1. Review of International Land
Coalition’s Regionalisation
Process: An Asian
Perspective
Roshan Chitrakar
Community Self Reliance Centre, Nepal
2. Purpose of the review
The overall purpose of this internal review is to assess ILC’s
performance to date in undertaking the regionalisation process in Asia
and to generate findings and recommendations to inform ILC’s future
decisions related to strengthening its regionalisation/decentralisation
strategy and its implementation in the region.
3. Specific Objectives
The specific purpose of the review is to:
• analyse the current regional governance structure, its
history and its milestones from the critical perspective;
• assess progress towards objectives and expected results
of the regionalisation process;
• evaluate effectiveness and efficiency of regionalisation
strategies and systems; and
• examine Asian members’ assessment of the
regionalisation process and their appropriation and
participation in the process, at country and regional levels.
5. Representation in ILC governance structures
ILC ASIA REGIONAL PLATFORM
Support Staff
REGIONAL NODE
COORDINATOR
ILC ASIA STEERING
GROUP
GLOBAL
SECRETARIAT
in Rome
COALITION COUNCIL
ILC ASIA NODE
HOST Organisation
7. Structure of the Presentation
Governance and Results
Outreach and membership
Members’ roles and contributions
Result-based management
Communication
Diversification of resource base
Efficiency and Effectiveness
Composition, roles and resources
Hosting arrangement
Staff performance
Relation with ILC Rome, SC and the host
8. Governance and Results
Result-based Management
1. The current management practice, largely flexible and not
strongly based on indicator specific framework; Why such
approach? What the result-base management meant?
ILC Asia Node should allow members to be more critically
engaged in debates and discussions to come to a
consensus on a framework of management and customised
definition of result-based management for the Asia Node.
2. To be more impact oriented, development of longer term
strategic plans preferred, not just annual plans. The non-liability
clause in the agreement between ILC Rome and IFAD is counter
productive.
ILC Rome and Asia should develop an understanding about
how the Asia Node can/should do business differently so
that it will be able to define a management framework, agree
upon a set of indicators and targets that are both sort and
long term in nature and demonstrate results and impact
against them.
9. Governance and Results (contd.)
Communication
1. Sending out information regularly through effective means is
necessary but not sufficient to assert that the communication has
taken place unless it is two-way and substantive in the exchange
of information and feedback.
More needs to be done in promoting member-to-member
communication. The idea shared by one of the members
about using a “chat room” such as Skype or Yahoo
Messenger so that greater synergy is created.
Opportunities for bi-lateral and multilateral professional
exchanges between and among members can be helpful too
2. Member organisations are obviously required to give priority to
their own activities than to invest time and resources to
communicate with or respond to the communications of the ILC
unless they find meaningful value in such communications.
ILC Asia needs to be more strategic to ensure that members
find it professionally rewarding in improving
communications, making them two-way traffic and more
substantive. Interactions with IGO members and potential
partners need to be enhanced.
10. Governance and Results (contd.)
Resource Mobilisation
1. Resource mobilisation without clarity of its legal status is not possible for ILC Asian Node.
ANGOC could act on the Asia Node’s behalf, but not a long term solution, not so favoured
by donors. Moreover, without the support and clear guidance from the ILC Rome, the
regional node in Asia can barely make a good headway in resource mobilisation and in
working with ILC partners for joint co-financing the annual priority programmes, let along
the longer duration programmes.
ILC Rome and Asia should sort out the issue of legal status of the Asia regional
node and come up with a long term solution to the problem of resource mobilisation
at the region level. ILC Asia needs to be introduced to the potential donors by ILC
Rome as the former approach the donors with proposal and funding request.
2. The success that the ILC members have experienced in mobilising programme funds from
donors other than ILC’s strategic partners, does not necessarily make them equally
successful in obtaining funds from ILC’s strategic partners working at the country level.
Similarly, the favourable supports that the strategic partners extend to ILC at the global
level does not necessarily mean that the ILC members in country would have the same
experience. On the contrary, there are instances when some partners have taken position
on land issues that is against ILC’s own position.
ILC‟s policy to engage with IGOs and partners need to be reviewed. While the ILC
should consider minimising its involvement in fund raising by itself, strategically the
members„ capacity to raise funds need to be enhanced. What the ILC should do is
to advocate and lobby strategic partners and donors at the global to country levels
to be more responsive to ILC members in supporting their programmes in countries
and in the region.
11. Efficiency and Effectiveness
Resource Mobilisation (contd.)
