draft report on the internal review of the regionalization process

Review of International Land Coalition’s Regionalisation Process An Asia Regional Perspective

(Draft Report)

By

Roshan Chitrakar

Community Self Reliance Centre

Nepal

October 2010

Draft, only for internal use of ILC, please do not quote.

Review of International Land Coalition’s Regionalisation Process An Asian Perspective, draft report October 2010. 1

Contents

List of Acronyms .................................................................................................. 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1

Purpose of the Review ................................................................................... 1 The Approach ................................................................................................. 1 Limitations ...................................................................................................... 1 Organisation of the Report.............................................................................. 1

ILC Regionalisation: An Historical Perspective .................................................... 1

Genesis and Rationale of the Regionalisation Concept .................................. 1 ILC Asia Node: History and Governance Structure ........................................ 1

Governance and Results ..................................................................................... 1

Outreach and Membership ............................................................................. 1 Members‘ Roles and Contributions ................................................................. 1 Result-based Management............................................................................. 1 Communication ............................................................................................... 1 Diversification of Resource Base .................................................................... 1 Summary ........................................................................................................ 1

Efficiency and Effectiveness of ILC Asia .............................................................. 1

Composition, Roles and Resources ............................................................... 1 Hosting Arrangements .................................................................................... 1 Staff Performance ........................................................................................... 1 Relation with ILC Rome, Steering Committee and the Host ........................... 1 Coordination and Collaboration ...................................................................... 1 Summary ........................................................................................................ 1

Members‘ Perception and Satisfaction ................................................................. 1

Appropriation of Regionalisation Concept ...................................................... 1 Response to Regional Activities ..................................................................... 1 Summary ........................................................................................................ 1

Conclusion and Recommendations ..................................................................... 1

References .......................................................................................................... 1

Annexes ............................................................................................................... 1

Annex A. List of Asia based ILC member-CSOs/IGOs/INGOs in 2008 ......... 1



List of Acronyms

ANGOC Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development

KPA Consortium for Agrarian Reform

ALRD Association for Land Rights and Development????

FAO-RP

MISEREOR and KZE

LWA Land Watch Asia



Introduction

The Charter and Governance Framework of the International Land Coalition defines the coalition as ―an independent global alliance of civil society and intergovernmental organisations that is accountable to and governed by its members.‖ The ILC in its purpose statement mentions that it works together with its members to promote secure and equitable access to and control over land for poor women and men through advocacy, dialogue and capacity building. It envisages a world where every farmer enjoys secure and equitable access to and control over land–a precondition for reducing poverty and securing identity, dignity and inclusion for every human being. To realise this vision ILC is poised to enhance capacities of its members and partners as well as their opportunities, at all levels, for pro-poor policy dialogue and influence. The members and partners are expected to complement their programmes and strategies with successful results and lessons from their collective initiatives.1 These are of course huge global tasks that the ILC members and partners have agreed to undertake collectively as well as incorporate in their organisations‘ activities. The key issue that the ILC and its partners consciously value is to ensure that local contexts remain well connected with the global alliance through strengthened networks. It is precisely in this context and in operationalising one of ILC‘s strategic objectives, that the initiative for regionalisation of ILC has taken effect.

Purpose of the Review

The overarching purpose of this internal review is to assess ILC‘s performance to date in undertaking the regionalisation process in Asia and to generate findings and recommendations to inform ILC‘s future decisions related to strengthening its regionalisation/decentralisation strategy and its implementation in the region.

More specifically the review is carried out to:

• analyse the current regional governance structure, its history and its milestones from the critical perspective;

• assess progress towards objectives and expected results of the regionalisation process in the region;

• evaluate effectiveness and efficiency of regionalisation strategies and systems; and

• examine Asian members‘ assessment of the regionalisation process and their appropriation and participation in the process, at country and regional levels.

The Approach

Limitations

1 These are the paraphrases of the purpose statement outlined in the ―Charter and Governance Framework of the ILC (2003??)



Organisation of the Report

ILC Regionalisation: An Historical Perspective

The ILC Charter outlines that it ―was established as the outcome of the Conference on Hunger and Poverty which took place in Brussels in November 1995 under the leadership of the International Fund for Agricultural Development. Originally called the Popular Coalition to Eradicate Hunger and Poverty, the Assembly of Members, at its meeting of February 2003, formally changed the name to the International Land Coalition, in order to better reflect its mission, nature and objectives‖ (ILC 2003). In the past 15 years since the Brussels meeting and the subsequent founding of the Popular Coalition, the ILC has evolved into being a more transformed broad based global network with the members and partners contributing to the development of clearer ILC principles, strategies and objectives. More notably, the bi-annual Assemblies of Members that took place during these years contributed to ILC‘s broader institutional transformation and discussed with priority the regionalisation/decentralisation strategy and process.

Genesis and Rationale of the Regionalisation Concept

The Assembly of Members (AoM) of 2007 in Uganda was particularly an important milestone in the ILC history in that the members met for 4 days to streamline ILC‘s core principles and finalise the Strategic Framework 2007-2011, Resource Mobilisation Strategy and the ILC Constitution, which laid the ground for the ILC council to draw ILC Operating Framework. The strategy of regionalisation appeared consistently in the chronology of events during the AoM 2007 and more categorically in the Strategic Framework 2007-2011. In the following year the Coalition Council worked on the details of the ILC principles and the Strategic Framework 2007-11 to came up with the Operating Framework. The Operating Framework underscores the ILC principles, core strategies and outlines that:

The ILC will increasingly support regionalization as a means by which the global coalition will work through regional plans. This will provide opportunities for members to take increased ownership and ensure that the actions of the ILC remain relevant to the specific regional contexts of Latin America, Asia and Africa.2

On the ground set by the ILC core strategies about regionalisation, the Operating Framework has specified seven core functions of regional networks. The Operating Framework has also outlined the detailed roles and responsibilities of the Regional Platforms on all aspects of ILC‘s operations.

With such a specification of the ILC‘s position on regionalisation, the members in the three continental regions (Latin America, Africa and Asia) were mandated by the Assembly of Members 2007 to prepare region specific strategies in relation to the ILC‘s 5 Strategic Objectives (SOs) explicating as to how the regionalisation process adds value to members‘ effort to maximise the organisational contributions to achieving those

2 The International Land Coalition Operating Framework (p. 2), approved by ILC Council in April 2008.



objectives. The regional strategies thus prepared were to be approved by the Coalition Council.

ILC Asia Node: History and Governance Structure

The history of Asia-based ILC members‘ initiative to push the agenda for what has currently evolved and operationalised as the ILC Asia Node can be traced back to the period during and, with more strategic importance, soon after the ILC Assembly of Members 2005 in Bolivia. The document to this effect is well archived in Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC), the current hosting entity of ILC Asia Region. ANGOC had been organising several meetings of Asia-based CSO representatives, most of whom were also ILC members, to discuss issues of access to land. In that context, the 3-day meeting in Subic, Philippines from 12 to 14 October 20063 was of particular significance as it provided a ―regional lens‖ to ILC in its processes of institutional development and finalisation of the 2007-2010 global strategy. The meeting report was submitted to ILC secretariat and was believed to have validated the need for members to interact more at regional level and offered justifications for the ILC to push the regionalisation process further.4 Subsequently, during the ILC Assembly of Members 2007 in Uganda the agenda of regionalisation was specifically

discussed and, in turn, the principles outlined in the new Strategic Framework 2007-2010 duly acknowledged its operationalisation.

In Asia, the ILC regionalisation process took a notable momentum as the Assembly of Members 2007 mandated the Asia based members5 to explore the process and map out the details needing consideration. Meanwhile, the ILC secretariat and ANGOC entered into an institutional agreement on 28 August 2007 for the later to engage with members and partners, and start a Land Watch Asia (LWA) initiative by carrying out a ―Piloting of a Process to Decentralise the ILC in Asia.‖ The study offered an opportunity to consolidate information on status of people‘s access to land vis-a-vis the legal provisions on land issues and key actors involved in programmes on access to land

in six Asian countries. The study also explored access-to-land related policies and

3 The meeting was jointly organised by the International Land Coalition (ILC), Consortium for Agrarian Reform (KPA) and Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development ANGOC) with the support of ILC, MISEREOR and KZE.

4 E-mail correspondence with the Executive Director, ANGOC, 22 September 2010.

5 According to the ILC Working Group for Asia‘s minutes of the 1

st meeting (28-29 May 2008), the ILC members then

in Asia numbered 15 CSOs and 2 IGOs.

The core functions of the regional networks are to:

• Prioritise actions in line with the Strategic Framework taking account of the regional, national and local contexts

• Coordinate planning of activities to be undertaken by members

• Implement and monitor regional and cross-regional activities, including programmes funded by ILC grants and joint actions

• Coordinate monitoring and reporting of activities undertaken by members

• Conduct and coordinate evaluation activities as agreed in the annual planning process

• Facilitate member-to-member relationships within the region, including joint action and communication among members and with other strategic stakeholders

• Represent the ILC as required

Box 1. Core functions of ILC’s regional networks

Source: The ILC Operating Framework, 2008 (p. 4)



priorities of intergovernmental and international organisations, and donor countries engaged in development assistance in these countries. The process and the outcome of the study provided a helpful foundation for the ILC and its members in the region to take the ILC regionalisation process forward in Asia.6

With the help of ANGOC and LWA, the members started their consultation process to come up with the region specific strategies, work plan, priority areas of ILC Asia institutional development, and possible future course of action. In this connection, a survey of members and partners was carried out in February 2008, which identified organisational views about what and how members could contribute to ILC, the focal areas of their work, benefits of association with the ILC network, and division of responsibilities or functions between ILC Rome and ILC Asia.

Following this survey a 3-day workshop of Asia based ILC members was organised in Bangkok in March 2008 which was participated by 11 CSO and 2 IGO members together with partners and some non-member CSOs involved in national land rights campaigns. The meeting built on the survey result and discussed, among others, ILC Asia strategic objectives along with the processes of the ILC Asia region institutional development and decentralisation.7 The meeting also appointed a Working Group (WG) to develop regional strategy, follow-up plan for 2008-2010, estimate required resources and prepare the resource mobilisation strategy. The Working Group comprising ANGOC, KPA, ALRD and FAO-RP was supported by ILC secretariat with the appointment of an Interim ILC Focal Point for Asia. The Bangkok workshop produced a report identifying and outlining the key areas for the regional programme, ILC Asia institutional development needs, and the way forward. The report was conditionally approved by the ILC Council in its 11th session held on 29-30 April 2008.

The Working Group supported by the ILC Focal Point held its first meeting on 28-29 May 2008 which led to the development of a comprehensive report of the meeting supplemented by the information on the post-meeting progress until the end of August 2008.8 In preparing the minutes, the Working Group, through the Focal Point had a rigorous exchange of ideas and opinions with the Director of ILC global secretariat.9 It also went through a consultative process with the members in the region to seek their views. These were incorporated in the drafting of the ―Regional Programme for Asia 2008-2010‖ and outlining the governing structure of the ILC Regional Presence in Asia. The outline of the structure proposed composition of the Steering Committee, its roles and responsibilities, provision of a Regional Coordinator/Facilitator and the details of the recruitment process, eligibility criteria and roles of the Host Organisation, and the

6 See Final Narrative Report of Piloting of a Process to Decentralise the ILC in Asia, July 2008.

7 Recorded in the ILC Working Group for Asia – minutes of the first meeting, 28-29 May 2008

8 Meanwhile, the Working Group‘s decision to appoint Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC) as the Hosting Organisation of the ILC Asia Node for an initial 30-month period from October 2008 to December 2010 was approved by the ILC Director in August 2008 by which time there were 15 CSO ILC members that belonged to Asia region and the same number of international and inter governmental ILC member organisations working in Asia (see Annex A of the Letter of Agreement on the project ―ILC Regionalisation Process in Asia: A Step Forward‖ signed between ILC and ANGOC on 25 February 2009).

9 Email exchange of 27 September 2010 with Antonio Quizon, the then ILC Focal Person for Asia. He wrote ―I drew up the talking points of the MOU & exchanged this with ANGOC and the ILC Director in July & August, & continued consulting with ANGOC until October. The negotiation was discontinued because by August, the ILC Director (Bruce) was already on leave, and the new ILC Director (Madiodio) assumed office only in late November 2008.‖



number and type of the secretariat support staff. The Working Group, by virtue of being an interim support body of the Asia Node, also proactively discussed its obligatory role in the ILC Global Assembly to be held in the region (Kathmandu, Nepal) from March 23rd to 27th, 2009 and proposed some initial steps needing immediate consideration.

