Land administration, planning and human rights

Author(s): Stig Enemark, Line Hvingel and Daniel Galland

Source: Planning Theory , Vol. 13, No. 4, Special issue on: Spatial planning and human
rights (November 2014), pp. 331-348
Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26098687

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26098687?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Planning Theory

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
517882
research-article2014
PLT0010.1177/1473095213517882Planning TheoryEnemark et al.

Special issue article

Planning Theory
2014, Vol. 13(4) 331­–348
Land administration, planning © The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
and human rights sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1473095213517882
plt.sagepub.com

Stig Enemark, Line Hvingel and Daniel

Galland
Aalborg University, Denmark

Abstract
The people-to-land relationship is dynamic and changes over time in response to cultural, social
and economic development. Land policies, institutions and land administration systems are
key tools aimed at governing this relationship. Such tools will normally include the means for
allocating and controlling rights, restrictions and responsibilities in land – often termed RRRs.
Each of the rights, restrictions and responsibilities encompasses a human rights dimension that
should be seen and unfolded as more than just political rhetoric. This article attempts to analyse
the aspect of human rights in relation to land administration systems with a special focus on less
developed countries struggling to build adequate systems for governing the rights, restrictions
and responsibilities in land. In doing so, the article conceives planning as a key function and means
of land administration systems by which human rights should be underpinned in solving concrete
land issues.

Keywords
human rights, land administration, planning

Introduction
All countries have to deal with the management of land. They have to deal with the four
functions of land tenure, land value, land use and land development in some way or
another. Land administration systems are the operational tool for conceptualising rights,
restrictions and responsibilities in land. Property rights are normally concerned with
ownership and tenure, whereas restrictions usually control use and activities on land.
Responsibilities relate more to a social, ethical commitment or attitude to environmental
sustainability and good husbandry. Each of the rights, restrictions and responsibilities

Corresponding author:
Stig Enemark, Department of Development and Planning, Aalborg University, Skibbrogade 3, A1, Aalborg
9000, Denmark.
Email: enemark@land.aau.dk

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
332 Planning Theory 13(4)

encompasses a human rights dimension that relates to the overall national land policies
and should be unfolded as more than just rhetoric.
In the more developed (Western) world, the systems for governing and administering
land issues have evolved over centuries to cope with cultural and economic develop-
ment. Looking at the less developed world, and especially Sub-Saharan Africa, the basic
systems of land registration are not in place (or serve only the elite) and the human rights
perspective is largely ignored. In such cases, there is a need to improve the land govern-
ance systems more generally to cope with current and future challenges.
The article is structured as follows. First, it provides an overall understanding of the
concept of land administration systems for dealing with rights, restrictions and responsi-
bilities in support of the global agenda. Second, the article introduces the human rights
perspective as an entry to analysing and discussing each of the rights, restrictions and
responsibilities in more detail and with a special focus on less developed countries strug-
gling to build adequate systems for managing land issues. Third, the article argues that
such systems should include the human rights perspective when managing rights, restric-
tions and responsibilities in land, which, in turn, impose a series of significant challenges
and also ethical and social responsibilities on planners and other land professionals.
Fourth, such challenges are addressed by discussing the power-related nature of planning,
the public interest in land matters as well as the importance of public space in support of
social equity. These issues are embedded in land administration systems as the main
instrument for managing the people-to-land relationship and the connected human rights.
Finally, in its last section, the article discusses the need to support the global agenda
through the adoption of a human rights perspective along with good land governance.

Land administration systems

Land governance is about the policies, processes and institutions by which land, property
and natural resources are managed. Sound land governance requires operational pro-
cesses to implement policies in sustainable ways. Land administration systems provide a
country with an infrastructure for implementation of land policies and land management
strategies in support of sustainable development (Williamson et al., 2010).
Land administration is not a new discipline but has evolved out of the cadastre and
land registration areas providing information systems with specific focus on security of
land rights (Dale and McLaughlin, 1999; Zevenbergen, 2002). A couple of decades ago,
land administration was referred to as ‘the processes of determining, recording, and dis-
seminating information about ownership, value, and use of land when implementing land
management policies’ (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE),
1996: 6). The emphasis was on information management reflecting the computerisation
of the land information agencies in the 1970s. The focus on information remains, but
within recent years, the type and quality of information needed has changed and pushes
the design of land administration systems towards an enabling infrastructure for imple-
menting land policies in support of sustainable development. Such a global land admin-
istration perspective is presented in Figure 1.
The operational component of the land management concept is the range of land
administration functions that include the areas of land tenure (securing and transferring

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Enemark et al. 333

Figure 1.  A global land administration perspective (Enemark et al., 2005; Williamson et al.,
2010).

rights in land and natural resources), land value (valuation and taxation of land and prop-
erties), land use (planning and control of the use of land and natural resources) and land
development (implementing utilities, infrastructure and construction planning). These
four functions ensure the proper management of rights, restrictions and responsibilities
in relation to property, land and natural resources. As such, these functions are different
in their professional focus, and are normally undertaken by a mix of professionals,
including surveyors, engineers, lawyers, valuators, land economists, planners and devel-
opers. Furthermore, the actual processes of land valuation and taxation as well as the
actual land-use planning processes are often not considered part of land administration
activities. However, even if land administration is traditionally centred on cadastral
activities in relation to land tenure and land information management, modern land
administration systems designed as described in Figure 1 deliver an essential infrastruc-
ture and encourage integration of the four functions. Ultimately, the design of adequate
systems of land tenure and land value should support efficient land markets capable of
supporting trading in simple and complex commodities. The design of adequate systems
to deliver land-use control and land development should lead to effective land-use man-
agement. The combination of efficient land markets and effective land-use management
is then seen as a key component in delivering economic, social and environmental sus-
tainable development.
Sound land administration systems deliver a range of benefits to society in terms of
support of governance and the rule of law, alleviation of poverty, security of tenure, sup-
port for formal land markets, security for credit, support for land and property taxation,
protection of state lands, management of land disputes and improvement of land-use
planning and implementation. The systems enable the implementation of land policies to
fulfil political and social objectives and to achieve sustainable development. Land policy
is the set of aims and objectives put forward by governments in dealing with land issues.
Land policy is part of the national policy on promoting objectives such as economic

