guides the future development of policies and housing programmes. This document, however, provides little guidance with respect to human rights or eviction and demolition programmes. It does identify problems of previous experiences with resettlement projects, most notably that there is a disconnect between the implementation of resettlement and the provision of livelihood for those resettled.84 Moreover, the Framework also raises the sustainability of resettlement sites as a major impediment to effective urban development and housing.85 Section 7 of the UDHA requires all city and municipal governments to identify underutilised lands within their jurisdictions, creating an ‘Inventory of Lands’. This inventory must be updated and provided to HUDCC every three years. Using this inventory, section 8 requires LGUs, in coordination with various housing and other government entities, to identify lands appropriate for social housing and for resettlement sites. Section 8 also requires any government-owned lands not being used for a ten-year period to be immediately transferred to the National Housing Authority, subject to the approval of the President or the LGU concerned. Sections 9 to 13 establish the various means by which lands may be acquired for the purpose of social housing. HUDCC has made available to LGUs detailed guidelines on the preparation of the inventory of lands to be made available for social housing and the acquisition, valuation and disposition of lands. These guidelines provide explicit detail on how LGUs may go about meeting their obligations under the UDHA. However, they are not law and cannot bind LGUs to act in accordance with their terms. There is some concern that the design of this framework is inimical to the protection of human rights during the resettlement process. Whether communities are effectively resettled and provided with adequate housing in accordance with international human rights standards will largely depend upon the enabling capacity of the institutional framework. In other words, the law should explicitly provide responsibilities for individual government entities to undertake discrete functions to ensure compliance with international human rights standards. This capacity is inhibited where there is an absence in the law of clearly defined responsibilities for government to undertake the specific tasks required to facilitate community resettlement and provide housing. During roundtable discussion activities held with government stakeholders, a number of agencies identified that the lack of compliance with these legislative provisions was preventing the implementation of efficient housing programmes, and the identification and acquisition of lands for social housing projects. Although the UDHA contemplates the measures by which this shall be realised, through the creation of an inventory of lands and the identification within those lands of sites suitable for social housing, it does not sufficiently stipulate each government entity responsible for the performance of these measures. Sections 7 and section 8 identify a collection of agencies, and LGUs, responsible for the single functions of creating the inventory of land and identifying social housing sites. It is clear that all city and municipal governments must conduct the inventory and submit it to HUDCC every three years. However, it is not clear which agency or entity is responsible for other 84 Housing and Urban Development Coordinating Council, National Urban Development and Housing Framework: 2009-2016, 2009, pp. 27 and 78. 85 Ibid, pp. 94 and 100. 54  Human Rights in the Rubble