Land tenure and development in Africa DAY 1

Document Sample
Land tenure and development in Africa DAY 1 Powered By Docstoc
					Land tenure and development in Africa: DAY 1

Land and property rights empowerment
High level Commission on legal empowerment of the poor
 The HLC as a significant contribution to reduce poverty.
 UN fully endorsed the initiative, it can make a difference
 There are existing criticisms and concerns about HLC, such as the
   dominant presence of Desoto but is not correct.
 Property for empowerment. Not formalization per se.
 Need to enter in the global search
 Aim to obtain an inclusive legal order
 Structure of HLC high level of practitioners and experts. System
   of working groups.

Legal empowerment, property rights and development
(power point presentation available)
ILD- Institute for Liberty and Democracy
 Assist countries in the transition to a modern and inclusive
   economy
 Identify the main types of extralegal real estate assets
 Magnitude and value of extralegal real assets
 Identify the “social contracts” the extralegal practices and
   mechanisms to prove ownership, standardize contract
 Identify main obstacles to formalize real assets and convert them to
   live capital. Analyse laws, regulations and public estates
 Articulate legal procedures to formalize ownership.
 Establishing and Inclusive legal system that incorporates extralegal
   arrangements, provides legal security and facilitate converting
   extralegal assets to live capital
 Building a consensus to support the reform
 Education an publicity campaign and feedback mechanism to
   improve the proposed reforms
 Encourage participation of stakeholders during the implementation
   of the formalization
Reflecting on formalization of property rights…

panel discussion                                    Reaction
                                                    (presenters)
o Common property can be formalized but
  there is need of concrete examples                o Important that
o Definition of “death capital” is not totally         people        could
  correct. Property transformed in capital             have the chance
  implies  land marketing approach                    to choose the
o How practically works the accommodation of           kind of tenure
  extralegal asset in formalization? It is not an      they want.
  adjustment but is incorporating the               Ex of Peru they
  extralegal in the mechanism                       have           already
o Formalization as a problem Complexity            parcelled. Some of
  arising from the multilegal nature. The           them decided to
  indigenous cultural and social values to be       formalize          their
  considered.                                       common property
o The western notion of property is the             and      they       had
  formalization of “customary” western tenure       collective titles.
  system                                            o Not establishing
o The customary is not as static as people             a    model        but
  think; it evolves and transforms organically.        legal owners in
o need of a clear understanding of how the             order to protect
  “extralegal works”                                   security of land
o Conceptualize the tenure arrangements                tenure.
o Procedures social arrangements legal and          o But      remember
  cultural values                                      the failures of
o Securing access to assets is the key                 projects         that
o Social safety because poor people are                have              not
  depending upon land                                  included          the
o Formalization of land property sometimes do          final
  not take into account the extra-legal.               registration.
  sometimes in “making order” more social
  injustices can be created
o It‟s not a question of formalization; it‟s a
  question of security
o Enable land owners for accessing credit
o Land conflicts to be solved; land courts are
  very expensive
o Open market create a risk of landless
  society (small control if the market is open)
o Public safety
o Many areas where land issue come up
  (gender, poverty reduction and PRSP
  consultation; environment)Cross practice
  area
o Lot of research, lot of institutions
  networking and codifying is crucial
o End-up the top-down approach, CSOs
   empowerment. Set up indicators together
   with CSOs (ex Mongolia, Philippines)




Open discussion                                    Reactions
                                                   (presenters)
o HLC composition, there is no CSOs
  representation; is it a deliberate decision? o good examples
o Land that poor use is a “live capital”!          of            newly
o Inevitable the existing power structure. How     formalized
  to secure confidence of government and           owners,      before
  elite?                                           they    had       no
                                                   identity,         No
o Important debate. Modern law today is the        access to credit.
  traditional European. The local practice are ex.     Variety        of
  very dynamic, need to understand where is possibilities opened
  the “tradition”                              20        agreements
o Formalization issue  who is owning the signed by public .
  land?                                        information system
o How can be prevented the land conflicts?     ex. People paying
o Ask the local population what do they taxes,                     link
  think? Democracy issue                       formalised owners
o Whose security we are trying to secure?      and the rest of the
o Who are the poor? Destitution, chronicle world (financial and
  poverty? Or transitory poverty?              private sectors)
o Common property titling and certificates  to                 create
  more details needed!                         consciousness
                                               among
                                               stakeholders to be
                                               put in the highest
                                               political agenda
                                               o how to formalize
                                                   common
                                                   property? Same
                                                   process:
                                               survey of existing
                                               tenure system legal
                                               system        to      be
                                               provided.        People
                                               need               legal
                                               representatives!
                                                     The design of
                                                       HLC?
                                                    Choose made on
                                                    purpose: group of
                                                    policy makers. But
                                                    the interaction and
                                                    engagement of CSO
                                                    is the intention of
                                                    HLC.            That
                                                    interaction will be
                                                    possible     through
                                                    the working groups.
                                                    The      commission
                                                    has to have impact,
                                                    thinking to invite
                                                    NGOS       in    the
                                                    commission.