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
334 Planning Theory 13(4)

development, social justice and equity, and political stability. Land policies vary, but in
most countries, they include poverty reduction, sustainable agriculture, sustainable set-
tlement, economic development and equity among various groups within the society.
From this global perspective, land administration systems act within adopted land
policies that define the legal regulatory pattern for dealing with land issues. They also act
within a country’s specific institutional framework that imposes mandates and responsi-
bilities on the various agencies and organisations. Land administration systems should,
then, service the needs of individuals, businesses and the community at large, as they
contribute to deliver detailed information and reliable administration of land from the
basic level of individual land parcels to the national level of policy implementation
(Williamson et al., 2010).
Sound land management requires operational processes to implement land policies
in comprehensive and sustainable ways. Many countries, however, tend to separate
land tenure rights from land-use opportunities, thereby undermining their capacity to
link planning and land-use controls with land values and the operation of the land
market. These problems are often compounded by poor administrative and manage-
ment procedures that fail to deliver required services. Investment in new technology
will only provide limited solutions in the major task of solving a much deeper problem,
namely, the failure to treat land and natural resources as a coherent whole (Williamson
et al., 2010).

The human rights perspective

Human rights are the rights inherent to all human beings without discrimination. The
‘constitution’ is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (United Nations (UN),
1948) stating the universal rights of human beings based on the principle of respect for
the individual – rights that can be enjoyed by everyone simply because of being alive.
The declaration states a range of general human rights such as ‘All human beings are
born free and equal in dignity and rights’ (Art. 1) and ‘Everybody has the right to life,
liberty and security of person’ (Art. 3). More specific rights are the freedom of thought
and expression, and more social rights relate to the right of democracy, right to education
and also a duty of responsibility towards other people so that they can enjoy the rights
and freedom. Of special interest in relation to land and property is the right to own things
(Art. 17) and the right of food and adequate housing for all (Art. 25).
According to Article 17 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ‘Everyone has
the right to own property alone as well as in association with others’, and additionally,
‘No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property’. With regard to immovable prop-
erty, this global norm can be operationalised in various ways in a national context from
the mere communist way of state ownership of land, where buildings can often be owned
as separate property, to a more liberal market approach, where land and also the build-
ings on the land constitute a property that can be owned as a separate asset. As an exam-
ple, Article 17 is implemented in the Constitutional Act of Denmark in Article 73, which
states that ‘The right of property shall be inviolable. No person shall be ordered to sur-
render his property except where required in the public interest. It shall be done only as
provided by statute and against full compensation’. (Danish Parliament, 1953).

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Enemark et al. 335

Article 17 did not make it when transforming the Universal Declaration into binding
international law through the two International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights
and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) that were both adopted in 1966
(UN, 1966). Indeed, property is a controversial concept that should be seen merely as a
social rather than a civil right. Therefore, despite a consensus on the right of individuals
to own property, and the admittance that this right is not absolute but subject to some
degree of control by the state under certain safeguards, the ideological and regional dif-
ferences could not be bridged on the matter of limitations. As a result, there is no global
instrument to protect property rights (Golay and Cismas, 2010; Van Banning, 2001).
At regional level, however, the right to property is recognised in conventions such as
the American Convention on Human Rights, adopted in 1948, which is very much in line
with the original Universal Declaration of Human Rights on this matter. This is also the
case with regard to the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights that was adopted
in 1981, and which is to some extent rooted in the colonial history of the continent. The
European Convention on Human Rights, adopted in 1950, only included the property
issue in the first protocol adopted in 1952, whereas in the text the word property was
replaced by possession. In more general terms, it appears that the universal recognition
of the human right to property – and thereby the acceptance of general interests as a law-
ful limitation to the right to property – reflects the customary nature of Article 17. This
social function of property then guarantees the realisation of the core content of other
economic, social and cultural rights (Golay and Cismas, 2010).
Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, in simple words, that
everyone has the right to adequate standard of living including housing, food, clothing,
medical help and social services. However, Article 25 is not easy to interpret. The ICESCR
in Article 11 does speak about the right to an adequate standard of living, but this is seen
mere as a social right to ‘minimal property’ such as ‘adequate food, clothing and housing’.
In Comment No 4, adopted by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (UN, 1991), the right adequate housing is explained in more detail, stating that

… 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.

