Author: Amrit Bhandari

SARAH: LandLinks hosts the Mobile Applications to Secure Tenure (MAST) Learning Platform, which has great resources on the innovative technology tools and inclusive methods that use mobile devices and a participatory approach to efficiently, transparently and affordably map and document land and resource rights. Check out the MAST How It Works Infographic and the Technology Infographic, for example. This New America blog also has a helpful description of the MAST approach.

In West Africa/Sahel, USAID has piloted MAST in Burkina Faso with the National Land Observatory (ONF) with some impressive results: in only 25 days, 12 villagers used MAST to map and capture data on 2,708 rural land parcels. ONF’s local publication, “Zoom sur le foncier” (in French, also online), has a section on MAST.

USAID has also worked with MAST in Zambia with customary chiefs to increase tenure security for treatment households, and USAID has demonstrated significant increases in community land governance from participatory mapping, creation of bylaws and related activities under the Community Land Protection Program in Liberia.

SARAH: There are many investment models that can create benefits for local communities. These range from 1) lessor/renter agreements where individuals or the community as a whole receive regular payments for use of their land to 2) revenue-sharing arrangements in which the community receives a portion of the revenue or profit of the investment to 3) joint ventures, in which the community actively participates as an equity holder in an investment. The latter can even work if the community does not initially put up capital but borrows its equity stake, to be paid back via the profit from the investment.

FINN: This is a very important question but one with a certain ambivalence. Most of the land owners/caretakers have no or very little income from their land holdings. The main reason for this is that land matters are not managed well and the practice of giving out land plots to settler farmers, etc. is part of the informal economy. An annual lease fee payment will provide a fixed income for the tenure period. If well managed, this will improve their financial situation. Using the land as “equity” will make the land owners shareholders with all the obligations and risks involved, and if the company does not pay dividends the land owners will be stuck without an annual fixed income. I think that a two-stage processwhere they start as a lessor and then when the lease is to be renewed, a participation model could be negotiated, could be a good model. If the land is in the hands of government, an equity stake could certainly make sense.

JEFFREY: Community-centric approaches, such as participatory mapping of land, development of grievance mechanisms, community programs and support to local communities to receive land titles, are essential for diagnosing and addressing land tenure challenges. The level of success of these mechanisms depends on how well the approaches are implemented. Using external service providers or working with local NGOs can be a good way to ensure effective and inclusive community engagement.

JEFFREY: Businesses can integrate land and resource tenure risk assessments into investment decision-making processes to identify the types of risks and possible mitigation actions. Furthermore, they can ensure projects plan and budget to address land tenure challenges, such as recruiting and training qualified staff on best practices for community-centric approaches, including systematic stakeholder engagement, grievance mechanisms, community development programs and participatory mapping of land claims. Additionally, businesses can leverage their existing risk quantification approaches to include better estimates of the land tenure risk impacts on investment returns, as well as quantify the benefits of addressing land risks and engaging communities such as reductions in their cost of capital, increased share price, increased revenue, etc.

FINN: No, it was not. In the area where we are developing the project, the level of poverty is high and the education level is also below average. We concluded that they actually did not know what to ask for as their needs in general have been so low and they have very limited knowledge of what is possible. Further, the lack of a regular income leads to a passive approach from the local citizens.

FINN: It was simply the easiest way to answer our request.

JEFFREY: For Survey 1, an initial list of approximately 40,000 relevant companies was generated using publicly available sources, which the survey team used to collect contact information for approximately 4,900 individuals working in relevant positions in those companies. The survey team sent personalized invitations to those individuals asking them to complete the survey and followed up with several reminders. A link to Survey 1 was also posted on relevant list-servs and USAID outreach communications.

