In recent years, governments across Africa, Asia and Latin America have been granting vast land concessions to foreign investors for agro-industrial enterprises and resource extraction. Often, governments make concessions with a view to furthering development and strengthening the national economy. Yet in many cases, these land concessions dispossess rural communities and deprive them of access to natural resources vital to their livelihoods and economic survival. Even when communities welcome private investment, projects are often undertaken in ways that lead to environmental degradation, human rights violations, loss of access to livelihoods, and inequity.
Liberia currently has one of the highest land concession rates in Africa. Between 2004 and 2009, the Liberian government either granted or re- negotiated land and forestry concessions totaling 1.6 million hectares – over 7% of the total national land area. Today, even with a moratorium on public land sale in place, private investors continue to seek and acquire land concessions throughout the country: in 2010 alone, more than 661,000 hectares were granted to two foreign corporations for palm oil production. A recent 2012 report finds that currently, “Land allocated to rubber, oil palm and forestry concessions covers approximately 2,546,406 hectares, or approximately 25% of the country.”
In the coming years, if concession grants are not carefully controlled, the amount of land still held and managed by rural Liberians will significantly decrease. This will have adverse impacts on already impoverished rural communities. In Liberia, strong legal protections for community lands and natural resources and a clear, simple, and easy-to-follow legal process for the documentation of customary community land rights are urgently necessary.
Community land titling processes, which document the perimeter of the community according to customary boundaries, are a low-cost, efficient, and equitable way of protecting communities’ customary land claims. Such efforts protect large numbers of families’ lands at once, as well as the common lands and forests that are often the first to be allocated to investors, claimed by elites, and appropriated for state development projects. Importantly, formal recognition of their customary land claims gives communities critical leverage in negotiations with potential investors.
To support the Liberian Land Commission’s efforts to strengthen the tenure security of customary land rights, the Sustainable Development Institute (SDI) and the International Development Law Organization (IDLO) undertook a two- year study entitled the “Community Land Titling Initiative” in Rivercess County, Liberia.5 The first study of its kind worldwide, the intervention’s goal was to better understand both the type and level of support that communities require to successfully complete community land documentation processes, as well as how to best facilitate intra-community protections for the land rights of vulnerable groups.
The intervention’s primary objectives were to:
Due to the President’s moratorium on public land sale and the suspension of all public land sale processes (as set out in the Public Lands Act 1972-1973), the 20 study communities followed a skeletal documentation process set out in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between IDLO, SDI and the Land Commission of Liberia. These steps included:
SDI’s field team observed and recorded the communities’ progress through the requisite steps, noting: all obstacles confronted and their resolutions; all intra- and inter-community land conflicts and their resolutions; and all internal community debates and discussions. A pre- and post-service survey of over 700 individuals and more than 100 structured focus group discussions supplemented the field team’s observations.
This report details the communities’ experiences undertaking the land documentation activities and summarizes the initial impacts of these efforts under the following subject headings: conflict resolution and prevention (encompassing boundary harmonization and demarcation); intra-community governance (encompassing by-laws/constitution drafting); and conservation and sustainable natural resource management (encompassing land and natural resource management plan drafting). It briefly reviews the obstacles and hurdles confronted during the community land documentation the process, and then describes conclusions relative to the optimal level of legal intervention necessary to support communities’ successful completion of community land documentation efforts. The report also details findings concerning how best to facilitate intra-community protections for the rights of women and other vulnerable groups during the land documentation process.
The report concludes by setting forth findings and recommendations intended to inform policy dialogue and to provide useful information for the Land Commission, the government of Liberia, and all interested stakeholders seeking to develop laws and policies for community land documentation.
In recent years, governments across Africa, Asia and Latin America have been granting vast land concessions to foreign investors for agro-industrial enterprises and resource extraction. Often, governments make concessions with a view to furthering development and strengthening the national economy. Yet in many cases, these land concessions dispossess rural communities and deprive them of access to natural resources vital to their livelihoods and economic survival. Even when communities welcome private investment, projects are often undertaken in ways that lead to environmental degradation, human rights violations, loss of access to livelihoods, and inequity.
