Category: Uncategorized

By Dr. Gregory Myers, USAID Division Chief, Land Tenure and Property Rights.

Last week, I visited Haiti to assess the land tenure and property rights situation there—four years after a 7.0 magnitude earthquake killed between 100,000 and 300,000 people and displaced another 1.5 million. Many Haitians continue to live in extreme poverty and much needs to be done to address the weak property rights system that slows economic growth and hinders infrastructure rebuilding efforts.

While in Haiti, I met with U.S. Ambassador Pam White, who supports strengthening land rights to help Haiti accelerate its economic recovery. To effectively help Haitians recover and move beyond extreme hunger and poverty, we must help address the country’s long-standing property rights challenges. Important first steps should include preserving existing land records through digitalization and making those records public. These records could then be linked to existing databases including notary and tax records to further strengthen proof of ownership. In rural areas, where smallholders occupy state land, another important first step would be to work with local officials to facilitate granting rights to state land they have occupied and/or for which they have been granted use rights.

Traveling around Port-au-Prince and Cap-Haïtien, one can see a significant amount of investment taking place in residential and commercial buildings. In agricultural areas, there are increased investments by smallholders and mid-size producers. Something important is happening in the Haitian economy. In order for the recovery to continue and to reach all Haitians, we must quickly invest in addressing weak land administration systems and helping Haitians secure property rights.

Recently Tim Hanstad and Roy Prosterman of Landesa, a USAID partner in land tenure and property rights, wrote in the New York Times, “A key factor hampering rebuilding efforts [in Haiti] is the lack of secure land rights among the displaced. A 2012 report by the London-based Overseas Development Institute described a ‘chaotic’ and ‘almost Kafka-esque’ land tenure system in Haiti in which ‘it is almost impossible to know definitely who owns what’.”

As my colleagues from Landesa point out, “the developing world’s landless poor routinely bear the brunt of [natural] disasters.” Their article highlights important links between secure land rights and disaster resilience, making a point that natural disasters are not “equal-opportunity destroyers.” Hanstad and Prosterman assert that, “Families without secure rights to land (and that is a majority of rural residents in many developing countries) often remain in their homes when it is dangerous to do so, fearing they won’t be allowed to return. And without the security of ownership and access to collateral, their homes are often not built to withstand earthquakes, typhoons and other disasters.” This was clearly the case in Haiti, and now we have an opportunity to change this dynamic for Haitians.

In a recent commentary on the USAID Land Tenure and Property Rights Portal, Robert Oberndorf described how Typhoon Haiyan destroyed both property records and boundaries in the Philippines. Mr. Oberndorf provided recommendations on how the rebuilding process can ensure that the land tenure and property rights of vulnerable groups are not impacted negatively – a critical concern in post-disaster situations.

In order to rebuild better in post-conflict and post-disaster situations, we must strengthen land governance and property rights—in particular for the most vulnerable populations. If we do not, they will remain stuck in a cycle in which they build temporary homes in camps or on undeveloped land, continually face the threat of eviction or violence, and do not participate in economic recovery—thus remaining in poverty.

Further Reading

• Read more on land tenure, property rights and reconstruction in Haiti
• Read more from Tim Hanstad and Roy Prosterman on how the poor get washed away
• Read more from Robert Oberndorf on Typhon Haiyan and links between climate change and tenure governance

Côte d’Ivoire emerged from a decade-long civil war in early 2011, but its diamonds—which played a role in sustaining the conflict—have remained on the world’s black lists. In November 2013, however, the Kimberley Process (KP) Plenary in Johannesburg recognized that Cote d’Ivoire had met minimum requirements of the KP Certification Scheme, the international mechanism to prevent conflict diamonds from entering the world’s markets. The KP’s decision was the culmination of several years’ efforts to restore good governance in the Ivorian diamond sector, and paves the way for the lifting of the U.N. embargo in place since 2005.