Reaction (panel)                                    Reaction
                                                    (presenter)
There is ground to be sceptical!
o Empirical evidence still needed, Independent      o Need to learn
  analysis not affiliated to ILD.                      from successes
o The explanatory model (theoretical) is not           and failure.
  evident that formalization has link with the          Need        to
  valorisation of the asset!                        understand
o Reduction of conflict. Difference among           realities
  settlement in urban areas and rural.
o Knowledge to be communicated at many              But to ACCEPT
  level                                             THE STATUS QUO
o UN stronger mandate to secure development         is NOT AN OPTION
  and human rights
o Make explicit the implicit intention of HLC.
  Definition of legal empowerment (that can be
  different in different contexts), definition of
  secure access. Where are the alternative
  models?     Participation      and    emerging
  consensus
o There is a community of interests, work
  together to remove obstacles.
o The issue of HLC composition is an issue!
  We are not convinced that the Commission
  is not biased by few individuals, but this is
  not a criticism but is an offering for
  collaboration.
o Every      reform       has      consequences,
  formalization for empowerment could expose
  people to insecurity (ex market approach)
o Not only access to rights but give theme the
  opportunities to benefit


Tenure related development issues in Africa
(Power point presentations available for each session)

    Outcomes of the international conference Land in Africa:
      Market asset or livelihood security
   Equitable access to land is central, for democracy and sustainable
   development
   Land is relevant to the peace and security agenda
   Securing rights: challenges and innovation (Ethiopia, Mozambique
   and Benin are good examples)
   Considering and managing the commons
   What can donors do?
    Land tenure systems, food security & sustainable
      development in Africa
   UNECA contributes to land debate in Africa. Workshop report
    Land agricultural change and conflict in West Africa
   OECD
   Land as a complex set of converging issues
    Land tenure after violent conflicts
   FAO
   Displacement and mobility
   Vulnerability and livelihoods
   Competition
   Need to consolidate peace
   Conflict and post-conflict environments: characteristics, risk and
   key challenge, missing or weak institutions; escalating of conflicts,
   other challenges (statutory vs customary. External support vs
   national and local ownership)
   FAO field activities (Angola, Mozambique, Sudan)


Reflecting on tenure related development issues in Africa

   o Complexity. Political sensitivity. Human resources and financial
     resources. Small allocation of fund to land issue
   o Scarcity leading to conflict. Escalating of conflicts. Need of
     mainstream in post war reconstruction
   o Multiple initiatives syndrome!!!
   o Underlying principle in Namibia: resolve dispute early (before
     escalation) valuable lesson from neighbouring countries
     Botswana (land courts) Zimbabwe (land tax to finance
     distribution of land to poor. Need to have a transparent and
     equitable process in distributing land.
  o Management of land at subregional level, consensus approach
    for cross-board areas (pastoralists: mobility of people and
    animals)

Reactions (panellists)
  o Land has played a different role in the different countries.
  o Scarcity is not always the main problem (ex Liberia)
  o Multiple initiative, capitalise what already exists, respond to a
     demand. Regional level
  o Review land reform going on
  o Regional actors need regional principles. Transhumance
     corridor at the top of the agenda in Sahel region.
  o Focussing on regional strategy! Regional implications of wealth
     generation and people movements to be discussed at regional
     level.
  o Try to get everybody together and avoid replication.
  o Land is always politicised, the governance dimension is a key to
     learn!
  o Political empowerment of the poor!

Customary and statutory tenure: conflict or opportunity?

