State of play in improving land and water governance:

Increasing agreement and recognition, but which standard and what purposes, whose voices?

J. Franco, TNI Agrarian Justice programme1

Remarkable developments on the land front --

2

CFS Tenure Guidelines Background

◦ Unprecedented example of consultative process of formulating an authoritative international standard

◦ Robust effort to practice LVC principle of ‘Not About Us Without Us’

◦ Debated and dialogued directly with SMs ◦ Agreed on and adopted by governments

Significance◦ Relatively high degree of political legitimacy◦ Voluntary character, but still seems to be recalibrating the terrain

on which political struggles for control of land+, land policy and related visions of development continue to occur (note previous slide)

Limitations◦ Excludes water ◦ Like any regulatory measure or initiative, open to competing

interpretations and uses Potential

◦ Establishes a moral imperative that wasn’t there before◦ Like any regulatory measure or initiative, open to competing

interpretations and uses

3

Government initiativesGlobal Donor Platform database on

land http://landgov.donorplatform.org/ The overall aim of the initiative is to improve donor coordination and to support

implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines for the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries, and Forests in the Context of National Food Security.

469 projects 119 countries $2.8 Billion Includes projects prior to May 2012 adoption Could include TG-driven interventions; could

also include interventions not entirely, automatically or necessarily consistent with core TG principles – area for further study and new research?

EU page shows 44 projects in 31 countries

4

5

EU FactsheetAvailable at http://capacity4dev.ec.europa.eu/hunger-foodsecurity-nutrition/document/eu-support-rural-land-governance-state-play-2014

6

Some highlights of EU support

Inclusive approach: Multi-stakeholder platforms Coordinating mechanisms: Since 2003 EU Working group on

land Prepares common approaches to global initiatives (TGs, G8, post-2015

indicators) Coordinates participation at major events Knowledge and information sharing

Current programmes◦ 2004 EU Land Policy Guidelines; financed 92 projects since 2004◦ Current portfolio covers Africa, LatAm, Asia, MENA worth total €135

million at global-continental, regional-national levels FAO for TG

€400,000 for 3rd round €1.2 million for early implementation

African Land Policy Initiative -- €8.8 million for 2010-2015 International Land Coalition since 2006 -- €4 million for 2013-2016 Sub-Saharan Africa – €20.5 million + €33 million (new) Latin America – €31 million Asia -- €23.5 million MENA -- €10 million in Egypt

Political commitments at the G8◦ EU will follow partnerships with 2 countries (South Sudan and Niger)of

the total 7 partnerships under the 2013 Land Transparency Initiative 7

Closer look New EU programme to

strengthen land governance in 10 African countries (SSA)

Announced 9 April 2014 before ‘High-Level Conference on Property Rights: Land Tenure Security, the Missing Key to Eradicating Poverty’, jointly organized by EC and EP [video available at: http://eventstream.streamovations.be/the-missing-key-to-eradicating-poverty.php]

This new EU programme in SSA is to include application of some TGs – key question: which ones will it take up and how will it take these up?

8

Excerpt from press release --Key questions regarding investment: which standard? what purpose?

9

TG implementation in practice: Emerging issues and concerns How inclusive?

◦ Participation in multistakeholder platforms uneven (both who and how)

◦ Context matters, and so what steps taken to identify and address particular challenges and are these being done in the same spirit of how the TGs were formulated? Who is sitting at the table?

◦ Case of fame: Mali? Case of shame: Myanmar Which standard?

◦ Standard being implemented is uneven -- which provisions? which understandings?

◦ Implementation is interpretation, and so far greater emphasis by those actors who are mobilizing seems to be on technical support for land mapping, land registration, land titling along the lines of conventional approach

◦ Example: ‘property rights’ vs. ‘legitimate tenure rights’ Where?

◦ Areas targeted for implementation very uneven, mainly (exclusively?) in the global South, but not necessarily correlated with broad+deep social mobilization, and leaving out North America and Europe 10

EU water policies on eve of 2015 2000 EU Water Framework Directive

◦ Set 2015 to achieve ‘good water status’◦ Attempt to look comprehensively at Europe’s water resources

and the overall aim of water protection – good water management is more than just about distribution and treatment

◦ Also includes how land use-mgmt/ spatial planning effects quantity and quality of water resources

2012 Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources◦ Llikely to fall short by 2015 (roughly 50%), so how to achieve

it?◦ ‘Something better, something more, something new’

Among others: Increase implementation of market mechanisms (pricing/

metering, cost-recovery schemes) Increase integration of water policy objectives into other policy

areas, such as CAP

Updates? 11

Issues and concerns In general, global assessments of water scarcity often

portray scarcity as something natural and inevitable and tend to obscure questions of equity, sustainability, distribution and access (Mehta and Movik 2014)

Often do not: ◦ Disaggregate users and their entitlements◦ Look at the politics of distribution◦ Examine social relations underlying technological

choicesIn general, more attention must be given in

policy processes to: ◦ The functionality of water and equitable sharing◦ The perspectives of especially marginalized and

vulnerable people and peoples

How does Europe’s water policy stand up in relation to such issues and concerns?

12

Some possible issues and concerns in the European context

Simply integrating water into existing policy may not be enough or even appropriate -- and could even intensify the problems around water sustainability, access and distribution

This is because Europe is experiencing a worsening land problem◦ Land concentration, land grabbing, green grabbing,

‘artificialisation’, and shrinking access for prospective farmers

◦ Existing policy does not appear to address these issues or questions (may not even see them as ‘problems’)

◦ How are these trends impacting on water sustainability, distribution, access and questions of equity?

◦ How will the proposed water policies impact on these land problems? 13

Conclusion Adoption of TGs marked an important new step in international

standard setting around land – both process and outcome remarkable!

New phase generates new dynamics and contestations over competing meanings and purposes – this is to be expected since implementation ultimately still an exercise in interpretation too – in a democracy both dialogue and dissent are necessary and there must be room for diverse starting points and diverse visions of development

One gap in the TGs was water -- how ongoing efforts to improve water governance in Europe will play out remains to be seen

But …◦ Will most likely have to address the issue of land governance as well

(since land and water are intertwined)◦ And should take cues from the TGs on what kind of process is needed to

produce policy outcomes that many actors and forces – even competing ones -- can consider worth investing in.

Thank you!14