Mekong Region Land Governance: Innovative Approaches. Land Equity International, Australia

Transcription

1 Mekong Region Land Governance: Innovative Approaches Kate Rickersey1, Christian Castellanet2 1 Land Equity International, Australia krickersey@landequity.com.au 2 Gret, Professionals for Fair Development, France castellanet@gret.org Paper prepared for presentation at the 2015 WORLD BANK CONFERENCE ON LAND AND POVERTY The World Bank - Washington DC, March 23-27, 2015

2 Copyright 2015 by author(s). All rights reserved. Readers may make verbatim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. Abstract The Government of Switzerland, through the Swiss Agency for Development Cooperation (SDC), has committed to funding the Mekong Region Land Governance (MRLG) Project in four Mekong region countries over a period of up to 10 years. The first commitment is for four years, with the first year inception phase ending in March 2015, prior to the start of the three-year implementation phase. This paper reports on the progress of the MRLG as an innovative approach to improve family farmer security in CLMV countries against large-scale land deals. The MRLG intervention strategy is to target stakeholders using a demand driven approach. It is based on the identification of the needs of interested stakeholders from civil society, academia, the private sector, government staff and politicians to become more effective implementers of change. The identified reform actors are the project s medium for change and therefore the recipients of a range of activities to strengthen their abilities to effect change and to identify windows of opportunity. The involvement of reform actors in the various activities will depend on the needs, demands and capacities of these actors at the different level. Key Words: Mekong, land governance, tenure security, large-scale land acquisition. Presenting Author biography Brian Garcia is the Mekong Region Land Governance Fund Manager. Mr Garcia has a Masters in Rural Development (with specialization in Rural Development Administration). Mr Garcia spent more than ten years as a Portfolio Manager and Land Titling and Administration Specialist. Mr Garcia has specialised skills and experience managing disbursement funds for land projects in the Philippines. Brian has a deep understanding of land policies, legal frameworks, institutional arrangements, and social, environmental and economic issues related to land governance. Brian is able to use this contextual knowledge to coach and mentor stakeholders in setting up funds, mentoring potential applicants and monitoring fund implementation conscious of the contextual setting grant proposals are being prepared.

3 Mekong Region Land Governance Project: Innovative Solutions Project Orientation Over the next 7 years the Mekong Region Land Governance Project (MRLG) funded by SDC will support regional multi-reform actor platforms and the bringing together of reform actors from various civil society organizations, government, academia and private sector that support the strengthening of smallholder tenure in land, forest and fisheries. The project recognizes land is an inexorable element of national sovereignty and identity. Over previous decades land reform has been in favor of small holders. There has been strong emphasis on national titling projects as a key means of securing land. Current agricultural transformation witnesses major aggregation of land, and commercialization of rights. These transformations are predominantly occurring in border areas where ethnic groups who are the majority population, are engaged in swidden agriculture. Trends in international and national economic reform, favoring the flow of capital across national borders, have resulted in increasing threats to land. In particular the economic crisis that started in 2008 saw increased investments of global capital into the commodity sector including the acquisition of land to grow and extract commodities. This period defines what is now widely known as the land grabbing era in global land governance. This rapid trend is leading towards an agrarian crisis, one of food insecurity, poverty, inequality, environmental degradation, and social disintegration on an unprecedented scale. The large scale acquisition of land and land related rights is largely corporate driven from the agroforestry, mining, and hydro-power sectors. The scope and scale of acquisitions is very difficult to know given the limited access to records and accuracy of the recording of land deals among other factors. Many of the processes and business models being used are outdated. The difference in process now is the unprecedented speed and scale of mechanisms and justifications to reverse land reform reform that was supporting small holders. There are several factors considered to be fueling the urgency for obtaining large areas of land. Some factors can be attributed to anticipated food insecurity from expanding demands and changes in diet of emerging economies; climatic uncertainty around food and fuel prices; infrastructure and special economic zones acquiring populated land including areas on the urban fringe and corridor lands; speculative land activity investing on anticipated market increase; and green land enclosures for green investment, REDD and national parks; and economic integration measures that are securing the global trade environment, improved global rules, treaties and standards that reduce corporate risk and obligations reducing impediments to investment for corporate.

