BMGF Land Issues Framework


Published on

Presentation from Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Document Identifier
  • Definitions adapted from FAO, 2003 Multi-lingual thesaurus on land tenure ; UN-HABITAT, 2003 Handbook on Best Practices, Security of Tenure and Access to Land ; and Sida, 2007, Natural Resource Tenure.
  • Cotula 2002 citing FAO 1995; WDR 2008 citing Andriquet and Bonomi 2007 and von Braun 2003 Deininger 2003 Cotula 2002 citing FAO 1995
  • Dabiré and Zongo, 2005
  • Rocheleau and Edmunds, 1997, on the Luo of Kenya.
  • Shackleton et al 1999, in Cousins WP 125 Land Tenure and Economic Development in Rural South Africa: Constraints and Opportunities Source: WRI 2005 citing Dei 1992:67 Fisher 2004 Kerapeletswe and Lovett 2001:1 Cavendish 1998:7.
  • Shackleton et al 1999, in Cousins WP 125 Land Tenure and Economic Development in Rural South Africa: Constraints and Opportunities Milennium Ecosystems Assessment (2005): Transformation of rangelands to cultivated systems (approximately 15% of dryland grasslands, the most valuable dryland range, were converted between 1950 and 2000).
  • According to UNAIDS 2008 REPORT ON THE GLOBAL AIDS EPIDEMIC: 2007 estimate - more than 11 million children (-17yrs) in sub-Saharan Africa have lost at least one parent to HIV/AIDS; By 2010, expected to rise to 20 million children in SSA who have lost at least one parent to HIV/AIDS. Countries which have more than 300,000 orphans due to AIDS include Cameroon, Cote D ’ Ivoire, Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe,
  • 1. Mozambique Land Act 1997: both men and women can have use rights in state-owned land, and succession must not discriminate on grounds of sex (arts. 10(1) and 16(1)). Niger Rural Code 1993: recognizes the "equal vocation" of citizens to access natural resources without sex discrimination (art. 4). Mali: legislation regulating access to irrigated plots in the Office du Niger scheme explicitly prohibits discrimination between men and women (Decree 96-188 of 1996, arts. 20 and 32). Uganda Land Act 1998: customary land right certificates are to be issued recording customary use rights (eg women’s rights to their husband ’ s land) (s. 6(1)(e)). Land adjudication to be decided according to customary law, but decisions denying women access to ownership, occupation or use are null and void (s. 28). Women must be represented in the Uganda Land Commission (at least 1 member; sect. 48(4)), District Land Boards (at least 1/3 of members; s. 58(3)) + Parish-level Land Committees (at least 1 member; s. 66(2)). Selling, leasing or giving away land requires the consent of the spouse (s. 40). However, a clause introducing presumption of spousal co-ownership, initially included in the legislation passed by the Parliament, was excluded by the President from the gazetted text. Tanzanian Land Act 1998: (ss. 3(1)(c) and 3(2)) explicitly affirms the equality of men ’ s and women ’ s land rights. Spousal co-ownership of family land is presumed (s. 161). Consent of both spouses is required to mortgage the matrimonial home (s. 112(3)), in case of repayment default, lender must serve a notice to the borrower ’ s spouse before selling mortgaged land (s. 131(3)(d)). ”Fair balance" of men and women required in appointment of National Land Advisory Council (s. 17). Village Land Act 1999: prohibits discrimination against women in the application of customary law (s. 20(2)), this is specifically reiterated concerning decisions related to a right of occupancy (s. 23). There must be women members of dispute settlement and land administration institutions. According to Trip, 2004, citing Tekle 2002: Eritrea amendments to the Civil Code 1994 + new Land Proclamation gave women the legal right to own and inherit land, along with other pro-woman reforms. It disallowed any discrimination based on sex, ethnicity, or religion. However, in spite of the extensive provisions in the Proclamation, women's activists have pointed out that in practice men are still refusing to give women land to which they are legally entitled.
  • WDR 2008, citing Blench 2001; Rass 2006; Thornton and others 2002 WDR 2008
  • Niger ’ s Rural Code (1993) and pastoral laws passed in Guinea (1995), Mauritania (2000), Mali (2001) and Burkina Faso (2002). However, legislation scarcely implemented in some countries, Eg Mali ’ s Pastoral Charter still lacks its implementing regulations. Pastoralism is a now legitimate form of productive land use ( mise en valeur pastorale), but this concept remains ill-defined, and generally involves investments in infrastructure (wells, fences, etc.). Rangelands affected by many laws, often uncoordinated, and managed by a range of different institutions. Laws on land, water, forests and decentralization may all have implications for rangeland management. A precursor to similar schemes in Rwanda, East Senegal, Niger, and Bostwana Scoones 1995, summarises various study results from Africa that show the pastoral system to be from 2 to 10 times more productive than ranching alternatives. MWANGI 2007 Adapted from map produced by OCHA ROCEA (June 2007) based on IFA-FAO data (2003) Kenya map Source: WRI 2007 Nature’s Benefits in Kenya : An Atlas of Ecosystems and Human Well-Being LIGHT BROWN REPRESENTS SAVANNA, LIGHT GREEN IS BUSHLAND/WOODLAND, BROWN IS CROPLAND West africa map MAP PRODUCED BY OCHA ROCEA IN JUNE 2007 (BASED ON IFAD-FAO DATA 2003) SHOWS REMAINING PASTORALIST (ORANGE) AND AGRO-PASTORALIST AREAS (BROWN) IN W AFRICA AND HORN OF AFRICA.
  • This is based on study of West Africa, synthesis studies of other parts of Africa not available. Chaveau et al 2006, Quan, 2007
  • Deininger, 2003 Madagascar official cost (excluding bribes) for titling on demand (Jacoby et al., 2006). Revised low-cost approach estimated at $7-28 per certificate (World Bank, 2006, Madagascar land and property rights review. Washington, DC: Africa Region). Cost range based on plans fonciers ruraux Lavigne-Delville, 2006. Registration of certificates of customary ownership. Deininger 2008 World Development Journal Swynnerton Plan of 1954; Registered Land Act of 1963; Land Adjudication Act of 1968 In Kanyamkago, for instance, only 7% of the plots were registered to women as joint or exclusive right-holders, and 4% to women as exclusive owners (Shipton, 1988). H eld in perpetuity, generally by individuals, exclusive, enforceable and freely transferable.
  • Deininger 2008 ARD Notes Issue 34 UN HABITAT “Land registration in Ethiopia: Early impacts on women” 2008 3. This is consistently carried out in Amhara, but not in the other states. In SNNP, registration of CPRs is at the discretion of each Kebele (or ward, this is the smallest admin unit in Ethioipia, lower than Woreda).
  • FAO, 2005 Huggins et al, 2005 Mathieu et al, 1998; Huggins et al, 2005 Deininger, 2003 Deininger, 2003; Huggins et al, 2005 Map from project ploughshares report on armed conflicts 2008
  • de Janvry et al, 2001 Kuechli, 1997
  • Document Identifier
  • Document Identifier Isaacman and Roberts, 1995 Belieres et al, 2002 Woodhouse, 2003 Traore, 2002 Kolawole, 2002 Van Koppen, 1998
  • Document Identifier 7. Thébaud et al, 2006 8. Ouedraogo, 2003 9. Kolawole, 2002
  • Strasberg and Kloeck Jensen, 2002 Brück and Schindler, 2009
  • See e.g. Gray and Kevane, 1996 Mortimore, 1997 Otsuka et al, 2003 Chaveau et al 2006
  • Chauveau and Colin, 2007 Chauveau and Colin, 2007 & Lavigne Delville et al, 2001 Ouedraogo, 2006 Diarra and Monimart, 2006
  • Daley, 2005 Woodhouse, 2003 Cotula and Sylla, 2006 Thébaud et al, 2006 (Kolawole, 2002). An example of conflict re: small-scale irrigation A dispute between three villages in Burkina Faso The dispute concerns an irrigation scheme created on lands around the village of Koumana, in the Department of Bondokuy, and largely cultivated by inhabitants of the same village; but customarily held by the village of Kosso, in the Department of Warkoye. Farmers from Koumana – including a group of farmers originating from another village, Syhn – gained access to the land they cultivate through an agreement with Kosso. The irrigation scheme was first created without much conflict in 1970. Years later, a rehabilitation project sparked tensions between the inhabitants of Koumana and Kosso over the allocation of rehabilitated plots. And, the village of Syhn sought to assert land control on the area by requesting that the scheme be named "Syhn-Koumana". After various mediation attempts (including by the Minister for Agriculture), the dam was named "Koumana-Kosso" and the irrigated area "Kosso" - thereby acknowledging the land claims of Kosso. Source : Lavigne Delville et al, 2000.
  • Strasberg and Kloeck Jensen, 2002 Brück and Schindler, 2009
  • Staal et al, 2003
  • 1. For example, in Mozambique high competition for valley bottom land for dry season horticulture found in some orange flesh sweet potato trial locations could limit adoption, but also squeeze out weaker, subsistence oriented producers as markets for the new crop develop.
  • Working with the BMGF and its key partners (including AGRA, World Bank and IIED).
