Category: Uncategorized

A guest post by Robert Oberndorf, Resource Law Specialist, Tenure and Global Climate Change Project.

Recent rapid changes in Burma have led to concerns related to the land tenure and property rights (LTPR) of smallholder farmers and communities throughout the country. The limited harmonization and dated nature of the overall legal and governance frameworks related to land use management and tenure security in the country adds to these concerns. The Government of Burma is well aware of the concerns being raised, and recognizes that issues relating to LTPR threaten the fledgling democracy in Burma and the social stability of the country.

In order to properly assess and begin addressing the problems relating to land use management and law harmonization in the country, the Government established a multi-ministerial Land Use & Land Allocation Scrutinizing Committee (Land Scrutinizing Committee) in 2012. One of the primary tasks of the Land Scrutinizing Committee is to develop a comprehensive Land Use Policy for the country, which would ultimately help to guide effective implementation of existing legal frameworks and also lead to the development of an “umbrella” Land Law for the country that would address many of the law harmonization issues that currently exist. It was a very promising sign that, in late 2012, the Land Core Group of the Food Security Working Group, in cooperation with Government, donor and private sector representatives, conducted a multi-stakeholder National Dialogue on Land Tenure and Land Use Rights. This multi-stakeholder dialogue resulted in recommendations being generated for inclusion into the National Land Use Policy.

USAID, in close coordination and cooperation with other donors and civil society stakeholders, has provided technical assistance to the Land Scrutinizing Committee during the development of the National Land Use Policy. As part of this assistance, USAID has been helping the Committee capture lessons learned and experiences with land tenure reform processes from regional neighbors in ASEAN. Guidance has also been provided on ways to incorporate international best practices, such as those reflected in the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security, into the National Land Use Policy. It is hoped that the efforts of donors, NGOs, CSOs and other stakeholders working on land issues in Burma and elsewhere in the region will be used to inform the ongoing National Land Use Policy development process without jeopardizing the development of a policy that is carefully tailored to the unique cultural, historical, political and legal traits of the country.

This research is presented as part of a session on interventions to improve governance and sustainable management of land at scale during the 2014 World Bank Land and Poverty conference on Tuesday, March 25 at 10:30 am.

Further Reading

• Read more on the Tenure and Global Climate Change (TGCC) Project
• Read more on Burma

A guest post by Dr. Steven Lawry, Global Lead, Land Tenure & Property Rights, DAI

A recent systematic review—funded by the U.K. Department for International Development (DFID)—of quantitative and qualitative literature on the effects of tenure formalization in developing countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, confirmed theories that formal registration of individual land rights increases investment, productivity, and household consumption.

However, productivity did not rise as much on African farms as on farms in Asia and Latin America. Differences in short-term gains were considerable, with 5 to 10 percent average gains in Africa, compared to 25 to 35 percent gains in Latin America and Asia.

The muted impact of formal registration of individual land rights in sub-Saharan Africa might have to do with pre-existing institutions, wealth effects, and a lack of investment in complementary institutions and reforms. Future research should examine whether the observable implications of these hypotheses are evident in cases of reform in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, keeping in mind broader welfare considerations. A modest productivity gain in the Africa studies does not in itself mean that there are not positive welfare effects associated with formal registration of land rights. For example, in Africa, tenure security may have increased agricultural investment for food for the household, but not enough to generate agricultural products to sell in the marketplace. There may also be social benefits associated with the reduction in land-related conflicts or validation of the property rights of women and other vulnerable individuals. Of course, a thorough assessment would evaluate such benefits in comparison to those associated with alternative modes of property rights recognition, including statutory recognition of customary tenure.

The presentation of this research is at 8:30 – 10:00 am on Tuesday, March 25 during a session on impact evaluation of land tenure interventions at the World Bank’s annual Land and Poverty conference.

Read Impacts of land property rights interventions on investment & productivity: A systematic review.

A guest post by Dr. Daniel Monchuk, Agricultural Economist, Cloudburst Group; Dr. Cynthia M. Caron, Assistant Professor of International Development and Social Change, Clark University; and Stephanie Fenner, IDCE Fellow, Clark University

Foreign direct investment and large-scale land acquisition for agriculture, extractive industries, and other land-based activities is on the rise in Sub-Saharan Africa. One emerging concern of increased investment is that local land conflict may adversely impact the economic viability of such investments, potentially threatening both the financial health of the investment and the livelihoods of local smallholders. In our research, we explore the financial implications of ignoring land tenure relations as part of early investment decision-making and project design. We present an analysis of eight case studies that draw attention to investment commonalities and highlight key differences in so far as they influence investment outcomes. We explore investment performance, and where possible, identify threats to corporate brand image or ‘on the ground’ threats that investors face when ignoring local land tenure relations and property rights regimes prior to investment. These threats include: disruptions to production as a result of local social unrest, sabotage, and/or the need to hire private security forces to protect the investment and manage relationships with smallholders. The three key questions guiding this research are:

1. When assessing the financial risk of a large-scale land investment, what are the most important tenure-related factors for an investor to take into account?
2. What are the consequences that companies face when failing to take such land tenure factors into account?
3. What are the key land governance relationships between the state, private sector, and local communities in the context of responsible land-based investments?

