LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS - rmportal.net

SEPTEMBER 2005 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by ARD, Inc.

LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

VOLUME 3

COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAPS

This product is part of ARD, Inc.’s international work in land tenure and property rights. It forms part of a 4-volume set on the subject.

Volume 1. Land Tenure and Property Rights Framework Volume 2. Land Tenure and Property Rights Country Issues and Donor Interventions Report Volume 3. Land Tenure and Property Rights Country Ranking and Issues Maps Volume 4. Land Tenure and Property Rights Assessment Tools Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development, USAID Contract Number LAG-I-00-98-00031-00, Awareness Framework: Property Rights and Natural Resource Management, under the Broadening Access and Strengthening Input Market Systems (BASIS) Indefinite Quantity Contract. Implemented by: ARD, Inc. P.O. Box 1397 Burlington, VT 05402

LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS VOLUME 3: COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAP

SEPTEMBER 2005 DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government.

VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAPS i

CONTENTS

CONTENTS................................................................................................................................. i

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................... iii

PREFACE .................................................................................................................................... v

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1

2.0 THE RANKING METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 3

2.1 THE LTPR RANKING TOOL......................................................................................................................... 3 2.2 THE RANKING COMMITTEE ......................................................................................................................... 4 2.3 APPROACH, STEPS, AND SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................ 5 2.4 GENERATION OF ISSUES MAPS ..................................................................................................................... 5 2.5 PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................................. 6

2.5.1 Ranking Tool .................................................................................................................................... 6 2.5.2 Ranking Process............................................................................................................................... 7

2.6 IMPORTANT CAVEATS................................................................................................................................... 7 3.0 RESULTS OF THE COUNTRY RANKING...................................................................... 9

4.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................... 11

ANNEX A. THE LTPR RANKING TOOL ........................................................................... A1

ANNEX B. LTPR COUNTRY RANKINGS...........................................................................B1

ANNEX C. LTPR ISSUES MAPS .......................................................................................... C1

ANNEX D. LTPR RANKING TOOL (VERSION II)............................................................ D1

VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAPS iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

BASIS Broadening Access and Strengthening Input Systems

CARPE Central Africa Regional Program for the Environment

DROC Democratic Republic of the Congo

EGAT Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade Bureau

GIS Geographic Information System

LMRT Land Resources Management Team

LTC University of Wisconsin Land Tenure Center

LTPR Land Tenure and Property Rights

NGO Nongovernmental Organization

PPC/DEI USAID Policy Program Coordination Bureau’s Center for Development Evaluation and Information

RDI Rural Development Institute

USAID United States Agency for International Development

VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAPS v

PREFACE

Demand for assistance in addressing property rights issues is increasing from both United States Agency for International Development (USAID) field missions and host country governments. The increase in demand is due, in part, to a growing awareness among development practitioners of the role played by property rights (and natural resources access and use) in economic growth, governance, and conflict and resource management.

USAID and its partners have learned a great deal over the last three decades about the relationship between property rights and economic growth, productivity, and, to a lesser extent, natural resource management and conflict. There are several important lessons learned from the last decade of research and policy work on property rights with a particular emphasis on land tenure.

• Secure property rights are a critical component of economic development and social stability. Inappropriate property rights policies and institutional structures that are not synchronized with economic, political, and environmental realities can undermine growth, erode natural resource bases, and catalyze violent conflict. Insecure and non-negotiable property rights are some of the critical factors limiting economic growth and democratic governance throughout the developing world. Conversely, strong property rights systems, which are viewed as legitimate, transparent, and negotiable, can lead to increased investment and productivity, political stability, and better resource management.

• In development programming, property rights are most frequently dealt with in the context of land reforms and land tenure reform. Programming decisions made in a variety of sectors that take land tenure into consideration can have profound impacts on land use and management, agricultural systems, and associated natural resources management.

• Too often, land tenure and property rights reforms are measured in terms of outputs rather than impacts (e.g., measuring the number of land titles which have been issued as opposed to focusing on market performance and investment increases, reduced conflicts, or improved sustainable management practices). This focus on outputs prevents USAID from fully understanding the efficacy and potential cross-sectoral benefits of its property rights reforms and programs.

Issues regarding property rights vary from region to region, and they will continue to evolve over time. The most volatile of USAID countries, and those that are often in the greatest need of property rights reforms, are fragile states. Since property rights are so closely linked to development agendas across the globe, there is a need to understand how these rights shift as economies move through the stages of economic growth and democratization (and, in some cases, from war to peace) and how these shifts require different property rights interventions.

In light of these common concerns and issues, a Community of Practice on Land has been created by USAID in Washington to serve as a hub of information sharing. In addition, the Land Resources Management Team has been formed within the USAID/Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade (EGAT) Bureau to coordinate issues of land tenure and property rights programming with other USAID bureaus and operating units.

In October 2004, USAID awarded ARD, Inc., of Burlington, Vermont a two-year task order, Awareness Framework: Property Rights and Natural Resources Management, under the Broadening Access and Strengthening Input Systems (BASIS) indefinite quantity contract. The task was to develop a land tenure and

vi VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAPS

property rights framework, a common vocabulary, and a set of tools that could be used to help guide USAID through future property rights programming.

ARD formed a virtual team of land tenure and property rights professionals from three organizations: ARD, the Rural Development Institute (RDI), and the University of Wisconsin Land Tenure Center (LTC). Each member brought to the team strong experiences in the major areas of property rights and development programming. The team consisted of Safia Aggarwal (ARD), David Bledsoe (RDI), Jennifer Brown (RDI), Renee Giovarelli (ARD), Peter Hetz (ARD), Susana Lastarria-Cornhiel (University of Wisconsin LTC), Mark Marquardt (ARD), Robert Morin (ARD), Ryan Roberge (ARD), and Michael Roth (ARD, formerly of LTC).

This virtual team met regularly over the course of one and half years to develop the Land Tenure and Property Rights Framework and tools:

• Volume 1: Land Tenure and Property Rights Framework. A conceptual tool for examining land tenure and property rights issues and interventions in USAID programming, which includes a glossary of commonly used land tenure and property rights terms.

• Volume 2: Land Tenure and Property Rights Country Issues and Donor Interventions Report. A database on land tenure and property rights issues for each presence country. The data is drawn from bilateral and multilateral literature sources.

• Volume 3: Land Tenure and Property Rights Country Ranking and Issues Map. An expert ranking of major land tenure and property rights issues in USAID programming countries around the world and an illustration of those issues within “regional neighborhoods” (USAID programming regions).

• Volume 4: Land Tenure and Property Rights Assessment Tools. A collection of materials that can be used by USAID missions to expand upon land tenure and property rights issues in their respective countries and determine how these issues contribute to or impede development programming. These materials include both an LTPR pre-assessment tool and an LTPR assessment tool. Both of these are aimed at standardizing the format and content addressed in USAID property rights assessments and facilitating development of potential programming in this area.

This team was also afforded the opportunity to meet with both USAID’s Community of Practice on Land and the Land Resources Management Team on various occasions. These meetings were used to critique and improve the different editions of the LTPR Framework and associated tools. In addition, various renditions of this framework and tools were used to steer land tenure and property rights assessments in four of USAID programming countries—Ethiopia, Kosovo, Angola, and Kyrgyzstan.

The task order was managed and supervised by Dr. Gregory Myers. For more information or technical assistance, please contract Dr. Gregory Myers, Senior Land Tenure and Property Rights Specialist EGAT/Natural Resources Management/Land Resources Management Team, USAID, [email protected]. Within ARD contact Peter E. Hetz, [email protected] or Michael Roth, [email protected], Senior Associates for Land, Environment, and Natural Resources.

VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAPS 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The purpose of the Land Tenure and Property Rights (LTPR) Country Ranking and Issues Maps is to assist the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) identify key land tenure and property rights issues and draw attention to how these issues affect national and USAID development programming. To this end, the LTPR country ranking process was developed to evaluate the severity of LTPR issues in each USAID presence country. The country ranking process involved the development and the use of the LTPR ranking tool to collect informed judgments on the severity of land tenure issues in each USAID presence country. Ranks generated from this exercise were then used to illustrate country-specific LTPR issues in a visual tool—the LTPR issues maps.

This report describes the ranking tool, the composition of the ranking committee, the approach and methods used, and important caveats in creating and interpreting the LTPR issue ranking scores and maps. It also describes key problems experienced in implementation, with regard to both the ranking tool and the ranking process. It concludes with recommendations. Future LTPR rankings will require USAID review of the associated deliverables and guidance and decisions, based on the proposed recommendations.

Future use of the LTPR ranking methodology and tools will be based on the utility as perceived by USAID missions and bureaus; but it is our hope that LTPR issues ranking will occur periodically.


2.0 THE RANKING METHODOLOGY

The LTPR Country Ranking and Issues Maps required the design and development of an LTPR ranking tool that operationalized the LTPR Matrix below. A ranking committee was appointed to apply the ranking tool to USAID presence countries based on a review of LTPR country profiles developed within the LTPR Country Issues and Donor Interventions Report. The LTPR country ranks were used to develop issues maps in ArcGIS, using a geographic information system (GIS) platform.

LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS MATRIX

2.1 THE LTPR RANKING TOOL

To develop the ranking tool, three members of the LTPR ranking committee joined to design the tool based on a number of criteria set by the chair of the ranking committee. This sub-working group had the following tasks:

4 VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAPS

1. For each issue in the LTPR Matrix, identify a limited number of attributes to facilitate a consistent process of ranking LTPR issues in each USAID presence country. The attributes were developed to ensure that they were robust in capturing the gamut of important land tenure issues faced by a country. The number of attributes per issue was not uniform and was limited to a manageable size that would allow for ease in ranking.

2. Identify a set of attributes for each LTPR issue, within the limits set by Task 1, that captures the entirety of the issue, with minimal overlap. Thus, each issue was broken down into attributes that, when combined, capture the fullness of the issue. Each attribute was unique, but it could be connected with other attributes.

3. Since each issue is mutually exclusive of the others, create a set of attributes designed to be mutually exclusive. Mutual exclusivity among attributes served to enhance the uniqueness and coherency of cells within the LTPR Matrix.

4. Assign a fixed weight to each attribute to define its size or importance within the bundle and determine its contribution to the issue rank.

5. Address “gender, ethnic, or social marginalization” as cross-cutting themes. These themes were explicitly captured within each issue.

A draft version of the ranking tool implementing these criteria was subsequently sent to the ranking committee. Based on comments received, the ranking tool (see Annex A) was finalized. The ranking tool has six attributes associated with each of the five issues in the LTPR Matrix. When administering the tool, respondents were asked to weight each attribute according to the following ranking of severity:

7= Issue is extremely serious and warrants urgent attention. 6= 5= Issue is serious and merits policy and program intervention. 4= 3= Issue is moderately severe and merits close monitoring, but not intervention. 2=

1= Issue is not a problem, and there is no need of intervention. 0= Unable to answer

The LTPR issue ranks, numbered on a range from “not a problem” to “extremely serious,” suggest severity of the issues within a given country. The scores could indicate need for USAID or donor intervention

The final issue ranks were calculated using the formula as specified in the ranking tool. Detailed instructions on how the ranking tool was completed by the ranking committee members are provided in Annex A.

2.2 THE RANKING COMMITTEE

Under the Awareness Framework: Property Rights and Natural Resources Management task order, LTPR profiles were produced for each country, based on a predetermined set of resource materials collected from USAID and other bilateral and multi-lateral aid donors.1 These profiles, summarized in the LTPR Country Issues and Donor Interventions Report (Volume 2), vary greatly in quality, depth, and reporting; hence, they constitute imperfect documentation. Within the Asia and Near East regions where USAID missions have had minimal involvement with land interventions over the past decade, the profiles are particularly weak. In some

1 These materials include: USAID annual reports, country strategic plans and congressional budget justifications; World Bank country assistance

strategies, poverty assessments, and other program documents; individual country Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers; and a review of other donor Web sites, such as the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, GTZ, and regional development banks.


cases (mainly Latin America and the Caribbean), the profiles were updated with expert opinion. Additionally, due to resource, time, and capacity constraints, LTPR issues may be misinterpreted or mis-categorized, donors have failed to correctly discern them when they arise, or donors may simply fail to accurately report the full scope of their involvement. It was an objective of this exercise to determine the utility of these profiles for future rankings and to advise changes thereto as appropriate.

A ranking committee was formed, comprised of individuals with country-specific and regional expertise, to complement the profiles with expert opinion. The ranking committee consisted of the committee chair Michael Roth (ARD) and Safia Aggarwal (ARD), Dave Bledsoe (RDI), Peter Bloch (LTC), Jen Brown (RDI), Renee Giovarelli (ARD), Peter Hetz (ARD), Susana Lastarria (LTC), Mark Marquardt (ARD), Hammond Murray-Rust (ARD), Gregory Myers (USAID), and Jamie Thomson (ARD). Members of the ranking committee were selected on the basis of the following criteria:

1. Working knowledge of the LTPR Matrix, including both columns and rows;

2. Regional breadth, that is, a good working LTPR knowledge in two or more regions, to enable global geographic coverage and to provide for at least two knowledgeable evaluators per region; and

3. The ability to synthesize knowledge and commit to assigning a rank.

2.3 APPROACH, STEPS, AND SCHEDULE

A package of LTPR profiles and the ranking tool were sent electronically to committee members, along with a copy of the LTPR Matrix and the detailed instructions outlined in Annex A. Each committee member was asked to spend approximately two days completing the ranking tool for USAID countries associated with the assigned regions and return them to ARD for compilation. Ranking scores were summarized by ARD for all countries. The chair provided a rank for all countries based on his personal review of the LTPR profiles and personal knowledge and experience. Based on these rankings and the rankings provided by the other evaluators, the chair’s First Rank was generated for all of the countries.

A meeting of the ranking committee was convened in Washington, D.C., to compare and discuss individual scores, review the chair’s consensus rank, and discuss any differences. During the meeting, the ranking committee discovered inconsistencies in members’ interpretations of the issues and attributes. (This is further discussed in Section 2.5.) The meeting concluded with the decision that the members would revisit their ranking scores and resubmit corrected data for all five of the issues. These data were resubmitted and, based on the chair’s reconciliation of diverging scores among evaluators, were used to generate the chair’s Second Rank. The chair revised the ranking scores and submitted them to the committee for review. Committee members responded with comments resulting in a third revision and the Final Rank. The LTPR Country Ranking in Annex B provides the final ranks.

2.4 GENERATION OF ISSUES MAPS

The final LTPR issues ranks were used to develop issues maps in ArcGIS, on a GIS platform. Issues maps were developed at the global scale for each of the five LTPR issues. Issues maps were also developed for three sub-regions: Central Africa and East Africa (combined in one map) and Central Asia. These global and sub-regional maps are presented in Annex C.

