Summary and Highlights
Afternoon Session - 21 March 2005
Tony Quizon, ANGOC

We have just listened to seven presentations on three themes. These themes are closely linked to each other. Process-wise, the three sessions lead us to tomorrow's workshop group discussions.

It will be difficult to summarize everything that has been discussed over the past 4-5 hours, within the next 10 minutes. Instead, I will attempt to highlight a few key points raised in this afternoon's discussion.

Session 1 was on land and territorial development

Land is not just a physical asset or a factor of production. Rather, land also refers to families and communities linked together in a complex web of relations. History, markets, social structures and a common ecology, link people and processes together in a given territory.

In the past, we have put too much emphasis on building productivity and competitiveness. On the other hand, we have given too little attention to concerns like biodiversity and culture - where land becomes essential to building personal dignity, a sense of belongingness, collective identity and culture.

Roberto's presentation highlighted "land as culture." Here culture is seen not just as a "right" but also as a "force" for change and transformation. In his example of community mapping systems, communities plan not just for their future; they are also enabled to "dream," based on their cultural values and what they deem to be important to them and their children.

The pursuit of "economic development", for example, then becomes a task of identifying products and services that are unique to a given territory. This process reduces tensions that produce conflicts, and increases value for natural resource management. This collective planning of "space" eventually leads to building harmony and a "culture of peace."

Rohini's presentation provided us with an example of community transformation in a village in India . She highlighted three points:

• Land alone is not the answer.We need to link farms with livelihoods and enterprises.

• We need to build on people's innate capacities. The focus of "development" should not be on "delivery" but more on how to "release" people's capacities, and help them to overcome obstacles and disabilities.

• Rural women are a huge source of transformative power, if only the barriers are broken and their innate capacities are "released". In India , two thirds of women depend on agriculture but have little access to land, resources, education and services.

This assembly raised several questions and concerns:

• How do you institutionalize these "dreams" and community mapping systems into political decision-making processes? How do you transform people's planning processes into "power exercises"?

• When we talk about culture, are we referring to tradition, or to a new (changing) identity?

• How do you generate real empowerment in today's modern world, where the market reigns supreme and extends its impact and rules beyond territorial boundaries?

• We live in a world of commodities where the poor have no space. Therefore, we try to identify "distinct products." Yet, how do poor people exercise control over the product chain (produce--transfor--commercialize)?

• Finally, we need to build equity, not just within countries and territories, but also between North and South.

Session 2 was on reforming and revitalizing land policies

Because land is all about relationships, policy reform means "changing relationships". This also implies that the reform of land policy will have to involve different stakeholders in processes of negotiation - primary land users, government, CSOs and private sector.

Before instituting change we must first recognize that: (1) there is a problem ; and (2) that there is a desire for change . This "political will" for change will come from those affected sectors (the dispossessed) and those groups that assist them.

Three country experiences - Kenya , Uganda and Indonesia - have been presented. Here, civil-society organizations have engaged government and other sectors towards the formulation of new land reform policies. However, I feel that we did not have enough time to discuss and understand the specific country contexts in which these negotiations are taking place.

The presentations and discussions highlighted several issues and challenges that CSOs face in this process of policy engagement and negotiation.

• Implementation questions : Policies are not enough, even when good policies are instituted; the real gap often lies in implementation.

• Role of NGOs ? Sometimes governments negotiate with NGOs and not with people themselves. How do you ensure that the poor are allowed to speak and that their voices are listened to in policy decision-making?

• NGOs are often questioned about their legitimacy and about whom they represent. To what extent are NGOs linked to organizations of the poor and social movements?

• Which policies? Advocates should look beyond land policy; other policies and practices may have equal, if not greater, impact on issues of access to land, example:

• Civil laws and cultural norms that are discriminate against women's access to land;

• Economic development programs that are based on extractive industries (Indonesia).

• Policy themes on "women and land", "aids and land" need to be addressed.

• To what extent are land reform activists related to other groups or agencies who work on issues related to land (women, NRM, indigenous peoples, etc.) but are not primarily and solely focused on land issues?

• Finding common platforms ? Civil society is often viewed as a "single group" and is often expected to come with a "common position". While a "common position" increases one's negotiating position, civil society is actually a diverse group.

• We need to use different platforms for reform and examine opportunities at both the national and local (district) levels.

• A climate for reform often comes when there is a change in government (for example Indonesia ). However, the challenges are:

  • While there is a shift in government leadership, often the structure of authoritarianism still remains.

  • CSOs often face a new challenge: "How can we move from protest, to pro-action? It is easy to articulate what 'we are against'; it is far more difficult to articulate 'what we are for'.

  • There is a role for ILC in seeking and promoting exchanges on tools, methods, approaches, people and expertise on resolving "land-related conflicts".

  • Role of experts and IOs? While outside experts provide technical help, their role should be limited in policy negotiations. They themselves are neither primary stakeholders nor a direct party in "social contracts" (public policy).

  • What is the role of international organizations in public policy? This should be examined, especially since donor-funded projects (market-assisted land reforms) and processes (land administration projects), heavily influence and shape national land policy. These should form part of land-related policy dialogue.

Session 3 examined the foundations and basis of land rights.

Can we build common cause around a rights-based approach to land? What is the basis or foundation of land rights as understood at local and international level?

Ruth's presentation focused on land/property rights in relation to natural resources management (NRM). She discussed the "bundle of rights" association with land, the types of property regimes and sources of these rights. I would like to highlight two major points based on her presentation.

Firstly, she notes that individual land titles are not the only means for ensuring tenurial security. There are other means, such as collective property, open access, community lands, etc. that are backed not just by the State, but also by community institutions. This is the view of land from a natural resource management perspective. The NRM perspective lies in direct contrast with current initiatives and economic thinking (e.g., land administration projects, Hernando de Soto 's "farmland as collateral") that look at land mainly as an economic asset. In the "economic" view, and under today's global economy, markets and financial investments can deal only with property rights that are secured by individual land titles. Markets and capital cannot deal with customary land rights or with collective property.

Second, that rights are linked to institutions. Rights are only as strong as the institutions that back them. However, we may need to further analyse: which are these institutions?

Jochen's presentation was an important contribution insofar as it offered us a concrete (and I should say, innovative) platform for pursuing land rights at the international level . Two points need to be highlighted:

First, he proposes that access to land is not just a question of "welfare", but of a "basic human right" that is linked to the "right to food".

Second, he provides us with a specific policy tool at international level the "Voluntary Guidelines" (VGRF) to support the right to adequate food in the context of national food security.