These questions highlight the significance of recognizing land tenure early in investment decision-making and integrating land tenure relations into investment decision-making and project design. The implications are important not only from an investment point of view, but also from a development point of view, as local host governments and local communities are more likely to benefit directly from foreign direct investment that takes into account and respects local land rights.

The eight investment case studies were chosen to be generally representative of firms facing tenure-related difficulties in Sub-Saharan Africa. In general, our analysis suggests that respecting and recognizing local land rights minimizes social, political, and economic risks to communities, governments, and businesses. Seven of the eight investments either failed completely or were altered throughout the design and implementation process, resulting in significant financial losses or company bankruptcy. One commonality of these failures was the failure to consider tenure and resource rights during initial risk analysis. The questions emerging from this paper are a point of departure for additional primary research projects with interested corporate actors, investment firms, and national governments.

If you are attending the World Bank’s annual Land and Poverty conference, the presentation is at 3:00 – 4:30 pm on Monday in a session on impacts from interventions to secure land rights. Read The Implications of Uncertain Land Tenure on Investment Success.

A guest post by Zemen Haddis Gebeyehu, Senior Agriculture Policy Advisor, USAID/Ethiopia

With 83 percent of its population living in rural areas, Ethiopia is one of the least urbanized countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Agriculture remains the main economic activity of the rural workforce. However, migration from rural areas to cities has been increasing in recent years. This week, I will present a paper that examines the relationship between migration and the land and rural development policies of Ethiopia. The study tests the hypothesis that Ethiopia’s land and rural development policies influence the dynamics of rural-urban migration in ways unanticipated by the policies.

The Constitution of Ethiopia vests all land in the Government of Ethiopia. While rural residents are entitled to indefinite-term use rights to land, the existing land laws discourage landholders from pursuing non-agricultural livelihood strategies away from their holdings. The laws restrict land rental markets and mandate that landholders farm their land or risk losing it through redistribution or expropriation.

As in many countries in the region, farm sizes in Ethiopia are decreasing as a result of population pressure, which results in increased subdivision to allow successive generations’ access to at least a small plot for farming. On the one hand, limited rural land availability may incentivize rural-urban migration, but, on the other hand, land rental restrictions may reduce incentives to migrate by increasing the costs of leaving rural areas. Nonetheless, the combination of improved job and income opportunities in urban areas and deteriorating living conditions in rural areas appears to favor migration.

Despite diminishing farm size and increasing population pressure, the agriculture sector has continued to heavily dominate the rural economy. Notwithstanding attempts to diversify, the lack of capital and skills in rural areas constrain the promotion of non-agricultural activities. At the same time, although the country’s development policy emphasizes the agriculture sector, the available arable land is not able to provide a sufficient livelihood for the growing rural population. Moreover, the rural areas have been deprived of critical infrastructure, such as roads, markets, electricity, communication technologies, and skills development institutions. Absent significant reforms, this lack of investment in rural areas and competition for increasingly scarce arable land is likely to result in increased rural-urban migration.

Although further research is needed, this work suggests the need to consider removing or reducing restrictions on land transfers. Support for land rental markets that is combined with investments in capacity building and rural infrastructure could reduce land pressure and combat the unsustainable subdivision of farmland. Over time, these reforms could both increase investment and job creation in rural areas and reduce rural-urban migration by allowing successful farmers to expand their landholdings through rentals and helping others to successfully transition into non-agricultural livelihoods in rural areas.

If you are attending the World Bank’s annual Land and Poverty conference, the presentation takes place at 1:00 – 2:30 pm on Monday in a session on country level implementation. Read Rural-Urban Migration and Land and Rural Development Policies in Ethiopia.

This week, the World Bank will host its annual Conference on Land and Poverty in Washington, DC. The theme of the conference is “Integrating Land Governance into the Post-2015 Agenda: Harnessing Synergies for Implementation and Monitoring Impact.”