A Microsoft Access database of final LTPR issues ranks were imported into ArcGIS and mapped onto an ESRI global coverage. A geographic coordinate system (GCS WGS 1984) was used for all of the global and sub-regional maps. As illustrated in the global maps, one map was developed for each issue to graphically illustrate the ranking scores. Countries where USAID does not have a presence and, thus, were not ranked by the ranking committee are illustrated in white and categorized as “Not Ranked.” The ranking committee was unable to rank some countries for two reasons: 1) insufficient data to enable ranking with reasonable


confidence (in the case of Myanmar and Yemen); and 2) over-speculation due to uncertainty about causes of war (in the case of Iraq). Countries where ranks could not be estimated are illustrated in green with a rank of “0.”

The regional maps were generated for the three sub-regions mentioned above. These maps serve to highlight specific LTPR issues in these sub-regions. As illustrated in Annex C, two figures were prepared for each of these sub-regions. One figure shows a series of maps of the sub-region with each issue plotted separately. The other shows all five issues in the form of a bar graph, illustrated on a base map of aggregate LTPR issue ranking. Spatial visualization of the rankings in the issues maps proved useful for two reasons: it allowed for visual comparison of issue severity between countries; and it allowed for issues comparison across regions.

2.5 PROBLEMS IN IMPLEMENTATION

The methodology used to create the ranking scores and LTPR issues maps experienced a number of problems that could be categorized into two groups: the ranking tool and the ranking process.

2.5.1 Ranking Tool

1. According to most committee members, the use of the annotated summaries of rankings (in Annex B) was a good way to consolidate and synthesize information from the profiles, comments recorded by committee members with their rankings, and other expert testimony. However, resources were sufficient to produce these annotated summaries for only three regions, and more summaries would have been useful. In addition, the need and utility of these annotated summaries will decline in the future as the LTPR profiles rise in quality and stature.

2. A number of committee members felt that six attributes per issue were not sufficient to capture the full range of LTPR issues observed globally or nationally. While the working group and the ranking committee had reviewed the ranking tool prior to the ranking exercise, this exercise was undertaken in the abstract; the process of implementing the tool gave rise to a number of contextual issues that begged for more detail and nuance. Any new revision of the ranking tool will need to take these concerns into consideration and make changes to the attributes accordingly.

3. The use of attribute weights in the ranking tool proved cumbersome for some committee members, while others stressed the advantage of using them to standardize application when reviewing profiles and deliberating rankings and priorities. Members encountered one serious problem: in the event that one attribute represented a very serious problem, while the remaining attributes within that issue were lower in severity, the resulting issue rank would be low, in some cases, lower than the committee member thought it should be. During the period between the chair’s first and second ranking, a number of committee members changed issue ranks, largely by ignoring the weights. It is not expected that this practice will prevail as a standard response in the future. The use of attribute weights should be further examined.

4. The scale, ranging from 0 to 7, used to register the severity of a problem is too nuanced, particularly between scores of 3 and 4 and 6 and 7. While a number of committee members indicated that a difference of one was not overly significant in their minds, once information is entered into the colored maps, differences in color shades can appear far larger and more significant than intended.

5. In addition to a numerical rank, some committee members wanted to move beyond static rankings toward a system that would indicate next steps for USAID missions to consider (for example, “do nothing,” “monitor,” or “design a program or intervention”). While these are implicit (or even explicit) in the 0 to 7 ranking, the details sometimes act to muddy the more central point of prioritized future action or follow-up steps.


6. Finally, there is lingering concern that the format, presentation, and content of the ranking tool and results suggest a ranking process and analysis that is more grounded in objectivity and science than is actually the case. There will be a certain tendency of those receiving and reviewing ranks to place more credence to them than they might warrant, making the subtleties of the numerical compilation and adjustment worrisome. Unfortunately, it is not immediately clear how an LTPR ranking and issues map can be created without some form of numerical ranking. Until this issue is resolved, only a limited number of options seem feasible: 1) do not create an issues map; 2) increase the quality of the underlying data; 3) improve the science of the ranking tool; or 4) alert USAID to this risk and to the committee’s concern in order to heighten caution in interpretation.

2.5.2 Ranking Process

7. In general, the committee approach worked well. Nevertheless, careful review of the LTPR issues ranks suggests some latent problems. First, there was too wide a variation in scores of individual committee members. Second, scores assigned by a single reviewer at times seemed inconsistent. This was due to a number of problems:

• Imperfect understanding of the LTPR Framework and Matrix (among reviewers) that affected its application;

• Insufficient clarity or coherency of certain issues. (Two issues in particular were problematic: “Conflict/Instability” and “Unsustainable Natural Resources Management.” With regard to the former, the framework emphasizes that conflict itself does not merit high marks; this is only justified when land issues are substantially a cause of the conflict. However, in practice, this distinction is very difficult to untangle. With regard to the latter, unsustainable natural resources management is so globally pervasive, that the committee found it nearly impossible to register a low score or attribute these rankings to LTPR.);

• Differences in the quantity and quality of information reported in the profiles among countries and regions; and

• Differences in knowledge, experience, and disciplinary backgrounds among the committee members.

One of the chair’s important roles was to arbitrate these differences and, along with his own knowledge and experience, create a Final Rank. This proved difficult, particularly in instances when the differences of opinion were great.

8. For the most part, Problem 7 issues, within the context of a given country, could be resolved through discussion and arbitration. The more difficult problem is that of bias across regions. When submitting ranking scores, committee members typically did so within a general regional context, without regard for other regions. Consequently, the risk is that rankings in two regions are both internally consistent but are biased upward or downward in relation to each other. For example, one evaluator assigns a rank of 1 in “Conflict/Instability” in Central Asia, and another assigns a 5 to the same category in Central America. When compared globally, this seem nonsensical. One of the chair’s roles was to try and discern these biases and correct them when appropriate. In the chair’s view, this is one task where the methodology is particularly vulnerable to error.

2.6 IMPORTANT CAVEATS

The above methodology raised a number of important caveats that influence the interpretation of the final ranking scores and issues maps.


• The ranking process is still experimental for purposes of validating the methodology and informing future refinements. They are not the final word. The deliverables reported on here will be submitted to USAID to determine their application. Upon termination of the ranking committee (with termination of the Awareness Framework contract), the ranking tool, issues maps, and the LTPR Country Issues and Donor Interventions Report will be reviewed by USAID bureaus and missions, who will further act to fill in gaps, evaluate results, and help in the design of next steps.

• In the course of implementing the methodology, the team assigned sub-regions to individual evaluators where they had appropriate expertise. However, in order to achieve global coverage, it was necessary to assign additional countries to committee members who had less knowledge or experience in a particular area.

• Two areas were reserved in the ranking tool for additional information: one for comments on specific LTPR issues; and one for overarching comments. It was hoped that these spaces might be used by committee members to help qualify their statements. Overall, the number of comments was meager, but those that were submitted aided the chair greatly in the justification of ranking scores.

• There is risk that, from the final ranking scores, USAID and other users will infer an impossible level of precision and specificity. This concern does not affect the methodology itself, only how the results are used and interpreted. The fact that this ranking exercise is still experimental helps to mitigate this risk for the time being, but the rankings should be accompanied with careful written and verbal qualification.

VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAP 9

3.0 RESULTS OF THE COUNTRY RANKING

The products under this activity include:

• LTPR Ranking Tool (Annex A). The LTPR ranking tool was distributed to the ranking committee and used to drive the rankings scores, which formed the basis of the issues maps. The instructions to the ranking committee are also included here.

• LTPR Country Rankings (Annex B). This methodology produced ranking scores from the five LTPR issues for 85 countries, spanning 6 geographic areas and 18 sub-areas. The breakdown of geographic areas and sub-areas was based on USAID Automated Directives System Functional Series 200: Programming Policy, ADS 260, Geographic Codes on the USAID Web site (http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/200/260.pdf).

• LTPR Issues Maps (Annex C). The issues maps provide spatial illustration of the final ranking scores for USAID presence countries and in three sub-regions: East and Central Africa; and the Central Asia Republics.

• LTPR Ranking Tool Version II (Annex D). A revised ranking tool was developed in response to the limitations experienced when using the original ranking tool.

VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAP 11

4.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

• The ranking process was widely viewed by the ranking committee members to be rewarding. Most of them claimed to have learned from the process and from each other. The LTPR ranking process itself as reported here is not without errors and flaws, but there is also a widely shared sense among committee members that a useful product was produced that, when looked at carefully, provides insights and begs important and useful questions for the future.

• The utility of the LTPR ranking tool and ranking process will ultimately have to be assessed by USAID. It may not be useful to hold another ranking exercise until the database in the LTPR Country Issues and Donor Interventions Report is deepened and made more current.

• Ideally, LTPR assessments would be undertaken every five years, coinciding with the development of country strategic plans. This would serve to update the knowledge and understanding of LTPR issues and interventions in a given country and inform the country strategic plans. The intervening periods may be used to enhance the quality of the data through more extensive literature reviews and LTPR assessments. Application of the tools created under the Awareness Framework task order, specifically the LTPR Framework and LTPR Assessment Tools could provide further mechanisms to verify, update, and, in some cases, populate the LTPR Matrix.

• A knowledge management system is needed that captures these new data and, on a periodic basis, produces new profiles. There are two possible mechanisms by which these can be done: 1) profiles based on review of the academic literature and library searches; or 2) application of the assessment tools produced by the Awareness Framework task order. Both of these would meaningfully advance the understanding of LTPR issues and interventions, and neither can entirely substitute for the other. What is most important is the recognition that in-depth and up-to-date knowledge and expertise is needed to facilitate the ranking exercise, and one cannot do without either.

• Changes in the LTPR Ranking Tool are advised, and the issues listed in Section 2.5.1 indicate the changes needed. A first attempt at a revised ranking tool (version II) is provided in Annex D. The associated preface provides an overview of the changes that resulted in this revised ranking tool.

• With regard to the ranking committee, there are at least two options for performance improvement. First, given the existing committee structure, more time should be allowed for face-to-face interaction and standardizing the understanding of the LTPR Framework and its application. Too much of the process and dialogue was handled through electronic exchange. The second option would involve an entirely different approach: regional committees comprised of local experts would undertake the rankings, and one central committee, comprised of 3 to 5 people, would be responsible for facilitating the ranking within each region and harmonizing regional scores to minimize regional bias. Resources will dictate which option is the most feasible.

VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAP A1

ANNEX A. THE LTPR RANKING TOOL

LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS RANKING TOOL

The Land Tenure and Property Rights (LTPR) Ranking Tool is part of a suite of tools developed by USAID under the Global Land Tenure Task Order, Awareness Framework: Property Rights and Natural Resource Management. Its purpose is to collect informed opinions about the severity of land tenure issues in a given country based on expert opinion, develop a ranking based on severity of issues, and to illustrate country variations in a visual tool—the LTPR Issues Map. The methodology can be found in the LTPR Awareness Framework: Concepts and Guide for Evaluating LTPR Issues and Interventions in Land and Natural Resources.

Note: This ranking tool is based on the original LTPR matrix and was used to generate the ranking scores provided in Annex B of this report. The ranking exercise resulted in revision of the LTPR Matrix that is now found throughout the three other volumes of the LTPR Framework. The revised version of the ranking tool should be considered for future LTPR ranking exercises (see Annex D).

Name of Country Name of Evaluator I. Conflict and Instability Attribute

Weight Problem or Importance

Attribute Rank

Issue Rank

1 Unresolved land conflict or dysfunctional LTPR systems are causing violence (between ethnic, religious, racial groups), creating political instability and undermining economic growth.

20%

2 The transition from post-war conflict or ethnic violence to transformational development is being hampered by weak or fractured LTPR systems.

20%

3 Resolution of post-war conflict or ethnic violence is being hampered by highly-skewed state and/or private ownership of assets and lack of compensation or redistribution mechanisms.

15%

4 Recent conflicts have created significant numbers of internally displaced peoples, refugees, or ex-soldiers that are in need of access to land for purposes of restoring stability and livelihoods.

15%

5 Lack of an adequate LTPR policy framework and regulatory structure is preventing the establishment or reestablishment of property rights that enable legal recourse and conflict mediation.

15%

Rank on a scale of 1 to 7 where 7=extremely

serious issue 1=issue not a

problem 0=cannot answer

A2 VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAP

6 Lack of effective conflict mediation tools and access to mediation structures or mechanisms are serious problems in dealing with conflict over land and related natural resources.

15%

Issue Weight: 20% LTPR Issue I Comments: II. Insecure Tenure and Property Rights Attribute


Attribute Rank

Issue Rank

1 Individual private ownership rights in land are poorly defined, have limited utility, are of insufficient duration, and lack assurance in enforcement due to inadequate LTPR legislation and implementation or to state interference.

25%

2 The LTPR legal and policy framework fails to protect the rights of women and other disadvantaged racial, ethnic, and religious groups.

20%

3 Conflict over land due to ownership disputes, overlapping rights, and inheritances is a frequent and serious occurrence.

15%

4 Legal or de facto recognition of common property in land and natural resources is lacking.

15%

5 Broad-based land rights definition and enforcement is lacking due to a land administration system that is dysfunctional, not decentralized, or lacking adequate stakeholder participation.

15%

6 Incompatibility between formal legal and customary land tenure systems (legal pluralism) is contributing to tenure insecurity.

10%




Issue Weight: 30% LTPR Issue II Comments: III. Landlessness/Inequitable Resource Distribution Attribute


Attribute Rank

Issue Rank

1 Landlessness or near landlessness in rural areas is high AND job opportunities are not sufficient to absorb those lacking secure access to land and related natural resources.

20%

2 Land distribution in terms of area is highly skewed, depriving the majority of households sufficient land to secure livelihoods OR depriving rural workers, tenants, and sharecroppers of decent working conditions or quality of life.

20%

3 Female-headed households or women within households are relegated to marginal and degraded lands or are allocated farm/plot sizes that are smaller than their male counterparts.

15%

4 Informal or illegal settlements are a problem on public or private lands. 15% 5 Land distribution between majority and minority ethnic or religious

groups is not proportional to their population. 15%

6 Policy framework for land reform and land reclamation programs is lacking and is hampering broad access to land and improved distribution of landholdings and income.

15%




Issue Weight: 20% LTPR Issue III Comments:


IV. Poorly Performing Markets Attribute Weight

Problem or Importance

Attribute Rank

Issue Rank

1 Legislation aimed at enabling land market transactions is too unclear, too restrictive, not yet developed, or conflicted, thus, preventing land markets from emerging or performing.