Several ILC events followed during the time between the first and the second meeting of the Working Group, due to which ILC‘s attention to its regionalisation process in Asia remained limited. There was also a 4-month period taken to replace the ILC Secretariat Director that resulted in delaying decisions related to regionalisation, as during this period communications between the ILC global secretariat and Asia Working Group had confined mostly to either administrative and technical matters or on-going grant projects.10 In that context, the ILC Asia Working Group acted as an interim entity to ―oversee and guide the work in the Asia region until the next ILC Council meeting . . .‖11 Meanwhile, the WG members remained engaged in their individual capacity to take forward the initial activities related to regionalisation and those related to the ILC AoM 2009. Three of the WG members also paid a preparatory mission to Nepal on 18-20 September 2008. The WG widely circulated the draft of the ―Regional Programme for Asia 2008-2010‖ among the ILC members for comments and feedback.12 However, the response received prior to the second WG meeting was very poor with comments obtained only from one member from India.13 Nonetheless, the draft programme 2008-2010 and budget was revised on the basis of the comments and further discussions of the WG members.

The second meeting of the Working Group held on 24-25 September 2008 endorsed the changes brought in the draft Regional Programme for Asia 2008-2010. The meeting also took note of the progress on the preparation of the 2009 ALC Assembly of Members in Kathmandu and endorsed the Nepal Coordination Committees‘ proposal for ANGOC to take the role of documenter of the AoM 2009 proceedings. Discussion was held on the need for ILC Asia to make itself visible in the AoM by hosting relevant Asia region specific events. The 2nd WG meeting also reached to a consensus on the entire process of recruiting the ILC Asia Coordinator and the follow up tasks of the ILC Focal Point leading to the handover of responsibilities to the incumbent Regional Coordinator in due course of time.14

10

Ibid 11

Minutes of the 1st Meeting of the ILC Working Group for Asia, 28-29 May 2008 (p. 3).

12 The ILC Asia’s initial activities ranging from the formation of the working group to the development of the draft regional strategy and details of the work plan and budget for 2008-2010 is documented in the minutes of the 1

st

meeting of the ILC Working Group for Asia held on 28-29 May 2008. 13

See the minutes of the ILC Working Group for Asia - Second Meeting, 20-25 September 2008. 14

Ibid.



As of January 2009, the regionalisation process was further concretised with the signing of a Memorandum of Agreement between ILC secretariat and ANGOC leading to the official establishment of the ILC Asia Regional Node. Subsequently, the ILC Asia Node Co-ordinator along with a Project and Communication Officer were hired and the implementation of the planned programmes continued with the support of ANGOC as the hosting organisation. Meanwhile, in February 2009, a Letter of Agreement was signed between ILC and ANGOC for the later to undertake a UD$ 91,675 project entitled ―ILC Regionalisation in Asia: A Step Forward‖ within a period of 12 months between January and December, 2009. Moreover, during the Asian Regional Caucus held in conjunction with ILC Assembly of Members in April 2009, the ILC Asian members nominated a 6-member ILC Asia Steering Committee represented by two Asia-based ILC Coalition Council members, two IGOs working in Asia, the ILC Secretariat Director or his/her nominee and the Asia Region Host organisation.

Representation in ILC governance structures

The ILC‘s journey of regionalisation in Asia that had begun in 2006 has now arrived to a point where a governance structure of the regional platform is now established with clear lines of communication among the interlinked entities and the distinctive roles each has to play. The structure is illustrated in Figure 1. It is clear from the sequence of

ILC ASIA REGIONAL PLATFORM

Support Staff

REGIONAL NODE

COORDINATOR

ILC ASIA STEERING

GROUP

GLOBAL

SECRETARIAT

in Rome

COALITION

COUNCIL

ILC ASIA NODE

HOST Organisation

Figure 1. ILC Asia current governance structure

Source: ILC Secretariat, Rome



ILC events and Asia-based members‘ activities taking place since 2006 that the governance structure of the Asia Node stands on a solid historical foundation backed by succession of participatory and consultative processes. While the Subic workshop of Asian land rights and agrarian reform actors in 2006 offered an Asian perspective for ILC to consider just when its members were coming to a consensus on a new strategic framework, the approval by the Coalition Council of the regional strategy developed by the ILC members with the mandate of AoM 2007 opened up the formal door for the establishment of the ILC‘s Asia Regional Platform. The regionalisation process was further strengthened as the Asia based members formed an interim Working Group to map out the details of ILC Asia‘s overall strategy, programme and budget for 2008-2010 and the strategy for resource mobilisation. The two projects carried out by ANGOC with the letters of agreement with ILC complemented the regionalisation process with concrete experiences and evidence that ILC‘s presence closer to countries in the region makes all the more difference in realising the impact ILC intends to make by being what it calls itself a ―glocal‖ network.

Governance and Results

With a persistent consultative and participatory process exercised over the period of almost 4 years, the ILC Asia Regional Platform has been established as an extended wing of ILC global network. Putting aside the initial interim period of ILC Asia‘s activities led by the Working Group and that of the overlap between the ILC Focal Point and Asia Node Coordinator, the regular day-to-day governance in the ILC Asia Platform started only after the meeting of the Asia Regional Caucus and the subsequent formation of the Steering Committee during the June 2009 Assembly of Members in Kathmandu.

Although ILC members and partners in Asia, since then, are engaged in a regionalised governance structure, they are still bounded by the globally agreed ILC operating principles and, therefore, obliged to work towards achieving the ILC‘s global Strategic Objectives by setting up appropriate governance and management modalities that are effective not only in attracting membership but also for the members to share experiences, cross-pollinate learning and collectively build members‘ capacities to be effective in access-to-land related policy dialogues, advocacy as well as activisms. The core purpose of ILC‘s regionalisation in Asia, as in other regions, is to produce results demonstrating what and how the regional platform has added value to ILC global network. Thought the regionalisation process the ILC aims to be effective in the region in expanding membership, engaging the members creatively and constructively. The regional node is expected to ensure a result oriented management system, improve communication and diversify resource base so that, at the end of the day, the poor women and men in the region, whose subsistence economy depends on agriculture, enjoy better and secured livelihoods through improved access to and control over land and other natural resources. Progress in these aspects in the governance and management practices of the ILC in its Asian Platform are assessed in the following sections.



Outreach and Membership

One of the critical issues outlined in the ILC Strategic Framework 2007-2011 is the need for ILC ―to clarify its plans and strategies for membership growth, for which particular attention needs to be given to engage with social movements and research centres.‖15 This intent was made clear to the Asia-based members by the ILC Assembly of Members 2007 in its authorisation to the Asian members, as to those in the other regions, to explore the regionalisation process and chart out the potential value-added for ILC global network in achieving its Strategic Objectives 2007-2011.

Historically ANGOC has been engaged in land-rights and agrarian reform related dialogues with several CSOs of Asia–many are also ILC members. The 2006 Subic workshop is a good example, in which participation of both ILC-member and non-member CSO-representatives were invited. ANGOC also brought together 15 CSOs, which included non-ILC members, in a planning meeting to launch Land Watch Asia. The participation in these events might have allowed the non-members to assess the potential benefits and relevance of and possibly motivated many to apply for the ILC membership. However, ANGOC reports on such events do not record if they had brought new members on board and if there had been any outreach initiative or persuasion for new memberships to ILC.

The ILC Asia Node appears to be somewhat cautious, rather indifferent, in widely expanding memberships in the region. The two Asia specific projects implemented by ANGOC for ILC in the past 2 years did not specifically prioritise this aspect, although building and developing ―the membership and network in Asia under the guidance of the regional Steering Group for Asia‖16 was one of the objectives of the piloting of the regionalisation process. However, with or without ILC membership several CSOs are connected with ANGOC through means such as workshops and Land Watch Asia initiative. Publication of LWA electronic newsletter has been regularised and as many as 111 CSOs and IGOs that are in the ANGOC mailing list receive the newsletter.17

An ILC Regional Consultation meeting recommended that ―membership expansion should be purposive so as not to disrupt organisational systems and retain ‗institutional memory.‘‖18 This recommendation clearly sends a message that expansion of membership should be viewed as a contentious and critical issue. This view was also reflected by some members in their responses to the survey carried out for this review (see Box 2). There were concerns that getting new CSOs attracted for ILC membership would not be as much of a problem as it would be to prevent the collapse of an exponentially grown network of members due to its own weight. In an interview session with ALRD Executives it was argued strongly that the current approach to membership expansion did not guarantee fairness. The arrangement of new membership approval by the ILC AoM on the basis of simple recommendations of current members did not ensure a reasonable assessment of the applicants about their appropriateness. The

15

ILC (2007). Strategic Framework 2007-2011: Putting a Pro-poor Land Agenda into Practice, p. 3. 16

Letter of Agreement between ILC and ANGOC for the later to implement the project ―ILC Regionalisation Process in Asia: A Step Forward,‖ 25 February 2009, p. 8.

17 ANGOC, 2008, final narrative report of ―Piloting of a Process to Decentralise the International Land Coalition in Asia,‖ p. 11

18 Ibid, p. 8.



ILC, therefore, needed to adopt a more rigorous approach to recommending and approving new memberships.19

The ILC Assembly of Members 2009 in Kathmandu approved 19 new members of which 7 are from Asia.20 This can be seen as a positive development in line with the 5th ILC‘s Strategic Objective, i.e., to evolve ILC as an autonomous, decentralised, globally-representative, member-led and financially sustainable coalition. However, whether the value added by and justification of the admission of the new members were discussed and agreed upon in the global assembly, or earlier in regional platforms, is not clear. Nor is it clear what role the Steering Committee played in recommending these organisations for the membership. Recently, the ILC global secretariat had sent out the call for new membership through various media. Some ILC Asian members, however, want to see the ILC taking more strategic options in deciding how and who should be granted new membership so that the ILC‘s global platform will not only be sustained but also will remain relevant and constructive in building stronger alliance of CSOs, IGOs and partners in assuring poor and marginalised people‘s rights to land.

As reflected in the 3rd response (see Box 2), the fact that ILC memberships in Asia lack representation of most countries of the region (see Table 1) has not been an issue of discussion. The 23 members represent only 7 (12%) countries from Asia, with India having the highest representation of 6 members.

Of the 7 new CSOs from Asia getting the new membership in the last global Assemble of Members in Kathmandu, 3 are from the Philippines, 2 from India, 1 each from Bangladesh and Nepal. This raises the question of fairness of the current method of

19

The Executive Director and Deputy Director was interviewed on October 23, 2010. Issues related to membership expansion was thoroughly discussed during the interview. They also proposed a set of alternative criteria to the way new members are approved currently.

20 See International Land Coalition, Conference & Assembly of Members Nepal 2009: Ensuring Rights to Land for Peace and Food Security, p. 34

Response 1 Membership and membership strategy are issues that are, & must be defined first at global level. . . . Do we want to expand membership, what kinds of members, which countries or areas, what strategy? I don't think that there is any problem about expanding at all, but the bottom-line questions are related to the strategic objectives and general directions of ILC, and whether we have the resources to service such large membership. Note that the very founding congress of the Popular Coalition (Brussels Conference) was attended by about 800 groups. Also, over the years there were many international networks that grew very big but seemed to "collapse" on their own weight. It is easy to bring in 100 groups in Asia over a period of one year, but what next? And will Africa & Latin America do the same (on the basis of parity)? I think the issue is "strategy" rather than "membership". Thus there is hesitancy to move too strong or too fast. Response 2 While there has been a lot of interest to join ILC thus an increase in membership application, the Coalition should further develop its process of accepting membership so that it could ensure that the applicant organisation will be able to contribute to the Coalition's mission while attaining

also its own objectives. Response 3 In Asia [ILC membership] is still limited [to only a few] countries . . . [namely,] India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Philippines, Indonesia [and] Pakistan. [While considering new memberships] Asia Node should identify the land prone countries . . . [consult] with CSO[s] and people's organisation . . . [that] are working on land issues. In Asia there is also [an increase in incidents of] land grabbing . . . so ILC Asia should carry out the campaign against land grabbing and food insecurity.

Box 2. Members’ views on new ILC memberships

Source: Responses to the survey on the Review of ILC Asia

Regionalisation Process, received between 4-22 October 2010



approving new membership, which is primarily based on 2 standing members recommending a prospective new member and the global Assemble of Members approving such recommendations. Some of the Asian ILC members who provided their views for this review have disapproved this way of introducing the new member. As the ALRD executives pointed out in the interview, track records of organisations recommended for membership are not seriously assessed prior to approving their memberships, that there could be organisations taking advantage of the sloppy process and possibly promoting nepotism in selecting new members. This of course is a serious concern.

The Asian members have also raised the point that there is no system in place to assess members‘ contributions to raising the ILC profile. The question raised was why should any undeserving organisation continue being the ILC member. Members are not recognised for their significant performance nor is any member warned or dismissed for not performing.