Throughout the week, USAID staff will chair several sessions, including:

• Dr. Gregory Myers, Chief of the Land Tenure and Property Rights Division will chair two sessions–“Land policies in Kenya and Uganda: A roadmap for successful implementation and donor support” and “Evidence on ‘Agricultural Investors’ In Africa: Is There A ‘Missing Middle’?”
• David Atwood, Food Policy Advisor for USAID’s Bureau for Food Security will chair “Monitoring land governance: Options, evidence, and complementarities”
• Melissa Ho, Senior Policy Advisor for USAID’s Bureau for Food Security will chair “Improving Understanding of Large Scale Investment”
• Mercedes Stickler, Land Tenure and Property Rights Specialist in USAID’s Land Tenure and Property Rights Division will chair a session on Pasture Tenure

Dr. Myers will present a global land governance database and map that captures information on 445 programs in 119 countries. In the same session, Dr. Myers will also speak about a new multi-stakeholder partnership between the governments of Ethiopia, Germany, the UK, and the U.S. that will strengthen property rights and support greater transparency in rural land governance in Ethiopia. This type of multi-stakeholder partnership provides a model for greater donor coordination in the land and resource governance sector.

Several USAID land tenure projects will be featured throughout the week. Download and read the papers below, then follow @USAIDEnviro @USAIDEconomic and #landrights for live tweets during the presentations.

• Rural-Urban Migration and Land and Rural Development Policies in Ethiopia (Zemen Haddis, USAID/Ethiopia) (PowerPoint)
• Exploring the use of conceptual models to identify scenarios, lessons, and entry points for community-scale marine resource tenure and governance (Catherine Courtney, Tenure and Global Climate Change Project)
• Land use policy reform process in Burma: Engaging stakeholders and learning lessons from the region (Rob Oberndorf, Tenure and Global Climate Change Project)

Visit the LTPR Portal all week for frequent updates from the conference. Make sure to follow USAID’s Bureau for Economic Growth, Education, and Environment (E3) Bureau and #landrights on Twitter:

• @USAIDEnviro
• @USAIDEconomic

The 2014 theme for International Women’s Day is “Equality for Women is Progress for All.” There is a significant opening in the post-2015 global development and environment agenda for strengthening women’s property rights to move towards more broad-based economic growth. To fill that gap, the Environment and Gender Index (EGI) was launched by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) at the UN Climate Change Talk’s first Gender Day held in Warsaw, Poland in November 2013. The index is based on gender equality and women’s empowerment data in the environmental arena and includes national government performance on women’s property rights.

The EGI is the first index of its kind. Seventy-two countries have been rated in six different categories: livelihoods; gender-based rights and participation; governance; gender-based education and assets; ecosystem; and country-reported activities. Women’s property rights are an indicator in two of these six EGI categories: governance, and gender-based education and assets. Host country governments, such as Mozambique–the first to produce a national climate change and gender action plan–are keen to use the EGI results to guide policy work on gender equality and environmental protection.

For women, property rights are not simply important for accessing food and natural resources for family livelihoods, but are also stepping stones to obtain financial capital, to effectively engage in natural resource decision-making, and to enhance broader political participation. The strength and security of women’s property rights constitute a central asset that enables multidimensional empowerment. Despite women being active in household farming and forest use, their formal rights to land and forests are often low and their customary rights often depend upon permission from men. Tracking improvements to women’s property rights is therefore critical for understanding how progress is made. The EGI’s first report identified discrepancies between legal rights and the reality on the ground in the areas of inheritance, property, income, and finances.

The EGI enables donors, civil society, and development practitioners to understand the multiple dimensions of the intersection between gender and the environment. With this new tool, we are able to assess, for example, to what extent governments are supporting the secure and equitable distribution of women’s property rights. While the EGI highlights the considerable paucity of gender-disaggregated data to date, it provides strong insight into women’s empowerment, political rights, decision-making capacities, and livelihood conditions. It is an approach that facilitates both global and regional comparisons as well as identifies individual country strengths and weaknesses.

As Lorena Aguilar (Global Senior Gender Advisor for the IUCN) explained at the Warsaw meeting: “As an independent tool outside the UN system to measure government performance, the EGI can help policymakers and civil society evaluate and set new benchmarks for government progress. The ability to compare countries and regions establishes a basis for tracking changes in performance over time, and complements existing monitoring and evaluation tools and assessments.” More broadly, the index will facilitate sharing and learning so as to design better policies and implementation strategies. In order to help make the EGI more directly useful to governments and non-governmental organizations, there are plans afoot to both develop new data sets to specifically help with improving women’s participation in environmental decision-making, as well as to track progress and good practices.

Learn more about the Environment and Gender Index.

By Dr. Gregory Myers, USAID Division Chief, Land Tenure and Property Rights.

Last week, I visited Haiti to assess the land tenure and property rights situation there—four years after a 7.0 magnitude earthquake killed between 100,000 and 300,000 people and displaced another 1.5 million. Many Haitians continue to live in extreme poverty and much needs to be done to address the weak property rights system that slows economic growth and hinders infrastructure rebuilding efforts.