  • Including: cropping patterns, livestock, commons and natural resource use Some projects are located in areas where the government has begun the implementation of modern land systems (e.g. Ethiopia and Rwanda). BMGF projects could avoid unintended consequences if their villages received documentation of land rights prior to the project intervention
  • Document Identifier
  • BMGF Land Issues Framework

    1. 1. Framework for addressing land access in agricultural development strategies and grants 27 th October 2009
    2. 2. <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Part A: Land Access Theory & Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Part B: Conceptual Framework & Lessons from Experience </li></ul><ul><li>Part C: Suggested Operational Framework & Tools </li></ul><ul><li>Annexes </li></ul>Framework for addressing land access : Table of Contents
    3. 3. Introduction <ul><li>In much of rural Africa, land provides the basis for food security, agricultural development and rural income </li></ul><ul><li>Yet for many, land access is insecure due to contested rights, ineffective legal frameworks, and land scarcity driven by population and market growth </li></ul><ul><li>Agricultural development has dynamic effects on land access by changing the incentives and opportunities to plant different crops, and change land uses, often increasing demand for land </li></ul>INTRODUCTION <ul><li>Agricultural development grants and projects can increase competition for land resources and drive up land values - and poorer and vulnerable groups may see their access to land eroded </li></ul><ul><li>Appropriate consideration of land access issues in BMGF grant-making is therefore needed to maximise benefits and minimise unintended land access consequences </li></ul><ul><li>This document provides learning materials, and proposes a conceptual framework and operational tools for addressing land access in BMGF agricultural development strategies and grants </li></ul>
    4. 4. <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Part A: Land Access Theory & Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Part B: Conceptual Framework & Lessons from Experience </li></ul><ul><li>Part C: Suggested Operational Framework & Tools </li></ul><ul><li>Annexes </li></ul>Framework for addressing land access: Table of Contents
    5. 5. Key land access terms THEORY & LEARNING Land access Land rights Land tenure Commons (common property resources) <ul><li>Opportunities for temporary or permanent occupation and use of land for shelter, production, subsistence, recreation and rest </li></ul><ul><li>Obtained by: direct occupation; allocation by government, land owners, family/kin groups; purchase; rental; gift </li></ul><ul><li>Socially or legally recognized entitlements to access, use and control land </li></ul><ul><li>Based on customary systems, state-enacted rules, or a combination of both </li></ul><ul><li>Capacity to exercise land rights influences land access </li></ul><ul><li>Land tenure systems refer to the systems of rights, rules, institutions and processes under which land is held, used, managed and transacted </li></ul><ul><li>May be secure or insecure; formal systems may not necessarily be more secure than informal ones </li></ul><ul><li>Land and natural resources that are held, managed and used in common by multiple users </li></ul><ul><li>Commons may be used by different users simultaneously or sequentially (e.g. in different seasons) </li></ul><ul><li>In many contexts, grazing lands and forests are held as commons </li></ul>
    6. 6. Other terms used in this document THEORY & LEARNING Added-value crop / technologies Non-target crops / commodities Vulnerable groups Powerful / successful groups <ul><li>Crop and livestock outputs / technologies targeted by an agricultural development project </li></ul><ul><li>Other crops / commodities produced by farmers in geographical areas where projects are implemented </li></ul><ul><li>Groups of individuals that are vulnerable to losing access to land as an unintended consequence of projects </li></ul><ul><li>In specific contexts, women, youth, income-poor farmers and pastoralists may be considered vulnerable </li></ul><ul><li>Groups of individuals or institutions able to control or influence land access for themselves and for more vulnerable groups </li></ul><ul><li>In most contexts, those with good access to government and traditional authorities, and to policy and legal information are more powerful (rural or urban elites, men, elders, the wealthy) </li></ul>
    7. 7. Access to land is fundamental for shelter, food production and other economic activities undertaken by small farmers THEORY & LEARNING <ul><li>In many African countries, 50% of rural people cultivate less than 1 ha of land - average farm size in Ethiopia and Malawi is about 0.8 ha 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Only between 2% and 10% of land in Africa formally documented 2 - mainly held by agribusinesses, the wealthy and urban populations </li></ul><ul><li>Women constitute up to 70% of the agricultural labour force in developing countries, but most do not own or have direct control over land </li></ul>Average plot size (hectares) 3 Rural people in Africa, particularly women and the poor, continue to derive food, water, fuel, livelihood and incomes from common pool resources
    8. 8. Access to land is influenced by population growth, urbanization, globalization and conflict THEORY & LEARNING <ul><li>Demographic change </li></ul><ul><li>Average population growth rate across Africa of 2.5% (2000-2005) </li></ul><ul><li>Intensification of land use increases land values, leading to transition from communal tenure to more individualised land rights </li></ul><ul><li>Local contexts extremely diverse - linkages between demographic growth and land relations vary substantially across locations </li></ul><ul><li>Conflict and war </li></ul><ul><li>Armed conflict can lead to large-scale displacement </li></ul><ul><li>Post-war return of migrants increases pressure on land 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Weakened institutions for managing land rights </li></ul><ul><li>Urbanization </li></ul><ul><li>Average urban population growth of 3.6% in Africa </li></ul><ul><li>Conversion of land from agricultural to residential use </li></ul><ul><li>Urban food demand drives agricultural intensification increasing rural land values and commercialisation of peri-urban land </li></ul><ul><li>Integration in the global economy </li></ul><ul><li>Trade and investment flows between Africa and outside world intensifying </li></ul><ul><li>Eased trade restrictions facilitating greater uptake of export crops </li></ul><ul><li>Intensified efforts to attract foreign investment </li></ul><ul><li>Large-scale land acquisitions for foreign investment in export-oriented agrifood and biofuel projects </li></ul>
    9. 9. Security of land access is key to rural livelihoods and agricultural development Mechanisms to increase security of access must be tailored to local contexts <ul><li>Why is ‘secure land access’ important? </li></ul><ul><li>Offers social safety net for subsistence production or small scale income generation for those without alternative sources of livelihood </li></ul><ul><li>Creates incentives for investment in new crop varieties, forms of husbandry, capital works to land (terracing, tree planting), conservation tillage, agro-inputs, irrigation </li></ul><ul><li>What makes land access ‘secure’? </li></ul><ul><li>Confidence that land users will not be arbitrarily deprived of rights they enjoy over land or the benefits they derive from it </li></ul><ul><li>Confidence that rights will be recognised by others and protected against challenges </li></ul><ul><li>Legal or general social recognition; enforcement mechanisms; social and / or legal sanctions against those who break the rules </li></ul><ul><li>Direct continuous use and visible investment in land </li></ul>THEORY & LEARNING Different types of rights may be equally secure - individual, titled ownership may be no more secure in practice than collectively held customary rights
    10. 10. THEORY & LEARNING <ul><li>Rights may be: </li></ul><ul><li>concentrated in one owner (e.g. as a result of privatisation) </li></ul><ul><li>more commonly, distributed among different people (e.g. management rights held by authorities, use and bequeath rights held by families) </li></ul><ul><li>held temporarily, more permanently, or only during seasons / certain times of the year (e.g. rights to low lying land may be held by farmers and herders in different seasons). </li></ul><ul><li>specific to resources found on the land (e.g. rivers flowing through the land or water sources on it; women may hold rights to fruit and fuel from trees, while crops in the fields underneath may be controlled by another landholder) 1 </li></ul><ul><li>restricted (e.g. many customary systems do not permit sales, or do not allow transfers to anyone outside the community) </li></ul>Types of ‘rights’ to land Relative importance of different types of rights varies across contexts (e.g. rentals and sharecropping are especially common in cocoa regions of West Africa) Opportunities to access and hold land often depend on people’s social position and status Access / occupy Inherit / bequeath Cultivate / graze / harvest Exclude / restrict others Rights to land include the rights to Govern / manage / conserve Rent / sublet / share-crop Derive rent / receive sale price Transfer / sell / grant / loan Develop / improve / extract water
    11. 11. Customary land tenure systems still predominate in rural Africa Customary systems vary from place to place and evolve over time to adapt to changing circumstances THEORY & LEARNING Characteristics of customary systems Basis of primary land access <ul><li>Traditional landholding groups historically acquired land by conquest, first occupation, clearance and use </li></ul><ul><li>Subsequent land access through allocation or inheritance from landholding group </li></ul><ul><li>Rights of individuals and smaller family units often subject to collective rights of the larger family group </li></ul>Secondary rights to land <ul><li>Women often depend on men for continued access to land </li></ul><ul><li>Pastoral groups tend to depend on other landholding groups recognising their seasonal or occasional rights </li></ul><ul><li>When land is loaned, granted or gifted, enduring social obligations may be established (e.g. recipient and heirs expected to pay respect, tribute, and allegiance) </li></ul><ul><li>Secondary rights may be negotiated (e.g. lease, sharecropping, short term use, special arrangements with family head or chiefs); sharecropping can facilitate land access while distributing risk in a way suited to higher uncertainty </li></ul>Dynamics <ul><li>Land typically divided and passed down generations </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Customary law’ interpreted by chiefs and elders, changes slowly </li></ul>Land transactions <ul><li>Rental transactions, and sharecropping agreements increasingly common means of accessing land (particularly in West Africa) </li></ul><ul><li>Increasingly, transactions involve money, and land markets are emerging </li></ul><ul><li>Trend towards transactions being documented and witnessed by local state or customary authorities </li></ul>
    12. 12. Formal land tenure systems tend to be shaped by colonial legacy and have limited reach In many rural areas, customary tenure systems remain legitimate even when the national law has sought to replace them with a new land tenure systems, based on formally registered rights THEORY & LEARNING Characteristics of formal systems Basis of land access <ul><li>Legal system defines forms of tenure </li></ul><ul><li>Private ownership formally recognized in a growing number of countries, in others, land is nationalised or state-controlled; common property and more restricted land use rights may also be recognized </li></ul><ul><li>Rights or transfers must usually be formally registered in order to be formally recognized - however title/deeds registration processes are often inaccessible to poor and marginalised because of cost and level of documentation required </li></ul>Secondary rights to land <ul><li>Past titling programs overlooked secondary right holders </li></ul><ul><li>Greater attention to gender in recent land policy (e.g. both spouses entitled to rights to household land), but implementation weak </li></ul><ul><li>Some recent innovation to protect pastoral land rights (e.g. in the Sahel), but little protection in most countries </li></ul>Land transactions <ul><li>Restrictions on sales and rentals in some countries, but trend towards permitting greater transferability of land rights even where outright ownership is not allowed </li></ul>Other features <ul><li>Limited reach of the formal system is linked to limited institutional capacity, accessibility and perceived legitimacy of agencies and courts </li></ul><ul><li>In peri-urban areas, the uneasy co-existence between customary and formal systems has been most acute (e.g. cases of chiefs repossessing land under their customary authority, then formalising land title, and profiting from sale) </li></ul><ul><li>In Burkina Faso, customary rights not recognised at all, while in Mozambique customary rights are protected even if not yet registered </li></ul>
    13. 13. Common lands & resources Varies substantially in quality and area - can comprise vast rangelands, used in common by pastoralist groups, or can be village commons reduced to small parcels of less than 1 hectare Common lands are accessed by many rural households on a daily basis, and are a valued resource for herders and farmers alike Woods, forests Wild herbs, fruits, vegetables Insects for food Wood for fuel, utensils, fencing poles Grasses for brushes, thatching Sand Honey Ponds, water points Drinking, household use Watering herds Wetland agriculture Irrigation Sacred areas Burial areas Ritual sites Grazing lands Grasses and bushes for grazing Salt licks (mineral deposits) THEORY & LEARNING <ul><li>SE Ghana: In pre-harvest months, the poor derive 20% of their food from the commons 1 </li></ul><ul><li>S Malawi: Forest income contributes up to 30% of total income 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Botswana: Poorest 20% earn 51% of their household income from commons resources 3 </li></ul><ul><li>SE Zimbabwe: Households (both rich and poor) earn 35-40% of their income from the commons 4 </li></ul>Wildlife Sources of meat
