obligations in this regard, in particular occupying powers, international financial and other institutions or organisations, transnational corporations and individual third parties, including public and private landlords or land owners.

Housing Rights in Brazil

6. States should apply appropriate civil or criminal penalties against any person or entity, within its jurisdiction, whether public or private, who carries out any forced evictions, not in full conformity with applicable law and the present Guidelines. 7. States should object, through the appropriate international legal mechanisms, to the carrying out of forced evictions in other States when such forced evictions are not in full conformity with the present Guidelines and relevant provisions of international human rights law. 8. States should ensure that international organisations in which they are represented refrain from sponsoring or implementing any project, programme or policy which may involve the carrying out of forced evictions not in full conformity with international law and the present Guidelines. S e c t i o n t h re e : S p e c i f i c P re v e n t a t i v e O b l i g a t i o n s The Obligation of Maximum Effective Protection 9. States should secure by all appropriate means, including the provision of security of tenure, the maximum degree of effective protection against the practice of forced evictions for all persons under their jurisdiction. In this regard, special consideration should be given to the rights of indigenous peoples, children and women, particularly female-headed households and other vulnerable groups. These obligations are of an immediate nature and are not qualified by resourcerelated considerations. 10. States should refrain from introducing any deliberately retrogressive measures with respect to de jure or de facto protection against forced evictions. 11. States should ensure that adequate and effective legal or other appropriate remedies are available to any persons claiming that his/her right of protection against forced evictions has been violated or is under threat of violation. 12. States should ensure that eviction impact assessments are carried out prior to the initiation of any project which could result in development-based displacement, with a view to fully securing the human rights of all potentially affected persons, groups and communities. The Obligation to Prevent Homelessness 13. States should ensure that no persons, groups or communities are rendered homeless or are exposed to the violation of any other human rights as a consequence of a forced eviction. The Obligation to Adopt Appropriate Measures of Law and Policy 14. States should carry out comprehensive reviews of relevant national legislation with a view to ensuring the compatibility of such legislation with the norms contained in the present Guidelines and other relevant international human rights provisions. In this regard, special measures shall be taken to ensure that no forms of discrimination, statutory or otherwise, are applied in relation to property rights, housing rights and access to resources.

Housing Rights in Brazil

15. States should adopt appropriate legislation and policies to ensure the protection of individuals, groups and communities from forced eviction, having due regard to their best interests. States are encouraged to adopt constitutional provisions in this regard. The Obligation to Explore All Possible Alternatives 16. States should fully explore all possible alternatives to any act involving forced eviction. In this regard, all affected persons, including women, children and indigenous peoples shall have the right to all relevant information and the right to full participation and consultation throughout the entire process and to propose any alternatives. In the event that agreement cannot be reached on the proposed alternative by the affected persons, groups and communities and the entity proposing the forced eviction in question, an independent body, such as a court of law, tribunal, or ombudsman may be called upon. The Obligation to Expropriate Only as a Last Resort 17. States should refrain, to the maximum possible extent, from compulsorily acquiring housing or land, unless such acts are legitimate and necessary and designed to facilitate the enjoyment of human rights through, for instance, measures of land reform or redistribution. If, as a last resort, States consider themselves compelled to undertake proceedings of expropriation or compulsory acquisition, such action shall be: (a) determined and envisaged by law and norms regarding forced eviction, in so far as these are consistent internationally recognised human rights; (b) solely for the purpose of protecting the general welfare in a democratic society; (c) reasonable and proportional and (d) in accordance with the present Guidelines.

Section four: The Rights of all Persons Integrity of the Home 18. All persons have the right to adequate housing which includes, inter alia, the integrity of the home and access to and protection of common property resources. The home and its occupants shall be protected against any acts of violence, threats of violence or other forms of harassment, in particular as they relate to women and children. The home and its occupants shall further be protected against any arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy or respect of the home. Assurances of Security of Tenure 19. All persons have a right to security of tenure which provides sufficient legal protection from forced eviction from oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s home or land. 20. The present Guidelines shall apply to all persons, groups and communities irrespective of their tenure status.