The other point needing consideration is that the seven new ILC membership from Asia region are all CSOs that raises the question whether the memberships also need to be balanced, not necessarily equalled, by new IGO members. While some IGOs, e.g. SAARC, ASIAN, or other regional international organisations, with interests on land rights issues can be persuaded for new memberships, some clarity about the regional participation and contribution of the current IGO members such as IFAD, FAO, EC or WB can be helpful in optimising the effectiveness of the membership composition and ILC‘s outreach to its regional nodes.

It is also equally important, as a CSO member representative pointed out, that ILC makes its institutional position clear as to what institutional arrangement would ensure close contacts and dialogical engagements with the non-members or those not wanting to take up the ILC memberships but are critically important from the point of view of experiences in or contributions they have made to the debates on land-rights issues. So far, contacts and dialogues with such organisations and their participation in ILC Asia meetings or workshops, which ANGOC has consistently maintained, have been largely ad-hoc in its form.

Members’ Roles and Contributions

For the ILC to progress toward achieving its objective of becoming a member-led, autonomous, decentralised, globally-representative and financially sustainable network it is important that members demonstrate innovations in and engage in innovative approaches to creating synergy in addressing issues of land rights at local, country, regional and global levels. ILC Asia Node is expected to provide space and opportunities for members to be creatively engaged in the regional platform bringing lessons, experiences and innovations from their works at the local and national contexts. Comparatively, however, there seems to be a need to optimise the roles of IGO members, especially, of those (e.g. World Bank, FAO, IFAD, EC) whose roles in the ILC‘s global platform has been quite significant, but absent at the regional front.

Country ILC Member Percent

India 6 26 The Philippines 4 17 Indonesia 3 13 Nepal 3 13 Cambodia 2 9 Bangladesh 2 9 Pakistan 1 4 ANGOC (Philippines) 1 4 ICRAF (Indonesia) 1 4 Total 23 100

Countries No. of countries Percent

In ILC 6 12 Not in ILC 45 88 In all of Asia region 51 100

Table 1

Representation of Asian countries in ILC membership

Source: ILC Asia, 2010



In the case of the members (particularly the CSO members) from Asia region, there is no dearth of examples documented in the ILC Asia and ANGOC reports produced in the past 2 years that demonstrate members‘ active roles at the regional and global platforms.21 In essence, the Asia based members have had a diverse, plentiful and regionally meaningful roles to play in the regionalised and to some extend decentralised structure of the ILC. While the Working Group, Steering Committee and the host ANGOC played critical support and facilitating role, the substantive inputs came from the members in the process of ILC regionalisation in Asia, and in determining region‘s priority programmes and the resource mobilisation strategy (see Boxes 3). The members were also either the key actor in region-focused activities such as Asia caucus and sharing of experiences among Asia-based member during ILC AoM 2009, or initiators of country specific policy dialogues.22

The opportunities that the members have had conducting country studies, attending meetings, sharing and engaging in workshops and programme development, reviewing the work plans and implementing activities at the regional level can be seen as strengthened members‘ role in the ILC and contributing to achieving ILC‘s aim of becoming relevant at the local as well as global levels. The Asia Node specifically allowed the members to consolidate the unique characteristic of access-to-land issues and initiatives in the countries of the region that in turn offered ILC an

21

See the minutes of 1st and 2

nd meetings of ILC Asia WG, ANGOC narrative reports on ―Piloting of a Process to

Decentralise the International Land Coalition in Asia, 2008‖ and ―ILC Regionalisation in Asia: A Step Forward 2010.‖ 22

See ANGOC 2010, narrative report on ―ILC Regionalisation in Asia: A Step Forward.‖

Source: Minutes of Regional Assembly of ILC Asia 2009, p. 15.

[M]embers were grouped according to their sub-region. The following questions served as guides in formulating the plan for the above mentioned years:

For the year 2011:

1. In terms of land issues in your country (and in the Asia region), what do you think need/s immediate attention?

2. In light of the above mentioned and in consideration of ILC‘s Strategic Objectives, what activities do you think ILC should express interest and provide support for?

3. What form of assistance will you be expected from other ILC members and the Secretariat (i.e. technical advice, funds, human resources, etc.)?

For the year 2012-2013:

1. What key themes, campaigns and /or advocacies should ILC Asia focus on or pursue?

2. What are the strategic plans of your organisation for this period?

3. In what Strategic Objective/s of the ILC will these fall under?

4. What form of support will you be expecting from other ILC members and the ILC Secretariat?

5. What inter-country projects or programmes and regional activities should we initiate to seek (funding) support from donors outside the ILC network? Who will serve as project proponents?

Box 3. Activities planning in ILC Asia AoM 2009

ILC [Asia] put us in touch/link with other groups in the country, and also in the Asia region. Also, the constant flow of information (about land issues) which we would not normally access on our own, has helped our staff gain a broader perspective of land issues. perhaps the regional node should not only send information to the "ED" or "headquarters" of member-organisations, but should send directly to field offices, staff & partners of member-organisations. The effort is the same, but the spread effects are much wider.

Box 4. A member’s view of its role in the ILC Asia

Source: A response to the survey on the Review of ILC Asia Regionalisation Process, received on 4 October 2010



Asian perspective (see, e.g., Boxes 4 and 5).

SARRA, a CSO in India, an active ILC member since the beginning, has partnered with forest and revenue department in Andorra Pradesh to work on issues related to tribal peoples‘ rights to land and those related to their livelihoods. SARRA has been organising agriculture and food security related training programmes at national and South Asia region levels, which is well known among and acknowledged by the ILC members. In collaboration with the ILC Asia, SARRA will be organising an Asia level training programme on ―participatory approach to good governance and good agricultural practices on food security for marginal and small farmers,‖ which is scheduled for 17 to 22 November 2010. Several Asian ILC members will be benefitting from this training programme.23

In the similar vein, ALRD Bangladesh as the founding member of the ILC has made significant contributions of its own to strengthening and raising the profile of the ILC‘s regional and global platforms. In June 2010, ALRD had co-hosted the Land Watch Asia workshop together with ANGOC, in which several Asian ILC members participated and presented their country specific works. ALRD is also the Asian focal point for women and land issues and with this capacity it

23

This information was provided by SARRA in their response to the internet survey carried out for this review.

Source: Responses to the survey on the Review of ILC Asia Regionalisation

Process, received on 4-20 October 2010

Response 1.

Among many others, we have done studies of our on-the-ground work on land reform, land management schemes, and linking land issues to markets -- and have presented them in international meetings of ILC (plus national meetings in the Philippines, regional conferences, regional meetings of ADB and World Bank). This helps build visibility for us, but more so for ILC, by portraying it as a global and regional network that is "grounded" at field and village and even household level. We have also done advocacies, filed resolutions and position papers, conducted mass mobilisations, at times identifying ourselves with ILC thus helping ILC gain recognition even from our government.

Response 2.

We projected name of ILC through programmes such as seminars, etc. and on promotional material.

Response 3.

KPA has [coordinated] at national level in encouraging the expansion of agrarian reform work, one of the main agenda of the ILC. [At the] national level [it is linking] global [and] regional [works] of ILC to . . . our network in Indonesia. . . . At the global level with the support of ILC, KPA has also encouraged the involvement of the Indonesian government [in] the forum ICARRD in Brazil.

Response 4.

CARRD's info[rmation] materials such as newsletter includes ongoing partnership with ILC. CARRD also promotes ILC through its website, social networking sites, and other internet platforms.

Response 5.

JKPP has actively promoted ILC in Indonesia and organised meetings among ILC's existing members within the country to discuss ILC's issues at hand and future actions. More organisations in Indonesia are now aware about ILC.

Response 6.

We [have been] continuing the community organisation process to [promote poor peoples‘] access [to] and control [over] land and other natural richness. . . In 2010 the community and National Park signed [to allocate]. . . 398 hectors [of land] as collaborative forest management area. Other success story is . . . the recognition of Indigenous peoples‘ area (including forest and other natural richness) . We still don‘t get any support from ILC Asia node.

Response 7.

CSRC has been facilitating land rights campaign at community , national and international levels. We have been contributing to ILC regional and global plateforms by participating in their assemblies, CC and SC meetings, workshop and other programmes and sharing our experiences of working with the poor farmers, tillers and landless tenants.

Box 5. Roles played by ILC members through the Asia Node



has recently hosted the workshop on ―Women‘s Access to Land‖ on October 25-26, 2010 in Dhaka. SARRA and ALRD, as others, present themselves as examples of the ILC members in Asia that are meaningfully and constructively fulfilling their roles that have potentially contributed to strengthening ILC‘s regional and global platforms.

The members from this region have also begun to see a separate role that the diverse ILC members can play and the significance for them to work together at the South Asia region level to offer the ILC a distinctive perspective. For example, the issues related to South Asian women‘s access to land received due priority in ILC Asia Node and a scoping study was initiated by Dhaatri Resource Centre for Adivasi Women and Children, India. As expected, the findings of the study have provided useful input to South Asian ILC members in the regional workshop on Women‘s Access to Land. Because of the presence of the highest proportion of women and men affected by abject poverty in most countries of South Asia, ILC‘s categoric focus to South Asia can potentially bring an added dimension in the global discourse on understanding and addressing poverty and access to land issues.

In a general term, the establishment of the ILC Asia Node can be considered to have strengthened the Asian members‘ role to be more active and constructive

Result-based Management

Keeping the 5 Strategic Objectives of ILC in focus, the ILC Asia Node, through its Working Committee, drafted a broad outline of the Asia Node thematic areas and work programme for a period of 30 months starting June 2008.24 This outline provided a basis to prepare the annual ILC Asia work plans and budgets for 2008, 2009 and 2010. The expected results and the associated key indicators stated in the 30-month work programme essentially seek outputs and outcomes that are somewhat loose in terms of quality assurance. On a positive note, however, the outline can be viewed to be adequately flexible for members and partners presumably taking the responsibility of executing the programmes to use their own discretion in assuring the quality of results they will have produced.

24

Understandably, during the initial interim period, when no Steering Committee nor the Node coordinator was available, the Working Group had to rightly take this initiative.



In any case, the implementation of activities in ILC Asia Node is clearly informed by the systematically developed programme framework with clearly stated budget and time frame. However, the extended matrices of the annual work plan and budget of 2008, 2009 and 2010 have omitted the ―expected results‖ and ―Key Indicators‖ columns. This has resulted in the lack of clarity in the way reporting system is managed by the ILC Asia Node. There is no ground to assert that the governance and management of ILC Asia Node is result oriented, although progress achieved so far might have informally or subtly met or exceeded the expected results (as can be seen in some members‘ responses to the survey question ―what were the results produced by the current management structure of the ILC Asia Node?‖ See Box 6). While two third members who responded to the survey questions reported positively on the results produced by the ILC Asia Node‘s management, the progress narratives prepared by the node did not

Source: Responses to the survey on Review of ILC Regionalisation in Asia, received between 4 and 20 October, 2010

Box 6. Results produced by ILC Asia as reported by the members

Response 1.

Over the past 2 years: There is better visibility for our work in the region. There is better information flow, awareness & info sharing (on issues & related events). This has also helped our CSO, by "informing" our internal strategic planning processes, ex, on World Bank perspectives on land reform (w/c we disagree with), and issues about foreign land-grabs (crucial for our land-related advocacies). There is a country-based "informal" network of ILC members, which ANGOC & the node facilitated. Normally we would not relate to each other in the course of our work -- not because of any "differences", but just because that's the way it always was.

Response 2.

The Asia Node was able to strengthen ILC's presence in the Region. It was able to effectively link the local and grassroots organisations with the advocacy of ILC.There is better information flow, awareness & info sharing (on issues & related events). This has also helped our CSO, by "informing" our internal strategic planning processes, ex, on World Bank perspectives on land reform (w/c we disagree with), and issues about foreign land-grabs (crucial for our land-related advocacies)

Response 3.

Although Steering Committee has the overseeing role over the regional node and regional coordinator, in many cases regional coordinator took the decisions without much consultation with the SC. In some cases, such action was fine, but the past coordinator often decided on the distribution of funding by consulting the global headquarters, but not SC.

Response 4.

We don't know yet, event report we still don't get it. We just receive e-file bulletin from ANGOC which is compile the share experiences of ANGOC members and ILC members

Response 5.

Land Watch Asia has been established and it has been advocating land reform and trying to mobilise the national government. The programme proposals have been developed and forwarded to ILC Rome. There have been carried out working committee meeting regularly. The national issues have been linked at regional and international level.

Response 6.