4 The project favors the family farmer and supporting conditions that will ensure their near and medium term prospects. However there are different perspectives the agrarian crisis presents across family farmers, investors and the state with varying time horizons. There is a need to understand the problems from each of the perspectives so that the project can attempt to work through the different stakeholders and improve outcomes for all. Investor s problems include estimates of production and profit being overambitious, difficulties of aggregating land, and problems of labor and local resistance threaten profit and corporate image and value. As a state facilitating investment and land acquisitions there are often encounters of unrealized expectations in terms of revenue and export, even more rapid rural to urban migration, and protest and threats of violence challenging the regime stability. Family farmers on the other hand face immediate loss of land and livelihood, they are faced with social order problems and rapidly changing social fabric, they bear the real costs on their family. In the Mekong Region within which the project is specifically focused, the economic opening up that Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam are currently undergoing through the forthcoming ASEAN Economic Community poses major challenges in terms of food security and tenure governance. Increasingly land is being leased to national and international investors in order to develop industrial agriculture, mining operations and hydropower in the region. As a result, family farms are experiencing an alarming deterioration in income, food security and access to natural resources. Dispossessed of their land, sometimes without compensation, compelled to change occupation and often forced to emigrate, the smallholder farmers of the Mekong region deserve protection and support. This regional project, is seeking to strengthen small holder family farmers rights to control and ensure equitable access to natural resources such as arable land, forests, and fisheries. There is a particular focus on farmers from ethnic minority groups and ensuring protection of vulnerable households particularly those headed by women. The stakes are high, as smallholder farmers make up the majority of the population in the Mekong region. Small holder family farmers dependent on agriculture, forestry and fisheries represent the majority of the population in Laos - 77%, Cambodia - 70 %, and Myanmar - 70 %, and 43% in Vietnam, and they form the majority of the poor. The emergence of the Mekong Region as a defined geographic unit associated with the Mekong River has now become part of the lexicon used in business, politics and development. Associated geographic realms include the ADB s Greater Mekong Sub-region and corridors, intergovernmental institutes (e.g.: Mekong Institute and Mekong River Commission) and importantly the Mekong Region in the ASEAN context. Further geographic refinement and grouping has been done with the introduction of the CLMV (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam) grouping of Mekong Countries. The reasoning for the CLMV

5 group within ASEAN is to highlight the various mainly economic gaps that exist between these countries and the other 6 ASEAN members. 1 Although some of the forces driving change have been national, external/international forces have sped integration into the global economic system through WTO membership, bilateral trade agreements and the upcoming ASEAN Economic Community (AEC). These changes aim to facilitate the assimilation of the CLMV countries into the larger ASEAN economic block and overall global economy. But it has also created a situation in which the present livelihoods of millions people who depend directly on natural resource is being radically altered. Given the aforementioned situation, land has become an increasingly valuable commodity. But, even though it is fixed and non-moveable, the forces affecting its governance are mobile and extend beyond national borders and policies. Following, the advocacy efforts of reform actors interested in supporting smallholders have also become more sophisticated and regional and global. Given these conditions, the timing for a regional advocacy approach to land governance is immediate, and this project aims to directly respond, as outlined in the tender document: The rationale for strengthening the reform through a regional approach, and why it should be SDC who develops the project, is (i) that there is obvious space for actors from the CLMV countries to learn from each other and to develop more effective strategies by working together, (ii) that learning, strategizing and alliance building sometimes are easier in a regional context than within a single country, (iii) the lack of a legitimate forum to reflect on the public goods (stability, food security, equality, etc.) These countries are putting at risk, together with their neighbors, (iv) that the link with SDC-supported global initiatives can be improved through a regional project, and (v) SDC is uniquely positioned to develop and fund such a project, given its experience with on-the-ground land governance projects and policy dialogue on land issues in all CLMV countries, support and experience with regional as well as global initiatives. MRLG aims to bring together diverse (national and regional) pro-smallholder reform actors (intergovernmental, CSO and private sector) to collectively identify key land governance priorities and form coalitions to work on these through the multi-year financial and facilitation support. The Regional Project has a multi-pronged approach by preparing strategies and action plans at both country and regional levels. It is at country level that land is the sovereign entity while there is rationale for a regional 1 The World Bank now classifies Vietnam as a low middle income country thus creating some variation in the CLMV group.

