Drylands tenure funding is the focus of Tree Aid’s From Margins to Momentum, which examines support for Indigenous Peoples’ and Local Communities’ (IPLCs) land rights and governance in Africa.
This Tree Aid report examines whether global support for Indigenous Peoples’ and local communities’ land tenure and governance systems is reaching Africa’s drylands at the scale required for land and forest restoration. Drawing on donor funding data across 12 countries, the report finds that African dryland countries receive only a small share of global funding for IPLC tenure and governance, even though customary and community-based systems cover much of the region’s land area and are central to climate resilience, biodiversity, and livelihoods.
The report argues that the funding gap is not only a financing problem, but a governance problem. Weak tracking systems, limited direct funding to IPLC-led organizations, and an overreliance on funding channels that do not easily reach local institutions all reduce the visibility and effectiveness of support. It calls for increased targeted investment, more accessible and flexible funding mechanisms, stronger data transparency, and greater recognition of IPLC tenure and governance systems as a foundation for responsible restoration investment across Africa’s drylands.
Reading the drylands tenure funding report
Visit Tree Aid’s publication page for the original report and its summary brief, methodology, and country profiles. Read these resources together to assess the scope of the evidence. Check which countries, funding sources, and forms of support the analysis includes, and distinguish its regional findings from the circumstances of a particular community or program.
For the wider rights context, explore the Indigenous Peoples overview and the voluntary tenure governance guidelines. These resources provide related perspectives on recognition, participation, and legitimate rights. When comparing restoration proposals, consider who controls the land, who participates in decisions, and how support reaches the institutions responsible for local governance. The report’s findings can inform those questions, while its original methods and country profiles remain important for interpreting the evidence.