While in Haiti, I met with U.S. Ambassador Pam White, who supports strengthening land rights to help Haiti accelerate its economic recovery. To effectively help Haitians recover and move beyond extreme hunger and poverty, we must help address the country’s long-standing property rights challenges. Important first steps should include preserving existing land records through digitalization and making those records public. These records could then be linked to existing databases including notary and tax records to further strengthen proof of ownership. In rural areas, where smallholders occupy state land, another important first step would be to work with local officials to facilitate granting rights to state land they have occupied and/or for which they have been granted use rights.

Traveling around Port-au-Prince and Cap-Haïtien, one can see a significant amount of investment taking place in residential and commercial buildings. In agricultural areas, there are increased investments by smallholders and mid-size producers. Something important is happening in the Haitian economy. In order for the recovery to continue and to reach all Haitians, we must quickly invest in addressing weak land administration systems and helping Haitians secure property rights.

Recently Tim Hanstad and Roy Prosterman of Landesa, a USAID partner in land tenure and property rights, wrote in the New York Times, “A key factor hampering rebuilding efforts [in Haiti] is the lack of secure land rights among the displaced. A 2012 report by the London-based Overseas Development Institute described a ‘chaotic’ and ‘almost Kafka-esque’ land tenure system in Haiti in which ‘it is almost impossible to know definitely who owns what’.”

As my colleagues from Landesa point out, “the developing world’s landless poor routinely bear the brunt of [natural] disasters.” Their article highlights important links between secure land rights and disaster resilience, making a point that natural disasters are not “equal-opportunity destroyers.” Hanstad and Prosterman assert that, “Families without secure rights to land (and that is a majority of rural residents in many developing countries) often remain in their homes when it is dangerous to do so, fearing they won’t be allowed to return. And without the security of ownership and access to collateral, their homes are often not built to withstand earthquakes, typhoons and other disasters.” This was clearly the case in Haiti, and now we have an opportunity to change this dynamic for Haitians.

In a recent commentary on the USAID Land Tenure and Property Rights Portal, Robert Oberndorf described how Typhoon Haiyan destroyed both property records and boundaries in the Philippines. Mr. Oberndorf provided recommendations on how the rebuilding process can ensure that the land tenure and property rights of vulnerable groups are not impacted negatively – a critical concern in post-disaster situations.

In order to rebuild better in post-conflict and post-disaster situations, we must strengthen land governance and property rights—in particular for the most vulnerable populations. If we do not, they will remain stuck in a cycle in which they build temporary homes in camps or on undeveloped land, continually face the threat of eviction or violence, and do not participate in economic recovery—thus remaining in poverty.

Further Reading

• Read more on land tenure, property rights and reconstruction in Haiti
• Read more from Tim Hanstad and Roy Prosterman on how the poor get washed away
• Read more from Robert Oberndorf on Typhon Haiyan and links between climate change and tenure governance

Côte d’Ivoire emerged from a decade-long civil war in early 2011, but its diamonds—which played a role in sustaining the conflict—have remained on the world’s black lists. In November 2013, however, the Kimberley Process (KP) Plenary in Johannesburg recognized that Cote d’Ivoire had met minimum requirements of the KP Certification Scheme, the international mechanism to prevent conflict diamonds from entering the world’s markets. The KP’s decision was the culmination of several years’ efforts to restore good governance in the Ivorian diamond sector, and paves the way for the lifting of the U.N. embargo in place since 2005.

USAID has played a catalyzing role in Côte d’Ivoire’s road to compliance. In late 2012, when the United States was the KP Chair, the Ivoirian government requested technical assistance. As part of the Property Rights and Artisanal Diamond Development (PRADD) project, USAID deployed a technical adviser in March 2013 who worked with the Ivorians to conceive and launch their mine-to-export system of internal controls. In a period of six months, procedures were developed, dozens of new customs and mining regulations enacted, and thousands of miners registered. A review mission sent by the KP in September assessed this system, and based on their final report, the KP made its decision.

In his remarks at the KP Plenary, Ivoirian Mining Minister Jean-Claude Brou expressed thanks to those countries, including the United States, who assisted Côte d’Ivoire in becoming compliant. He noted that compliance was not an end in itself, but a key step in the long-term goal of ensuring that mineral resources benefit the country and the mining communities. The KP Permanent Secretary Fatimata Thes echoed these sentiments, calling the technical assistance invaluable.

“A year ago, Côte d’Ivoire was still a diamond trouble spot,” said Terah U. DeJong, the technical adviser, who is now Country Director of the Property Rights and Artisanal Diamond Development (PRADD II) project that recently launched in Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea. “Today countries in the region are looking at Côte d’Ivoire’s system as a model, and this is due in part to how the government was able to integrate best practices and lessons learned from PRADD’s earlier work. The challenge now is to build on that foundation and make it last.”

USAID’s PRADD II, which is co-funded by the European Union in Côte d’Ivoire, will combine property rights strengthening with other activities aimed at boosting the legal value chain and bringing benefits to mining communities.