The right to adequate housing therefore cannot be viewed in isolation from other
human rights contained in the two covenants mentioned above as well as other applicable
international instruments. Even though adequacy of housing is determined by a number
of social, economic and cultural factors, Comment No. 4 does point at legal security of
tenure as a key factor (notwithstanding the type of tenure), while it also indicates that
state parties should take immediate measures to ensure such protection – see also
Comment No 7 on forced evictions and the right to adequate housing, adopted by the UN
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UN, 1997).
The right to adequate housing has become the basis for the United Nations Centre for
Human Settlement (UNCHS) known as UN-HABITAT, which was established in 1978
with the UN mandate to ‘… promote socially and environmentally sustainable towns and

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
336 Planning Theory 13(4)

cities with the goal of providing adequate shelter for all’. In 1996, at the Habitat II con-
ference in Istanbul, many countries committed themselves to ‘Expand the supply of
affordable housing by enabling markets to perform efficiently and in a socially and envi-
ronmentally responsible manner, enhancing access to land and credit and assisting those
who are unable to participate in housing markets’ (UNCHS, 1996).
From the few examples above, it becomes clear that human rights and land adminis-
tration are closely linked and that every state needs to ensure that efficient and effective
land administration mechanisms are in place to pursue this interaction. More generally,
human rights should be seen as an ethical responsibility of government to ensure that
people enjoy some basic rights as human beings. This relates to national political arrange-
ments and standards for good governance. It also relates to historical and cultural devel-
opment throughout the world including colonisation and armed conflicts.
Looking at the so-called Western world, the evolution towards a modern market-
based and democratic society has taken place over centuries. The people-to-land rela-
tionship is dynamic and has been changing over time as a response to these general
trends in societal development. During the feudalist era, before 1800, land was mainly
seen as wealth. From the time of the industrial revolution up to around 1950, the aspect
of land as a commodity was added; further into the current information revolution era,
land is increasingly seen as a community scarce resource. In the same way, the role of the
land administration and cadastral systems is changing over time in response to societal
trends. From being merely a fiscal instrument for valuation and taxation of land, cadas-
tral systems turned into also supporting a legal function in relation to the land market.
The most recent examples are current world concerns of environmental management,
sustainable development and social justice that are supported by multifunctional cadas-
tral and land administration systems (Williamson et al., 2010).
This people-to-land evolution relates to the Western world, while less developed regions
continue to struggle with issues such as insecurity of tenure, informal settlements and
urban slums, landownership inequalities and landlessness, and the degradation of natural
resources. Promising ways forward are seen in Asia where China (in 1978) and Vietnam (in
1988) dismantled their collective farms and used long-term leases to allocate land rights to
farming households. In China, this policy enforced an era of agricultural growth that trans-
formed rural China and led to the largest reduction of poverty in history. The percentage of
people living in extreme poverty declined from about 80% of the population in 1981 (the
highest in the world at that time) to only 13% in 2008. In Vietnam, the extreme poverty was
reduced from 58% in early 1990s to 15% in 2008 (Byamugisha, 2013a). In addition, Sub-
Saharan Africa has seen a considerable growth rate of above 5% per year for more than a
decade. However, Sub-Saharan Africa remains poor for the most part and has been unable
to translate its recent robust growth into rapid poverty reduction. These facts indicate that
poor land governance, including the manner in which land rights are defined and adminis-
tered, may be the root of the problem. The World Bank has addressed this problem in a new
publication presenting a 10-point programme to scale up land policy reforms and invest-
ments for improving land governance in Sub-Saharan Africa (Byamugisha, 2013b).
This innovative approach of the World Bank is promising as it changes the focus from
projects on just issuing titles to a more holistic approach to land governance including
institutional development and the connected capacity building activities. This is basically

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Enemark et al. 337

a human rights approach, and it is well in line with the global land administration perspec-
tive as presented in section ‘Land administration systems’. Individual human rights can
only be enjoyed through a systems approach to governance that addresses the relation
between people and land. This is further explored below with regard to land administra-
tion systems dealing with rights, restrictions and responsibilities in land in support of the
global agenda.

Rights, restrictions and responsibilities in land

Land is a crosscutting issue and is not simply a resource for one human right within the
international declaration framework (Wickeri and Kalhan, 2010). Numerous human
rights as listed above are affected by access to land and the way the use of land is regu-
lated. A holistic approach to land administration should therefore include the human
rights perspective when managing RRRs in land.

Rights
The human rights to own property and to enjoy adequate housing are fundamental and
should be encouraged and promoted through building adequate systems of land adminis-
tration that are relevant and accessible for poor people and serve their needs in a wider
societal context. Landownership and secure tenure can be a vital source of capital, which
opens personal credit markets, leads to investments in land buildings, provides a social
safety net and transfers wealth to next generation (De Soto, 2000; Wickeri and Kalhan,
2010). However, in several less developed countries, most people do not have legal doc-
uments for the land they occupy or use and they, thereby, fall outside the formal land
management system. This means that most decisions are made without information.
Limited land records and lack of information cause dysfunctionalities in the management
of urban and rural areas from the household up to government level, which impair the
lives of millions of people (UN-HABITAT and GLTN, 2012).
In less developed regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa, more than two-thirds (in some
countries up to 90%) of the land is outside the formal systems of land registration and
administration. This means that the existing formal systems do not serve the millions of
people whose tenures are predominantly social rather than legal. UN-HABITAT has
developed an innovative approach through the so-called Social Tenure Domain Model
(FIG/GLTN, 2010) that includes a ‘scaling up approach’ with a range of steps from infor-
mal to more formalised land rights. This continuum of land rights does not mean that the
societies will develop into freehold tenure systems, but rather that each step in the pro-
cess can be formalised, with registered freeholds providing a stronger protection, than at
earlier stages. Furthermore, responsible governance of tenure is now incorporated as part
of the global agenda through the recently published Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible
Governance of Tenure (Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 2012). The Guidelines
promote secure tenure rights and equitable access to land as a means of eradicating hun-
ger and poverty, supporting sustainable development and enhancing the environment.
The Guidelines outline principles and practices that governments can refer to when mak-
ing laws and administering land, fisheries and forests rights. While the Guidelines

