U4 Expert Answer Corruption risks and mitigation measures in land administration Query Please provide a summary of the key corruption risks and potential mitigation measures in land administration Content However, there are ways to mitigate these corruption risks. According to the literature, 1. Corruption risks in land administration increased transparency, the inclusion of local 2. Mitigation measures communities in decision-making processes and strong legislation can all make a difference in 3. References tackling corruption in land administration. International donors can support these processes by variously providing support for national Summary government-led initiatives, by supporting the legal Corruption in land administration has significant recognition of ownership and user rights, societal costs, and can have a major effect on the providing technical assistance and information livelihoods of people worldwide. Corruption in this technology support and establishing conflict sector can reduce peoples’ access to land, and resolution mechanisms to support the land harm the livelihoods of small-scale producers, administration process. agricultural labourers, indigenous communities and landless rural and urban poor. Women, young There are also international standards and people and ethnic minorities suffer most by having guidelines available that provide their access to land hindered by corruption. recommendations for good governance in land administration, such as free, prior and informed Corruption in land administration takes on consent of local communities in land deals and different forms in different countries and contexts, increased transparency levels. They constitute a ranging from petty and grand corruption to state good first step by providing standards by which capture. Moreover, land corruption can be driven civil society, at both a national and international by poor oversight, weak institutions, a lack of level, can hold governments to account. However, capacity, and by not including civil society and these standards have rarely been enforced, thus other key stakeholders in the land administration their impact has largely been inconsistent and process. limited. Author(s): Ben Wheatland, Transparency International, [email protected] Reviewed by: Marie Chêne, Annette Jaitner, Finn Heinrich, PhD, Transparency International, [email protected] Date: 18 February 2016 Number: 2016:1 U4 is a resource centre for development practitioners who wish to effectively address corruption challenges in their work. Expert Answers are produced by the U4 Helpdesk – operated by Transparency International – as quick responses to operational and policy questions from U4 Partner Agency staff. Corruption risks and mitigation measures in land administration making them vulnerable to evictions and other 1. Corruption risks in land abuses (Transparency International 2013). administration On a macro scale, rampant corruption can also reduce confidence in the enforcement of land Why land corruption matters rights. This lack of land rights’ enforcement is often perceived as a risk for safe investments and, Secure and equitable rights to land have been consequently, can have a negative effect on a identified as being central to the success of the country’s economy. Corruption can also damage recently established Sustainable Development traditional lifestyles and communities. Most Goals. Effectively and transparently administered problematically, however, land corruption can land rights empower people by enhancing food reduce the desire among elites to implement security, incentivising eco-friendly and sustainable effective land governance reforms. If elites are protection and use of land and promoting inclusive able to abuse land ownership and administration societies (Action Aid International et al. 2015). to monopolise their position as land owners, governance reforms that may make this harder or In many developing countries, agriculture remains impossible are less likely to be implemented central to economic growth and poverty alleviation (Wren-Lewis 2013). Lastly, resentment caused by (Deininger et al. 2011). It is estimated that land corruption can lead to an increased risk of services derived from the use of land and natural conflict in a country. resources makes up 50-90% of the livelihoods of rural households living in poverty worldwide Given the scale and importance of land (TEEB 2010). With 75% of the poor worldwide administration and the deals that it involves, living in rural areas, and the majority involved with excellent management and transparency are agriculture, the costs of land corruption are needed to ensure that abuse and corruption do especially damaging in rural areas. The increased not take over. However, land administration is value of food production since the food price rises technically complex, and this is part of the reason in 2007 has had a knock-on effect on the value of why so little progress has been made in land land. Between 2001 and 2011, at least 227 million administration reform. Also relevant are the hectares of land worldwide was sold or leased to political sensitivities and institutional international investors (Oxfam 2011). On average, fragmentation of the land sector in general and the countries where such land deals were agreed the country-specific nature of arrangements that between 2000 and 2011 score among the bottom cautions against a one-size-fits-all approach third of countries globally in terms of control of (Deininger et al. 2011). corruption (Oxfam 2013). Corruption in land administration reduces access Forms of corruption to land, harms the livelihoods of small-scale The socio-economic position of land, the system producers, agricultural labourers, indigenous of land tenure used, the land markets, and the communities and landless rural and urban poor. quality of institutions varies greatly from country to Women, young people and ethnic minorities are country and affect specific corruption patterns at the groups who suffer most by having their access the country level (Palmer et al. 2009). However, to land hindered by corruption. Land corruption each of the processes included in land can also have a negative effect on the administration are vulnerable to corruption. development and prosperity of national economies, and can cause food insecurity. The various areas of land administration that are vulnerable to corruption are: At the micro level, bribery and nepotism in land administration can lead to the loss of livelihood for Auctioning for land sales: This is a method by families. Land corruption can make administration which land is sold, and is frequently used to services inaccessible to people who cannot or will sell large amounts of land for commercial not make illegal payments, and at the same time purposes, but can also be used for smaller creates a disincentive to register property amounts of land as well. Corruption risks transactions, leading to increased informality of include influence trading and bribery to secure land tenure procedures. Ordinary people are left favour for companies or individuals; with little or no real protection under the law, www.U4.no U4 EXPERT ANSWER 2 Corruption risks and mitigation measures in land administration Land transfers: This is the official process of found by EABI to be more than US$100 in Kenya buying and selling land. Corruption risks (EABI 2012). Citizens may pay bribes to land include the giving and receiving of bribes to administration officials to register their purchases speed up processes, collusion between parties of land, or to shorten waiting times in receiving to drive prices down and officers deliberately ownership documents. extorting bribes by obstructing a deal’s completion; In land administration, government officials may Enforcement of land rights: This is simply the accept bribes from companies in exchange for enforcement of the rights of men, women, ignoring or perverting laws, for facilitating faster companies and the government to land. and smoother transactions when buying or selling Corruption risks include deliberate exclusion of land, giving preferential treatment (such as women to favour men, government officials unequal access to information on land use deliberately allowing bribery to secure land, categorisations which can unfairly favour a and companies and individuals paying bribes particular company in a land auction, etc.). Bribery to circumvent slow, inefficient and unwanted such as this can also extend to favours and be regulations, as well as governments using their facilitated by close personal connections between position to grant and refuse land rights to elites, politicians and investors. Such vested secure political support; interests mean that officials can personally benefit Compensation for local communities: When from corruption in the land administration system people are forcibly or willingly evicted from by taking advantage of favouritism, impunity and their land due to its sale to a corporation or its nepotism to enhance themselves and their appropriation by the government, these families (MacInnes 2012). communities should be properly compensated, either with alternative living places or with Grand corruption compensation payments. Corruption risks include officials artificially increasing Growing pressure on land for investment and compensation amounts but pocketing the patronage purposes have created incentives for increase, and bribes being paid to officials