INTRODUCTION TO THE

LAND GOVERNANCE

ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK

(LGAF) : PROCESS

April 8th 2013

The Context

© Curt Carnemark / World Bank © Curt Carnemark / World Bank

Key Challenges for Strengthening Land

Governance & Responsible Tenure

Fragmentation of institutions (agriculture, urban

forest, mining, environment, local government, etc.)

Vested interests opposing change (one of the most

corrupt sectors)

Perception of land sector being too complicated and

high risk

Technical complexity and the need to tailor

intervention to local circumstances (national/sub-

national, different groups): no blueprint

Requirements to Improve Land

Governance for All

Long-term, country-specific reform agenda based on comprehensive assessment

Build legitimacy and broad support for change

• Agenda based on analysis and understanding by all relevant groups

• Pressure for interventions that work

Embed interventions in a process of continued monitoring and dialogue of risks and results

• Cannot afford to fail: too risky- undermines tenure security

Go step by step: Develop scalable approaches based on rigorously monitored pilots

• Rwanda: pilot for 18 months and register 15,000 plots, in order to register 8 million in 2 years

Why Was the LGAF Developed?

Need for a participatory, country driven process assisting countries in knowing:

-Where they are (assessment)

-Where they want to go (vision & goals)

-How to get there (phased roadmap)

-have a benchmark to monitor progress

Foundation: based on assessment from existing knowledge (documented, monitoring data and tacit) & broad country expert analysis arriving at a consensus & recommendations

Key Thematic Governance Areas

Legal and Institutional Framework

Land Use Planning, Management, and Taxation

Management of Public Land

Public Provision of Land Information

Dispute Resolution and Conflict Management

Optional Modules: Forestry, Large Scale Land Acquisition, Tenure Regularization

Structure of the Assessment

Framework

Area

Legal and

Institutional

Framework

Indicators Recognition of

a continuum of

rights

Enforcement of

rights

Mechanisms for

recognition of

rights

Restrictions on

rights

Clarity of

institutional

mandates

Equity and

nondiscrimination

in the decision-

making process

Land tenure rights recognition (rural)

Dimensions

Land tenure rights recognition (urban)

Rural group rights recognition

Urban group rights recognition in

informal areas

Score

Opportunities for tenure individualization

A B C D

The Scoring: Coded Answers

Drawn on Global Experience

LGI 16,

Dim. I

Mapping/

charting

of

registry

records is

complete

Assessment

A – More than 90% of records for privately

held land in the registry are readily

identifiable in maps held by the registry or

the cadastre.

B – Between 70% and 90% of records for

privately held land in the registry are readily

identifiable in maps held by the registry or

the cadastre.

C – Between 50% and 70% of records for

privately held land in the registry are readily

identifiable in maps held by the registry or

the cadastre.

D – Less than 50% of records for privately

held land in the registry are readily

identifiable in maps held by the registry or

the cadastre.

The Process

Inception Phase

Background Report

based on exiting

information

7 Panels of Experts

Draft Report

Technical Validation

Workshop & Policy

Dialogue

Follow Up

AC

TIO

N

1 2 3 4 5 6

Next Steps in Country

Result

Agreement amongst experts & backed by stakeholders on strengths, weaknesses & priorities to improve land governance

Next steps:

Initiatives for policy, regulatory or institutional change (“easy wins” & more mid-term)

Piloting new approaches and interventions to be taken forward by operational programs

Research/ monitoring to address gaps in existing evidence

Sub-national assessments (cities, states provinces..)

Regular Stakeholder Dialogue &

Tracking Progress

Select key indicators & mechanisms

Track progress regularly

Dialogue

And institutionalization..

Analysis and

Dialogue

Plan

Implement

Monitor

Countries with LGAF (32)

pilot completed Ongoing -1- -2-

Benin Democratic Republic of Congo Bangladesh Mauritania

Ethiopia Georgia Brazil Moldova Indonesia Ghana Cameroon Philippines Kyrgyzstan Madagascar Colombia Rwanda Peru Malawi India Senegal Tanzania Nigeria The Gambia South Sudan

South Africa Honduras Sudan

Ukraine Liberia Uganda

Mali Vietnam

Findings -Scorecards

1. LEGAL & INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK GE GH NG SA BR

M

G MW

Recognition of a continuum of rights

1 i Land tenure rights recognition (rural) A A A B A A B

1 ii Land tenure rights recognition (urban) A A A B B C C

1 iii Rural group rights recognition D A C B C B C

1 iv Urban group rights recognition in informal areas B C C C D C

1 v Opportunities for tenure individualization D B C C C

A C D

Enforcement of Rights

2 i Mapping/registration of claims on communal land D D D D D D D

2 ii Registration of individual rural properties A D D A A D D

2 iii Registration of individual urban properties A D D A A NS C

2 iv Recognition of women's right in formal system C D D A A C C

2 v Condominium regime to manage common prop. C C B A C

A C A

2 vi Compensation due to land use changes D C B B D C C

Mechanisms for Recognition

3 i Non-documentary evidence to recognize rights B C C C C C B

b3 ii Formal recognition of long-term possession C C D C A A B

3 iii Formal fees for 1st time registration low C C D D C D B

3 iv No significant informal fees for 1st time reg. C D C B A D B

3 v Housing formalization feasible & affordable B C C C A D B

Some Substantive Findings

Good practice in every country - can be shared

But there are also weaknesses to be addressed…

Public land management non-transparent, institutions non-sustainable

Dualistic land ownership structures; lack of recognition of community land/forest

Cost of surveying; insecurity, mis-information land-related corruption

Common gaps where we need to push the frontier

Low-cost recognition (incl. mapping) of rights (individual or communal)

Unaffordable cost of land transfers, institutional overlaps , fees

Non-transparent mechanisms to acquire land & transfer to private interests

Monitoring absent or non-participatory

To Conclude

Land governance has to be improved at the country level

In the „VG spirit‟ : country demand/ broad stakeholder participation; cross-sector –also outside “land sector” with sustained & coordinated support from partners

The LGAF can help focusing implementation efforts, build support for change and set benchmark for tracking progress

http://econ.worldbank.org/lgaf