6 approach as it relates to global governance of commodities and land flowing from external investments. A general hypothesis made by the project is as follows Policies encouraging large scale land acquisition via economic land concessions are rooted in a vision of agricultural and national economic development strongly linked to economic liberalization policies which promote free flow of capital at the regional and global levels. These policies are based on premises of economic gain from inflow of foreign direct investment, productivity efficiency and economic gains from large scale agricultural methods, ability to mobilize labour more effectively, and assumptions of the absorptive capacity of the modern economy transitioning from rural to urban labour. The MRLG Project through a multi-stakeholder process and platform can work towards creating evidence (especially through research-based evidence) that will show that smallholders when in control of their means for productions (secure resource tenure) and supported by a policy environment that is open and fairly regulates investment, can be a driving force in national development and in maintaining a balance between economic development and other aspects of human happiness and dignity. Project Conceptual Approaches The project intends to act strategically through complementary approaches, firstly by investing in efforts to further develop evidence and stakeholder support to change the narrative around large scale land concessions that have previously transferred land rights to corporate actors; and secondly to support betterment paths for stakeholders, especially small holder farmers, to achieve the best outcome in each aspect of the deal. This is not a small task, and the project will develop an understanding in how decisions are being made, and how key actors respond to the threats and interests. It is essential to note here that we must consider the web of variants involved, different government responses, policies, laws that may or may not control investment, and the social and cultural dynamics that respond. No one country in the region, and not even necessarily within a country, will have a blanket response to the potential threats and risks associated with land governance issues. In these circumstances there is a need to explore the various business models that engage with the land and people on the land, the state regulations and enforcement mechanisms, and country policies setting longer term visions for country development. While much emphasis could be placed on corporate social responsibility for better small holder deals, it is not simply about appealing to this, rather it also requires improving the negotiating power of government and small holders, and recognizing how the third party, corporate investors, respond to risks in investment. Therefore, we must act to enable family farmers and governments to obtain and sustain the best mutually beneficial deal possible. The project will support research, policy advocacy, and direct action across three aspects of the deal in terms of inclusion,

7 production and benefit sharing. Inclusion which acknowledges the layers of interests, particularly citizen level including, class, gender, minorities, landholders, and the landless, and the setting of values on rights for compensation. In terms of production, there is a need to understand clearly transformations in labor and livelihoods and broad shifts in economies as well as the cost of externalities. Benefit sharing will also encounter problems, examples of problematic direct benefit sharing, from investors to communities, include unrealized community development funds, elite capture and political fragmentation, and inequitable intra-group access, particularly as it often has a gender bias. While there are examples of indirect benefit sharing, (from investor to state to citizen), showing weak enforcement of concessionary terms and diminished revenue, inability to capture revenue due and distribution through inter-government transfers, and the inability to convert spending into public goods and services equitably or sustainably. Project Implementation Approach The project does not seek to solve or necessarily provide the answer to these questions and issues, instead it provides a platform for stakeholders in the Mekong Region to be engaged in a community of practice. This community of practice seeks to build capacities and knowledge and share innovative experiences and research in a facilitated environment that will support reform actors to bring about policy and practice changes for improved land governance. It is a non-traditional style of land project, steering away from pre-designed product delivery and relying on demand driven activities and involvement encouraging peer (horizontal) learning. Importantly the project will not duplicate what others are already doing, but find its niche and developing innovative approaches to learned opportunities. The project has two main objectives: 1) Supporting concerned stakeholders to be more effective in securing smallholders tenure, through peer learning, alliance building, and linking with regional and global initiatives. 2) Providing support to improved policies implementation, institutions and land governance practices so that farmer families have secure and equitable access to and control over agricultural land, forest and fisheries. The project will work with the following principles and approaches: Multi-level approach: Support to activities at the regional, national and local levels. National level fora could bring their experiences to the regional level for debate and in turn, open up new perspectives for the national level.

8 Inclusive & impartial multi-stakeholder approach: Work with a broad spectrum of organizations and individuals from government, civil society, the private sector and research institutions, regional inter-governmental bodies such as ASEAN, to find areas of common interest, seek to build understanding amongst actors and discuss land and nature in a nonconfrontation setting. Bringing new stakeholders in the debate: The aim is to bring in new stakeholders (especially from the private sector and research bodies) to support improvements in land governance and the rights of smallholders, especially as they pertain to trans-boundary investment within the four focus countries. This could take two forms: i) through the identification of common interest areas (partial alignment); and ii) through public debate on important issues related to land security, focusing on non-controversial advocacy (for example on the various agricultural development models promoted in different countries). Demand driven & participatory orientation: Develop strategies, operational priorities and plan of work based on stakeholder interest and demands. There will be a participatory planning approach, together with participatory evaluation of project progress, on a yearly basis. Flexibility: React quickly to opportunities or emergencies. The type of activities supported, the range of partners, the balance between countries will vary according to the needs, interest and opportunities at local, national and regional levels. Adding value/complementarity to existing programs: Does not intend to create new structures or networks or duplicate existing projects and programs. It will develop activities that are complementary to existing programs. It will aim to strengthen existing national land issue working groups and, at the same time, bring new stakeholders together for regional engagement. Regional level policy dialogue: Although land use change and governance are strongly influenced by neighboring countries (China, Vietnam, Thailand Malaysia), there are currently no forums dedicated to land governance on GMS (Greater Mekong Sub-region) or ASEAN level. The absence of this regional level land tenure discussion and policy forum is seen as a necessary tool for building more effective land governance for family farmers in the region.