    14. 14. <ul><li>Enclosure </li></ul><ul><li>Appropriation of common land for private use </li></ul><ul><li>Reservation of land by state for conservation often with promotion of tourism </li></ul>Threats to common lands and resources THEORY & LEARNING Common lands are under increasing threat, as competition for land increases <ul><li>State forest management </li></ul><ul><li>Wood and forest areas appropriated by state bodies – which may displace local people from gazetted areas </li></ul><ul><li>Devalues community management and impacts upon sustainable local use of resources </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing competition for water </li></ul><ul><li>Combined with erratic rainfall, water resources at critical levels, risk of drought is exacerbated </li></ul><ul><li>Access to such areas often at the heart of conflicts </li></ul><ul><li>Unsustainable hunting </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing scarcity of rare resources such as wildlife outside reserves </li></ul><ul><li>Commercial use of forest and bush resources </li></ul><ul><li>May be sustainable at small scale when managed by village groups: important source of household income </li></ul><ul><li>Harvesting to satisfy commercial demands e.g. for charcoal, fuel-wood, timber and building materials becomes unsustainable within confined areas as populations grow </li></ul>
    15. 15. Within the family Across / among communities Pastoralists Increasing conflicts with farmers over land & water Ethnic / religious minorities Discrimination can be exploited by majority groups to seize land Migrants, newcomers, non-nationals Highly variable, vulnerability depends on status of migrant Unfavoured kin Widows, divorced and separated women, second wives and their children especially vulnerable Orphans Common in war zones, AIDS hotspots 1 , family land stolen while children too young to claim Younger generations Inheritance not assured where land is scarce Affected by HIV / AIDS Families lose out when landholder dies or is too ill to use land Resource poor & indebted Land or harvest reclaimed by creditors, difficulties paying rent Within the community Women Land use rights may be reclaimed by husbands, brothers, fathers, uncles, children etc, especially where land values rise Displaced peoples Former land rights difficult to recover post-conflict Groups vulnerable to land loss Groups more vulnerable to losing access to land Women are represented in all groups, but are also discriminated against directly because of their gender THEORY & LEARNING
    16. 16. Women’s access to land is generally established through their relationships to male relatives or by marriage These relationships can provide women with opportunities to access cultivable land, but their rights are generally weak as customary practice in land allocation and inheritance tends to discriminate against them THEORY & LEARNING <ul><li>Customary tenure </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunities to hold / transact land depend on woman’s position within group, and whether land is inherited through the male or female line </li></ul><ul><li>Customary laws can reinforce entrenched attitudes / perceptions toward women </li></ul><ul><li>Legislation to override discriminatory customary laws may be only selectively implemented </li></ul><ul><li>Women lack legal awareness, have limited access to courts </li></ul><ul><li>Patrilineal inheritance systems </li></ul><ul><li>Land inherited along the male line, usually father to son </li></ul><ul><li>May provide security where marriage or other conditions are stable </li></ul><ul><li>Insecurity increases as land becomes scarce </li></ul><ul><li>Matrilineal inheritance systems </li></ul><ul><li>Inheritance along maternal line, usually to nephews (sons of deceased’s sister) </li></ul><ul><li>Women generally still subordinate to male relatives </li></ul><ul><li>Women in a land holding clan may enjoy more power and greater opportunities </li></ul><ul><li>A number of Southern African groups use matrilineal systems, and also in Ghana </li></ul><ul><li>Widows, divorced and separated women are highly vulnerable </li></ul><ul><li>Widows likely to be deprived of access to husband’s land if no children / sons </li></ul><ul><li>ฺ In-laws may harass widows and children to recover land rights for kin-group </li></ul><ul><li>HIV/AIDS stigma (e.g. widows blamed for death of husband) may be exploited </li></ul><ul><li>Land scarcity within a woman ’ s natal kin-group may mean fathers or brothers reluctant to accept the return of separated or widowed women </li></ul><ul><li>High frequency of destitution and urban migration amongst single women, divorced, separated, widowed and unwed mothers </li></ul><ul><li>Levirate marriage </li></ul><ul><li>Practice where widow expected/forced to marry one of her husband’s brothers </li></ul><ul><li>Economically independent women less likely to accept such marriage </li></ul><ul><li>Practiced in parts of several countries, but dying out and illegal in others </li></ul><ul><li>Women may not be assured of holding onto a land parcel from one year to the next </li></ul><ul><li>Family heads may shift land around - if a woman has made investments in land fertility, she is very likely to lose her land to a male relative, creating major disincentive to investment in fertility </li></ul>
    17. 17. <ul><li>Women with independent means increasingly keen to negotiate and assert their own claims over land </li></ul><ul><li>Cultural attitudes are being debated - movements fighting for recognition of land rights for women are growing in Africa, as are development projects promoting central role for women in rural development </li></ul>Women’s rights to access land vary within households, communities, and national contexts, and are increasingly contested <ul><li>Changes in gender roles: </li></ul><ul><li>On the one hand, men in some areas are seeking off-farm opportunities, meaning women take on greater role in agriculture and land use </li></ul><ul><li>On the other, men are becoming more engaged in agriculture where profits can be made (capturing profitable lands from women ) </li></ul><ul><li>Changes in national legislation 1 : </li></ul><ul><li>Early land policy paid little attention to women’s land rights </li></ul><ul><li>Recent reforms prohibit gender discrimination in relation to land (Eritrea, Tanzania, Mozambique) </li></ul><ul><li>Anti-discrimination clauses difficult to enforce and have been challenged (Uganda) </li></ul><ul><li>Changes in land tenure regimes: </li></ul><ul><li>When land becomes scarce and off-farm opportunities are limited, women's access to land may be eroded as local elites reinterpret “custom” to exclude women from the land (e.g. the “reinvention” of women’s seclusion in Niger) </li></ul>THEORY & LEARNING <ul><li>Changes in development contexts: </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing individualization of landholding has emphasized rights of men, sidelined women’s rights (e.g. land titles rarely issued to women) </li></ul><ul><li>Access to land increasingly gained by payment, but women less able to accumulate cash savings </li></ul>However...
    18. 18. Pastoral systems have been shown to be efficient production systems in highly sensitive dryland ecologies Yet pastoral groups have been politically marginalised and land access has become more contested THEORY & LEARNING Population growth Agricultural encroachment on grazing reserves Restrictions on herd mobility / blocked livestock corridors Decline in rainfall / exhaustion of water points Pastoral livelihoods become more vulnerable Policy bias against ‘backward’ pastoral systems <ul><li>Pastoralism and agro-pastoralism are the main agricultural production systems in dryland areas, supporting the livelihoods of 100m - 200m people worldwide 1 </li></ul><ul><li>More than 40% of pastoralists live in Sub-Saharan Africa </li></ul><ul><li>The number of extremely poor pastoralists and agro-pastoralists is estimated at 35m - 90m </li></ul><ul><li>In Burkina Faso and Ethiopia, livestock accounts for more than 50% of rural households’ wealth 2 </li></ul>Breakdown of traditional mechanisms governing resource management and conflict resolution Relations between farmers and herders have always involved cooperation, complementarily, competition and conflict, but for decades the balance has been tipped in favor of farmers
    19. 19. Pastoral systems tend to emphasise collective rights over grazing land, water and livestock corridors Early attempts to legislate land use in pastoral areas unsuccessful, but some recent reforms are promising In West Africa, there has been a recent legislative shift towards protecting pastoralist’s rights of access to natural resources 1 . <ul><li>Opportunistic management is now recognized as a key requirement for the sustainable management of rangelands in dryland areas: </li></ul><ul><li>Allows pastoralists to respond rapidly to changing grazing conditions and fodder availability through mobility or the opportunity to offload or restock livestock </li></ul><ul><li>Requires specifically tailored arrangements that secure the resource rights of pastoral groups while enabling flexibility for herd mobility </li></ul><ul><li>Early attempts to legislate pastoral holdings Kenya </li></ul><ul><li>Group ranches introduced 1968 </li></ul><ul><li>Top-down approach misunderstood pastoralist goals </li></ul><ul><li>Failed to stimulate commercial production </li></ul><ul><li>Disputes, production efficiency problems 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Subdivisions of group ranch land followed, a process which favored elite groups </li></ul>Recently, spontaneous re-aggregation of grazing plots has occurred in some cases through agreements among families and neighbours 3 THEORY & LEARNING Pastoral and agro-pastoral areas 4 In West Africa, there has been a recent legislative shift towards protecting pastoralist’s rights of access to natural resources 1 Pastoral areas Agro-pastoral areas
    20. 20. Youth access to land can be a problem where the supply of land is limited, and where alternative employment opportunities don’t exist THEORY & LEARNING Inheritance practices may limit young people’s access to land Older generations known to sell or allocate land outside of kin group <ul><li>Land may not pass directly from parent to child - eldest brother may pass land to next eldest brother </li></ul><ul><li>Youth may need to rent in land </li></ul><ul><li>In Ghana, lineage land increasingly treated as a source of revenue by chiefs / elders, rather than as a group resource </li></ul><ul><li>Elders convert land into commercial plantations under sharecropping tenancy arrangements or by leasing out to agribusiness firms </li></ul>However... <ul><li>Large numbers of youth are challenging the land access norms, in particular where older generations have appropriated land in their own interests </li></ul>Disputes in Western Burkina Faso and Cote d’Ivoire have seen youth challenge elders about how land ought to be allocated - tensions rose to the point of civil war in Cote d’Ivoire in late 1990s Increasing subdivision of land amongst heirs (in high population density contexts) can makes farming unsustainable without alternative livelihoods or innovations to increase production intensity
    21. 21. Diversity and limited reach of national land policies National policies vary considerably, though the state tends to claim a key role – but implementation is limited, customary rules often still apply, and different tenure systems may overlap in the same territory THEORY & LEARNING Burkina Faso Nationalised land in 1984 but subsequent reforms introduced private ownership Mozambique 1990 Constitution, 1997 Land Act: land ownership with the state, use rights protected Nigeria 1978 Land Use Act: land ownership vested with each state governor Tanzania 1999 Land Act & Village Land Act: land vested with president, use right s protected Kenya 1954 Swynnerton Plan and subsequent legislation Ghana Some state owned land, most is private belonging to customary chiefdoms, extended families and individuals - estimated that 80% - 90% of all undeveloped land in Ghana is held under customary tenure 1 Reforms recognising customary land rights Mali: Land Code 2000 Mozambique: Land Act 1997 Namibia: Communal Land Reform Act 2002 Tanzania: Land Act and Village Land Act 1999 Uganda: Land Act 1998 Nationalisation of land Ensures government control of valuable assets, justified as a means to promote planned agricultural development – but local use rights may still be protected, and government may allocate land to private investors Privatisation of land Land owned in individuals or groups, as a means to stimulate commercial agricultural development Mali Private ownership allowed but difficult to access, most land state-owned Ethiopia Land nationalised, use rights protected