Housing Rights in Brazil

S e c t i o n f i v e : Le g a l R e m e d i e s 21. All persons threatened with forced eviction, notwithstanding the rationale or legal basis thereof, have the right to: (a) a fair hearing before a competent, impartial and independent court or tribunal (b) legal counsel, and where necessary, sufficient legal aid (c) effective remedies 22. States should adopt legislative measures prohibiting any forced evictions without a court order. The court shall consider all relevant circumstances of affected persons, groups and communities and any decision be in full accordance with principles of equality and justice and internationally recognised human rights. 23. All persons have a right to appeal any judicial or other decisions affecting their rights as established pursuant to the present Guidelines, to the highest national judicial authority. Compensation 24. All persons subjected to any forced eviction not in full accordance with the present Guidelines, should have a right to compensation for any losses of land, personal, real or other property or goods, including rights or interests in property not recognised in national legislation, incurred in connection with a forced eviction. Compensation should include land and access to common property resources and should not be restricted to cash payments. Restitution and Return 25. All persons, groups and communities subjected to forced evictions have the right to, but shall not be forced to return to their homes, lands or places of origin. Resettlements 26. In full cognisance of the contents of the present Guidelines there may be instances in which, in the public interest, or where the safety, health or enjoyment of human rights so demands, particular persons, groups and communities may be subject to resettlement. Such resettlement must occur in a just and equitable manner and in full accordance with law of general application. 27. All persons, groups and communities have the right to suitable resettlement which includes the right to alternative land or housing, which is safe, secure, accessible, affordable and habitable. 28. In determining the compatibility of resettlement with the present Guidelines, States should ensure that in the context of any case of resettlement the following criteria are adhered to: (a) No resettlement shall take place until such a time that a full resettlement policy consistent with the present Guidelines and internationally recognised human rights is in place. (b) Resettlement must ensure equal rights to women, children and indigenous populations and other vulnerable groups including the right to property ownership and access to resources. Resettlement policies should include programmes designed for women with respect to education, health, family welfare and employment opportunities.

Housing Rights in Brazil

(c) The actor proposing and/or carrying out the resettlement shall be required by law to pay for any costs associated therewith, including all resettlement costs. (d) No affected persons, groups or communities, shall suffer detriment as far as their human rights are concerned nor shall their right to the continuous improvement of living conditions be subject to infringement. This applies equally to host communities at resettlement sites, and affected persons, groups and communities subjected to forced eviction. (e) That affected persons, groups and communities provide their full and informed consent as regards the relocation site. The State shall provide all necessary amenities and services and economic opportunities. (f) Sufficient information shall be provided to affected persons, groups and communities concerning all State projects as well as to the planning and implementation processes relating to the resettlement concerned, including information concerning the purpose to which the eviction dwelling or site is to be put and the persons, groups or communities who will benefit from the evicted site. Particular attention must be given to ensure that indigenous peoples, ethnic minorities, the landless, women and children are represented and included in this process. (g) The entire resettlement process should be carried out in full consultation and participation with the affected persons, groups and communities. States should take into account in particular all alternate plans proposed by the affected persons, groups and communities. (h) If after a full and fair public hearing, it is found that thee is a need to proceed with the resettlement, then the affected persons, groups and communities shall be given at least ninety (90) days notice prior to the date of the resettlement; and (i) Local government officials and neutral observers, properly identified, shall be present during the resettlement so as to ensure that no force, violence or intimidation is involved. Section six: Monitoring 29. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and other United Nations human rights institutions should seek by all possible means to secure full compliance with the present Guidelines. Section seven: Savings Savings Clause 30. The provisions contained within the present Guidelines are without prejudice to the provisions of any other international instrument or national law which ensures the enjoyment of all human rights as they relate to the practice of forced evictions.