USAID has played a catalyzing role in Côte d’Ivoire’s road to compliance. In late 2012, when the United States was the KP Chair, the Ivoirian government requested technical assistance. As part of the Property Rights and Artisanal Diamond Development (PRADD) project, USAID deployed a technical adviser in March 2013 who worked with the Ivorians to conceive and launch their mine-to-export system of internal controls. In a period of six months, procedures were developed, dozens of new customs and mining regulations enacted, and thousands of miners registered. A review mission sent by the KP in September assessed this system, and based on their final report, the KP made its decision.

In his remarks at the KP Plenary, Ivoirian Mining Minister Jean-Claude Brou expressed thanks to those countries, including the United States, who assisted Côte d’Ivoire in becoming compliant. He noted that compliance was not an end in itself, but a key step in the long-term goal of ensuring that mineral resources benefit the country and the mining communities. The KP Permanent Secretary Fatimata Thes echoed these sentiments, calling the technical assistance invaluable.

“A year ago, Côte d’Ivoire was still a diamond trouble spot,” said Terah U. DeJong, the technical adviser, who is now Country Director of the Property Rights and Artisanal Diamond Development (PRADD II) project that recently launched in Côte d’Ivoire and Guinea. “Today countries in the region are looking at Côte d’Ivoire’s system as a model, and this is due in part to how the government was able to integrate best practices and lessons learned from PRADD’s earlier work. The challenge now is to build on that foundation and make it last.”

USAID’s PRADD II, which is co-funded by the European Union in Côte d’Ivoire, will combine property rights strengthening with other activities aimed at boosting the legal value chain and bringing benefits to mining communities.

By Peter Giampaoli, Climate Change Specialist, Land Tenure and Property Rights Division, USAID.

Clear, secure rights to manage and use forests are an important aspect of sustaining traditions and economic opportunities. Although this web site often discusses property rights in the context of developing countries, insecure title and undocumented land rights can undermine smallholder ownership in the United States as well. In the American South, some African American owners of rural land and forests face challenges stemming from imprecise boundaries and a lack of clarity regarding their property rights–both of which are legacies of how land and property rights were allocated to freed slaves following the Civil War.

In an ongoing case near Olney, Maryland, a kinship community is in a dispute with the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission over the whether a public road actually exists. Residents–descendants of freed slaves who settled in the area following the Civil war–argue that a public road previously existed but was removed from planning maps as the surrounding area was developed. A Commission official commented on the property deeds held by the residents, saying the descriptions of property boundaries are inadequate for determining “who actually is entitled to use a right-of-way.” He went on to note, “Ancient deeds make references to property descriptions in a lot of different ways. Sometimes it’s to a rock. Sometimes it’s to an apple tree.” An attorney representing one member of the community pointed out that if there is no recognized public road, then residents don’t have addresses, and “they can’t build on the land, they can’t get services, they can’t get emergency services, they can’t do anything with the property they’re paying taxes on.” He continued, “Obviously, the property is not worth much. … If you can’t build on it, it’s hard to sell it.”

In North and South Carolina, a pilot program by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Endowment for Forestry and Communities is helping sustain the African American legacy of forest ownership in those states by helping clarify smallholder titles over forest lands and providing training on how to productively manage forest lands for economic benefit. Many of these family holdings date back to the period following the Civil War. Often deeded to multiple families, these forest lands are now held in common by numerous inheritors without clear titles. Economic distress has driven some smallholders to sell their forest land, and individual descendants are able to force the sale of these lands–terminating family ownership.

In both the Maryland and North and South Carolina cases, owners face challenges exercising their property rights due, in part, to modern requirements regarding the precision and detail of property records. Such conflicts may be resolved by programs similar to the USDA’s, which attempts to achieve greater precision regarding ownership and property boundaries. The pilot program has enabled African American forest owners to retain ownership of their forest holdings and has been cited as a model for expansion across the South. The USDA program and similar efforts reflect the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests in the Context of National Food Security by helping smallholder owners clarify their rights and by providing extension and other services that allow them to use their land for economic benefit.