3. The practice of dividing and allocating equal funds (mobilised by ILC) to members in
the region resulted in the development of arbitrary programmes. Such a practice does
not allow members to be creative in addressing local issues of land and poor people
nor does it help them develop capacity to negotiate with donors or ILC partners for
resource mobilisation.
The practice of dividing and allocating equal funds (mobilised by ILC) to
members in the region resulted in the development of arbitrary programmes.
Such a practice does not allow members to be creative in addressing local
issues of land and poor people nor does it help them develop capacity to
negotiate with donors or ILC partners for resource mobilisation.
Composition, Roles and Resources
1. While the 6-member Steering Committee is found appropriate in size to manage the
ILC Asian Node, the support it should get from the regional secretariat is not clear and
assured. Overburdening the Steering Committee with excessive reading of reports and
other communications decreases its efficiency.
The Secretariat of the Asia Node needs to be led by a capable professional and a
competent support staff. Asia Node Secretariat needs to ensure that every
programme report is professionally synthesised, consolidated and packaged in
an apex-management-friendly manner prior to sending them to the Steering
Committee and Coalition Council. The regional Coordinator is expected to
carryout this task. However, short-term external professional support is deemed
necessary as the ILC Asia Node is in the process of hiring a fresh Coordinator
who will need a window period to adapt to the Node‟s challenging work context.
12. Efficiency and Effectiveness
Composition, Roles and Resources (contd.)
2. The lack of interest among IGO members in the region and to educate
such IGOs about ILC and its regional presence is a serious challenge for
the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is represented by two
important IGO members. Obviously, these IGOs are expected not only to
remain interested and active as the ILC member, but also persuade other
IGO members for their active participation in ILC’s regional programmes.
A workshop or discussion session focusing specifically on the issue
of IGO members participation in ILC‟s activities in Asia should be
organised to find out constraints, possibilities and chart out the
action plan.
3. The follow up to the Steering Committee decisions is crucial in practically
addressing critical management issues of the ILC Asia Node. Formation of
a consortium of members to prepare and submit to non-ILC member
donors was a decision that suffered from implementation due to lack of
follow up. In its meeting the Steering Committee also raised the concern
about its confused role and authority when Asian members are eligible to
receiving programme funds directly from the ILC and the SC not being
notified.
The Steering Committee of ILC Asia needs to be appropriately
empowered and authorised to make financial and programme
decision pertaining to the region.
13. Efficiency and Effectiveness
Composition, Roles and Resources (contd.)
3. Without a conscious effort and acknowledgement of gender unfriendly
composition of the Steering Committee, the issue of the lack of gender
balance does not get addressed. The organisational membership of the
Steering Committee assured no female sitting in any of the SC meetings,
thereby the SC decisions could be perceived to have lacked female’s
perspective.
The election of the next SC committee should ensure that gender
balance is attained in its formation.
Hosting Arrangements
1. Although ANGOC has been perceived to be an appropriate host for the
ILC Asia Node, taking it as the host for ever does not allow opportunity to
other members from the region to host and develop their own capacity.
The hosting policy of ILC needs a review. Rotating hosting
arrangement among members in every two year is a preferred
option, but all the consequences must be critically assessed and
presented to members before a decision to this effect is taken.
14. Efficiency and Effectiveness
Staff Performance
1. The experience of a prolong vacancy of the ILC Asia Node Coordinator teaches
a lesson that insecure job tenure can lead to premature staff turnover, while
rehiring is a tenuous and an expensive process.
ILC should review its regionalisation and the human resource
management policy. It needs to be proactive in addressing the possible
staff turnover issue before more such incident takes place.
Relation with ILC Rome, Steering Committee and Host
1. The fact that the ILC Asia Node has sustained so far, even without the Node
Coordinator for almost a year, and is able to accomplish range of activities in the
past two years, is primary due to the collective efforts of the regional members,
the host, the Steering Committee and the support from ILC Rome. However,
good relation also needs to be complemented by good management practice.
The Asia Node Steering Committee finds that there is a systemic weakness in
the global-regional chain of command. There are two specific aspects needing
consideration. One is that the SC is not sufficiently authorised for decision
making related to the regional matters. And the other is that members in Asia
have not been able to take full advantage of their alliance with ILC Rome due to
the absence of a dedicated focal point for Asia.
ILC Rome should review the minutes of ILC Asia Steering Committee
meetings either to clarify why the current management practice is justified
or take the SC meeting as the basis for improving the practice.