Housing Rights in Brazil

ANNEX 5 U n i te d N a t i o n s R e s o l u t i o n 1 9 93 /7 7 o n Fo rce d Ev i c t i o n s Commission on Human Rights resolution 1993/77 The Commission on Human Rights, Recalling Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities resolution 1991/12 of 26 August 1991, Also recalling its own resolution 1992/10 of 21 February 1992, in which it took note with particular interest of General Comment No. 4 (1991) on the right to adequate housing (E/1992/23, annex III), adopted on 12 December 1991 by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at its sixth session, and the reaffirmed importance attached in this framework to respect for human dignity and the principle of non-discrimination, Reaffirming that every woman, man and child has the right to a secure place to live in peace and dignity, Concerned that, according to United Nations statistics, in excess of one billion persons throughout the world are homeless or inadequately housed, and that this number is growing, Recognizing that the practice of forced eviction involves the involuntary removal of persons, families and groups from their homes and communities, resulting in increased levels of homelessness and in inadequate housing and living conditions, Disturbed that forced evictions and homelessness intensify social conflict and inequality and invariably affect the poorest, most socially, economically, environmentally and politically disadvantaged and vulnerable sectors of society, Aware that forced evictions can be carried out, sanctioned, demanded, proposed, initiated or tolerated by a range of actors, Emphasising that the ultimate legal responsibility for preventing forced evictions rests with Governments, Recalling that General Comment No. 2 (1990) on international technical assistance measures, adopted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at its fourth session, states, inter alia, that international agencies should scrupulously avoid involvement in projects which involve, among other things, large-scale evictions or displacement of persons without the provision of all appropriate protection and compensation (E/1990/23, annex III, para. 6),

Housing Rights in Brazil

Mindful of the questions concerning forced evictions included in the guidelines for Statesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; reports submitted in conformity with articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/1991/23, annex IV), Noting with appreciation that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in its General Comment No. 4, considered that instances of forced eviction were, prima facie, incompatible with the requirements of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and could only be justified in the most exceptional circumstances, and in accordance with the relevant principles of international law (E/1992/23, annex III, para. 18), Taking note of the observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at its fifth and sixth sessions concerning forced evictions, Taking note also of the inclusion of forced evictions as one of the primary causes of the international housing crisis in the working paper on the right to adequate housing, prepared by the expert, Mr. Rajindar Sachar (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1992/15), Taking note further of Sub-Commission resolution 1992/14 of 27 August 1992, 1. Affirms that the practice of forced eviction constitutes a gross violation of human rights, in particular the right to adequate housing; 2. Urges Governments to undertake immediate measures, at all levels, aimed at eliminating the practice of forced eviction; 3. Also urges Governments to confer legal security of tenure on all persons currently threatened with forced eviction and to adopt all necessary measures giving full protection against forced eviction, based upon effective participation, consultation and negotiation with affected persons or groups; 4. Recommends that all Governments provide immediate restitution, compensation and/or appropriate and sufficient alternative accommodation or land, consistent with their wishes and needs, to persons and communities that have been forcibly evicted, following mutually satisfactory negotiations with the affected persons or groups; 5. Requests the Secretary-General to transmit the present resolution to Governments, relevant United Nations bodies, including the United Nations Centre on Human Settlements, the specialised agencies, regional, intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations and community-based organisations, soliciting their views and comments; 6. Also requests the Secretary-General to compile an analytical report on the practice of forced evictions, based on an analysis of international law and jurisprudence and information submitted in accordance with paragraph 5 of the present resolution, and to submit his report to the Commission at its fiftieth session;

Housing Rights in Brazil

7. Decides to consider the analytical report at its fiftieth session, under the agenda item entitled â&#x20AC;&#x153;Question of the realisation in all countries of the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and study of special problems which the developing countries face in their efforts to achieve these human rightsâ&#x20AC;?. 67th meeting 10 March 1993 Adopted without a vote