In total, 143 respondents completed Survey 1. After screening the responses against the qualification criteria, 75 of these respondents were deemed qualified, and their responses to Survey 1 are included in our analysis. These 75 respondents were selected to participate in the second-round survey. Of those 75 qualified respondents, 35 completed Survey 2. Those 35 organizations provided in-depth information regarding 102 projects worldwide, including 39 rejected and 63 undertaken projects in agriculture, forestry and renewable energy. The individuals responding to the survey on behalf of their organizations were all senior executives (C-suite or sustainability officers).

Given the aim and scope of the survey, it is very likely that the organizations that responded to the voluntary survey would have a pre-existent interest, concern or commitment to responsible land-based investment. Additionally, the number of respondents from Asia and Oceania was relatively small compared to those from other regions. This report, therefore, only makes claims regarding the organizations that participated in the survey. It should not be interpreted as representative of organizations outside the sample, nor does it try to draw generalizations about land-based investment as a whole.

Despite numerous efforts to generate as many participants as possible, the final sample size of the survey was modest. The response rate may have been affected by several factors. Given that this is the first edition of the survey, there was no reference point for potential respondents. The request for detailed operational information and length of Survey 2 may also have dissuaded some potential respondents. In addition, the timing of the survey—launching in late 2017 with data analysis in early 2018—coincided with several holidays, and the short timeframe limited possible follow-up efforts. The branding of the survey from USAID—a public institution—might have dissuaded some private company responses due to the sensitive nature of the questions. Lastly, many emails bounced back, ended up in spam folders or were never opened. It is notable, however, that once the survey was started, 77 percent of potential respondents completed the survey.

FINN: The level of corruption in the areas we are operating is low. We also informed all stakeholders from the beginning that we have a no corruption policy. In the beginning they still tried to ask for certain personal favors which we always declined. If they asked us to grade the road in a community, however, we agreed to do that. All stools have no approved mapping of the stool area, and previously the boundaries were described by large trees, creeks, large stones etc., but most of these “landmarks” have disappeared. It is always a challenge on how to split up the lease fee paid by African Plantations for Sustainable Development. The stool itself and the traditional council receives approximately 40 percent of the gross lease fee. One of our Stools has agreed to split the fee in three parts, one third each to the traditional council, the community and the youth organization.

FINN: This is a huge challenge and we are talking about changing old habits and bad agricultural practices. Where we find these high levels of poverty there is no understanding [of or concern for the] environment, conservation and reduced burning. Our concept is to show as many farmers and stakeholders as possible that it is possible to do agricultural activities without destroying everything around you, but it certainly takes time. As I stated in the webinar, there is much talk about land use, but almost none concerning land abuse and the latter is a more serious challenge. Climate smart agriculture is one of the key concepts but that will also take time as it is still too much patchwork and not enough solid concepts around.

JEFFREY: Indeed, the Interlaken Group has defined its view on company responsibilities to uphold the VGGT in commercial settings through its release of the Interlaken Guide on Respecting Land and Forest Rights. In addition, almost all governments have committed to the VGGTs, which require them to respect legitimate land rights.

However, Indufor does not consider one guideline as the main responsible one, since the different guidelines focus on different aspects of land-based investments, such as agricultural projects, or inclusion of human rights. Overall, the challenge is for companies, operating in a variety of governance contexts, to put these guidelines into practice and internalize the guidelines’ principles. To do so, Indufor sees a need to iteratively improve these guiding principles over time, rather than calling for project abandonment as currently outlined in some of the guidelines and frameworks.

SARAH: Similar to Jeff’s response, USAID does not see one particular guideline as better than others. I personally like the Analytical Framework for Responsible Land-Based Investments in African Agriculture because it is succinct (~16 pages), clear and practical. Of course we also have the USAID Operating Guidelines for Responsible Land-Based Investment.

However, I would argue that it is much more important that investors and businesses are seeking to create projects that respect local land and resource rights and that benefit local peoples. If guidelines are helpful in achieving that end, fantastic.