Liberia currently has one of the highest land concession rates in Africa. Between 2004 and 2009, the Liberian government either granted or re- negotiated land and forestry concessions totaling 1.6 million hectares – over 7% of the total national land area. Today, even with a moratorium on public land sale in place, private investors continue to seek and acquire land concessions throughout the country: in 2010 alone, more than 661,000 hectares were granted to two foreign corporations for palm oil production. A recent 2012 report finds that currently, “Land allocated to rubber, oil palm and forestry concessions covers approximately 2,546,406 hectares, or approximately 25% of the country.”
In the coming years, if concession grants are not carefully controlled, the amount of land still held and managed by rural Liberians will significantly decrease. This will have adverse impacts on already impoverished rural communities. In Liberia, strong legal protections for community lands and natural resources and a clear, simple, and easy-to-follow legal process for the documentation of customary community land rights are urgently necessary.
Community land titling processes, which document the perimeter of the community according to customary boundaries, are a low-cost, efficient, and equitable way of protecting communities’ customary land claims. Such efforts protect large numbers of families’ lands at once, as well as the common lands and forests that are often the first to be allocated to investors, claimed by elites, and appropriated for state development projects. Importantly, formal recognition of their customary land claims gives communities critical leverage in negotiations with potential investors.
To support the Liberian Land Commission’s efforts to strengthen the tenure security of customary land rights, the Sustainable Development Institute (SDI) and the International Development Law Organization (IDLO) undertook a two- year study entitled the “Community Land Titling Initiative” in Rivercess County, Liberia.5 The first study of its kind worldwide, the intervention’s goal was to better understand both the type and level of support that communities require to successfully complete community land documentation processes, as well as how to best facilitate intra-community protections for the land rights of vulnerable groups.
The intervention’s primary objectives were to:
Due to the President’s moratorium on public land sale and the suspension of all public land sale processes (as set out in the Public Lands Act 1972-1973), the 20 study communities followed a skeletal documentation process set out in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed between IDLO, SDI and the Land Commission of Liberia. These steps included:
SDI’s field team observed and recorded the communities’ progress through the requisite steps, noting: all obstacles confronted and their resolutions; all intra- and inter-community land conflicts and their resolutions; and all internal community debates and discussions. A pre- and post-service survey of over 700 individuals and more than 100 structured focus group discussions supplemented the field team’s observations.
This report details the communities’ experiences undertaking the land documentation activities and summarizes the initial impacts of these efforts under the following subject headings: conflict resolution and prevention (encompassing boundary harmonization and demarcation); intra-community governance (encompassing by-laws/constitution drafting); and conservation and sustainable natural resource management (encompassing land and natural resource management plan drafting). It briefly reviews the obstacles and hurdles confronted during the community land documentation the process, and then describes conclusions relative to the optimal level of legal intervention necessary to support communities’ successful completion of community land documentation efforts. The report also details findings concerning how best to facilitate intra-community protections for the rights of women and other vulnerable groups during the land documentation process.
The report concludes by setting forth findings and recommendations intended to inform policy dialogue and to provide useful information for the Land Commission, the government of Liberia, and all interested stakeholders seeking to develop laws and policies for community land documentation.
In northern Uganda, common grazing lands are central to village life. While nominally used for grazing livestock, communities also depend on their grazing lands to collect basic household necessities such as fuel, water, food, building materials for their homes, and traditional medicines. Yet growing population density, increasing land scarcity, weak rule of law, and the 1998 Land Act’s legalization of a land market have created a situation of intense competition for land in northern Uganda. The growing land scarcity has contributed to higher rates of land grabbing, boundary encroachments onto neighbours’ lands, intra- and inter-family land disputes, and rampant appropriation of common lands. As a result of these trends, there is a high rate of tenure insecurity in northern Uganda, a prevalence of intra-community land conflict, and a rapid loss of the common grazing lands that community members rely upon for their subsistence and survival.
To understand how to best address these trends, the Land and Equity Movement in Uganda (LEMU) and the International Development Law Organization (IDLO) set out to investigate how best to support communities to successfully follow legal procedures to formally document and protect their customary land claims. This effort, the Community Land Protection Initiative, was carried out in Oyam District in northern Uganda from 2009 to 2011.
