A/HRC/56/47 away from coastline areas designated as “no-build zones”. 65 Seven years later, in 2020, relocated households reportedly felt safer in their current housing due to reduced flooding and water-related risks compared to their former settlements.66 Similarly, in Belize, relocated persons reported feeling safer in their new locations, noting that they no longer experienced regular losses of crops and animals as in their previous location. 43. Some relocated persons encounter tensions, violence and conflict. Displaced families of the El Bosque community in Mexico were reportedly living in makeshift shelters on a football field while awaiting relocation. Living near new neighbours heightened tensions and conflicts due to community members’ stress.67 Allegations of gender-based violence were reported by relocated persons in Sierra Leone, the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea, prompting return to unsafe areas in some instances.68 Tensions between relocated persons and surrounding communities were reported in Panama,69 the Philippines, 70 Bangladesh, 71 and Fiji,72 showing how population pressure strains resources worsened by the adverse effects of climate change and environmental degradation.73 3. Right to land 44. Legal uncertainties over land tenure in relocation areas can jeopardize the security and stability of relocated communities. In the Philippines, the Government resettled more than 20,000 informal settlers living in at-risk coastal communities to elevated and mostly periurban areas of affected towns as part of its long-term disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation strategies. Seven years after the 2013 typhoon, they were reportedly relocated to Tacloban, but felt insecure as their housing award certificates lacked ownership specifications. 74 Online consultations revealed that urban settings posed a set of unique challenges for planned relocations not applicable in rural settings, such as limited availability of housing and land and the risk of evictions due to urban development and gentrification. 75 45. Customary land arrangements in relocation areas can also leave relocated persons with insecure land tenure. In Papua New Guinea, 97 per cent of the land is reportedly owned by customary landowning groups. In the 1970s, the Government acquired once customary land that was leased to the Catholic Church in 1904 for the relocation of villages to Nuigo settlement owing to recurring flooding of the Sepik River. Reportedly, some 50 years later, the customary landowners continue to monitor and restrict activities for land use, hindering the ability of relocated communities and their descendants to expand their homes and engage in income-generating activities, such as poultry farming or establishing trade stores.76 4. Right to adequate housing 46. Housing outcomes for relocated communities have been mixed. In Bangladesh and India, some people displaced in the context of environmental degradation have become homeowners upon relocation. A man who lost his dwelling and agricultural lands on Ghoramara Island, India due to coastal erosion stated that, before being relocated, “the road is where we used to live”.77 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 Minh Tran and others, “Durable solutions, human rights and the politics of mobility: insights from a study of internally displaced people in post-typhoon Haiyan Tacloban City, Philippines”, Journal of Social Research, vol. 46, No. 1 (2023). Submission by the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines. Submission by Moreno and Fry. Online consultation, March 2024. Kimura, Lagrotte and McFadyen, “Understanding the needs of indigenous communities”. Submission by Ginbert Permejo Cuaton and Yvonne Su. Submission by ActionAid Bangladesh. Submission by the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee. A/76/169, para. 56. Submission by the Commission on Human Rights of the Philippines. Submission by Raquel Lejtreger. Submission by the Asia Pacific Academic Network on Disaster Displacement. Submission by Oana Stefancu and Neil Adger. 11