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
338 Planning Theory 13(4)

acknowledge that responsible investments by the public and private sectors are essential
for improving food security, they also recommend that safeguards be put in place to pro-
tect tenure rights of local people from risks that could arise from large-scale land acquisi-
tions (land grapping), and also to protect human rights, livelihoods, food security and the
environment. The guidelines thereby place tenure rights in the context of human rights
such as right to adequate food and housing.
There is an urgent need to build simple and basic systems using a flexible and low-
cost approach to identifying the way land is occupied and used. When considering the
resources and capacities required for building such systems and the connected basic
spatial framework in less developed countries, the western concepts may well be seen
as the end target but not as the point of entry. When assessing technology and invest-
ment choices, the focus should be on ‘fit-for-purpose approach’ that will meet the
needs of society today and that can be incrementally improved over time (Enemark,
2013).

Restrictions
Rights to land also include the rights of use. This right may be limited through public
land-use regulations and restrictions, and various kinds of private land-use regulations
such as easements, covenants and so on. Many land-use rights are therefore, in fact,
restrictions that control the possible future use of the land. In general terms, there are two
conflicting points of view on land-use planning: the free-market approach and the central
planning approach (Williamson et al., 2010). The former approach argues that owners
should have complete domain over their land and be obliged to no one. In this extreme,
planning restrictions should only be imposed after compensation for lost land develop-
ment opportunities is paid (Jacobs, 2007). The latter approach takes the opposite stand
where the role of democratic government includes planning and regulation of land sys-
tematically for public good purposes. The tension between these two points of view is
especially felt by nations seeking economic security. The question however is how to
balance owners’ rights with the necessity and capacity of the government to regulate land
use and development for the betterment of society. A country’s land policy should set a
reasonable balance between the ability of landowners to manage their land and the ability
of the government to provide services and regulate growth for sustainable development
and environmental resilience.
The need for urban planning is a global problem. In some regions, such as Eastern
and Southern Europe, illegal urban development occurs in various forms such as hous-
ing and construction works appearing without having formal permission from planning
or building authorities. There is no simple solution to the problems of preventing and
legalising such illegal development. The problems relate mainly to the national level
of economic wealth in combination with the level of social and economic equity in
society, while the solutions relate to the level of consistent land policies, good govern-
ance and well-established institutions. Guidance for solutions can be found in the con-
cept of integrated land-use management where land policies, land-use control systems
and land information management are integrated to ensure that existing and future land
use is consistent with current land policies and adopted planning and sectoral land-use

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Enemark et al. 339

Figure 2.  Lagos is one of the fastest growing cities in the world with huge slum areas
expanding into the waters.
Photo: Enemark, 2009.

regulations, and that decisions are based on complete and up-to-date land information
systems.
An even more serious problem is the growth of slums (Figure 2) in terms of informal
settlements in peri-urban areas of major cities in less developed countries. As of 2013,
nearly half of the world’s population of 7 billion is now living in urban areas, with one-
third of those urbanites living in slums. City authorities tend to view most people living
in slums as doing so illegally. Because of this, cities do not plan for or manage slums, and
the people in them are largely overlooked and excluded. Slum dwellers thus receive none
of the benefits of more affluent citizens, such as access to municipal water, roads, sanita-
tion and sewage. This attitude towards slum dwellers as well as the management
approaches that disregard them perpetuates the levels and scale of poverty, while also
causing cities to be more vulnerable to natural disasters, crises and exacerbating urban
conflicts (UN-HABITAT, 2010).
The challenge to regularise informal settlements and legalise illegal settlements is
thereby a matter that should be addressed by spatial planning not only at the urban level
but also at regional and national levels. The development of legal frameworks aimed at
the systematic organisation of national spatial planning systems in less developed coun-
tries thereby comprises a critical stepping-stone towards controlling and regularising
these types of settlements. Furthermore, the establishment of ad hoc land policies and the
construction of social housing could potentially provide significant preventive measures
that would allow informal dwellers to enjoy the right to a more adequate standard of liv-
ing. In this light, a mixture of (national level) preventive and controlling measures,
alongside the development of sound policies aimed at the implementation of planned city
extensions, would enable the possibility to establish local solutions aimed at more sensi-
ble urban development (UN-HABITAT, 2013).
The general state of many less developed countries is characterised by an unequal
distribution of land among inhabitants. Many poor inhabitants in these countries lack
access to land or lack secure rights to the land they have settled on. Lack of tenure secu-
rity is very often a central characteristic of informal settlements. Informal settlements are
often neglected enclaves of settlements consisting of poor inhabitants living in distinctly
poor conditions caused by inadequate housing and no access to basic services. Provision

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
340 Planning Theory 13(4)

of new infrastructure in existing informal settlements, redistribution of informal settlers,

extension of services for those who build their own dwellings and cooperatives undertak-
ing development of affordable housing in combination with opportunities for business
enterprise are all approaches to slum upgrading.
The human right to adequate housing and the right to food and a decent living relates
very much to planning and agrarian reform. Without secure tenure, slum residents face a
constant risk of forced eviction, as they are not officially recognised as residents of the
city. About 15 million people are displaced annually as a result of forced evictions in
relation to development programmes. As stated by the United Nations Commission on
Human Rights (UNCHR, 1993), ‘… the practice of forced eviction constitutes a gross
violation of human rights, in particular the right to adequate housing’. All evictions,
whether ‘legal’ or not, affect people’s lives and destroy communities and social networks
that they rely upon for survival. Therefore, informal settlements should be seen as an
integrated part of citywide strategic planning that includes a range of innovative plan-
ning responses to informality (UN-HABITAT, 2009; UN-HABITAT and GLTN, 2010).