    22. 22. Land administration systems: institutions and procedures for documenting and managing land rights and transactions THEORY & LEARNING Efficient land management and administration should include: Effective use of information technology for mapping and recording land rights information Transparent and participatory procedures for land use planning Efficient, accessible delivery of public services for the full range of land users <ul><li>Remote sensing, GIS, photo-mapping and GPS technologies allow for rapid efficient, and low cost survey and documentation of land and natural resource rights at low cost </li></ul><ul><li>Over the last 10 -15 years many African states have adopted new policies and laws () aimed at clarification and securing of land rights and reform of land administration systems </li></ul><ul><li>Reforms require decentralisation and modernisation of existing systems to enable broad based access to land services to meet today’s development needs in urban and rural areas </li></ul><ul><li>Long term programs of capacity building with technical and financial assistance are required to extend coverage in appropriate ways and overcome resistance to change </li></ul><ul><li>Existing land institutions (established by the colonial state) for administration of urban land and rural settler estates to which formal rights were attributed </li></ul><ul><li>Highly centralised, outdated and inefficient manual systems for mapping and recording land rights, with very limited coverage incorporating only 1-10% of land holdings </li></ul><ul><li>Existing practices ill-adapted to mapping and recording customary and collective rights to land and natural resources </li></ul><ul><li>Services biased towards needs of elites and urban users </li></ul><ul><li>Complex and discretionary bureaucratic procedures provide opportunities for rent seeking by officials with vested interests in maintaining status quo </li></ul>
    23. 23. For many years, individual land titling was seen as the main policy tool to secure rural land rights – but programs have largely failed This has undermined the long-held assumption that titled individual ownership is the best way to secure land rights in Africa THEORY & LEARNING Limited accessibility and effectiveness Limited effects on agricultural investment Elite capture of intended benefits <ul><li>Kenya freehold tenure reform 1950s and 60s 5 </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation of the land registration programme has accelerated individualisation process </li></ul><ul><li>Land adjudication committees lacked skills and time to record all land rights </li></ul><ul><li>Registration was usually made to male household heads, undermining women’s unregistered secondary rights (land adjudication committees male-dominated) 6 </li></ul><ul><li>Although some court judgements protected non-registered right-holders, most judgements hold that registration extinguishes all non-registered rights </li></ul>Costs of registration Madagascar $150 / title 2 West Africa $7-10 / parcel 3 Uganda $40 / parcel 4 <ul><li>Hard for poor people to access: prohibitive costs, geographical and language barriers – for registration and updates </li></ul><ul><li>Very little rural land has been registered (2-10% of the land in Africa 1 ) </li></ul><ul><li>Not best suited to capture complex tenure realities on the ground </li></ul><ul><li>Incomplete and outdated registries do little to improve tenure security and promote investment </li></ul><ul><li>Little evidence of “collateralisation” - banks unwilling to lend against small plots, farmers reluctant to take high risks in unpredictable environments </li></ul><ul><li>Land grabbing by local or external elites with more information, contacts and resources </li></ul><ul><li>Vulnerable groups and holders of secondary land rights tend not to appear in land registers and may lose out </li></ul>
    24. 24. It is now recognised that land policies and laws must build on local land tenure practice The failure of one-size-fits-all individual titling has led to more nuanced and context-specific approaches to securing land rights THEORY & LEARNING <ul><li>‘ Pastoral codes’ recognizing mobility as key strategy by: </li></ul><ul><li>protecting grazing lands / cattle corridors from agricultural encroachment </li></ul><ul><li>securing herders’ access to strategic seasonal resources </li></ul><ul><li>Policies / laws paying greater attention to gender equity by: </li></ul><ul><li>embracing principle of non-discrimination </li></ul><ul><li>presuming joint ownership of family land </li></ul><ul><li>outlawing land sales without consent of both spouses </li></ul><ul><li>and/or requiring representation of women in land management bodies </li></ul>Devolution of responsibilities for land administration to customary authorities though establishment of Customary Land Secretariats Explicit efforts to protect and register customary land rights Use or lease rights over state-owned land may be registered or are otherwise protected Simple, low-cost, accessible land records being introduced through decentralised registration programmes In July 2009, African Union Governments adopted the Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy in Africa , committing to ensuring fair land access to the poor
    25. 25. Effective ways of recording land rights involve improved accessibility through decentralised programmes tailored to local contexts Slide 1 of 2 <ul><li>In the Ethiopian state of Tigray, a low-tech, district-level registration program has been implemented since 1998; successes in this pilot have led to its expansion to 3 other states ( Amhara, Oromiya, SNNP) 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Systematic registration of land use rights over 20m rural plots, at relatively rapid speed </li></ul><ul><li>Research from Tigray indicates program perceived as legitimate by local users, and not biased in favor of the wealthy </li></ul><ul><li>Low cost - first-time registration (including certificate) approx $1/plot </li></ul><ul><li>Limited participation of women in early stages - certificates to male household heads in Tigray, but now issued in joint names (husband and wife) in Amhara and SNNP </li></ul><ul><li>No boundary demarcation in original Tigray program enabled low-cost, low-tech solution but did not address widespread boundary disputes; but GPS spatial reference piloted with donor support in Amhara </li></ul><ul><li>Challenges still to be addressed include: </li></ul><ul><li>Increasing representation of women in the Land Administration Committees 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Mapping to reduce boundary disputes </li></ul><ul><li>Registration of common property resources 3 </li></ul><ul><li>Ensuring registers are kept up-to-date </li></ul>THEORY & LEARNING
    26. 26. THEORY & LEARNING <ul><li>In Mozambique, land is state-owned, but since the enactment of the 1997 land law, existing land use rights are legally protected, irrespective of registration </li></ul><ul><li>Communities can delimit their boundaries and register collective land holdings; the law provides for consultation with local communities before leases are issued to private investors </li></ul><ul><li>Law prohibits land sales but in practice informal land markets exist, where land has development or high productive value </li></ul><ul><li>State land administration capacity is weak, cadastral records are in a poor state and there is no official programme to define and securing community rights. In practice the state prioritises allocation of private leases, and government can override community land rights for priority investment projects </li></ul><ul><li>Rural communities rely on independent programmes by development agencies and services from local NGOs to register and protect their land and stimulate local economic development. Increasingly producer and community associations are themselves seeking leasehold titles. , </li></ul><ul><li>Law does not fully define nature of communities as holders of land rights: in some cases large areas have been delimited without reference to actual potential land uses </li></ul><ul><li>Communities need help to put in place land and natural resource management plans, resolve land conflicts and negotiate secure rights vis-à-vis outside interests. Increasingly community groups and associations seeking leasehold title to specific areas of land within community holdings </li></ul><ul><li>The law, despite its benefits, presents some limitations and clarification is likely to be required based on experience particularly concerning the nature of rights over more extensive areas under community jurisdiction vis-a-vis government and outside investors, and the resolution of land conflicts </li></ul><ul><li>Extensive capacity building is also needed in government, civil society and at community level to manage land rights for agricultural growth and sustainable natural resource management </li></ul>Effective ways of recording land rights involve improved accessibility, interventions tailored to local contexts, improved titling Slide 2 of 2
    27. 27. Control over land may be key factor underlying conflict , and conflict may severely affect land tenure or access Addressing land access may be a key element of peace-building <ul><li>Côte d’Ivoire </li></ul><ul><li>2003 call for amendment to 1998 Land Law to protect land rights of non-nationals - “migrants” (30% of the population) have been there for generations </li></ul><ul><li>Rwanda 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Poverty related to very high population densities relative to available land, and unequal access to land </li></ul><ul><li>Fears about losing land provoked profound insecurity (exploited by organizers of the genocide) </li></ul><ul><li>Violence directed at Tutsi and Hutu involved in land disputes </li></ul><ul><li>1993 returnees could reclaim land if less than ten years since abandoned </li></ul><ul><li>Burundi 2 </li></ul><ul><li>2000 peace accords guarantee returnees access to their property or adequate compensation </li></ul><ul><li>Post-conflict challenges relating to land </li></ul><ul><li>Regularization of post-conflict land occupation and use (e.g. Mozambique’s Land Act 1997), clearing landmines </li></ul><ul><li>Securing access to land for ex-soldiers and for displaced persons, </li></ul><ul><li>Adjudicating amongst overlapping land claims of different groups (e.g. Burundi, Rwanda, Cote d’Ivoire) </li></ul><ul><li>Re-establishing effective land institutions and land information systems </li></ul><ul><li>Special attention must be paid to the needs of female-headed households, widows and orphans – particularly vulnerable groups that can be very numerous in post-conflict situations 5 </li></ul><ul><li>Eastern DRC 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Land and resource control issues contributed to escalating violence </li></ul><ul><li>In-migration, different ethnic groups seeking land </li></ul><ul><li>Chiefs selling land, dispossessing small farmers </li></ul>THEORY & LEARNING
    28. 28. Armed conflict and access to land are linked in two main ways <ul><li>Rapid demographic growth </li></ul><ul><li>Chaos may weaken customary institutions </li></ul><ul><li>Widespread tenure insecurity, land disputes, and land grabs </li></ul><ul><li>Landmines prevent use of land for years after end of hostilities </li></ul><ul><li>Protracted conflict disrupts agricultural sector and wider economy </li></ul><ul><li>Large numbers of displaced persons, with insecure access to land in refuge areas and broken ties to homeland </li></ul>Control over land may be key factor underlying conflict Armed conflict may severely affect land tenure or access No increases in productivity (and no new off-farm opportunities ) Increase in competition over land (land manipulated by elites, youth frustration) Instability / politically manipulated class or ethnic tension Violent conflict THEORY & LEARNING
    29. 29. ‘ Land grabbing’ has attracted a lot of media attentions – recent IIED/FAO/IFAD quantitative study in Ethiopia, Ghana, Madagascar, Mali Slide 1 of 3 <ul><li>About 2 m ha of approved land allocations since 2004; cumulative upward trend in allocated areas, likely to increase further; but still very small % of suitable land </li></ul><ul><li>FDI dominates, but national investment also important </li></ul><ul><li>Mainly private sector driven (90% of allocated land areas) but home governments provide support </li></ul><ul><li>Investors mainly from Europe, Gulf, East Asia, Africa, India, US </li></ul><ul><li>Mainly government leases, but examples of deals with chiefs (e.g. in Ghana) </li></ul><ul><li>Host country benefits in investment and infrastructure, less emphasis on fees </li></ul>Large scale of some deals: 452,000 ha in Madagascar 100,000 ha in Mali But even here production on much smaller areas, and average size is 22,000ha in Mali and 7,500 in Ethiopia Allocated land (hectares, cumulative) THEORY & LEARNING
    30. 30. Land acquisition projects may generate economic benefits, but may also present risks to land access Slide 2 of 3 <ul><li>Risks </li></ul><ul><li>Local food security </li></ul><ul><li>Loss of access to land, water & other resources </li></ul><ul><li>Higher value lands targeted </li></ul><ul><li>Other sources of pressures on land (demography, non-agricultural investments) </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunities & possible benefits </li></ul><ul><li>Depend on the specifics of the land deal </li></ul><ul><li>May include GDP growth, government revenues, jobs, market access, technology transfer, infrastructure development </li></ul><ul><li>But opportunities are not always local to the project </li></ul>Land acquisition projects in Mali THEORY & LEARNING
    31. 31. Mitigating risks, seizing opportunities depends on how land deals are structured – so far, shortcomings in: Slide 3 of 3 <ul><li>Little or no local consultation - even where legally required, weak implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Some deals with chiefs but weak accountability </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of transparency in contract negotiations, little external scrutiny </li></ul><ul><li>“ Wasteland” – but most suitable land under use or claim, investor demand focused on higher value lands </li></ul><ul><li>Security of local land rights often undermined by limited protection and capacity, inaccessible registration, compensation only for loss of improvements </li></ul>THEORY & LEARNING <ul><li>Huge variation, but contracts rather short and unspecific </li></ul><ul><li>No robust mechanisms to monitor and enforce compliance with investment commitments, promote smallholder participation, maximise govt revenues, and balance food security concerns in home and host countries </li></ul>Safeguarding local interests Maximizing local benefits:
    32. 32. Can the deals work for development? Some interventions that can make a difference Longer-term, strengthening capacity (through external legal / technical advice, training, learning from international practice) is what can really make a difference: LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK <ul><li>Host governments: Scrutinise investors’ ambitious applications; negotiate, manage and enforce deals that mitigate risks and maximise benefits (e.g. Liberia renegotiation) </li></ul><ul><li>Civil society, media and parliaments: Scrutinise contract negotiations and push for better deals </li></ul><ul><li>Among local farmers and groups supporting them: Protect local land rights and get a better deal from government and investors </li></ul><ul><li>Investors: Develop imaginative business models that share value with local producers </li></ul>Major lasting impacts will require: <ul><li>Strategic thinking and vigorous debate in host countries </li></ul><ul><li>Transparency and public oversight </li></ul><ul><li>International rules and guidance: towards a code of conduct? </li></ul>
    33. 33. Long-standing debate about farm size and productivity Slide 1 of 2 <ul><li>On the one hand, the case against small farm size: </li></ul><ul><li>Small farms considered should be consolidated into fewer large holdings, allowing for economies of scale, mechanization and increased productivity </li></ul><ul><li>Impoverished peasant farmers on the margins of existence have limited capacity / ability to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>generate a surplus for investment in the farm enterprise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>adopt new technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>access world markets </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>provide employment and cash incomes to local rural workforce </li></ul></ul>THEORY & LEARNING <ul><li>On the other, the case for small farm size: </li></ul><ul><li>Many crops feature few if any economies of scale in agricultural production </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation and investment are very evident in dynamic smallholder production, as people adapt to new market opportunities and changing environmental conditions </li></ul><ul><li>Large farms: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>May be inefficient with low levels of productivity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Occupy large areas of land </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tend to provide limited employment and pay low wages </li></ul></ul>
    34. 34. Large farm incentives Small farm incentives Intensity of production Long-standing debate about farm size and productivity Slide 2 of 2 <ul><li>Scale economies may be achieved by mechanization (sugarcane, some cereals and soya) or automation of irrigation: large farms tend to have better access to the capital required </li></ul><ul><li>Perennial crops (rubber, fruit and vegetables) tend to do better under intensive production with high levels of manual input: small farms can do as well or better than large </li></ul>THEORY & LEARNING <ul><li>Quantity, quality and timeliness demanded by major distributors in global markets creates incentives for vertical integration up and down input and product supply chains: </li></ul><ul><li>This creates economies of scale which large producers are better able to achieve: purchasers of commodities prefer dealing with a few larger suppliers, relegating small suppliers these to less profitable local market outlets </li></ul><ul><li>Out-grower schemes can maintain the advantages of market integration while externalising the labour and supervision costs to small farmers – this may be less advantageous to the smallholder, depending on relations with the firm </li></ul><ul><li>Small scale producers’ organisations and social enterprise partnerships with input supply and export firms can improve market integration while maintaining efficiency advantages of small farms. </li></ul><ul><li>Despite economies of scale, small farms may be more efficient than large ones because of the favourable incentive structure in self-employed farming and the significant transaction and monitoring costs associated with hired labour 1 </li></ul><ul><li>In Indonesia, 80% of rubber and resin production and 95% of fruits are produced in smallholders’ tree gardens 2 - farm owners and rubber tappers are likely to have a direct interest in sustaining latex quality and productivity of the trees in their care (hence limited need of supervision) </li></ul>
    35. 35. <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Part A: Land Access Theory & Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Part B: Conceptual Framework & Lessons from Experience </li></ul><ul><li>Part C: Suggested Operational Framework & Tools </li></ul><ul><li>Annexes </li></ul>Framework for addressing land access : Table of Contents
    36. 36. Development projects deliver a series of outputs, outcomes, and impacts - but they can also have unintended consequences ‘Loss of land access’ is one such potential unintended consequence <ul><li>Adoption of: </li></ul><ul><li>improved crop or input technology </li></ul><ul><li>improved market access opportunity </li></ul><ul><li>improved farming practice </li></ul>Direct farm productivity outcomes Indirect / other outcomes Outputs: Outcomes: Overall Impacts: Direct market access outcomes Environmental degradation, price collapse, l oss of land access, gender exclusion, conflict Unintended consequences Ag dev project Reduced income, assets, food security, health, wellbeing, environment etc LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Improved household and community welfare, economic status, food security, local economic development Improved social & community life, health, wellbeing & environment Increased farm or livestock productivity, improved quality of farm outputs Increased marketing of farm outputs, higher incomes and producer prices; more predictable demand and supply Improved social and community development, distributional and environmental outcomes The focus here is on how to identify, prevent/mitigate and monitor negative, unintended consequences related to loss of land access in development processes
    37. 37. Development projects and processes can result in a loss of land access and other unintended consequences Increase in land values Exacerbated competition for land Change in land use Change in land holding Loss of land access by vulnerable groups Increased frequency and intensity of conflict Increased social & economic exclusion Increased returns to agriculture Disposal of valuable lands to external investors Development projects Development contexts Loss of commons and off-farm natural resources LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Increasing returns to agriculture increase land values and can stimulate competition for agricultural land... ...which can lead to changes in land uses and land holding arrangements... ...potentially resulting in a loss of land access, and additional unintended consequences relating to land and natural resources Impact pathway
    38. 38. LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Value of land Time As land values increase, primary rights holders may exclude secondary holders Secondary rights holders access land through primary landholders Growing land scarcity Insecure land rights Context Eroded customary authority New land access arrangements tend to be cash-based Direction of land transfers and long-term redefinition of rights <ul><li>Land rights are increasingly individualized and money-based as land values increase </li></ul><ul><li>However, the reality is more complex - land access often remains embedded in complex systems of social relations, even where land markets are active </li></ul>Land holding arrangements evolve as land becomes more valuable and land use changes Changes may strengthen the rights of more powerful groups and successful individuals Poor, women, youth, pastoralists and migrants increasingly excluded
    39. 39. Land use change through irrigation projects Privileged resource users can prevent others from accessing land LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Successful irrigators may enclose and gain formal title to river valley land areas formerly used by other groups for flood recession and dry season grazing Successful irrigators may also block access routes for pastoralists to water their cattle Irrigation technologies may lead to increased upstream water abstraction, diminishing the value of downstream floodplain land 2 1 3 1 Marginal lands, commons or fallow Land under lower-value crops 2 Diminished value floodplain River Irrigated land holding under higher-value crops Access route Pastoralists, and other land vulnerable groups 3
    40. 40. Changes in land use may trigger changes in land access Displaced land users may have to exploit less suitable lands, or they may lose land access entirely Land under lower-value crops Marginal lands, commons or fallow Land under increased-value crop (due to project) Expansion of area under increased-value crop LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Growing land scarcity Insecure land rights Develop- ment project Context 1 2 Displacement of land users, especially poor, women and youth Eroded customary authority More powerful groups (within or outside the community) may strengthen their land access to benefit from increased-value crop. Pre-existing users may be forced off land. 1 Where the area under the increased-value crop expands, users displaced from this area may encroach on other lands, including the commons (e.g. grazing and forest lands). Fallow periods may become shorter. 2
    41. 41. Insecure land access can be a barrier to adoption , and shortage of land is a barrier to scale , where adoption by some can lead to loss of access for others <ul><li>Successful groups </li></ul><ul><li>Incentive to invest in inputs, labour </li></ul><ul><li>Access to water, finance, credit </li></ul><ul><li>Vulnerable groups </li></ul><ul><li>Insecure land access </li></ul><ul><li>Insufficient land / water to make use of inputs </li></ul><ul><li>Insufficient labour </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of access to finance / credit </li></ul>LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK <ul><li>Compounded high status in community </li></ul><ul><li>Able to obtain further land rights </li></ul><ul><li>Compounded low status in community </li></ul><ul><li>Weakened capacity to defend land rights </li></ul>Adopt Unable to adopt Ag Dev Project New market opportunities, inputs, practices <ul><li>Accelerated social differentiation within community </li></ul><ul><li>Higher levels of land disputes </li></ul><ul><li>Increased need for social protection of poor and vulnerable </li></ul><ul><li>Loss of land to more powerful family members and outsiders </li></ul><ul><li>Limited access to common resources </li></ul><ul><li>Expand personal control of family holdings </li></ul><ul><li>Expand preferentially onto common land </li></ul>
    42. 42. Historic evidence of land-related unintended consequences in Africa Slide 1 of 2 8 LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unintended consequence Country / region Description Social & economic exclusion West Africa <ul><li>Cotton historically grown by women, now largely grown by men </li></ul><ul><li>Change due to transition from local cloth production to cultivation as cash crop 1 </li></ul>Benin <ul><li>Small-scale oil palm processing traditionally done by women </li></ul><ul><li>Promotion of oil palm seedlings in early 90s, opportunities taken up by men 2 </li></ul>South Africa <ul><li>Outside individuals with capital to develop commercial irrigated production favored by chiefs over community members in land allocations 3 </li></ul>Burkina Faso <ul><li>Irrigation projects entailed reallocations of land and water rights that disadvantaged women </li></ul><ul><li>Pre-project, women controlled land in the lowlands and cultivated rice </li></ul><ul><li>Irrigation project allocated improved lowland plots to (usually male) household heads, ignoring women’s pre-existing rights </li></ul><ul><li>In subsequent phases of the project this gender bias was removed 6 </li></ul>Loss of commons Senegal <ul><li>Promotion of food self-sufficiency focused on cereal production </li></ul><ul><li>Politicians turned blind eye to agricultural encroachment onto grazing lands </li></ul><ul><li>Area transformed from agro-pastoral to predominantly agricultural use </li></ul>
    43. 43. Historic evidence of land-related unintended consequences in Africa Slide 2 of 2 8 LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Unintended consequence Country / region Description Conflict Niger <ul><li>Local elites created private pastoral water points on common lands </li></ul><ul><li>Elites used control over water as lever to appropriate these lands – in some cases, obtaining individual registered titles 7 </li></ul>Nigeria <ul><li>Conflicts among farmers in fertile low lying lands (known as fadamas), between those with means and those with less means </li></ul><ul><li>Fadama lands traditionally common property resources regulated by customary system of land tenure, subject to competing uses - farming, fishing, grazing, and wildlife </li></ul><ul><li>Opportunities for investment in irrigation technology were made available only to relatively wealthy who expanded area under cultivation </li></ul><ul><li>Growing conflict between farmers and nomadic herders as grazing lands become farmlands </li></ul><ul><li>Also conflict among farmers, as resource-poor farmers excluded from fadama production while the wealthy monopolised resources 5 </li></ul>Disposal of valuable lands to external investors Burkina Faso <ul><li>Local leaders allocated land to absentee outsiders with financial clout in the 1990s </li></ul><ul><li>Outsiders gained strategic occupation next to water sources </li></ul><ul><li>Indigenous groups now have to pay for access to water or lose their land (no longer productive without sufficient water) 8 </li></ul>
