Read the ECC Newsletter Edition 5/2011
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ISSN 1861-6771 5/2011 FORUM Sustainable Land Policy Based on Robust FAO Guidelines POLICY & RESEARCH Prospects for Environmental Peacebuilding in the Himalayan Region Infrastructure Projects and Civic Participation in South America: the Case of the Belo Monte Dam "Connecting Europe" – A Renewable Pathway for European Solidarity? Turkey’s Water Policy in the Context of International Cooperation CONFERENCE REPORTS A Policy Action Plan to Minimize Land-related Conflict Risks in Africa Conflict-sensitive Climate Adaptation – Considerations for COP17 Climate Diplomacy in Perspective – From Early Warning to Early Action UPCOMING EVENTS "Water Security: Progress in Theory and Practice" in London, UK (4 November) "Climate 2011: Climate Change and Disaster Risk Management", online conference (7-12 November) "Collaboration Skills for Environmental Professionals" in Sausalito, CA (6-8 December) IN BRIEF GRAIN and the Right Livelihood Award, REDD+ and women in Asia, a documentary on the Maldives and the fight against climate change, a call for papers on water security, and resource exploitation and human rights abuses in Africa IMPRINT/CONTACT Imprint Contact FORUM Sustainable Land Policy Based on Robust FAO Guidelines By Benjamin Luig, expert for agricultural and land policy at MISEREOR, the German Catholic Bishops’ Organisation for Development Cooperation Against the backdrop of a spurt in large-scale investments in land (often termed “land grabbing,”) the German federal government, the political opposition and development NGOs are united in their stand that robust Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) guidelines on responsible governance of land and other natural resources could provide a suitable policy framework for protecting and strengthening the land rights of the rural poor. How should such guidelines be formulated to serve as a basis for a sustainable land policy? Background The FAO VGs – Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and Other Natural Resources (working title) – did not emerge as a direct response to land grabbing. They build on a resolution of the International Conference on Agricultural Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD) of 2006, which was aimed at improving access to land and tenure security for the poor. The Guidelines thus address a key requirement for hunger alleviation and sustainable rural development. However, in the current context of a wave of large-scale land investments, many hope the VGs will serve as an instrument to check land grabbing. The Guidelines are termed "voluntary” and are in themselves not binding under international law. However, they explicitly refer to the human rights obligations of states under international law and thereby offer a definitive interpretation of the existing regulatory framework. The demand for access to land and other resources primarily derives from the human rights to food and housing. Moreover, the VGs, enjoy a high degree of legitimacy due to the inclusive character of the drafting process. The “zero draft” of the Guidelines was drawn up after 15 consultations, which included active participation from farmers, fisherfolk, pastoralists and the landless. The “zero draft” itself and subsequent drafts were also made available to civil society and policy makers for comment. The United Nations Committee on Food Security (CFS), which has strong representation from global civil society, is responsible for adopting the VGs. The Guidelines also acquire a more binding character because apart from describing existing obligations, they are able to provide guidelines for governments on how to fulfil these obligations and integrate the affected groups in the policy process. Discussion Dubious Land Investment Deals It would be hard to dispute that a policy framework is urgently required for large-scale land acquisitions. Advocates of such investments refer to win-win effects since large investors infuse urgently required capital that leads to job creation and investments in infrastructure. However, it is important to note that no sound study has been able to clearly establish such a win-win scenario, irrespective of the favoured development model. On the contrary, there are recurring reports of the displacement of local communities, marginalization and miscalculations. During the investment processes, the affected local communities are not consulted at all or, if they are, it is late in the process. Negotiations are not documented in writing and parliaments are seldom involved. The few known contracts are astonishingly short and vague. Provisions relating to tax revenues, food security, social standards, environmental standards, education and local processing are either entirely absent or fleetingly referenced. Land grabbing, quite obviously, is first and foremost a governance issue. Governments rarely think of the welfare of the affected local population. The affected communities have no means of enforcing their rights. Investors often benefit from corruption and a lack of transparency. The VGs must therefore formulate clear guidelines for protecting the land rights of poor local groups and for ensuring transparency and oversight. Inadequate Land Policies The land policy context further compounds large-scale land acquisitions. Apart from formal ownership of land (land that is privately owned or owned by the state), customary tenure and other forms of unregistered community ownership also exist. This often results in conflicting ownership claims and extreme legal uncertainty. Land tenure systems are based on social and cultural norms that vary from region to region. This must be taken into account during any land reform. Issues relating to land are also generally characterized by unequal power structures. Consequently, the unilateral allocation of private land titles and the development of a land market tend to result in structures that facilitate land investments with negative impacts. Small rural producers, for instance, often find it difficult to access land markets due to a lack of capital and information. In such situations, local elites benefit through speculation and corruption. The goal of putting land to its most productive use via the market consequently is not achieved. The de facto absence of a land policy is largely responsible for the disastrous consequences of large-scale investments. Frequently there is a lack of instruments for ensuring legal security (transparency, harmonization); land administration (land registry, cadastre, soil analysis, land taxation); land use plans; conflict solutions (redistribution, floor/ceiling definitions). Therefore, the VGs must be seen as guidelines towards an active land policy with a special focus on securing and strengthening land rights for poor and vulnerable groups. Conclusions The VGs offer a great opportunity to subject large-scale land investments to intensive monitoring and to facilitate transparency and regulation. Going beyond those benefits, they can also lay the foundation for a sustainable land policy. The important principles to consider here would be: 1. Participation and transparency No large-scale land investments should be permitted without Free, Prior, Informed Consent (FPIC). The VGs must define what is meant by free (e.g. neutral moderation, consultations that are not financed by the investor); prior (time frame for the affected communities for internal consultation processes); and informed (the facts must be clearly disclosed by the investor and in writing). Beyond FPIC, every investment must be comprehensively monitored on the basis of the written promises made by the investor. 2. Enabling framework and active land policy Active land policies must encompass mechanisms for regulation (e.g. ceilings on land ownership or minimum environmental standards for land use and conservation). In countries that display highly inequitable land distribution and food security in rural areas, land redistribution that favours land-poor rural populations is recommended. 3. Coherence The VGs must also reflect the extra-territorial obligations of governments. Industrial nations must ensure that companies within their jurisdiction uphold human rights in foreign direct investments in land. A first positive step by the German federal government in this direction would be to prepare a catalogue of investors from its own country. 4. Prioritization The VGs should be recognized as internationally accepted norms for land and resource use. Other initiatives that do not follow a human rights approach -- for instance the Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investments (PRAI) proposed by the World Bank -- should restrict themselves to using the VGs as a basis for more precisely defining the conditions for agricultural investments. The German government must resist all attempts by the G20 to delink the PRAI from the VGs and the CFS. This position paper was first published by MISEREOR and is available in German language here. For the draft of the FAO Voluntary Guidelines, please see http://www.fao.org/nr/tenure/voluntary-guidelines/en/ ▲Top POLICY & RESEARCH Prospects for Environmental Peacebuilding in the Himalayan Region In light of the upcoming water crisis in the Greater Himalayas, the ecc-platform has reported several times about the need to foster a regional perspective in the region to promote sustainable peace and stability (see, 5/2010 and 2/2011 editions). Michael Renner, senior researcher at the Washington, D.C.-based Worldwatch Institute and renowned conflict resource expert, directed some