the land governance assessment framework (lgaf) an approach for participatory benchmarking,...
DESCRIPTION
The land governance assessment framework (LGAF) an approach for participatory benchmarking, monitoring, and dialogue . Thea Hilhorst –December 10 th 2013. Overview presentation. Aim and approach LGAF Structure of the framework Some findings Using data for improving land governance . - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
THE LAND GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK (LGAF) AN APPROACH FOR PARTICIPATORY BENCHMARKING, MONITORING, AND DIALOGUE
Thea Hilhorst –December 10th 2013
2
Overview presentation Aim and approach LGAF Structure of the framework Some findings Using data for improving land
governance
3
Why LGAF instrument was developed (2008) Land sector reforms to be driven by country
level, evidence-based assessment Should be based on broad, participatory
policy dialogue between/ within government and other stakeholders
Comprehensive assessment – across silos & strategic priority setting
Need for land governance baseline to track progress both for in-country policy reform and for regional/global initiatives (VGGT, LPI )
4
Aim and Structure LGAF Framework
Set baseline (country scorecard) - for tracking progress Consistent with the VGGT principles, and other
(emerging) principles (‘responsible agro-investment’) Pre-coded framework based on global experience Rankings assigned by panels of local experts (gov, CSO,
academia, private sector), justified by evidence Goal is to arrive at consensus scoring- Aim for
consensus: on strong points; what to improve and where to start (priority recommendations)
Results validated in national technical workshop, translation into policy recommendation
Conclusion presented to policy makers for concrete follow-up
5
LGAF approach: Substance and process
Substance: Comprehensive analysis of land sector; Assessment guided by framework of indicators, based on
global experience of “good” land governance Evidence-based (administrative data, studies, tacit
knowledge) Process:
Fast, low-cost assessment - Use available information – no new primary research (gaps can be identified)
Driven by national experts - Participatory - multiple sectors and stakeholders
Led by a country coordinator, working with national specialists to prepare background analysis; Scoring in 9 thematic panels
6
Voluntary Guidelines (VG) Topics Covered by the LGAF
VG Topics# of
Corresponding LGAF Dimensions
Tenure Rights and Responsibilities 16
Policy, Legal and Organizational Frameworks
17
Delivery of Services 15Safeguards 8Public Land, Fisheries and Forests 12
Indigenous Peoples, Communities with Customary Tenure Systems
3
Informal Tenure 6Markets 6Investments 13Redistributive Reforms 5Expropriation and Compensation 5
Records of Tenure Rights 16
Cont’d. #
Valuation 2
Taxation 5
Regulated Spatial Planning 12Resolution of Disputes Over Tenure Rights 4
Land Consolidation and Other Readjustment Approaches
1
Restitution 0Transboundary Matters 0Climate Change 1Natural Disasters 1Conflicts in Respect to Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests
19
7
Process and Steps: 4-6 months
Inception
Phase
Background
Report based
on existing informat
ion
9 Panels
of Experts Draft
Report
Technical
Validation
Workshop &
Policy Dialog
ue
Follow Up1 2 3 4 5 6
Final report & Score card
Dialogue
Platform/observator
y
monitoring
8 Framework
9
5 thematic governance areas
Recognition and respect for existing rightsLand Use Planning, Management, and Taxation
Management of Public Land
Public Provision of Land Information Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management
10
9 PanelsPanel 1 Land Tenure Recognition
Panel 2 Rights to Forest and Common Lands; Rural Land Use RegulationsPanel 3 Urban Land Use, Planning, and Development
Panel 4 Public Land Management
Panel 5 Transfer of Public Land to Private Use Follows a Clear, Transparent, and Competitive Process
Panel 6 Public Provision of Land Information: Registry and CadastrePanel 7 Land Valuation and Taxation
Panel 8 Dispute Resolution
Panel 9 Review of Institutional Arrangements and Policies
11
Panel – Indicator, dimensions and scoresPa
nel 1
Indicator 1
Dimension 1 Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 2 Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 3 Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 4 Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Indicator 2
Dimension 1 Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 2 Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 3 Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 4 Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 5 Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 6 Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 7 Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
12
ExampleArea
Panel 5: Transfer of large tracts of land to investor
s
Indicators
Transfer of public land to private use follows a clear, transparent, and competitive process; payments are collected and audited Private Investment StrategyPolicy implementation is effective, consistent and transparent and involves local stakeholdersContracts involving public land are public with agreements monitored and enforced
Public land transactions are conducted in an open transparent manner.
Dimensions
Payments for public leases are collected.
Public land is transacted at market prices unless guided by equity objectives. The public captures benefits arising from changes in permitted land use.
Score
Policy to improve equity in asset access and use by the poor exists, is implemented effectively and monitored.