   The commons and customary law in modern times:
     rethinking orthodoxies
  (paper available)
  Outstanding pool of insecurity is for the commons!
  Large proportions of African share commons SHAREHOLDERS
  Time is arrived to link the land registration clarification and legal
  entrenchment of commons.
  1) what are commons; 2)Why they are surviving? 3) Whose are
  they? 4) Why are so insecure? 5) What do we mean for customary
  resource?
  The shareholder is the only asset that poor have sometimes
  Customary is a land tenure management system.
   Gender and tenure in African customary law
  (power point presentation available)
  Understand the terms and conditions of land rights (access, control
  and ownership).
  Women‟s land rights under African customary law  no reflect
  women interpretation of customs!
  Interface between customary and statutory land rights for women
  Policy as a roadmap to link customary
  Capture the positive “living” customary law aspects
  Innovative and proactive
   Legal pluralism as a policy option: is it desirable, is it
     doable?
  (paper available)

  Reflecting on customary vs statutory
o Legal pluralism is not an option is a condition
o The communal property association (south Africa example) are
   often dysfunctional and abused
o Issues of boundaries is fundamental for commons
o The mortgage issue has to be extended to common property?
   Mortgaging land or resource on it?
o Tenure security divided from collateralisation (ex Unité Pastoral)
o Gender. Poligamy case, fragmentation of land
o How to get secure rights to individuals within a group settling?
o Policies and laws interacting with customary laws can transform
   customs, is it possible to interact customary law without
   absorbing it?
o What are the configuration of the system can deliver significant
   economic improvement wellbeing
Even in a long term perspectives

Reactions (panellists)
o Boundaries are priority! The confusion is created because there
  is confusion among        communal jurisdiction and common
  property
o Try to answer: which community to get back which land?
o Definition of the communal domain. The individual rights are
  important in the community
o Land use planning
o External right-holders
o Not all Common Property groups has to have institutions but it
  is important to build on customary law
o 10 years of formalization in Kenya had not resulted in economic
  improvement
o In polygamy systems important to consider the equalities among
  households.

Land tenure policy in the context of legal dualism across
Africa

Legal dualism and land policy in Eastern and Southern Africa
(power point presentation available)

 Embracing tenure dualism in a pro-active manner
ex of Lesotho
 Need to be realistic!

Legal pluralism and land policy in West Africa
(power point presentation available)

Each country is taking option on the basis of historical reasons

West African case study: Benin
  (power point presentation available)


Reflecting on land tenure policy in the context of legal dualism

  o Need to address practical issues. General effort in creating NEW
    SYSTEMS
  o Transforming extra-legality into law  what we can expect from
    the state in this process? Issue of legitimacy!
  o The customary concept should analysed on the basis of different
    interpretation of customs by different people
  o Access to land is not an aim itself, there are low potential areas.
    It is important to focus on the land use planning not just the
    legal aspect.
  o How to give legitimacy to the multiple systems if the discourse is
    dominated by one side? (globalisation effect)
  o There are people living outside the law!

Reactions (panellists)

  o The customary is in real life!
  o The legal system is dominating the discourse actually  in
    order to be pragmatic it is requested to recognise the legal
    system is the leading core structure!
  o The customary law changes over years. Practices change. But
    we are still talking about customary because it is still prevailing.

  o Concurrence of challenges; issues and realities. Dualism and
    pluralism is a reality. The question is if the primacy should be
    the western system or primacy should be the traditional or
    customary. There is no empirical evidence that one is better
    than the other!
Land and tenure development in Africa: DAY 2

Land innovations in Africa
(paper available)

   UN-HABITAT
    Challenge: Pro-poor affordable system to be scaled-up
    Characteristics: a) adapting PRSPs objectives to land
     administration b) Focus on dispute resolutions c) Technical
     design d) Focus on gender and HIV/AIDS
    Process: Global network of existing network for land tool
     developers for: Registry/land records, surveying/cadastre, land
     tax/valuation, planning, spatial information, land law and the
     associated land governance issue.