A guest post by Robert Oberndorf, Resource Law Specialist, Tenure and Global Climate Change Project

As the full impacts of Typhoon Haiyan become apparent, many commentators are linking this tragic event with concerns regarding the long-term impacts of global climate change. On the opening day of the UN Climate Change Conference in Warsaw, Poland, the Philippines’ lead negotiator, Yeb Sano, made an emotional speech on this topic. As the global community discusses how to improve the climate resilience of communities, important lessons related to tenure governance concerns should be considered. Many of these lessons can and should be applied in the Philippines as it recovers from the typhoon.

In addition to the staggering death toll from the typhoon, which is largely a result of the 16-foot storm surge that struck the most exposed areas in the storm’s path, it is reported that more than three million people in the Philippines have been left homeless. Many of these people lacked secure tenure before the storm and are now left in a position where they likely have no evidence to prove their land and property rights claims. This vulnerability is highlighted by growing allegations that some developers are claiming large tracts of previously occupied land in storm-affected areas and threatening to evict the current occupants. The lack of property records and the washing away of property boundaries must be recognized as critical post-disaster issues and addressed as communities shift their focus from immediate survival necessities to long-term rebuilding.

Issues that need to be addressed in the rebuilding process to ensure that the land tenure and property rights of vulnerable groups are not impacted negatively include:

• Inheritance: In instances where property owners have died, clear procedures need to be put into place to ensure the fair and transparent transfer of rights to the next of kin.
• Property rights clarification: Due to the destruction of residential property and lack of property documentation, there is an increased probability that claims to land could be contested or unclear. To allow for a more rapid resettlement and reconstruction process, a property claims process should be considered that leverages pre- and post-disaster satellite imagery and allows for the identification and vetting of property claims.
• Land property records: Individuals and households have likely lost their personal records of land property ownership, if they existed to begin with. It is likely that records held by local or regional governments could have been damaged or destroyed. In the future, disaster-resilient record keeping should be developed, and multiple back-ups should be properly stored for insurance purposes (both hard and soft copies).
• Climate resilient infrastructure built during reconstruction: If hard infrastructure, such as drainage culverts, sea walls, etc., are built to limit the physical impacts of future storms, they could potentially negatively impact existing land tenure and property rights claims. If that occurs, processes must be established to compensate individuals for the loss of existing rights.
• Effective land use planning: Some populations were located in areas that were inherently vulnerable to storm events. To lessen the costs to society of future natural disasters, there are certain steps the government can take, including establishing and enforcing effective land use controls, guaranteeing secure land tenure rights, and codifying strict building codes that combine climate resilience and locally appropriate methods and materials. Where changes in land use negatively impact existing land tenure and property rights claims, processes must be established to compensate individuals for the loss of existing rights.

According to Tim Fella, USAID’s Land Tenure and Conflict Adviser, “Land rights and land use planning are integral aspects to post-disaster planning and response. Not only does it help facilitate a more rapid and organized resettlement process; it can also contribute to increased resilience to future natural disasters.”

With strong political commitment, improved governance, and assistance from the international community, the communities of the Philippines that were negatively impacted by this event can and should be rebuilt in a more climate resilient manner. Lessons can be learned from other communities that were decimated by similar storms but were rebuilt in ways that lessened the impact of future disasters.

In 1900, the island city of Galveston, Texas, which was only 8.7 feet (~2.6 meters) above sea level at the time, was hit by sustained winds of over 140 miles per hour (225 kilometers per hour) and a storm surge of over 15 feet (4.5 meters). Much of the city was destroyed, and an estimated 6,000 to 12,000 people died (more than 20% of the city’s population). Though devastated, the city of Galveston rebuilt, raised the height of the entire city by 17 feet (almost six meters), and constructed a seawall that today spans ten miles (16 kilometers). The investments in climate resilience proved their worth just 15 years later when a similarly sized hurricane killed only 53 people and caused a fraction of the property damage sustained in the 1900 storm.

Today, USAID is integrating climate resilience into its infrastructure and land-use planning investments. The governments of the U.S., Spain and Costa Rica have led the Adaptation Partnership, a two-year global effort to share knowledge on mainstreaming climate change adaptation into development planning. This partnership spawned a community of practice on climate resilient infrastructure, as well as pilot activities in vulnerable locations. USAID investment and associated technical expertise will be crucial to help promote climate change planning in the urbanization processes underway across Africa and Asia.

History shows us that steps can be taken to properly rebuild the communities impacted by Typhoon Haiyan, but the people of the Philippines and the international community should insist that steps are taken to ensure that this process increases climate resiliency while minimizing negative impacts on property rights and compensating those whose rights are negatively affected.

Property ownership is one among a combination of assets that give women bargaining power within the household to address domestic violence, according to a study by Friedemann-Sanchez (2006). The study examined the effects of property ownership on women’s intra-household bargaining power in Colombia’s cut flower industry. Women had more relative power to address domestic violence when they had a combination of the following: 1) social capital (for example, the ability to move in with family), or 2) access to childcare that allowed them to work, which 3) gave them wage income to either purchase property or move out of their home and live on their own. Importantly, women who did not have a combination of these assets were not able to address domestic violence as effectively or at all. Friedemann-Sanchez’s work illustrates that property ownership is a necessary but not alone sufficient condition to increase a woman’s bargaining power and reduce the threat of violence within her household.

A 2011 report by Chowdhry illustrates how local political and economic factors and women’s inheritance rights may reduce violence against women and can change local marriage customs that often create opportunities for GBV. Marriage customs in India traditionally require a woman to marry outside of her home community and move to her husband’s family home. There is extensive research to show that a new daughter-in-law is subordinated in her new home by her mother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband. Chowdhry’s study of women’s land ownership in the state of Haryana illustrates how land scarcity and women’s land inheritance can change marriage traditions. In a number of cases, a husband chose to move in with his wife and farm her land after marriage. When a man moves in with his wife’s family, he must come to grips with becoming a ‘son-in-law’ in a way that most men in Haryana’s patriarchal society rarely do. In her own natal home, a wife is no longer a target of abuse by in-laws, and couples may have quite different relationship dynamics. In this particular political and economic context, Chowdhry’s work illustrates how women’s inheritance can change martial relationships. However, while many women who Chowdhry interviewed claimed that they suffer less physical violence when they live in their natal homes with their husbands, they still endure a husband’s verbal abuse. Outside of the marital relationship, a woman who has inherited a piece of land might find herself subject to threats and abuse from a number of male relatives as they seek to exert control over the land she owns.

Finally, Joshi (2013) explores the relationship between tenure security, urban service delivery, and GBV. In many slums around the world, individuals defecate in public toilets or in open spaces and are subject to verbal and physical abuse in the process. Joshi examined household (private) sanitation projects in urban slums in Kenya and Bangladesh. She argues that even if improved tenure security increases the likelihood of public or household investment in sanitation, private access to sanitation does not reduce GBV or the underlying gender inequality upon which it is based. Moving sanitation into the home does not reduce women’s exposure to verbal abuse and physical assault, because those abuses are not limited to her walks to the toilet. In fact, private sanitation provision may allow men to control their wives’ movement and interactions, keeping her in the private sphere (the home), but making her no safer. Thus while it may appear that tenure security and urban service delivery reduce violence, GBV may persist out of sight in the home and in society at large. Reducing women’s exposure to violence is not equivalent to reducing GBV itself. Reducing GBV also requires changes in men’s attitudes and behavior toward women.

I hope that this commentary spurs a conversation among policy makers and development practitioners who integrate LTPR into their work to consider 1) how LTPR can act as an analytical lens to study gender relations; and 2) the extent to which LTPR programming can facilitate structural change and address the patriarchal norms that govern many women’s lives around the world.

By Dr. Matt Sommerville, Chief of Party, Tenure and Global Climate Change Project.

At the recently concluded 2013 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference in Warsaw, Poland, negotiators agreed to a landmark set of decisions. After seven years of negotiations, United Nations (UN) member states reached a consensus on a framework to reward countries for REDD+ actions (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation).