JEFFREY: There are several tools to assist any company to perform a due diligence assessment. Some of these tools might be required by law, such as environmental and social impact assessments (ESIAs), and are often conducted by a third party. Other tools are additional, including an initial diligence assessment, participatory mapping, checking titles and land rights documents, which can also be performed by a third party.

In the Investor Survey, we found that of the tenure risk mitigation strategies reportedly used in undertaken projects, those perceived as being successful in more than half of reported projects focused on stakeholder engagement, community development programs, participatory mapping of land rights, establishment of grievance mechanisms and support to local communities to obtain land titles. The strategies that succeeded in fewer than half of reported projects included working with government authorities, installing guards to protect plantations, employment of local community members and building fences around plantations. Approaches used in the case studies include providing impartial legal assistance to local stakeholders for contract negotiations and providing technical assistance to strengthen farmer interest and participation in out-grower models.

KATE: The pilot with USAID was for 18 months; however, our broader land rights program is on-going, and we do not foresee an end to it. There are challenges around time management when engaging in the programs; however, we view land rights and land management as integral to the business and develop clear business cases for engagement. This particular pilot focused on empowering community members to be able to undertake the participatory mapping through the growers’ cooperative with support from Illovo, USAID, and Terra Firma, and we believe that this is the most sustainable and effective way of implementation and helps to build the capacity of the local enumerators and cooperative leadership whilst reducing the impact on employee time.

FELIZARDO: The project beneficiaries were requested to show a formal identity document of some form, as long as it contained information such as name, age, residence. The documents were requested during sensitization sessions, which were conducted by trained enumerators from the community. In the cases where a beneficiary had no documentation, they would be requested to bring witnesses who would corroborate their statements. The data would then be captured on a digital form that would be sent to a database housed at Terra Firma (soon to be relocated to the cooperative). A formal ‘corrections and objections process’ was incorporated into the process to provide opportunities for grievances to be tabled and resolved if possible before certification.

The land document includes:

• Name
• Gender
• Birthdate
• Identification Type, and Number
• Issuance date
• Delimitation date (of mapping)

• Witness name
• Edict date and term limit
• Date of signature
• Parcel #, district, postal code, etc for map
• Area and latitude/longitude for parcel

FELIZARDO: I am not sure I understand what is meant by “negotiation with individuals or with communities” since this is a process that follows a Free Prior and Informed Consent for the free-of-charge land mapping and registration to obtain a certificate of occupancy; i.e., community members will continue farming their land in their preferred manner either individually or through their original associations, be it for sugar cane or food crops. The benefit they receive from the project is that now their land rights are registered. As previously mentioned, the process was implemented by community-based enumerators in line with legal requirements, so Illovo did not directly negotiate with landowners; its role was more as a facilitator along with our partners (Terra Firma, Indufor N.A., Cloudburst Group).

KATE: By running the project in partnership with the growers’ cooperative, we have assisted in building their capacity to sustain the project and have included training around land rights into our broader extension and capacity building programs. Additionally, we have retained Terra Firma, our local implementing partner who led the participatory mapping and documentation, on contract to continue to support the cooperative and its ongoing work on land.

FELIZARDO: The whole process of strengthening tenure security started with a sensitization stage involving government officials and local authorities as well as beneficiaries from the communities. We also involved the project beneficiaries in training on land legislation and their rights, and they were integrally involved in the participatory mapping of their own and neighbors’ lands. They also had the chance to look at maps of all the parcels and the personal information that would be included on their land rights certificate. This gave them a chance to discuss and compare among their peers and also consult with neighbors to ascertain the validity of the information prior to its approval.

SARAH: Jumping in from the USAID Land and Urban office – the participatory mapping approach that we implemented in Mozambique with Illovo can be applied to any context. We use a suite of innovative technology tools and inclusive methods that use mobile devices and a participatory approach to efficiently, transparently and affordably map and document land and resource rights. In the Liberia example you cite, this approach would be based upon a needs assessment including the town chief and other relevant government officials and/or customary leaders to determine their interest and support for giving land documentation to landowners.

