1. Provide security of tenure

indicator 1 - tenure types

city and country levels

Type of tenure:

1993

1998

1993

1998

1. Formal Ownership:

% of all households

% of all households

% of women-headed households

% of women-headed households

Owned

93,23%

94,78%

89,93%

91,90%

Purchasing (mortgage)

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

sub-total

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

2. Tenancy:

Private rental

5,04%

3,50%

10,07%

8,10%

Social Housing

1,73%

1,72%

0,00%

0,00%

Sub-tenant

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

sub-total

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

3. Squatter:

without rent

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

with rent

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

sub-total

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

4. Other

homeless

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

other

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

sub-total

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

0,00%

TOTAL (should be equal to 100%)

100,00%

100,00%

100,00%

100,00%

Among those tenure status, which ones are the most precarious ?

Of all forms of tenency the private rental is the most precarious tenure status.

What would be the estimated percentage of households with precarious tenure ?

0%

indicator 2 - evictions

city and country levels

past five years

number of evicted households:

1993

1998

1993-1998

men-headed households

-

-

-

women-headed households

-

-

-

all households

32

29

-

% of evicted from squatter settlements

0%

0%

0%

Explain the main reasons of the decrease or increase in the number of evictions:

The numbers of evictions are almost equal. The is no real chage in this

indicator.