Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Office of Evaluation
Strategic Evaluation of FAO’s work on tenure, rights and access to land and other natural resources
Final evaluation report
Final January 2012
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Office of Evaluation (OED)
This report is available in electronic format at: http://www.fao.org/evaluation
Permission to make copy, download or print copies of part or all of this work for private study and limited classroom use is hereby granted, free of charge, provided that an accurate citation and suitable acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright owner is given. Where copyright holders other than FAO are indicated, please refer to the original copyright holder for terms and conditions of reuse. All requests for systematic copying and electronic distribution, including to list servers, translation rights and commercial reuse should be addressed to [email protected].
For further information, please contact:
Director, OED Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00153 Rome, Italy Email: [email protected]
______
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of FAO concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
ii Contents Acknowledgements ...... vi Composition of the Evaluation Team and Expert Panel ...... vii Abbreviations ...... viii I. Executive Summary ...... 1 Background ...... 1 Summary of main findings and conclusions ...... 1 The role of tenure, rights and access to land and natural resources (TRA) ...... 1 TRA situation in the developing world today and the links to governance ...... 1 FAO support to TRA 2006-2010 ...... 2 Assessment of Land-related TRA work (2006-10) ...... 3 Cross-cutting TRA themes ...... 4 Review of the TRA work related to Water, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries ...... 7 Others involved in TRA related activities and their complementarities with FAO work ...... 8 Key gaps and future challenges ...... 8 Main recommendations ...... 9 II. Introduction ...... 12 Evaluation objectives ...... 12 Approach and methodology ...... 12 Report Structure ...... 14 III. Background and Context ...... 14 Development of FAO’s interest in tenure, rights and access to land and natural resources (TRA) . 14 Scope of FAO’s support to TRA ...... 15 Structure for TRA work ...... 15 Programming of tenure, rights and access work ...... 15 Financial resources for normative work ...... 18 Financial resources for field projects ...... 19 Human resources for TRA work ...... 19 Partnerships and alliances ...... 20 IV. Land Sector: Assessment of Performance 2006-2010 ...... 21 Normative work of the Land Tenure Team ...... 22 Publications ...... 22 Conferences and workshops ...... 25 Solutions for Open Land Administration (SOLA) ...... 29 FAO field programme in land tenure ...... 30 Meta-evaluation (ME) of past evaluations in the land sector ...... 31 Review of selected field projects in the land sector ...... 33 FAO-World Bank Cooperative Programme (CP) in Land Tenure ...... 35
iii V. Key cross-cutting themes and programme areas ...... 41 Gender and disadvantaged groups...... 41 Emergencies ...... 45 Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security ...... 48 The Voluntary Guidelines and other natural resources ...... 49 Large-scale Land Acquisitions ...... 52 VI. Review of FAO support to TRA for other natural resources ...... 55 TRA challenges and opportunities related to water: water rights and alternative means of water allocation ...... 56 Water and TRA: FAO’s contribution ...... 57 TRA challenges and opportunities relating to forests: FAO and the global priorities related to forest tenure, and rights and access to forests ...... 62 Forests and TRA: FAO’s contribution ...... 66 FAO TRA challenges and opportunities related to wildlife ...... 72 Wildlife and TRA: FAO’s contribution ...... 73 TRA challenges and opportunities related to fisheries: rights and access to ocean and inland capture fisheries and aquaculture ...... 77 Fisheries and TRA: FAO’s contribution ...... 79 An Evaluation Team perspective on TRA activities in FAO related to the “other” natural resources – water, forests, wildlife and fisheries ...... 83 TRA elements in non-TRA projects ...... 84 In-house collaboration ...... 85 LEGN has made valuable input on TRA challenges related to other natural resources ...... 85 VII. Future Directions of FAO Support to TRA ...... 86 What others think: FAO’s TRA activity in the future ...... 86 The evaluation team’s perspective on how TRA elements relate to the rest of what FAO does that contributes to sustainable food security and poverty reduction ...... 87 Proposed strategic visioning exercise to determine the best way forward for FAO’s TRA activity ...... 92 Additional Suggestions in terms of the future of TRA work in the FAO ...... 94 VIII. Recommendations ...... 98
iv Annexes Annex 1: Documents consulted...... 101 Annex 2: Inventory of tenure-related field projects as identified by FAO staff, 2006-2011...... 108 Annex 3: Stakeholder Perception Study...... 112 SPS Appendix 1: List of interviewees...... 137 SPS Appendix 2: Methodology...... 143 Annex 4: Web-based surveys of FAO staff, member countries and CSOs...... 145 Survey Appendix 1: Questionnaire Schedules...... 169 Annex 5: Meta-synthesis of past evaluations...... 190 Annex 6: Review of field operations in selected countries……...... 212 Serbia...... 212 Lithuania...... 214 China...... 216 Africa (region-wide)...... 218 Southern Africa…………………………………………………………………………………………………..…………………. 219 Namibia……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 220 Mozambique………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 221 Angola………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 223 Emergency and rehabilitation...... 228 Tajikistan………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 228 South Sudan…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 229 Annex 7: Inventory of normative work...... 231 Annex 8: Citation analysis and website hits………………………………………………………………………………….. 238 Annex 9: Concept Paper...... 240 Concept Paper Appendix 1: Background on FAO Cooperation in Tenure, Rights and Access to Land and other Natural Resources...... 245 Concept Paper Appendix 2: Possible Framework for the Evaluation...... 248
v Acknowledgements In the process of compiling this document, the evaluation team received information, advice and assistance from numerous FAO staff and consultants in HQ and in regional and country offices, as well as from the Expert Panel. FAO’s international partners and collaborators in governmental institutions and civil society organisations have also been very helpful to the evaluation. Finally we also gratefully acknowledge the very useful feedback received from FAO staff on an earlier version of this report.
vi Composition of the Evaluation Team and Expert Panel
Evaluation Team
Mr Martin Adams, Evaluation Team Leader (United Kingdom/Republic of Ireland)
Mr Hans Gregersen, Evaluation Team Member (United States)
Ms Zongmin Li, Evaluation Team Member (China/United States)
FAO Office of Evaluation
Mr Carlos Tarazona, Evaluation Manager (Peru)
Mr Enrique Lora, Evaluation Officer (Mexico)
Ms Brenna Moore, Evaluation Analyst (South Africa/Australia)
Expert Panel
Mr Jorge Muñoz, Land Tenure Adviser, World Bank (Bolivia)
Ms Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Coordinator of CGIAR program on Collective Action and Property Rights, IFPRI (United States)
Mr Robin Palmer, Independent consultant (United Kingdom)
Mr Paul van der Molen, former Director Kadaster International and Professor ITC (the Netherlands)
Ms Kay Muir-Leresche, independent consultant (Zimbabwe/South Africa)
vii Abbreviations
AGRA Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa ARRDL Afforestation, reforestation and restoration of degraded lands AUC African Union Commission AWF African Wildlife Foundation CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CFJJ Legal and Judicial Training Centre (Mozambique) CFS Committee on World Food Security CGIAR Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research CIC International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation CIFOR Centre for International Forestry Research CIRAD International Cooperation Centre of Agricultural Research for Development CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CLEP Commission for Legal Empowerment of the Poor COFI Commission on Fisheries CP FAO/World Bank Cooperative Programme CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement (Sudan) CPF Collaborative Partnership on Forests CSO Civil Society Organisation CWGER Cluster Working Group on Early Recovery (UNDP) DFID Department for International development (UK) DNPDR National Directorate for the Promotion of Rural Development (Mozambique) EC European Commission EB Extra-budgetary (resources) ESA Agricultural Development Economics Division EST Trade and Markets Division ESW Gender, Equity and Rural Employment Division ET Evaluation Team FAOR FAO Representation (country level) FI Fisheries and Aquaculture Department FIG International Federation of Surveyors FIP Fisheries and Aquaculture Economics and Policy Division FLOSS Free/Libre Open Source Software FNOP FAO Norway Partnership Program FO Forestry Department FOE Forest Economics, Policy and Products Division FPMIS Field Programme Management Information System (FAO) GCP FAO/Government Cooperative Programme GEF Global Environment Facility GLTN Global Land Tool Network GWP Global Water Partnership HIC High Income Country HLPE High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (for the CFS) HQ FAO Headquarters (Rome) IAH International Association of Hydrogeologists ICARRD International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development ICRAF World Agroforestry Centre ICSF International Collective in Support of Fishworkers IDMC Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre of the Norwegian Refugee Council IDP Internally Displaced Person
viii IWMI International Water Management Institute IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IGRAC International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre IIED International Institute for Environment and Development ILC International Land Coalition ILRI International Livestock Research Institute ITC International Institute for Geo-information Science and Earth Observation ITTO International Tropical Timber Organization IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature IUFRO International Union of Forest Research Organizations IUU Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing LDC Least Developed Country LEGN Development Law Service LEP Legal Empowerment of the Poor LIC Low Income Country LMC Lower Middle Income Country LSLA Large scale land acquisition LSP Livelihood Support Programme LTT Land Tenure Team LTU Lead Technical Unit MCC Millennium Challenge Corporation MDG Millennium Development Goal ME Meta-evaluation MFI Multilateral Financial Institution MICCA Mitigation of Climate Change in Agriculture MTP Medium Term Plan NR Natural Resources Management and Environment Department NRC Climate, Energy and Tenure Division NRL Land and Water Division NRLA Former Land Tenure Service NRLW Water Development and Management Unit NWFP Non-wood forest product OCHA UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs OHCHR Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights OED Office of Evaluation (FAO) OR Organisational Result OSCAR Open Source Cadastre and Registration OSRO Office for Special Relief Operations PE Programme Entity PLAAS Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies, UWC PNTD Participatory and Negotiated Territorial Development PWB Programme of Work and Budget RAF Regional Office for Africa RAI Responsible Agricultural Investment (principles) RAP Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific RECOFTC The Centre for People and Forests REU Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia RFC Subregional Fisheries Commission RLC Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean RNE Regional Office for the Near East and North Africa RP Regular Programme
ix SADC Southern African Development Community SDA Former Rural Development Division SDAA Former Land Tenure Service SEAGA Socio-economic and Gender Analysis Programme SO Strategic Objective (of FAO) SOFA State of Food and Agriculture SOLA Solutions for Open Land Administration SPS Stakeholder Perception Study SSLC Southern Sudan Land Commission STDM Social Tenure Domain Model TCE Emergency Operations and Rehabilitation Division TCI Investment Centre TCIA Africa Service TCIN Near East, North Africa, Europe, Central and South Asia Service TCIO Latin America, the Caribbean, East Asia and the Pacific Service TCP Technical Cooperation Programme TCS Policy and Programme Development Support Division TRA Tenure, rights and access UMC Upper Middle Income Country UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification UNCTAD United Nations Conference on Trade and Development UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNECA United Nations Economic Commission for Africa UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe UNEP United Nations Environment Programme UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFF United Nations Forum on Forests UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund UNIFEM United Nations Development Fund for Women UNJP United Nations Joint Programme UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UN-REDD UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries UR Unit Result UTF Unilateral Trust Fund UWC University of the Western Cape, South Africa VGs Voluntary Guidelines (on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security) WB World Bank WHO World Health Organisation WMO World Meteorological Organization WWC World Water Council WWF World Wildlife Fund
x I. Executive Summary
Background 1. The FAO Programme Committee at its 103rd session (September 2009) requested the Office of Evaluation to conduct an evaluation of FAO work on land tenure and access to land. In view of the strong linkages between tenure, rights and access issues, and the broader focus of recent FAO work in land tenure and water rights, which has also included work on tenure of other natural resources (e.g. forestry, livestock, fisheries), the evaluation’s scope has been expanded to reflect this evolution.
Summary of main findings and conclusions
The role of tenure, rights and access to land and natural resources (TRA)
2. FAO’s remit covers crops, livestock, fisheries, forestry and wildlife from policy to technical work to training. FAO’s sphere of activity is more comprehensive than any other international entity working in food security and agricultural development. Significant progress towards achievement of FAO’s goals depends on recognizing and capitalizing on many of the potential synergies that exist within FAO’s departments and working with outside partners. The evaluation concludes that in its work on TRA, FAO should take greater advantage of this comparative advantage, integrating its expertise and knowledge related to food security and agricultural development for poverty alleviation.
3. The issues related to TRA that are faced in FAO member countries are as broad as the scope and content of the work being undertaken by FAO. TRA encompasses the technical aspects of land administration; advice to States on the strengthening of customary land rights and the tenure of vulnerable groups; and assisting States with the more political aspects of water rights, forest tenure reform, access rights in fisheries, land use conflicts and control of illegal forest and fishing activities that directly affect the effective economic access to resources by legitimate rights holders, men and women.
4. Progress in all of these TRA areas is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for sustainable food security and sustainable poverty reduction1. Thus, a practical and effective strategy for addressing the Global Goals of FAO must consider how the diverse TRA activities link with the other activities in FAO to create the necessary and sufficient conditions for achieving the Global Goals.
TRA situation in the developing world today and the links to governance
5. In the face of greater competition for natural resources, with increasing demographic pressure, climate change, land degradation and the clearing of more land for cultivation, little progress has been made by poorer countries with controlling the rate of depletion of natural resources. To a varying degree, reform of policies, laws and practices are overdue in many Member States.
1 In this evaluation document, “sustainable food security and poverty reduction” are taken to represent the three main goals of FAO and its members. The third goal is: “sustainable management and utilisation of natural resources, including land, water, air, climate and genetic resources, for the benefit of present and future generations.” Taking the last phrase as the operative one, we have combined this goal with the first two by adding the term “sustainable” to food security and poverty reduction.
1 While being aware of the need for responsible governance to achieve more sustainable and socially equitable management and administration of natural resources, they face numerous challenges, including: illegal and irregular allocation of state/public land and other natural resources and lack of transparency and accountability in the public sector weak legal and institutional frameworks, which disregard informal and customary rights, gender and social equity and often discriminate against vulnerable groups; arbitrary eviction of holders of customarily acquired rights from land and forests ; the weakening of customary systems of common property resource management; unsustainable agricultural land use and natural resource exploitation; inadequate, over-centralised, inaccessible and out-of-date land and property records, forest and woodland inventories and hydrological information; high levels of illegal use and extraction of outputs from forests and fisheries; the complexity of establishing, monitoring and enforcing rights regimes over fisheries; inadequate arrangements for dispute resolution, for grievance and redress; and in extreme cases, civil war and natural disasters, some precipitated by climate change.
6. There is an increasing need for FAO to work with Member States on the introduction of gender- sensitive policies and programmes that will give the poor secure access to land and natural resources. Without significant improvements in governance and related measures, effective economic access of poor people to land and other resources is unlikely. Accordingly, there is greater need and urgency for the Organisation to invest in a comprehensive vision and strategy for incorporating TRA into its agenda as a necessary (albeit not sufficient) condition to achieving the global goals.
FAO support to TRA 2006-2010
7. FAO’s institutional arrangements reflect the cross-cutting nature of TRA issues. The groups working on TRA challenges and opportunities within FAO include the Land Tenure Team (LTT) within the Climate Change, Tenure and Bio-energy Division (NRC), personnel in the Land and Water Division (NRL), in the Investment Centre (TCI), in the Regional Office for Europe (REU), the Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy and Economic Division (FIP), the Forestry Department (FO) and the Water Development and Management Unit (NRLW). The Gender, Equity and Rural Development Division (ESW) advises on gender and land issues and the Development Law Service (LEGN) provides support on legal matters. The Emergency and Rehabilitation Division (TCE) liaises with the land tenure group on post-emergency technical support and the Trade and Markets Division (EST) engages on matters relating to large-scale land acquisition by investors. Some decentralised offices have also been working on TRA-related issues. Personnel in Fisheries, Forestry and Water Department have also been working on very important TRA issues.
8. The evaluation finds that there is a lack of coordination and convergence between the various groups within FAO that deal with TRA issues. Further, there are currently few real incentives to change this situation. The evaluation concludes that if staff members are to stay within their divisions and to devise and agree a joint work programme, then stronger management support is necessary. It further concludes that the acceptance of any proposal for reorganisation should follow from an agreed vision and strategy for future work agreed by the tenure group as a whole.
2 Assessment of Land-related TRA work (2006-10)
9. Normative activities: Following the ICARRD in Brazil in 2006 work advanced on the governance of land tenure under the regular programme and the umbrella of the Livelihood Support and the Legal Empowerment programmes. The tenure components of the two major partnership programmes encouraged better collaboration between the land tenure group and the FAO divisions responsible for other natural resources. Extra-budgetary funds for consultations on the VGs became available in 2009. In the review period, the number of publications on FAO’s Land Tenure web pages increased in quantity and in quality; linkages between the normative and field operations were also improved. Overall, the programme of normative work of the LTT appears to have been effective, efficient and relevant, reflecting the high level of professional competence and wide experience of team members.
10. The evaluation team finds FAO’s land tenure publications to be a valuable resource, with the potential to deliver useful information to a range of actors: officials (administrative and technical cadres), CSOs, researchers and academics. The evaluation concludes that more attention should be given to tailoring the pages of the global land tenure website to the needs of particular actors, sub-regions and language groups.
11. The ET finds that FAO’s global land tenure website is not as well known as it deserves to be. Ways should be found of publicising the available tenure resources more widely. These include the LTT publications, the Gender and Land Rights Database and the very useful tenure-related publications of the FAO Development Law Service. Access via the FAO home page to the TRA- related pages could be more closely integrated and made more user-friendly.
12. The evaluation concludes from country visits, from the Stakeholder Perception Study and from the responses to the survey questionnaires that regional and country-level personnel wish to learn much more about TRA issues. Small, sub-regional workshops dealing with TRA issues were greatly appreciated by participants. Joint efforts have recently been made by FAO and its partners to develop training manuals on tenure-related issues that are likely to arise in emergency response and disaster risk management. A follow-up plan of action should provide for training courses in these aspects for sub-regions most at risk.
13. Land tenure field programme: In the review period (2006-2010), the field programme involved the provision of technical assistance for 42 field projects. The focus was Eastern Europe, Central Asia and to a lesser extent sub-Saharan Africa; and areas affected by conflict and/or major political and economic changes. With the exception of some countries in Central America, there was relatively less TRA work in Latin America. In South East Asia, there were field activities in China and the Philippines. The geographical distribution of projects in the review period was largely the result of country demands and historical factors which drove the work of FAO in those years. Field and desk studies by the evaluation covered half of the TRA related field projects (21 out of 42) carried out during the period under review.
14. The ET also reviewed all OED evaluations which contained information on support to TRA operations. Most of the field projects covered by the meta-evaluation were found to be relevant. Efficiency and effectiveness in achieving outputs varied across the range of interventions. Generally the field programme was found to be relevant to the countries involved and effective in achieving planned outputs. However, it was rarely possible to reach firm conclusions about the sustainability and impact of these outputs.
15. FAO-World Bank Cooperative Programme (CP) in Land Tenure: Some 40% (21) of the total projects (50) undertaken in the review period (2006-2010) by FAO’s Land Tenure Team (LTT)
3 were for the World Bank (WB). Over the past ten years, the LTT has provided technical inputs through FAO’s Investment Centre (TCI) to the WB on 45 projects in 35 countries. During the WB’s Fiscal Year 2010, LTT work in the Europe and Central Asia (ECA) region constituted about 28% of the work delivered by TCI under the CP. The LTT also provided its staff (or supervised outside consultants) on investment projects in Central America (5), sub-Saharan Africa (7) and Southeast and South Asia (12). In view of the high demand for LTT support in the ECA region (21 projects), NRC negotiated the establishment of two staff posts funded by the CP to support WB projects in this region, under the LTT’s technical supervision.
16. Judging by the evidence presented by TCI and WB informants, the programme scores highly in terms of service delivery and the contribution made by FAO. However, concerns were expressed by internal and external informants of an overconcentration by FAO on land administration in Eastern Europe and Central Asia for the WB as compared with the amount of work done in poorer countries. The ET’s attention was drawn to the lack of alignment of WB and FAO’s priorities, the use of FAO staff as consultants and FAO being less strategic in its work and more opportunistic.
17. The evaluation team finds that the volume of tenure related work conducted through the CP has led to an imbalance in the overall project portfolio of the LTT and a shortage of land tenure advisors with experience in other regions. The funding available to the LTT through the TCI appears to have favoured a particular type of work at the expense of a more holistic programme, both regionally and in technical content, that focuses more on the poorest of the poor2. Further, several stakeholders interviewed by the ET perceived that the strong relationship of FAO with the WB on land tenure issues was influencing the type of work undertaken, which could thereby potentially undermine one of FAO’s recognized comparative advantages – namely its neutrality and ‘honest broker’ image.
Cross-cutting TRA themes
18. Gender and TRA: ‘Gender equity in access to resources, goods, services and decision-making in rural areas’ has been one of FAO’s eleven Strategic Objectives since 2010. Gender sensitivity is necessary in all TRA projects, not only the few projects which specifically focus on women. The evaluation finds that there has been good integration of gender insights into TRA work, which is based on a dual strategy: maintenance of a relatively strong TRA capacity in the unit responsible for mainstreaming gender (i.e. ESW), and the inclusion of gender-sensitive expertise among all the units working on land tenure. As recommended by the 2010 evaluation of FAO’s role and work on gender, approved by the FAO Conference in July 2011, the evaluation team supports the increase of gender capacity, particularly at regional level, as it will allow FAO to keep abreast of the expanding needs for guiding the mainstreaming of gender-sensitive TRA for land and other natural resources in the regions.
19. Post-emergency support for TRA: Given the increasing importance of TRA issues in FAO’s emergency and rehabilitation work, the ET examined the records of recent FAO interventions in countries emerging from post-conflict situations. Both interventions followed political settlements after civil wars. In each case, the assistance to the land sector was a component of a larger programme. In Tajikistan, the poorest country in Central Asia, FAO was deemed successful in assisting with the reorganisation of state farms into family farms in partnership
2 “FAO’s vision is of a world free of hunger and malnutrition where food and agriculture contributes to improving the living standards of all, especially the poorest, in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner.” (emphasis added) . Source: FAO’s Strategic Framework and Medium Term Plan of 2009.
4 with UNIFEM (now UN-Women) to ensure gender-sensitive land redistribution. In Southern Sudan, however, the resources available were found to be wholly inadequate. The ET was variously informed that FAO was unable to spare staff due to prior commitments to the FAO/WB Cooperative Programme and/or was unable to raise the necessary funds from donors. Internal differences on how to approach TRA related issues in post-emergency contexts played a role. The scarcity of resources and the unavailability of staff at short notice were at the root of the problem.
20. Progress has been made with the compilation of manuals for training country-level staff in risk- mitigation and response, and with the proposal for a consultancy position (yet to be filled) within the LTT to deal with land tenure issues arising in post-emergency contexts. However, the evaluation concludes that, given the evidence of the increasing scale and frequency of emergency work, an additional short-term consultant at HQ dedicated to the topic can provide only a temporary respite. More resources will be needed if FAO is to play a useful role in reducing the impact of conflict-related emergencies and to advise and assist with TRA issues arising from natural disasters. There is also a need to sensitize and build the capacity of FAO staff at HQ, regional, sub-regional and country levels to deal with TRA issues in emergencies and in the recovery phase.
21. Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (the VGs). Because of the cross-cutting nature of the VGs, mechanisms were developed by the LTT for interacting with other organisational units within FAO. The magnitude of the task and the need for extra-budgetary resources also required FAO to partner with other international actors and donor organizations. Within FAO, the consultations succeeded in sufficiently accommodating the wishes of fisheries and forestry for the respective departments to remain part of the process. The ET finds the content of the draft VGs to be comprehensive in the coverage of the essential policy principles.
22. It concludes that FAO was correct in taking water out of the process for the various reasons put forth. At the same time, it believes that if extra-budgetary funding can be found it should be a priority of FAO to produce a set of VGs for water along with the water implementation guidelines that already are started.
23. It is premature for the evaluation to reach a conclusion as to whether the investment in the VGs was worthwhile. So far, the principal investment has been in the consultation process, about which the evaluation team received generally positive feedback, and which will no doubt contribute to the credibility of the VGs and raise the profile of tenure issues. This is in itself a very important achievement. The process has provided an opportunity for FAO to interact on a variety of critical issues with the Member States, civil society groups and private sector actors.
24. The evaluation recognises that obtaining a satisfactory return on the investment will be very challenging. There is no doubt that it has been expensive. In addition to a large proportion of the regular budget and some USD 4.6 million in extra-budgetary support, it has taken up much of the staff time available for work on land tenure, and to a lesser extent on TRA related issues in water, forestry and fisheries, since 2008.
25. The evaluation has been informed that serious consideration has been given to developing options for the implementation of the VGs, but decisions on ‘roll out’ must await the approval of the VGs by the CFS and requests for assistance from Member Countries. Set-piece policy development processes that embrace all the relevant guidelines are unlikely to be feasible for most countries, which will wish to tackle their many and complex tenure issues by adopting a
5 more incremental approach. To obtain buy-in from poor countries in Africa and Asia will be most difficult. This is where governance of tenure is most in need of attention.
26. While Member States clearly have the right to develop their own approaches, FAO should nevertheless be pro-active in pursuing issues that are of concern to the Organisation. The guidance documentation for VG implementation should not be constrained by the consensus nature of the VGs, but represent a clear FAO position on key issues. Guidance should be sector- specific, dealing not only with land governance but forestry, fisheries and water governance as well, within a coherent and integrated vision of what elements are important in terms of contributing to achieving the basic goals of FAO and its members.
27. Large-scale Land Acquisition (LSLA): LSLA is being driven by rapid increases in food and fuel prices. The land, most often registered as state/public land, under savannah grassland, woodland or tropical forest, is invariably used, at least seasonally, by local people. LSLA threatens their rights and their livelihoods.
28. At the international level, the Trade and Markets Division (EST) commissioned studies of LSLA to raise awareness and influence policy and practice. FAO, with the World Bank, UNCTAD and IFAD are developing a minimum set of ‘Principles for responsible agricultural investment that respect rights, livelihoods and resources’, the so-called ‘RAI Principles’. These aim to provide a framework to which national regulations, international investment agreements, global corporate social responsibility initiatives and individual investment contracts refer. The CFS has agreed that consultation and finalisation of the RAI principles will occur after finalisation of the VGs, which should provide the opportunity for the points made in the VGs on local land rights to be raised in that discussion and for the CFS to be fully briefed on FAO’s programme in Mozambique.
29. In October 2010, the CFS requested its High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) to conduct a study on land tenure and international investments in agriculture. The HLPE report was published in July 2011 and contains recommendations related to land rights of local populations which have implications for follow up by the LTT and future FAO support to TRA.3 Broadly, the role of FAO in this area would be to provide sound counsel to governments and development agencies on how to manage the LSLA process, a role in which FAO has considerable credibility and experience gained through its TRA field programmes and its role in the gathering of international agricultural statistics to monitor the situation. The ET agrees with the relevant recommendations in the HLPE report.
30. As the pre-eminent responsible UN body, the evaluation finds that FAO has responsibly engaged in the ‘land grabbing’ debate, fully aware of the sensitivities of the diverse and sometimes conflicting interests among Member States, MFI’s, major corporations and international NGOs. At the same time, FAO has commissioned relevant and timely research by recognized world authorities and made the results freely available on its website.
31. On the other hand, the evaluation finds that at the FAOR level the organisation has rarely been able to provide adequate advice to individual Member States on LSLA, due to the lack of resources and information on the topic at country level. An exception to this has been Mozambique, where FAO has been practically involved in with communities since the mid- 1990s devising and testing procedures to promote community-investor partnerships involving
3 Recommendations 3 and 12: http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/hlpe/hlpe_documents/HLPE-Land- tenure-and-international-investments-in-agriculture-2011.pdf.
6 agriculture, forestry and wildlife development projects, with growing success. FAO has also provided assistance to Ethiopia under TCP/ETH/3302 ‘Technical Assistance to Investment Support Directorate’ since May 2010.
32. Land Rights and REDD: The evaluation notes that LSLA and the consequent agricultural or other development on the land are a main direct cause of deforestation. Since FAO is also a major actor in terms of developing strategies and programs to help reduce deforestation (e.g. the UN- REDD connection), it has an opportunity to take advantage of some of the potential synergies between its work related to LSLA and that related to deforestation. FAO is now involved in UN- REDD and that work can be informed by FAO and partners’ work on LSLA and vice versa. Also, deforestation issues should be considered as a central part of the RAI principles.
Review of the TRA work related to Water, Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries
33. Challenges to tenure, rights and access to resources other than land – water, forests, fisheries and wildlife – are as critical as they are for land. Secure, effective economic access to these resources is a necessary condition for sustainable food security and poverty reduction in most countries. Challenges include: dealing with illegal activity in the fisheries, wildlife and forestry sectors that rob legitimate rights holders of the benefits due to them; instituting sustainable management plans and practices in situations where access rights are difficult to establish, monitor and enforce due to the mobile and often transboundary nature of fishery resources, which are already subject to over-harvesting and large if not excessive numbers of rights claimants; pervasive poverty and insecurity of poor people without adequate long-term rights to access these various resources; and forest tenure reform related to public domain forests – in most tropical nations, public domain forests are 80 or more percent of total forest area, and hundreds of millions of poor people depend on these forests for their survival. Secure economic access to these resources has a number of direct and indirect links to FAO’s major goals of sustainable food security and poverty reduction.
34. FAO has been short of funds for TRA activity related to ‘other natural resources’. During the review period, around US$ 1 million of extra-budgetary funding was devoted to normative TRA activities for water, forests, and fisheries. Most of this was for preparation of contributions to the VGs and related work on implementation guidelines. Almost all of the normative work on TRA from within FAO was contributed on an ad hoc basis. FO had a few paid consultants at various times during the evaluation period; and the LTT person managing the VG process also worked on the forestry and fisheries inputs.
35. Given the scarcity of funds, the normative TRA work accomplished for these ‘other’ natural resources is significant and of good quality. The scope and content of the normative outputs generated in forestry, water, fisheries and wildlife support the conclusion that FAO professionals understand the critical importance of secure, effective economic access to resources for the attainment of the goals of FAO and its members, despite the paucity of funding.
36. With regard to field operations related to these natural resource areas, it was initially thought that there was a dearth of projects dealing with TRA issues. However, based on a more thorough look at projects dealing with these other natural resources, the ET reached the conclusion that there were significant TRA elements in many projects, where such elements were neither mentioned in their title nor in project summaries. In total, about one fifth of all
7 non-emergency FAO projects approved since 2006 with budgets over US$ 2.0 million contained notable TRA elements. There was insufficient time to check each of the projects to see how the TRA questions and challenges were (or are being) handled, the extent to which TRA expertise was used or could have added to the positive results from the projects, and the extent to which the TRA elements led to useful lessons for the future. A more thorough look at this part of the FAO TRA work is needed.
37. Different units within FAO have worked together on TRA challenges. However, we conclude, and many of the respondents in the stakeholder analysis agree, that there are opportunities for increased collaboration in TRA activity that will further sustainable food security and poverty alleviation. Dedicated funding is needed to provide the incentive for this type of collaboration. To attract further funding, FAO should sort through the possibilities for collaborative work and establish priorities and modalities for action in order to provide a coherent structure of TRA activity with a defined pathway toward more sustainable food security and poverty reduction.
Others involved in TRA related activities and their complementarities with FAO work
38. The Meta-Evaluation describes numerous ways in which work on TRA has been conducted in collaboration with partners, including UN organisations, international donors and other external stakeholders such as international and national CSOs/NGOs and research centres. The World Bank (WB) is a major partner of FAO in TRA work through the FAO-WB Cooperative Programme, particularly in countries in transition in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and in specific projects as in Honduras and China.
39. FAO has developed partnerships with several UN Agencies for the development of normative products and for field operations – UNCTAD, UNDP, UNEP, UNHCR, UNHSP, UN-WOMEN; the most prominent being UNHSP, aka UN-HABITAT. The Stakeholder Perception Study (Annex 3) reports different perceptions of the complementarity between FAO’s TRA work and that of UN- HABITAT. Their work potentially intersects in peri-urban areas and it is therefore in the interests of Member States that the two agencies collaborate. They have successfully cooperated on several publications and UN-HABITAT contributed funds and participated in the VGs process; some issues were strongly debated. The ET believes that there are indeed important synergies between the work of FAO and UN-HABITAT, and that greater collaboration could usefully occur between them in future.
Key gaps and future challenges
40. These are identified as follows:
a. There is a lack of shared awareness of what must be done in order to make sure that FAO’s support to TRA is more relevant to achieving the Global Goals of FAO and its Members. The currently restricted understanding of the scope and content of TRA stems from a lack of appreciation of the potential benefits of more closely integrating TRA work with FAO’s other programme areas. FAO has a strategic plan and individual Departments and Divisions have strategic plans, but TRA is not a focus or even a minor element of concern. First, the TRA units should agree in principle on what needs to be done to ensure that TRA work in FAO is expanded and awareness raised on its contribution to sustainable food security and poverty reduction. A vision of what is necessary is important for FAO to internalise the role of FAO in achieving its Global Goals. Having a strategic plan for TRA will strengthen and serve as a guide for future institutional planning of TRA work. This vision has to come from FAO and be clearly owned by officers in all the relevant divisions both in HQ and in the field.
8 b. Operational uncertainties: From the operational point of view, there is a lack of clarity about how to move ahead with the next phase of the VGs process. The follow-up process must be driven by Members’ requests and the content and scope of such requests is presently unclear. A possible strategy would be to convene a series of small-scale, sub-regional consultative workshops which would identify and focus on specific policy principles, challenges or topics where the VGs might provide ways and means for resolution, e.g. harmonisation of customary and statutory law; statutory recognition of customary rights and implications for land administration; decentralisation of land administration; land tenure regularisation in peri-urban areas; access to information, justice and training; and gender equity; issues related to large-scale land acquisitions and community-investor partnerships.
c. Funding constraints: Currently, the main gap is in TRA work related to the other natural resources, to which hardly any resources have been devoted. But, the scarcity of RP and EB funds may not be a constraint in the future judging by the evidence that good ideas, with a coherent statement on how they relate to the members goals, can get funded. It is understood that, contingent on the approval of the VGs by the CFS, FAO has entered into talks with prospective donors for the next phase. The TRA work related to UN-REDD may also be able to secure additional support for forest related TRA work through the UN-REDD programme and its sponsors.
d. Professional training: In tandem with the roll out of “implementation of the VGs”, it will be necessary to organize workshops/seminars and develop learning materials for FAO staff including in regional, sub-regional and country offices, to train them on the policy principles behind the TRA strategy and relevant regional/country elements (such as TRA issues in disaster risk management, large scale land acquisitions, etc.) Training will also be needed at the sub-regional and country level of government officials and NGOs engaged in land rights advocacy and public interest law, and risk mitigation and post-emergency response in TRA matters. For this purpose, FAO should work in partnership with local organisations specialising in such training (e.g. PLAAS, CFJJ).
e. Professional staffing: The ET is aware that addressing some of the above gaps will require strengthening FAO capacity to deal with TRA issues, both at HQ and in the field. It is understood that under the Regular Programme any expansion is unlikely, beyond the likely creation of a TRA related position in the Forestry Department in 2013 or 2014. Filling key gaps will thus be contingent on moving forward with the next phase of the VGs, linking normative and field operations with the latter (perhaps with long-term multi-bilateral assistance), and the development of a strategic plan anchored in a understanding of FAO TRA priorities.
Main recommendations
41. Under this heading, the evaluation team has confined itself to what it considers to be recommendations of strategic importance.
42. Recommendation 1: FAO should carry out an assessment of its strategic options for strengthening its TRA work in relation to achieving the basic goals of FAO and its members. Significant progress towards achievement of FAO’s Global Goals depends on recognising and capitalizing on many of the potential synergies that exist for TRA activity. This would require that FAO upgrade its approach to TRA and make greater use of its main comparative advantage, namely the breadth and depth of its portfolio of expertise and knowledge related to food security and agricultural development, for poverty alleviation. Similar to strategic planning exercises conducted by others within FAO and aligned with the new programming system, the
9 evaluation recommends that FAO develop a corporate strategic plan for TRA work, perhaps through an inter divisional working group chaired by NR. The task of this group would be to: (a) Carry out a thorough diagnosis of the relative importance of tenure, rights and effective economic access to land and other natural resources in achieving increased, sustainable food security and poverty reduction; (b) Carry out a “gap analysis” (the gap between what is being done and what needs to be done to improve TRA contributions to achievement of its members’ goals); (c) Decide what FAO should focus on more in the TRA arena, making sure that choices consider members priorities and FAO's comparative advantages and that they complement the on- going work related to the VGs and other on-going TRA activity; (d) Decide how it should then organize its work institutionally, if more funding is forthcoming, with a stronger focus on the FAO goals; and (e) Prepare proposal(s) that would appeal to member countries and resource partners and would use FAO's comparative advantage in strategic partnerships with other entities involved in TRA work.
Improved internal communication and greater interaction among FAO TRA personnel at HQ, regional and country level will be essential for the success of this process.
43. Recommendation 2: Publicize more widely the outputs of its normative work. The evaluation team finds FAO’s land tenure publications to be a valuable resource. They have the potential to deliver useful information to officials (administrative and technical), civil society activists, researchers and academics. More attention should be given to tailoring the pages of the global land tenure website to the needs of particular actors, sub-regions and language groups. It should be publicised more widely, together with the Gender and Land Rights Database and the very useful tenure-related publications of the FAO Development Law Service. Access via the FAO website to the various TRA-related pages could be more closely integrated and made more user-friendly.
44. Recommendation 3: Undertake more systematic monitoring and evaluation of project performance. In the great majority of field projects reviewed, the evaluation was unable to reach conclusions about project impact due to the absence of quantitative approaches involving the use of baseline and follow-up surveys. Without attribution, measured outcomes cannot prove anything about project impact or allow deductions about improved food security and poverty alleviation. In at least a representative sample of field projects, time frames and budgets should allow for more rigorous assessment of outcomes and impact pathways. It is important that resources for this activity be separate from the project budget and that the commitment comes during project preparation.
45. Recommendation 4: Devise ways to develop a more balanced programme of support to member countries in the area of land tenure. During the period under review FAO has been increasingly focused on providing technical services to land tenure initiatives of IFIs through the CP. The funding available to the LTT through the TCI appears to have favoured a particular type of work at the expense of a more holistic programme, regionally and in technical content, that would, for example, focus more on countries having the poorest rural populations. Also, the LTT’s role of making consultants available through the TCI for IFI projects potentially undermines FAO’s independence and its ability to focus on its underlying goals and priorities. The evaluation team believes that if the LTT were to have a strategic plan, which would give higher priority to the overriding Global Goals of FAO and its Members, the focus of its field work would likely shift to poorer countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It is recommended that FAO, in coordination with funding partners and anchored on its own strategic plan, devise ways to develop a more balanced and proactive programme in land tenure that gives higher priority
10 to the needs of poorer countries4. Recognizing that FAO is demand driven, this will require a more proactive approach to discussing with countries and generating requests from them for FAO involvement. Due consideration should also be given to assessing and managing perceived reputation risks emerging from heavy involvement in the backstopping of other agencies’ land tenure programmes.
46. Recommendation 5: Provide HQ, regional, sub-regional and country level staff with training and learning resources on tenure, rights and access issues. The evaluation team notes widespread interest from staff across the regions on TRA issues. It also notes that within FAO a variety of views and understandings about FAO’s role in TRA exists. As part of the development of an FAO TRA strategic plan, the evaluation team recommends to organize workshops/seminars and develop learning materials for FAO staff including in regional, sub- regional and country offices to train them on the policy principles behind the TRA strategy and relevant regional/country elements (such as TRA issues in disaster risk management, large scale land acquisitions, etc.).
47. Recommendation 6: Provide dedicated cover for TRA support for emergencies. Over the evaluation period, there has been an ongoing and as yet unresolved discussion between TCE and the LTT on how best to provide staff cover for advice and assistance on TRA issues that arise in the course of emergencies. The ET recommends that at least one full time post should be set aside in the LTT for this purpose.
48. Recommendation 7: FAO should be pro-active in pursuing TRA issues that are of concern to the Organisation in the context of moving towards its Members’ fundamental goals. In this regard, the guidance documentation being prepared to support the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines should not be constrained by the consensus nature of the VGs, but represent a clear FAO position on these issues, far more specific and focused. Guidance should be sector-specific, as appears to be the plan, dealing not only with land governance but forestry, fisheries and water governance as well, within a corporate strategic plan.
49. Recommendation 8: Strengthen FAO’s role in providing advice and guidance on large scale land acquisitions by foreign investors. The evaluation concurs with the recommendation of the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security in their July 2011 report relating to large-scale land acquisitions by foreign investors that the role of ‘FAO’s Land Tenure Service’ in this area should be to provide sound counsel to governments and development agencies on how to manage this process, a role in which FAO has considerable credibility, and for FAO to use its experience in the gathering, analyses and publication of international statistical data to monitor the situation closely. At the same time, given that LSLAs involving forest and woodlands end up becoming a major cause of deforestation, and given that FAO has a major interest in programs aimed at reducing deforestation, the ET recommends that FAO explore the opportunities to take advantage of potential synergies between its work on LSLAs and deforestation.
4 “FAO’s vision is of a world free of hunger and malnutrition where food and agriculture contributes to improving the living standards of all, especially the poorest, in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner” (emphasis added). From FAO’s Strategic Framework and Medium Term Plan of 2009.
11 II. Introduction
Evaluation objectives
50. The overall objectives are: (i) To evaluate FAO’s recent past work in tenure, rights5 and access6 (TRA) to land and natural resources7; and (ii) To assess and develop recommendations on future directions and priorities for FAO’s work in TRA.
51. In order to achieve these two objectives in the context of FAO’s strategic objectives, the evaluation considers the contribution of TRA to progress in achieving the global goals of FAO and its Members States: namely food security, poverty alleviation, and the sustainable management and utilisation of natural resources.8, 9
52. In short, the evaluation: (i) assesses the role of TRA elements in achieving FAO’s “strategic objectives”; (ii) analyzes and defines how TRA activities do and should fit within FAO’s defined “core functions”; and (iii) taking into account past performance, resources and other constraints, what others are doing and have the capacity to do, evaluates and recommends the priorities for the FAO in the area of TRA.
Approach and methodology
53. The approach adopted follows the methodology set out in the Concept Paper (see Annex 9). The key tools for data gathering are: (i) an inventory of FAO’s TRA activity; (ii) a Stakeholder Perception Study involving face-to-face meetings and/or extensive phone interviews; (iii) three web-based questionnaire surveys; (iv) a meta-review of past evaluations conducted by OED; and (iv) selected field visits to countries. In addition, desk reviews of FAO’s normative and field activities were conducted as an integral part of the above.
54. The inventory of FAO tenure-related field projects, as identified by FAO staff for the period 2006-2011, is in Annex 2 and that of normative work is in Annex 7. ET members reviewed a representative selection of the TRA publications, working papers and conference and workshop reports. In addition, an attempt was made to assess the use and accessibility of FAO normative
5 In this report, the meaning of “right” depends on the context. Constitutional lawyers refer to a fundamental “human right” or entitlement (e.g. “everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing”). The term is also used in the context of “traditional rights” of local communities to access and use natural resources. When land administrators refer to a right they may be referring to the privileges or benefits (i.e. rights) attached to a particular tenure category (e.g. to leasehold or freehold). 6 “Access” to land and other natural resources is taken to mean “effective economic” access. Thus, for example, individuals may have easy physical and legal access to the land in arid or semi-arid areas with scarce water, but without access to sufficient water they do not have effective economic access to the land in the sense of a productive resource that could contribute towards food security and poverty reduction. 7 The TOR for the evaluation did not include the task of evaluating FAO’s support to rights to genetic resources for food and agriculture. 8 ‘Global goals of Members’, FAO’s ‘strategic objectives’ and ‘core functions’ are further defined in Figures 1 and 2 in the Concept Paper in Annex 9. 9 As pointed out in chapter VII, we are not ignoring the third general goal of the members, “sustainable management and utilisation of natural resources, including land, water, air, climate and genetic resources, for the benefit of present and future generations.” We have taken the final phrase of the goal as the operative one: “… for the benefit of present and future generations.” Such benefits, in the context of what FAO can do, will come through achievement of sustainable increases in food security and poverty alleviation.
12 products in the land sector by the analysis of traffic information on the FAO land tenure website and by a citation analysis of selected TRA publications.
55. The Stakeholder Perception Study (SPS) (Annex 3) was designed to provide an essential part of the evidence base for the entire evaluation. The SPS conveys the perceptions of a wide range of stakeholders on the relevance and effectiveness of FAO’s work relating to tenure, rights and access issues. By capturing the views of different stakeholders on the same topics (triangulation), the SPS helps to ensure non-partisan representation of opinions on FAO’s work. A total of 165 key stakeholders were interviewed as part of this process.
56. Three web-based questionnaires were launched to reach a wider group: (i) FAO staff members, including Country Representatives; (ii) member state governments; and (iii) NGOs involved in advocacy for land rights and sustainable natural resource development. Annex 4 describes the outcome and findings of the web-based questionnaires. While grateful to those who did respond, the Evaluation Team is disappointed by the relatively low response from governments of member countries (36) and from CSOs (7). Fortunately, the response from FAO staff (123 replies) proved useful in number and content.
57. The meta-evaluation (Annex 5) consists of a review of over 35 corporate, country and project/ programme evaluations carried out in the period 2006-10 covering issues related to tenure, rights and access to land and other natural resources. It aims to synthesize past findings, conclusions and recommendations made to FAO in relation to its TRA work.
58. Visits were made by the Evaluation Team to a sample of countries, where FAO has had a significant input and which represent the range of TRA activities which FAO supports at country and regional level. These visits provided an insight into the work of FAO in TRA, and an opportunity to draw upon the opinions of national stakeholders within government, the UN system, NGOs and academia at different levels. The visits also allowed the ET to meet with global and/or regional partners (such as UN-Habitat, IFAD and AGRA in Nairobi, Kenya). The objective of the country visits was to gather detailed inputs for the assessment of the relevance and effectiveness of FAO’s TRA work.
59. As noted in the Concept Paper, the geographic focus of FAO field work and missions during the evaluation period (2006-10) was in Eastern Europe, Central Asia and southern Africa. In Latin America in general there has not been major work on tenure issues with the exception of TCI and LTT activity in some countries in Central America in support of WB projects, and some small TCPs in South America. In South and East Asia, FAO has conducted some field activities particularly in China and the Philippines. The country visits were selected taking account of the current limited scale of FAO’s TRA field work. Consideration was also given to presence of regional and/or country level programmes and staff10. Criteria for country selection included: A significant number and technical range of FAO supported TRA-related projects in that country; No recent evaluation of either the TRA-related projects nor the overall FAO country programme;
10 The ET made extensive use of telephone and video-conference (Skype) facilities to reach FAO regional and country level staff working on TRA-related topics in regions/countries not visited by the evaluation team. Government officers and local non-government partners were targeted through specific survey questionnaires. The SPS and the meta-evaluation also provided relevant information on the views of these stakeholders.
13 Representative coverage of the main technical areas of FAO TRA work as well as modality (cross-organisational functions); and Presence of FAO TRA partners.
60. Furthermore, and in accordance with OED’s policy, any project above US$2 million is expected to be evaluated in the framework of larger evaluations, whilst projects above US$4 million must be evaluated once in their lifespan. On the basis of these criteria, the following countries were selected: Kenya, Namibia and Mozambique (to assess the Dutch-funded project) in Africa; and Hungary and Macedonia in Europe. During the visit to Hungary, the evaluation team joined participants in a pre-arranged workshop being attended by representatives of Eastern and Central European Countries involved in FAO supported projects to consider land-related and rural development topics.
Report Structure
61. The remainder of this report is subdivided into six parts or chapters (III-VIII). Part III, Background and Context, describes the organisational structure, programming, and financial and human resources for TRA. Part IV evaluates the performance of land-related TRA work, both normative and field activities. Part V reviews four cross-cutting themes in TRA: gender, post-emergency support, the Voluntary Guidelines process, and FAO’s response to large-scale land acquisitions. Part VI is devoted to a review of FAO’s TRA activity in the water, forest, wildlife and fisheries sectors. Part VII considers possible future directions of FAO’s support to TRA. Part VIII sets out the Evaluation Team’s recommendations.
III. Background and Context
Development of FAO’s interest in tenure, rights and access to land and natural resources (TRA)
62. FAO’s interest in TRA issues, specifically land tenure, was recognised at the founding conference of FAO at Hot Springs, Virginia, USA in 1943. Specific recommendations on land tenure were included in the report prepared by the Interim Commission on Food and Agriculture set up by the Hot Springs Conference to assemble ideas for the activities that a new organization should take11. FAO started to work actively in land tenure matters in 1947 when the first land tenure officer was recruited by FAO, and emphasis on land tenure increased following the move from Washington D.C. to Rome in 195112.
63. The topics addressed today by FAO have not changed significantly over the years, namely: the development and analysis of land policy, legislation and practical approaches related to land reform, land consolidation, land registration and cadastre, leasing, customary and communal land tenure, rural property taxation and the administration of state land. Greater emphasis is now placed on matters of good governance13, transparency and integrity, gender equity, recognition of the rights of indigenous groups and minorities, safeguarding the environment, participation of civil society, and the decentralization of land administration. In the past decade,
11 http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/p4228e/P4228E04.htm#ch4 12 FAO 2010a 13 ‘Governance’ refers to ‘the mechanisms, processes, and institutions, through which citizens and groups articulate their interests, exercise their legal rights, meet their obligations, and mediate their differences’ (UNDP 1997).
14 there has been increasing concern within FAO over the relationship of land tenure to food security and the consequences of large-scale acquisition of communal forested land for land clearing and the cultivation of food crops and biofuels for export and the need to develop international norms on the governance of land and other natural resources.
Scope of FAO’s support to TRA
Structure for TRA work
64. FAO TRA work is conducted by some technical units at HQ and a few decentralized offices. They formally include the Land Tenure Team (LTT) within the Climate Change, Tenure and Bio-energy Division (NRC), the Land and Water Division (NRL), the Investment Centre (TCI), the Emergency and Rehabilitation Division (TCE) and the Regional Office for Europe (REU). In addition, the Gender, Equity and Rural Development Division (ESW) provides assistance on gender and land rights while the Development Law Service (LEGN) provides assistance with TRA-related legislation (drafting, implementation and dissemination)14.
65. However, it is clear that TRA issues are extremely complex and to achieve the agreed Organisational Results (ORs), both formal and informal horizontal linkages as well as the application of a range of different skills are required. Other technical and decentralized units also contribute to the above ORs or undertake TRA activity on their own, including: the Forest Economics, Policy and Products Division (FOE), the Fisheries and Aquaculture Policy and Economic Division (FIP), the Policy and Programme Development Support Division (TCS), and the Trade and Markets Division (EST). Some decentralized offices have also been working on TRA-related issues, including the Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RAP), the Regional Office for Latin America (RLC), and the Regional Office for Africa (RAF).
Programming of tenure, rights and access work
66. FAO TRA work during the period under review was programmed through a Medium Term Plan (MTP) initially prepared for the period 2006-11, which was operational until 2009 only. The current MTP, prepared following a major reform of the organization, covers the period 2010-13. The biennial Programmes of Work and Budget (PWB) covered by the evaluation include those prepared for the periods 2006-07, 2008-09, and 2010-11.
Situation prior to the FAO Reform (2006-2009)
67. At the beginning of the review period and before the adoption of a new Results-Based Management system in 2010, FAO TRA work related to land was divided into two Programme Entities (PEs): “2KA05: Land Tenure, Agrarian Reform and Access to Natural Resources” and “2KS01: Technical Support Services to Members and the Field Programme”. The PEs in turn had three “Major Outputs” and six “Biennial Outputs”. The Biennial Outputs associated are shown in the table below.
Table III-1: Biennial Outputs defined for the period 2006-09
Period Biennial outputs 2006-07 Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives Journal Normative materials on land tenure support in emergencies
14 The placement of these divisions within the organisational structure of FAO can be seen at: http://www.fao.org/about/27232-0eaad223f05e87ebc02810ab56a191c7e.pdf
15 Period Biennial outputs Policy materials on state acquisition of land and compensation Normative materials on increasing tenure security through improved land administration Network on land tenure administration institutions Direct support to member countries 2008-09 Land Tenure Journal Policy and training materials on land tenure support in emergency settings, including natural disasters Policy and training materials on the tenure of public lands Guidelines on improved land administration Normative materials in support of development of international norms on land tenure Technical support and advice to natural resources management in particular land and water through normative and field programmes. Source: Evaluation Team with information from PIRES
68. As the table shows, the Biennial Outputs were similar in 2006-07 and 2008-09. This was largely because both sets of outputs derived from the MTP 2006-11. In the latter period, the development of international norms on land tenure (such as the Voluntary Guidelines) started to appear more clearly in the work-plan of the organization. The lead technical unit during this period was the Land Tenure Service, which was first located in the Rural Development Division (SDA) where it was known as “SDAA”. Following the dissolution of SDA, it became part of the Land and Water Division (NRL), where together with land management it was known as “NRLA”.
69. TRA activities related to other natural resources were not included in the MTP or the concerned PWBs at the level of PEs or Biennial Outputs. They were undertaken largely in an ad-hoc manner (through extra-budgetary funds), or as part of broader initiatives within each thematic area. For example, equitable access to fisheries resources was included in PE 233A2 “Sustainable development of small-scale fisheries”; access to forest resources was included in PE 243PA “Sustainable forestry and livelihoods”; legal assistance was included in PE 3BA06 “Support to the development of regulatory frameworks for food and agriculture”; and work on gender and land was included in PE 252A3 “Gender and Natural Resources Management”.
Situation post-reform (2010-13)
70. Following Conference-approval of a wide-ranging reform in 200915, FAO embarked on a profound process of change that affected, amongst other things, the approach to the planning and budgeting of its work. Since 2010, the organization’s planning framework is based on defined Strategic Objectives (SOs), Organizational Results (ORs) and Unit Results (URs). Several departments and some divisions have also developed or are in the process of developing strategic plans aligned with the new planning framework16. TRA work related to land and other natural resources has been included in several SOs, which are the responsibility of different lead units, including SO F (Sustainable management of land, water and genetic resources and improved responses to global environmental challenges affecting food and agriculture), SO L (Increased and more effective public and private investment in agriculture and rural development) and SO G (Enabling environment for markets to improve livelihoods and rural
15 Embodied in the Immediate Plan of Action (IPA) 2009-13. 16. See, for example, the “FAO Strategy for Forestry and Forests” available online at http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/al043e/al043e00.pdf; an inter-divisional steering committee led by the FAO DDG for Knowledge is currently producing the first-ever strategy plan for FAO work in Nutrition. Several decentralized offices have also prepared strategic plans to help prioritizing their regional or sub-regional work.
16 development). The table below summarizes the specific ORs and URs for the period 2010-13 by lead unit.
Table III-2: Organizational and Unit Results defined for the period 2010-13
Lead Unit Organizational and Unit Results NRC F0412: Development of draft Voluntary Guidelines on responsible governance of tenure of land and its interface with other natural resources. F0413: Development of tools and methodologies for building capacity in the administration of natural resource tenure. F0414: Development of partnerships and alliances to stimulate the dissemination and application of information on secure and equitable land tenure and its interface with other natural resources. G0208: Increased integration of tenure and access to land issues into agricultural and rural development policies, programmes and partnerships in the context of rural employment and income diversification. L03G112: Support for policy and technical advice including for resource mobilization for investment programmes and projects of land tenure and administration. NRL F04G204: Support to land tenure and land management TCI F04G108: Policy advice and technical support provided for investments in land tenure and administration for sustainable agriculture and rural development. TCE F04G110: Implementation of emergency response in support of land access, tenure and sustainable management REU F04E103: Tools and methodologies are developed for building capacity in land consolidation and land tenure in the European Region Source: Evaluation Team with information from PIRES
71. The shift to the new planning framework did not imply any major re-orientation in the subject matter or methods of working, although emphasis shifted in accordance with the changing concerns of Member States and their requests, these being made directly to FAO (e.g. requests for technical cooperation projects17) or through other fora (e.g. Committee on Agriculture, Committee for Food Security18; Regional Conferences19, etc). Indeed, some areas of work have received increased attention, notably those related to the development of Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and Other Natural Resources (VGs), and land consolidation and tenure reform activities in specific regions (such as Europe). Although during this period there has been a stronger focus on TRA work related to other natural resources (particularly in the context of the VGs, and prior to that, the Legal Empowerment of the Poor Initiative), no ORs and/or URs dealing with specific TRA issues in water, forestry, wildlife or fisheries were elaborated for the period 2010-1120.
17 24 Technical Cooperation Programme (TCP) projects (including the TCP Facility) on land tenure were implemented during the period under review. 18 A presentation on the voluntary guidelines was made to COAG in 2007. The reformed CFS selected land tenure as a core activity together with soaring food prices; see http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-home/en/ 19 The FAO Regional Conference for Africa (2006) and the FAO Regional Conference for Europe (2006, 2008 and 2010) have called for support on land policy and tenure issues; see http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/011/j8238e/j8238e.htm#Agrarian and http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/019/k8421e.pdf 20 A UR dealing specifically with forestry tenure issues might be established in the period 2012-13.
17 Financial resources for normative work
72. Regular Programme (RP) resources for TRA work have reflected the changes in the overall FAO budget, with marginal real changes over the period since 2006. As described above, RP resources have specifically been allocated for TRA normative work in land by the LTT and, more recently, NRL. The table below shows RP funding data for the period 2006-11.
Table III-3: Regular programme resources for land tenure normative work (US$ 000)
Year Regular Programme
Budget – Staff Budget – Non-staff Total Budget Of which income 2006 1,030 378 1,408 87.5 2007 1,029 337 1,366 87.5 2008 1,319 395 1,714 87.5 2009 1,319 394 1,713 87.5 2010 1,138 384 1,522 115 2011 1,625* 148* 1,773* 104 * including NRL financial allocation for F04, support to land tenure and land management. Source: Evaluation Team with information from NR and PIRES.
73. The evaluation team notes that non-staff resources are low by FAO standards (around 20% against an organisational average of 33%), and would have been even lower if the LTT had failed to meet their “income” targets. On the other hand, the LTT was successful in raising over US$10 million of supplementary funds from extra-budgetary sources21 for normative work22.
Table III-4: Extra-budgetary resources for land tenure normative work
Project code and Title Budget (US$) Period donor GCP/GLO/164/FIN Good Governance in Land Tenure and 15/5/06 – 115,000 (Finland) Administration 14/4/07 FNOP/INT/108/NOR Programme Cooperation Agreement – LEP 26/4/06 – 2,115,000 (Norway) 31/3/08 FNOP/INT/110/NOR Programme Cooperation Agreement – LEP 1/7/08 – 704,666 (Norway) 31/12/08 GCP/GLO/273/IFA Support for Regional policy dialogue in the (IFAD) formulation of voluntary guidelines for 1/10/09 – 200,000 responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and 31/12/10 other Natural Resources GCP/GLO/255/GER Support for formulating FAO Voluntary 1/1/10 – (Germany) Guidelines for responsible governance of tenure 2,750,000 30/6/12 of land and other natural resources GCP/GLO/255/IFA Support for formulating FAO Voluntary 1/5/10 – (IFAD) Guidelines for responsible governance of tenure 1,364,000 30/4/13 of land and other natural resources GCP/GLO/282/MUL Support to the Development and Piloting of an 2,944,724 1/1/10 –
21 Extra-budgetary funds include a range of funding instruments, from large scale Partnership Agreements (such as the FAO-Norway Partnership Programme or the UN-Spain Joint Programme) to Government Cooperation Projects (GCPs), Unilateral Trust Funds (UTFs) and Emergency and Rehabilitation projects (OSROs). 22 A multilateral trust fund (worth US$1.7m) in support of ICARRD was also implemented during the period under review. As this was intended to cover ICARRD-related expenses, it is covered in the report section on workshops and events.
18 Project code and Title Budget (US$) Period donor (Finland) Open Source Cadastre and Registration (OSCAR) 31/12/13 Shell GCP/GLO/255/SWI Support for formulating FAO Voluntary 5/1/11 – (Switzerland) Guidelines for responsible governance of tenure 300,164 30/6/12 of land and other natural resources Total 10,493,554 Source: FPMIS
74. Regular Programme resources for TRA-related normative work on the other natural resources have been “in kind” only (staff time). TRA normative work in water, forestry, wildlife and fisheries has been exclusively funded by extra-budgetary contributions including from the projects above. For example, around US$300,000 was allocated from the VGs trust funds for the water, forestry and fisheries implementation guides. Prior to that, around US$840,000 was allocated to FOE, FIP, LEGN and ESW from the Legal Empowerment of the Poor (LEP) Initiative for TRA-related work.
Financial resources for field projects
75. During the review period, FAO implemented 42 field projects (worth US$ 36.4 million) dealing exclusively with TRA related issues (Annex 2). Three units were particularly active as Lead Technical Units (LTU): the Land Tenure Team (LTT), NRL, and LEGN. The majority of projects were TCPs (24), followed by GCPs (10), UNJPs (4), UTFs (2) and OSROs (2). Funding for TRA field projects was largely external with resource partners investing US$ 21.8 million through GCPs, US$ 3 million through the UNJP, US$ 2 million through OSROs, and member countries themselves US$ 4 million through the UTF arrangement. FAO contributed US$ 5.4 million from the TCP. The regional breakdown can be found below.
Table III-5: Field projects by region and type, 2006-2011
Region GCP OSRO TCP UNJP UTF Total Africa 5 1 6 2 1 15 Asia & the Pacific 2 1 3 1 0 7 Europe 0 0 8 0 0 8 Global 2 0 1 0 0 3 Latin America & the Caribbean 1 0 6 1 1 9 Grand Total 10 2 24 4 2 42 Source: FPMIS
76. The evaluation team notes that many more projects implemented by FAO than those included above involve TRA-related work, even when this is not always acknowledged or evident from their titles. A review undertaken by the evaluation team of all FAO non-emergency projects with budgets over US$2 million approved since 2006 showed that some 19% of these projects included TRA elements as either project activities or as constraints that needed to be addressed. Of this 19%, only one quarter of the projects had been identified by FAO staff as being TRA-related. This issue is discussed further in Section VI under the heading ‘TRA elements in non-TRA projects’.
Human resources for TRA work 77. Most professional posts dealing with TRA related issues are located within the Land Tenure Team (LTT). The LTT establishment financed by the Regular Programme presently (August 2011) consists of one principal officer (D1) and four technical posts. In addition, six fixed-term posts
19 have been created using extra-budgetary funding. They include one Associate Professional Officer, three technical officers working on normative projects (two for the Voluntary Guidelines and one for the SOLA project) and two technical officers working on investment projects (funded by the FAO-World Bank Cooperative Programme). Several consultancies have also been made available. The total number of staff working in land tenure on a full or part time basis within NRC, NRL, ESW and LEGN, has been relatively stable, and even increased lately compared to 2006. The major change has been the location (largely based at HQ) and funding source of the new positions (mostly extra-budgetary posts).
Table III-6: FAO Professional posts for TRA related work (all sources of funding)
LTT NRL LEG ESW Reg/Subreg Total Year RP EB RP EB RP* EB RP* EB RP EB RP EB 2006 6 0 0 0 0.5 1 0.5 1 3 0 9 2 2007 6 0 0 0 0.5 1 0.5 1 1 0 7 2 2008 6 1 0 0 0.5 1 0.5 0 1 0 7 2 2009 6 2 0 0 0.5 1 0.5 0 1 0 7 3 2010 5 6 1 0 0.5 1 0.5 0 1 0 7 7 * includes staff working on TRA related issues on a part time basis Source: Evaluation team with information from NR and PIRES
78. Within the Regional and Sub-regional offices23, there are ten posts for Land and Water Officers. However, none of these are specifically dealing with TRA-related matters.24 As a result, most work related to TRA is dealt with from HQ in Rome, with the exception of REU, which has one land tenure officer of its own, and RLC, which recently hired a natural resources tenure specialist. Technical units dealing with fisheries, forestry, wildlife and water do not have specific posts for TRA either (although some regional specialists such as the Forestry and Wildlife specialists in RAP and RAF have considered TRA-related issues in their respective regional field programmes). In the case of fishery, in-kind inputs on TRA issues are provided by two technical staff. In forestry, there are three technical staff dealing with TRA issues at HQ although on a part-time basis only. In the past, a consultant working full time on TRA-related issues was hired using extra-budgetary resources. A position for a “Forest Tenure Specialist” is now expected to be created in 2013 to follow-up on the implementation of the forestry implementation guides for the VGs. In the case of water, ad-hoc inputs are provided by two technical staff. A vacant position on “Water and Institutions” is expected to be filled during 2011, which will eventually strengthen FAO’s capacity to deal with water rights issues in the context of irrigation projects.
Partnerships and alliances
79. In order to fulfil its mandate, FAO collaborates with a wide range of partners, including other UN organizations, resource partners, inter-governmental organizations, civil society organizations, academia and research centres (see Table III-7 below for examples). Through these partnerships, FAO develops international norms and standards, establishes databases and information resources, implements and provides technical services to field projects, etc. Several of these partnerships (such as with the World Bank, UN-HABITAT and IFAD) are long-standing and are considered key alliances for the achievement of several normative outputs (like the
23 These offices are all the five Regional offices plus the Sub-regional offices for Central America, the Caribbean, the Oriental Near East, Southern Africa and Eastern Africa. 24 In 2011 a RLC post bearing the title of “land and natural resources tenure officer” was created and filled. A RNE post created in 2010 bearing the title of “land management and tenure officer” remains unfilled.
20 VGs). Selected joint activities are discussed in the relevant sections of this report. Annex 3, contains an analysis of perceptions of FAO’s partnerships with external stakeholders in matters relating to tenure, rights and access to natural resources.
Table III-7: Examples of key partnerships25
Inter- Academia UN Resource governmental Civil society organizations and research Organizations partners organizations centres UN-HABITAT World Bank Africa Union International Land Coalition IIED IFAD European Union Commission FIAN International IFPRI UNDP Germany IPC CIFOR UNCTAD Switzerland Oxfam IWMI UNECA Finland International Federation UN-Water Netherlands of Surveyors UN-REDD Norway WWF etc. United Kingdom
IV. Land Sector: Assessment of Performance 2006-2010
80. This section of the report is primarily concerned with the evaluation of FAO’s support to TRA in the land sector, which for descriptive purposes is subdivided into normative and operational activities. As explained in Box IV-1, the subdivision between FAO’s normative work and technical cooperation programmes is in some measure unsatisfactory. In using this categorisation, efforts are made by the study to explore the relationship between what is being done in the normative area to produce relevant global public goods to support TRA, and what is being done to ensure their accessibility to those that need them.
Box IV-1: FAO's normative and operational activities
Interdependence of normative and operational activities: To a great extent, it is artificial to examine FAO's normative role in isolation from its operational activities. The two sets of activities are not only largely interdependent but they are also mutually reinforcing: the quality of FAO's activities in the field is ensured by the constant nourishment derived from the Organization's normative resources. Likewise, FAO's normative work is constantly reinforced by lessons learned in the field. Indeed, it is this combination of normative and operational activities as well as the capacity to span the consequent divide in many of its programmes that give FAO its comparative advantages and explain the unique "value added" that it is able to provide Member Nations. Purpose of normative outputs: For use as scientific or technical guides or references for global/universal applications; for use by FAO, Member Nations and the international community in setting common standards and methods; to provide input for the preparation of normative rules, criteria, approaches and methodologies or similar Regular Programme activities. Source: http://www.fao.org/docrep/W8462E/w8462e07.htm
81. For the description and assessment of FAO’s normative activities over the five-year period 2006-2010, there are three possible approaches:
25 See Annex 5 Meta-synthesis of past evaluations for a more detailed list of partners (paragraphs 57-61)
21 - by way of a chronological analysis, examining achievements within each biennium (2006- 2007, 2008-2009, 2010-11) against the proposed biennial outputs in the Programme of Work and Budget; - by means of examination of thematic areas in which the LTT has worked (improving the governance of tenure, improving access to land through redistribution, improving access to land through leasing, etc) as is set out, for example by the LTT (FAO 2010a) and listed under its eleven contributions to improved access to land since 1994; or - by reference to outputs of normative and operational activities over the five years under review.
82. The third approach is adopted, namely that of describing outputs, while endeavouring to assess their contribution to the overall programme of the LTT and the achievement of the basic global goals of the FAO and its Members. In adopting this route it is recognised that the various normative outputs are simply components of a larger programme, which in turn must be assessed as a whole. Further, in making such an assessment over the five-year evaluation period, care must be taken not to pass judgement on the outcomes of on-going projects, for example, the work on the VGs or the Organisation’s response to large-scale land acquisitions (LSLAs), neither of which have yet been put into effect. These on-going activities are reviewed in Section V of this report under the heading of ‘Key Cross-cutting Themes and Programme Areas’.
Normative work of the Land Tenure Team
83. This section includes LTT publications, conferences and workshops. It also covers technical projects such as Solutions for Open Land Administration (SOLA). The full list of normative outputs can be found in Annex 7.
Publications
84. Most of FAO’s land tenure publications fit the description of normative outputs specified in Box IV-1. Included within the normative category is the investigative work carried out with the aim of developing norms.
85. Of the several series of publications posted on the FAO Land Tenure website, the oldest is the biennial ‘Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives’ journal, which goes back almost 50 years, 20 years of which can still be accessed via Land Tenure ‘Information Resources’. During the evaluation period, 2006-2010, six numbers were published, each one devoted to aspects of land tenure, with little sign of ‘land settlement’ or ‘cooperatives’. The anachronistically named journal also had a rather dated format and in 2010 it was replaced by the ‘Land Tenure Journal’, which targets readers in the public and private sector. In announcing the new journal, the LTT hoped that it would be able to attract high-quality, practice-orientated articles and relevant academic contributions, and be put in contact with global professionals engaged in TRA matters.26
86. The ‘Land Tenure Studies’ set of publications are described as ‘concise presentations on the often complicated and controversial subject of land tenure, especially as it relates to food security, poverty alleviation and rural development’. The series is for specialists working in land tenure and land administration. In all, ten ‘numbers’ have been produced since 1995. Two were produced within the evaluation period: No. 10, ‘Compulsory acquisition of land and compensation’, a well conceived and written guide prepared by a distinguished panel, including
26 At the time of writing, only two numbers have been issued so any assessment would be premature.
22 three internationally known lawyers with practical experience of drafting land-related legislation; and No. 9, ‘Good governance in land tenure and administration’, which contains some home truths about abuses by public land administration agencies. It promises to be useful for in-service training of land administrators.
87. NGOs are the target group for ‘Land Tenure Notes’, a series which started in January 2004 with ‘Leasing Agricultural Land’ and was followed by another in January 2006 ‘Improving Gender Equity in Access to Land’. Both are available in English, French, Spanish and Arabic and have been published in several editions. They are well written and conceived and draw on equivalent numbers in the parent ‘Land Tenure Studies’ series, but so far only two have been published, which raises the question why so few when the marginal costs of producing these summaries must be relatively low. It would indeed be good to see other Land Tenure Studies such as No. 10 ‘Compulsory acquisition of land and compensation’ abridged for the ‘Land Tenure Notes’ series.
88. The ‘Land Tenure Policy Series’ provides information for policy makers and their advisers on aspects of land tenure and includes important policy recommendations on the subject involved. So far, two numbers have been published, No. 1, ‘European Union accession and land tenure data in Central and Eastern Europe’ 2006 and No. 2, ‘Opportunities to mainstream land consolidation in rural development programmes of the European Union’, both of which are good examples of FAO's normative work being reinforced by lessons learned in the field, even if their appeal is limited to EU accession countries.
89. The ‘Land Tenure Manuals’ provide ‘detailed guidance and technical materials on land tenure to support field implementation and training …’. No. 1, ‘Operations manual for land consolidation pilot projects in Central and Eastern Europe’, provides practical information relevant for the design of land consolidation pilot projects in Central and Eastern Europe and complements other publications on this topic produced by the LTT. The preparation of the second manual, No. 2 ‘Land tenure alternative conflict management’, was closely linked to the Livelihood Support Programme and was prepared in collaboration with the International Land Coalition (ILC), drawing on experience from Africa, Asia and Latin America. The third manual ‘Assessing and Responding to Land Tenure Issues in Disaster Risk Management’ was published in 2011 and is the outcome of collaboration between FAO, UN-HABITAT and the Inter-Agency Cluster Working Group on Early Recover (CWGER). It is designed for the training of personnel involved in responding to emergencies arising from natural disasters which are of increased frequency and intensity as a result of climate change. It is designed for use in group training or as a ‘user- friendly self-training instrument’. The manual aims to generate a common understanding of how land tenure arrangements can be disrupted by disasters and why an understanding of related land tenure issues and effective land governance are important. It is appropriately arranged into five modules and is without doubt an outstanding piece of work.
90. Since 2008, the LTT has overseen the preparation of 20 ‘Land Tenure Working Papers’. The first two were prepared in collaboration with the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) for the ‘High Level Conference on World Food Security: the Challenges of Climate Change and Bio-energy’. They considered the implications of the expansion of biofuels production and climate change for land tenure and land policy. Working Papers Nos. 3-18 constitute policy briefs for the preparation of the ‘Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure’. They either focus on land and natural resource governance issues within specific regions, or on generic issues (e.g. women’s land rights, or communal rights in Africa, or common property rights in Asia). There is also a working paper on civil society perspectives of good governance in land and natural resource tenure prepared by CSOs. Other papers provide guidance on the international institutional and legal dimensions of VGs. All of
23 the papers draw on an extensive international literature. Authors include academics, FAO’s international consultants and staff from the LTT as well as from other departments and from field operations. In this way, information from operational activities is being fed into the normative process. Working Paper No. 11, ‘Towards Improved Land Governance’, was prepared in collaboration with UN-HABITAT. The majority of papers are published only in English, a few only in French or in both Spanish and English. The intended readership includes the drafters of the VGs, the delegates attending consultative workshops and those involved in e-consultation.
91. FAO’s Land Tenure website also includes a web page entitled ‘Miscellaneous Land Tenure Documents’. Eight have been published in the last five years and are the result of collaboration with other agencies. The two most recent, of which the latest is a summary of the preceding number, are concerned with the handling of emergency land tenure issues arising from natural disasters in Mozambique, Ecuador, Honduras, Indonesia, Philippines and Bangladesh, jointly published by FAO, UN-HABITAT and CWGER. Longer-term land and property implications of emergencies are the subject of the ‘Handbook on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons; Implementing the Pinheiro Principles’, prepared by FAO, IDMC, OCHA, OHCHR, UN-HABITAT and UNHCR. The important ‘Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook’, a joint project of the World Bank, FAO (ESW) and IFAD, together with two well- known studies by IIED published jointly with IFAD relating to the LSLA issue, are also among the so-called ‘miscellaneous’ collection. In view of the importance of these publications, perhaps this collection could be more appropriately renamed, ‘Important Collaborative Work’.