The Asia Node was able to strengthen ILC's presence in the Region. It was able to effectively link the local and grassroots organisations with the advocacy of ILC.I seem not acknowledge of that issues

Response 7.

Asia is so big continent and the problems of the East Asia and south Asia are totally different even the land related issues and policies. Hence a single node cannot do justice. It is appropriate to have two nodes in South Asia and South East Asia. It is very difficult to satisfy all the partners since they have different approaches.



reflect whether results achieved met the expectations and the preset programme targets. Quarterly and annual progresses reported by the Asian Node present substantive narrative accounts25 but they are not summarised against indicators and targets. Moreover, and understandably, the ILC Asia Node is yet to establish a bench-mark status of the region-wide agrarian land, peasants, tillers, tenants and other related aspects to inform its programme development process, identify critical issues, and find ways to address them and optimise the synergy and impacts in the region. There seems, therefore, room for improvement in the way the ILC Asia Node manages its programmes and thereby be able to experience that the management practices are more clearly result oriented. On the other hand, and in the apparent absence of a definition of result based management for the Asia Node, question arises whether expecting indicators specific results according to a defined framework (e.g. log frame, design monitoring, strategic objective framework, etc.) would be appropriate for a network organisation like the ILC Asia Node. It is also necessary to be clear about whether the ILC Asia Node needs to broaden its coverage within the region in terms of understanding and establishing a region wide bench mark and defining the regional targets and results. This question is posed not to argue in favour of this need, but to seek clarity in regards to the scope and boundary within which the ILC Asia should aim to bring about the desired impact.

How did the Asia Node manage the ILC supported programmes that the member organisations implemented? This was one question among the list of questions included in the survey form. None of the 12 members responding to the survey indicated that there was any specific management expectation of the Asia Node from the members that they should be aware of and are required to report the progress accordingly. There appears to be a confusion amongst the members as to how they are required to be result oriented in implementing the ILC supported programme. Their responses to the survey question implied that the Asia Node‘s management of programmes did not involve specific reporting requirement nor did the members, upon submitting their progress reports, receive any critical feedback from the Asia Node. There could be several issues linked to this scenario. But the most important one could not be other than the professional role of the Node coordinator, which precisely is the issue that the Asia Node has confronted for the past several months. Clarity cannot be obtained in programme management unless the Node secretariat is staffed with a team led by an able coordinator. In fact, two members responding to the survey question were specifically concerned about the coordinator‘s performance and his eventual resignation from the post (see Box 7).

The role of ILC Asia Node is limited in its power to chart out and get approval for longer term programmes of say 5 years, because ILC Global platform cannot devolve such power to its node outside the global secretariat as it is constrained by the financially non-liability clues with IFAD, its hosting organisation. ILC Asia is required to rely on year-by-year programatic and financial commitments from ILC Rome. In such a constraining regionalised context it becomes difficult for the Asia Node to be result

25

The ILC Asia Node publishes e-bulletins regularly–6 issues are in the web archive–that document reports on specific programmes with graphic details along with other relevant news and current information.



oriented in its management process.26 Result means not only producing outputs but also making impact which is not possible through disjoint short term interventions. With piece meal programatic efforts the continuum on the path of making impact breaks down. Therefore, management of Asia Node needs ILC support to be result oriented and contribute to ILC‘s global task of promoting poor people‘s secured and equitable access to and control over land through advocacy, dialogue and capacity building.

Communication

The Charter and Governance Framework of ILC includes the following task as one of the functions of the regional platforms. ―Facilitate member-to-member relationships within the region, including joint action and communication among members and with other strategic stakeholders.‖27 It must be acknowledged first that ANGOC is best placed as the hosting institution for the ILC Asia Node that has contributed to strengthening communication among CSOs (both member and non-member) and partners. Its networking history of over 30 years lay a solid foundation for ILC Asia that allows members, partners and other organisations a conducive platform for sharing, learning and creating synergy.

With this favourable hosting arrangement within ANGOC, ILC Asia has been adopting several means through which the process, progress, development and events of the Asia Node and its members from the region are being communicated widely. In its periodic reports submitted to the ILC Council and the ILC Asia Steering Committee, the Asia Node mentions that monthly and bi-monthly e-bulletin are regularly published and sent out widely–at least to 111 CSOs that are in the mailing list of ANGOC. To date 6 issues have been circulated which proves the regularity of the bulletin publication.28 To what extent these circulations promoted and enriched the discourse and debates on land issues and are likely to bring about change in the status of poor peoples‘ access to and control over land is yet to be understood.

As far as the communication within the management structure of the ILC and its Asia Node is concerned, there seems to be scope for improvement. It is praiseworthy that ILC Asia has managed to initiate and organise diverse programmes in some countries of the region within a very short period of time. And, as can be understood from the

26

This issue has been discussed in details in the ILC Asia Node Steering Committee Meeting on 8-9 April 2010 in Bankok.

27 Charter and Governance Framework of the International Land Coalition, p. 10.

28 See, e.g., ―A Report to the ILC Council and the ILC Steering Committee for Asia‖ (09 April – 14 June 2009) 14 June 2009, p. 6.

Response 1.

Although Steering Committee has the overseeing role over the regional node and regional coordinator, in many cases regional coordinator took the decisions without much consultation with the SC. In some cases, such action was fine, but the past coordinator often decided on the distribution of funding by consulting the global headquarters, but not SC.

Response 2.

The reporting guidelines made ILC Asia more complicated than previously. Decision-making mechanisms for project management is still unclear. ILC coordinator[‗s] . . . [accountability toward] Asia [SC] and Council Member remains unclear. The reporting guidelines made ILC Asia more complicated than previously.

Response 3.

Since there was turn over of Asia Regional Coordinator, . . . [the ILC Asia] could not . . . [perform] as expected.

Box 7. Members’ view of the Node Coordinator

Source: Responses to the survey on Review of ILC Asia Regionalisation Process, received on 4-20 October 2010



reports of number of regional events, the platform for sharing the experiences has been quite vibrant. However, there is no evidence to support that the core purpose of

regionalised networking, i.e., creating synergy, adapting good practices across different national contexts, influencing the regional and global policy environment, etc., is being achieved nor is there any indicative trend towards achieving this purpose. This brings the issue of quality of communication on the surface. The ILC through its Asia Node might have been strong in sending out messages but equally important is to experience that there is a reasonably matching inflow of enthusiastic responses (see Box 8). The fact that there had been only one organisation sending comments and feedback to the ILC Asia‘s 30-month programme, plans and budget (Jun 2008 to December 2010) initiated by the Working Committee is an example to cite.29

Regarding the quality of materials that the Asia Node adopted, produced or used are generally felt useful, informative and accessible by the members who responded to the survey–email correspondences and e-newsletters were much appreciated. However, while some found the contents of

the newsletters to be of good quality most mentioned that they could be improved. As one member wrote, ―E-bulletins mostly cover the activities of Asia Node . . . but it does not [facilitate] opinion and dialogue building. Sometimes its seems ANGOC and ILC bulletin and publications.‖ Some members also took the responsibility of not being proactive and taking part in making the communication materials more interactive. Responses such as those in Box 10 clearly reflect members‘ inability to contribute to making them more interactive and member-owned.

It is also evident that neither the project narrative reports nor the periodic progress of overall Asia Node submitted to ILC Coalition Council or the Asia Node Steering Committee by the regional secretariat gives an impression that they are received to be critically reviewed and responded to. Understandably, the apex bodies like ILC CC and the regional Steering Committee might find detailed accounts of progress too much to comprehend and digest, but a concise summary presented in an accessible format might be appreciated. Such summaries are lacking in the reports submitted, but this lack has remained unnoticed or not raised as an issue in the chain of command. This is an issue more related to the technical compliance in the overall process of regionalisation and decentralisation than the one related to the reporting process of the

29

See the minutes of the ILC Working Group for Asia - Second Meeting, 20-25 September 2008.

Response 1.

The information flow that is perhaps lacking is from members to the node. But unless there is a real need or incentive to do so (voluntarily sending information to the centre or node), I don‘t think that the staff in our CSO would take on that extra work. The best we can do is just to include the node in our regular information mailing list.

Response 2.

We were given regular updates through emails which I think is the most effective and efficient way of communication given the limitation of resources (time and financial). Newsletters were also sent to give updates on what the Asia Node was doing.

Response 3.

The secretariat has done a good job in communicating the progress and issues at hand. The problem is that the members do not respond as expected in important issues. To solve this it would be probably good to have a chat room (Skype or Yahoo Messenger) for the members so that everyone can reach each other easily.

Box 8. Members’ views on communication

Source: Responses to the survey on Review of ILC Asia

Regionalisation Process, received on 4-20 October 2010



Asia Node. Perhaps the required initial investment of time, resources and expertise in the regionalisation/decentralisation process would have been worthy of serious consideration.

It may be generalised from the opinions of the members that the Asia Node lacks technical and logistic base for it to strengthen a system of effective communication and involve members and partners in a more meaningful exchange of information, discussions and experiences. Short term professional support may prove beneficial in establishing such a system.

Diversification of Resource Base

Mobilising ―financial resources required by the programme of work and agreed priority actions‖ is one of the core functions of the regional platform.30 The specification of this role of the ILC regional nodes, in principle, allows them to directly engage with donors or partners seeking financial support for planned programmes. However, the resources for the programmes of 2008, 2009 and 2010 were mobilised entirely from the earmarked ILC funds for the Asia Node. Experiences thus far point to a context that the Asia Node has struggled hard but is still overshadowed by number of issues related to diversification and mobilisation of resources. In an email consultation the ANGOC‘s Executive Director who also is one of the members of the Asia Node Steering Committee explains about the confusing legal status of the Asia Node, the complications associated with fund mobilisation and how its effort has failed (see Box 10).

It is clear from his explanation that resource mobilisation by Asia Node on its own is extremely challenging, if not impossible. The bottleneck is that the ILC Asia does not have any legal status and, as also pointed out by the interim ILC Focal Point for Asia, ―some donors might not be comfortable supporting a broad ‗rainbow coalition‘ with members

30

Charter and Governance Framework of the International Land Coalition, p. 10.

Response 1

The newsletter[s] . . . we received often [are] used [as] reference [for] more understanding. We just . . . [are] thankful to them and satisfied with the response; quite good! quite [regular and useful for improving] knowledge [but] we never send comment

Response 2

So far we did not send comments but try to share [information] in meetings.

Response 3.

There should be a special motivation for members to contribute [to] the media made by ILC Asia Node

Response 4

Members are also too silent . . . , they want . . . updates but rarely sent materials for the newsletter

Response 5

The newsletter can still be improved. I think members should maximise the newsletter in making people aware of what they're doing to gather more support.

The substance of publicity materials and communications through the Asian ILC has not been good.

Box 9. Members’ assessment of Asia newsletter


In principle, ILC Asia can mobilise resources independent from ILC Secretariat. For 2010, a regional proposal was submitted to EU (upon the suggestion of ILC Secretariat) to cover some of the items not yet covered by the existing budget available. For this purpose, ANGOC being the regional host, acted as project holder since ILC Asia is not registered, and also ILC is not eligible to submit a proposal to EU; ANGOC used the existing work programme and budget for 2010 as basis for the proposal submitted to EU; unfortunately as per email of EU, the proposal

has not been approved

Box 10. Resource mobilisation issue in ILC Asia

Source: Email response of the ILC Asia SC member cum the hosting organisation ANGOC‘s Executive Director, 4 October 2010



having very diverse interests; some donors may have specific advocacies and may have basic disagreement with some ILC members on issues.‖31

Lack of interest among ILC partners in the Asia region too has added complications for members to be effective in their effort to mobilise funds. As one member has mentioned (Box 11, Response 5) it is not evident that the regionally extended ILC‘s strategic partners ever reflect upon the common agenda which they have appreciated at the global level. At the country and region level the partners are less keen and not appreciative of ILC‘s presence that is working to strengthen the network of the members through a much closer regional platform for the members to share, learn and engage

with people on the ground and bring about much wider impacts. It is indicative in the members views (Box 12) that there is no reason for the partners to disregard ILC Asia Node‘s call for deeper association and partnership leading to more fruitful resource mobilisation to finance programmes of mutual interests.

The case of European Union disapproving the ANGOC‘s proposal should be a good lesson learned.32 Could the dialogues, advocacy and engagements with EU be more proactive and stronger so that the ILC and EU have common priority programmes to co-finance at the Asia region? It‘s not clear what had been ILC global secretariat‘s reaction to the EU‘s refusal of funding it in Asia through ANGOC. The ILC‘s efforts, if any, to engage its IOG members and strategic partners at the regional and country levels do not always seem to produce results. Neither the regional and country organisations of the IGO members nor those of ILC‘s strategic partners are in some form of meaningful cooperative or functional relationships with the ILC Asia Node. However, some Asian ILC members at the country level are engaged with the country offices of FAO, IFAD and World Bank particularly in policy dialogues (see Don‘s e-mail in Box 10). Such a country

31

Email response of the ILC Focal Point for Asia 32

Because of the lack of a legal status of ILC Asia, ANGOC on its behalf approached the donor for funding.