Responsibilities
Property responsibilities normally refer to a duty of applying with rules for acting in
a specific way according to legal provisions, or a duty to apply with more social or
ethical rules of behaviour. The former is quite straightforward and is normally laid
down in legally binding provisions. The latter relates to a more social, ethical com-
mitment or attitude to environmental sustainability and good husbandry. Individuals
and other actors are supposed to treat land and property in a way that conforms to
cultural traditions and ways of ethical behaviour. This relates to what is accepted both
legally and socially.
More generally, the people-to-land relationship is to some extent determined by the
cultural and administrative development of the country or jurisdiction. This relates to
cultural dimensions, namely, uncertainty avoidance, that is, the preference of struc-
tured situations over unstructured or flexible ones; and power distance, which is the
degree of inequality among people accepted by the population (Hofstede, 2001). These
cultural dimensions determine the social and ethical behaviour of people also in rela-
tion to the way that land can be held and used within a given culture. Systems of land
tenure and land-use control therefore vary throughout the world according to such
cultural differences.
Rights and responsibilities can be considered as two sides of a coin. Land rights can-
not be enjoyed without some kind of legal, social or ethical responsibility. This also
applies for human rights, which can only be enjoyed by including the responsibility
towards others so that they can also enjoy the rights and freedom. Human rights should
thus become a recognised institution in society – an integrated part of the rules of the
game (North, 1990). As put by Apel (2000), this responsibility dimension should there-
fore be assumed in terms of solidarity for the consequences of collective activities at
larger scales in order to be able to organise and manage such responsibility as collective
praxis. Apel (2000) portrays the notion of responsibility beyond a moral individual obli-
gation, that is, as co-responsibility for the formation and transformation of institutions.

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Enemark et al. 341

Such co-responsibility should then be in line with the idea of a socially just society and
the recognition of human rights. This understanding is relevant for planners and other
land professionals who should prepare themselves in spreading their understanding with
regard to the quality of ethical compromises in their everyday practice.

Planning, public interest and public space

The Human Rights Declaration can be regarded as a Global Code of Ethics with a disci-
plinary effect on governments, institutions and humanity in general. The role of the dec-
laration relates to the way it is perceived, accepted and used as a political means of
control rather than relating to the (lack of) statutory status. This is well in line with the
theories of (Foucault, 1991) describing power through the way it is exercised (reality)
rather than its statutory basis (legitimacy). The disciplinary effect is then established
through promoting and enforcing norms of political behaviour and governance rather
than the use of punishment of individuals.
Thus far, this article has normatively stressed the significance of land administration
systems in underpinning and securing a human rights approach in the overall management
of land. The people-to-land relationship is very much governed by the institutions and
regulatory means embedded in the land administration systems, which manage two core
components of the humanitarian code, namely, the security of land rights and the access
to ‘minimal property’. In doing so, land policies as well as land institutions play a signifi-
cant role in enforcing human rights through the allocation of land rights, restrictions and
responsibilities. The systems therefore become ambassador for and also manager of this
Global Code of Ethics.
The planning function is a key component of land administration systems as a means
to underpin human rights in solving concrete land issues by formulating and implement-
ing land policies. In this context, it is worth bringing into focus some specific warnings
stemming from the power-related nature of planning as well as the implications that
planning might bring along in terms of the public interest and public space.

The power-related nature of planning

Even though land administration systems are crucial for the sake of securing the
enforcement of human rights, there are a number of intrinsic limitations generated by
the power-related nature associated with the institutional arrangements of planning as
a fundamental component of land administration systems. In this regard, there is a
significant need to generate an understanding concerned with the processes and out-
comes associated with land-use planning and regulation in both developed and less
developed countries. This need is sustained by the argument that power relations,
which are ubiquitously embedded in planning tools, instruments and policies, are gen-
erally poorly understood and, to a certain extent, overlooked. In this regard, Flyvbjerg
and Richardson (2002) suggest a reorientation from ‘what should be done’ towards
‘what is actually done’; or, in their own words, ‘… normative rationality may provide
an ideal to strive for, but it is a poor guide to the strategies and tactics needed for mov-
ing towards the ideal’

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
342 Planning Theory 13(4)

Planning policies are normally prone to both foundational and procedural limitations
that might hinder their progressive formulation and implementation. Such limitations
consequently hold back the process of securing human rights in land administration
systems. This is evident not only in less developed countries lacking solid democratic
institutions but also in more developed countries where the supposedly mature land
administration systems are already in place. While the former are challenged by foun-
dational limitations (i.e. the lack of institutional arrangements to sustain land-use plan-
ning and regulation), the latter are challenged by procedural issues whereby planning
instruments and tools hold the inherent condition of being used either progressively or
regressively (Yiftachel, 1998).
In the case of full-fledged land administration systems, planning as a means of land-
use control could be conceived as a ‘double-edge activity’, whereby planning can either
serve as a tool for ‘… emancipatory reform or [as an instrument for] oppressive control’
(Yiftachel, 1998: 395). This situation is reminiscent of the dichotomy related to scholarly
discussions about the ends of planning as a procedural activity in land-use and land devel-
opment processes. On the one hand, scholars argue that planning is meant to serve the
public interest, while on the other, critics view planning as intrinsically restrictive given
its controlling, manipulative and oppressive character (Yiftachel, 1998). This critical view
is based on the argument that land-use planning might foster the exclusion of the disad-
vantaged – and therefore might fail to cater to the public interest. A common example
(denounced by social planners already in the mid-1960s) occurs when public authorities
serve the interests of the elite or real estate developers by displacing the poor from specific
neighbourhoods through ad hoc planning instruments, such as zoning by-laws.