92. A citation analysis was undertaken for a selection of publications produced by the LTT from 2006 to 201027 (See Annex 8, Citation Analysis and Website Hits). The most cited publication produced by FAO during the given period was “Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa”, produced in 2009 as part of a partnership with IIED and IFAD28. The second most cited publication was FAO Land Tenure Studies No. 9 (2007), “Good governance in land tenure and administration”29. The results of the citation analysis show that publications for which FAO partnered with another organisation (e.g. IIED, IFAD or the World Bank) were generally more frequently cited. Unfortunately, the citation analysis does not adequately cover some of the most important intended users of FAO’s land tenure publications, namely governments and CSOs. There was no simple way to search for unpublished governmental and CSO outputs that could have referenced FAO land tenure publications.
93. Assessment of LTT publications and website: The evaluation team is impressed by the scope, content and presentation of the many publications produced and posted on the Land Tenure Portal, evidence of the team’s access to a wide range of technical expertise. There can be no doubt about the relevance and usefulness of much of the material, which deserves to have a higher degree of recognition than it currently enjoys among practitioners and academics. Questions must be asked about the extent to which the LTT’s target readership has sufficient access to its normative works; given that most documents are only in English and that the preferred media in much of the developing world is still the printed word. As a recent review of FAO’s work in Mozambique (FAO 2011e) demonstrates, even in capital cities there are frequently internet constraints and a chronic lack of access to electronic printers and refill cartridges. English is increasingly used, but Portuguese is still much preferred. While feedback
27 Those from 2011 were deemed too recent to appear in any search results. 28 Authors: Lorenzo Cotula, Sonja Vermeulen, Rebeca Leonard and James Keeley. 29 Authors: Richard Grover, Mika-Petteri Törhönen, David Palmer and Paul Munro-Faure.
24 to HQ on FAO’s work in Mozambique is excellent, more could be done to send information in the other direction.
94. It is reported by the LTT that, when the opportunity arises, hundreds of hard copies of selected publications are distributed at workshops, including those conducted in REU and in the numerous VGs consultations. Several informants in the Budapest land administration workshop in June 2011 spontaneously mentioned to the evaluation team the usefulness of the FAO publications made available in workshops, several of which have been specially prepared for the purpose. The distribution of CD ROMs can overcome many document ‘marketing’ constraints, but it is not clear that this option has been sufficiently exploited. Only five CD ROMs are advertised on the Land Tenure Website and these are mostly devoted to specialised topics (e.g. participatory community boundary delimitation, conflict management, etc). An exception perhaps is the CD ROM ‘Multilingual Thesaurus on Land Tenure’ which has been prepared in Chinese, English, French and Spanish in order to cover the socio-cultural differences in land tenure matters according to the linguistic contexts.
95. By any standard, FAO’s land tenure publications and web pages are a very valuable resource. They have the potential to deliver detailed and useful information to land administrators, civil society activists, researchers and academics, but the evaluation team considers that the information currently available on the page about field operations is insufficient. If this information cannot be provided, the page should be deleted and users directed to regional, sub-regional or country links. Apart from this issue, the scope and content of coverage provided by the land tenure website is unsurpassed and its recognition can only grow. As pointed out by several interviewees, who are otherwise knowledgeable about TRA issues, they rarely if ever used the FAO Land Tenure Portal. The evaluation team believes that ways and means must be found of publicising it more widely, together with the Gender and Land Rights Database and the tenure-related publications of the FAO Development Law Service (LEGN). Also, easier access to TRA-related websites must be pursued since the current structure (which largely reflects FAO structural divisions and fails to provide inter-divisional links to related materials) can certainly be made more user-friendly. Publications are only useful if people use them and how many actually do, we cannot say.
Conferences and workshops
96. FAO has organised one major conference and several workshops during the evaluation period (2006-10) as part of its TRA-related normative programme. These events are intended as fora to share ideas and experiences. They provide a valuable platform for the exchange of knowledge both among stakeholders, and between stakeholders and FAO and its partners. Three of the key workshops and conferences held by FAO during the evaluation period are outlined in further detail below30.
97. ICARDD: Porto Alegre, Brazil (March 2006). The International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD) was organised by FAO in partnership with the Government of Brazil in March 2006. IFAD and faith-based donor organisations in Germany and the Netherlands also contributed to the costs.
30 Although the regional consultations held as part of the Voluntary Guidelines (VGs) process were also a key part of FAO’s normative work during this period, they are discussed separately in the section on the VGs.
25 Box IV-2: Primary objectives of the ICARRD31
Understanding, learning and constructive dialogue to address agrarian reform, sustainable rural development and rural poverty reduction; and Partnerships among governments, producer organizations, cooperatives, international institutions, donors and civil society organizations, with the aim of ensuring more equitable access to land, water, natural resources, agricultural inputs, markets and rural support services for the poor and to strengthen the role of the poor in policy-making and managing their own development.
98. To foster wide participation, the entire conference was made open to all stakeholders who wished to participate, including Governments, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), the scientific community, farmers’ organizations and international organizations. In the event, ICARRD was a huge undertaking, involving 92 of FAO’s 180 member states and 1,400 individual participants attending the conference.
99. From the outset, FAO’s principal concern was to ensure that ICARRD made the important connection between land tenure security and food security. In November 2004, the Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food32 were adopted by the 127th Session of the FAO Council, for which the LTT had assisted with the preparation of the texts on land tenure and the guidelines on access to resources and assets. In 2005, the LTT started working on the topic of governance of land tenure and looked at how the Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food could be mainstreamed into tenure reform. Members of the then FAO ‘Land Tenure Service’ in Rome were at the heart of preparations for the conference in 2006, including the facilitation of e- conferences to obtain agreement among stakeholders on the agenda - not a straightforward task.
100. To many civil society land-rights activists ‘agrarian reform’ was a construct of the Cold War to counter communist ‘land reform’. The ‘Alliance for Progress’ prescriptions for ‘agrarian reform’ urged governments to go beyond land redistribution to support other rural development measures, such as the improvement of farm credit, cooperatives for farm-input supply and marketing, and extension services to facilitate the productive use of the redistributed land. Whilst conceptually sound, the land-rights activists perceived this as a distraction that discouraged governments from doing anything until they could do everything. Further, at the time of ICARRD, the international land rights movement was engaged in a tussle with international financing institutions over market-based land redistribution. Due to the wide interest in this debate, the ICARRD organisers eventually agreed to move what had been scheduled as an optional workshop session on agrarian reform and markets into a plenary session.33
101. In the course of interviews conducted by the evaluation team, a number of stakeholders mentioned ICARRD as being an important reference point for the debate on land tenure. However, it was felt that although ICARRD had sent a strong political message, the momentum generated could not be used to advantage. There was a gap between the high expectations of agrarian reform post-ICARRD, and what FAO and its partners had the capacity to deliver.
31 http://www.fao.org/Participation/icarrd-lessons.html 32 http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/009/y9825e/y9825e00.htm 33 As Professor Michael Lipton has pointed out in his recent book on Land Reform (2009, page 67), quoting Herrera et al 1997, FAO’s LTT were involved in this debate. ftp://ftp.fao.org/sd/sda/sdaa/LR97/ART5.pdf
26 102. ICARRD is nonetheless credited with being the forum at which the notion of voluntary guidelines for responsible governance of tenure gained international acceptance and legitimacy. The final report of the conference mentions, in paragraph 29, ‘the possibility of considering the development of voluntary guidelines on agrarian reform and rural development’34 along the lines of FAO’s ‘Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security’.
103. In association with ICARRD, in March 2006, the African Union, UNECA and the African Development Bank launched their initiative aimed at the development of the ‘Land Policy and Land Reform Framework and Guidelines for Africa’35. The process benefited from technical assistance from FAO’s LTT.36 In the period 2006-2008, the LTT was actively engaged in preparing the groundwork for the development of FAO’s ‘Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests’, but formal commencement of the process was delayed until 2009 when the extra-budgetary requirements for consultations became available.
104. Assessment of ICARRD: Rigorous assessment of the performance of ICARRD, in accord with the OECD’s standard evaluation criteria, would have to consider its impact in terms of its stated objectives (see Box IV-): positive and negative, primary and secondary, intended or unintended. This is beyond the capacity of the evaluation team within the scope of this evaluation. The event clearly provided an opportunity for understanding and learning, a legacy which will continue so long as the very useful ICARRD website stays on line. As for the establishment of partnerships among the diverse stakeholders, more investigation would be needed to reach a conclusive answer, but the perception of most key informants interviewed by the evaluation team considered this to have been lower than initially expected.37
105. With regard to efficiency and effectiveness, some may consider ICARRD as the last of FAO’s great conferences on land reform and rural development, because of the tendency of such events to encourage political grandstanding and to generate more heat than light. There are probably more efficient and effective ways of building international consensus on the importance of the links between tenure security and food security, without recourse to politically contentious and potentially discordant mass conferences38.
106. Improving Tenure Security for the Rural Poor: Nakuru, Kenya (October 2006). By contrast and in the same year as ICARRD, FAO organised a regional workshop for participants from sub- Saharan Africa as part of the ‘Legal Empowerment of the Poor’ programme of activities, funded
34 Paragraph 29, ICARRD Final Report http://www.icarrd.org/en/icarrd_docs_report.html 35 ICARRD Follow-up Regional Initiatives http://www.icarrd.org/sito.html# 36 TCP/RAF/3115: "Support to ICARRD follow-up and to the African Land Policy Initiative including regional stakeholders’ dialogue" (2008-2009) sought to contribute to ensuring security of land rights, increased productivity, secured livelihoods and broad-based economic growth and sustainable development in Africa (see Appendix 6); while RLC TCP project “Apoyo al seguimiento a la Conferencia Internacional sobre Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Rural: Nuevos desafíos y opciones para revitalizar las comunidades rurales en Sudamérica” (2009-2011) seeks to strengthen the capacity of grassroots organisations and social movements in South America to participate in the planning of new policies on agrarian reform and rural development. 37 More detail on the ‘lessons learned’ can be found at http://www.fao.org/Participation/icarrd-lessons.html. 38 In his book, The Unpromised Land, Demetrios Christodoulou (1990), a former FAO staff member (1960-1980) and Agrarian Reform Policy Adviser, assesses the performance of the FAO World Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (WCARRD), Rome 1979, according to three criteria: Deepening and Spreading of Understanding; Strengthening of the Will and Capacity to Take Effective Action; and Prospects for Rural People to Participate and Benefit. His analysis raises searching questions in each case.
27 by the Government of Norway. The workshop was to provide technical outputs to inform the Property Rights Working Group of the Commission for Legal Empowerment of the Poor (CLEP) by bringing together government representatives, professionals working in the field, academics, NGOs and international organisations. The workshop extended over three days and involved some sixty individual participants.
107. A distinguished legal authority39 on land and property law in sub-Saharan Africa was commissioned by FAO to write a framework paper in order to: “foster a comprehensive, balanced and objective discussion on the specific rural issues faced in sub-Saharan Africa when strengthening of property rights is attempted, to set the stage for a creative review of available empirical material and to pave the way for preparing the messages of the CLEP, with further guidelines of issues to address, questions to ask and answer and literature to review...” (p. viii)40
108. The thought-provoking framework paper41, along with eight country case studies (Ghana, Mali, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Rwanda, Namibia and Mozambique) by recognised authorities, was presented and discussed at the workshop. These documents, together with a synthesis paper by the author of the framework paper, have been made available on the FAO land tenure website.42 Four key issues were highlighted at the workshop: localism as the basis of land management; the role of customary tenure; access to information, justice and training; and gender equity.43
109. Assessment of Nakuru workshop: Interviewees’ perceptions of the workshop are positive. They appreciated the opportunity it offered to share their experiences and knowledge. The successful attainment of the workshop’s objective, that of providing inputs to the CLEP, is witnessed by the attention accorded to the four issues highlighted by the workshop in the Report of the CLEP, ‘Making the Law Work for Everyone’, Volume I and II (2008)44, in the preparation of which the Head of the LTT was also involved.
110. European regional workshops: FAO has organised a number of regional workshops almost every year since 2002 for European land administration specialists to share their experiences and knowledge. The first series of workshops was financed through a trust fund with the Czech Republic. Since 2007 the workshops have been organised in conjunction with FARLAND45, with financial support from the Netherlands. The workshops have primarily focused on issues relevant to the Central and Eastern European context, such as land consolidation, land banking and land administration in general.
111. The most recent workshop was held in Budapest in June 201146. Following feedback from participants at previous workshops, this event focused on land valuation techniques and on land abandonment. Members of the Evaluation Team attended the workshop in order to obtain
39 Professor Patrick McAuslan 40 ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/k0781e/k0781e00.pdf 41 ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/k0781e/k0781e00.pdf 42 http://www.fao.org/nr/tenure/infores/lttpapers/en/ 43 http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/k1797e/k1797e00.htm 44 http://www.undp.org/legalempowerment/reports/concept2action.html 45 FARLAND is a network of European land development practitioners that is managed by the Dutch Government Service for Land and Water Management. Recently, FARLAND and FAO’s network on land development in Europe have merged to form ‘LandNet’. 46 A list of the workshops is available at http://www.fao.org/europe/activities/land-tenure/landconscee/en/.
28 the views of participants on the broader usefulness of FAO’s TRA work in the region, as well as of the series of regional workshops itself47.
112. Assessment: Overall, participants at the regional workshops rated them highly. They felt that the events provided a valuable opportunity for the exchange of ideas between participants and with FAO and guest experts knowledgeable about land tenure issues in the region. Participants have been able to apply the knowledge gained in the workshops to their own in-country activities, sometimes with financial support from FAO’s TCP (e.g. Serbia, Macedonia, Albania, see Table IV-2). They also appreciated the provision of hard copies of FAO publications at the workshops. The workshops are intended to provide a balanced input from both Western and Eastern European stakeholders; while this is appreciated, some Eastern European participants expressed a desire for more examples from countries at a similar stage in their development.
Solutions for Open Land Administration (SOLA) 113. The security of tenure of rural and urban populations is dependent on the capacity of land agencies to keep orderly, accessible and transparent land records. In many countries, paper- based records, which in most cases cover only a small proportion of the country, are in disarray due to poor storage, repeated handling, misplacement or unauthorized removal. Delays in processing result in backlogs of thousands of dispositions that cannot take effect in law until they are registered. Because of these difficulties, transactions of formal rights take place informally, very often through intermediaries (agents or ‘fixers’) who offer their services to help applicants ‘jump the queue’. Their cut greatly adds to the cost of transactions, and for these and related reasons official s often fall into disuse.
114. In recent years, the computerisation of land records using one or other proprietary software systems has been perceived as the answer, but in many cases the process has proved more difficult than foreseen. Problems arise in digitalizing paper-based land records. Apart from inaccuracies in the original survey data, local tenure categories may not easily fit imported software, the licence for which may not permit adaptation. There is invariably a chronic shortage of trained IT personnel to input the data and reconcile inaccuracies. Imported technical assistance is not the answer, unless local personnel are properly trained to take over the system, which may not be possible within the framework of the time-bound contracts of service providers. The problems can be compounded if different software systems are introduced by different donors funding land-related projects in one country. Where rapid urbanisation is underway, registration problems also arise where urban and rural land registration is carried out by separate authorities.
115. If these challenges are not enough, the conventional cadastre is not easily adapted to record the majority of informal and customary transactions. There is need for more flexible, inexpensive software to record and maintain information relating to land rights introduced by received law as well as customary law. Ideally the software system must cater for the recordation of formal, informal and customary rights within a system of “open land administration”.
116. After a long gestation period, FAO’s Solutions for Open Land Administration (SOLA) project, funded by Finland, started in June 2010 and is due to run for three years. Through the development of open source software, it aims to make computerized cadastre and registration systems more affordable and sustainable. Three Member States (Ghana, Nepal and Samoa) are
47 Information on the perceived relevance and utility of the workshop was gathered through the distribution of a short questionnaire and through face-to-face interviews with 11 participants.
29 engaged in modest ventures to pilot the use of the software. Each of these countries has a high proportion of land held in terms of customary law, but nonetheless each one is very different in nature. It is hoped that the project will promote affordable software systems that enable improvements in the transparency and equity of the cadastre. Unlike proprietary software, developers will have access to software that can be modified and adjusted. Open-source solutions are expected to be more flexible and adaptable to local cadastre and registration practices and languages than proprietary software. Over time it is hoped that a community-of- practice of agencies using SOLA will emerge and at a lower cost, but also will be recognised as international best practice.
117. The piloting of SOLA in three different situations, covering a good range of tenure categories, holds promise, especially the way the project aims to link FAO’s normative work to technical cooperation in an interactive way. However, implementation is expected to be particularly challenging. For several years now, UN-HABITAT’s Global Land Tool Network (GLTN) has been working with ITC and FIG on the Social Tenure Domain Model (STDM), described as a ‘pro-poor land rights recording system to integrate formal, informal, and customary land systems as well as administrative and spatial components’48. On several occasions between 2006 and 2009, the LTT participated with international partners in deliberations relating to SDTM, but eventually chose to develop its own system (SOLA) that, like SDTM, is based on the Land Administration Domain Model, but which has ‘gone through a few more refining iterations and now…. probably deals with informal rights better than STDM and certainly deals more comprehensively with formal land rights and their recording within land registration and cadastre agencies’.49
118. Assessment: The project has been in operation for little more than a year. Performance of SOLA will eventually have to be measured not only with regard to the introduction of an open source software solution for the registration of land rights, but also by the extent to which it helps to overcome other generic problems associated with land registration which could mask any potential benefits SOLA might deliver. The relevance of the project should be judged by the extent to which the systems for the recording of rights, formal, informal or customary, are accessible to the poor and increases their tenure security. Any mid-term review should include field visits to at least two of the pilot areas and be conducted in sufficient time to assess the significance of the initiative in overcoming attendant problems, to reset the schedule and, if necessary, adjust the scope of the undertaking.
FAO field programme in land tenure
119. Field missions and desk studies for this part of the evaluation, including the meta-evaluation (see Annex 5) and the review of selected projects (see Annex 6), involved half of all the TRA field projects (21 out of 42) undertaken by FAO during the period under review, 2006-2010. These included seven national TCPs, one regional TCP, nine GCPs, two OSROs, one UNJP and one UTF. The LTT was the lead technical unit (LTU) for nine of these projects; a staff member from NRL50 was the LTU for six projects and LEGN was the LTU for four projects. Many of the projects aimed to address land-related problems that had arisen as a result of conflict and/or major political and economic change.
120. The 14 projects led by the LTT (including REU) were implemented in Africa (eight), Asia and Pacific (three), Latin America and the Caribbean (two), and Europe (eight). These included 16
48 Lemmen et al. 2010. 49 NRC consultant and LTT member. 50 This staff member was part of the LTT till January 2010.
30 TCPs, two OSROs, two UTFs and one GCP. By far the leading technical subject was land consolidation; six projects were on this topic. Other TCP topics included land registration (two projects) and investments (two projects). The LTT also provided technical support for World Bank projects in 35 countries, which largely focused on land administration and registration reform. The bulk of LTT field and investment projects were concentrated in Eastern Europe and Central Asia.
121. The 12 projects led by the NRL staff member were implemented in Africa (three), Asia (three), and Latin America (five) and at global level (one). These included six TCPs, two GCPs and four UNJPs. By far the leading technical subject was agrarian reform; four projects were on this topic. The bulk of NRL project activity took place in southern Africa and to a lesser extent Latin America.
122. The five projects led by LEGN were implemented in Africa (four) and Latin America (one). These included one TCP and four GCPs. LEGN projects focused on supporting the drafting, implementation and dissemination of agricultural legislation (on land, forestry, wildlife, fisheries and water). In addition, LEGN was the LTU for 18 TCP projects which supported the development and/or modernization of agricultural legislation.
Meta-evaluation (ME) of past evaluations in the land sector 123. The Evaluation Team reviewed evaluations conducted by OED that included information about FAO’s support to the strengthening of TRA, normative work as well as field operations. Annex 5 contains details of the scope and content of the review and a synthesis of the results. The ME of the land sector involved 31 corporate, country and country project/programme evaluations carried out in the review period by OED (see Table IV-3 below). The ME also included forestry and fisheries projects which are discussed in Section VI of this report.
Table IV-1: Land-related projects with field operations included in the meta-evaluation
FAO - Real Time Evaluation of the FAO Emergency and Rehabilitation Operations in Corporate Response to the Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami evaluations - Evaluation of FAO's role and work related to water - Evaluation of Capacity Development in Africa - FAO’s Effectiveness at Country Level: A Synthesis of Country Evaluations: Post Conflict and Transition Countries: DR Congo, Sudan and Tajikistan - FAO's Effectiveness at Country Level : A Synthesis of Evaluations in Large, Rapidly- Developing Countries (India and Brazil) - Evaluation of FAO’s role and work related to Gender and Development - Evaluation of FAO's work in Commodities and Trade FAO Country - Honduras 2002-2007, Brazil 2002-2010, India 2003-2008, Tajikistan 2004-2009 and evaluations Sudan 2004-2009
FAO Project - GCP/MOZ/096/NET ‘Promoting the Use of Land and Natural Resources Laws for evaluations Equitable Development’ - GCP /MOZ/081/NET ‘Decentralized Legal Support and Capacity Building to Promote Sustainable Development and Good Governance at Local Level’
- GCP/INT/803/UK ‘Evaluation of the FAO/DFID Livelihood Support Programme’ - FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA) 2005-2007 - FAO-The Netherlands Partnership Programme (FNPP) - GCP /BIH/002/ITA ‘Inventory of Post-War Situation of Land Resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina’ - GCP /PHI/047/AUL Philippines-Australia Technical Support for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (PATSARRD) - OSRO/PHI/501/JPN ‘Emergency Rehabilitation of agri-based livelihood for
31 disadvantaged farmers and returning internally displaced people in Mindanao’ - OSRO/SUD/003/CHF ‘Support to restoration and enhancement of sustainable food security and livelihoods of vulnerable populations in Southern Sudan’ - OSRO/SUD/902/CHF ‘Support to sustainable reintegration and improvement of basic food security for households including; returnees (refugees and IDPs), host communities and other vulnerable resident population in Southern Sudan - OSRO/SUD/622/MUL ‘Sudan Productive Capacity Recovery Programme (SPCRP) - Capacity Building Component (SPCRP) in Northern Sudan’ - OSRO/SUD/623/MUL ‘Sudan Productive Capacity Recovery Programme (SPCRP) - Capacity Building Component (SPCRP) in Southern Sudan’ - UTF/HON/034/HON ‘Evaluación del impacto de los procesos de capitalización en el Programa de Acceso a la Tierra (PACTA) en Honduras’ - GCP/INT/810/BEL ‘DIMITRA’ - GCP/RAF/338/NOR ‘Gender, Biodiversity and Local Knowledge to Strengthen Agricultural and Rural Development’ - GCP /IND/177/NET ‘Programme Support to Nationally Executed (NEX) Land and Water Programme in India’ - UTF /IVC/027/IVC « Appui institutionnel au secteur du développement rural pour la sortie de crise en Côte d`Ivoire » - UTF /IVC/028/IVC «Appui aux organisations de base en charge de l’appui aux groupes vulnerables »
124. FAO’s field operations in the review period covered the length and breadth of TRA issues in the land sector. They included support to redistributive land reform as well as the strengthening of the rights of those in long-term use and occupation of the land. Assistance was provided for institutional and legal improvements, for post-emergency resettlement and land dispute resolution and for piloting innovations in land administration and land-use planning. This work was complemented by training and capacity development for land reform farmers (women as well as men), for government land survey and administrative cadres, for field personnel and for NGOs. Several projects aimed to reduce gender disparities in land holding, to rectify discriminatory practices among those with powers over land allocation and to work with women’s groups to bring about more equitable access to land. Most of the field projects in the land sector were located in sub-Saharan Africa; others were in Asia and the Pacific region, Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and in Latin America.
125. Relevance: The ME assessment of TRA field operations in the land sector, detailed in Annex 5, finds that most of the field projects were relevant as interventions were geared to resolving well recognised problems and constraints: e.g. insecure tenure; land fragmentation and abandonment; inadequate policy and legal frameworks and lack of up-to-date legal and technical knowledge on the part of officials, NGO personnel and community leaders. The tenure component of the two major partnership programmes (the FAO-UK Livelihood Support Programme and the FAO-Norway Programme Cooperative Agreement) was found to be relevant for the encouragement of better collaboration among FAO divisions responsible for normative work and those involved in field operations.
126. Efficiency: The findings of the ME are a reminder that inefficiency in development organisations is often rooted in organisational dysfunctions. It is not uncommon for tensions to develop between technical advisers in the field, offices in country capitals and the head office. At each level there are likely to be different opinions about what work should receive priority. If unresolved, disagreements can have a significant impact on overall efficiency. FAO seems prone to such difficulties, probably due to its large size and the fact that, in the absence of rotation, HQ personnel often become detached from field operations and are unaware of the pressures under which field personnel operate – and vice-versa. Added to these organisational challenges,
32 the national land policy arena is often highly charged, politicised, and contested by various stakeholders. FAO’s advocacy for responsible land governance can expose technical advisers and country representatives to unwelcome pressure and adverse criticism from government land agencies that are often poorly resourced and less than transparent in their operations. Obstructive manoeuvring by politicians and officials in matters of state land allocation can slow down project activities, especially those activities geared to protecting the land rights of the poor, the disadvantaged and the displaced. FAO country representatives have a tendency to regard projects which challenge the de facto land policy as too sensitive and complex and thus to be avoided. In Rome, disagreements as to how to handle these problems can cut across divisional lines. All this can lead to delay in project approvals and implementation, to loss of talented field staff, and ultimately to lack of attention to the FAO’s over-riding goals.
127. The ME suggests some possible causes for this relative inefficiency: lack of consultation and communication between NRC and NRL following the reorganisation of the former NRLA; lack of agreement between the TCE and the former NRLA on how to tackle problems in Sudan following the Comprehensive Peace Agreement between North and South Sudan; differences over how best to deploy personnel in the LTT to engage with the issues involved; not enough technical knowledge and awareness of TRA issues at regional and sub-regional level; insufficient time and personnel at country level to devote to activities in the project framework because of dysfunctional bureaucratic procedures handed down from Rome which have knock-on effects on staff morale, delivery of project outcomes and strained relations with the FAO country office. On the other hand, efficiency is reported to be satisfactory on land administration projects in Eastern Europe and in China, and in other countries where governments are supportive and agencies are relatively well resourced. It is clear that efficiency in TRA field operations is much more difficult to achieve in post-conflict situations in low-income countries in sub-Saharan Africa (e.g. Sudan, Mozambique and Angola) and in parts of Central Asia (e.g. Tajikistan) than in high and middle income countries elsewhere.
128. Effectiveness: With regard to effectiveness in achieving outputs and the sustainability of outputs, performance varies across the range of field interventions. The ME concludes, on the basis of project documentation, that overall FAO interventions were effective in achieving the planned outputs. In practice, it is not possible with the majority of field projects to reach firm conclusions about sustainability, if only because FAO is rarely in a position to ensure that ex- post monitoring is carried out. Information on the sustainability of project outputs and impacts of FAO interventions in the land sector is sometimes provided by OED Country Evaluation Reports, e.g. Sudan 2004-2009 and Tajikistan 2004-2009. The Sudan country evaluation report concludes that, ‘through its presence in Sudan, albeit limited in terms of human resources and somewhat restricted in the context of emergency relief, FAO began to build a stronger platform for dialogue on land issues with different partners’ which ‘initially resulted in the inclusion of a number of sporadic land-related activities in emergency projects’ (page 70), but these sporadic inputs by FAO were not enough.
Review of selected field projects in the land sector
129. The ET reviewed a number of field projects representing the range of FAO’s global support to land tenure: three land administration projects - two in Eastern Europe and one in China; one Africa-wide, land policy-related project; three land projects in southern Africa; and two land- related emergency and rehabilitation projects – one each in Central Asia and South Sudan. Findings are summarised below; more detailed descriptions are to be found in Annex 6.
130. In 2006/2007, FAO’s support to land administration in Serbia (TCP/YUG/3001) and in Lithuania (TCP/LIT/31010) has aimed to strengthen agriculture through reducing land fragmentation, as a
33 prelude to their joining the European Union. The productivity of Lithuanian agriculture, collectivised during Soviet rule, decreased markedly in the 1990s when state farms were broken up into smallholdings. The country’s accession to the European Union in 2004 required the rapid transformation of the agriculture sector, and to this end FAO’s support to land consolidation proved very effective. Serbian agriculture had not been collectivised to the same extent as Lithuania’s and land fragmentation following decollectivisation was just one of a number of challenges that Serbia faced in restructuring the agricultural sector. Thus, FAO’s support to land consolidation in Serbia proved less successful than it was in Lithuania as Serbia was affected by political and institutional constraints, which stood in the way of the land consolidation process (see Annex 6). Serbia is currently renegotiating its accession to the EU and further support for land consolidation from FAO may be requested.
131. FAO’s support to land administration in China (CP/CPR/3008 & 3107 “Rural Land Registration and Certification Piloting” July 2005 to March 2009) aimed to contribute to the development of a framework for land registration and certification of farmland and secure tenure. The project was jointly financed by FAO (through the TCP), the World Bank and CIDA Canada. After some delays, the project successfully achieved its planned outputs, namely: the production of a manual for land registration; the development of a computerised land registration system based on a pilot area; and a draft national strategy for rural land registration for discussion and follow up with the Government, the World Bank and FAO and further trials in a larger pilot area (still underway in 2011).
132. The project, TCP/RAF/3115 “Support to ICARRD follow-up and to the African Land Policy Initiative including regional stakeholders’ dialogue” (February 2008 to April 2009), made a significant contribution to the AUC’s Framework and Guidelines (F&G) for Land Policy in Africa (2010). The F&G are the output of a process which involved the tripartite institutions of the AUC, UNECA and AfDB and which, through a joint Land Policy Initiative (LPI), built partnerships and increased political will in support of land policy development and implementation. FAO’s support focused on West and Central Africa where it assisted the holding of two workshops in 2008 and a third in Addis Ababa. In 2010, the EU has set aside Euros 10.0 million for implementation and follow-up of the F&G in Africa by the LPI, the successful outcome of which is awaited.
133. The ET sought to review FAO’s support to TRA in more detail in a sub-regional context. This involved brief visits to Namibia, an in-country Mid-term Review of GCP/MOZ/096/NET in Mozambique June-July 2011 and by follow-up of documentation and with interview of FAO personnel involved in Angola during the evaluation period. It was concluded that in all three countries FAO supported post-war recovery, playing a significant role in the land sector in all three countries under challenging circumstances. FAO’s support is perceived to have been generally efficient, judged by the extent to which the development interventions were achieved and how economically resources were converted to results.
134. With regard to the technical support provided, it is apparent that where FAO has had a long- term engagement with land issues in a country or sub-region, its assistance has proved more relevant and sustainable. FAO’s involvement in Mozambique and Angola at the land policy development stage increased the appropriateness of its subsequent support to capacity development. FAO’s assistance to Namibia with the levying of a tax on commercial farms for the purpose of raising funds for the Land Acquisition and Development Fund was clearly successful in raising revenue. However, the resettlement programme (in which FAO had no hand), while providing access to land for the poor, has not been a sufficient condition for sustainable food
34 security and poverty reduction51 (see Annex 6). In the case of Namibia, lack of familiarity with the policy context placed FAO at a disadvantage in making a strategic intervention.
135. In the absence of any systematic monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the field programmes (i.e. baseline studies, impact assessment surveys) in Mozambique and Angola, little can be said for certain about impact. Attempts to set up M&E studies on GCP/MOZ/086/NET and GCP/MOZ/O96/NET came to nothing. It is not enough to measure outputs (e.g. the number of paralegals and government officials trained) because this reveals little about outcomes (e.g. the tenure security and improved livelihoods of the communities served). In the circumstances, it was necessary to fall back on ‘plausible attribution’ of project impact. In the case of the Mid- Term Evaluation of GCP/MOZ/O96/NET, it was concluded on the basis of qualitative information that over the years the FAO projects had had a noticeable impact on tenure security and livelihoods of the target group. This was in a situation where training courses had been organised for paralegals in 90 districts of a total of 128 since 2007.
136. In the case of Angola attribution of benefits from community land delimitation is less persuasive given the lack of progress with the implementation of the Land Law of 2004. According to a recent review of land reform in Angola, hundreds of applications to legalise community or family lands have not been processed, despite the fact that many of these applications were made years ago. Further, the Land Law and the Constitution of Angola, with regard to the rights of rural communities to their land, are reportedly not being respected by the authorities.52
137. Two OSRO field projects were back-stopped by the LTT during the review period: one in Tajikistan (OSRO/TAJ/602/CAN) Improved food security and enhanced livelihoods through institutional and gender-sensitive land reform, and the other in Southern Sudan53 (OSRO/SUD/819/CHF) Livelihood recovery for returnees, IDPs and vulnerable households through access to land for production and settlement. The interventions followed political settlements after civil wars with a view to rehabilitation and development. In each country, the assistance provided to the land sector was a component of a larger programme of assistance by FAO, the effectiveness of which is reviewed in a previous evaluation.54 While the land project in Tajikistan was found to be relevant and to have achieved its planned outputs, even if little is known about its longer term impact, the particular intervention in southern Sudan in 2008-2009 proved to be a ‘missed opportunity’ due to the failure of FAO to find the resources (funds and staff) needed for its effective implementation at a critical time (see Annex 6). Nonetheless, FAO’s support to South Sudan with the establishment of the Land Commission following the peace Comprehensive Peace Agreement in 2005 does appear to have been very worthwhile.
FAO-World Bank Cooperative Programme (CP) in Land Tenure
138. FAO’s Investment Centre (TCI) works with around 27 multilateral and international/ regional financial organizations. The World Bank (WB) and IFAD are TCI’s two largest partners and within these the topic of land tenure is recognised to be an important topic, but nonetheless a particularly sensitive one. The collaboration between FAO and the WB is part of a broader endeavour governed by a Memorandum of Understanding (dated 30 March 1964), which provides the basis for the FAO-World Bank Cooperative Programme (CP) administered at FAO Headquarters. TCI acts as an agent/intermediary between the WB and administrative units for
51 Werner, W. and Odendaal, W. 2010 52 Kleinbooi 2010 53 Now the country of ‘South Sudan’ 54 FAO 2010g
35 the recruitment of consultants, whose organisation is reimbursed the staff costs involved. The CP is funded partly through the charges TCI makes for its services and, partly through the FAO Regular Programme budget; an estimated 75% of the cost of services is covered by the Bank and thus decision-making remains firmly in the Bank’s hands. In theory, the WB is a member of the UN system, but it is so powerful in terms of its authority and influence that it can be viewed as totally apart from and ahead of other members of the system. The WB’s strength has long been based on the economic power and foreign policy strength of the USA, and to a lesser extent the other major industrialised countries. The USA, as its most powerful member has the privilege of having its own nominee elected as President.55
139. Over the past ten years, the Land Tenure Team (LTT) has provided technical inputs through TCI to the WB on 45 projects in 35 countries. The inputs have involved desk work and field missions for analytical and advisory work, project design, appraisal and supervision. This work typically involves one or more staff from FAO (or consultants obtained through FAO) participating in a team under the supervision of a WB team leader/task manager. The TCI Service covering Europe, Central and South Asia (TCIN) has used the services of the LTT to the greatest extent. The East Asia and Latin American Service (TCIO) and the Africa Service (TCIA) have not availed themselves of the services of LTT as much as TCIN; largely because East Asia, Latin America and Africa have not attracted bankable land administration projects on the same scale56. There has been collaboration between the TCI and the World Bank on normative work on land sector policy, with the WB providing funding for FAO for studies and joint publications. As noted by one WB staffer, ‘FAO supports the WB as well as countries’.
140. The inputs from FAO that are needed by the WB are negotiated on an annual basis. Regional units within the Bank, as part of their regular financial planning process, develop annual estimates of the staff weeks needed from FAO in the coming year. Task managers apply for and receive allocations from the agreed-upon staff weeks and build them into their project financial planning. Each task team leader in the Bank manages his/her allocation of FAO staff time by asking the LTT team for inputs into projects as required during the year. When FAO experts are not available for a task, TCI will often contract with outside consultants recommended by the LTT or World Bank staff in order to fill the gap. This is not an uncommon occurrence as member country requests often come with little notice.
Eastern Europe and Central Asia 141. During the WB’s Fiscal Year 2010, LTT work in this region constituted about 28% of the work delivered by TCI to the WB. The work of two technical experts under the technical supervision of the LTT, on fixed-term contracts funded by the WB, has focused on ECA countries largely in support of WB projects in this region. The project and related normative TRA activities involving WB/FAO collaboration in the region during the review period are set out in Table IV-2. It shows all projects that were active after 01 January 2006, and includes several that were initiated some five years previously and have involved inputs by FAO staff over several years. Technical inputs by members of the LTT include advice on land policy, on improving security of tenure by strengthening land registration and cadastral systems, and on rural property valuation and
55 The sensitivity of FAO’s relationship with the World Bank in relation to land matters is not new. It was given close attention in a critical review by Demetrios Christodoulou (1990), who had a 20-year career with FAO (1960-80) and ended as Agrarian Reform Policy Adviser. See his Special Note on the World Bank, pp 187-193. 56 The LTT provided its staff (or supervised outside consultants) on investment projects in Central America (5), sub-Saharan Africa (7), Southeast and south Asia (12) and Europe and Central Asia (16). This distribution is largely the result of country demands and historical factors. For example, the large emphasis in ECA and Latin America is the result of the unique circumstances of these regions.
36 taxation. Within FAO, the LTT has been the primary player in this collaboration by focusing on the delivery of the land administration skills sought by the WB.
Table IV-2: World Bank Europe and Central Asia TRA Projects with FAO Participation, 2006-2011
Total Project Project Country Project WB Project title FAO input approval Cost (GNI status)* end date Share date (US$ m) (US$ m)
Albania Land Administration Supervision 2007-2 2013-6 56.0 20.0 (UMC) and Management project Azerbaijan Real Estate Preparation 2007-3 2013-2 38.6 30.0 (UMC) Registration Bosnia & Land Registration Supervision/ 2006-4 2012-3 17.0 15.0 Herzegovina preparation (UMC) Bulgaria Registration & Supervision 2001-6 2009-3 37.1 33.5 (UMC) Cadastre Project Croatia Real Property Supervision 2002-8 2010-6 37.0 34.1 (HIC) Registration & Cadastre Integrated land Preparation N/A N/A 26.5 23.8 administration systems Kosovo Property Related Technical N/A N/A NA NA (LMC) Briefing Paper for input Kosovo Future Status Negotiations Business Environment Supervision/ 2005-6 2011-6 7.0 7.0 Technical Assistance preparation Project component 2 enhancement of real property rights Kyrgyzstan Kyrgyz Land and Real Supervision 2000- 6 2008-12 9.4 9.4 (LIC) Estate Registration Project
Kyrgyz Second Land Supervision/ 2008-7 2013-5 7.5 5.9 and Real Estate Preparation Registration Project Macedonia Real Estate Cadastre Supervision 2005-3 2013-12 16.0 14.0 (UMC) and Registration Project and Additional Financing Moldova Rural Investment and Component 2009-5 N/A 14.0 10.0 (LMC) service project II on land re- (RISP) parcelling Montenegro Land Administration Design/ 2008-12 2014-4 32.3 16.2 (UMC) & Mgt Supervision
Romania CESAR Supervision/ 2007-11 2013-6 70.0 65.0 (UMC) preparation
37 Total Project Project Country Project WB Project title FAO input approval Cost (GNI status)* end date Share date (US$ m) (US$ m)
Russian Cadastre Supervision 2005-7 2011-6 129.5 100.0 Federation Development Project (UMC) Registration project Preparation 2006-6 2014-5 101.5 50.0
Serbia Real Estate Cadastre Component 2004-5 2011-10 39.5 30.0 (UMC) and Registration design Project
Tajikistan Land Registration & Supervision; 2005-4 2012-3 10.6 10.0 (LIC) Cadastre System for component Sustainable design Agriculture Project Turkey Support to General Component 2008-5 2013-9 210.1 203.0 (UMC) Cadastre and Registry design Directorate Ukraine Rural Land Titling & Supervision 2003-6 2012-6 350.5 195.1 (LMC) Cadastre Development Project Total 1,210 872
* Gross National Income per capita status: HIC = High Income; UMC = Upper Middle Income; LMC = Lower Middle Income; LIC = Low Income Source: FAO, FAO-Financing Organizations Collaboration (2011), note provided to the Evaluation Team by TCIN.
Latin America 142. The LTT has also made an important contribution to the land-related work of the WB in Bolivia, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua and Panama. The focus had been on capacity building of local authorities, and on the evaluation and assessment of issues relating to communal lands and rights of indigenous peoples. The LTT also made inputs into the Central America Land Policy Note (Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua) and a Seminar on Land Reform (Paraguay). In Honduras, FAO advisors contributed to the implementation of the World Bank Project “PACTA”57, involving the acquisition of land and the formation of productive enterprises for poor rural families, supporting the rural sector at two different levels (the enterprise level and the community level). Credit was provided for the acquisition of land and then complemented with training.
Africa 143. In the three years for which data are available (2009-2011), LTT has provided TCIA with consultants (mostly from outside FAO) for WB projects in Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Malawi and Ethiopia and for minor inputs in Mozambique and South Africa. FAO has helped with two regional reviews of land administration reform.
South and east Asia 144. The LTT has provided technical inputs to projects in East Asia for a number of years (in Laos, China and Indonesia), though not directly in the Pacific Islands which are considered too
57 TCP/HON/2901 “Apoyo para el establecimiento y análisis del Programa de Acceso a la Tierra”; UTF /HON/025/HON “Unidad de Gestión de Fondo de Tierras” and UTF /HON/034/HON “Apoyo para el funcionamiento de la Unidad de Gestión y la ejecución del Programa de Acceso a la Tierra (PACTA) Ampliado”
38 fragmented for large-scale investment. The LTT was also involved in three WB projects in India (2) and Sri Lanka.
Discussion 145. Reports on the LTT’s investment work in all regions, but particularly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, from TCI, the World Bank, country counterparts and the LTT staff members were very positive overall. The relationship between the LTT, the TCI and the WB is reported to be of great mutual benefit. For the LTT, the opportunity has mobilized additional resources to support field operations that would otherwise be seriously constrained by the modest regular programme budget of FAO. The WB has accessed much needed technical skills for assignments to member countries and enabled the LTT to develop experience and skills for its own programme of support to land consolidation activity in ECA countries and elsewhere. The FAO’s policy-related experience, obtained through its normative work, is reported to have resulted in positive outcomes for the WB’s investment projects. Because the WB lacks sufficient numbers of task managers with land expertise in some regions, it is reported that LTT members sometimes act as de facto task team leaders on these projects. The close working relationship developed with the WB’s Land Tenure and Administration Thematic Group has also provided the LTT with opportunities to make inputs into high-level land policy consultations within the donor community. Task managers remarked that the involvement of FAO in WB projects gives those projects better access to key stakeholders, for example in the Ministry of Agriculture, in member countries. The assignment of FAO staff is reported to add credibility to the policy advice put forward by the WB in the politically delicate area of land policy. The WB likes to work with the LTT because it sees FAO as an independent, unbiased, purely technical, think tank. Indeed the WB proudly presents FAO as ‘independent’ mission members.
146. The different types of assignment organised in Latin America by TCIO for the CP are also reported to be mutually satisfactory. FAO experts are said by the WB to bring a ‘global vision’ covering the length of the project cycle and a neutral perspective devoid of political prejudice. The LTT members are said to have a good understanding of the legal, institutional and socio- economic issues relating to the customary tenure of indigenous people and the need for gender equity. Finally, the LTT brought an understanding of working with CSOs in support of strengthening the land rights for poor people, of importance in the Region.
Concerns58 147. Judging by the evidence presented by TCI and WB informants, the programme scores highly in terms of service delivery and the contribution made by FAO. However, the high proportion of WB land projects, that is 40% of the total projects undertaken in the evaluation period by FAO’s land tenure group59 and the concerns expressed by internal and external informants of an overconcentration by FAO on land administration work in Eastern Europe and Central Asia for the WB and the corresponding lack of work in poorer countries should not be ignored. The ET’s attention was drawn to: the lack of alignment of WB and FAO’s priorities; the use of FAO staff as consultants to other organisations, and FAO being less strategic in its work and more opportunistic.
58 The ET is not in a position to conduct a systematic evaluation of the CP’s contribution to land tenure and make judgements on its efficiency, effectiveness and impact. The evaluation’s findings are necessarily provisional and offered for consideration. A forthcoming (2012) evaluation of FAO’s support to Investment in Agriculture will assess the relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of the CP programme in more detail. 59 Compare Table IV-2 ‘World Bank Europe and Central Asia TRA Projects with FAO Participation, 2006-2011’ (total 20 projects) and Annex 2 Inventory of Tenure-related Field Projects 2006-11 (total 30 land tenure projects)
39 148. There is also concern about the danger of FAO losing its neutrality when so much work on land tenure is channelled through the WB and tied to investment projects. There is evidence that the political sensitivity of land tenure issues leads to reluctance on the part of poor countries to involve the WB on account of the perception that it is not an entirely neutral arbiter. This is in contrast to FAO which is generally seen by external stakeholders to be providing neutral technical advice relating to land reform, even if FAO’s changing ‘political canvas’ has become more closely aligned with that of the WB (Lipton 2009, p 68). Several stakeholders interviewed for the evaluation perceived that the close relationship with the WB was influencing the nature of land tenure work undertaken by FAO, and thereby its neutrality. This seems to have led to a dearth of FAO land tenure advisors with credibility in other regions, which are different to the kind of advisors used by TCIN.
149. The ET was informed that the LTT is anticipating more CP assignments in TCIA, and possibly also in East Asia, and progressively less in ECA. In documentation provided to the ET, TCI state that “the substantive experience acquired by the LTT in ECA is now being used in the rapidly expanding joint work with the WB in other regions”. However, the TCI data do not support the belief that there is currently a rapid expansion in Africa. The ET understands that there are few situations in which the ECA experience with parcel-related land administration can be readily applied in sub-Saharan Africa.
150. FAO and WB land experts are well aware that in the majority of African countries the customary domain covers 75% or more of the land. They know from empirical evidence gathered in the 1990s that attempts to introduce land titling and registration in rural areas in Africa often had no significant impact on farm production. Nonetheless, the evidence showed that traditional tenure systems were flexible and responsive to changing economic conditions. Where population pressure and commercialisation have increased, these systems have evolved from communal rights to systems of individual rights or to new configurations of communal and individual rights when rights holders decide that these are more appropriate, particularly in peri-urban areas.
151. At this stage, the scope for bankable investment projects in land administration reform in sub- Saharan Africa is still very limited. Above all, there is need for support for legal and institutional development and for training and capacity building for government and civil society. Much can be learnt from current FAO support to the land and natural resource sector in Mozambique, where an integrated approach is being used to strengthen the knowledge of officials and CSOs about laws regulating tenure rights and access to land and other resources and to the development of community-investor partnerships.
152. The ET was informed by NR, when it was justifying the current regional distribution of LTT field operations, that FAO’s technical assistance is driven by demand and not supply and that there is no practice of “seeding projects or approaches according to some preference or another”. The ET understands that, in the final analysis, FAO’s technical assistance projects must be based on actual requests for assistance from a member country. Nonetheless, FAO staff and consultants together with funding partners do play a legitimate role in influencing the nature and scope of projects. Depending on the type of project, gentle persuasion is achieved through pilot projects in the sub-region, publications, conferences and discussions with member countries, etc. While the process may not be supply-led, it is fair to say that FAO and its funding partners have a considerable influence over the type of support they offer. The evaluation team observes that FAO staff and consultants are certainly not passive in these matters.
40 153. The evaluation team notes that the mutually beneficial relationship between FAO and the WB under the CP has its dangers. There is unease that the availability of WB funding may have distorted patterns of work on TRA by FAO, potentially compromising FAO’s reputation as a provider of independent advice and, due to scarce staff resources, limiting FAO’s capacity to provide non-paying member countries with services. The evaluation team suggests some points for consideration: The funding available through the TCI appears to have favoured a particular type of work in land tenure at the expense of a more balanced programme, regionally and in technical content. There is a perception that LTT’s role of making consultants available through the TCI for the WB’s projects could undermine FAO’s independence and the setting of its policy principles and priorities.
154. The final point is particularly worrying in that FAO is simply acting as a consultant to the World Bank compromises an important comparative advantage of FAO, namely its image as a neutral source of policy advice and technical assistance, with the provision of a service to member states related to their overriding goals of sustainable food security and poverty alleviation as FAO’s first priority.
V. Key cross-cutting themes and programme areas
Gender and disadvantaged groups
155. Background: For the great majority of the rural poor, access to land and natural resources is essential for food production and income generation. It is also an important social and economic asset, essential for cultural identity and participation in decision-making. The customs and habitual practices that a group of people accept and follow often discriminate against their own members or outsiders because of their gender, social class or ethnicity. Besides women, there are other groups that often cannot obtain equitable rights to land. These may include certain occupational classes, minorities such as hunter-gathers, forest-dwellers, pastoralists or migrants who have no customary claims to land. For many of these groups, lack of secure access to land is an important cause of their poverty.
156. Ensuring equitable access to land for men and women increases economic opportunities and encourages investment in land and food production and improves family security. This link is clearly made in the ‘State of Food and Agriculture: Women in Agriculture; Closing the Gender Gap for Development’ (FAO 2011), according to which women comprise on average 43% of the agricultural labour force in developing countries, ranging from 20% in Latin America to 50% in Eastern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
157. FAO recognizes that to reduce hunger and poverty and promote sustainable development, efforts must be made to address these inequalities. ‘Gender equity in access to resources, goods, services and decision-making in rural areas’ has been one of FAO’s eleven Strategic Objectives since 2010. Four units, namely: (i) the LTT in NRC, (ii) NRL, (iii) the Gender, Equity and Rural Employment Division (ESW) and (iv) the Development Law Service, have all played important roles in bringing land and gender issues to the fore. While the four units closely cooperate, they also have discrete products and projects, which are described in turn below.
158. Land Tenure Team: The LTT took the lead in the ‘Improved Food Security and Enhanced Livelihoods through Institutional and Gender-Sensitive Land Reform in Tajikistan’ (OSRO/TAJ/602/CAN), from 2006 to 2008. This project, in collaboration with ESW, was found in
41 the recent evaluation of FAO’s work in Tajikistan to have been successful in supporting women’s empowerment and access to resources.
159. The most important mainstreaming effort by the LTT during the review period has been in the context of the development of the Voluntary Guidelines. The consultative process for the VGs has involved a substantial number of women in the various consultations, and gender issues have been a focus of deliberations in the consultations. The LTT recently commissioned a gender analysis of VG issues (Daley and Park 2011). The First Draft of the VGs (2011) specifies the need for non-discriminatory, gender-sensitive and gender-inclusive approaches to dealing with TRA issues. ‘The Principles of Implementation’ include ‘Non-discrimination’ (3.2.2) and ‘Gender and social equity, and gender and social justice’ (3.2.3). The section on ‘Rights and Responsibilities’ guides States to remove and prohibit all forms of discrimination, including those affecting inheritance, change in marital status, legal capacity, and access to economic resources (4.7) and calls for States to provided gender-sensitive assistance to people who need help in getting access to courts and other processes that could affect their tenure rights (4.8). In the section on safeguards, in connection with legal recognition and allocation of tenure rights and duties, it is provided that States should ensure that the records of newly allocated tenure rights show spouses (7.3). In the section on Markets in land rights, there is the guideline that when tenure rights are traded States should establish safeguards to protect the tenure rights of spouses and others who are not shown as holders of tenure rights in recording systems, such as land registries (11.6). In the section on redistributive reforms, it is provided that States should clearly define the intended beneficiaries of such reforms, including women (15.1). The LTT has also cooperated with ESW in a number of gender-focused activities.60
160. From the interviews with LTT and ESW staff, it appears that there has been generally effective cooperation on both the VGs exercise and more generally on mainstreaming gender in the LTT’s work. The collaboration has been facilitated by the LTT having a gender focal point in the group with specific responsibility for ensure such collaboration and mainstreaming.
161. FAO concern about the land rights of indigenous minorities goes back to ‘The International Decade of the World’s Indigenous Peoples’ (1995-2004) when the Land Tenure Service in the Rural Development Division provided the Focal Point for these Issues. At the end of the International Decade, the Service devoted an edition of its house journal to papers addressing the main issues that are at the core of recognition of indigenous people’s land rights.61 During the recent consultative process for the Voluntary Guidelines, the LTT received proposals, publications and opinions as inputs for the zero draft of the VGs on the resolution of conflicts over rights to indigenous peoples’ land. The First Draft of the VGs (2011), in the context of ‘Investments and concessions’ (12.3), advocates that States should meet their relevant international obligations and voluntary commitments concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. It is expected that the LTT in collaboration with ESW will develop an implementation guide on indigenous issues.
60 Capacity development on the integration of gender analysis in water and land tenure management (Angola, Cape Verde, Mozambique, and Timor-Leste - GCP /INT/052/SPA, 2007-11); Workshop on Gender Equity in Land Tenure, December 2009, Rome; Workshop on the gender implications of large land-based investments, December 2010, Rome. 61 Land Reform, Settlement and Cooperatives, 2004/1 ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/007/y5407t/y5407t00.pdf.
42 162. Land and Water Division: NRL has played an important role in two collaborative efforts with ESW62. Again, ESW indicates that they have had good experience with collaboration with the NRL team. NRL, like the LTT, promotes this collaboration by designating one staff member as gender focal point with particular responsibility for such collaboration.
163. Gender, Equity and Rural Employment Division: ESW has responsibility for facilitating the mainstreaming of gender in FAO’s work generally, while the relevant departments bear primary responsibility for the mainstreaming process within their work. ESW has been notably active in the TRA area, due in part to the importance of TRA issues for their work and in part to a long- standing interest of ESW staff in these issues. The unit has a nominated person as the ‘focal point’ for gender and land issues plus at least two other experts with strong international expertise in TRA issues. ESW’s role has appropriately been focused on normative outputs to inform activities across a wide range of TRA issues (see Table V-1).
Table V-1: ESW’s output of normative products relating to gender aspects of TRA
Details Year Partner organisations The State of Food and Agriculture 2010-2011 Women in 2011 None agriculture. Closing the gender gap for development Gender and Land Rights database 2011 None http://www.fao.org/gender/landrights/home Agri Gender Statistics Toolkit 2010 None Gender and Land Rights. Understanding complexities and 2010 None adjusting policies (Policy Brief 8) Gender dimensions of agricultural and non agricultural 2010 IFAD and ILO employment. Status, Trends and Gaps. UNAIDS, Legal Empowerment Land and Property Rights. Junior farmer field and life school 2010 for the Poor Project, Norway (JFSL), facilitator's guide and the Netherlands DIMITRA Belgian Ministry for Land access in rural Africa. Strategies to fight gender 2008 Development Cooperation & inequality. FAO Dimitra Project Workshop King Baudouin Foundation DIMITRA, IDRC, International Workshop Brochure: Women's access to land in West Africa: 2008 Development Research problems and suggested solutions in Senegal & Burkina Faso Centre (Canada) Villarreal, Marcela "Changing customary land rights and gender relations in the context of HIV/AIDS in Africa", 2008 None Colloque international “Les frontières de la question foncière – At the frontier of land issues”, Montpellier, 2006 "Gender, property rights and livelihoods in the era of AIDS" Norwegian Ministry of Foreign 2008 FAO technical consultation. Proceedings report Affairs (funding publication) Vulnerability and Property Rights of Widows and Orphans in the Era of the HIV and AIDS Pandemic: A Case Study of 2008 None Muleba and Makete Districts, Tanzania Children's Property and Inheritance Rights in the Context of Norwegian Ministry of Foreign 2007 HIV and AIDS Affairs (funding publication) Children's property and inheritance rights, HIV and Aids, and Norwegian Ministry of Foreign 2007 social protection in Southern and Eastern Africa Affairs (funding publication)
62 Preliminary guidelines for Improving Gender Equity in Territorial Issues (IGETI) by P. Groppo and I. Sisto (2010); and the creation and maintenance of FAO’s impressive Gender and Land Rights Database, online at http://www.fao.org/gender/landrights/home.
43 Details Year Partner organisations Improving gender equity in the access to land. FAO Land 2006 Produced and funded by LTT Tenure notes 2. Izumi, K. "The Land and property rights of women and orphans in the context of HIV and AIDS. Case Study from 2006 None Zimbabwe"
164. In addition, ESW has provided technical inputs to a number of NRL and LTT-led interventions. ESW has also led the backstopping of the project ‘Capacity development on the integration of gender analysis in water and land tenure management’ (GCP /INT/052/SPA), which sought to integrate a gender approach in legislation, policies and programmes on land and water administration and management in Angola, Cape Verde, Mozambique, and Timor-Leste. ESW is currently leading the second phase of the project ‘Rural Women and Development Collection, Processing and Dissemination of Information – Dimitra’ (GCP/INT/810/BEL), from which documents and communication materials have been published under the Land Tenure Series.
165. ESW and the LTT have made important contributions to the gender-related work of the Global Land Tool Network (GLTN), including the study ‘Gendering Land Tools: Secure Land Rights for All’ and the ‘Training Package on Improving Gender Equality and Grassroots Participation through Good Land Governance’.
166. A recent evaluation of FAO’s ‘Role and Work related to Gender and Development’ (2011) found that the Gender and Land Rights database managed by ESW is widely used, including in the production of the State of Food and Agriculture 2010/11 (which considered gender disparities in access to land) and the International Land Coalition’s Land Portal. From interviews with stakeholders and the review of projects and documents, the ET confirms that positive achievements have been attained in integrating a gender perspective into FAO’s land tenure initiatives.
167. ESW has a long-standing collaborative relationship with UN Women (formerly UNIFEM), including on the land reform project in Tajikistan. A senior representative of UN Women has suggested that ESW be more of an advocate for women farmers and their rights to land and water63. UN Women has also expressed an interest in working closely with FAO to update the Gender and Land Rights database – the evaluation team feels that such collaboration could be valuable, and should be considered.
168. The Development Law Service: LEGN has collaborated with ESW in the development of the Gender and Land Rights Database. During the evaluation period, it has produced one gender- focused TRA publication in its Legislative Studies series ‘Gender and Law - Women's Rights in Agriculture’64. In addition, the informative Legislative Study No. 105, ‘Statutory recognition of customary Rights; An investigation into best practices for lawmaking and implementation’65, examines, among other things, the extent to which the land laws of Botswana, Tanzania and Mozambique treat women’s land rights and those of disadvantaged groups and suggests how they might be better protected.
63 FAO 2011a. 64 Cotula, L. 2007. 65 Knight, R. 2010.
44 169. Currently LEGN is the Lead Technical Unit on two projects in Mozambique: ‘Promoting the use of land and natural resources laws for equitable development’ (GCP/MOZ/096/NET)66 and ‘Community level legal education and support to help rural women secure and exercise land and resource rights, and address HIV-AIDS related tenure insecurity’ (GCP/MOZ/086/NOR). In the former, NRL also has a backstopping role and in the latter ESW has a backstopping role, all of which fosters fruitful collaboration between the organisational units involved.
170. Conclusions: FAO has long had an international leadership role in Gender and Development. Within FAO, the integration of gender insights into the work of the organization on TRA land tenure has been exceptionally strong, based as it is on a dual strategy; namely: maintenance of a strong TRA capacity in the unit responsible for mainstreaming (i.e. ESW) and the inclusion of gender-sensitive expertise within the units working on land tenure. The current organizational arrangements and the interactions between ESW and the TRA units LTT are judged to be effective. There may be lessons to learn about the future mainstreaming of TRA issues across the organisation from the way Gender and Development issues have been successfully mainstreamed in FAO’s land tenure-related work.
171. Member countries do not often go to ESW for assistance on gender and TRA issues, but to the TRA units. It is their responsibility to provide appropriate gender-sensitive advice and assistance. ESW does not have as many staff working on TRA issues as in the past and not enough to provide backstopping for all field operations. As recommended by the recent 2010 evaluation of FAO’s role and work on gender, and approved by the FAO Conference in July 2011, the ET supports the need to increase gender capacity, particularly at regional level, as it will allow FAO to keep abreast of the expanding needs for guiding the mainstreaming of gender- sensitive TRA for land and other natural resources. Their support is necessary not only for those few TRA projects which specifically focus on women. For gender mainstreaming, their involvement is necessary in the majority of TRA projects because it is difficult to imagine a TRA project in which gender-sensitivity is not needed.
Emergencies
172. Emergencies arising from conflict: Disputes over access to land and water resources frequently lie at the heart of conflict-related emergencies. Such conflicts are often deeply rooted, especially in the arid and semi-arid lands of sub-Saharan Africa. Knowledge of the history, nature and scale of conflicts and the options for amelioration and conciliation are vital for long- term risk management. Consideration of TRA issues is also imperative in an emergency response phase and again in managing a recovery process. Land and water tenure issues frequently increase in the aftermath of territorial conflicts, even if they were not the cause in the first place. Failure to take account of the ingrained TRA issues can exacerbate and prolong crises and lead to further loss of life and resources.
173. In 2005, the then-Land Tenure Service produced a good practice guide on ‘Access to rural land and land administration after violent conflicts’ in the Land Tenure Series. It draws on FAO’s experience from Lebanon, Afghanistan, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, Guatemala, Sudan, Congo, Sierra Leone and Rwanda, and Timor Leste; the last-mentioned being a country in which 75% of the population were displaced by a war of independence in the late 1980s. Other countries in which FAO has gained valuable experience of post-emergency land tenure services
66 The follow-up to Decentralized Legal Support and Capacity Building to Promote Sustainable Development and Good Governance at Local Level (GCP /MOZ/081/NET).
45 are Mozambique and Angola, for which NRL has been assigned responsibility for TRA work since the reorganisation of FAO’s unified Land Tenure Service in 2010.
174. Disappointment has been expressed about the failure of the Natural Resources Department to provide consistent support for field operations in the face of long-running conflict in Sudan in the critical period 2008-2009. Scarcity of personnel and funds and requirements for land tenure services elsewhere contributed to the withdrawal of FAO’s land tenure services from TRA work in Sudan. It is reported that, as a result of FAO’s withdrawal, UN-HABITAT stepped in to fill the gap, in Sudan as well as in Liberia, where FAO has had no presence.
175. Following the ‘Evaluation of FAO’s Sudan Cooperation 2004-2009’67, which contains a detailed account of the successes and failures of FAO’s land-related work in Sudan (see Box V-1), FAO’s involvement in the now newly independent Southern Sudan may be resumed, following a scoping study in July 2011 and a report on the options for FAO’s return to field operations, in which serious land related conflict is on the increase.
Box V-1: Weaknesses of FAO’s TRA assistance to land conflict-ridden Sudan 2008-2009
“Weaknesses. At a corporate level, despite significant engagement in land governance issues in Mozambique and Angola, consistent support could not be established for Sudan. Possible reasons have to do with the very limited staff in the FAO LTT, lack of land tenure experts in sub-regional offices, and an ‘atmosphere’ of marginalization of the importance of land tenure at HQ.
Still more important, concerns that land tenure is a too political issue, and the fact that most countries do not entrust land tenure to their ministries of agriculture (which are in most cases the ‘natural’ counterparts of FAO) constituted an obstacle to FAO’s effective engagement. The fact that the land tenure work has and is being managed by the emergency division was viewed by some people interviewed during the mission as contributing to a short-term outlook not conducive to tackling long term issues like land governance.
FAO invested little in monitoring the results of their land work in Sudan and many people question the added value and impact of FAO’s activities on land governance as in fact resource-based disputes seem to be on the rise and the situation on land tenure security is still the same as in 2005. Despite the fact that FAO’s work on land issues was broadly recognized as highly professional up to 2008 (resulting in having a land law in place at the end of 2008), no impact can be shown as people are simply not aware of this law (even in the states, which are the ones which should work on the implementation of laws). At the Government of Southern Sudan level, legislative direction is missing; in fact all FAO implemented land tenure work has ended at pilot stages only.
Inadequate attention was paid to communication about FAO’s work in land tenure at country level. In the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF) very little is known for example about FAO’s activities in relation to land tenure security (although MAF should be a key stakeholder in this; as much as the Southern Sudan Land Commission, Ministry of Housing etc). The turnover of staff within agencies working in Sudan is high and a number of people (including FAO staff) interviewed by the mission showed very limited awareness of FAO’s long term engagement in land tenure work.” Source: ‘Evaluation of FAO’s Sudan Cooperation 2004-2009’, page 70 (FAO 2010)
176. TCE has been concerned that the LTT has shown insufficient understanding of the urgency and short-term nature of humanitarian emergencies, while the LTT point out that it is not enough to deal only with the symptoms of a crisis, without reference to the underlying causes. No doubt, part of the problem has been the short-term nature and scarcity of emergency funds, urgently
67 FAO 2010e.
46 needed for relief work. There can be no doubt that if land-related conflicts are to be forestalled, monitoring and follow-up of past land-related conflicts are essential. So is engagement with the government authorities and in-country specialists, in order to advise on policy and legal reforms and to ensure that FAOs country-level and regional personnel are fully briefed and aware of the importance of FAO’s TRA work. However, the long running nature of land and water related conflicts in the Sahel and Horn of Africa raises questions about how FAO can best assist given the lack of capacity and commitment to land governance among the member countries involved.
177. Emergencies arising from natural disasters: Requests to FAO for post-emergency support for the resolution of land tenure issues also arise in connection with natural disasters – hydrometeorological and geophysical. In complex cases, the impact of a natural disaster may also be exacerbated by the effects of long-running political unrest, as was the case of the floods in Pakistan’s North West Frontier Province in 2010, and currently in the drought-related emergency in Somalia, September 2011. However, many natural disasters are not accompanied by conflict and the assistance requested is of a more technical nature involving the reconstruction and development of a land administration system.
178. In cooperation with FAO’s TRA units and international partners , TCE has collaborated in the production of the training manual, ‘Assessing and Responding to Land Tenure Issues in Disaster Risk Management’ (FAO 2011) and a series of six country briefs ‘On Solid Ground; Addressing Land Tenure Issues following Natural Disasters’. These cover: floods in Mozambique; cyclones, floods, landslides, and storm surges in the Philippines; geophysical disturbances in Ecuador; hurricanes in Honduras; tsunamis, floods and earthquakes in Indonesia; and flooding, river erosion and cyclones in Bangladesh. As the introduction to the manual explains, it is for people working on emergency response and disaster risk management. It aims to provide an overview of the major land issues that may arise following a natural disaster and that require consideration in the response, recovery and rehabilitation processes.
179. FAO and its partners need to be sure that there is a plan of action to circulate the document to agencies involved in emergency response and disaster risk management in member countries, and that where necessary technical assistance will be provided for follow-up training courses in countries and regions most at risk.
180. While the TRA units in the Natural Resources Department have developed a fruitful interaction with ESW to ensure the integration of gender insights into the work of the LTT, similar close cooperation has yet to be achieved with the Emergency Operations and Rehabilitation Division (TCE) for post-emergency TRA work. In February 2011, the LTT and TCE collaborated on the recruitment of a consultant to work on developing closer links between FAO’s land tenure and emergencies work, but a suitable candidate was not found – possibly due to the initial short- term nature of the position. The consultancy was to help develop closer links between the NRC and TCE as they share a joint organizational result for in the PWB for the coming biennium. However, given the evidence of the increasing scale and frequency of emergency work, such an initiative can only be a temporary respite.
181. Conclusions: The ET concludes that more resources will be needed at the HQ and field level if FAO is to play a useful role in reducing the impact of conflict-related emergencies and to advise and assist with TRA issues arising from natural disasters. There is also a need to sensitize and build the capacity of FAO staff at HQ, regional, sub-regional and country levels to deal with TRA issues in emergencies and in the recovery phase.
47 Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security
182. FAO’s TRA experts have been distilling the essential policy principles that should guide the governance of land since before ICARRD in 2006. Formal commencement of the Voluntary Guidelines process was delayed until 2009 when the required extra-budgetary resources were made available by Germany and Finland. The process is being led by the ‘Voluntary Guidelines Secretariat’ in the Climate, Energy and Tenure Division (NRC), Department of Natural Resources. The steps to the drafting of Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure are set out below (Table V-2).
Table V-2: Steps in the Voluntary Guidelines Process
2006 International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Agricultural Development (ICAARD), Brazil 2008 Background studies on policy principles: Thematic Studies and Expert Group Meeting Clear FAO mandate for preparation of the VGs: Germany and Finland provide funding. Multi- 2009 stakeholder consultations held for private sector, civil society, and regional groupings. Preparation, review and finalization of an initial draft of the VGs: Additional funding provided by IFAD and Switzerland. FAO hold expert group meeting and an electronic consultation and 2010 continue regional consultations. Publications track the process, including assessments from all the regional consultations, and papers from FAO discussing what the VGs need to address. Finalization, launch and submission to Commission on World Food Security (CFS) April, for 2011 discussion by open-ended working group and then formal consideration by 37th session of CFS July 25-28, 2011. Presentation of the draft to the open-ended working group. 2012 Implementation: preparation of country and regional action plans.
183. To embrace as wide a range of country circumstances as possible, the guidelines are intended to be general in nature and to cover a wide range of tenure arrangements, not only parcel- related land administration. The latest draft of the VGs deals with tenure rights and responsibilities, including indigenous and other customary rights and informal rights; state ownership and control of land; natural resources and the role of the state in overseeing spatial planning, land markets and the administration of tenure; dispute resolution; climate change and the restoration of tenure rights and access following natural disasters and violent conflicts.
184. For the process of developing the tenure guidelines and because of their cross-cutting nature, the Natural Resources Department developed mechanisms for interacting with other units within FAO. The size of the task and the need for resources required FAO to partner with other international actors, including UNDP, IFAD and UN-HABITAT and donor organizations. The interaction with stakeholders took place through an extensive programme of consultations. Regional meetings were held in Brazil, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Jordan, Namibia, Panama, Romania, the Russian Federation, Samoa and Viet Nam. These brought together almost 700 people, from 133 countries, representing the public and private sectors, civil society and academia. There was also one consultation with the private sector in London, which drew over 70 people from 21 countries. There were four regional consultations for civil society in Italy, Malaysia, Mali and Brazil attended by almost 200 people from 70 countries.
185. In the course of the development of the VGs, there was some change in their scope. Originally the guidelines were to deal with ‘land and other natural resources’. The initial discussions included not just agricultural land but also urban land, forest land, fisheries, minerals and water. As discussions proceeded, it was concluded that minerals and water could not easily be
48 accommodated within a land governance framework. A separate technical guideline relating to water governance is being produced separately by FAO. The latest version of the draft VGs is entitled ‘Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security’68.
186. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), including members of the International Land Coalition (ILC), felt that the Zero Draft of the VGs (April 2011) was too focused on what States should do and queried whether the VGs were addressed only to governments. The guidelines failed to ‘unpack’ the definition of State and that of Governance and insufficiently addressed issues of decentralisation, territorial development and citizens’ rights. The NGOs argued that these concerns were particularly relevant for the protection of biodiversity, the commons and indigenous and customary rights, which are treated in the VGs as ‘permissive’ rights, awarded by the State, rather than ‘primary territorial’ rights recognised and protected by the State. It was argued that there was need for a more balanced view that assigned governance roles to other actors69. Efforts were made in the subsequent drafts to respond to these concerns.
187. As stated above, the VGs were intended to broaden discussions about land policy principles and go beyond what was perceived to be an earlier preoccupation among FAO’s land tenure experts with parcel-related land administration and registration. However, there are some among those the evaluation team consulted who feel that the VGs still devote too much space to classical land administration. This point was made differently by various respondents, sometimes as a failure to fully address access issues and to recognize clearly intermediate forms of tenure as frequently prevail in informal settlements in urban areas.
188. Some of those interviewed among the NGO community and also those linked to the Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy in Africa expressed concern about the voluntary nature of the guidelines. They felt that if the process was voluntary it would be unlikely to move forward. They argued that nothing would happen in terms of implementation unless governments were pushed and that CSOs must use the VGs as an instrument for advocacy at the national level. Others point out that if consensus is to be obtained, the guidelines cannot be binding on all Members. It is understood that the Voluntary Guidelines approach to policy issues has been used before, for example with the Voluntary Guidelines on the right to adequate food adopted by the FAO Council in 200470.
The Voluntary Guidelines and other natural resources
189. The Voluntary Guidelines, which are focused on land tenure issues, also cover forestry and fisheries, and try to identify the common elements in the TRA challenges and opportunities facing these different resource systems71. Yet even in this case, interviewees and responses to the evaluation team’s questionnaires indicate that fisheries people, for example, have not been involved enough in the process. There is a sense that the fisheries and forestry communities do not have the same level of feeling of ownership as the agricultural land and farming community.
190. Water was at one time meant to be included in the VGs. However, as more thought was given to the joining of land tenure and water rights principles and guidelines, it became apparent that
68 The reasons why water was not included in the VGs are discussed in detail in Part VI 69 Compendium and synthesis of submissions by Members, partners and individual experts in the ILC network to the e-consultation on the Zero Draft of the FAO, ILC Secretariat, May 2011. 70 The ‘Voluntary Guidelines to support the progressive realization of the right to adequate food in the context of national food security’ were adopted by the 127th Session of the FAO Council in November 2004. 71 See discussion on the Voluntary Guidelines in Section V.
49 the differences are greater than the similarities. There also are some fundamental differences in approaches, water TRA focusing on allocation, rights and access issues within the context of management of the resource at the basin or aquifer level, and land tenure focusing more on administration of tenure systems and clarification and security of individual tenure rights in a political system. As a consequence, water was dropped from the VGs. Many stakeholders interviewed for this evaluation were disappointed with this decision. However, many recognized the reasons, and felt that the arguments for not including water in the VGs were for the most part valid. The evaluation team agrees. These arguments in simple terms were that:
In order to accommodate water, it would be necessary to reconcile the VGs in the context of the hundreds of transboundary treaties and agreements that govern water management, allocation and use. This would have meant bringing in legal expertise and the resulting debates could have resulted in lost momentum and delays. As mentioned in the introduction to this chapter, transboundary water challenges and opportunities are widespread and significant, as are the rights and access issues associated with them. The eventual conclusion was that the differences between water rights and land rights and tenure outweighed the similarities: “broad divergence in terms of land tenure rights and water rights is such that while the two types of right contain a number of similarities the differences are both greater and more striking”72.