Response 1.

There should first be consensus among Asian members on this need for separate fund-raising (aside from what comes through ILC-Rome). Also, agreement on what these funds are to be used for (strategic purpose) as they could compete with members in terms of sources and purpose. A principle of subsidiarity could be followed, where the role of the centre or node is that of a "facilitator & enabler", building capacity from existing work & institutions.

Response 2.

One strategy that ILC should look into is possible cooperation with other funding agencies in funding grassroots or local initiatives of members. Example would be a possible consortium in implementing a regional project that will fit in the mission of ILC and also the concerned members.

Response 3.

The funds are too limited while the members are growing. Therefore it is crucial for ILC Asia to raise funds directly, not through the global secretariat. Also the distribution of funds should be decided by SC not by regional coordinator.

Response 4.

ILC Asia Node still depends on ILC Rome for funding. Need a new strategy for the consolidation of funding beyond the existing mechanisms

Response 5.

The partners . . . need to be challenged to raise resources and Asia node can provide matching grant. . . . Excessive dependency on ILC is not a good sign of partnership. The relationship with ILC is based on common agenda, financial partnership alone will not help in building a healthy and productive partnership.

Box 11. Members’ views on fund mobilisation

Source: Responses to the survey on Review of ILC Asia

Regionalisation Process, received on 4-20 October 2010



level engagement is yet to be extended to programmatic collaborations and joint co-financing of programmes at the regional level (see Box 10).

One critical aspect that needs clarity is on the extent to which ILC or its regional nodes on their own should be involved in approaching partners or potential donors for resource mobilisation. The executives of ALRD and some other members are of the view that the ILC should not be involved in fund raising by itself, but engage and lobby more prominently with partners and donors at global to country levels so that the members are able to get positive responses for funding quality programmes of common interests. Members‘ survey also points to this concern (see Box 11) that ILC Asia needs to be clear about whether it should engage in raising funds by itself (with defined legal status) to be channelised to members for priority programmes or play a role of ―facilitator or enabler‖ for members to be successful in mobilising funds for such programmes. What seems a common concern is that resource mobilisation is an issue that demands a definite strategy.

The other issue that has surfaced from the discussions and correspondences with some Asian ILC general and steering committee members pertains to the basis of resources distribution among members to fund their programmes. As referred in the email exchange of the reviewer with the SC member and Executive Director of ANGOC (see

On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 17:45:17 +0530, Roshan Chitrakar wrote:

Don, this is a helpful response. I‘m using it to support the discussion on resource mobilisation issue in the review report. I have also used a related point raised by Tony.

I have a follow up question for you: Do you have anything in record why EU didn‘t approve our proposal (you mentioned they notified through an email, maybe they have explained the reason)? And what did ILC have to say about it?

The point you raised about the relevance of work program and the proposals submitted by member is a crucial one to persuade donors for funds--a logical reason to seek a co-financing agreement. I also agree, and I think Jagat had also mentioned, that dividing the funds received from ILC amongst members for ―superficial‖ programs is not healthy, in fact such a practice can potentially disintegrate the network. I will make this point clear in my report. Linked to this issue is also the roles that the IGO members are playing. As many as 15 IGOs that are ILC members also work in Asia, but apart from ICRAF and now IFAD, none others are active with the Asia Node. What has been our effort to contact their regional offices in Asia? What could we do (or have we done anything) at the country level with them? As you know CSRC has been quite successful in convincing donors to fund programs on land issues. I think resource mobilisation is a critical issue.

Regards,

Roshan

October 6, 2010, Reply from Don:

As per mail from EC, it stated that the proposal though "it fulfils the criteria required for a favourable opinion, it has been awarded a lower score than the ones selected to go through to the next stage of the procedure." there was no explanation from EC regarding the rating.

As for the IGOs, the members that we have been engaging at the regional are: FAO, ICRAF, IFAD, For World Bank, our contact is located in Washington DC since there is no regional office. In the past, the Task Manager of World Bank (based in Washington Dc) participated in the meeting last March 2008.

At the country level, based on the information I receive, there has been engagements (mostly policy discussions) with:

- in Bangladesh: World Bank

- in Indonesia: FAO

- in Nepal: FAO, World Bank

- in Philippines: World Bank, FAO, IFAD

- in India: IFAD

regards,

Don

Box 12. Exchange of emails between ANGOC Executive Director and the reviewer

Source: Emails exchange on October 4th and 6

th, 2010, [email protected] and [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




Box 12), members take the scare ILC funds for granted to be utilised in programmes without critically assuring their importance and relevance in the light of ILC‘s Strategic Objectives. The current practice is too simplistic and is based on the principle of equal division that has allowed members an access to a resource base which is often too meagre to meet the funding requirements of meaningful programmes. At the first place the funds that the ILC makes available to the Asia Node are relatively small compared to those allocated for Africa and Latin America Nodes.33 Secondly, even the smallest share of the ILC resources available for the Asia Node does not seem to be utilised more strategically.

The discussions above clearly indicate that there are still number of unresolved issues in the regionalisation process that are related to diversifying resource base and its effective mobilisation in the ILC‘s Asian platform. These include lack of clarity of ILC Asia‘s legal status to formally approach donors and strategic partners with proposals, inadequate follow up or coordination to ensure IGO members‘ active role in the region, unfair share of ILC resources to fund Asia programmes, unjustified distribution of ILC‘s meagre funds to Asian members and lack of strategy to define the roles of the ILC, its Asia Node and members in programme fund mobilisation.

Summary

Efficiency and Effectiveness of ILC Asia

As is indicative in the write up in the earlier sections, the ILC Asia Node: identifies and prioritises the regional activities keeping in view the global Strategic Framework; coordinates planning and implementation of such activities to be undertaken by members both at national and regional levels; mobilises financial resources; co-ordinates the reporting and evaluation of regional programmes and activities; and facilitates communication, collaboration and joint actions among members and with other strategic stakeholders.34 As a newly established platform the road ahead is tough and full of challenges for ILC Asia Node. It is expected that the ILC in its Asia region performs these functions with such an efficiency and effectiveness that there would be an optimised support to the members and partners, raised institutional profile and increased visibility of the ILC in the region. Appropriate institutional arrangements, clarity of roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders and their approach to engaging in management of the regional platform is critical for realising its effectiveness and efficiency.

Composition, Roles and Resources

The Asia Regional Node, as shown in Figure 2, is structured with the Steering Committee as the apex body comprised of 6 members represented by CSOs, IGOs, ILC Director and ANGOC as the hosting member. There was an understanding in forming the current SC that it struck a balance in terms of the representation of the IGO and

33

See the minutes of ILC Asia Steering Committee meeting, 8-9 April 2010. 34

Charter and Governance Framework of the International Land Coalition, p. 10.



CSO members as well as a balance in terms of sub-regional representations of the CSOs. As such, CSRC and JKP represent the CSO members from South Asia and Asia Pacific sub-regions respectively while ICRAF and FAO represent the IGO members. The SC manages the ILC Asia node to facilitate, among others, the networking of the 23 members and an undisclosed number of partners and potential partners and support them to carry out ILC‘s planned programmes in the region. More over the SC takes the responsibility of fulfilling 11 specific tasks outlined in its terms of reference (see Box 14). Realistically, the SC members themselves cannot be expected to put in the amount and time that its role demands. Effective and successful execution of the tasks associated to the role depends upon how the SC gets support from the regional secretariat, and obviously the capacity of its staff is critical. Its worth mentioning upfront that the Asia Node has been without the coordinator for the past 10 months since January 2010. The burden of overseeing the role of the coordinator was shouldered by the Executive Director of the ANGOC who also is a member of SC. He has been fulfilling this interim role with the administrative support of the single secretariat staff designated as the Project and Communication Officer.35

35

While the absence of the Node coordinator has been felt as a major set back for the ILC Asia Node in the management of its activities, the Steering Committee appointed a three-member selection committee supported by an expert independent consult to fulfil the vacant position. After over 3-month long rigorous process the selection committee has recently completed its task and Ms. Seema Gaikwad of India has been appointed as the new Asia Node Coordinator to start her work from 1 December 2010.

Response 1

[The present composition of the SC is] just about right. The challenge also is keeping the interest & representation of IGOs. Many IGO offices in Asia are not even aware of ILC. Also, the headquarters must take initiative to inform & also endorse ILC with their colleagues.

Response 2

The composition is correct, but the [SC does not] seem to understand and create synergy among the members.

Response 3

The current structure is fine. However, it needs female members.

Respons 4

Quite fair. Improve in gender issues . . . in SC.

Response 5

The composition . . . seems OK but it should be more active and the committee members give more time.

Response 6

Periodic communications . . . [between SC members and partners at sub region levels, namely South Asia and South East Asia levels] will enhance the quality of partnership.

Box 13. Views about the ILC Asia Steering Committee

Source: Responses to the survey on Review of ILC Asia Regionalisation

Process, received on 4-20 October 2010



A general question seeking members‘ perception about the appropriateness of the current composition of the ILC Asia Node‘s Steering Committee was asked in the members‘ survey. Most of the 12 respondents found the composition just about right and were generally happy with the committee‘s performance (see Box 13 for sample responses). One member wanted to see more active role of the SC members with increased investment of time for committee activities. The SC‘s lack of sensitivity towards substantive matters such as enhancing

member-to-member communication and building synergy has been raised as a concern by yet another member. The other critical observation of

this management structure pertains to the lack of conscious effort on the part of the Node as well as members to ensure that gender balance is struck in member organisations‘ nomination of the representatives for the SC. Currently, the SC is composed of all male representatives of the member organisations. The very lack of female representation could be understood as being responsible for the SC‘s apparent gender blindness–none of the 2 SC meetings held so far looked at the all-male composition as gender biased that might have obstructed the entry of female‘s point of view in the management of the Asia Node.

The two IGO members in the Steering Committee has practically represented 100% IGO members in the region. The issue here is not so much on ―over‖ representation of the IGO members but rather about the poor motivation of the region or country based IGOs towards the ILC regional platform even when their interests and participation are evident at the global level. This situation, as also pointed out by a member in the survey, invites a challenge for ILC Asia and its SC as to how it brings more ―interest and representation of IGOs. Many IGO offices in Asia are not even aware of ILC. Also the headquarters must take initiative to inform and also endorse ILC with their colleagues.‖36 The challenge also is for the current two IGO members not only to keep their own interest and motivation toward the regional platform alive but also to use their organisational stature to advocate and push the land agenda in the regional and country strategies of other IGOs so that the regional presence of the ILC Asia becomes meaningful to them.

36

Response to the survey on Review of ILC Regionalisation in Asia, received on 4 October 2010.

1. Decide on priority themes and issues for the Asia Region

2. Develop the annual work plan and budget for regional activities

3. Submit reports (updates, missions, travels, etc.) of its activities to the ILC Council

4. Organize audit/financial statements of projects it manages

5. Consult members in Asia in regard to activities initiated by the ILC Secretariat in Rome, for example, the annual members survey

6. Manage joint reviews of regional activities and cross-regional activities

7. Manage evaluation studies of regional and cross-regional activities as delegated by the ILC Secretariat

8. Agree on a membership development strategy for the Asia region

9. Provide advice and oversight on the work of the Asia Regional Node Coordinator

10. Review the performance of the Asia Regional Node and Asia Regional Coordinator

11. Organize activities or initiate processes aimed to support equal and secure land access for all, including addressing cases of discrimination and injustice as and when required.

Box 14. Role of the ILC Asia Steering Committee

Source: Terms of reference of the Steering Committee for the Asia Regional Network of the International Land Coalition, ILC Asia Node, 2009



The first SC meeting was held on 15-16 June 2009 in Bogor-Indonesia, which included the organisation of a half-day meeting of the SC members and Indonesian CSO/NGO partners. The consecutive half-day meeting should be considered as a positive initiative which, as intended, made best use of the SC members‘ time and resources.37 The meeting allowed a smooth handing over of responsibilities undertaken by the interim Working Group to the formal Steering Committee, while its minutes documented the discussion of agenda items and the subsequent decisions that were much in line with the given role of the SC (see Box 14). The discussions held covered agendas related to priority programmes and work plan for 2010-2011, aspects of training plans of members, programme proposals including the concept and approach to funding them, and issues about monitoring and evaluation.38 The availability of the Node Coordinator appears to have made a difference in the systematic organisation of the meeting.