Planning and the public interest

We argue that planning as a key component of land administration systems should oper-
ate to implement and underpin human rights in solving concrete land issues. In doing so,
it is necessary that planning be capable of recognising historical as well as contemporary
conceptions concerning the public interest. While definitions of the public interest in
planning have been varied and contentious over time (Campbell and Marshall, 2000;
Howe, 1994), our problem definition concerned with planning as a means to secure
human rights in land administration demands that a particular stance be adopted. Howe’s
(1994) work entitled Acting on Ethics in City Planning is of particular interest for our
context given the ethical approach assumed in relation to the public interest. In this view,
Howe’s theorisation suggests that the public interest be understood in terms of rights, a
view that emerges from a deontological or procedural position that draws on principles
such as fairness and social justice. Procedurally, hence, the public interest would entail
the right of all people to be considered equally in decision-making processes. However,
as also noted by Howe, ideas of the public interest cannot be thought of as binding obli-
gations in the same way that duties of justice can. Thus, while planning might have
indeed the general obligation to serve the public interest, the form this would take and
who beneficiaries of the process are would end up being a discretionary matter.
Furthermore, the public interest can also be framed along the lines of substantial or con-
sequentialist terms (i.e. the impacts that specific actions generate) (Howe, 1994). In such

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Enemark et al. 343

case, there is an assumption of the public interest linked to the idea of a model of society
based on an assimilation of coherent and shared values.

Planning and public space

Public spaces are typically comprised by parks, squares, boulevards, pedestrian net-
works, playgrounds, beaches and so on, all of which symbolise common goods that
promote social equity and social cohesion. On the one hand, public spaces are thereby
useful in promoting a collective consciousness by which different social groups make
use of them. On the other hand, differences in accessibility, quality, safety and usability
of public space also expose social inequities in society by holding the character of being
both inclusive and exclusive. This condition highlights the relationship of human rights
to common land and the role of planning and management through land administration
systems.
In line with Davy (2009), we argue that public space and common property in general
represent a major opportunity for nurturing collective solidarity and the accumulation of
social capital for the benefit especially of the less affluent. Access to land is not only
about security of tenure for housing, farmland and so on but also about free access to
rural and urban commons with adequate facilities and spaces of social and economic
exchange. Such public spaces are often the only access to land for the poor. Common
property therefore needs full attention of planners as the lack of planning and precaution-
ary management leads to the tragedy of the commons (Davy, 2009; Hardin, 1968). As
public space is a collectively consumed good, a key issue of attention is of course the
spatial design as well as the restrictions needed to control congestion and degradation
(Webster, 2007).
Land reform with redistribution and security of land tenure rights is still needed in
many of the less developed regions of the world. It must be noted, though, that land
reform in itself does not provide social equity and economic growth. In other words, land
reform is only achieved in the longer term through commitment of the individual land-
holder, the building of trustable institutions, collateral measures and enforcement of
wider market development schemes. Land reform efforts should therefore be supple-
mented by restitution of rural and urban commons, which provides much easier access to
land also in the short-term perspective.

Facing the global agenda

The human rights perspective along with good land governance should be seen as a
means in support of the global agenda. If a hypothetical map of the world is generated by
using the Gross Domestic Product as the scale for territorial size, the so-called western
regions – North America, Western Europe, South Korea and Japan – would ‘balloon’,
while other regions such as Africa and Central Asia would almost disappear (see the map
of United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), 2007). The global agenda is very
much about bringing this map back to scale through poverty eradication, improving edu-
cation and health, facilitating economic development, encouraging good governance and
ensuring sustainability.

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
344 Planning Theory 13(4)

The global agenda is threefold and has changed over recent decades. In the 1990s, the
focus was on sustainable development; in the 2000s, the Millennium Development Goals
were adopted as the overarching agenda; and in the 2010s, there is an increasing focus on
climate change and related challenges such as natural disasters, food shortage and envi-
ronmental degradation. Finally, rapid urbanisation has appeared as a general trend that in
itself has a significant impact on climate change. The eight Millennium Development
Goals form a blueprint agreed to by all the world’s countries and the world’s leading
development institutions. The first seven goals are mutually reinforcing and are directed
at reducing poverty in all its forms. The last goal – global partnership for development
– is about the means to achieve the first seven. These goals are now placed at the heart of
the global agenda. To track the progress in achieving the goals, a framework of targets
and indicators is developed. This framework includes 18 targets and 48 indicators ena-
bling the ongoing monitoring of the progress that is reported on annually (UN, 2000).
In the same way, there is a need to develop targets and indications for human rights
and make them become part of the overall global agenda. This is also recognised by the
UN Human Rights Council (UN-HRC, 2007), for example, through the report on ade-
quate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living. The report
states that

the HRC should consider the relationship between the right to land and congruent human rights
and their implementation, in particular in regard to adequate housing and the right to food and
work as a means to combat poverty, discrimination, violence, evictions and displacement.