20%

2 The ability of small holders to purchase, contract, or rent in land is difficult due to a highly-segmented land market that biases land transactions in favor of larger farms or larger plot sizes.

20%

3 Women and ethnic/religious minorities encounter legal, cultural, or administrative obstacles to participating in the land market.

20%

4 Contracts between landowners and tenants and sharecroppers are either non-existent or unenforceable due to weak or insecure LTPR.

15%

5 Land administration is not sufficiently decentralized and/or decision making is not sufficiently devolved to enable ease in land transfers at an affordable cost.

15%

6 Commercial financial institutions are reluctant to provide smallholder agricultural and livestock producers with mortgage-based credit using land as collateral.

10%

Rank on a scale of 1 to 7 where 7=extremely serious issue 1=issue not a problem 0=cannot answer

Issue Weight: 15% LTPR Issue IV Comments: V. Unsustainable Natural Resources Management Attribute


Attribute Rank

Issue Rank

1 Environmental degradation and unsustainable land use management is the consequence of weak, inadequate, or eroding LTPR.

25%

2 With regard to common property, erosion of property rights and land use management of pasture, forests, and public lands is resulting in resource degradation and conflict.

15%

3 On arable lands, the current size of landholdings, traditional land use practices, and available land use technology are no longer appropriate to cope with population growth and land use pressure.

15%

4 Poverty and vulnerable livelihoods, as a result of weak LTPR and limited economic and social assets, are forcing people onto fragile lands and into unsustainable land and natural resource use.

15%

5 State concessions/licenses (timber, mineral mining, petroleum extraction, fishing, or commercial exploitation) are causing land and resource degradation and contamination.

15%

6 Government lacks sufficient capacity, particularly at decentralized levels, to develop, implement, monitor, and enforce environmental legislation

15%

Rank on a scale of 1 to 7 where 7=extremely serious issue 1=issue not a problem 0=cannot answer

Issue Weight: 15% LTPR Issue V Comments: AGGREGATE RANK Issue rank multiplied

by issue weight summed over all issues

100%


OVERARCHING COMMENTS REGARDING EVALUATION RANKING TOOL ASSESSMENT


METHODS

Ranking Tool. The ranking tool is comprised of 5 issue sub-categories developed within the LTPR Awareness Framework: (1) conflict and instability; (2) insecure tenure and property rights; (3) landlessness and inequitable resource distribution; (4) poorly performing markets; and (5) unsustainable natural resources management. Beneath each issue in this ranking tool is a list of 6 attributes that each respondent will rank using one of the codes for “degree of seriousness or importance” in the block labeled “Attribute Rank.” Each of the attributes is designed to be mutually exclusive. The “Attribute Weight” associated with each attribute represents the level of significance of the attribute to the LTPR issue. The “Issue Rank” is the weighted sum of individual attribute ranks measuring scale of severity for each attribute multiplied by their respective “Attribute Weights.” The “Issue Weight” indicates the importance of the issue within the overall LTPR Framework. At the end of the tool is an “Aggregate Rank,” derived by multiplying the “Issue Rank” for each issue by its respective “Issue Weight” and summing across issues. The ranking tool thus delivers six weighted ranks or scores—one for each of the five LTPR issues, plus the aggregate rank score.

Composition of Ranking Committee. The committee will be multi-disciplinary and comprised of 5 to10 professionals with strong skills in land tenure and natural resources management, and at least 5 years experience applying this knowledge in the field. For purposes of this ranking exercise, countries are subdivided into the following USAID regions and sub-regions:

Major Regions: Asia and the Near East Europe and Eurasia Latin American and the Caribbean Africa North America South America

Sub-regions East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Near East Balkans, Caucasus, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia Caribbean, Central America, and Latin America North Africa, West Africa, East Africa, Central Africa, and Southern Africa

Committee members will be chosen in accordance with the following criteria: • Each committee member should have a substantive appreciation of the importance and role of the LTPR

Matrix (both columns and rows) as shown on page 1of the ranking tool and as elaborated upon in the LTPR Framework.

• Each committee member should have substantive experience in at least two of the sub-regions. • Each sub-region should have at least one, and preferably two, members on the committee who are

knowledgeable about land tenure issues and related natural resources management within the region.

Numerical Ranks to be Used:

Approach. The ranking committee will be formed to undertake a ranking of severity of land tenure issues in countries where USAID has an active presence. A companion tool—the LTPR Country Issues and Donor Interventions Report—provides land tenure profiles for each country prepared from a fixed set of donor publications and, in some cases, expert opinion. The five major LTPR issues in this ranking tool comprise of issues that are developed in the LTPR matrix. The ranking process will begin with an updated report and tool being

7= Issue is extremely serious and warrants urgent attention. 6= 5= Issue is serious and merits policy and program intervention. 4= 3= Issue is moderately severe and merits close monitoring but not intervention. 2=



provided to committee members.

Ranking Methodology. The committee will spend two days reviewing the LTPR Matrix and land tenure profiles provided. Each committee member will fill out the ranking tool for each country they are assigned, filling in comments as appropriate. Completed questionnaires (the ranking tool) will be sent to the team leader who will compile the responses for all countries. The team will then meet at a convenient location for one day to discuss rankings, deliberate on findings, and reconcile differences. Changes to scores by individual members are anticipated at this time. The team leader will record these and produce a final corrected composite.

Graphical Representation. Final composite ranks will be entered into ArcGIS to provide a visual ranking of land tenure issues for both individual components and the aggregate score, producing visual color maps for each major region and globally, as appropriate.


ELABORATION OF ATTRIBUTES IN RANKING TOOL

SUB-ISSUES OR DIMENSIONS OF LTPR ISSUE CATEGORY

QUESTIONS TO AID IN CONTEXTUALIZING DIMENSIONS OF LTPR ISSUES AND SUB-ISSUES AND APPLICATION IN LTPR SITUATIONAL ASSESSMENTS

The LTPR framework comprises 5 principle issue categories:

• Conflict/Instability

• Insecure Tenure and Property Rights

• Landlessness/Inequitable Resource Distribution

• Poorly Performing Markets

• Unsustainable Natural Resources Management

This first column of the tables that follow identify 6 attributes that define the various dimensions of each LTPR Issue category listed above.

Each of the 6 attributes per LTPR issue is intended to be mutually exclusive from the other attributes in defining the breadth of the issue category. All 6 attributes are intended to capture the totality of the issue in terms of its various dimensions.

All attributes for all 5 LTPR issue categories are intended to capture the totality of LTPR issues in a given country.

These attributes are incorporated in the LTPR Ranking Tool for purposes of ranking countries according to severity of land tenure and property rights issues.

The LTPR Ranking Tool in the preceding pages is intended to be applicable in several contexts:

• Ranking countries using an expert panel based on data provided in the LTPR Country Issues and Donor Interventions Report and for purposes of generating an LTPR Issues Map for regions, sub-regions and globally.

• Ranking issues in any given country in the course of undertaking a LTPR assessment. In this instance, a situational assessment is undertaken, and the ranking tool is utilized to help synthesize or consolidate the importance of LTPR issues based on empirical findings gathered.

Attributes in the Ranking Tool, while designed to be mutually exclusive, nonetheless leave latitude for interpretation. In the tables that follow, a short list of questions is provided for each attribute with the aim of helping to both shape and narrow this interpretation and to clarify its dimensions.

The questions for each attribute also serve a second purpose; i.e. helping to guide the empirical enquiry of the LTPR assessment. A Situational Assessment tool is another in the suite of tools being developed under the Global Land Tenure Task Order, Awareness Framework: Property Rights and Natural Resource Management. This tool provides methodology for conducting a situational LTPR assessment in a given country. The empirical lines of enquiry in the Situational Assessment are usually more detailed that the questions provided in the subsequent table. Nevertheless, the two sets of questions are intended to be synchronous.



QUESTIONS TO AID IN CONTEXTUALIZING DIMENSIONS OF LTPR ISSUES AND SUB-ISSUES

CONFLICT AND INSTABILITY 1 Unresolved land conflict or dysfunctional LTPR systems

are causing violence (between ethnic, religious, racial groups), creating political instability and undermining economic growth.

Are resource scarcity or dysfunctional LTPR systems creating violence and political instability and how are these manifested among diverse social groups and why?

Are conflicting claims over land and natural resources hampering efforts to resolve post-war conflict or ethnic violence?

Is economic growth regressing or stagnant because conflict and political instability is undermining economic institutions, markets, and economic activity?

2 The transition from post-war conflict or ethnic violence to transformational development is being hampered by weak or fractured LTPR systems.

In the event that conflict is resolved, do LTPR systems provide sufficient tenure security to begin or accelerate economic development?

To what extent is the emergence or reemergence of economic activity being constrained by lack of an LTPR framework that provides broad based access to tenure security?

Is a strengthened LTPR framework essential for restoring livelihoods and laying the foundations for economic transformation?

3 Resolution of post-war conflict or ethnic violence is being hampered by highly skewed state and/or private ownership of assets and lack of compensation or redistribution mechanisms.

To what extent is the conflict driven by scarcity of land and natural resources and/or by a highly unequal distribution of land and related natural resources in the economy?

Are there available and underutilized resources held by the state that could be used to resolve conflict through resettlement or privatization programs aimed at compensating aggrieved parties?

Are legal and financial mechanisms for purposes of paying compensation or restituting land claims a priority for resolving the conflict?

4 Recent conflicts have created significant numbers of internally displaced peoples, refugees, or ex-soldiers that are in need of resettlement for purposes of access to land for purposes of restoring stability and livelihoods.

Are ex-soldiers continuing to foment conflict due to lack of employment, income, and economic assets? Is their demobilization and reintegration into society an important concern to regain stability?

Will the return of displaced peoples/refugees to their former land and homes reopen conflict issues? Is the land from which they came inaccessible due to continuing insurgency, land mines, or destruction?

Are there demobilization packages (farm implements, seeds and fertilizer packs, funds for housing reconstruction) in place?

5 Lack of an adequate LTPR policy framework and regulatory structure is preventing the establishment or reestablishment of property rights that enable legal recourse and conflict mediation

Is the LTPR legal and administrative framework sufficiently robust in terms of securing rights in land and natural resources without political or social bias?

What impact has the conflict had on physical and administrative infrastructure for delivering LTPR policy and program interventions at the appropriate federal, regional, and local levels? Have, for instance, land records (property, civil) or magistrate offices been destroyed?

For women and children who, due to the death of husbands and fathers, are the most vulnerable in the wake of conflict, do they have equal rights in the LTPR framework, and does it provide them adequate protection?

6 Lack of effective conflict mediation tools and access to mediation structures or mechanisms are serious problems in dealing with conflict over land and related natural resources

How are disputes over land rights being resolved? Is lack of restitution and/or compensation a continuing source of political instability? Are formal and alternative dispute resolution systems in conflict?

What legal systems or mechanisms are in place to cope with land-related claims in terms of identifying claimants, recording claims, and facilitating their processing?

Are methods for managing land related conflict appropriate or sufficient for the type and level of land conflict in the country?




INSECURE LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

1 Individual private ownership rights in land are poorly defined, have limited utility, are of insufficient duration, and lack assurance in enforcement due to inadequate LTPR legislation and implementation or to state interference.

Does the landholder, whether a person, group, or legal entity, have the right to sell, lease, or sharecrop, subdivide, mortgage, bequeath, plant crops, cut trees, build structures, and bury the dead?

Does the landholder hold these rights for a sufficiently long time period to fully recoup the benefits of labor and financial capital invested in the land?

What statutory bodies or customary institutions are responsible for assuring or protecting these rights? Are they effective or are they undermining tenure security?

Does the state have too much power to withdraw or redistribute private land without clear guidelines or compensation?

2 The LTPR legal and policy framework fails to protect the rights of women and other disadvantaged racial, ethnic, and religious groups.

Are women, children, and ethnic minorities disadvantaged in terms of both land rights held and access to mechanisms providing legal recourse? Do women and socially disadvantaged groups have less secure land tenure and property rights?

Do titling/registration programs focus only on titling household heads, disenfranchising women and other household members of their access rights to land and related natural resources?

Are land rights for women and men in the legal system (e.g., land law, inheritance law, marital property law, family law, civil law) and in land administration (land titling) equal, or are they biased against the interests of women?

3 Conflict over land due to ownership disputes, overlapping rights, and inheritances is a frequent and serious occurrence.

Are there multiple or overlapping use rights to land and related natural resources between sedentary agriculturalists and pastoralists, hunters, and gatherers? Are these overlapping rights a source of conflict?

What are the most important land related disputes and how important are they in terms of severity? Is social and ethnic conflict over resources occurring as a result of economic, social, political, or institutional change?

Is the lack of equal rights or protection of those rights for women, children, and future claimants resulting in conflict? How are disputes resolved? Are they effective and do they have widespread accessibility?

4 Legal or de facto recognition of common property in land and natural resources is lacking.

What forms of community or collective property rights exist in addition to individual private ownership rights? How are community or collective property rights allocated, enforced, and managed? Are restrictions on access

unfairly marginalizing certain groups due to gender, ethnicity, religion, or social status? How important is communal grazing and forestry? Is common property management of these resources in

decline, are they in conflict, and is resource use sustainable? 5 Broad-based land rights definition and enforcement

is lacking due to a land administration system that is dysfunctional, not sufficiently decentralized, or is lacking adequate stakeholder participation.

Is lack of effective land title, registration, clearly-demarcated boundaries, and legal contracts a source of insecure land and property rights?

Is access sufficiently decentralized and affordable to enable broad-based access by women, the poor, and other socially disadvantaged groups?

Does the court system provide effective legal recourse at sufficiently low cost in terms of money and effort? 6 Incompatibility between formal legal and customary

land tenure systems (legal pluralism) is contributing to tenure insecurity.

Does the formal legal system recognize customary land law or tradition? Has a pluralistic legal system led to conflicting perceptions of property rights?

Are land disputes occurring at the interface of the two systems? How are they being resolved, and are the dispute resolution methods themselves in conflict?

Are state land concessions and/or licenses to third parties creating dispossessions and conflict with neighboring parties?




LANDLESSNESS AND INEQUITABLE LAND DISTRIBUTION

1 Landlessness or near landlessness in rural areas is high AND job opportunities are not sufficient to absorb those lacking secure access to land and related natural resources.

How important is landlessness or near landlessness in terms of size of holdings, poverty status and people affected?

Are households able to access additional land if theirs is insufficient through, for example, purchase, lease, sharecropping, or contract farming?

Is landlessness the result of population growth, dwindling resources, resource degradation, natural disasters, war, shifting land uses (transhumance vs. sedentary agriculture), or encroachment by larger more powerful groups? How effective would LTPR policy and program interventions be in solving these?