Comparatively, the second SC meeting appeared less organised yet, perhaps, overly substantive. The meeting was held in Bangkok-Thailand on 8-9 April 2010. By this time, it had already been over 3 months that the ILC Asia Node had been without the coordinator as the one hired in January 2008 chose not to renew the contract.39 Apparently, due the complications involved in the contract renewing process, he found the job temporary and insecure. In any case, the prolonged absence of the node coordinator was reflected in the preparation and organisation of the 2nd SC meeting. The minutes which is literally a verbatim transcription of the proceeding does not explain how the 2-day meeting was structured. This meeting did not seem to make an optimum use of the time and resources as in the 1st SC meeting during which time a public CSO interaction programme was also organised. The 2nd SC meeting however, as the minutes explains, had been a marathon session of discussion that dealt on wide spectrum of issues ranging, e.g., from legal status of the ILC Asia network to resource mobilisation, from the fundamental question of the very identity, functions and core purpose of the regional node and its link with the ILC global platform to lack of clarity to arrive at the decision on the modality of selecting next regional host and giving hosting arrangement the continuity, from the quality of regional activities carried out by members, e.g. scoping study on women and land, programmes carried out under the 5 Strategic Objectives of the ILC to proposed or prospective programmes for coming years and so on.

The proceedings of the 2nd SC meeting are minuted in a document of 34 pages which, for all practical purposes, would have been useful if a synthesised executive summary was available.40 For instance, it is not clear how several important decisions made in the first SC meeting were followed up and reviewed in the 2nd meeting. On the other hand, it could not right to expect that the SC members themselves should have minutely followed up on the progress made and targets achieved by the regional platform. This is where the SC needs full support of the secretariat, which unfortunately was not available due to the premature departure of the node coordinator. In such a context one can only be cautiously optimistic that the outcome of the 2nd SC meeting would provide

37

Minutes of ILC Asia Steering Committee meeting, 16 July 2009. 38

Ibid. 39

Minutes of ILC Asia Steering Committee meeting, 8-9 April 2010. 40

Incidentally, the ED of ANGOC has recently forwarded the synthesised version of the meeting minutes. But it has been very last moment to incorporate that into this report.



useful guidance and course of action for the ILC Asia Node to be effective in the months ahead.

On the basis of the submission and approval of year-by-year plans and budgets the ILC Asia Node receives financial support from ILC global platform to meet its operational costs and also fund some agreed priority programmes with limited resources. The dilemma that the ILC faces in being unable to commit longer term regional plans and budget has already been discussed in length in an earlier section. It has also been already discussed that the ILC Asia does not have a legal institutional status to be able to approach donors for resource mobilisation. These issues and the possible strategies have also been discussed extensively in the last two SC meetings and in 2009 regional assembly. For example, in the 1st SC meeting it was anticipated that the regional assembly would have developed broad Asian priorities identifying key activities that could be funded by ILC and non-ILC sources and that the ILC members in Asia would have formed a consortium and submitted a common proposal to non-ILC donors.41 It is, however, not clear from the available documents that these ideas have been formally pursued and members have actually formed the consortium to mobilise the required non-ILC resources.

Despite such an uncertain regional resource mobilisation scenario, some Asian members have been able to obtain required resources to fund programmes that fall within the ILC priority area. Such funds are made available directly through the ILC global platform which allows the regional members to directly communicate with ILC Rome without being obliged to contact

the regional node. This has raised the issue related not only to the strategy of resource mobilisation but also the protocol of communication among partners, the regional node and the global platform. This situation has been perceived to be problematic by ILC members in Asia who advocate for stronger and fully authorised regional Steering Committee (see, e.g., Box 15).

There is a general agreement among the Asia based members that the current composition of the ILC Asia Steering Committee is appropriate both in terms of size and representations. The composition, however, fall short in terms of attaining gender balance. Because of this bias, female‘s voice is marginalised in the management structure. By and large, the SC has effectively assumed its role as outlined in the terms of reference. However, it could have been more effective had there been necessary support from the regional secretariat. For almost all of 2010, the SC has been left without a node coordinator to take care of management nitty gritty. Meanwhile, the SC has managed to appoint a selection committee to hire a new coordinator and recently

41

Minutes of ILC Asia Steering Committee meeting, 16 July 2009.

Since most of the things [are] controlled by the ILC Rome, . . . Asia node is no other than just an implementing platform. ILC Rome should give full authority to Steering Committee and the Steering Committee should be able to assess and approve the regional programme proposals. ILC Rome should provide the

budgetory support for such programmes.

Box 15. Scope of authority for ILC Asia and its SC

Source: Response to the survey on Review of ILC Regionalisation in Asia,

received on 22 October 2010.



approved the nomination of a successful candidate. The new coordinator, who will participate in the upcoming regional assembly, will join the ILC Asia office as of 1 December 2010. The lack of interest and motivation of most of the IGO members to be active at the region and country level has been felt as a serious issue that is mainly challenging for the two IGOs SC members to address. On the issue of resource mobilisation and the limited role of ILC Asia, there still are several uncertainties–ILC Asia‘s lack of legal institutional status, year-by-year funding support, dependancy on ILC Rome for resources and slackness in pursuing the viable alternative, and lack of regional authority and decisive role of the SC. These uncertainties can potentially come in the way of establishing and sustaining an effectively functioning regional node of ILC in Asia.

Hosting Arrangements



As already mentioned in several sections of this report, the Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC) has been the hosting entity of ILC Asia Region since its inception and establishment. ANGOC carries a history of over 30 years strengthening the network of CSOs in the region. Its historical track record makes it a credible network organisation for ILC to have confidence and arrive at a decision that it hosts the ILC Asia Node. Prior to this appointment, ANGOC had already been organising several meetings of Asia-based CSO representatives which included ILC members, to discuss issues of access to land. In fact ANGOC, with this and other experiences, assisted ILC to have a ―regional lens‖ in its processes of institutional development and finalisation of the 2007-2010 global strategy.

Has ANGOC been a right choice as the host? Two third members responding to the survey endorsed that ANGOC has been the right choice not only because of its credible history and the space it has provided for the regional secretariat but also because of its contribution to raising the profile and visibility of ILC in Asia.

Apparently, there is no major issue pertaining to the current hosting arrangement. However, members have expressed the feeling that the strategy related this

Response 1

They are just right, positive, efficient and fit.

Response 2

I think ANGOC is more than capable of being the host of ILC Asia Node. ANGOC is known not only in the Philippines but in the Region as an advocate for land rights and rural development. It has various linkages and networks that can help sustain the ILC Asia Node.

Response 3

At the moment ANGOC with its experience is the right choice. However, the host should be rotated among ILC members. The position will enable to increase the visibility of ILC in a respective country as well as enhancing the capacities of the host organisation.

Response 4

It is good [that] ANGOC [is the] host, but . . . better if the host can [be] mobile from one country to other country, for example Indonesia (KPA/Consortium of Agrarian Reform).

Response 5

ANGOC is the right host because they provide excellent support and have long experience in land advocacy in Asia and well respected in the region.

Response 6

Yes. Since they have experience working with UN agencies it is right but they have to work [for] ILC Asia as well. Sometimes ANGOC would be in front and ILC . . . in shadow.

Response 7

I think ANGOC now is the right one as host. However, the host should be . . . rotate[d] . . . if you think that is required.

Response 8

ANGOC . . . [has a] history and track record of significant accomplishments on land issue. In my opinion no other network has produced quality research documents related to agrarian reforms [as much as ANGOC]. [However, with] the changing times ANGOC . . . needs to reflect on its functioning styles, taking . . . suggestions of the partners into consideration and involving them actively.

Box 16. Members’ view about the hosting arrangement




arrangement has to be reviewed. The concern is whether one member organisation should retain the hosting responsibility for ever or should it also be rotated among other members. One suggestion is that it should be rotated every two years. But what seems important is to develop an understanding whether all members are equally capable to host the regional node, what may be the resource implications, and what can be other consequences.

Staff Performance

The ILC Asia Node has the provision of two secretariat staff, namely the Node Coordinator and Communication and Information Officer. The Node Coordinator is an international position while the Communication and Information Officer is a national position. Mr. Rolando Madina of the Philippines was hired as the Node Coordinator in January 2009 who chose not to renew the contract after one year. Therefore, the post remained vacant since January 2010, which is again filled by a new incumbent Ms. Seema Gaikwad of India, who will be joining the regional secretariat in Manila as of 1 December 2010. Ms. Shem Toledo was hired as the Project and Communication Officer.

The original idea of hiring the Regional Coordinator did not materialise due to the non liability clause in the agreement between ILC and IFAD. This surfaced as an issue because ILC depended on IFAD for budgetary support. The hiring responsibility was shifted to the regional host, namely ANGOC in Asia. The non-liability clause also refrained the host from offering long term contract beyond one year to the incumbent. After all, ANGOC has to rely on ILC for meeting the operational costs of the regional secretariat while ILC itself rely on IFAD for the entire global and regional operational costs. The funding arrangement is rather complicated for the secretariat staff to understand. For the Node Coordinator the yearly contract of appointment was short-term and insure tenure. The insecurity of tenure led the Coordinator to look for career opportunity elsewhere. Finally he chose not to renew the contract beyond one year, which obviously was a set back for ILC Asia Node. Although a substitute is recently found through a transparent and rigorous hiring process, the Asia Node and its Steering Committee suffered from the prolonged gap of almost one year. Obviously, this is a staff performance and retention issue not so much linked to the individual staff member but to the structural constraints of the organisation itself.

As far as members‘ perceptions are concerned, clearly it will be absurd to expect objective staff assessment from them. Their assessment could only be based on how efficiently the staff members maintained contacts with the members, and with what quality and frequency they produced, exchanged or circulated communication and/or other resource materials. For the purpose of this review, members were sought to respond to a general question, whether they found the provision and performance of the two staff to manage the secretariat was appropriate. As far as the number of staff is concerned, almost all the members found it just right. However, the responses on staff performance obviously lacked specificity, although most of them assessed the performance positively. The prolonged vacant post of the Node Coordinator, however, was viewed by one member as affecting negatively to the node‘s activities. One



member frankly refused to respond to the question saying that there was no information for her to make comment on the appropriateness of staff provision and performance.

Review of annual staff performance appraisal can be a more scientific basis to arrive at a definite conclusion. Since the only serving staff has not yet completed one year of tenure such a review can only be a task for the future.

Relation with ILC Rome, Steering Committee and the Host

Whatever progress the ILC Asia achieve in the past 2 years is an outcome of its intimate working relationships with the ILC Global Secretariat, the regional Steering Committee and the hosting organisation ANGOC. In ILC Asia platform all the core functions defined for ILC regional nodes have been executed with direct or indirect involvements of all of these three entities. Generally, the Asian members have accepted the current structure and relationships as being favourable and effective (see, e.g., Box 17)

The Asia Node relied heavily on the interim Working Group and ILC Focal Point to draft and finalise the 30-month (July 2008-December 2010) regional work programmes ensuring that they were in line with ILC Strategic Objectives. Until the Steering Committee was formally formed in June 2009, the interim WG remained engaged in accomplishing most of the ground works related to the regionalisation process. The work programme that the WG helped finalise provided a framework for the Steering Committee to finalise the annual work plans for 2009 and 2010.

The Steering Committee, that has had 2 intensive meetings since its formation, has given the required management support to the Asia Node. The SC maintained contacts

with members through the regional secretariat to circulate notifications related to regional priority programmes and seek proposals, consolidate them into annual plans and forward the plans to the global platform for approval and funding. The SC through the regional secretariat disburse ILC resource to support the implementation of the proposed and approved programmes. The SC also

mobilise the secretariat staff to follow up with members monitoring the progress and obtaining reports to be forwarded to ILC Rome for final approval.

ANGOC as the hosting organisation has offered the space for the Asia Node. More importantly, ANGOG supported the Node as the interim regional coordinator for almost a year since the post became vacant. The Asia Node was saved from falling apart because of the extra effort of ANGOC and its Executive Director besides being the hosting organisation. In their responses to the survey members have appreciated ANGOC‘s contribution to the Asia Node (see Box 16).

I think the current structure is good and has responded well to the attainment of its objectives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The relationship is good. [The ILC Director] understands very well the needs of the node and has done a lot to support regionalization. ANGOC has also given a lot of time and resources to support the secretariat. The steering committee is a good enough size and decision making is efficiently done.

Box 17. Members’ perception about Asia Node’s relation with Global Secretariate, Steering Committee and the host

Source: Responses to the survey on Review of ILC Regionalisation in Asia,

received on 4-22 October 2010.