The report points at the need for elaborating an operational framework for the realisa-
tion of the right to adequate housing, including indicators and methods of monitoring
which have become more pertinent with the emergence of the Millennium Development
Goals. The development of rights-based indicators and monitoring tools could thus con-
tribute to more effective implementation of the goals and to the fulfilment of relevant
human rights.
The Millennium Development Goals represent a wider concept or a vision for the
future, where the contribution of good land governance is vital. Planners and other land
professionals should consider the goals as a set of global norms that contribute to shape
the ethics and praxis of planning (Roy, 2008). The Millennium Development Goals assist
in contextualising the many voices heard in global discourses about land and the poor.
More specifically, the seventh goal is aimed at ensuring environmental sustainability,
which underpins the fact that the new socio-ecological land policy has one of its roots in
sustainable development (Davy, 2009).
The discussion above regarding the global agenda in relation to human rights imposes
a huge challenge and responsibility on planners and other land professionals. This also
relates to building sustainable systems for land governance, including the provision of
relevant geographic information in terms of mapping and databases of the built and natu-
ral environment, as well as the delivery of secure tenure systems, systems for land valu-
ation, land-use planning and land development. Overall, these systems constitute a
‘backbone’ in society in pursuit of social justice, economic growth and environmental
sustainability.

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Enemark et al. 345

Concluding remarks
The key argument of this article is that land administration systems should embed a
human rights perspective in support of the global agenda and in pursuit of social justice.
Land administration systems reflect the social relationship between people and land,
which is governed by means of allocation and controlling rights, restrictions and respon-
sibilities in land. The Human Rights Declaration can be regarded as a Global Code of
Ethics being promoted and enforced through political commitment and relevant societal
institutions. Land administration systems are highly instrumental in this regard. The
human right to ‘minimal property’ – the right to live somewhere in security, peace and
dignity – cannot be achieved or enforced without functioning systems of land adminis-
tration managing the people-to-land relationship.
Building and managing such land administration systems is the task of planners and
other land professionals based on the legal and institutional framework within the con-
text of a country or jurisdiction. In practice, this task will often include a range of
compromises in order to balance the interests of various stakeholders with the profes-
sional ethics. As addressed above, land administration systems also involve a set of
power relations that activate public interest matters in relation to land. However, the
professionals do have some relative autonomy to draw attention to certain issues, and
to influence policy outcomes by proposing alternative policies (Sanyal, 2002). As
noted by Davy (2009), ‘… each time a binding land use plan is issued, a planning per-
mission is granted or refused, or public spending is determined by a plan, planners and
other land professionals are arranging spatial exclusion and inclusion’ (p. 231).
Therefore, by reflecting and underpinning a human rights perspective and supporting
the global agenda, land administration systems should achieve high-level political sup-
port and recognition.

References
Apel KO (2000) Globalization and the need for universal ethics. European Journal of Social
Theory 3(2): 137–155.
Byamugisha F (2013a) Improving Land Governance for Development: Opportunities and
Challenges for the Survey Profession. Article of the Month, September 2013. International
Federation of Surveyors (FIG), Copenhagen. Available at: http://www.fig.net/pub/monthly_
articles/september_2013/byamugisha.html (accessed 2 December 2013).
Byamugisha F (2013b) Improving Land Governance in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Ten Point Program
to Scale Up Land Policy Reforms and Investments. World Bank. Available at: http://www.
scribd.com/doc/144377306/Securing-Africa-s-Land-for-Shared-Prosperity (accessed 2
December 2013).
Campbell H and Marshall R (2000) Moral obligations, planning, and the public interest: A com-
mentary on current British practice. Planning and Design 2000 27(2): 297–312.
Dale P and McLaughlin J (1999) Land Administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Danish Parliament (1953) The Constitutional Act of Denmark of June 5, 1953. Copenhagen:
Danish Parliament.
Davy B (2009) Centenary paper: The poor and the land: Poverty, property, planning. Town
Planning Review 80(3): 228–265.
De Soto H (2000) The Mystery of Capital. New York, NY: Basic Books.

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
346 Planning Theory 13(4)

Enemark S (2013) Fit-for-purpose: Building spatial frameworks for sustainable and transparent
land governance. Paper presented at Word Bank Conference on land and Poverty, Washington
DC, 8–11 April 2013. Available at: http://www.conftool.com/landandpoverty2013/index.
php?page=browseSessions&;form_session=21&presentations=show (accessed 2 December
2013).
Enemark S, Wallace J and Williamson I (2005) Building modern land administration systems in
developed economies. Journal of Spatial Science 50(2): 51–68.
FIG/GLTN (2010) The social tenure domain model. FIG publication no 52. Copenhagen: FIG
Office. Available at: http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pub52/figpub52.htm (accessed 2
December 2013).
Flyvbjerg B and Richardson T (2002) Planning and Foucault – search of the dark side of planning
theory. In: Allmendinger P and Tewdwr-Jones M (eds) Planning Futures: New Directions for
Planning Theory. London; New York: Routledge, 44–62.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2012) Voluntary guidelines on the responsible govern-
ance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of food security, Rome. Available
at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf (accessed 2 December 2013).
Foucault M (1991) Discipline & Punish. New York: Vintage Books.
Golay C and Cismas I (2010) Legal opinion: The right to property from a human rights per-
spective. International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. Available
at: http://www.geneva-academy.ch/docs/publications/ESCR/humanright-en.pdf (accessed 2
December 2013).
Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science (new series) 162(3859): 1243–1248.
Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions and
Organizations Across Nations. 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Howe E (1994) Acting on Ethics in City Planning. New Brunswick, NJ: CUPR/Transaction.
Jacobs HM (2007) Social conflict over property rights. Land Lines, April, 14–19. Lincoln
Institute of Land Policy. Available at: https://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1222_
LLA070404%20Social%20Conflict%20Over%20Property%20Rights.pdf (accessed 2
December 2013).
North D (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Roy A (2008) Global norms and planning forms: The millennium development goals. Planning
Theory and Practice 9(2): 251–274.
Sanyal B (2002) Globalization, ethical compromise and planning theory. Planning Theory 1(2):
115–123.
UN-HABITAT (2009) Planning sustainable cities. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-HABITAT. Available at:
http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/GRHS2009Abridged.pdf (accessed 2 December
2013).
UN-HABITAT (2010) Settlement planning: UN-Habitat in disaster and conflict contexts. Available
at: http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3193 (accessed 2
December 2013).
UN-HABITAT (2013) Time to think urban. Available at: http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItem-
Details.aspx?publicationID=3456 (accessed 2 December 2013).
UN-HABITAT and GLTN (2010) Citywide strategic planning, Nairobi, Kenya: UN-HABITAT.
Available at: http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3020
(accessed 2 December 2013).