A B C DArea 3: Managem
ent of Public land
13
The scoring/ ranking: based on global experience
Dimension Assessment
Brief description of dimension
A – Best option towards a good land governance scenario.
B – Second best set of options for making progress towards good land governance.
C – Generally struggles to meet the criteria for good land governance however some attempts are being made.
D – No attempts in this area towards good land governance.
14
Example of coded answersDimension 5.1.1
Public land transactions are conducted in an open transparent manner. (with the exception of transfers to improve asset equity such as land distribution and land for social housing).
AssessmentA –The share of public land disposed of in the past 3 years through sale or lease through public auction or open tender process is greater than 90% (Except for equity transfers).B –The share of public land disposed of in the past 3 years through sale or lease through public auction or open tender process is between 70% and 90%. (Except for equity transfers).C –The share of public land disposed of in the past 3 years through sale or lease through public auction or open tender process is between 50% and 70%.D – The share of public land disposed of in the past 3 years through sale or lease through public auction or open tender process is less than 50%. (Except for equity transfers).
15
11 Indicators important for large-scale land acquisitions Panel 1: Land Rights Recognition
Recognition of a continuum of rights Respect for and enforcement of rights
Panel 2: Rights to Forest and Common Lands & Rural Land Use Regulations Rights to forest and common lands Effectiveness and equity of rural land use regulations
Panel 4: Public Land Management Identification of public land and clear management Justification and time-efficiency of acquisition processes Transparency and fairness of acquisition procedures
Panel 5: Transfer of large tracts of public/communal land to investors Transfer of public land to private use follows a clear, transparent,
and competitive process and payments are collected and audited Private Investment Strategy Policy implementation is effective, consistent and transparent and
involves local stakeholders. Contracts involving public land are public with agreements
monitored and enforced.
16 Results
17
Countries with LGAF (33)pilot completed Ongoing Starting
2014
Benin ** Brazil* Bangladesh Burkina faso
EthiopiaDR CongoColombia Cameroon Burundi
Indonesia Gambia DRC- Kinshasa* Mozambique
Kyrgyzstan Georgia * GuineaKalimantan-Indonesia*
Peru ** Ghana Honduras Timor Leste
Tanzania Madagascar* India -7 States*Malawi * MaliMauritaniaMoldova Rwanda
***-monitoring Philippines Sudan** 2nd round South Africa
South Sudan Uganda*=+sub-national
Ukraine VanuatuVietnam
18 Scorecards
19
Recognition and Respect for Existing Rights: Legal and Institutional Environment
Land tenure rights recognition (rural) A B A ALand tenure rights recognition (urban) A B C BRural group rights recognition D B A CUrban group rights recognition in informal areas C C COpportunities for tenure individualization D C B B
Mapping/registration of communal land D D D CRegistration of individual rural land A A D CRegistration of individual urban land A B C A D BFormal recog of women's right C A D ACondominium regime A C C A A CCompensation due to land use changes D B B C
Non-documentary evidence to recognize rights B C C DRecognition of long-term possession A C D CFormal fees for 1st time registration low A A B D D D CNo high informal fees for 1st time registration A B B A DFormalizing housing is feasible & affordable A C B CClear process for formal recognition of possession B C
Restrictions on urban land use, ownership and transferability C B B BRestrictions on rural land use, ownership and transferability A B B B
Clear separation of institutional roles A CInstitutional overlap A CAdministrative overlap B CInformation sharing among institutions B C
Clear land policy developed in a participatory manner C B C C CMeaningful incorporation of equity goals C C CCost of implementing policy is estimated, matched with benefits, and adequately resourced
B C D C C
Regular, public reports indicating progress in policy implementation B C D C C
C B
C
C C
AC BC D
C BC C
A AD
B B
A AB B
A AC
C CA AB B
DDCCC
CCD
C
BCCD
BA
A
DD CD CA A
CC
C
BDBAA
B
D
C
B
C
CACACC
AB
C
D
A
Brazil
NationalPara State
Piauí State
Georgia
BA
CCB
A
CCA
B
ABAAB
BDC
B
Enforcement of Rights
CAB
CD
DB
DClarity of Institutional Mandates
Equity and Nondiscrimination in the Decision-Making ProcessAC
C
A
C
CC
AA
DDB
C
Recognition of a continuum of rights
Mechanisms for recognition of rights
Restrictions on Rights
D
ABAA
Peru PhilippinesSouth Africa
Senegal Ukraine
AAAA
20
Management of Public Land
Public ownership is justified A C C B DComplete recording of public land C D A C BManagement responsibility for public land is clear A C C B C B CInstitutions are properly resourced A D C D DPublic land inventory with public access B C C DKey information on land concessions is public A A C C C