Reflecting on innovations (open discussion and reaction from
panellist)
  o Use both spatial and non spatial information (not land parcel
      basis approach!)
  o Boundaries: a) consider flexibilities of boundaries
                  b) boundaries description among neighbouring
                  communities in the recording process; involve
                  communities
  o Take into account the political threats that may prevent
      innovations
  o The community awareness is crucial


Decentralization process in West Africa, risk and opportunities:
(power point presentation available)
    Strong political and development issues
    Learning from past experiences: need of participation of the
     poor DEMOCRACY issue
    Effectiveness of land issue through: a) legal pluralism, b) local
     rules; c) local conventions, d) validation; e) alternative land
     dispute resolution
    Risks: lack of competencies and resources; potential conflicts;
     „transfer of corruption”; institutional confusion
    Autochthony vs citizenship

Reflecting on decentralization (open discussion and reaction of
panellist)
  o Risks: creation of barriers for mobility (ex pastoralists);
      politicization; exclusion of certain groups
    o How much devolution can central government do? (ex wildlife
      and minerals for all country or for local communities?)
    o Decentralization need to be done with the State
    o Better understanding of national interests and local interests is
      important
    o Abuse of power and authority from traditional elite is possible.
      The “paradox of decentralisation”. Giving power at local level,
      where power already exists and is not always democratic.
    o Need of power balance, not much state but better state
    o Need to include natural resource management issue
    o Need to consider access rights but also use rights
    o Need to know successful experiences.

Water and land
International workshop African Water Laws (Jan 2005)
(power point presentation available)
    Recommendations:
   In policy and law: Recognize community-based arrangements
   besides or equal to state law
   Revive the water infrastructure development agenda
   Registration
   Raise the thresholds and field-test logistics!
   Fee payment
   charge large-scale users; ensure net-income for the state
   Build on customary e.g. conflict resolution
   Protect small-scale users
   Compensate the poor if water is taken away
   Enable water titling irrespective of land title
   Vest water rights in collectivities – which?
   Research and capacity recommendations:
   More study on customary, interface, and impact of reform
   Codification?
   Liaise with the Africa land tenure debates

    o Risk of disempowering the poor



Learning from land policy process:
Key points

   Political feasibility and political will
   Key interests in different contexts
   Budget and implementation implications for up-scaling
   Capacity building
   Coordination among partners

Some inputs from country experiences
 Long political process working at legislative and institutional level
   (experience of the Code Rural Niger)
Reflecting on Niger experience:
o Long term process, but real ownership of the government
o How to integrate different kind of authorities? (ex. Gov and local
   chiefs?)
o Gap among needs and realities. Need of information sharing,
   equipment and capacity.
o Start from the operation side (from low level). Security is the
   priority not cadastre!
o It is a matter of process not just of law  learning process

 Land reform for a) power balance
                   b) enhance livelihoods
                   c) remove inequalities (Namibia experience)
 Land reform and land redistribution through land titling to address
  broader issues (food security, health and gender) (Ethiopia
  experience)
 Tribal land board. Including customary law (Botswana experience)
 Facing new challenges: pressure on land and changes in families
  structure, risk of exponential urbanization, new challenges for
  constitutional review process (Kenya experience)

Reflecting on country experiences
o The legal experts have dominated the debate on land reform. It is
  time to also consider lans as an economic opportunity
o The inclusive process takes time
o The resources are often scarce
o Need to understand who is really benefiting from reforms
o Need to include MDGs objectives, target and indicators in land
  debate. And to consider MDGs as a flexible framework
o Figure out the new role of CSOs
o Important to be free from donor patronage
o Need to exchange experiences among Anglophone and
  Francophone countries

Learning from civil society experience
(power point presentations available for the experiences of Zambia
Land Alliance, Uganda Land Alliance and Land net West Africa)

 Capacity building and strengthening of civil society is important
 Opening space for dialogue (ILC)
Zambia Land Alliance
 The CSOs can influence process of policy consultation including
   most disadvantaged part of population (case of ZLA)
Lessons learnt and challenges:
1. Easy to influence from „inside‟ than parallel process;
2. Civil society alliances are effective for collective action and
   consensus building;
3. Joint partnerships increases transparency in policy cons. process;
4. Civil society ensures the participation of the poor and marginalized
5. However, the pace of the review process has been slow (5 years now
   no final policy but second draft);
6. Civil society regarded as a lesser partner in the process;
7. Inadequate political will to speed up and finalize the process;
8. Inadequate financial commitment from government;
9. Very few cooperating partners willing to support land policy
   reforms;
10. Consensus building on divergent views difficult especially
   between the traditional leaders and government;
11. Big information gap between government officials and
   communities on land policy and law;
12. Inadequate technical capacity by civil society to effectively
   engage in policy review process