Housing Rights in Brazil

COHRE Publications

Sources Series COHRE, Sources No. 7: Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and IDPs: Basic Standards, (May 2001), US$ 15.00 COHRE, Sources No. 6: International Events and Forced Evictions, (December 2003), US$ 15.00 COHRE, Sources No. 5: Women and Housing Rights, (May 2000), US$ 15.00 COHRE, Sources No. 4: Legal Provisions on Housing Rights: International and National Approaches, (2nd ed., April 2000), US$ 15.00 COHRE, Sources No. 3: Forced Evictions and Human Rights: A Manual for Action, (2nd ed., October 1998), US$ 15.00 COHRE, Sources No. 2: Selected Bibliography on Housing Rights and Evictions (2nd ed., April 2001), US$ 15.00 COHRE, Sources No. 1: Legal Sources of the Right to Housing in International Human Rights Law (February 1992)(out of print)

Global Surveys on Forced Evictions COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 8 (June 2002), US$ 10.00 COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 7 (July 1998), US$ 10.00 COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 6 (August 1994), US$ 10.00 COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 5 (June 1993) COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 4 (August 1992) COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 3 (February 1992) COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 2 (August 1991) COHRE, Forced Evictions: Violations of Human Rights No. 1 (August 1990)

Housing Rights in Brazil

Books and Other Reports COHRE, Enforcing Housing Rights in the Americas: Pursuing Housing Rights Claims Within the Inter-America System for Human Rights (January 2002), COHRE, 146p, US$ 20.00 COHRE, Violence: The Impact of Forced Evictions on Women in Palestine, India and Nigeria (2001), COHRE, US$ 20.00 Ken Fernandes (ed.) We Shall Not Be Moved: Popular Resistance to Forced Evictions (2001), COHRE, 200p, US$ 20.00 COHRE (and the Canadian Human Rights Foundation), Housing Rights: A Training Programme, (2001), US$ 20.00 COHRE, The Human Right to Adequate Housing: A Chronology of United Nations Activity 1945-1999, (May 2000), US$ 15.00 Scott Leckie, When Push Comes to Shove: Forced Evictions and Human Rights (1995) Habitat International Coalition, 139p, US$ 15.00 Scott Leckie, Destruction by Design: Housing Rights Violations in Tibet (1994) COHRE, 199p, US$ 20.00

Housing Rights in Brazil

Countr y Repor ts COHRE, Land, Housing and Property Rights in Zimbabwe (September 2001), US$ 10.00 COHRE and ACHR, Housing Rights Violations in Bangladesh (March 2001), US$ 10.00 COHRE, Better Late Than Never: Housing Rights in East Timor (October 2000), US$ 10.00 COHRE, Housing Rights in Latvia (January 2000), US$ 10.00 COHRE, The Status of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Solomon Islands: Moving Forward and Maintaining the Past (May 1999), US$ 10.00 COHRE, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (November 1997), US$ 10.00 COHRE, Still Waiting: Housing Rights Violations in a Land of Plenty, The Kobe Earthquake and Beyond (February 1996), US$ 10.00 COHRE, Planned Dispossession: Palestinians, East Jerusalem and the Right to a Place to Live (September 1995), US$ 10.00 COHRE, Prima Facie Violations of Article 11(1) of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by the Government of the Philippines (November 1993), US$ 10.00

Housing Rights in Brazil

Housing Rights in

International Secretariat

Americas Programme

U.S. Office

83 Rue de Montbrillant

Rua Demétrio Ribeiro 990/conj 305

8 N. 2nd Avenue East

1202 Geneva, Switzerland

90010-313 Porto Alegre

Suite 208

Tel: +41.22.734.1028

Rio Grande do Sul

Duluth, MN 55802, U.S.A.

Fax: +41.22.733.8336

Brazil

Tel/fax: +1.218.733.1370

E-mail: cohre@cohre.org

Tel/fax: + 55.51.3212.1904

E-mail: bret_thiele@yahoo.com

www.cohre.org

E-mail: cohreamericas@cohre.org

gomez_mayra@yahoo.com

M I S S I O N

R E P O R T

brazil

Gross Inequalities and Inconsistencies

COHRE Americas Programme