    44. 44. Five case study BMGF projects have been reviewed for possible unintended consequences, and mitigating / preventative actions Our analysis is based on a desk-review of project documents and only aims to illustrate issues – more in-depth analysis is needed to reach solid recommendations for individual projects <ul><li>Rationale for selection: </li></ul><ul><li>Diverse cropping systems, project types, geographical focuses </li></ul><ul><li>Early implementation stages (significant land access impacts unlikely to have emerged yet) </li></ul><ul><li>Limited availability of data about other projects </li></ul>LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Cotton value chain improvement Mozambique Irrigation technology development in Tanzania Horticultural crop sector development in Angola Dairy development in East Africa Cocoa farming development in West Africa The emphasis here is on the types of unintended consequences that might arise and that project designers and implementers need to watch out for
    45. 45. LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK <ul><li>Historical evidence of land-related impacts of target crop </li></ul><ul><li>Past promotion of cotton by private companies in Northern Mozambique attracted outside investors and increased competition for suitable land amongst local producers, leading to increased land disputes 1 </li></ul><ul><li>Despite an abundance of land, female-headed households and other vulnerable groups in cotton producing areas of Northern Mozambique suffered from ongoing lack of land access 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Expected outcomes and land use changes arising from grant </li></ul><ul><li>Broad-based farmer income growth, assuming adequate land access and minimal negative impacts of land use change </li></ul><ul><li>25,000 ha of land will be converted to cotton production </li></ul><ul><li>Up to 25% will come from new clearances of forest and scrubland, while 75% or more will be existing cleared land ‘already available in [farm] communities’ </li></ul>Case study I : Cotton value chain improvement project in Mozambique Slide 1of 2 Summary of objective Increase cotton production and marketed output to improve household incomes and wealth for 60,000 small-scale cotton growers through expansion of existing farm areas for cotton and entry of new farmers. Policy, legal and development context <ul><li>Land Law 1997 progressive but not properly implemented everywhere </li></ul><ul><li>State land ownership maintained but established customary land rights are protected </li></ul><ul><li>Rural communities allowed to register collective land rights; and individuals, producer groups and investors to register leasehold title </li></ul><ul><li>Uncertainties in interpretation and implementation of the law </li></ul><ul><li>Law prohibits land sales, but inward investment and market oriented farming have led to de facto informal land markets </li></ul>
    46. 46. Case study I : Cotton value chain improvement project in Mozambique Slide 2 of 2 LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Potential unintended consequences of grant Possible preventative / mitigating actions Loss of land access Access of vulnerable individuals and groups to plots for subsistence / mixed farming could be revoked or rearranged as wealthier farmers and primary rights holders seek to expand areas under cotton <ul><li>Preventative </li></ul><ul><li>Identify at risk groups, monitor impacts and conflicts </li></ul><ul><li>Maintain activities to support mixed cropping with cotton </li></ul><ul><li>Undertake proactive land and natural resource use planning with beneficiary communities and local authorities </li></ul><ul><li>Strengthen women’s voice in land use and agricultural decisions </li></ul><ul><li>Mitigating </li></ul><ul><li>Support alternative farming options for those who have lost out </li></ul><ul><li>Strengthen local dispute resolution mechanisms </li></ul>Loss of commons Depending on size and quality of the remaining area of nearby bush-fallows, forest and grazing land etc, current users (including grant beneficiary households) could lose access to these resources in the shift to cotton Social & economic exclusion Differentiated ability to access land and control land use decisions may result in differentiated capacity to adopt cotton, thus growing social, economic and gender inequality - recent proposed switch to focus efforts on more productive farmers, may exacerbate risks of others losing land access Conflicts & disputes Competition for access to suitable land may increase, and if not properly managed, growing resource disputes and exclusion of family / community members from project benefits
    47. 47. Case study II : Cocoa farming development in West Africa Slide 1 of 2 <ul><li>Expected direct benefits and land use changes arising from grant </li></ul><ul><li>Beneficiary income growth </li></ul><ul><li>75,000 participating farmers supported to plant 0.5 ha of improved cocoa trees (Côte d’Ivoire 15,000 ha, Ghana 9,375 ha Cameroon 5,625 ha Nigeria 5,625 ha, Liberia 1,875 ha) </li></ul><ul><li>Not stated if project will expand area under cocoa or promote replacement of aging trees </li></ul><ul><li>Historical development of cocoa </li></ul><ul><li>In S Ghana and SW Nigeria demand for land to plant tree crops set up stresses on the system of family land, and pushed towards more individualized tenure 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Cocoa cultivation in Ghana and C ô te d’Ivoire involves complex sets of overlapping land rights: rights to dispose of land to outsiders for cocoa usually lie with chiefs or lineage heads - community members who do not share in decision-making over land use have lost rights to agricultural plots and to forest fallows 3 </li></ul><ul><li>Ultimate ownership of sharecropped land is often disputed between host and immigrant families 4 </li></ul><ul><li>Land suitable for cocoa production has become scarce as populations have grown, forests have been cleared and remaining areas are now protected as forest reserves </li></ul><ul><li>Younger generations seeking to become independent now facing difficulties in accessing land </li></ul>LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Summary of objectives Increase income of 200,000 cocoa farming households through improving marketing and production efficiency, and income security Policy, legal and development context <ul><li>Cocoa cultivation in West Africa linked to a history of internal and cross boundary migration, cash-based land transactions and long standing sharecropping arrangements between migrants and hosts, through which migrant families may occupy most suitable land </li></ul><ul><li>Growing land scarcity led to tensions between hosts and migrants, and between generations, sometimes catalysing violent conflict </li></ul><ul><li>In West Africa, cocoa is largely seen as a ‘man’s crop’ - however, there is a long history of women owning cocoa trees in own right </li></ul>
    48. 48. Case study II : Cocoa farming development in West Africa Slide 2 of 2 LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Potential unintended consequences of grant Possible preventative / mitigating actions Barriers to adoption of new cocoa varieties Barriers can arise because of shortages of land for new planting, control of plantations by older generations unwilling to substitute old trees for new, and insecurity of tenure by land users vis-a-vis controlling land interests of chiefs <ul><li>Preventative </li></ul><ul><li>Assess arrangements for land access, forms of tenure and control of land use decisions as part of site selection process </li></ul><ul><li>Proactive land use planning with stakeholders / community groups </li></ul><ul><li>Mitigating </li></ul><ul><li>Invest in local land administration mechanisms to document all types of land interest and manger transfers e.g. Ghana’s Customary Land Secratariats </li></ul><ul><li>Target youth, women and migrant groups explicitly and support them to negotiate and register land rights </li></ul><ul><li>Invest in dispute resolution systems and work on protection of migrants’ rights at regional level e.g. through ECOWAS </li></ul>Loss of land access Chiefs / heads of landowning families may take up new planting materials or transfer land rights to outsiders in exchange for cash – existing land users may lose land rights as a result Social & economic exclusion Project benefits may be monopolised by land holding groups, elders and men, given limitations in land access for youth, insecurity of migrants & lack of recognition of women’s role as cocoa farmers Loss of commons Remaining forest tracts or forest fallows may be cleared for cocoa planting given lack of other suitable land and uncertain or disputed rights over existing plantations Disputes and conflict Project may reactivate underlying disputes between migrants and hosts, chiefs and commoners and /or older and younger generations, due to promise of higher returns in context of uncertain rights, possibly leading to open conflicts
    49. 49. Case study III : Horticultural crop sector development in Angola Slide 1 of 2 <ul><li>Expected direct benefits and land use changes arising from grant </li></ul><ul><li>Income growth for project beneficiaries, over 7,600 ha brought under intensive production of potatoes, carrots, onions and beans </li></ul><ul><li>Cultivation of four main crops promoted will increase from 13,530 ha (yr 1) to over 37,000 ha (yr 4) </li></ul><ul><li>Intensive horticulture expansion on valley bottom land plus expansion of potatoes on uplands </li></ul><ul><li>Historical evidence of impacts of introducing horticultural crops </li></ul><ul><li>Increased crop value (e.g. pineapples) led to development of monetary land transactions and rental markets elsewhere in Africa 1 </li></ul><ul><li>In W Africa, farmers holding secondary rights were, under new market conditions, required to return land to chiefs or family heads, or to pay sums of money to keep land 2 </li></ul><ul><li>External actors tend to be drawn to horticultural areas connected with market centres to take up new market opportunities, increasing land pressure and competition 3 </li></ul><ul><li>New market crops substituted older crops, including staples; loss of traditional foods may not be replaced by income from the new crops particularly if control over land use shifts from women to men 4 </li></ul>LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Summary of objectives Double household incomes of 27,000 families through improved access to markets for high-value horticultural crops. Increase incomes and farming capacity of another 73,000 families through new extended training for entrepreneur farmers. Policy, legal and development context <ul><li>2004 Land Law provides for community land demarcation and registration by individual smallholders and others. Procedures unclear and cumbersome, creating opportunities for chiefs and government bodies to dispose of land tilled by peasant farmers </li></ul><ul><li>Risk of expropriation and land grabbing by urban elites and allocation of land concessions by central government </li></ul><ul><li>As a result of the civil war, female-headed HH are common, young people make up 50% of the population. </li></ul><ul><li>Angola’s central highlands are still beset by land mines and affected by return of displaced people since the end of the war. </li></ul>
    50. 50. LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Case study III : Horticultural crop sector development in Angola Slide 2 of 2 Potential unintended consequences of grant Possible preventative / mitigating actions Loss of land access In this context where land access is regulated through a complex customary system and families and individuals utilize multiple plots at different altitudes according to suitability and need, land is close to major roads and markets and the titling system is geared towards exclusive individual rights, attempts to formalize land rights are likely to benefit those able to negotiate complex titling procedures leading to loss of land access for others, particularly if there is competition for good horticultural land. <ul><li>Preventative </li></ul><ul><li>Promote inclusive community-based land use planning agreements on development of horticultural land and dispute resolution systems – do not rely on assisting formal land registration processes </li></ul><ul><li>Mitigating </li></ul><ul><li>Work with local /provincial government to integrate community land demarcation with individual land registration to avoid or limit allocation of plots to outsiders </li></ul><ul><li>Gender sensitive and community based monitoring to identify disputes /problems – feedback information to community and project management structures </li></ul><ul><li>Demarcation of specific land areas on behalf of women’s and youth groups </li></ul>Social and economic exclusion Promotion of new horticultural cash crops may trigger a recapture of women’s farming plots by men. Project to use and improve existing gravity-fed irrigation systems, but lack of control of irrigated land by women/ youth could exclude them from benefits. Government practice of allocating land concessions may lead external investors to acquire rights to plots located close to highways serving major market centers, displacing local farmers. Disputes and conflicts Project could increase pressure on suitable horticultural land - combined with attempts to formalize land rights for project beneficiaries this could lead to increased numbers of land disputes within beneficiary communities and with outsiders.