Uganda Land Alliance
 A wider participation in the CSO alliance. Inclusiveness ensures
   ownership, constituency and credibility (case of ULA)
Challenges:
1. Legitimacy: Our mandate has been questioned.
2. Mobilizing resources: Influencing policymakers is a necessary but
   expensive venture especially on sensitive issues like land.
3. Sustaining the lobby group: Meeting the expectations of members
4. Time: If its dragging, some people give up along the way
5. The message: clear message and position.
6. Know the facts: Especially spokespersons
7. Documentation of the problem
8. Choose the best messenger: Should be a credible source in the eyes
   of the target audience
9. Importance of Working with others: The safety of numbers
10. Persistence on the issue: Policy reform is not an event but a
   process.
11. Compromise: Be prepared for it. Only way some thing positive
   could be put in the law.
12. Manage the process and prepare for the sticky moments. E.g.
   opponents. listen to them, analyse their views and turn to your
   advantage
13. Proper planning and organisation, including building the
   capacity of members to articulate the issue at all levels

LandNet West Africa
 It is important to start from shared diagnostic of real situations
  (LNWA)
 Inform, raise awareness and getting consensus
 Strategy for participating in implementation process (not just in the
  draft consultation. Need to build and action plan

Reflecting on CSOs experiences
o Concern: long time requires for the process described!
o Risk: donor dependency, co-option by the government
o What makes the alliance really work?
o How to gain internally owned consensus within the alliance?
o Consensual modalities are important, is there space for social
  movements positions?
o Outside partners are truly interested in participating in the
  democratization process?
o The donor dependency is a risk, but it is important to consider the
  value of international solidarity as well (give voice, visibility and
  even protection to national CSOs)

Some final considerations on the way forward

Trying to be pragmatic but also revolutionary!

o   Problem of inclusion and exclusion lead the discourse
o   There is a clear need to start from real situations
o   There is a need to have implementation plans and strategies
o   Challenge: managing dualism/pluralism that is existing
o   There is a need to link other development factors and areas of
    activities
o   There is a need to think beyond the property paradigm
o   There is a need to respond to the “globalised” agenda
o   The legal plurality should be addressed
o   There is a strong need to know and share successful stories among
    African experiences.
Land and tenure development in Africa: DAY 3

Review of days 1 and 2. (power point presentation available)
Outcomes of matrix ranking and comments (document available)

Developing synergies around the dominant land rights issues in
Africa

African Union
     Key elements of the workshop discussion:
1) complexity of land tenure system
2) ownership issue
3) time element is crucial
4) Balance of power
5) How do we minimize the multiple initiatives syndrome?
6) policy debate in a broader development debate
7) disseminate good practices
     Creating partnership
Inclusiveness and good governance
Land as a cross-cutting element
AU taking lead role to move the agenda on land forward in Africa
ADB and other partners can link the land debate to other development
programmes. The partnership guarantees the critical mass of
expertise.

FAO
ICARRD 7-10 March 2006 (power point presentation available)
Create a lasting platform for dialogue and share best practices and
lessons learnt

Do our policies correspond to the issues, our programmes to the
capacity building needs?

Recommendations of the Pan-African Programme on land
Resource Rights (PAPLLRR)
(power point presentation available)
    African knowledge network. 4 collaborating institutions (ACTS,
     PLAAS, SRC, CCDI)
    Key concerns at subregional level (water scarcity, land
     redistribution etc)
    Objective: Pan African voice on land and resource rights
    Thematic issues: 1) land/property tenure reforms-paradigm
     and policy processes 2) resource scarcity and conflicts 3) land
     use system and innovations, conservation, urbanization 4)
     impact of globalization/free market 5) gender and cultural
     system
   Recommendations:
  Need to appreciate land/resource tenure as a key of sustainable
  economic development for Africa;
  futility of the one-size-fits-all approaches of multilateral
  institutions;
  Need for pluralism in tenure reforms
  Need to ensure equity
  Need to appreciate land/resource tenure within the overall
  governance context of democratization, devolution of decision-
  making authority, decentralization, and resource allocation;
  holistic perspective of the land/resource tenure problem
  Need for caution on promoting international instruments – some
  (like CBD) can enhance access/tenure rights while others (like
  TRIPs) can undermine them;
  Need     to   listen    to    and   support    (especially  African)
  networks/movements on land/resource rights – Land Alliances,
  Land Nets; PAPLRR
  Need to integrate the multidimensional African land/resource
  rights issues in the agenda of bilateral, multilateral and
  intergovernmental institutions/processes – NEPAD, UNDP, WSSD;
  Need for genuine partnerships in addressing land/resource rights
  in Africa