The review of various ILC Asia reports and correspondences reveals that the relation of the Asia Node with ILC Global secretariat has been strictly functional and disciplined as expected by the formal arrangements. As the members have indicated in several sections above, communications, exchange of information, execution of programme matters, resource disbursements, actions to address staff issues, etc. have been efficient in the Asia Node which has been possible because of its amicable relation with the Global Secretariat. However, there are some systemic issues and fundamental principles (see Box 18) which the Asia based members and the Steering Committee are concerned about, which may be addressed by the ILC Coalition Council or Assembly of Members or maybe through the bilateral consultation between the Asia and Global platforms.

The ILC Asia Steering Committee‘s 2nd meeting in Bangkok raised a concern that the the ILC Rome did not have a focal person for Asia that made the job of the new Asia Regional Coordinator unrealistically challenging. African and Latin America on the other hand always enjoyed having their respective focal persons within the ILC. The absence of a focal person for Asia has caused a relational gap between members in the region and the global secretariat. Jagat Basnet, the Co-chair of the SC specifically highlighted that members are left with missed opportunities to benefit from global perspective in critical national initiatives and events.

As a CSO representative from Nepal he passionately talked about Nepal to argue the case. He could be understood as saying that Nepal currently was at the crossroads of history in that the people have elected a Constituent Assembly to write a brand new constitution for the country. He indicated that CSRC as a Nepali CSO promoting land rights movements was engaged with CA members to make sure that the new constitution upheld poor and landless farmers‗ rights to land. The organisation of the 2009 ILC AoM in Kathmandu had created an important ripple in the socio-political arena that made the political leaders and constitution experts pledge that land reform and landless people‘s right to land would be given due priority in the new constitution. However, the AoM turned out to be just one flash of an event.

The continuity of ILC‘s interest in Nepal‘s constitution making process would add value and bring global perspective to CSRC‘s engagement with the CA members. But due to the absence of a designated Asia focal person in ILC global secretariat CSRC‘s reach has not gone beyond the Asia Node. He went on to say that this absence of the focal person was felt by other Asian members too in their respective programmes, e.g. land grabbing, women‘s access to land, commercial pressure on land, etc. This argument was also reiterated by another SC member and the ED of ANGOC Nathaniel Don Marquez who informed the SC that lately Barbara Cadispoti was assigned as the Asia focal person but it was not known how much of her professional time is dedicated for

The only weakness in the relationship is that ILC Asia is too dependent on ILC Secretariat. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ILC Asia should have an independent role and authority. The region should give the financial support to the centre. The policy should be such that the resource should come to region first and

certain percentage to be given to the central.

Box 18. Concerns about Asia Node’s dependent status

Source: Response to the survey on Review of ILC Regionalisation in Asia,

received on 22 October 2010.



this purpose.

The 2nd SC meeting also discussed in length the ILC‘s current programme and budget approval mechanism along with its practice of directly communicating with individual members in the region. ILC Asia‘s heavy dependence on ILC Rome for funding every programme is one issue needing strategic decision (see Box 19). The Asia Node, because of its obligatory administrative link with ILC Global Secretary, has felt the effect

M1: . . . all the contract [approval of plans are done] from Rome. The [ILC Asia‘s] role only is identifying and reviewing proposals. . . . [In a] decentralized [system], . . . the [decision regarding] budget will have to [be that of] the region, right? [The available resource] should be handed to the region and [a proportion of it] can be returned to Rome. But [currently], all the contracts and deposits . . . [are channelized through] Rome. Sometimes they also contract directly [with members] in Asia and . . . [the Steering Committee is not informed]

M2: Our concern is that if the hosting institution will be empowered to make these contracts, then let us put that as one of the action points. . . . For that ILC Secretariat will ask about our plans and whether we all have approved it. If the legal and institutional management that ILC Secretariat has is not acceptable to both the ILC management and the donors, then I think that is a problem. So what is our justification? Our justification is to reduce the projectile costs between ILC Secretariat and the hosting institution and the Coalition members or partners that are to carry out the work. . . . If this is going to work within the work plan, it is very important for us to see our very own budget cycle of ILC. So if the objective is regionalization, and the regions are where things actually happen, then I think we can put that as an action point—a justification of the proposed solution.

M3: Of course, this also depends on the approved programme of work and the existing relationship between ILC and the hosting institution. Normally, when a grant is approved, it has a four-year or five-year planning cycle. And the funding is released on tranche-basis. I am not aware of this contract between the ILC and ANGOC.

M4: it is a one-year contract. So we submit a proposal every year. For last year, they provided USD 91,000 that covers the salary and the benefits of the Coordinator, the travel costs for the Coordinator, and overhead for ANGOC for hosting the Node.

M3: In that case, I think ANGOC shall have the authority in spending the money and reporting on a six-monthly or a yearly basis.

M4: That is actually happening. But I think [M1‘s] point is the sub-contract with the other members.

M2: So KPA will propose an activity that should be within the plan and the program and everything? But KPA has a contract with ILC. It is not bypassing totally but that is how the financial matters go. But ANGOC is out there as a Regional Coordinator, having to run after the reports and see what is happening . . . But again, in the coalition and in the network, if funds are released on a one-year basis, according to the World Bank, the deport implication is that you always propose activities on a one-year basis. This . . . has larger ramification when you are dealing with issues of land reforms, tenure which is not a one-year, episodic event. So I think there ought to be an understanding on the long-term sets of activities that would be carried out.

Now, with the hosting institution overhead and all of that, we can talk about it here in light of one-year. But the project proposals, etc, they are the elements that demand a longer term implementation. They will have, obviously, a different set of scrutiny than one that is of one-year term. For the rest, substantively, let us use that as another action point.

It is true that we are coming to another strategic framework for 2011-2015. So this year is very important. If it is for 2011-2015, there is no reason for us not to conceive a two or three-year program. So I think this should be our goal. We might have activities that might not allow us to inter-link with one another, but this long-term perspective will be able to do that. So let us suggest this to ILC. If this would require Council members to intervene, I would take it up to them.

Box 19. ILC Asis Steering Committee’s discussion on ILC Global and Regional relation




of the non-obligatory clause in the agreement between ILC and IFAD. The compelling situation to remain short term in planning and resource mobilisation has been viewed as obstructing to the Asia Node from being forward looking and impact oriented.

Coordination and Collaboration

Summary

Members’ Perception and Satisfaction

Appropriation of Regionalisation Concept

Response to Regional Activities

Summary

Conclusion and Recommendations

The ILC‘s regionalisation process in Asia that had officially started in July 2008 with an arrangement of an interim Working Group and the appointment of ANGOC as the hosting organisation has crossed several important milestones, yet it is still evolving. This review has found that the regionalisation process has advanced significantly accomplishing the planned activities. Basic ground works related to programmatic, governance and administrative matters have been initiated. The thematic area for the first 30 months work programme outlined by the interim Working Group in 2008 provided a framework for annual work plans of 2009 and 2010. The ILC Asian Caucus that had met during the ILC AoM in Kathmandu gave birth to an official governing body or the Steering Committee for ILC Asia Node. Asian ILC members that had shown interest in undertaking specific programmes that are one way or other linked with the ILC‘s Strategic Objectives have had their proposals approved, programmes implemented and outputs produced until the end of 2009. The implementation of 2010 programmes is due to be completed in December. The Steering Committee with the given authority has fulfilled their obligation of meeting at least once a year to review programme plans, progress, and channelise resources for regional programmes and governance. These, among others, are important accomplishments. All of these aspects have been reviewed and assessed to draw lessons and recommendations for the region‘s future course of action. This section presents a summary of key findings or



lessons and a set of recommendations for the ILC and its Asia regional node to consider taking some critical and viable action steps.

Governance and Results

Outreach and Membership

The ILC‘s process of seeking new memberships would have made the Asian members more content if the Asia Node and its Steering Committee have had a major role to play in bringing and approving new Asian members. More objective approach to membership expansion with more focus on quality than quantity has been deemed necessary.

Recommendation. Revisit and revise the current criteria by paying more attention to the track records and the extent to which the organisations aspiring to be an ILC member focuses on land issues in the programmes of, or research studies carried out by them. A window period of at least a year should be allowed for a recommending member to closely monitor and objectively assess the appropriateness, interests and commitments of the applicant. The recommending member must be from the same country, if not, from the same region to allow proximity during the assessment process.

The fact that ILC in Asia is represented only by 7 countries of the region contradicts its strategic principle of becoming a globally representative network. There are many CSOs working in number of countries in Asia (e.g. Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, etc.) that are contributing to promoting debates on issues of land and natural resources. Balanced inclusion of such CSOs to ILC membership potentially add value to the ILC‘s global movement in achieving its Strategic Objectives. While a proactive effort might work to strike such a balance, there could still be some suitable and effective organisations who for some reason would not want to be part of ILC. It could (should) still be to ILC‘s best interest to have contacts with them, understand their work and allow ILC and its member a broad based and enriched perspective on land issues and debates.

Recommendation. A membership assessment committee may be formed to do a rapid assessment of CSOs/IGOs working in some of such non-member countries to establish contacts, explore country experiences and recommend possibilities of membership expansion as well as strategies to remain in touch with other vibrant CSOs who opt not to be ILC member.

Members’ Roles and Contributions

The ILC Asia regional network will be able to sustain and contribute to strengthening the global platform only if the network is stronger and vibrant demonstrated through improved members‗ participation, member-to-member sharing and professional growth. There is a need for a systemic approach to ensuring that members are seriously playing their roles and fulfilling their commitments.

Recommendation. A system of assessing members‘ performance needs to be in place either through self reporting or by a process of peer review. The assessment result should be the basis for renewal of memberships. The Steering Committee should have the authority to make the membership renewal decision.



The debates and discourse on land issues could have been more scrutinised through plurality of voices and different positions organisations have taken. While the CSOs do bring views of some diversity, increased and active participation of more IGOs in the regional platform could have potentially brought additional dimensions to the land debate and discourse. This is an area in which the ILC Asia Node has to do more.

Recommendation. ILC Asia Steering Committee should be more strategic in addressing the issue of lack of representation of ILC IGO members in the regional platform. The membership assessment committee recommended above can include this task in its terms of reference.

Regular regional and country specific programmes (such as assemblies, seminar, meeting, workshops, training and sharing sessions) of ILC Asia with support from ILC Rome have not only raise the profile and visibility of ILC in countries and the region, but also enhanced members capacity to be more impact oriented. The significance of members to have initiated activities at South Asia Region level is also an emerging issue in the discussion of regionalisation of ILC but the case still needs to be argued strongly.

Recommendations. ILC should retain its current approach to involving members in regional and country level activities. ILC Rome and Asia (through its Steering Committee) should be more strategic in inviting expression of interests and call for proposals and supporting them, while the message that ILC on its own is not a funding entity should be made clearer which should imply that members make best and optimum use of the support they receive from the ILC. It is also a time now for the Global and Asian platforms to start listening to the faint voice and concern of members from South Asia for them to be able to collectively start focusing on land issues specifically of South Asia.

Result-based Management

The ILC Asia Node could have asserted the validity of the current management practice, which is largely flexible and not strongly based on indicator specific framework, if it had clearly documented as to why it needed to take such an approach, and what the result-base management meant for the regional node.

Recommendation. ILC Asia Node should allow members to be more critically engaged in debates and discussions to come to a consensus on a framework of management and customised definition of result-based management for the Asia Node.

For the ILC Asia Node to be more impact oriented, it should be able to develop longer term strategic plans, not just annual plans. Complicated conditions of the agreement reached at the global level (e.g., the non-liability clause in the agreement between ILC Rome and IFAD) has been found counter productive in managing the regional node with the spirit of decentralisation let along in developing its own long term indicators and targets.

Recommendation. ILC Rome and Asia should develop an understanding about how the Asia Node can/should do business differently so that it will be able to define a management framework, agree upon a set of indicators and targets that are both sort and long terms in nature and demonstrate results and impact against them.



Communication

Experienced and stable host with proven track record of its prolonged association with organisations of diverse orientation, philosophy, principles and approaches plays a significant role in establishing and maintaining a good communication, both at horizontal and vertical directions. Selection of ANGOC to host Asia node has been a favourable choice. However, it has been learnt that sending out information regularly through effective means is necessary but not sufficient to assert that the communication has taken place unless it is two-way and substantive in the exchange of information and feedback.

Recommendation. More needs to be done in promoting member-to-member communication. The idea shared by one of the members about using a ―chat room‖ such as Skype or Yahoo Messenger so that greater synergy is created. Opportunities for bi-lateral and multilateral professional exchanges between and among members can be helpful too.

Member organisations are obviously required to give priority to their own activities than to invest time and resources to communicate with or respond to the communications of the ILC unless they find meaningful value in such communications.