Expropriated land is used for private purposes A A A A ASpeed of use of expropriated land A A C A A
Fair compensation for expropriation of ownership A B B B CFair compensation for expropriation of other rights A B C C DPromptness of compensation A D A A DIndependent & accessible appeal A B B C ATime it takes for a first-instance decision on an appeal A D A
Openness of public land transactions A D D DCollection of payments for public leases A A D AModalities of lease/sale of public land A A D CA D
B
D DD
C CD DB A
DA A
B C
AAC
C BB CC DD DC CB C
D
AA
Ukraine
BABC
Peru PhilippinesSouth Africa
SenegalGeorgia
BA
Identification and Clear Management of Pulic Land
DCC
C
CB
AA
A
Incidence of Expropriation
Brazil
NationalPara State
Piauí State
CBBD
DAAB
A
A
Transparent Processes for Divestiture
Transparency of Expropriation Procedures
21
Public Provision of Land Information
Mapping of registry records A B C A B CRelevant private encumbrances A A A ARelevant public restrictions A C A ASearchability of the registry A A B A C AAccessibility of registry records A A A CTimely response to requests A A B C
Registry focus on client satisfaction A C D BCadastral/registry info up-to-date D C D A B C
Cost for registering a property transfer A C D BFinancial sustainability of registry A A A CCapital investment in the system to record rights A A B A B A
Schedule of fees for services is public A A A AInformal payments discouraged A A D C
AA
A CD D
AAD
C DA AC D
DD DD D
AAB C C
Reliability of Registry Records
A AA AB AA A
B
South Africa
Senegal Ukraine
AA
Peru PhilippinesGeorgia
DCAC
AA
D D
Brazil
NationalPara State
Piauí State
Transparency
Cost Effectiveness, Accessibility, and Sustainability
Completeness of Registry Information
AAA
B
DA
AB
AA
AA
AA
AD
C
22
Transfer of Public Land to Private Use Follows a Clear, Transparent, and Competitive Process
Most forest land is mapped; rights are registered A D CFew conflicts generated and how they are addressed C D DLand use restrictions on rural land parcels generally identifiable A D AClear, consistent public institutions in land acquisition B D CIncentives for investors are clear and consistent B A CBenefit sharing mechanisms for investments in agriculture B D CDirect/transparent negotiations between right holders and investors A B BSufficient information required from investors B A D A DInvestors provide required information B C C
Contractual provisions on benefits/risks sharing A C CDuration of procedure to obtain approval A A BSocial requirements clearly defined B B CEnvironmental requirements clearly defined B B BProcedures for economically, environmentally, and socially beneficial investments A D DCompliance with safeguards is checked B C BProcedures to lodge complaints B C B
C
CC
C C
C
C
A
BD
BCA
C
CD
D
D
D
D
D
D
CC
C
CA
B
B
C
CC
CA
A
AA
CD
DD
C
AA
AA D
D
PhilippinesSouth Africa
Senegal Ukraine
LSLAAB
Brazil
NationalPara State
Piauí State
Georgia
C
C
CC
DBCC
DD
CCB
CC
CD
BC
BC
CC
CC
B
CB
23 Conclusions
24
Process LGAF proven to be a good diagnostic tool Comprehensive analysis across stakeholder much
appreciated; Breaking down traditional silos in country = panels are important
Creates baseline for tracking progress – regular monitoring key quantitative indicators
Helps to focus efforts in land sector and encourage collaboration, basis for building platforms for stakeholder dialogue
Helped to start taking sometimes controversial issues forward / create space for dialogue
Tool for expressing & communicating country demand Provides justification for investments/ interventions in
land sector reforms move up “land issues” on broad policy agenda;
25
Contribution to transparency & change
Information land sector pulled together, brings tacit knowledge on actual practice in the public domain
Brings (potential) change agents together; podium for potential “champions”
Building block for Implementation (can agreement on strong and weak
points (evidence) lead to change?) – allign… Innovation? (pilot, sharing practice, capacity etc.) Institutionalize dialogues and monitoring – allign.. VGGT Demand for data from administrative system =>
transparency & performance? More monitoring (timely check) & impact
26
Presenting data in accessible format
LGAF Framework Structures analysis Structures assessment : comparable
over time and between countries Produces scorecards: strong & weak
points Baseline; also helps to identify
opportunities for sharing good practice
27
LGAF prepares the ground for regular –reporting on land governance
Produces baseline & national platform demanding data & ability to use these data
Uses data from administrative systems: government responsibility to supply data (accountability) and has incentive to Improve ability of systems to produce data Undertake actions that will show progress)
Work towards regular reporting on short list of global land indicators (see also) –incl. Post- 2015 land indicators (land in name of women; mapping communal land; transactions recorded; expropriation, conflict, taxation)
28
More Information on LGAF instrument and findings
http://econ.worldbank.org/lgaf