This is similar to our work in Zambia with customary chiefs that increased tenure security for treatment households, and USAID has demonstrated significant increases in community land governance from participatory mapping, creation of bylaws and related activities under the Community Land Protection Program. One caveat is that our approach would likely need to be adapted to a context with greater population density, such as a village or town, as the preciseness of the mapping would need to be higher than in rural areas.

KATE: The project with USAID registered all land in the selected blocks whether the land was under sugarcane or other crops. The local communities are encouraged to choose whether they would like to supply sugarcane to Illovo, and there are clear procedures to enable growers to register or grow sugarcane, which include environmental suitability checks. The project with USAID, along with a number of comprehensive studies, has assisted the growers’ cooperative and Illovo to better understand the land situation and work with the communities on land use planning.

Our separate grower development project, the Maragra Smallholder Sugarcane Development Project (MSSDP), supports the development of infrastructure and water management processes that will protect over 3,000ha of community land that has been underutilized due to annual flooding since the year 2000 when El-Niño floods changed the river flows and drainage. MSSDP seeks growers to produce cane on approximately 1540ha and supports organized food crops or alternative crops on 460ha; the remainder of the land is developed by the community members as they please. The project commenced with very comprehensive civic education, which assisted the growers to understand the project, its opportunities and make choices around their involvement and their land use. Some associations and individuals decided to incorporate very little of their land into sugarcane and others a larger percentage. It is entirely their own decision.

KATE: Yes, I do. It would provide investors with better information to ensure that they consult with the right parties, and it would empower communities to better understand their rights and protect against potential land grabs. I believe it will improve community consultation and negotiation for all, as community members will come to the table with more security, understanding and power over their choices.

KATE: Through conversations with our growers, complemented by the initial baseline evaluation for this project, uncertainty about land tenure has been highlighted as a key concern by farmers in some of our countries. This can also be backed up by examples of farmers disinvesting from their crops and land once their land tenure is under threat. We are looking to further test this theory through other internal projects as we respond to the demands of our farmers to address as many of their insecurities as possible to enhance and sustain their livelihoods and our supply chain.

SARAH: Jumping in again from the Land and Urban Office, there is in fact a growing body of evidence demonstrating that securing farmer’s rights to land does in fact encourage investment and higher productivity. A few examples from sub-Saharan Africa from our Fact Sheet on Land Tenure and Food Security include:

• In Ethiopia, land certification led to land productivity increases of 40 to 45 percent in the Tigray Region, and soil and water conservation investments rose by 30 percent in the Amhara Region. And an increase in land allocated to women decreased household food insecurity by 36 percent.
• In Rwanda, investment doubled in farmers’ soil conservation. And women whose land rights were formalized were 19 percent more likely to engage in soil conservation, compared to 10 percent among men.
• In rural Benin, communities that participated in a process to map and recognize land rights, were 39 to 43 percent more likely to shift their crop investments from subsistence to long-term and perennial cash crops, and tree planting. In particular, women were historically unlikely to invest in soil fertility by leaving their land fallow; but this gender gap disappeared in communities where female-headed households mapped and documented their parcel boundaries. In these communities, female-headed households were just as likely as male-headed households to leave their land fallow.

Finally, it is important to note that USAID endorses principles of “secure enough”. There are a number of alternatives to formal land titling that can help to create more secure land tenure while avoiding the pitfalls of individualized freehold tenure systems, including the exacerbation of inequality. These include policy and legal recognition of customary rights; issuance of certificates that secure usufruct, management and/or inheritance rights; or community titling.

KATE: I have not personally observed a connection; however, I believe that social development, livelihoods, land rights and human rights are all linked. If people are not empowered in any of these areas, it opens them up to potential abuse in other ways. Ultimately, it is beneficial for businesses to engage with empowered and resilient individuals and communities.