191. If water had been included, it would have been necessary to make the VGs even more general and non-specific and technical than they are at present. In fact, there is a high level of generality in the current draft of the VGs. One interviewee suggested that this is to be expected, “… now that the VGs are out of the hands of technical people and into the hands of political people who are masters at compromise through simplification.” Two donors interviewed felt that the reasons for exclusion of water, while well-communicated and explained within FAO, had not been adequately communicated and discussed with the outside stakeholders.
192. A number of external stakeholders expressed concern over the absence of water governance from the Voluntary Guidelines: “we cannot talk about land without talking about water” (CSO). One donor expressed surprise at the exclusion of water from the Voluntary Guidelines, saying that its inclusion would have been “an asset”. The absence of water rights from the Voluntary Guidelines was described by an independent consultant as “a serious void” – it would have been preferable to either include water, or to limit the Guidelines to agricultural land tenure and have separate Guidelines for the other natural resources. It was felt that this gap cannot be filled with the implementation guideline on water, because “you cannot implement what isn’t considered in the Voluntary Guidelines... the Guidelines are what is needed to be done, and the implementation guidelines are how” (CSO).
193. The arguments for including fisheries and forestry in the VGs are quite sensible73:
Fisheries and Forestry were interested in joining in on the project; and FAO’s LTT in the early days worked closely with forestry colleagues in the DFID trust fund project “Livelihood Support Programme” (sub-programme on “access to natural resources”). So, a close
72 Burke, J. n.d. Draft Issues paper relating to the technical guidelines on water. This insightful paper provides an excellent discussion of the similarities and differences between the TRA challenges and opportunities and governance issues facing water and land. 73 We thank David Palmer for very helpful comments on the background on inclusion of forestry and fisheries.
50 relationship and mutual understanding had developed by the time the main work on the VGs started. During 2006-09, FAO’s LTT worked closely with both fisheries and forestry colleagues in the “Legal Empowerment of the Poor” project (funded in 2006-08 by Norway and in 2009 by Norway and the Netherlands). In a sense, the very recent joint work on the VGs by land tenure, fisheries and forestry staff was a logical continuation of this history of collaboration. In reality the TRA challenges for land, forests and inland fisheries are closely linked: the livelihoods of many of the poor, and particularly the rural poor, are diversified and are dependent on access to several different natural resources. Households may combine crop agriculture and livestock grazing with fishing and hunting in forests, and sometimes in ways that are completely integrated, for example, crop agriculture in the form of paddy rice in wetland areas or on land that emerges when lake levels retreat seasonally. Floodplains and seasonally inundated areas that are not claimed for crop agriculture are also often used for livestock grazing. Access to forests provides non-timber forest products/minor forest products (e.g. wild game, nuts, berries, fuel wood, oils, fibres, medicinal plants, etc). The boundaries between agricultural land, forested land and fisheries capture and aquaculture are dynamic. For example, the clearing of forests for agricultural purposes (including ranching) has been well documented. Thus, it makes sense to consider the governance of tenure for all three together. By including forestry and fisheries (with emphasis on inland fisheries and aquaculture), the draft VGs promote the adoption of a coordinated approach for the administration of land and other resources.
194. Conclusions: The evaluation team thinks that FAO was correct in taking water out of the VG process for the various reasons put forth. At the same time, it believes that if extra-budgetary funding can be found it should be a priority of FAO to produce a set of VGs for water along with the water implementation guidelines that already are started. As one interviewee indicated, the implementation guidelines are suggestions on “how” to do things, you also need something (VGs) on what those “things” are. Since water is not considered in the current VGs, a separate set is needed for water. An alternative is to combine the “what” and the “how” in one consolidated document.
195. The evaluation team was made aware that several discussions on the options for implementation of the VGs have taken place, but decisions must await their approval by the CFS and requests for assistance from Member Countries. Set piece, land policy development processes that embrace all the relevant guidelines are unlikely to be feasible for most countries, which will no doubt have to tackle their many and complex land issues by adopting a more incremental approach74. In this regard, it has been suggested that, if and when requested by member countries, FAO should prepare a menu of actions or implementation guides consisting of detailed checklists for specific countries to use at different levels of government. Countries would choose what priorities they wished to address. It is hoped that those requests will provide FAO an opportunity to build a programme of work in which there is more coherence between the normative activities and field operations than in the past.
196. It is premature to come to a conclusion on whether the investment in the VGs was worthwhile. The investment was very much an outlay in a consultation process, about which the evaluation team received generally positive feedback, and which will no doubt contribute to the credibility of the VGs. The process of developing the VGs has provided an opportunity for FAO to interact on a variety of critical issues with the member countries, civil society groups and private sector
74 Adams and Knight 2011.
51 actors. Much will depend on whether the CFS endorses the VGs and upon the extent to which the policy principles set out in the document are taken on board by member countries. If nothing else, the process has raised the profile of tenure issues, which is important. There is no doubt that it has been expensive. In addition to a large proportion of the regular budget and some USD 4.6 million in extra-budgetary support, it has taken up much of the staff time available for work on land tenure, and to a lesser extent on TRA related issues in water, forestry and fisheries, since 2008.
197. FAO should be selective in implementation of the VGs and pro-active in pursuing issues that are of concern to the Organisation. The guidance documentation prepared should not be constrained by the consensus nature of the VGs, but represent a clear FAO position on these issues, far more specific and focused. That guidance should be sector-specific, as appears to be the plan, dealing not only with land governance but forestry, fisheries and water governance as well, within a corporate strategic plan. Large-scale Land Acquisitions
198. Since 2007, there has been growing unease about the increasing demand for large blocks of agricultural land in developing countries for commercial production of food crops and biofuels, the bulk being for export. The demand is primarily driven by rapid increases in food and fuel prices and comes from domestic and international investment (often linked). The land under threat – be it savannah, woodland or tropical forest75 – is invariably occupied in some way, especially if the extent and nature of customary land use systems are fully taken into account. The formal title of these very large areas is however often vested in the State, presenting evident risks for local rights and livelihoods when states want to put such ‘unused’ land into production. While FAO as an organisation has been actively involved in this issue since 2008, when member countries began to request information and advice on managing the new wave of requests for land, it is important to note that at country programme level, since the mid 1990s, FAO has been supporting the development of land management instruments that can produce an equitable solution to the dilemma posed by the need to attract capital onto unused land without undermining local livelihoods. The Mozambican programme has been especially active in this regard, starting with the development of the community consultation instrument in the 1997 Land Law, right up to the present with its support to a government pilot project to promote community-investor partnerships in projects requiring large areas of land.
199. At the international level, principal actors within FAO are the LTT, the Trade and Markets Division (EST), which has been actively promoting discussions on this issue within FAO for several years and seeking to promote it in other international fora, and the Legal Department, which has participated in discussions and is seeking to update the 1998 manual on a framework for international investment.
200. FAO initiated support for a series of analytical studies by the International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) in 2008, and published a working paper ‘Bioenergy and Land Tenure, the implications of biofuels for land tenure and land policy’ (Cotula et al 2008) and a policy brief ‘From Land Grab to Win-Win’ (FAO 2009), which argues that the ‘land grab’ if managed properly could in the end benefit the global food production and the world’s poor. In 2009, IIED published an FAO/IFAD-supported report ‘Land Grab or Development Opportunity?’
75 As discussed in Part VI, this is closely related to FAO’s concerns with deforestation and loss of woodlands, since many of the large land areas acquired by locals and outsiders are forest land. “Land grabbing” has been a major concern in forestry circles for many decades.
52 Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa’ (Cotula et al 2009). This study involved in-country research in Ethiopia, Ghana, Mali, Madagascar, Mozambique, Sudan and Tanzania. In 2010, IIED published another FAO/IFAD-sponsored report, ‘Making the most of agricultural investment; Agricultural investment and collaborative business models’ (Cotula and Leonard 2010), which surveyed experiences with business models of agricultural enterprise that did not require the acquisition of land. A further publication by IIED explores ‘Land Deals in Africa: What’s in the Contracts?’ (Cotula 2011). Cotula has also prepared a Thematic Paper (5B) ‘Land tenure issues in agricultural investment’ to accompany FAO’s ‘The State of the World’s Land and Water Resources for Food and Agriculture (SOLAW)’ (2011)76. The thematic paper contains useful guidelines on safeguarding local land rights and on local land rights as a lever to obtaining a stake in large scale agricultural investments.
201. To raise awareness and influence policy and practice, FAO has also taken up the issue of large- scale land acquisition in the context of the “Voluntary Guidelines for Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security” (see section above). The current version of the VGs (September 2011), in Section 12 on Investments and Concessions, call for support of investments and concessions in land while safeguarding against dispossession of tenure rights and livelihoods and against negative human rights impacts, food insecurity and environmental damage. Explicit references are made to the avoidance of potential negative impacts on women. The VGs urge new policies and laws which require agreements on certain standards, including periodic review and clear and enforceable sanctions and negotiations with all affected parties. They urge pre-negotiation studies, transparent processes, broad consultation, and effective monitoring of implementation and impacts of agreements.
202. FAO, the World Bank, UNCTAD and IFAD are developing a minimum set of ‘Principles for responsible agricultural investment that respects rights, livelihoods and resources’, the so- called RAI Principles. These principles aim to provide a framework to which national regulations, international investment agreements, global corporate social responsibility initiatives and individual investment contracts refer. 77 The Trade and Markets Division (EST) is FAO’s lead technical unit in these matters. However, it is equally clear that dialogue and collaboration with the field programmes should be encouraged in this context. For example, the current Mozambican programme is aiming to develop a guidelines document for promoting equitable, income enhancing community-investor partnerships within a wider framework of ‘inclusive business’.
203. Land Rights and REDD: The evaluation notes that large scale land acquisition is a major factor in deforestation and has been of concern to the FO for some decades. While the focus of the large scale land acquisition work is somewhat different, FAO has an opportunity to take advantage of some of the potential synergies between its work in land rights issues (for example, the methodology of community delimitation)78, and the search for ways to ensure that communities benefit from the REDD process and become active beneficiaries and stakeholders in work related to reducing deforestation. For example, FAO now is involved in a major way with UN-REDD work related to reducing deforestation. This work can be informed by FAO and partners’ work on land management, participatory territorial planning, Large-scale Land Acquisition, and vice versa.
76 http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/solaw/files/thematic_reports/TR_05B_web.pdf 77 Hallam 2011. 78 See Land Tenure Working Paper No 13. Participatory Land Delimitation. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/ak546e/ak546e00.pdf
53
204. The RAI Principles were developed following the attempted large-scale acquisition of forest land for agriculture in Madagascar in June 2009. They set out seven principles: 1) Existing rights to land and associated natural resources are recognized and respected; 2) Investments do not jeopardize food security but rather strengthen it; 3) Processes for accessing land and other resources and then making associated investments are transparent, monitored, and ensure accountability by all stakeholders, within a proper business, legal and regulatory environment; 4) All those materially affected are consulted, and agreements from consultations are recorded and enforced; 5) Investors ensure that project respect the rule of law, industry best practices, are viable economically and result in durable shared value; 6) Investments generate desirable social and distributional impacts and do not increase vulnerability; and 7) Environmental impacts due to a project are quantified and measures taken to encourage sustainable resource use while minimizing the risk/magnitude of negative impacts and mitigating them.
205. The UN Committee on Food Security have agreed that consultation and finalisation of the RAI principles will occur after finalisation of the VGs. This should provide the opportunity for the points made in the VGs on local land rights to be mobilized in that discussion.79
206. In October 2010 the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) requested its High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) to conduct a study on land tenure and international investments in agriculture to be presented at its next session in October 2011. The HLPE report80 was published in 2011 and contains recommendations which have implications for follow up by the LTT and future directions for FAO’s support to TRA.81
207. Conclusions: The role of FAO in this area would be to provide sound counsel to governments and development agencies on how to manage this process, a role in which FAO has considerable credibility; especially compared with major bilateral donor agencies from which countries many of the investors come. The multilateral donors, who can often leverage policies using the funds at their disposal, have a lesser role in this sensitive area.
208. The ET notes that from replies to the staff surveys and interviews with regional staff FAO had been unable to provide adequate advice on LSLA, given the lack of country-specific, up-to-date information on the topic. An exception to this has been Mozambique where FAO has been working with the Government and communities since the mid-1990s devising and testing procedures to promote community-investor partnerships involving land for agriculture, forestry and wildlife development projects, with growing success. However, FAO and other agencies, including IIED and ILC have now produced a series of useful country studies on the subject, potentially useful for FAO field staff and FAORs to share with governments.
79 http://www.fao.org/economic/est/investments/building-international-concensus-on-rai-principles/en/ and http://www.responsibleagroinvestment.org/rai/ 80 http://www.fao.org/cfs/ru/ 81 Recommendation 3: …”there is need for legal, financial and technical advice to be available for governments as well as local communities. One option is for this legal advice to be provided by the FAO Land Tenure Service”. Recommendation 12: ….”the CFS shall seek to establish at the FAO an observatory for land tenure and the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines, ensuring that investments will result in decreased hunger and poverty in host communities and countries”.
54 VI. Review of FAO support to TRA for other natural resources
209. This section provides background information on key TRA issues related to natural resources. It then reviews the TRA challenges and opportunities for FAO associated with natural resources other than agricultural and grazing lands. Included are forests, wildlife, fisheries, and water. For each of the “other” natural resources, we provide: a brief discussion of priority challenges and opportunities; and a review of what FAO is doing related to these challenges and opportunities. The final section provides an evaluation team perspective on the key points related to FAO activities in TRA for the “other” natural resources.
210. Background: The TRA challenges related to land and to other natural resources are similar in many ways. But there also are some significant differences in TRA challenges introduced by the complexities related to the different characteristics of these resources82,83. For example, the fact that water, fish, and wildlife are renewable, non-stationary resources has unique TRA implications that are not faced when dealing with land tenure. Thus, while individuals can have tenure or ownership of land, in the case of access to renewable resources, the concern most often focuses on rights to certain amounts at certain times, governed by management of the overall supply over time84. Access to water (such as for irrigation) has to be controlled on an overall basis based on the annual flow availability and the seasonality of the flows, or the amount of groundwater drawdown that is allowable when considering recharge rates. The same is true of stocks of fish and wildlife. These TRA issues do not exist in the case of agricultural land, where the focus is more on the clarity and security of individual or group ownership of specific parcels. In the case of renewable natural resources, the useable supplies can be expanded or contracted over time. The TRA implications are significant in some cases.
211. Another difference between land and the “other” natural resources is that forests and wildlife, for example, are consumed by humans, while land is a basic input for production of these other renewable natural resources. Water is both consumed and used as an essential input for producing forest products, wildlife, and fish.
212. In the case of flow and non-stationary resources, such as water, fish and wildlife, there are also a number of very important international TRA issues that do not apply to a stationary and fixed resource such as land, other than in the case of border disputes. The transboundary issues related to water TRA are particularly widespread and important:
“... approximately 40 per cent of the world’s population lives in river and lake basins that comprise two or more countries, and perhaps even more significantly, over 90 per cent lives in countries that share basins. The existing 263 transboundary lake and river basins cover nearly one half of the Earth’s land surface and account for an estimated 60 per cent of global
82 It is because of the differences that water was not included in FAO’s current work developing the Voluntary Guidelines as discussed in section V. 83 Burke, J. n.d., Draft Issues paper relating to the technical guidelines on water. This paper provides a good discussion of the similarities and differences between the TRA challenges and opportunities and governance issues for water and land. 84 Cf. Adams, Berkoff and Daley 2006.
55 freshwater flow... In addition, about 2 billion people worldwide depend on groundwater, which includes approximately 300 transboundary aquifer systems85”.
213. However, it should be noted that given its mandate as a neutral United Nations organization, FAO does not generally deal directly with transboundary water disputes. Rather, FAO typically plays an “honest broker” role, providing advice and legal counsel to help countries resolve the issues themselves. It also produces significant legal and planning documentation to help countries understand and deal with transboundary challenges. In general, there is good cooperation among countries sharing transboundary waters86 – meaning that even national water rights regimes must typically take into consideration impacts on users in other states.
214. The above is not to say that there are no similarities and opportunities for linkages between land TRA and other natural resources TRA activities. In fact there are many such linkages, and FAO takes advantage of a number of them.
215. In what follows, we look in greater detail at the particular characteristics of the various resources other than land, and review how the FAO has dealt with these resources in its TRA related work associated with each. As mentioned, in some cases this involves activity that reaches across land and other resources; but in most cases it has involved normative activities and field work that has focused mainly on the resource systems in question and the departments dealing with them. The notable exception is the work of LEGN, which has reached across all the resources and associated TRA elements covered here.
TRA challenges and opportunities related to water: water rights and alternative means of water allocation
216. Approximately 70 percent of the fresh water used in the world goes to agriculture87. Water demand for agricultural production is only set to increase, as the global population grows and incomes rise – leading to a continuous increase in the demand for food. The majority of this increase in demand is occurring in the least developed countries of the world. Yet, availability of water for poor farmers in these regions is declining as rivers and aquifers become over- abstracted – and as increasing climate variability continues to impact on the reliability of rainfall patterns. Access to water of acceptable quality is also becoming an important issue, as surface water bodies become increasingly polluted and unfit for use. These problems of quantity and quality are exacerbated by relatively inefficient use of water for agricultural production: only around half of the water used in agriculture is done so productively to produce agricultural outputs88. Under these deteriorating conditions, rights and access to water by the poor for agricultural production increasingly are becoming a challenge for an agency such as FAO, whose mandate is to ensure sustainable food security in the developing world.
217. When considering water rights and access challenges and opportunities in an agricultural context, a key point to keep in mind is that land and water rights are closely interdependent – both resources are used together in agriculture; and “failure to take account of this interdependence can undermine land tenure security, foster land disputes and contribute to
85 UN-Water 2008. 86 Ibid. 87 FAO. n.d. 88 IFAD. n.d.
56 resource degradation”89. In arid or semi-arid regions where irrigation is necessary for agricultural productivity, access to land without access to water is meaningless to the farmer. Recognition of the interactions between land and water resources was a major factor behind the emergence of the concepts and principles of “integrated water resources management,” “integrated watershed management” “integrated river-basin management”, etc., which explicitly include consideration of water and land TRA challenges and opportunities at the landscape level90.
218. While the two need to be considered together, one also needs to recognize that there are a number of important distinctions between water rights and land “rights” or tenure91. This is partly because land is a fixed, stock resource, while water is a flow resource. While land rights, or tenure can be vested directly in a ‘legal person’ (an individual, a group, a company, a trust, etc.), a water right in statute law is a legal right to divert and/or impound and use water from a natural source, generally with a limitation on timing and amount92. The right given is to use water, not own it. Also, in the case of water, the focus is on assigning rights in the context of the management of the available water resource as a whole, whereas in the case of land, the main focus is on administration of tenure of individual parcels of land.
219. A main concern with water in agriculture relates to irrigation: Typically in irrigation schemes the water right is vested in the scheme’s management; the water rights of the individual farmer are subsidiary and derive from ownership of or use of land within the irrigation scheme. The enjoyment of this subsidiary right then depends on the effectiveness of the scheme management; the unpredictable characteristics of water resources require continuing active management if water rights are to be delivered and, even then, water security cannot always be guaranteed (a fact recognised in all irrigation water supply agreements). Moreover, if an individual diverts water directly from a natural source, the individual right is conditional on water of the required quality and quantity being available and thus is also dependent on management of the resource at the basin level93.
Water and TRA: FAO’s contribution
220. The main work on water-related agricultural issues is undertaken in the Natural Resources Management and Environment Department (NR). The Land and Water Division (NRL) aims at enhancing agricultural productivity and advancing the sustainable use of land and water resources by promoting improved tenure, management, development and conservation of land and water resources.
221. The Water Development and Management Unit (NRLW) is engaged in a programmatic approach to agricultural water management, addressing water use efficiency and productivity, and best practices for water use and conservation, throughout the continuum from water sources to final uses. Specific targets are integrated water resources management, water harvesting, groundwater, use of non-conventional water, modernization of irrigation systems, on-farm water management, water-quality management, agriculture-wetlands interactions, drought impact mitigation, institutional capacities, national water strategies and policies, and
89 Cotula, L. (ed.) 2006. 90 Cf. Gregersen, H., et al. 2007. 91 Cf. Burke, J. n.d. Draft Issues paper relating to the technical guidelines on water, for a thorough discussion of the differences and similarities. 92 Hodgson, Stephen 2004. 93 Adams, Berkoff and Daley 2006.
57 river basin and transboundary waters management. NRLW sees three roles for its activity: providing information and knowledge, policy advice, and technical assistance (field work).
222. With its continually updated water information system AQUASTAT, and tools for analysis such as CROPWAT, AQUACROP and MASSCOTE, NRLW is able to contribute to the formulation of national and regional water management strategies and perspective studies. Most of this work touches on TRA issues, but it is not a central theme addressed by NRLW.
223. NRLW collaborates with other technical departments of FAO. The Development Law Service (LEGN) in the Legal and Ethics Office has also made an important contribution to FAO’s work on water TRA issues, for example in the publication of legislative studies relating to water rights (mostly before the period of evaluation considered here). LEGN has also assisted member countries in revising water legislation that governs access to the resource.
224. Despite good intentions, the resources directly devoted in the area of water to TRA-related challenges and opportunities are few (as shown in Part III of this report), and their use has not always been very effective as found by the recent evaluation of water activities in FAO.
The 2010 OED evaluation of FAO’s role and overall work related to water
225. In 2010, FAO’s Office of Evaluation completed an evaluation of FAO’s role and overall work related to water94. As indicated in the final report, the activities in FAO related to water take place in a great number of different units and cut across the entire agency. However, the evaluation provides little information on FAO’s work related to water rights and access to water, or on the units responsible for this topic. None of the recommendations relate directly to TRA, although the first one recommends defining a water mission statement for FAO that includes special consideration of “the inclusion of poor and vulnerable groups.” These groups are those likely to have the least secure access rights for water.
226. The basic points made in the Evaluation regarding water TRA related work are as follows:
The Evaluation Team had particularly high praise for the TRA related work on water done by LEGN. The evaluation found that LEGN’s engagement in this area has been “…highly effective and widely recognized, and unique in the wider scenario of international organizations working in the water sector”. The evaluation points out that LEGN has made “…direct contributions to defusing the potential for legal disputes over transboundary waters, for example in the case of the Iullemeden aquifer”. At the same time, the Evaluation concluded that most of the contributions “have understated gender concerns”. The Evaluation also concluded that most countries are not familiar with LEGN work: “…the likely explanation is that work by LEGN, by being rather specialized, is not widely known but is well appreciated by those who use it and are acquainted with it”.
With regard to setting up water users associations (WUAs)95, the report states that: “The complexities inherent in setting up and running WUAs are well described in the Participatory Rapid Diagnosis and Action Planning for Irrigated Agricultural Systems
94 FAO 2010d. 95 When WUAs are set up there is a transferral of responsibility for operation of irrigation infrastructure (and therefore of access to irrigation water) from governments to WUAs (see Hodgson 2009, Creating Legal Space for Water User Organisations).
58 (PRDA), a manual produced within the IPTRID umbrella by FAO, the French Cooperation and IWMI. In general, in NRLW emphasis has been placed on WUAs. However, in a normative product drawing on the African experience, “Water and the Rural Poor: Interventions for improving livelihoods in Sub-Saharan Africa”, the Unit adopted a livelihood perspective, and placed emphasis on the need to include poor households in the decision-making processes and the importance of ensuring access to water rights for the poor users, rather than just setting up WUAs”.
The Evaluation had praise in general for the normative outputs of FAO in the water area. Two examples were explicitly singled out as good work related to water TRA. Both were produced in 2006 within the FAO Livelihood Support Programme framework. These were: “Access to water, pastoral resource management and pastoralists' livelihoods: Lessons learned from water development in selected areas of Eastern Africa” with information on Kenya, Ethiopia and Somalia, as well as “Land and water rights in the Sahel: Tenure challenges of improving access to water for agriculture” (the latter undertaken in partnership with IIED).
The Evaluation also looked at the FAO field programme, which included 76 ‘Water and Food Security’ projects that represented 43% (approximately USD 200 million) of all water-related initiatives; 59 of which were conducted under the umbrella of the Special Programme for Food Security. The Report had the following water access related conclusions: “Some of these projects showed positive results and impact, but only for restricted numbers of beneficiaries. Overall these projects failed in improving access to water resources for agriculture and food security for many among the rural poor, and did not adequately address sustainable land and water management. Any positive impact may thus be short-lived. Shortcomings have occurred particularly in Africa, and internal management issues and unrealistic time frames appeared to be among the main reasons for failures in implementation, although technical deficiencies also occurred”.
227. Towards the end of the report, the Evaluation Team states that: “FAO’s work should actively pursue and promote accelerated access to water for production by the poor, in ways that enhance, not threaten, environmental sustainability. This is a daunting but unavoidable challenge”. Although the normative work undertaken by FAO with regards to TRA issues was considered by the evaluation to be of good quality, the assessment of field work suggests that FAO projects have not succeeded in rising to this challenge.
Recent normative work related to water rights and access
228. As mentioned by the 2010 Water Evaluation, FAO has undertaken substantial normative work related to water; and the evaluation team judged this work to be good. LEGN has produced a series of normative publications during the last few years related to legal aspects of water rights and interactions between water and land rights and access96.
229. With regard to information and knowledge, FAO maintains an extensive multi-scale information base on water for use at global, national and local levels. AQUASTAT, FAO's global information system of water and agriculture, monitors and reports on water resources and agricultural water use in member countries. FAO’s information serves as the basis for decisions in major international natural resources management initiatives (UN-Water, World
96 Cf. Hodgson 2006; Hodgson 2007 ; Ramazzotti. 2008; Vapnek et al. (eds) 2009; Hodgson 2009.
59 Water Forum, etc.) and feeds into international conventions (UNCCD, UNFCCC, CBD) in which FAO is active and provides knowledge and expertise. In most of these activities, water rights and access issues and opportunities enter the picture as part of an integrated approach to water management.
230. In the area of policy advice, FAO has produced a number of guides that help shape agricultural policies in relation to land and water management. In some cases, such work can be considered both as general interest normative work and country specific (although not field projects as such). For example, the “customary water law case studies” for specific countries provide insights both for the individual countries involved and also for other countries contemplating various programs and actions related to reconciling customary and statutory laws related to water.
231. Of specific importance is the linkage between TRA challenges and opportunities for water and agriculture, where there are significant interactions between agricultural land tenure and water rights and access. NRL has specifically focused on irrigation policy and legislation, and has produced over the past five years or so a series of country studies97. In addition, as mentioned earlier, the recent OED evaluation of FAO work related to water had high praise for two publications produced within the FAO/DFID Access to Natural Resources Sub-Program within the LSP98.
232. FAO, with the contribution of the Italian Government, is developing an integrated package of technical and policy assistance guides to provide countries with a comprehensive methodology for assessing, analysing and reporting on the use of scarce water resources.
233. “Coping with water scarcity – the role of agriculture” will provide a detailed assessment of agricultural water use, including its productivity, its value-in-use, and its efficiency during the water use process, giving the countries handles to adapt their water policy and improve their water management in the future through strategic interventions to increase their capacity to cope with water scarcity. This project will also consider water rights and access issues, since the more scarce water becomes, the more likely it is that access will have to be regulated and in some cases curtailed.
234. FAO, UNESCO, IAH and GEF have joined forces to address groundwater governance in a new project: Groundwater governance - A global framework for country action99 . Since it deals with governance, it also deals with TRA issues, which are central elements in any system of governance. The primary focus of the project is the set of human behaviours that determine groundwater use and abuse. The objective is to accelerate the adoption of improved groundwater resource governance from resource management institutions for millions of individual users. Rights and access issues are central to the development of improved groundwater resource governance. This is a global project, but also involves country work.
Recent field projects with water TRA elements
235. Through its Development Law Service, FAO has a fundamental “enabling” mandate: it helps member countries sharing a transboundary river, lake, or aquifer to establish a legal and
97 These include individual reports on irrigation policy and legislation for Mozambique, Kenya, Botswana, Tanzania, Ghana, and Swaziland. 98 These were: Gomes 2006 and IIED 2006. 99 Groundwater Governance: A Global Framework for Country Action (GCP /GLO/277/GFF).
60 institutional environment conducive to stable and mutually beneficial cooperation100. This is done with a view to managing, allocating use rights and developing transboundary water resources for the benefit of agriculture, fisheries and other uses, including ecosystem support. Recent examples include the permanent Consultation Arrangement established in 2007 by Algeria, Libya and Tunisia for the management of the Northern Sahara Aquifer System, and the similar arrangement currently being negotiated by Mali, Niger and Nigeria for the management of the Iullemeden Aquifer System. FAO also works to strengthen the ability of the governments of the Nile Basin to take informed decisions with regard to the management and allocation of their water resources101.
236. A number of water projects have TRA elements in them, even though not identified in the titles102. Some examples are the following: Study on Analysis of Sustainable Water Resources Use (GCP /RAS/241/JPN), involving China, Malaysia, Thailand and Viet Nam. The project focuses specifically on issues related to policies and practices of water allocation, particularly to agriculture. Appropriate allocation of water is the main means by which sustainable access to water is achieved. Fortalecimiento del marco jurídico en materia de gestión de agua y los recursos hídricos (GCP /RLA/171/SPA), involving El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua. This project aims to analyze the rules and regulations that guide management of and access to water in the countries involved. Once they have been analyzed, recommendations for modernization and revision of the legal instruments will be formulated. Important among the relevant instruments are those related to water rights and access. Groundwater Governance: A Global Framework for Country Action (GCP /GLO/277/GFF), with a global scope. This was also mentioned in the normative work, since much of the project involves development of methods that apply across countries. The project objective is to develop a Global “Framework for Country Action” (comprising region specific policy, institutional and investment options), to advocate improved governance of groundwater resources at the country/local levels. Since fair allocation of water rights and access is such a central part of good water governance, TRA becomes by necessity an important consideration in this project as well as most other projects that deal with allocation of water rights.
237. As mentioned previously, in the recent evaluation of FAO’s water activity, the team indicated some disappointment with many of the water related field projects in terms of helping poor people get better access to water resources for agriculture. Overall, these projects (the ones the evaluation looked at) failed in improving access to water resources for agriculture and
100 The fundamental issue in transboundary water management is the allocation of rights to water and any products of value produced in the water (such as fish) within the transboundary water basin or aquifer. 101 UN-Water. 2008. Ibid. The recent 2010 OED evaluation of FAO’s work related to water indicates that: “In the politically sensitive area of policies for transboundary water management, FAO through NRLW and LEGN has been engaged in a number of initiatives….Overall, a number of positive cases have been identified, although different partners expressed clearly diverging opinions on the comparative advantage of FAO in this area and the Organization’s effectiveness as a policy advisor, both in quality and quantity, appeared mixed, with some evidence of uptake in what is in any case a slow process: many factors intervene at national level in relation to the approval and adoption of policies.” (para. 219). 102 Some examples include: Study on Analysis of Sustainable Water Resources Use (GCP /RAS/241/JPN in China, Malaysia, Thailand, and Viet Nam); Fortalecimiento del marco jurídico en materia de gestión de agua y los recursos hídricos (GCP /RLA/171/SPA in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Nicaragua).
61 food security for many among the rural poor, and did not adequately address sustainable land and water management. Any positive impact may thus be short-lived.
Links with the rest of the world: partnering, collaboration and cooperation
238. FAO’s major links with the other agencies and programmes in the UN System dealing with water resource issues is through UN-Water, which FAO chaired in the past for three years. UN-Water is a mechanism that attempts to coordinate the actions of the 26 entities or programmes within the United Nations (UN) system; and it is aimed at implementing the agenda set by the Millennium Declaration and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in all aspects related to freshwater. UN-Water has grown out of many years of extensive collaboration and partnership among the UN Agencies.
239. The large number of UN Agencies dealing with water reflects the multiple roles water plays and the complex interactions involved. This complexity calls for coordinated action within the UN system and with other partners and stakeholders– including organizations from the public and private sectors, and civil society. TRA challenges and opportunities are of importance in many of the water issues dealt with by the various agencies.
240. Within this framework, FAO collaborates on projects and activities with specific programmes and agencies. Of particular note are IFAD, UNEP, and other agencies that deal with agricultural and environmental issues, such as IWMI. Through a major project on Groundwater management, which includes TRA elements103, FAO works with IAH, IGRAC, IUCN, IWMI, GEF, GWP, Ramsar Secretariat, UNDP, UNEP, UNESCO, UNICEF, WHO, WMO, WWC, and the World Bank. FAO is very much tied into the international network of entities working on water issues, including those that involve TRA elements. FAO sees TRA as an important aspect of its water scarcity work, so any partnering it does on water scarcity relates to TRA issues104.
TRA challenges and opportunities relating to forests: FAO and the global priorities related to forest tenure, and rights and access to forests
241. Approximately 30 percent of the global land area is covered by forest. Around 1.6 billion people, or one quarter of the world’s population, depend in one way or another on forests and related resources for their livelihoods. Almost all the rest of the global population depends on forests – both natural and planted– for various products, such as paper, wood for furniture, fuelwood, wood for construction materials, and so forth.
242. While planted forests are increasing at a rapid rate, natural forests are disappearing at a more rapid rate; and the poor in developing countries depend to a great extent on the natural forests – of which the vast majority are public domain forests, controlled and owned by governments105. Part of the reason that rates of deforestation of natural forests are high is poor governance of these massive areas of public forest; and part of the reason that governance is poor is the lack of secure tenure for local people to give them incentive to
103 Groundwater Governance: A Global Framework for Country Action (GCP /GLO/277/GFF). 104 TRA really only becomes of key interest when water is scarce. However, in this sense, water may be quite abundant physically, but institutionally or socially, it becomes scarce for certain groups. Thus, “water scarcity” has to be looked at in relative terms. 105 The percentages of public forest differ by developing regions. Thus, in Africa it is well above 90 percent, while in South America it is about 75 percent and a little over 50 percent in Central America (cf. GFRA 2010).
62 manage on a more sustainable basis and participate in programmes that attempt to reduce illegal activity that robs the benefits of the legitimate rights holders106.
243. Thus, most of the people who depend on the public domain forests have no statutory legal standing in terms of rights to the forests and their outputs. Communities and indigenous groups only own or legally manage and benefit on a sustainable basis from about one quarter of the natural forest in developing countries. In 2002 an estimated 22 percent of developing country forest was either owned or legally managed by communities and individuals within them. This had increased to 27 percent by 2008107. Thus, since the early to mid-eighties, forest tenure patterns have been changing in many countries as governments have seen the advantages of hands-on community management and protection, or have been pressured to empower local communities and decentralize decision-making in a number of areas108. In a 2008 study of 25 heavily forested countries, it was found that 15 had experienced an increase in forest land designated for and /or owned by communities since 2002109. The Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF)110, chaired by the FAO, recently issued a statement calling for governments across the globe to increase communities’ role in forest management. Doing so could contribute to lifting close to a billion people out of poverty, as well as improve the health and vitality of forests and reduce the serious problem of illegal logging and forest degradation.
244. However, it should be stressed that forest tenure reforms on paper that give control of forests to local communities are not enough. Communities face a number of additional problems in terms of effectively making such new found control contribute to their livelihoods and food security. Thus, giving control and access to forests to forest dwellers through laws on paper does not mean that the local communities actually have full access to them on the ground and know how to manage and take care of them.
245. Fortunately, planted forests are increasing at a rapid rate and take some pressure off the natural forests. Thus, at present, more than half of the world’s industrial roundwood comes from planted forests. The TRA challenges and opportunities associated with planted forests are quite similar to those faced for any agricultural crop; and they can be quite different from those associated with natural forests, which mostly still remain in the public domain in developing countries. In contrast, most of the planted forest is private, and most often the property of entities from the developed world or of the rich elites from developing countries. Thus, other than employment in harvesting and managing forests and processing products, such forests themselves provide little benefit to the masses of poor people who live in and around them.
246. Natural forest tenure issues in developing countries deal to a great extent with common property regimes and community based forest management systems and the problems and opportunities associated with such. “As with other common pool resources, the task is governing multiple resources in a shared space while maintaining them as renewable
106 Cf. Porter-Bolland et al. forthcoming. 107 Cf. Larson, et al. 2010. 108 Cf. FAO 2006a. 109 Sunderlin, Hatcher and Liddle 2008. 110 The Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF) is a voluntary arrangement among 14 of the largest international organizations and secretariats with substantial programmes on forests (CIFOR, FAO, ITTO, IUFRO, CBD, GEF, UNCCD, UNFF, UNFCCC, UNDP, UNEP, ICRAF, WB, IUCN).
63 resources”111. The challenges are quite different than in the case of agricultural lands, where most of the focus is on land tenure challenges related to individual farmers. FAO has recently produced a document which looks in detail at the common property management issues in Asia112.
247. Poverty rates tend to be high in forest areas. Research has identified a number of reasons why this is so113. One of those is that forest fringe and forest communities tend not to own their surrounding forest and that makes them less able to stand up to outside interests who wish to exploit the forests the communities depend on.
248. There is one very important TRA issue that relates to both forestry and agriculture: forests are disappearing at a rapid rate; and the main direct cause of deforestation is agricultural expansion. The enabling factors are government policies, or lack of enforcement of such. This includes perverse laws, poor land management, corruption (which encourages illegal forest clearing), lack of enforcement capacity for existing deforestation laws, etc. About 80 percent of new agricultural land developed over the 1980-2000 period involved deforestation114. There obviously are close links between agricultural land expansion and forest land TRA issues. Thus, deforestation issues should be a major concern of those dealing with the so- called “land grabbing” issues. This is not the case in FAO.
249. Since the main cause of deforestation is agricultural expansion, broadly writ, there is an interesting strong link between the discussion above and the United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) and TRA. The current thinking on REDD envisions massive payments around the world (PES or payments for environmental services) to forest owners who agree to protect their forests and thus the carbon stored in them. But questions are arising as to who owns the forests, how do customary rights fit into the picture, how do payments in common property forest situations work, and more fundamentally who owns the carbon in forests. Unclear tenure stands in the way of implementing strong REDD programs. More work is needed on sorting out carbon ownership, if REDD+ is to succeed. FAO recognizes this.115 In the context of its role in UN- REDD, FAO should give more priority to this topic.
250. More broadly speaking, a major TRA forestry challenge and opportunity relates to climate change and its relation, not only to REDD, but also expansion of afforestation, reforestation, and restoration of degraded lands (ARRDL) in order to sequester more carbon as well as take pressures off biodiversity rich natural forests116. FAO is centrally involved with tenure issues related to both areas. In some cases FAO works effectively with other groups working with both REDD and ARRDL117.
111 Larson et al, Op cit. 112 Andersen 2011. 113 Sundelin 2007. 114 Gibbs et al. 2010. 115 Cf. FAO.2011. State of the World’s Forests, p.63+ 116 Cf. Gregersen et al. 2011. 117 Cf. documentation on a recent FAO hosted expert meeting on “land tenure issues and requirements for implementing climate change mitigation policies in the forestry and agriculture sectors.” Rome, 15-17 November, 2010. FAO, Rome. See http://www.fao.org/climatechange/65623 for background document on this event. This was a joint event with REDD and MICCA. FAO along with UNEP and UNDP are part of UN- REDD.
64 251. In both cases, REDD and ARRDL, TRA issues also are central and important. In the case of REDD, if poor people are going to get payments for environmental services - in this case not to deforest their land (or the land they legally manage), they need to have legal, secure long- term tenure rights to the trees and the carbon stored in them118. Otherwise, there will be reluctance on the part of carbon offset markets and some governments to make longer term contracts not to deforest with poor forest or forest fringe communities, because such contracts would not be legally binding if no clear ownership of the forests and carbon contained in them exists.
252. In the case of ARRDL, there will be little incentive for people to improve degraded or cutover land with tree planting and restoration of natural forest or other lands if they do not hold secure, long term rights to the products from the land – at least long enough to reap the benefits from their ARRDL investments and activities.
253. Another link between agriculture, food security and forests is agroforestry and forest fringe farming. Such systems also are a direct concern of FAO. A recent study estimates that: Agroforestry, if defined by tree cover of greater than 10 percent on agricultural land, is widespread, and found on 46 percent of all agricultural land area globally, and affecting 30 percent of rural populations. Based on our datasets, this represents over 1 billion hectares of land and 558 million people. Agroforestry is particularly prevalent in Southeast Asia, Central America, and South America119.
254. TRA challenges and opportunities become important in agroforestry for several reasons. First, long-term, secure tenure is required for there to be any incentive to plant trees on farms, since trees produce their main benefits over time. Second, most forest and forest fringe farmers rely heavily on nearby forests as a source of bushmeat (protein), fuelwood, wood for furniture, homes, coffins and a myriad of other essential items. If rights and access to forest areas are taken away from these forest farmers and instead allocated to major commercial projects, or even REDD projects, extreme hardship and expanded poverty can result.
255. With the above context in mind, the main current and emerging forest related TRA challenges and opportunities that relate particularly to FAO’s Strategic Objective E are: a) Expansion of forest tenure reform – primarily expanded allocation of public domain forests to local communities and poor rural dwellers120; including settling of indigenous people’s land claims, i.e. reconciling customary and statutory forest rights; b) Introduction of complementary, broader programs of support (technical assistance, market access, etc.) to make it possible for the new tenure arrangements to lead to livelihood diversification and improvement and an integrated approach to problems of poverty , biodiversity protection, deforestation and forest degradation; c) Expansion and improvement of the governance aspects related to enforcement of existing laws, elimination of corruption and illegal activity (major issues in forestry that affect the rights of poorer local forest dwellers), assuring fair distribution of benefits from forest reform, etc121;
118 Cf. Markelova and Meinzen-Dick 2009. 119 Zomer R et al. 2009. 120 Cf. Larson et al, Op cit. 121 World Bank 2009.
65 d) Helping countries improve decentralized governance of forest resources and overcome the TRA related challenges that come along with decentralization122; e) Developing a better understanding of options for communal, co-management, and other systems of group establishment of planted forests and management of forests in such ways that the rights and responsibilities established in setting up such arrangements result in a fair distribution of benefits from exercising such rights; f) Understanding better how secure tenure rights related to forests held by forest communities and indigenous groups can help to reduce deforestation, e.g., through payment for environmental services schemes, and then apply that understanding in practice in programs such as REDD+; and g) Understanding better the legal and other challenges surrounding forest carbon tenure and how it fits in with developments related to REDD+123.
Forests and TRA: FAO’s contribution
256. At present, forestry TRA-related activity is carried out mainly in the Forestry Department (FO), but also with some related, productive work done in NR, LEGN and through the FAO/MICCA Programme124. Linkages between these various units within FAO are made on an ad hoc, project by project and person to person basis. An example is the “2010 Expert Meeting on land tenure issues and requirements for implementing climate change mitigation policies in the forestry and agriculture sectors” organized by REDD and the FAO climate change and land tenure division (NRC). Another example is the “Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security”, both discussed earlier. FAO, working with the IIED, already has prepared an advanced draft of implementation guidelines for forestry to accompany these Voluntary Guidelines.
257. The good collaboration between FO and NRC on forest tenure has helped move the work on forest tenure forward. This also includes joint work on the development and testing of a capacity development module on forest tenure reform, which is currently underway in partnership with RECOFTC. The module will be based on Forestry Paper 165 and will also serve to develop capacity of countries to put into practice the implementation guidelines on forestry mentioned above in connection with the VGs.
258. FAO has a long history of doing work related to forest tenure, mainly through the Forestry Department. For many years, and long before the period considered in this evaluation, FAO had a significant TRA related forestry program through its “forestry for local community development,” program, funded primarily by the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. TRA challenges and opportunities naturally were central to this work. As resources available for the FAO and its forestry program tightened in more recent years, much of the work dealing with social forestry and TRA issues fell by the wayside, as did FAO’s work related to several other areas. However, the forestry program continued to be concerned with TRA issues, although the emphasis was more at the regional level. In the past couple of years, the staff members who worked with TRA either left for field assignments or moved to other departments. There now is insufficient in-house capacity in FO to work on forest tenure issues.
122 Cf. Pierce-Colfer and Capistrano 2005. 123 Cf. section in State of the World’s Forests 2011 (FAO). 124 Cf. Seeberg-Elverfeldt 2010; Varming, M. et al. 2010.
66 Recent normative work related to forest tenure
259. FAO has been doing some relevant and useful normative work over the past five or so years directly related to forest TRA. Three major items are the work on the forestry input for the Voluntary Guidelines, the implementation guidelines associated with the Voluntary Guidelines125, and the 2011 FAO Forestry Paper 165, “Reforming forest tenure: Issues, principles and process”. The later paper, which is comprehensive and inclusive, was produced by two consultants with extensive input from the FO staff and from a peer group of experts convened in 2010 to review a first draft.
260. Some examples of FO’s extensive recent regional work on forest TRA include a series of studies done to understand forest tenure in the developing regions of the world starting with studies for South and Southeast Asia and moving on to Africa, Latin America and Central Asia, the Caucasus and Russian Federation.126
261. The Africa study, for example, covers 20 countries. Initiatives to empower local communities, decentralize decision-making to local government and increase private sector involvement in forest management have been taking place in this region. The aim of this study is to shape a clearer understanding of these trends and their impact on sustainable forest management and poverty alleviation. Detailed quantitative information has been collected from 17 countries. The information is complemented by 11 case studies from 11 countries, as illustrated in Figure VI-1 below.
125 How to shape governance of tenure for responsible forestry: A practical guide. FIRST DRAFT. Not for circulation, June 2011. Prepared by IIED and FAO. 126 FAO 2006. Tenure security for better forestry: Understanding forest tenure in South and Southeast Asia. FAO, Bangkok, 2007; FAO 2006. Understanding forest tenure in South and Southeast Asia. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper 14. Rome: FAO; FAO 2008. Understanding forest tenure in Africa: Opportunities and Challenges for forest tenure diversification. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper 19. Rome: FAO; FAO 2009. Forest tenure in Latin American Countries. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper No. 24. Rome: FAO; FAO 2010. Forest Tenure in West and Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Russian Federation. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper No. 25. Rome: FAO.
67 Figure VI-1: Countries studied in Africa for the forest TRA study
262. As mentioned earlier, FAO also is centrally involved with TRA issues associated with forests and climate change as part of its involvement in the UN-REDD effort. This work is considered relevant to the mission of the FAO related to knowledge creation and dissemination; and it is effective in providing insights on the importance of TRA clarification, particularly in terms of clarifying the status of legal carbon tenure and rights – something which will become necessary if carbon markets are to develop effectively. What remains to be seen is how the work evolves to provide concrete input into clarification of carbon tenure and rights at the country level.
263. FAO’s Global Forest Resource Assessment, produced every five years, started reporting more detailed forest tenure data from participating countries in 2005. The 2010 GFRA now includes even more detailed tenure information provided from the countries127.
Recent field projects with forest TRA elements
264. The only field project that is specifically labelled as a forest TRA project is in China128. The project supports the reform of forest tenure in China’s collective forests through strengthening policies, laws and institutions responsible for the management of collective forests in six pilot provinces. It is funded by the European Commission (EC) and implemented by the State Forestry Administration of China, with FAO providing technical support. The project promotes the exchange of knowledge and experiences on forest tenure reform both within China and with other countries. A number of capacity building activities have taken place under the auspices of the project.
127 Cf. the country reports. http://www.fao.org/forestry/fra/67090/en 128 GCP /CPR/038/EC: “Supporting policy, legal and institutional frameworks for the reform of forest tenure in China’s collective forests and promoting knowledge exchange”.
68 265. The overall objective of the FAO China project is to make forest management more sustainable and to improve rural livelihoods in China, by enhancing the ongoing tenure reform for collective forests. The FAO role is to provide advice related to four main components: development of forest farmer cooperatives; the regulation of forest ownership and land use rights and the trading of such; participatory and sustainable forest management; and knowledge and experience sharing, both within China in other countries.
266. This is an important project since the potential benefits are very large in terms of numbers of people and quality of forests in China who eventually can benefit from the results. According to project documentation, collective forests account for 58 percent of China’s forest land and can make a significant contribution to rural livelihoods. Recently, the Chinese government has promoted reform of the tenure system for collective forests, which focuses on devolving land- use rights and forest ownership in collective forest areas to individual households. This allows households to use collective forest lands and forests to generate income and improve their livelihoods. The current forest tenure reform will allocate 167 million ha of forest land to households, and about 500 million farmers are expected to benefit. Some 35 percent of total collective forests have already been transferred to individual households.
267. According to a recent EC Monitoring report129, the project is very relevant to the needs of China; and it is being implemented as planned. However, the monitoring team also felt that “There is one important conditionality that needs to be met for the project to have a positive impact, namely, that the guidelines/regulations are reviewed and accepted by the intended ministries for their replication in other areas. The prospects will be enhanced or reduced, in part, according to the proven validity of their development process and timeliness of delivery. The potential impact could be considerable, as at present forest land regulation lacks uniformity and efficiency, that would not only ensure better management of forests but in turn increase the economic opportunities of millions of people who in a drive to improve their livelihoods resort to unsustainable forest exploitation practices. However, the lack of a strategy or guarantee that the guidelines/regulations will be taken into consideration for the reform of forest tenure dilutes this potential benefit”. That conditionality remains to be met. All in all, the monitoring team gives the project a higher than average rating.
268. With regard to other project work related to forest TRA, it should be noted that while tenure reform and work on TRA does not show up in the title of other forestry field project, it is in fact dealt with in various significant ways in other projects, e.g., ones dealing with community forestry, forest policy and governance, sustainable forest management, forests and climate change. Some examples include:
269. In the case of a major agroforestry project in Viet Nam130, the TRA related focus is on converting new legal access to land and forests into effective economic access for poor households. Viet Nam has been going through a large scale land reform where public domain forest and degraded forest lands are allocated to poor farmers and villages along with the responsibility to make them productive economic assets managed on a sustainable basis. Ownership of the land (through land use certificates or “Red Books” given to farmers by the government) provides part of the incentive for agroforestry development over the long term.
129 European Union. 22/04/2011. Monitoring Report MR-139641.01. 130 GCP-VIE-035-ITA: “Market-Oriented Agroforestry to Reduce Poverty in Quang Nam Province (follow-up phase)”.
69 The other necessary, complementary incentives – technical knowledge of production systems and access to credit and markets – are directly addressed in this project. As stressed in several places in this evaluation, these are necessary parts of making mere physical access to land into effective economic access. A main comparative advantage of FAO is that it has the breadth, in terms of knowledge and capability, to help countries put in place the necessary and sufficient conditions to create effective economic access, which is necessary if sustainable poverty alleviation and food security are to be achieved.
270. In the case of a major forestry project in Mongolia131, three of the six envisioned outcomes of the project relate directly to TRA challenges and opportunities: Aspirations and local initiatives of forest user groups will be supported resulting in more formalised long-term agreements/ownership over forest ecosystems for their sustainable management (transfer of tenure, rights and or guarantee of access to local people). National legislation and regulations will be adjusted in order to create an enabling national context for local level forest-based resources management (the necessary legislation will be in place to support local rights and access to and responsibilities for sustainable management of forest resources). The livelihoods of the rural population will be improved through the creation of income generating activities and the sustainable use of forest products for their daily needs (part of the conditions to create effective economic access that can contribute to sustainable poverty alleviation and food security).
271. In the case of a Cambodia forestry project132, a main stated justification for the project is that “By the end of this project, the tenurial rights of targeted communities in the ecologically vulnerable Northeast will be strengthened and community livelihoods improved including those of indigenous communities”.
272. In the case of a joint IFAD-FAO Technical Assistance project in Nepal133, “the main objective of the Technical Assistance is to improve the effectiveness of the Leasehold Forestry and Livestock Development Programme and support the Department of Forests and to support the implementation, institutionalization and scaling up of the poverty reducing leasehold forestry programme in the country”134.
273. In the case of Africa, there is a regional project that involves TRA elements: Enhancing the contribution of Non-wood Forest Products (NWFP) to Poverty Alleviation and Food Security in Central African countries (GCP /RAF/441/GER). The first problem to be addressed is that "Tenure rights and Legislation governing the commercial exploitation of NWFP are inadequate or non-existent". One project target is "Livelihood vulnerability of primary resource users reduced through increase in legally secured access to forests and NWFP".
131 GCP-MON-002-NET: “Capacity building and institutional development for participatory natural resources management and conservation in forest areas of Mongolia” 132 GCP-CMB-034-SPA: “Enhancing community-based forestry management and utilisation for the improvement of rural livelihoods in Cambodia” 133 GCP-NEP-062-FIN: “Technical Assistance Support for Leasehold Forest and Livestock Programme” 134 Leasehold forestry provides the poorest of the community with long-term tenure security over forest lands, which encourages them to invest their labour and reap most of the benefits. The LFLDP programme has demonstrated a solution to optimize the degraded forestland, improve livelihoods of the poorest, and improve the environment.
70 274. There also are projects focused on reduction of illegal activity that directly impacts the effective economic access to forests by legitimate rights holders, i.e., projects that indirectly strengthen rights and effective economic access to resources by legitimate rights holders. For example, the inter-regional project, Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Support Programme for ACP Countries (FLEGT-ACP)135 involves and supports activities identified through a targeted call for proposals from member countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific.
275. Thus, many forestry projects deal with TRA related challenges and opportunities, sometimes quite directly and in other cases in the context of FAO helping countries create “effective economic access” to land and other resources, which is well recognized by the FAO to be a necessary condition to achieve sustainable poverty reduction and food security for poor rural dwellers.
Links with the rest of the world: partnering, collaboration and cooperation
276. FAO FO is involved with most of the international governmental entities and some of the international NGOs that deal with forests. Very few of them, however, focus mainly on TRA challenges and opportunities136. Rather, most of them have elements of their programs that touch on forest TRA.
277. FAO chairs the Collaborative Partnership on Forests (CPF), which is a voluntary arrangement among 14 of the largest international organizations and secretariats with substantial programmes on forests (CIFOR, FAO, ITTO, IUFRO, CBD, GEF, UNCCD, UNFF, UNFCCC, UNDP, UNEP, ICRAF, WB, and IUCN). TRA challenges and opportunities are dealt with from time to time in CPF deliberations, e.g., in the context of the development of an international REDD+ architecture.
278. FAO is a partner with UNEP and UNDP in the UN-REDD programme137. Internally, the management of UN-REDD is shared between NR and FO. The DDG (Knowledge) chairs the steering committee for UN-REDD within FAO, with ADGs of FO and NR as members. The Director of NRC and the Director of FOM are responsible at the operational level. The split of work is that NR is responsible for delivering FAO’s “global” functions in UN-REDD, and FO for FAO’s support at country level under UN-REDD. FAO’s role has until now been almost exclusively on Measurement, Reporting and Verification activities, with some work on governance. The ADG of the NR Department serves as chair of the policy Board of UN-REDD.
279. TRA is a recognized important element in developing effective and efficient country level UN- REDD programmes. The Programme currently has 29 partner countries spanning Africa, Asia- Pacific and Latin America, of which 13 are receiving support to National Programme activities138. To date, the UN-REDD Programme’s Policy Board has approved a total of US$ 55.4 million for its nine initial pilot countries and four new countries (Cambodia, Ecuador, the
135 GCP /INT/064/EC 136 An exception is the Rights and Resources Initiative (RRI), a coalition of key NGO’s focused on forest TRA challenges and opportunities. FAO’s relationship with the RRI has been on an informal basis. 137 The UN-REDD Programme is the United Nations Collaborative initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) in developing countries. The Programme was launched in September 2008 to assist developing countries prepare and implement national REDD+ strategies, and builds on the convening power and expertise of FAO, UNDP and UNEP. 138 These 13 countries are: Bolivia, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Ecuador, Indonesia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, the Philippines, Solomon Islands, Tanzania, Viet Nam and Zambia.
71 Philippines and Solomon Islands). These funds help to support the development and implementation of national REDD+ strategies. National Programmes in seven UN-REDD Programme countries are now in their implementation phase (Bolivia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Panama, Tanzania, Viet Nam and Zambia). One of the elements in most of these programmes is forest tenure reform and clarification. Such clarification is essential in order to determine who should be paid what for protecting forests from deforestation. FAO is well aware that a number of serious TRA challenges remain on the road to establishing a viable global REDD+ architecture. And such a global architecture is required if international “leakage” is to be minimized.
280. FAO plays a central technical role in the UN Forum on Forests, which is the body within the United Nations where forestry is discussed. FAO provides technical backup to the Forum, primarily through the CPF.
281. As mentioned, in connection with implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines, IIED is working with FAO to develop a practical guide for various types of stakeholders who aim to improve the way governance affects issues of tenure such that forestry is more sustainable and contributes more to livelihoods139. IIED is working with the Forest Governance Learning Group140 in preparing this guide. The work began in September 2010 and is due to be completed by the end of November 2011.
FAO TRA challenges and opportunities related to wildlife
282. Wildlife (‘bushmeat’) provides an important source of protein for many poor rural communities, particularly in Africa, as well as a source of income through the trade of animals and animal parts. Thus, the arrangement of rights and access to “bushmeat,” is of critical importance in terms of FAO’s objectives of addressing food security and poverty on a sustainable basis. In order to institute sustainable wildlife management in most parts of the developing world, better regulation and control of trade in animals and controls on hunting and development of key wildlife management programmes are required. Because of the importance of bushmeat, any change in the rights to access and harvest and trade wildlife can have major impacts on the poor. FAO and its partners are well aware of these requirements if sustainable and effective economic access to wildlife is to be achieved.
283. In Central Africa, an estimated 579 million forest mammals are consumed annually – up to 5 million tonnes of dressed bushmeat. In East and Southeast Asia, the severity of the problems associated with disappearing animal populations is related to high human population densities, a long tradition of consuming wildlife products for medicinal use and the exceedingly rapid economic growth. Commercial wildlife trade also poses a threat to wildlife populations beyond the tropics, for example in Mongolia’s temperate steppes and woodlands – mainly for the large Chinese market141.
284. The main challenges and opportunities faced in the wildlife TRA area relate to the establishment and management of systems of hunting and capture rights and access to
139 IIED 2011. 140 The Forest Governance Learning Group is an informal alliance of in-country groups and international partners currently active in eight African and three Asian countries. It aims to connect those marginalised from forest governance to those controlling it, and to help both do things better. Since 2003 it has been carrying out focused studies, developing tactics and tools, holding learning events, and working as a group to effect change. 141 http://www.fao.org/forestry/67287/en
72 wildlife that lead to (a) biodiversity conservation, (b) sustainable and stable harvests and management to meet the food needs of local populations over time, (c) off-take of wildlife that is equitable for the forest populations and others involved, (d) minimization of damage from wildlife to villages and crops of local populations142, and (e) domestication of wildlife.
Wildlife and TRA: FAO’s contribution
285. The TRA challenges and opportunities associated with wildlife have similarities but also substantial differences from those faced in the fish and aquaculture sectors. FAO considers wildlife and protected areas issues from a forestry and agricultural, human-centred perspective. Ocean fisheries are considered in the context of a whole set of international treaties and agreements related to oceans, where the challenges and opportunities for TRA related activity are quite different. However, when it comes to inland fisheries, the similarities with wildlife TRA needs are quite similar. And the TRA issues faced in farm aquaculture are very similar to those related to planted forests. In these areas there are opportunities for synergies and mutual learning across divisions and departments. The main work related to wildlife is housed in the Forestry department, with links to livestock and other units within FAO, and with strong programs in the regional offices of the organization, particularly in Africa.
286. The FAO Forestry Department's work on wildlife and protected area management aims to conserve native faunas together with their natural habitats and to improve the livelihoods of rural communities in developing countries through normative work and field programme activities in collaboration with major international partners. Activities include the preparation, publishing and dissemination of concepts, studies, policy recommendations, guidelines, best practices, and other educational resources; support to regional networks; design and implementation of field projects; the organization of and participation in technical workshops, expert meetings and information events; as well as capacity development and training.
287. In past years, since the FAO wildlife program started, TRA related wildlife work in FAO has dealt with: bushmeat and wildlife rearing; human-wildlife conflict; and tourism hunting, eco-tourism and benefit sharing.
288. Current activities focus on topics directly related to agriculture, food production and poverty alleviation: ecotourism; human-wildlife conflict; wildlife policies and legislation; design and management of protected areas; wildlife conservation and sustainable management; unsustainable/illegal harvesting and trade in wildlife species for food and non-food purposes (bushmeat); impacts of climate change on wildlife and protected areas;
142 This latter item is critical, since villagers will start ignoring sustainable management systems and assigned rights if damage to their crops and villages are extensive.
73 disease dynamics at the human-wildlife-livestock-ecosystem interface; and domestication of wildlife. These work areas, however, are not treated separately as there are complex interactions between them.
289. In the future, an increasingly important area for FAO will be climate change impacts on wildlife, and this area has some distinct TRA elements that will need to be dealt with. According to FAO: “As global average temperatures continue to rise, it is important to develop strategies, policies and guidelines to conserve ecosystems and species that will not be able to adapt. This may include moving boundaries of protected areas and ensuring better connectivity through wildlife corridors. More radical measures, however, may also be needed such as modifying or newly creating habitats and translocating whole animal and plant communities. In addition, measures which reduce the impacts of other human-induced pressures will help reduce overall vulnerability and strengthen the resilience of landscapes, ecosystems and species to climate change. In this endeavour, FAO, in partnership with relevant organizations, assists member countries in mitigating the impacts of climate change on wildlife and protected areas for the benefit of rural communities through normative work and field project activities”143.
Recent normative work related to wildlife rights and access
290. FAO’s normative work that relates directly or indirectly to availability and access to wildlife includes: producing publications aimed at facilitating effective management of biological diversity; responding to requests for technical advice and assistance; working with partners to address unsustainable use of forest wildlife (e.g. the bushmeat crisis); and working with partners to formulate and implement strategies to prevent or mitigate the human-wildlife conflicts and to promote best practices.
291. As one example of a normative project that is related to TRA, together with CIRAD, the WWF, CAMPFIRE and other partners, FAO has produced a human-wildlife conflict toolkit. Currently being tested in southern Africa, the toolkit provides measures to help resolve, prevent and mitigate the growing problem of conflict between humans and wild animals. It is designed not only to help protect people, their livestock and crops from animals but, just as important, to safeguard animals from people. It includes policies, strategies and practical tips to make increasingly close cohabitation safer for everyone. As a general strategy, the toolkit emphasizes conflict prevention through advance land-use planning.
292. LEGN has been particularly active in producing papers dealing with the legal issues surrounding wildlife related TRA. Some of its recent work includes: In the period 2008-2010 FAO’s Legal Office published five important papers on wildlife legislation and the empowerment of the poor in Africa, Oceania and Sub-Saharan Africa.144
293. In addition, a recent issue of FAO’s flagship publication, UNASYLVA, features articles on forests, people and wildlife145.
143 http://www.fao.org/forestry/67289/en 144 http://www.fao.org/legal/prs-ol/paper-e.htm 145 UNASYLVA No. 236, vol. 61, 2010/3
74
294. Most of the normative work is done in collaboration with other groups. One good example, where FAO collaborated with five other entities (AWF, ILRI, Gov. of Tanzania, GEF and the World Bank) is a recent set of guidelines on participatory land use planning in situations where livestock and wildlife have to coexist146. The guide is designed to help communities and policy-makers at local and national levels make informed choices regarding land use, business ventures, and public policy in pastoral areas, particularly the Maasai Steppe and other semi- arid parts of East Africa where livestock and wildlife have coexisted for centuries.
295. FAO takes on major responsibilities as convener, facilitator and supporter of meetings related to bushmeat and other TRA related wildlife themes. Table VI-1 provides a listing of international meetings that FAO has convened, facilitated and supported since 2008.
Table VI-1: FAO supported meetings and events related to bushmeat and the domestication of wildlife species (2006-2011)
Meeting/event Date Location 16th Session of the Working Party on the Management of Maputo, March 2006 Wildlife and Protected Areas Mozambique Valorisation de la grande faune sauvage au Maroc December 2006 Rabat, Morocco 17th Session of the Working Party on the Management of February 2008 Khartoum, Sudan Wildlife and Protected Areas Improving policy, institutions, legislation and practices for Prague, Czech March 2009 sustainable use and conservation of wildlife resources Republic Regional workshop on wildlife conservation and protected May 2009 Damascus, Syria area management in the Near East Buenos Aires, Liaison Group Meeting on Bushmeat October 2009 Argentina 17th Session of the African Forestry and Wildlife Brazzaville, Commission: Invasive species and their economic relevance February 2010 Republic of Congo for an impact on forests and wildlife in Africa Community involvement in the management of wildlife and Almaty, September 2010 wildlife diseases in Central Asia and the Caucasus Kazakhstan Hunting, trade and management of wildlife in tropical October 2010 Rome, Italy forests Human-wildlife conflict October 2010 Rome, Italy 58th International Council for Game and Wildlife St Petersburg, May 2011 Conservation General Assembly Russia Symposium: Relevance of community-based natural resource management to the conservation and sustainable May 2011 Austria, Vienna use of CITES-listed species in exporting countries Joint meeting of the CBD Bushmeat Liaison Group and the June 2011 Nairobi, Kenya CITES Central Africa Bushmeat Working Group
Recent field projects with wildlife TRA elements
296. In response to a critical wildlife situation in the Congo Basin, a GEF funded, FAO-led project aims to introduce community-based wildlife management in 16 pilot sites of Gabon, the Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo and the Central African Republic. Today, the levels of bushmeat extraction in the Congo region are hugely increased, driven by
146 FAO, AWF, ILRI, Tanzania, GEF and the World Bank 2009.
75 enormous demands from big urban centres, and, as a consequence, current levels of hunting are unsustainable. This affects many protected and endangered species such as gorillas, chimpanzees and bonobos, and is the main threat to biodiversity in Central Africa. The project is based on the following three components: 1. Development of legal frameworks for participatory wildlife management in the four countries; 2. Development and implementation of simple and effective tools for participatory wildlife management; and 3. Capacity development for ensuring long-term sustainability of participatory wildlife management. The project aims to demonstrate in pilot sites that community-based conservation and management of wildlife can be a viable and most effective strategy for conserving the integrity of wildlife, forest ecosystems and biodiversity in the Congo Basin.
297. Other recent and current field project activities with TRA elements include147: the Central African World Heritage Forest Initiative project on protected area management and bushmeat trade, implemented jointly with UNESCO in cooperation with the national governments and international conservation NGOs; review and redrafting of wildlife laws and regulations in Serbia; a project on sustainable tourism, hunting, wildlife management and planning in Morocco; and support in effective management of wildlife and conservation areas in Mozambique. These projects are primarily focused and organized at the regional or country level, since FO at headquarters only has one professional staff member who deals very much on a part time basis with TRA issues associated with wildlife.
Links with the rest of the world: partnering, collaboration and cooperation
298. FAO has established strong partnerships with governments and national, regional and international organizations and networks, in particular in Central Africa, to address issues related to sustainable management of wildlife resources and to search for viable options that will ensure the conservation and sustainable access to wildlife resources while improving the economic opportunities of the poor rural populations.
299. FAO and the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation have established a strategic partnership to assist the countries from the Southern Caucasus and Central Asia in conserving their rich biodiversity, and more particularly, to create an enabling environment for the sustainable use of its rich wildlife resources for the benefit of the national and local economies. This cooperation which started in Prague in 2006 is now known as the “Wildlife Initiative for Central Asia and the Caucasus”. The partnership has produced a number of technical papers, allowing FAO to leverage its resources through the Partnership148.
300. FAO works with many other groups on wildlife matters, such as TRAFFIC, CIC, CIFOR, UNEP CMS and IUCN. Most of the partnerships involve some TRA elements, since rights and access to wildlife (too little access, or too much access leading to over harvest and non-sustainable
147 Note that most of these projects involve more than one country; and some of them include normative components, i.e., activities that produce outputs (tools, guides, etc.) with general applicability across countries. 148 Cf. examples on CIC website: http://www.cic-wildlife.org/?id=412
76 management of wildlife resources) are fundamental elements in most wildlife management focused projects. Other examples of organizations with whom FAO works on these issues include CIRAD, GEF, AWF, ILRI, the World Bank, CITES, CAMPFIRE, the WWF, and CBD.
TRA challenges and opportunities related to fisheries: rights and access to ocean and inland capture fisheries and aquaculture
301. Fish consumption is increasing globally. A study of global change in supply of, and demand for fish through 2020149, envisions a growth in global consumption and production of food fish of 1.5 per cent per annum. The increase in production to satisfy the growing demand is expected to almost all come from aquaculture, and much of this from developing countries150. While overall global growth in capture fisheries is expected to remain almost constant, growth in developing countries is expected to increase to counteract the declines for developed countries151.
302. The picture of growing prospects for scarcity of fish in some areas – and over-fishing in traditional capture fisheries, and at the same time rapid growth of aquaculture, particularly in the developing world has implications in terms of TRA challenges and opportunities that take on importance in the overall context of creating sustainable fisheries resources and helping to meet the food security needs and alleviate the poverty of millions of poor in the developing world.
303. In the case of ocean capture fisheries management, a current focus in the TRA area is on national and international capture fisheries agreements on access rights and exclusion and illegal fishing. For inland capture fisheries management, rights-based fishing access (both collective and individual) are important. When looking at both collective and individual rights- based approaches, the dimensions of concern are: exclusivity, security, durability, transferability and divisibility.
304. When the focus turns to aquaculture in the traditional farm or land based systems, tenure issues relate to the ownership and security of tenure of land on which farm fishponds and commercial farm fisheries are established. Basically the issues are those that are faced in agricultural land TRA, with fish just being another crop “grown” on the land. But there also is lake, ocean and sea aquaculture, which is growing much more rapidly: “…most experts agree that most future aquaculture expansion will occur in the seas and oceans, certainly further offshore, perhaps even as far as the high seas. However, aquaculture governance is already facing serious limitations in marine waters under national jurisdiction. Should aquaculture operations be undertaken in the high seas, the problem is likely to become a challenge as existing relevant principles of public international law and treaty provisions provide little guidance on the conduct of aquaculture operations in these waters. There seems to be a regulatory vacuum for aquaculture in the high seas”152.
149 Delgado et al. 2003. 150 At present, some fifty percent of fish consumption comes from aquaculture (State of the World’s Fisheries 2010). 151 The declines in the developed world were at an average annual rate of 2.4 percent during during the seventies and into the mid nineties. 152 FAO State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. FAO/FI pointed out to ET that this growth primarily involves the more advanced middle income countries.
77 305. Thus, one can see that the two sets of TRA challenges – ocean and inland capture fisheries and aquaculture are coming closer together in terms of TRA challenges. When aquaculture is practiced in either inland or ocean bodies of water rather than in farm and commercial built fish ponds, the TRA issues become a whole lot more complex.
306. In the area of ocean and inland lake and river capture fisheries there is the indirect TRA link related to employment which provides income and livelihoods that make it possible to access fish for family food and protein. FAO points out that: “The fish sector is a source of income and livelihood for millions of people around the world. Linked to the strong increase in fish production, employment in capture fisheries and aquaculture has grown substantially in the last three decades, with an average rate of increase of 3.6 percent per year since 1980. According to the most recent estimate, in 2008, 44.9 million people were directly engaged, full time or, more frequently, part time, in capture fisheries or in aquaculture. This number represents a 167 percent increase compared with the 16.7 million people in 1980. Employment in the fisheries sector has grown faster than the world’s population and than employment in traditional agriculture. The 44.9 million in 2008 represented 3.5 percent of the 1.3 billion people economically active in the broad agriculture sector worldwide, compared with 1.8 percent in 1980”153.
307. Obviously, from a food security point of view, the livelihood improvement through such employment is important in terms of access to fish through cash markets or through one’s own fishing business. Thus, it is an important access issue that is of concern to the FAO.
308. One of the most serious capture fisheries TRA related issues is illegal fishing. It directly affects the access to fish by legitimate fishing rights holders in various fishing grounds. The Chatham House illegal fishing program reports that illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing is a serious global problem and one of the main impediments to the achievement of sustainable world fisheries. IUU fishing is worth between $10 and $23.5 billion a year, thus representing a major loss of revenue, particularly to some of the poorest countries in the world where dependency on fisheries for food, livelihoods and revenues is high154. It also has a tremendous impact on the legitimate rights and access to fish resources.
309. Finally, there are the TRA related challenges and opportunities related to small scale fisheries. Estimates indicate that small-scale fisheries contribute over half of the world’s marine and inland fish catch, nearly all of which is used for direct human consumption. They employ over 90% of the world’s 28 million capture fishers and support another approximate 84 million people employed in jobs associated with fish processing, distribution and marketing. At least half of the people employed in small-scale fisheries are women. The importance of the small- scale fisheries sector is of global reach and its diversity in culture and traditions are part of humankind’s heritage155.
310. Some of the main priority TRA related challenges facing fisheries and aquaculture as follows: Understanding better the sustainability of the employment in fisheries and aquaculture and the implications in terms of access to fish and food security. Bringing together better the options for individual or collective rights-based approaches to managing fisheries and fisherfolk activity with the broader set of challenges
153 Ibid. 154 A FAO Fisheries Officer pointed out to us that this value represents the loss in terms of fish capture, not value based on dockside and wholesale prices, which likely would be considerably higher. 155 COFI/2009/7.
78 surrounding more effective, efficient and sustainable contributions of fisheries and aquaculture to poverty alleviation and food security. Understanding how ocean based aquaculture can be regulated fairly and fit with national and international laws of the sea and how it better can help in achieving food security and poverty alleviation. IUU fishing has a significant negative impact on rights and access to fish resources by legitimate rights holders, so it is important that additional effort goes into understanding the magnitude and nature of the activity and how better to control IUU activity. Developing effective, efficient and sustainable small-scale fisheries with equitable distribution of fishing rights and access for the poor.
Fisheries and TRA: FAO’s contribution
311. FAO has a long history of working on the development of access systems for fisheries and on rights issues. However, the most recent priorities document of the Committee on Fisheries (COFI)156 does not directly mention the words “rights”, “tenure” or “access” to fish resources, (other than in one place where the document merely repeats the eleven overall strategic objectives of FAO). Thus, one infers that, while FAO does some work related to international fisheries law and the “rights based approach” to fisheries management and access to fishing rights, this is not a direct priority topic at this time in the view of COFI. At the same time, it should be pointed out that COFI has advocated a rights-based management approach for a long time – since the 1990s.
312. When one digs deeper, it is evident that below the surface, TRA-related challenges and opportunities are important to meeting the responsibilities and goals of the FI Department and the FAO. As one Fisheries Department (FI) staff member said: “tenure, rights and access is not a specific priority for the Fisheries Department, but it is included in other priorities. It is a central component of small-scale fisheries”. In this sense FAO fisheries activity is similar to its water activity: TRA is viewed not a discrete priority and end in itself but is rather encompassed in other priorities leading to end products and outputs (e.g. in the cases of small-scale fisheries and addressing water scarcity, respectively). FI is involved with work related fisheries management systems where rights based approaches are central elements.