The first study of its kind worldwide, the intervention’s goal was to better understand the type and level of support that communities require to successfully complete community land documentation processes, as well as how to best facilitate intra-community protections for the land rights of women and other vulnerable groups.
The intervention’s primary objectives were to:
To undertake these objectives, LEMU conducted a randomized controlled trial in Oyam District in northern Uganda. As per the study’s design, LEMU randomly selected 20 communities that actively expressed a desire to seek documentation for their community land rights and then randomly assigned these communities to one of four different “legal services” treatment groups: (1) full legal and technical support; (2) paralegal support and monthly legal education; (3) monthly legal education only; and (4) control/minimal information dissemination. As it provided these supports, LEMU observed and recorded each community’s progress through the requisite steps of the Communal Land Association formation and land documentation processes, as set out in Uganda’s Land Act of 1998 (Ch. 227). These steps include:
1. Community land documentation process introduction, including: legal education and awareness raising; and creating an “intermediary group” to coordinate community process.
2. Mapping, boundary harmonization, and demarcation including: mapping the boundaries of the communal lands; negotiating the boundaries of the communal lands; resolving land conflicts; and planting boundary trees along the land’s agreed limits.
3. Drafting a Communal Land Association constitution and land management plan, including: cataloguing all existing community rules, norms, and practices for local land and natural resource management; debating, discussing, and amending these rules to align them with current realities; ensuring that the agreed community rules do not contravene Ugandan law; and adopting a final Communal Land Association constitution and land management plan to govern the lands being documented.
4. Filing an application to become a Communal Land Association and electing officers, including: submitting an application for the formation of a Communal Land Association with the District Registrar; and convening a community meeting attended by the Registrar, at which time the community formally agrees to incorporate as an association and elects three to nine Communal Land Association officers.
5. Formally documenting community lands, including: surveying or taking GPS measurements of the community land; and submitting an application for either a Certificate of Customary Ownership (CCO) or a Freehold Title.
As it supported communities to complete these processes, LEMU noted all obstacles confronted, all intra- and inter-community land conflicts and their resolutions, and all internal community debates and discussions. A pre- and post-service survey of over 600 individuals and more than 100 structured focus group discussions supplemented LEMU’s observations and allowed for quantitative analysis of all short-term impacts. Unfortunately, due to various obstacles, most significantly the lack of a District Registrar for Oyam District, none of the study communities have yet received a freehold title or CCO for their customary lands. Phase II of the Initiative, to be carried out jointly by LEMU and Namati as part of Namati’s Community Land Protection Program, will continue to support the study communities until their lands have been formally documented and protected.
This report details the study communities’ experiences undertaking the land documentation activities and summarizes the initial impacts of these efforts under the following subject headings: conflict resolution and prevention (describing the boundary harmonization and demarcation process); intracommunity governance (describing the Communal Land Association constitution drafting process); and conservation and sustainable natural resource management (describing the land and natural resource management plan drafting process). It then briefly reviews the obstacles confronted and describes conclusions relative to the optimal level of legal intervention necessary to support communities’ successful completion of community land documentation efforts. The report next details findings concerning how best to facilitate intra-community protections for the rights of women and other vulnerable groups during the land documentation process.
The report concludes by setting forth findings and recommendations intended to inform policy dialogue and support the widespread implementation of Uganda’s Land Act 1998. The findings are offered with the understanding that continued research is necessary to determine the long-term social and economic impacts of documenting community land claims, and that continued community engagement is required to understand how to best ensure that documented community lands are fully protected over the long-term.
In northern Uganda, common grazing lands are central to village life. While nominally used for grazing livestock, communities also depend on their grazing lands to collect basic household necessities such as fuel, water, food, building materials for their homes, and traditional medicines. Yet growing population density, increasing land scarcity, weak rule of law, and the 1998 Land Act’s legalization of a land market have created a situation of intense competition for land in northern Uganda. The growing land scarcity has contributed to higher rates of land grabbing, boundary encroachments onto neighbours’ lands, intra- and inter-family land disputes, and rampant appropriation of common lands. As a result of these trends, there is a high rate of tenure insecurity in northern Uganda, a prevalence of intra-community land conflict, and a rapid loss of the common grazing lands that community members rely upon for their subsistence and survival.