2 Land distribution in terms of area is highly skewed depriving the majority of households sufficient land to secure livelihoods OR depriving rural workers, tenants, and sharecroppers of decent working conditions or quality of life.

Is land distribution skewed with highly unequal size of land holdings? Does the commercial agricultural sector control large amounts of land? Is there state land available for

allocation that is underutilized and free of other private claims? Is there a perception of large amounts of land being inefficiently utilized? What is the living condition of farm workers, tenants, contract workers and sharecroppers?

3 Female-headed households or women within households are relegated to marginal and degraded lands or are allocated farm/plot sizes that are smaller than their male counterparts.

Are women disadvantaged in terms of land access, either in size or quality of current holdings? Is there the appearance of gender bias or discrimination in government programs aimed at making more or better quality land available?

Are women relegated to marginal or fragile lands by population pressure, land grabbing, and land speculation, or by government programs as a result of insecure LTPR?

Are women who are single, widowed, separated, or divorced allowed to obtain land, maintain the holdings of their husbands, or obtain land settlements in the case of divorce?

4 Informal or illegal settlements are a problem on public or private lands.

Is landlessness being manifested by informal, illegal, or squatter settlement and/or bonded laborers? Do these settlements exist on private, community or state land? Do these settlements exist on agricultural or

urban/peri-urban land? Why are they taking place where they are? Who are the settlers? Where did they come from? Why are they settled in the settlements where they are

currently located? What is the government’s policy towards these settlements? Is there the political will to address the issue and

how? 5 Land distribution between majority and minority

ethnic or religious groups is not proportional to their population.

Are minority groups disadvantaged in terms of land access, either in size or quality of current holdings, or are they discriminated against in government programs aimed at making more or better quality land available?

Is landlessness ethnically or religiously based? Do certain ethnic or religious groups have significantly smaller holdings or hold poorer quality land?

Do marginalized groups reside in or have ownership rights or use rights over productive lands? 6 Commitment to and the policy framework for land

reform and land reclamation programs is lacking that would broaden access to land and improve the distribution of land holdings and income.

Have current or past land and agrarian reform programs and land consolidation programs helped to equalize income, land, and asset holdings?

Was land distribution equitable in these programs? Did the reform programs provide land to disadvantaged groups?

What avenues are there for resolving landlessness through land reform, redistribution of state lands, land reclamation, or distribution of legally seized land?




POORLY PERFORMING LAND MARKETS 1 Legislation aimed at enabling land market transactions

is too unclear, too restrictive, not yet developed, or conflicted, thus, preventing land markets from emerging or performing.

What types of transactions in land and property occur or do not occur with any degree of significance? What legal and social restrictions pose problems for land sales, land rentals or sharecropping, intergenerational transfers, and contracts?

For each type of transaction, what is the content and duration of rights transferred, and costs (financial, time and risks) involved in negotiation, enforcement and documentation that affect the difference between the price and terms the buyer/renter is willing to offer and that what the seller is willing to accept?

What legal provisions exist to support and protect land and property transactions? 2 The ability of small holders to purchase, contract, or

rent in land is difficult due to a highly segmented land market that biases land transactions in favor of larger farms or larger plot sizes.

Are land transactions transparent and accurate in terms of information transmitted with ease of access for all citizens regardless of social or economic status? Are transaction costs the same for all landholders, both small and large?

What is the range and frequency of land transactions observed including purchases and sales, rentals and leases, sharecropping, mortgages, land exchanges, contract farming, borrowings, and pooling of land assets? Are markets missing, segmented or undeveloped?

Is land speculation a serious concern? 3 Women and ethnic/religious minorities encounter legal,

cultural, or administrative obstacles to participating in the land market.

Do customary practices restrict transactions to family/ethnic members? Are there systematic barriers to women and other socially marginalized groups in the legal or administrative framework that constrain or limit their participation in land market transactions?

Are there more subtle barriers to participation posed by status differences and power relationships within the household, community and society at large that limit their engagement and participation?

Whether under customary or statutory systems of land tenure, are women effectively able to assert their rights, and if not, can LTPR mechanisms be effective in engineering social change?

4 Contracts between landowners and tenants and sharecroppers are either non-existent or unenforceable due to weak or insecure LTPR.

Do lessors or contractors limit their involvement in contracts for fear of their land not being returned at the end of the lease or contract?

Are lessees or people reluctant to enter into contracts or exchanges because the terms are onerous or there is risk of the contract being cancelled prematurely and crops confiscated?

Are the rights of both lessors and lessees protected by law with acceptable mechanisms of legal recourse in case of dispute?

5 Land administration is not sufficiently decentralized and/or decision making is not sufficiently devolved to enable ease in land transfers at an affordable cost.

What types of transactions are recorded and where? Are land records easily accessed by the public for recording transactions, and do they entail affordable costs in both near and remote areas?

Is lack of land valuation capacity curbing development of the real estate market and constraining development of taxation systems on property.

What agencies or notaries are required in recording land transaction, and is their capacity sufficient? 6 Commercial financial institutions are reluctant to

provide smallholder agricultural and livestock producers with mortgage-based credit using land as collateral.

Can land be mortgaged? What types of land do banks deem accept as collateral, rural/urban, developed/undeveloped? By doing so, would the likelihood of receiving credit be substantially increased and would credit supply in the aggregate experience expansion?

Is lack of credit and/or mortgage for the purchase of land a serious constraint in rural agriculture? For small scale enterprise? For residential construction?

Can banks acquire land as a result of default on mortgage payments? Can banks resell land that has been acquired through default?




UNSUSTAINABLE LAND USE MANAGEMENT 1 Environmental degradation and unsustainable land use

management is a serious problem and is the consequence of weak, inadequate or eroding LTPR.

To what extent is environmental degradation or unsustainable land use management a serious concern in the context of arable lands, irrigated lands, pastures, forests, and public lands?

Are insecure land tenure and property rights contributing to deforestation, land degradation, and unsustainable use of land, water, wildlife, forests, and pastures?

Is unsustainable land use management the consequence of conflict/instability, insecure LTPR, landlessness, or poorly performing markets, and in what ways?

2 With regard to common property, erosion of property rights in the context of pasture, forestsm and public lands is resulting in resource degradation and conflict.

Are communities moving onto fragile lands due to population growth and land degradation, further exacerbating environmental degradation? Has the expansion of areas of sedentary agriculture limited access to dry season grazing areas for pastoralists?

Are mechanisms to increase stakeholder participation in the management of common property (e.g. CBNRM) by enabling co-monitoring and co-management of resources being applied? Why and why not?

2 On arable lands, the current size of landholdings, traditional land use practices, and available land use technology are no longer appropriate to cope with population growth and land use pressure.

Is landholding size or distribution leading to soil degradation, deforestation, or mining of the resource base?

Is land fragmentation or sub-economic size of land holdings manifesting a decline in fallow periods, a decline in land productivity, and/or suboptimal land use?

4 Poverty and vulnerable livelihoods, as a result of weak LTPR and limited economic and social assets, are forcing people onto fragile lands and into unsustainable land and natural resource use.

Is encroachment onto marginal lands and environmental degradation serious problems? Are economic incentives for land use on private and public lands sound and compatible with

environmental policy? Despite good incentives, is lack of employment and secure access to income, forcing people to degrade

the environment to meet basic needs? 5 State concessions/licenses (timber, mineral mining,

petroleum extraction, fishing, or commercial exploitation) are causing land and resource degradation and contamination.

Has the development of a commercial agricultural sector either through development projects, industrial demand for raw materials, and/or land concessions/licenses not provided sufficient employment opportunities or taken away resources formerly used by the poor?

Are mining or logging interests disinvesting tribal peoples of their rights and natural heritage under the guise of commercial development?

6 Government lacks sufficient capacity, particularly at decentralized levels, to develop, implement, monitor, and enforce environmental legislation.

Is lack of sound environmental policy and/or land use planning a significant problem for the country? Do government structures suffer from weak capacity in mapping, data collection, planning, monitoring land

use, and enforcement of land related regulations? How have land use planning and land management programs been implemented? Is there any public

consultation in the land use planning process? Is lack of zoning and enforcement the problem? Is it due to good policy that is being badly implemented or

to a policy framework that has divested people of rights and access to resources? Has the designation of protected areas limited access to critical resources for neighboring communities?


INSTRUCTIONS TO RANKING COMMITTEE

1. Each reviewer will be assigned approximately 12 to 19 countries each, spread between two to three sub-regions.

2. For each country, the reviewer should complete one ranking tool questionnaire (pp. 1–3 of the ranking tool), based on review of the respective country profile (taken from the LTPR Country Issues and Donor Interventions Report) and his or her personal knowledge and experience. REFRAIN FROM SEEKING OUT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION!

3. For each of the five LTPR issues, the reviewer should rank each of six attributes on a scale of 1 (not a problem) to 7 (extremely serious). The “Issue Rank” is the important score to capture while individual attributes ranks are simply means to help the reviewer estimate this rank. If the reviewer cannot rank or does not feel comfortable ranking any given attribute, there are two courses of action:

• Enter 0 in the “Attribute Rank” cell and leave the cell for “Issue Rank” blank; or

• Enter 0 in the “Attribute Rank” cell but proceed with entering a score for the “Issue Rank” (preferred).

4. The ranking tool provides space for comments. Use this space to record critical comments that affect your rankings. Please keep all comments brief. These will be compiled and shared with you at the July 14th meeting.

5. The chair will rank all countries using the same criteria in order to help smooth our differences in knowledge, emphasis, or ranking and to help fill gaps. Consequently, each country will be ranked by three committee members—two reviewers, plus the chair.

6. ARD will tally the results in a summary table replicated for all countries in the region:

Country Name:___________________________

Rank 1: Conflict and Instability Rank 2: Insecure Land Tenure and Property Rights Rank 3: Landlessness and Inequitable Land Distribution Rank 4: Poorly Performing Markets Rank 5: Unsustainable Land Use Management

7. Based on the ranking scores and comments of the three reviewers, the chair will endeavor to estimate a final rank score for each LTPR issue and the aggregate rank, particularly in situations where rankings are similar. In situations where rankings are dissimilar or there are numerous “0s” indicating “unable to answer,” the final rank will be left blank.

8. Reviewers will meet as a group for one day to review the summary tables and the chair’s final rankings:

• The committee will have only 20–40 minutes available per sub-region (depending on number of countries within the sub-region) to review the summary tables for all countries therein.

Reviewers Name Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3 Rank 4 Rank 5 Aggregate Rank

1. 2. Chair Final Rank: Comments:

Comments will be summarized here!


• Time will be prioritized to focus on those countries where the chair is unable to conclude a final rank. If the committee decides that one or more final ranking scores are not possible for a given country, rank scores will be left blank.

• Committee members will be able to review the chair’s final ranks for all other countries and provide comments.

9. Using the final rank scores from this exercise, ARD, after the meeting, will produce one global map for each issue (six in total) that graphically illustrates the ranking scores. Countries where USAID does not have a presence will be illustrated in white. Countries where ranks could not be estimated will be illustrated in green. Ideally, the committee’s role is to endeavor to keep the green country ranks to a minimum. Individual maps can be blown up for sub-regions later, as determined appropriate by USAID.

VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAP B1

ANNEX B. LTPR COUNTRY RANKINGS

BUREAU NAME

GEO-GRAPHIC

MAJOR REGION

GEO-GRAPHIC

SUB-REGION

COUNTRY NAME

CONFLICT/ INSTABILITY

INSECURE TENURE

AND PROPERTY

RIGHTS

LAND-LESSNESS/ INEQUIT-

ABLE RESOURCE

DISTRI-BUTION

POORLY PER-

FORMING MARKETS

UNSUS-TAINABLE NATURAL

RESOURCES MANAGE-

MENT

Burundi 6 6 6 3 5 AFR Africa Central Africa Rwanda 5 5 5 4 5

Congo (Kinshasa) 7 7 5 3 6 Djibouti 5 4 5 3 5 Eritrea 5 4 4 4 5 Ethiopia 5 5 4 5 6 Kenya 5 5 5 5 5 Madagascar 4 5 4 5 5 Somalia 6 5 5 2 5 Sudan 7 6 6 4 6 Tanzania 5 4 3 3 4

AFR Africa East Africa

Uganda 5 5 4 5 6 Angola 5 6 5 3 5 Lesotho 2 5 4 4 5 Malawi 2 4 5 4 5 Mozambique 4 5 4 3 4 Namibia 5 5 6 3 3 South Africa 4 5 6 3 4 Zambia 3 4 3 3 3

AFR

Africa Southern

Africa

Zimbabwe 7 6 6 4 5



B2 VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAP

BUREAU NAME

GEO-GRAPHIC

MAJOR REGION

GEO-GRAPHIC

SUB-REGION

COUNTRY NAME


INSECURE TENURE

AND PROPERTY

RIGHTS


ABLE RESOURCE

DISTRI-BUTION

POORLY PER-

FORMING MARKETS


RESOURCES MANAGE-

MENT

Benin 2 3 4 4 5 Cape Verde 2 2 4 2 3 Ghana 4 5 4 5 5 Guinea 3 5 5 4 5 Liberia 6 4 6 4 5 Mali 3 4 3 3 4 Nigeria 5 5 4 4 5 Senegal 3 4 3 4 4

AFR Africa West Africa

Sierra Leone 6 4 4 4 5 East Timor 4 5 4 4 5 Indonesia 5 5 4 4 6 Mongolia 4 5 4 4 6

ANE East Asia East Asia

Philippines 5 5 5 4 5 Egypt 3 4 5 4 5 Iraq 0 0 0 0 0 Jordan 4 4 4 4 5 Lebanon 5 5 3 4 4 West Bank/Gaza 7 6 7 5 5

ANE Near East Near East

Yemen 0 0 0 0 0

ANE Africa North Africa Morocco 2 4 5 4 5

Afghanistan 7 6 5 4 4 Bangladesh 3 4 4 5 5 India 3 4 5 4 5 Nepal 6 4 5 4 6 Pakistan 4 5 6 5 6

ANE South Asia South Asia

Sri Lanka 6 5 4 5 5 Burma 0 0 0 0 0 Cambodia 5 5 5 4 6 Laos 3 3 2 4 4

ANE East Asia Southeast Asia

Vietnam 3 3 2 3 5



VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAP B3

BUREAU NAME

GEO-GRAPHIC

MAJOR REGION

GEO-GRAPHIC

SUB-REGION

COUNTRY NAME


INSECURE TENURE

AND PROPERTY

RIGHTS


ABLE RESOURCE

DISTRI-BUTION

POORLY PER-

FORMING MARKETS


RESOURCES MANAGE-

MENT

Albania 3 4 3 3 5 Bosnia and Herzegovina 6 5 4 5 4 Croatia 6 6 4 5 4 Kosovo 6 5 5 5 5 Republic of Macedonia 4 4 5 5 5