313. Fishing and fish are major factors in food security and poverty reduction. Thus any illegal activity that takes away opportunities and benefits from legitimate fisherfolk is of interest to FI. It thus has involvement with activities related to control of IUU fishing which directly affects the benefits derived by legitimate rights holders. The loss to countries has been estimated to be in the range of ten to over twenty billion dollars a year. FAO’s role is to work on technology and operations related to IUU – they provide advice to governments on how to enforce licences, e.g. through satellite monitoring. Fisheries are a low priority in government budgets; countries need low cost solutions. FAO also engages in development of standards; and currently FI is working on a Global Record of Fishing Vessels, since basic information on the identification of fishing vessels needs to become more readily available and used in the fight against IUU fishing.
156 Committee on Fisheries 2011. Draft 1: priorities and results under the medium-term plan and programme of work and budget. Twenty-ninth Session. Rome, Italy, 31 January – 4 February 2011. COFI/2011/9.
79 Recent normative work related to fisheries tenure, rights and access
314. The FI Department has recently been quite active in working on normative products related to fisheries TRA. As discussed below FI has for some years been working on governance of small scale fisheries, as requested by COFI. This work is centrally concerned with access to fisheries and controls on access that can help create situations of sustainable fisheries management. It is discussed in more detail later in this section. A second, more recent major effort involves, among other things, a July 4-6, 2011, Workshop on Governance of Tenure for Responsible Capture Fisheries. The workshop, held in Rome157, was associated with FI’s involvement in the VGs. It was organized as a joint initiative of the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department and Natural Resources and Environment Department. As part of the preparation for the workshop, several case studies were commissioned concerning tenure and rights issues in small-scale fisheries from around the world covering marine, riverine and lacustrine ecosystems. An initiative was also taken to conduct video interviews with members from fishing communities around the world about their perceptions on issues relating to tenure and right over fisheries and riparian lands on which they live.
315. The objectives of the workshop were: To exchange notes on the case studies in order to highlight the important commonalities and differences and listen to the voice of fishers from around the world and adapt the insights from their perspectives into the discussions; To arrive at a consensus on the good practices on governance of tenure illustrated in the case studies and the voices of the fishers; To briefly review the first draft of the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests; and To advise on the scope and contribute to the drafting of some of the core implementation guidelines which can be applied to governance of tenure for responsible capture fisheries and map the way forward for the initiative to feed into the development process of the Voluntary Guidelines on Securing Sustainable Small-Scale Fisheries.
316. Some of the normative work done by FAO related to fisheries TRA challenges and opportunities is done outside the formal confines of the Fisheries Department. The promotion of sustainable livelihoods is a key strategy for FAO in its Strategic Framework for 2000-2015. The UK Department for International Development (DFID) provided $7 million over 5 years for an inter-departmental Livelihood Support Programme (LSP). The goal was to improve the impact of FAO interventions at country level through the effective application of Sustainable Livelihood approaches. The Sustainable Livelihoods methods and lessons arising through the LSP aimed at helping FAO to deliver field programmes, policies, and institutions that better support the livelihoods of the rural poor. Thus, the programme included fisheries and aquaculture related TRA activities. A number of significant normative outputs have resulted, often produced in partnership with other entities.
317. As mentioned above, the FAO started in 2008 work requested by COFI on “responsible small scale fisheries by bringing together small-scale fisheries stakeholders from around the world.” A global conference on small-scale fisheries was held in 2008, entitled “securing sustainable small-scale fisheries: bringing together responsible fisheries and social development.” A
157 FAO/FI 2011. Report on the Workshop on Governance of Tenure for Responsible Capture Fisheries. July 4- 6, 2011. Rome: FAO.
80 special focus of the Conference was on securing access and user rights by small-scale fishers and fishing communities and indigenous peoples to coastal and inland fishery resources that sustain their livelihoods.
318. FAO continued this work with an inception phase workshop in October, 2009, during which stakeholders outlined the key issues to be addressed and how to go about addressing them. Currently, FAO is continuing work on this with a series of informal working groups to determine the way in which regional priorities and needs can be woven into the program. TRA implications emerge throughout this work: “…this, in a sense, it is a return to the two major aspects of fisheries management as posed by Christy in 1982: namely “...efficient production of net benefits and... equitable distribution of benefits.” In looking forward, it is possible to see an emerging convergence of work. Not only is there work now on collective property and individualized systems approaches, there is (also) recognition that the management of fishing capacity (and the spin-offs of addressing overcapacity and overexploitation) will involve tenure security and rights. In some sense, we now have a spread of information on the different policy, legal, social, and economic aspects that need to be addressed in fisheries management – and we also have information about the fundamental elements and principles of rights-based fisheries management systems that need to be addressed as part of designing appropriate, successful rights-based programs”158.
319. A major discussion item considered in the 2008 Conference was the implementation of the 1995 Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries159. In light of the fact that IUU is a major threat to legitimate rights holders in fisheries, a particularly interesting 2009 FAO paper looks at the impacts of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. With regard to TRA elements, the author concludes that: “This analysis shows that in many domains, implementation of the Code has been slow on the ground, but that in some domains, such as the implementation of the International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (IPOA– IUU), countries have been fast to embrace the Code and implement its instrument in the ways prescribed. The study also shows that a very vast and diverse range of sector stakeholders across the entire spectrum have endorsed the Code and do pursue its stated objectives”160.
320. As discussed elsewhere, for TRA challenges and opportunities related to other resources, such as forest carbon rights in the context of REDD+ development, there also is a clear recognition in FI that TRA elements are only one necessary, but not sufficient input in a broader system of changes that are needed to make fisheries contribute more to sustainable poverty alleviation and food security in an equitable manner.
321. A good example of a normative output that brings all these considerations together, including rights and access challenges and opportunities is a regional publication entitled, “Best practices to support and improve livelihoods of small-scale fisheries and aquaculture households”161.
322. In fact, there are few FAO fisheries publications that have “rights” or “access to fish” in their titles, but many, both from headquarters and the regions, deal with the concerns of rights
158 Metzner 2010. 159 Hosch 2009. 160 Ibid. 161 APFIC (2010).
81 and access (in many cases, they deal with “open access” systems which are the most common in developing countries).
323. Some fifteen years after the Code was released, FI is participating in preparing and discussing the formulation of the VGs; and “fish” now appear in the title of the document. The extent to which COFI will endorse the VGs is still a question. A number of people interviewed expressed disappointment that more fisheries experts were not involved in the formulation and development of the VGs.
Recent field projects with fisheries TRA elements
324. There are no field projects that focus primarily on TRA challenges and opportunities. However, a number of projects do deal with TRA elements, either in terms of eliminating constraints or as positive objectives of the projects. For example, the Coastal Communities Development Programme in Brazil162 states that one of its outputs is "a study to evaluate existing co-management systems and strategies as well as traditional management and the rights of use in the area of the projects in order to identify the most important limitations that represent a threat to the sustainable development of fisheries."
325. Another project, Gestión pesquera en Uruguay163, recognises that because artisanal coastal fisheries are overwhelmingly open access, the risk of overexploitation is very high. The project activities include improving fisheries resource management, and developing a new Law on Fisheries and Aquaculture, one that also deals with access issues. A project for Myanmar164 has as part of its first listed output “communities and supporting institutions facilitated to jointly develop approved mangrove fisheries and aquaculture co-management plans.” Central to such plans are the sensitive issues surrounding allocation of access to the benefits from such management as well as allocation of the management and access rights. Another project in Kyrgyz Republic165 has as its first output: “People have daily access to safe and high quality fish…”. A project in South and Southeast Asia166 has TRA elements and implications throughout the project. Its first output is: “Co-management mechanisms for sustainable utilization fishery resources constitute one set of outputs.” The set includes: Improved information bases, national policies and legislation (local regulations) amended, and registration of fishing boats introduced. Central to effective co-management mechanisms are allocation of access rules and control of illegal activity that affects the legitimate holders of the rights to access.
326. A major global project, funded by Norway is focused on “Strengthening the Knowledge Base for and Implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Marine Fisheries in Developing Countries”167. The long term objective of this project is to strengthen regional and country specific efforts to reduce poverty and create conditions to assist in the achievement of food security through development of sustainable fisheries management regimes and specifically through the application of the ecosystem approach to fisheries in developing countries, with an early emphasis on Sub-Saharan Africa. In any fishery where there is overfishing or decline in fish stocks, and where the objective is to develop sustainable fisheries management regimes, TRA
162 UTF /BRA/066/BRA 163 UTF /URU/025/URU 164 GCP/MYA/010/ITA: “Sustainable small-scale fisheries and aquaculture livelihoods in coastal mangrove ecosystems” 165 GCP/KYR/003/FIN: “Support to fishery and aquaculture management in the Kyrgyz Republic” 166 GCP/RAS/237/SPA: “Regional fisheries livelihoods programme for South and Southeast Asia” 167 GCP /INT/003/NOR
82 elements enter as a major consideration and allocation of rights to access becomes a necessity to control the offtake.
327. There are other fisheries projects with similar TRA elements (objectives and outputs) embedded in them. So it is evident that TRA activity fits centrally in the work of FAO related to fisheries.
Links with the rest of the world: partnering, collaboration and cooperation
328. FAO’s Fisheries Department has a longstanding collaboration with the International Collective in Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), which engages in rights-related advocacy work for small- scale fishing communities. The ICSF has been an active participant in the negotiations for the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, and through its formal liaison status with FAO has participated in numerous FAO consultations and workshops. With respect to TRA issues in particular, the ICSF has facilitated participation by fishworkers organisations in global and regional small-scale fisheries workshops, and has contributed to the 2011 Governance of Tenure in Fisheries workshop. FAO staff have also participated in ICSF-led workshops on issues related to use rights in fisheries.
329. FAO plans to cooperate with the ICSF and other civil society organisations in the future development of voluntary guidelines for securing small-scale fisheries.
330. FAO is also closely associated with the Regional Fisheries Bodies (Commissions) around the world, which deal in part with TRA issues – mainly those associated with ocean fisheries.
331. Other partners include the International Maritime Organisation, the UN Office on Drugs and Crime, UNEP, the Convention on Biodiversity, the World Trade Organisation, Greenpeace, the WWF, and the International Sustainable Seafood Organisation.
An Evaluation Team perspective on TRA activities in FAO related to the “other” natural resources – water, forests, wildlife and fisheries
332. In what follows, we provide some comments on the work that FAO has been doing over the past five years or so related to TRA for the “other” natural resources of water, forests, wildlife and fisheries. We preface these comments with one overriding conclusion: Given the small amount of resources that has gone into TRA work related to these other natural resources, FAO has been doing an outstanding job in terms of what it has accomplished in the TRA arena. That is particularly so in the areas of forestry and wildlife, but also in fisheries and water. However, a quick glance at what FAO is doing does not do justice to the work that actually is going on related to TRA for the natural resources other than agricultural and livestock land.
333. More specifically, only around $300,000 of extra budgetary funding raised for the VGs was devoted specifically to normative TRA activities related to water, forests, and fisheries. Prior to that, around US$ 840,000 was allocated to FO, FI, LEGN, NRLA and ESW from the Norwegian-funded Legal Empowerment of the Poor (LEP) Initiative for TRA related work. Only about $200,000 of that went to FO and FI. That makes only around $500,000 devoted to FO and FI TRA work over the evaluation period. In general almost all of the human resources (paid by regular program budget) devoted to TRA from within FAO were contributed on an ad hoc basis as time permitted. FO had a consultant in this area for a while during the period; and the person supporting the VG process in NRC has also devoted some time to forestry and fisheries. It bears re-emphasizing that, given the very low level of official funding and lack of
83 formal assignment of professional regular programme staff to TRA activity related to the natural resources other than land, it is remarkable how much good work has been accomplished in the TRA area.
334. At the same time, given the fundamental importance of effective economic access to resources for poor people, particularly in terms of sustainable food security and poverty reduction, the evaluation team is left with a question: Why was FAO not pursuing more aggressively efforts to obtain more extra-budgetary funding for more normative as well as field project activity in this area?
TRA elements in non-TRA projects
335. Part of the problem in terms of identifying resources with FAO TRA work is related to the fact that a lot of TRA elements were found to be embedded in various activities and field projects, as discussed in earlier sections of this chapter. This indicates that FAO has correctly considered TRA as a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself. TRA elements are not identified in project titles and abstracts since they are considered means. Over the period being evaluated, in the case of water, forestry and fisheries there has only been one field project (forest tenure in China) that focused directly on TRA issues and opportunities. Yet, a number of other projects deal indirectly or by necessity with TRA, even though they are not part of the main objectives of the projects.
336. The evaluation team conducted a survey of TRA elements in FAO non-emergency field projects during the evaluation timeframe with budgets of $2 million or more. The results are shown in Table VI-2. They indicate some 19 percent of the projects included TRA elements either as project activities or as constraints that need to be addressed. Details have been provided in the discussions of individual resource systems. The conflict related projects represent lost opportunities to improve projects by including specific TRA related activities to overcome the constraints.
Table VI-2: Non-TRA projects with TRA elements (considering all projects with a budget > $2 million)
Budget of Total Total Budget all TRA- TRA-related projects budget all TRA-related projects bracket related projects found projects projects No. that No. with No. with Total no. As % of identify As % of identified unidentified TRA- total TRA as a total direct TRA direct TRA related projects constraint budget activities* activities** projects found ***
$2-4m 144 $325.6m 10 14 4 28 $82.8m 19.4% 25.4%
>$4m 121 $1,078.8m 2 12 9 23 $225.8m 19.0% 20.9%
Total: 265 $1,404.4m 12 26 13 51 $308.5m 19.2% 22.0% >$2m * Includes projects such as funding for the Voluntary Guidelines, the China Forest Tenure project, etc., that were identified as TRA-related projects by FAO staff; ** Includes projects that were not identified as TRA-related by FAO staff, but which nonetheless had direct TRA activities as part of the project design; *** Includes projects without direct TRA activities that were not identified as TRA-related by FAO staff, but which nonetheless recognized that TRA issues were a constraint to achieving project objectives
337. Questions that FAO eventually needs to address include: How are these TRA elements currently handled in the projects identified, and how well are they handled? Is there opportunity to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of their handling through greater
84 input of TRA expertise? If so, how should such expertise be organized and funded within project budgets? What are the opportunities for inter-project synergies that could be taken advantage of through better communication and collaboration?
In-house collaboration
338. The normative TRA work that has been done and is being done outside the agricultural land TRA activity is spread across the organization in many different units. In the past few years there has been some collaboration across units in terms of this work, including for example: LEGN collaborates well with other technical units and is producing some key outputs related to water, forests, wildlife and fisheries TRA; work on the VGs, which has brought forestry, fisheries and land together in producing the draft VGs; and the work related to UN-REDD, which has brought FO and NR closer together and has led to some productive activities, such as the Expert meeting on land tenure issues and requirements for implementing climate change mitigation policies in the forestry and agriculture sectors, which also brought MICCA into the picture.
339. However, there are opportunities to take advantage of more potential synergies, e.g., between TRA challenges related to aquaculture and water, inland fisheries and wildlife, water and TRA watershed management issues, and forestry TRA and FAO work related to large scale land conversion (involving deforestation). This observation needs to be taken in context: given the meagre Regular Programme budgets allocated to TRA activity in the various units, there is little if any incentive to spend time and effort on developing collaborative efforts. Transactions costs can be significant. At the same time, with use of some extra-budgetary funding, there have been examples of good collaboration.
340. Stakeholders interviewed for this evaluation perceived great potential for improving inter- departmental work on TRA. This collaboration could draw on the experience of the LEP initiative, which highlighted the advantages of having a staff member dedicated to the coordination of the work within different divisions. Inter-departmental collaboration could benefit from an overarching strategic vision or “framework of action” on the relationship between land tenure, land management, food security and rural development, and the “articulation of linkages with FAO’s strategic objectives”.
341. External stakeholders also noted that the absence of a “comprehensive way of looking at the land tenure issue” at FAO was frustrating. If FAO is to focus its tenure work on securing tenure rights for the poor and marginalised in the broader context of improving food security and alleviating poverty, one CSO felt “this means working in a much more integrated fashion across units within FAO”. One donor cautioned however that there is a cost to greater coordination.
LEGN has made valuable input on TRA challenges related to other natural resources
342. The LEGN activity related to TRA topics for different resource systems is substantial and notable. The group has dealt extensively with land tenure issues, but also with land and water linkages, water by itself, forests, wildlife and fisheries. Based on the evaluation team’s interviews, those who know of the publications of LEGN consistently have high regards for the work. Furthermore, the recent OED evaluation of FAO’s work on water gives high marks to the work of LEGN. The evaluation team concurs with these assessments of the work done by
85 LEGN related to the “other” natural resources. Most of this work is done on project funds or other extra-budgetary funding, often in close collaboration with other units in FAO.
VII. Future Directions of FAO Support to TRA
343. The first two parts of this evaluation report assessed FAO’s recent past work related to tenure, rights and access to land and other natural resources. This final section puts forth some suggestions and recommendations for the future, based on the results of the evaluation and the evaluation team’s perspective on how TRA activity should evolve in the FAO. The evaluation team believes that in the future there needs to be a more explicit focus on linking FAO’s TRA work to other work done by the FAO, since (a) changes in TRA alone do not lead to increased sustainable food security and poverty reduction, and (b) a main comparative advantage of the FAO is its breadth of coverage of the other components that need to complement TRA improvements in order to contribute to the basic goals of the FAO and its Members168.
344. In making recommendations, the evaluation team has tried to recognize and keep in mind that FAO faces a great many constraints that limit it in terms of how things can change. Perhaps most importantly, it faces what seems by now to be a chronic, never-ending shortage of Regular Programme resources. Yet as innovative, timely programs emerge, such as the VGs programme, new extra-budgetary resources have been found; and FAO’s relatively new central involvement in UN-REDD encourages one to think that new resources are on the horizon, if REDD+ grows to the magnitude envisioned.169 The challenge is to get the right ideas on the table at the right time. Success in terms of mobilizing additional resources and leveraging existing resources depends on FAO clearly articulating the broader framework that defines how important FAO’s TRA work is and could be in contributing to the achievement of the basic global goals of the FAO and its Members.
345. So a basic underlying question asked in this forward looking part of the evaluation is: how can FAO make its TRA activity contribute more to its global goals and those of its Members, which are in concert with the broader MDGs? The evaluation team, through its questionnaires and interviews, asked stakeholders what they thought FAO should be doing more of in the future. The responses ranged across the board and are worth summarizing here.
What others think: FAO’s TRA activity in the future
346. Respondents to the FAO staff survey were asked to assess the priorities for FAO’s tenure, rights and access work in the future. Of the 84 respondents who answered this section of the survey, approximately 45 per cent felt that FAO should increase the resources devoted to this area of work. Specific areas where it was felt by more than three quarters of respondents that more resources are needed are: secure access to customary land for communities;
168 In fact, the FAO strategic plan articulates three underlying global goals. The third is: “sustainable management and utilisation of natural resources, including land, water, air, climate and genetic resources, for the benefit of present and future generations.” In what follows, we have combined this goal with the first two by adding the term “sustainable” to food security and poverty reduction. 169 REDD+ goes far beyond tenure, but carbon tenure issues and issues related to tenure of degraded lands for planting new trees are a central part of what needs to be dealt with to make REDD+ a success.
86 secure access to land and other natural resources for women and other disadvantaged groups; secure access to land in climate change mitigation; governance of tenure (e.g. through the VGs); and security of access to privately held land (through titling and registration).
347. There are four areas in which at least one third of the respondents stated that the resources should be diminished or kept without change. These areas are: property taxation; land consolidation; access to land in emergencies; and land grabbing.
348. Staff members were also asked to consider the prioritisation of FAO products and services relating to tenure, rights and access. Of the 84 (out of 123) respondents who answered this section of the survey, more than three quarters felt that additional resources were needed for: capacity development/training; direct technical assistance (through long-term field projects); policy advice; direct technical assistance (through short-term missions); and statistics, databases and other ICT products.
349. There are five types of products or services for which at least one third of the respondents stated that the resources should be diminished or kept without change. These are: FAO Website; Publications; Guidelines & Manuals; Expert consultations, workshops, e-conferences and proceedings; and International processes, codes and standard setting agreements.
350. The opinions of the internal and external stakeholders interviewed for the Stakeholder Perception Study are outlined in Annex 3. In formulating the evaluation team’s perspective on where FAO should be in the future with regard to TRA activity, the opinions of external and internal stakeholders were taken into account.
The evaluation team’s perspective on how TRA elements relate to the rest of what FAO does that contributes to sustainable food security and poverty reduction
351. The evaluation team’s short answer to the question of how FAO should change its approach to TRA in the future is: By taking greater advantage of its main comparative advantage – the breadth and depth of its portfolio of expertise and knowledge related to food security and agricultural development for poverty alleviation.
87 352. FAO covers agriculture, forestry and fisheries across the board from policy to technical work to training. FAO has a comprehensive portfolio of built-up knowledge, information and skills and expertise that no other international entity has170. Significant progress towards achievement of FAO’s goals depends on recognizing and taking advantage of many of the potential synergies that exist both within FAO and with work of key outside partners. Similar to other technical and cross-cutting areas of FAO work (such as Forestry and Nutrition), TRA’s role needs to be looked at in this broader framework.
353. The subject matter of this evaluation is extremely broad, as is the nature and subject of the actual activities being undertaken by the FAO in the TRA area. TRA activity ranges from working with the highly technical aspects of land administration, cadastre, land consolidation and registration, to the more political aspects of forest tenure reform, fishing and water rights, land use conflicts and control of illegal forest and fishing activities that directly impact the access to resources by legitimate rights holders. Progress in all of these areas is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for strengthening food security and reducing poverty. Thus, a practical and effective strategy for addressing the global goals of FAO and its Members needs to consider how the diverse TRA activities in FAO link with other FAO activities to create the necessary and sufficient conditions for moving towards the global goals of FAO and its Members. It is only in this broader context that the critical importance of FAO’s work on TRA can be seen in relation to the underlying goals of FAO and its Members.
354. In this broader evaluation framework focused on achievement of FAO goals, it is evident that “access” needs to refer to a concept beyond mere physical access or the secure “right” to physically access land and other resources. As FAO recognizes, it is necessary to focus on secure effective economic access to resources and their outputs. Thus, as one example, in low rainfall, water scarce areas, secure physical access to land, and the right to such access has no significance in terms of achieving FAO’s goals if those land use rights holders don’t also have secure economic access to water and other required factors of production that make the land a productive, effective economic asset.
355. Furthermore, the holders of secure land and water rights need access to input and output markets, technology, and many other factors, all in a stable, effective and fair governance environment. Significant impacts on food security and poverty reduction occur only if “access” is interpreted in this broader context. Thus, as also indicated in FAO’s strategic development outputs, a number of dimensions beyond simple, direct physical access to land and other resources need to be considered as FAO moves towards achievement of the global goals of FAO and its Members. Some of the main dimensions are:
“Good enough” governance is in place.171 This holds whether one is dealing with private or collective access to resources. And, in fact, it holds across the board for means to improve food security, and poverty alleviation and, if necessary, means to reinstate the situation in the event of conflict or a natural disaster. Evidence is
170 It is often mentioned that one of FAO’s main comparative advantages is its neutrality. However, there also is the opposite perspective as expressed by some interviewees. For example, some donors felt that it could be “a double-edged sword”. Some feel that FAO’s intergovernmental nature means that it cannot be as frank about problems as perhaps others could be: there was some concern that FAO can ignore serious differences between government and CSO views simply to please its member governments, rather than taking a position of neutrality and helping to resolve differences. This is where the VGs will be useful, if widely accepted. 171 Cf. Grindle 2004 and Grindle 2007. The basic argument is that perfect governance will not be attained, but governance with a reasonable level of technical capacity, public participation, respect for, and enforcement of the law, and accountability to the citizenry is possible and must be achieved.
88 building from around the world that if quality of governance falls below a certain threshold, then assured, effective economic access of poor people to land and other resources is unlikely; and if they do gain such access, they face many obstacles in terms of security of tenure and having the land contribute to improving their livelihoods.172
The enforcement and administrative dimension. While it is important who has the statutory and/or customary rights to access resources, merely having laws on the books and tenure assigned does not guarantee effective economic access, if the rights and tenure implied by the laws are not enforced and governed properly. The right to enforcement of legal and administrative provisions to protect the lawful rights of the holder is the most fundamental component of a bundle of tenure rights. Thus, this dimension includes administration and effective enforcement of laws and regulations, to ensure security and equality in access. As mentioned previously, illegal forest, fishing, and hunting activities are major factors that significantly affect the effective economic access to resources by legitimate rights holders. Thus, dealing with illegal activity is essential in moving toward effective economic access. FAO works with a variety of groups focused on the reduction of these illegal activities173.
The output market, employment and consumption dimension. Secure access to land and other resources is an intermediate objective along the path to improved food security and poverty alleviation. The critical link beyond access to the resources is access to the markets where producers of products from those resources can gain income, and access of the landless and urban poor and food insecure to those markets where they buy the food and other natural resource based products (e.g. firewood and charcoal) they need. Effective economic access to those markets depends on the ability to pay for the goods being sold, which in turn depends on availability of employment and income. FAO has activities that relate directly to all of these important areas – market development and growth, trade, pricing, employment and incomes of the poor.
The complementary input market/availability dimension. Closely related to the previous dimension is the need for access to inputs – credit, appropriate seed and plant genetic materials, fertilizers, machinery, irrigation and other technology, etc., that are required to produce useful and economically viable outputs from the land and other natural resources of concern here. As indicated earlier, such inputs are part of what defines “effective economic access”. FAO also has active programs related to this dimension.
The efficiency/technology dimension of production, extraction and use of the resources and their outputs. For example, in developing countries, on average more than 80 per cent of mobilized water resources go to agriculture. But more than half the water diverted for agriculture does not contribute directly to food security and
172 At the same time, and just so we don’t get complacent, it is important to remind ourselves that regardless of the adequacy of governance, one cannot ignore the quality of projects designed and carried out by groups such as the FAO. Recent evidence from the World Bank reminds us of this. Cf. Denizer, Kaufmann and Kraay 2011. The authors find, for example, that “, a striking feature of the data is that the success of individual development projects varies much more within countries than it does between countries.” In other words, project quality and management do matter. 173 See Part VI.
89 livelihood improvements because of misuse and inefficiency in transfer and conversion.174 Thus, efficiency in transfer, storage and use becomes a major issue in effective economic access to water in countries facing increasing scarcity of water; and, as indicated above, effective economic access is what is needed in terms of moving towards poverty alleviation and food security goals. Similar efficiency issues that affect access to water also exist for the other resources considered in this evaluation. FAO deals extensively with these challenges and the opportunities associated with them, quite often in partnership with research groups such as the CGIAR centres, which increasingly have moved more towards the “research for development” end of the research continuum.
356. FAO already has major programmes related to all these other dimensions or conditions that should complement, and in some cases do complement the contribution of FAO’s TRA activity in moving toward greater and more sustainable food security and poverty reduction. These relationships need to be better understood, explained and brought to the forefront in discussions of future TRA activity in the FAO and its importance in the overall development paradigm being pursued by the FAO as it moves toward achievement of its goals.
357. In sum, a complex set of factors and conditions affect how the seemingly simple concept of improved “tenure, rights and access” to land and other natural resources eventually gets translated into secure and “effective economic access” to such resources, which in turn can have an impact in on sustainable food security and poverty alleviation.175 The complementary requirements for impact are nothing new to the FAO, which considers and does work related to all of these dimensions. However, a question addressed in the evaluation is whether FAO has widely enough and sufficiently considered the potential synergies between its basic work on TRA and these other dimensions that define “effective economic access.” Has FAO thought through the alternative impact pathways from TRA activity to achievement of results in terms of its Global Goals? Does FAO have a relevant strategy for how its TRA activity can be best translated into improved food security and poverty reduction? And equally important, does FAO have in place the incentives to encourage busy staff to look at their work more broadly in such a “results based” framework, where the results - contributions to the Members’ global goals - are estimated and measured qualitatively or quantitatively along alternative impact pathways? Based on discussions with FAO personnel and review of documentation, the answer for both questions is “yes” and “no.”
358. On the “yes” side, at the strategic, “big picture” level in FAO, secure tenure and effective economic access to land and other natural resources are well understood and recognized as a necessary condition for moving towards increased sustainable food security and sustainable rural poverty alleviation. For example, the new paradigm in “Save and Grow” states176:
The shift to SCPI (sustainable crop production intensification) requires improvements in soil fertility, erosion control and water management. Farmers will undertake them only if they are
174 IFAD. n.d. 175 FAO’s forthcoming voluntary guidelines on governance of tenure recognize this point. ( Draft, May 2011, “Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests”) as do a number of FAO papers. 176 Cf. “Save and Grow: A policymaker’s guide to the sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production.” FAO, 2011. The FAO DG states in the foreword: “Sustainable intensification of smallholder crop production is one of FAO’s strategic objectives. Our aim over the next 15 years is to assist developing countries in adopting “save and grow” policies and approaches.”
90 entitled to benefit, for a sufficiently long period, from the increase in the value of natural capital. Often, however, their rights are poorly defined, overlapping or not formalized. Improving the land and water rights of farmers – especially those of women, who are increasingly the ones making production decisions – is a key incentive to adoption of sustainable intensification.
Land tenure programmes in many developing countries have focused on formalizing and privatizing rights to land, with little regard for customary and collective systems of tenure. Governments should give greater recognition to such systems, as growing evidence indicates that, where they provide a degree of security, they can also provide effective incentives for investments177. However, customary systems that are built on traditional social hierarchies may be inequitable and fail to provide the access needed for sustainable intensification. While there is no single “best practice” model for recognizing customary land tenure, recent research has outlined a typology for selecting alternative policy responses based on the capacity of the customary tenure system (emphasis added)178.
359. Similarly, this FAO paradigm for the future of agriculture and food security recognizes the critical nature of secure access to water, plant genetic material and the other conditions discussed above in order to make the access to land economically effective and productive.
360. The “no” answer emerges when one looks at the FAO work on TRA specifically and at the project level. The evaluation team found little evidence of an explicit strategic view of how the TRA activity being done fits in the broader picture of increasing sustainable food security and reducing poverty. There are indications of TRA activities crossing administrative units in FAO (e.g., UN-REDD work, the VGs and FAO’s field operations in Mozambique179). However, much of the work still appears to have been done in isolation and with the outputs of the projects being considered the end results being sought. From a practical point of view, this probably is a logical approach in a “results based” model or management mode where the outputs really are the “results” sought. In a situation where extra-budgetary funding drives much of the activity, the deliverables tend be looked at as the end product, in the same way that they are viewed by a consulting firm. However, this should not be the case in an intergovernmental entity focused on sustainable food security and poverty alleviation. FAO needs a strategic view of how the various TRA activities and outputs could fit better with other pieces of the puzzle that FAO is trying to solve in moving further toward achieving its two goals of sustainable food security and poverty reduction.
361. This need was amply supported by the views expressed in the responses to the evaluation team’s questionnaires, personal and phone interviews as laid out in the Stakeholder Perception Study. For example, it was felt by some civil society organizations that if FAO’s tenure work is to move towards the goals of alleviating poverty, improving food security, and environmental sustainability, it could be “more forward-looking in setting priorities”. An FAO staff member emphasised strongly that in order to define future priorities, “FAO must clarify the focus of its work on tenure, rights and access” – whether the focus should be on land administration to improve rights security, or land reform to increase access for marginalised groups. As suggested by another stakeholder, FAO needs to consider which land tenure- related skills are in short supply elsewhere, and then “focus on developing their unique capabilities”. Donors felt that work on land tenure should be part of FAO’s core budget.
177 Donnelly 2010. 178 Fitzpatrick 2005. 179 Promoting the Use of Land and Natural Resources Laws for Equitable Development, April 2009 - March 2012 (GCP/MOZ/096/NET) and preceding projects (see Figure IV-2)
91
362. In one staff member’s opinion, the failure to address the long-term policy issues associated with tenure, rights and access is the result of an “absence of strategic thinking” on these policies – issues such as climate change, rural development and natural resources management need to be addressed within a broader strategic vision. As noted by one donor, there is no clear connection made in either FAO’s projects or publications between its work on land tenure and its goal of food security. Another stakeholder felt that a strategy that links FAO’s tenure, rights and access activity with its broader goals is “badly needed.”
363. A strategic FAO view is needed, one that lays out the optimum impact pathways for FAO TRA activities, explores their links to each other, and defines their links to FAO activities outside the TRA arena, and particularly looks at ways in which TRA activity can contribute with the rest of FAO’s work in moving toward greater food security and poverty reduction. That is a first step in indicating the critical importance of FAO’s TRA work and hopefully moving towards greater visibility for the subject and increased funding, including more through the regular programme budget.
Proposed strategic visioning exercise to determine the best way forward for FAO’s TRA activity
364. Such a visioning exercise should be carried out in a collaborative, participatory fashion and widely circulated and discussed in order to get in-house ownership. While outsiders can help in such an exercise, only the FAO itself can carry it out and develop ownership, which is critical in terms of implementation of an agreed strategic view. A strategic visioning exercise could help in taking further advantage of potential synergies across units within FAO and avoiding unnecessary overlaps, duplications and conflicts. And, of critical importance to FAO, it could help the Organization mobilize additional resources for TRA activity by indicating and documenting the important role that TRA plays in the overall interactive process of successive approximations as the FAO moves towards its goals. For example, the evaluation team has illustrated that many FAO projects include significant TRA elements, even though the projects are not at all considered as TRA projects by FAO staff. Carrying out such a strategic visioning exercise requires that additional resources be forthcoming. Thus, the recommendation is made to upper administration as well as those in FAO actually involved in the organization’s TRA work.
365. If FAO truly is dedicated to, and focused on, the end goals of its Members (sustainable food security and poverty reduction), then it must also be concerned more with how its work on TRA relates to the rest of its work and if there are better ways to harness the “win-win” situations or synergies that create the “necessary and sufficient” conditions to move more effectively towards the global goals of its Members. It also needs to apply guidance from the Governing bodies that “in line with FAO’s strategic focus on reaching the World Food Summit (WFS) target and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)… that special attention in the allocation of technical cooperation programme resources be given to the neediest countries180”, FAO does deal to a greater or lesser extent with all the other necessary elements. As mentioned, this breadth of scope is what creates its main comparative advantage in the global agricultural development arena, where sustainable food security and poverty reduction are the main goals. While these other factors are not the subject of this evaluation, we emphasize that the TRA elements, which are the subject of this evaluation,
180 See FAO Programme Committee report (Oct 2011) “Access to the Technical Cooperation Programme on a grant basis: eligibility criterion” at http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/bodies/Progr_Comm/PC_108- documents/MB749E_PC108-9AccessTCP_.pdf
92 need to be assessed within the context of this broader framework, given that the focus in FAO should be on end results and impacts in terms of achieving FAO member global goals.
366. In other words, the evaluation team is recommending that FAO consider not only ways in which diverse TRA elements of its programme can be more effectively linked to each other181, but also that it searches for ways in which its TRA elements can be linked more effectively to the rest of its activity. The evaluation team fully recognizes that the constraints to doing so faced in FAO are many and in some cases severe, e.g., extra-budgetary funding drives much of the activity and often is obtained in an entrepreneurial way by individual units, and there are few in-house incentives at present encouraging serious cross-unit collaboration and cooperation. Yet, as mentioned, such collaboration does exist to some extent, as in the case of the VGs and the UN-REDD programme, both primarily funded with extra-budgetary resources.
367. The evaluation team is not recommending an unreachable ideal end state, but rather a direction of change in thinking about and implementing TRA activity in the context of the rest of the activity undertaken by the FAO. This evaluation indicates that in fact some in the Organization are already thinking along these lines. We envision a more informal strategic visioning exercise that gets more people thinking along the same lines in terms of basic needs and opportunities related to TRA activity that could contribute more to meeting the basic goals of FAO and its Members182. It goes without saying that such an exercise also has to look at the incentives for change and greater collaboration and interaction; and these incentives have to be translated for administrators and donors into resource needs.
368. Such a strategic visioning exercise also would identify the true extent of TRA activity being carried out by FAO and its partners. As mentioned earlier, the evaluation team found in its interviews and review of project documentation that a lot of projects deal with aspects of TRA, although no reference to TRA elements appear in the project titles and summary descriptions183. TRA is such a fundamental factor in the development, management and governance of agriculture, broadly writ (i.e., including the other resource systems covered by FAO). The proposed strategic visioning exercise would systematically identify and link such (hidden) involvement with TRA to the main visible lines of TRA activity in FAO, searching for ways to take advantage of potential synergies and avoid duplications in the overall FAO program focused on food security and poverty reduction.
369. Some will undoubtedly argue that attempting to develop an overall strategic view of TRA in FAO is futile, given the poor state of information on the impacts of changes in TRA, the fundamental disagreements in FAO that exist among individuals concerning priority activities, the small amount of resources currently dedicated to TRA activities, and the uncertainties involved in terms of linkages between TRA activities and achievement of the basic global goals
181 The TRA issues for the different resource systems interact in various ways. We already have discussed how inter locked land and water TRA issues and opportunities are. TRA issues in forestry interact with agricultural land TRA issues (e.g., large scale agricultural “land grabbing”) through deforestation. As pointed out earlier, more than eighty percent of new agricultural land during the 1980 to 2000 period came at the expense of forests and the people who depend on them, often for survival. 182 A modified SWOT analysis might be a useful start in getting the various actors involved thinking along the same lines. 183 Based on the ET’s assessment of 265 relevant FAO water, forestry and fisheries projects over $2 million in size, 51, or roughly one fifth had explicit TRA elements in them. Based on this result it would seem worthwhile for the FAO to consider more explicitly how such TRA elements are handled in practice in the projects and assess ways that such handling might be improved. Is there an unmet need for TRA expertise in these projects? Are the projects adequately addressing the TRA related needs?
93 of FAO and its Members. All of these constraints have been verified by the evaluation team through the stakeholder perception study, the results of the questionnaire surveys, and other sources of documentation used by the evaluation team.
370. Despite these known constraints, the evaluation team suggests that a strategic visioning exercise still is worthwhile in and of itself, even in the unlikely event that no consensus on a strategic view emerges. There will be opportunity for a lot of mutual learning and adapting among those who disagree on priorities and opportunities; and it will help those involved to understand better the role and comparative advantages of the FAO within the larger context of the whole network of international and regional entities dealing with TRA and with poverty reduction and food security as basic goals. It could be useful in terms of identifying new ways to leverage scarce resources devoted to TRA activity.
371. Of equal importance is the fact that communicating such a strategic view and linking TRA activities more closely to the achievement of the basic goals may have a positive influence in terms of raising understanding of the key role of TRA in achieving better and more sustainable food security and poverty reduction184. This, in turn, could lead to increased donor awareness of the importance of TRA activity and thus create potentially promising funding opportunities for high-payoff activities in the FAO.
Additional Suggestions in terms of the future of TRA work in the FAO
372. The strategic visioning exercise suggested above will identify the desired future direction for FAO TRA work. However, the evaluation team has some additional suggestions for considerations that might be taken into account in charting the future of FAO’s TRA work. It also has identified some areas that might seem ripe for change, but where changes are not recommended by the evaluation team at this time. Both are considered below under the following headings: Normative and field work; Extra-budgetary resource driven vs. strategy-driven work; Similarities and differences between TRA challenges and opportunities for different natural resource systems; In what follows, we briefly sketch out the key elements for each of these as viewed by the evaluation team.
Normative and Field Activity
373. The question here is not normative versus field activity, but rather, as indicated in Part IV and V the extent to which the two feed on and inform each other, the normative work informing the design of field work, and the field work results feeding back into the development of normative products. As FAO moves into the future, the two should be treated as complements not competitors in terms of FAO’s programme. In fact, it is seldom that the two draw on the same funding pool, although they can compete in terms of time commitments of professional staff, so there are opportunity costs to consider. The evaluation team concludes that related to TRA, FAO has some productive interaction between normative and field activity, but many more unexplored potential complementarities exist, particularly in terms of field activity
184 Documenting this link is important; and FAO should set as a priority producing a study that surveys and assesses the evidence from around the world regarding the economic, social and environmental benefits associated with increased tenure, rights and access security.
94 informing normative work.185 They need to be considered in designing a strategy for the future.
374. FAO can approach the future with a more integrated view across resources in terms of its TRA field work and its normative activities. The fact is that in the field there are linkages that do not always have to be considered in focused normative work. Yet there is need to have the realities in the field introduced in the normative work, just as there are broad technical, legal and institutional principles and options explored in the normative work that can inform and improve the design and operation of the field work. A good example of this is the strong relationship between the “land grabbing” issue in agriculture and the deforestation TRA related issues faced in forestry. The two are separated for the most part in terms of FAO normative work. Yet, in the field in many countries they are intimately interwoven, since much of the land grabbing involves forest and woodlands, where population densities are lower and large areas of land are available. This should be of central concern to FAO in terms, for example, of its work within the UN-REDD.
375. In the case of forests, wildlife and fisheries the level of field project activity directly related to TRA is limited to a few projects, although TRA elements crop up in a significant proportion of forestry and wildlife field projects by necessity – TRA elements are critical ones in a variety of situations encountered in the field and relate to many of the key challenges in forestry development, e.g., in relation to REDD+ and in relation to community based forest management and enterprise development. Yet, there is no professional with a sole focus on forestry TRA in headquarters to turn to for advice. Supposedly, a position in FO focused on TRA is opening up in a couple of years.
376. One staff member in headquarters focuses on all aspects of wildlife and protected areas, so the time available for wildlife TRA issues in the field is very limited, despite the great importance of sustainable bushmeat access (harvesting) rights to most forest and forest fringe dwellers. At the same time, there are some significant wildlife field projects underway that deal to some extent with critical rights and access issues in the context of sustainable bushmeat harvesting. In the case of wildlife, there also are staff members in the regions who deal with wildlife TRA matters.
377. In the last five or more years, FAO’s land-related TRA publications have a more practical orientation and a stronger link with field operations. As a consequence, they are more useful for national policy makers, technical staff, CSOs and training institutions. There is still more scope to link field operations and normative activity on the land tenure website and the implementation of the VGs in the coming years should be a good opportunity to develop this complementarity. However, the compartmentalisation of TRA information (i.e. into land, fisheries, forest, gender and development, post emergency, development law), while understandable from an organisational standpoint, reduces the scope for a more integrated view of FAO’s normative activities and field work across resources. We believe that more attention should be given to TRA field activities which cross FAO’s administrative units, for example by highlighting more than a decade of work in Mozambique, promoting the decentralised implementation of land and natural resource laws and the use of land and natural resources for equitable development (see the Figure in Annex 6, page 222). We should like to see FAO involved in similar TRA initiatives in other Sub-Saharan countries in Africa, in
185 Note that feedback is not always positive. Thus, failures or ineffectiveness in the field provides just as valuable insights for normative work as do great successes in the field.
95 which the total customary domain is the dominant category accounting for more than 70 percent of the land area186, as well as in Asia and the Pacific.
Resource driven vs. strategy driven work
378. Many of FAO’s programmes survive on extra-budgetary (EB) funding. Regular budget funding barely covers salaries and benefits in some units. EB funding is important for the operation of a number of TRA activities and most field projects. The positive side of EB funding is that it permits programmes to operate, or at least operate more effectively than would be the case without such funding. And EB funding is positive if it supports proposals that are in keeping with needs and priorities as identified by FAO, rather than being donors looking for “consultants” to carry out their priorities. The latter is the negative side of EB funding, since it tends drive the programme rather than the programme being driven by the goals, strategies and objectives of the FAO. FAO does have plenty of examples of where it has set an agenda and programme strategy and donors have come along to fund the activity. Similarly, there are plenty of examples of where joint planning between donors and FAO has resulted in productive projects that have included TRA elements. However, it also faces some situations where availability of funding has tended to drive FAO activities in directions that would not have been FAO priorities without the funding being available.
379. A number of interviewees raised a question about the heavy reliance of the LTT on funding from the World Bank projects through the TCI, with a focus on land administration and Eastern Europe (see discussion in Part IV on The Cooperative Programme in Europe and Central Asia). The ET raised the same question in its assessment of past activity related to TRA. This resource driven activity (which some see as high level “consulting”) has an opportunity cost attached to it, a cost that often is not thought about, except when one steps back and looks at FAO’s strategy, e.g., with regard to giving priority to activity aimed at food security and poverty reduction for the poor (for example, in the Southern Sudan in a critical period 2008-2009, see Box V-1).
380. Looked at in terms of the basic goals of FAO, one could argue that fewer people focused entirely on providing maximum support to achieving FAO’s basic goals for the poorest in the developing world might be a better choice than having more people (some on donor funding), many of whom are focused almost exclusively on supporting World Bank and other donor projects and objectives for mid income and advanced developing countries. But, as indicated earlier, the ET also knows that the choice is much more complex than merely comparing opportunity costs. This is particularly so when internal resources are limited and a unit is attempting to maintain its critical mass of technical and intellectual capacity.
381. FAO should consider more explicitly regional priorities in addition to priorities for different types of TRA work, when looking to the future at how such activity best can help to increase food security and reduce poverty for the poor. Even when the focus is on working with the poor, there is a choice between working with the poorest of the poor (found in Africa) and the largest number of very poor people (Asia). The proposed FAO strategic visioning exercise for its TRA work should sort out where it can do the greatest good over time with the resources available in terms of contributing to its global goals related to poverty reduction and food security. To do this properly, it will have to develop, no matter how subjectively, a set of criteria that sort out FAO’s relative priorities for different regions of the world based on indicators of food insecurity, poverty, potential for gain, quality of governance, etc. Of course,
186 Alden Wily 2011.
96 a primary criterion is demand from countries for FAO support. Such demand can be stimulated to some limited extent. But when dealing with a politically sensitive subject like tenure reform or public land redistribution, outside stimulated demand often can backfire when projects are implemented.
382. Even though to many outsiders, including some of the ET members, there is an over-emphasis on field work related to middle income and more advanced developing countries, or countries in transition, the actual relative trade-offs can only be adequately judged by those responsible for the TRA activity in FAO.
Links between TRA considerations for different natural resources
383. The VGs is one example of where there is an attempt in FAO to reach across natural resource systems to identify common challenges, principles and opportunities related to the governance of TRA. One lesson that appears to be emerging is that while there are complementarities between resources, there also are significant differences that go beyond the nature of the resources themselves to the institutional environments in which they are dealt with in a majority of countries. The most obvious example is the differences between water and land, which accounts for the main reason why water was not included in the VGs.187 The priority focus in the case of water is allocation and water management issues associated with a scarce flow resource in a given basin or region.188 The focus is at the source level, i.e., river basin and aquifer level. In the case of land – basically a fixed resource, the focus has been on security of private tenure and land administration and the technical aspects of defining boundaries legally and in the field.
384. Many of the people (including some in the FAO) interviewed by the ET believe that it is unfortunate that some way was not found to include water in the VGs, given the close and inseparable linkages between land and water that exist in the field in most countries. As the FAO moves ahead with the VGs to focus on implementation issues, a major challenge will be to bring out the ways that the differences between the legal, technical and institutional approaches to the complementary resources of water and land can be brought together in a more integrated fashion that reflects the realities that exist in the field. But FAO needs to meet that challenge.
385. As another example of close linkages across natural resource domains, while the “land grabbing” issue has tended to be isolated from forestry issues in FAO, the fact of the matter is that over the past thirty years or so, “land grabbing” has mainly involved the taking over of forest lands and savannah woodlands and the deforestation of such lands - often at the expense of poor forest dwellers or indigenous peoples. Deforestation in the tropics has averaged more than 13 million ha/year over the past 30 years or so. The land has been converted to crops, palm oil production, ranching, etc., often also at the expense of biodiversity and the livelihoods of the poorest of the poor. As mentioned earlier, more than 80 percent of new agricultural expansion during the 1980 to 2000 period was at the expense of forests.189
187 Cf. Part VI, and Burke, J. N.d. draft/Issues paper relating to the Technical Guidelines on water. Rome: FAO. 188 When there is no water scarcity issue there also is little priority given to TRA issues since there are fewer and less contentious allocation issues to be dealt with. 189 Gibbs et al. 2010.
97 386. FAO deals both with the drivers of deforestation and “land grabbing.” There would appear to be opportunities to explore options for bringing these two sets of issues closer together, both in FAO’s normative and field project activity. The emergence of REDD as a major theme in FAO adds additional emphasis to the need for further integration of work across natural resource domains. Understanding and dealing with both land TRA and forest carbon tenure are intertwined elements of great importance in moving ahead with REDD+.
387. Another kind of “land grabbing” also is taking place – the setting aside of large areas of land for conservation purposes. While one might admire such set-asides from an environmental point of view, if such preserves are established on lands that previously were the homes for indigenous peoples or forest dwellers, there can be serious problems in terms of the livelihoods of the displaced people. These people often had customary rights to the land or to outputs from the land that are totally ignored when lands are set aside. For example, there is a close link between forests and wildlife hunting rights and bushmeat that provides the main source of protein for many of the poorest of the poor. If such people are excluded from the forest, the result can involve a major impact on their livelihoods, creating both food security and poverty issues.
388. Within the context of a strategic view of TRA in the FAO, these and other linkages need to be considered and factored into the work of the FAO. They provide arguments for more integrated activity related to TRA. They also provide an argument for more work by FAO related to reconciling customary and statutory land and other resource laws. As a last point, they also call for more activity related to the effectiveness of forest conservation under different land use designations. A recent paper reviewing the evidence on deforestation on community based forest lands and in protected areas concludes that community forest management can have at least as good results as protected areas and in some cases better results (lower deforestation).190
389. To sum up, in the proposed strategic visioning exercise, close attention should be paid to areas where there is potential for synergies in TRA work related to different resources. At the same time, the exercise also should include a realistic assessment of the difference in TRA challenges and opportunities for different natural resource domains. In other words work together where it makes sense to do so; but don’t force everything into one mould. There are plenty of differences and they need to be handled in different ways.
VIII. Recommendations
390. Under this heading, the evaluation team has confined itself to what it considers to be recommendations of strategic importance.
391. Recommendation 1: FAO should carry out an assessment of its strategic options for strengthening its TRA work in relation to achieving the basic goals of FAO and its members. Significant progress towards achievement of FAO’s Global Goals depends on recognising and capitalizing on many of the potential synergies that exist for TRA activity. This would require that FAO upgrade its approach to TRA and make greater use of its main comparative advantage, namely the breadth and depth of its portfolio of expertise and knowledge related to food security and agricultural development, for poverty alleviation. Similar to strategic planning exercises conducted by others within FAO and aligned with the new programming system, the evaluation recommends that FAO develop a corporate strategic plan for TRA
190 Porter-Bolland et al. Forthcoming.
98 work, perhaps through an inter divisional working group chaired by NR. The task of this group would be to: (a) Carry out a thorough diagnosis of the relative importance of tenure, rights and effective economic access to land and other natural resources in achieving increased, sustainable food security and poverty reduction; (b) Carry out a “gap analysis” (the gap between what is being done and what needs to be done to improve TRA contributions to achievement of its members’ goals); (c) Decide what FAO should focus on more in the TRA arena, making sure that choices consider members priorities and FAO's comparative advantages and that they complement the on- going work related to the VGs and other on-going TRA activity; (d) Decide how it should then organize its work institutionally, if more funding is forthcoming, with a stronger focus on the FAO goals; and (e) Prepare proposal(s) that would appeal to member countries and resource partners and would use FAO's comparative advantage in strategic partnerships with other entities involved in TRA work.
Improved internal communication and greater interaction among FAO TRA personnel at HQ, regional and country level will be essential for the success of this process.
392. Recommendation 2: Publicize more widely the outputs of its normative work. The evaluation team finds FAO’s land tenure publications to be a valuable resource. They have the potential to deliver useful information to officials (administrative and technical), civil society activists, researchers and academics. More attention should be given to tailoring the pages of the global land tenure website to the needs of particular actors, sub-regions and language groups. It should be publicised more widely, together with the Gender and Land Rights Database and the very useful tenure-related publications of the FAO Development Law Service. Access via the FAO website to the various TRA-related pages could be more closely integrated and made more user-friendly.
393. Recommendation 3: Undertake more systematic monitoring and evaluation of project performance. In the great majority of field projects reviewed, the evaluation was unable to reach conclusions about project impact due to the absence of quantitative approaches involving the use of baseline and follow-up surveys. Without attribution, measured outcomes cannot prove anything about project impact or allow deductions about improved food security and poverty alleviation. In at least a representative sample of field projects, time frames and budgets should allow for more rigorous assessment of outcomes and impact pathways. It is important that resources for this activity be separate from the project budget and that the commitment comes during project preparation.
394. Recommendation 4: Devise ways to develop a more balanced programme of support to member countries in the area of land tenure. During the period under review FAO has been increasingly focused on providing technical services to land tenure initiatives of IFIs through the CP. The funding available to the LTT through the TCI appears to have favoured a particular type of work at the expense of a more holistic programme, regionally and in technical content, that would, for example, focus more on countries having the poorest rural populations. Also, the LTT’s role of making consultants available through the TCI for IFI projects potentially undermines FAO’s independence and its ability to focus on its underlying goals and priorities. The evaluation team believes that if the LTT were to have a strategic plan, which would give higher priority to the overriding Global Goals of FAO and its Members, the focus of its field work would likely shift to poorer countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It is recommended that FAO, in coordination with funding partners and anchored on its own strategic plan, devise ways to develop a more balanced and proactive programme in land
99 tenure that gives higher priority to the needs of poorer countries 191. Recognizing that FAO is demand driven, this will require a more proactive approach to discussing with countries and generating requests from them for FAO involvement. Due consideration should also be given to assessing and managing perceived reputation risks emerging from heavy involvement in the backstopping of other agencies’ land tenure programmes.
395. Recommendation 5: Provide HQ, regional, sub-regional and country level staff with training and learning resources on tenure, rights and access issues. The evaluation team notes widespread interest from staff across the regions on TRA issues. It also notes that within FAO a variety of views and understandings about FAO’s role in TRA exists. As part of the development of an FAO TRA strategic plan, the evaluation team recommends to organize workshops/seminars and develop learning materials for FAO staff including in regional, sub- regional and country offices to train them on the policy principles behind the TRA strategy and relevant regional/country elements (such as TRA issues in disaster risk management, large scale land acquisitions, etc.).
396. Recommendation 6: Provide dedicated cover for TRA support for emergencies. Over the evaluation period, there has been an ongoing and as yet unresolved discussion between TCE and the LTT on how best to provide staff cover for advice and assistance on TRA issues that arise in the course of emergencies. The ET recommends that at least one full time post should be set aside in the LTT for this purpose.
397. Recommendation 7: FAO should be pro-active in pursuing TRA issues that are of concern to the Organisation in the context of moving towards its Members’ fundamental goals. In this regard, the guidance documentation being prepared to support the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines should not be constrained by the consensus nature of the VGs, but represent a clear FAO position on these issues, far more specific and focused. Guidance should be sector-specific, as appears to be the plan, dealing not only with land governance but forestry, fisheries and water governance as well, within a corporate strategic plan.
398. Recommendation 8: Strengthen FAO’s role in providing advice and guidance on large scale land acquisitions by foreign investors. The evaluation concurs with the recommendation of the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security in their July 2011 report relating to large- scale land acquisitions by foreign investors that the role of ‘FAO’s Land Tenure Service’ in this area should be to provide sound counsel to governments and development agencies on how to manage this process, a role in which FAO has considerable credibility, and for FAO to use its experience in the gathering, analyses and publication of international statistical data to monitor the situation closely. At the same time, given that LSLAs involving forest and woodlands end up becoming a major cause of deforestation, and given that FAO has a major interest in programs aimed at reducing deforestation, the ET recommends that FAO explore the opportunities to take advantage of potential synergies between its work on LSLAs and deforestation.
191 “FAO’s vision is of a world free of hunger and malnutrition where food and agriculture contributes to improving the living standards of all, especially the poorest, in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner” (emphasis added). From FAO’s Strategic Framework and Medium Term Plan of 2009.
100
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Office of Evaluation
Strategic Evaluation of FAO work on tenure, rights and access to land and other natural resources
Annexes
Final January 2012
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Office of Evaluation (OED)
This report is available in electronic format at: http://www.fao.org/evaluation
Permission to make copy, download or print copies of part or all of this work for private study and limited classroom use is hereby granted, free of charge, provided that an accurate citation and suitable acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright owner is given. Where copyright holders other than FAO are indicated, please refer to the original copyright holder for terms and conditions of reuse. All requests for systematic copying and electronic distribution, including to list servers, translation rights and commercial reuse should be addressed to [email protected].
For further information, please contact:
Director, OED Viale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00153 Rome, Italy Email: [email protected]
______
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of FAO concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
ii
Contents Annex 1: Documents consulted ...... 101 Annex 2: Inventory of tenure-related field projects as identified by FAO staff, 2006-2011 ...... 108 Annex 3: Stakeholder Perception Study ...... 112 SPS Appendix 1: List of interviewees...... 137 SPS Appendix 2: Methodology ...... 143 Annex 4: Web-based surveys of FAO staff, member countries and CSOs ...... 145 Survey Appendix 1: Questionnaire Schedules ...... 169 Annex 5: Meta-synthesis of past evaluations ...... 190 Annex 6: Review of field operations in selected countries ...... 212 1. Serbia ...... 212 2. Lithuania ...... 214 3. China ...... 216 4. Africa (Region-wide) ...... 218 5 Southern Africa ...... 219 5.1 Namibia ...... 220 5.2 Mozambique ...... 221 5.3 Angola ...... 223 6. Emergency and rehabilitation ...... 228 6.1 Tajikistan ...... 228 6.2 South Sudan ...... 229 Annex 7: Inventory of normative work...... 231 Annex 8: Citation Analysis and Website Hits ...... 238 Citation Analysis ...... 238 Annex 9: Concept Paper ...... 240 Concept Paper Appendix 1: Background on FAO Cooperation in Tenure, Rights and Access to Land and other Natural Resources ...... 246 Concept Paper Appendix 2: Possible Framework for the Evaluation ...... 249
iii
Annex 1: Documents consulted
Adams, M. 2000. ‘Official Development Assistance for Land Reform in South Africa’, Development Co-operation Review, 1994-99, Department of Finance, Pretoria, June 2000. www.treasury.gov.za/publications/other/devco-op/section_2/08.pdf.
Adams, M., J. Berkoff and E. Daley 2006. ‘Land and water interactions: Opportunities and threats to water entitlements of the poor in Africa for productive use’ UNDP Human Development Report Office Occasional Paper, No. 2006/20.
Adams, M. and R. Knight 2011. ‘Land Policy Development and Setbacks in Southern Africa’, Southern Africa Development Community Land Issues: Towards a New Sustainable Land Relations Policy, pp27- 56, Ben Chigara (ed), London: Routledge.
Alden Wily, L. 2011. ‘”The Law is to Blame”: The Vulnerable Status of Common Property Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Development and Change, pp 733-757, 42(3).
Amoo, S.K. and S.L. Harring 2011. ‘Property rights and land reform in Namibia’, Southern Africa Development Community Land Issues: Towards a New Sustainable Land Relations Policy, pp 222-262, Ben Chigara (ed), London: Routledge.
Andersen, K. 2011. ‘Communal tenure and the governance of common property resources in Asia: Lessons from experiences in selected countries’. Land Tenure Working Paper 20. Rome, FAO.
APFIC 2010. ‘Best practices to support and improve livelihoods of small-scale fisheries and aquaculture households’. RAP Publication 2010/21, FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok, Thailand.
AUC, UNECA and AfDB [African Union Commission, United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and African Development Bank] 2010. Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy in Africa, AUC- UNECA-AfDB Consortium, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Barraclough, S.L. 1999. ‘Land Reform in Developing Countries: The Role of the State and Other Actors’, UNRISD Discussion Paper No. 101, UNRISD, Geneva.
Burke, J. n.d., Draft Issues paper relating to the technical guidelines on water. Rome, FAO.
Christodoulou, D. 1990. The Unpromised Land: Agrarian Reform and Conflict World Wide, Zed Books, London and New Jersey.
Committee on Fisheries 2011. Draft 1: priorities and results under the medium-term plan and programme of work and budget. Twenty-ninth Session. Rome, Italy, 31 January – 4 February 2011. COFI/2011/9.
Cotula, L. (ed.) 2006. Land and water rights in the Sahel: Tenure challenges of improving access to water for agriculture. LSP Working Paper 25. FAO Livelihoods Support Programme, Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme, Rome, FAO.
Cotula, L. 2007. ‘Gender and Law - Women's Rights in Agriculture’, FAO Legislative Study No. 76, Rev. 1 (revision of a 2002 publication), FAO: Rome.
Daley, E. and C. Mi-young Park 2011. ‘Gender and voluntary guidelines on responsible governance of tenure of land and natural resources’, FAO Land Tenure Working Paper No 19, FAO, Rome.
101 de Janvry, A. and E. Sadoulet 2002. ‘Land Reforms in Latin America: Ten Lessons toward a Contemporary Agenda’, World Bank Latin American Land Policy Workshop, June 14 2002, Pachuca, Mexico.
Delgado, C. et al. 2003. Fish to 2020: Supply and Demand in Changing Global Markets. IFPRI and World Fish Center.
Denizer, C., D. Kaufmann and A. Kraay. 2011. Good countries or good projects: Macro and Micro Correlates of World Bank Project Performance. Policy Research Working Paper 5646. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.
Donnelly, T. 2010. A literature review on the relationship between property rights and investment incentives. Rome, FAO. (mimeo).
European Union 2011. Monitoring Report MR-139641.01.
FAO n.d. Water at FAO. FAO Information Note.
FAO 2005. ‘Participatory and Negotiated Territorial Development (PNTD); An approach to rural development’, Rural Development Division, FAO.
FAO 2006a. Tenure security for better forestry: Understanding forest tenure in South and Southeast Asia. FAO, Bangkok.
FAO 2006b. Understanding forest tenure in South and Southeast Asia. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper 14. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2007a. Good governance in land tenure and administration, FAO Land Tenure Studies 9, Rome: FAO.
FAO 2007b. Report of the Independent External Evaluation of FAO, September 2007.
FAO 2008a. FAO’s Work in Land Tenure, Land Tenure & Management Unit (NRLA), FAO, Rome.
FAO 2008b. Understanding forest tenure in Africa: Opportunities and Challenges for forest tenure diversification. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper 19. Rome: FAO.
FAO, 2009a. Asia Regional Assessment for the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and Other Natural Resources, Hanoi, Vietnam, 19-21 October 2009, Rome: FAO. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/ak802e/ak802e00.pdf
FAO 2009b. Have decollectivization and privatization contributed to sustainable forestry management and poverty alleviation in China? Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper No. 23, FAO, Rome.
FAO 2009c. Report of the Global Conference On Small-Scale Fisheries Securing Sustainable Small- Scale Fisheries: Bringing Together Responsible Fisheries And Social Development, Bangkok, Thailand, 13–17 October, 2008. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Report No. 911. Rome: FAO.
FAO 2009d. Southern Africa Regional Assessment for the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and Other Natural Resources, Windhoek, Namibia, 28-30 September 2009, Rome: FAO. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/012/ak582e/ak582e00.pdf
FAO 2009e. The need for improved governance of tenure, available from
102
FAO 2009f. Towards Improved Land Governance. Land Tenure Working Paper 11. David Palmer, Szilard Fricska, Babette Wehrmann (with UN-HABITAT collaboration).
FAO 2009g. Towards Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and Other Natural Resources: Discussion Paper. Land Tenure Working Paper 10. Land Tenure and Management Unit (NRLA). ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/ak374e/ak374e00.pdf
FAO 2009h. Voluntary Guidelines for Good Governance in Land and Natural Resource Tenure: Civil Society Perspectives. Land Tenure Working Paper 8. Sofia Monsalve Suárez, Leticia Marques Osorio, Malcolm Langford. Global Land Tools Network.
FAO 2009i. Voluntary Guidelines for Good Governance in Land and Natural Resource Tenure: Issues from an international institutional perspective. Land Tenure Working Paper 9. Richard Grover.
FAO 2010a. Access to land, food security and poverty alleviation; FAOs interventions during the past 15 years, Land Tenure Team, Climate Energy and Tenure Division, Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, FAO, Rome.
FAO 2010b. Eastern and Anglophone Western Africa Regional Assessment: FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and Other Natural Resources, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 20-22 September 2010, Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al919e/al919e00.pdf
FAO 2010c. European Regional Assessment for the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and Other Natural Resources, Bucharest, Romania, 22-24 March 2010, Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/al140e/al140e00.pdf
FAO 2010d. Evaluation of FAO’s role and work related to water. Office of Evaluation. FAO: Rome.
FAO 2010e, Evaluation of FAO’s Sudan Cooperation 2004-2009, Office of Evaluation. FAO: Rome.
FAO 2010f. Evaluation of the regional consultation of Francophone Africa, Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land and other natural resources, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, 23-25 June 2010, Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/al306e/al306e00.pdf
FAO 2010g, FAO’s effectiveness at country level: A synthesis of evaluations in post-conflict and transition countries; DR Congo, Sudan and Tajikistan, Office of Evaluation, FAO: Rome.
FAO 2010h. Final Central America and the Caribbean Regional Assessment for the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and other Natural Resources, Panama City, 6-8 September 2010, Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al918e/al918e00.pdf
FAO 2010i. Final Report, FAO Regional Consultation for Latin America on Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and Other Natural Resources, South America and Mexico, Brasilia, 20-21 May 2010, Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/al413e/al413e00.pdf
FAO 2010j. Near East and North Africa Regional Assessment for the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and Other Natural Resources, Amman, Jordan, 2-4 May 2010, Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/al304e/al304e00.pdf
103
FAO 2010k. Pacific Regional Assessment for the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and Other Natural Resources, Apia, Samoa, 14-16 July 2010, Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/al379e/al379e00.pdf
FAO 2010l. Private Sector Assessment for the Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and Other Natural Resources, 25-26 January 2010, London, UK. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/al051e/al051e00.pdf
FAO 2010m. Russian Federation Consultation for the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and Other Natural Resources, Moscow, Russian Federation, 23-25 November 2010, Rome: FAO.
FAO 2010n. State of the World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2010. Rome: FAO.
FAO 2011a. Evaluation of FAO’s Role and Work related to Gender and Development, Office of Evaluation, FAO: Rome.
FAO 2011b. State of the World’s Forests 2011. Rome: FAO.
FAO 2011c. ‘Summary of an expert meeting on land tenure issues and requirements for implementing climate change mitigation policies in the forestry and agriculture sectors.’ Rome, 15- 17 November, 2010. FAO, Rome. See http://www.fao.org/climatechange/65623 for background document on this event.
FAO 2011d. Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land and Other Natural Resources, Zero Draft, April 2011.
FAO 2011e Promoting the Use of Land and Natural Resource Laws for Equitable Development (GCP/MOZ/096/NET), Mid Term Evaluation, July 2011, Office for Evaluation, FAO Rome http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/oed/docs/GCPMOZ096NET_2011_ER%20.pdf
FAO, AWF, ILRI, Tanzania, GEF and the World Bank 2009. Sustaining communities, livestock and wildlife: a guide to participatory land-use planning. Rome: FAO.
Fitzpatrick, D. 2005. Best practice: Options for the legal recognition of customary tenure. Development and Change, 36(3): 449–475.
Gibbs, H., et al. 2010. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. PNAS. September 21, 2010, vol.107, no. 38. Pp 16732-16737.
Gibbs, H., A. Ruesch, F. Achard, M. Clayton, P. Holmgren, N. Ramankutty, and J. Foley. 2010. Tropical forests were the primary sources of new agricultural land in the 1980s and 1990s. PNAS 107:38. (www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0910275107).
Gomes, N. 2006. Access to water, pastoral resource management and pastoralists’ livelihoods: Lessons learned from water development in selected areas of Eastern Africa (Kenya, Ethiopia, Somalia). FAO LSP WP 26, FAO, Rome.
Gregersen, H., et al. 2007. Integrated Watershed Management: Connecting people to their land and water. Wallingford, England: CABI.
Gregersen, H. et al. 2011. The Greener Side of REDD. Rights and Resources Initiative: Washington, D.C., http://www.rightsandresources.org/publication_details.php?publicationID=2431.
104
Grindle, M. 2004. Good Enough Governance: Poverty Reduction and Reform in Developing Countries. Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions, Vol. 17, No. 4, October 2004
Grindle, M. 2007. Good enough governance revisited. Development Policy Review, 2007, 25(5): 553- 574.
Groppo, P., L. Longhi, A. di Gracia, E. Kollazaj and F. Ghigi 2004. ‘Land tenure support in post-conflict Angola’ Economic and Social Development Department, FAO, Rome.
Hallam, D. 2011. ‘International Investment in developing country agriculture – issues and challenges’ Food Security, 3 (Suppl 1), pp. S91-S98.
Herrera, A., J. Riddell and P. Toselli 1997. ‘Recent FAO experiences in land reform and land tenure’, Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives, No. 1, pp 52-64.
Hodgson, S. 2004. ‘Land and Water – the rights interface’, FAO Legal Paper Online No. 36.
Hodgson, S. 2006. Modern Water Rights: Theory and Practice. FAO Legislative Study 92. Rome: FAO
Hodgson, S. 2007. Legislation for sustainable water user associations, FAO Legal Paper Online No. 69.
Hodgson, S. 2009. Creating legal space for water user organizations: transparency, governance and the law, FAO Legislative Study 100.
Hosch, G. 2009. Analysis of the implementation and impact of the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries since 1995. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1038. Rome, FAO.
IFAD n.d. Linking land and water governance. http://www.ifad.org/events/water/flyer.pdf
IIED 2006. “Land and water rights in the Sahel: Tenure challenges of improving access to water for agriculture”. LSP Working Paper 25. Rome: FAO.
IIED 2011. How to shape governance of tenure for responsible forestry: A practical guide. (FIRST DRAFT. Not for circulation, June 2011. Prepared by IIED and FAO).
Kleinbooi, K. 2010. Review of Land Reforms in Southern Africa 2010, Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies, (PLAAS) School of Government, University of the Western Cape: Cape Town.
Knight, R. 2010. ‘Statutory recognition of customary Rights; An investigation into best practices for lawmaking and implementation’, FAO Legislative Study No. 105, FAO: Rome.
Larson, A., D. Barry, C. Ram Dahal and C. Pierce Colfer 2010. Forests for People: Community rights and forest tenure reform. London: Earthscan.
Lemmen, C., C. Augustinus, S. Haile and P. van Oosterman 2010. ‘The Social Tenure Domain Model; A Pro-Poor Land Rights Recording System’, pp 49-58 in FLOSS in Cadastre and Land Registration, FAO and the International Federation of Surveyors, FAO, Rome.
Lerman, Z. and D. Sedik 2009. The Economic Effects of Land Reform in Tajikstan, European Commission, EC/FAO Food Security Programme Phase II, available from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/aj285e/aj285e00.pdf
Lipton, M. 2009. Land Reform in Developing Countries; Property Rights and Property Wrongs, London: Routledge.
105
Markelova, H. and R. Meinzen-Dick 2009. The importance of property rights in climate change mitigation. Focus 16, Brief, 10, May. Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
Metzner, R. 2010. Rights-based fisheries management: FAO activities. PPT presentatation at a Workshop on Rights-based Fisheries Management, University of Tokyo, Japan, 1 February, 2010.
Pierce-Colfer, C. and D. Capistrano 2005. The politics of decentralization: forests, power and people. London: Earthscan publications.
Porter-Bolland , L., E. Ellis , M. Guariguata , I. Ruiz-Mallén , S. Negrete-Yankelevich, V. Reyes-García . Forthcoming. Community managed forests and forest protected areas: An assessment of their conservation effectiveness across the tropics. Forest Ecology and Management. Available from: http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_files/articles/AGuariguata1101.pdf.
Ramazzotti, M. 2008. Customary water rights and contemporary water legislation: Mapping out the interface, FAO Legal Paper Online No. 76, FAO, Rome.
Republic of Namibia 2006. Implementation of Land Tax on Commercial Agricultural Land in Namibia: A Case Study, Directorate of Valuation and Estate Management: Windhoek.
Seeberg-Elverfeldt, C. 2010. Carbon Finance Possibilities for Agriculture, Forestry and Other Land Use Projects in a Smallholder Context. Natural Resources Management and Environment Department Working Paper 34. Rome: FAO.
Sunderlin, W. 2007. Poverty, Rights, and Tenure on Forest Lands: The problem, and priority actions for achieving solutions. A background paper for the conference “Towards a New Global Forest Agenda.” Stockholm, Sweden, 29 October, 2007.
Sundelin, W., J. Hatcher and M. Liddle 2008. From Exclusion to Ownership. Washington, D.C.: Rights and Resources Initiative.
Tanner, C. 2002. Law Making in an African Context: the 1997 Mozambican Land Law. Legal Papers Online No. 26, FAO: Rome.
Tapia Garcia, C. 2004. ‘Land Reform in Namibia: economic versus socio-political rationale’, pp 41-53, Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives, FAO: Rome.
UN-Water 2008. Transboundary Waters: Sharing benefits, sharing responsibilities.
Vapnek, B., C. Aylward, J. Popp and J. Bartram (eds) 2009. Law for water management: a guide to concepts and effective approaches, FAO Legislative Study 101.
Varming, M. et al. 2010. Agriculture, forestry and other land use mitigation project database: An assessment of the current status of land-based sectors in the carbon markets. MICCA Series 2. Rome: FAO.
Warriner, D. 1969. Land Reform in Principle and Practice. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Werner, W. and W. Odendaal 2010. Livelihoods after Land Reform: Namibia Country Report (2 vols.) Legal Assistance Centre: Windhoek, available from http://www.lac.org.na/projects/lead/Pdf/livelihoods_report_a.pdf and http://www.lac.org.na/projects/lead/Pdf/livelihoods_report_b.pdf.
World Bank 2009. Roots for good forest outcomes: An analytical framework for governance reform. Report No. 49572-GLB, Agriculture and Rural Development Department. Washington, D.C.: the World Bank.
106
UNDP 1997. Governance for Sustainable Human Development: A UNDP Policy Document, UNDP, Nairobi.
UNECE 1996. Land Administration Guidelines with Special Reference to Countries in Transition, ECE/HBP/96. Geneva, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe.
UN-WATER 2008. Transboundary Waters: Sharing benefits, sharing responsibilities, available from http://www.unwater.org/downloads/UNW_TRANSBOUNDARY.pdf.
Zomer R., A. Trabucco, R. Coe, and F. Place. 2009. Trees on Farms: Analysis of Global Extent and Geographical Patterns of Agroforestry. ICRAF Working Paper no. 89. Nairobi, Kenya: World Agroforestry Centre.