Linking development partners’ land policies to land rights needs

Review of development partner land policies & relevance to
African development
(power point presentation available)

    Analysis of 11 agencies land-specific papers (1998-2005) and
       survey of ILC partners with the aim to know:
Recent development of new donor policies
Identify how agencies approach land issues
Compare “on-paper” with “in-practice”
Key considerations:
1.Land Reform 2. Formality and Security of Tenure 3. Common
Property and Communal Tenure 4. Women‟s Secure Access
5. Titling and Land Administration 6. Land Markets (Sales and Rental)
7. Smallholders, Land and Trade 8. Land and Conflict
9. Environmental Sustainability 10. Land, Culture and Indigenous
Peoples 11. Participation, Democracy and Governance
    Strengths:
   Increasing available information on land matters
   Support to development of policy frameworks
   Financial resources and technical skills
   Support to and engagement with civil society
    Weaknesses:
   Limited timeframe
  Lack of implementation of laws and regs
  Limited understanding of customary systems
  Identifying innovation and tailoring models
  Reliance on market-based approach
  Involvement of vulnerable groups in decision-making.
 Recommendations:
  Support existing forms of transactions
  Increase assistance to small-scale producers
  Strengthen women‟s rights to land
  Foster links between government, civil society and communities
  Direct involvement in project activities

Comments from panel on the review document

CIDA
   o The 2003 paper on land (mentioned in the review) had not much
      attraction at CIDA. (“disappeared”)
   o No corporate perspectives or policy on land, but multilateral and
      bilateral initiatives or support NGOs on land issue
   o Needs: to participate more on international policy dialogue and
      in multi-donor activities; support CSOs advocacy at national
      and international level; prepare a strategic policy paper
   o Recognition of a growing demand to address land issue
IDRC
   o No specific programme on land but it is part of the mandate:
      strengthening the capacity of people and country in developing
      countries. governmental and CSO levels
   o Programme on rural poverty and environment access to land
      rights to be addressed
   o Link land to the issue of interaction between people and
      environment
DFID
   o 2002 land paper mentioned in the review.
   o Agreement on some review findings, namely: the lack of
      implementation and long term activities as a problem.
   o Other aspects not mentioned to be taken into consideration in
      donors interventions: reinforce the catalytic role in facilitating
      and helping to create policy space; support the development of
      consensus; need to focus more on implementation although
      there are constraints at country level; adopt a non dogmatic
      approach; need to be well informed on the local situation.
IFAD
o What people say to do is not always what they do!
o Comprehensive stocktaking exercise is a good starting point for
   coordination and analyse lessons learnt.
o African people should lead the review process at country level
o Agree with the recommendations
o IFAD activities on land, eastern and southern Africa division
   (activities in Rwanda, Madagascar, Tanzania and Kenya)
Rockefeller fondation
o No traditional work on land (food security and education) but
1) Equity and efficiency related to land is crucial for food security
2) Multidimensional driver of women empowerment 3) future
involvement in urban development and housing problems in urban
areas secure tenure in informal settlements
o Remark the issues of power relations.
o Activism, test approaches, fundamental political changes, support
   ADB, NEPAD and AU  empowering African institutions
GEF
o Include all themes of the review dividing into different areas
o Political will is a barrier for land tenure project
UN-HABITAT
o by 2007 majority of people in urban areas of Africa 70% informal
   settlements tenure security issue
o UN-HABITAT responsible of one indicators of MDGsurgency to
   address the problem
FAO
o Need to improve security of access rights
o Need of more: implementation, learning from projects and
   coordination.
o FAO activities (technical advise, bulletin case studies, literacy work
   to be strengthened)