E&E Europe, Eurasia

Balkans

Serbia and Montenegro 5 4 3 4 3 Armenia 6 3 3 5 5 Azerbaijan 6 4 4 4 5 E&E Europe,

Eurasia Caucasus

Georgia 1 4 4 5 4 Kazakhstan 3 6 6 4 4 Kyrgyzstan 4 4 5 5 5 Russia 2 5 4 4 5 Tajikistan 3 6 5 4 5 Turkmenistan 3 6 4 5 5

E&E Europe, Eurasia

Central Asia

Uzbekistan 4 6 5 5 5 Belarus 2 6 5 6 5 Bulgaria 1 4 4 4 3 Moldova 1 2 2 4 4 Romania 1 4 3 4 4

E&E

Europe, Eurasia

Eastern Europe

Ukraine 1 3 2 3 3




BUREAU NAME

GEO-GRAPHIC

MAJOR REGION

GEO-GRAPHIC

SUB-REGION

COUNTRY NAME


INSECURE TENURE

AND PROPERTY

RIGHTS


ABLE RESOURCE

DISTRI-BUTION

POORLY PER-

FORMING MARKETS


RESOURCES MANAGE-

MENT

Dominican Republic 1 4 5 5 5 Haiti 5 5 6 4 7

LAC Latin

America Caribbean

Jamaica 1 4 5 4 5 El Salvador 3 3 4 4 4 Guatemala 6 6 7 6 5 Honduras 1 3 4 4 5 Nicaragua 4 5 4 5 3

LAC Latin

America Central America

Panama 1 5 5 5 5

LAC Latin America

Latin America Ecuador 4 4 5 4 5

LAC Latin America

North America Mexico 4 4 4 4 4

Bolivia 5 3 6 5 5 Brazil 2 5 5 5 5 Colombia 6 5 5 5 5 Guyana 2 4 2 4 4 Paraguay 4 4 6 5 5

LAC Latin America

South America

Peru 3 3 5 5 5



AFRICA-CENTRAL AFRICAConflict

andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights

Landlessness and Inequitable Resource

Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets

UnsustainableNatural Resources

Management

BURUNDI

6 6 3 5Final Rank

Under Burundi's 1986 Land Tenure Code, rights over previously titled land are recognized, and customarily held land rights are formally recognized and protected upon registration. The registration process is difficult and not widely used, leaving tenure security and recognition of customary land rights in question. However, the rural population for the most part is unaware of formal law and relies instead on customary norms and practice. The post-conflict legal framework governing land is in flux, and it is anticipated that the initial transitional legislation will be replaced by permanent legislation. The Government of Burundi, in developing its new legislative framework, recognizes the need to address management of state-owned land, management of lands owned by war victims, and the ability of women to inherit land and property.

Land scarcity and landlessness among displaced people are serious problems, confounded by the country’s insufficient land base and small landholdings. As a result of the 1993 conflict, there are over 1 million displaced persons in Burundi and neighboring countries. The Hutu/Tutsi conflict has spilled over into the eastern DROC, where conflict-displaced Burundians have repeatedly sought refuge. The decline in tenure security, resulting from multiple land allocations and overlapping claims, is further eroded by government expropriation of land for redistribution. The government is committed to finding new land for those who no longer have access to their original property, but the high person-to-land ratio and resettlement of displaced persons (in part, on state land) make this a huge task. Transactions are occurring, but they are of a lower priority, considering the country's instability.

Land degradation, fragmentation, erosion, and unsustainable use of farmland, pasture, and forest are all serious problems, but it is unclear to what extent this environmental degradation is being caused by weak or eroding land tenure and property rights (LTPR) systems. The government recognizes the importance of better managing its natural resources base, including common pool resources, but it must also consider converting wetlands to cropland to ease population pressure. Under CARPE, USAID and its partners are promoting land use planning, management, and zoning and broadening land access in sensitive and protected areas. USAID is also assisting with land conflict and legal education. However, population density, land scarcity, and LTPR-related conflict are significant concerns that will pose enormous challenges for the country for years to come.

6

RWANDA

5 5 4 5Final Rank

Land has been a historic source of disputes in Rwanda, stemming from informal tenures and untitled land, and from the post-conflict departure and subsequent return of people whose

5

B5LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAP

AFRICA-CENTRAL AFRICAConflict

andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

lands have been occupied by others. Many of these returnees are seeking to reclaim their land or obtain compensation, but they face conflicting and overlapping land rights upon their reentry. Infrequent but serious conflict occasionally occurs in small pockets of the country, but tensions are high in other areas. Landholdings are very small and economic opportunities for the large number of rural poor are lacking.

The new Constitution provides for mediation at the sector level for most disputes, but the government is also considering promoting traditional, village level dispute resolution. Rights are protected in law, but, in practice, overlapping claims to land render these rights insecure. The law currently fails to define land rights clearly, and fears over government expropriation heighten tenure insecurity. Other shortcomings in current law include ambiguous tenure forms, non-transparent issuance of land concessions, and a command and control mentality in regulating land use and consolidation. A new draft land law seeks to address a number of these issues, with the intent to enhance tenure security by recognizing customary tenure systems and registering land rights. It also envisions that land titling will be conducted at the community level and that women’s land rights will be taken into account and protected.However, these changes are relatively recent and require substantial capacity to implement, making it difficult to assess future effectiveness. In addition, it is still not clear whether the government intends for such land to be held in full ownership or as long term use rights. If these changes prove to be ineffective, the ranking for "Insecure Land Tenure and Property Rights" will be higher.

Informal land markets are functioning for urban, peri-urban, and rural land, but a lack of legal clarity on the right to transfer renders most transactions extra-legal. Additionally, the written contracts that accompany these transactions purport only to transfer immovable property improvements and not the land itself. Sales, when done, are perceived to be in perpetuity, and holders deem their rights to be in full ownership.

Fragmentation, erosion, and soil depletion are all serious problems; high pressure on land is creating degradation, and marginal areas are being brought into cultivation without proper management. Rwanda’s forested area is under mounting pressure from population growth, unsustainable resource use, poor management, and problems related to poverty and political instability.

Under CARPE, USAID and its partners are promoting and assisting with the draft legal framework for land use planning, management, and zoning and broadening land access in sensitive and protected areas. However, while the new legislation is promising, enforcement and implementation are uncertain. Meanwhile, population pressure, the recent history of informal migration, and government-sponsored attacks on the DROC make disentangling LTPR institutions from political instability a major challenge.

B6 LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAP

AFRICA-EAST AFRICAConflict

andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

CONGO (KINSHASA)

7 5 3 6Final Rank

Post-conflict tensions, the prospect for further violence from LTPR insecurity, and the presence of displaced persons and armed groups are all severe in the DROC, particularly in the eastern regions of the country. The country's legal framework is characterized by extensive state control and interventions that all but rule out genuine stakeholder participation in LTPR governance. Landlessness and near landlessness in rural areas are high, but this is due to civil conflict and other forms of racial/ethnic discrimination. Other areas of the DROC are characterized by massive tracts of land with very low human population density. Land markets have low priority in the face of rapid natural resources deterioration, high numbers of displaced persons, and a burgeoning urban population, characterized by growing numbers of squatters and lack of adequate urban planning. Landlessness around major industrial development (mining, forestry, and logging) is contributing to land degradation. Unsustainable land use management is also apparent in select areas where people cluster for reasons of insecurity and/or lack of job opportunities. Larger landscape conservation programming is being conducted by US conservation NGOs under CARPE, but little attention is being paid to LTPR reform. Conflict over land and natural resources is adversely affecting stability, peace, governance, and sustainable natural resources management. Other regional land issues come into play, but none are as significant as those affecting the border areas from Sudan to Zambia.

7

DJIBOUTI

4 5 3 5Final Rank

Recent conflict in Djibouti has resulted in a massive influx of people into the cities, creating sprawling slums. Many of these people are poor illegal immigrants who risk eviction. Conflict between transhumant and sedentary herders in peri-urban areas is on the rise. Natural resources are deteriorating because of the potential for violence, conflicted land use, and insecure LTPR. For example, overgrazing of fragile pastureland is causing desertification and soil degradation. The fragile peace that characterizes the post-civil war society is being challenged by a growing peri-urban population with limited LTPR. An increasing concern is that conflicts over scarce natural resources in the areas surrounding the capital city will lead to further resource degradation and sporadic violence.

5

ERITREA

4 4 4 5Final Rank

While Eritrea’s conflict with Ethiopia has been mitigated by a peace agreement, there is the threat that war could resume. This potential for conflict keeps the borders and surrounding lands from being used productively. In addition, insecure and poorly-defined property rights are taking their toll on common property resources—pasture, forests, and fisheries. New

5



andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

reforms seem designed to manage or mitigate against this threat; however, the capacity to implement them at sub-national levels is weak. The government intends to provide returning refugees with long-term use rights. However, periodic readjustments in landholdings are creating land disputes and undermining LTPR security; concessions granted along riverbanks threaten to disrupt pastoralists; and government plans to encourage private development of sparsely-populated areas risk disenfranchising pastoral groups. To the government’s credit, however, it has acted cautiously to date. Rights and land access for women are more secure in Eritrea than elsewhere in Africa. Land rights are insecure (mainly for urban development), and sub-optimum plot sizes make land distribution an ongoing problem. The country lacks an adequate infrastructure of land records; under the current land administration system (that operates both inefficiently and with limited reach), it is difficult to imagine the development of land markets (particularly in urban areas), yet there is an emerging need for them. The Red Sea Islands and sub-surface coral reef systems have strategic and economic importance, but it is unclear how much these common property resources are being degraded by weak or eroding LTPR.

ETHIOPIA

5 4 5 6Final Rank

The Eritrean/Ethiopian conflict created large numbers of displaced persons (including soldiers to demobilize and resettle soldiers). In addition to overlapping land claims, serious ethnic violence has erupted in recent years, stemming from conflict over natural resource claims (such as pastures and water). The country’s high population density, particularly in the highland areas, has resulted in sub-optimal economic landholding size, but unequal land distribution is not a serious problem as the landholdings tend to be uniformly small. Resettlement programs aim at redistributing people from the overcrowded, but malaria-free, highlands to more abundant land located in malaria zones to the wes. Often considerable coercion is needed on the government’s part. These relocation efforts have, at times, undermined the tenure security of uprooted families and, at other times, created land disputes in resettled areas.

Land redistribution programs used to be a significant cause of LTPR insecurity, but many regional governments have issued pronouncements to halt them. Steps are being taken to address the country’s severe landlessness through land market development (via leasing laws, for example). The government’s policy of regionalization has vested management and administration of land policy in regional governments; while there have been some allegations of lack of transparency and misplaced public trust, it is a lack of capacity that has compromised the government’s ability to fulfill land promises. Broad-based land rights definition and enforcement are due to a weak policy framework and a lack of adequate record keeping. Rather than emphasizing LTPR reforms, the government has opted for a nationwide rollout of land certification and registration. However, given the lack of legal clarity, government controls on land use and land allocation, and an unequal distribution of

5



andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

land rights (between wealthy and poor), it remains unclear what real benefits land certification will provide.

Unsustainable management of water, pasture, and forests is intimately interlinked with landlessness, overpopulation, and lack of economic opportunity, but lack of a robust LTPR framework for management of common property is a significant problem as well.

KENYA

5 5 5 5Final Rank

Conflict is an increasingly common occurrence between sedentary farmers and pastoralists in Kenya, but it is also found on a small scale among sedentary communities as they try to expand. Violence occurs as indigenous communities demand the return of historic landholdings. The government is planning to address extensive illegal squatting through a squatter regularization program and titles for resettlement. Landlessness is nonetheless on the rise, often the result of desperation sales by the poor.

Kenya has one of the largest land registration systems in Africa, going back to the land consolidation and titling programs of the 1960s and 1970s. However, high transaction costs both discourage legal transfers and result in transfers off the books, eroding the accuracy of land records over time. The rapid growth of urban and peri-urban areas (where risk of land disputes is particularly severe), and increasing demands for land are generating the need for more efficient and equitable land and real estate markets serving the needs and protecting the interests of society at large.

New legislation is trying to harmonize LTPR rights with natural resources management and environmental concerns; however, coordination between legislation and agency roles and responsibilities is sorely lacking. Community-based natural resources management and group ranches in many parts of the country have been unsuccessful in addressing either the degradation of common pool resources or the needs of the poor. Large-scale private ranching offers one successful model of sustainable land use, but such examples have been accused of disenfranchising the rights of pastoralists, and are almost exclusively dominated by wildlife ecotourism. Common pool resources are a frequent source of conflict between communities and the state. The Presidential Commission, meant to create an efficient and equitable system of land ownership and administration, holds promise for addressing some of these concerns, but the outcome is uncertain in the face of questions about government’s true commitment to transparency, governance, and LTPR reform.

5

MADAGASCAR

5 4 5 5Final Rank

In Madagascar, property may be held either under freehold or customary arrangements. Community-based tenure systems are governed by national law and are reportedly robust.

4



andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

USAID assisted in the drafting of the country’s secured transaction and leasing laws in 2002 (current status unknown). Primary landholders are those who have cleared, inherited, or purchased the land, and they have the power to manage and dispose of it. Secondary holders (e.g., spouses and children) have some ability to influence land management, and tertiary holders have few long-term rights, but they can rent, sharecrop, and borrow the land. These rights are reinforced by written law that requires prior proof of land usage before seeking a title. When use is stopped, land reverts to the commons, and there is evidence that potential cultivators respect the rights of former users. (Customary systems consider farmland to be the property of those who have cultivated it.)

Land disputes and conflict were once a serious problem in certain parts of the country, but they are much reduced compared with a decade ago. Distribution of land is moderately equitable, although holdings are small. Over the years, the government has altered its position on land titling. At one point, it was very interested, as recently as 1998, however, the process was put on hold. Currently, the government is once again giving priority to land titling. Donors have clearly stated that expanded and improved land titling is needed to further solidify land tenure security, particularly titling of community-held land. While land registration was once top-down, Madagascar is now moving toward a decentralized system which recognizes and encourages community-based natural resources management systems. In general, tenure security and property rights in most customary community-based areas are clearly defined and understood.