107
Annex 2: Inventory of tenure-related field projects as identified by FAO staff, 2006-2011
Lead Project Start End Total Project Region Project Title Technical Symbol date date Budget type Unit Africa GCP Apoyo a las instituciones 2010-09 2013-08 NRLA $2,207,746 GCP /ANG/045 gubernamentales para la mejora /SPA de la gestión de la tenencia y administración de la tierra y los recursos naturales, en las provincias de Huambo y Bié, Angola Africa GCP Decentralized Legal Support and 2005-09 2010-06 LEGN $3,292,012 GCP /MOZ/081 Capacity Building to Promote /NET Sustainable Development and Good Governance at Local Level Africa GCP Community level legal education 2009-07 2012-06 LEGN $2,162,817 GCP /MOZ/086 and support to help rural women /NOR secure and exercise land and resource rights, and address HIV- AIDS related tenure insecurity Africa GCP Promoting the use of land and 2009-04 2012-03 LEGN $2,851,289 GCP /MOZ/096 natural resources laws for /NET equitable development - (Follow- up GCP /MOZ/081/NET) Africa GCP Technical Support to the 2005-12 2007-12 LTT $150,000 GCP /SUD/057 Establishment and Functioning of /DEN the National Land Commission Africa TCP/CHD/ Amelioration de la gestion des 2009-10 2011-09 LEGN $360,000 TCP 3202 ressources pastorales Africa TCP/ETH/ Technical Assistance to 2010-05 2011-10 LTT $473,000 TCP 3302 Investment Support Directorate Africa TCP/LIR/3 Assistance to land management 2009-01 2009-12 LTT $21,432 TCP 203 programme BABY02 Africa TCP/MLI/ Appui à la préparation et la tenue 2009-02 2010-12 LTT $52,490 TCP 3202 des Assises Nationales du Foncier BABY04 au Mali Africa TCP/MOZ/ Support to the Development of 2005-06 2007-05 LTT $113,188 TCP 3005 Territorial Planning Policy and New Legislation Africa TCP/RAF/ Support to ICARRD follow-up and 2008-02 2009-04 LTT $433,000 TCP 3115 to the African Land Policy Initiative including regional stakeholders’ dialogue Africa TCP/UGA/ Land Administration and Reform 2009-01 2010-12 LTT $78,420 TCP 3201 Mission BABY02 Africa OSRO/SU Livelihood recovery for 2008-08 2009-03 LTT $208,550 OSRO D/819/CH returnees, IDPs and vulnerable F households through access to land for production and settlement Africa UNJP/SUD Sustained Peace for 2009-12 2011-11 NRLA $535,910 UNJP /065/SPA Development: Conflict Prevention and Peace Building in Sudan
108
Lead Project Start End Total Project Region Project Title Technical Symbol date date Budget type Unit Africa UNJP/SUD Strengthening community based 2010-02 2011-11 NRLA $1,000,000 UNJP /066/DPF institutions for participatory peace building, conflict resolution and recovery planning in Darfur Asia and GCP Supporting policy, legal and 2009-03 2012-02 FOE $2,701,370 GCP the Pacific /CPR/038/ institutional frameworks for the EC reform of forest tenure in China’s collective forests and promoting knowledge exchange Asia and GCP Philippines-Australia Technical 2003-02 2006-12 NRLA $5,013,440 GCP the Pacific /PHI/047/ Support for Agrarian Reform and AUL Rural Development (PATSARRD) Asia and OSRO/TAJ Improved Food Security and 2006-09 2008-12 LTT $1,769,296 OSRO the Pacific /602/CAN Enhanced Livelihoods Through Institutional and Gender- Sensitive Land Reform in Tajikistan Asia and TCP/CPR/ Rural Land Registration and 2005-07 2007-12 LTT $368,000 TCP the Pacific 3008 Certification Piloting Asia and TCP/CPR/ Rural Land Registration and 2008-06 2009-03 LTT $180,537 TCP the Pacific 3107 Certification Piloting - Phase II of TCP/CPR/3008 Asia and TCP/TIM/ Advice on adjustments to draft 2010-11 2011-12 NRLA $35,836 TCP the Pacific 3301 land law BABY02 Asia and UNJP/NEP Piloting Land Registration and 2010-07 2011-11 NRLA $50,000 UNJP the Pacific /066/UNJ Preliminary Land Management Intervention in Selected Part of Achham District Asia and UTF Land Tenure in the Dry Zone 2009-09 2011-08 LTT $376,928 UTF the Pacific /SRL/058/ Livelihood Support and SRL Partnership Project Districts Europe and TCP/ALB/ Support to the Preparation of a 2010-07 2012-03 LTT (REU) $390,000 TCP the CIS 3301 National Land Consolidation Strategy & a Land Consolidation Pilot Project in Albania Europe and TCP/ARM/ Support to the Preparation and 2004-08 2006-12 LTT $268,449 TCP the CIS 3004 Implementation of Land Consolidation and Improved Land Management Schemes (Armenia) Europe and TCP/AZE/ Access to Land for IDPs 2008-02 2010-12 LTT (REU) $52,537 TCP the CIS 3201 BABY03 Europe and TCP/BIH/3 Support to the Preparation of a 2010-11 2012-07 LTT (REU) $475,000 TCP the CIS 301 National Land Consolidation Strategy and Implementation of Land Consolidation Pilot Projects in Bosnia and Herzegovina Europe and TCP/LIT/3 Support to the preparation of an 2006-04 2007-10 LTT $241,000 TCP the CIS 101 operational land consolidation system (Lithuania) Europe and TCP/MCD Support for the Management of 2010-03 2012-03 LTT $340,000 TCP the CIS /3301 State-owned agricultural Land (FYR Macedonia) Europe and TCP/MOL/ Support to preparation of a 2010-09 2011-04 LTT $76,000 TCP the CIS 3301 National Strategy for Land Re- BABY01 parcelling in Moldova
109
Lead Project Start End Total Project Region Project Title Technical Symbol date date Budget type Unit Europe and TCP/YUG/ Support to the preparation of a 2006-03 2007-11 LTT $230,000 TCP the CIS 3001 national land consolidation strategy and a land consolidation pilot (Serbia) Global GCP Groundwater Governance: A 2011-01 2014-01 NRLW $1,750,000 GCP /GLO/277 Global Framework for Country /GFF Action Global GCP Capacity development on the 2007-11 2010-09 ESW $700,002 GCP /INT/052/ integration of gender analysis in SPA water and land tenure management (Angola, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Timor- Leste) Global TCP/INT/3 Formulation of a regional 2006-10 2007-12 NRLA $257,000 TCP 103 capacity building programme on land tenure, land management related legal aspects Latin GCP Fortalecimiento del marco 2009-06 2011-12 LEGN $1,002,294 GCP America /RLA/171/ jurídico en materia de gestión de and the SPA agua y los recursos hídricos en El Caribbean Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras y Nicaragua Latin TCP/BRA/ Apoyo metodológico y de 2006-05 2008-07 NRLA $229,000 TCP America 3101 capacitación al Plan Nacional de and the Reforma Agraria (PNRA) y al Caribbean Programa Nacional de Agricultura Familiar (PRONAF) Latin TCP/COS/ Fortalecimiento de la capacidad 2008-10 2010-05 NRLA $230,000 TCP America 3202 de gestión del IDA y de los grupos and the de acción territorial en la Caribbean ejecución de las políticas del desarrollo rural territorial Latin TCP/PAR/ Apoyo a la elaboración de una 2008-06 2010-07 NRLA $106,660 TCP America 3201 propuesta de reforma agraria and the BABY01 negociada y territorializada Caribbean Latin TCP/RLA/ Strengthening land 2008-07 2010-06 LTT $90,385 TCP America 3201 administration through the and the BABY01 development of National Land Caribbean Banks in Dominica, Grenada, St. Lucia and St. Vincent and the Grenadines Latin TCP/RLA/ Apoyo al seguimiento a la 2009-09 2011-12 TCS (RLC) $470,000 TCP America 3209 Conferencia Internacional sobre and the Reforma Agraria y Desarrollo Caribbean Rural: Nuevos desafíos y opciones para revitalizar las comunidades rurales (CIRADR) en Sudamérica Latin TCP/VEN/ Estudio Proceso de Revolución 2008-05 2011-05 NRLA $25,322 TCP America 3201 Agraria en la República and the BABY04 Bolivariana de Venezuela Caribbean
110
Lead Project Start End Total Project Region Project Title Technical Symbol date date Budget type Unit Latin UNJP/COL Strengthening local capacities for 2009-11 2012-11 NRLA $1,472,724 UNJP America /036/SPA peace-building in the Department and the of Nariño Caribbean Latin UTF Apoyo para el funcionamiento de 2007-05 2010-05 LTT $3,644,850 UTF America /HON/034 la Unidad de Gestión y la and the /HON ejecución del Programa de Caribbean Acceso a la Tierra (PACTA) Ampliado
111
Annex 3: Stakeholder Perception Study
The Stakeholder Perception Study (SPS) was designed to provide an essential part of the evidence base for the entire evaluation. The SPS is intended to convey the perceptions of a wide range of stakeholders on the relevance and effectiveness of FAO’s work relating to tenure, rights and access issues. By capturing the views of different stakeholders on the same topics (triangulation), the SPS helps to ensure non-partisan representation of opinions on FAO’s work. A total of 165 stakeholders were interviewed as part of this process.
Summary of interviews undertaken
Category No. of people % of interviewed total FAO staff member – NR Management and Environment Department 16 10% FAO other staff member 53 32% Country government (excl. donor countries) 30 18% Civil society organisation (NGOs, CSOs, academia, research institutes) 33 20% Bilateral donor 9 5% Multilateral agencies 14 8% Independent consultant to FAO/other agency 10 6% Total 165 100%
Key to stakeholder group identifiers used in text
Identifier Group
FNR FAO staff member – Natural Resources Management and Environment Department FOS FAO other staff member GOV Country government (excluding donor countries) CSO Civil society organisation (includes NGOs, CSOs, academia, research institutes) DON Bilateral donor AGC Multilateral agencies INC Independent consultant to FAO/other agency
112
Stakeholder Perception Study – Table of Contents
1. Relevance of FAO’s work on TRA issues...... 121 1.1 Demand for work on TRA issues...... 121 1.2 Geographical coverage of FAO’s work on TRA issues...... 121 2. Coordination and partnerships on TRA issues...... 122 2.1 Coordination within FAO...... 122 2.1.1. Overall coordination on TRA issues 2.1.2. Climate change 2.1.3. Gender and disadvantaged groups 2.1.4. Emergencies 2.1.5. Relationship between regional/sub-regional offices and HQ 2.2 Partnerships with external stakeholders...... 124 2.2.1. The World Bank 2.2.2. Other UN agencies 2.2.3. The African Union 2.2.4. NGOs, CSOs, research institutes and academia 3. Perceived comparative advantage of FAO for work on TRA issues...... 128 3.1 Technical expertise...... 128 3.2 FAO as a neutral actor with a good relationship with government...... 128 3.3 FAO as a convener of stakeholders...... 129 4. Perceptions of the usefulness of FAO’s TRA work...... 129 4.1 Land...... 129 4.1.1. Normative work 4.1.2. Fieldwork 4.1.3. The two approaches to land tenure issues 4.1.4. FAO work on large-scale land acquisitions 4.2 Forestry and wildlife...... 133 4.3 Fisheries...... 134 4.4 Water...... 134 5. Perceptions on the Voluntary Guidelines...... 134 5.1 The process for developing the Voluntary Guidelines...... 134 5.2 Content of the Voluntary Guidelines...... 135 5.2.1 Exclusion of water from the Voluntary Guidelines 5.3 Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines...... 136 6. Future priorities for FAO’s TRA work...... 137 6.1 Forward planning on TRA issues...... 137 6.1.1. Setting priorities in a strategic framework 6.1.2. FAO’s capacity 6.1.3. Timeframe of projects 6.1.4. Opportunities for future internal collaboration
113
6.1.5. Opportunities for future external collaboration 6.2 Priorities for land...... 134 6.2.1. Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines 6.2.2. Large-scale land acquisitions 6.2.3. Climate change, gender and emergencies 6.2.4. Reconciling customary and statutory law 6.2.5. Other issues 6.3 Priorities for other natural resources...... 141 SPS Appendix 1: List of interviewees...... 143 SPS Appendix 2: Methodology...... 149
114
1. Relevance of FAO’s work on TRA issues
1.1 Demand for work on TRA issues
There was broad consensus across all stakeholders that tenure, rights and access issues were becoming increasingly important globally. Natural resources tenure was considered to have strong links to FAO’s mandate on achieving food security. Security of tenure over natural resources was recognised as an essential issue that must be addressed in order to improve livelihoods.
Several stakeholders believed that the issue of land rights has ‘come back’ onto the development agenda, meaning that now is an “opportune time” (CSO) to improve land governance. It was felt that in this area “FAO can play a key role” (AGC). Donors also felt that there is a “strong role for FAO – in terms of its mandate, visibility and strategic objectives – in land tenure issues” (DON), and that indeed FAO has a mandate to “play a bigger and more prominent role in land tenure issues” (DON). The political sensitivity associated with tenure, rights and access issues should, however, be taken into consideration – particularly as land governance has become more complex, with a “multiplicity of actors” (CSO). This political sensitivity, however, should not be used as an excuse for FAO to “shirk the issue of land tenure, if it is serious about its goal of food security” (DON).
Stakeholders typically described FAO’s work on land tenure as demand-driven, i.e. in reaction to member government (or donor) requests on the topic, rather than proactive. Demand for this assistance is growing, particularly through the partnership between the land tenure unit and the World Bank. FAO does not typically receive requests for assistance on land reform (i.e. the redistribution of land rights). FAO staff and bilateral donors suggested that there are few requests for such support because of the politically sensitive nature of the topic.
In relation to other natural resources, member states are not making direct requests specifically on tenure, rights and access issues. In forestry, with the exception of the current China Forest Tenure project, no direct requests are received. However, even when governments do not bring up tenure issues at the outset, forest tenure issues inevitably arise later during discussions with stakeholders. The challenge is then to push this discussion through to the national level.
Similarly, although no direct requests are received to work specifically on fisheries rights and access, the entry-point for FAO into these topics typically occurs in relating to co-management of fisheries resources by communities. FAO’s aquaculture work also typically includes consideration of tenure, rights and access issues for both land and freshwater.
With respect to water, FAO has traditionally assisted member countries with the development of national laws relating to the allocation of water, and to a lesser extent with the management of transboundary water resources.
1.2 Geographical coverage of FAO’s work on TRA issues
Certain external stakeholders have the perception that FAO still places too much emphasis on Eastern Europe, CIS and Central Asia (as a result of the relationship with the World Bank), and not enough emphasis on Africa . This is in contrast to the comments made by staff within the land tenure unit, that they had been receiving a lot of requests from Sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia and were therefore progressively giving less emphasis on the Eastern European region.
115
FAO staff members with field experience feel that FAO has been absent from the Central American region with respect to land tenure issues – the World Bank has become dominant in the region as a promoter of “agrarian reform assisted by the market” (FOS)1. In Latin America, while there is increasing concern in the region regarding land markets and acquisition of land by foreign investors, this has not translated into formal requests for assistance by member governments. Furthermore, a technical approach to land administration (e.g. cadastre systems) was seen to be inappropriate for Latin America given that agrarian reform is still perceived to be incomplete.
2. Coordination and partnerships on TRA issues
2.1 Coordination within FAO
2.1.1 Overall coordination on TRA issues
Several FAO staff members perceived there to be a lack of coordination and convergence between the various internal groups within FAO that deal with tenure, rights and access issues. There are “no real incentives” (FNR) for inter-departmental collaboration. While it was acknowledged that important collaboration had occurred between other divisions and the land tenure unit within the Legal Empowerment of the Poor (LEP) initiative and the Livelihoods Support Programme (LSP), it was also remarked that the work done within the LSP has had “minimal impact” (FOS) on policies and on FAO’s actual activities relating to tenure .
It was emphasised by FAO staff members and others that the question of tenure, rights and access has increasingly become a cross-cutting issue that incorporates more than just land administration. Tenure, rights and access to all natural resources are seen as a “big constraint” (FOS) in terms of achieving food security.
The importance of tenure, rights and access as a cross-cutting issue is perhaps underestimated by FAO governing bodies, perhaps because “it is very political” (FNR). Given the cross-cutting nature of tenure, rights and access issues, it was broadly felt that the synergies between FAO’s different divisions working on tenure issues could be better. As one external stakeholder argued, “on the ground, the linkages between land, forests, water, aquaculture etc are a reality” (INC). It was acknowledged that while tenure, rights and access challenges differ substantially between natural resource systems, there are enough similarities and linkages to merit some kind of coordination. The Voluntary Guidelines were perceived as an example of close collaboration between the land tenure unit and other divisions.
Staff acknowledged that it is difficult to come up with an appropriate institutional arrangement to deal with tenure issues – it depends on the individuals involved, and on the support given by senior management. Cross-cutting units, such as the land tenure unit, “can easily disappear, and they need to be supported with a strong structure” (FNR). Therefore, if staff members are to stay within their
1 The Land Tenure Team has noted, however, that the only “market assisted” agrarian reform project in Central America is the PACTA project, which has been funded by the Government since 2007 and implemented by FAO since 2002. They note further that World Bank operations in the sub-region have dealt with land administration projects since 2005.
116 own divisions and work on a joint programme, “clear and strong support is needed from senior management” (FOS). The structural support given to the traditional divisions at FAO creates a barrier to working effectively on cross-cutting issues. As noted by one staff member, “when you fund cross- cutting themes, who gets the money?” (FOS).
The placement of the land tenure unit within NRC was questioned, and described as a “political move with no technical rationale” (FOS) rather than a logical one. It was felt that the placement of a unit determines the linkages that are formed between that unit and others in the same division: it was therefore difficult to understand why the land tenure unit was not situated within NRL, where it may have benefited from closer association with work on, for example, land management. It was felt that the conceptual division between land tenure and land management in FAO was false: “when considering how the resource is accessed one must also consider how the resource will be used” (FNR). Another staff member noted that “no vision has been articulated” (FOS) for how the land management and land tenure units can work together more effectively. It was felt that for both water and land, if administration is separated from management “it is a lost opportunity” (FNR). It was acknowledged by staff within the land tenure unit that the placement of the unit is a good enough arrangement, but not ideal.
2.1.2 Climate change
Clarifying tenure, rights and access was described as important when deciding who should be paid for environmental services in the context of climate change mitigation activities such as REDD+. However, limited collaborative work has been undertaken between the land tenure unit and other relevant units on the relationship between tenure and rights and climate change. Although an interdepartmental working group on climate change has been established, “there isn’t real coordination between the participants” (FNR) and the use of the available funds has not been “transparent” (FOS). It should be noted, however, that in the context of REDD+ it is not FAO’s responsibility to address tenure issues – this is to be taken on by UNDP.
2.1.3 Gender and disadvantaged groups
It was widely considered that tenure, rights and access work must consider women’s rights as an essential dimension, given the asymmetries in access to natural resources for women – in terms of both quantity and quality.
The land tenure unit was perceived by other FAO staff members to be receptive to the inclusion of gender issues, particularly in contrast to other divisions in FAO. There has been extensive collaboration between ESW and the land tenure group, including on the LEP initiative, and most recently on the gender implementation guide in support of the Voluntary Guidelines and the Land and Gender Portal. The good relationship between ESW and the land tenure unit was attributed to the recognition within FAO of ESW’s expertise on the land and gender relationship.
Generally, FAO staff members acknowledged that insufficient resources had been invested in supporting gender mainstreaming across the Organisation. It was noted, however, that it is not possible for ESW to backstop all of the land tenure unit’s activities, as this would defeat the purpose of gender mainstreaming – rather, ESW should focus their efforts on supporting major processes such as the Voluntary Guidelines.
117
Indigenous groups have identified land tenure as “one of the most important issues in their relationship with FAO” (FOS). It was acknowledged that significant work has been done on this topic by NRC and NRL. Also, FAO consultations relating to land policies – for example, that for the Voluntary Guidelines – typically involve representatives of indigenous people.
2.1.4 Emergencies
Tenure, rights and access issues were recognised as “key issues for the recovery process” (FOS) following natural disaster or conflict. In the early part of the evaluation period, land-related problems arising from TCE assignments tended to be handled by land professionals “who had very little understanding of humanitarian emergencies, their short term nature and the need for a quick response” (FOS).
More recently, although tenure, rights and access issues were considered to be an important part of FAO’s emergency work, and the land tenure unit has worked in close cooperation with TCE on natural disaster and post-conflict situations, it was felt that more collaboration could be undertaken within FAO on the topic. This is particularly true given increasing demands for assistance on land tenure issues in an emergency context, including from a legal perspective, and given the absence of an emergencies specialist in the land tenure unit. Emergency funds are perceived as an opportunity to get young land professionals into the field where endemic land and/or water conflicts are a causal factor in protracted emergencies, e.g. in Sudan, Somalia, and Mali.
2.1.5 Relationship between regional/sub-regional offices and HQ
A number of FAO staff members emphasised the lack of expertise in land tenure issues in the regional and sub-regional offices, with the exception of work being done in Mozambique. In some cases, the absence of regional and sub-regional officers specialising in land tenure means that “member countries do not always know who the land tenure people are and what they do” (FNR) , although one staff member felt that the land tenure unit had overcome the lack of regional expertise through “very strong projects” (FOS). While some oversight is provided by the land tenure unit, one regional/sub-regional office felt that it was “missing good leadership” (FOS) from Rome with respect to such inter-disciplinary work.
Donor experience with FAO’s tenure, rights and access activities in the field (across all natural resources) was that the quality of the work depends a lot on the person on the ground: there is “mixed, uneven engagement across countries” (DON). Such inconsistencies in FAO’s country-level performance “inevitably affect the image of FAO’s programmes” (DON). With respect to land tenure, since FAO has a weak field presence (with the exception of Mozambique) and limited financial power, “governments may agree to reforms but then there is no follow-up” (AGC). It was therefore suggested that capacity needs to be improved in the country and regional offices, with oversight and guidance from headquarters. Greater interchange between headquarters and the field would be beneficial because “both can bring knowledge to the other” (INC).
2.2 Partnerships with external stakeholders
2.2.1 The World Bank
118
FAO staff members across more than one division noted that for FAO’s technical assistance to become most effective, FAO has to build strategic partnerships with multilateral financial agencies within or outside the UN system. The land tenure unit has established a strong partnership with the World Bank, coordinated by FAO’s Investment Centre (TCI) in the context of the Cooperative Programme.
The World Bank is recognised as a key stakeholder because it plays a key global role in land tenure issues, and has significant financial resources available to support activities in this field. FAO’s partnership with the World Bank is perceived to be a way to “maximise on-the-ground impact” and “leverage” FAO’s work (FOS). The relationship with the World Bank allows the FAO land tenure unit to “follow what is happening globally in the big investment projects” (FNR) and potentially even “influence World Bank projects” (FNR). One example of this influence is the application of FAO’s normative work on land consolidation to World Bank projects.
The relationship with the land tenure unit is highly valued by the World Bank. FAO provides technical expertise that the Bank lacks, specifically in land surveys, valuation and taxation. The support provided by the land tenure unit was described as “consistent” and “high quality” (AGC). The World Bank perceives the FAO land tenure unit staff as independent, and values their long-term involvement in World Bank projects. The World Bank can rely on FAO for an honest technical opinion on the feasibility of land tenure projects; even if they say it is not feasible: “consultants can’t provide that kind of opinion without fear of not being hired anymore” (FNR). It is also “financially advantageous” (AGC) for the World Bank to use FAO consultants, as their salaries do not come out of the team leader’s project funds.
Some World Bank stakeholders did point out downsides to the relationship with FAO – notably the “inflexible and almost hopeless” (AGC) administrative bureaucracy, for example in relation to payment of consultants and organising of air travel. Hiring procedures were also described as “particularly long and inefficient” (AGC). This was attributed primarily to FAO’s administrative units, while those tasks that the land tenure unit were directly responsible for were seen to run more smoothly. World Bank staff working in at least one region outside of Central/Eastern Europe believed that the transaction costs and waiting times for using land tenure staff (through the TCI) were too high to justify their involvement .
The Cooperative Programme with the World Bank has been the subject of both internal and external criticism because of a perceived lack of alignment or integration with FAO’s main priorities and activities: “it does not link to the basic goals of FAO” (INC) and “does not fit in with the rest of what FAO does” (FOS). It was felt that cooperation with the World Bank could only strengthen FAO’s field presence if “both organizations agree the approach and priorities” (FOS), rather than the World Bank “imposing the agenda and the approach” (FOS). External stakeholders also noted that “FAO is not influencing the World Bank; the World Bank is influencing FAO” (AGC). More broadly, the use of FAO staff as consultants to other organisations was criticised for making FAO “less strategic in its work and more opportunistic” (FOS).
A typical perception from staff members outside the land tenure unit was that the work undertaken for the World Bank is focused only on land administration and title registration. This is in contrast to the perceptions of the land tenure unit, who have stated that not all work done with the World Bank focuses on individual land titling.
119
2.2.2 Other UN agencies
UN-HABITAT
A number of external stakeholders felt that there were important synergies between the work of FAO and UN-HABITAT, and that greater collaboration could occur between the two agencies. There appeared to have been some overlap in the past between FAO and UN-HABITAT on post-conflict land tenure manuals: there could have been better collaboration on this; it instead seemed that the two agencies “were competing on who could produce the better manual” (INC). Indeed, one FAO staff member did describe UN-HABITAT as a “competitor” (FNR) – although another staff member described the two agencies’ normative work as “complementary” (FNR). The collaboration on the publication ‘Assessing and Responding to Land Tenure Issues in Disaster Risk Management’ was described as useful .The Development Law Service has drafted a proposal for a joint project with UN- HABITAT, but to date this has not moved beyond the discussion stage .
The work of UN-HABITAT was seen as relevant to FAO given the increasing expansion of cities into rural areas. FAO must consider the unique issues arising out of title registration in agricultural land that is subject to urban pressure. In particular, it was noted that in urban and peri-urban areas, donors might introduce land registration programmes but the inhabitants “don’t complete the game as intended” (INC). Individuals begin the process of title registration, but do not complete it, as they wish to avoid the associated registration fee and subsequent property taxes. Rather, they choose to reach a point in the registration process where if they felt that they needed to sell their land, or if they were threatened with eviction, they could quickly complete the full registration. Thus, the tenure security that was the donor’s objective is not really achieved; instead there is “some kind of intermediate tenure” (INC). This phenomenon has been observed in a diverse range of countries. FAO could collaborate with UN-HABITAT to consider this issue – together potentially with the World Bank and FIG.
While there was agreement that there could be greater collaboration between UN-HABITAT and FAO, there were relatively few suggestions as to how this could concretely be achieved. It was emphasised that future collaboration between the two agencies should be “practically focused – not just more guidelines and publications” (INC). One suggestion was that FAO could scale up UN- HABITAT approaches that had previously proved successful, such as community mapping.
IFAD
FAO has collaborated with IFAD on a number of publications relating to land tenure, for example ‘Land Grab or Development Opportunity?’ (together with IIED) and an ongoing related series of case studies. IFAD has also supported the development of the Voluntary Guidelines, particularly during the consultation phase.
IFAD is not a normative organisation, and expects FAO to take the lead on this type of work. FAO’s normative work was seen as complementary to IFAD’s fieldwork. It was suggested that IFAD’s field operations could serve as “good entry points for FAO’s normative work” (AGC): this could extend FAO’s reach.
It was argued that IFAD could benefit from being able to draw more on FAO’s pool of technical expertise, in particular the consultants that FAO uses in relation to tenure, rights and access
120 projects. Although it was acknowledged that the major role of FAO’s land tenure unit is not to provide consultants, it was nonetheless felt that the unit was not sufficiently flexible in providing assistance – and that it was easier to draw on the TCI for ad hoc expertise. It was felt that the “collaboration between FAO and IFAD on land issues remains sub-optimal” (AGC), but that it could be strengthened through the Voluntary Guidelines and through greater engagement of FAO in the Council of the International Land Coalition.
2.2.3 The African Union
The land tenure unit has a “strong partnership” (FNR) with the African Union in developing its land policy guidelines. It was felt that the support provided by FAO to the African Union’s Land Policy Initiative had “helped to assure the commitment of African governments to the process” (CSO) and brought “the necessary coherence to the process that was initially lacking” (CSO). It was suggested that the technical support provided by FAO was more practical than that provided by the World Bank.
2.2.4 NGOs, CSOs, research institutes and academia
Many interviewees, both internal and external to FAO and including donors, believed that it is vital for FAO to engage with NGOs and CSOs on the topic of tenure, rights and access to all natural resources. The work undertaken by NGOs and CSOs can also serve to put tenure issues “on the agenda” (FOS). FAO was felt to have not invested sufficiently in such engagement, beyond the standard consultation processes. Simply ‘consulting’ with NGOs is just “ticking the box – the smarter NGOs wouldn’t even get involved because they know it is not worth their time” (DON). One donor had the perception that FAO “only engages with CSOs when they become stuck on a project, or when they are required to by the donor” (DON) – despite there being “capable and committed local NGOs” (DON) in many countries. There is a “slight sense of frustration from civil society towards FAO at times” (CSO): smaller CSOs feel that their evidence is disregarded by FAO as being merely anecdotal.
The collaborative relationship between IIED and FAO is highly valued and is hoped to continue in the future. For IIED, the work that they engage in with FAO is “not just a consultancy” (CSO) or a source of funding – it allows both organisations to distribute their research findings to a larger and broader audience than they could individually.
Other research institutes and NGOs felt that with respect to their research, “FAO sees competition where others see potential for complementarities” (CSO). These institutes believed that there were good opportunities for collaboration if the notion of being ‘competitors’ could be overcome. Collaboration is perhaps dampened by FAO’s “bureaucracy and budgets” (CSO). It was suggested that better dissemination of FAO outputs would help to foster better linkages with others. It was also suggested that FAO should appreciate the work of NGOs, CSOs and research institutes as “challenging [FAO] to always improve the relevance, quality and reach of their outputs” (INC). For example, FAO could invite CSOs to provide information and data for inclusion in FAO’s normative products. FAO could challenge the work of NGOs and CSOs in a similar way.
It was also noted that NGOs and CSOs can play an important role in implementing the new Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Governance. NGOs and CSOs emphasised their role in holding governments accountable for appropriate land reform and land governance. FAO could assist to
121 build the capacity of CSOs to interact with governments. However, it was noted that in some countries like India, “FAO is a little bit shy when interacting with civil society organisations” (CSO) – perhaps because it does not want to upset the government by taking on the controversial issue of land tenure.
3. Perceived comparative advantage of FAO for work on TRA issues
3.1 Technical expertise
The mix of expertise at FAO on land tenure was described by a staff member as “globally unique” (FOS): FAO is recognised within the UN system as the lead organisation on rural land tenure issues. FAO is perceived to have a longstanding investment in its core capacities on land tenure issues, in contrast to other donors who are more “voguish” (CSO) and “dip in and out” (DON) of these issues. The decline of land-tenure related work in other organisations, most notably the Land Tenure Centre (Wisconsin, USA) and the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), has also played a role in making FAO’s expertise globally unique.
One country representative noted that FAO’s technical expertise was particularly good given that its methodologies were first piloted in countries, and then refined based on lessons learned before being implemented. This opinion was also reflected in comments made by a staff member that FAO’s comprehensive work on tenure, rights and access issues “provides the necessary inputs to conduct a comparative analysis” (FOS).
3.2 FAO as a neutral actor with a good relationship with government
FAO, as a United Nations body with a mandate from its member states, is generally seen by external stakeholders to be providing neutral technical advisory services relating to tenure issues. While other international organisations engaged on the topic of land tenure are often seen to be representing a particular set of interests, FAO is not perceived to have a particular agenda driving the direction of the land tenure group. FAO “doesn’t have a political agenda and can offer the best technical solution for a problem” (FOS). FAO has credibility, “even if it doesn’t bring a ton of money to the table” (CSO).
FAO is perceived to have a relationship with the Ministries of Agriculture, Forest, Fishery, and Rural Development of member countries: this connection allows FAO consultants to be especially affective in initiating and pursuing dialogue with member countries’ operational agencies.
The political sensitivity of land tenure issues leads to reluctance to involve the World Bank or bilateral donors on this topic. The World Bank was mentioned specifically by a number of interviewees as not being “an entirely neutral arbiter” (CSO) on land tenure issues. Bilateral donors were also described as often having a “vested interest that makes people suspicious” (FOS).
An important component of FAO’s perceived neutrality is that FAO is much more open than other donors to adopting new strategies for the local context. FAO was described as taking an “open- minded” (CSO) approach to providing advice, “without a pre-conceived set of assumptions” (CSO). This contributes to FAO being able to establish a “relationship of confidence” (FOS) with the government that can facilitate work on tenure issues. Governments trust FAO, and FAO can thus
122 influence policy formulation by introducing lessons from the international experience. CSOs and NGOs are unable to influence government at this level.
While some stakeholders felt that the neutrality of FAO was a comparative advantage, others felt that it could be “a double-edged sword” (DON). For one NGO, FAO’s intergovernmental nature means that they cannot be as frank about problems as perhaps others could be: FAO’s reports still “reflect government influence” (CSO). There was some concern that FAO can ignore serious issues simply to please member governments, rather than “taking a position [and] standing up for certain principles” (FOS). In a related comment, another multilateral agency noted that generally speaking, since FAO’s technical assistance is less tied to money, governments are more frank and receptive, “but there is a lack of follow up and reform commitments are not honoured” (AGC).
3.3 FAO as a convener of stakeholders
FAO was often described as having a comparative advantage in playing the role of convener. FAO can bring together different stakeholder groups, such as governments, donors, NGOs, CSOs, academics and private sector actors, to discuss tenure, rights and access issues. This is evidenced in the role of the Committee on World Food Security, which provides a forum for multiple stakeholders to engage on a sensitive issue. The Voluntary Guidelines process was also given as an example of FAO’s power to convene people to work together on a particular topic.
FAO is seen to promote the involvement of CSOs and indigenous peoples in consultations over land tenure issues, unlike the World Bank which “negotiates only with the governments” (FOS). An NGO representative also emphasised that the World Bank and bilateral donors “usually work as a group of people talking only to the governments and not civil society” (CSO), whereas FAO is more open to listening to different opinions. This is evidenced in the e-consultation process for the Voluntary Guidelines.
4. Perceptions of the usefulness of FAO’s TRA work
4.1 Land
As noted in section 3.1, FAO is perceived to have excellent technical expertise on issues of land tenure. If measured in terms of funds raised per staff member, the land tenure unit has been one of the most successful groups within FAO in terms of raising funds and creating projects. The legal assistance provided by FAO in the reform of land laws was also highly praised for its quality and its success in maintaining national dialogues on a highly sensitive issue.
4.1.1 Normative work
With respect to land tenure issues, FAO is “expected to take the lead on normative work” (AGC), as other agencies do not play this role. The recently revamped Land Tenure Journal was described as “an extremely good journal” (AGC). The normative work undertaken by the Development Law Service on tenure (of all natural resources) was highlighted as “particularly useful” (CSO), “very reputable” (CSO), and “state of the art” (INC). It was however felt by one donor that FAO’s normative work on land tenure is “not as visible as it deserves” (DON).
123
Staff in the land tenure unit emphasised the link between their technical documents and their fieldwork. They felt that compared to the normative work undertaken by, for example, the World Bank, work done by the land tenure unit is “more practical and technically-oriented” (FNR), rather than a research exercise. One donor described the land tenure unit’s publications as “very good quality” and “of practical use” (DON). FAO’s publications have also been used by other agencies as technical inputs into their own field programmes. A number of participants at the Land Consolidation workshop held in Budapest (June 2011) found FAO land tenure publications very useful in their teaching curricula at universities. The translation of land tenure normative documents into all six languages was particularly valued.
While there was no obvious awareness of FAO’s work on open-source cadastral software, when it was raised in conversations it was seen as a positive development given the high cost of proprietary licenses. An example was given of an African country where a bilateral donor had proposed a software system run by a private company (of the donor’s country): when the prospect of open- source software was raised by an independent consultant, the reaction of the relevant government Minister was very positive. However, when it came to reactions from government staff, they argued for the proprietary software – it seemed that they would “rather have someone else come in and do it than develop their own competencies” (INC).
A number of staff members in the Regional and Sub-regional office in Budapest noted that most of FAO’s standard products are not appropriate for the regional context. More generally, a former consultant to FAO felt that while FAO does a good job in writing up what is done on the ground with respect to land tenure, the publications “need to include more frank discussion on what worked, and what didn’t” (INC). This type of information would be valuable for other organisations working on land tenure issues. FAO’s normative work on land tenure was criticised by one stakeholder as being “technicist... it implies that generic technical solutions can be found to be too complex for situation- specific and fundamentally political problems such as land tenure” (CSO).
NGOs and CSOs valued the role of workshops organised by FAO as a forum to share ideas and experiences. One sub-regional representative of a national NGO described the opportunity to consult on the VGs as “an eye opener” and “very interesting” (CSO). Staff members also noted that FAO’s workshops facilitate the exchange of knowledge: information is transferred both between stakeholders; and from stakeholders into FAO’s technical work. Workshops were also seen as a good opportunity to obtain hard copies of FAO publications.
4.1.2 Fieldwork
The more general shift in FAO away from fieldwork and towards more normative work was widely acknowledged. However, opinions on whether this was a positive shift varied significantly both within and outside FAO. A number of stakeholders felt that FAO should be more involved at the field level: it was felt that this would keep the work of FAO staff more grounded. There should be a balance between fieldwork and normative work: it is good for FAO to “remain in the reality” (DON) through involvement in projects. It was suggested that knowledge sharing is best done through FAO staff bringing their global experience and expertise to the field, rather than publishing normative work: “expertise in implementation is needed more than expertise in project design” (AGC).
124
In terms of fieldwork that has been undertaken, several stakeholders, both internal and external to FAO, highlighted the work undertaken in Mozambique as being of “very good quality” (CSO), “proactive” (FOS) and “forward looking” (FOS). One country government who was a recipient of FAO land tenure-related assistance described FAO staff as “real experts” (GOV) on the topic, who provided useful recommendations out of their assistance.
It was emphasised by a number of stakeholders that FAO’s fieldwork should focus more on capacity- building and on implementation of policies. FAO was described as focusing primarily on the policy advice, with limited technical support for implementation on the ground and no consideration of supporting local stakeholders: “this renders policy advice useless” (INC). Field involvement needs to go beyond “just flying in, giving advice, and then leaving” (INC), towards building up the capacity of regional, sub-regional and country offices – see section 2.1.5. This point was emphasised by a major multilateral agency, who noted that “writing land legislation is an easy target – it is a technical exercise; the challenge is to strengthen institutions and human capacity” (AGC).
It was suggested by another consultant that the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines would provide a “natural entry point for additional FAO field work” (INC). If FAO is looking to improve agricultural productivity, then “improving rights and tenure security of land should be the entry point of technical cooperation” (FOS).
4.1.3 The two approaches to land tenure issues
A recurring theme in the discussions with stakeholders about FAO’s land tenure work was the perceived dual approach to land rights, what can be characterised as a narrow approach to land administration on the one hand and a more holistic approach on the other. The former relates to the focus on land-parcel related land administration (i.e. the adjudication, registration and valuation of land parcels constituting the cadastre) as compared with an approach associated with the development of the landscape from an environmental and livelihood perspective. The former approach has been adopted by countries in transition following the breakup of the former Soviet Union and demise of communism in Eastern Europe. The latter approach has been developed in southern Africa and in which land administration is seen as a part of a development strategy, involving community land delimitation of homesteads and arable fields and other natural resources with a view to developing community investor partnerships.
There is concern amongst stakeholders that FAO places “too much emphasis on systematic title registration” (INC). This title registration is about securing existing tenure systems for those who already have rights, rather than redistributing rights to those who do not already have them. The assumption underlying this approach is that the initial allocation of land rights was appropriate and fair, which is not always the case. It was noted that the work done by NRL was an exception to this trend. The creation of land administration systems and institutions was nonetheless perceived to be an “extremely important” (FOS) activity in terms of reducing risks for farmers.
The perceived over-emphasis on narrow land administration was primarily based on knowledge of the work undertaken by the land tenure unit for the World Bank, and awareness of the technical background of staff in the land tenure unit. From the World Bank’s perspective, the shift in project priority from wider land reform to the development of the cadastre and systematic title registration had been driven primarily by member governments.
125
Stakeholders emphasised that land tenure is both a technical issue (relating to cadastre and registration) and a political issue; FAO must ensure that it achieves the right balance between the two: “without the political considerations, the technical work is worthless – and vice versa” (CSO). The ICARRD conference was mentioned by several interviewees as an important reference point, which sent a strong political message which FAO could still follow through on.
The perceived shift in FAO land tenure work away from wider land reform towards systematic title registration was associated with FAO ‘not doing enough’ for vulnerable groups and “strengthening the rights of people who don’t yet have them” (INC). A heavy emphasis on land administration can take away from FAO’s “ability to deal with more fundamental tenure, rights and access issues related to food security and poverty reduction” (CSO). These issues include reconciliation of customary and statutory law, tenure issues of indigenous groups, gender inequality, and redistribution of land rights to landless poor. It was felt that FAO “has not been positioning itself in the arena for land rights advocacy” (AGC).
A related aspect of this debate is whether securing tenure should be seen a means to achieving FAO’s goals of food security and poverty alleviation, or an end in itself. The land administration approach is perceived to see tenure as an end in itself. However, it was argued by some interviewees that legal rights to a piece of land are “meaningless in terms of the final goals” (CSO) if the individuals do not also have access to, for example, sufficient water to make use of the land or credit to purchase agricultural inputs. While securing tenure was recognised as one of the “fundamental building blocks” (FOS), simply securing tenure is not sufficient – capacity building is also essential. It was noted by one donor that if the focus is on the end goal of achieving food security, perhaps land access rights – rather than ownership rights – might be a step in the right direction .
It was therefore generally felt that FAO could draw a stronger link between, and have a more coherent view on, the importance of land tenure in agricultural development more broadly. Given that FAO has the competitive advantage of both being politically neutral and having technical expertise, it could play a powerful new role in the “land administration as a development strategy approach” (FOS).
4.1.4 FAO work on large-scale land acquisitions
There are high expectations around FAO’s involvement in the topic of large scale land acquisitions. It is an expectation of member governments that FAO is knowledgeable about large scale land acquisitions and “FAO needs to deliver something credible” (FNR). It is therefore essential for FAO to engage in and have a presence in the global debate on land acquisitions.
However, it was highlighted as important that FAO must make an informed assessment as to the nature of these acquisitions, rather than making assumptions. Several FAO staff members believed that the large scale land acquisition issue had been “hyped up more than is justified” (FOS).
It is perceived that “FAO has credibility and a neutral view” (CSO) on the land grabbing subject. One staff member suggested that FAO’s work on large-scale land acquisitions was “bringing more rationality” (FOS) to the discussion, compared to the ‘less than rational’ views of certain NGOs on this topic. FAO’s involvement in large-scale land acquisitions is discussed in further detail under section 6.2.2 on future priorities.
126
4.2 Forestry and wildlife
Although the China Forest Tenure project was mentioned as the only forestry project dealing directly with tenure issues, a number of FAO staff members emphasised that tenure, rights and access issues are embedded in all forestry work undertaken by FAO. Tenure issues are seen as vital to forest management overall: “without addressing tenure issues, the other objectives of forest policy cannot be attained” (FOS). This is a view echoed by the major donors.
The main outcome of FAO’s publications on forest tenure is “raising awareness” (FOS). The country studies on forest tenure were seen as a “good start” (CSO), but were perhaps too reliant on government reporting and too descriptive. It was recognised that FAO “has come a long way” (CSO) in terms of recognizing different forest tenure categories in its global forest resource assessments: although this data is provided by governments and not verified by FAO, it is still seen to be the best information available on forest tenure on a global scale . Overall, FAO’s Forest Resource Assessment was described as “fantastic” (DON).
Although FAO’s forest tenure publications may not directly result in requests for technical assistance, it has been observed that since their release that tenure issues are much better addressed when forestry projects are formulated. There have however been cases where previous workshops on forestry management had led to requests from country governments for policy assistance. Workshops were also seen by NGO representatives as a place to obtain useful hard copies of FAO forestry publications.
In terms of FAO’s more technical work on policy and legislative support, the most obvious indicator of success is that a new policy or piece of legislation is adopted by the government. One NGO representative in the field (Africa) emphasised strongly that FAO’s approach to community forestry management has been “institutionalised in the government” (CSO). A related indicator that is more difficult to measure is “attitudinal change” (FOS).
With respect to rights and access to wildlife resources, these are considered implicitly in the wildlife work undertaken by FAO. Limited human resources in the Forestry Department restrict the amount of work undertaken on this topic.
4.3 Fisheries
‘Tenure, rights and access’ is not a specific priority for the Fisheries Department, but it is implicitly included in other priorities and is a central component of small-scale fisheries management. FAO has not received any requests for assistance from countries to work specifically on the topic of rights and access. For the Fisheries Department, the entry-point into tenure-related issues is typically in relation to co-management by communities. The Fisheries Department does not have any people who are looking specifically at rights issues.
Since the late 1990s, the Committee on Fisheries has explicitly supported the development of rights- based fisheries management. However, while members would like to move to a rights-based system, there are huge challenges in doing so. One of these is that there are “basically too many claimants” (FOS). The small-scale fisheries sector thus has to move towards community-based rights: perhaps the first step in this regard would be clearer definition of fishing zones.
127
Developing countries do not have the infrastructure required for the implementation of a system of individual transferable quotas: ‘group’ quotas given to community leaders may therefore be more appropriate, and may even be self-regulating due to social pressures. No normative work has been done by FAO on this topic, but the time may be right.
Although access to land and water is an important component of aquaculture development, and certain land ownership regimes can hinder such development, no structured studies have been undertaken on this relationship. It was questioned “how important it is to generalise” (FOS) this relationship, given the substantial differences in land ownership regimes between countries.
4.4 Water
FAO’s work and outputs on water governance issues, for example on the Nile River, were described as “tremendously useful” (INC). While FAO studies on indigenous water law were also described as useful, they “don’t seem to be translated into policies that protect indigenous/informal / small-scale water users” (CSO). It was suggested that work could be done on ensuring that permit systems protect the rights of customary, small-scale users: otherwise, “a small minority of [those who are] administration-proficient get an individual permit without the rest even knowing what formal entitlement they have” (CSO) .
The issue of water rights and access will be “framed within the context of coping with water scarcity” (FNR). Further discussion of the issues around water rights is provided in section 5.2.1 on the exclusion of water from the Voluntary Guidelines.
5. Perceptions on the Voluntary Guidelines
5.1 The process for developing the Voluntary Guidelines
The Voluntary Guidelines process was described as a useful initiative for connecting divisions within FAO around natural resource management issues, as well as to connect with different regional initiatives. The process of developing the Voluntary Guidelines was praised as having an “unprecedented level of participation” (CSO) from a range of stakeholders. The engagement of civil society in particular was praised as “positive” (CSO), “exemplary” (CSO), and “excellent” (AGC). The ongoing openness of the Voluntary Guidelines process, for example through the newsletters, was also praised. The Voluntary Guidelines were seen as an example of what the United Nations system is capable of achieving (AGC).
The extensive consultation process gives the Voluntary Guidelines “a high level of legitimacy” (CSO). It also “reflects more the reality of land issues” (DON), which are not only technical but also political, social and economic. A contrast was frequently made with the consultation process for the RAI principles: the process for the Voluntary Guidelines was perceived to be much more inclusive, and was praised for “keeping stakeholders on board who may have been excluded from other initiatives” (CSO) like the RAI principles. One donor felt that the official negotiations on the Guidelines should have started earlier to ensure a proper debate.
It was however noted that while the Voluntary Guidelines are good, they are “only a first step in a rapidly evolving agenda” (DON). Given the rapidly evolving nature of the land tenure agenda,
128 perhaps too much time and resources had been spent on the Voluntary Guidelines “that could have been used to do other things” (DON).
While the engagement of external stakeholders from the land tenure sphere was perceived to be good, general awareness of the Voluntary Guidelines in the key fora for forestry at least appeared to be weak. It was noted in particular that no reference was made to the Voluntary Guidelines during the Expert Meeting on Governance of Forests and REDD+, held at FAO in May 2011.
5.2 Content of the Voluntary Guidelines
Stakeholders both within and outside FAO generally perceived the Voluntary Guidelines to be useful principles, at least in the sense of being “a minimum generic standard for the responsible governance of tenure” (FOS). They are expected by donors to be “helpful in the long run” (DON). One legal expert emphasised that approval of the VGs means an implied commitment from member states to follow certain standards: “it is more than just goodwill, it is a step towards putting in place national legislation that is patterned on the criteria in the Voluntary Guidelines” (FOS).
The Voluntary Guidelines were perceived as a “good first step, although a little bit too cautious” (FOS) – although this caution was understood given the sensitive nature of the topic. Other stakeholders also acknowledged that while the generality of the Voluntary Guidelines has reduced their usefulness, “this is the necessary tendency when seeking a consensus” (AGC).
The general nature of the Voluntary Guidelines was seen to limit their “capacity to influence concrete situations” (CSO). However, it was also suggested that if the general principles are basically the same globally, it is then “up to countries to appropriate the process to make it their own” (FOS). One NGO described the Voluntary Guidelines as a “stepping stone” (CSO), or a baseline from which to develop measures to ensure adequate security over natural resources. The value of the Voluntary Guidelines might be in “the process, and the role that FAO can play as a multilateral institution, bringing governments and civil society organisations to negotiations – not in the detail” (CSO). It was also felt that the importance of the process of meaningful consultation with the long-term users and occupiers of land and natural resources, as part of the broader natural resource management ‘package’, was not sufficiently emphasised in the Voluntary Guidelines.
The Voluntary Guidelines were found by some to be very State-centred, and it was therefore questioned to what extent these Guidelines can deal with local level governance issues – which are a challenge for all those involved in land governance. It was suggested that the urban context could have been better “mainstreamed” (AGC) into the Voluntary Guidelines.
It was also suggested that the Voluntary Guidelines need a clearer, more in-depth link to the role of tenure in development work. It was felt by one stakeholder that it was unclear how or if the input from the extensive consultation process had been included in the zero draft: “a lot of what was in the draft could have been written by an expert on land tenure without any consultation” (AGC). One donor expressed concern that at least in the zero and first drafts of the Voluntary Guidelines, the inclusion of the concept of sustainable development was “weak” (DON). This may reflect what one staff member described as a lack of clarity on FAO’s position regarding the relationship between land rights and food security.
129
The absence of more detailed information on the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines in the zero draft was perceived to be a serious omission. The question was raised as to how the Voluntary Guidelines fit in with other mechanisms for exercising accountability, for example international human rights law and bilateral investment treaties. It was suggested that elements of these investment treaties could be incorporated into the Voluntary Guidelines.
5.2.1 Exclusion of water from the Voluntary Guidelines
A number of external stakeholders expressed concern over the absence of water governance from the Voluntary Guidelines: “we cannot talk about land without talking about water” (CSO). One donor expressed surprise as the exclusion of water from the Voluntary Guidelines, saying that its inclusion would have been “an asset” (DON). The absence of water rights from the Voluntary Guidelines was described as “a serious void” (INC) – it would have been preferable to either include water, or to limit the Guidelines to agricultural land tenure and have separate Guidelines for the other natural resources. It was felt that this gap cannot be filled with the implementation guideline on water, because “you cannot implement what isn’t considered in the Voluntary Guidelines... the Guidelines are what is needed to be done, and the implementation guidelines are how” (CSO).
There were a number of reasons given by FAO staff for the exclusion of water from the Voluntary Guidelines. Firstly, the nature of the resource is very different to that of land: water is a fugitive resource, and cannot be ‘owned’. There are different levels of entitlement to an allocation of water depending on the variability of the flow. Further, the Voluntary Guidelines were felt to be focused too much on the administration of rights to use resources rather than the management of the actual use. In the context of freshwater as a scarce resource for which there is increasing competition, the need for allocation of water rights occurs within the framework of a broader water resource management plan. Therefore, water policy makers are only interested in water rights because of the water management aspect – not because of the administrative aspect. The perceived focus of the Voluntary Guidelines on rights administration was therefore seen to be inappropriate for water resources. One donor also noted that by including water, numerous international treaties and legal instruments on transboundary water resources would have to be brought into the negotiations.
However, while this rationale was communicated internally within FAO, it was not communicated externally to other stakeholders in the Voluntary Guidelines process. Two different donors felt that the reasons for the exclusion of water were not well communicated outside of FAO, and that this could “be detrimental to the negotiations process” (DON).
5.3 Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines
While stakeholders generally perceived the Voluntary Guidelines to be useful principles, they emphasised that the Guidelines must have a strong implementation component to become effective and “give them teeth” (DON). Although there is a clear process for the endorsement of the Voluntary Guidelines, “the real problem will be the implementation” (AGC). One donor noted that in general, when providing financial support to the development of guidelines, it was considered essential to have a clear plan for implementation and for how impacts will be monitored.
NGOs and CSOs expressed particular concern at the non-binding nature of the Voluntary Guidelines: “how are we making governments and citizens apply them in their own countries?” (CSO). The
130 opinion from the African context was particularly strong: “Africans don’t want ‘voluntary’ guidelines. We are beyond this. We want you to track our performance in implementation” (CSO). It was noted that other initiatives in Africa, such as the African Peer Review Mechanism, had not progressed due to their voluntary nature. A number of stakeholders also made reference to the Voluntary Guidelines on the Right to Food, which were felt to have not succeeded.
Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines is discussed further in section 6.2.1 on future priorities for FAO land tenure work.
6. Future priorities for FAO’s TRA work
6.1 Forward planning on TRA issues
6.1.1 Setting priorities in a strategic framework
It was felt by some that if FAO’s tenure work is to move towards the goals of alleviating poverty, improving food security, and environmental sustainability, it could be “more forward-looking in setting priorities” (CSO). An FAO staff member emphasised strongly that in order to define future priorities, “FAO must clarify the focus of work on tenure, rights and access” (FOS) – whether the focus should be on land administration to improve rights security, or land reform to increase access for marginalised groups. As suggested by another stakeholder, FAO needs to consider which land tenure-related skills are in short supply elsewhere, and then “focus on developing their unique capabilities” (AGC). Donors felt that work on land tenure should be part of FAO’s core budget.
In one staff member’s opinion, the failure to address the long-term policy issues associated with tenure, rights and access is the result of an “absence of strategic thinking” (FOS) on these policies – issues such as climate change, rural development and natural resources management need to be addressed within a broader strategic vision. As noted by one donor, there is no clear connection made in either FAO’s projects or publications between its work on land tenure and its goal of food security. Another stakeholder felt that a strategy that links FAO’s tenure, rights and access activity with its broader goals is “badly needed” (FOS). It was noted however by members of the land tenure unit that their team is too small to have “the resources needed to undertaken major planning exercises” (FNR).
6.1.2 FAO’s capacity
The land tenure unit was described by other staff members as a strong unit as evidenced by its survival through several waves of internal reform. However, members of the unit have emphasised that they “couldn’t conceivably respond to all the tenure-related demands with the current team” (FNR). Land tenure unit members often have time commitments outside of the unit. One unit member wondered how the team “managed to keep everything together” (FNR) given all of their commitments. One solution to this could be to hire more staff members: “more people could do the work better” (FNR). It was noted by one staff member, however, that the land tenure unit was large “relative to the extent of technical expertise in other parts of FAO” (FOS).
Improving FAO’s capacity on land tenure issues at the regional, sub-regional and country level was also seen to be a priority. One NGO representative noted that there appears to be a gap between initial expectations relating to land tenure, particularly post-ICARRD, and what national FAO offices
131 have the capacity to achieve. FAO staff members suggested that there may be opportunities for decentralised officers from other divisions, such as the policy branch, to work on land tenure issues; and that country representatives could receive training on tenure, rights and access issues to be better able to respond to countries’ requests.
With respect to forestry, a number of stakeholders felt that the loss of the two most experienced staff members in forest tenure from the Forest Department at headquarters poses a major challenge. There is currently no individual forestry staff member working on forest tenure issues at headquarters.
6.1.3 Timeframe of projects
Technical Cooperation Projects (TCPs) often face constraints in terms of time, scope and resources. It is difficult to incorporate a long-term perspective into these projects, even though this is what is necessary when considering tenure issues: “a long term commitment is needed” (FOS). A former consultant to FAO also argued that in order to properly address land tenure issues, FAO field projects should have a much longer time frame – of five to ten years. The approach used in Mozambique, of having a “programme rather than a project” (FOS), was seen to be more effective than short-term individual projects. At least one representative from a country receiving FAO land tenure assistance believed that the timeframe for the TCP was too short to have effective implementation.
6.1.4 Opportunities for future internal collaboration
There was perceived to be great potential for improving inter-departmental work on tenure, rights and access issues. This collaboration could draw on the experience of the LEP initiative, which highlighted the advantages of having a staff member dedicated to the coordination of the work within different divisions. Inter-departmental collaboration could benefit from an overarching strategic vision or “framework of action” (FOS) on the relationship between land tenure, land management, food security and rural development, and the “articulation of linkages with FAO’s strategic objectives” (FOS).
External stakeholders also noted that the absence of a “comprehensive way of looking at the land tenure issue” (INC) at FAO was frustrating. If FAO is to focus its tenure work on securing tenure rights for the poor and marginalised in the broader context of improving food security and alleviating poverty, “this means working in a much more integrated fashion across units within FAO” (CSO). One donor cautioned however that there is a cost to greater coordination, and that “the relative strengths of different units should be maintained” (DON) within such coordination.
One suggestion made was to form an “advisory group” (CSO) on tenure, rights and access issues. This group could help keep FAO up to date on what is happening with this topic elsewhere, keep other external groups involved in the topic aware of what FAO is doing/planning, and foster interactions among those working on these issues in various parts of FAO .
6.1.5 Opportunities for future external collaboration
As noted in section 2.2.4, many stakeholders believed that it is vital for FAO to engage more with NGOs and CSOs on the topic of tenure, rights and access to all natural resources. It was emphasised
132 in particular that FAO could form stronger partnerships with NGOs and CSOs to promote the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines.
There are also opportunities for greater collaboration with universities and research institutes. FAO was encouraged to build the capacity of young professionals in particular, both in universities and in NGOs, to help offset the “inertia and corruption at the top” (INC) of member country governments. FAO could also support the development of regular, accredited short-course training of land administrators, for example in sub-Saharan Africa.
UNDP was identified as another United Nations agency with whom FAO could collaborate on land tenure-related issues. UNDP has a strong field presence, and good long-term relationships with Ministries other than the Ministry of Agriculture (which is FAO’s traditional counterpart).
6.2 Priorities for land
6.2.1 Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines
The implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines is seen as a crucial priority for FAO’s land tenure work by both internal and external stakeholders. Implementation was seen to depend on some degree on whether the problems now associated with land tenure in many countries are occurring “simply because governments don’t know any better” (CSO), or whether it is because the government has a vested interest a stake. If it is the former, then FAO could implement the Guidelines by identifying two or three governments where they feel there is potential to put together a joint programme of work on implementation: this could even inspire other countries to take up the Guidelines.
It was seen as important that FAO create “detailed and also digestible assessment tools” (CSO) for member countries to use – otherwise, they run the risk of leaving countries “overwhelmed” (CSO) by the Voluntary Guidelines. The importance of “bringing the Voluntary Guidelines down to the operational level” (CSO) was emphasised. One donor suggested that FAO may be able to progress on the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines through bilateral processes with individual member states.
An alternative perspective was provided by another external stakeholder, who questioned “what right FAO has to push a particular set of solutions onto a government who is not interested” (CSO). Another key partner for FAO recognised that the Voluntary Guidelines cannot be forced on member states: “FAO can only propose, not impose” (CSO). It was suggested that “a more politically correct” (CSO) approach would be for FAO to work through CSOs to push governments to address land tenure and governance issues. This reflected comments made by a number of other stakeholders, that in practice CSOs and NGOs will be the ones pushing governments to comply with the Guidelines. However, it was noted that relationships between NGOs/CSOs and governments can “sour”, and also that “NGOs can become corrupt themselves and not accountable to their members” (AGC). One bilateral donor felt that it was not appropriate for CSOs to be engaged in the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines.
Several NGO representatives argued that even if governments do not enforce the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines, NGOs and CSOs can still use the Guidelines in their advocacy and lobbying work: “the Voluntary Guidelines provide the language” (CSO). One NGO hoped to develop a
133 scorecard on which to rate governments on their implementation efforts for the Voluntary Guidelines. The Voluntary Guidelines were seen as complementary to grassroots activities undertaken by NGOs. One donor also felt that organisations such as IFAD, the ILC, the World Bank, and regional development banks could play a significant role in implementation, according to their own comparative advantages.
It was also noted that donors could play a role in ensuring the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines by making compliance with the Guidelines a condition for the provision of funding.
6.2.2 Large-scale land acquisitions
A key external partner described FAO’s involvement on this topic as “absolutely critical” (CSO): it is a highly contested topic, and FAO can provide a “legitimate, authoritative source of information” (CSO). This is particularly important given that the debate surrounding these acquisitions is only going to become more important and pressing in the future. It was felt that apart from research institutes, FAO is the only international organisation that is involved in the ‘land grab’ debate. Large scale land acquisitions provide an opportunity to bring back the debate on the security of land rights in practice. FAO can play a “unique” (CSO) role in linking the present debate over large scale land acquisitions with failed attempts at land reform in the past.
It was suggested that FAO might be well-placed to provide leadership in the vetting of the proliferating work on large-scale land acquisitions, and the multitude of different ‘codes of conduct’ being proposed: “could not FAO provide some oversight and ground-truthing?” (CSO). FAO could officially endorse those principles that it believes to be worthwhile, based on its observations from ‘on the ground’ fieldwork. FAO could support or partner with local studies to undertake fieldwork on this topic, and in this way provide “protection and status” (CSO) to researchers.
Several stakeholders independently suggested that FAO could provide a leading role in the provision of independent data on the true nature and extent of large-scale land acquisitions. FAO was expected by one donor to “take responsibility for a global database on large-scale land acquisitions – what is happening, and where” (DON).
One stakeholder felt that “FAO is not doing enough to protect the land rights of the poor or vulnerable” (INC) in the context of large scale land acquisitions, and that FAO could do this by leading community land titling initiatives in countries where large scale land acquisitions are occurring. The registration of rights on paper was seen to have a role in “balancing the decisions of incoming agricultural investors” (CSO) – the implementation of “cheap and quick” (CSO) rights registration systems is therefore important. FAO could also potentially play a “brokering role between investors, governments and smallholders” (CSO).
This view was echoed by one donor, who felt that FAO could provide advice to governments on the content and consequences of land acquisition contracts. Even if this advice was not requested directly by the member state government, the donor felt that FAO could do “some guided discovery” (DON) on the consequences of large-scale land acquisitions in a particular country as a way to convince government that assistance is needed.
It was argued that since foreign investors in natural resources are protected by international investment agreements, which do not take into account social or environmental considerations, “if
134
FAO is serious about tenure, rights and access issues it should address the issues posed by international investment agreements, their principles, and the interpretation of such principles by international arbitration courts” (INC).
One interviewee cautioned that there is a risk that the ‘land grab debate’ will overshadow a much wider set of problems regarding land tenure: “FAO should keep its capacity to deal with a wide range of tenure-related issues that may arise in the future” (CSO). Other stakeholders also cautioned that research into the debate should not focus only on international investment: ‘land grabbing’ is frequently also undertaken by local elites, or by local men taking land from women.
6.2.3 Climate change, gender and emergencies
It was broadly agreed amongst stakeholders that there is an urgent need to consider the impact of climate change on land tenure. It was also felt that greater effort is needed to raise the interest of FAO senior management in land and gender issues. An NGO representative raised the issue of indigenous women and land tenure, for which she felt that quality publications were missing. Indigenous rights were raised as an important broader issue that must be addressed.
With respect to emergencies, it was felt that FAO’s response to tenure, rights and access issues must adjust, recognising that “emergencies and land-related conflicts are unlikely to diminish” (DON). Although the typical duration and focus of FAO’s emergency projects means that rights and access issues are not considered, these situations could provide an opportunity to “tackle the real, root problems” (FOS) relating to rights and access. Although tenure, rights and access issues where considered to be an important part of FAO’s emergency work, it was felt that more collaboration could be undertaken within FAO on the topic. There were contrasting views as to whether this should involve a ‘land specialist’ within TCE, or whether it was sufficient to provide “common sense advice” (FOS) from FAO headquarters.
6.2.4 Reconciling customary and statutory law
The reconciliation of customary and statutory land law was widely recognised as a priority area for FAO in the future, particularly in the African context. Two different approaches were suggested for achieving this. One suggestion was for FAO to develop tools for the “quick and simple identification of customary uses, and their demarcation and protection” (INC). An alternative approach could be to focus on adapting customary rights systems to become “sufficiently legal to avoid conflict” (INC), rather than simply importing statutory regimes. This second approach was believed to address the fundamental discord between customary and statutory land law: “customary tenure has social legitimacy but is not legal, statutory tenure is legal but does not have social legitimacy” (INC).
6.2.5 Other issues
Problems with pastoralists were seen to be becoming a growing issue, and it was suggested that there is not existing expertise on this topic within the land tenure unit.
6.3 Priorities for other natural resources
With respect to forest tenure, it was seen to be essential for senior management to provide a firm commitment to dealing with forest tenure issues. One FAO staff member was “disappointed by the
135 reaction of high level management” to the topic of forest tenure – they have provided “gentle support, but no real commitment” (FOS). Concerns were raised by several staff members about the lack of a staff member at FAO headquarters dedicated to forest tenure issues. It was felt that the links between land and forest tenure reforms could be better integrated.
In the context of REDD+, it will be essential to reconcile customary and statutory rights and clarify who has rights to the carbon stored in forests. Without secure tenure rights, REDD+ will be a “catastrophe... it will be only for the rich, and the poor will be excluded” (FOS). There is particular concern that since REDD+ involves monetary gain, traditional or customary forest rights will be forgotten in the process. For communities that do not currently have tenure, the implementation of REDD may make it more difficult for them to secure their rights.
With respect to fisheries and aquaculture, the consideration of rights and access issues was seen to be increasingly important for the small-scale fisheries sector. The implication of different land tenure regimes on aquaculture development was also seen to be of vital importance for future development of this industry.
With respect to water resources, the ‘water grabbing’ phenomenon – associated with large-scale land acquisitions – was highlighted as an area of growing concern. The links between forest tenure and watershed management were also seen to be important for future consideration.
136
SPS Appendix 1: List of interviewees
FAO staff Members – Natural Resources Management and Environment Department (FNR); Total count = 16 ADG Alexander Mueller Assistant Director-General Climate change Peter Holmgren Director, NRC Alberto Sandoval Senior Natural Resources Manager, NRC Lisen Runsten Consultant, NRC Land tenure Paul Munro-Faure Principal Officer, NRC David Palmer Senior Land Tenure Officer, NRC Paul Mathieu Senior Land Tenure Officer, NRC Mika Törhönen Senior Officer, NRC Adriana Herrera Land Tenure Officer, NRC Francesca Romano Land Tenure Officer, NRC Vladimir Evtimov Land Tenure Officer, NRC Neil Pullar Land Administration Officer, NRC Ting Lau Communications Assistant, NRC Paolo Groppo Technical Officer, NRL Water Jacob Burke Senior Water Policy Officer, NRL Pasquale Steduto Principal Officer and Deputy Director, NRL
FAO staff – other Departments (FOS); total count = 53 Technical Cooperation Department Rumyana Tonchovska Senior Land Registration Officer, TCIN Sylvie Wabbes Liaison and Operations Officer, TCEO Jennifer Nyberg Senior Programme Officer, TCER Lucia Palombi Social Scientist, TCER Richard Trenchard Senior Policy Officer, TCER Chuck Riemenscheneider Director, TCID Garry Smith Principal Adviser, TCID Claudio Gregorio Chief, TCIN Guy Evers Chief, TCIA Suzanne Raswant Chief, TCIO Fabrice Edouard Agricultural Officer, TCIO Karel Callens Senior Food Security Officer, TCSF
137
Fisheries Department Rolf Willmann Senior Fisheries Planning Officer, FIPI Rebecca Metzner Fishery Analyst, FIPI Michele Kuruc Senior Fisheries Industries Officer, FIRO Nathanael Hishamunda Senior Aquaculture Officer, FIRA Uwe Barg Aquaculture Officer, FIRA Jacek Majkowski Fishery Resources Office, FIRF Forestry Department R. Michael Martin Director, FOED Eva Muller Chief, FOEP Qiang Ma Forestry Officer, FOEP Irina Buttoud-Kouplevatskaya Forestry Officer, FOEP Sophie Grouwels Forestry Officer, FOEP Susan Braatz Senior Forestry Officer, FOMC Edgar Kaeslin Forestry Officer, FOMC Hosny El-Lakany Former Assistant Director-General (retired) Economic and Social Development Department Eve Crowley Principal Officer and Deputy Director, ESWD Martha Osorio Gender and Rural Development Officer, ESWD Clara Park Social Scientist, ESWD Ana Paula de la O Campos Policy Analyst, ESWD Julian Thomas Consultant, ESA Carlo Azzarri Economist, ESA David Hallam Director, EST Legal and Ethics Office Blaise Kuemlangan Chief, LEGN Patrice Talla Legal Officer, LEGN Margaret Vidar Legal Officer, LEGN Stefano Burchi Former Chief, LEGN (retired) Regional, Sub-Regional and Country Offices Rodrigo Castañeda National Officer, RLC Sergio Gomez Consultant, RLC Javier Molina Liaison officer, LONY (former RLC) Vera Boerger Land and Water Officer, SLMD Benjamin Kiersch Land and Natural Resources Officer, SLSD Fernanda Guerrieri ADG and Regional Representative, REUD Richard Eberlin Land Tenure and Rural Development Officer, REUT David Sedik Senior Policy Officer, REUT Guljahan Kurbanova Food Security Officer, REUT Norbert Winkler Forestry Officer, SEUB Tomasz Lonc Senior Policy Officer, SEUB
138
Andriy Rozstalnyy Livestock Officer, SEUB Dominique Reeb Chief Technical Adviser, RAPO Marianna Bicchieri Technical Adviser, FRMOZ Chris Tanner Senior Land Policy Specialist, FRMOZ Uparura Kuvare Assistant FAO Representative, FRNAM
Country Government (GOV); total count = 30 Africa Hon. Bernard Esau Minister of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Namibia Panduleni Ndinelago Elago Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Namibia Lucia Haufiku Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, Namibia Lidwina Shapwa Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Lands and Settlement, Namibia Alfred Sikopo Deputy Director, Ministry of Lands and Settlement, Namibia Mackay Rigava Valuer General, Ministry of Lands and Settlement, Namibia Hon. John Mutorwa Minister of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, Namibia Petrus Lilonga Dep. Minister, Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, Namibia Andrew Ndishishi Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Water and Forestry, Namibia Anna Shiweda Dep. Permanent Secretary, Min of Agriculture,Water and Forestry, Namibia Eastern Europe and Central Asia Kiril Georgievski Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, Macedonia Jordan Zdravkovski Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, Macedonia Vojo Gogovski Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, Macedonia Jurant Dika Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, Macedonia Sasko Stojcevski Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, Macedonia Adnan Alii Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, Macedonia Vladimir Stolevski Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, Macedonia Siljan Noveski Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, Macedonia Snezana Petrusevska Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, Macedonia Ferid Dzeladini Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, Macedonia Kata Saveska Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, Macedonia Nadica Dzerkovska Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Economy, Macedonia Sonja Dimova Agency of Real Estate Cadastre, Macedonia Nesa Petrusevka Agency of Real Estate Cadastre, Macedonia Kristina Bosnjakovska Agency of Real Estate Cadastre, Macedonia Gorgi Kamilarovski Agency of Real Estate Cadastre, Macedonia Ana Budanko Provisional Director, Agricultural Land Agency, Croatia Giedre Leimontaite National Land Service, Lithuania
Agron Bajraktari Advisor for Forestry, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Development, Kosovo Irfan Tarelli Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Consumer Protection, Albania
139
NGOs, CSOs, academia and research institutes; total count = 33 NGOs and CSOs Madiodio Niasse Director, International Land Coalition (ILC) Michael Taylor Programme Manager, ILC Annalisa Mauro Coordinator - Latin America, ILC Sabine Pallas Programme Officer, ILC Catherine Gatundu Regional Node Coordinator for Asia, ILC David Bledsoe Senior Director of Programme Partnerships, Landesa Seema Gaikwad Women’s Rights Advisor (Land Rights and Agriculture), ActionAid Joan Kagwanja Policy Officer, Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa Andy White Coordinator, Rights and Resources Initiative Kanimang Camara National Consultancy on Forestry Extension Services & Training, the Gambia Sarah Scherr President and CEO, Ecoagriculture Partners David Kaimowitz Director - Sustainable Development, Ford Foundation Kristina Mitic FAGRICOM Macedonia Vanco Georgiev FAGRICOM Macedonia Hemant Ojha* Chairperson, ForestAction Nepal John Tracey-White Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) CheeHai Teo President, International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) Academia and research institutes Ruth Meinzen-Dick Senior Research Fellow, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) Camilla Toulmin Director, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) Lorenzo Cotula Team Leader - Land Rights, Natural Resources, IIED Pablo Pacheco* Senior Scientist, Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) William Sunderlin Research Leader (REDD+), CIFOR Barbara van Koppen* Rural Sociologist and Gender Expert, International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Wolfgang Werner Land, Environment & Development Unit, Legal Assistance Centre, Namibia John Hazam Land, Environment & Development Unit, Legal Assistance Centre, Namibia Theodor Muduva Land, Environment & Development Unit, Legal Assistance Centre, Namibia
Ben Cousins Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of the Western Cape, South Africa
Ruth Hall Institute for Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), University of the Western Cape, South Africa Fatbardh Sallaku Lecturer, Agricultural University of Tirana, Albania Evelin Jürgenson Lecturer, Estonian University of Life Sciences Audrius Aleknavicius Associate Professor, Lithuanian University of Agriculture Erling Berge* Department of Spatial Planning and Landscape Architecture; Norwegian University of Life Sciences Frank Place* World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) * indicates those interviewees who sent responses by email
140
Bilateral donors (DON); total count = 9 Martina Roemer Adviser on Land Management (Namibia), GIZ Frank van Holst Coordinator of International Affairs, Dutch Government Service for Land and Water Management Jim Harvey UK Ambassador and Permanent Representative-Designate to FAO, IFAD and WFP Penny Davies Senior Forestry Adviser, UK Department for International Development (DFID) Iris Krebber Food Security Advisor, UK Department for International Development (DFID) Alexandre Ghélew Programme Head, Swiss Development and Cooperation Agency (SDC) Department of International Organizations, World Food and Sustainable Astrid Jakobs de Pádua Development ; German Federal Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Consumer Protection Gry Asp Solstad* Government of Norway´s International Climate and Forest Initiative Gregory Myers Senior Advisor, Land Tenure and Property Rights, USAID * indicates those interviewees who sent responses by email
Multilateral agencies (AGC); total count = 14 International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Harold Liversage Land Tenure Technical Adviser (Nairobi) Jean-Philippe Audinet Director, Policy Division (Rome) UN-HABITAT Clarissa Augustinus Chief, Land and Tenure Unit (Nairobi) Mary Gachocho Donor Coordination Officer (Nairobi) Qhobela Cyprian Selebalo Technical Adviser (Nairobi) Asa Jonsson Human Settlements Officer (Nairobi) UNDP
Eric Patrick Land Policy Specialist World Bank Guo Li Senior Land Tenure Specialist (Pretoria) Jessica Mott Senior Natural Resource Economist (Washington) Jon Lindsay Senior Counsel on Environmental Law (Washington) Victoria Stanley Senior Operations Officer for Europe and Central Asia Region (Washington) Iain Shuker* Sector Coordinator, Rural and Agriculture, East Africa, Africa Region (Washington) Enrique Pantoja Senior Land Administration Specialist (Washington) Jorge Muñoz Land Tenure Advisor (Washington) * indicates those interviewees who sent responses by email
Independent consultant to FAO/other agency (INC); total count = 10 Jeffrey Hatcher Consultant to land tenure unit in various capacities (2005 to 2008); currently Director of Global Programmes, Rights and Resources Initiative Stevan Marosan Consultant to land tenure unit in Serbia (2006); currently Professor at the University of Belgrade
141
Simon Keith Consultant to land tenure unit in Macedonia (current) Miguel Solanes* Consultant to LEGN on water law; currently Senior Researcher at the Madrid Institute for Advanced Studies (IMDEA-Agua) Don Gilmour* Consultant to Forest Department on reforming forest tenure (current) Paul de Wit Consultant to land tenure unit in various capacities (2004 to 2010) Patrick McAuslan Consultant to LEGN on land law (current); also Professor of Law at the University of London Rachael Knight Consultant to land tenure unit and LEGN (2004 to 2010); currently Director of the Community Land Titling Initiative, International Development Law Organization Richard Paisley* Consultant to NRL and LEGN on water governance (2001 to 2008); currently Director of the Dr. Andrew R. Thompson Natural Resources Law Program, Geoffrey Payne ConsultantUniversity of to British UN-Habitat Columbia and the World Bank on urban land tenure * indicates those interviewees who sent responses by email
Summary of interviews undertaken
Category No. of % of people total FAO staff member – NR Management and Environment Department (FNR) interviewe16 10% FAO other staff member (FOS) 53d 32% Country government (excl. donor countries) (GOV) 30 18% Civil society organisation (includes NGOs, CSOs, academia, research institutes) (CSO) 33 20% Bilateral donor (DON) 9 5% Multilateral agencies (AGC) 14 8% Independent consultant to FAO/other agency (INC) 10 6% Total 165 100%
Graphical representation of interviews undertaken
6% 10% 8% FNR 5% FOS GOV
32% CSO DON 20% AGC INC
18%
142
SPS Appendix 2: Methodology
Purpose of Stakeholder Perception Study (SPS)
The Stakeholder Perception Study (SPS) was designed to provide an essential part of the evidence base for the entire evaluation. The SPS is intended to convey the perceptions of a wide range of stakeholders on the relevance and effectiveness of FAO’s work relating to tenure, rights and access issues. By capturing the views of different stakeholders on the same topics (triangulation), the SPS helps to ensure non-partisan representation of opinions on FAO’s work.