To understand how to best address these trends, the Land and Equity Movement in Uganda (LEMU) and the International Development Law Organization (IDLO) set out to investigate how best to support communities to successfully follow legal procedures to formally document and protect their customary land claims. This effort, the Community Land Protection Initiative, was carried out in Oyam District in northern Uganda from 2009 to 2011.
The first study of its kind worldwide, the intervention’s goal was to better understand the type and level of support that communities require to successfully complete community land documentation processes, as well as how to best facilitate intra-community protections for the land rights of women and other vulnerable groups.
The intervention’s primary objectives were to:
To undertake these objectives, LEMU conducted a randomized controlled trial in Oyam District in northern Uganda. As per the study’s design, LEMU randomly selected 20 communities that actively expressed a desire to seek documentation for their community land rights and then randomly assigned these communities to one of four different “legal services” treatment groups: (1) full legal and technical support; (2) paralegal support and monthly legal education; (3) monthly legal education only; and (4) control/minimal information dissemination. As it provided these supports, LEMU observed and recorded each community’s progress through the requisite steps of the Communal Land Association formation and land documentation processes, as set out in Uganda’s Land Act of 1998 (Ch. 227). These steps include:
1. Community land documentation process introduction, including: legal education and awareness raising; and creating an “intermediary group” to coordinate community process.
2. Mapping, boundary harmonization, and demarcation including: mapping the boundaries of the communal lands; negotiating the boundaries of the communal lands; resolving land conflicts; and planting boundary trees along the land’s agreed limits.
3. Drafting a Communal Land Association constitution and land management plan, including: cataloguing all existing community rules, norms, and practices for local land and natural resource management; debating, discussing, and amending these rules to align them with current realities; ensuring that the agreed community rules do not contravene Ugandan law; and adopting a final Communal Land Association constitution and land management plan to govern the lands being documented.
4. Filing an application to become a Communal Land Association and electing officers, including: submitting an application for the formation of a Communal Land Association with the District Registrar; and convening a community meeting attended by the Registrar, at which time the community formally agrees to incorporate as an association and elects three to nine Communal Land Association officers.
5. Formally documenting community lands, including: surveying or taking GPS measurements of the community land; and submitting an application for either a Certificate of Customary Ownership (CCO) or a Freehold Title.
As it supported communities to complete these processes, LEMU noted all obstacles confronted, all intra- and inter-community land conflicts and their resolutions, and all internal community debates and discussions. A pre- and post-service survey of over 600 individuals and more than 100 structured focus group discussions supplemented LEMU’s observations and allowed for quantitative analysis of all short-term impacts. Unfortunately, due to various obstacles, most significantly the lack of a District Registrar for Oyam District, none of the study communities have yet received a freehold title or CCO for their customary lands. Phase II of the Initiative, to be carried out jointly by LEMU and Namati as part of Namati’s Community Land Protection Program, will continue to support the study communities until their lands have been formally documented and protected.
This report details the study communities’ experiences undertaking the land documentation activities and summarizes the initial impacts of these efforts under the following subject headings: conflict resolution and prevention (describing the boundary harmonization and demarcation process); intracommunity governance (describing the Communal Land Association constitution drafting process); and conservation and sustainable natural resource management (describing the land and natural resource management plan drafting process). It then briefly reviews the obstacles confronted and describes conclusions relative to the optimal level of legal intervention necessary to support communities’ successful completion of community land documentation efforts. The report next details findings concerning how best to facilitate intra-community protections for the rights of women and other vulnerable groups during the land documentation process.
The report concludes by setting forth findings and recommendations intended to inform policy dialogue and support the widespread implementation of Uganda’s Land Act 1998. The findings are offered with the understanding that continued research is necessary to determine the long-term social and economic impacts of documenting community land claims, and that continued community engagement is required to understand how to best ensure that documented community lands are fully protected over the long-term.