Reflecting on the above…
o Need to coordinate research as well
o How to define roles? Need to understand what is taking place at
  global level and understand when CSOs can and should play a role
  at national and global level. Need to legitimate the role of CSOs
  that is recognised but should be better exploited
o Big constraint represented by government mentality in land
  administration.
o Land administration institutions are the most corrupted and weak!
  Problem of private interests.
o Tenure security as a public good. Duties and care to be provided by
  the State
o Democratic pressure for the law to be done by CSOs
o Strengthen the relationships with local communities
o Golden opportunity given by this workshop for AU and NEPAD to
  work with ministries.
o Need to be much brave!
o Paradox  on one hand land tenure is recognised as crucial for
  development but on the other hand the governments often do not
  consider land issue as a priority. Need high commitment, high
  priority to land.
o Capacity building is more than training and workshop. It is
  difficult to get attention of donors for intermediate and national
  level capacity building needs.
o Power relations existing also at local level power struggles
o Suggestion: bring governance issue and land issue at the African
  Conference in Kigali (at least 1 representative of gov, 1 for CSO and
  1 for UNDP for each country)
o Remark the Political empowerment need. Need to have piloting
  experiences, have projects. Learning by doing! Remember that the
  procedures have to be extremely simple is not meant for elite but
  for the mass!
o The cadastre is not necessary for land rights security, but the
  agreement and the adjudication process.

Synergies for results
(power point presentation available)
UNDP
Piloting modalities for synergies:
 UNDP & ILC internal actions
 UNDP – Global survey, Roadmap, Resources SourceBook,
   Programming Guidelines, Regional Programs, Global knowledge
   networking project
 Regional: Contribution to AU land framework (globally FAO Brazil),
 Nationally: (a) Pilot co-facilitation exercises (Benin) (b) support to
   CO land related activities (governance ,gender, crisis, environment)
 Use CO structure to open doors to others at Country level (scale of
   UNDP comparative adv) : linking supply and demand
 Overall: mainstream land rights into development

Ideas for synergy
o African conference; NEPAD. Crucial moment for mainstreaming.
o PRSPs and MDGs  UNDP should do all that it can do in these two
   processes about land
o Innovative areas and new approaches are missing to address the
   abuse of power at central and local government in rural and urban
   areas.
o UNDP can bring together multisectoral and multidisciplinary
   initiatives related to land.
o It is not easy to advocate for land in terms of governance
   (accountability, social justice) it is important to use the right
   language and avoid delicate “terminology”
o Use international human rights conventions tools such as the
   CEDAW. Those can be: monitoring tool, advocacy tool and useful
   for bringing resources together.
o Sharing the findings of the researches, exploring what have been
   done and share it.
o Human development report of UNDP and land issue.
o HLC should include all what have been said in the workshop.
o Challenge in governance creation of new systems.
o It is not always a land policy reform that is needed; sometimes
   there is only the need to improve the land administration systems.
Comments

    Open questions coming from the workshop:

 It is a question of security or a question of formalization  what
  philosophy behind the selection of terms? What strengths and
  weaknesses of two perspectives in real contexts and in the
  globalized agenda?
 Status quo in Africa  is there a true agreement on the necessity
  to leave behind the status quo?
 Multiple systems are a certain factor how to give legitimacy to
  those if the discourse is dominated by one side? (david and Golia…)
 “Extra-legal” live or death capital? What perspective behind?
 Common property and formalization of legal entitlements  where
  are practical examples; how practically work the accommodation of
  “extra-legal” assets in formalization process?
 Communities and commons  what community? What common?
  Risk of confusion, how to make it clear? What priority?
 Individual human rights how to secure rights for individual
  within group settlings?
 “Good” living elements of customary system in support of
  development purpose  how to capture those elements in the land
  policy land laws formulation and land administration adjustments
  processes?
 Long term processes to guarantee inclusiveness but also urgency of
  actions to be taken (MDGs target and other development burning
  issues related to land) Giving up what?
 Implementation and up-scaling issues  what role for civil society
  vs Governement? What role for decentralised institutions vs State?
 How to address the sensitive “balance of power” concept in
  operational strategies?

    Recommendations coming from the workshop:
   Documenting and sharing knowledge on best practices and
    successful experience at country level; learning from past
    experiences, exchanges among Anglophone and francophone
    countries.
   Coordination  different partners and big opportunities of African
    institutions for mainstreaming, coordination among researchers
   Need of piloting and innovative approaches.
   Encouraging governments to give high priority and high
    commitment (budget allocation and strategy at the top of political
    agenda)

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:11
posted:5/2/2010
language:English
pages:19