Selection of interviewees
The selection of the interviewees was intended to identify a sufficient range of stakeholders to reflect the diversity of tenure, rights and access issues; and to provide both broad overviews and targeted opinions on particular projects and programmes. Interviewees were contacted from the following groups:
FAO staff members from the Natural Resources Management and Environment Department at headquarters (FNR); Other FAO staff members (FOS); Representatives of country governments (GOV); NGOs, CSOs, academia and research institutes (CSO); Bilateral donors (DON); Multilateral agencies (AGC); and Independent consultants to FAO and other agencies (INC).
Initial discussions with the land tenure team at FAO headquarters identified a number of key staff members that should be approached as part of the evaluation. This first round of interviews included staff members working on tenure, rights and access issues for land, fisheries, forestry and water.
In each interview with these staff members, they were asked whether they could recommend any other stakeholders – internal or external to FAO – who would have an opinion on FAO’s tenure, rights and access-related work. These recommendations formed the bulk of the second interview round. Additional suggestions for interviewees were obtained from the Evaluation Team members according to their particular expertise. Suggestions were also made by members of the evaluation’s Expert Panel.
Following the completion of the bulk of the interviews, a gap analysis was undertaken to see which groups of stakeholders were under-represented. The final round of interviews was targeted so as to ensure any under-represented groups were better covered, and to add breadth and depth to the perception findings.
Interview process
Each interviewee was initially contacted via an email which described the nature and purpose of the evaluation, and the reason for contacting that particular individual. For those interviewees located in Rome, face-to-face interviews were set up with members of the Evaluation Team. The majority of
143 international stakeholders were contacted via Skype or telephone. A few stakeholders chose to provide their responses in writing – these comments were also incorporated into the final study. Some international stakeholders were interviewed face-to-face as part of the Evaluation Team’s missions to:
Kenya (multilateral agencies, NGOs); Namibia (FAO staff, government representatives, national NGOs, bilateral donors); Mozambique (FAO staff) Hungary (FAO staff at the regional and sub-regional offices; government representatives and academics participating in an FAO-run workshop on land consolidation); Macedonia (government representatives).
Internal discussions were held to ensure that all team members applied a common approach to the conduct of interviews. The interviews were semi-structured, so as to allow a degree of flexibility in the discussions. There was however a set of key questions that were asked of each participant, which are shown in the table below.
Questions for FAO staff only Questions for external stakeholders only What is your division doing with regard to What is your previous involvement with FAO TRA issues? in relation to TRA work? What are the arrangements for coordination What is your perception of the usefulness of on TRA issues within FAO? FAO’s TRA work? Who are the key external partners of your What are the complementary aspects of division’s work on TRA? your work and that of FAO on TRA issues? In what thematic areas are member What are the opportunities for future countries asking for assistance? collaboration with FAO on TRA issues? Questions for all stakeholders What is the comparative advantage of FAO for work on TRA issues? What should be FAO’s priorities regarding TRA work in the future?
Recording of data
Each team member present took notes during the interview. One team member was tasked with promptly writing up the interview notes in a standard document template. Verbatim quotations were indicated in the interview notes in italic text. If other team members were present at the interview, they provided additional input into the notes before a final version was sent around to the team.
All interviews were treated as confidential. Accordingly, the interview notes were distributed only amongst the members of the Evaluation Team. The notes were saved on a secure, password- protected server for access by the team members.
Analysis of data
The qualitative information obtained from each interview was analysed and referenced to one of the topics shown in the outline of the SPS. Care was undertaken to ensure that the range of opinions on each topic was captured.
144
Annex 4: Web-based surveys of FAO staff, member countries and CSOs
Web-based Surveys – Table of Contents
1. Summary and conclusions...... 152 Survey of FAO’s staff views...... 152 Survey of member country representatives...... 154 Survey of NGOs involved in land rights advocacy...... 155 2. Analysis of the information gathered from FAO Staff...... 155 Who answered the survey and their interests...... 155 Perception of impacts...... 158 Requests for advice and assistance within HQ...... 159 Assessment of the priority accorded to TRA work...... 160 Institutional arrangements...... 162 Suggested areas to improve the effectiveness of FAO’s work on TRA...... 166 3. Analysis of the information gathered from member countries...... 168 Who answered the survey and their interests...... 168 Perception of key priority issues in the regions...... 168 Perception of impacts...... 169 Perception of the importance of TRA work within FAO...... 170 Partnerships...... 170 Assessment of the adequacy of resources and future priorities for TRA work...... 171 Institutional arrangements...... 173 4. Survey of NGOs involved in land rights advocacy...... 173 Appendix 1 – Web based questionnaire schedules...... 175
145
1. Summary and conclusions
Three web-based questionnaires were launched to reach a wider group: (i) FAO staff members, including Permanent Representatives; (ii) member state governments; and (iii) NGOs involved in advocacy for land rights and sustainable natural resource development. This document describes the outcome and findings of the web-based questionnaires. The Evaluation Team, while being most grateful to those who did respond, was disappointed by the relatively low response from governments of member countries (36) and from CSOs (7). Fortunately, the response from FAO staff (123) proved useful in number and content.
Survey of FAO staff views
The web-based survey was sent to all FAO professional staff based in HQ, to regional, sub regional and country offices, and to FAO Country Representatives. Participants in the questionnaire were self- selected; responding to a general invitation sent out to those who might wish to participate. The questionnaire to FAO staff comprised 14 coded questions of which four questions were open-ended. During a three week period, 123 respondents returned the questionnaire to the Evaluation Team. The results are deemed to be indicative of the general perception of the FAO staff who chose to participate, rather than the views of FAO staff as a whole.
Response by location of duty station: Some 50% of the respondents were based at FAO’s Rome HQ, around 30% at FAO’s country offices, and the remainder at regional and sub-regional level. Among the HQ respondents, about 60% work in land and agricultural topics and some 20% in forestry and fisheries. Other HQ respondents work in divisions dealing with cross cutting issues – emergencies, economic and social policy aspects, and trade. Only 20 of the total 123 respondents were entirely engaged with TRA issues. Although the majority were located at HQ, their work often has a regional orientation. About 11% of the respondents (14 out of 123) were heads of FAO country offices. Of these, 8 stated that FAO had addressed TRA issues in the country of their accreditation (out of 12 who responded to this question). Overall, the response to the staff questionnaire is judged to be commensurate with the scope and content of FAO’s operational support to TRA work, which at sub- regional level and below is somewhat fragmented.
Regional approach and impact: Although globally diverse, the perceived contribution of FAO’s TRA work reveals a regional pattern. In Africa it is mainly related to land policy development, land tenure reform and land administration and is principally focused in Sub Saharan Africa. In Asia and the Pacific, FAO is involved in support to the sustainable use of fish and forest resources; in South East Asia in support to fisheries policy and in China and India to forestry tenure. In Latin America (e.g. in Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru), FAO’s contribution has been in supporting land access for the poor and land administration. In the transitional countries of Europe and Central Asia, FAO staff have been working to improve land administration (e.g. land titling and land registration). Of those responding to the question, 60% (47 of 78) believed that FAO’s work on TRA issues had an impact on food security and poverty alleviation. However, only around half of these respondents could clearly identify an output, effect or impact related with this belief. Those that did identify outputs focused on land registration, titling, land policy and land reform (Africa, Europe and Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean), and on fisheries and forestry tenure (Asia and the Pacific).
146
Sources of assistance for TRA: Some 40% (53 of 123) of FAO HQ staff participating in the survey had sought advice and assistance on TRA issues from a number of offices within HQ, mostly from NRC or NRL, but also from LEGN and a combination of these. FAO country offices and sub-regional offices approach either NRC or NRL, or sometimes both. In Asia and the Pacific and in Near East regions respondents sought help from other divisions/units such as Forestry and Emergencies (TCE). This clearly reflects the spread of responsibility for providing assistance to resolve TRA issues within FAO. Whether or not this is problematic for those seeking assistance is not clear from responses to the questionnaire.
Resource allocation for TRA: One point on which there seems to be uncertainty is whether or not FAO should increase or decrease resource allocation to questions of TRA. Of the 84 who responded to this question, 32 (38%) state that they do not know. Two respondents said that the allocation should be reduced, 38 said it should be increased, while 12 felt that it should remain unchanged. In fact, this question breaks a survey principle about not asking hypothetical questions. The resources actually allocated to TRA are very difficult to quantify, as the Evaluation Team has discovered.
A related question, whether more or less effort should be allocated to a particular TRA-related area of work, is more reasonable. The five areas of work for which more than 75% of the respondents felt that the efforts should be increased are: (i) secure access to customary land for communities; (ii) secure access to land and other natural resources for women and other disadvantaged groups; (iii) secure access to land in climate change mitigation; (iv) the governance of tenure (e.g. through the VGs); and (v) securing access to privately held land (through titling and registration).
Although the majority of the respondents felt that there is a need to increase resources devoted to TRA work, there are four areas in which at least one third of the respondents stated that the allocation of resources and effort should diminish or should not change. These areas are: (i) property taxation; (ii) land consolidation; (iii) access to land in emergencies; and (iv) issues arising from land grabbing. The reasons underlying the perception that FAO should hold back on this second group of activities are not spelt out.
Analyzing responses on preferences towards products and services, it emerges that respondents felt more emphasis should be given to: (i) capacity development/training; (ii) technical assistance through long-term field projects; (iii) policy advice; (iv) direct technical assistance through short- term missions; and (v) statistics, databases and other ICT products. Respondents attached importance to the products and services associated with operational work and technical assistance. The responses to the questionnaire revealed a strong perception that FAO’s support to TRA should comprise a more balanced portfolio of products and services, with more attention to field operations and less to normative products.
Institutional arrangements for TRA: With regard to arrangements at HQ, of the 83 respondents to this section, approximately 28 per cent felt that TRA issues should be dealt with by a dedicated TRA division in the Natural Resources department, compared to 21 per cent who felt that TRA experts posted in various divisions (as at present) was the most appropriate arrangement. Of the remainder of respondents, 19 per cent felt that TRA focal points reporting to a cross-departmental entity was the most appropriate arrangement, while a further 19 per cent had no opinion.
147
Within FAO as a whole, there are two institutional perspectives regarding TRA that are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The first favours the responsibility for coordination of TRA work being concentrated in one department, enhancing and complementing it with the expertise of departments working on the sustainable use of other natural resources. The second perspective, favours much stronger cross-sectoral engagement within HQ between different natural resource divisions, and much greater understanding of TRA issues at regional and sub-regional levels.
Although there appears to be a greater acceptance of the prevailing arrangements, analyses of the responses to open-ended questions indicates that some are not satisfied with the current situation. They recognise that the concentration of professional skills in one TRA department would provide a critical mass and a point of reference for interaction with other partners (e.g. UN agencies, potential aid donors) in TRA matters. On the other hand, there is a view that the Land Tenure Unit should broaden its perspective to address issues of tenure, rights and access to other natural resources, that there is need to strengthen its capacity to handle land issues while taking advantage of collaborative work with other divisions to address important issues arising in the sustainable use of other natural resources.
Considering the perceptions among respondents in HQ and at the regional and sub regional level, it can be said that, even though there are differences on the preferred institutional arrangement, the resolution of TRA issues requires a cross-sectoral perspective and collaboration among departments and divisions. The respondents at regional and sub-regional levels also understand the benefits of cross-sectoral work in strengthening regional and country-level TRA expertise.
Improving the effectiveness of FAO’s work on TRA: Respondents felt that the importance of resolving TRA issues should be better explained, particularly in relation to its role in poverty reduction – a key part of FAO’s mandate. . It was suggested that more technical assistance is necessary to assist member countries in developing their policies and capacities to address TRA issues. The current FAO policy of decentralization could assist member countries in developing their capacity to address TRA issues at a country level. At the level of HQ, strengthening should focus on diversifying the approaches and backgrounds of the people working on TRA issues, as well as fostering coordination and the dissemination of normative work on TRA issues. Respondents warned about the dangers of dispersing efforts and dissipating resources, and the importance of prioritizing topics in which FAO had existing knowledge.
Survey of member country representatives
The survey questionnaire was sent to all FAO member countries through their representatives. It followed a similar structure to the one used for the FAO staff questionnaire with 17 questions of which four were open-ended. During a 4-week period, 40 responses were received. From this total, four responses had to be discarded as they failed to comply with the requested procedure. The questionnaire was answered mainly by representatives from the Latin America Region (18) and from FAO’s Europe and Central Asia Region (9). Only five responses were received from Africa and four from the Near East Region. There were no responses from the Asia and Pacific Region.
The low response and their asymmetric distribution make it difficult to draw conclusions from the survey. It is also apparent that in several cases respondents when listing ‘key issues’ may not have been familiar with the topic of ‘tenure, rights and access’(e.g. in the Near East Region). Of the 20
148 representatives who responded to the question, 8 believe that FAO has not addressed the key issues regarding TRA in their countries, while 6 believe that FAO has addressed the priority TRA issues. Two thirds of the respondents (12 out of 16) believe that the resolution of TRA issues is an essential part of FAO’s mandate, while only half of them perceive that this is adequately reflected in the Strategic Framework and the Programme of Work and Budget for the current biennium.
Survey of NGOs involved in land rights advocacy
This questionnaire was sent to 97 national and regional NGO/CSOs, as well as to International NGOs (INGOs) that are officially recognized by FAO as valid civil society interlocutors. It was also sent to 43 national and regional members of the FAO-led International Alliance Against Hunger. The questionnaire consisted of 22 questions of which eight were open ended.
During a three-week period, only seven completed questionnaires were received from NGOs. The failure to elicit more than a few responses is disappointing. The low response may be partly due to the fact that the organisations ‘recognised by FAO as valid civil society interlocutors’ may not be involved with land and natural resource rights advocacy and may not have an interest in TRA issues. Unfortunately, the Evaluation Team did not set out to track down NGOs actively involved in FAO’s field level TRA operations. However, some six CSOs/NGOs were interviewed in the course of visits to Namibia and Mozambique in May/June 2011, although not using the same schedule as used in the web-based questionnaire. The outcomes of these interviews are included as inputs to the Stakeholder Perception Study.
2. Analysis of the information gathered from FAO Staff
The web-based survey was sent to all FAO staff members based in HQ, to regional, sub regional and country offices, and to FAO Country Representatives. Survey Monkey was used to obtain a systematic dissemination, collection, management and analysis of the information. Respondents were self-selected in response to a general invitation sent out to all staff members. The descriptive statistics generated by the survey provide the quantitative basis for simple graphics and tables. Importantly, the results should be interpreted as indicative of the general perceptions of the respondents, rather than those of FAO staff as a whole.
The questionnaire to FAO staff members comprised 18 questions of which 4 were open-ended. During a 3 week period, 123 respondents answered the questionnaire. The categorisation of respondents is shown in Table 1.
Who answered the survey and their interests
As can be seen from Table 1 and Graph 1, the survey was answered mainly by FAO HQ staff.
149
Table 1
Answer Options Respondents % of total
Headquarters 60 49% Regional Office 11 9% Sub-regional office 14 11% Country Office 38 31% Total respondents 123 100%
Graph 1
Please tell us your duty station
30.9% 48.8%
11.4% 8.9% Headquarters Regional Office
Total respondents = 123
About half of the respondents (54 out of 106) work with TRA issues, but not all are involved with TRA as their main activity. Of the respondents in HQ, 17% (10 of 58) are involved mostly with TRA issues, as are 19% (20 out of 106) of the total respondents to this question (Graph 2).
Graph 2 What is your relationship to FAO’s work on tenure, rights and access (TRA) issues and opportunities? 100%
90% 11 8 80% 4 5 70%
60%
50% 35 12
40% 3 4 30% 2 20% 2 7 10% 10 2 1 0% Headquarters Regional Office Sub-regional office Country Office
Am involved in work directly related to TRA Supervise people who work on TRA issues Consider TRA in my work, but not as a main theme Don’t work at all with TRA issues
Total respondents = 106
150
Of the staff in the HQ, 20% (12 out of 60) consider their TRA-related work had a mainly regional orientation. Across all FAO staff locations, work undertaken on TRA issues focused on Africa, Asia and the Pacific, and Latin America and the Caribbean ( 55% of the responses) (Graph 3).
Graph 3
Staff responses by region
4.9% Global (HQ)
17.1% 36.6% Africa
Asia and the 3.3% Pacific Europe and Central Asia 16.3% Latin America and the Caribbean Near East 22.0%
Total respondents = 123 out of 123
Among the respondents at FAO HQ, 59% work in departments and divisions related to land, such as the Investment Centre (29%), the Agriculture Department (20%), and the Natural Resources Department (10%). Only 19% of the respondents work in departments/divisions dealing with other natural resources such as Forestry and Fisheries. Respondents working in departments/divisions related to cross-cutting issues (such as Emergencies, ESW, Policy, and Trade and Market) represent 22% of the total responses.
FAO country representatives
About 11% of the staff respondents (14 out of 123) were FAO country representatives (FAORs). Of these, 8 out 12 stated that FAO had addressed TRA issues in the country of their accreditation. The key priority issues identified by this subgroup tend to differ between regions (see Table 2).
Table 2 Key priority issues identified by the FAO representatives in their countries of Region accreditation* Lack of access to land Lack of land governance Africa Land grabbing Land use conflicts (agriculture vs. forestry) Land disputes and conflicts Land resettlement and tenure uncertainty after natural disasters (floods) Asia and the Outdated land laws Pacific Difficulties in obtaining land titles and in using land as a collateral Land encroachment, land fragmentation, land leasing / selling Under-funding and lack of resources for the land ministry to undertake surveying
151
Key priority issues identified by the FAO representatives in their countries of Region accreditation* Lack of titling Insecurity of land rights Legal insecurity for smallholders, unable to use land as collateral Land acquisition for speculation Latin America and Lack of rural land register and cadastre the Caribbean Redistributive reform Development of local capacity Legal disempowerment of women and difficulties in accessing land. Lack of interest in water harvesting/water collection Disproportionate public ownership of forests and agricultural lands Unsustainable land resource management Near East Land fragmentation Water scarcity, drought, plant and animal diseases. Total respondents = 10; *order of issues does not reflect priority assigned
Perception of impacts
FAO’s work on tenure, rights and access is perceived as having impacts on food security and poverty alleviation by almost 60% of the respondents (45 out of 78) (Graph 4). The main outputs or effects of FAOs TRA work are diverse but reveal a regional pattern. In Africa they are mainly related to land policy development, land tenure reform and land administration and are principally focused in Sub Saharan Africa. In Asia and the Pacific, they are mainly related to other natural resources, such as fisheries and forestry. The geographical focus has been South East Asia for impacts related to fisheries policy and China and India for forestry tenure. In Latin America, respondents identify outputs and effects related to land access and administration in Central American countries as well as Ecuador, Bolivia and Peru. In the transitional countries of Europe and Central Asia region the outputs identified are mainly related to land administration (e.g. land titling and land registration) in Eastern European and CIS countries.
Graph 4
Do you think that FAO’s work on tenure, rights and access issues has had any impact in terms of food security and poverty alleviation?
27.4%
59.7% 12.9%
Yes No Don't know
Total respondents = 78 out of 123
152
Requests for advice and assistance within HQ
Over 60% (53 out of 84) respondents stated that they had previously needed advice and assistance on TRA issues. NRC, NRL and the Legal Office are the divisions most frequently contacted for this purpose (Graph 5). The responses should be interpreted with care because TRA responsibilities have only recently been changed and respondents may not be up-to-date with the reorganisation.
Graph 5 Division contacted for assistance by staff 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
Total respondents = 53 out of 123
Within HQ, advice and assistance on TRA issues is sought primarily from NRC and NRL. For offices below HQ level, the number of requests to other divisions is as high as to NRC and NRL (Graph 6).
Graph 6 Assistance requests by office level
16 14 14
12
10
8 7 6 6 6 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 1 1
0 Headquarters Regional Office Sub- regional office Country Office NRC NRC - TCI NRC, NRL and LEG NRL Other
Total respondents = 53 out of 123
153
Respondents from the African and Latin American regions requested advice and assistance mainly from NRC. In Asia and the Pacific and the Near East, respondents sought help from other divisions such as Forestry, the Legal Office (forestry service), and the Emergencies division.
Graph 7 Division contacted for advice or services 7
6 6
5 5
4 4 4
3 3
2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 Africa Asia and the Pacific Latin America and the Near East Caribbean NRC NRC, NRL and LEG NRL Other Total respondents = 32 out of 123
Assessment of the priority accorded to TRA work
Some 45% of respondents (38 out of 84) perceive that FAO should increase the resources devoted to its work on tenure, right and access issues. Some 38% (32 out of 84) do not know whether funds should be increased or decreased (Graph 8). These results should however be interpreted with caution: it is difficult for respondents to respond to such a hypothetical question, particularly when involving a complex issue such as resource allocation within a finite budget.
Graph 8
Do you think that FAO should change the amount of resources it devotes to tenure, rights and access 2.4% work? Yes, less
Yes, more 38.1%
45.2%
14.3%
Total respondents = 84 out of 123
154
The results of the assessment of resource needs by TRA topic can be seen in Graph 9. Some observations on these results are as follows:
• The five activities for which more than 75% of the respondents feel that the resource allocation should be increased are: i) secure access to customary land for communities; ii) secure access to land and other natural resources for women and other disadvantaged groups; iii) secure access to land in climate change mitigation; iv) the governance of tenure (e.g. through the VGs); and v) securing access to privately held land (through titling and registration).
• Although the majority of the respondents feel there is a need to increase resources devoted to TRA work, there are four areas in which at least one third of the respondents stated that the allocation should diminish or should not change. These areas are: i) property taxation; ii) land consolidation; iii) access to land in emergencies; and iv) issues arising from land grabbing.
• Comparing both groups of answers it is apparent that respondents perceive a need for diversifying FAO’s TRA work. In the first group the topics are related not only to land but also to other natural resources. Also the topics are related not only to land administration but also to governance, secure access of disadvantaged groups, climate change.
Graph 9 Do you think that FAO should change the amount of resources it devotes to tenure, rights and access related work in the following areas? 100% 1 2 2 1 3 4 4 90% 5 6 2 7 8 8 8 5 3 6
80% 5 12 70% 6 7 10 60% 22 50% 28 24 33 27 33 40% 24 16 29 16 17 30% 19
20% 9 10% 7 4 5 4 4 4 2 2
0% 1 1 1
Property taxation Property
Land consolidation Land
grabbing”
communities
mitigation
disadvantaged groups disadvantaged
Access to land for pastoralists for land to Access
Access to land in emergencies in land to Access
Access to land through leasing through land to Access
Governance of Tenure (e.g VG) (e.g Tenure of Governance
Secure access for women and other other and women for access Secure
Secure access to customary land for land customary to access Secure
Secure access in the context of “land “land of context the in access Secure
Access to land through redistribution through land to Access
Secure access to land in climate change change in climate land to access Secure Security of access to privately held land land held privately to access of Security Less More No changes needed Don't know
Total respondents = 84 out of 123
155
Analyzing the responses of FAO staff on TRA products and services, and their preferences for resource allocation (Graph 10), the following priorities emerge:
• More resources are needed for: i) capacity development/training; ii) direct technical assistance (through long-term field projects); iii) policy advice; iv) direct technical assistance (through short-term missions); and v) statistics, databases and other ICT products.
• In contrast, the products and services for which the respondents recommend no change or less resources are: i) information on the FAO Website; ii) publications; iii) guidelines & manuals; iv) expert consultations, workshops, e-conferences and proceedings; and v) international processes, codes and standard setting agreements.
• The importance attached by FAO staff to the products and services associated with operational work such as technical assistance (in the short and long term) should be highlighted. There is clearly a perception that it is necessary to achieve a more balanced portfolio of products and services among normative and field operations.
Graph 10 Do you think that FAO should change the amount of resources it devotes to the following products and services ?
100% 1 1 2 3 3 4 3 5 6 90% 6 9 3 9 3 80% 9 3
11 70%
60% 14
50% 34 31 32 28 40% 27 24 24 18 30%
11 20%
10%
4 3 3 3 2 3
0% 1 1 1
conferences conferences
FAO Website FAO
Policy advice Policy
-
term missions) term
-
& Manuals &
term field projects) field term
-
and proceedings and
setting agreements setting
codes and standard standard and codes
Statistics, databases Statistics,
and other ICT products ICT other and
Expert consultations, consultations, Expert
Publications, Guidelines Publications,
International processes, International
workshops, e workshops,
Direct technical assistance technical Direct
Direct technical assistance assistance technical Direct
(through short (through
Capacity development/training Capacity (through long (through Less More No changes needed Don't know
Institutional arrangements
There is no overwhelming preference for any particular institutional arrangement for addressing TRA issues in FAO (Graph 11). Just over one quarter of the respondents (23 out of 83) stated that TRA should be dealt with by a dedicated TRA division within the Natural Resources Department. A fifth of the respondents felt that the present arrangement, whereby work is addressed by TRA experts posted in various divisions/offices, was most appropriate.
156
Graph 11
Which institutional arrangement do you find most appropriate to address tenure, rights and access related issues within FAO? A TRA division within the Natural Resources 19.3% Department A TRA division within another 27.7% department
TRA experts posted in 4.8% various divisions/offices (as at present) TRA focal-points (at different levels) reporting to a cross- departmental entity 8.4% Interdepartmental unit 19.3% affiliated at higher level (e.g. DDG Knowledge) No opinion 20.5%
Total respondents = 83 out of 123
Although the results shown in Graph 11 could suggest a satisfaction with the current institutional arrangements, the analysis of the open-ended questions indicates that this is not entirely the case.
From the explanations given by respondents who answered that TRA should be addressed by a dedicated TRA division within the NR Department, the following perceptions emerge:
• Respondents recognize the Department’s record of dealing with TRA issues and the good performance of the Land Tenure Unit. They understand that the concentration of responsibility for TRA in one department is an advantage as it provides a critical mass and a point of reference for interaction with other partners in TRA matters.
• While there is a general perception that NR is the right department for handling TRA issues, there is also a view that NR should broaden its perspective to address issues of tenure, rights and access to other natural resources, in addition to land. Several challenges are identified such as: strengthening the actual capacity of the department, as well as taking advantage of collaborative work by other divisions in order to address important TRA issues arising in the use of other natural resources.
When analyzing the responses of those staff that advocate the approach of posting TRA experts in various departments and divisions, as at present, the following perceptions are noted:
• TRA is an important policy issue for other natural resource sectors, including water, livestock, forest and fish resources. FAO’s work in these other sectors would benefit from relevant TRA expertise for the sustainable development of these resources.
• Since TRA is a relevant topic for the accomplishment of food security, having experts in the different departments would be an opportunity to mainstream TRA as a cross-cutting issue in the organisation.
157
• It is also recognized that the presence of TRA expertise at the regional and sub regional level would enhance awareness of the importance of the issue.
The last group of perceptions is closely related with the respondents who selected TRA focal points at different levels, responding to a cross-departmental entity, as the appropriate institutional arrangement. In this group the following observations were made:
• Since TRA is a cross-cutting issue, it should be addressed by different departments at different levels.
• Several respondents reiterated the importance of TRA for FAO work and stated the need to mainstream TRA awareness in the organization through effective coordination.
• Concerns were raised about the current institutional arrangements, because these inhibited the coordinated action needed for mainstreaming the awareness of TRA issues in the organization.
• The effective response to member countries on TRA issues requires focal points at different levels, especially at sub regional and country level.
Within FAO there are two institutional perspectives regarding TRA that are not necessarily incompatible. The first favours the responsibility for TRA work being concentrated in one department, enhancing and complementing it with the expertise of other divisions working on other natural resources. The second perspective, favours stronger cross-sectoral engagement within HQ and greater understanding of TRA issues at regional and sub-regional levels. This second view perceives the need to take greater advantage of the organization’s knowledge on the subject and better to respond to member countries’ needs.
Breaking down the data on the preferred institutional arrangement by region, it is interesting to note that respondents in HQ highlighted the importance of having TRA focal points at different levels as the appropriate institutional arrangement. In contrast, in the different regions, respondents’ preferences on this matter were split between: i) having TRA experts posted in various departments, and ii) having a TRA division within the NR department (see Graph 12).
158
Graph 12 Appropiate institutional arrangement, answers by region 12 11
10
8 7
6 6 6 5
4 4 3 3 3 3 3
2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 Africa Asia and the Pacific Europe and Central Latin America and Near East Global (HQ) Asia the Caribbean
A TRA division within another department A TRA division within the Natural Resources Department Interdepartmental unit affiliated at higher level (e.g. DDG Knowledge) TRA experts posted in various divisions/offices (as at present) TRA focal-points (at different levels) reporting to a cross-departmental entity
Total respondents = 67 out of 123
The following remarks come from the respondents in HQ with a preference for having TRA experts at different levels:
• There is an opportunity for the organization and for TRA work to benefit from different expertise posted in different levels and divisions. However, to make concrete these benefits cross divisional efforts should be coordinated, building a network of resource tenure experts in the different divisions.
• Technical work in different topics such as Agriculture, Forestry, Fisheries, etc. is influenced by the topic of TRA of land and other natural resources. Therefore, TRA issues and expertise should be mainstreamed in sectoral work.
At the regional and country level, when defining their preference on the institutional arrangement for TRA experts posted at different divisions, the respondents perceived that:
• TRA expertise is currently present in different divisions at HQ and it could be used when dealing with TRA issues in the regions and countries. Having focal points could, in the view of the respondents, weaken the critical mass of expertise currently working on these issues.
• However some of the respondents also mentioned that TRA issues are specific to the different regional contexts. Therefore, it seems appropriate to have regional and country- level experts addressing these issues.
• In this sense, there is a need to strengthen FAO’s capacity on TRA issues at the regional and country level, as well as to foster their links with TRA officers in HQ.
On the other hand, the respondents at the regional and country level with preference for a TRA Division within the Natural Resource (NR) Department perceived that:
159
• The NR Department has the expertise and responsibility to deal with these issues, but there is a need for closer collaboration with other divisions to take advantage of NR’s expertise on rights and access of other natural resources.
• The NR department has the necessary expertise to address TRA issues within a NR management approach. Food security requires addressing NR management that is strongly linked with TRA issues; therefore the NR department seems to be the most appropriate department to address these linkages.
Considering the perceptions among respondents in HQ and at the regional and sub regional level, it could be said that, even though there are differences between the preferred institutional arrangement, the resolution of TRA issues is recognised to require a cross-sectoral perspective and collaboration among divisions. The respondents also understood the need for the cross-sectoral work to strengthen regional and country level TRA expertise.
Suggested areas to improve the effectiveness of FAO’s work on TRA
The following were identified by the respondents as areas to improve the effectiveness of FAO’s work on TRA:
• The importance of the topic in the organization should be defined so as to:
o raise the profile of TRA in the organization, focusing on the relevant topics within TRA to avoid dispersion of resources; and
o ensure an approach which favours the poor and addresses the real needs of the population of member countries.
• More technical assistance to countries is needed to:
o assist member countries in developing strategies and policies to understand the significance of TRA and to develop capacities;
o devote more efforts to re-engage with more operational work; and
o pay special attention to TRA issues as they affect smallholders, and the land rights of women exposed to discriminatory practices.
• Organizational strengthening:
o Decentralization was mentioned as an approach needed to assist member countries with the development of their capacity to address TRA issues at a country level.
o At HQ it was perceived that the strengthening should be focused on diversifying the approaches and backgrounds of people working on TRA issues, as well as on fostering coordination among all the units working on these issues.
o Strengthening dissemination of normative work of FAO on TRA issues.
160
There are some shared opinions regarding the areas in which FAO should improve its effectiveness. Both HQ and regional respondents recognise the need to foster FAO’s operational work and improve its impact in the different regions. Yet respondents are not clear about how this is to be achieved. From the regional and country level responses, there is perceived to be room for strengthening the capacities in these offices to identify priority issues and directly deliver the assistance. From the HQ perspective more coordination and strengthening of divisional capacities is also raised as an area for improvement, while it is also claimed the need to prioritize key topics in which FAO has knowledge to avoid the dispersion of efforts (See Table 3).
Table 3 Group of Perceptions respondents There is a need to strengthen technical assistance on TRA issues to member countries. Technical assistance is required for policy development and capacity development. Several mechanisms including long-term programmes should be considered for delivering the technical assistance. FAO should recover its “pro poor” approach when working on TRA issues, considering this as a means to ensure food security, and working not only with governments but also with NGOs and civil society. For these purposes one possibility is to promote regional and national dialogues on TRA issues. Among TRA issues, FAO should focus on key topics such as: HQ o Good governance, raising awareness of the importance of this topic among member countries; o Gender and equity issues, to ensure secure tenure, rights and access; o Small farmers’ access and customary practices regarding land tenure. There are some organizational areas to improve, such as: o Strengthening the unit which actually works on TRA issues, enhancing and broadening skills to include more expertise in economic and socio-economic aspects of TRA; o Coordination among all the units working on TRA should be promoted.
Africa: o There is room to improve the collaborative work with other agencies to influence policy and decision making. o Assist countries in the region on land grabbing issues and natural resource management. North African countries were identified as needing technical assistance on rights and access to land and natural resources. Asia and the Pacific: o More specific work at the regional level regarding land tenure, capacity building and policy advice on TRA; o There is room for a more proactive work of FAO representations to identify and promote Regional and technical assistance at the country level. country level Latin America and the Caribbean: o FAO should work on raising awareness of the importance of the topic and influence governmental policy; o Working on the dissemination of TRA work and capabilities of the organization to improve its efficient use. Near East: o Assist countries to develop land registration systems and with the exchange of information on successful cases; o Organizational issues commonly raised by different regions; o Decentralization and strengthening of regional or country offices expertise on TRA issues, to better address the needs of countries.
161
3. Analysis of the information gathered from member countries
Who answered the survey and their interests
The survey questionnaire was sent to all FAO member countries through their representatives. It followed a similar structure to the one for FAO staff, described in Section 2, with 17 questions of which 4 were open-ended. During a 4-week period, 40 responses were received. From this total, four had to be discarded as they failed to comply with the required response procedure. The questionnaire from member countries was answered mainly by representatives from the Latin American and Caribbean region (18) and from the European and Central Asian region (9). There were no respondents from the Asia and the Pacific region (Graph 13).
Graph 13 Respondent’s region
4 5 Africa
Europe and Central Asia
9 Latin America and the Caribbean Near East 18
Total respondents = 36
Perception of key priority issues in the regions
Table 4 summarises the problems identified by the respondents as key TRA issues in their countries.
Table 4 Region Key issues identified* Land and natural resources are state-owned, constraining the development of agribusiness Africa Few mechanism to promote land access such as leasing
Promote dialogue and participation to manage natural resources and to secure access Food security and human rights related to land and other natural resources Europe and Privatization process Central Asia Administration of foreign direct investment in agriculture Administration of natural parks Recognition of the land rights of indigenous people Customary land is not recognized by land legislation Lack of regulation for forest management Latin America Lack of land titles which constrains access to credit and technologies and the Lack of land to distribute and over concentration of land ownership Caribbean Land grabbing, foreign groups acquiring land in the region Land registration and cadastre are inadequate Lack of legislation to promote land leasing and other natural resources management Agricultural production contaminates natural resources such as water and deforestation Promoting sustainable use of natural agricultural units Near East Increasing the productivity of both land and water units Raising the degree of food security of the strategic food commodities
162
Region Key issues identified* Increasing the competitiveness of agricultural products in local and international markets Improving the climate of agricultural investment Improving the livelihood of the rural inhabitants and reducing poverty rates in rural areas Total respondents = 20 out of 37; *order of issues does not reflect priority assigned
Perception of impacts
Of the 20 representatives, 8 believe that FAO has not addressed the key issues regarding TRA in their countries. Only 6 out 20 believe that FAO has addressed the priority TRA issues (Graph 14).
Graph 14
Has the FAO worked on tenure, rights and access (TRA) issues relating to land or other natural resources in your country?
FAO work related to TRA has addressed the priority issues in 6 6 my country
FAO work related to TRA has not addressed the priority issues in my country.
To the best of my knowledge, FAO has not done any work related to TRA issues in my country
8 Total respondents = 20 out of 36
Of the 9 respondents in Latin America, 5 believe that FAO is not addressing the priority TRA issues in their country (Graph 15).
Graph 15
Has the FAO worked on tenure, rights and access (TRA) issues relating to land or other natural resources in your country?* 6
5 5 FAO work related to TRA has addressed the priority issues in 4 4 my country 4
FAO work related to TRA has 3 not addressed the priority issues in my country. 2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 To the best of my knowledge, 1 FAO has not done any work related to TRA issues in my country 0 Africa Europe and Central Latin America and the Near East Asia Caribbean
Total respondents = 20 out of 36; * Note that respondents for Europe and Central Asia include several developed countries
163
Perception of the importance of TRA work within FAO
As can be seen from Graph 16, three quarters of the respondents (12 out of 16) believe that the resolution of TRA issues is an essential part of FAO’s mandate and half of the respondents perceive that this part of FAO’s mandate is adequately reflected in the Strategic Framework and the Programme of Work and Budget for the current biennium.
Graph 16
To what extent do you think tenure, rights and Do you believe tenure, rights and access issues are access issues are an essential part of FAO’s adequately reflected in the Strategic Framework 2010- mandate? 2019 and the current Programme of Work and Budget 2010-11 3 4 2
1 Strongly agree 6 Strongly agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 6 Strongly disagree Don't know Don't know 8 1 1 Total respondents = 16 out of 36
Partnerships
The three main types of organizations working on TRA issues in the countries of the respondents are Civil Society Organizations and other United Nations Agencies (Graph 17). The comparison of FAO with these organizations is equivocal. In each case, one fifth of the respondents judge other organisations as better, the same and worse than FAO as a service provider (Graph 18).
Graph 17
Have other organizations worked or currently work on tenure, rights and access issues within your country? 10 9 9 8 7 7 6 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 2 1
0
None
Bilateral Bilateral
Financing
Agencies
Institutions
Private firms Private
CivilSociety
International International
other donors other
agencies agencies and
Organizations United Nations United
Total respondents = 19 out of 36
164
Graph 18
How do they compare with FAO as a service provider on tenure, rights and access issues? 3
5 Better Same Worse Don't know
3
3 Total respondents = 14 out of 36
Assessment of the adequacy of resources and future priorities for TRA work
There is a general perception among respondents of a need to increase the resources devoted to FAO’s work on TRA. Among the few comments on this question, the respondents commented that the demand for more resources is attached to the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines and the need to support countries with higher quality assistance (Graph 19).
Graph 19
Do you think that FAO should change the amount of resources it devotes to tenure, rights and access related work?
2
3 Yes, less Yes, more No changes needed Don't know
14
Total respondents = 19 out of 36
Although there is an overall perception of a need for more resources in all the areas of work on TRA, the five more frequently mentioned activities are: i) secure access for women and other disadvantaged groups; ii) access to land through redistribution; iii) access to land in emergencies; iv) secure access in the context of “land grabbing” and v) Secure access to land in climate change mitigation (Graph 20).
165
Graph 20
Should FAO change the amount of resources it devotes to tenure, rights and access related work in the following areas? 100% 0 1 1 1 1 1 90% 2 2 3 2 80% 3 4 70%
60% 7 50% 6 8 7 8 8 8 10 40% 8 7 2 30% 5
20% 2 10% 2 1 1 1 1
0% 0
Property taxation Property
Land consolidation Land
grabbing”
communities
mitigation
disadvantaged groups disadvantaged
Access to pastoralists land forto Access
Access to land in to emergencies Access
Access to land through leasing land through to Access
Governance of Tenure (e.gVG) of Tenure Governance
Secure access for women and and women other for access Secure
Secure access to customary land for customary to access Secure
Secure access in the of “landthe context in access Secure
Access to land through redistribution land to through Access
Secure access to land in climate changeland in to access Secure Security of access to privately held land held privately to accessof Security
Less More No changes needed
Total respondents = 13 out of 36 Most TRA-related products and services are recommended to be allocated more resources. Priority products and services are identified as: i) direct technical assistance through long-term field projects; ii) policy advice; and iii) expert consultation workshops, e-conferences and proceedings. The products and services for which more than half of the respondents stated the need for no change or less resources are: i) the FAO website; ii) publications, guidelines and manuals; and iii) direct technical assistance through short term missions (Graph 21).
Graph 21
Should FAO change the amount of resources it devotes to tenure, right and access related work through the following products and services 100% 1 2 90% 3 4 4 80% 5 6 6 70% 7 60% 50% 10 10 7 9 40% 8 5 30% 7 3 5 20%
10% 2 2 2 1 1 1 1
0%
FAO Website FAO
Policy advice Policy
term missions) term
-
Manuals
term field projects) field term
-
ICT products ICT
Publications, Guidelines & Guidelines Publications,
Direct technical assistance assistance technical Direct
Direct technical assistance assistance technical Direct
(through short (through
conferences and proceedings and conferences
Statistics, databases and other other and databases Statistics,
-
Capacity development/training Capacity
International processes, codes codes processes, International
e
and standard setting agreements setting standard and
Expert consultations, workshops, consultations, Expert (through long (through
Less More No changes needed
166
Total respondents = 13 out of 36
In this case, there is an agreement with the areas identified by member countries and the ones indentified by FAO staff members as the ones that need more resources. Both types of respondents recommended that long-term missions and policy advice should be given priority when allocating resources. This finding coincides with perceptions captured in the SPS, namely that FAO’s operational work in matters relating to TRA should be strengthened.
Institutional arrangements
The majority of member countries who provided comment on institutional arrangements felt that the most appropriate arrangement to address TRA issues within FAO is to have a TRA division within the Natural Resources (NR) Department (Graph 22). Only 2 out of the 19 respondents felt that the current arrangement of TRA experts posted in various divisions was the most appropriate. This is in contrast to the response from FAO staff members, where preference was more evenly split between the current arrangement and a dedicated TRA division.
Graph 22
Which institutional arrangement do you find most appropriate to address tenure, rights and access (TRA) issues within the Organization?
No opinion 2
Interdepartmental unit affiliated at higher level (e.g. DDG Knowledge) 2
TRA focal-points (at different levels) reporting to a cross-departmental entity 1
TRA experts posted in various divisions/offices (as at present) 2
A TRA division within another department 2
A TRA division within the Natural Resources Department 10
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Total respondents = 19 out of 36
4. Survey of NGOs involved in land rights advocacy
This questionnaire was sent to 97 national and regional NGO/CSOs, as well as to International NGOs (INGOs) that are officially recognized by FAO as valid civil society interlocutors. It was also sent to 43 national and regional members of the FAO-led International Alliance Against Hunger. The questionnaire comprised 22 questions of which 8 were open ended.
During a three week period, only 7 completed questionnaires were received. The Evaluation Team appreciates the effort put in by these respondents to completing the questionnaire. Responses were received from national NGOs dealing with resource rights and access in Nepal, Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Panama, as well as from a regional NGO in Central America (focusing on fishing rights) and an international NGO concerned with women’s rights.
167
Relationship with Government? Only one NGO was able to claim harmonious relations with government, and a further four stated that relations varied according to the issue involved. One described the situation as stressful and difficult, and another had no dialogue with government due to its small size and lack of funds.
Key priorities in relation to TRA? The national and regional NGOs specifically mentioned the rights of small farmers, peasants and fisherfolk to access either one or all of the following resources: land, water, minerals, fisheries and forests. The international NGO was primarily focused on women’s education and training.
Knowledge of FAO’s work in TRA? Only one NGO confessed to having no knowledge of the work FAO undertakes on TRA issues; three have a reasonable knowledge and two have some knowledge of this work. One had extensive knowledge as a result of involvement with an FAO agricultural project in the country involved.
Has FAO work on TRA in your country and had any impact? FAO had only worked on TRA issues in two of the countries in which the NGOs were based. In these countries, ‘no change’ could be detected as a result of FAO’s work, partly because ‘governments do not follow the observations and proposals made at workshops’.
Formal links with FAO? 5 out of 7 respondents had links with FAO, but not necessarily in the context of land and natural resource rights. Three cases involved participation in FAO-organised conferences, two of which were in Rome - relating to women’s land rights and to the Voluntary Guidelines. Two organisations had developed links within the context of FAO field operations.
FAO’s land tenure website? Six of seven respondents had used FAO’s Land Tenure website
What should FAO be doing differently with regard to TRA? Suggestions included: more publicity though the media so that people can benefit from the work done in other countries; more FAO cooperation with CSOs at the country level to improve the visibility of FAO’s work (‘rather than depending on government initiatives’); helping CSOs to implement the recommendations of the FAO policy for rights and access for indigenous people.
168
Survey Appendix 1: Questionnaire Schedules
EVALUATION OF FAO WORK IN TENURE, RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO LAND AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES: STAFF SURVEY
Introduction
As you might be aware, the FAO Programme Committee has requested the Office of Evaluation (OED) to undertake an evaluation of FAO’s work related to tenure, rights and access to land and other natural resources – henceforth referred to as TRA (tenure, rights and access). Other natural resources pertinent to this evaluation include water, forests, wildlife, fisheries and livestock. The evaluation covers both past achievements within the 2006-2010 period, and the future direction of FAO’s work on TRA.
A necessary and key input to this evaluation is feedback and ideas from FAO staff at country, regional and headquarters levels. The purpose of the attached questionnaire is to solicit such input from you. The results of this questionnaire will complement the interviews undertaken by the Evaluation Team. The questionnaire should not take you more than ten to twenty minutes to complete.
We stress the fact that your responses will be aggregated with others and will in no way be associated with your name. We have left an optional space for you to provide your contact information if you do not mind us following up with you on points and suggestions you make.
The objective of the survey is to gain a better understanding of the views and opinions of FAO staff with respect to:
(i) the extent to which the Organisation’s role and priorities in TRA are clear;
(ii) the extent of the collaboration on TRA activity within the FAO and with other actors dealing with TRA issues and opportunities;
(iii) the appropriateness of the institutional arrangements within the FAO to undertake the needed work related to TRA; and
(iv) the future priorities for the FAO in dealing with TRA issues and opportunities.
Your views are very important to the overall conduct of the Evaluation and will constitute an important part of the evidence base from which findings and recommendations for the future will be drawn.
The deadline for the receipt of your response is 17 June 2011. Respecting the deadline is important to allow for the proper analysis of your input, and its inclusion in the final evaluation report.
YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS GREATLY APPRECIATED.
169
About yourself
1. Please tell us your duty station*2 (Mark ONLY ONE OPTION with X)
Headquarters
Regional Office
Sub-regional office
Country office
2. Region*3: (Mark ONLY ONE OPTION with X)
Global (HQ)
Africa
Asia and the Pacific
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Near East
3. Please indicate your division/office*4
4. Are you an FAO Representative? *5 (Mark ONLY ONE OPTION with X)
Yes (Skip to question 5)
No (Skip to question 8)
FAO representatives
5. Which are the key priority issues in your country(ies) of accreditation(s) relating to tenure, rights and access to land and other natural resources? Please elaborate.
2 * An answer is required for this question. 3 * Idem 4 * Idem 5 * An answer is required for this question.
170
6. Has the FAO worked on tenure, rights and access (TRA) issues relating to land or other natural resources in your country(ies) of accreditation(s)? (Mark ONLY ONE OPTION with X) *6
To the best of my knowledge, FAO has not done any work related to TRA issues in my country (Skip to question 12)
FAO work related to TRA has not addressed the priority issues in my country.
(Skip to question 6)
FAO work related to TRA has addressed the priority issues in my country
(Skip to question 10)
7. Please list the non-priority areas in which FAO has worked in your country(ies) of accreditation
8. What is your relationship to FAO’s work on tenure, rights and access (TRA) issues and opportunities? *7 (Mark ONLY ONE OPTION with X)
Am involved in work directly related to TRA (Skip to question 9)
Supervise people who work on TRA issues (Skip to question 9)
Consider TRA in my work, but not as a main theme (Skip to question 9)
Don’t work at all with TRA issues (Skip to question 18)
Assessment
9. Do you think that FAO’s work on tenure, rights and access issues has had any impact in terms of food security and poverty alleviation? *8
Yes (Skip to question 10)
No (Skip to question 11)
6 * Idem 7 * An answer is required for this question. 8 * Idem
171
Don’t know (Skip to question 11)
10. Could you please name the country(ies) and/or the FAO activities that were involved in creating the impacts? *9
11. If you have needed FAO tenure, rights and access related advice or services in the past, which division or office in FAO have you contacted? (Mark ONLY ONE OPTION with X and comment)
Haven’t needed advice or services
Have needed advice and/or services. I contacted (division or office in FAO):
Future Directions
12. Do you think that FAO should change the amount of resources it devotes to tenure, rights and access work? *10
Yes, less (Skip to question 13)
Yes, more (Skip to question 13)
No (Skip to question 15)
Don’t know (Skip to question 15)
13. Do you think that FAO should change the amount of resources it devotes to tenure, rights and access related work in the following areas? (Mark ONE OR MORE OPTIONS with X)
No Don’t Area Less More changes know needed
Governance of Tenure
Access to land through redistribution
Access to land through leasing
Access to land in emergencies
9 * Idem 10 * An answer is required for this question.
172
No Don’t Area Less More changes know needed
Access to land for pastoralists
Secure access to customary land for communities
Security of access to privately held land (through titling and registration)
Secure access in the context of large scale agricultural investments and land acquisitions (“land grabbing”)
Secure access to land in climate change mitigation
Secure access to land and other natural resources for women and other disadvantaged groups
Land consolidation
Property taxation
Other (please specify)
14. Do you think that FAO should change the amount of resources it devotes to the following products and services within tenure, rights and access area? (Mark ONE OR MORE OPTIONS with X)
No Don’t Products and services Less More changes know needed
Publications, Guidelines & Manuals
Expert consultations, workshops, e-conferences and proceedings
International processes, codes and standard setting agreements
Statistics, databases and other ICT products
Capacity development/training
FAO Website
Policy advice
Direct technical assistance (through long-term field
173 projects)
Direct technical assistance (through short-term missions)
Other (please specify)
15. Which institutional arrangement do you find most appropriate to address tenure, rights and access (TRA) issues within the Organization?* 11 (Mark ONE OPTION with X)
A TRA division within the Natural Resources Department
A TRA division within another department
TRA experts posted in various divisions/offices (as at present) If selected proceed to question 16 TRA focal-points (at different levels) reporting to a cross- departmental entity
Interdepartmental unit affiliated at higher level (e.g. DDG Knowledge)
No opinion If selected skip to question 17
16. Please explain the reason for your selection* 12
17. How do you feel that FAO activity relating to tenure, rights and access to land and other natural resources could be made more effective and relevant in terms of the needs of member countries and their populations?
11 * An answer is required for this question. 12 * Idem.
174
18. Thank you for completing this questionnaire! If you don’t mind us following up with you on points you have made, please provide your contact information below (optional):
EVALUATION OF FAO WORK IN TENURE, RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO LAND AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES: COUNTRY SURVEY
Introduction
As you might be aware, the FAO Programme Committee has requested the Office of Evaluation (OED) to undertake an evaluation of FAO’s work related to tenure, rights and access to land and other natural resources – henceforth referred to as TRA (tenure, rights and access). Other natural resources pertinent to this evaluation include water, forests, wildlife, fisheries and livestock. The evaluation covers both past achievements within the 2006-2010 period, and future direction of FAO’s work on TRA.
Your Government is a key stakeholder and partner in FAO’s work. Your input is important to the overall conduct of the evaluation, and will constitute an essential part of the evidence base from which conclusions and recommendations for the future direction of TRA work in FAO will be drawn. FAO guarantees that the source of information and answers collected by this questionnaire will be kept confidential and will not be attributed to any particular Government. We hope that you will take the time to make your views known.
The questionnaire will take approximately 20 to 30 minutes to complete. Please consult as you see appropriate with other Government agencies in formulating your responses. The deadline for the receipt of your response is 24 June 2011. Respecting the deadline is important to allow for the proper analysis of your input, and its inclusion in the final evaluation report.
YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS GREATLY APPRECIATED.
About yourself
1. Please indicate the country on whose behalf you are responding to this questionnaire*13
Country:
2. Ministry(ies) or governmental agency(ies) involved in the response
13 * An answer is required for this question.
175
Priority Areas, Needs and Demands
3. Which are the key priority issues in your country relating to tenure, rights and access to land and other natural resources? Please elaborate.
4. Has the FAO worked on tenure, rights and access (TRA) issues relating to land or other natural resources in your country? (Mark ONLY ONE OPTION with X)
To the best of my knowledge, FAO has not done any work related to TRA issues in my country (Skip to question 10)
FAO work related to TRA has not addressed the priority issues in my country.
(Skip to question 5)
FAO work related to TRA has addressed the priority issues in my country
(Skip to question 6)
5. Please list the non-priority areas in which FAO has worked in your country:
Assessment
6. To what extent do you think tenure, rights and access issues are an essential part of FAO’s mandate?* 14 (Mark ONLY ONE OPTION with X)
Strongly agree
14 * An answer is required for this question.
176
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know
7. Do you believe tenure, rights and access issues are adequately reflected in the Strategic Framework 2010-2019 and the current Programme of Work and Budget 2010-11? *15 (Mark ONLY ONE OPTION with X)
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Don’t know
8. What is your assessment of the relevance, quality and utility of FAO's work on tenure, rights and access in the following areas?
Use the following scale: Very high, High, Poor, Very poor, Don't know
Area Relevance Quality Utility
Overall
Governance of Tenure
Access to land through redistribution
Access to land through leasing
Access to land in emergencies
Access to land for pastoralists
Secure access to customary land for communities
Security of access to privately held land (through titling and registration)
Secure access in the context of large scale agricultural
15 * Idem
177 investments and land acquisitions (“land grabbing”)
Secure access to land in climate change mitigation
Secure access to land and other natural resources for women and other disadvantaged groups
Land consolidation
Property taxation
Other (please specify)
9. What is your assessment of the relevance, quality and utility of the following FAO's products and services on tenure, right and access?
Use the following scale: Very high, High, Poor, Very poor, Don't know
Products and services Relevance Quality Utility
Publications, Guidelines & Manuals
Expert consultations, workshops, e-conferences and proceedings
International processes, codes and standard setting agreements
Statistics, databases and other ICT products
Capacity development/training
FAO Website
Policy advice
Direct technical assistance (through long-term field projects)
Direct technical assistance (through short-term missions)
Other (please specify)
178
Partnerships
10. Have other international or bilateral agencies, non governmental groups, private firms or other groups worked or currently work on tenure, rights and access issues within your country?* 16 (Mark ONE OR MORE OPTIONS with X)
International Financing Institutions
United Nations Agencies If selected proceed Bilateral agencies and other donors to question 11 Civil Society Organizations
Private firms
None If selected skip to question 12
*11. How do they compare with FAO as a service provider on tenure, rights and access issues? 17 (Mark ONE OPTION with X)
Better
Same
Worse
Don’t know
Future directions
12. Do you think that FAO should change the amount of resources it devotes to tenure, rights and access related work? 18(Mark ONE OPTION with X)
Yes, less If selected proceed to Yes, more question 13
No changes needed If selected skip to Don’t know question 15
16 * An answer is required for this question. 17 * Idem 18 * Idem.
179
Comments/Clarifications
13. Should FAO change the amount of resources it devotes to tenure, rights and access related work in the following areas? (Mark ONE OR MORE OPTIONS with X)
No Don’t Area Less More changes know needed
Governance of Tenure
Access to land through redistribution
Access to land through leasing
Access to land in emergencies
Access to land for pastoralists
Secure access to customary land for communities
Security of access to privately held land (through titling and registration)
Secure access in the context of large scale agricultural investments and land acquisitions (“land grabbing”)
Secure access to land in climate change mitigation
Secure access to land and other natural resources for women and other disadvantaged groups
Land consolidation
Property taxation
Other (please specify)
14. Should FAO change the amount of resources it devotes to tenure, right and access related work through the following products and services? (Mark ONE OR MORE OPTIONS with X)
180
No Don’t Products and services Less More changes know needed
Publications, Guidelines & Manuals
Expert consultations, workshops, e-conferences and proceedings
International processes, codes and standard setting agreements
Statistics, databases and other ICT products
Capacity development/training
FAO Website
Policy advice
Direct technical assistance (through long-term field projects)
Direct technical assistance (through short-term missions)
Other (please specify)
15. Which institutional arrangement do you find most appropriate to address tenure, rights and access (TRA) issues within the Organization?* 19 (Mark ONE OPTION with X)
A TRA division within the Natural Resources Department
A TRA division within another department
TRA experts posted in various divisions/offices (as at present) If selected proceed to question 16 TRA focal-points (at different levels) reporting to a cross- departmental entity
Interdepartmental unit affiliated at higher level (e.g. DDG Knowledge)
No opinion If selected skip to question 17
19 * An answer is required for this question.
181
16. Please explain the reason for your selection* 20
Suggestions
17. Thank you very much for taking your time to complete this survey! If you have any further comments or information you would like to share with the Evaluation Team, please feel free to provide it below.
20 * Idem.
182
EVALUATION OF FAO WORK IN TENURE, RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO LAND AND OTHER NATURAL RESOURCES: CSO SURVEY
Introduction
As you might be aware, the FAO Programme Committee has requested the Office of Evaluation (OED) to undertake an evaluation of FAO’s work related to tenure, rights and access to land and water and other natural resources – henceforth referred to as TRA (tenure, rights and access). Other natural resources relevant to this evaluation include forests, wildlife, fisheries and livestock. The evaluation covers past achievements for the period 2006-2010 and the future direction of FAO’s work on TRA.
Following on from FAO’s ‘International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development’ (ICARRD), hosted by the Government of Brazil in Porto Alegre in March 2006, FAO has been giving increasing attention to the responsibility of the state to be accountable to its citizens for the provision of fair, transparent and affordable land administration and management services. For this purpose, FAO has been working with member countries, Civil Society Organisations and UN partner agencies on the development of Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forestry.
As part of the Evaluation, the evaluation team is addressing this questionnaire to civil society organizations at regional and country level advocating policies which aim to strengthen the tenure, rights and access of poor and vulnerable people, women as well as men, to land and water and forests, wildlife, fisheries and pastoral resources.
The questions relate to the nature of your organisation, your location, principal concerns and your relationships with government and with FAO. The Evaluation wishes to obtain your view of FAO’s recent work and how it might be improved. International organizations will be addressed in a separate process.
Your views are very important to the Evaluation and will constitute an essential part of the evidence from which findings and recommendations for the future will be drawn. Your responses will be combined with others, will remain confidential and will not be attributed to you or your organisation. We have left an optional space for you to provide your contact information to allow us, if necessary to follow up and/ or clarify points and suggestions you have made.
The deadline for the receipt of your response is 22 July 2011. Respecting the deadline is important for the proper analysis of your input, and its inclusion.
YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS GREATLY APPRECIATED
183
About yourself
1. Gender of the respondent
Male Female
2. Regional Coverage of your organization (Mark ONE OR MORE OPTIONS with X
World
Africa
Asia and the Pacific
Europe and Central Asia
Latin America and the Caribbean
Near East
3. What are your main country/ies of operation in relation to tenure, rights and access issues? (list max. 3 countries)
4. What type of organisation do you represent? (Mark ONE OR MORE OPTIONS with X)
Research Institute Regional NGO/Trust/Foundation
University/Teaching/Training National Institute NGO/Trust/Foundation
International Local NGO/Community Based NGO/Trust/Foundation Organisation
5. What are your main interests in tenure, rights and access issues? (Mark ONE OR MORE OPTIONS with X)
Rights to use and own agricultural Rights to take fish, land crustaceans, molluscs, etc
Rights to water for irrigation Rights to gather and hunt
184
Rights of pastoralists to graze and Women’s rights water animals
Rights to use and occupy forest land
Other (please specify)
Relationship with Government
*6. In your relationship with Government (in your main country/ies of operation) with regard to discussion of tenure, rights and access issues, what is the nature of the dialogue? (Mark ONLY ONE OPTION with X)
Harmonious (Skip to question 8)
Varies according to the issue and government (Skip to question 8) agency involved
Stressful /difficult (Skip to question 8)
No dialogue (Skip to question 7)
7. If you don't have dialogue with the Government, please explain why.
Priority Areas and Needs
8. Which are the key priority issues in your country relating to tenure, rights and access to land and other natural resources? Please elaborate.
Knowledge of FAO
9. How much do you know about FAO’s work in the area of tenure, rights and access?*21 (Mark ONLY ONE OPTION with X)
No knowledge of FAO work (Skip to question 22)
Some knowledge (Skip to question 10)
21 * An answer is required for this question.
185
Reasonable knowledge (Skip to question 10)
An extensive knowledge (Skip to question 10)
Assessment
10. Has the FAO worked on tenure, rights and access (TRA) issues relating to land or other natural resources in your country/ies of operation? (Mark ONLY ONE OPTION with X) *22
To the best of my knowledge, FAO has not done any work related to TRA issues in my country (Skip to question 14)
FAO work related to TRA has not addressed the priority issues in my country.
(Skip to question 11)
FAO work related to TRA has addressed the priority issues in my country
(Skip to question 12)
11. Please list the non-priority areas in which FAO has worked in your country/ies of operation*23
12. Has FAO’s work in your main country/ies of operation contributed to changing attitudes regarding tenure, rights and access? *24
Yes (Skip to question 13)
No (Skip to question 14)
Don’t know (Skip to question 14)
13. If there is change, whose attitudes have changed. Those of: (check all those that apply)
Local government officials
Decision makers in government
The judiciary
Researchers
22 * Idem 23 * Idem 24 * Idem
186
Teachers and students in universities and training institutions
NGOs
Local users of resources: farmers, fisher folk, forest users, pastoralists, hunters and gatherers
Other (please specify)
Your linkages with FAO
14. Does your organization have any links with FAO regarding tenure, rights and access issues (e.g. have you participated in FAO conferences, have you collaborated in studies, etc.)? *25 (Mark ONLY ONE OPTION with X)
Yes (Skip to question 15)
No (Skip to question 16)
Don’t know (Skip to question 16)
15. Please describe the nature of the links you have with FAO's work in tenure, rights and access issues
16. What is your familiarity with FAO’s tenure, right and access websites? *26(Mark ONLY ONE OPTION with X)
Not a user (Skip to question 18)
Occasional user (Skip to question 17)
Regular user (Skip to question 17)
17. If you are a user*27
In which topics are you most interested?
What other websites do you use in connection with your work?
25 * An answer is required for this question 26 * Idem 27 * An answer is required for this question
187
Organizations involved
18. Have other international or bilateral agencies, non governmental groups, private firms or other groups worked or currently work on tenure, rights and access issues within your main country/ies of operation? (Mark ONE OR MORE OPTIONS with X)
International Financing Institutions
United Nations Agencies
Bilateral agencies and other donors
Non Governmental Organizations
Private firms
None
Other (please specify)
19. How do they compare with FAO as a service provider on tenure, rights and access issues? (Mark ONE OR MORE OPTIONS with X and comment)
Better
Same
Worse
Don’t know
Comments/clarifications
Future directions
20. What should FAO be doing differently in the future in terms of its tenure, rights and access work?
188
21. With which groups should FAO be partnering in tenure, rights and access matters in the future?
Contact details
22. Thank you for completing the questionnaire. If you don’t mind us following up with you on points you have made, please provide your contact information below (optional):
189
Annex 5: Meta-synthesis of past evaluations
1. Approach
1.2 Background and purpose
1. This meta-evaluation (ME) consists of a review of past FAO evaluations covering issues related to tenure, rights and access (TRA) to land and other natural resources. It aims to synthesize findings, conclusions and recommendations made to FAO in relation to its TRA work.
1.2 Scope
2. The ME includes evaluative information on: An overview of FAO TRA work; The relevance, efficiency and effectiveness of FAO TRA work; Organizational arrangements; Partnerships and alliances; Comparative advantages of FAO; and Priorities and key areas that FAO should address in the future.
1.3 Methodology
3. The ME summarizes findings, conclusions and recommendations of past evaluations and related projects, according to the following evaluation questions:
Analytical dimension Key evaluation questions Overview of FAO TRA What is FAO currently doing in the TRA area (land, water, forestry and work in land and other fisheries)? natural resources Are gender issues being adequately addressed in FAO’s TRA work? Relevance: Is there coherence between FAO’s TRA work and development needs at the country level, and/or in relation to FAO’s Strategic Framework? Efficiency: What are FAO’s strengths and weaknesses in the implementation of its TRA activities? Assessment of FAO Effectiveness: Are there any documented indications of FAO TRA work achievements in the TRA area? Impact: Are there any documented indications of the long-term effects (positive or negative) of FAO’s work in the TRA area? Sustainability: Are there any concerns regarding the probability of continued long-term benefits from FAO work in the TRA area? Partnerships and Which other international groups are working in the TRA area and what alliances are they doing? How do they relate to FAO’s activities? Comparative What are the key gaps in international TRA work, and what are the advantages comparative advantages of the FAO in filling those gaps? Priorities and key areas What should FAO’s overall priorities be in terms of its TRA work in the for the future future?
4. The ME includes over 35 corporate, country and project/programme evaluations carried out in the period 2006-10. The table below lists all the evaluations reviewed:
190
Corporate Real Time Evaluation of the FAO Emergency and Rehabilitation Operations in evaluations Response to the Indian Ocean Earthquake and Tsunami Evaluation of FAO's role and work related to water Evaluation of Capacity Development in Africa FAO’s Effectiveness at Country Level: A Synthesis of Country Evaluations: Post Conflict and Transition Countries: DR Congo, Sudan (north and south) and Tajikistan FAO's Effectiveness at Country Level : A Synthesis of Evaluations in Large, Rapidly-Developing Countries (India and Brazil) Evaluation of FAO’s role and work related to Gender and Development Evaluation of FAO's work in Commodities and Trade Country Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sierra Leone evaluations Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras Evaluation of FAO cooperation with India Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan (north and south) Evaluation of FAO's cooperation with Brazil Project GCP/MOZ/096/NET “Promoting the Use of Land and Natural Resources Laws evaluations for Equitable Development” GCP /MOZ/081/NET “Decentralized Legal Support and Capacity Building to Promote Sustainable Development and Good Governance at Local Level” GCP/INT/803/UK “Evaluation of the FAO/DFID Livelihood Support Programme” FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA) 2005-200728 FAO-The Netherlands Partnership Programme (FNPP)29 GCP /BIH/002/ITA “Inventory of Post-War Situation of Land Resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina” GCP /PHI/047/AUL Philippines-Australia Technical Support for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (PATSARRD) OSRO/PHI/501/JPN “Emergency Rehabilitation of agri-based livelihood for disadvantaged farmers and returning internally displaced people in Mindanao”
OSRO/INS/601/ARC “Rehabilitation and sustainable development of fisheries
and aquaculture affected by the tsunami in Aceh Province, Indonesia”
OSRO/SUD/003/CHF “Support to the restoration and enhancement of
sustainable food security and livelihoods of vulnerable populations in southern
Sudan”
OSRO/SUD/902/CHF “Support to sustainable reintegration and improvement
of basic food security for 100 000 households including; returnees (refugees
and IDPs), host communities and other vulnerable resident population in
southern Sudan
28 Including FNOP/INT/101/NOR PCA Norway 2005-06 Obj.B.1.1 - Development and Implementation of International Instruments related to Animal and Plant Genetic Resources; FNOP/INT/102/NOR PCA Norway 2005-06 OBJ. D1.1 - Support to National Biosecurity Initiatives and Policies Including Countries Facing High Risks of Outbreaks of Diseases and Pests; FNOP/INT/103/NOR PCA Norway 2005-06 Obj. B.2.1 - Improved Food Safety and Food Quality at the National Level; FNOP/INT/104/NOR PCA Norway 2005-06 Obj. B.2.2 - Implementation of National Sustainable Resources Management Practices Related in Particular to Plant and Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture FNOP/INT/105/NOR FAO Norway Project Cooperation Agreement 2005/2006, ESD Component; FNOP/INT/106/NOR FAO Norway Project Cooperation Agreement 2005/2006, Forestry Component; FNOP/INT/107/NOR FAO Norway Project Cooperation Agreement 2005/2006, Forestry Component; FNOP/INT/108/NOR FAO Norway Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) 2005 - 2006 Sustainable Development Component; FNOP/INT/109/NOR PCA Norway Strategy A1 Objective 1: Inclusion of Food Security Objectives, Policies, Programmes and Monitoring Mechanisms in PRSPS and Other Policy. 29 Including FNPP/GLO/001/NET-Food Security; FNPP/GLO/002/NET-Agrobiodiversity; FNPP/GLO/003/NET- Forestry; and FNPP/GLO/004/NET-Cross-cutting FNPP Issues.
191
OSRO/SUD/622/MUL “Sudan Productive Capacity Recovery Programme (SPCRP) - Capacity Building Component (SPCRP) in Northern Sudan” Project OSRO/SUD/623/MUL “Sudan Productive Capacity Recovery Programme evaluations (SPCRP) - Capacity Building Component (SPCRP) in Southern Sudan” (con’t) OSRO/INS/601/ARC “Rehabilitation and sustainable development of fisheries and aquaculture affected by the tsunami in Aceh Province, Indonesia” UTF/HON/034/HON “Evaluación del impacto de los procesos de capitalización en el Programa de Acceso a la Tierra (PACTA) en Honduras” GCP/INT/810/BEL “DIMITRA” GCP/RAF/338/NOR “Gender, Biodiversity and Local Knowledge to Strengthen Agricultural and Rural Development” MTF/GLO/125/MUL “Programme of Global Partnerships for Responsible Fisheries: FishCode and the FishCode Trust” UTF/URU/025/URU “Gestión pesquera en Uruguay” GCP /IND/177/NET “Programme Support to Nationally Executed (NEX) Land and Water Programme in India” GCP/GLO/182/MUL Strengthening of UN-Water Partnership Programmes UTF /IVC/027/IVC « Appui institutionnel au secteur du développement rural pour la sortie de crise en Côte d`Ivoire » UTF /IVC/028/IVC « Projet d’appui institutionnel et multisectorielle de la BAD à la sortie de crise (AIMSC): Appui aux organisations de base en charge de l’appui aux groupes vulnérables » Impact assessment of the land re-parcelling pilot project in 6 villages – Moldova30
1.4 Limitations
5. The ME covers only projects/programmes that were evaluated by FAO; it is not a comprehensive review of the entire FAO field programme. Also, not all the evaluations reviewed focused specifically on tenure, rights and access issues. The majority of the evaluations assessed broader thematic issues, or country or project level interventions where TRA issues were only one component (or were included as constraints during programme design or implementation).
2. Summary of key areas of FAO TRA work emerging from evaluations 2.1 Land
6. As expected, the majority of TRA-related field projects evaluated dealt with land tenure reform. FAO focused on supporting the development/reform of institutional and legal frameworks, the development of strategies, plans and programmes, and the piloting and implementation of land administration tools and models.