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Enemark et al. 347

UN-HABITAT and GLTN (2012) Handling land – Innovative tools for land governance and
secure tenure. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-HABITAT. Available at: http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/
listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3318 (accessed 2 December 2013).
United Nations (UN) (1991) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General
Comment no 4, The right to adequate housing. Available at: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/
gencomm/econ.htm (accessed 2 December 2013).
United Nations (UN) (1997) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General
Comment no 7, Forced evictions, and the right to adequate housing. Available at: http://
www1.umn.edu/humanrts/gencomm/econ.htm (accessed 2 December 2013).
United Nations Centre for Human Settlement (UNCHS) (1996) The Istanbul Declaration on
Human Settlements. Available at: http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/2072_61331_
ist-dec.pdf (accessed 2 December 2013).
United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) (1993) Commission on Human Rights
resolution 1993/77. Available at: http://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/1341_66115_
force%20evic%20chr1.htm (accessed 2 December 2013).
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN-ECE) (1996) Land administration
guidelines. New York and Geneva: UN. Available at: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/
DAM/hlm/documents/Publications/land.administration.guidelines.e.pdf (accessed 2
December 2013).
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2007) World economy cartogram. Available
at: http://www.grida.no/graphicslib/detail/world-economy-cartogram_1551 (accessed 2
December 2013).
United Nations Human Rights Council (UN-HRC) (2007) Report of the Special Rapporteur on
adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living. UN Human
Rights Council, A/HRC/4/18. Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/chr/spe-
cial/sp_reportshrc_5th.htm (accessed 2 December 2013).
United Nations (UN) (1948) Universal declaration on human rights. New York: UN. Available at:
http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Pages/Language.aspx?LangID=eng (accessed 2 December
2013).
United Nations (UN) (1966) International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). New York: UN. Available at: http://eycb.
coe.int/compass/en/pdf/6_5.pdf (accessed 2 December 2013).
United Nations (UN) (2000) United Nations millennium declaration. In: Millennium summit, New
York, 6–8 September 2000. New York: UN. Available at: http://www.un.org/millennium/
declaration/ares552e.pdf; http://www.unmillenniumproject.org/goals/ (accessed 2 December
2013).
Van Banning TRG (2001) The human right to property. PhD Dissertation, Utrecht University
Library, Utrecht.
Webster C (2007) Property rights, public space and urban design. Town Planning Review 78(1):
81–101.
Wickeri E and Kalhan A (2010) Land issues in international human rights law. Malaysian Journal
on Human Rights 4(1): 16–25. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_
id=1921447 (accessed 2 December 2013).
Williamson I, Enemark S, Wallace J, et al. (2010) Land administration systems for sustainable
development. Redlands, CA: ESRI Academic Press. Available at: http://www.esri.com/land-
ing-pages/industries/land-administration/e-book#sthash.Lp4BYcKW.vmY1XWxG.dpbs
(accessed 2 December 2013).
Yiftachel O (1998) Planning and social control: Exploring the dark side. Journal of Planning
Literature 12(4): 395–406.

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
348 Planning Theory 13(4)

Zevenbergen J (2002) Systems of Land Registration: Aspects and Effects. Delft: Netherlands
Geodetic Commission, Publications on Geodesy 51.

Author biographies
Stig Enemark is Professor of Land Management at Aalborg University, Denmark, where he was
Head of School of Surveying and Planning for 15 years. He is Honorary President of the International
Federation of Surveyors, FIG. His expertise is in the areas of land registration, land administration
systems, land management and spatial planning, and related educational and capacity building
issues. He has consulted and published widely within these areas.
Line Hvingel is Assistant Professor of Land Management at Aalborg University, Denmark. Her
expertise is in land-use planning and the cross-over of land management and spatial data infra-
structures. She is also Editor-in-Chief of the Danish Research Journal Geoforum Perspektiv.
Daniel Galland is Assistant Professor of Urban and Regional Planning at Aalborg University,
Denmark. He has been Visiting Scholar at the School of Urban Planning in McGill University,
and the Institute of Urban and Territorial Studies in the Catholic University of Chile. His
research expertise and academic publications focus on spatial planning systems, policies and
institutions; regional and metropolitan planning; and urban planning and governance.

This content downloaded from

197.156.97.73 on Mon, 14 Dec 2020 04:45:00 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms