Final Evaluation of the Global Programme to Support the ... Structure of the report ..... 10 2....

OFFICE OF EVALUATION

Project evaluation series

November 2017

Final Evaluation of the Global Programme to

Support the Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines

on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of

Land, Fisheries and Forests (2012 – 2016)

PROJECT EVALUATION SERIES

Final Evaluation of the Global Programme to Support the Implementation of the Voluntary

Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests

(2012–2016)

FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONSOFFICE OF EVALUATION

November 2017

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

Office of Evaluation (OED)

This report is available in electronic format at: http://www.fao.org/evaluation

The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.

© FAO 2017

FAO encourages the use, reproduction and dissemination of material in this information product. Except where otherwise indicated, material may be copied, downloaded and printed for private study, research and teaching purposes, or for use in non-commercial products or services, provided that appropriate acknowledgement of FAO as the source and copyright holder is given and that FAO’s endorsement of users’ views, products or services is not implied in any way.

All requests for translation and adaptation rights, and for resale and other commercial use rights should be made via www.fao.org/contact-us/licence-request or addressed to [email protected].

For further information on this report, please contact:

Director, Office of Evaluation (OED)Food and Agriculture OrganizationViale delle Terme di Caracalla 1, 00153 RomeItalyEmail: [email protected]

Cover photo credits: @FAO/Eoghan Molloy, ©FAO/Mohammad Rakibul Hasan (3rd picture top to bottom), ©Alex Webb/Magnum Photos for FAO (5th picture top to bottom)

mailto:[email protected]

Final Evaluation of the Global Programme to Support the Implementation of the VGGT (2012–2016)

iii

Contents

Acknowledgments .........................................................................................................................................viAcronyms and abbreviations .....................................................................................................................vii

Executive summary ..................................................................................................................1

1. Introduction ..........................................................................................................................6

1.1 Purpose of the evaluation ............................................................................................6

1.2 Scope and objective of the evaluation ....................................................................7

1.3 Methodology ..................................................................................................................8

1.4 Limitations ......................................................................................................................10

1.5 Structure of the report ................................................................................................10

2. Background and context ................................................................................................11

3. Findings .................................................................................................................................15

3.1 To what extent are the programme design and objectives relevant to the needs of different stakeholders at global and country levels? ....................15

3.2 How efficient are the implementation and coordination arrangements at headquarters and country level? .................................................................................21

3.3 To what extent have the actions undertaken by FAO in the context of the VGGT implementation contributed to the intended outcome of “Improved frameworks for regulating the tenure of land, fisheries and forests based on wide participation, non-discrimination, transparency and mutual accountability”? .....................................................................................................................25

3.4 Where improved frameworks have been adopted, how has this translated into better governance of tenure of land, fisheries and/or forests, in particular for vulnerable and marginalized people at the local level, and what is the contribution of FAO? ............................................................................. 30

3.5 To what extent has awareness of the voluntary guidelines improved at global, regional and national level, as a result of FAO interventions? ...............32

3.6 To what extent has the VGGT Programme enhanced the capacity of decision makers and other stakeholders to improve the governance of tenure in their countries? ...............................................................................................35

3.7 How efficiently has the programme drawn from FAO’s technical expertise to provide targeted support to the countries? .......................................... 40

3.8 To what extent have the partnerships created or facilitated by FAO contributed to the implementation of the voluntary guidelines? ...........................41

3.9 How effectively has the programme contributed to the development of assessment and monitoring frameworks on governance? .................................. 44

3.10 To what extent have women, indigenous peoples and vulnerable and marginalized groups participated in the VGGT Programme, and how were the needs of vulnerable groups considered in the design and implementation of the programme at various levels? ................................................45


iv

3.11 How sustainable are FAO’s interventions and what is their potential to contribute to long-term changes at country level? ................................................47

4. Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................... 49

4.1 Conclusions .....................................................................................................................49

4.2 Recommendations .......................................................................................................51

5. Appendices ......................................................................................................................... 56

Appendix 1. List of evaluation focus countries and projects (2012-2016) ............................................................................................................................. 56

Appendix 2. List of projects included in the VGGT global programme (2012-2016) ..............................................................................................................................57

Appendix 3. Evaluation matrix .......................................................................................... 60

Appendix 4. Evaluation timeline ...................................................................................... 66

Appendix 5. Online survey questionnaire ..................................................................... 67

Appendix 6. Country-specific recommendations .........................................................72

Appendix 7. List of people met ........................................................................................ 82


v

Boxes, Figures and Tables

Boxes

Box 1: Main evaluation questions .......................................................................................8

Box 2: Country selection and the FIRST Programme ...................................................24

Box 3: Policy support in Sierra Leone ...............................................................................26

Box 4: Certificate of Customary Ownership in Uganda ..............................................28

Box 5: Urgent need to fully address the condition of Land Administration in Sierra Leone ....................................................................................................................... 29

Box 6: Multi-Stakeholder Platforms in Sierra Leone and Senegal ............................31

Box 7: VGGT sensitization with traditional leaders, local authorities and youth at the local level in Sierra Leone .................................................................. 34

Box 8: Quotations from the online survey on the involvement of other actors and the necessary move to local level ................................................................35

Box 9: Features of the capacity development efforts ................................................. 36

Box 10: FAO and the World Bank .....................................................................................43

Box 11: Using monitoring to influence political actors ................................................45

Figures

Figure 1: Theory of Change of the VGGT Programme (Phase 1) ..............................15

Figure 2: Proposed Theory of Change .............................................................................18

Figure 3: Agreement with the following statements: FAO’s support to the implementation of the VGGTs in your country is… .....................................................21

Figure 4: Main strengths of FAO VGGT Programme (online survey) .......................32

Figure 5: Main weaknesses of FAO VGGT Programme (online survey) .................. 34

Figure 6: Opinion of the People’s Manual on the Guidelines on Governance of Land, Fisheries and Forests ........................................................................................... 38

Figure 7: Awareness and use of technical guides and online courses ................... 39

Figure 8: Usefulness of several activities in supporting the implementation of the VGGTs (online survey) ............................................................................................. 40

Tables

Table 1: VGGT countries by data collection method......................................................9

Table 2: Umbrella Programme components, outputs and indicators .....................11

Table 3: Summary of key activities and results achieved ..........................................13

Table 4: Resources available and main activities in each focus country .................14


vi

Acknowledgments

The Office of Evaluation (OED) would like to thank everyone who contributed to the Evaluation of the Global Programme to Support the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests (2012–2016).

Special gratitude goes to the evaluation focal points in the FAO land tenure team, Francesca Romano and Javier Molina Cruz, who showed constant support and timely responses to all requests from the evaluation team.

The evaluation team would also like to acknowledge the important contributions to this exercise of the entire FAO land tenure team who provided invaluable information and documentation, including the following decentralized land officers, who also contributed to the success of the country missions: Géraldine Tardivel in Senegal, Christian Schulze in Sierra Leone and Maria Guglielma Da Passano in Uganda. The evaluation team is especially grateful to all the stakeholders met during the course of this evaluation including government officers, FAO staff in headquarters and in the decentralized offices, development partners, civil society actors and members of the communities consulted by the evaluation team who have all contributed to enriching the results of this evaluation.

This evaluation was managed by Amélie Solal-Céligny (Evaluation Manager) and Eoghan Molloy (Associate Evaluation Manager), from the FAO Office of Evaluation (OED). The evaluation was led by Ian Lloyd, land administration and management consultant, with the assistance of Solomon Bangali in Sierra Leone, Rose Cathy Azuba in Uganda, and Erdenechimag Tserendorj in Mongolia. Mathias Koffi, land tenure and rural development consultant, was responsible for the country case study in Senegal.

The report benefitted from the insights of Genny Bonomi, FAO Evaluation Officer, who peer reviewed the terms of reference and the final draft and offered a number of insightful comments. Nadine Monnichon and Martin Corredoira in the FAO Office of Evaluation provided constant administrative support.


vii

Acronyms and abbreviations

ALAGAC Administration of Land Affairs, Geodesy and Cartography of Mongolia

CFS Committee on World Food Security

CNCR Conseil National de concertation et de coopération des ruraux (Sénégal)

CSO Civil Society Organization

GDWGL Global Donor Working Group on Land

LGAF Land Governance Assessment Framework (World Bank)

LIFT Livelihood and Food Security Trust (managed by UNOPS on behalf of a group of donors to Myanmar)

NGO Non-governmental Organization

SDC Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation

SOLA Solutions for Open Land Administration (open source software)

SOUM District of Mongolia

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

VGGT Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (FAO, 2012)


viii


1

Executive summary

1 This report is the final evaluation of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation’s (FAO’s) Global Programme for “Supporting Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests” (PGM/MUL/2012-2016/VG), also referred to as the VGGT Programme. The VGGT1 provide countries with a framework for best practices in tenure-related policies, laws, regulations, strategies and practices. The VGGT were endorsed in May 2012 during the 38th (special) session of the Committee on Food Security, following a large-scale consultation process.

2 This evaluation was conducted between October 2016 and July 2017. For the collection of primary data, the evaluation focused on the following VGGT countries, selected in consultation with the programme management team: Mongolia, Myanmar, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Uganda. One-week missions were conducted in each country.

Programme approach and design

3 The expected results of the programme are based on the concepts of “improved frameworks” and “improved governance” of tenure of land, fisheries and forests. However, the programme document does not provide a clear definition of these key concepts, nor clearly explains the link between the five components of the programme and the achievement of these longer term results.

4 In relation to the expected outcome “improved frameworks for regulating the tenure”, it should be noted that the frameworks leading to improved governance and improved access to land usually encompass several aspects: policy, institutional and operational. Programme interventions to improve the institutional and operational frameworks seem to have received less attention, although they may be equally important and in need of reform.

Relevance at country level

5 Each country reviewed had a dire need for improved governance and security of tenure, although the contexts are very diverse. The countries needed support from the programme, given that the VGGTs were new and unknown. The programme adequately acknowledged the differences between countries and addressed different tenure issues through a multifaceted approach, including awareness raising, capacity building and technical support.

Enabling factors

6 The achievement of results at country level depended on the level of engagement and leadership of the FAO country office, the presence of a full-time dedicated staff, and the quality of the relations established in the country among i) the different stakeholders (government, civil society, private sector and donors); and ii) FAO and the civil society.

7 The selection of additional countries by FAO and donors should be based on an analysis of the context and enabling factors in each country. It should also be based on a clear demand, emanating from the government and/or important land governance actors, demonstrating a strong political willingness for change.

8 The programme team has been very effective in coordinating country support with the different technical units within FAO. This support was generally provided in an efficient and timely manner, and was of good quality.

1 The guidelines can be found here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf

http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf


2

Results (outcomes and outputs)

Policy and legal framework

9 Considering that adopting a new framework on tenure takes considerable effort and time, the progress on improving the political and legal framework on land tenure was good for all countries visited by the evaluation team. However, the programme has been less effective in general in the fisheries and forestry sectors.

Operational framework

10 The VGGT Programme did not include in its scope sweeping changes to service delivery and operations. However, the programme implemented pilot projects in suitable countries which are usually a precursor to changes in operational frameworks. The two pilot projects in Uganda have demonstrated that FAO can provide support for the implementation of the laws and policies, in this case on customary land and forest rights. These pilot projects gave very concrete benefits to the Ugandan people and were an effective use of funds.

Improved land tenure

11 While most focus countries are on the right course, it is still too early to observe the impact of access to land on the local people, and on reducing hunger and poverty. At country level, a long-term vision is necessary to ensure that the changes in policy, institutional and operational frameworks do not stop at central level and do not include only certain sections of society. This should be done in coordination with other donors, since significant funding is needed.

12 In all cases analysed by the evaluation, the engagement of civil society had been greatly increased and their knowledge greatly enhanced. The motivation and confidence shown by civil society was impressive and civil society was made to feel empowered.

Awareness raising

13 The awareness raising activities were effective in making those in government and civil society aware of the VGGT and its meaning to their workplace, and encouraging these people to spread the word. The result was the formation of a highly motivated group of stakeholders that could engage with both the community and the government. Consciousness and awareness raising of the VGGT have provided government and non-government stakeholders alike with the new insights to address longstanding problems.

14 In the countries included in the first phase, the focus was logically on the national level. Stakeholders at the local level also need to be involved in order to ensure that all actors who have a role in the implementation of the revised policy or legal frameworks are adequately prepared. In other countries, awareness raising at national level is needed.

Capacity development

15 The capacity development component of the programme successfully facilitated the development of training materials, the adaptation of this material to the needs and the local context (through needs assessments), the organization of training prior to national workshops, the creation of local partnerships, and the identification of change agents. These initiatives developed capacities while also building motivation, empowerment, partnerships and sustainability.


3

16 Similarly to the awareness raising activities, the evaluation team noted that the outreach to provincial-based stakeholders was not extensive. This should be addressed in the future phases of the programme.

Country support

17 The VGGT Programme sought to draw on the expertise of FAO’s technical departments. The evaluation team found evidence of good collaboration throughout FAO to support the programme.

Partnerships

18 Partnerships were shown to have a significant impact on facilitating innovation and change, strengthening relationships, building knowledge, enhancing trust and confidence, and building a more sustainable platform for long-term development. Regarding the duration of land governance processes, partnerships are essential to ensuring long-term continuity after FAO’s support ends.

19 Although some partnership agreements with local actors are already being put in place in some countries (e.g. in Senegal, Sierra Leone and Uganda), the programme has yet to build partnerships and fully integrate actors at local level, especially those who are de facto in charge of the land delivery services.

Monitoring and assessments

20 Based on the lessons learned and knowledge gained from the legal and policy assessments, detailed recommendations were prepared on specific topics such as the Ugandan Forest Rights project, the Mongolia draft Pastoral Act, and the draft land policy in Sierra Leone.

21 The evaluation team found no evidence supporting the achievement of any of the three monitoring component indicators of the programme logframe.

Equity and gender

22 The issue of inclusiveness is about more than economic standing; it also addresses gender and vulnerable groups such as children, disabled people and illiterate people. In the case study countries, typically only a minority of the population held secure tenure on land. In some countries, there are no inheritance rights, or women have no rights to own land at all.

23 The VGGT Programme has demonstrated careful attention to inclusiveness, especially through the selection of participants to its various activities. However, most VGGT events took place in major cities and did not always include representatives from marginalized groups at local level.

Sustainability

24 The VGGT Global Programme has supported countries to pursue long-term reform. Partnership building and strengthening of existing networks and platforms, both at national and local levels, are key drivers of sustainability, and this has been adequately understood by the programme team.

25 It is important to establish and maintain a core group of civil society stakeholders dedicated to advancing in the long-term, together with government, on the reform agenda in land, fisheries and forestry governance and its implementation.


4

Conclusions

Conclusion 1. The VGGT Programme focused largely on awareness raising and capacity development in its first phase. These activities were found to be relevant, considering that many of the principles in the VGGT were new and unknown in all countries.

Conclusion 2. In the countries visited by the evaluation team, the learning programmes and awareness raising workshops have increased the awareness and knowledge of the VGGT guidelines and have provided government and non-government stakeholders with new insights to address long-standing problems. The impact on civil society persons engaged in governance of tenure was profound.

Conclusion 3. In the programme design, the country’s institutional and operational frameworks did not receive enough attention, while these aspects are essential for a programme aiming at improving governance of tenure. However, it is acknowledged that such additional scope adds a lot to the load of the work and the demand for funds.

Conclusion 4. FAO’s good relationships with government and civil society, as well as the country office engagement and leadership capacities, were essential to the achievement of the programme objectives at country level.

Conclusion 5. The programme lacked a clear long-term vision of its support to countries, not only for change in the policy environment but also for more inclusive access to land, better land service delivery and greater confidence of stakeholders in the land sector to support both social and economic national goals.

Conclusion 6. Governance of fishery and forestry tenure received less attention than land tenure at country level.

Conclusion 7. Engagement of civil society and partnerships with a broad range of stakeholders, both at national and local level, are essential for tangible and long-term outcomes.

Recommendations

Recommendation 1. FAO should continue key activities under the second phase of the VGGT global Programme, especially in terms of capacity development, technical assistance and partnership building.

Recommendation 2. The programme should provide continuous and long-term engagement at country level and ensure the availability of funds through coordination with other donors.

Recommendation 3. If resources allow for the addition of new countries, the selection should be based on the enabling factors, including political will and leadership capacities of the FAO country office.

Recommendation 4. Improvements to the institutional and operational framework should be part of the programme Theory of Change, and be supported by other donors in the countries.

Recommendation 5. Flexible work planning, pooled funding and close monitoring are encouraged.

Recommendation 6. VGGT sensitization at local level should be further developed (in particular in countries where it has already been done at national level), and more stakeholders should be involved at both national and local level.


5

Recommendation 7. VGGT programmes should be championed by a cabinet level minister and supervised by a strong country office.

Recommendation 8. Activities to strengthen civil society organizations (CSOs) should be prioritized in all countries of the programme.

Recommendation 9. Further use of FAO resources and further collaboration with FAO teams (including the Fisheries and Forestry departments, but also SO1 and governance teams) at headquarters and decentralized levels are encouraged.


6

1. Introduction

1 This is the final evaluation of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation’s (FAO’s) Global Programme for “Supporting Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests” (PGM/MUL/2012-2016/VG), also referred to as the Voluntary Guidelines on the Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forestry (VGGT) Programme. The programme started in November 2012 and the primary base funding ended between December 2015 and December 2016 (depending on each project). This is considered as Phase 1 of FAO’s work on supporting the implementation of the VGGT.

2 The VGGT2 provide countries with a framework for best practices in tenure-related policies, laws, regulations, strategies, and practices. They address both the procedural and substantive aspects of establishing sound governance of resource-based rights, and can be applied to different tenure regimes in countries around the world. The VGGT were endorsed in May 2012 during the 38th (special) session of the Committee on Food Security, following a large-scale consultation process.

3 The VGGT Programme is a multi-donor programme overseen by a Steering Committee and managed by the Partnership, Advocacy and Capacity Development Division (OPC, previously NRC, the Climate, Energy and Tenure Division). The resources and activities are coordinated by the house-wide Voluntary Guidelines Task Force set up by the Director-General for this purpose.

4 In 2015, following strategic internal discussions with the VGGT Steering Committee, FAO commissioned the Mid-term Review of the VGGT Programme to provide an independent assessment on the progress and performance to date; to identify the appropriate adjustments needed to ensure the achievements of programme objective by the end of Phase 1; and to make recommendations for Phase 2 and beyond. The Mid-term Review was managed by OPCL, with no direct involvement of the Office of Evaluation (OED) (since it was a review and not a formal evaluation).

5 This evaluation was conducted between October 2016 and July 2017, with a main phase (data collection) between December 2016 and March 2017.

1.1 Purpose of the evaluation

6 This final evaluation was planned during the design phase, as shown in the VGGT Programme document, section 5: “A full independent evaluation will be considered at the end of this 1st implementation phase covering the multi-donor fund and its sister project(s). The evaluation should address process, results and impacts. The evaluation may also cover the activities of the implementation facility which would be conducted under another multi-donor trust fund under this overall Voluntary Guidelines-Tenure Implementation Programme”.

7 The primary intended users of this evaluation are the Programme Steering Committee and Secretariat members, as well as all FAO staff involved in the implementation of the VGGTs, both in headquarters and decentralized offices. Secondary users are the donor community, including the members of the Global Donor Working Group on Land (GDWGL), FAO Members States, civil society organizations and all other national and regional level actors involved in the dissemination and implementation of the VGGTs.

8 The second phase of the VGGT Programme has already been formulated as an umbrella programme (PGM/MUL/2016-2020/VG);3 it was approved in July 2016 and will be operational until June 2020. Although the projects composing this second phase have not

2 The guidelines can be found here: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i2801e/i2801e.pdf

3 The total budget is USD 30 000 000.



7

all been designed, this evaluation will contribute to their design whenever possible. The evaluation will also be useful as a guide for adapting the activities of ongoing projects.

1.2 Scope and objective of the evaluation

9 The scope of this evaluation is the entire VGGT Umbrella Programme (PGM/MUL/2012-2016/VG), including its five components and the corresponding activities at global and country level, as described in the context section below. The timeframe is from November 2012 (when the programme started, a few months after the endorsement of the VGGT) to the end of 2016.

10 The VGGT Programme (Phase 1) covers 13 projects4 with a budget of over USD 29 million, including funding from Adam Smith International, Belgium, Denmark, European Union, France, Germany, Italy, Lesotho, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. One of the 13 projects is a multi-donor trust fund project (GCP/GLO/347/MUL, USD 9 million) with individual contributions from Belgium, France, Italy, Sweden and Switzerland. Within this project, donors have required all funds to be allocated to specific activities. Appendix 2 presents the full list of VGGT related projects implemented between 2012 and 2016,5 within and outside the Umbrella Programme.

11 In addition to the VGGT Programme, FAO’s support to the implementation of the VGGTs by FAO includes Belgian funding through the FAO Multipartner Programme Support Mechanism (FMM) for the capacity development of civil society organizations (CSOs), and other funding from the European Union through Outputs 3.5 and 4.1 of the “Global Governance for Hunger Reduction programme (GCP/INT/130/EC)”. Finally, various FAO regular programme funded activities also support the implementation of the VGGTs, both at global and country levels.

12 Given the very large geographical scope of the VGGT Programme, the evaluation focused more specifically on a smaller number of countries and does not cover all individual projects of the programme (see more details in the methodology section (Section 1.3) and the list of focus countries and related projects in Appendix 1). On the other hand, in the countries visited by the evaluation team the scope was not restricted to the Umbrella Programme, but extended to all FAO activities related to the implementation of the VGGTs in the country, whether or not they are not part of the programme. This avoided having to artificially separate activities by funding source, while they all contribute to a similar objective.

13 Although some efforts were made to update the information whenever possible, in general, the country-related findings in this report have to be understood as of the period in which the evaluation missions took place: November 2016 for Myanmar, December 2016 for Senegal, January 2017 for Sierra Leone and Uganda, March 2017 for Mongolia.

14 The objective of the evaluation is to generate knowledge on the implementation of the VGGT and inform the future strategic direction of FAO’s work in relation to the VGGTs. The evaluation also aims to provide accountability to the various donors who provided funding to FAO for the implementation of the VGGT. The evaluation draws specific conclusions and formulates recommendations for any necessary further action by FAO and/or other parties to refine the focus and strengthen the coordination of the programme and to ensure long-term sustainability of the programme outcomes.

15 The evaluation is structured around four main lines of enquiry: Approach/Design; Results; Equity/Gender; and Sustainability. The main evaluation questions were developed around these four main lines of enquiry and are outlined in the box below. The Evaluation Matrix in Appendix 3 includes sub-questions and/or information needs under each evaluation question, as well as the data collection methods that were used to answer the questions.

4 Three of these projects are financial support for Associate Professional Officers.

5 As provided by OPCL.


8

Box 1: Main evaluation questions

1. Approach/Design1.1: To what extent are the programme design and objectives relevant to the needs of different stakeholders at global and country levels?1.2: How efficient are the implementation and coordination arrangements at headquarters and country levels?

2. ResultsOutcome and impact levels2.1: To what extent have the actions undertaken by FAO in the context of the VGGT implementation contributed to the intended outcome of “Improved frameworks for regulating the tenure of land, fisheries and forests based on wide participation, non-discrimination, transparency and mutual accountability”?2.2: Where improved frameworks have been adopted, has this translated into better governance of tenure of land, fisheries and/or forests, in particular for vulnerable and marginalized people at the local level, and what is the contribution of FAO?Output level2.3: (Awareness raising) To what extent has awareness of the voluntary guidelines improved at the global, regional and national levels as a result of FAO interventions?2.4: (Capacity development) To what extent has the VGGT Programme enhanced the capacity of decision makers and other stakeholders to improve the governance of tenure in their countries? 2.5: (Country support) How efficiently has the programme drawn from FAO’s technical expertise to provide targeted support to the countries?2.6: (Partnerships) To what extent have the partnerships created or facilitated by FAO at global and country level contributed to the implementation of the voluntary guidelines?2.7: (Monitoring) How effectively has the programme contributed to the development of assessment/monitoring frameworks on governance?

3. Equity/Gender3.1: To what extent have women, indigenous peoples and vulnerable and marginalized groups participated in the VGGT Programme? How have the needs of vulnerable groups been considered in the design and implementation of the programme at various levels?

4. Sustainability4.1: How sustainable are FAO’s interventions and what is their potential to contribute to long-term changes at country level?

1.3 Methodology

16 The key evaluation questions above guided the overall assessment. Sub-questions and specific methodological approaches were further developed by the evaluation team during an inception mission at FAO headquarters in Rome in October 2016. During the same period, a workshop was held at headquarters with the FAO Land Tenure Unit (OPCL) team in order to elaborate the Theory of Change of the programme and discuss the expected inputs, outputs, outcomes and impact in more details. A full timeline of the evaluation is provided in Appendix 4.

17 The evaluation benefited from a desk review of existing documents provided by OPCL and country offices. With regard to primary data, the evaluation focused on the following VGGT countries, selected in consultation with the programme management: Guatemala, Mongolia, Myanmar, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Uganda. One-week missions were carried out and country reports are available for all countries except Guatemala.6 The missions were undertaken by an international consultant (the Office of Evaluation (OED) evaluation manager in the case of Senegal) and a national consultant. In Sierra Leone and Myanmar, the team also included the Office of Evaluation (OED) associate evaluation manager.

18 In order to maximize the opportunities to learn and ensure this evaluation provides accountability to donors and partners, the countries were selected based on the following criteria:

• a reasonable number of activities had been carried out;

• progress had been made beyond the initial awareness raising workshop;

6 In Guatemala the Evaluation Manager of the Office of Evaluation (OED) took the opportunity of another mission to undertake interviews for this evaluation.


9

• some results had been reported;

• different types of contextual factors (including region) can be analysed.

19 In selecting the countries, priority was also given to countries where the Office of Evaluation (OED) was conducting concurrent evaluations, such as Myanmar and Guatemala, in order to create synergies and optimize the use of resources.7

20 In the countries visited, the evaluation team conducted semi-structured key informant interviews with FAO staff, government officials, development partners, civil society, academia and the private sector. Protocols for interviews were developed by the evaluation team during the planning phase. To the extent possible, interviews were also conducted with beneficiaries and government authorities at local level.8

21 An online survey was developed and sent to 13 FAO country offices.9 The VGGT focal point in each country office was requested to send the survey link to all colleagues and partners who had been involved in VGGT activities in the country. The survey was composed of 16 questions and completed by 97 respondents in total, from all countries, between February and March 2016. It was made available in English, French, Spanish and Mongolian. The English version of the questionnaire is provided in Appendix 5.

22 Together with Skype interviews, the analysis of the survey results added an additional line of evidence for triangulation of the evaluation findings. In particular, it enabled the evaluation team to triangulate the primary data collected in the more “successful” countries with information from countries where less activities had been carried out, and to better understand the potentially contributing factors.

Table 1: VGGT countries by data collection method

Skype interviews and/or online surveys Country visits

Colombia Guatemala

Ethiopia Mongolia

Liberia Myanmar

Madagascar Senegal

Malawi Sierra Leone

Niger Uganda

South Africa

23 The evaluation used the information collected to apply a Qualitative Comparative Analysis10 at country level in order to better understand the different combinations of factors that are critical to achieving the expected outcome of improved governance frameworks. Qualitative Comparative Analysis is useful as a means to test theories of change, and helps to answer the question “what works best, why and under what circumstances”. The application of this method required the elaboration of a precise and measurable definition of the expected impact of the programme (“improved frameworks and improved governance), as well as the elaboration of conditions, or factors, that can have an influence on the achievement of the outcome and impact. This analysis was used to identify the success factors at country level.

24 The evaluation adopted a consultative and transparent approach with internal and external stakeholders throughout the process. Triangulation of evidence consistently underpinned the validation and analysis and supported the elaboration of the conclusions

7 The VGGT evaluation international consultant, Ian Lloyd, was also the Land expert for the Myanmar CPE. Regarding Guatemala, the VGGT Evaluation Manager was also the Guatemala CPE Evaluation Manager and used the opportunity of a CPE mission to Guatemala to carry out some interviews for the VGGT evaluation.

8 This was possible in Senegal, Sierra Leone, Uganda and Mongolia.

9 Senegal, Niger, Mongolia, South Africa, Myanmar, Guatemala, Colombia, Nepal, Uganda, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Malawi, Madagascar, Kenya.

10 See http://betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/Qualitative-Comparative-Analysis-June-2015%20%281%29.pdf

http://betterevaluation.org/sites/default/files/Qualitative-Comparative-Analysis-June-2015%20%281%29.pdf


10

and recommendations. Particular attention was devoted to ensure that women and other underprivileged groups were consulted in an adequate manner. The evaluation adhered to the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards.11

1.4 Limitations

25 The VGGT Programme is very large in terms of geographical scope and number of projects. Due to time, capacity and budget constraints, the evaluation could not cover each individual project, nor could country missions be conducted to all countries. The evaluation team therefore had to make informed decisions, selecting a limited number of countries to visit based on sound criteria as outlined in the methodology section.

26 Although additional methods were applied (online survey, skype interviews) in order to cover the maximum number of countries, some countries in which some VGGT activities took place were not adequately covered by this evaluation (because no/few responses were received to the survey, or no contacts were available for skype calls). These countries are: Lesotho, Mali and Nepal.

27 Each country visited by the evaluation team differed with regard to the development of laws and regulations; the currency of tenure-related policies; implementation capacity, experience and attitude; and level of social and economic development. Furthermore, different levels of resources were allocated to each country as part of the VGGT Programme, which allowed FAO to carry out different types of activities. While this heterogeneity makes the analysis more interesting, it also makes generalization more difficult. This report provides findings related to the programme as a whole. However, some country situations may not be reflected here, or some findings may not be appropriate for all types of countries.

1.5 Structure of the report

28 Following the introduction, the report provides a brief background and context of the programme (Section 2). Section 3 presents the key findings ordered according to the eleven evaluations questions included in Box 1 above and in the evaluation matrix (see Appendix 3). It is followed by Section 4 which provides the conclusions and general recommendations about the programme. Country-specific recommendations are presented in Appendix 6.

11 United Nations Evaluation Group, http://www.uneval.org/normsandstandards

http://www.uneval.org/normsandstandards


11

2. Background and context

29 The VGGT Programme’s expected impact is to “Improve governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests contributing to the eradication of hunger and poverty, to sustainable development and to the sustainable use of the environment”, and the indicator in the logframe is: “Number of countries in which improved governance of tenure has contributed to the eradication of hunger and poverty, to sustainable development and to the sustainable use of the environment”.

30 The programme outcome is “Improved frameworks for regulating the tenure of land, fisheries and forests based on wide participation, non-discrimination, transparency and mutual accountability” and the indicator to measure this outcome is “number of countries that have applied principles of responsible governance of tenure in policies, laws and activities directly and indirectly supported by the programme”.

31 The VGGT Programme is composed of five components with related outputs and indicators, as summarized in the table below:

Table 2: Umbrella Programme components, outputs and indicators

COMPONENT OUTPUT

1 Awareness raising and dissemination Awareness of the Voluntary Guidelines increased

Logframe indicators

• A minimum of 500 people across five regions who attended conferences, seminars, meetings etc. supported by the project where the voluntary guidelines have been presented and/or their implementation discussed.• A minimum of 1 000 hits/people globally reached through Governance of Tenure website and newsletter.• Number and diversity of awareness and training meetings to discuss convergence and synergy of VGGT and F&G and plan actions for joint implementation, particularly at subregional level (RECs).

2 Capacity development Tools and approaches Capacity development tools created, disseminated and applied

Logframe indicators

• A number of capacity development materials including a minimum of three guidelines and five handbooks prepared and published. • A minimum of two institutions offering education and training linked to the VGs as part of the capacity development network created by the project.• At least one innovative technical solution available for implementation at country level. • A minimum of 200 professionals and decision makers who participated in trainings and who demonstrated increased knowledge and skills to improve governance of tenure.• Context-specific capacity development tools for Africa based on existing technical guides and other materials.

3 Targeted support to countries Capacity to improve governance of tenure in countries and regions enhanced

Logframe indicators

• A minimum of ten interventions at country level in response to requests. • Early identification of support needed for project formulation or other specific needs for the start-up of European Union FSTP projects through support to national teams in ten specific countries.

4 Partnerships Partnerships to increase collaborative actions at global, regional and national level developed and strengthened

Logframe indicators

• Establishment of a global multi-stakeholder body to advise on voluntary guidelines implementation.• Preparations for the establishment of a proposed global multi-donor facility to provide resources for support for voluntary guidelines implementation.• Establishment of thematic and regional networks on voluntary guidelines implementation.• Secondment of a Land Tenure Officer to the Land Policy Initiative as liaison for pan-African networks and programmes.

5 Monitoring Monitoring frameworks established

Logframe indicators

• Establishment of widely accepted standards for frameworks for monitoring and evaluation.• Support for a minimum of two monitoring and assessment evaluations undertaken.• Integrated communication strategy defined for pan-African and global communication and exchanges of good practices and lessons learned.


12

32 Since the beginning of programme implementation, activities were carried out both at global and country level. At global level, FAO aimed at raising global awareness by developing a suite of technical, capacity development and communication materials, participating in the global dialogue and developing partnerships on VGGT implementation. These developments at the global level have fed into country level activities.

33 At country level, activities were carried out in the following countries: Columbia, Guatemala, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Senegal, Sierra Leone, South Africa and Uganda. This support has taken various forms according to the country context and specific needs, however it usually started with an awareness raising workshop with the various stakeholders from the land, fisheries and forestry sectors. In a smaller number of countries – where funding was available and/or where the context was conducive – a deeper level of engagement took place in the form of dedicated country support.12

34 In addition, FAO’s Technical Cooperation Programme is being used to furnish technical assistance for specific issues. And the FAO-World Bank Cooperative Programme (funded 25 percent by FAO, 75 percent by World Bank) supports globally the VGGT work, through the FAO Investment Centre Division (TCI)..

35 FAO’s work on the implementation of the VGGT contributes to FAO’s Strategic Objective 1 (Help eliminate hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition), in particular to Outcome 3.1 (Member countries and their development partners make explicit political commitments in the form of policies, investment plans, programmes, legal frameworks and the allocation of necessary resources to eradicate hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition) and Outcome 3.2 (Member countries and their development partners adopt inclusive governance and coordination mechanisms for eradicating hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition).

36 At country level, the VGGT Programme did not necessarily focus on countries with a CPF priority on land and governance. However in countries where some VGGT activities have now been implemented, and where inclusive consultation processes have been put in place, it is likely that the next CPF will include more specifically a priority area or a component related to the VGGT. On the other hand, some countries with a strong priority on governance of tenure in their CPF may have undertaken activities related to the VGGT as part of a specific country level project, outside of the VGGT global programme.

37 The following table presents a summary of the key activities implemented and main results achieved, for each component, at global and country level, according to the programme team.

12 In some cases, this implied a full-time staff in the country. In other cases, it took the form of dedicated projects, or specific interventions.


13

Table 3: Summary of key activities and results achieved13 14

GLOBAL LEVEL COUNTRY/REGIONAL LEVEL

Component 1 - Awareness raising and dissemination

VGGT promoted in global events4 800 physical copies of the VGGT were distributed plus hard copies of eight technical guides; three VGGT newsletters and two newsflashes were issued; 9 000 website visits; Subscribers to the newsletter to date are about 4 000.

11 regional awareness raising workshops conducted across five regions

Awareness raising initiatives of various types in more than 30 countries

Component 2 - Capacity development tools and approaches

Eight technical guides finalizedE-learning curriculum (eight titles available, 14 000 online learners)SOLA open source software improved and expanded.Civil society organization training manual prepared.Specialized training events held.Three blended learning programme (general VGGT, Agricultural Investment, Gender and Land)

More than 30 learning and training events covering more than ten individual countries and one region (Latin America), for multiple target audience (government officials, CSO, implementing partners and private sector). Learning programmes, and learning needs assessments, usually combined with multi-stakeholder workshops. Open tenure tested in Cambodia and Guatemala

Component 3 - Targeted support to countries

N/A Support to the development of policies and laws (e.g. Guatemala, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Mongolia, Madagascar)Technical support on use and application of open source software (Uganda, Nigeria, Sierra Leone).

Component 4 - Partnerships

Partnerships developed or strengthened with: UN-Habitat’s Global Land Tool Network, IFAD, the World Bank, the International Union of Notaries (IUNL), the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG), the German Technical Cooperation (GIZ), and International Planning Committee for food sovereignty, FIAN International, the International Land Coalition (ILC) and many others, internationally as well as at country and local levels.

FAO attends key global and regional events such as the annual “World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty” that provided each year an occasion to meet with key stakeholders involved in the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines around the world.

Partnership with Land Policy Initiative for the implementation of the AU Declaration on Land in accordance with the Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy in Africa (F&G) and VGGT.14

FAO also participates in and contributes to relevant global fora (such as the global forum on access to land) organized by civil society partners.

Establishment of multi-stakeholder platforms, technical VGGT steering committees (e.g. Mongolia, Senegal and Sierra Leone), and inter-ministerial task force (Sierra Leone).

G7 partnership agreement between Germany, Sierra Leone and FAO.

Partnership with World Bank in Uganda and Malawi

At the regional level, FAO participates in the Inter-American Network of Cadastre and Land Registries, through which it is promoting the integration of the Voluntary Guidelines into the national land administration institutions.

Component 5 - Monitoring

Continuous support to the monitoring processes led by the CFS Open Ended Working Group (OEWG) on monitoring – the plenary session of the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) 43 in October 2016 has been set aside for review and discussion of progress in implementation of the VGGT - and the Global Donor Working Group on Land (GDWGL).

Regular monitoring and reporting of project implementation.

13 As per end of 2016.

14 In view of the importance of this partnership, FAO with funding provided by the European Union and the Swiss Development Cooperation has placed two Land Tenure Officers P4-level within the LPI office.


14

38 The table below shows the resources spent and the types of activities implemented in each country. Sierra Leone and Uganda had more resources available (not only out of the five countries, but also out of all programme countries), while Myanmar received less resources compared to the other four focus countries.

Table 4: Resources available and main activities in each focus country

Projects and total budget15 (2013-2016)

Main activities

Myanmar FMM/GCP/111/MUL GCP/GLO/347/UKUSD 58 258

• National level awareness raising workshops• Capacity assessment• National workshop for private sector• CSO training workshops

Mongolia FMM/GCP/111/MUL GCP /GLO/501/GER GCP/GLO/347/GERUSD 123 005

• Establishment of a VGGT work group• VGGT learning programmes• Translation and dissemination of VGGT materials• Media exposures to the VGGT• Three VGGT national workshops• Assessment of key instruments of tenure (draft pastoral law and existing forestry law)• Consultations of stakeholders on the two assessments

Sierra Leone FMM/GCP/111/MUL GCP/GLO/347/GERGCP /GLO/501/GERUSD 793 180

• Creation of an inclusive VGGT institutional framework• VGGT national workshops • VGGT learning programmes• CSOs training of trainers• Radio and television programmes• Multi-sectorial interventions through five project components: legal framework, land administration and responsible commercial investment, fisheries and aquaculture, forestry, right to food• Development of and training on a customized version of SOLA software for capturing cadastral data of MLCPE and online sharing with the agency responsible for registration of land transactions (OARG)

Uganda GCP/GLO/347/UKUSD 622 449

• Establishment of VGGT Secretariat and Steering Committee• Pilot project on formalizing tenure on customary lands, development of land tenure capture software based on Open Tenure and training on this software• Pilot project on forest tenure rights• VGGT learning programme followed by mentoring• Translation and dissemination of VGGT materials• Media exposures of the VGGT• VGGT workshops in coordination with the government and civil society

Senegal FMM/GCP/111/MUL GCP/GLO/599/GERGCP/GLO/347/MUL USD 236 416

• Establishment of a steering committee for the VGGTs• Three national workshops• Civil society training of trainers• Contribution to the revision of the land tenure policy• Communication material in local language about the VGGTs• Pilot projects on the implementation of the tenure reform

15

15 Does not include Regular Programme expenditures.


15

3. Findings

3.1 To what extent are the programme design and objectives relevant to the needs of different stakeholders at global and country levels?

Programme design

39 As mentioned in the methodology section, a Theory of Change was developed with the programme team at the beginning of the evaluation, in order to better visualize and discuss with the team about the programme logic, assumptions and expected results. The figure below shows the result of this exercise. It should therefore be considered as the Theory of Change of the programme under evaluation, as developed by the evaluation team in consultation with the programme team.

Figure 1: Theory of Change of the VGGT Programme (Phase 1)

40 The Theory of Change exercise helped the evaluation team understand the logic behind the formulation of the programme. The logic can be described as follows: If i) awareness of VGGTs is increased through global campaigns, regional and national multi-stakeholder workshops, ii) capacity development activities are conducted for the responsible governance of tenure, iii) direct technical assistance is provided by FAO to countries through policy review, legal review, technical support, and iv) progress towards the adoption and implementation of the VGGTs is monitored and there is constant feedback into the programme based on this monitoring, then governance of tenure systems at the global, regional and national levels will improve, and the global recognition and understanding of the importance of tenure will be transformed. Consequently, if tenure systems are improved at global, regional and national levels, then there will be poverty reduction outcomes and increased national food security.


16

41 The expected results of the programme are based on the concepts of “improved frameworks for regulating the tenure of land, fisheries and forests” (Outcome) and “improved governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests” (Impact). According to results-based management principles, a clear definition of realistic expected results is essential not only to monitor progress, but also to ensure that the activities implemented are contributing to the desired results.

42 For example, a programme should clearly define “why should we do this intervention?”, “what results (effects) do we expect from this investment?”, “how will these interventions lead to these changes?” and “who are the beneficiaries of these changes?” A clear definition is also useful to communicate with the donors about the achievements in comparison with the stated objectives.

43 However, the programme document does not provide a clear definition of the key concepts of improved governance and improved framework, nor clearly explains the link between the five components of the programme and the achievement of these longer term results.

44 In fact, the Theory of Change of the programme has a number of implicit assumptions:

i awareness raising will result in political commitment to change;

ii capacity building is of a sufficient amount, over a sufficient time period and with the right people, to enable stakeholders and staff to revise the frameworks;

iii the changes needed at institutional level will occur in time;

iv long-term partnerships will be forged across all stakeholders;

v any necessary change at policy or legislation levels will be promulgated or enacted;

vi government has the resources to roll-out reforms to the local level;

vii donors fully appreciate the timelines needed to bring about significant change in governance of tenure.

45 While these assumptions may be verified in some contexts, they might not always come true. In these cases, some additional activities/outputs might be needed in order to achieve the programme objectives, or the programme objectives should be revised. For example, regarding the last assumption: no significant change can ever occur on land tenure reform in the short-term. If funding is only available in a country for an initial awareness raising learning programme then FAO should reduce its goals under the VGGT Programme. Alternatively FAO should make a conscious effort to educate donors on the need to engage long-term on land tenure reforms and by that engagement obtain a common understanding on the substantial inputs and time required to make the impacts expected.

46 In relation to the expected Outcome “improved frameworks for regulating the tenure”, it must be noted that the frameworks leading to improved governance and improved access to land usually encompass several aspects: policy, institutional and operational.

47 The policy/legal framework refers to the political and legal environment: the policies and laws related to governance of tenure. Many countries have outdated laws and policies on tenure which do not fully support the current social and economic conditions and which never recognized all of the tenure relationships in the country. Some countries still have laws and policies from their colonial era in large part or almost completely from that period such as Myanmar.16

16 The legal framework of Myanmar is still founded on colonial laws. The foundation laws are: The Land and Revenue Act (1879); The Upper Burma Land And Revenue Regulation (1889); The Lower Burma Town And Village Lands Act (1899); The Towns Act (1907). These provide for the administration and management of all land in settlements including the issuance of various rights on developed land to individuals and legal bodies. The law governing the transfer of rights is the Registration Act (1909). The law allowing land resumption by the State is the Land Acquisition Act (1894). All of these laws are still in force. Two laws providing for the issuing of rights in specific kinds of rural land were enacted in 2012: the Farmland Law (farms in approved settlements) and the VFV Law (land not yet fully farmed but not forest land nor customary land nor grazing land nor developed land).


17

48 The institutional framework refers to the land administration institutions and their organization, structure, resources and capacities.

49 The operational framework is equally important. It consists of the infrastructure, procedures, staffing and resources al local level to deliver the services required by the community, business and government in respect to governance of tenure. This supports the day to day interface between the government service delivery and the people such as registration of sale of land, for example. The challenge is to ensure that the policy (and law) is actually delivered on the ground, effectively, efficiently and inclusively.

50 Adequate institutional and operational frameworks are needed in order to make the implementation of policies and enforcement of laws possible. Indeed, merely having policies and laws on the books and tenure assigned does not guarantee effective access to land, if the rights on tenure implied by the laws are not enforced and governed properly. There must be political will too. The right to enforcement of legal and administrative provisions to protect the lawful rights of the holder is the most fundamental component of a bundle of tenure rights.

51 Programme interventions to improve the institutional and operational frameworks seem to have received less attention, although they may be equally important and in need of reform.

52 The global programme’s design (as per its logframe) does not address the weaknesses of land service delivery institutions. However, in many countries the issues with security of land tenure may be due to outdated policies and laws as well as weak implementation. Policy setting may only be a part of the solution and new policies may not solve the problem: many policies get approved but are not implemented.17 Building functioning land administrations that deliver effective land services in accordance with land policy cannot be ignored in these cases. It is a fundamental step in closing the gaps in the land system that easily allow irregular activities.

53 The example of Sierra Leone should however be mentioned here: in this country, the land administration services and land records can be described as dysfunctional and do not perform in accordance with the existing laws.18 If new policy and laws were issued and promulgated tomorrow, the same bad performance would continue. In such a case, the missing element is institutional reform, to be done in parallel with land policy reform.

54 This has been acknowledged by the team in the country, who developed a ten-year implementation plan laying out the needed institutional and operational reforms required to effectively implement the policy. This Implementation Plan places specific focus on strengthening land administration and capacities for effective land use management. As a result, capacity building issues and institutional reform will now be tackled by the World Bank. Also, the Ministry of Lands, Housing, Country Planning and the Environment hopes that ‘Solutions for Open Land Administration’ (SOLA) software will assist in addressing this situation but acknowledges that the bigger problem is the resolving of the conflicting claims and the accurate and up to date recording of the real situation. While the Solutions for Open Land Administration software is now ready to use the mass data capture process must first recognize the issues of the existing quality of data and build accuracy of data into the process. A clear and realistic mass data capture plan and budget and timeline should be approved before commencing full operations.

55 Interventions that consider every aspect of the framework at country level could lead to parallel reforms; not only reform of land policy, but also institutional reform and improvements in the operational framework. As currently arranged, the land policies and laws will precede any reform of the institutions. Such a sequence is sometimes most

17 In fact, in Sierra Leone and Myanmar, the programme has contributed to an improved policy framework (although in Myanmar a major part of the contribution was by other donors), but none of the new policies had been implemented at the end of 2016. In Myanmar the former government had adopted the land policy but it was not promulgated by the new government. In Sierra Leone the government adopted the land policy but was tardy in promulgating it.

18 For example, only about 200 000 parcels have been surveyed (potentially about 1 500 000 in the country)


18

appropriate, but other times parallel strengthening is better. In some cases a lot can be done to strengthen tenure security and service delivery under the existing laws by strengthening of the institutions - it is suggested that Myanmar is an example of this case.

56 The VGGT Programme included some pilot projects (in Uganda, Senegal and Guatemala) to test or propose practical solutions to improve the operational framework at local level (on customary land tenure in Uganda, community level land governance in Senegal, and conflict resolution in Guatemala). This is a good approach, as it shows how the policies can be implemented on the ground.

57 Based on the above considerations, the following figure proposes a Theory of Change that could be used by the programme team to start a discussion with donors, including the expected changes needed at country level in the short-, medium- and long-term to achieve the expected result of improved governance of tenure and better access to land in the programme countries.

Figure 2: Proposed Theory of Change

Relevance at country level

58 Each country reviewed has a dire need for improved governance and security of tenure, although the contexts are very diverse. The countries needed support from the programme, given that the VGGTs were new and unknown.

59 The programme was implemented in a large number of countries, with different levels of resources for each country. The countries faced unique contexts and challenges, and thus had varying potential for achieving results, as shown in the examples below.

60 The programme adequately acknowledged the differences between countries and addressed different tenure issues through a multifaceted approach, including awareness raising, capacity building and technical support.

61 In the case of Uganda, the laws on tenure and forests were adequate for many stakeholders, but the problem was the implementation. Furthermore, while capacities are growing quickly at national level, they remain low at local level. In 2006, the government had


19

started a pilot project to issue land documents on customary land in Kasese District, but the quality of the work performed was inadequate and the government became reluctant to continue. In 2015, the VGGT entered and brought a new approach, with activities focusing on building capacities in land, fisheries and forest tenure, and assisting the country to design and test two different programmes: the issuing of evidence of right of tenure to customary land and of forest land.

62 These interventions were very relevant, as FAO had been requested by the government to work on customary land and forest rights. In particular, the Certificate of Customary Ownership pilot project was selected after strong support was received from Kasese District. An indicator of this relevance is the “take up” rate by land owners: 85 percent requested the CCO in the pilot area. This is quite high and supports the more efficient process of systematic adjudication in a “demand-driven” process of formalization of tenure.

63 The VGGT Programme was different in the other countries (Guatemala, Mongolia, Myanmar, Senegal and Sierra Leone), where the land policy and legal framework was deemed by stakeholders to be inadequate.

64 In Sierra Leone there is a very weak foundation of land administration and land policy which contributes to a high level of disputes and insecure tenure across the country. Before the activities started, there was no land policy to anchor development of land governance and there was little knowledge on land tenure security as a human right19 and little knowledge on the implication of land tenure security and of the Voluntary Guidelines.

65 The VGGT activities were highly relevant to the needs of the country, as they started at a time when Sierra Leone was putting in place improved governance (and land governance in particular): the programme was well timed and its scope was right for the situation. The creation of a multi-stakeholder platform was important for engaging stakeholders in the land governance reforms. Also, an overarching VGGT institutional framework for dialogue was defined and endorsed by stakeholders after the first national workshop, and they continue to meet regularly. The objectives of building human resource capacity and creating a land tenure institutional framework were all very relevant tasks to be performed.

66 In Myanmar, at the time of the launching of the VGGT activities (2013), the context was defined by low capacity of government to deal with a large and complex market-led economy; legacy of outdated colonial laws and practices such as the Land Acquisition Act; weak linkage and communication between government and civil society; and lack of trust between civil society and government on land grabs and customary tenure rights. In 2012, the President had directed that a policy for land resources should be developed.

67 Due to a lack of resources, there was no immediate and concrete follow up activities by FAO to the initial workshop in March 2013. Stakeholders could not see that FAO had a “game-plan” and this did not meet their expectations as they needed support for the technical work and consultative workshops. The country office had limited capacities available on land governance, little involvement in the VGGT activities, and did not take the lead in bringing together actors from civil society and government.20

68 Other donors supported the government and since that time, the VGGT have been used by different stakeholders as a primary reference document for assessing the existing legal framework, developing a new land policy, discussing better approaches to more complex land issues, and as a basis for creating education material for networks of civil society throughout the country. In Myanmar the Land Core Group network under various funding sources engaged with government on the land policy by hosting cross-country

19 See Article 17 of UN Dec on HR: 1. Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. 2. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

20 FAO developed a project proposal to DFID in 2013. However, the proposal was rejected since it did not meet the donor criteria (the funds had to be channeled through the LIFT programme which focused more on direct impact on local communities, and less on policy development). A new FAO Representative was appointed in late 2016 who took a proactive interest in the VGGT activities.


20

stakeholder forums to discuss the various drafts of the land use policy and process the many comments into suggested changes; this was a major contribution by civil society to an inclusive process of policy formulation.

69 The evaluation team found that relevance would have been greatly enhanced with more follow up by the country office and with support to stakeholders on particular high priority land and resource-related issues which were causing major problems in the rural sector. These included: forced evictions of farmers (land grabbing); conversion of farm land to developed land; management of vacant, fallow and virgin land; due process for land acquisition of farm land; land tenure; and rights in forests. On customary land tenure, FAO did perform and partner well with other actors under another project.21

70 On the other hand, it must be acknowledged that the work done by the regional office and headquarters to support the activities was appreciated and seen as professional. In particular, a regional workshop was organized in Hanoi with government and civil society, and focused on customary land tenure.22 However these efforts were not sufficient: the land sector in Myanmar is very complex and demands a unique and adaptive work plan and inputs.

71 In Mongolia, the legislation has not fully addressed many challenges affecting the land sector including tenure insecurity, especially for herders (there is no independent legislation on pasture land), declining and fragmented land holdings, and accountability for land degradation, growing competition over land and natural resources and dysfunctional land use planning. Also, social and economic change in recent years has led to some irresponsible mining, poor management and polluted environment which then exaggerated agricultural production efficiency and the disputes among stakeholders about land usage. Mongolia has 60 million livestock and around 71 percent of its territory consists of pasture.

72 The VGGT activities in the country were concerned with building capacity in land, fisheries and forest tenure. These were highly relevant to the country at the time it began. Mongolia had no professionals who had been exposed to the principles of the VGGT. The design of the programme was very appropriate, starting with building knowledge and understanding across a wide range of stakeholders in government and non-government. The assistance given to assess the forest law and redraft the pastoral land protection act was the most relevant; if followed up adequately, this support could lead to structural change in the management of key natural resources.

73 In Senegal, the VGGT activities began at an opportune time: the government had engaged in an agrarian reform since 2005 and created a national commission for the agrarian reform23 in 2012. The national commission was responsible for analysing the legal and policy framework, developing proposals for improvement and establishing an institutional and legal framework for the management of tenure and the resolution of land-related conflicts. When FAO started, the commission had already established a bottom-up consultation process to consider the local level and civil society actors in an inclusive manner. Furthermore, the civil society in Senegal was already active and organized around land tenure aspects.

74 FAO was able to intervene in a timely manner and support the national reform commission to become a leading actor on VGGT activities in the country. By successfully associating the commission with the VGGT national platform, FAO ensured that the VGGT activities were fully integrated into an ongoing high-level political process. All actors in Senegal agreed in saying that the support provided by FAO was extremely relevant and timely. One of the remarkable results is the inclusion in the national Land Policy Document of clear references to the VGGT principles.

21 The Mekong River Land Governance Project funded by SDC.

22 The Mekong Region Forum in which FAO participated with a keynote address and the chairing of several sessions as well as organizing jointly with MRLG a session dedicated on the recognition of customary tenure.

23 Commission Nationale de Réforme Foncière.


21

75 In Ethiopia, the programme started with awareness raising activities, but could not continue its engagement due to misunderstandings about the objectives and use of the VGGT. According to the interview with the land officer in Ethiopia, the programme initially provided support to a technical government agency working on agricultural investments. This gave the wrong impression that the VGGT could be a tool to enable land grabbing. Although awareness raising activities were conducted, all stakeholders did not understand the principles of the VGGTs, and how they could be applied to the country context. This misunderstanding created bottlenecks that prevented FAO from continuing with the activities.

76 The figure below shows that according to 93 percent of the survey respondents the programme was adapted to the needs of the country.

Figure 3: Agreement with the following statements: FAO’s support to the implementation of the VGGTs in your country is…

3.2 How efficient are the implementation and coordination arrangements at headquarters and country level?

Enabling factors

77 According to the evaluation team, the achievement of results at country level depended on the level of engagement and leadership of the FAO country office, the presence of a full-time dedicated staff, and the quality of the relations established in the country among i) the different stakeholders (government, civil society, private sector and donors); and ii) FAO and the civil society.

78 Characteristics that generally make working in the domain of governance of tenure challenging include: complex legislation, strong vested interests and corruption, resistance to change, complex institutional framework, and usually few non-government actors. In order to enter the political debate on governance of tenure, FAO country offices must be mature enough to engage in a complex political situation and move beyond traditional relationships with government actors.

79 In the most sensitive contexts, advocating for responsible land governance can expose technical advisers and FAO Representatives to unwelcome pressure and adverse criticism from government land institutions, which often are poorly resourced and less transparent


22

in their operations. As a result, FAO staff may regard projects that challenge the de facto land policy or land governance system as too sensitive and complex, and thus to be avoided.

80 In countries where FAO has less history of partnership with the CSO, a common challenge is the difficulty to put different actors at the same table, as this may jeopardize the traditional relationships between FAO and the government. Addressing the issues of land, fisheries and forestry tenure demands that FAO provide a level of inputs from professional personnel.

81 Thus, the establishment of dialogue and relationships between actors was made easier when a full-time staff was dedicated to moving the process forward. Countries with full-time or near full-time professional staff (e.g. Senegal, Sierra Leone and Uganda) were the more efficient in building relationships, influencing the sectoral stakeholders and building overall confidence in the reforms with stakeholders.

82 Other enabling factors included: a platform to bring together different actors from government and civil society (Senegal); an organized civil society (Myanmar and Senegal); and the interest and presence of donors in a country to enable support in the long-term.

Country selection

83 The land tenure team had been supporting land tenure projects in several countries before the VGGTs. According to them, the experience and knowledge were used to select countries for the VGGT Programme. However the land tenure team also recognized that when VGGT implementation started, it was important to accommodate requests from the donors, not to lose the momentum, and to respond quickly and show results. In this context, the willingness of a donor to invest in a country on the VGGT was a sufficient element to launch the activities in that country.

84 As reported in the strategic evaluation of FAO’s work on tenure, rights and access to land and other natural resources (2012), donor contributions are positive if they support proposals that are aligned with needs and priorities in a country, as identified by the programme team.

85 Indeed, to the extent possible, the programme should be driven by the goals, strategies and objectives of the programme, but at the same time acknowledging that donors have their own international and national priorities. The key to success is dialogue and exchange of ideas on the course of action that will work best for the counterpart government while meeting both FAO and donor results frameworks, reporting requirements and priorities.

86 While such an approach was justified in the beginning (and can lead to “mistakes”, which is understandable), the selection of additional countries by FAO and donors could be based on an analysis of the context, and enabling factors, in each country. It should also be based on a clear demand, emanating from the government and/or important land governance actors, demonstrating a strong political willingness for change.24

87 The identification of political windows of opportunity - such as a reform process or the ongoing revision of laws and policies - may also greatly facilitate the VGGT Programme in a country. This identification may be done through country context analysis in collaboration with national experts.

88 In this analysis, the political will as well as the demand from the government for support on governance of tenure, may be the most difficult aspect to assess. Furthermore, the programme team could consider that in countries with less government interest, such demand can be stimulated. However, it is important to keep in mind that when dealing

24 The country profiles prepared by the SO1 team in FAO could be useful for this exercise.


23

with a politically sensitive subject like tenure reform or public land administration, external stimulated demand can backfire during project implementation.

89 Other units within FAO (fisheries, forestry, CSO and the indigenous people team) could also take a more prominent role in the country selection.

90 The case of the CSO programme (FMM/GLO/111/MUL) should be mentioned here, since the concept note for the second phase of the programme identifies clear criteria for country selection:

• clear demand from the national partner to further develop its capacities and knowledge on specific aspects of the VGGT;

• clear need for FAO support in further strengthening the national partner’s capacities and its links to relevant ongoing processes at national level.

• clear link with CPF;

• existence of ongoing processes related to VGGT, new policies, etc.;

• existence of an enabling environment to work with CSOs;

• existence of representative CSOs which allows the outreach of a relevant number of other country partners/affiliates/members.

91 The Strategic Objective 1 team is implementing a programme funded by the European Union entitled FIRST. This is a facility that provides governments with policy assistance and capacity development support to “review the current national policy and institutional frameworks for food security, identify bottlenecks and leverage opportunities for improving impact, develop options to improve delivery and impact, advocate for and develop human and organizational capacities for change, facilitate evidence-based and inclusive policy dialogue and stakeholder coordination”.25

92 For the delivery of policy assistance and capacity development services, FIRST relies on a network of policy officers and technical experts who are based at country level within the government institutions and who can easily access FAO professional networks, technical assistance and policy guidance.

93 While the focus on the two programmes are different (food security vs governance of tenure), there are some similarities, notably that both programmes aim to improve the governance and policy framework. The FIRST programme included a detailed process for the selection of participating countries in order to assess the political will and windows of opportunities at country level.

94 The box below summarizes the enabling factors identified by the evaluation team for the VGGT Programme and illustrates the method used by the EU/FAO FIRST Programme for the country selection, which could be adapted and applied to the VGGT Programme.

25 http://www.fao.org/europeanunion/eu-projects/first/fr/


24

Box 2: Country selection and the FIRST Programme

The following enabling factors were identified by the evaluation team. They should be taken into consideration in the selection of the next countries where FAO could engage:

1. government willingness to engage in a dialogue with CSOs and other actors;

2. level of leadership of FAO country office;

3. existence of a platform bringing together the stakeholders and civil society;

4. presence of an organized and active civil society;

5. interest of donors and donor presence in the country.

FIRST country selection process: A call for expressions of interest (including a questionnaire) was launched among the countries that had identified Food and Nutrition Security and Sustainable Agriculture (FNSSA) as a priority sector for the European Union development assistance programing cycle. Based on the responses received, FAO and the European Union jointly conducted a prioritization exercise along the following seven criteria:

1. genuine demand from the country;

2. clearly identified window of opportunity for bringing about policy change;

3. active consultation among the government, European Union delegation and FAO Representation, and formulation of a joint response to the call;

4. degree of political commitment;

5. synergies with ongoing FAO and European Union efforts in the country;

6. application of European Union technical assistance quality criteria and likelihood of effective capacity development;

7. type of support and expert profile requested.

After the official launch of FIRST, the selected priority countries were requested to work on a Modality of Policy Assistance that broadly defines the scope of the policy assistance needed in the country and the required profile of the policy officer or the technical expert. The development of this Modality of Policy Assistance was a joint exercise between the Government, European Union delegation and the FAO Representation in each country.

95 The FAO global programme has a large number of countries active at any one time and is implemented in unstable environments characterized by fluctuations in political agenda, changing priorities and high staff turnover in institutions.

96 Change in governance of tenure typically occurs over a long time frame of many years, and opportunities can arise and close rapidly. A situation that may present opportunities at some point, can become stuck or change because of external factors totally outside the control of FAO.

97 This requires the programme team to regularly monitor the activities and the environment, and to have the capacity to adapt quickly when circumstances dictate, ideally through flexible work planning. A portion of funds which are pooled funds also maximizes the opportunities of the programme.

98 FAO should consult with the government and civil society regarding the funding priorities in the event of sudden changes. As remarked by a survey respondent: “The financial support surrounding the VGGT was never disclosed by FAO to other participants; this was a clear breach of transparency that is one principle of the Guidelines”.

99 Following the initial national workshops in Malawi and Myanmar, the land tenure team in FAO was not able to continue the activities due to a lack of funding opportunities. The risk in such cases is to raise expectations without being able to fulfil them. In Myanmar


25

the stakeholders found other sources of support for the land policy and land use planning priority development programmes while in 2015 and 2016 FAO re-entered with valuable in-country learning programs. In Malawi, the FAO Country Office used the momentum created by the VGGT Programme to find additional resources and continue the work. The support of FAO to land governance in Malawi has now become one of the priorities of the country programme, and FAO is recognized as a leader on this theme in the country. As a respondent from Malawi said in the online survey: “The VGGT’s have also helped to position FAO as a reference point for land governance activities in Malawi, and I believe globally as well”.

Coordination

100 The presence of a team at headquarters is fundamental to coordinate and facilitate technical assistance to the country offices. This appears to have worked effectively during the first phase of the programme. The programme team in headquarters was also fundamental to facilitating fundraising for the countries, as this is a difficult task at country level.

101 The programme team has been very effective in coordinating country support with the different technical units within FAO. This support was generally provided in an efficient and timely manner, and was of good quality.

3.3 To what extent have the actions undertaken by FAO in the context of the VGGT implementation contributed to the intended outcome of “Improved frameworks for regulating the tenure of land, fisheries and forests based on wide participation, non-discrimination, transparency and mutual accountability”?

102 This section is structured around the three aspects of the framework presented earlier in the report: policy, institutional and operational.

Policy and legal framework

103 Given that adopting a new framework on tenure takes considerable effort and time, the progress on improving the political and legal framework on land tenure is good for all countries visited by the evaluation team. However, the programme has been less effective in general in the fisheries and forestry sectors.

104 Out of the six countries visited by the evaluation team, five26 have included principles of responsible governance of tenure in policies, laws or activities, as a result of the VGGT Programme activities. Uganda already had an adequate framework while Mongolia has started to expand their legal framework by including the management of the vast pasture lands.

105 In Sierra Leone and Myanmar, there was no policy on land when the programme started, and the programme contributed to the development of new land policy that was passed by the respective cabinets in early 2016. However in both cases the land policies were not yet promulgated by the end of 2016.27 In Myanmar, it is not yet clear whether the government will proceed to pass a new “umbrella” land law to enact the land use policy, as was the intention of the previous government. Civil society was active in advocating and disseminating information during the drafting of the land policy through their networks on the approved land policy in both countries. In addition, in Myanmar civil society was active in convening nation-wide workshops, systematic collection of feedback and comments and offering these in a structured manner.

26 Guatemala, Myanmar, Senegal, Sierra Leone and Uganda

27 In Sierra Leone the land policy was substantially assisted by FAO Global Programme. In Myanmar the Global Programme provided the awareness raising and technical training on VGGT to participants in the land use policy formulation, but the actual direct support to the land policy development was by external funding from SDC, EU, USAID and LIFT.


26

Box 3: Policy support in Sierra Leone

A comprehensive assessment of the land, fisheries and forestry sectors, exploring the reality on the ground and identifying existing gaps and inconsistencies with the VGGT principles was carried out. The assessments’ recommendations were used to guide the design and revision of several national laws and policies:

The new National Land Policy approved by the Cabinet in 2015 include the full set of VGGT principles and refers to VGGT in more than 90 paragraphs. In addition, the Government is using VGGT as the main reference document for tenure governance reform by screening acts and bills from a VGGT perspective. Examples are: the Fisheries Policy and the Fisheries Development Strategy, the Forestry Act, the General Registration Act, the Registration of Instruments Act and the Constitutional Review process.

A national plan for community-based forestry management, which makes strong reference to VGGT, has also been developed, based on an inclusive consulting process across the country.

To ensure an inclusive implementation process, an implementation plan for the new National Land Policy has been developed, with technical support from FAO. This places specific focus on strengthening land administration and capacities for effective land use management throughout the country.

106 In Senegal, the VGGT Programme contributed to the revision of the land tenure policy, through high level engagement with the National Commission for Tenure Reform and successful partnership with civil society organizations.

107 In Guatemala, the Agrarian Policy was approved in 2014, including VGGT principles as a result of FAO support. However, political crises and changes in the government delayed the implementation of the policy. According to the interviewees, as of the end of 2016 no concrete action had been taken by the government to implement the policies.

108 In Mongolia, the assessment of the forestry law and the draft pastoral land protection law conducted by FAO are necessary steps to an improved legal framework. Extensive stakeholder involvement in the assessment of the pastoral land protection law was very important to obtain a consensus on a complex subject. While this process is not yet completed, it nonetheless has made good progress.

109 In relation to work on fisheries and forestry, the first phase of the programme included fewer activities related to the governance of fisheries, and forest tenure was less prominent in Phase 1 of the global programme. Already at the time of the development of the guidelines, the evaluation of FAO’s work on tenure had noted that “there was a sense that the fisheries and forestry communities do not have the same level of ownership as the agricultural land and farming community”.

110 However there were very good results in Uganda on forestry pilot activities,28 and in Sierra Leone the legal and policy assessment covered land, fisheries and forest tenure. Forest tenure assessments were also undertaken in Mongolia, Viet Nam and Uganda. In the fisheries sector, there remains a need to raise awareness and to present the VGGTs and the small-scale fisheries guidelines as a combined package. In some ways, the small-scale fisheries guidelines may have paved the way for better integration of VGGT in the fisheries sector.

Institutional framework

111 The institutional framework for governance of tenure includes those institutions that implement and enforce the laws and policies. The institutional framework, whether formal or informal, comprises an extensive range of systems and processes to administer. The processes include the transfer of rights in land from one party to another through sale,

28 Following the pilot project the Commissioner of Forests of Uganda expressed her strong commitment to this approach for the aim of greatly increasing the forest cover of the country which had dropped from 25 percent to 9 percent in the last 25 years.


27

lease, loan, gift and inheritance; the regulating of land and property development; the use and conservation of the land; the gathering of revenues from the land through sales, leasing and taxation; and the resolving of conflicts concerning the ownership and the use of land.

112 In most countries there was not a suitable existing institutional framework for policy development or reform of the governance of tenure, especially for providing a foundation for wide stakeholder engagement. Moreover, the existing institutional framework for delivery of governance of tenure was through the long existing government organizations. The VGGT Programme addressed the former but did not address the latter with the exception of Sierra Leone.

113 It is more usual that convincing arguments for structural change of organizations involved in governance of tenure can be given as part of a reform of services. Internal reorganization is best tackled as part of the downstream activities of service delivery activities; this could be in decentralization or in functional reallocation to one or more organizations.

114 The establishment or strengthening of formal structures for the engagement of government and civil society in policy development was very effective and progressive. In most cases policy on land, fisheries and forestry had not been made before with such a formal arrangement. In any reform it is best to include all stakeholders but too often it is undertaken by Government alone which results in less than effective and inclusive policies and often realizes resistance, conflict and delays.

115 The programme brought together groups that had previously not communicated and allowed a wide exchange of views and experiences to enrich the discussions. Surprisingly it was not only civil society members inter-acting with government staff but also government staff engaging with other government staff from other agencies.

116 In the online survey, “involvement/dialogue with all stakeholders” and “maintain the frameworks for multi-stakeholder dialogue”, were the most frequently mentioned aspect of the programme to be continued/reinforced in the second phase.

117 The stakeholder platforms in Sierra Leone and Senegal are good models for wide and deep engagements. There are committees at both technical level and policy level and including Ministerial level (see Box below). In Mongolia and Uganda, a working group/secretariat was established; it is the only active operational stakeholder group. The absence of active Ministerial level committee of stakeholders in both countries is a limitation.

Operational framework

118 In all developing countries, the available resources for governance of tenure are very limited, especially for the services to be delivered locally. In most VGGT countries, the service delivery at the local level is still a big challenge. Therefore, it is very important that processes and methodologies are practical and sustainable at the local level. Policies and laws need to recognize the realities of limited resources and especially infrastructure and human resources at the local level.

119 The VGGT Programme did not include in its scope sweeping changes to service delivery and operations. However, the programme implemented pilot projects in suitable countries which are usually a precursor to changes in operational frameworks.

120 These projects are very useful in refining the approach on service delivery to match the resources with the service delivery targets, to take advantage of opportunities and to shape the regulatory framework for implementing the policy.

121 In Uganda, which already had a progressive legal and policy arrangement, the immediate concern of the government was proving a viable approach to securing land tenure in customary lands which were untitled. The pilot project funded under the VGGT Programme


28

achieved its purpose. This was done by extending the existing “Open Tenure” system rather than depending on a much more complex solution based on the National Land Information System at the Central or Zonal level. As a result, the government is for the first time confident that an approach has been designed which will allow the issuing of secure tenure over customary lands according to the wishes of the local people; the VGGT Programme has added great value in this endeavour. Box 4 provides more information on the customary tenure pilot project.

122 The introduction of appropriate technology is important so that laborious and time-consuming tasks are streamlined and records keeping is more accurate and complete. It is also important to have the work conducted locally but this can be a challenge. During the Ugandan Certificate of Customary Ownership pilot, an assessment made in October 2016 stated that “all in all, it is important to note that IT support to sub counties and land office cannot be availed for now”. At Kasese the report noted “it was observed that the district committees have not IT and thus don’t know how to use computer tablets to capture claims. This was because all tabs are kept at the district”. This is not unusual for a pilot stage but it emphasizes that moving from pilot to production and maintaining an inclusive approach is a big challenge and must be planned very well and very realistically.

123 In Uganda the two pilots have demonstrated that FAO can provide support for the implementation of the laws and policies, in this case on customary land and forest rights. These pilot projects gave very concrete benefits to the Ugandan people and were an effective use of the funds.

124 A feature of many successful pilot projects is close monitoring; to avoid surprises; to adjust the methods and apply innovative solutions quickly to improve efficiency; and to take advantage of emerging opportunities. As a result of close monitoring, difficulties in using unfamiliar technology were found and the project responded quickly so that the work could be operated locally.

Box 4: Certificate of Customary Ownership in Uganda

Approximately 80 percent of land owners in Uganda do not have land titles and their rights remain unregistered. To strengthen tenure security and make land titles more accessible to individuals at the community level, particularly women and vulnerable groups, the 1995 Constitution and the 1998 Land Act provide for the acquisition of Customary Certificates of Ownership (CCO). A CCO is primarily a demarcated freehold title. While the law provides for issuance of tenure documents on customary land, the problem has been the political will to implement the law as well as the unknown risks of implementing a new process. On the other hand, the current government was keen to see the successful implementation of an intervention to support improved tenure security on agricultural land under customary tenure. Indeed, while the approach for issuing a CCO is prescribed in considerable detail, no formal methodology or process has been established by government in practice. Very few personnel within the land administration institutions are familiar with the CCOs and the guidance from the government has been extremely limited.

The focus of the VGGT activities on building capacities of the Area Land Committees is seen as one of the success factors of the VGGT pilot on customary land. The quality control system and the Area Land Committees ensured that the district could issue the CCO with confidence, and this was a big difference to earlier efforts. Another factor of success was the sensitization of the local administration, traditional leaders and the community. The conflict resolution approach was practical in meeting the people’s expectations. The message reached the national government institutions (including courts and parliamentarians) that the approach was successful. Awareness raising was enhanced beyond the community entry programme by radio talk shows and pre-recorded messages. Demarcation using local plants is entirely suitable for most situations – it is natural, low cost and fits with tradition.

As reported in interviews, the work has progressed well and has strong support from both local administration and the community. The capacity building model using university senior year students in the field to instruct local appointed people and members of the Area Land Committees was very innovative and effective. The government now sees that a long-term plan must be prepared emphasizing demand-driven, low unit cost, consistent quality and using local capacity.

Beyond tenure security and resolution of disputes, the evaluation team was told that already financial institutions have started to issue loans to willing land owners by using the CCO as collateral.


29

125 The other pilot project on issuing and registering community and private forest rights in Uganda was conducted under the leadership of the Commissioner of Forests. Following the forestry law and guidelines, 50 private and 4 community forests rights were clarified, demarcated, forest management plans and other documentation prepared and submitted to the government for registration of these forests. The method and results were well documented. The success of the pilot project has given the government confidence to expand the work to other places for many more beneficiaries. It is hoped that this will create a sustainable increase in forest land cover in the long-term, as well as provide greater incomes and local timber supplies.

126 The government agencies for each pilot project expressed their appreciation to the evaluation team and their intention to continue to expand the pilot projects. However, as stated above, it remains to be seen how these pilots will be scaled up and who can provide the funding. The risk factors in any planned roll-out of titling are always the unit cost, the price to the land owner and the capacity for sustainable maintenance of the cadastral records. Also, the capacity to manage a large programme of roll-out and including the management of people, quality of service and budget can be very challenging. The government will want to involve FAO in guiding it in this roll-out and in the involvement of other donors.

127 Sierra Leone has a weak land administration operation and there is much to be done to establish an effective operational framework. Civil society hopes that after the next election the incoming government will promulgate the land policy, revise the land-related laws and take leadership in reforming the land administration system as a whole, in partnership with civil society. It is strongly recommended that donors get behind such a movement and supply well experienced and qualified land administration experts and trainers in a coordinated and integrated manner. Isolated donor support on parts of the land administration system might even make matters worse. The second concern in this process of reform is that elite capture of the process is to be avoided, and the VGGT principle of inclusiveness applied very seriously.

Box 5: Urgent need to fully address the condition of Land Administration in Sierra Leone

On land records, only about 200 000 parcels have been surveyed (potentially about 1 500 000 in the country) and the land survey school has been closed for 20 years. Court cases are mostly on land; figures given were 35 percent of High Court cases and 50 percent of Magistrate Court cases. In June 2016 the World Bank Country Manager stated at the third VGGT workshop that land disputes comprised 50 percent of cases at provincial level.

There have been many cases of land evictions without any due process, without full information and without fair compensation (compensation is fixed by order of the government and the farmer receives half of the lowly amount of USD 12 per hectare).

In Sierra Leone the banks do not loan on land tenure in the provinces. It was estimated by one NGO in Sierra Leone that there is a very high level of bad quality land documents: as high as 60 percent. There are many cases of multiple claimants for land.

With a market-led economy the people with less knowledge and education are at a disadvantage. The farmers and the district traditional and formal representatives need better knowledge on land rights and the rights of women. A reformed land administration service is urgently needed.

128 In Myanmar the legal framework has yet to be revised.29 Accordingly, changes in the operational framework have not progressed very far. There have been some small pilot projects in the land sector under the existing laws while waiting for the new land policy to be promulgated and the laws revised (e.g. LAMP, which was implemented by UN Habitat with Livelihood and Food Security Trust (LIFT) funding; pilot projects in land use planning by the European Union; and pilot projects on village level land inventory and planning under the United States Agency for International Development).

29 This was the case at end of 2016 but it must be recognized that in 2017 the National Assembly of Myanmar is revising the Farmland Law, the VFV law and the Land Acquisition Act.


30

129 In Mongolia it is too early to address reform of the tenure service operations. Major changes to the legal framework on pastoral lands are needed, as well as a national land policy. These changes would guide reforms of the land administration operations. But it can be noted that an innovative approach to land management was designed and pilot tested by Administration of Land Affairs, Geodesy and Cartography of Mongolia (ALAGAC), the country’s survey and mapping agency. A provisional regulation was developed by using the VGGT training for the organization to produce local level resource maps for planning and administration purposes. These could be formalized in the new land policy.

130 In Senegal, the current projects included pilot activities on conflict resolution and local governance, in order to test methods for implementing the new policy. Interventions are also moving towards more inclusion and participation at the local level, with the creation of local platforms and the involvement of mayors and local officials (who are in charge of the management of tenure in rural areas).

3.4 Where improved frameworks have been adopted, how has this translated into better governance of tenure of land, fisheries and/or forests, in particular for vulnerable and marginalized people at the local level, and what is the contribution of FAO?

131 This section relates to the impact of the VGGT Programme, in terms of improving the governance of land, fisheries and forests. In the programme logframe, the indicator for the impact is: “Number of countries in which improved governance of tenure has contributed to the eradication of hunger and poverty, to sustainable development and to the sustainable use of the environment.”

132 In order for the “improved framework” to lead to better access to land, the laws will have to be enforced and policies implemented. For this to happen, resources and capacities should be in place for local service delivery of governance of tenure programmes.

133 While most focus countries are on the right course, it is still too early to observe the impact of access to land on the local people, and on reducing hunger and poverty. Considering the scope of the programme – with a focus on awareness raising and land policy development during Phase 1 – this evaluation question may not be appropriate at this stage.

134 The link of poverty to low security of tenure is often debated and must be considered relative to the unique characteristics of each community or country. If a form of land tenure is imposed that differs from the traditional tenure arrangements, there can be major disturbances to well-known farming methods and to motivation. In the worst-case scenario, this can lead to disputes and violence. Most developing countries are characterized by a wealthy elite and a large number of poor, for whom land is the greatest asset and often the main source of food; at the same time, their poor education and alternative livelihood opportunities make them vulnerable to loss of their land. The inequitable distribution of wealth in these countries is often due to strong vested interests. In the long-term, better tenure security in an area should result in fewer people in poverty and hungry (especially for the less educated and more vulnerable) while also conserving the environment.

135 In order to analyse the results on improved governance, it is important to have a clear definition of the concept. For example, better governance can be reflected in civil society’s confidence in government activities; improved service delivery of tenure; and better engagement of all stakeholders across society, among each other and with government. These changes usually take time since they require breaking down long established ‘barriers’: the period of a project is too short for a complete cycle of reform to be completed.

136 At country level, a long-term vision is necessary to ensure that the changes in policy, institutional and operational frameworks do not stop at central level and do not include only certain sections of society. This should be done in coordination with other donors, since significant amounts of resources are needed.


31

137 The multi-stakeholder platform i) provides a degree of transparency that the reforms are distributed across the country and for all people; and ii) ensures confidence and dialogue between government and other actors. The contributions of the programme to the establishment of an improved dialogue on governance of tenure among the different actors are presented below.

138 The establishment of formal structures for the engagement of government and civil society – such as the multi-stakeholder platforms and steering committee – is a positive step towards including all relevant stakeholders. Reforms are too often undertaken by government alone, which results in less effective and inclusive policies and often resistance, conflict and delays.

139 In all cases analysed by the evaluation, the engagement of civil society had been greatly increased and their knowledge greatly enhanced. The motivation and confidence shown by civil society was impressive and civil society was made to feel empowered.

140 This was seen, for example, in civil society taking on its own programmes of awareness raising in sub-national venues with other civil society groups, and by including tenure topics in radio programmes using the knowledge gained under the global VGGT Programme. Ultimately this aspect may be more significant than the influence on government.

141 Civil society has formed links with their counterparts in the government by virtue of working together on the stakeholder platforms and in joint training courses. These relationships have materially assisted in greater understanding and less distrust between government and civil society.

142 In Mongolia, civil society has undertaken key studies which would normally be undertaken by government alone, such as the study on pastoral land act. Some civil society representatives in Mongolia stated that following the VGGT activities, it is much easier to discuss tenure-related issues with government. The government also initiated a local land use and land tenure mapping and land use planning process from the bottom up, which is inclusive and was designed by applying the VGGT principles.

143 The formulation of land policy in Sierra Leone by a joint effort of civil society and government produced a much better product and in the process gave each side a better appreciation of the other. The programme brought together some groups that had previously not communicated.

144 The stakeholder platforms in Sierra Leone and Senegal are good models for wide and deep engagements. There are committees at technical level, policy level and ministerial level (see Box 6 below). In Mongolia and Uganda, a working group/secretariat was established, and is the only active operational stakeholder group. The absence of active ministerial level committee of stakeholders in both countries is a limitation.

Box 6: Multi-Stakeholder Platforms in Sierra Leone and Senegal

Sierra Leone

An Inter-Ministerial Task Force, Steering Committee, Technical Working Group and a Secretariat was defined in a concept note which was endorsed by stakeholders after the first Multi-Stakeholder Platform Workshop. All committees have met regularly after holding their inaugural meetings in May 2015 and continue to meet on a monthly (Technical Working Group) and quarterly (Steering Committee and Task Force) basis.

Senegal

A national platform was created by FAO after the first national workshop. It includes more than 100 representatives from governmental and non-governmental institutions. A Steering Committee, co-chaired by the Ministry of Agriculture and the CSO network Conseil National de concertation et de coopération des ruraux (CNCR), oversees the VGGT related activities in the country. The Steering Committee meets regularly and reports to the national platform once a year during the national workshops. There is no official document defining the tasks and responsibilities of the national platform or the steering committee.


32

145 In Myanmar, the initiative of the Food Security Working Group in setting up the “Land Core Group” should be recognized as good practice. This is because the Land Core Group serves an important function for civil society in a country with very pressing tenure problems. The maintenance of its knowledge website is to be applauded. Its network of members holds regular meetings and its engagement with donors, government and civil society is extensive. FAO has engaged with the Land Core Group in the execution of activities under the VGGT Programme, in particular increased awareness raising, the assessment of capacities for the implementation of the National Land Use Policy and the due diligence process in investments in agricultural land for private sector entities. The Land Core Group model could be followed by other countries looking to build more effective civil society land networks, such as Uganda, Sierra Leone and Mongolia.

146 According to survey respondents, the capacity of the programme to bring together different actors is one of its main strengths (see Figure 4).

Figure 4: Main strengths of FAO VGGT Programme (online survey)

Source: Results from the VGGT online survey, based on 76 respondents

3.5 To what extent has awareness of the voluntary guidelines improved at global, regional and national level, as a result of FAO interventions?

147 Together with capacity development, this component has been highly prioritized in Phase 1 (rightly so, given that the VGGT was a new tool). Awareness raising activities which facilitated this outcome included VGGT awareness raising workshops in country and in the regions, including some funded and implemented by civil society, as well as communications by radio programmes.

148 In total, according to the programme team, during the period under consideration, 4 641 people attended national workshops, and 641 people attended regional workshops, in five different regions. Also 22 videos were produced, as well as 14 flyers and brochures.


33

149 The awareness raising activities were effective in making those in government and civil society aware of the VGGT and its meaning to their workplace, and encouraging these people to spread the word. The result was the formation of a highly motivated group of stakeholders that could engage with both the community and the government.

150 As shown in Figure 4 above, FAO’s efforts in raising awareness and the organization of national workshops were mentioned by the survey respondents as strengths of the programme. The national workshops were extremely useful in raising awareness and gathering all stakeholders at the same table, sometimes for the first time. As one survey respondent said: “My experience of the awareness raising workshop shows that clearly FAO has managed to bring key stakeholders on board in the implementation of the VGGT - a key aspect for domestication of the VGGT in my country”.

151 Another objective of these workshops was to assess the situation in relation to governance of tenure in each country, in consultation with all relevant stakeholders. At the end of the workshop, participants were required to reflect and agree on a roadmap with priorities for action in the country, in relation to the objective of the programme to improve governance of tenure. This enabled the programme team to adapt the interventions to specific needs.

152 Consciousness and awareness raising of the VGGT have provided government and non-government stakeholders alike with the new insights to address long standing problems.

153 The impact of the awareness raising activities on civil society persons engaged in governance of tenure was profound. One person in Mongolia said: “It was like a light bulb turning on”. Indeed, the VGGT captured the deep thoughts of many people and provided a framework for those thoughts to be shared. The overall impression was that, in Mongolia, for example, the exposure of the VGGT to stakeholders has impacted many professionals on a personal and professional level

154 In Sierra Leone, some NGOs are already replicating the training using their own resources. For example, Mr Joseph Rahall of Green Scenery showed a short video clip at the third VGGT Workshop (June 2016) covering their Training of Trainers programme for cascading VGGT principles to the local level, and talked about CSO activism efforts to bring VGGT principles and issues to the local level.

155 In Uganda, the programme started from a low base of understanding of stakeholders on the principles of VGGT, and after two years the key stakeholders had a firm grasp of the VGGT. This facilitated a progression to the pilot activity on Certificate of Customary Ownership, as initially there was resistance and wariness by civil society. The pilot project on customary tenure began correctly with sensitization of the local officials, traditional leaders and the community. The high level support and participation is evidence of the success of the awareness raising. The importance of the information and communication components for the community is a key lesson from all successful mass titling programmes.

156 While the impact of the awareness raising activities is clear, some online survey respondents complained about the lack of preparedness and knowledge of the country context by the programme team in these national workshops. For example, one said: “The FAO workshops are totally detached from the realities of the country. The FAO staff involved have no knowledge of the national context […]. I think that much more can be achieved if FAO were to deploy or work with people with strong national experience and understanding”.

157 The survey also shows that many stakeholders are advocating for more activities at local level. The lack of structure to decentralize the VGGTs awareness and implementation was noted as one of the main weaknesses of the programme, as shown in the figure below.


34

Figure 5: Main weaknesses of FAO VGGT Programme (online survey)


158 Indeed, in reaching out to local stakeholders the programme makes an impact close to the people. This was undertaken for example in Sierra Leone by NGOs that used and adapted FAO’s materials (see Box 7). This shows that there is strong commitment outside of FAO to roll-out the VGGTs, even to the community level. This is a factor that will positively affect the sustainability of the programme.

Box 7: VGGT sensitization with traditional leaders, local authorities and youth at the local level in Sierra Leone

FAO, together with the Ministry of Lands, the University of Makeni and four CSOs sensitized targeted stakeholders (Paramount Chiefs, local government authorities, youth and women leaders and religious leaders) in the provinces of Sierra Leone through one-day VGGT sensitization events. Information was provided on the VGGT provisions as well as on the content of the National Land Policy. The following meetings were held:

• Kambia: Local replication of VGGT Learning Programme on “Governing Land for Men and Women” for relevant stakeholders in Kambia District (June 2016);

• Makeni: Public lecture at University of Makeni on VGGT and tenure governance issues in Sierra Leone for 170 students (November 2016);

• Bo: VGGT-sensitization for 90 traditional leaders and local authorities from the South (November 2016);

• Makeni: VGGT-sensitization for 60 traditional leaders and local authorities from the North (November 2016).


35

159 Another example of sustaining the dissemination of the VGGT at local level was shown by capacity building for CSOs in Sierra Leone: in a four-day training of trainers course, the modular framework30 for CSO capacity development on the VGGT was provided to increase the use of the guidelines by civil society organizations. A total of 20 civil society representatives were trained as trainers, and subsequently to implement four additional training replications in the provinces. The training of trainers helped participants to link the VGGT to their own situation and to prepare plans for using the guidelines in their work. Additionally, training participants sensitized the public on the VGGT by taking part in radio and television programmes. The four replications took place in Freetown (Western Area), Port Loko (Northern Province), Daru (Eastern Province) and Pujehun (Southern Province).

160 Some respondents of the online survey also mentioned that there is a need to improve the outreach to people at the community level through TV programmes or other multi-media actors (including those also at local level), as well as to include other types of partners (e.g. Ministry of Justice, law enforcement authorities, media) and ensure more involvement of the private sector.

161 While in the countries included in the first phase the focus was logically on the national level, now stakeholders at local level need to be involved in order to ensure that all actors who have a role in the implementation of the revised policy or legal frameworks are adequately prepared. In other countries, awareness raising at national level will still need to be done.

Box 8: Quotations from the online survey on the involvement of other actors and the necessary move to local level

« [The programme] should continue this type of knowledge building training, but also prepare local trainers and conduct local training in locations where land administration is weak »

« [The programme] should perform more outreach activities through TV programmes or other multimedia actions. Since FAO cannot intervene directly to implement the VGGT in the country, they should use public media such as TV, newspaper and internet for awareness raising. »

« While some awareness raising workshop have been held in the country, the main participants have been government and civil society. The private sector presence and input is lacking. This is concerning as the private sector is leading investments in agriculture in Africa and they are not really aware of the VGGT and their responsibilities regarding responsible investment and being sensitive to land tenure and community issues. »

« A suggestion is to run awareness raising workshops and capacity building workshops specifically for the private sector. »

« The major problems of land tenure occur in the remote rural communities. And until these community people are fully sensitized on the relevance of VGGT tools, the problem of land tenure will never be resolved. »

3.6 To what extent has the VGGT Programme enhanced the capacity of decision makers and other stakeholders to improve the governance of tenure in their countries?

162 Through the VGGT Programme, FAO has developed and delivered training at global, regional and national levels. The VGGT training material is consistent with other training packages developed by FAO and leverages the organization’s existing training infrastructure. Features of the capacity development activities and reference materials are detailed in the box below.

30 This modular framework has also been used in Mongolia, Myanmar, Senegal, Guatemala, Liberia, Malawi, Niger and South Africa. It has been developed in collaboration with FIAN International under the FMM/GLO/111/MUL project (funded by Belgium).


36

Box 9: Features of the capacity development efforts

Learning Needs Assessment/Curriculum Design - the design of the capacity development included a consultative workshop to identify target participants and their knowledge needs as well as the existing and new training materials required. Based on the curriculum subject experts were commissioned to develop the training material:

• courses for a mix of stakeholders;• courses for a specific target audience such as private sector investors;• blended learning approach for adult learning: online; face-to-face; post-workshop online

mentoring;• available in English, French, Spanish and local languages.

Learning Programme Flexibility - tailoring of the programmes for each country depending on progress on reform and opportunities for VGGT interventions.

Learning Programme Delivery with Local Partners - improved quality of events and technology transfer to partner training course providers are dual outcomes from partnerships.

Learning Programme Participants - careful selection of participants was implemented. Criteria included:

• relevance of VGGT to their work place;• decision makers;• supervision or influencing of others;• able to spread the knowledge wider;• other (e.g. gender balance, central and local levels).

Reference Materials - FAO produced a number of VGGT specialized knowledge products or technical guides:

• respecting free, prior and informed consent (TG3: FAO, 2014);• governing land for women and men (TG1: FAO, 2013);• improving Governance of Forest Tenure (TG2: FAO 2013);• safeguarding Tenure Rights in the Context of Agricultural Investment (TG4: FAO 2015);• responsible Governance of Tenure and the Law (TG5: FAO 2016);• improving Governance of Pastoral Lands (TG6: FAO 2016);• responsible Governance of Tenure: a technical guide for investors (TG7: FAO 2016).

163 According to the available statistics, 16 489 learners distributed across six regions have taken one or more of the eight VGGT courses freely available online. The participants came from many different organizations, such as government, NGOs, international NGOs, private sector, academia and individuals.

164 In the interviews conducted in-country by the evaluation team, participants praised the quality of the courses and their integration with other VGGT activities. Participants not only mentioned the knowledge gained, but also the confidence gained from the programmes to undertake their advocacy and engagement with other stakeholders.

165 The impact of the capacity development rests with the quality of the training course material and the quality of the delivery including the selection of the most suitable participants representing stakeholders in the tenure sectors. Those people are likely to continue the expansion and application of the VGGT awareness raising at central and local levels.

166 Indeed, during the country visits, the evaluation found that the choice of participants was excellent: the participants influenced others and made changes in the work place, including in some cases at decentralized level. Among the learning programme participants, some 342, were specifically identified as “change agents” by the capacity development team.


37

167 The influence of leading civil society groups is normally recognized in-country. These groups have the ability to use local networks and to reach outside the capital city, while also contributing to the sustainability of stakeholder engagement once the intervention is completed.

168 The method of working through local civil society groups is applauded as a good practice. There are now many persons in each country motivated and knowledgeable in tenure security, with the ability to further their knowledge through sources on the internet.

169 Also, the learning programmes were highly adapted to the context, through needs assessments and pre-training analysis. The tailoring of training courses to local norms and the use of interactive workshops with stakeholders was a good approach. Holding a training programme prior to the awareness raising workshops proved to be an excellent approach to ensure high-level participation during the workshop and achieve better results.

170 The capacity development component of the programme successfully facilitated the development of training material, the adaptation of this material to the needs and the local context (through needs assessments), the organization of training prior to national workshops, the creation of local partnerships and the identification of change agents. These initiatives developed capacities while also building motivation, empowerment, partnerships and sustainability.

171 In some cases, the training materials were translated into local languages (e.g. Nepalese, Mongolian). Translation into local language is not often done in FAO, and this initiative was an important step towards ensuring ownership of the documentation and process by a larger and more diverse number of people. The translation of some concepts in governance of tenure were very challenging, as it was concluded that proper and meaningful translation is much more than a technical task. It requires the involvement of different actors. It should however be done in priority countries where FAO is providing long-term support, since the translated documentation should be accompanied by assistance for VGGT implementation.

172 Regional cross-visits can also be seen as innovative and very productive for capacity building. Cross-visits between Sierra Leone and Liberia were praised by the participants because similar problems were identified and solutions could be compared and new ideas formed. Innovations in cross-country visits and regional workshops complemented very well the in-country programmes, and these had a maximum impact on civil society members who had never before been exposed to CSOs from other countries.

173 While statistics were available about the online courses and learning programmes, and participants of these courses were interviewed by the evaluation team, the knowledge and use of the technical guides and the “People’s Manual on the Guidelines on Governance of Land, Fisheries and Forests” (Manual Popular) were only possible to assess through the online survey. The results of the survey are reported below, together with some quotes from respondents.

174 Regarding the general opinion of the Manual Popular, almost 70 percent of the respondents said that it was very useful due to the fact that it facilitates the appropriation of the voluntary guidelines by people with little experience or a low level of education. The majority of respondents who did not know of the manual were from governments and other development agencies.


38

Figure 6: Opinion of the People’s Manual on the Guidelines on Governance of Land, Fisheries and Forests


175 Most survey respondents gave very positive feedback on the manual. For example: “The manual gives clear information on what national governments and partner states should do so as to fit in the local, national, and global context”. Or: “It has enabled us to see how civil society can use the VGGT to advocate for land governance”.

176 Considering the awareness and use of the technical guides and the online courses (Figure 5), the results of the survey indicated that more respondents were aware of the technical guides than the online courses: 75.5 percent vs 59.6 percent respectively, in general terms, and 91.9 percent vs 56.6 percent respectively, in relation to all publications.31 This difference might reflect issues related to internet availability, as pointed out by some respondents in their comments.

177 Despite the difference in rate of awareness, the rate of use (percentage of respondents who actually used the technical guides or online courses among those who were aware of them) for technical guidelines and online courses were similar: 52.5 percent for technical guides and 52.1 percent for online courses. In other words, half of the people who know of these materials have used them.

178 Civil society, private sector and other development agencies reported an inverse pattern in relation to rate of use – they showed a higher use of online courses than of the technical guidelines; for government respondents, the rate of use of the technical guides is slightly higher than for online courses.

179 The figure below shows the levels of awareness and use of the technical guides and online courses by the survey respondents.

31 The rate of awareness in relation to all publication/courses shows the average percentage of respondents who were aware about all technical guides/courses available in all languages.


39

Figure 7: Awareness and use of technical guides and online courses

180 Regarding the dissemination and knowledge about these courses, some respondents complained about the lack of dissemination: “It is amazing to me that although I have worked on these issues for many years, I have not been exposed to these [online] courses. If I, as a person whose work is centrally concerned with the VGGT, has not come across these - then how broad is your reach? I do worry about that.”

181 “These guides are indeed very useful documents but most private sector is not aware of them. More work on marketing and promoting the use of these documents to private sector is needed and can be done through existing agriculture conferences and chambers in various countries. These should also be distributed at various agriculture conferences and forums”.

182 Similarly to the awareness raising activities, the evaluation team noted that the reach to provincial-based stakeholders was not deep in general, and this should be addressed in the future phases of the programme.


40

183 In order to ensure sustainability, local capacity should be established (training of trainers) to deliver the VGGT courses, and to build relationships and trust through the stakeholder platform. This would enable government to access such trainings from non-governmental organizations. This is already being considered by the programme managers, who are trying to establish partnerships with local organizations and organize training of trainers.32

184 Some governments experienced high staff turnover, especially senior staff, such as in Mongolia after the last elections in 2016. Trained staff leave and new staff enter, which necessitates additional training courses for key staff engaged in the VGGT Programme. This further underscores the importance of building local training capacity in VGGT.

3.7 How efficiently has the programme drawn from FAO’s technical expertise to provide targeted support to the countries?

185 FAO has deep institutional knowledge of the land, fisheries and forestry sectors in-house, and in its knowledge libraries. It has a large number of well-qualified consultants who provide specialist inputs. These consultants are both knowledge experts and highly experienced in development and in specific countries and regions, while some can be classified as global experts.

186 The VGGT Programme has sought to draw on FAO’s technical expertise across the different technical departments within FAO, and the evaluation team found evidence of strong collaboration throughout FAO to support the programme.

187 In the survey, knowledge exchange and missions from FAO headquarters were recognized as very useful activities in supporting the implementation of the VGGTs (see figure below). The technical ability/expertise of FAO’s staff was said to be another of the main strengths of the programme.

188 According to some respondents, the VGGT Programme has helped to position FAO as a reference (and neutral) point for governance of tenure activities in national and global levels.

Figure 8: Usefulness of several activities in supporting the implementation of the VGGTs (online survey)

189 The innovations in Uganda – in both customary land rights recognition and in issuance of forest leases – required FAO to bring best practices and appropriate methods to an existing situation that was not conducive to securing rights. Both international and local expertise were mobilized for the reforms and pilot projects used to demonstrate the approach.

32 See VGGT Programme document Phase 2: “There is a need to invest in the sustainability of such programmes, through training of trainers and collaboration with grassroots organizations, training institutions and academia”.


41

190 In Sierra Leone and Senegal, the creation of a full-time expatriate coordinator position was a major benefit to the implementation of the activities for the VGGT Programme in the country. The coordinator benefited from access to FAO resources and expertise at headquarters. The assigning of a local professional was also an important initiative. The programme could not have achieved its objectives without filling these positions.

191 In addition, FAO’s legal office provided a timely review of the draft Fisheries Act for Sierra Leone, although at the time of the evaluation visit, the act had not yet been approved by the Sierra Leone Department of Justice.

192 In Mongolia there were mixed results. Assistance from Rome-based specialists supported local consultants to prepare comments on the draft pastoral land protection act, and on the existing forestry law. The former assessment was well done and there was an extensive programme of consultations in a large part of the country. In the case of the forestry law assessment, there was a limited budget and the consultant reported that she needed more input from forest specialists. The exposure of the draft forest law assessment was limited and the forest policy development should continue with additional funding.

193 In Myanmar there was very little expert input aside from the national workshop and the CSO training programme. A survey respondent said about Myanmar: “Fly-in fly-out activity. Difficult to integrate in ongoing country-level processes”. An earlier project proposal by FAO could not materialize, and as a result, other development partners and civil society took the lead on implementing the VGGTs in Myanmar, with FAO supporting where it could. Since early 2016, funds were mobilized under the FAO/EU FIRST programme to field a Senior Land Tenure Consultant in two missions in 2016.

194 The land sector in Myanmar was a major focus of the international community, due to the conflict over autonomy claims by many ethnic groups and the extensive number and size of land grabs. Thus, the land sector was already crowded by development assistance in 2013, when the VGGT was launched, and other donors have been providing extensive assistance through international and national consultants (predominantly USAID, SDC and the European Union). The VGGT document was used, and is still used, as an important reference document in these donor-assisted activities.

195 FAO’s legal office (LEGN) has reviewed several draft laws and some policies related to the VGGT Programme, while FAO’s forestry and fisheries departments have also contributed to various country level reviews and assessments. This was seen as strength of the programme: drawing successfully from the expertise available in different parts of FAO.

3.8 To what extent have the partnerships created or facilitated by FAO contributed to the implementation of the voluntary guidelines?

196 In many countries the land, fisheries and forestry sectors are regulated and managed by government in isolation from the user community. Moreover, the kinds of skills and knowledge needed to implement the services are quite demanding and in a situation of low motivation and low remuneration the government sector would benefit greatly from increased dialogue with the private sector. In the management of resources, the full embracing of partnerships between government and interest groups can have a very positive impact on efficiency and inclusiveness. In extreme cases it is indeed necessary to embrace partnership to avoid conflict.

197 In acknowledging these characteristics, the FAO global programme made partnerships a key outcome at country level as well as at regional and global levels.

198 Partnerships were shown to have a significant impact on facilitating innovation and change, strengthening relationships, building knowledge, enhancing trust and confidence, and building a more sustainable platform for long-term development. With regard to the duration of land governance processes, partnerships are even key to ensure long-term continuity after the end of FAO support which is obviously limited in time.


42

199 In Sierra Leone, strong formal and informal partnerships were established among interested donors (Irish, German and World Bank), as a result of the VGGT Programme activities. The donors are now ready to provide support to long-term reforms, under the leadership of FAO.

200 In Uganda, the partnership with the University of Mekerere was very effective in delivering capacity building at the local level during the pilot project on customary land rights. At the University of Makerere in Kampala, the College of Engineering Design is a partner in the technical support and training for the pilot project on Certificate on Customary Ownership issuance. Also, the dean of students is a member of the adjudication certificate committee, the land information system committee and the land law reform committee.

201 Recently in Myanmar, the FIRST Programme has engendered a strong re-engagement by FAO on land issues in Myanmar and in coordination with other donors, such as European Union, SDC, World Bank and Asian Development Bank, as well as LIFT.33 A central planning group inside the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and irrigation was created with support from FAO as well as Asian Development Bank, the World Bank and LIFT. These partnerships are critical to FAO establishing its potential leading role in land and rural development, and to coordinate and plan with government on a sequence of well planned activities, which together add up to a major advance in land sector capacity and service delivery.

202 Because the governance of tenure is complex and highly political on the one hand but also so critical to the lives of the people and the health of the environment and the economy on the other, civil society has a key role to play in the governance of tenure, including: (i) to inform and influence policy and law makers; (ii) to engage with government and business on policy, plans and programmes; (iii) to mobilize other CSOs; (iv) to educate and inform other CSOs, local officials, community leaders and the public; (v) to organize at national and local levels; (vi) to create and disseminate relevant knowledge and training resource materials; (vii) to network with international CSOs; (viii) and to work with development assistance organizations and United Nations agencies.

203 Importantly, civil society formed its own partnerships and networks around land issues because usually each individual organization is too small to influence government, to generate extensive knowledge materials and to have an impact on the sector. However, civil society working together can have a large impact.

204 In Myanmar the Land Core Group network under various funding sources engaged with government on the land policy by hosting cross-country stakeholder forums to discuss the various drafts of the land policy. In Uganda the northern land alliance was very active with regular meetings to discuss land issues.

205 While the VGGT Programme was not central to these two activities, it was a good lesson for other countries where civil society networks are weak and where FAO may consider replicating these good practices of national and regional networks in Myanmar and Uganda, respectively. Civil society networks in governance of tenure were weak in many countries at the start of the VGGT Programme.

206 In some countries, the FAO global programme was complementary to initiatives of other development partners, for example with the World Bank (see Box 10 below).

33 Livelihood and Food Security Trust Fund (LIFT) is a multi-donor trust fund aimed at improving the lives and prospects of rural poor people in Myanmar, with contributions from the United Kingdom, European Union, Australia, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Switzerland, Sweden, and the United States of America. From the private sector, the Mitsubishi Corporation is a donor. To date, the donors have committed more than USD 400 million to LIFT. http://www.lift-fund.org/

http://www.lift-fund.org/


43

Box 10: FAO and the World Bank 34

Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF)

The LGAF and the VGGT complement each other well. The LGAF is the World Bank’s diagnostic tool for identifying the condition of land governance in a country and especially those functions with major weaknesses. It feeds into the process of policy and law reform. The VGGT provides a guideline framework for countries wanting to rewrite their policy on governance of tenure on topics identified in the LGAF and other topics.

In Sierra Leone, FAO’s global programme on the VGGTs provided inputs to the LGAF process, and has potentially paved the way for further investment by the World Bank in the land sector. Meanwhile, in Uganda the FAO global programme has used the findings of the LGAF on the lack of tenure security covering the largest part of the country under customary tenure, and has addressed this in an innovative pilot project that made the national government take notice. In the Senegal river Basin, FAO and IPAR have supported the finalization of the LGAF in Mali and complemented the three LGAF in Mali, Mauritania and Senegal with studies on fisheries and pastoralism. Findings will be used to improve the governance of tenure in the whole basin area.

Land Administration Systems

In some countries, the expected results of the programme may be reached through large projects that completely overhaul land administration systems. Realistically, this type of reform would require World Bank type funding and go beyond the scope of FAO’s resources and expertise; however, FAO could help countries to procure funding and prepare for the reform process by identifying the relevant issues and facilitating discussions among stakeholders. Already in Sierra Leone there have been discussions on a potential intervention by the World Bank, and these discussions have been facilitated and encouraged by FAO.34

Risks

FAO must be aware that its main comparative advantage in the VGGT global programme is its neutrality, and collaboration with other types of donor such as the World Bank is to be done with political sensitivity. The following quote from the Evaluation of FAO’s work on tenure (2012) is relevant here: “There is also a concern about the danger of FAO losing its neutrality when so much work on land tenure is channelled through the World Bank and tied to investment projects. There is evidence that the political sensitivity of land tenure issues leads to reluctance on the part of poor countries to involve the World Bank on account of the perception that it is not an entirely neutral arbiter. This is in contrast to FAO which is generally seen by external stakeholders to be providing neutral technical advice relating to land reform.”

207 It should be noted that UN Habitat has worked closely with the Global Programme in some countries where it is reasonable to do so such as in Nepal. UN Habitat hosts the Global Land Tool Network, which is a useful source of knowledge good practices in land administration and applying information technology.

208 The Global Donor Working Group on Land, and the participation (chairpersonship) of FAO in this group, provides an excellent forum for enhanced coordination and targeted resource mobilization.

209 While partnerships with government are always crucial, it is important to note that it is not sufficient to limit this to central government. While none of the countries studied has a federal system, the land service delivery is decentralized to the local level, and it is necessary to build partnerships with the staff of local level government offices.

210 Although some partnership agreements with local actors are already being put in place in some countries (e.g. in Senegal, Sierra Leone and Uganda), the programme has yet to build partnerships and fully integrate actors at local level, especially those who are de facto in charge of the land delivery services.

34 FAO sponsored a Sierra Leonean delegation from the Ministry of Lands, Country Planning and the Environment to attend the World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty in 2016.


44

3.9 How effectively has the programme contributed to the development of assessment and monitoring frameworks on governance?

Assessments

211 The VGGT is a guideline among others. On assessment of sector performance, governments would be most interested in overall assessment, not only that of VGGT. To this end there are already a number of international initiatives on evaluation of land governance in any country. The most prominent is the World Bank’s Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) which is aimed to inform on the status of the land sector and also to address key issues that stakeholders identified and to propose new policy directions. The LGAF had already been taken in Uganda and Sierra Leone. It would not be appropriate to reinvent the LGAF but rather to add value in aspects of tenure security to supplement the LGAF such as deeper studies on specific topics. Myanmar did not pursue an LGAF with the World Bank in 2016 but in 2017 participated with the World Bank on the writing of key land and forestry tenure policy discussion papers.

212 Based on the lessons learned and knowledge gained from the legal and policy assessments, detailed recommendations were prepared on specific topics such as the Ugandan Forest Rights project, the Mongolia draft Pastoral Act, and the draft land policy in Sierra Leone.

213 In Sierra Leone, during the first Multi-Stakeholder Platform meeting, stakeholders agreed to start VGGT implementation with a comprehensive assessment of the land, fisheries and forestry sectors, exploring the reality on the ground and identifying existing gaps and inconsistencies with the VGGT principles. The assessment was used to guide the design and revision of several national laws and policies. As a result, the land policy was developed in line with VGGT principles.

214 In Mongolia, assessments were made of the draft pastoral land protection act and the forest law. The former was accompanied by stakeholder consultations in much of the country and resulted in a re-draft of the law and a well-supported argument for its advocacy. The latter was less extensive and was a starting point for wider and deeper evaluations and consultations following.

215 In Uganda, the pilot project on forest land leases was particularly well documented regarding its lessons and emerging recommendations. This is important for the process of continual improvement of both process/procedures and regulatory framework. It is also very useful for other countries in the region wishing to test alternate methods of afforestation other than those implemented by the government. The innovation in Uganda is applicable to communities and to the private sector. It addresses the security of tenure issue by not necessarily requiring the owner of the land (government, state or private) to be the one to manage the forest, to invest and to harvest. It is sufficient as the forest lease holder has exclusive rights to the forest, or yet to be planted forest, and has an approved forest management plan.

Monitoring

216 Regarding the monitoring component, the VGGT Programme document states: “The establishment of a consistent set of monitoring mechanisms to monitor the implementation of the VGGTs at country and global level will also contribute to long-term sustainability of the results achieved by the programme”.

217 This definition does not provide any information on how such a monitoring programme would contribute to the sustainability of the results, or on what this programme should include.

218 In order to establish and use a monitoring system for the programme, the first step is to define what should be monitored, why and for whom. The second step is how to monitor and who should monitor. These questions do not seem to have been adequately reflected


45

upon by the programme team. Indeed, there is no evidence that any system has been established to monitor the programme activities and that any consideration has taken place on the purpose and use of this monitoring.

219 The evaluation team found no evidence supporting the achievement of any of the three monitoring component indicators of the programme logframe.

220 Monitoring, in addition to informing partner countries and other stakeholders under the programme, can also be used to showcase and influence other countries, as shown in Box 11 below.

Box 11: Using monitoring to influence political actors

REAF

The Specialized Meeting on Family Farming of MERCOSUR (REAF) is a meeting place for family farmers, rural organizations and institutions in the Latin America region. REAF has been operating since 2004 with the aim of creating a framework of regional public policies for family farming. It includes a thematic working group on Access to Land, and FAO has been supporting this group since 2013 by facilitating policy dialogues together with civil society and governments. This group contributed to the revision of public policies in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay, with the aim of curbing foreign ownership of land and facilitating and increasing access to land for family farmers.

Every two years the working group prepares a report on the implementation of the VGGT in each MERCOSUR country, and this report is shared with all countries and used to influence those who have not made sufficient progress in the alignment of their framework with the VGGT.

CFS

During the last CFS session in October 2016, a specific session was dedicated to the presentation of a report entitled “Synthesis report on Civil Society Experiences regarding use and implementation of the Tenure Guidelines and the challenge of monitoring CFS decision”. This report was the result of a broad civil society consultation process, coordinated by the Working Group on Monitoring of the Civil Society Mechanism for relations to the CFS.

One of the objectives of this report is to promote accountability and foster the adoption, adaptation and scaling up of good practices and learning from experiences in implementing the VGGT. The mechanisms to prepare the report, and the presentation of the results, could be used further for influencing political actors, especially in countries where less results were achieved.

3.10 To what extent have women, indigenous peoples and vulnerable and marginalized groups participated in the VGGT Programme, and how were the needs of vulnerable groups considered in the design and implementation of the programme at various levels?

221 The VGGT places importance on the principle of inclusiveness. This is a challenge since many countries have arrangements where tenure security is enjoyed by only the rich and educated classes. Specifically, the issue of inclusiveness is more than economic standing, and also addresses gender and vulnerable groups such as children, disabled people and illiterate people. The principle of inclusiveness seems the most difficult to achieve.

222 In the case study countries, typically only a minority of the population held secure tenure on land. In some countries, there are no inheritance rights, or women have no rights to own land at all.

223 In general, the VGGT Programme has demonstrated careful attention to inclusiveness, especially through the selection of participants to its various activities.35 However, most VGGT events took place in major cities and did not always include representatives from marginalized groups at local level.

35 From a total of 16 489 learners attending the VGGT courses female participants were 39 percent and male were 61 percent.


46

224 The management of major events was led by a civil society organization which performed well in working with the FAO country office to select project participants. Gender balance was always a concern, particularly in a country such as Myanmar, where 90 percent of the Department of Agricultural Land Management and Statistics (DALMS) government staff are male, but event organizers levelled the gender imbalance inherent in the workplace by carefully selecting participants to FAO learning events.

225 In some cases, even if the event took place in the capital city, there was an impact at local level. In Mongolia for example, while the main VGGT events occurred in Ulan Bator, participants from remote locations were able to attend. One participant of the learning programme in Mongolia pointed out to the administration that the statistics should be gender-disaggregated, and after discussions she was able to get the office to agree.

226 The VGGT Programme collaborated extensively with the FAO gender team (Social Policies and Rural Institutions Division - ESP) on the creation of focused learning materials as well as a technical guide on gender. Blended gender learning programmes were also developed, adapted, translated and delivered in a number of countries (Mongolia, South Africa, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Nepal) in association with local partners when possible. Training of trainer materials are under development and more learning programmes are planned in other countries.

227 A gender and land rights database36 and a gender legal assessment tool37 are also available in FAO. These are highly relevant for the VGGT Programme.

228 In Myanmar, Sierra Leone and Mongolia, the VGGT was translated to local language. In Sierra Leone regular radio programmes on land issues would insert information on VGGT. In Sierra Leone, where women’s access to land faces many barriers, a local NGO has used the VGGTs to promote women’s rights to own lands. The VGGTs have also been incorporated into radio broadcasts promoting women’s rights in Sierra Leone.

229 In Sierra Leone, the National Land Policy, which incorporates VGGT principles, acknowledges that women typically experience restricted access to land, unclear ownership and property rights, and are more vulnerable to land loss and seizure. Building on this and with the support of Irish Aid, FAO is undertaking further analysis on women’s land access rights and the specific cultural barriers they face in order to inform the implementation of the land policy.

230 The process of issuing the Certificate of Customary Ownership title in Uganda is backed by information programmes to the community on land rights with VGGT principles, including the rights of women to be named in the title if appropriate. However, in most cases the Certificate of Customary Ownership is placed in the name of the family (or group of families or clan) as a traditional practice.

231 In Myanmar the 2012 Farmland Law requires that the name on the formal land use certificate be the head of the family; for all official transactions the head of the household is normally the male. The National Land Use Policy has addressed the gender issue with regard to land titles and requires that women may be named on the title. The Farmland Law is undergoing revision and it is expected that the gender bias will be removed.

232 The CSO and IP teams in FAO have developed several tools to help communicate the VGGT to marginalized populations. For example, the Manual Popular mentioned earlier in this report was developed especially for people with a low level of education, and to ensure appropriation of the VGGTs by marginalized groups. Specific learning programmes were also developed for indigenous people and CSOs, and a documentary on the VGGTS in India and their relevance to IPs is currently being produced.

36 http://www.fao.org/gender-landrights-database/en/

37 http://www.fao.org/gender-landrights-database/legislation-assessment-tool/en/

http://www.fao.org/gender-landrights-database/en/

http://www.fao.org/gender-landrights-database/legislation-assessment-tool/en/


47

3.11 How sustainable are FAO’s interventions and what is their potential to contribute to long-term changes at country level?

233 The results achieved thus far are moving the countries towards long-term reform, which may take many years. This was achieved by (i) supporting civil society to participate in dialogues on governance of tenure; (ii) creating a stakeholder platform for long-term support to reforms; (iii) providing government staff with the experience to engage with in-country stakeholders, to engage with experts, and to access knowledge resources online.

234 The VGGT Global Programme has supported countries to pursue long-term reform. Partnership building and strengthening of existing networks and platforms, both at national and local levels, are key drivers of sustainability, and this has been adequately understood by the programme team.

235 It is not enough to produce an inclusive and progressive policy on governance of tenure. Sustainability means that the new policy must be converted into action in better and more transparent delivery of tenure services. A wider Theory of Change is needed, as explained earlier, to better underpin sustainability so that FAO and other donor inputs may be more effective.

236 It is also important to establish and maintain a core of civil society stakeholders dedicated to advancing in the long-term, together with government, on the reform agenda in land, fisheries and forestry governance and its implementation.

237 In Sierra Leone, a roadmap for a ten-year implementation plan of the National Land Policy was developed and adopted at the second Annual Workshop. The policy focused on capacity development requirements in land administration, and institutional and legal reforms in the long-term.

238 The establishment of a roadmap was a good step in providing all stakeholders with a more concrete vision of the future and sustaining the momentum. Similar processes for long-term support are encouraged in the other countries.

239 On the other hand, it is important to take into account the existence of many potential problems, such as donor fatigue, too little funding, obstruction by people in power for vested interests and armed conflict. While lack of tenure security is too often the cause of conflict, it is usually a long-time after the conflict has settled down that securing tenure for the people is revisited. This is a policy that should be reviewed. Jurisdictions in conflict should also be considered for the programme.

240 Sierra Leone and Myanmar have government-endorsed land (use) policies, although they were not yet promulgated.38 The land policy development in Sierra Leone was managed under the global programme, while in Myanmar donors provided extensive support after the launch of VGGT.

241 All countries examined have a dire need for improved governance and security of tenure. Need is a prerequisite for entry to the programme. The potential impacts of tailored VGGT country programmes are significant in many dimensions, including food security, conflict reduction, social harmony and confidence in governance of resources, as well as economic growth. However, problems persist in a number of countries. In Myanmar, land right issues such as land grabs often result in violent protests. In Uganda and Sierra Leone there is a need for tenure security on customary land to eliminate land grabs and contribute to better farming practices and greater resilience. In Sierra Leone, there is also a need to strengthen forestry tenure governance in order to mitigate deforestation and land degradation and to improve fisheries tenure governance to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. In Mongolia the need is for better management of pastoral land to improve equity and protect the fragile natural resources, such as water and soil.

38 In Sierra Leone the NLP was launched on 23 March 2017, slightly after the evaluation mission.http://www.statehouse.gov.sl/index.php/contact/1736-president-koroma-launches-national-land-policy

http://www.statehouse.gov.sl/index.php/contact/1736-president-koroma-launches-national-land-policy


48

242 Uganda is at the stage of pilot testing a progressive land policy and forest law. The government was pleased with the initial titling results and an expansion of the pilot to other districts is expected. The risk factors in any planned roll-out of titling are always the unit cost, the price to the land owner and the capacity for sustainable maintenance of the cadastral records. Also, the capacity to manage a large programme of roll-out can be challenging, including the management of people, quality of service and budget. The government will want to involve FAO in guiding it on these key factors, as well as the coordination and involvement of other donors. The question of sustainability is not government commitment, but rather how well the programme is managed in the future.

243 The evaluation team identified the following indicators of sustainability:

• government has an interest to engage with civil society and to reform;

• civil society is active and organized;

• the stakeholder platform is functioning;

• stakeholders feel empowered to continue on strengthening the governance of tenure;

• progress is made in the countries on policies, laws, regulations or practices (monitoring);

• donors have a long-term interest in supporting the reform.


49

4. Conclusions and recommendations

4.1 Conclusions

Conclusion 1. The VGGT Programme focused largely on awareness raising and capacity development in its first phase. These activities were found to be relevant, considering that many of the principles in the VGGT were new and unknown in all countries.

244 During the first phase of the programme, various capacity development tools and global level publications were created. The development of learning materials, training curricula and technical guides was very well done, and was acknowledged by participants of the learning programmes.

245 In all countries that were approached to take part in Phase 1 of the VGGT Programme, there was a need for strengthened governance of tenure. While countries have different arrangements for governance when it comes to land, fisheries and forestry, usually these resources are under extreme pressure and the poor and vulnerable are the first to lose their rights and the last to be able to secure tenure of their rights. The need for the VGGT Programme in many countries has become clearer.

246 Capacity building is one of FAO’s strengths, and the resources and training course materials were appreciated by stakeholders at country level. FAO is also recognized for its knowledge management contributions, as evidenced by the use of similar core materials in a multitude of countries. The knowledge materials developed under the VGGT Programme were found to be unique and valuable by the end users.

Conclusion 2. In the countries visited by the evaluation team, the learning programmes and awareness raising workshops have increased the awareness and knowledge of the VGGT guidelines and have provided government and non-government stakeholders with new insights to address long-standing problems. The impact on civil society persons engaged in governance of tenure was profound.

247 FAO has a key role to play in the provision of its knowledge and training products, specialist expertise, skills in working with both government and civil society, and its reputation as a neutral party dedicated to rural outcomes for all.

248 The governance of tenure is ordinarily too complex and sensitive for civil society to easily enter into a dialogue with government. Through the VGGT Programme, however, civil society persons were made aware of the key principles of tenure security, given knowledge on internationally agreed principles, invited to workshop discussions with government stakeholders and other civil society organizations, and engaged through the stakeholder platforms with a large variety of actors, in some cases for the first time. Most importantly, civil society was made to feel empowered. The result was the formation of a highly motivated group of stakeholders that could engage with both the community and the government on questions related to governance of tenure. Without such learning the impact of civil society in its engagement with Government on governance of tenure would be much less.

249 At the start of the VGGT Programme, civil society networks in governance of tenure in many countries were weak. During the VGGT Programme, many CSOs used their newly obtained knowledge to create their own training programme for other CSOs and to start programmes with their communities. Innovations in cross country visits and regional workshops complemented the in-country programmes, which had a significant impact on civil society members who had never before been exposed to CSOs from other countries.

Conclusion 3. In the programme design, the country’s institutional and operational frameworks did not receive enough attention, while these aspects are essential for a programme aiming at improving governance of tenure. However, it is acknowledged that such additional scope adds a lot to the load of the work and the demand for funds.


50

250 The logic of the Theory of Change must always be challenged as time causes assumptions to have different impacts and for new risks and assumptions to arise and needing to be included. For example, the impacts of improvements in tenure on the ordinary farmer, fisher or forest user do not automatically flow from change in land policy or laws alone; there must be tangible delivery of better services, more secure access to resources, greater knowledge and suitable support mechanisms at local levels too. This gap between better land policy and better livelihoods must be met by consistent implementation of the new land policy through the government’s institutional and operational arrangements, programmes and resources, including skills and knowledge of government and private sector persons.

251 These aspects are missing in the current programme. They may create a wider scope, longer time frames, higher risk and maybe additional stakeholders which should be reflected in the Theory of Change and ultimately the new work plans.

Conclusion 4. FAO’s good relationships with government and civil society, as well as the country office engagement and leadership capacities, were essential to the achievement of the programme objectives at country level.

252 In the early stages of the programme it was important to build trust among stakeholders and to provide support for partner coordination and leadership of the stakeholder platform. These efforts helped to mitigate local actors with vested interests, exclusionary government actions or abuses of power and the weak involvement by civil society, especially in the context of examining the structural weaknesses in the sectors of land, fisheries and forest. Due to the complexity of the sectors and strong vested interests, as well as the many actors in each country, especially in the case of important projects (in terms of budget and duration), a full-time in-country professional enables the VGGT Programme to move forward in a particularly efficient manner. However, the importance of the support provided by headquarters staff needs to be underlined.

253 Furthermore, donors have recognized the importance of land governance issues (especially in poverty alleviation) and are therefore more active in the land sector; in-country and global coordination is essential to continued donor assistance.

Conclusion 5. The programme lacked a clear long-term vision of its support to countries, not only for change in the policy environment but also for more inclusive access to land, better land service delivery and greater confidence of stakeholders in the land sector to support both social and economic national goals.

254 Change in governance of tenure typically occurs over a long time frame. It requires more than reforms of policies and laws, which themselves can take the life of a three to five-year project. Change requires institutional reforms, re-engineering of fundamental processes and delivery of services, major capacity development for new jobs and skills, and a new paradigm in the relationship of government to the people as well as an inclusive view of the land-to-people relationship. Moreover, the governance of land, fisheries and forestry is often one of the most conservative areas of government administration. Thus, in evaluating the case study countries, the VGGT evaluation team considered whether the programme was meeting its goals and was on a path towards its vision.

255 Other considerations included keeping donors interested and engaged in the VGGT Programme; recognizing that government timelines for impacts are often rather short; and that messaging must address both the short-term targets and longer term vision of government and stakeholders.

256 The VGGT Programme did not establish a long-term vision for each country at the start and indeed this is understandable but in most cases there was no vision at the end either (Sierra Leone was a clear exception). Short-term funding and no visibility of future resources do not help – however the existence of a long-term vision does not necessarily mean that FAO and FAO’s donors would be supporting for the entire journey.


51

Conclusion 6. Governance of fishery and forestry tenure received less attention than land tenure at country level.

257 Except in one case study country, the land sector activities in the VGGT Programme were dominant. While this reflects the weak condition of land governance in these countries and the related political and social impacts causing serious disputes and stresses, governance issues must also be addressed in the fishery and forestry sectors.

258 At the global level, the VGGT Programme covers all three sectors; at the country level, biases may exist from certain stakeholders, government departments or FAO itself. This should be resolved by the government through dialogue on setting priorities with FAO and the VGGT stakeholder platform, with resources being assigned accordingly.

Conclusion 7. Engagement of civil society and partnerships with a broad range of stakeholders, both at national and local level, are essential for tangible and long-term outcomes.

259 The power structures in many developing countries are often biased towards the elite, and consequently the implementation of better tenure governance policies are delayed even when the need is urgent and the policies exist. The VGGT has a strong focus on inclusiveness in recognition of the relationship of poverty alleviation to access to resources by the poor. Indeed, the loss of rights on land and other resources is arguably a major driver of increased food insecurity and poverty in a number of countries.

260 Civil society has a key role to inform and influence policymakers regarding the impact of weak and incomplete tenure on vulnerable people; build CSO networks; and deliver knowledge and services.

261 The VGGT Programme was often very effective in its partnerships with NGOs and academia and by supporting the CSO sector to effectively engage with government and feel confident and knowledgeable to develop capacities of other NGOs. The benefits of this support continued throughout the programme and contributed to the sustainability of its interventions.

262 The capabilities of those CSOs working in tenure varied greatly. In some cases, the CSO networks were weak, especially in their coordination among each other. It is important to maximize the limited resources that CSOs have and to avoid duplication. Regional and even international networks can be accessed to more effectively convey knowledge and experiences.

263 As government staff experience high levels of turnover, it is important to train local providers in order to ensure sustainability and lower costs. Rather than relying on FAO projects in the long-term the selection of participants who could be tapped as future trainers was good practice and examples of civil society organizations and academy training other CSOs and government staff must be applauded.

264 The outreach to the community level through TV and radio programmes or other multimedia actors (including those also at local level) has proved to be very efficient. Other types of less usual partners, such as the Ministry of Justice, Ministry of local government, and Law Enforcement Authorities can be very efficient in ensuring the implementation of the reforms.

4.2 Recommendations

265 The following recommendations are provided for the global programme in general. A list of country-specific recommendations is provided in Appendix 6.

Recommendation 1. FAO should continue key activities under the second phase of the VGGT global Programme, especially in terms of capacity development, technical assistance and partnership building.


52

266 In particular, the programme should continue with:

• Awareness raising and strengthening civil society networks, including funding CSOs directly to capacitate other CSOs and build stronger networks.

• Adapting and using the excellent learning materials and knowledge products39 to continue developing capacities in government and with other stakeholders, including creating leaders in government and CSOs and establishing champions of VGGT principles in the private sector.

• Facilitating cross-visits of key government and civil society actors, since they can be extremely useful in gaining new ideas and confidence.

• Establishing local stakeholders with skills in Alternate Dispute Resolution in pilot projects on formalizing tenure rights.

• Engaging with government at a high level to assist on setting the pace of change and avoiding unrealistic expectations.

• Ensuring that all technical assistance is of a high standard. This can be costly, especially where inputs are required from outside the country; however, the alternative of reduced credibility is not acceptable because trust, reliability and confidence are the lynchpin for leadership in change.

• Building close partnerships with civil society and donors.

• Showcasing to donors the impacts and progress on the long-term path to reform.

Recommendation 2. The programme should provide continuous and long-term engagement at country level and ensure the availability of funds through coordination with other donors.

267 It is suggested that the programme remains in countries where activities have started, in order to continue engaging with stakeholders and strengthening local partners and CSO networks. FAO should keep stakeholder platforms active and strengthen civil society and government to take over the operation and initiatives of the platforms. As the pace of change and reform is ultimately set by government, VGGT Programme assessments in each country (e.g. one per month) should inform FAO leadership of any changes required to the direction or rate of FAO inputs. This will help management respond to counterpart changes or take advantage of new opportunities. The strategic level reporting that is required to maximize FAO resources and programme impacts is especially relevant to the land, fisheries and resources sectors due to the political and social impacts.

268 At the start of the programme, FAO conducted workshops with representatives of donors and stakeholders on the needs and priorities for learning programmes; this should be repeated periodically.

269 In the countries where the programme has obtained good momentum, it is important to prepare long-term strategies and development plans (10–20 years) to guide stakeholders and donors, as well as to avoid unrealistic expectations. The plans must be developed jointly among all local and international stakeholders and partners. In this way, the year-to-year plans are more likely to be on the right path and to reinforce previous efforts. Through the programme, FAO is usually in the best position to assist on this task. It is not the norm for government to prepare plans any longer than three to five years, but for the kind of reforms needed the timelines are longer. The plans would assist government greatly in attracting the kind of donor assistance it needs for long-term change. An example would be the land sector in Myanmar and Sierra Leone where the need is substantial.40

270 In order to avoid the loss of momentum in a country, the following suggestions are provided:

a. Maintain the VGGT stakeholder platform at each level as a proactive, inclusive, interesting and key structure for leading the VGGT Programme and coordinating with all partners.

b. Manage the expectations of the stakeholders.

39 Although the Phase 2 Programme document states that “there is a need to continue the development of normative materials and learning programme with a global application”, the evaluation team suggests to focus now on the adaptation and dissemination of the training material, rather than on the production of more material.

40 It is well noted that the global programme together with stakeholders have already developed a draft ten-year action plan in Sierra Leone.


53

c. Manage relationships, especially with civil society, and coordinate with donor organizations.

d. Build relationships early and maintain them.

e. Use workshops to break barriers, build trust and empower civil society to engage positively on the governance of tenure.

f. Ensure that there is an overall plan as well as annual plans, and that these (and the resources available) are well known to all stakeholders.

g. Seek additional in-country resources in collaboration with other donors.

Recommendation 3. If resources allow for the addition of new countries, the selection should be based on the enabling factors, including political will and leadership capacities of the FAO country office.

271 Country selection should be based on the commitment of the government and key stakeholders to governance of tenure policy reforms, and on the level of engagement of the FAO Representation. For any new countries, funds should be committed and available from the beginning and a clear timeline should be presented to stakeholders.

272 The country targeting strategy should be part of a broader strategic planning exercise that should help better define the programme results and likely sources of funds, and identify FAO’s relative priorities for different regions of the world (e.g. based on potential for gain and quality of governance). At the time of launching the VGGT in any country, an indicative timetable of inputs and a time-bound activity plan must be presented to stakeholders to avoid overly high expectations of FAO support.

273 It is suggested to involve other FAO teams (SO1, CSO, Indigenous People, Social Policies and Rural Institutions Division (ESP) gender team, Legal Office, Forestry, Fisheries) in the selection of countries.

Recommendation 4. Improvements to the institutional and operational framework should be part of the programme Theory of Change, and be supported by other donors in the countries.

274 All countries in the Global Programme should be assessed early in the intervention. For those countries where weak land service delivery is contributing greatly to the deterioration of tenure security, a parallel programme of institutional reform of tenure service delivery should be initiated, if possible, in conjunction with another donor and as another project. Pilot projects are a low risk way to get started that encourages the active engagement of stakeholders and innovations. This provides the strengthening of the link between policy development and impacted improvement of tenure security felt by people on the ground.

275 In the countries where FAO has been already intervening, the future phases of the VGGT Programme cannot continue with the focus on awareness raising and capacity development only. As an interviewee said, “FAO has to go out of its comfort zone”, in order to move forward in the achievement of broader objectives. However, in the case of new countries, awareness raising and capacity development will still be needed in order to build a strong basis for these complex interventions.

276 This could start by identifying possible bottlenecks early on in the process (e.g. resources, capacities, political will, absence of organized civil society and lack of accountability mechanisms). Next, the VGGT Programme country interventions should assist in developing long-term development plans in parallel with the policy and regulatory reforms so that the typical two to five-year country intervention has a framework and a long-term vision and path as a guide. Such long-term plans need a sound understanding of the sectors, which may require extra activities or parallel activities early on, or access to the work of other donors (for example, the World Bank Land Governance Assessment Framework).

277 The coupling of the VGGT with land administration best practices and appropriate technology forms a powerful combination to attack the weak tenure security of poor


54

people. There are now good reference examples from around the world, so that there is no reason not to proceed with formalizing rights on tenure. The recent pilot Certificate of Customary Ownership in Uganda is a good example.

Recommendation 5. Flexible work planning, pooled funding and close monitoring are encouraged.

278 The most effective programme management arrangement would be one where the financial resources are substantially pooled and managed by FAO to create maximum impact and to meet emerging national priorities and new opportunities. Having said that, it is acknowledged that accountability for funds from individual donors must be provided as well. Thus, a mix of earmarked and pooled funding is recommended going forward.

279 Through close monitoring the performance of the programme in each country, any decline in government commitment should be flagged (possibly at regional or international level) and inputs adjusted. In particular, annual reporting should include strategic level reporting based on the programme Theory of Change.

280 Professional studies on impacts and relationships could also be conducted to emphasize to various sectors of society, business and donors the impact of tenure security on social, economic and environment conditions.

281 The VGGT Programme team could take the lead in documenting and sharing lessons among countries and make the monitoring component more explicit, with clear expected results in the programme document.

Recommendation 6. VGGT sensitization at local level should be further developed (in particular in countries where it has already been done at national level), and more stakeholders should be involved at both national and local level.

282 Mechanisms to reach the local level should embrace partnerships with CSOs, business councils and donors, as well as government organizations and resources. Innovative communication technologies should be utilized to reach local professionals and para-professionals as well as small NGOs. These could include community radio programmes and outreach programmes at village and town levels.

283 Also, the VGGT programme should consider building a much wider base of knowledge among advocates for land tenure security and land governance. In this context, both political actors and the public will need to be considered (and not only the professional practitioners). This could be done through large scale collaboration with communication professionals and media in-country.

284 As government staff experience high levels of turnover, it is important to train local providers in order to ensure sustainability and lower costs. Rather than relying on FAO projects, training of trainer activities should be continued and expanded, with replication carried on by CSOs.

285 In new countries, it would generally be necessary to engage at national level first, involving as soon as possible (and if possible from the early beginning) key local actors. The VGGT Programme should identify sensitization activities at the central and local levels. Country work plans should also reflect these separate targets.

Recommendation 7. VGGT programmes should be championed by a cabinet level minister and supervised by a strong country office.

286 The programme should be championed by a Cabinet Minister at country level. Access to land is highly political in every developing country; thus, a cabinet member must be engaged in the development process to prevent delays (e.g. in promulgating new land policies).


55

287 The technical and professional knowledge of FAO is acknowledged, as well as its breadth of networks of professionals in governance of tenure and related technical fields. An in-country focal person with suitable professional qualifications and interpersonal skills should lead the FAO contribution to the VGGT Programme at country level. In cases when the budget is not sufficient to allow to recruit a full-time local staff, alternative solutions, such as part-time options, can be looked for.

Recommendation 8. Activities to strengthen CSOs should be prioritized in all countries of the programme.

288 Civil society partnerships with FAO are essential in each country. It is suggested that tenure and sectoral CSO networks be established and made operational with assistance from FAO. These networks should be capacitated to deliver the messages and knowledge to ordinary people all over the country, including professionals, para-professionals, village leaders and the community. A healthy CSO network will lead to much better results and more fruitful engagement with government and law makers. Cross-visits to more successful CSO networks would be very useful.

289 Civil society has a key role to play in the governance of tenure, including: (i) to inform and influence policy and lawmakers; (ii) to engage with government and business on policy, plans and programmes; (iii) to mobilize other CSOs; (iv) to educate and inform other CSOs, local officials and community leaders, and the public; (v) to organize itself at national and local levels; (vi) to create and disseminate relevant knowledge and training resource materials; (vii) to network with international CSOs; and (viii) to work with development assistance organizations and United Nations agencies.

290 Development of land policy and land laws is not a direct process with a start and an end. The process of adjusting policy and law never stops due to the constantly changing context, including society’s needs, the natural environment, economic competitiveness, demographics, agriculture and climate change, among others. A knowledgeable and active civil society continually engaged with government on governance of tenure is a great advantage.

Recommendation 9. Further use of FAO resources and further collaboration with FAO teams (including the Fisheries and Forestry departments, but also SO1 and governance teams) at headquarters and decentralized levels are encouraged.

291 Since the VGGT implementation work is technical as well as political, collaboration should be strengthened with the FAO teams working on policy processes, such as the SO1 and the governance team (ESD). This may also be useful for the monitoring of the programme.

292 In a programme addressing land tenure issues, political aspects (agents of change, windows of opportunity, political constraints and entry points) are of great importance to ensure results can be achieved. Thus, country analysis and excellent understanding of the local dynamics (including political dynamics) are necessary to align the global programme to each country’s unique characteristics and needs, and to define different entry points. In each case, the amount of resources needed, the type of activities and the time frames will be different.

293 It is suggested to build capacities and enlarge the network of collaboration within FAO, both at headquarters (forestry and fisheries departments should lead as much as the OPCL team) and country level. This can be accomplished in part through improved communication with FAO Representatives.


56

5. Appendices

Appendix 1. List of evaluation focus countries and projects (2012-2016)

Country Projects

Guatemala FMM/GCP/111/MUL (Belgian funding)GCP /GLO/347/MUL

Mongolia FMM/GCP/111/MUL (Belgian funding)GCP /GLO/501/GER GCP/GLO/347/GER

Myanmar FMM/GCP/111/MUL (Belgian funding)FAO/EU FIRST programme (Senior Land Tenure Consultant)GCP/GLO/347/UK

Senegal FMM/GCP/111/MUL (Belgian funding)GCP/GLO/599/GERGCP/GLO/347/MUL (French-financed component)

Sierra Leone FMM/GCP/111/MUL (Belgian funding)GCP/GLO/347/GERGCP /GLO/501/GER

Uganda GCP/GLO/347/UK


57

Appendix 2. List of projects included in the VGGT global programme (2012-2016)

Recipient Countries

Project Symbol Donor Agency

Project Title Project start date

Project end date

Budget (USD)

VGGT Umbrella Programme (PGM/MUL/2012-2015/VG) $28,773,531

Global GCP/GLO/599/GER Germany Improved Governance of Tenure for Shared Prosperity in the Senegal River Basin

1/11/2015 31/10/2018 $2,000,000

Africa Region

GCP/GLO/539/EC EU Supporting integrated implementation of VGGT on Responsible Governance and of the Framework and Guidelines on Land Policies in Africa across 10 country projects supported by EU.

14/05/2014 13/09/2019 $2,391,065

Nepal GCP/GLO/347/UK UK Support for Country Level Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests

20/12/2013 30/09/2017 $7,640,988

Nigeria

Uganda

Myanmar

Tunisia

Sierra Leone GCP/GLO/347/GER Germany Support for Country Level Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests.

1/2/2014 28/02/2017 $2,715,793

Mongolia

Liberia

Nigeria GCP/NIR/059/ASI ASI - Adam Smith International

Support for Implementation of SOLA Open Source Software in Nigeria

1/2/2013 31/12/2014 $272,330

Lesotho MTF/LES/051/MCC MCC - Millennium Challenge Corporation

Support for Implementation of SOLA Open Source Software in Lesotho (the Land Administration Authority Lease Management System)

1/2/2013 31/08/2013 $318,405

Global GCP/GLO/282/MUL

Finland Solutions for Open Land Administration (SOLA)

1/1/2010 31/05/2013 $2,402,618


58

Global GCP/GLO/501/GER Germany Learning programme to support the implementation of the VGGT in five countries.

1/4/2014 31/12/2017 $1,518,000

Lesotho UTF/LES/050/LES Lesotho Solutions for Open Land Administration (SOLA) in the Kingdom of Lesotho

26/11/2012 1/5/2014 $32,633

Multi Donor Trust Fund Project (GCP/GLO/347/MUL) (included under the Umbrella Programme PGM/MUL/2012-2015/VG)

$9,481,699

Global GCP/GLO/347/MUL Switzerland Support for Country Level Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests

1/10/2012 30/06/2020 $4,277,014

Global GCP/GLO/347/MUL Belgium Support for Country Level Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests

1/10/2012 30/06/2020 $1,100,000

Africa Region

GCP/GLO/347/MUL EU/ Switzerland

Supporting integrated implementation of VGGT on Responsible Governance and of the Framework and Guidelines on Land Policies in Africa. Support to LPI (Pan-Africa)

1/1/2014 30/06/2020 $526,000

Niger GCP/GLO/347/MUL France Support for Country Level implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests

1/8/2013 30/06/2020 $213,685

Senegal

Madagascar

Malawi GCP/GLO/347/MUL Sweden Support for Country Level Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests

1/12/2013 30/06/2020 $65,000


59

Ethiopia GCP/GLO/347/MUL Italy Support for Country Level Implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests

1/12/2013 30/06/2020 $3,300,000

Senegal

Niger

Other Projects $8,144,151

Global FMM/GCP/111/MUL

Belgium FMM support to SO 1 - OO 101 (MTP 2014-2017)

1/8/2014 31/12/2017 $2,805,259

Inter Regional

GCP/INT/130/EC (Baby 13 – Output 3.5)

EU EU/FAO Improved Global Governance for Hunger Reduction 2012-2015

1/1/2012 25/09/2016 $1,724,671*

Inter Regional

GCP/INT/130/EC (Baby 16 – Output 4.1)

EU EU/FAO Improved Global Governance for Hunger Reduction 2012-2015

1/1/2012 25/09/2016 $3,614,221*

* Total budget for the Baby projects (including all outputs, and not only those related to VGGTs)


60

Appendix 3. Evaluation matrix

Evaluation Questions

Sub-questions/Indicators Comments Methods/Informants

1. Approach/Design

1.1: To what extent are the programme design and objectives relevant to the needs of different stakeholders at global and country levels?

PROGRAMME DESIGN and OBJECTIVE

What does «Implementing the VGGTs» mean for FAO and its partners?

Theory of Change workshop;Interviews with programme team;Interviews with stakeholders (government, civil society, donors, private sector) at country level;QCA;Global and country surveys.

Who are the stakeholders and what are their needs?

Are the five components of the programme the most relevant and needed for successful implementation of the VGGTs?

Should the focus be more on political will (considering that capacities and resources can always come later)?

Should others aspects be addressed in the programme in order to achieve the broader impact of improved governance?

For instance, issues related to conflict and persecution (use example of how the VGGT have influenced the peace process in Columbia) Or use of FAO’s experience to promote the inclusion of VGGT in donor countries?

How relevant is the selection of countries for VGGT implementation in Phase 1 and what is the capacity of FAO to respond to country requests?

FUTURE STRATEGIC DIRECTION

Based on the experience of the first phase, what should be the strategic focus for the second phase (what to do and with whom)?

For recommendations section Programme Management team;Country missions;QCA;Interviews with stakeholders at global and national levels, including civil society and donors Interviews with donor countries;Desk review; Focus group discussions with participants of learning programmes.

How should the tools developed during the first phase be used and with/for which actors?

How to select countries for Phase 2?

How to influence high level decision makers in recipient and donor countries? What should be the strategy?

1.2: How efficient are the implementation and coordination arrangements at headquarters and country level?

HQ LEVEL How is the country support coordinated at headquarters level?

Interviews at FAO headquarters, with programme management team and other divisions;Interviews with CO staff; Interviews with country-level partners, including civil society, donors, implementing partners, government counterparts;Online surveys;Interviews with donor representatives (e.g. through the GDWGL)OPCL “experience capitalisation’ publication on best practices for implementing VGGT.

Are the VGGT programme and its coordination arrangements facilitating better country support from FAO headquarters to countries? If yes, how?

What are the lessons learned and opportunities for knowledge sharing at regional and global level?

For example, are we promoting the success stories (SL and Senegal) to show that change is possible to other countries?


61



COUNTRY LEVEL

What is the influence of FAO’s strategic positioning in a country in achieving results?

Strategic positioning refers to existing relationships and experience of partnerships with key stakeholders (e.g. civil society, private sector, government line ministries, development partners)

Country missions; Interviews with civil society representatives, private sector, government counterparts; Online surveys’QCA;How are the capacities of FAO’s

country offices contributing, or not, to the achievement of the programme outputs and outcomes?

Capacities include, for example, the skills and will of FAOR to act as facilitator of political dialogue with various actors

DONORS COORDINATION

To what extent has the creation of the global multi-donor facility led to a better coordination?

and to an increase in resources for supporting VG implementation?

Interviews with donor counterparts; Interviews with FAO programme management team; civil society representatives, private sector representatives (e.g. through the PSM);Analysis of donor contributions to the VGGT programme from its inception; Interviews with donors and development partners in focus countries;Global survey.

How effective is the global multi donor working group in providing advice on VG implementation?

How are FAO activities coordinated with those of the other actors/donors, in country?

Role of the GDWG on Land, and linkages with national donor platforms

2. Results: Outcome level

2.1: To what extent have the actions undertaken by FAO in the context of the VGGT implementation contributed to the intended outcome of “Improved frameworks for regulating the tenure of land, fisheries and forests based on wide participation, non-discrimination, transparency and mutual accountability”?

Have frameworks improved in the focus countries as a results of FAO’s interventions? How?

Interviews with FAO, donor platforms and development partners in focus countries;Interviews with civil society, private sector, government at country level;Global and country surveys;QCA.

What happened in the other countries, where no change took place in the policy framework? Why?

Have wide participation, non-discrimination, transparency and mutual accountability improved in the focus countries as a result of FAO’s interventions?


62



2.2: Where improved frameworks have been adopted, how has this translated into better governance of tenure of land, fisheries and/or forests, in particular for vulnerable and marginalized people at the local level, and what is the contribution of FAO?

LESSONS LEARNED AND SUCCESS FACTORS

What are the lessons to learn from countries where it was not possible to move on (eg. Ethiopia, Madagascar, Cote d’Ivoire) and where sustainability is not assured?

QCA;Skype interviews with key stakeholders at country level;Interviews with FAO management team;Global and country surveys. Interviews with key stakeholders in country (including civil society, government, private sector) and with beneficiaries at community level when possible/relevant;Focus group discussions with workshop participants/learning programme participants;Field visits.

What can be done by FAO, and in collaboration with other actors, when political will is not optimum? Keep a dialogue, confrontation opportunities among different actors.

VGGTs are creating a cultural/behavioural change. How? And how can this be measured

Do we need a different strategy, depending on the existing culture or context in the country (i.e. focus on CB, or on AR, etc.).?

How can FAO analyse the best timing for interventions?

Eg. success factor: current reform process. Assessment tool for current political situation/political will/opportunities for success? Use FIRST programme as example

Are there any cases where improved frameworks have led to better governance and how can this be documented? What is the perception of the beneficiaries at community level?

Results, Output level

2.3 (Awareness raising): To what extent has awareness of the voluntary guidelines improved at global, regional and national level, as a result of FAO interventions?

What are the results of the workshops at national level, and of the establishment of the platforms? Have they increased awareness as such?

Interviews with key stakeholders in country (including civil society, government, private sector);Focus group discussions with workshop participants and platform members;Global and country surveys;Field visits (if possible);Interviews with FAO, development partners and donors at country level;Interviews with CFS delegates.

Which other interventions have contributed to increase awareness at national level? What worked best for each type of stakeholder/partner?

What are the different strategies used for awareness raising and what other opportunities do we have in FAO (eg. use of rural radios, collaboration with other projects/programme reaching key stakeholders)?

And is there a demand for translation of the material? How can FAO QA the outputs?

How should the media be used? And which ones?

What is the role of the CFS representatives? Are they raising awareness in their countries?


63



2.4 (Capacity development): To what extent has the VGGT programme enhanced capacity of decision makers and other stakeholders to improve the governance of tenure in their countries?

How successful were the capacity development initiatives in reaching the people that can benefit from it?

Focus group discussions with learning programme participants;Analysis of capacity development user statistics.Global and country surveys;Interviews at country level Interviews with donor representatives at country level.

How demand-driven are capacity development interventions? Are they the best way to build capacities?

How to build capacities of donors and FAO staff? Which other partners need capacity building?

2.5 (Country support): How efficiently has the programme drawn from FAO’s technical expertise to provide targeted support to the countries?

Which technical guides were produced and how are they used? By whom?

Interviews with FAO technical units;Desk review;Website data (number of downloads of technical guides from website and location of users);Interviews at country level with different stakeholders – civil society, government;Interviews with FAO technical units; Global and country survey.

What kind of technical support was provided, to whom and on which basis?

How was this perceived in the country?

2.6 (Partnerships): To what extent have the partnerships created or facilitated by FAO contributed to the implementation of the voluntary guidelines?

MULTI-STAKEHOLDERS PLATFORMS

How are the stakeholders platform, and workshop participants selected in each country?

Is there a definition of multi-stakeholder platform, and of who should be part of it?

Interviews at country level with government counterparts and civil society;QCA;Interviews at country level with government counterparts and civil society;Interviews with donors and development partners at country level.

How are the national platform created and under which conditions do they lead to results?

Eg. manual on roles and responsibilities in Senegal

Have FAO’s interventions in the first phase led to better multi-stakeholder engagement? How and why?

What about unbalanced power relations? How did FAO manage them?

How were the roles of the right holders and third parties distinguished?

Or should their input/role be the same?

Has FAO used the already existing platforms? If not, why? If yes, has this contributed to better engagement/sustainability/inclusion?


64



PRIVATE SECTOR

What are the lessons to be learned from FAO’s collaboration with the private sector in the VGGT context? How could collaboration improve? What are the key entry points at global and country levels? What are the links between use of VGGTs and Corporate Social Responsibility?

Interviews with Private sector at global level (PSM) and at country level (business organizations/ chambers of commerce);Interviews with FAO partnership division (OPC);Interviews with CFS delegates.What has been done by the PSM,

or by the private sector, to raise awareness about the VGGTs

Eg. newsletters, advocacy campaigns?

How to involve local private sector and investors (i.e. in countries where VGGT implementation is needed)?

Multinationals: are the sources in country really complying with the VGGTs? How to work with the governments where multinationals are based and have to comply with rules?

OTHER PARTNERS

What is the role of the Justice authorities? Should they be involved, and how (in awareness raising and capacity development)?

Interviews with FAO LEGN unit;Interviews with International Union of Notaries, IIED;Review of FAO legal guides on tenure: fisheries, forest, land Interviews with Ministry of Finance counterparts at country level;Country surveys;Interviews with stakeholders at country level - government, civil society, private sector, development partners;Focus group discussions with workshop/learning programme participants;Interviews with OPC.

What is the role of the Ministry of Finance? Should they be involved, and how?

They will decide if budget line is given, and will therefore determine sustainability of interventions

What are the possible other partners at global and country level (i.e. UNHCR to address conflicts, national Human Right Institutions) Who could act as multipliers in country?

Are the FAO Strategies for partnership with CSO and with private sector applied?

2.7 (Monitoring) How effectively has the programme contributed to the development of assessment/monitoring frameworks on governance and how has the programme facilitated the learning and exchange of experience between various actors?

Why do we want to do monitoring? For whom and for what?

Need to clarify the purpose of monitoring

Interviews with Project management team.Interviews with stakeholders at country level - government, civil society, private sector, development partners.

How will or can the national multi-stakeholder platforms support the monitoring? What should be their role?

For example, could they organize national events?

How to institutionalize the monitoring and make sure it is bottom up?

Experience of REAF where national reports are presented regularly by countries on progress with the implementation of the VGGTs, and regional report with associated workshop and event


65



3. Equity/Gender

3.1: To what extent have women, indigenous peoples and vulnerable and marginalized groups participated in the VGGT programme? How have the needs of vulnerable groups been considered in the design and implementation of the programme at various levels?

Have the needs of the most vulnerable groups been considered in the programme design? How?

Both at global level and country level Interviews with OPCL programme team;Interviews with FAO Indigenous peoples team;Interviews with civil society representatives; Global and country surveys.Analysis of platform meeting minutes, meeting reports, participant lists, member lists;Interviews with platform members and workshop participants at country level;FGD with workshop participants;Analysis of workshop attendance lists;Interviews with local stakeholders;Field visits (if possible).

Who is included in the multi-stakeholder platforms? Are the most vulnerable/marginalized groups included? What is the gender balance?

If not, how to guarantee their inclusion? How to improve the quality of these platforms?

What is the level of participation of stakeholders at local (vs national) level? How does information flow from national workshops to local level and vice versa?

How can FAO contribute to stopping all forms of intimidation and violence against right holders? Is there an entry point through the revision of the legal framework?

CFS monitoring report

4. Sustainability

4.1: How sustainable are FAO’s interventions and what is their potential to contribute to long-term changes at country level?

Are the two workshops enough to launch a sustainable process? After the workshops, are the countries in a position to continue the implementation of the VGGT after the closure of FAO’s projects?

Global and country surveys;QCA;Interviews with DPs (at global and country levels).

What kind of support is FAO providing to countries to ensure the sustainability (e.g. support to resource mobilization/donor roundtable, use of TCPs) and what other types of interventions should be done to ensure sustainability (focus on technical layers/where staff turnover is lower)?

What makes the interventions sustainable?

Is it the use of already existing platforms? What are the other factors?

How can FAO go further than supporting a change in the legal and political framework? What is needed to make it work and have an impact for the most vulnerable populations? How can (or should?) FAO influence budgeting for VGGT operationalization?

How to promote the integration of the VGGT principles in the development partners’ principles of action/rules and regulations?

Experience of France: technical guide to operationalize VGGTs in the social and environmental procedures («diligences») of AFD. How could this have been proposed to other donors and UN Agencies (i.e. integration into their policies and programmes)?

What are the prospects for the future in the countries where implementation is considered successful?


66

Appendix 4. Evaluation timeline


67

Appendix 5. Online survey questionnaire

The FAO Office of Evaluation is currently undertaking an Evaluation of FAO’s global programme to support the implementation of the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of land, fisheries and forests (VGGT).

The evaluation will focus on the relevance of the programme, results achieved and lessons learned that may serve to enhance future phases of the programme. The objective of this questionnaire is to take stock of the collective knowledge of people involved in the implementation of FAO’s VGGT programme. This survey compliments other data collection tools being employed in the evaluation, such as interviews, desk review and country visits.

This questionnaire is individual. The survey is targeted towards people who have worked on the VGGTs at the country level (both within FAO and also national-level partners). We invite you to share this survey link with all your colleagues, past or present, who could in your opinion contribute to this exercise.

The questionnaire should take no more than 15 minutes to complete. Your responses will be treated as strictly confidential. We therefore invite you to answer honestly and openly. Please complete the questionnaire no later than 1 March 2017.

For all enquiries, please contact [email protected].

1. Name and Surname

2. Email

3. Country

4. In what type of organization do you currently work:

• FAO Country Office

• Government

• Civil Society

• Private Sector

• Academia/Research Institute

• Donor

• United Nations

• Other Development agency

Other (Please specify)

5. In what capacity have you worked in connection with the VGGTs since their creation? (Role, function and brief description of your tasks)

6. In general, how would you gauge the level of awareness of the VGGTs among colleagues within your organization?

• 0-25% of people are aware of the VGGTs




mailto:[email protected].†


68

7. Do you agree with the following statements?

FAO’s support to the implementation of the VGGTs in your country is…:

Completely agree

Mostly agree

Mostly disagree

Completely disagree

Adapted to the needs of the country

Useful for improving land tenure governance in the country

Based on a clear strategic vision of FAO

Well-coordinated with the Government

Well-coordinated with civil society

Well-coordinated with the private sector

Well-coordinated with resource partners (donors)

Well-coordinated with other actors in the development sector

Informed by lessons from past experiences in the country

Comments:

8. In your opinion, how useful were the following activities in supporting the implementation of the VGGTs in your country?

Very useful Moderately useful

Only slightly useful

Not at all useful

Did not take place/don’t know

Awareness raising workshops

Information campaigns (e.g. rural radio, etc.)

Online courses for national stakeholders (e-learning)

In-country learning programme for national stakeholders

Training programme specifically for civil society

Knowledge exchange between countries

Support missions from FAO headquarters (Rome)

Others (Please specify), or please add comments on the above activities


69

9. Are you aware of, and have you used the following ‘Technical Guides for the governance of tenure’ developed by FAO?

I am aware of it(Yes/No)

I have used it(Yes/No)

1 - Governing land for women and men

2 - Improving governance of forest tenure

3 - Respecting free, prior and informed consent

4 - Safeguarding land tenure rights in the context of agricultural investment

5 - Responsible governance of tenure and the law

6 - Improving governance of pastoral lands

7 - Responsible governance of tenure: a technical guide for investors

8 - Governing Tenure Rights to Commons

9 - Implementing improved tenure governance in fisheries (preliminary version)

Comments on the Technical Guides:

10. Are you familiar with, and have you taken the following online (e-learning) courses:

I am aware of the course(Yes/No)

I have taken the course(Yes/No)

Introduction to the Responsible Governance of Tenure

Addressing Tenure Issues in the Context of Natural Disasters

Addressing Corruption in the Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests

Addressing Disputes and Conflicts over the Tenure of Natural Resources

Governing land for women and men

Spatial Planning in the context of the Responsible Governance of Tenure

How to monitor and promote policy changes on governance of tenure

Respecting Free, Prior and Informed Consent

Comments on the online courses:




http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4998e.pdf









http://www.fao.org/elearning/#/elc/en/Course/VG1




http://www.fao.org/elearning/#/elc/en/course/VG6




http://www.fao.org/elearning/#/elc/en/course/VGG

http://www.fao.org/elearning/#/elc/en/course/VG4A

http://www.fao.org/elearning/#/elc/en/course/VG4A



http://www.fao.org/elearning/#/elc/en/course/FPIC


70

11. What is your opinion of the People’s Manual on the Guidelines on Governance of Land, Fisheries and Forests

• Very useful

• Somewhat useful

• Not useful at all

• I don’t know the People’s Manual

Comments on the People’s Manual:

12. To what extent, in your view, are the following stakeholders represented in the bodies (platform, working groups, fora, etc.) that were created as part of FAO’s support to the implementation of the VGGTs in your country?

Sufficiently represented

Not sufficiently represented

Not represented at all

Ministry of Agriculture

Other Ministries (Fisheries, Livestock, Environment, etc.)

Civil Society

Private Sector

Academia/Research

Women

Indigenous Peoples

Smallholder Producers

Comments on the level of representation of different stakeholders:

13. To what extent have the following results been achieved since the start of FAO activities to support the implementation of the VGGTs in your country?

Achieved Partially achieved Not achieved/ No results

Increased awareness among national stakeholders of the principles of the VGGTs

Improved dialogue among different actors/stakeholders in the country

Increased government interest in land tenure issues

Increased media interest in land tenure issues

Actions are underway or have been taken to revise a law/policy/land reform to explicitly incorporate the VGGT principles

Approval of a law/policy/land reform explicitly incorporating the VGGTs

http://www.foodsovereignty.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/peoplesmanual.pdf

http://www.foodsovereignty.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/peoplesmanual.pdf


71

Achieved Partially achieved Not achieved/ No results

Implementation of a law/policy/land reform explicitly incorporating the VGGTs

Increased funds allocated to land/water/forest governance by the government

Increased resources allocated by donors to land governance

Improved access to and governance of land/water/forest in the country

Other (Please specify)

Thank you for your patience and for your answers. To conclude the survey, there are three open questions which may require some reflection on your part, but which will be very useful for the evaluation:

14. In your opinion, what are the main strengths of FAO in supporting the implementation of the VGGTs?

15. In your opinion, what are the main weaknesses of FAO in supporting the implementation of the VGGTs?

16. Based on your experience during the first phase of the programme, what are the specific aspects which should be reinforced and continued in the second phase of the programme to support the implementation of the VGGTs?


72

Appendix 6. Country-specific recommendations

Myanmar

1 Myanmar faces a huge task to reform its land governance. The advantage is that there is a lot of good will from many donors and a lot of relationship building was done already as well as producing a draft land policy and pilot tested land office at the local level. The role of FAO is as a member of the leading donor organizations in the land, fisheries and forestry sectors. FAO should use its good reputation in government of Myanmar and Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Irrigation in particular, and its recent work on performing training and workshops on governance of tenure as well as planning support under the FIRST programme. In particular, a key observation is that in the current context of Myanmar, land management will continue to cause social and economic problems until the core issues are addressed, adversely affecting 70 percent of the people living in the rural areas. Therefore, FAO should take a lead in assisting the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and irrigation to address the governance issues in land management by working closely with the Ministry and with civil society to guide the better development of the land sector through policy and planning that taps the expertise and learning programmes that FAO has in-house and through experienced consultants.

2 Change will be resisted and major change or reform will be resisted strongly. The judgment on the pace of change is critical to success and will depend to some significant extent on the degree of leadership support from the government of Myanmar. Capacitating the leaders and making the leadership well aware of the necessary features of a reform programme in land management and its benefits should be a priority of FAO and allow a sound discussion on the pace of change.

3 The cadre of civil society organizations in Myanmar have shown great capacity in the last few years through the National Land Use Policy and other land interventions. With its interventions FAO should give priority to capacitating both Government and civil society on the land sector. With the many possible actions FAO should coordinate closely with other donors on their interests and priorities and be selective and complementary to other donor activities. Any interventions should be in partnerships with civil society and possibly other donors and other UN agencies.

4 In the context of Myanmar where there is still a general lack of trust and little experience of Government working in partnership with civil society the UN agencies can play a role in strengthening the bonding between government and civil society organizations (CSOs) for the delivery of better services to the rural people through UN and donor projects.

5 The Myanmar country office must have dedicated staff to the global programme of governance of tenure and they must be capacitated. The reforms in the land sector will take a long time; at least ten years. Cooperation, trust and coordination with all stakeholders in the long-term must be given top priority and the country office must be the constant factor in achieving this.

6 Replication of the excellent FAO learning programmes and with the specific learning objectives of creating leaders in Government and CSOs with better knowledge and confidence should be high priority. VGGT sensitization at the local level should be further developed across the country and implemented by CSOs.

7 The cabinet-approved land policy was officially adopted by the Cabinet in early 2016. The urgency is for promulgation which is stalled for political reasons. There is no clear timeline for the promulgation. Awareness raising on the need and content of the land policy with lawmakers by CSOs is indicated.

8 More focus on fisheries and forestry and local level VGGT activities is needed in the future support as well as coordinating with the many CSOs working with customary tenures.


73

9 FAO should discuss with Government and CSOs to consider establishing a VGGT stakeholder platform in Myanmar. This would have a different purpose to the existing structures created for national land and resource governance and for development of the National Land Use Policy but would be linked to these structures. The purpose would include facilitating VGGT knowledge and discussions across the country to create a much larger number of people with knowledge of the VGGT. This would facilitate discussions on land administration and management reforms and would involve many Ministries. It would input to long-term planning and strategic directions. It should be driven by civil society and with adequate funding.

10 Land grabbing has been tolerated for a long time and is very extensive. International practice and norms has it that people even without land documents but who have openly occupied and used the land for many years have implicit rights and cannot be thrown off the land; there must be due process and compensation and most importantly, due consideration of the future of the family. Poor land owners thrown off their farms are devastated. Past land grabs should be reviewed under new guidelines. As much as possible reconstitution of land rights should be sought. A range of other arrangements should be made such as a combination of: partial return of the land; annual payments for use; return fully in a number of years after the investor has received a return on its investment etc. Any full compensation must be carefully considered since poor farmers usually have no alternate work and little ability to manage a lump sum payment. Any land acquisition by the private sector should be on a “willing buyer – willing seller” basis. Government should not be involved in the deal as this invites abuse of authority and corruption. Also, the private sector should consider other modes of access to farm land of the poor such as contract farming or leasing land before land purchase. Accordingly there should be a moratorium on compulsory acquisition of land except in urgent public interest, while the past cases are resolved and the lessons converted into law.

11 The weak land administration system in Myanmar provides big opportunities for dysfunctional practices by those in power. Addressing the problems with new policy and laws is necessary but may not solve the problem. Building functioning land systems that deliver effective land services in accordance with land policy should not be ignored. Where weak land service delivery is contributing greatly to the deterioration of tenure security, a parallel programme of institutional reform of land services should be initiated, if possible, in conjunction with another donor and as another project. In Myanmar there is a lot of improvement that could be done under the existing laws.

12 A long-term sectoral plan for reform of land administration in Myanmar is needed, covering about 10-12 years. FAO should be promoting this initiative with government and civil society and in the context of governance of tenure. The justification is the very weak performance of land administration and the very large number of offices and staff that must be subject to the reform.

13 Studies on impacts and relationships should be conducted with professional level reporting and data analysis to emphasis to various sectors of society and business and donors on the impact of security of tenure on social, economic and environment condition in the country.

14 FAO should support amendment to the land-related laws that refer to the name in land documents being in the name of the head of household such that the law would allow the names of both spouse to be recorded.

Sierra Leone

15 FAO should obtain support from donors to ensure continuity of reform in Sierra Leone as it is essential for strengthening of land governance and natural resource management rights in the country in the long-term.

16 A dedicated in-country team should be retained in place to continue the programme in Sierra Leone. If commitment to new policy and institutional strengthening from the new government in 2018 is wavering a review should be made.


74

17 FAO should prepare for the time that the land policy is promulgated and the Government requests support for its immediate implementation (in whole or part). Keeping donors informed will assist to place FAO in both a leadership and coordination position while also in a position to share the burden and manage expectations. Strengthening of the staff of Ministry of Justice could be a good precursor.

18 The ten-year land sector implementation plan should be strengthened on institutional reform and endorsed by stakeholders and government. The plan must make clear the investment in time, effort, money and management prowess required to recover from the abysmal condition of the land sector. The scope of the programme involves:1 (i) existing surveys, maps and titles on some 200 000 parcels; (ii) new first time surveys, maps and rights issuance on some 1.5M parcels of customary land; (iii) land rights transaction services for keeping the land records up to date and the integrity of the records; (iv) customer service and information to retain confidence in the land system; (v) land information management; (vi) land management functions of spatial planning, urban land use planning, land valuation for taxation and resumption purposes; (vii) monitoring and evaluation and reporting; and (vii) law and regulation reform.

19 Moving forward should involve the Ministry of Finance in the planning of better land governance because the future activities will become larger quickly and require higher government support in terms of restructure, law reform and investment.

20 The possible creation of the Land Commission as envisioned in the land policy is highly political. It may never happen but in the meantime may attract obstacles to other land-related activities. A great amount can still be achieved with the existing organization structures of Government.

21 A greater emphasis on revising key laws may well be more productive than on creating a new institution of land governance - often the opportunity for such new institutions arises suddenly while in normal times large efforts are wasted.

22 Since there is much to be done the VGGT Programme Phase 2 must carefully consider building a much wider base of knowledge among advocates for land tenure security and land governance. In this latter context, both political actors and the public will need to be considered and not only the professional practitioners.

23 One prominent and respected NGO should be identified and assisted to grow into a hub for providing coordination and resource materials and learning events for all other land-related NGOs. With experience from Myanmar where the NGO movement is robust it is suggested that a study team visit Myanmar and be hosted by the Land Core Group which is the hub for an active network and provides excellent member services and resources.

24 Replication of the excellent FAO learning programmes and with the specific learning objectives of creating local leaders in Government and CSOs with better knowledge and confidence should be high priority. The VGGT sensitization with traditional leaders, local authorities and youth at the local level should be further developed for regions of the country and implemented by CSOs.

25 The cabinet-approved land policy was officially adopted by the Cabinet in early 2016. The urgency is for promulgation which is stalled for political reasons. There is no clear timeline for the promulgation. Awareness raising on the need and content of the land policy with lawmakers by CSOs is indicated.

26 The Forest Department is in need of assistance in planning and moving forward with new legislation and new organization arrangements. A small amount of inputs by FAO could have big results in assisting to strengthen the focus and motivation of the senior staff.

1 The many kinds of inputs will not be mentioned here but to emphasize that importantly will be human resource organisation and training as well as a large up-front investment cost to bring the land rights onto the official records which must be preceded by feasibility studies on appropriate methods to minimize unit cost.


75

27 More focus on fisheries and forestry and local level VGGT activities is needed in the next phase of support.

28 Handing over the coordination of the platform to the government and civil society should progress in Phase 2.

29 The draft land policy is strong on women’s rights and as the Land Governance Assessment Framework report of the World Bank points out it should be followed-up to realize the following outcomes:

• surviving spouses and children able to utilize community or family farmlands without interference;

• use rights of women such as the right to collect firewood, medicines, access water sources, etc. are protected;

• women’s representation in land administration bodies are made mandatory;

30 The late arrival of the Ministry of Local Government into the platform was a positive development and the capacity building will be very relevant there. It is suggested that both the police and military should also be included in future VGGT awareness raising. Localizing the various guidebooks of FAO will also be important.

31 It was found that the land survey school has been closed for 20 years. Since land mapping is the basis for land tenure security this is concerning and will need to be addressed soon, possibly by a suitable donor entering to support it - a task that based on the experience in Asia could take a period of four years support to build the teaching staff, curricula, teaching materials, reference materials and equipment and buildings. FAO could facilitate the entry of donors to take up this challenge.

32 Similarly the land survey infrastructure of survey marks and records has deteriorated and a revitalization under a major future intervention is warranted based on an appropriate law and regulation on land boundary definition, land information management that meets the needs in a cost effective manner and makes cognizance of the realistic financial and human capital.

33 Key messages should be delivered consistently to leaders of countries where land grabbing is practiced; for example, Sierra Leone and Myanmar. The message is that international practice and norms has it that people even without land documents but who have openly occupied and used the land for many years have implicit rights and cannot be thrown off the land; there must be due process and compensation and most importantly, due consideration of the future of the family. Poor land owners thrown off their farms are devastated. Past land grabs should be reviewed under new guidelines. As much as possible reconstitution of land rights should be sought. A range of other arrangements should be made in other cases such as a combination of: partial return of the land; annual payments for use; return fully in a number of years after the investor has received a return on its investment etc. Any full compensation must be carefully considered since poor farmers usually have no alternate work and little ability to manage a lump sum payment. Any land acquisition by the private sector should be on a “willing buyer – willing seller” basis. Government should not be involved in the deal as this invites abuse of authority and corruption. Also, the private sector should consider other modes of access to farm land of the poor such as contract farming or leasing land before land purchase.

34 Studies on impacts and relationships should be conducted with professional level reporting and data analysis to emphasis to various sectors of society and business and donors on the impact of security of tenure on social, economic and environment condition.

Uganda

35 FAO with donor support should give strong support to the pilot project on customary land tenure as a flagship activity of VGGT in Uganda. The pilot should continue to emphasize key VGGT principles such as: transparency, community-driven, local service delivery, inclusiveness,


76

gender sensitive, education and information, local dispute resolution, accountability and evaluation, fit for purpose and cost effective. Different areas of the country should participate in the next phase of the pilot programme. The Ministry of Lands is firmly behind the pilot project and it has potential to also be a good reference for other countries in the Region.

36 In parallel to the pilot activity there should be a parallel quality assurance contractor to monitor the outcomes from the user’s perspective and to ensure inclusiveness and corruption-free operations.

37 Of the VGGT principles inclusiveness in secure tenure is perhaps the most difficult principle to achieve and FAO will need to be vigilant that the pilot projects in Certificate of Customary Ownership and forestry rights serve all the people. The law in Uganda is progressive and the application in the pilots is implementing good practice recognizing that tenure security does not necessarily mean individual rights nor does it necessarily mean formal registration of title. But it does demand formal recognition of rights over a designated piece of land belonging to a group, clan, community, corporation, association or individual. There can be very many tenures in one country; each with their own set of rights, restrictions and conditions. The aim is to fast track tenure security for all.

38 Specific recommendations on the pilot on issuance of customary certificates of ownership (CCO) are:

• The process for keeping land records up to date and providing land services are just as important as the initial issuance of formal documents on tenure recognition. This aspect also requires clear costs and process for the people. Since the people are not accustomed to registering rights a large effort is required to instil in their minds the importance of registering inheritances or land transfers, for example.

• On land registration it is strongly recommended to prepare an overall plan for service delivery on land transactions where the Certificate of Customary Ownership has already been issued because the requirements of such an operation are exacting due to the limitations locally. Such a plan will need to make judgments on the broad approach and place of delivery of such services. Experience in many other countries points to this aspect as the cause of failure of the land administration system making the investment in first time titling very wasteful.

• It is very important for inclusiveness to keep a low unit cost and finding new ways to reduce cost. Awareness to avoid expensive surveys and mapping is needed. Benefits and cost must be well documented and demonstrated.

• Local information programmes must be run continually in pilot areas.

• Media and information for high officials of the Government must be run by the VGGT platform participants.

• The procedure manual must be continually updated as better techniques and experience determines more appropriate methods. Re-training of staff may be required during the pilots. At the end of the pilots the manual will be invaluable for roll-out phase.

• A different part of the country should be pilot tested in the next phase and if possible collocated with the forestry pilot on issuance of long-term forestry leases to communities and private sector.

39 To manage the above the VGGT Secretariat may need to be strengthened and the steering committee made active. There should be a review of this function.

40 As the new procedures are documented there should be a review as to whether the laws or regulations should be revised to make the work more efficient or to meet the needs of the stakeholders better.

41 FAO should use international expert person or panel to assess the technical and social and cost performance and effectiveness of the pilot projects. The pilot project should be reviewed with FAO expert assistance to: (i) validate the effectiveness; (ii) assess whether the process can be streamlined in time and reduced in cost; (iii) assess the degree of inclusion of the community; (iv) assess whether the maps and registers are openly available to people such as planners; (v) issues of sustainable maintenance of the land records by transactions; (vi)


77

suitability of the education and information dissemination programme; (vii) the justification for government financial support to rolling-out of the programme; and (viii) any variations or adverse effects.

42 Following the assessment of the Certificate of Customary Ownership pilot FAO should work with government and civil society on a long-term roll-out plan (not necessarily for FAO to implement as the programme may be too big).

43 The experience from the very successful forestry rights project should also be informed widely. There is a great amount of good documentation already including ideas on streamlining the process of issuing Forestry rights and these should be distilled and updated guides produced for both cases; community right holders and private right holders. Issues raised in the review such as cost of Forest Management Plans and boundary survey should be reassessed and any other potential ‘show-stoppers’.

44 The roll-out of the forest rights programme should be promoted for both private sector and community beneficiaries.

45 While a lot of focus on data management is on the NIC and high technology, the fact is that a practical system that operates well at the District and sub-county level is needed to support both the registration of Certificate of Customary Ownership rights and forest rights. The system must also register any changes in the rights or ownership of those rights. It may be better to have a largely/partially manual system at the start so that the system can deliver the services needed reliably and responsively and locally. The reality of the limited resources in the districts must be recognized. This should be studied in detail from a service delivery and institutional perspective, not only from a technical perspective. The aim must be inclusiveness and retaining all people in the formal system.

46 There is a lot of synergy and similarity in challenges with the future objectives of scaling up the pilot of Certificate of Customary Ownership rights recognition for the people and the pilot on forest tenure rights recognition for the private sector and communities. This is especially as both functions focus on record keeping activities and approval at the District Level. There are also some unclear responsibilities between the two Ministries concerned (Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development and Ministry of Water and Environment) that should be resolved simultaneously. There is a huge task ahead to sensitize and capacitate the local administrations and other stakeholders across the country so it might be better to do the technology transfer and institutional building for both activities at the same time at the same location. An information, education and communication (IEC) programme could cover both sectors for all stakeholders (community, NGOs, private sector, central government). Accordingly, FAO should work with government and local authorities to coordinate plans and maximize resources for the IEC sensitization and capacity building programmes.

Mongolia

47 Land rights are generally weak in Mongolia. Land grabs occur. Government asserts its right to control natural resource access and rights which is not consistent with the land to people relationships required for long-term stability and growth. These relationships should reflect both the customary and the market-led realities as well as environment realities. Actual tenure in Mongolia is influenced towards socialist doctrine and government-led control than market and environmental-led decision making. The importance of strengthening land rights is supported broadly by NGOs.

48 The VGGT Working Group (WG) should be reconvened and reinvigorated with new members following the change of personnel after the last national election. Also a Ministerial level body should be created to guide VGGT implementation. Local VGGT WGs should be established. In Phase 1 there was substantial capacity building and a good pilot project in mapping rights and tenures. But there was little substantial outcome in the institutional framework for governance of tenure. With an excellent springboard and a dire need the government and civil society leadership of the WG should take on the challenge of providing such a strengthening of the governance of tenure.


78

49 Mongolia is in a rather unique setting requiring a different approach to the balance of rights and responsibilities especially in the pastoral lands. There should be a law to regulate the relationships of land to people in pastoral land and also revised laws on the access and preservation of forests and fisheries. In this formulation a unique set of relationships are likely to be drawn reflecting the cultural and historic relationships in Mongolia as well as the fragile environment.

50 With a sizeable turnover of government staff after the national elections mid-2016, there is a need to provide training on VGGT to key NR staff of government and new members of the WG.

51 Civil society has a more important role to play since the government is not pushing reforms very hard. FAO should assist civil society to be better organized for advocacy across the country by capacitating more CSO persons to become trainers and advocates at local levels, strengthening CSO networks and using the media more to reach the sparse population. The aim should be to empower the CSO networks so that the CSOs may form an equal partner with government and lawmakers in the governance of national resources.

52 Both rights and responsibilities must be expressed in the policy on tenure of land, fisheries and forestry in Mongolia as both aspects are not well enough expressed in law and regulations.

53 Forest user communities need to be more assertive, have formal rights and be allocated formal responsibility for managing their forest area (currently people encroach at will and take forest products). The tenure of the underlying land must be clearly possessed by the users to overcome existing problems of anyone accessing forest land. The contract period must be long enough so that investments in forests can be recouped. Right to exclusive possession is important to the forest user communities otherwise investment will remain limited.

54 The process of land policy development should be used to build and demonstrate strong approval for the new policies, especially those relating to pastoral land and forest land.

55 Assessments of the land law, environmental protection law, agricultural law and other laws is needed to underpin the development of land policy.

56 There is a serious risk of mining operations spoiling large areas of land and critical water sources. The EIA process must be greatly strengthened starting with a necessary assessment of the Environment Law.

57 An urban land management review was done in 2010/11 by UNDP but it needs to be followed-up for actionable items and new policy development.

58 CSOs wish to develop a national land policy. The base of CSO capacity and motivation is right. This would place the pastureland protection in a broader framework and might assist in a revised version being passed. FAO, under its global programme is well placed to assist having provided a great deal of capacity building in the last three years.

59 Law reforms are needed to plug the many gaps. While there are no restrictions and formal access to land there is widespread abuse of the natural resources especially in pasture lands. VGGT should be used in the assessments and guide the scope of the considerations. A land policy should be the first step and followed by amendments to the laws, starting with amendments to the existing umbrella land law:

• Land Law

• Pastureland Law

• Water law

• Environment Law

• Agricultural crop land law

• Land use fee

• Mining land


79

60 Government and non-government stakeholders should develop a land policy framework, land policy development process and together implement the process with substantial and widespread dialogue. The agreed draft land policy should be sent to Cabinet for approval.

61 The land policy should be strongly focused on: natural resource management; responsible management; traditional grazing practices and related social relationships; environmental protection; minimal formalization of rights to land that is sufficient to identify communities and their traditional rights to natural resources in a location; traditional rights to share natural resources; family rights to permanent land such as for the winter camp; variations of policy allowed from climatic region to region; rights of small-scale farmers.

62 FAO should assist the government to develop the land policy. There is a contentious pasture land protection law which has been under development for many years. A land policy that addresses the threats to pasture land and the responsibilities to ensure that the threats are mitigated would be best addressed with land policy dialogue with all stakeholders. Similarly, forest rights need to be strengthened. The VGGT would be a suitable instrument to guide the discussions.

63 The progress with the pastureland protection bill must address the fact that there is obstruction to the draft bill because large herd owners continue uncontrolled grazing and growth in herd sizes.

64 The FAO VGGT Phase 2 Programme should: build on the excellent base of informed land professionals from Phase 1; provide VGGT training to newly appointed government staff and wider civil society professionals, especially those working mostly outside Ulaanbaatar; assist the government to develop a new land policy by inclusive stakeholder participation across the country.

65 FAO will need to provide increased budget to fund greater professional level inputs to assist Mongolia to go to the next level of deeper VGGT exposure outside UB, reaching a wider CSO base and starting a land policy development process. The land policy development process must contend with realities such as: Government has focus currently on the mining sector for the ‘hard currency’ it returns; the influence of wealthy Mongolians is strong at the law making level; the weak organization of NGOs; the centralist values of many officials in Government; and the market pressure on the local currency.

66 Due to the complexity of the sectors and strong vested interests, as well as the many actors involved in the sectors in a country, it is recommended that a full-time in-country professional be attached to the FAO country office to take charge of implementation. Operational efficiency and effectiveness in implementing the VGGT global programme would be greatly enhanced.

67 Studies on impacts and relationships should be conducted with professional level reporting and data analysis to emphasis to various sectors of society and business and donors on the impact of security of tenure on social, economic and environment condition.

68 Priority for future training:

• focus more on herders and farmers at grassroots levels and local authorities (Aimag and Soum);

• training for new government staff who entered government after the last election and are in key positions, governors and parliamentarians;

• better monitoring of government performance in governance of tenure;

• workshops in support to national land policy development.

69 Support should be given to Administration of Land Affairs, Geodesy and Cartography of Mongolia (ALAGAC) to expand the pilots on land management. The pilot project produced tangible outputs and impressive results which can be evaluated. The pilot project should be reviewed with FAO expert assistance to: (i) validate the effectiveness of the data to the


80

objectives with a view to suggesting any land information items that are not necessary, less important, and any land information of prime importance that is missing; (ii) assess whether the process can be streamlined in time and reduced in cost; (iii) assess the degree of inclusion of the community in the land resource inventory and subsequent access to the maps; (iv) assess whether the maps are getting into the hands of the people who can best use them to make better informed decisions; (v) issues of sustainable maintenance and use of the maps; (vi) suitable information dissemination programme; (vii) the justification for government financial support to rolling-out of the programme; and (viii) streamlining cost and time. In this context ALAGAC has a project proposal for scaling up the programme that should be considered by FAO and donors.

70 This NR inventory at Soum level prepared by ALAGAC should be supported by a better land policy framework which gives authority to the local levels of administration to use these NR maps and NR assessments in the conduct of their work and also requires local people to be better informed and engaged on NR decision-making.

71 The VGGT is very relevant for land management in the urban sector too because of the inadequate involvement of civil society in decision-making. The land register should be open and transparent and the land data accessible online; this would add greatly to transparency. The land use planning process should involve the people. The implementation of land services should be accountable to the people for service quality not only reporting to government.

Sénégal (in French)

72 Hors Programme-cadre de mise en œuvre de DV, la FAO devrait intégrer de façon transversale dans ses domaines prioritaires des bureaux pays, un volet qui prend en compte la dissémination et/ou la mise en application des Directives volontaires. Les bureaux pays devraient intégrer dans leurs propres activités sur le terrain, la mise en œuvre des Directives volontaires et montrer ainsi aux partenaires techniques et financiers (PTF) et aux autres acteurs du développement durable, la manière de prendre en compte et d’appuyer la dissémination des DV à travers des projets et programmes.

73 FAO Sénégal devrait continuer à jouer un rôle de lead au sein du Système des Nations Unies et au sein des PTF en matière de gouvernance responsable des régimes fonciers. Elle pourrait ainsi capitaliser les expériences de l’appui à la mise en œuvre des Directives volontaires à travers les projets/programme et mettre les résultats de la capitalisation à la disposition des autres PTF pour assurer leur reproductivité.

74 La mise en place d’un comité présidé par le Gouvernement pour piloter les activités déroulées dans le cadre du Programme DV au Sénégal a été positive. Cela a permis de former et de faire porter les activités par un noyau d’acteurs nationaux. Cependant, la FAO devrait à présent, consolider son positionnement dans le domaine de la gouvernance des régimes fonciers et contribuer plus efficacement à renforcer les synergies entre les différents acteurs institutionnels concernés par les terres, les pêches, les forêts, l’environnement et la gouvernance locale (Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’équipement rural MAER, Ministère de l’élevage et des productions animales MEPA, Ministère de la pêche et de l’économie maritime MPEM, Ministère de l’environnement et du développement durable MEDD, Ministère de la gouvernance locale, du développement et de l’aménagement du territoire MGDAT et le Ministère de l’intérieur et de la sécurité publique MISP).

75 Le personnel dans les ministères étant sans cesse renouvelé, le COPIL doit être formé pour prendre le relai et organiser régulièrement des sessions d’information et de mise à jour pour les nouveaux arrivants, notamment les points focaux.

76 Le comité de pilotage inclusif et multi parties-prenantes mis en place et chargé de la coordination et du suivi des activités est l’un des principaux facteurs de réussite de la mise en œuvre des DV au Sénégal durant la phase 1 du Programme. Cette expérience mérite d’être dupliquée pour appuyer la dissémination et la prise en compte des Directives volontaires dans tous les pays où la FAO a une représentation, bénéficiaire ou non du Programme-cadre DV. Dans les pays où les conditions sont favorables (volonté exprimée par les acteurs locaux), les


81

bureaux pays devraient ainsi intégrer dans leur Cadre de Programmation Pays (CPP) l’appui à la mise en place et au fonctionnement d’un comité de pilotage national inclusif et multipartite des DV.

77 La FAO devrait impliquer davantage les Ministères sectoriels, autres que le Ministère de l’agriculture (MAER) dans la mise en œuvre du Programme. Elle doit conserver les acquis en matière de gouvernance des terres et poursuivre ses actions en les orientant davantage vers la gouvernance des pêches et des forêts. Le projet « Renforcement de la diffusion et de l’opérationnalisation des DV » est un bon début mais il faut aller plus loin. La FAO devrait s’appuyer sur les services techniques déconcentrés et décentralisés pour disséminer les Directives volontaires. Elle devrait également continuer de susciter le dialogue et les échanges entre les différents acteurs locaux de la gouvernance des régimes fonciers en favorisant la mise en place de plateformes locales des DV. Cela nécessitant plus de moyens, une solution consisterait à arriver à impliquer d’autres partenaires pour élargir le champ d’action.

78 En ce qui concerne la dissémination des DV au sein des ministères et structures directement concernés par la gouvernance foncière, le taux d’information de 25% du personnel du MAER peut être fixée comme une référence à court terme. Il revient au COPIL de prendre les dispositions nécessaires pour l’atteinte de ce résultat. Enfin, les actions de type émissions radio ou de télévision, prévues ou à prévoir dans le cadre des nouveaux projets devraient permettre d’informer une bonne frange de la population sénégalaise sur les DV.

79 Concernant particulièrement les élus locaux (maires et conseillers municipaux), l’organisation d’une journée spéciale d’information sur les DV serait nécessaire pour mettre ces acteurs incontournables de la gouvernance foncière au même niveau d’information, à l’image de ce qui a été fait par la FAO à Madagascar. Dans ce pays, la FAO (OPCL) avait organisé une journée spéciale pour informer les élus locaux sur les Directives volontaires. Ainsi, les DV ont été présentées devant plus de 100 maires des communes concernées par des projets de l’Union Européenne et de la Banque Mondiale, qui comportaient des volets fonciers. Cette action pourrait être dupliquée au Sénégal. Il faudrait pour ce faire, la suggérer au COPIL, contacter des bailleurs de projets/programmes en cours ou à venir et organiser une intervention de FAO Rome.

80 La FAO devrait user de son avantage comparatif en tant que chef de file du SNU pour la gouvernance foncière et de ses rôles en tant que co-lead avec l’AFD du sous-groupe foncier et co-lead avec l’USAID du groupe thématique développement rural et sécurité alimentaire des PTF pour inviter les partenaires au développement et les bailleurs de fonds à prendre en compte dans les projets et programmes qu’ils financent, des activités d’appui à la dissémination et à la formation des bénéficiaires et des populations sur les DV. Une capitalisation de ce qui est fait dans le cadre des projets ASAMM et APEFAM financés par l’AFD dans la région de Matam devrait permettre de faciliter l’intégration implicite de la mise en œuvre des Directives volontaires dans projets et programme de développement rural et de gestion des ressources naturelles au Sénégal.

81 La FAO devrait s’assurer de la participation effective et d’une représentativité adéquate des femmes (au moins 30%) et des jeunes de moins de 30 ans (au moins 20%) aux ateliers et sessions de formation sur les DV. En outre, la FAO devrait poursuivre les actions qui ont un lien direct avec l’amélioration des conditions d’accès à terre, aux pêches et aux forêts pour les personnes vulnérables, les femmes et les jeunes. La formation des para-juristes sur les DV pour améliorer leur perception de l’accès des groupes défavorisés à la terre, au travers le projet « Renforcement de la diffusion et de l’opérationnalisation des DV » est un bel exemple à reproduire.

82 En ce qui concerne le suivi de la mise en œuvre des DV, la FAO devrait appuyer la mise en place de l’Observatoire national de gouvernance foncière (ONGF) en application de la recommandation du document de politique foncière. Elle devrait, pour ce faire, analyser le rôle de cet observatoire à la lumière l’Observatoire national sur le foncier au Sénégal proposé par l’UEMOA dans le cadre de la mise en place de l’Observatoire régional sur le foncier en Afrique de l’Ouest (ORFAO), aux fins de mutualiser les efforts. Enfin, comme pris en compte par le projet « Renforcement de la diffusion et de l’opérationnalisation des DV », il s’agira d’appuyer la définition et la clarification des rôles et des acteurs, par exemple, entre CNCR et CNRF, pour assurer pérennisation et viabilité du système de suivi mis en place.


82

Appendix 7. List of people met

FAO

Name Role/Title Department

Headquarters

Andrew Hilton Senior Land Tenure Officer Land Tenure Unit (OPCL)

Andrew Nadeau Senior Capacity Development Officer

Capacity Development Unit (OPCC)

Ann-Kristin Rothe Tenure Governance Consultant

Land Tenure Unit (OPCL)

Caterina Batello Senior Officer/Team Leader Ecosystems Management Team

Plant Production and Protection Division (AGPM)

Cherin Hoon Associate Professional Officer

Agricultural Development Economics Division (ESA)

Chiara Nicodemi Instructional Designer Capacity Development Unit (OPCC)

David Palmer Senior Land tenure Officer Land Tenure Unit (OPCL)

Emma McGhie Consultant (Indigenous Peoples Team)

Advocay Unit (OPCA)

Francesca Carpano VGGT CSO Land Tenure Specialist

Partnership, Advocacy and Capacity Development Division of FAO (OPCD)

Francesca Romano Land Tenure Officer Land Tenure Unit (OPCL)

Guilherme Brady Partnerships Officer and Civil Society Team Leader

Partnerships unit (OPCP)

Ingeborg Gaarde International Consultant on Good Practices and Experience Capitalization

Capacity Development Unit (OPCC)

Javier Molina Cruz Senior Land Tenure Officer Land Tenure Unit (OPCL)

Jean Maurice Durand Senior Land Tenure Officer Land Tenure Unit (OPCL)

Louisa Jansen Land Tenure Officer Land Tenure Unit (OPCL)

Marcella Villareal Director Partnership, Advocacy and Capacity Development Division (OPC)

Margaret Vidar Legal Officer Development Law Service (LEGN)

Martha Osorio Gender and Rural Development Officer

Social Policies and Rural Institutions Division (ESP)

Mary Elizabeth Miller Consultant Fisheries and Aquaculture Department

Paolo Groppo Territorial Development Officer

Land and Water Division (AGL)

Paul Munro-Faure Deputy Director Partnership, Advocacy and Capacity Development Division of FAO (OPCD)

Rebecca Metzner Senior Fisheries Officer Policy, Economics and Institutions Branch (FIAP) of the FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department

Safia Agrawal Forest Officer Forestry Policy and Resources Division (FOA)

Tea Dabrundashvilli Land Tenure Officer Land Tenure Unit (OPCL)

Yon Fernandez Larrinoa

Advocacy officer (Indigenous Peoples Team)

Advocay Unit (OPCA)


83

Country Offices

Christian Schulze Associate Professional Officer

FAO Sierra Leone

Joseph Brima FAO Rep Assistant (Programme)

FAO Sierra Leone

Nyabenyi Tipo FAO Rep FAO Sierra Leone

CD Langoya FAO Consultant, Environment

FAO Uganda

Christopher Burke Consultant FAO Uganda

Maria Guglielma da Passano

FAO Program Manager FAO Uganda

Massimo Castiello Deputy FAO Rep FAO Uganda

Steve Hodges Consultant FAO Uganda

Willy Kakuru CCA Expert FAO Uganda

Aung Swe Assistant FAO Representative (Programme)

FAO Myanmar

Paul de Wit FAO / EU Lands Consultant FAO Myanmar

Nyamjargal Gombo AFAOR Programme FAO Mongolia

Mr Andrew Engels FAO GEF Project on Sustainable Forest Management

FAO Mongolia

Kevin Gallagher FAOR FAO Mongolia

Ms Khongorzun TRAINING COORDINATOR FAO Mongolia

Patrick David FAOR ad interim FAO Senegal

Cheikh Gueye AFAOR (Programme) FAO Senegal

Géraldine Tardivel Experte en gouvernance foncière

FAO Senegal

Government officers

Name Role/Title Institution

Sierra Leone

Bai Bairoh Mabuleh Anshenni

Paramount Chief Mala Mara Chiefdom, Tonkoliki District

Fatmata Seasy-Kebbay VGGT Coordinator

Janeba Alharazim MAFFS

Jobo Samba Deputy Director GIS MLCPE

Josephus Mamie Deputy Director MFMR (Fisheries & Marine Resources)

Marie Jalloh Deputy Minister Ministry of Agriculture Forestry and Food Security

Sheikh Sowa VGGT Technical Coordinator

Victor Bangura Investment and Export Promotion Agency (SLIEPA)

William Bangura Director Forestry Department MAFFS & VGGT SC


84

Uganda

Adata Margaret Commissioner MWE

Alfred Okot Okidi Permanent Secretary MWE

Brian Makabayi VGGT Secretariat members MLHUD

Dennis Obbo Principal Information Scientist MLHUD

Evelyne Ajambo VGGT Secretary

Irene Kambedha Senior Forest Officer MWE

Ms Eunice Nabakwa Lands Officer Member of VGGT Secretariat

Nicolas Ndawula VGGT Secretariat members MLHUD

Omulala Samuel Environmentalist MWE

William Kambugu ICT Officer VGGT Secretariat

Myanmar

Daw Khin Swe Latt. Director Ministry of Planning & Finance (MOPF)

Dr Wah Wah Maung, DG Central Statistical Organization,

Ministry of Planning & Finance (MOPF)

Dr Win Htut Director (DALMS) MOLI

Kyaw Naing Ong and Acting DDG and DALMS

Win Htut Director DALMS

Nyi Nyi Kyaw Director General, Planning and Statistics Division

Forest Department, MoNREC

U Ngwe Thee Assistant Director, Planning and Statistics Division

Forest Department, MoNREC

U Hlang Maung Thein Director General Department of Environment and Nature Conservation

U Thaung Naing DDG Co-Operatives Dept MOLI

U Tin Htut Permanent Secretary MOALI

Mongolia

Ms Altantsetseg Focal point for VGGT, member of WG-VGGT

Former MOFA

Mr Enkhtaivan Forest conservation, reforestation and Coordination Division

Ministry of Environment and Tourism, MET

Mr Choi-Ish Director Livestock production, MoFALI, Mongolia

Mr Zorigbaatarr Soum Governor Aimag Dundgobi, Soum Khuld

Mr Usuhjaargal Deputy Governor at Soum level

Aimag Dundgobi, Soum Khuld

Ms Elbegsaikhan Member of VGGT WG Ministry of Environment

Senegal

Modou Mboup Conseiller Technique Ministère de l’Agriculture et de l’équipement rural

Ramatoulaye Dieng Ndyaye

Secrétaire Générale Ministère de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable (MEDD)


85

Boniface Cacheu Conseiller Technique Ministère de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable (MEDD)

Papa W. Guey Directeur Général ANGMV Ministère de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable (MEDD)

Baba Ba Chef DRCS/DEFCCS Ministère de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable (MEDD)

Jean Mikael Djiboune Administrateur Maritime (DPSP)

Ministère de la Pêche et de l’Economie Maritime (MPEM)

Bababcar Banda Diop Conseiller Technique Ministère de la Pêche et de l’Economie Maritime (MPEM)

Mamadou Goudiaby Directeur des Pêches Maritimes (DPM)

Ministère de la Pêche et de l’Economie Maritime (MPEM)

Mamadou Ousseynou Sakho

Secrétaire Général Ministère de l’Elevage et des Productions Animales (MEPA)

Khadime Gueye Conseiller Technique Ministère de l’Elevage et des Productions Animales (MEPA)

Mamadou Boye Diallo Conseiller Juridique Ministère de l’Elevage et des Productions Animales (MEPA)

Babacar Pouye Responsable BFP Ministère de l’Elevage et des Productions Animales (MEPA)

Ndèye Coumba Maty Mbengue

Division Pastorale Ministère de l’Elevage et des Productions Animales (MEPA)

Gora Beye Directeur Technique PRAPS Ministère de l’Elevage et des Productions Animales (MEPA)

Soulèye Diouf Inspecteur Technique Ministère de l’Elevage et des Productions Animales (MEPA)

Meissa Ndiaye Inspecteur Technique Ministère de l’Elevage et des Productions Animales (MEPA)

Amadou Ndiaye Chargé de suivi-évaluation (CEP)

Ministère de l’Elevage et des Productions Animales (MEPA)

Dame Sow Directeur de l’Elevage Ministère de l’Elevage et des Productions Animales (MEPA)

Resource partners

Name Role/Title Organisation/Department

Chris Penrose Buckley Food and Agriculture Advisor DfID UK Department for International Development

Iris Krebber Head of Agriculture DfID UK Department for International Development

Mathieu Boche Chargé de mission “Gouvernance Foncière”

Ministère des Affaires étrangères et du Développement international, France

Romy Sato Agriculture and Rural Development Advisor

Global Donor Platform for Rural Development – Secretariat of the Global Donor Working Group on Land (GDWGL)

Thorsten Huber Team Leader, Land Policy Uganda Project

GIZ Uganda


86

Civil Society

Name Role/Title Organization/Department

A. Khurelshagai Head (former), Gov. Agency of Land affairs

Geodesy and Cartography, ALAGAC NGO, Mongolia

Abbas J Kamara SILNORF, NGO, Sierra Leone

Abdulai Bun Wai Coordinator Action for Large-Scale Land Acquisition Transparency (ALLAT) Sierra Leone

Cecilia Mattia Coordinator NACE, Sierra Leone

Celine Allaverdian GRET (NGO), Myanmar

Chantal Jacovetti CNOP Mali

Daniel Sesay Program Officer NAMATI (NGO), Sierra Leone

Eimear Murphy Program Adviser – Governance

Irish Aid Sierra Leone

Emilia Kamara WOF HRAD (NGO), Sierra Leone

Enkh-Amgalan Center for Policy Research (NGO), Mongolia

Jenny Franco Transnational Institute (TNI) (NGO), Myanmar

Joseph Rohall Green Scenery NGO, Sierra Leone

Julia Fofanah Conservation Society, Sierra Leone

Ko Si Thu Principal Land In Our Hands (NGO), Myanmar

Martina O’Donaghue TROCAIRE (NGO), Uganda

Mohammad Mansarico KADDRO, NGO, Sierra Leone

Christin Weigt Program Adviser ZOA, NGO, Uganda

Sofia Monsalve Suarez Secretary General FIAN International

Ts. Altantuya National Association of Mongolian Agricultural Cooperatives, NAMAC NGO, Mongolia

U Shwe Thein Land Core Group Office, Myanmar

Ursula Langkamp Director Weithungerhilfe (NGO), Sierra Leone

Manfred Bischofberger Weithungerhilfe (NGO), Sierra Leone

Yadana Sein Braveheart (NGO), Myanmar

Mr. Myakhdadag Mongolian pastoralists association, NGO, Mongolia

G. Davaadorj Mongolian farmers’ association for rural development, NGO, Mongolia

Mr Dorjtseden Mongolian forest sustainable management counsel, NGO, Mongolia

Mr Batsaikhan ALAGAC, Mongolia


87

Ms Purevdash Consultant Khuvsgul aimag (Skype call), Mongolia

Mr Sainbayar Participant of the LP of VGGT Mongolian Land Management Association, Mongolia

Ms Densmaa ALAGAC, Mongolia

Ms Narangerel Head People Conservation Center, PCC NGO, Mongolia

Mr Davaabaatar Jadambaa

ALAGAC, Mongolia

Ms Densmaa ALAGAC, Mongolia

Private Sector


Brian Baldwin Consultant Private Sector Mechanism (PSM)

John Young Simpson Vice President Duxon Asset Management / PSM Member

Vicky Bowman Director MCRB (Myanmar Centre for Responsible Business)

Other


Angela Bester Evaluation Specialist (Team Leader)

CFS Evaluation Team

Bijay Karmacharya CPM UN Habitat

Chris Burke Consultant Uganda (Skype)

Harald Kreuscher Programme Officer Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund (LIFT), Myanmar

Hardwick Tchale, World Bank, Sierra Leone

Mariatu Swaray support to policy development UNDP Sierra Leone

Miguel Sanjines System analyst IGN, WB Project at NIC, Uganda

Mohammod Albert Tarawalke

University Makeni, Sierra Leone

Musinguzi Moses Dean of students Makerere University, Uganda

Pasquale Capizzi TL Climate Change Project UN Habitat

Rob Oberndorf Legal Adviser Tetra Tech (USAID funded Land Project), Myanmar

Nick Thomas Team Leader Tetra Tech (USAID funded Land Project), Myanmar

Simon Peter Mwesigye UN Habitat, Kenya (Skype)

Dr Samuel Mabike UN Habitat, Kenya (Skype)


88

U Zaw Naing Oo Staff Officer Livelihoods and Food Security Trust Fund (LIFT), Myanmar

Mr Tumurchuluun and Mr Namsrai

Herders Attended VGGT training, Mongolia

Ms Tungalag Expert on Forestry Private Consultant, Mongolia

Mr Ykhanbai Expert on Forestry Participant of national workshops, Mongolia

Ms Enkh-Amgalan Green gold project by SDC Mongolia

Guatemala

Oscar Ordonez, SAA, sub-secretario de Política Publica

Walter Enriquez, SAA, punto focal FAO y SAA

Adrián Zapata, ex secretario de la UTI del Gabinete Especifico de Desarrollo Rural Integral

Lin Valenzuala, directora Fundación Guillermo Toriello

Laura Hurtado, Action Aid

Silvel Elias, FAUSAC

OFFICE OF EVALUATIONwww.fao.org/evaluation

Final Evaluation of the Global Programme to Support the ... Structure of the report ..... 10 2....

Documents

Transcript of Final Evaluation of the Global Programme to Support the ... Structure of the report ..... 10 2....