    51. 51. Case study IV : Irrigation technology development in Tanzania Slide 1 of 2 <ul><li>Expected direct benefits and land use changes arising from grant </li></ul><ul><li>Higher agricultural productivity, higher incomes for project beneficiaries </li></ul><ul><li>No information on expected land use change in project documents </li></ul><ul><li>Historical evidence of impacts of irrigation technologies </li></ul><ul><li>Nigerian Fadama Development Programme supplied irrigation pump - led to conversion of grazing lands to farming, and growing conflicts between farmers and herders </li></ul><ul><li>Investment in irrigation technology mainly captured by the better off, who expanded land under cultivation, while poorer farmers were excluded from fadamas 5 </li></ul><ul><li>In the Sahel, small-scale irrigation schemes established in areas with contested land claims - fostered conflicts between and within villages 3 </li></ul>LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Summary of objectives Getting 120,000 people out of poverty through promoting uptake of new-tech water pumps; supporting the development of the next generation of money-making technology Policy, legal and development context <ul><li>Village Land Act recognizes customary occupancy but prohibits customary law principles that discriminate, inter alia, against women. </li></ul><ul><li>Family land is protected by a presumption of co-occupancy, which recognizes land rights of both spouses. </li></ul><ul><li>Farmers on state-managed “general” land may be evicted without compensation. </li></ul><ul><li>Gradual commoditization of land and the evolution of predominantly individualized land market in some areas 1 </li></ul>
    52. 52. Case study IV : Irrigation technology development in Tanzania Slide 2 of 2 LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Potential unintended consequences of grant Possible preventative / mitigating actions Loss of land access In Tanzania legal land tenure security subject to evidence of “productive use”. Irrigation provides such evidence. Even under customary systems, visible investments can strengthen irrigators’ land claims, but as irrigators strengthen land claims and enclose land close to water sources, others may lose access, especially where access is already contested or unclear <ul><li>Preventative </li></ul><ul><li>Avoid targeting marketing of irrigation technology in sites where land and water access are widely contested </li></ul><ul><li>Site visits and follow up reports on land and water access and related disputes by irrigation kit vendors </li></ul><ul><li>Mitigating </li></ul><ul><li>Support creation of water users associations with rules for water sharing in areas where increased water exploitation or competition </li></ul>Loss of commons Increased land values resulting from irrigation may lead to local elites or new outside investors appropriating common lands and water sources, if rights not protected Conflicts & disputes Introducing even small-scale irrigation infrastructure in many parts of Africa has created opportunities for groups and individuals to break away from the broader community and overturn prior arrangements for land access leading to conflict, especially if there is competition for irrigable land Barriers to adoption Where existing land access is not secure, beneficiaries may be reluctant to take up the technology as doing so would increase land values and may expose them to land loss - for instance, where absentee landlords claim back their land
    53. 53. Case study V : Dairy development in East Africa Slide 1 of 2 LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK <ul><li>Historical evidence of land-related impacts of target crops </li></ul><ul><li>Enclosure of commons - appropriation of areas of land previously owned in common for private benefit (earlier policies in all 3 countries enabled this) </li></ul><ul><li>Ranch owner use of common land and water sources in dry season increased pressure and limited access for poor (2003 dispute for access to grazing land in one sector of Rwanda’s eastern province 1 ) </li></ul><ul><li>Expected land use changes arising from grant </li></ul><ul><li>Increased fodder availability, improved livestock nutrition, milk production & chilling, and marketing with income gains to farmers, utilising existing land holdings </li></ul><ul><li>Grantee proposes a zero-grazing approach and non-invasive fodder contour crops: sustainable methods if participating farmers really do rely on these – but risk livestock may be grazed and fodder cut from commons by larger herd owners and landless? </li></ul><ul><li>Potential environmental risks from increased pressure on land </li></ul>Summary of objective Transform the lives of 179,000 farmer households by doubling their income in 10 years through increased production, improved milk chilling facilities, hygiene, and access to markets Policy, legal and development context <ul><li>Kenya: Long-standing land registration program (only 5% of women have titles registered in their name), high competition for land, large landless population, high rate of rural exodus </li></ul><ul><li>Rwanda: High population density and agricultural intensification, small landholdings, overlapping land claims by returnees, large population of orphan headed households, difficulties in retaining inherited land rights </li></ul><ul><li>Uganda: Land Act 1998 allows private title and protects customary rights, but does not assume co-ownership of both spouses to their land (less than 7% of women registered landowners) </li></ul>
    54. 54. Case study V : Dairy development in East Africa Slide 2 of 2 LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Potential unintended consequences of grant Possible preventative / mitigating actions Loss of commons Where commons exist, non-beneficiary groups might lose access to common grazing land if beneficiaries increase cattle numbers in commons for seasonal fodder cutting and grazing, or enclose grazing areas. Project implemented in highly intensified areas with few commons left, however <ul><li>Preventative </li></ul><ul><li>Site-specific assessments of reliance on common grazing, water points, and existing management arrangements </li></ul><ul><li>Consultation and proactive land use planning with local authorities, beneficiary and neighbouring communities, women and youth </li></ul><ul><li>Limit numbers of new dairy cattle and volumes of fodder used as conditions of participation </li></ul><ul><li>Mitigating </li></ul><ul><li>Negotiated arrangements for grazing / fodder / water management on commons with participation of beneficiaries and other local or mobile user groups </li></ul><ul><li>Sub-projects for women and young cattle keepers to ensure access to fodder and grazing </li></ul>Loss of water rights Without effective systems to manage water points on grazing lands, increased dairy herds may also increase pressure on water sources and surrounding grazing lands, possibly leading to overgrazing and exacerbated resource competition - better-off are more likely to prevail. But private water sources in project sites Social & economic exclusion Risks that project might be a) captured by better off groups seeking to establish commercial dairy herds, and b) dominated by established male cattle owners. The Y1 report highlights difficulties in enlisting women and youth, and suggests that lack of control over land and livestock may be the reason
    55. 55. Development of new varieties and appropriate technologies by Science &Technology projects requires secure land access by the poor LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK <ul><li>Insecure land access will be a barrier to adoption of good technologies at large scale </li></ul><ul><li>Productive transformation will increase land values and is likely to involve some changes to existing patterns of landholding and use in which those less able to take up new technologies may lose out </li></ul><ul><li>Land related unintended consequences of S&T projects can be difficult to foresee until technologies are widely tested and disseminated </li></ul><ul><li>If new technologies lead to higher market yields and prices, more successful market oriented farmers may seek greater land access </li></ul><ul><li>Adoption of drought-resistant and water-efficient crop varieties will bring new pressures on land previously seen as marginal for agriculture, possibly leading to loss of land access by cattle herders </li></ul><ul><li>Possible mitigating / preventative actions </li></ul><ul><li>Longer term planning to secure land rights and manage social consequences of productive transformation of agriculture so as to protect the place of the poor </li></ul><ul><li>Screen technologies for suitability and affordability by small farmers </li></ul><ul><li>Examine possible land related barriers to adoption and impacts on existing land access at the farmer adoption trial stage 1 </li></ul>
    56. 56. Analysis of the case studies and the available literature identifies some common themes and general lessons Slide 1 of 2 LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK <ul><li>Projects which promise new income opportunities based on improved technologies can increase the incentives for local elites and male heads of households to take control of land for themselves, and for outside investors to come in, increasing the level of land disputes and conflicts - Government policies and local customary practice may encourage these situations </li></ul><ul><li>Projects which encourage clearing of new land can impact on common land and resources, undermining access by both beneficiaries and outside groups and impacting on environmental services </li></ul><ul><li>A focus on boosting production and incomes for more successful, market oriented farmers is likely to have negative impacts on vulnerable groups and promote land concentration by the better off </li></ul><ul><li>It is not enough to rely on formal mechanisms to protect land rights - these mechanisms may not be accessible to all, and may or may not be a helpful complement to agricultural projects depending on how farmers hold land currently and how the national land registration and titling system works in practice. </li></ul><ul><li>In addtion, local arrangements for participatory land use planning , dispute resolution and protection of land access for poor and vulnerable gruypooups are needed. </li></ul>Agricultural projects face a set of common land-related issues – both barriers to adoption and unintended consequences which need to be better understood and carefully managed
    57. 57. Analysis of the case studies and the available literature identifies some common themes and general lessons Slide 2 of 2 <ul><li>Land issues need to be addressed during project design and implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Land access conditions and risks are highly context specific and project proposals need to assess and describe them carefully </li></ul><ul><li>Procedures are needed for screening projects for potential land access barriers and risks, and project M&E should incorporate land access indicators </li></ul><ul><li>Grantees may need assistance or support from complementary projects to work with government structures and partners with expertise on land to devise appropriate mechanisms for managing land access, land use planning, securing land rights and resolving disputes </li></ul><ul><li>Land issues are cross-cutting </li></ul><ul><li>The majority of smallholder farmers will need secure land rights if they are to take up new productive technologies at large scale </li></ul><ul><li>Land is closely related to cross-cutting issues of Gender and Environment and needs to be considered in all agricultural development projects </li></ul><ul><li>Women’s and youth’s voices needs to be strengthened </li></ul><ul><li>Women, young people and poorer, weaker community members can risk exclusion from project benefits because of lack of land or insecure land access </li></ul><ul><li>Grantees may need to make specific provision for women and youth to access land and participate in projects, and to guard against capture of benefits by outsiders and local elites </li></ul>LAND ACCESS CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
    58. 58. <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Part A: Land Access Theory & Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Part B: Conceptual Framework & Lessons from Experience </li></ul><ul><li>Part C: Suggested Operational Framework & Tools </li></ul><ul><li>Annexes </li></ul>Framework for addressing land access: Table of Contents
    59. 59. Operational framework for reviewing land access issues in implementation oriented grants / projects OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK & INDICATORS Grant / project proposals Project / program implementation Program completion / evaluation All stages The Land Program Officer has responsibility for consulting, answering questions on land access, and has facilities for working through issues <ul><li>Establish screening procedures and questions (see next slide) for concept notes and proposal outlines: identify low, medium and high land risk projects </li></ul><ul><li>Build awareness of: land issues, potential UCs, scope for feasible preventative / mitigating measures in project design (low and medium land risk proposals) </li></ul><ul><li>Mainstream key land access indicators into standard M&E systems (all projects) </li></ul><ul><li>Investigate land issues and take feasible mitigating measures as required; develop independent complementary measures (medium risk projects) </li></ul><ul><li>Iterative feedback loop systems to implement mitigating measures and review effectiveness (all projects) </li></ul><ul><li>Ensure lessons on land access impacts documented by final evaluations </li></ul><ul><li>Program-wide review of land access impacts at end of grant cycles, with feed back into institutional strategies and programme development </li></ul><ul><li>Possible call down technical facility to provide expert advice; and/or fund for land access-related support and complementary actions </li></ul>
    60. 60. Questions the Land Program Officer can use to to identify land issues in grant proposals Grant / project proposals Project / program implementation Program completion / evaluation All stages OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK & INDICATORS <ul><li>A: Unintended consequences and barriers to adoption </li></ul><ul><li>Does proposed project have potential direct or indirect unintended consequences which could restrict access to land and natural resources for beneficiaries, other community or family members, or outside groups such as pastoralists? </li></ul><ul><li>Could restrictions on land access be a barrier to adoption of the crops and technologies involved for any of the intended beneficiaries? </li></ul><ul><li>B1: Project design (where specific country targeted) </li></ul><ul><li>Has project design assessed the way farmers access land either through customary tenure or the market? </li></ul><ul><li>How do beneficiaries access land? </li></ul><ul><li>Do people have unequal land access opportunities? </li></ul><ul><li>What level of land-related conflict exists? </li></ul><ul><li>How robust are local institutions for settlement of land disputes? </li></ul><ul><li>How does national policy affect land relations on the ground? </li></ul><ul><li>Do people have access to effective land administration institutions? </li></ul><ul><li>In this context, how is the project likely to affect peoples access to land? </li></ul><ul><li>B2: Project design (where multiple, unidentified countries/sites) </li></ul><ul><li>Have arrangements been made to consider the above issues once the project reaches the site selection stage? </li></ul><ul><li>C: M&E systems </li></ul><ul><li>If there are potential unintended consequences for land access, do proposed M&E systems take them into account? </li></ul><ul><li>Do M&E systems effectively tackle the main possible sources and types of unintended consequences - what preventative / mitigating measures are being considered? </li></ul>