The agreement reached in Warsaw defines a broad structure for establishing emission reference levels to measure future emission reductions against. It reaffirms the role of social and environmental safeguards in the process and notes that financing can be provided for “readiness” activities that prepare countries to participate in REDD+, as well as for emission reductions. There is still work to be done to address key issues related to securing natural resource rights and improving tenure governance, particularly regarding how benefits will flow to local stakeholders and operationalization of safeguards. Emerging lessons from USAID forest carbon projects, as well as technical support provided by USAID to the international community, are helping to build social and environmental soundness into both the policy and practice of REDD+.

At the Warsaw meeting, countries agreed to establish a national entity or “focal point” within REDD+ countries to act as a liaison to coordinate information sharing and financial support for the implementation of REDD+ activities. In some countries, this institutional arrangement is likely to facilitate the coordination of diverse activities and allow funds to flow directly to implementing agencies and project proponents. However, this structure also presents risks associated with the potential centralization of REDD+ financing at the national level.

It is important to ensure that the new REDD+ “focal points” effectively consider the role of local stakeholders. A crucial first meeting between financing institutions and the new focal points will occur in November 2014 in Lima, Peru, followed by additional meetings in June 2014. While the new REDD+ mechanism invites continued input and representation from multiple groups – including UN institutions, international and regional organizations, the private sector, and indigenous peoples – these first meetings will establish how the voices of various stakeholders are recognized.

UNFCCC negotiators also reconfirmed the importance of safeguards in the emerging REDD+ mechanism. Performance payments will be based on achieving these safeguards, several of which reinforce strong natural resource rights and tenure governance, such as:

• Transparent and effective national forest governance structures;
• Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities; and
• Full and effective participation of all relevant stakeholders, especially indigenous peoples and local communities.

While REDD+ countries will be required to report on how these and other safeguards are implemented, this reporting will only happen after REDD+ activities have begun and only on an infrequent basis (in coordination with the often slow timeframe of UNFCCC national communications). This may limit the ability of financers to properly understand baseline social and environmental conditions. As usual in these negotiations, the details have yet to be clarified and will be subject to individual countries’ interpretations.

At present, as safeguard information systems and operational guidance are developed, there is a need to continue monitoring the developing structures. Looking ahead, there is also a need to document how strengthening natural resource rights and tenure governance leads to sustainable, equitable, efficient and effective REDD+ programs. USAID is playing an important role with other donors and civil society to evaluate and document these emerging experiences.

USAID is pleased to announce a first-of-its-kind partnership between the Governments of Ethiopia, the United States, the United Kingdom, and the Federal Republic of Germany to improve rural land governance. Building on existing programs and the seven land country partnerships announced at this year’s G8 Open for Growth Summit, this new partnership will support greater transparency in rural land governance, promote responsible agricultural investment, and improve Ethiopia’s legal framework and practices related to rural land administration and land use.

The partnership will foster further collaboration between Ethiopia and its development partners to strengthen rural land governance and realize the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests in the Context of National Food Security. This partnership will also support the Government of Ethiopia to implement its Rural Land Administration and Use Plan and to achieve its existing commitments under the New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition, a partnership among G8 members, African nations, and the private sector to lift 50 million people out of poverty through coordinated policy reforms and responsible agricultural investment. In addition, it will help Ethiopia’s development partners to amplify the impact of their development support by coordinating efforts, sharing knowledge, and leveraging limited resources.

One of the programs involved in this new partnership is USAID’s recently launched Land Administration to Nurture Development (LAND) project. The LAND project works to strengthen the capacity of federal and regional land administration agencies, to improve the legal frameworks for rural land administration and land use, and to expand the documentation of rural land use rights, including in pastoral areas.

“The United States applauds the Government of Ethiopia for its commitment to strengthen rural land governance and welcomes this opportunity to collaborate more closely with our partners. This partnership provides a model for greater coordination that will improve the effectiveness of our investments in securing land tenure and property rights. We hope to see more of these partnerships developed in the future,” said Dr. Gregory Myers, USAID Division Chief, Land Tenure and Property Rights.

Over the past year, USAID has led a global effort in the land and resource governance sector to improve donor coordination and support the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests in the Context of National Food Security(Voluntary Guidelines). Working with the Global Donor Working Group on Land, a newly formed group of bi-lateral and multi-lateral donors and development agencies, USAID led a data collection and visualization project that gathered information on land and resource governance programs from around the globe. The result of this effort – a database of over 400 programs in more than 100 countries – will be launched publicly at the Global Donor Platform Annual General Assembly in January 2014.

USAID is making information on each of its projects publicly available now. Visit the new interactive map that displays where USAID is working and what USAID is working on with respect to land tenure and property rights. This includes USAID projects that focus exclusively on strengthening land tenure and property rights, as well as projects with a broader focus on other issues in which land tenure and property rights activities are included. This map also includes information on land and resource governance programs funded by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), with whom USAID often works in a whole-of-government approach to strengthening land tenure and property rights.

In addition, the map incorporates information on how each USAID and MCC project supports the Voluntary Guidelines. According to Dr. Gregory Myers, USAID Division Chief, Land Tenure and Property Rights, “successful realization of the Voluntary Guidelines will require coordinated action by development agencies, civil society organizations and governments around the world. When the Global Donor Land Governance Program Database is publicly launched in January, it will provide stakeholders with a platform for information sharing and coordination in support of the Voluntary Guidelines, with profound consequences for millions of people. We are releasing our own program information now as a demonstration of the U.S. Government’s commitments to greater transparency and the Voluntary Guidelines.”

All too often our development efforts are hampered by a lack of coordination and knowledge sharing among relevant partners striving toward common goals. Better communication and coordination among donors and development agencies can help us avoid unnecessary duplication, share lessons learned, and amplify the impact of our work.

Launch the interactive map of USAID and MCC land tenure and property rights programs.

USAID welcomes The Coca-Cola Company’s recently announced commitments to ensure that its sugar suppliers protect the land rights of local communities. Coca-Cola – the world’s largest purchaser of sugar – agreed to revise its corporate Supplier Guiding Principles to incorporate principles that recognize and safeguard local communities’ and indigenous peoples’ rights to land and natural resources. Coca-Cola also agreed to publicly advocate that food and beverage companies, traders, and governments endorse and implement the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests in the Context of National Food Security.

As we have argued previously, responsible private investment is necessary to enhance food security, promote economic growth and lift millions of people out of poverty. Coca-Cola’s commitments – including the commitment to cut off any suppliers that do not adhere to its revised Supplier Guiding Principles – provide an innovative model for private sector actors to ensure that their investments are responsible and their suppliers recognize the property rights of local individuals and communities. Additionally, Coca-Cola’s commitment to support implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines and increase its participation in the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) advances what the private sector is doing to engage on land governance issues that could help amplify the impact of the Voluntary Guidelines.

“We welcome Coca-Cola’s commitments to recognize the property rights of local communities and promote transparency along its supply chain. Coca-Cola and other responsible private sector actors have the ability to affect positive change by leveraging their market power to compel their suppliers to work in consultation with local communities and adhere to guidelines that protect rights and promote responsible investment. We support Coca-Cola’s commitments and hope other companies follow suit. We also acknowledge the work of Oxfam in developing this important agreement,” said Dr. Gregory Myers, USAID Division Chief, Land Tenure and Property Rights. Dr. Myers added, “We also encourage greater private sector participation in CFS. We would welcome additional roundtable discussions between the private sector, civil society and governments on responsible agricultural investment.”

Coca-Cola’s announcement followed the release of Sugar rush: Land rights and the supply chains of the biggest food and beverage companies, a report by Oxfam International that claims that land acquired for sugar production has often displaced local communities and led to land-related conflicts. Coca-Cola’s recent announcement included commitments to conduct third-party social, environmental and human rights assessments, which will include impacts related to land and land conflicts, in its top 16 cane sugar sourcing countries, beginning in Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, India, Philippines, Thailand and South Africa.

According to Ed Potter, Coca-Cola’s director of global workplace rights, “our company does not typically purchase ingredients directly from farms, nor are we owners of sugar farms or plantations, but as a major buyer of several agricultural ingredients, we acknowledge our responsibility to take action and use our influence to help protect the land rights of local communities.”

See the full list of Coca-Cola’s commitments here.