The World Bank is encouraging land markets and property rights. The Millennium Challenge Corporation is likely to focus on land registration and market development. Most of the country’s population depends on low-productivity and unsustainable farming practices that lead to severe environmental degradation, including deforestation, soil erosion, and illegal mining. It is unclear whether these problems are the consequence of overpopulation or weak LTPR systems. In 2003, the government underwent a substantial restructuring that included integration of land use planning with economic programs in that hope the more comprehensive land use plans would be encouraged.

SOMALIA

5 5 2 5Final Rank

Somalia’s ranking is provided with meager confidence, since on-the-ground research and LTPR interventions were effectively halted in the early 1990s. The government’s emphasis in the late 1980s was on titling and registration, particularly in the Shebelle region; at that time, considerable tenure insecurity was created by sporadic registration, which tended to mainly serve the interests of elites. Since then, however, the national government met its demise, and what was once a very weak formal land administration system with limited capacity has now come to utter ruin. Over the intervening years, a new governance has emerged that is based on a loose collection of clan states. The country’s long history of

6



andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

pastoral survival and customary law has provided a certain stabilizing influence in the void created by the national government’s demise. It is impossible to assess the legal foundations of LTPR systems. Yet, since organization and society still function in so many parts of Somalia, it is hard to argue that LTPR issues are severe.

Common pool resources—pasture, water, and offshore and underground mineral rights—are all under assault in the absence of national government. Their sustainability is largely determined by the effectiveness of customary practice. These systems were already under stress in the 1980s due to conflicts between sedentary farmers and nomadic herders in the irrigated river valleys, and among users of water points in the dryland areas. In addition, these systems, based on pastoral agriculture, are ill-equipped to handle other common pool resources such as fishing and mineral exploitation. However, in the transition to reestablishment of customary tenure and clan states, there is a sense that pastoral systems and natural resources management are improving and that the country seems to function despite its highly-fractured governance structure. An unbalanced and sub-optimal allocation of resources among clan governments (based on land and related resources) is arguably creating an unstable and dangerous situation. While competing claims to water, pasture, and other natural resources are often causes of conflict, any assessment of current conflict or LTPR issues must be inferred from extremely sketchy evidence.

SUDAN

6 6 4 6Final Rank

In Sudan, ethnic violence, ambiguity over land rights, and inequitable distribution of land and natural resources combine to create ongoing violence, extreme poverty, huge numbers of displaced persons, and lost economic growth in rural areas. Huge areas of the country are being unused because of the war, and they remain unavailable to hundreds of thousands of displaced peoples. The military or vigilante groups (allegedly with government support) are driving people from their lands and grabbing resources, especially in the south.

While there is plenty of land nationwide, settlement and resettlement of displaced persons to their native lands will have a huge impact on LTPR rights initiated under peace building efforts, once these become feasible. Land markets are constraining economic growth in Omdurman, Khartoum, and the Gazira irrigation scheme, but these are not common nationwide and pale in comparison with larger issues related to the current conflict and instability. Customary systems prevail, but customary rights are eroding, in part because of the state’s LPTR horizon being limited to concessions and private property. The high rank for insecure LTPR obscures the real tragedy that intervention is ill-advised until the government adopts a more democratic and client-focused commitment to genuine policy reform. (However, given the preponderance of state controls and its singular concession focus, it’s hard to argue that greater intervention is advisable.) Under the current environment, where government is allegedly supporting para-military and vigilante groups

7



andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

and current land policy is against customary rights, the LTPR toolkit is rather limited. The transition from war, conflict, and ethnic violence to transformational development is being hampered not so much by weak LTPR systems as by government actions and lack of commitment to democracy and justice. Once the state demonstrates action to curb the violence, protect the rights of all its citizens, and express commitment to genuine LTPR, the need for LTPR intervention will become immediate and urgent.

TANZANIA

4 3 3 4Final Rank

Tanzania’s customary tenure rights were disadvantaged or discriminated against in previous legislation, but new land legislation attempts to broaden and grant equal LTPR rights. This new legislation is only slowly being implemented due to a lack of public awareness and government capacity. New legislation seeks to decentralize control to district and local levels, but the scope and pace of implementation are far from realistic. Local civil society is working to secure more transparent and secure LTPR, particularly the misinterpretation of the law in the courts, and it is at the forefront of sustainable natural resources management. There are still unresolved disputes resulting from the government’s villagization programs in the 1960s and 1970s, and demands for restitution are increasing. Displaced persons from Rwanda and Burundi still form a sizeable refugee population in western Tanzania; some of them have been there for almost a generation. As it is now difficult for many to return home, the potential exists for conflict between refugees and native Tanzanians.

Population growth in Tanzania’s highlands is increasing the expansion of agriculture into marginal areas, causing both ethnic conflict among pastoral groups and land degradation. Small but significant violent conflicts over land and natural resources have been commonplace, characterized mainly by confrontations among villages. Urban and peri-urban confrontation is also commonplace, but is more typically observed between individuals and families. A stated priority of the government is to upgrade and decentralize the country’s land titling machinery; donors and the government have both expressed commitments to completing the demarcation and survey of all village lands and issuing village certificates. In the face of considerable environmental degradation, the government has responded with a new policy framework, and numerous community-based natural resources management interventions have been reported. Had this not been the case, LTPR interventions to combat unsustainable natural resources management would have merited a higher rank.

5

UGANDA

5 4 5 6Final Rank

Armed conflict in most of the northern parts of Uganda has taken land out of use for production or rural livelihoods. These conflicts have created significant numbers of displaced persons, a situation that will need to be addressed once peace is brought to the

5



andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

region. Persistent struggles over land also occur elsewhere in the country, sporadically resulting in deaths.

Based on USAID assistance during the 1990s, the country can now boast relatively progressive land legislation and government perspective. However, despite the new land policy and best intentions to decentralize, up-to-date land administration, land use planning, and land conflict mediation are all lagging due to lack of funding and capacity and mixed implementation. The Land Act requires consent of spouse and children; however, women are generally left out of inheritance. (Customary law still prevents women from having equitable access to resources.) District land boards have been appointed, but they lack resources to function. Landholders are unable to obtain land certificates or register property due to lack of capacity and regulations. Rehabilitation of the registry is a priority, as is the need to update existing records.

The government has established a Land Fund to assist with small landholdings. However, distressed land sales among the poor and disadvantaged are a growing social problem, and there is need for a more efficient land market to help it cope with high land scarcity. LTPR concerns continue still surface over buffer zones; wetlands continue to be encroached upon. There is ongoing tenure insecurity and competition over grazing resources, creating an unstable and sometimes violent situation. Natural resources management of private, community, and common property resources remains an important issue throughout the country, but particularly in population-dense areas. Land use planning is part of the problem, but, more importantly, incentives are needed to encourage the effective implementation of land use plans. Districts still need help in this regard.

As with all of southern Africa, the full impact of HIV/AIDS will have important implications for the further inheritances of spouses and children, and the risk of distressed sales and natural resources mining to secure livelihoods in this regard is significant.


AFRICA-SOUTHERN AFRICAConflict

andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

ANGOLA

6 5 3 5Final Rank 5

LESOTHO

5 4 4 5Final Rank 2

MALAWI

4 5 4 5Final Rank 2

MOZAMBIQUE

5 4 3 4Final Rank 4

NAMIBIA

5 6 3 3Final Rank 5

SOUTH AFRICA

5 6 3 4Final Rank 4

ZAMBIA

4 3 3 3Final Rank 3

ZIMBABWE

6 6 4 5Final Rank 7


AFRICA-WEST AFRICAConflict

andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

BENIN

3 4 4 5Final Rank 2

CAPE VERDE

2 4 2 3Final Rank 2

GHANA

5 4 5 5Final Rank 4

GUINEA

5 5 4 5Final Rank 3

LIBERIA

4 6 4 5Final Rank 6

MALI

4 3 3 4Final Rank 3

NIGERIA

5 4 4 5Final Rank 5

SENEGAL

4 3 4 4Final Rank 3

SIERRA LEONE

4 4 4 5Final Rank 6


ASIA & THE NEAR EAST-EAST ASIAConflict

andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

EAST TIMOR

5 4 4 5Final Rank 4

INDONESIA

5 4 4 6Final Rank 5

MONGOLIA

5 4 4 6Final Rank 4

PHILIPPINES

5 5 4 5Final Rank 5


ASIA & THE NEAR EAST-NEAR EASTConflict

andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

EGYPT

4 5 4 5Final Rank 3

IRAQ

0 0 0 0Final Rank

Too speculative and unable to rank because of uncertainty about causes of war.

0

JORDAN

4 4 4 5Final Rank 4

LEBANON

5 3 4 4Final Rank 5

WEST BANK/GAZA

6 7 5 5Final Rank 7

YEMEN

0 0 0 0Final Rank

Insufficient data to enable ranking with reasonable confidence.

0


ASIA & THE NEAR EAST-NORTH AFRICA

Conflictand

Instability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

MOROCCO

4 5 4 5Final Rank 2


ASIA & THE NEAR EAST-SOUTH ASIA

Conflictand

Instability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

AFGHANISTAN

6 5 4 4Final Rank

Speculative, based on limited information.

7

BANGLADESH

4 4 5 5Final Rank 3

INDIA

4 5 4 5Final Rank 3

NEPAL

4 5 4 6Final Rank 6

PAKISTAN

5 6 5 6Final Rank 4

SRI LANKA

5 4 5 5Final Rank 6


ASIA & THE NEAR EAST-SOUTHEAST ASIA

Conflictand

Instability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

BURMA

0 0 0 0Final Rank

Insufficient data to enable ranking with reasonable confidence.

0

CAMBODIA

5 5 4 6Final Rank 5

LAOS

3 2 4 4Final Rank 3

VIETNAM

3 2 3 5Final Rank 3


EUROPE & EURASIA-BALKANSConflict

andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

ALBANIA

4 3 3 5Final Rank 3

BOSNIA AND HERCEGOVINA

5 4 5 4Final Rank 6

CROATIA

6 4 5 4Final Rank 6

KOSOVO

5 5 5 5Final Rank 6

REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA

4 5 5 5Final Rank 4

SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO

4 3 4 3Final Rank 5


EUROPE & EURASIA-CAUCASUSConflict

andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

ARMENIA

3 3 5 5Final Rank 6

AZERBAIJAN

4 4 4 5Final Rank 6

GEORGIA

4 4 5 4Final Rank 1


EUROPE & EURASIA-CENTRAL ASIAConflict

andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

KAZAKHSTAN

6 6 4 4Final Rank

Kazakhstan has adopted laws that recognize and respect private land ownership, support the transfer of land through the land market, and provide for land mortgage to secure financing. The Civil Code provides for private owners to sell, lease, give, and bequeath land between private parties. It also sanctions mortgage of land and provides some of the better legal rules on land use regulation found in the region. USAID is supporting legal information centers, legal aid to farmers, and regulations for land registration and land mortgage. Nevertheless, the current legislative framework gives overly-expansive rights of private parties to purchase government land, eminent domain rules give the state too much power to take private land, and there is excessive regulation of irrigated land use.

As with many other countries in the former Soviet Union, Kazakhstan allocated much of its agricultural land to workers and pensioners affiliated with former collective and state farms. Members received conditional land shares representing equal undivided interest in commercial agricultural land used by the farm. Large agricultural enterprises still use the vast majority of this land through leases with their land shareholders. However, little has actually changed in terms of farm management or organization relative to the Soviet Union era. Because land shares have not been actualized to correspond to any piece of land, few people are able to exert any real rights of land ownership. What limited rights exist have been further compromised by recent legislation. In 2003, the government enacted a new Land Code that requires shareholders to either start their own farms or invest their rights in large agricultural production companies. If one of these actions is not taken by 2005, shareholders risk being divested of their shareholding rights. For many Kazakhs, withdrawing their land shares is unrealistic given the power of management and their lack of means to demarcate and secure the boundaries to their land. Additionally, investing land rights in an agricultural company is risky for the shareholder, because the land rights will be exchanged for company stock of dubious value, and they will be controlled by the former officials, “bosses,” and “managers” that privatization and farm restructuring had sought to curb. It is possible that some corporate enterprises could improve incomes and asset wealth if ownership is accompanied by improvements in governance and access to technology and markets. (Positive advancements in the land law and the possibility of such improvements are arguments against a higher rank for LTPR “Insecure Land Tenure and Property Rights.”) However, for millions of poor Kazakhs who lack the necessary political power, there is serious potential for landlessness if the current law is implemented. Even if it the law is not enacted, the threat of eminent domain and lost land rights looms large.

3

KYRGYZSTAN

4 5 5 5Final Rank

The Kyrgyz Republic is continuing efforts, begun in 1991, to transform the structure of its

4



andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

collectives and state farms into smaller units owned and operated by individual families or groups. Since 1994, land reform and farm reorganization have moved forward at a rapid pace, driven mainly by presidential decrees that gave all those living on a collective or state farm the right to a portion of arable land (land share); employees also received a portion of non-land assets (livestock, farm buildings, and machinery), in the form of a property share. Rural residents who were not members of state or collective farms have more limited access, although local village elders sometimes provide land from the state Land Redistribution Fund. Early in the reforms, roughly 25 percent of arable land was placed in the fund to handle future land contingencies. Most of the Land Redistribution Fund land is leased out, with revenues channeled to support local government. The process is not transparent, however, and there are alleged problems with corruption, inappropriate fee structures, and environmental degradation. While the law attempts to reserve a certain portion of the fund for the poor, all too often this group is overlooked. Women, for the most part, benefit equally from the land shares, but traditional stereotypes limit their ability to equally participate in land use decisions and transfers. In 1998, the Constitution was amended to allow for private ownership of agricultural land; rural land can be purchased and sold. While many of the provisions in these laws are acceptable, other restrictions are harmful to the newly emerging land market. Land management rules are overly-broad, allowing state interference by land agencies or local government.

With help from the World Bank, systematic registration is well advanced; the final systematic registration for urban areas was planned for 2004, and rural systematic registration was scheduled to begin soon thereafter. The numbers of mortgages and transactions in rural areas continue to rise but still remain at a low level. Land disputes are mainly due to individuals who wish to withdraw shares from an enterprise. However, because these disputes are with farm managers with close ties with local government, an individual’s legal recourse is often compromised when using government mediation.

The size of livestock herds plummeted following the demise of the former Soviet Union. However, access to pastures near the villages is now becoming more rare as herd sizes recover and overgrazing is becoming a serious problem. Furthermore, pasture allocation and management decisions are dispersed among three different levels of government, preventing integrated ecological management and pasture access. With regard to both management of the Land Redistribution Fund and pasture allocation, LTPR issues are closely intertwined with issues of incomplete or uneven governance. The encroachment of peri-urban lands around Bishkek in 2005 was, in part, a reflection of genuine land and agrarian reform not yet delivered, but was also due to the people’s frustration with a government whose actions were asynchronous with democracy and the new economic order.