    61. 61. Proposals will be screened for land access-related risks, and mitigating actions will be implemented to address identified risks Low risk Medium risk High risk Evidence Actions OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK & INDICATORS <ul><li>Proposal shows good awereness of land access issues </li></ul><ul><li>Adequate land available </li></ul><ul><li>No significant risks to vulnerable groups </li></ul><ul><li>Clear measuers in place to address risks to e.g. women’s land access </li></ul><ul><li>No additional, specific action required before approval </li></ul><ul><li>Proposal shows some awareness of land issues </li></ul><ul><li>BMGF identifies some risks of loss of land access / non-adoption that are not adeqautely addressed by the proposal (relating to the proposed intervention or country / local contexts) </li></ul><ul><li>Ask grantee to consider and address specific land risks </li></ul><ul><li>Ask grantee to include adequate M&E and provision for mitigating actions </li></ul><ul><li>BMGF offers specialist consultancy support if required </li></ul><ul><li>Significant risks to vulnerable groups </li></ul><ul><li>Significant risks non-adoption linked to land access issues </li></ul><ul><li>Grantee shows no or low awareness of land issues </li></ul><ul><li>BMGF undertakes independent specialist review of land issues </li></ul><ul><li>Ask grantee asked to re-design proposal taking account of findings of specialist review </li></ul>
    62. 62. Landholding Questions POs can ask local land users (target & non-target beneficiaries in project and neighbouring areas) during field trips It’s important to ask questions and discuss land access issues with vulnerable groups in particular <ul><li>Where is your land? Who is using it? </li></ul><ul><li>How many plots do you have? </li></ul><ul><li>What do you grow on each plot? </li></ul><ul><li>How big is each plot? </li></ul><ul><li>Who uses each plot? </li></ul><ul><li>Does the household rent in/out? </li></ul><ul><li>How many years is the arrangement? </li></ul><ul><li>How flexible are the terms? </li></ul>History & Security <ul><li>How did you get your land? </li></ul><ul><li>When did you get each plot? </li></ul><ul><li>How did the previous landholder get the land before you? </li></ul><ul><li>Do you have a paper that shows that you own each plot? </li></ul><ul><li>Is this paper useful to you? </li></ul><ul><li>Whose name is on these papers? </li></ul><ul><li>Are you confident that in 5 years time you will continue to have access to your plots of land (including fallows)? </li></ul><ul><li>If widowed, will you keep the land? </li></ul><ul><li>Are there any disputes or disagreements about land that affect your family? </li></ul><ul><li>Who is involved? </li></ul><ul><li>Who can resolve these disputes? </li></ul><ul><li>Do you know anyone else who has lost their land recently in this village? </li></ul><ul><li>Could this happen to you? </li></ul>Commons <ul><li>Do you collect any foods or fuel from these areas? </li></ul><ul><li>Do you sell any of these? </li></ul><ul><li>Has collecting become more difficult? Since when? </li></ul><ul><li>Where do you graze your livestock? </li></ul><ul><li>Has the quality of grazing land changed in recent years? </li></ul>Decision making <ul><li>Who decides how to use each plot? </li></ul><ul><li>Who decides who uses each plot? </li></ul><ul><li>Who decides whether to transfer land? </li></ul><ul><li>If money is exchanged, who will keep the money? </li></ul>Inheritance <ul><li>Who will the land pass to after you are too old to farm it? </li></ul><ul><li>Will it be divided among your children equally? </li></ul><ul><li>Will your children have land to farm when they become adult? </li></ul>OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK & INDICATORS
    63. 63. Indicators aligned to the Land Access Conceptual Framework can be used to monitor unintended consequences OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK & INDICATORS Change in number of people reporting loss of land access Changes in access to common resources (quantity, quality, distance) Change in frequency and intensity of conflict Change in land acquired by outsiders Unit of measurement Methods for collecting / data sources Who provides and collects data, consolidates and reports <ul><li>Numbers of cases reported by type & social group </li></ul><ul><li>Methods should match relevant and useful information to feasible data collection in local contexts </li></ul><ul><li>Ideally, regular data collection and reporting of problems by project staff </li></ul><ul><li>It may be more realistic to add land access questions to ongoing M&E efforts and gather anecdotal evidence from the field </li></ul><ul><li>Use of participatory rural appraisal techniques likely to be more effective than new quantitative data gathering efforts </li></ul><ul><li>Possible implications for skills and selection of project & M&E teams </li></ul><ul><li>Grantees, consultants, M&E teams </li></ul><ul><li>Need to consider role of women in field data collection, and how to reach poorer and marginal groups </li></ul><ul><li>May need to interact with local power brokers, judicial officials to get information </li></ul><ul><li>List and qualitative description of cases </li></ul><ul><li>Number of people reporting problems </li></ul><ul><li>Social position of those affected </li></ul><ul><li>Number & types of disputes identified </li></ul><ul><li>Cases of violent or inter-group conflict listed and described </li></ul><ul><li>Cases described </li></ul><ul><li>Land areas lost </li></ul>
    64. 64. Measures for preventing and/or mitigating loss of land access will be context and project-specific - two aims/mechanisms for discussion <ul><li>We may engage GLTN, consultants or grantees to implement preventative / mitigating measures including: </li></ul><ul><li>Identifying at risk groups, monitor impacts and support alternative livelihood options for losers </li></ul><ul><li>Undertaking proactive land and natural resource use planning with beneficiary communities and local authorities </li></ul><ul><li>Monitoring incidence of land disputes and strengthen local dispute resolution mechanisms </li></ul><ul><li>Strengthening women’s voice in land use and agricultural decisions </li></ul><ul><li>Targeting marketing of technology to areas with lower contestation of land claims </li></ul>OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK & INDICATORS <ul><li>POs may wish to: </li></ul><ul><li>Liaise with the Land PO to identify and understand land access issues </li></ul><ul><li>Work with GLTN and/or consultants: </li></ul><ul><li>to assess problems within grants, and </li></ul><ul><li>to implement preventative / mitigating solutions </li></ul><ul><li>To provide technical advice and support activities on land access through specific facilities that BMGF can access </li></ul><ul><li>Engage consultants to assess land issues ex-ante or early in project implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Improve land access arrangements through working with the Global Land Tools Network (GLTN – a program of UN Habitat) </li></ul><ul><li>To support complementary land access activities </li></ul><ul><li>Preventative / mitigating measures outside the scope of individual projects </li></ul><ul><li>Interventions to secure land accesss through: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Linkage to ongoing national initiatives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>On-the-ground interventions </li></ul></ul>
    65. 65. One possible delivery option (for discussion) for communicating land access issues, and identifying preventative / mitigating solutions OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK & INDICATORS Farmers / other stakeholders communicate land access issues to grantees, consultants and / or GLTN complementary projects Farmers / other stakeholders BMGF Program Officers Technical Advisors / Consultants BMGF Land Program Officer Grantees and POs work with the Land PO and Technical Advisors / Consultants to understand: land access issues; land access and livelihood impacts; preventative and mitigating measures; M&E development and implementation; project evaluation 1 3 2 Land PO works with grantees, consultants or GLTN to diagnose land access issues and devise preventative / mitigating solutions for farmers / other stakeholders Expert advice on land access issues Communication of land access issues GLTN Consultants Grantees
    66. 66. Objective of the grantee’s work: to assess security of land risks and opportunities in our agricultural portfolio OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK & INDICATORS We will commission GLTN to draw on their practical experience , and there extensive network of contacts on the ground Slide 1 of 3 <ul><li>This will involve: </li></ul><ul><li>Using anthropological and socio-legal methods to assess land governance, policy, legal, tenure, evolving customary practice, formal and informal land market development, land administration capacity, gender and generational questions and agricultural development / BMGF project context </li></ul><ul><li>Identifying what potential partners are doing, including government programs which could impact the regions in which projects are located </li></ul><ul><li>Identifying specific options for complementary action required by the project cases; institutional options and strategies in broader region / national context; and, with appropriate partners, options for addressing land legal/customary issues faced by women </li></ul><ul><li>Monitor and evaluate for learning and changing strategy over time at national and case study level to assist land project interventions in going to scale </li></ul>Once developed, we will experiment with these tools to test their applicability to a sample of our projects <ul><li>Following a scoping exercise, the grantee 1 will select a small number of countries in which to implement land interventions (by deploying and adapting the range of tools the grantee develops) that are complementary to our projects </li></ul><ul><li>M&E will attempt to discern the impact of the interventions on the outcomes and long-term sustainability of our projects </li></ul><ul><li>The grantee will disseminate findings through the Global Land tools Network (GLTN) </li></ul>
    67. 67. OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK & INDICATORS The grantee will work with partners to select countries in which to implement the tools for address land issues Slide 2 of 3 BMGF focus country and level of BMGF investment in the country (number & duration of projects, amounts committed) Presence of a BMGF grantee project with recognized land related risks and where project management is willing to collaborate with an external, complementary project Engagement of a local or national government body with appropriate mandate, and GLTN network partners on the ground with adequate skills and capacity Constructive and open land policy framework in which innovation to strengthen land administration on the ground is accepted, if not encouraged Possible criteria for selecting countries might include: Range of different types of BMGF grants (production of annual / perennial crops, market access, input supply, S&T)
    68. 68. ‘ Rural relevant’ tool types Gender and vulnerable group intersections Environmental intersection OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK & INDICATORS GLTN will develop tools for identifying approaches to addressing land issues at the country level Slide 3 of 3 Advocacy <ul><li>Improve the regulatory framework for land professionals </li></ul><ul><li>Improve and the enforcement of land rights especially in the areas of women's land access, inheritance rights, and eviction and compensation </li></ul>Measuring land tenure / access security <ul><li>To determine where and who is vulnerable to the unintended consequences of agricultural development </li></ul><ul><li>To identify barriers to adoption of improved technologies </li></ul>Land use planning <ul><li>To identify land use patterns at the village level 1 </li></ul><ul><li>To identify &quot;underutilized&quot; land with agricultural potential and degraded land </li></ul><ul><li>To identify patterns of landholding creating a snapshot of land tenancy patterns </li></ul><ul><li>To identify rental/sharecropping in village that may illustrate risk, dis- / incentives and opportunities </li></ul>Documenting land rights <ul><li>When legal framework permits at relatively low cost, facilitate land titles to individuals in project villages </li></ul><ul><li>Provide customary land title to community (e.g. Mozambique) </li></ul><ul><li>Utilize products from local land use planning and village level inventory / registration exercises as a local land record for local land administration purposes </li></ul>Land administration systems <ul><li>To modernize land administration systems to ensure inclusiveness and capacity to manage land rights claims 2 </li></ul><ul><li>To create confidence in land system and land tenure security by improving the quality of land records (facilitates land transactions, sets the basis for fee collection or tax collection, and conflict resolution) </li></ul><ul><li>Training and education for land professionals, including a local or village cadre </li></ul>
    69. 69. OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORK & INDICATORS Land is in fixed supply , and so is a critical resource constraining adoption of any crop or technology at scale <ul><li>Infrastructure and human capital </li></ul><ul><li>In land abundant countries, need to assess how to provide adequate economic and social infrastructure to support sustainable farming systems in areas where farming can expand </li></ul><ul><li>Also need to assess how to improve human capital to support sustainable farming systems in areas where farming can expand </li></ul><ul><li>Research </li></ul><ul><li>Strategic planning for agricultural research should take account of long term land availability for different crops and technologies (together with demographic and economic outlooks) </li></ul><ul><li>Land availabiliy is complementary to agricultural research and may influence its focus </li></ul><ul><li>Alternative investments </li></ul><ul><li>Ultimately we may need to invest in alternatives to agriculture and complementary livelihood skills while securing minimal household land assets for homesteads and home gardens </li></ul><ul><li>Intentsification </li></ul><ul><li>In high population density countries and as land becomes scarce, need to examine how farming systems can become more intensive in inclusive and sustainable ways </li></ul><ul><li>Responsive and participatory land use planning will become more and more important </li></ul>
    70. 70. <ul><li>Introduction </li></ul><ul><li>Part A: Land Access Theory & Learning </li></ul><ul><li>Part B: Conceptual Framework & Lessons from Experience </li></ul><ul><li>Part C: Suggested Operational Framework & Tools </li></ul><ul><li>Annexes </li></ul>Framework for addressing land access: Table of Contents
    71. 71. Key organizations: Public sector Slide 1 of 3 UN system FAO FAO Land Tenure Studies Series UN-HABITAT Global Land Tools Network UNDP Land Governance Cross Practice Initiative 2005 UN Economic Commission for Africa Land Tenure Systems and Sustainable Development in Southern Africa 2003 Other World Bank Land Policy for Growth and Poverty Reduction 2003 European Union Land policy guidelines 2004 African Union Land framework and guidelines 2009 Bilateral donors European SIDA Position paper on natural resource tenure 2007 French Cooperation White Paper 2008 GTZ (Land Tenure in Development Cooperation) 1998 USAID Nature, Wealth and Power: Emerging Practice for Revitalizing Rural Africa 2002 MCC Fact Sheet on improving land tenure, access and property rights
    72. 72. Key organizations: Networks, NGOs, CBOs Slide 2 of 3 Networks International Land Coalition Towards a Common Platform on Access to Land 2002 Non-governmental organizations Oxfam Social movements, producer organizations, alliances Via Campesina Reseau des Organisations Paysannes et de Producteurs de l’Afrique de l’Ouest (ROPPA) Kenya Land Alliance Uganda Land Alliance Angola Rede Terre (Land Network) Coalition of NGOs established in Luanda 2002 National Natural Resources Forum Tanzania National Land Committee, RSA Namibian NGO Federation Umbrella network of NGOs in Namibia Women and Law in Development in Africa
    73. 73. Key organizations: Research institutions Slide 3 of 3 International International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Natural Resources Institute (NRI) Groupe de Recherche et d’Echanges Technolo