7. FAO work in the development/reform of institutional and legal frameworks included: i. Projects for monitoring and supporting the progress of land reform in Tajikistan31 through land policy and legislation development, in partnership with government, civil
30 This evaluation was undertaken by the World Bank. FAO performance was indirectly assessed as it was the provider of technical assistance to the project. 31 OSRO/TAJ/402/CAN “Monitoring Progress of Land Reform in Tajikistan through Establishment of a Participatory Monitoring System”, OSRO/TAJ/602/CAN “Improved Food Security and Enhanced Livelihoods through Institutional and Gender Sensitive Land Reform in Tajikistan”
192
society, and donors; and the development of studies on the economic effects of land reform32. ii. Technical assistance for the development of a vision for land tenure after the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in Sudan, an endeavour that included law and institutional development33. As part of these efforts, FAO supported the establishment of the Southern Sudan Land Commission (SSLC) in 200634. iii. Advice on the institutional arrangements needed to restructure family farming, including issues of land reform and settlements in Brazil.35
8. FAO work in support of the development of strategies, plans and programmes for land tenure reform included: i. Developing an inter-sectoral land programme in Sudan with the collaboration of the government agencies responsible for agriculture, animal resources, forestry, mineral resources, forestry, and legal affairs, as well as the judiciary and local governments36. FAO also provided technical assistance and policy advice to the SSLC in southern Sudan. ii. The preparation of a national strategy for land consolidation in Lithuania37 and Serbia38, which, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, provided recommendations on land management and proposed land consolidation models. This work suggested legislative amendments to reduce the problems of land fragmentation and abandonment39. iii. Developing a national strategy for rural land registration in China40, which was part of a Technical Cooperation Project (TCP) aimed to complement the Analytical and Advisory Activity of the World Bank in this country41. iv. Supporting capacity building on land tenure, land management-related legal issues, and the development of methodology and training for the Brazilian Plan of Agrarian Reform and Programme of Family Agriculture42.
9. Most of the above technical work included assistance with building capacity at different levels (sometimes farmers but often government agencies). For example: i. Projects on land reform monitoring in Tajikistan were complemented by the implementation of a project43 that resulted in the establishment of legal advisory centres to support citizens with procedures related to land use rights, and also involved public awareness campaigns to explain the process of farm reorganization44. An important aspect of the capacity development for this project was the mainstreaming of gender equity in the land reform programme.
32 Corporate evaluation of FAO’s Effectiveness at Country Level: A Synthesis of Country Evaluations Post Conflict and Transition Countries: DR Congo, Sudan and Tajikistan and Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan 33 Corporate evaluation of FAO’s Effectiveness at Country Level: A Synthesis of Country Evaluations Post Conflict and Transition Countries: DR Congo, Sudan and Tajikistan and Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 34 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 35 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Brazil. 36 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan 37 TCP/LIT/3101 “Support to the preparation of an operational land consolidation system” 38 TCP/YUG/3001 “Support to the preparation of a national land consolidation strategy and a land consolidation pilot” 39 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources 40 TCP/CPR/3107 Rural Land Registration and Certification Piloting - Phase II of TCP/CPR/3008 41 China: Integration Land Policy reforms I, II and III AAA 42 TCP/INT/3103 “Formulation of a regional capacity building Program on land tenure, land management related legal aspects” and TCP/BRA/3101 “Methodological support and training for the National Plan of Agrarian Reform and the National Programme of Family Agriculture”; Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Brazil 43 OSRO/TAJ/301/SWE “Emergency Agricultural Assistance to Food Insecure Rural Households in Drought Prone Border Areas of Western Tajikistan 44 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan.
193
ii. In Sudan, as a complementary part of the inter-sectoral land programme, the FAO projects included training of service providers such as survey departments, land registers, the judiciary, land tribunals, land use planning services, NGOs, women’s associations, civil society groups, students and others45. iii. Two regional projects in India46 aimed to develop capacity on policy formulation and policy analysis on selected themes, such as land policy related to pro poor issues47. iv. In Mozambique and Angola, several FAO projects48 provided training to local government officers and non-government entities on laws governing access to land. v. TCPs implemented in Lithuania49, Serbia50 and China51 delivered training for capacity development which included study tours to learn about models of land registration and consolidation, as well as workshops to discuss with the relevant stakeholders the draft land consolidation strategies. vi. In Honduras, FAO advisors contributed to the implementation of the World Bank Project “PACTA”52, involving the acquisition of land and the formation of productive enterprises for poor rural families, supporting the rural sector at two different levels (the enterprise level and the community level). Credit was provided for the acquisition of land and then complemented with training53.
10. Some normative work conducted by FAO with project funds was also identified by the evaluations as a complementary part of FAO work to support the development/reform of institutional and legal frameworks. For instance: i. In Sudan, FAO’s projects conducted research (studies and analytical work) in relation to securing legal access to land for Internally Displaced People (IDPs) and refugees54. ii. In India, three studies were conducted on land tenure under the umbrella of the Livelihood Support Programme developed by the Rural Development Institute (RDI) based in Washington. This work aimed to study the effects of providing small pieces of land to the poor and landless on nutrition and the promotion of sustainable livelihoods55. FAO implemented a research project aiming to understand the types and performance of existing formal and informal urban and peri-urban producers’ organisations in developing country cities56. A paper was commissioned by FAO, and followed by workshops, to analyze the links between landlessness and poverty. A case study for India on providing access to land security for the Indian rural poor was developed57.
45 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 46 GCP/RAS/214/IFA “Pro-Poor Policy Formulation, Dialogue and Implementation at the Country Level”. TCP/RAS/3206 ‘Complementary Assistance to the FAO-IFAD Collaborative Programme on pro-Poor Policy Formulation, Dialogue and Implementation at the Country level” 47 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in India. 48 GCP /MOZ/081/NET “Decentralized Legal Support and Capacity Building to Promote Sustainable Development and Good Governance at Local Level” and GCP/MOZ/096/NET “Promoting the Use of Land and Natural Resources Laws for Equitable Development”; GCP/ANG/035/EC 49 TCP/LIT/3101 “Support to the preparation of an operational land consolidation system” 50 TCP/YUG/3001 “Support to the preparation of a national land consolidation strategy and a land consolidation pilot” 51 TCP/CPR/3107 Rural Land Registration and Certification Piloting - Phase II of TCP/CPR/3008 52 TCP/HON/2901 “Apoyo para el establecimiento y análisis del Programa de Acceso a la Tierra”; UTF /HON/025/HON “Unidad de Gestión de Fondo de Tierras” and UTF /HON/034/HON “Apoyo para el funcionamiento de la Unidad de Gestión y la ejecución del Programa de Acceso a la Tierra (PACTA) Ampliado” 53 Final report of the Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras and Annex III Impact Evaluation of capitalization process of PACTA 54 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 55 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in India. 56 Idem. 57 Idem.
194
11. A common and important characteristic of FAO’s technical assistance on land issues at the policy level was the promotion and establishment of fora for dialogue between government, civil society and donors. An example of this can be found in: i. Countries with an emergency or post conflict context such as Tajikistan, Sudan and Democratic Republic of Congo, where FAO’s technical assistance in these countries aimed to contribute to the establishment of fora for discussion and negotiation on land issues58. ii. FAO secretariat support to the International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD) held in Porto Alegre, Brazil in 200659.
12. FAO TRA work also included developing, piloting and implementing land administration tools and models. For instance: i. In southern Sudan, projects60 were implemented to develop and test methodologies for the restitution of land and property, dispute resolution, land and property valuation, community land registration, securing access to land for women, community-driven recovery, asset mapping and land use planning, and the development of natural resource sharing mechanisms61. ii. In Serbia and Lithuania62, FAO piloted a land consolidation model as a complementary component of the work to support the development of a national land consolidation strategy63. iii. In China, a TCP64 funded the piloting of a system for land registration and certification65. This pilot was later on replicated in other provinces66.
13. Two FAO partnership programmes supported the development of normative TRA products: i. DFID/FAO Livelihood Support Programme (LSP)67. One sub-programme (Access to Natural Resources) addressed the use of sustainable livelihood approaches to improve access to natural assets by the poor. The LSP funded the production of publications, guidelines and manuals, and information materials such as brochures, posters and websites. It was intended to provide a portfolio of tested strategies for improving sustainable access of the poorest to natural assets, having as the main audience FAO staff. Publications were produced that focused on: the sustainable livelihood approach in the context of access to different natural resources; access to natural resources and making rights ‘real’; and access to natural resources in a rapidly changing world68. Other
58 Corporate evaluation of FAO’s Effectiveness at Country Level: A Synthesis of Country Evaluations Post Conflict and Transition Countries: DR Congo, Sudan and Tajikistan, Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan and Evaluation of FAO Cooperation in Sudan. 59 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Brazil. 60 OSRO/SUD/415/NET “Technical assistance to secure and restitute land rights, address land and property dispute resolution and negotiate consensual land management” OSRO/SUD/507/CAN “Emergency Agricultural Response in Southern Sudan and support to land tenure matters”, OSRO/SUD/515/HCR “Land Programme in the Sudan (Darfur)”, OSRO/SUD/415/NET “Technical assistance to secure and restitute land rights, address land and property dispute resolution and negotiate consensual land management” and OSRO/SUD/518/HCR “UNHCR-FAO Land Management and Sustainable Livelihood Programme - I Phase (southern Sudan)” 61 Corporate evaluation of FAO’s Effectiveness at Country Level: A Synthesis of Country Evaluations Post Conflict and Transition Countries: DR Congo, Sudan and Tajikistan and Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 62 TCP/YUG/3001 “Support to the preparation of a national land consolidation strategy and a land consolidation pilot” 63 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources 64 TCP/CPR/3107 Rural Land Registration and Certification Piloting - Phase II of TCP/CPR/3008 65 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources 66 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of the AAA documentation: activity completion summary and synthesis reports. 67 GCP/INT/803/UK "Improving Support for Enhancing Livelihoods of The Rural Poor" 68 See http://www.fao.org/nr/tenure/infores/lttpapers/en/ for LSP working papers on TRA subjects
195
normative work produced by FAO with support from the LSP included a Land Tenure Manual69. ii. FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA). Component A.1.2 “Sustainable rural livelihoods and more equitable access to resources: Support to member countries and the High Level Commission for the Empowerment of the Poor” aimed to secure access to land and other natural resources for improving food security, alleviating poverty and improving rural development70. This component included an important regional workshop in Nakuru, Kenya in 2006 involving government officials, researchers and FAO technical advisers.
14. Some differences can be identified in the interventions adopted in operational work on land tenure reform by FAO. For example: i. In both Sudan and Tajikistan, FAO provided land policy advice in post-conflict and transition contexts. In these countries land is owned by the state, and the post- conflict/transition period provided an opportunity to influence and assist the development of a coherent land policy in which the land rights of citizens were strengthened. As mentioned before, the creation of fora for dialogue and negotiation between governments, civil society and donors was a common feature of FAO work in these countries71. ii. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, FAO’s approach was to support the generation of information and methodologies needed for land use planning. FAO’s project in this country72 collected and updated data relating to land resources and brought this information together in a single format. It also conducted training activities aiming to strengthen local capacity for interpreting this information, and developed a methodology for land management and optimization of land use based on the provision of natural resources data. The project focused on refining the information at the local administrative level using a participatory, bottom-up approach73. iii. In other countries such as Lithuania and Serbia, FAO’s work focused on land administration issues, specifically addressing problems of land fragmentation and abandonment in the rural sector74. This focus on land administration was not confined to Eastern Europe; in China75, FAO activities included advice to develop a land registration and certification framework aiming to secure access to land. iv. In Honduras, FAO TRA work supported a World Bank project that financed land acquisition for farmers. This can be seen as an intervention in support of market related initiatives to promote land distribution76. v. In India and Brazil, FAO work on land issues mainly involved advocacy to raise awareness of land issues within other initiatives, such as food security policies and World Food Day77.
15. Despite the different contexts in which FAO has engaged in land tenure reform work, the approach adopted has typically included a combination of technical support for the
69 Final Evaluation of GCP/INT/803/UK 70 Final Evaluation of FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement 2005-2007 71 Corporate evaluation of FAO’s Effectiveness at Country Level: A Synthesis of Country Evaluations Post Conflict and Transition Countries: DR Congo, Sudan and Tajikistan, Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan and Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 72 GCP/BIH/002/ITA Inventory of Post-War Situation of Land Resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina 73 Final Evaluation of GCP /BIH/002/ITA “Inventory of Post-War Situation of Land Resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina” 74 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources 75 Idem. 76 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras. 77 Corporate Evaluation of FAO's Effectiveness at Country Level : A Synthesis of Evaluations in Large, Rapidly-Developing Countries.
196
development/reform of legal frameworks, policies or strategies, and capacity building assistance.
16. Modalities for the delivery of technical assistance at the country level have however been diverse. FAO work in land tenure has been conducted through a combination of long-term projects as well as specific short-term initiatives, the former financed by donors and the latter generally financed by FAO’s own regular programme (TCPs). In some cases, such as the projects implemented in Honduras (PACTA)78 and the TCP in China79, FAO work was conducted in close partnership with major interventions by the World Bank80. 2.2 Water 17. Regarding field work, the thematic evaluation on water issues found that FAO has supported the drafting and review of legislation, contributing to defusing any potential dispute over transboundary water rights. FAO has also providing training and capacity development in relation to water legislation.81 18. Two specific projects implemented by FAO can provide examples of the technical assistance provided on water TRA issues. The first was implemented in Tajikistan82 as a pilot project for testing and implementing participatory watershed management approaches. The second project83, implemented in arid regions of India, focused on the management of ground water systems and the development of community-based institutions for alternative management, with an emphasis on gender equality within the participatory approach. The latter was directly related to the activities taking place in relation to land and water access under the Livelihood Support Programme (LSP), which supported FAO’s country office in India to take part in key national dialogues on land allocation strategies84. 19. FAO also produced the Land and Water bulletins and the publications “Land and Water-the rights interface” and “Water and the Rural Poor”. The Law Development Service (LEGN) and the Land and Water Division (NRL) were the organisational entities directly involved in the development of this work85. 2.3 Forestry 20. In general the evaluations found that FAO work on Forestry TRA issues has focused on the provision of advice for the development of legal frameworks and policies, such as in Brazil, Honduras and Sudan86. 21. In Brazil, Honduras and the Democratic Republic of Congo, FAO has also provided direct technical assistance with the implementation of pilot projects, the provision of training, or by helping with the implementation of community forest management. In Honduras, support was provided for operationalising the legal framework and strategies developed previously with the assistance of FAO87.
78 TCP/HON/2901 “Apoyo para el establecimiento y análisis del Programa de Acceso a la Tierra”; UTF /HON/025/HON “Unidad de Gestión de Fondo de Tierras” and UTF /HON/034/HON “Apoyo para el funcionamiento de la Unidad de Gestión y la ejecución del Programa de Acceso a la Tierra (PACTA) Ampliado” 79 TCP/CPR/3107 Rural Land Registration and Certification Piloting - Phase II of TCP/CPR/3008 80 Access to Land Pilot Project (PACTA) and China: Integration Land Policy reforms I, II and III AAA 81 Corporate Evaluation of FAO's role and work related to water. 82 TCP/TAJ/2903 “Participatory Integrated Watershed Management in Upland Areas” (PIWMU) 83 GCP/IND/175/NET “Andhra Pradesh Farmer-managed Groundwater Systems” 84 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in India and Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan. 85 Corporate Evaluation of FAO's role and work related to water. 86 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Brazil, Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras and Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 87 Corporate evaluation of FAO’s Effectiveness at Country Level: A Synthesis of Country Evaluations Post Conflict and Transition Countries: DR Congo, Sudan and Tajikistan Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Brazil and Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras.
197
22. One sub-component of FAO’s PCA with Norway focused on documenting forestry tenure regimes. This work has reportedly raised the profile of forestry tenure within FAO. This sub- component indirectly contributed to sustainable forest management and poverty alleviation by raising awareness on the current status of tenure on forestry in countries and highlighting important areas for intervention88. 2.4 Fisheries 23. FAO TRA-related work on fisheries has involved supporting the design of legal frameworks, and the provision of training at the community level. 24. Projects in Honduras and Uruguay89 supported the national authorities in drafting a new legal framework for fisheries and aquaculture. In Honduras, the government requested a review of a proposed law on fisheries and aquaculture90. In Uruguay, FAO supported the development of a new law, organizing workshops and consultations, and providing technical support to an advisory group in which stakeholders from government, the private sector, fisheries organizations and civil society provided inputs91. 25. In India, a project component on the health management of shrimps92 drew attention to lessons on coastal land and aquaculture management93. 26. Fisheries work on TRA issues, developing capacities and providing training was carried out in Sudan and in the Lake Victoria region. In Sudan, training on fisheries rights was provided at the community level in an emergency context94. In the Lake Victoria region, the FAO PCA with Norway provided training aimed at empowering communities through taking ownership and control over the sustainable management of their resources95. 27. An important normative output of FAO fisheries work is the development of guidelines and instruments to support the implementation of the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (CCRF). While some of the reviewed evaluations96 emphasised the importance of this normative product on policy development and guidance, no further details were provided in terms of its relationship to TRA issues. 2.5 Gender and disadvantaged groups 28. Normative products are an important part of FAO work on gender and land tenure issues. They have been produced both at HQ and in the field, including: i. The Gender and Land Rights database contains important information on gender disparities in national and international legislation as well as customary laws. The Gender Evaluation97 found that the Gender and Land Rights database provided information for the production of the State of Food and Agriculture (SOFA) 2010/1198 and the International Land Coalition’s (ILC) Land Portal99.
88 Final Evaluation of FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement 2005-2007 89 A TCP Facility in Honduras and UTF/URU/025/URU “ Fisheries Management in Uruguay” 90 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras. 91 Final Evaluation of UTF/URU/025/URU. 92 TCP/IND/2902 “Health management of shrimp aquaculture in Andhra Pradesh” 93 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in India. 94 Corporate evaluation of FAO’s Effectiveness at Country Level: A Synthesis of Country Evaluations Post Conflict and Transition Countries: DR Congo, Sudan and Tajikistan and Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 95 Final Evaluation of FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA) 96 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras and Evaluation of FAO cooperation India. 97 Corporate Evaluation of FAO’s role and work related to Gender and Development. 98 The SOFA 2010/11 focused on gender disparities, and touched gender disparities in access to land, studying its implications for agricultural development. 99 Corporate Evaluation of FAO’s role and work related to Gender and Development.
198
ii. The Gender and Land Compendium of member countries and the regional case studies provides useful information on gender equity and land rights. iii. Research on land-use rights has been undertaken in Mozambique, Sierra Leone and Uganda by ESW with local partners. iv. Under a project implemented in Lusophone countries, the Preliminary Guidelines for Improving Gender Equity in Territorial Issues were developed aimed at promoting participatory methodologies to reach consensus on issues regarding land access and exploitation. This initiative also involved the development of legal guidelines and training material for land and water management. v. Emerging from the DIMITRA project, documents and communication materials have been published under the Land Tenure Series – specifically, two gender and land series were developed. vi. From the work carried out in the African region, the Agri-Gender Toolkit was developed along with a study on land tenure in Ghana and one on HIV and AIDS related analysis in Eastern and Southern Africa.
29. Direct technical assistance on gender and TRA issues was also provided by FAO, focusing mainly on training activities: i. Strengthening capacity to understand gender disparities and enhance gender mainstreaming towards securing access and rights to land. In Mozambique, Timor Leste, Angola and Cape Verde, a regional project for capacity development on the integration of gender analysis in water and land tenure management was implemented aiming to integrate a gender approach in legislation, policies and programmes on land and water administration and management100. In Mozambique, within a project on promoting the use of land and natural resources law, a course structure was developed with a gender and women’s rights component, which is used by the Centre for Legal and Judicial Training (CFJJ) to train paralegals101. In the Philippines, FAO’s activities on capacity development included gender training of staff in the Department of Agrarian Reform102. ii. Participatory approaches aiming to guarantee rights on land were supported by FAO. For example, in Tajikistan, FAO projects on land reform considered gender mainstreaming activities aimed at improving women’s access to land and involvement in farm reorganization decisions103. In India a project on groundwater management had a strong focus on gender in terms of assuring equitable representation and participation in community based institutions104. iii. Other FAO interventions aimed to improve women’s access to land by promoting joint titling. This is the case of the PACTA project in Honduras which improved its gender mainstreaming by educating beneficiaries on the importance of including spouses in the titling process105. In Nicaragua, governmental programmes supported by FAO’s technical assistance made provision to improve women’s access to land titles106.
100 Corporate Evaluation of FAO’s role and work related to Gender and Development. 101 Corporate Evaluation of FAO’s role and work related to Gender and Development and final evaluation of GCP /MOZ/081/NET 102 Corporate Evaluation of FAO’s role and work related to Gender and Development. 103 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan. 104 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in India. 105 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras. 106 Corporate Evaluation of FAO’s role and work related to Gender and Development.
199
30. FAO field work also covered TRA issues in relation to disadvantaged groups. For instance: i. Under the FAO Norway PCA, work on tenure issues was conducted with a strong emphasis on marginalised groups including women, orphans and pastoralists. A series of desk reviews and case studies on orphaned children’s property and inheritance rights was developed for selected African countries. This work was disseminated through workshops107. ii. In Mozambique, a project providing legal education and support to help rural women secure and exercise land and resource rights addressed HIV/AIDS-related tenure insecurity in case studies, which later fed into the development of training materials108.
3 Assessment of FAO TRA work
3.1 Relevance
31. Overall, FAO field work was found to be very relevant in relation to member countries’ needs and/or the Organisation’s own strategic framework. Field projects were found to be relevant because they addressed important problems and constraints, such as: i. Insecure land tenure and rights. In Tajikistan, FAO interventions aimed to ensure an equitable distribution of agricultural land under the reorganization of state and collective farms109. In Tajikistan, Sudan and Angola, FAO interventions were based on the establishment of a platform/working group at national and/or local levels for dialogue on land issues with the participation of the government, civil society and donors110. In China, the TCP on land registration addressed insecure tenure, which had been recognized and considered as a constraint for rural development by the Chinese Government111. ii. Land fragmentation and abandonment. This problem was addressed by two TCP projects implemented in Lithuania and Serbia. These interventions aimed to produce long term improvements to rural land tenure arrangements through land consolidation through pilot projects, and the development of national strategies in relation to these issues112. iii. Lack of/gaps in the legal or policy framework on land. FAO interventions aimed to update or develop a legal or strategic framework for land reform, land consolidation, land registration and certification and land distribution113. TCPs in Lithuania, Serbia and China have contributed to policy development by piloting models for land consolidation, registration or certification. In India, projects took account of findings of research conducted by FAO that highlighted the link between land tenure and poverty.
107 Final Evaluation of FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA) 108 Final evaluation of GCP /MOZ/081/NET 109 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan. 110 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan and Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 111 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources 112 Idem 113 Corporate Evaluations of FAO’s Effectiveness at Country Level: A Synthesis of Country Evaluations: Post Conflict and Transition Countries: DR Congo, Sudan and Tajikistan and of FAO's Effectiveness at Country Level: A Synthesis of Evaluations in Large, Rapidly- Developing Countries (India and Brazil). Evaluations of FAO cooperation in India, Tajikistan, Sudan and Honduras. Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources
200
iv. Lack of capacity to implement land related legislation. Two projects in Mozambique114 focused on capacity development by providing training to paralegals and district officers through the strengthening of a local organisation (the Centre for Legal and Judicial Training), and brought together different stakeholder groups with responsibility and interest in the implementation of this legislation115. v. Lack of information for land use planning in a post-conflict context. A project implemented in Bosnia and Herzegovina filled this gap by modernizing and equipping public institutions aiming to make land use information available for planning116. 32. Most evaluations acknowledged that FAO’s attention to land tenure problems and constraints was very relevant and timely. The two exceptions were first in Sudan, where FAO’s interventions on land reform and governance issues, from 2008 onwards, were not firmly supported by partners117. The second was in India, where outputs derived from the regional activities promoted by FAO were found less relevant to the country’s needs, although valued by beneficiaries118.
33. FAO’s normative and operational work on water TRA issues was found to be relevant overall. In particular: i. Legal support to the drafting of water legislation was found to be highly relevant, of high technical quality, and well acknowledged and appreciated by partners and recipient organizations. Assistance to planners and managers at the national level was also found to be substantive and relevant119. ii. Normative and operational work on water resources management, ranging from groundwater to the interactions between land and water, were found to be highly relevant, because of the knowledge generated on land and water interactions120. iii. Two specific projects implemented in India121 and Tajikistan122 were also found to be relevant, because of their field level support to participatory approaches and gender mainstreaming in water management123.
34. FAO’s fisheries TRA-related field work was found to be relevant because it addressed recipient countries needs for the sustainable development of their fisheries and aquaculture sector and the management of coastal fisheries124. For example, the project implemented in Uruguay supported the development of a strategic and legal framework, based on a diagnosis of the fisheries sector, thereby enhancing the relevance of the intervention125. 35. Finally, the focus of two partnership programmes (FAO/Norway PCA and the FAO/DFID LSP) in addressing TRA issues was found to be relevant. In the former, the component on tenure was found relevant to a wide range of Strategic Objectives within FAO’s Strategic Framework. In the
114 GCP /MOZ/081/NET “Decentralized Legal Support and Capacity Building to Promote Sustainable Development and Good Governance at Local Level” and GCP/MOZ/096/NET “Promoting the Use of Land and Natural Resources Laws for Equitable Development” 115 Final Evaluation of GCP /MOZ/081/NET and Mid Term Evaluation of GCP/MOZ/096/NET 116 Final Evaluation of GCP /BIH/002/ITA “Inventory of Post-War Situation of Land Resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina” 117 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 118 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in India. 119 Corporate Evaluation of FAO's role and work related to water. 120 Idem. 121 GCP/IND/175/NET “Andhra Pradesh Farmer-managed Groundwater Systems” 122 TCP/TAJ/2903 “Participatory Integrated Watershed Management in Upland Areas” (PIWMU) 123 Evaluations of FAO cooperation in India and Sudan. 124 Evaluations of FAO cooperation in India and Final Evaluation of UTF/URU/025/URU “ Fisheries Management in Uruguay”. 125 Final Evaluation of UTF/URU/025/URU “ Fisheries Management in Uruguay”.
201
latter, the sub-programme related to TRA issues was found to be highly relevant for fostering collaboration on TRA normative and operational work among different units within FAO126. 3.2 Efficiency 36. The inter-sectoral approach adopted by FAO in Sudan and Tajikistan, as well as the smooth collaboration between TCE and the LTT, were identified as strengths of these projects127. Collaboration among technical divisions responsible for the Mozambique project128 was also considered a strength129. 37. Continuous coordination and the set up of clear management structures were seen as strengths in both the LSP and the Norway PCA. In the former, the establishment of a Programme Coordination Team (PCT) was judged to have enhanced cross-departmental work; in the latter, a Steering/Oversight Unit had a similar role. Other strengths of these programmes were that core membership was drawn from different sub-programmes and divisions, the team-based approach, consensus-based decision making, direct participation of the donor as a team member and team decision-making power over budget allocation130. 38. On the other hand, inconsistent support in Sudan due to shortage of staff in the LTT in HQ and lack of sub regional/in-country expertise were considered as weaknesses affecting the efficiency of FAO TRA work131, so also was a short-term perspective of TCE, unsuited to tackling longer- term issues of land governance in Sudan. In Mozambique, the amount of time which technical personnel spent on resolving administrative issues is reported to have been a frequent source of stress132. 39. From the LSP experience, even though the PCT was established, it lacked responsibility for overseeing technical work. There was a confusion of roles without clear separation of functions; furthermore, the LSP lacked clarity on accountability and effective leadership to take a higher strategic view and make decisions on divisive issues. A closed membership impeded change. As a result, the initiative did not sufficiently foster cross-sector collaboration and instead led to entrenched sub-programmes, worked more like separate projects133. 40. Regarding the projects implemented to support land consolidation activities in Eastern European countries such as Serbia134 and Lithuania135, as well as on land registration and certification in China136 and land planning use in Bosnia and Herzegovina, they all were assessed as efficient – having had a timely implementation and enjoying the strong support of Government agencies that were relatively well resourced137. 41. Efficiency was in general lower when resources and/or commitment from partners were lacking. This was the case in Honduras and Sudan138. Delays were attributed to inefficiency of
126 Final Evaluations of GCP/INT/803/UK "Improving Support for Enhancing Livelihoods of The Rural Poor" and FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement 2005-2007 127 Evaluations of FAO cooperation in Sudan and Tajikistan. 128 GCP/MOZ/096/NET “Promoting the Use of Land and Natural Resources Laws for Equitable Development” 129 Mid Term Evaluation of GCP/MOZ/096/NET 130 Final Evaluation of GCP/INT/803/UK "Improving Support for Enhancing Livelihoods of The Rural Poor" and Final Evaluation of FAO- Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement 2005-2007. 131 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 132 Mid Term Evaluation of GCP/MOZ/096/NET 133 Final Evaluation of GCP/INT/803/UK "Improving Support for Enhancing Livelihoods of The Rural Poor" 134 TCP/YUG/3001 “Support to the preparation of a national land consolidation strategy and a land consolidation pilot” 135 TCP/LIT/3101 “Support to the preparation of an operational land consolidation system” 136 TCP/CPR/3107 Rural Land Registration and Certification Piloting - Phase II of TCP/CPR/3008 137 Final Evaluation of GCP /BIH/002/ITA “Inventory of Post-War Situation of Land Resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina” 138 Evaluations of FAO cooperation in Honduras and Sudan.
202
FAO’s tools for field project administration and the delays to implement a system of monitoring and evaluation139. 3.3 Effectiveness, Impact and Sustainability 3.3.1 Land: 42. Overall, FAO interventions on land tenure issues were effective in achieving the expected outputs; however, long-term effects were not always very evident. The effectiveness of technical assistance to increase awareness, build local capacity and pilot new approaches was often more visible than the results of policy advice or institutional development. i. Increasing awareness. In India, FAO land tenure studies led to increased awareness of the importance of secure land rights to access credits and foster investments140. In Mozambique, study tours and workshops were held to raise awareness of public rights, environmental, cultural and historical heritage issues141. In Serbia, a project on land consolidation managed to attract the attention of high level authorities (e.g. the President of Serbia)142. The ICCARD conference, coordinated by FAO and held in Brazil, was effective in bringing the issues of agrarian reform and rural development back onto the international agenda. Its influence on the current VGs process was also pointed out143. ii. Capacity building. In Mozambique and Angola, the recipients of training acquired new skills that were put into practice in the resolution of local conflicts over natural resources. In Mozambique, the CFJJ’s capacity as a training and research institute, and a respected interpreter of legislation with respect to natural resources matters, was also strengthened144. In Tajikistan, FAO work led to the development of local capacity for land reform monitoring by implementing a participatory system which provided reliable information on land rights and the process of farm reorganization under the new land law145. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the training provided led not only improved capacity of the beneficiaries, but also to changes in the approach to land use planning146. In Sudan, training of government land surveyors resulted in improvement in the delivery of these services147. In Lithuania and Serbia, FAO delivered training, workshops, study tours and methodologies which have led to the development of local capacity to deal with land fragmentation and abandonment issues148. iii. Piloting. In China, FAO tested models for securing land rights through piloting and validation of land registration and certification approaches149. In Honduras, FAO supported the piloting and upscale of non reimbursable financing of land acquisitions for 55 new created rural enterprises150. iv. Policy advice. In Sudan, FAO advice supported the creation of the Southern Sudan Land Commission (SSLC). FAO also supported the establishment of fora for dialogue on land reform issues in Tajikistan, Mozambique and Sudan151. In Lithuania and Serbia,
139 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras. 140 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in India. 141 Final Evaluation of GCP /MOZ/081/NET and Mid Term Evaluation of GCP/MOZ/096/NET 142 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources 143 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Brazil. 144 Final Evaluation of GCP /MOZ/081/NET and Mid Term Evaluation of GCP/MOZ/096/NET 145 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan. 146 Final Evaluation of GCP /BIH/002/ITA “Inventory of Post-War Situation of Land Resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina” 147 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 148 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources 149 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources 150 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras and Annex 3 Impact Evaluation of Capitalization processes in PACTA. 151 Corporate evaluation of FAO’s Effectiveness at Country Level: A Synthesis of Country Evaluations Post Conflict and Transition Countries: DR Congo, Sudan and Tajikistan and evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan.
203
FAO contributed to the development of land consolidation strategies which are currently being implemented by the relevant Government agencies152. v. Institutional development. In Tajikistan153 several local partners are now able to provide free legal advisory services on land rights. These interventions have helped women to participate in the farm reorganization process; with the creation of a gender component within the Land Reform Working Group (LRWG); and developed capacities to monitor the distribution of agricultural land to rural women154. In Mozambique, through the strengthening of local organisations such as the CFJJ and the training of paralegals, district judges, prosecutors and District Administrators, the balance of power between community members and external applicants for land is expected to improve and lead to greater tenure security of the poor155.
43. Issues affecting the long term effectiveness and sustainability of FAO work on land include: i. Lack of financial support from Government to ensure service delivery. This is the case in Mozambique, where this threatens continuation in the provision of training to paralegals and district officials, and underlines the Government’s lack of commitment to ensure that citizens have equal access to the rule of law in relation to natural resources legislation156. In Sudan, lack of follow up by the Government together with a reduced interest of donors and development partners (including FAO itself) affected the sustainability of the outputs achieved by the FAO Land Programme157. ii. Unclear exit strategies. In Bosnia and Herzegovina it was found that the complexity of the institutional arrangements in the country, including a fragmentation of the responsibilities and tasks on land planning among governmental agencies, was a threat for the sustainability of the results achieved by the project158. In Serbia, although the effectiveness of the project was very high, its impact was constrained by the lack of measures in place to address other shortcomings like the lack of adequate procedures to implement the land consolidation strategy159. iii. Weak communication/buy in among project participants. This is the case of PACTA in Honduras, where despite the impact achieved by the project in supporting access to land, it was found that the beneficiaries didn’t perceive that the acquired land was their own property. This was attributed to the weak communication between the beneficiaries and the financial institutions participating in the programme, which generated confusion on the legality of land acquired by the beneficiaries with the programme funding160. 3.3.2 Water:
44. The evaluation of FAO work related to water found that knowledge on the interaction between land tenure and water rights was generated, suggesting effectiveness of FAO normative work on these matters. There was also a high appreciation of FAO assistance on water legislation:
152 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources 153 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan. 154 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan and Corporate Evaluation of FAO’s role and work related to Gender and Development. 155 Final Evaluation of GCP /MOZ/081/NET and Mid Term Evaluation of GCP/MOZ/096/NET 156 Final Evaluation of GCP /MOZ/081/NET and Mid Term Evaluation of GCP/MOZ/096/NET 157 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 158 Final Evaluation of GCP /BIH/002/ITA “Inventory of Post-War Situation of Land Resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina” 159 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources 160 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras.
204
FAO was described as a “unique” provider in the wider scenario of international organizations working in the water sector161.
45. Field projects on water management in India162 and Tajikistan163 successfully promoted community mobilisation for efficient water management. Beneficiaries, using the decision making tools designed by the projects, were found to make better, informed, decisions for the use of ground water. Strong involvement of women was acknowledged as an important achievement of these projects and also as a driver of their success164.
46. Effectiveness and sustainability of outputs achieved: In India, interest from the World Bank in the FAO projects was identified as a positive factor which could help up-scaling the model of participatory water management of groundwater in other Indian regions. On the other hand, two negative factors affecting the impact and sustainability of project achievements were in Tajikistan, the Government’s unwillingness to replicate the FAO model in other locations, and in India, the lack of political will to tackle important governance issues such as river basin management and water governance165. 3.3.3 Forestry: 47. The PCA evaluation found that FAO produced several case studies that were assessed as useful in contributing to FAO’s work in other areas where tenure could play an important role in management (e.g. fire prevention and illegal logging)166. Similarly, knowledge on forestry tenure and poverty linkages was jointly generated (by three divisions in the Forestry department) in the Forestry Outlook Study for West and Central Asia (FOWECA) under the umbrella of the LSP167. 48. In the Democratic Republic of Congo, FAO supported the elaboration of a new legislative framework for the forestry sector168. In Sudan, FAO advice provided through the National Forestry Programme led to changes in attitudes at all levels of decision-making169. In Honduras, FAO supported the establishment of a negotiating table for the elaboration of legislation for the Forestry sector170. 49. Some factors that limited the effectiveness and sustainability of FAO forestry TRA interventions were: limited mainstreaming of tenure issues within the Forestry Department; lack of country focus for incorporating tenure issues into policy advice171; and poor follow up to ensure policy implementation of the results emerging from the FOWECA within the LSP172 and the FAO National Forestry Programme in Sudan173. 3.3.4 Fisheries: 50. FAO supported the development of fisheries and aquaculture laws in Honduras174 and Uruguay175. In the case of Uruguay, the effective application of the new law was considered to
161 Corporate Evaluation of FAO's role and work related to water. 162 GCP/IND/175/NET “Andhra Pradesh Farmer-managed Groundwater Systems” 163 TCP/TAJ/2903 “Participatory Integrated Watershed Management in Upland Areas” (PIWMU) 164 Evaluations of FAO cooperation in India and Tajikistan. 165 Idem. 166 Final Evaluation of FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement 2005-2007 167 Final Evaluation of GCP/INT/803/UK "Improving Support for Enhancing Livelihoods of The Rural Poor" 168 Corporate evaluation of FAO’s Effectiveness at Country Level: A Synthesis of Country Evaluations Post Conflict and Transition Countries: DR Congo, Sudan and Tajikistan. 169 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 170 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras. 171 Final Evaluation of FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement 2005-2007 172 Final Evaluation of GCP/INT/803/UK "Improving Support for Enhancing Livelihoods of The Rural Poor" 173 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 174 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras. 175 Final Evaluation of UTF/URU/025/URU.
205
be poor, since important stakeholders from the private sector and fisheries organizations were not strong supporters176. 51. The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries was used as a reference for the development of the fisheries law in Honduras177. In India, “certainly, the Code has had an impact on the thinking and discourses of both government and NGOs, although it appears difficult to identify specific cause-effect links and impacts from the Code of Conduct into Indian fishing policy and practices” 178. 3.3.5 Gender 52. The evaluation of FAO work on Gender found that even though there is a limited amount of resources assigned to gender-related projects in the Organisation overall, outcomes in terms of women’s empowerment and progress on gender equality were achieved notably in the areas of land tenure and water resources management179. In the Lusophone countries and Tajikistan, the Gender and Land Rights database and the SEAGA training related to access to land and water had reportedly supported women’s empowerment and access to resources180.
4. Organizational Arrangements
53. Two FAO projects funded by Norway (PCA) and DFID (LSP) aimed at fostering collaboration among FAO divisions. In the case of the PCA with Norway, it was effective in building capacity within FAO to respond to member countries’ requests and enhance FAO ability to work at country level (e.g. Sudan). The component on tenure issues was successful in achieving inter- departmental work through the set up of an informal Priority Area for Interdisciplinary Action (PAIA). Work carried out within this component also helped to build a considerable body of knowledge on a range of resources and for different communities with a strong emphasis on marginalised groups including women, orphans and pastoralists181. In the case of the LSP, it was also effective in promoting sectoral work across divisions within FAO, and producing work on access to natural resources and livelihoods by the poor. This was achieved through the joint conduct of workshops and development of Working Papers and Briefing Notes182. 54. The evaluations of these initiatives drew lessons about factors constraining the long term effects of the projects. The PCA, for example, did little work to directly support and build capacity to mainstream tenure into national policies. Similarly, although an excellent series of desk reviews and case studies of the legal rights of orphaned children’s property and inheritance rights was developed for selected African countries, the results of these studies and the related workshops that were held have not been integrated into national policy agendas, limiting its impacts183. On the other hand, from the LSP, time constraints of the staff selected to participate as convenors of the working papers, the poor targeting of the materials, and the failure to effectively communicate a more coherent and strategic set of lessons from all the knowledge produced lessened the impact of this initiative. Furthermore, the LSP experience clearly demonstrates the significant amount of time needed to influence policy, institutional, and generate behavioural change in key stakeholders and in FAO itself184.
176 Idem. 177 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras. 178 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in India. 179 Corporate Evaluation of FAO’s role and work related to Gender and Development. 180 Corporate Evaluation of FAO’s role and work on Gender and Development and Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan. 181 Final Evaluation of FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement 2005-2007 182 Final Evaluation of GCP/INT/803/UK "Improving Support for Enhancing Livelihoods of The Rural Poor" 183 Final Evaluation of FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement 2005-2007 184 Final Evaluation of GCP/INT/803/UK "Improving Support for Enhancing Livelihoods of The Rural Poor"
206
5. Coordination and Partnerships
55. FAO work on TRA issues was often conducted in collaboration with partners, ranging from international organisations such as the World Bank, UN Agencies, donors and other external stakeholders such as international and local NGOs, research centres and CSOs. 56. The World Bank (WB) was pointed out as a major partner of FAO work in land access in Honduras185 and China186. FAO provided technical support for the supervision of the implementation of the WB-funded PACTA project to finance land acquisition in Honduras187. FAO also supported one of the components of a WB-project on land reform policy in China, in which the results of the TCP were up-scaled188. 57. FAO has developed partnerships with several UN Agencies in order to perform its activities in the field. For instance: i. UNIFEM has collaborated with FAO projects in Tajikistan to establish information and legal consultative centres. The centres extended the access of women to legal advice and consultation on farm reorganization and land rights issues189. ii. Under the Global Land Tool Network190 (GLTN) initiative coordinated by UN-HABITAT, FAO contributed to the study ‘Gendering Land Tools: Secure Land Rights for All’ and to the ‘Training Package on Improving Gender Equality and Grassroots Participation through Good Land Governance’ published in 2010191. iii. IFAD was a resource partner of FAO in India192 where FAO provided technical assistance on land policy analysis and formulation193. iv. UNDP, through its project ‘Capacity Building for Sustainable Water Resources Management’ (CAPNET)194, was referred as a partner of FAO’s work on training and capacity development on legal advisory of water rights. FAO has also worked in partnership with other UN Agencies such as UNESCO, UNEP and the GEF on transboundary water issues195. v. Other agencies mentioned as FAO partners are UNHCR (on secure access to land, natural resources and housing before and/or upon the return of IDPs and refugees in Sudan)196 and UNAIDS (on gender issues which fed back into the training materials used by an FAO project in Mozambique)197.
58. Several donors have supported FAO work on TRA issues, for example: i. The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) jointly financed the Rural Land Registration pilot component of a TCP implemented in China198. Also CIDA and other donors such as Denmark, Italy, Netherlands and USAID participated in the policy dialogue platform on land issues coordinated by FAO in Sudan199.
185 Idem. 186 TCP/CPR/3107 Rural Land Registration and Certification Piloting - Phase II of TCP/CPR/3008 187 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras. 188 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources 189 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan. 190 http://www.unhabitat.org/categories.asp?catid=503 191 Corporate Evaluation of FAO’s role and work related to Gender and Development. 192 GCP/RAS/214/IFA Pro-Poor Policy Formulation, Dialogue and Implementation at the Country Level 193 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in India. 194 http://www.cap-net.org/ 195 Corporate Evaluation of FAO's role and work related to water. 196 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 197 Final Evaluation of GCP /MOZ/081/NET 198 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources 199 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan.
207
ii. The UK Department for International Development (DFID) was a resource partner of FAO specifically under the umbrella of the Livelihood Support Programme and its Sub Programme 3.1 Improving poor people’s access to natural resources. Although LSP partnerships with IFAD and WFP were created, there were some barriers for genuine inter-agency collaborative work because of limited incentives for FAO staff to engage in such joint work200. iii. Norway supported the PCA aiming to support FAO reform, and within this partnership Component A.1.2 “Sustainable rural livelihoods and more equitable access to resources: Support to member countries and the High Level Commission for the Empowerment of the Poor” was expected to promote secure access to land and other natural resources for improving food security, alleviating poverty and improving rural development. Within this partnership FAO collaborated with UN-Habitat in the tenure component and also managed to leverage resources from the World Bank201. iv. Brazil is not only a recipient of FAO technical assistance, but also a partner generating a triangular cooperation. FAO has recruited several Brazilian experts (Government staff and EMBRAPA researchers) to work in other countries, mostly Lusophone and Latin American, in areas that include forestry and land tenure202.
59. Other stakeholders that have collaborated with FAO include: i. International NGOs and CSOs like German Agro-Action (GAA), which supported FAO work on upland water management in Tajikistan203, and the International Development Law Organisation (IDLO)204, which has a global partnership with FAO to provide training and capacity development on legal advisory of water rights205. Local NGOs were also active partners in Tajikistan, Mozambique and Sudan206. ii. Intergovernmental regional organisations like the African Union, which was a partner/beneficiary of a FAO TCP to follow up on the ICARRD Conference in Africa and to draft a Land Policy Framework and Guidelines for Africa207. iii. Universities and international research centres, such as: the Centre for Legal and Judicial Training in Mozambique208; Universities of Ahfad, Bahr El Gazal, El Fasher, and Khartoum in Sudan209; the Rural Development Institute in India which did research on landless access to land and poverty210; the Agro-Pedology Institute in Sarajevo, the Agricultural Institute of the University of Banja Luka, and the Agro-Mediterranean Institute of the University of Mostar through with FAO implemented capacity building activities in Bosnia and Herzegovina on land use planning211; and the Agricultural University of China for implementing a pilot on land registration and certification212. iv. Under the umbrella of the LSP’s TRA component, FAO developed a partnership with the Regional Community Forestry Training Centre (RECOFTC) in Thailand and with the
200 Final Evaluation of GCP/INT/803/UK "Improving Support for Enhancing Livelihoods of The Rural Poor" and Evaluation of FAO cooperation in India. 201 Final Evaluation of FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement 2005-2007 202 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Brazil. 203 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan. 204 http://www.idlo.int/english/Pages/Home.aspx 205 Corporate Evaluation of FAO's role and work related to water. 206 FAO’s Effectiveness at Country Level: A Synthesis of Country Evaluations: Post Conflict and Transition Countries: DR Congo, Sudan and Tajikistan and Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Tajikistan. 207 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources 208 Final Evaluation of GCP /MOZ/081/NET and Mid Term Evaluation of GCP/MOZ/096/NET 209 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 210 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in India. 211 Final Evaluation of GCP /BIH/002/ITA “Inventory of Post-War Situation of Land Resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina” 212 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources
208
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) in the UK213. The partnership with IIED has been further developed with joint publication of work on large scale land acquisitions Africa.214
6. Comparative Advantage of FAO 60. FAO is well recognized because of its role as a neutral forum for dialogue. FAO work in TRA issues is not an exception; most of the evaluations highlighted FAO’s capacity and comparative advantage over other UN agencies to deploy technical experts and liaise with different actors, to solve or address controversial and sensitive TRA. 61. In the field of land reform issues, this comparative advantage was noted in countries such as Tajikistan and Sudan, where the organization led the establishment of fora for discussion among government, CSOs, donors and other stakeholders on land reform issues within interdisciplinary and inter-sectoral working groups215. Also in countries such as Lithuania, Serbia and China, FAO took advantage of this capacity to support the development of a national strategy for land consolidation. The African Union also recognized this comparative advantage of FAO by requesting its assistance to conduct sub regional consultations to develop its land policy framework and guidelines with a strong participation of NGOs and CSOs216. 62. Evidence found in Uruguay points to the same capacity to convene stakeholders from the private sector, the government, fisherfolk organisations and civil society around a negotiating table to support the development of the new legal framework for fisheries and aquaculture217. 63. FAO international experience, as well as its capacity as a repository of knowledge on land issues was also identified as a comparative advantage. Specifically in Honduras, FAO’s TRA experience was highly regarded in its work supporting PACTA project218. Also, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, FAO is recognized as a source of information on land issues for students, government agencies, donors and other audiences219. 64. Similarly, FAOs role in the development of thinking on the interaction between land and water is recognized in its contribution to forums on water issues (e.g. 1992 Rio Summit, developing the land chapter for Agenda 21, contributing knowledge of best land and water practices through the Land Declaration Assessment Program). Synergies and complementarity between Land and Water (in the former institutional arrangement that saw the land tenure team to be part of the FAO Land and Water division) was also identified as a unique arrangement among UN agencies to address the spectrum of inter-related land and water issues220. 65. FAO is seen as the only organization with an explicit mandate for global and country level work on the interface between food security and TRA-related water and land issues, combined with the political mandate of the UN to address these issues on behalf of its Member Countries. 7. Future priorities for FAO work on TRA 7.1 At country level 66. Focus at the country level is required to support the VG implementation process that is expected to address the issue of secure rights and access to land and natural resources221. In
213 Final Evaluation of GCP/INT/803/UK "Improving Support for Enhancing Livelihoods of The Rural Poor" 214 http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/al297e/al297e00.pdf and ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/ak241e/ak241e.pdf 215 Evaluations of FAO cooperation in Sudan and Tajikistan. 216 Desk review conducted by the evaluation team of TCP projects related to TRA of land and other natural resources 217 Final Evaluation of UTF/URU/025/URU. 218 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras. 219 Final Evaluation of GCP /BIH/002/ITA “Inventory of Post-War Situation of Land Resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina” 220 Corporate Evaluation of FAO's role and work related to water. 221 Final Evaluation of FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement 2005-2007
209
this sense, lessons emerging from the LSP indicate that in order to enhance collaboration within FAO the following set of factors are needed: a strong set of key actors with credibility and political power in FAO (preferably at senior management level) who would know how to use and apply their political clout across the organisation to attract other powerful actors to become engaged in fostering the priorities issues at senior management team level, to build external links and contacts with similar initiatives and to tap into other extra-budgetary funding222. 67. Also, FAO should continue to increase its efforts to facilitate dialogue on land reform between Government, donors and civil society in Tajikistan, Sudan and India. In particular in India, FAO should pursue a stronger advocacy role on land tenure issues, facilitating national debate and awareness223. 68. FAO should also develop a coherent plan and a coordinated strategy to assist countries such as Mozambique and Sudan on TRA issues224. From the evidence obtained it was pointed out that FAO would be in a stronger position by following this recommendation and from continuously using previous experiences to feed into national country frameworks on land use and tenure. 69. In post-conflict contexts, efforts should focus on better understanding the causes of conflicts related to land and other natural resource governance and seeking opportunities for the resolution of disputes and of all forms of discrimination in tenure rights and access to land and other natural resources225. 70. Other specific recommendations include better monitoring of land use, given the importance of animal production and pastureland management in Sudan and Bosnia and Herzegovina226; addressing the vulnerability of land rights in Mozambique227; supporting the implementation of the land policy and legislation in Tajikistan and Southern Sudan228 and land concentration in Serbia and Lithuania, etc. 7.2 At global level 71. From a strategic point of view, FAO should define a mission statement for its work on water and land, centred on food security, considering that this is the Organisation’s mandate and prime objective. From an instrumental perspective FAO should strengthen the capacity at HQ, specifically in NRL, on ground water management, water harvesting and water statistics; and should maintain the performance and credibility of LEGN by strengthening its human resources in the water sector229. 72. FAO should increase its focus on the production and targeted dissemination of knowledge, including investing in the dissemination of knowledge and experience on land reform and land tenure reform issues generated by the LSP and the PCA230. 73. Analysis of land tenure systems as a supply restriction for economic development after agricultural sector liberalization was defined as a relevant topic to address within trade and development initiatives231.
222 Final Evaluation of GCP/INT/803/UK "Improving Support for Enhancing Livelihoods of The Rural Poor" 223 Evaluations of FAO cooperation in India, Sudan and Tajikistan. 224 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan and Final Evaluation of GCP /MOZ/081/NET. 225 Corporate evaluation of FAO’s Effectiveness at Country Level: A Synthesis of Country Evaluations Post Conflict and Transition Countries: DR Congo, Sudan and Tajikistan and Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan. 226 Final Evaluation of GCP /BIH/002/ITA “Inventory of Post-War Situation of Land Resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina” 227 Final Evaluation of GCP /MOZ/081/NET and Mid Term Evaluation of GCP/MOZ/096/NET 228 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Sudan and Tajikistan. 229 Corporate Evaluation of FAO's role and work related to water. 230 Final Evaluation of GCP/INT/803/UK "Improving Support for Enhancing Livelihoods of The Rural Poor" 231 Corporate Evaluation of FAO's work in Commodities and Trade”
210
74. In the area of Gender and land reform a partnership that could foster the comparative advantage of the organization is the one between ESW and UN Women, that could focus its efforts in the areas of land rights and food security and nutrition mapping, to develop indicators and clear results to show impacts on women, for example, in the Gender and Land Rights database232. 7.3 Water233 75. Refinement of best practices to address the linkages between land and water rights and access, based on learned lessons from field experiences. 76. Strengthen capacity on regional water policies, to match the request of the member countries. 77. Establish capacity on Forest and Water and Watershed management in Central Asia, and address river basin management, and water governance in India. 78. Maintain engagement in the area of transboundary management of water resources and local water management institutions. 7.4 Forestry 79. Future areas of priority were identified as: a stronger focus on the implementation in countries of initiatives like the FAO Norway PCA component of forestry234; the need to identify during the design of projects the gaps or provisions that favour women’s access to land rights and will benefit both women and men without interfering with other existing rights235; and finally, in Honduras specifically, the need to follow up and provide financial support to facilitate transition to a new legal framework after the project ends236. 7.5 Fisheries 80. With respect to Fisheries TRA work, there were no major recommendations. Specific actions suggested in the evaluations reviewed include: i. Engagement at the country level to support the establishment of more secure property rights regimes, especially for marginalised groups and environmentally fragile resources237. ii. Maintain and strengthen the Fisheries Table as a space for discussion between different stakeholders by improving the way the different point of views are taken into account during the process of decision making in Uruguay238. iii. Dissemination, promotion and support to the implementation of the Code of Conduct for responsible Fisheries in Honduras and India239. iv. Address small scale fisheries policy and management in the Central American region in collaboration with Central American Isthmus Organization for Fisheries and Aquaculture Sector (OPESCA) and inshore fisheries management in India240.
232 Corporate Evaluation of FAO’s role and work related to Gender and Development. 233 Corporate Evaluation of FAO's role and work related to water and Evaluation of FAO Cooperation in India. 234 Final Evaluation of FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement 2005-2007 235 Corporate Evaluation of FAO’s role and work related to Gender and Development. 236 Evaluation of FAO cooperation in Honduras. 237 Final Evaluation of FAO-Norway Programme Cooperation Agreement 2005-2007 238 Final Evaluation of UTF/URU/025/URU. 239 Evaluations of FAO cooperation in Honduras and India. 240 Idem.
211
Annex 6: Review of field operations in selected countries
1. Serbia
TCP/YUG/3001 “Support to the preparation of a national land consolidation strategy and a land consolidation pilot in Serbia”; Start date: March 2006; End date: November 2007; Budget US$ 160,869
1.1 Relevance and coherence of project design
The overall objective of the project was to contribute to sustainable rural and agricultural development in Serbia through the longer-term improvements to rural land tenure arrangements. The specific objectives of the project were:
• Develop a national strategy to guide future actions regarding land consolidation.
• Increase capacity to design and implement modern land consolidation projects.
In order to achieve its overall and specific objectives, the project design considered the implementation of the following components/outputs:
• Preparation of a proposal for a national strategy for land consolidation.
• Design and implementation of a small land consolidation pilot component.
• Capacity building in land consolidation.
The project was found relevant given that following the collapse of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Serbia had seen a continuous process of land fragmentation (at the time of project design about 70% of Serbian farms were smaller than five hectares and were subsistence oriented). The project thus aimed at producing long term improvements to rural land tenure arrangements through land consolidation. Another important contribution of the project was to support the future incorporation of the country into the European Union (EU) through the development of legal frameworks harmonized to those of the EU.
Project design was found to be coherent, with a clear cause-effect relationship between the specific objectives and its three components/outputs. For example, the preparation of a draft strategy on land consolidation (first component) was expected to lead to discussions about possible models of land consolidation to be implemented in the country (first specific objective). Likewise, the second and third components of the project were conceived as inputs to increase the capacity for designing and implementing land consolidation projects (second specific objective).
However, it was noted that the overall objective was overly ambitious. Given Serbia’s context, the project size and planned interventions, the project would at best have been able to make inputs for the future implementation of a national programme on land consolidation. The improvement of rural land tenure arrangements was not just dependent on the adoption of a land consolidation strategy and improving land consolidation project management skills, but rather on the establishment of a comprehensive policy, institutions and human capacity to deal with land tenure reform.
1.2 Efficiency of project implementation
212
The Department of Agriculture Resources of the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management was designated as Government counterpart. A FAO project office was set-up in Belgrade to support project implementation. Five national consultants (specialists in land consolidation, land administration projects; land administration strategies; legal aspects; spatial planning; and geographic information systems) were recruited. They were backstopped by an international land consolidation consultant and three FAO officers from HQ (land registration/cadastre, legal and policy) and REU (land tenure). The project also provided supplies and equipment, administrative support, official travel, training, including a study tour, and covered general as well as direct operating expenses.
The project was expected to run from December 2005 till June 2007. At the end it was implemented between March 2006 and November 2007. The project effectively started with the first mission of the Lead Technical Officer from HQ, which was synchronised with the launching workshop at the end of March 2006. Another reason for the delay was that the land consolidation pilot (a key project component) was planned for the beginning of January 2007, but at the end it started in March 2007 in order to give the national project consultants and the Ministry counterparts’ sufficient time to prepare the national strategy on land consolidation. In spite of these delays, however, the project delivered all its expected outputs (see below) in an efficient manner.
1.3 Outputs and outcomes
The project delivered the following outputs:
• A draft national strategy for land consolidation was prepared following a consultative approach. The draft strategy was based on a review of past land reforms in Serbia, land consolidation activities, the current legislative framework and organizational structure of the public and private sectors, and the key issues associated with land consolidation.
• A pilot community area development plan supported by the local municipality and with specific proposals for land use changes was developed.
• Five training workshops on approaches to land consolidation were held and a study tour was organized to learn about land consolidation activities in Denmark for selected government staff and national consultants.
The project terminal statement noted that following the preparation of the national strategy for land consolidation, three land consolidation models were proposed and the project team provided some recommendations for organizational arrangements to implement these models. This included the establishment of the Directorate for Agricultural Lands (within the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water Management); legislative amendments to reduce land fragmentation; and the provision of land banks. Also, the project developed and tested approaches for land consolidation and identified key issues to take into account for future initiatives. Finally, the engagement of Government and local staff in various training activities resulted in increased capacity to deal with land consolidation issues. The above indicates that the short-term effects of the project were indeed very positive.
1.4 Follow-up, sustainability and possible impact
The terminal statement included some recommendations to ensure the sustainability and maximize the impact of the project results:
• That the national land consolidation strategy be adopted by the Government;
213
• That further experience in land consolidation be obtained through the implementation of work, for example, as requested by Vršac Municipality; and,
• That education in land consolidation be introduced in relevant university undergraduate degrees and short courses should be introduced for professionals who have already graduated, to allow them to be licensed to carry out land consolidation work in communities.
Almost four years after the project end, it was noted that several follow-up actions had effectively taken place. By mid-2010 the national land consolidation strategy was adopted; seven land consolidation projects (for over 12,500 ha) were in the process of being implemented; and a new master programme in land law and economy had been launched.
Discussions with Serbian Authorities from the Directorate for Agricultural Lands as well as papers presented to FAO meetings241, however, indicate that although the project was very successful in delivering high-quality outputs and had noticeable short term effects, a great number of constraints not tackled by the project were still major impediments for the achievement of the project’s long- term goal of “improving rural land tenure arrangements”. It is thus concluded that although follow- up and sustainability of project results was very high, the project impact was constrained by the lack of measures in place to address other shortcomings affecting rural land tenure arrangements in Serbia.
2. Lithuania
TCP/LIT/3101 “Support to the Preparation of an Operational Land Consolidation System”; Start date: April 2006; End date: October 2007; Budget US$ 180,256
2.1 Relevance and coherence of project design
The overall objective of the project was “to contribute to a viable and sustainable agriculture structure and strengthen rural and regional development through the development of an operational land consolidation system in Lithuania”. The project’s specific objectives were:
• An improved legal, organizational and technical framework for land consolidation for different types of land (agricultural, forest);
• A national strategy to guide a national land consolidation programme;
• Improved knowledge of land consolidation projects for project designers and selected stakeholders in government, communities and the private sector;
• Improved ability to access EU structural funds for land consolidation projects.
In order to achieve its overall and specific objectives, the project had two components:
• Preparation of a land consolidation strategy to support rural development
• Capacity building in land consolidation
The project was considered relevant as it addressed the problem of land fragmentation and abandonment of agricultural land, which as in several other former Communist countries was affecting the efficiency of the agricultural sector. At the time of project design the land consolidation strategy was also seen as an input to the implementation of the recently-approved land policy, and
241 Regional Workshops on Land Tenure and Land Consolidation, June 2010 & June 2011.
214 the project was expected to train Government staff on how to access EU structural funds for land consolidation.
Project design was found to be coherent with a clear cause-effect relationship between the specific objectives and its two components. For instance, the first component of the project, the preparation of a strategy on land consolidation, was clearly related to the first and second specific objectives (improved framework and strategy for land consolidation). Furthermore, the second component of the project, capacity building was linked to the achievement of the third and fourth specific objectives (improved land consolidation project management and resource mobilization skills).
It was noted that the overall objective was slightly ambitious though. Given the Lithuanian context, the project’s planned interventions and size, the project was certainly in a position to make important inputs for the development of a national programme on land consolidation.
2.2 Efficiency of project implementation
The National Land Service of the Ministry of Agriculture was designated the government counterpart agency responsible for project implementation. The local UNDP office provided administrative and logistical support (mainly for contractual matters). Five national consultants were recruited (specialists in land administration, legal aspects, forestry, EU structural funds and rural development, and public awareness) and a local contract was signed for capacity building activities. The local consultants were backstopped by an international specialist on land consolidation and three FAO officers from HQ (land registration/cadastre and legal) and REU (forestry). Further inputs were supplies and equipment, administrative support, official travel, training, including a study tour, and general as well as direct operating expenses.
The project was expected to run from January 2006 to March 2007. It was finally implemented with a slight delay (from March 2006 to November 2007), which was necessary to allow for appropriate consultation on the draft Strategy. The project budget was originally US$ 241,000, but was eventually reduced to about US$ 180,000. In the absence of a local FAO office, the high degree of Government involvement, judged by their participation in the project steering committee (composed by senior representatives from the National Land Service, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Transport and Communications, county government administration, and Association of Lithuanian Municipalities) and the ad-hoc technical working group (comprising representatives from the National Land Service, Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Environment, Ministry of Transport and Communications, and National Paying Agency), was key for delivering the expected outputs (see below) in an efficient manner.
2.3 Outputs and outcomes
The project achieved the following outputs: a) A draft national land consolidation strategy was prepared. b) A strategy for a public awareness campaign for land consolidation projects was prepared, together with informative material on land consolidation for different audiences. c) Two manuals for the design of land consolidation projects and mobilization of EU structural funds for land consolidation were prepared. d) Five workshops and study tours to Denmark, Austria and Slovenia were organized.
The preparation of the National land consolidation strategy reportedly benefited from the institutional and technical linkages created through the Project Steering Committee and the ad-hoc technical group. The support of the EU-funded INTERREG III C programme project FARLAND: “Future
215
Approaches to Land Development” (June 2005 – December 2007) was also instrumental to its eventual approval (see below).
2.4 Follow-up, sustainability and possible impact
The terminal statement included some recommendations to ensure the sustainability and maximize the impact of the project results:
• The national land consolidation strategy be adopted by the Government;
• Amended education programmes on land consolidation be introduced in appropriate universities and schools of higher education (i.e. technical colleges), including undergraduate degree studies;
• Short-term training courses on land consolidation be introduced for practitioners in land consolidation (i.e. planners and relevant administrators); and,
• Public awareness campaigns on the benefits of land consolidation be introduced, in particular for rural communities and individual landowners.
The evaluation team found out that the National Land Consolidation Strategy was in effect adopted by Governmental Resolution No 81 of the 23rd of January, 2008. Short-term training courses on land use and tenure are now conducted by the Land Management Department of the Lithuanian University of Agriculture. The evaluation team got feedback from the Lithuanian Authorities that the Strategy had already been put into practice with Government support. The likely impact of this project is thus considered higher than similar projects and largely due to the strong human and financial involvement of local Authorities since the project outset.
3. China
TCP/CPR/3008 & 3107 “Rural Land Registration and Certification Piloting” Start date: July 2005 End date: March 2009; Budget US$ 368,000
3.1 Relevance, clarity and quality of the project design
This project was expected to develop a sustainable framework for rural land registration and certification in China. The components considered in the project design were:
• Manual for rural land registration and certification.
• Strategy for rural land registration and certification.
The project was found relevant because it addressed the problem of insecure tenure of farmland in the rural sector of China, which had been recognized by the Government of China (GoC) as an important issue to revamp rural livelihoods. The project was conceived as FAO contribution to support the piloting of a model for land registration and certification in the context of the rural sector in China. The project was part of a larger land registration initiative implemented by the World Bank (WB) with financial support from CIDA Canada, aimed to assist the GoC to reform land policy and establish a well-functioning land administration system.
Project design was found to be coherent. Firstly, the components of the project are clearly related to the development of a model for land registration and certification in rural China, which was the overall objective of the project. Secondly, expected collaboration with other initiatives was instrumental to maximize returns from the FAO investment in terms of its contribution to secure, long-term land rights in China.
216
3.2 Project implementation
The project was implemented from 2006-2009 by a team of six national specialists supported by two FAO HQ land tenure officers. The National Project Team was hosted by the Centre for Development Policy in China Agricultural University. The project suffered from some delays due to Government ambiguity over the implementation of the 2008 property law which in turn affected the timely implementation of the rural land registration pilot project jointly financed by FAO (through this TCP), the World Bank and CIDA Canada.
3.3 Project results
In spite of the above, the project reportedly achieved its expected outputs as follows: a) The manual for rural and land registration and certification was produced and amended following testing in Anhui province. The manual provides new information on best practices for carrying out systematic registration of rural properties in China. b) The rural land registration pilot was successfully conducted in Anhui Province. In the pilot area, the land was surveyed and the contract of land was computerized to secure legal rights. In total 78 farmer households with 787 land parcels got involved into the pilot project. Finally, as an additional output, a prototype software for rural land registration was developed and customized to the Chinese language. Property rights of farmers participating in the pilot in Anhui Province are now secured. c) The national strategy for rural land registration was drafted and a workshop was held with the GoC, the WB and FAO to discuss the follow-up to these activities. An initial outcome of these discussions was the agreement to implement a larger rural land registration exercise with the financial support of the GoC and the WB.
3.4 Follow-up, sustainability and possible impact
As indicated above, the results achieved by the project have been further pursued in the context of a Government initiative, which has also had Technical Assistance (in the form of “Analytical and Advisory” services) from FAO. Key to this follow-up has been the GoC interest in moving forward with a “land rights registration system in rural areas”242 for which it has reportedly allocated RMB 50 million in addition to other donors support243.
It is too early (the second pilot finished in June 2011 only) to assess the possible impact of this initiative. Some concerns arising from the first pilot experience may still be relevant for large scale implementation (e.g. discrepancies in land occupancy and land registry information, the need to ensure better collaboration of local farmers, etc). Also, the expansion of the pilot would require the establishment of new “system architecture” that was not developed during the first pilot phase.
242 China plans to confirm and register ownership for all of the country's rural collectively-owned land by the end of 2012; see: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/china/2011-05/13/c_13874021.htm. 243 US Trade and Development Agency; see: http://www.futuregov.asia/articles/2011/jun/20/china-concludes- rural-land-mapping-pilot/#.
217
4. Africa (Region-wide)
TCP/RAF/3115 “Support to ICARRD follow-up and to the African Land Policy Initiative including regional stakeholders’ dialogue”; Start date: February 2008; End date: April 2009; Budget US$ 433,000
4.1 Relevance, clarity and quality of the project design
The project’s development objective was to contribute to ensuring security of land rights, increased productivity, secured livelihoods and broad-based economic growth and sustainable development in Africa.
The specific objectives were:
• Increase the capacity of the African Union Commission and its sister institutions (UN Economic Commission for Africa and African Development Bank) to steer and organize the process for the preparation, drafting and implementation of an Africa wide Land Policy Framework and Guidelines including strong participation and contributions from Civil Society Organizations (Regional Farmers' organisations and NGOs) with clear benchmarks for monitoring implementation.
• Enable Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) to prepare and discuss, within a participative process, a well-informed and significant contribution to the land policy framework and guidelines in an effective, coherent and timely manner.
The project was found to be very relevant not just because it addressed a genuinely important topic but also because it provided timely support to the process of developing a land policy framework and guidelines for Africa. The project was also relevant as it allowed FAO to an effective partner in the development process of the land policy framework and guidelines for Africa.
As a follow-up to the ICARRD declaration, the project was also in line with FAO commitment to support the “promotion of national dialogue to develop a policy framework to address land tenure, access and rights problems”.
4.2 Project implementation
The project was implemented from 2008-09 in partnership with the African Union (AU) and the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) in Addis Ababa. Although the project had a regional coverage, it focused on West and Central Africa where it supported the holding of two workshops in 2008 (a third workshop was held in Ethiopia) and the development of technical networks. It was noted that as part of a wider initiative all the activities carried out through the project including the above workshops were previously discussed with other development partners (such as AU, UNECA, World Bank, IFAD, UNDP, UN-Habitat, European Commission, etc).
The project was backstopped by a land tenure officer from FAO HQ.
4.3 Project results
Overall, the project achieved the following outputs: i. Regional assessments on land policy and land reform resulting from a process involving regional studies and consultations summarizing regional specificities with regard to land policies and land initiatives as well as knowledge and capacity needs. ii. Regional consultations (two supported by FAO).
218 iii. Regional synthesis documents summarizing key messages and recommendations of each regional consultation. iv. One regional workshop of farmers’ organizations to strengthen awareness and improve FO’s inputs into the regional process of consultation. v. Workshop documents summarizing CSOs and farmers’ organizations inputs to the regional assessments. vi. CSOs members and representatives of farmers’ organizations sensitized to the importance of the land policy and reform framework and guidelines and their capacity built to interact with national authorities and the networks created on this matter.
The final document on Land Policy and Land Reform Framework and Guidelines can be considered as the major outcome of the AU led process, with FAO’s and others partners’ support. Overall, the project reportedly increased the ability of the AU, in collaboration with UNECA and ADB, to steer and organize the preparation and drafting of an Africa-wide Land Policy Framework and Guidelines. Strong participation and contributions from CSOs were assured. Special attention was directed to allow actors and various types of associations, including women’s groups and networks, to gain the required knowledge and capacity to participate more actively in this initiative.
4.4 Follow-up, sustainability and possible impact
FAO contribution to the development of the Land Policy Framework and Guidelines was considered to have been very timely and flexible enough to allow the main implementing partners, the AU and UNECA, to benefit from it in a very effective way.
Following the endorsement of the Africa-wide Land Policy Framework and Guidelines by the AU Assembly of Ministers in 2009, several follow-up activities have been taking place. For instance, the European Commission (EC) has provided Euro 10 million to the AU and UNECA to support the implementation of the framework and guidelines in all African countries. UN-Habitat, the World Bank and others are also supporting the implementation.
It is too early to assess sustainability or possible impacts, but given the scope and long-term goal of the initiative, FAO, particularly through the Voluntary Guidelines process, is well placed to continue accompanying this process in order to meet the development objective of this project, namely: “contribute to ensuring security of land rights, increased productivity, secured livelihoods and broad- based economic growth and sustainable development in Africa“.
5 Southern Africa
5.1 Background
In the former ‘front line states’ of Mozambique and Angola, revolutionary wars won political independence from Portugal in 1975. These were followed by years of ‘civil war’, fuelled by the apartheid regime in South Africa. Mozambique experienced social and political upheaval and economic crises for nearly three decades, from 1964 until the peace agreement in 1992. For Angola, the war raged on for another decade until a ceasefire was signed in 2002. In both countries, after decades of war, several millions of IDPs were seeking to return to their land and livelihoods in the countryside. Namibia gained its independence from South Africa in 1990 and has made economic progress to the point where it no longer qualifies for IDA credits.244 In all three countries, FAO
244 The operational cut-off for IDA eligibility for FY11 is $1,165 (2009 GNI per capita)
219 supported post-war recovery, playing a significant role in the land sector in Mozambique and Angola, but less so in Namibia, where European donors with a stake in the country have provided significant financial and technical support to the land reform process.245
5.1 Namibia FAO assisted the Government of Namibia with the development and implementation of a land tax on commercial farm land. The legal basis for the imposition of the tax is the Commercial Land Reform Act, Act No. 6 of 1995246 as amended and the Land Valuation and Taxation Regulations of 2001. The objectives of the land tax included: more efficient use of the land; revenue for the Land Acquisition and Development Fund (to facilitate and accelerate the process of land acquisition, distribution and development); and the reduction of land prices to broaden the access to land.
FAO assistance with valuation for tax purposes began in 1997 with support to the drafting of the Land Valuation and Taxation Regulations (ultimately published in 2001). After 2001, FAO provided further technical support for the field survey of 295 farms across Namibia – the survey inspected properties, assessed land-use patterns, estimated the amount of land that was unusable, and investigated all operations on a farm that might have a bearing on its value. FAO’s involvement from 2000 onwards was through a combination of Regular Programme resources, a UK-administered trust fund, grants to the Government of Namibia from the World Bank, technical support financed by GIZ (then GTZ), and the Government of Namibia’s own resources. The Commercial Farmland Tax became fully operational in FY 2004-05.247 FAO continues to provide technical support to the Ministry of Lands and Resettlement, currently with studying the reasons for what are generally perceived to be the escalating prices for agricultural land in Namibia.
The current total amount raised for the ‘Land Acquisition and Development Fund’ is N$30-50 million per annum, which is used for the purchase of farms for resettlement of the poor, for the provision of farm infrastructure and for post-settlement support. Assuming N$50 million is raised per annum and 12,500 commercial farms, this would amount to about N$ 4000 per farm or US$ 570 per annum, which is equivalent to the value of about one livestock unit. The tax must therefore be considered relatively low considering the current freehold land values. Since independence in 1990 Government had managed to acquire 201 commercial farms, comprising 1.3 million ha, on which it had resettled a total of 1,561 families by 2006 the great majority of whom are engaged in extensive livestock farming.
Although a political imperative for the Namibian Government248, the costs of providing social and economic infrastructure and settling poor people in remote, semi-arid, subdivided ranches have proved very high. In addition to the economic consequences of the programme, there are reported to be negative environmental and social effects. Sadly, the resettlement programme which has now been in operation for 15 years or more is not sustainable. Neither of the land redistribution schemes (i.e. the Farm Unit Resettlement Scheme or the Group Resettlement Scheme) has lived up to expectations. The Government has not been able to realize the objectives and targets of the land reform programme through the willing seller, willing buyer option249. The livelihoods of the vast
245 In Namibia, the EU, GTZ/GIZ and MCC have provided support to the sector since the mid 1990s. South Africa following the democratic elections in 1994, invited donors with a stake in the country ‘to support a peaceful transition to majority rule, devoid of conflict over land’ (Adams, 2000). In Zimbabwe, the FAO has aimed to play a mediating role in the land sector. 246 FAO provided technical support for the implementation of this legislation in 1995: McAuslan, P., Behnke, R.H. & Howard, J. 1995. Namibia. Assistance in Implementation of Agricultural (Commercial) Land Reform 247 Republic of Namibia 2006. 248 Tapia Garcia 2004. 249 Amoo and Harring 2011.