Recommendation. ILC Asia Node needs to be more strategic to ensure that members find it professionally rewarding in improving member-to-node and member-to-member communications, making them two-way traffic and more substantive. Moreover, interactions with IGO members and potential partners need to be enhanced by mandating relevant member(s) in the region to organise meetings to discuss, advocate or persuade IGOs and partners to enhance communications, participation, dialogues and constructive collaborations. Members at the regional gatherings will have to dedicate time to discuss what the members can do or have done in this aspect. The discussion should include identification of substantive ingredients of advocacy agenda to initiate communication with partners and that with not-very-active regional IGO members.

Resource Mobilisation

Resource mobilisation without clarity of its legal status is not possible for ILC Asian Node. ANGOC with its registered institutional legal status in the Philippines and as the host organisation could act on the Asia Node‘s behalf, but it could not be a long term solution and, apparently, not so favoured by donors. Moreover, without the support and clear guidance from the ILC Rome, the regional node in Asia can barely make a good headway in resource mobilisation and in working with ILC partners for joint co-financing the annual priority programmes, let along the longer duration programmes.

Recommendation. ILC Rome and Asia should sort out the issue of legal status of the Asia regional node and come up with a long term solution to the problem of resource mobilisation at the region level. ILC Asia needs to be introduced to the potential donors by ILC Rome as the former approach the donors with proposal and funding request.

The success that the ILC members have experienced in mobilising programme funds from donors other that ILC‘s strategic partners, does not necessarily make them equally successful in obtaining funds from ILC‘s strategic partners working at the country level.



Similarly, the favourable supports that the strategic partners extend to ILC at the global level does not necessarily mean that the ILC members in country would have the same experience. On the contrary, there are instances when some partners have taken position on land issues that is against ILC‘s own position.

Recommendation. ILC‘s policy to engage with IGOs and partners need to be reviewed. While the ILC should consider minimising its involvement in fund raising by itself, strategically the members‗ capacity to raise funds need to be enhanced. What the ILC should do is to advocate and loby strategic partners and donors at the global to country levels to be more responsive to ILC members in supporting their programmes in countries and in the region.

The practice of dividing and allocating equal funds (mobilised by ILC) to members in the region resulted in the development of arbitrary programmes. Such a practice does not allow members to be creative in addressing local issues of land and poor people nor does it help them develop capacity to negotiate with donors or ILC partners for resource mobilisation.

Recommendation. ILC needs to review its strategy to support members with resources. The funding for members‘ programme should be based on a critical assessment of their track record, on-going programme, their strategic visions, short and longer term work programmes, and the quality and relevance of the proposal which the ILC may want to consider funding.

Efficiency and Effectiveness

Composition, Roles and Resources

While the 6-member Steering Committee is found appropriate in size to manage the ILC Asian Node, the support it should get from the regional secretariat is not clear and assured. Overburdening the Steering Committee with excessive reading of reports and other communications decreases its efficiency.

Critical and substantive feedback on technical documents such as periodic progress reports prepared at the country level could be received from apex bodies like the Steering Committee and the ILC Coalition council only if such documents are reviewed, discussed, commented upon for further improvement and, in turn, summarised and synthesised at the regional level with the facilitation of the Regional Coordinator.

Recommendation. The Secretariat of the Asia Node needs to be led by a capable professional and a competent support staff. Asia Node Secretariat needs to ensure that every programme report is professionally synthesised, consolidated and packaged in an apex-management-friendly manner prior to sending them to the Steering Committee and Coalition Council. The regional Coordinator is expected to carryout this task. However, short-term external professional support is deemed necessary as the ILC Asia Node is in the process of hiring a fresh Coordinator who will need an incubating period to adapt to the Node‘s challenging work context.

The lack of interest among IGO members in the region and to educate such IGOs about ILC and its regional presence is a serious challenge for the Steering Committee. The Steering Committee is represented by two important IGO members. Obviously, these



IGOs are expected not only to remain interested and active as the ILC member, but also persuade other IGO members for their active participation in ILC‘s regional programmes.

Recommendation. A workshop or discussion session focusing specifically on the issue of IGO members participation in ILC‘s activities in Asia should be organised to find out constraints, possibilities and chart out the action plan.

The follow up to the Steering Committee decisions is crucial in practically addressing critical management issues of the ILC Asia Node. Formation of a consortium of members to prepare and submit to non-ILC member donors was a decision that suffered from implementation due to lack of follow up. In its meeting the Steering Committee also raised the concern about its confused role and authority when Asian members are eligible to receiving programme funds directly from the ILC and the SC not being notified.

Recommendation. The Steering Committee of ILC Asia needs to be appropriately empowered and authorised to make financial and programme decision pertaining to the region.

Without a conscious effort and acknowledgement of gender unfriendly composition of the Steering Committee, the issue of the lack of gender balance does not get addressed. The organisational membership of the Steering Committee assured no female sitting in any of the SC meetings, thereby the SC decisions could be perceived to have lacked female‘s perspective.

Recommendation. The election of the next SC committee should ensure that gender balance is attained in its formation.

Hosting Arrangement

Although ANGOC has been perceived to be an appropriate host for the ILC Asia Node, taking it as the host for ever does not allow opportunity to other members from the region to host and develop their own capacity.

Recommendation. The hosting policy of ILC needs a review. Rotating hosting arrangement among members in every two year is a preferred option, but all the consequences must be critically assessed and presented to members before a decision to this effect is taken.

Staff Performance

The experience of a prolong vacancy of the ILC Asia Node Coordinator teaches a lesson that insecure job tenure can lead to premature staff turnover, while rehiring is a tenuous and an expensive process.

Recommendation. ILC should review its regionalisation and the human resource management policy. It needs to be proactive in addressing the possible staff turnover issue before more such incident takes place.

Relation with ILC Rome, Steering Committee and the Host

The fact that the ILC Asia Node sustained so far, even without the Node Coordinator for almost a year, and is able to accomplish range of activities in the past two years is



primary due to the collective efforts of the regional members, the host, the Steering Committee and the support from ILC Rome. However, good relation also needs to be complemented by good management practice. The Asia Node Steering Committee finds that there is a systemic weakness in the global-regional chain of command. There are two specific aspects needing consideration. One is that the SC is not sufficiently authorised for decision making related to the regional matters. And the other is that members in Asia have not been able to take full advantage of their alliance with ILC Rome due to the absence of a dedicated focal point for Asia.

Recommendation. ILC Rome should review the minutes of ILC Asia Steering Committee meetings either to clarify why the current management practice is justified or take the SC meeting as the basis for improving the practice.



References

ILC (2003????). Charter and Governance Framework of the International Land Coalition. Rome: ILC

ANGOC (2006). Asia Regional Meeting, Trends and Challenges on Agrarian Reform & Access to Land: Meeting Report and Framework for Action, 12-14 October 2006, Subic, Philippines. Manila: ANGOC

ANGOC (2008). Final Narrative Report of Piloting of a Process to Decentralise the ILC in Asia. Manila: ANGOC

ILC Asia Node (2008). Minutes of the 1st Meeting of the ILC Working Group for Asia, 28-29 May 2008. Manila: ILC Asia

ILC (2008). The International Land Coalition Operating Framework, approved by ILC Council in April 2008. Rome: ILC

ILC Asia Node (2008). Minutes of the ILC Working Group for Asia - Second Meeting, 20-25 September 2008. Manila: ILC Asia

ILC (2007). Strategic Framework 2007-2011: Putting a Pro-poor Land Agenda into Practice. Rome: ILC

ANGOC (2008). Final narrative report of Piloting of a Process to Decentralise the International Land Coalition in Asia. Manila: ANGOC.

ILC (2009). Letter of Agreement between ILC and ANGOC for the later to implement the project ―ILC Regionalisation Process in Asia: A Step Forward,‖ 25 February 2009.

ILC (2009). International Land Coalition, Conference & Assembly of Members Nepal 2009: Ensuring Rights to Land for Peace and Food Security. Rome: ILC

41

Annexes

Annex A. List of Asia based ILC member-CSOs/IGOs/INGOs in 2008

In 2008, the following CSO members of ILC were based in Asia:

1. Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC)

2. Association for Land Reform and Development (ALRD)

3. Bhartiy Jan Sewa Ashram (BJSA)

4. Community Self-Reliance Center (CSRC)

5. Cooperation Committee for Cambodia (CCC)

6. Jaringan Kerja Pemetaan Partisipatif (JKPP)

7. Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria (KPA)

8. Mobilisation and Development (MODE) –Nepal

9. Social Development Foundation (SDF)

10. Society for Conservation and Protection of the Environment (SCOPE)

11. Society for Development of Drought Prone Areas (SDDPA)

12. South Asia Rural Reconstruction Association (SARRA)

13. Star Kampuchea (STAR)

14. Task Force Mapalad (TFM)

15. The Indonesian Institute for Forest and Environment (RMI)

Additionally, the following international and intergovernmental members of ILC were working in

Asia:

1. Environmental Liaison Center International (ELCI)

2. European Commission (EC)

3. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)

4. International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP)

5. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

6. International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied

Workers Associations (IUF)

7. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)

8. Secours Populaire Français (SPF)

9. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

10. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)

11. World Bank - International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (WB)

12. World Food Programme (WFP)

13. Global Land Tools Network (GLTN)

14. International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED)

42

15. Rural Development Initiative (RDI)

Source: Annex A of the Letter of Agreement between ILC and ANGOC on the implementation of the project ―ILC Regionalisation Process in Asia: A Step Forward,‖ 25 February 2009.

43

From: Nathaniel Don Marquez <[email protected]> Subject: Re: ILC Review of the Process of Regionalisation and Decentralisation

in Asia

Date: October 18, 2010 12:26:01 PM GMT+05:30

To: rolando modina <[email protected]>, Roshan Chitrakar

<[email protected]>

Roshan, Roland, Yes you can ask the SC Members about these questions, though they may not have responses to some of them, particularly those the pertains to daily operations of the regional node. Below are some of my thoughts, as an interim coordinator this 2010. I invite Roland to provide feedback. What inspires the new memberships in Asia? Did the Steering Committee circulate the request for new memberships and screen the applications? What are the reasons why organisations want to be or not want to be the ILC member? From the global call for applications, the ILC Regional Node has been more on the receiving end --- responding to groups inquiring about ILC or requesting assistance in getting endorsements from existing members. While the criteria have been specified for potential members, there is a need to put details in them. At the same time, we have heard feedback from the region that endorsement of a potential member from an existing member should not be seen as the sole determinant for accepting new members. Membership concerns also need time, and should not be dealt on an adhoc basis. Given the work load of the Regional Node, there are other programmatic and institutional concerns that need to be addressed. At the same time, there is an equally important aspect of assessing how existing members are contributing to the Coalition. I have no idea in terms of the motive of an organization applying for membership. To my understanding, there is a committee that reviews but te deliberations are not shared to the regional node. also, as to my understanding, the only process of validation of applicants are through email, or basically from the endorsement received. Is there a mechanism in place through which the Asia Node becomes successful in receiving responses and feedback to its circulation of e.g. progress reports, e-bulletin, surveys, invitation to attend meetings or other events, etc.? How much of responses does the secretariat receive and how substantive are they? Both from regional members/partners and global platform/CC?




44

What communication problem does the ILC Asia face? What could be the solutions? Various aspects: a) Objective -- what do we want to achieve with our communication system? How do we define "successful"? will a mere acknowledgment enough in saying that a response has been generated? b) On the content --- what do we want to receive and send on a regular basis? c) How often do we send updates? In what form? d) How do we encourage members to share information beyond the usulal project reports? e) Feedback mechanism for both sides (recepient and sender) f) How do we capture the member-to-member exchanges, and not just member-node I think the Steering Committee will need a special strategy session on this matter. The agenda items for the regional assembly this November is already full. Nonetheless, perhaps you can extract some ideas from the members when you present the initial results. At the moment none. We just keep sending follow-up letters or call them. What have been the ILC Asia Node’s efforts to mobilise funds for its programme and budget? How effective and successful were the efforts? What problems or obstacles come in the way of fund mobilisation effortts? I have responded this earlier. yes we submitted to EC but wasnot approved. I think what we need to get a sense also is the contribution of individual members to the work done for the Coalition. For instance ANGOC has mobilized funding from other donors to compliment an exisitng ILC-funded project or vice versa. What new way of (or improvements in) working relationship among and between the ILC global secretariat at Rome, Asia Node and Asia Steering Committee would like to see? A regionalization strategy should be clearly defined first. Each of the entitites above have different interpretations. An important aspect is the definition of roles. These are some of my views. Thanks, Don

draft report on the internal review of the regionalization process

Documents