RUSSIA

5 4 4 5Final Rank 2



andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

Since Russia became an independent country in 1991, it has allocated the majority of its arable land to rural citizens. Collective and state farms were succeeded by large agricultural enterprises, and former workers and pensioners were allocated land shares that represented equal undivided common interests. The vast majority of this land is still operated by large enterprises through leases with the land share owners. Some land remains in the hands of state-level land redistribution funds. Small household plots, including gardens, are fully transferable under 1992 legislation, and the market in these plots (mainly leases) is strong. However, there are also restrictions on privately held land including the priority right of regional and local governments to acquire agricultural land plots and land shares offered for sale, the power of the state to terminate the ownership right to unused commonly-owned parcels, and various provisions of company law that enable management to furtively acquire the land of poor, rural people. Under the 2001 Land Code, transactions in non-agricultural land were liberalized. Some regional legislation has permitted the sale of agricultural land, but prospective buyers are hesitant, fearing future legislation banning sales.

Russia has a well-conceived registration law, and the Ministry of Justice operates a comprehensive system of registration chambers across the country. The Federal Land Cadastre Service has the responsibility for land appraisal and land survey. However, the registration system is not working well. The bureaucracy that surrounds it has been described as punishing. The high cost of pre-registration boundary surveys either stops people from concluding transactions or pushes them into the shadow economy. The legal rules regarding physical demarcation are unclear, and farms interpret the legislation differently from one to another. In some instances, for example, all members of a collective are required to come to an agreement in order to physically demarcate boundaries. Sometimes, the allocated parcel is located far away from the owner’s settlement, often on low-quality land. Hence, few land share owners opt to withdraw their shares from the enterprise. On some agricultural enterprises, land share certificates still have not been distributed to land share owners, but rather languish in the enterprise. The courts are generally fair in using and interpreting the law, but few rural land share holders have access to impartial advice. The high score for landlessness reflects both the difficulty in converting land shares into plot allocations, and growing landlessness in peri-urban areas. Russia has a huge amount of forestland, all of it owned by government. While the extent of these LTPR issues is uncertain, the fact that USAID and the World Bank are supporting reforestation and environmental protection programs indicates concern.

TAJIKISTAN

6 5 4 5Final Rank

Tajikistan suffered from a civil war that ended in 1996, leaving many people displaced and homes and infrastructure destroyed. Because large numbers of men were killed by the war, much of the agricultural labor is now performed by women who, by most assessments, are

3



andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

disadvantaged in terms of land rights, resource access, and dispute mediation.

The Constitution permits private ownership of land. Although long-term inheritable rights are provided for by law, there is no land sales market and little evidence of leasing. The formal legal system is inaccessible to rural Tajiks. Almost all power is centralized with the local hukumat who makes decisions and resolves disputes, often in the interest of the state. Most rural households hold and farm household plots, but most land is still effectively managed by collectives. Starting in 1992, the government began the process of creating dehkan (private) farms. As of March 2000, roughly two-thirds of the former collective and state farms had been converted, with the remainder (except those set aside for seed and livestock breeding) scheduled for restructuring by 2005. However, many of these farms have been reorganized in name only; most members do not have certificates or know that they have a right to a portion of the land. All land management is dictated from the center, including production quotas, broad requirements for “rational land use,” and the threat of confiscation if state goals are not met. For allocation of a land plot, large bribes are often demanded, and the landholder must accept a portion of the farm’s debt (upwards of $680 per hectare according to some estimates). Cotton farmers are pressured into contracts with cotton companies and cotton ginneries (who are sometimes in collusion with the government) under onerous terms that act to perpetuate debt and dependency. The process of obtaining a dekhan farm is lengthy, complicated, and expensive, and requires the approval of the farm chairman, district hukumat, and local land committee, with one or more often resisting change.

The State Land Committee is charged with land registration and administration; the system requires institutional capacity building and training. Registration fees are high, and the process is difficult and time-consuming. Both the State Land Committee and local offices lack the personnel and resources to deliver advice and legal assistance to those wishing to establish independent farms. Hence, few rural citizens have good access to information or are informed of their rights.

Tajik land is decreasing in quality from overfertilization and overuse. Irrigation systems have broken down. Salinity, soil erosion, and landslides are significant environmental hazards. Despite this, it is difficult to assign a higher priority to LTPR interventions aimed at increasing conservation investment or improving water allocation through water user associations when so many other factors (local governance, municipal finance, local revenue generation, and state maintenance of large-scale public infrastructure) are equally constraining to LTPR’s effectiveness.

TURKMENISTAN

6 4 5 5Final Rank

The 1992 Turkmenistan Constitution recognizes private ownership of land based on

3



andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

heritable lifetime rights. A 1993 presidential decree converted the possession of household plots from this status to that of private ownership, and it legalized leasing within large-scale farms. Turkmen citizens can apply for up to 50 hectares in private ownership for commercial farming; however, this right only applies to virgin land which the farmer must clear, and the land, once cleared, cannot be transferred. These cleared parcels may be titled, but they first must be surveyed and registered by the State Land Committee. The district land management and surveying department maintains records of individual titles. Despite this provision, large-scale enterprises still dominate the agrarian structure of the country.

The government chose a unique approach to land reform and farm restructuring compared with other countries in the former Soviet Union. The collective landholdings are owned by the state and allocated to the farm enterprise. These enterprises (now peasant associations) then lease the land to the households that make up the work force. Peasant associations are also to receive title documents; the process of surveying and titling is currently underway. This approach has resulted in significant household farming with three-quarters of the arable land leased to individual families or small groups. The leased plots may eventually be privatized if the leaseholder shows a satisfactory record of performance for a minimum of 2 years. Privatization does not include the right to sell, and the land may not be sold, gifted, or exchanged. However, most leaseholders consider the land to be rightfully theirs, and they expect to keep it in the future.

Despite these advances, land rights are highly circumscribed by a system of state orders on land use and production. The lease contracts specify which crop the producer is required to produce (typically, cotton or wheat) and set a quota for delivery to the state at low producer prices. In effect, there are no real rights to land, and internal conflict is not tolerated. Water rights in the context of the irrigation sector are a serious issue, and Turkmen water use is the most wasteful of any Central Asian region. The need for greater stakeholder participation and control in local resources management (e.g., water user associations to manage and control water resources) is a high priority, but the likelihood of this strategy having much success is doubtful until the government embraces it. The fact that the ADB and USAID have maintained only limited programs in Turkmenistan (the latter for small-scale irrigation projects and water user associations) and the World Bank has dropped all lending there is a good indication that difficulties lie ahead for LTPR interventions, despite great need. Tight state controls mitigate the threat of conflict. However, as the experience of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan have amply shown that internal dissention that bubbles beneath the surface of tight government control can quickly boil over into conflict; hence, this possibility for conflict warrants close attention.

UZBEKISTAN

6 5 5 5Final Rank 4



andInstability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

Uzbekistan is one of the least-advanced Central Asian countries within the area of land reform. Since the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the Uzbek government has stayed with a gradual approach to farm restructuring and has been unwilling to allow a complete and equitable distribution of land into private ownership or long-term use rights. A reform process was initiated in 1998 that culminated in a Land Code, a Law on Agricultural Cooperatives, a Law on Private Farms, and a Law on Dekhan Farms. The government has undertaken a modest program of institutional change in the sector, reorganizing the former collective and state farms into new forms of collective farms (shirkats), with subdivisions farmed by extended families. It has also permitted the development of private farms (averaging 20 hectares in 2000) and, by expanding the former household plots of farm laborers, created a new class of smaller peasant (dekhan) farms (averaging 0.13 hectares each in 2000). To date, the latter have demonstrated the most robust growth. Furthermore, the government plans to increase the number of dekhan farms by redistributing the land of bankrupt collective farms. Despite this progress, land has not been equally distributed among the members of the former state and collective farms, and the Constitution prohibits private ownership of land.

The government and former state and collective farm bosses still have almost complete control over all types of farming. Land rights conferred in the form of long-term leases allocated by the state are highly circumscribed as the state dictates crop patterns down to the collective farm level, with the ever-present threat of withdrawing lease rights for non-compliance. Land use rights cannot be transferred. Immovable property can be owned, however, and there is a market for improvements in land; if such improvements are transferred, the land use right is also re-issued. Lack of funds for property operation and irrigation and drainage infrastructure maintenance has led to serious deterioration of these systems. As with all Central Asian republics, weaknesses in canal operations and management at all levels within the irrigation system result in water losses, widespread and severe water and soil salinization, and the loss of once-productive farmland. However, these problems are as much a function of tight state budgets and the collapse of government as of LTPR. State controls are tight and, as documented by the Andijan incident in 2005, there is little or no tolerance for disagreement or dissent towards the state. As the experience of Kyrgyzstan has amply shown, internal dissention bubbling beneath the surface of tight government control can quickly boil over into conflict; hence, the possibility of conflict/instability warrants close attention.


EUROPE & EURASIA-EASTERN EUROPE

Conflictand

Instability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

BELARUS

6 5 6 5Final Rank 2

BULGARIA

4 4 4 3Final Rank 1

MOLDOVA

2 2 4 4Final Rank 1

ROMANIA

4 3 4 4Final Rank 1

UKRAINE

3 2 3 3Final Rank 1


LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN-CARIBBEAN

Conflictand

Instability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC

4 5 5 5Final Rank 1

HAITI

5 6 4 7Final Rank 5

JAMAICA

4 5 4 5Final Rank 1


LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN-CENTRAL AMERICA

Conflictand

Instability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

EL SALVADOR

3 4 4 4Final Rank 3

GUATEMALA

6 7 6 5Final Rank 6

HONDURAS

3 4 4 5Final Rank 1

NICARAGUA

5 4 5 3Final Rank 4

PANAMA

5 5 5 5Final Rank 1


LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN-LATIN AMERICA

Conflictand

Instability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

ECUADOR

4 5 4 5Final Rank 4


LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN-NORTH AMERICA

Conflictand

Instability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

MEXICO

4 4 4 4Final Rank 4


LATIN AMERICA & THE CARIBBEAN-SOUTH AMERICA

Conflictand

Instability

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights


Distribution

PoorlyPerforming

Markets


Management

BOLIVIA

3 6 5 5Final Rank 5

BRAZIL

5 5 5 5Final Rank 2

COLOMBIA

5 5 5 5Final Rank 6

GUYANA

4 2 4 4Final Rank 2

PARAGUAY

4 6 5 5Final Rank 4

PERU

3 5 5 5Final Rank 3


VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAP C1

ANNEX C. LTPR ISSUES MAPS

LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUES MAPS: EASTERN AND CENTRAL AFRICA

LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUES MAPS: CENTRAL ASIA

GLOBAL ISSUES MAPS

• Conflict and Instability

• Unsustainable Natural Resources Management

• Insecure Tenure and Property Rights

• Landlessness and Inequitable Distribution

• Poorly Performing Markets

VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAPS D1

ANNEX D. LTPR RANKING TOOL (VERSION II)

Learning from the first LTPR ranking exercise, it was suggested that the ranking tool be revised, and appropriate changes be made to the LTPR Framework and Matrix. A first attempt at revising the LTPR Ranking Tool is presented in the following pages. The changes made to the revised LTPR Ranking Tool (Version II) are as follows:

1. Changes in the LTPR Framework and Matrix. The LTPR Framework and LTPR Matrix were revised, in part, due to feedback received during the ranking exercise. The changes in the revised matrix involved: 1) nuanced phrasing of the issues and interventions, and 2) repositioning the columns (the LTPR Issues). The revised Ranking Tool, as well as the LTPR Framework and associated tools, makes use of this revised matrix. The revision in phrasing of the issues and interventions, in particular, was prompted by some confusion among the ranking committee members on the meaning of the phrases and, hence, differences in interpretation of the issues.

2. Information on ranking and materials used for ranking. The revised LTPR Ranking Tool includes an additional section allowing for a record of the individual or USAID mission conducting the ranking, date of the ranking, and any additional materials that informed the ranking.

3. Factors conditioning the need for an LTPR assessment. A number of ranking committee members felt that the merit of LTPR interventions hinged upon basic rule of law and government commitment to policy change, and that, in the absence of these, any LTPR interventions would be misplaced and/or poor use of donor resources. In response to this, another section was added to the LTPR Ranking Tool that aimed to assess the utility of LTPR interventions and the need for an LTPR assessment.

4. Increase in the number of attributes. A number of committee members felt that 6 attributes per issue were not sufficiently nuanced or comprehensive to capture the full range of LTPR issues observed globally or nationally. The process of implementing the tool gave rise to a number of contextual issues that begged more details and nuance. The revised Ranking Tool includes additional attributes per issue to ensure that the issues are sufficiently comprehensive to capture the full range of LTPR issues observed. The attributes were also revised so that they closely matched the LTPR Matrix.

5. Changes in attribute weights. Attribute weights (within an issue) proved cumbersome for some committee members. They felt that fixed attribute weights were not appropriate across countries, and that specific attributes were of greater importance in some countries and not in others. Others stressed the advantage of attribute weights in imposing rigor and standardized application, both when reviewing the profiles, and deliberating on rankings and priorities. The revised Ranking Tool introduces open attribute weights, where the individuals who conduct the ranking assign weights to the attributes as they see fit within the specific country context.

6. Removal of issue weights and aggregate ranks. In the original Ranking Tool, fixed weights were assigned to each issue, which cumulatively added to an aggregate weight of a 100 percent. The aggregate ranks resulting from the tool, however, tended to fall towards the average and did not always reflect the overall severity of LTPR issues. This prompted the removal of the aggregate ranks, as well as the issue weights that helped derive the aggregate ranks.

D2 VOLUME 3: LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS COUNTRY RANKING AND ISSUES MAP

7. Changes to ranking scale. Some committee members felt that the scale used to register severity of the problem, ranging from 0 to 7 was too nuanced, particularly between scores of 3 and 4 and 6 and 7. While a number of committee members indicated that a difference of one was not really significant in their mind, once these changes were entered into the colored maps, differences in color appear far larger and more significant than intended (see attached LTPR Issues Maps in Annex C). Given experience with previous ranking exercises, it has been observed that a 0 to 5 ranking scale often leads to a concentration of scores around the average. As a compromise, the revised Ranking Tool uses a 0 to 6 ranking scale, and provides greater clarity on the meaning associated with each score within the scale.


LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS RANKING TOOL Version II, September 2005

The Land Tenure and Property Rights (LTPR) Ranking Tool is part of a suite of tools developed by USAID under the Global Land Tenure Task Order, Awareness Framework: Property Rights and Natural Resource Management. Its purpose is to collect informed opinions about the severity of land tenure issues in a given country based on expert opinion, develop a ranking based on severity of issues, and to illustrate country variations in a visual tool—the LTPR Issues Map. The methodology can be found in the LTPR Framework. Draft I of this tool was designed and administered in June 2005.

LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUES CATEGORIZATION

Violent Conflict/

Post Conflict

Instability

Unsustainable Natural

Resources Mgmt./Biodive

rsity Loss

Insecure Tenure and

Property Rights

Inequitable Access to Land and Natural

Resources

Poor Land Market

Performance

Key Institutional

Arrangements

Conflict or Dispute

Resolution

Legal and Regulatory Framework

Redistribution

Land Administration

LT

PR

PO

LIC

Y A

ND

PR

OG

RA

M

INT

ER

VE

NT

ION

S

Land Use Mgmt. &

Conservation

Name of Country

Date of Assessment

Name and Other Specifics on Application of the Ranking Tool

(Whether a mission ranking, an individual assessment based on expert opinion, or whether accompanying a more in depth LTPR Assessment with names, contact information and other specifics as appropriate)

Factors Conditioning the Need for an LTPR Assessment Codes Response

1 Has a Democracy and Governance Assessment been conducted by USAID?

2 Has a Conflict Vulnerability Assessment or Conflict Assessment been conducted by USAID?

3 Has a Fragility Assessment been conducted by USAID?

4 Based on these assessments or critical judgment is Government demonstrating disregard for rule of law, for basic human rights, and for free and fair elections consistent with democratic principles?

5

Based on these assessments or critical judgment, is Government committed to policy change, legal reform and to assuring safety and security that enable LTPR interventions?

4=Yes and well done w.r.t. LTPR Issues

3=Yes but poorly done w.r.t LTPR Issues

2=In process 1=No 0=Don’t know


Violent Conflict/Post-conflict Instability Rank of Severity of LTPR Issue

Attribute Rank

Attribute Weight

1 Dysfunctional LTPR systems are causing violent conflict and political instability.

2 Lack of effective conflict mediation tools and access to mediation structures are serious problems in resolving violent conflict over land and related natural resources.

3 The transition from post-war conflict or ethnic violence to transformational development is being hampered by lack of LTPR interventions (e.g. land restitution, land banks, and compensation).

4

Recent conflicts have created large numbers of internally displaced people, refugees or ex-combatants that are in need of land to restore livelihoods OR there is risk of violent conflict reemerging as they are resettled to their communities.

5 Resolution of post-war conflict or ethnic violence is being hampered by highly skewed state and/or private ownership of assets.

6 Violent conflict at a broad regional or national scale has destroyed land and property records or magistrates that are now in need of major reconstruction.

7 Violent conflict is causing significant natural resource degradation and measures to arrest unsustainable resource use (policing) or to assist in land rehabilitation (land reclamation) merit urgent attention.

6=Extremely serious and merits urgent and significant intervention

5=Serious and merits modest intervention

4=Moderately serious and merits limited intervention

3=Moderately serious but merits only monitoring

2=Somewhat serious and no need for monitoring

1=Issue not a problem

0=Unable to answer

Overall Issue Weight:

100%

Unsustainable Natural Resources Management/ Biodiversity Loss

Rank of Severity of LTPR Issue

Attribute Rank

Attribute Weight

1 Mechanisms that increase stakeholder participation in the management of common property by enabling co-monitoring and co-management of resources are weak or nonexistent.

2 Destruction of natural resources and unsustainable land use management is the consequence of land related conflict and post-conflict instability.

3 Environmental degradation, unsustainable land use management and open access are the consequence of weak, inadequate or eroding LTPR OR landlessness.

4

Lack of LTPR awareness or lack of legal recourse is preventing significant numbers of the poor or socially disadvantaged from exercising their rights or protecting their interests in natural resources management and conservation.

5 Current property rights systems excessively favor state, commercial or private interests over the poor in the distribution of access rights to land and natural resources.

6

State concessions / licenses (timber, mineral mining, petroleum extraction, fishing, or commercial exploitation) are disinvesting people of their rights OR causing significant environmental degradation.

7

The state has valuable common pool resources that are suffering from mismanagement due to lack of mechanisms (private conservancies, park management, ecotourism, concessions) and resources to improve their husbandry.

8

Government lacks sufficient capacity or the resources to implement, monitor, and enforce environmental legislation at decentralized levels including land use planning, zoning, conservation, reforestation, or integrated resource management programs.







0=Unable to answer



100%

Insecure Tenure and Property Rights Rank of Severity of LTPR Issue

Attribute Rank

Attribute Weight

1 Government lacks the organizational infrastructure to enable LTPR rights delivery or protection including inter alia Courts, Magistrates, Public Notaries, and Community Governance Structures.

2 Conflict over land due to ownership disputes, overlapping rights, and inheritance is a frequent and serious occurrence.

3 Illegal or unprincipled expropriations are depriving land holders of their rights in land and property.

4 Individual private ownership rights in land are poorly defined in law, have limited utility, and are of insufficient duration due to inadequate LTPR legislation or state interference.

5 Statutory or de facto recognition of access and rights in common pool resources (forests, water, pasture) is lacking.

6 Women do not hold the same rights as men either in law (land, inheritance, marital property or family law) OR via land registration programs that focus on recording only the men as household heads.

7 Incompatibility between formal legal and customary land tenure systems (legal pluralism) is contributing to tenure insecurity.

8 People are generally unaware of their rights, or policy is implemented by government agencies which misinform the public.

9 Broad based land rights definition is hampered by a land certification or registration system that is highly centralized, costly to access, or dysfunctional in terms of excessive bureaucracy.

10 Systems to improve land use management (zoning, land valuation, taxation and urban and rural land use planning), particularly in commercial and municipal uses, are severely lacking.







0=Unable to answer


100%

Inequitable Access to Land and Natural Resources Rank of Severity of LTPR Issue

Attribute Rank

Attribute Weight

1 The political will and wherewithal to address landlessness or facilitate a more equal distribution of land and natural resources is lacking.

2 Land speculation, land grabbing and encroachment by larger more powerful groups is causing conflict.

3 Lack of access is resulting in informal or illegal settlements on public or private lands or to resource “theft” or destruction.

4 Landlessness is resulting from state governance that hoards land and property or is blatant in favoring party members or other elites in land allocations.

5 The distribution of land and natural resources within society is highly skewed and is depriving the majority of households secure livelihoods.

6 Female headed households or women who are single, widowed, separated or divorced are disadvantaged in their ability to obtain land, maintain their holdings, or obtain settlements in case of divorce.

7 Minority groups are disadvantaged in terms of size or quality of land holdings OR are discriminated against in government land reclamation or resettlement programs.

8 Where land and property are unequally distributed, the state lacks the legal framework or implementation mechanisms to strengthen







0=Unable to answer


state expropriation and redistribution or enable market assisted land reform.

9 Government lacks the mechanisms and resources to reclaim land, resettle populations, subdivide property and resurrect natural resources in ways that broaden resource access.


100%

Poor Land Market Performance Rank of Severity of LTPR Issue

Attribute Rank

Attribute Weight

1 Mechanisms or structures that enable enforcement of land leasing and sales contracts (notaries, courts) or that enable access to formal credit (banks and strong capital markets) are weak or nonexistent.

2

Conflict between buyers and sellers, renters and lessees are a growing problem that stem from unclear or unenforceable LTPR or laws that too strongly protect the interest of one group versus another.

3 LTPR laws and regulations aimed at enabling land market transactions (sales, leases, mortgages, intergenerational transfers, use rights transactions) are excessively restrictive or conflicted.

4 People are reluctant to lease-out or sharecrop-out their land for fear of it not being returned or being returned in damaged condition.

5 People are reluctant to lease-in or sharecrop-in land because the terms are onerous or there is risk of the contract being cancelled prematurely or unfair damages imposed.

6 Land market distortions or highly centralized land markets favor larger holders at the expense of smaller ones.

7 Women encounter legal, cultural, or administrative obstacles that limit their participation in land transactions.

8 Lack of access to land titling, registration or certification systems is discouraging land market development.

9 The majority of landholders are unable to obtain credit using land as collateral.

10 Lack of regulations and structures that enable zoning, land valuation, flow of accurate land market information, and land market and real estate development are constraining economic growth.







0=Unable to answer


100%


Comments:


Methods

Ranking Tool. The ranking tool is comprised of 5 Issues Categories developed within the LTPR Framework – (1) Violent Conflict/Post-conflict Instability; (2) Unsustainable Natural Resources Management/Biodiversity Loss; (3) Insecure Tenure and Property Rights; (4) Inequitable Access to Land and Natural Resources; and (5) Poor Land Market Performance. Block One of the Ranking Tool labeled “Factors Conditioning the Need for an LTPR Assessment” is aimed at determining whether other related USAID assessments have been conducted, their usefulness in providing LTPR information, and the level of Government commitment to LTPR reforms. The remainder of the questionnaire solicits a ranking for each of 10–12 attributes or sub-issues within each Issue Category. The respondent is asked for two pieces of information with regard to each Sub-issue—its severity and importance (possible ranks of 1 to 5, unless s/he is unable to provide a rank), and the importance (i.e., the “attribute weight”) of the sub-issue within the Issue Category (0 to 100%). In addition, all attribute weights within an Issue Category must sum to 100%. At the end of each Issue Category is the question “Overall Issue Weight” which represents the aggregate rank or severity of the Issue Category. Assuming that each Sub-issue or Attribute within an Issue Category has a rank (defined as Ri) and weight (ϖi), the overall issue weight is:

Overall Issue Weight = Σi Ri x ϖi

Composition of Ranking Committee. The committee will be multi-disciplinary and comprised of 5–10 professionals with strong skills in land tenure and natural resource management, and at least 5 years experience applying this knowledge in the field. For purposes of this ranking exercise, countries are subdivided into the following USAID regions and sub-regions:

Major Regions: Asia and Near East Europe and Eurasia Latin American and Caribbean Africa North America South America

Sub-regions East Asia, Southeast Asia, South Asia, Near East Balkans, Caucasus, Eastern Europe and Central Asia Caribbean, Central America, and Latin America North Africa, West Africa, East Africa, Central Africa, and Southern Africa

Committee members will be chosen in accordance with the following criteria:

• Each committee member should have a substantive appreciation of the importance and role of the LTPR Matrix, both columns and rows on page 1 of the ranking tool as elaborated upon in the LTPR Framework.

• Each committee member should have substantive experience in at least two sub-regions. • Each sub-region should have at least one, and preferably two, members on the committee who are

knowledgeable about land tenure issues and related natural resources management within the region.

Numerical Ranks to be used:

Approach. The ranking committee will be formed to undertake a ranking of severity of LTPR issues in countries where USAID has a presence. A companion tool—the LTPR Country Issues and Donor Interventions Report—provides LTPR briefs for each country prepared from a fixed set of donor publications and, in some cases, expert opinion. The five major LTPR issues in this Ranking Tool comprise issues categories that are developed in the LTPR Matrix. The ranking process will begin with an updated “Report” and “Tool” being provided to committee members.

6= Extremely serious and merits urgent and significant intervention 5= Serious and merits modest intervention 4= Moderately serious and merits limited intervention 3= Moderately serious but merits only monitoring 2= Somewhat serious and no need for monitoring 1= Issue not a problem 0= Unable to answer


Ranking Methodology. The committee will spend two days reviewing the LTPR Matrix and land tenure briefs they are provided. Each committee member will fill out the ranking tool for each country they are assigned, filling in comments as appropriate. Completed questionnaires (the Tool) will be sent to the chair, who will compile the responses for all countries. The team will then meet at a convenient location for one day to discuss rankings, deliberate on findings, and reconcile differences. Changes to scores by individual members are anticipated at this time. The team leader will record these and produce a corrected composite rank.

Graphical Representation. Final (or revised) composite ranks will be entered into ArcGIS to provide a visual ranking of land tenure issues—for both individual components and the aggregate score—producing visual color maps for each major region and globally as appropriate.


Instructions to Reviewers

1. Each reviewer will be assigned usually no more than 20 countries each spread between two to three sub regions. 2. For each country, the reviewer should complete one ranking tool questionnaire (pp. 1-4 of the Ranking Tool) based on review of the respective country profile (taken from the Land Issues and Donor Interventions Report) and his or her personal knowledge and experience. REFRAIN FROM SEEKING OUT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION! 3. For each of the five LTPR issue categories, the Respondent should rank each of the listed attributes on a scale of 1 (issue not a problem) to 6 (extremely serious issue), and assign it a weight with the condition that the sum of weights for all attributes must sum to 100%. The Overall Issue Weight can be determined either using the formula specified in the Methods section or selected from the Rank of Severity of LTPR Issue 4. The ranking tool provides space for comments. Use this space to record critical comments that affect your rankings. Please keep all comments brief. These should be compiled and shared prior to the Committee’s Meeting. 5. The Chair will rank all countries using the same criteria in order to help smooth our differences in knowledge, emphasis or ranking and to help fill gaps. Consequently, each country will be ranked by three committee members – two reviewers plus the chair. 6. The contractor will tally the results in a summary table replicated for all countries in the region: Country Name:___________________________

Reviewers Name

Rank 1

Rank 2

Rank 3

Rank 4

Rank 5

Rank 6

1. 2. Chair Final Rank: Comments:

Comments will be summarized here! Rank 1: Conflict and Instability Rank 2: Insecure Land Tenure and Property Rights Rank 3: Landlessness and Inequitable Land Distribution Rank 4: Poorly Performing Markets Rank 5: Unsustainable Land Use Management 7. Based on the ranking scores and comments of the three reviewers, the chair will estimate a final rank score for each LTPR Issue category, particularly in situations where rankings are similar. In situations where rankings are dissimilar or there are numerous “0s” indicating “unable to answer”, the final rank will be left blank. 8. Using the final rank scores from this exercise, the contractor will produce one global map for each Issue Category (five in total) that graphically illustrates the ranking scores. Countries where USAID does not have a presence will be illustrated in black. Countries where ranks could not be estimated will be illustrated in white. Ideally, the committee’s role is to endeavor to keep the “white country ranks” to a minimum. Individual maps can be blown up for sub-regions later as determined appropriate by USAID.


9. Reviewers will meet as a group for one day to review the summary tables, the chair’s final rankings, and Issues Maps. The Chair will facilitate the meeting to reconcile differences, make changes and update the final rankings through consensus building.


U.S. Agency for International Development 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20523 Tel: (202) 712-0000 Fax: (202) 216-3524

www.usaid.gov

LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS - rmportal.net

Documents

Transcript of LAND TENURE AND PROPERTY RIGHTS - rmportal.net