220 majority of the poor settlers in the group scheme have not improved in any significant way250. The fund generated by the land tax may have provided access to land but this has not been a sufficient condition for sustainable food security and poverty reduction.
Current FAO technical support is provided by a technical cooperation project (TCP/NAM/3301) with four components, one of which relates to an investigation into agricultural land prices – led by the NRC. The objectives are to undertake a systematic analysis of the market for privately-owned agricultural land since 1985, support the government in estimating the impact of government policies on the agricultural land market, and provide guidance on possible policy interventions.
5.2 Mozambique
Following the negotiated ceasefire in 1992, millions of displaced people and refugees began returning home. In most cases they were able to re-establish themselves in the areas from which they fled and where they still had customary rights. Where they found their land had been claimed by others, disputes could usually be settled by the customary authorities who had managed land and natural resource use before the war. According to Tanner (2002)251, in the absence of government help, traditional leaders proved capable of dealing with the resettlement crisis provoked by two decades of war and at virtually no cost to the State.
FAO has been advising on the development of Mozambique’s National Land Policy and related natural resource laws and their implementation since 1995, when the inter-ministerial Land Commission included FAO technical advisors (see Error! Reference source not found.).252 The Land Commission included epresentatives from government ministries, national NGOs, University academics, national lawyers and technical advisors from FAO. When the bill finally passed into law in 1997, it maintained most of the principles that civil society had lobbied for, particularly those aspects relating to the recognition of all rights acquired through long-term customary occupation and use in rural areas and through good faith occupation in the towns.253
Since 1998, the Netherlands has provided extra-budgetary support for FAO’s work in the land sector, helping the Government with the development and implementation of the national land policy and finding ways of helping stakeholders to engage in the process. Central to FAO’s contribution has been finding ways to enable investors to share access to land and natural resources, without jeopardising the livelihoods of traditional rights’ holders. Over the last decade, support has been given to the training and capacity development of communities, civil society organisations (CSOs), officials of national and decentralised agencies, including the economic sectors, the judiciary and the police.
250 Werner and Odendaal 2010. 251 Tanner 2002. 252 GCP/MOZ/059/NET: Assistance to Mozambique in Developing and Implementing a National Land Programme; TCP/MOZ/2355: Support to the Ad-Hoc Commission on Land; TCP/MOZ/5612: Support to the Consolidation of the Land Commission; TCP/MOZ/2903 and its successor TCP/MOZ/3005: Support to the Development of a Territorial Planning Policy and New Legislation; GCP/MOZ/069/NET: Support to the Judiciary 253 Tanner 2002.
221
FAO Support to the land sector in Mozambique, 1991-2010
The current FAO Project, Promoting the Use of Land and Natural Resources Laws for Equitable Development, April 2009 - March 2012 (GCP/MOZ/096/NET), builds on a preceding project, which was also implemented by the Legal and Judicial Training Centre (CFJJ) of the Ministry of Justice and funded by the Netherlands. GCP/096 is the most recent of projects in a series that stretches back to the 1990s and is the fourth which has been assisted by the Dutch. It aims to help Government to implement the national land policy and to promote access to investors in land development, without jeopardising the livelihoods of the traditional users and occupiers of the land. Efforts have focussed on the training and capacity development of civil society organisations, officials of national and decentralised agencies, and, most recently, the officials of investment promotion agencies. In the current Project, the CFJJ has further developed paralegal training for raising awareness at community level of rights acquired in terms of other natural resource laws and how to use and defend these rights, including reinforcing gender and women’s rights with a new FAO project at the CFJJ, GCP/MOZ/086/NOR. The Project also builds on the previously organised programme of ‘District Officer Seminars’, in which public officers from the executive and judicial branches of the State were trained in basic constitutional and human rights and principles and in the proper application of the new laws relating to land and natural resources.
The Project benefits from enhanced training in gender-related aspects of tenure, rights and access to natural resources as a result of the inputs provided by another project (GCP/MOZ/086/NOR), which began in late 2009 at the CFJJ, with funding from Norway.
A recent Mid Term Review of the Project254 (GCP/096) concluded that the training of paralegals to work with communities and district officials in matters relating to land and natural resource laws had the potential to deliver far-reaching, positive, long-term effects. By the time the Project finishes at the end of March 2012, some 90 of a total of 128 districts will have been covered since 2007.
254 Promoting the Use of Land and Natural Resource Laws for Equitable Development (GCP/MOZ/096/NET) MTR July 2011 http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/oed/docs/GCPMOZ096NET_2011_ER%20.pdf
222
A second component of the Project (GCP/096) is a partnership with the National Directorate for the Promotion of Rural Development (DNPDR) in the Ministry of State Administration (MAE). This is a new undertaking for FAO and the CFJJ. It involves the training of government officials in how the land and natural resource laws can be used to facilitate active community participation in investment processes in ways which protect the land and natural resource rights of communities and enhances their livelihoods. This component intersects with another project at DNPDR that is funded by the Netherlands and IFAD, to which the Project GCP/096 contributes an agreed share of the time of the FAO Technical Adviser. The objective of this collaboration is to promote ‘community-investor partnerships’.
Critical factors leading to FAO’s successful capacity development work in Mozambique in tenure, rights and access matters are judged to be as follows:
• Government’s interest in regulating Land and Natural Resource use; • An inclusive and participatory approach - from senior officers to paralegal workers and community members; • Integrating government and civil society officers in the training activities; • Long-term engagement of Netherlands and FAO; • Identification of national champions: the Ministry of Justice and the Legal and Justice Training Centre (CFJJ), and the National Department for the Promotion of Rural Development (DNPDR); • Design of the Capacity Development interventions and their integration into CFJJ’s and DNPDR core activities; and • Development of a training methodology: legal notes and books, training, field case study research and advocacy.
FAO has been requested to provide technical support to the Land Consultative Forum and a draft proposal for a Technical Cooperation Project (TCP) is currently being discussed between the parties involved. This is some twenty years after FAO provided advice to Mozambique’s Technical Secretariat of the Inter-Ministerial Commission for the Revision of Land Legislation (the ‘Land Commission’) (see Error! Reference source not found.). The resulting process is recognised to have een among the most participatory policy and law-making processes in the SADC region.
5.3 Angola
By the time of the ceasefire in 2002, Angola had been in a state of war over 40 years, first against colonial occupation and then between internal factions. As the country emerged from civil war, FAO’s collaboration with the Government was based on the recognition that disputes over access to land had to be removed as a continuing threat to social stability. The conflicting claims of local people, the new political elite and pre and post-independence title holders were recognised to be a potential source of conflict. Above all, it was necessary to recognise the customary land rights of local communities and their more vulnerable members.
Working with NGOs in the provinces of Huila and Bengo, methods of surveying community lands and dispute resolution were devised and tested. As a result, communities were able to establish their territorial rights according to the existing law. This facilitated the peaceful return of IDPs and refugees to their area of origin after four decades and to re-engage in agriculture.255 In this context, FAO worked as an honest broker. From the beginning, it aimed to provide technical support for the
255 Groppo et al 2004.
223 development of specific skills and to involve all the social actors in a dialogue process towards a Negotiated National Solution.256 There were a number of FAO projects which aimed to contribute to this decentralised land administration and management process.257
FAO’s work on land issues at the provincial and local level in Huila, Huambo and Bengo was complemented by technical assistance at the national level with the development of a comprehensive land policy and the revision of the land law, a politically sensitive and long-drawn out process. The draft land law was initially introduced in 2002, but major flaws were identified, which delayed its approval. FAO worked closely with the Government and with NGOs and civil society organisations to obtain improvements to the draft law. The Organisation supported a major seminar in 2003 for parliamentarians and provincial government representatives and brought in senior representatives experts from Brazil, Guinea-Bissau and Mozambique with first-hand experience of similar land issues.
Following consultations, in December 2003 the Government presented to the National Assembly a revised land law which contained several improvements over the previous one. Notable improvements included the recognition of and partial protection of the traditional collective rights of rural communities. But unresolved issues remained, which delayed its approval. In December 2004 the Lei de Terras (Land Law)258 was finally passed. The prominent role played by a nascent civil society in the debate was a watershed in the creation of political space outside the state. However uncertainties remained about the tenure security of the rural population, about the ownership of natural resources on private land, and about the confiscation and nationalization provisions, particularly with regard to the status of land users and occupiers in the peri-urban areas.
In 2008, FAO designed a manual for Angola adapted from the Mozambique model, which was formally accepted as the appropriate methodology for carrying out community land delimitations in terms of the new Land Law. Since then it has tried to pilot the implementation of the new Land Law in several districts. The results achieved so far vary according to the willingness of the District Governor to support the process.
GCP/ANG/035/EC ‘Institutional support to decentralized land tenure and management Institutions to promote equitable rural development in selected provinces of Angola’ (September 2006 to December 2009, budget: US$ 3,531,312)
The project objective was defined as ‘Strengthened decentralized land tenure and natural resources management institutions by developing and implementing participatory and gender sensitive interventions in selected areas of Benguela, Huila and Huambo provinces’.
The project had four components:
• Institutional coordinating mechanisms at provincial and inter-provincial level;
• Land administration piloting at municipal level in the Benguela, Huambo and Huila;
256 FAO 2005. 257 For example: TCP/ANG/00168, MTF/ANG/031/NET, GCP/ANG/030/UK, GCP/ANG/029/USA, GCP/ANG/035/EC, GCP/ANG/045/SPA and OSRO/ANG/404/ITA. 258 The law delineated and expanded on the rights available by concession and recognised some measure of traditional land rights. It also sought to clarify the rights to use and occupy urban land and provide some safeguards for persons previously at risk of eviction. State ownership of all land is maintained in accordance with the Constitution and the acquisition of rights to use, inherit and sell land is enacted in both civil and customary law. Land held by traditional authorities in rural communities is exempted, however, and once demarcated and titled, this land cannot be sold.
224
• Development and implementation of a natural resources management system in at least 2 territorial planning units for each province;
• Development of an independent Land Studies Centre at provincial level (Huambo – Faculty of Agronomics) to assist decision makers in land policy, land management, family farming, etc.
The project can be considered relevant in the context of Angola’s rural sector as it contained the elements needed to address land tenure problems: a) Tenure insecurity arising from an unclear legal and institutional framework; b) Lack of incentives to address land management at the local level; c) Lack of a cadastre and of procedures for title registration; d) Differences in the rules for accessing, using and managing natural resources; e) Lack of knowledge and information on land tenure and management.
The project’s design took account of the need to develop the capacity of government institutions (at municipal and provincial level) to manage natural resources and to contribute to tenure security. Project’s outputs directly contributed to the accomplishment of each component by: i) developing methodologies and guidelines for land administration and management; ii) piloting a cadastre and participatory territorial planning, iii) developing technical capacity for natural resource management with universities, research institutes, NGOs and CSOs.
The project was implemented from 2006-2009, and its operations started in February 2007 with two international and national consultants. Difficulties faced during the implementation of the project were:
• Lack of power supplies and internet, which affected the operations of the project’s offices in the provinces.
• Delays in money delivery, which often affected seminars and course activities.
• Delays in payments because of bureaucratic administrative procedures. This affected the payments of national and international consultants, and constituted a factor generating discontent and tensions among the project team.
• The support provided by the FAO Representation as Budget Holder was considered to be inefficient as there was a lack and reliable information on the availability of resources for the project. This last was a major difficulty in obtaining donor approval of project budget revision requests. The problem continued until the conclusion of the project.
Project results: The project coordinated its work partners through meetings stakeholders in the provinces of Huambo, Huila and Benguela and the established steering committees. It initiated and maintained a dialogue with all national and international NGOs involved in land tenure issues. The project trained officials in the use of methods and tools for land management (e.g. ArcView and GIS/GPS, mapping and surveying techniques; participatory rural diagnosis; computer training for staff in Agrarian Development Stations, which were also supplied with IT equipment and materials. Seminars were conducted on land legislation, oriented to municipal and provincial authorities, community leaders and NGO representatives. Land delimitation of rural communities (21 in Huambo, four in Huila and in one in Benguela) was undertaken and procedures initiated for issuance of community titles with boundaries defined by previous projects. Cadastral mapping techniques were piloted in Capupa (Benguela), Ekunha (Huambo) and Palanca (Huila). Documents were
225 produced on: participatory land delimitation; post-war resettlement of rural communities; land conflict resolution; women’s land rights; the legal framework; protection of communal rights; and territorial dynamics in Catumbela perimeter and land rights in the valleys and Cavaco Cuporolo; Videos were produced and disseminated on land rights and land law. Assistance was provided with the drafting of the regulations for land concession and communal land delimitation which comprised the conformation of a team work for developing specific regulations and the piloting of land delimitation best practices.
In relation to the third component, the project provided training to local authorities and communities on land tenure and natural resources territorial planning through workshops and short term visits of an international expert. Another result of the project’s work within this component was the elaboration of a draft document containing the pilot experience on natural resource management. Although this accomplishment, the project couldn’t develop a geographical system with maps of land rights, but the report on the pilot experience was acknowledge as considering all the information for further work with municipal administrations on natural resources management. In addition, within this component, an inter-institutional cooperation agreement was signed between FAO and IDAF (Research Institute of Agro-Forestry Development), to prepare a development plan for the forest perimeter of Sanguengue, located in the municipality of Katchiungo, Huambo Province.
Finally, within the fourth component an agreement for institutional cooperation between with the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences (FAC) was signed and as a result a Cabinet/Office for Family Farming Studies (GEAC for its acronyms in Portuguese) was established. The establishment of the GEAC involved financing its equipment. Since its creation in 2008 the GEAC work has been concentrated on:
• Research on land issues related to access, tenure and management. Complementary to this research, a student research group on small holder agriculture (GIEAC) was created. This student research group contributed to research activities of GEAC and the establishment of a bibliographic collection of research on land tenure, access and management. The collection is comprised of 208 documents, including 16 documents produced by FAO Terra Project and GEAC.
• Piloting of agricultural good practices for smallholder farming.
• Training activities: The GEAC has supported the training of teachers and students on the fundamentals of land and natural resources access and management. Some of the training activities were focused on: GIS / GPS; Land Law and Participatory Land Delimitation (DPT).
• Dissemination of materials: GEAC prepared dissemination materials such as the GEAC Magazine and bulletins oriented to inform teachers, students, peasants and other civil society representatives on land tenure, access and management issues.
Follow-up, sustainability and possible impact: Despite of the results obtained with the piloting activities on land administration within the second component, the lack of clarity and legal procedures for delimitation of communal land and for legal recognition of titles, as well as the lack of clarity of competences among the governmental institutions regarding the issuance of titles, were pointed as difficulties experienced by the project and suggest constraints for future sustainability. On the other hand, the experience of coordinating actions with a University to support the project intervention was pointed as a driver of possible impacts on capacity building as well as a contributor to achieving long-term effects.
226
A new project259 funded by the Spanish External Cooperation Agency (AECI for its acronyms in Spanish) has been implemented since September 2010 and until August 2013 with the objective of strengthening local actors (governmental and nongovernmental) capacities on land and natural resources management in order to improve the institutional framework for its management in the provinces of Huambo and Bie. In this sense, in Huambo province, the new project aims to follow up and extend the activities previously initiated by the Terra project on natural resources management and with the Faculty of Agricultural Sciences. In Bie province, some new pilot experiences on natural resources management will be developed following the Terra Project previous experience. In both cases the project strategy will also rely on a decentralized intervention at the municipal level.
5.5 Overall Assessment of FAO’s support to land policy reform and lessons learned in the Southern Africa region
Since the early nineties, FAO has been more active in its technical support to the land sector in the former front-line states of Namibia, Mozambique and Angola than in other countries in the sub- region. The reasons for this are not clear, but may partly relate to FAO’s comparative advantage in this sub-region and partly because of gap filling by FAO in countries shunned by bilateral and other multilateral assistance.
In the three countries covered by this brief review, FAO advice and assistance is perceived to have been generally effective and efficient, judged by the extent to which the development interventions were achieved and how economically resources have been converted to results.
With regard to the relevance of the technical support provided, it is apparent that where FAO staff members have had a long-term engagement with land issues in a country or sub-region, the assistance provided has been more relevant and more sustainable. Lessons learned in Mozambique about community land delimitation could be applied to Angola. FAO’s involvement at the land policy development stage increased the appropriateness of its subsequent support to capacity development. In the case of Namibia, lack of familiarity with land tenure issues and the wider policy context has been a disadvantage.
Finally there is the issue of the impact of FAO’s support. What are the positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by development interventions, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended? In the absence of any systematic monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the field programmes (i.e. baseline studies, impact assessment surveys) in Mozambique and Angola, nothing can be said for certain about impact. Attempts to set up M&E studies on GCP/MOZ/086/NET and GCP/MOZ/O96/NET came to nothing. Even if they had been set up, it would have been endlessly difficult to measure outcomes. It is not enough to measure outputs (e.g. the number of paralegals and government officials trained) because this tells us little about outcomes (e.g. the tenure security and improved livelihoods of the communities served). Even if outcomes were measured, attributing them to the project would be difficult, due to the multiplicity of rural livelihoods and year-on-year variability, etc.
In the circumstances, it is necessary to fall back on ‘plausible attribution’ of project impact, which was the case in the Mid Term Evaluation of GCP/MOZ/O96/NET. Here it was concluded on the basis of qualitative information that over the years the FAO projects had had a noticeable impact on tenure security and livelihoods of the target group. This was in a situation where training courses had been organised for paralegals in 90 districts of a total of 128 since 2007. In the case of Angola attribution of benefits from community land delimitation is likely to be less persuasive given the lack
259 GCP/ANG/045/SPA Support to Governmental Institutions for the improvement of land and other natural resources tenure and management in Huambo and Bie Provinces. Budget: USD 2.2 million.
227 of progress with the implementation of the Land Law of 2004. According to a recent review of land reform in Angola, hundreds of applications to legalise communities’ or families’ lands have not been processed, despite the fact that many of these applications were made years ago. Further, the Land Law and the Constitution of Angola, with regard to the rights of rural communities to their land are reportedly not being respected by the authorities.260
6. Emergency and rehabilitation
Two OSRO field projects were back-stopped by the LTT during the review period: one in Southern Sudan (OSRO/SUD/819/CHF), ‘Livelihood recovery for returnees, IDPs and vulnerable households through access to land for production and settlement’ and the other in Tajikistan (OSRO/TAJ/602/CAN) ‘Improved food security and enhanced livelihoods through institutional and gender-sensitive land reform’. The interventions followed political settlements after civil wars with a view to rehabilitation and development. In each country, the assistance provided to the land sector was a component of a larger programme of assistance by FAO, the effectiveness of which is reviewed in a previous evaluation.261
6.1 Tajikistan Tajikistan is one of the poorest countries in the Central Asia region. The dissolution of the Soviet agricultural system and the decline in agricultural output pointed to the need for reform, but the response to this issue is reported to have been slow.262 Land reform began in earnest only in 1995, with the allocation of additional land to household plots263 – a highly productive sector in all of the former Soviet Union. Attempts were made to reorganize the collective and state farms into new corporate forms about the same time. When this cosmetic restructuring failed to produce efficiency gains, the country switched its attention to restructuring the state farms into dekhan farms. Since 1999, these small family farms have largely supplanted the corporate farms and are now reported to cover 60% of the agricultural land.264 The right to use the land is granted by the State, subject to restrictions relating to the planting of permanent crops, erecting permanent buildings and to transfer rights, which are heritable upon re-registration.
The CIDA-funded project was developed as a partnership between FAO and UNIFEM, the purpose being to support the implementation of the land reform policy at the district level and establish related land reform monitoring systems throughout Tajikistan, with a special focus on gender mainstreaming and consultative processes. The project was in operation from September 2006 to December 2008 with a budget of US$1.77 million. Activities included: training of the monitoring team; ‘pre-restructuring awareness campaigns’ for state farm employees, especially women; coordination through local Working Groups on Land Reform; assistance in the development of the legal framework; and training and capacity development for local staff and government representatives about ongoing reforms.265
The project activities and outputs would seem to have been relevant to the beneficiaries’ requirements, the country needs and the donor’s policies. The efficiency of the project was probably
260 Kleinbooi 2010. 261 FAO 2010g. 262 Lerman and Sedik 2009. 263 Up to 0.50 ha of dry land and up to 0.15 ha of irrigated land for personal farms; many women heads of households received plots under this Presidential Decree 342/1995 264 Unfortunately, roughly one third of the 30,000 dehkan farms today are organized as collective dehkan farms, which seem to perpetuate the kolkhoz form of organization despite the new name (Lerman and Sedik 2009). 265 FAO 2008, OSRO/TAJ/602/CAN final report.
228 impaired by the one-year delay in obtaining ‘approval’ for the project (planned to start 1 September 2005; actual start 8 September 2006) and by the ‘coldest winters for decades’, which increased the economic pressure on farmers and government. Problems also arose as a result of frequent changes by the authorities to the schedule of state farms to be restructured. Nonetheless, according to the final report, planned outputs for farmer training were exceeded (e.g. 136 dekhan farmers trained in business management, of which 56 were women) and the number of decentralised institutions established (e.g. legal advisory services, district task forces, farmers groups, women’s committees) and also the numbers of agency and government staff trained.266
OED’s Tajikistan country evaluation report praises the work carried out by FAO in the land sector and finds that FAO’s most significant impact was its work to develop partnerships between government and donors by establishing the first Land Reform Working Group which became a model for future consultations among government, civil society and donor groups. This Group continued to play a leading role after FAO’s departure. However, of the five Legal Advisory Services established by OSORO/TAJ/602/CAN (2006-2008) to advise and assist land reform farmers, two had closed within a year and the remainder were ‘struggling to operate’ (para. 260). In one area, women’s information and legal advisory centres continued to thrive with government funding, but in other areas of the country, they had closed down when project funds ran out. These and other problems relate to weaknesses in the counterpart government body with which the project worked.
As with so many project reviews conducted by the evaluation team, it is not possible to be sure about the ‘impact’ of a particular project on the overall goals of improved food security and enhanced livelihoods. However, the study of land reform in Tajikistan by Lermin and Sedik (2009), commissioned by FAO, clearly concludes that the redistribution of land to household plots and the restructuring of the state farms into individual and family farms have succeeded in increasing gross agricultural output through increased productivity and in improved rural incomes.
6.2 South Sudan Southern Sudan was negatively affected by civil wars from 1955 to 1972 and again from 1983 to 2002, resulting in major destruction and displacement. More than 2.5 million people were killed and twice that number displaced, internally or externally. The Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in 2005 marked the end of over two decades of conflict. The end to the violence encouraged thousands of people who had been displaced from their homes to start returning to their land and to restart agricultural production. Returnees have frequently found that land which they once abandoned had been subsequently occupied by other people and violent disputes have frequently ensued. The civil war has disrupted governance and undermined the role of many traditional authorities; the roles and responsibilities for land governance have become unclear. While the emerging State is founded on constitutional principles that recognize the universal right to land, effective implementation and protection for all rights-holders has remained elusive. Seven years after the CPA, systems for governing, adjudicating, and protecting land rights are still in their formative stages and the roles and responsibilities of respective authorities are still being negotiated.267
The FAO project OSRO/SUD/819/CHF, ‘Livelihood recovery for returnees, IDPs and vulnerable households through access to land for production and settlement’, was implemented from 1 August 2008 to 31 March 2009, following approval for a three-month, no-cost extension. The Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) contributed USD 208,553 to the project. The main objective was to contribute to improved wellbeing and better household food security among conflict-affected
266 Despite the late start-up, the project reportedly did not miss any important phase of the land reform process. Further, the project played an important role in supporting the Government in defining short and long-term land reform policy /strategy options. 267 Southern Sudan Land Commission, Draft Land Policy, Government of Southern Sudan, February 2011
229 people. The project was implemented in partnership with the Southern Sudan Land Commission, state and local governments, UN agencies, and NGOs and sought to ensure that returnees, IDPs and resident populations had equitable access to land and natural resources, tenure security, were food secure and adopted a conflict transformation approach in resolving land and natural resources disputes.268
The activities carried out by the project are listed as: a three-day training session on land and natural resource policy development; four alternative dispute resolution workshops; two community dialogues on land and property rights and resolving resource-based conflict and a training course for four officials from government institutions who attended a training course on land tenure and natural resource governance in Nairobi, Kenya. The aims of the project were clearly relevant, but the scope and scale of the activities described in the final report suggest a wholly inadequate response to a very serious and challenging problem. Several of the activities and outputs attributed to the project do not seem plausible, for example: ‘100% of returnees returning to their rural areas accessed land for settlement and production, approximately 80% of whom were women headed households’.
A recent evaluation of FAO Cooperation in Sudan (2009) noted that there were ‘missed opportunities to assist in the design of policies and strategies in the crucial areas of land reform and governance, natural resource management and forestry’. In paragraph 59 of the synthesis report, there is a statement to the effect that the land programme in Sudan suffered from a lack of resources. In the ‘conclusions’, page 10 of the final report on OSRO/SUD/819/CHF, there is mention of a lack of funds for the land project in Southern Sudan, 24% of the USD 850,000 needed. The ET was able to access a detailed project proposal in the archives of the project initially proposed by the then-NRLA.269 Fortunately, Southern Sudan has not been short of assistance for its land programme, although the reports of land conflicts in the country continue to escalate under the pressure of returnees.270 Agencies and programmes working with the South Sudan Land Commission in August 2011 are shown in the table below.271
Agencies and programmes working with the South Sudan Land Commission (August 2011)
Agency/Donor Programme
USAID (Tetra Tech ARD) Sudan Rural Land Governance Programme
UN-HABITAT (Canada START) Capacity building for land conflict management in Southern Sudan ICLA - Information, counselling and legal assistance designed to Norwegian Refugee Council provide assistance to IDPs, refugees Norwegian Peoples Aid Land and Resource Rights Programme
268 FAO n.d., OSRO/SUD/819/CHF ‘Livelihood recovery for returnees, IDPs and vulnerable households through access to land for production and settlement’ Final Report. 269 Undated http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/nr/kagera/Documents/Suggested_readings/Sudan.pdf 270 http://allafrica.com/stories/201106221304.html 271 For more background to the problems encountered in Sudan by FAO in this period following the CPA see FAO Office of Evaluation 2010, ‘Evaluation of FAO’s Sudan Cooperation 2004-2009.
230
Annex 7: Inventory of normative work
Details Division Year
LAND
Gender and Land Rights Database. NRL Ongoing http://www.fao.org/gender/landrights/home/ ESW Land Tenure e-Journal. Launched online January 2011 with edition 1 (2010). NRC Ongoing http://www.fao.org/nr/tenure/land-tenure-journal/index.php/LTJ Voluntary Guidelines for responsible governance of tenure of land and other natural resources. Zero Draft available at http://www.fao.org/nr/tenure/voluntary- NRC Ongoing guidelines/e-consultation/en/ Preliminary guidelines for Improving Gender Equity in Territorial Issues (IGETI). P. NRL 2010? Groppo and I. Sisto. Online only at http://www.fao.org/Participation/Lessons- ESW IGETI.html Governance of Land Tenure in Central America. Land Tenure Working Paper 18. F. NRC 2010 Edouard. Good Governance and Natural Resources Tenure in the Caribbean Subregion. Land NRC 2010 Tenure Working Paper 17. Charisse Griffith-Charles Governance of Land Tenure in Eastern Europe and Commonwealth of Independent NRC 2010 States. Land Tenure Working Paper 16. Dr. Babette Wehrmann Responsible Governance of Land Tenure: An essential factor for the realisation of the NRC 2010 right to food. Land Tenure Working Paper 15. Luisa Cruz ESA Making the most of agricultural investment: A survey of business models that provide NRC 2010 opportunities for smallholders. Sonja Vermeulen and Lorenzo Cotula FLOSS in Cadastre and Land Registration: Opportunities and Risks. Compiled and edited NRC 2010 by Daniel Steudler, Mika-Petteri Törhönen and Gertrude Pieper Statutory recognition of customary land rights in Africa, FAO Legislative Study 105, R. LEG 2010 Knight Journal of Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives. Editions 2009/1, 2008/1, Twice a NRC 2007/2, 2007/1, 2006/2, 2006/1. year to 2009 Compulsory acquisition of land and compensation. FAO Land Tenure Studies 10. Simon Keith, Patrick McAuslan, Rachael Knight, Jonathon Lindsay, Paul Munro-Faure and NRC 2009 David Palmer Land Policy Development in an African Context: Lessons learned from selected NRC 2009 experiences. Land Tenure Working Paper 14. Paul De Wit, Christopher Tanner, Simon NRL Norfolk Participatory Land Delimitation: An innovative development model based upon NRC 2009 securing rights acquired through customary and other forms of occupation. Land NRL Tenure Working Paper 13. Paul De Wit, Christopher Tanner, Simon Norfolk Dialogue, Consensus and Vision: Participatory and Negotiated Territorial Development. NRL 2009 Land Tenure Working Paper 12. Jeffrey Hatcher. Towards Improved Land Governance. Land Tenure Working Paper 11. David Palmer, NRC 2009 Szilard Fricska, Babette Wehrmann Towards Voluntary Guidelines on Responsible Goverancne of Tenure of Land and Other Natural Resources: Discussion Paper. Land Tenure Working Paper 10. Land Tenure and NRC 2009 Management Unit (NRLA) Voluntary Guidelines for Good Governance in Land and Natural Resource Tenure: Issues from an international institutional perspective. Land Tenure Working Paper 9. NRC 2009 Richard Grover.
231
Voluntary Guidelines for Good Governance in Land and Natural Resource Tenure: Civil Society Perspectives. Land Tenure Working Paper 8. Sofia Monsalve Suárez, Leticia NRC 2009 Marques Osorio, Malcolm Langford Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and international land NRC 2009 deals in Africa. Lorenzo Cotula, Sonja Vermeulen, Rebeca Leonard and James Keeley Multilingual Thesaurus on Land Tenure (CD-ROM) NRC 2009 Capacity building for development from a territorial perspective (CD-ROM) NRC 2009 Legal Empowerment in Practice: Making Land Rights Legally Secure for All (CD-ROM) NRC 2009 Governance of tenure of land in Central Africa. Land tenure working paper 7. Dr. NRC 2008 Charles Ntampaka Governance of Tenure of Land and Natural Resources: Situation in Western Africa. Land NRC 2008 tenure working paper 6. Adam Malam Kandine Governance and Tenure of Land and Natural Resources in Latin America. Land tenure NRC 2008 working paper 5. Octavio Sotomayor Good Governance and Natural Resources Tenure in South East Asia Region. Land tenure NRC 2008 working paper 4. Orapan Nabangchang, Eathipol Srisawalak Good Governance and Natural Resources Tenure in Eastern Europe and CIS Region. NRC 2008 Land tenure working paper 3. Joseph Salukvadze Climate Change and Land Tenure: The implications of Climate Change for Land Tenure NRC 2008 and Land Policy. Land Tenure Working Paper 2.Julian Quan with Nat Dyer Bioenergy and Land Tenure: The implications of Biofuels for Land Tenure and Land NRC 2008 Policy. Land Tenure Working Paper 1. Lorenzo Cotula, Nat Dyer and Sonja Vermeulen Opportunities to mainstream land consolidation in rural development programmes of the European Union. FAO Land Tenure Policy Studies 2. Steffen Noleppa, Richard NRC 2008 Eberlin, Morten Hartvigsen, Adri van den Brink, Frank van Holst, Nicolai Meier Andersen and David Palmer Pacific Land Tenures: New Ideas for Reform, FAO Legal Study Online No. 73, J. Fingleton LEG 2008 Le droit forestier en République démocratique du Congo, FAO Legal Study Online No. LEG 2008 72, G. Sakata Good governance in land tenure and administration. FAO Land Tenure Studies 9. NRC 2007 Richard Grover, Mika-Petteri Törhönen, David Palmer and Paul Munro-Faure. Negotiation and mediation techniques for natural resource management, Case Studies LSP (inter- 2007 and Lessons Learned. A. Castro and A. Engel department) European Union accession and land tenure data in Central and Eastern Europe. FAO Land Tenure Policy Series 1. Richard Grover in collaboration with Mika-Petteri NRC 2006 Törhönen, David Palmer, Vladimir Evtimov, Paul Munro-Faure, et al. Land tenure alternative conflict management. A. Hererra and M. Guglielma da Passano. LSP (inter- 2006 department) Land access in the 21st century: Issues, trends, linkages and policy options. FAO LSP WP LSP (inter- 2006 24. Quan, J. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme. department) Changes in “customary” land tenure systems in Africa. FAO LSP WP38, Edited by LSP (inter- Lorenzo Cotula, contributing authors: Jean-Pierre Chauveau, Salmana Cissé, Jean- 2006 Philippe Colin, Lorenzo Cotula, Philippe Lavigne Delville, Nanete Neves, Julian Quan, department) Camilla Toulmin. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme Mozambique’s legal framework for access to natural resources: The impact of new LSP (inter- 2006 legal rights and community consultations on local livelihoods. FAO LSP WP 28. Tanner department) C. and Baleira S. Access to Natural Resources Sub- Programme. Making rights a reality: Participation in practice and lessons learned in Mozambique. LSP (inter- 2006 FAO LSP WP 27. Tanner C., Baleira S., Norfolk S., Cau B. and Assulai J. department) Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme. Participatory land delimitation: Experiences and methodologies (CD-ROM) NRC 2006
232
FORESTRY
State of the World's Forests (SOFA) FO 2011 Drafting Community Forestry Agreements, FAO Legal Paper Online No. 86, K. LEG 2011 Rosenbaum Assessment of forest tenure trade centres in Zhejiang, Jiangxi, Hunan, Guizhou, Fujian and Anhui Provinces. Project Working Papers. WP-019-E, WP-020-E, WP-021-E, WP- FOEP 2010 022-E, WP-023-E, WP-024-E. Part of China Forestry Tenure Project: GCP/CPR/038/EC Assessment of forest farmer cooperatives in Zhejiang, Jiangxi, Hunan, Guizhou, Fujian and Anhui Provinces. Project Working Papers. WP-007-E, WP-008-E, WP-009-E, WP- FOEP 2010 010-E, WP-011E, WP-012-E. Part of China Forestry Tenure Project: GCP/CPR/038/EC Forest Connect China: A case study of small and medium forest enterprise development in Zhejiang Province. Luo, X, Liu, X, Lin, L, Xiaoli, Z, Yu, L. Part of China FOEP 2010 Forestry Tenure Project: GCP/CPR/038/EC China Forest Tenure Newsletter. Issues 5 (Aug-Nov 2010), 4 (May-July 2010), 3 (Feb- FOEP 2010 April 2010). Part of China Forestry Tenure Project: GCP/CPR/038/EC Wildlife Law and the Empowerment of the Poor, FAO Legislative Study 103, E. Morgera LEG 2010 Wildlife Law in the Southern African Development Community, FAO Legal Paper Online LEG 2010 No. 84, M. Cirelli and E. Morgera Wildlife Legislation and the Empowerment of the Poor in Asia and Oceania, FAO Legal LEG 2010 Paper Online No. 83, E. Tsioumani and E. Morgera Have decollectivization and privatization contributed to sustainable forestry management and poverty alleviation in China? Forestry Policy and Institutions Working FOEP 2009 Paper No. 23. J. Liu. Part of China Forestry Tenure Project: GCP/CPR/038/EC Forest tenure in Central Asia FO 2009? Forest tenure in Latin America FO 2009? Wildlife Legislation and the Empowerment of the Poor in Latin America, FAO Legal LEG 2009 Paper Online No. 80, S. Aguilar and E. Morgera Wildlife Law and the Legal Empowerment of the Poor in Sub-Saharan Africa: New Case LEG 2009 Studies, FAO Legal Paper Online No. 79, M. Cirelli and E. Morgera Wildlife Law and the Legal Empowerment of the Poor in Sub-Saharan Africa, FAO Legal LEG 2009 Paper Online No. 77, M. Cirelli and E. Morgera Understanding forest tenure in Africa: opportunities and challenges for forest tenure FOEP 2008 diversification. Forestry Policy and Institutions Working Paper 19. FOEP. Tenure security for better forestry. Understanding forest tenure in Africa. FAO, 2008. FOEP 2008 FOEP Le droit forestier en République démocratique du Congo, FAO Legal Study Online No. LEG 2008 72, G. Sakata Principles for Developing Sustainable Wildlife Management Laws, FAO Legal Paper LEG 2008 Online No. 75, E. Morgera and J. Wingard Participatory Forestry in Central Asia and the Caucasus: Current Legal Trends and LEG 2008 Future Perspectives, FAO Legal Paper Online No. 70, E. Morgera Tenure security for better forestry: Understanding forest tenure in South and FOEP 2007 Southeast Asia. FAO, Bangkok. FOEP/RAP RAP Understanding forest tenure in South and Southeast Asia. Forestry Policy and FOEP 2006 Institutions Working Paper No. 14. Le droit forestier du Vietnam, FAO Legal Paper Online No. 51, T. Dinh LEG 2006 Assessing the access to forest resources for improving livelihoods in West and Central LSP (inter- Asia countries. FAO LSP WP 33. T. Shimizu. Access to Natural Resources Sub- department) 2006 Programme FOPE FONP
233
Forest - poverty linkages in West and Central Asia: The outlook from a sustainable LSP (inter- livelihoods perspective. FAO LSP WP 34. P. Baumann. Access to Natural Resources Sub- 2006 department) Programme
Methodology and case studies on linkages between poverty and forestry: Afghanistan, LSP (inter- Iran, Kyrgyzstan and Turkey. FAO LSP WP 35. T. Shimizu and M. Trudel, with case 2006 studies by Asanbaeva A., Kananian M., Naseri Gh. and Sülüşoğlu M. Access to Natural department) Resources Sub-Programme LSP (inter- Urban and peri-urban forestry and greening in west and Central Asia: Experiences, department) constraints and prospects. FAO LSP WP 36. Åkerlund U., in collaboration with Knuth L., FOPE 2006 Randrup T. and Schipperijn J. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme FORC LEG Greening cities for improving urban livelihoods: Legal, policy and institutional aspects LSP (inter- of urban and peri-urban forestry in West and Central Asia (with a case study of department) 2006 Armenia). FAO LSP WP 37. L. Knuth. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme. FORC LEG Improving the legal framework for participatory forestry: Issues and options for LSP (inter- Mongolia. FAO LSP WP 30. Lindsay J., Wingard J. and Manaljav Z. Access to Natural department) 2006 Resources Sub-Programme. FORC LEG Depleting natural wealth – perpetuating poverty: Rural livelihoods and access to forest LSP (inter- resources in Mongolia. FAO LSP WP 31. Schmidt S. with Altanchimeg C., Tungalagtuya department) 2006 K., Narangerel Y., Ganchimeg D., Erdenechimeg B., Dambayuren S. and Battogoo D. FORC Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme. LEG Rural livelihoods and access to forest resources in Mongolia: Methodology and case LSP (inter- studies. FAO LSP WP 32. Schmidt S. with Altanchimeg C., Tungalagtuya K., Narangerel department) 2006 Y., Ganchimeg D., Erdenechimeg B., Dambayuren S. & Battogoo D. Access to Natural FORC Resources Sub-Programme. LEG Understanding forest tenure: What rights and for whom? Secure forest tenure for LSP (inter- sustainable forest management and poverty alleviation: the case of South and department) 2006 Southeast Asia, with case studies of Orissa and Meghalaya, India and Nepal. FAO LSP FORC WP 29. F. Romano and D. Reeb. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme. FISHERIES
Outcomes of the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Committee on Fisheries - Good Practices in the Governance of Small-Scale Fisheries: Sharing of Experiences and Lessons Learned FI 2011 in Responsible Fisheries for Social and Economic Development. International management of tuna fisheries: Arrangements, challenges and a way FIRF 2010 forward. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 536. Robin Allen. Sharing the Fish ’06: Allocation issues in fisheries management. FAO Fisheries and FIP 2010 Aquaculture Procedings 15. R. Metzner et al (eds) Securing sustainable small-scale fisheries: Bringing together responsible fisheries and social development. RAP Publication 2010/19. Proceedings of APFIC/FAO Regional RAP 2010 Consultative Workshop. Report of the Inception Workshop of the FAO Extrabudgetary Programme on Fisheries and Aquaculture for Poverty Alleviation and Food Security. FAO Fisheries and FIP 2010 Aquaculture Report No. 930. FAO. The Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and Indigenous Peoples: An Operational Guide. Lidija Knuth, Legal Consultant, under the supervision of FAO’s Focal Point for LEG 2009 Indigenous Issues, Regina Laub Fisheries Management: 3. Managing fishing capacity. FAO Technical Guidelines for FIP 2008 Responsible Fisheries No. 4, Suppl. 3. FAO. Case studies in fisheries self-governance. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 504. Edited FIP 2008 by R. Townsend, R. Shotton and H. Uchida
234
Achieving poverty reduction through responsible fisheries. Lessons from West and Central Africa. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 513. Westlund, L.; FIP 2008 Holvoet, K.; Kébé, M. (eds). The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2006. Flagship publication of FI. FI 2007 Fishing capacity management and illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing in Asia. RAP 2007 RAP Publication 2007/16. Gary Morgan, Derek Staples and Simon Funge-Smith. Making global governance work for small-scale fisheries. New Directions in Fisheries – A FI 2007 Series of Policy Briefs on Development Issues, No. 09. FAO. Increasing the contribution of small-scale fisheries to poverty alleviation and food FI 2007 security. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper T481. Béné, C.; Macfadyen, G.; Allison, E.H. WATER
Law for water management: a guide to concepts and effective approaches, FAO LEG 2009 Legislative Study 101, J. Vapnek, B. Aylward, C. Popp and J. Bartram (eds) Creating legal space for water user organizations: transparency, governance and the LEG 2009 law, FAO Legislative Study 100, S. Hodgson Water and the Rural Poor. Jean-Marc Faurès and Guido Santini (FAO) (eds) NRL 2008 Customary water rights and contemporary water legislation: Mapping out the LEG 2008 interface, FAO Legal Paper Online No. 76, M. Ramazzotti Legislation for sustainable water user associations, FAO Legal Paper Online No. 69, S. LEG 2007 Hodgson Reforma agraria y evolución del marco jurídico del agua en Chile, FAO Legal Paper LEG 2006 Online No. 59, R. Hernández Astudillo Modern water rights: Theory and practice, FAO Legislative Study 92, S. Hodgson LEG 2006 Land and water rights in the Sahel: Tenure challenges of improving access to water for LSP (inter- 2006 agriculture. FAO LSP WP 25. Cotula L., Hesse C., Sylla O., Thébaud B., Vogt G., and Vogt department) K. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme. Access to water, pastoral resource management and pastoralists’ livelihoods: Lessons LSP (inter- 2006 learned from water development in selected areas of Eastern Africa (Kenya, Ethiopia, department) Somalia). FAO LSP WP 26. N. Gomes. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme. CLIMATE CHANGE
Summary of Discussions from the Expert meeting on "Land tenure issues and requirements for implementing climate change mitigation policies in the forestry and NRC (LTU) 2010 agriculture sectors". FAO Climate Change and Land Tenure: The Implications of Climate Change for Land Tenure NRC (LTU) 2008 and Policy. Land Tenure Working Paper 2. J. Quan and N/ Dyer EMERGENCY
Technical assistance in access to land in countries with emergencies and post conflict TCE situations Somalia Water and Land Information Management Programme (SWALIM) - Recovery of TCE lost data on natural resources Land Tenure and Natural Addressing land tenure in countries prone to natural disasters 2010
Livelihood assessment Tool kit Analysing and responding to the impact of disasters on 2009 the livelihood of the people Handbook on housing and property restitution for Refugees and displaced persons 2007
On solid Ground. Addressing Land Tenure issues following natural disasters 2007
Land Tenure alternative conflict management. FAO Land tenure manuals 2 Land tenure 2006 service GENDER
235
The State of Food and Agriculture 2010 - 2011 Women in agriculture. Closing the ESW 2011 gender gap for development Land and Gender Database ESW 2011 Agri Gender Statistics Toolkit ESW 2010 Gender and Land Rights. Understanding complexities and adjusting policies. Policy Brief ESW 2010 8. Gender dimensions of agricultural and no agricultural employment. Status, Trends and ESW 2010 Gaps. Land and Property Rights. Junior farmer field and life school (JFSL), facilitator's guide ESW 2010 Land access in rural Africa. Strategies to fight gender inequality. FAO Dimitra Project ESW 2008 Workshop Workshop Brochure: Women's access to land in West Africa: problems and suggested ESW 2008 solutions in Senegal and Burkina Faso Villarreal, Marcela "Changing customary land rights and gender relations in the context of HIV/AIDS in Africa"Colloque international “Les frontières de la question foncière – At ESW 2008 the frontier of land issues”, Montpellier, 2006 "Gender, property rights and livelihoods in the Era of AIDS" FAO technical consultation. ESW 2008 Proceedings report Vulnerability and Property Rights of Widows and Orphans in the Era of the HIV and ESW 2008 AIDS Pandemic: A Case Study of Muleba and Makete Districts, Tanzania Children's Property and Inheritance Rights in the Context of HIV and AIDS ESW 2007 Children's property and inheritance rights, HIV and Aids, and social protection in ESW 2007 Southern and Eastern Africa ESW and Gender and Land compendium of Countries Studies Land Tenure 2007 Service Improving gender equity in the access to land. FAO Land Tenure notes 2. Prepared by ESW 2006 Susan Nichols, David Palmer and Paul Munro Izumi, K. "The Land and property rigths of women and orphans in the context of HIV ESW 2006 and AIDS. Case Study from Zimbabwe" Gender and Law - Women's Rights in Agriculture, FAO Legislative Study 76, Rev. 1, L. 2007 LEG Cotula (rev. of 2002) Children’s property and inheritance rights and their livelihoods: The context of HIV and LSP (inter- 2006 AIDS in Southern and East Africa. FAO LSP WP39, L. Rose. department) Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme. Leaving two thirds out of development: Female headed households and common LSP (inter- 2006 property resources in the highlands of Tigray, Ethiopia. FAO LSP WP40, P. Howard and department) E. Smith Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme. Linking livelihoods and gender analysis for achieving gender transformative change, LSP (inter- 2006 FAO LSP WP41, C. Okali. Access to Natural Resources Sub-Programme department) Unruh, Jon and Turray, Harry "Land Tenure, foods security and investment in postwar LSP (inter- 2006 Sierra Leone" LSP working paper 22 department) INVESTMENT
Cooperative Programme Framework Agreement and Investment Centre Division TCI 2001-2010 Technical Assistance NR/TCI 2001-2010 Technical inputs on land policy, administration and good governance NR/TCI 2001-2010 Latin America and The Caribbean Information Systems and Land Administration TCI 2007
236
237
Annex 8: Citation Analysis and Website Hits
Citation Analysis 1. Citation analysis: A citation analysis was undertaken for a selection of publications produced by the LTT from 2006 to 2010272. Both academic and non-academic literature was searched for citations of FAO’s work. The most cited publication produced by FAO during the given period was “Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa”, produced in 2009 as part of a partnership with IIED and IFAD273. The second most cited publication was FAO Land Tenure Studies No. 9 (2007), “Good governance in land tenure and administration”274. The overall performance of the Journal of Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives was low over the period 2006 to 2010, with a total of eight citations across all volumes (four of which were in other academic journals).
2. The results of the citation analysis show that publications for which FAO partnered with another organisation (e.g. IIED, IFAD or the World Bank) were generally more frequently cited, in both academic and non-academic literature. This may reflect the broader audience that is typically reached when partnering with these institutions compared to FAO publishing on its own.
3. In order to obtain an idea of the relative performance of FAO’s land tenure publications, a selection of these were compared to publications produced by the World Bank on similar topics275. The comparison suggests that FAO’s land tenure publications perform relatively well compared to those of the World Bank, at least in terms of academic citations. The comparison did not include non-academic literature. FAO’s particularly good performance in 2009 reflects the widespread success of the publication “Land grab or development opportunity? Agricultural investment and international land deals in Africa”.
272 Those from 2011 were deemed too recent to appear in any search results. 273 Authors: Lorenzo Cotula, Sonja Vermeulen, Rebeca Leonard and James Keeley. 274 Authors: Richard Grover, Mika-Petteri Törhönen, David Palmer and Paul Munro-Faure. 275 Six suitable World Bank publications were identified using the same criteria as for FAO publications: published between 2006 and 2010, and not specific country case studies. As there were only six suitable World Bank publications, a selection of six FAO publications on similar topics was drawn for comparison.
238
Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-1: Scopus (academic) citations for World Bank and FAO publications
60
50
40 2010 2009 30 2008
20 2007 2006 10
0 World Bank FAO
4. While the citation analysis is useful in supporting the argument made by FAO partners that joint publications enable FAO to disseminate its work to a broader audience, it is not truly representative of the real intended users of FAO’s land tenure publications, i.e., governments and CSOs engaging in land tenure activity. While some work produced by the latter two groups was able to be searched, there was no simple way to search for government outputs that included reference to FAO land tenure publications. This may exclude a significant body of work that relies on FAO publications.
5. It should also be noted that in this analysis, the number of times a publication is cited is not necessarily an indication of the quality of that publication. References made to FAO work were not examined in detail to determine whether they were complimentary or critical of the publication in question. The results of the citation analysis should therefore be interpreted with caution.
6. Website hits analysis: A similar conclusion can be made based on the analysis of traffic data to the website of the LTT. The evaluation team found that from January to July 2011 it had a monthly average of 2,400 visits276. The site that attracted most visitors was the Voluntary Guidelines website, which, following the release of the zero draft, reached a peak of almost 3000 visits. Yet, it was not possible to determine who the users were and their level of satisfaction with the quantity and quality of material posted on the internet. Further information on the website hits analysis is provided in Box Error! No text of specified style in document.-1.
Box Error! No text of specified style in document.-1: Website hits analysis
Statistics on the use of the FAO’s land tenure-related webpages provide an additional insight into the use of land tenure-related normative products available online, and of the webpages relating to the Voluntary Guidelines process. An analysis of this data for January to July 2011 shows that individual visits to FAO’s land tenure pages increased substantially from March to April 2011, reflecting the
276 Unfortunately, data prior to 2011 was not available to enable a longer-term analysis.
239
beginning of the e-consultation process on the Voluntary Guidelines.
An analysis was also made of the number of times land-tenure related webpages were viewed (rather than visited), with the caveat that this number may be slightly inflated by individual users repeatedly viewing the same pages. It nonetheless provides an idea of the most popular webpages for FAO’s land tenure work. Earlier in 2011 the website for the new Land Tenure Journal was the most visited, followed by the homepage for the Voluntary Guidelines (in English). With the beginning of the e- consultation process for the Voluntary Guidelines in April 2011, visits to the webpage for this process increased (particularly for the English and Spanish versions). Given that there were on average 525 different land-tenure related URLs viewed in any month, the appearance of a webpage in the top five shows significant popularity.
A separate analysis of webpage viewings was undertaken for land tenure-related normative work, e.g. the pages relating to the Land Tenure Series, Land Tenure Notes, Land Tenure Technical Papers, etc. These webpages all fall under the ‘Information Resources’ subtitle on the Land Tenure group’s homepage (which excludes the new Land Tenure Journal). In 2011, the most viewed pages were the Journal of Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives, the ‘new publications’ webpage, the link to publications provided from the Voluntary Guidelines webpage, the Land Tenure Technical Papers, and the Land Tenure Studies.
Annex 9: Concept Paper Strategic Evaluation of FAO work on “Tenure, rights and access to land and other natural resources”
A. FAO commitment to organizational improvement through evaluation
Evaluation in FAO has the dual function of providing accountability for results and facilitating learning from experience. To this end the FAO has an independent Office of Evaluation (OED) with dual reporting lines to the Director-General and to the FAO Council (through the Programme Committee). OED is responsible for the optimal conduct of evaluations commissioned by FAO Management and by Member Countries, including definition of the scope of the evaluation, preparation of terms of reference, identification and recruitment of the evaluation team, and arranging for research and logistical support. OED is also responsible for quality assurance i.e., that the evaluation process and reports comply with UN-wide norms and standards, including that the assessment covers the standard evaluation criteria of relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact. The FAO Programme Committee at its 103rd session (September 2009) requested OED to conduct an evaluation of FAO work on land tenure and access to land. In view of the strong linkages between tenure, rights and access issues, and the broader focus of recent FAO work in land tenure and water rights, which has also included work on tenure of other natural resources (e.g. forestry, livestock, fisheries), the evaluation’s scope has been expanded to reflect this evolution. The report of the evaluation will be presented at the 106th session of the Programme Committee in March 2012.
B. FAO cooperation in natural resources tenure, rights and access
240
Secure tenure and access277 to land, water and other natural resources has been a long-standing area of FAO concern (see Appendix 1 of this Concept Paper for further background) especially in relation to poverty and hunger alleviation, promotion of gender equality, and environmental sustainability, and as such has strong linkages to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs)278 and FAO Strategic Objectives279.
In the case of land, the areas of cooperation have largely been the same over the past few years (e.g. development of analysis, policy, legislation and practical approaches related to land reform, land consolidation, land registration and cadastre, leasing, customary and communal land tenure, rural property taxation and the administration of public sector land), but the context and focus of the more recent work has changed; greater emphasis has progressively been placed on matters of governance (including the importance of integrity), gender, indigenous groups and minorities, the environment, participation of civil society and the decentralization of public services. The International Conference on Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ICARRD) of the FAO, hosted by the Government of Brazil in Porto Alegre in March 2006, further developed these themes, giving increasing attention to land governance. An example of this broadening in scope is the ongoing work in developing Voluntary Guidelines for Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests. Responding to demand, FAO field technical assistance has concentrated on countries in transition (Central Asia and Eastern Europe) and/or in conflict and post-emergency situations (Africa and Southeast Asia). Increasing land scarcity arising from population growth and resource depletion, together with the need to adjust to political, economic and social changes, have placed increasing pressure on member governments to help the poor to access land and natural resources. There is also a growing need for assistance to overcome acute problems of land dispossession arising from violent land conflicts and the increasing incidence of natural disasters – arising in part from climate change. Furthermore, recent concerns over energy and food security (which promoted large scale investments in the acquisition of land and subsequent debates over land and water rights), and climate change (which brings new opportunities and threats for forest and fisheries communities regarding mitigation, e.g. REDD++, and adaptation e.g. resettlement as a result of rising sea levels) have resulted in greater visibility to, and demands for assistance with, tenure, rights and access to resources worldwide. A holistic approach to evaluating these topics is therefore required.
C. Scope and analytical framework of the evaluation
In setting the framework for a forward looking, evidence-based evaluation of the optimum role of tenure, rights and access activity in FAO, it is important to look at the broader context within which such an evaluation should take place. This context includes consideration of three main questions:
1. What is the role of tenure in relation to FAO’s three different and complementary goals: (a) food and nutrition security; (b) poverty alleviation and (c) sustainable management of resources?
2. More specifically, what is the role of tenure and rights-related activity in meeting the goals and “strategic objectives” of FAO?
277 FAO Land Tenure Unit (2009) defines tenure as “the complex relationship among people with respect to land and its resources, where access to land and other natural resources is defined by the rules of tenure... In simple terms, tenure systems determine who can use what resources of the land for how long, and under what conditions” 278 Direct contributions to MDG1, MDG3, MDG7 and MDG8, and indirectly contributing to MDG2, MDG5 and MDG6. 279 Direct contributions to SOF, SOG, SOH, SOK, SOI and indirectly contributing to the remaining ones including Forestry and Fisheries.
241
3. How specifically do tenure-related activities fit with FAO’s defined “core functions”; and taking into account past performance, resource availability and other constraints, what should be the priorities for the FAO in the area of tenure, rights and access?
In the context of the above questions, and looking at the FAO Goals and Objectives (See Figure 1), it is evident that the FAO work on tenure is expected to play a strong supporting rather than leading role in FAO as it moves towards its Vision. In simple terms, and from an FAO point of view, secure tenure is not an end objective in and of itself. Rather, it provides a means to move ahead in terms of development aimed at achieving the FAO goals and strategic objectives, the “end” being reduction in hunger, poverty and unsustainable use of natural resources. The evaluation will thus assess the extent to which tenure, rights and access considerations have been integrated thoroughly into the mainstream of FAO activity280, complementing and supporting the overall approach taken to the MDGs and to achieving the vision, goals and objectives of the FAO and its Members.
Figure 1: Main components of FAO’s results framework
FAO’s vision A world free of hunger and malnutrition where food and agriculture contributes to improving the living standards of all, especially the poorest, in an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable manner.
The three Global Goals of Members: • reduction of the absolute number of people suffering from hunger, progressively ensuring a world in which all people at all times have sufficient safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life; • elimination of poverty and the driving forward of economic and social progress for all, with increased food production, enhanced rural development and sustainable livelihoods; • sustainable management and utilisation of natural resources, including land, water, air, climate and genetic resources, for the benefit of present and future generations.
Strategic Objectives A. Sustainable intensification of crop production B. Increased sustainable livestock production C. Sustainable management and use of fisheries and aquaculture resources D. Improved quality and safety of foods at all stages of the food chain E. Sustainable management of forests and trees F. Sustainable management of land, water and genetic resources and improved responses to global environmental challenges affecting food and agriculture G. Enabling environment for markets to improve livelihoods and rural development H. Improved food security and better nutrition I. Improved preparedness for, and effective response to, food and agricultural threats and emergencies K. Gender equity in access to resources, goods, services and decision-making in the rural areas L. Increased and more effective public and private investment in agriculture and rural development
Source: C2009/15. DG’s MTP 2010-13 and Programme of Work and Budget 2010-11.
The FAO has eight defined “core functions” to carry out in meeting its vision and achieving its goals and strategic objectives (see Figure 2). One of the main challenges faced by the FAO “Tenure Group” (TG) is to define its role within this broader context of the FAO Vision, Goals and Objectives, and considering the accepted “Core functions”.
280 As per OED policy, this evaluation will also assess FAO’s performance on gender mainstreaming throughout its activities.
242
Parallel to this is the question faced by the Evaluation Team (ET): What should be the role of the TG, given the FAO Vision, Goals and Objectives, and given a realistic assessment of the constraints facing expansion of work in this area? What should be the priorities, taking into account the strengths and weaknesses of work carried out by FAO in recent years and the activities of other actors in this area? For the purposes of this evaluation – which is forward looking and limited in scope – the future Goals, Objectives and “Core Functions” of FAO should be taken as given. In brief, tenure should be dealt with in FAO in a way that supports the main thrust of FAO’s work to achieve its goals and objectives. What are the implications in terms of how Tenure, Rights and Access (TRA) work should be focused and organized within the FAO? How does the current organization and focus of such work shape up in terms of the answer to the previous question? And, what are the constraints and opportunities that need to be addressed, if changes are desirable; and how can they be addressed? These appear to be three main questions that should be addressed by the evaluation.
Further details on the nature of the challenges, the generic evaluation questions and a summary of the activities that are necessary to answer the above questions are available in Appendix 2 of this Concept Paper.
Figure 2: Core Functions of FAO
1. Providing long-term perspectives and leadership in monitoring and assessing trends in food security and agriculture, fisheries and forestry. 2. Stimulating the generation, dissemination and application of information and knowledge, including statistics. 3. Negotiating international instruments, setting norms, standards and voluntary guidelines, supporting the development of national legal instruments and promoting their implementation. 4. Articulating policy and strategy options and advice. 5. Providing technical support to: a. promote technology transfer; b. catalyse change; and c. build capacity, particularly for rural institutions. 6. Undertaking advocacy and communication, to mobilise political will and promote global recognition of required actions in areas of FAO’s mandate. 7. Bringing integrated interdisciplinary and innovative approaches to bear on the Organization’s technical work and support services. 8. Working through strong partnerships and alliances where joint action is needed.
Source: C2009/15. DG’s MTP 2010-13 and Programme of Work and Budget 2010-11.
D. Methodology of the evaluation
The evaluation will gather, analyse and report information mainly through the following means:
A thorough review of relevant documentation from within FAO (including budgetary and programming data) as well as from other agencies working in tenure, rights and access to resources; with particular attention to FAO normative products (see annex C), field projects (see annex D), meetings and events (see annex E), and past evaluations (see annex F). In-depth interviews with a range of stakeholders in FAO’s TG, including Senior Management, staff from the Natural Resources Department (both the Land and Water Division and the Climate, Bio-energy and Tenure Division), the Economic and Social Development Department (including the Gender, Equity and Rural Employment Division, the Trade and Commodities Division and the Agricultural Economics Development Division), the Legal and Ethics Office, the Technical Cooperation Department (comprising the Emergencies and Rehabilitation Division, the Policy and Programme Development Support Division, and the
243
Investment Centre), Technical Departments (such as the Forestry Department and the Fisheries and Aquaculture Department); and decentralized offices. Discussions with FAO stakeholders, and with recipients of assistance and users of FAO’s TRA products, to gather their views on the usefulness, relevance, quality and comparative advantages of FAO’s TRA work, and where that work should go in the future. Visits to selected case-study countries (tentatively two or three countries in Africa, Eastern Europe and Central Asia) for in-depth information gathering; the country missions will primarily assess the effectiveness of FAO’s field programme and gather the views of local stakeholders on FAO’s TRA work. Visits, surveys and/or interviews with key agencies and institutions working in tenure, rights and access to resources. This will include a sample from among international organizations and financing institutions such as World Bank, IFAD, UN Habitat, UNEP, UNDP, etc.; research institutions such as IFPRI/CAPRi and other academic centres; major INGOs (e.g. Oxfam, IIED); commercial and industrial representatives; donor agencies, etc. Convening of a Panel of Experts of global repute to provide insights and input to the evaluation team, meeting at the start and end of the evaluation process.
E. Composition of the Evaluation Team
The evaluation team will consist of:
An independent team leader recognised internationally for his/her expertise in land and natural resources tenure issues and in conducting evaluations. Two senior team members with a combined expertise in socio-economic, policy and technical issues related to tenure, rights and access to land and other natural resources, and with complementary regional experience. Members of the evaluation team would also have field experience in managing TRA-related interventions in developing countries and be familiar with both development and humanitarian contexts. Gender expertise will also be required in at least one member of the team. The evaluation will be managed by OED which will also provide research and administrative support to the evaluation team. The team leader will participate as early as possible in the evaluation process, including the preparatory phase during which he/she will prepare an Inception Report. To the extent possible, the team will be balanced in terms of thematic, regional and gender expertise/representation.
F. Indicative timetable
February-early April 2011 Identification and selection of evaluation team and Expert Panel members Start gathering and analysing of background information and documentation Mid April 2011/Early May 2011 Core team in Rome for one week for initial discussions, interviews, document review, planning Team Leader prepares Inception Report with inputs from core team Mid May 2011 1st meeting of the Expert Panel (2 days) to discuss Inception Report and evaluation design Late May and early June 2011 Country visits (Southern Africa, Eastern Europe and Central Asia), survey implementation, telephone interviews, etc. June-July 2011 Preparation of draft evaluation report August 2011 Circulation of Draft Report for comments from FAO stakeholders Zero draft report to be available by mid August 2011 August-September 2011 2nd meeting of the Expert Panel to contribute to finalisation of the evaluation recommendations
244
Team leader stays on for three days to review and incorporate comments (with possible follow-up meetings with commenters) By September 2011 Final Report delivered By October 2011 FAO Management Response prepared May 2012 Discussion of the final report and management response at the 106th session of the FAO Programme Committee
245
Concept Paper Appendix 1: Background on FAO Cooperation in Tenure, Rights and Access to Land and other Natural Resources
Given the multi-disciplinary nature of natural resources tenure, rights and access work, several technical units have been involved in this area of cooperation. They together form the “FAO Tenure Group” (TG) and include:
A. Natural Resources Department:
Land Tenure Unit (NRC): it is physically located within the Climate Change, Bio-energy and Tenure Division (NRC) and was until 2009 formally part of the Land and Water Division (NRL). It is staffed by ten professionals including two consultants, one regional officer (full-time and based in Budapest) and one APO (HQ). In addition, two professional posts have recently been created with funds from the FAO-World Bank (WB) Cooperative Programme (Investment Centre) largely to serve WB-funded projects, and one professional post is being established for emergency and rehabilitation activities.
Current work undertaken by the Land Tenure Unit includes normative activities (Regular Programme), and a range of field programme activities including investment projects, emergency projects and rural development projects. Since 2006, the Land Tenure Unit has led and/or participated in several technical cooperation projects and has provided inputs to investment field projects implemented in several countries (mainly in Eastern Europe and Central Asia) through partnerships with International Financing Institutions (IFIs).
Recent interdisciplinary work by FAO on improving secure access to land and other natural resources was significantly facilitated by two major programmes: the Livelihood Support Programme (LSP) and the Legal Empowerment of the Poor programme (LEP). The LSP, which mainstreamed the livelihood approach in various FAO activities, had a specific component dedicated to improving access to natural assets by the poor, and produced substantive normative work focused on themes such as the interface between natural resources, the rights of the poor, their recognition and exercise, and access to natural resources in a rapidly changing world. The LEP focused on the legal empowerment of the poor and their capacities to exercise those rights, through both normative and field activities – including capacity building. This work provided inputs to the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor. Both programmes were implemented through an inter-sectoral approach. This interdepartmental collaboration has reportedly been continued and expanded in the development of the Voluntary Guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure and the related implementation guides.
The Land Tenure Unit work in 2010-11 focuses on the achievement of Organizational Result F4 – “An International framework is developed and countries’ capacities are reinforced for responsible governance of access to, and secure and equitable tenure of land and its interface with other natural resources, with particular emphasis on its contribution to rural development”.
Land and Water Division (NRL): This division is responsible for addressing issues related to land and water resources and management, and is co-responsible for publishing in 2011 the first FAO flagship on the global status of land and water resources. Two staff members work on a part-time basis on land tenure and water tenure issues respectively.
The tenure-related work of the Land and Water Division in 2010-11 contributes to Organizational Result F2 – “Countries address water scarcity in agriculture and strengthen their capacities to improve water productivity of agricultural systems at national and river basin levels including transboundary water systems”. TRA work in this area is also included in FAO’s Impact Focus Area “Coping with scarcity of water and land resources”.
246
B. Economic and Social Development Department
Gender, Equity and Rural Employment Division (ESW): This office supports FAO’s efforts to promote the economic and social well-being of the rural poor. In addition to coordinating FAO’s work on sustainable rural development and population issues, the Division assists FAO and its member governments in addressing issues related to gender, indigenous people and rural institutions. Two staff members (on a part-time basis) and a full-time consultant work on tenure issues. ESW is expecting to allocate more staff time to land issues since it has been prioritized as a core theme. Among key activities of ESW are the gender and land rights database (http://www.fao.org/gender/landrights) and several papers and other materials on land policy. ESW is also contributing to the development of the Voluntary Guidelines.
The tenure-related work of the Gender, Equity and Rural Employment Division (together with the Land and Water Division – see above) in 2010-11 contributes to Organizational Result G2 – “Rural employment creation, access to land and income diversification are integrated into agricultural and rural development policies, programmes and partnerships”, and K3 – “Governments are formulating gender-sensitive, inclusive and participatory policies in agriculture and rural development”.
Agricultural Economics Development Division (ESA): It is the focal point for FAO's economic research and policy analysis for food security and sustainable development. ESA focuses on the analysis of agricultural and rural development programmes and projects. It produces studies on agriculture in the overall economic development process, poverty reduction, comparing agricultural development at country and regional levels, and on the situation and trends of world food security. It also publishes the State of Food and Agriculture, and the State of Food Insecurity in the World, two of FAO's flagship publications.
ESA host the Secretariat of the recently reformed Committee for Food Security (CFS), which has become the platform for the discussions on the Voluntary Guidelines for Responsible Governance of Land, Fisheries and Forests. ESA has also conducted analytical work focused on household access to a set of assets, through which labour is allocated to different activities affecting outcomes such as income, food security, and investment spending.
Trade and Markets Division (EST): It maintains a constant watch on the world market situation and outlook for all the main agricultural commodities, including basic foodstuffs, tropical products, and raw materials, and is responsible for servicing the arrangements for early warning of food shortfalls.
EST is the FAO focal point for the development of the “Principles for Responsible Agricultural Investment (RAI) that Respects Rights, Livelihoods and Resources”. In developing the above principles, EST interacts with other FAO units (such as NRC and LEG) which are involved in the development of the Voluntary Guidelines for Responsible Governance of Land, Fisheries and Forests.
C. Technical Cooperation Department:
Emergency Operations and Rehabilitation (TCE): As part of FAO work in disaster risk reduction, this office has worked with the Land Tenure Unit to improve access to land in countries emerging from violent conflict (e.g. Angola, Mozambique and the Sudan) and from natural disasters such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. It has developed tools for project designers, land administration and land tenure specialists.
The tenure-related work of the Emergency Operations and Rehabilitation Division and the Land Resources Unit in 2010-11 contributes to Organizational Result I1 – “Countries’ vulnerability to crisis, threats and emergencies is reduced through better preparedness and integration of risk prevention and mitigation into policies, programmes and interventions”; and I3 – “Countries and partners have improved transition and linkages between emergency, rehabilitation and development”.
247
Investment Centre (TCI): This division works in partnership with countries and both public and private financial institutions to increase the efficacy and flow of external, domestic and private investments in agriculture and rural development. It has worked together with the Land Tenure Unit in developing and providing technical assistance to programmes and projects on land tenure in developing and in-transition countries.
The Policy and Programme Development Support Division (TCS): It serves FAO Member Nations by collecting, analysing and disseminating information on country, regional and global developments in agriculture and by providing policy advice that supports the formulation, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of strategies for sustainable agriculture, rural development and food security. It also facilitates the mobilization of funds from both donors and national governments for projects and programmes within developing countries.
D. Forestry Department (FO):
The Forestry Department initiated its work on forest tenure in 2005, in close collaboration with NRC. FO engages in activities that aim at supporting the development and implementation of adequate and diversified forest tenure systems. This includes assessing the impact of different tenure systems on sustainable forest management and poverty alleviation; collection and dissemination of data on forest tenure; raising awareness and stimulating debates on forest tenure at the national level and in international forums; and providing country support through field projects and development of practical tools. A key output of FO TRA work will be a set of Forestry Tenure Guidelines which will be published shortly. FO is also involved in the development of the Voluntary Guidelines.
E. Fisheries and Aquaculture Department (FI):
It facilitates and secures the long-term sustainable development and utilization of the world's fisheries and aquaculture. Underpinning these basic social and economic objectives is the requirement for fisheries and aquaculture to be responsibly managed. This implies preventing overfishing, promoting sustainable aquaculture, co-ordination and delivery of effective research and extension and the empowerment of people. FI provides, on the request of members, technical assistance in all aspects of fisheries and aquaculture management and development including tenure, rights and access to resources.
F. The Legal and Ethics Office (LEG):
This office assists in the formulation of treaties on food and agriculture, publishes legal studies and maintains a database (FAOLEX) of national legislation and international agreements concerning food and agriculture (including fisheries, forestry and water). Three to four professionals carry out work (on a part-time basis) on land and other natural resources tenure issues.
Working with the technical services of FAO (particularly with the Land Tenure Unit), this office helps governments prepare laws, regulations, agreements and other legal texts, advises on institutional structures and compliance with international law. Since 2005, it has participated and/or led nine technical cooperation projects. The Office has also published legal studies, as well as occasional papers (available at http://www.fao.org/Legal/legstud/list-e.htm) which deal with the issue of natural resources tenure, rights and access. The tenure-related work of the Legal and Ethics office in 2010-11 contributes to Organizational Result X2 – “Effective and coherent delivery of FAO core functions and enabling services across Organizational Results”.
G. Staff in decentralized offices in Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Near East.
248
Concept Paper Appendix 2: Possible Framework for the Evaluation
I. Nature of the II. Generic Evaluation Questions III. Generic Evaluation Activities to answer Challenges questions
Developing a 1. How does TRA fit in the broader scheme a) Review of documentation perspective on of agricultural and natural resource b) Personal knowledge of ET and Expert the priority TRA related development and food security? Panel (EP) issues in the Why are TRA elements important? How c) Discussions with key informants context of the does TRA link to governance? What is d) Output: a discussion paper and FAO Goals the TRA situation in the developing framework document on necessary world today? What is a useful and TRA elements in the context of the logical framework of priorities needing MDGs and the FAO goals and strategic to be addressed by the ET? objectives Analyzing 2. What is FAO currently doing in the TRA e) Review of FAO documentation and existing area, both in the Tenure Group (TG) field project work reports, etc. to situation inside itself and elsewhere in FAO? What has capture both normative and field and outside of been accomplished in the recent past? efforts and both development and FAO What have been the results over time? emergency/rehabilitation work. Is there a demand for TRA support f) In-depth discussions with FAO services in the future, and can this be personnel within and outside the TG. quantified? Are there areas of work g) Survey questionnaire on where FAO has consistently performed results/impacts well, or poorly? Are there any h) Selected field visits indications of impacts? i) Output: an inventory and analysis of FAO work 3. Who else is working in TRA related j) Personal knowledge of ET, EP and FAO activities (internationally, regionally and staff nationally) today? What are the k) Widespread telephone interviews with complementarities with FAO work in relevant orgs. this area? l) Review of documentation on accomplishments by others m) Output: Inventory and analysis of work by others 4. What are the key gaps and future n) Using d), i) and m) above, do a gap challenges in the TRA area today, given analysis and develop a needs the framework developed in 1 above? assessment with priorities. o) Output: Future priority needs in the TRA area Evaluating and 5. How should FAO fit in broader p) Evaluation of the logical priorities for Assessing where international, regional and national FAO given o) above and the FAO FAO should be work on TRA; given the nature of FAO, strategic objectives and core functions, going in the TRA its goals and strategic objectives, and but ignoring other constraints area accepted core functions? What are the q) Evaluation of constraints and new priorities? opportunities for change in FAO’s TRA 6. What are the underlying constraints on work change? r) Evaluation of priorities for FAO considering the resource and other constraints facing the organization Recommending 7. What are the ET’s recommendations for s) Evaluation of priorities for the future FAO the future of the future path of FAO change in the work in TRA, its organization and structure TRA work in the TRA area? within FAO; FAO as a whole. 8. What are the ET’s recommendations for how to overcome the constraints on t) Evaluation of alternatives for overcoming change (partnerships, leveraging, etc.)? constraints on change in the FAO;
249