9 Diagram1. Illustration of strategies for building capacity and engaging stakeholders from those aligned, (inner circle), to those further from alignment on core principles (outer circle). Governance Project governance in this environment is critical, and therefore a formal structure has been established within the first year in accordance with the Project Design. The project is governed by a Project Steering Committee (PSC), composed of the SDC program manager, SDC senior land governance advisor, and BMZ representative for rural development, with the secretariat provided by the project. The PSC meets quarterly (and as and when required) and makes important operational decisions (partly based on advice by the Advisory Council (AC), see below), as well as providing an approval role for annual work plans, staffing, budgets and reports. The PSC also awards QDF contributions, as well as IF contributions as proposed by the AC. An Advisory Council (AC) has also been put in place to provide overall guidance to the PSC and Project, especially on political economy and context trends and on upcoming windows of opportunity for policy influencing. The AC meets semi-annually and makes assessments of proposals to the IF, based on screenings by the project s Project Implementation Unit and country level partners. The AC comprises of fourteen members from official donor government and recipient government representatives, SDC and GIZ, private sector, academia, and the Project Coordinators of the mandated organisations to implement

10 the project, LEI and Gret.. SDC National level program officers are also maintaining close linkages with the national land governance facilitators. Project Components A simple illustration of the project components is shown in the following diagram. The project model has three core components, the first responding to concepts of learning and alliance on a continual program of support, and the second two through a Grant Facility with two windows of funding, a quick disbursement fund (QDF) and an innovation fund (IF). Diagram 2. Project Component Implementation Learning and Alliance The first concept is based on a fundamental learning and alliance program to strengthen the stakeholders that act in support of more secure land rights for family farmers and develop their capacity through exchanging their experience, knowledge, and capacities at the national and regional level. These activities are open for a wide range of actors, the only condition is to be willing to share experience with others. Identification of actors is done in an ongoing open consultative process, and during annual planning workshops to prepare activities based on stakeholder s identification of issues and action gaps. Activities that the project could support include: - information collection, analysis, & dissemination - collecting, distilling and publishing case studies - structured learning visits - cross border learning - training & organizational strengthening - coaching & pairing - convening practical collaborations.

11 These activities are continually facilitated by the project implementation team in particular the national land governance facilitators, but the majority of responsibility and implementation is in the hands of key stakeholders. The learning and alliance component is flexible and aims to align priorities across the countries by also understanding the political economy and prioritising efforts where an enabling environment exists, and reducing efforts where no alignment exists. There are many already aligned stakeholders with whom the project in the first year has had a good response from to help cooperate to debate on project strategy, decide on project priorities and lines of action at the national level. The second phase of the project (Year 2 and following) will need to press harder to convince neutral and hesitant stakeholders to join the reform actor group. The objective then is to find some common ground and improve communication with reluctant stakeholders. It will be essential to find topics of common interest with stakeholders who do not otherwise support securing local rights and then develop a dialogue with these stakeholders in order to come to common recommendations. Once the dialogue channel is established, it can help for future negotiations on acceptable compromises. Grant Facility The Grant Facility has two funding windows that can be accessed by organisations through written proposals submitted to the PIU. There is deliberate preference towards accepting submissions submitted by composition of different actors. The first funding window is a Quick Disbursement Fund (QDF) providing funding up to a maximum of US$50,000 for short term projects of up to six (6) months. This is a quick response mechanism that responds to urgent short-term interventions required by actors and stakeholders to support urgent tenure security issues, and windows of opportunities in anticipated or ongoing policy development processes. Implying there is an urgency means that the proposed activities must be realized before a certain date (within 6 months) for there to be effective results. The second funding window is an Innovation Fund that can provide funding up to a maximum of US$250,000 for short to medium term (1 to 2 years) projects that are designed to promote or adopt innovative practices in land governance. There should be potential that the pilot project can be expanded and integrated into regular next phase strategies and budgets of ongoing partner projects. It can serve as a mechanism to translate new knowledge acquired through the learning components of the project into changed practices of local, national and regional initiatives and projects. In both funding mechanisms, applications are received by written proposals, however proposals submitted for to the Quick Disbursement Fund go through a short process of internal review, firstly by the incountry national land governance facilitator and partners at a country level, then to the Regional Office Project Management Team before approval by the Project Steering Committee. Proposals for the QDF

12 can be submitted at any time of the year where an urgent need for support arises. Innovation Fund applications will be advertised on a yearly basis, through a call for proposals and selection of project proposals is competitive. The first call for proposals for the Innovation Fund is 2 nd March 2015, the application period will be open until the 4 th May (2 months). These proposals are finally approved by the Project Steering Committee, however require more rigorous preparation, and evaluation procedure, including review by the Advisory Council. The basis and synergies of these activities are foreseen through the following: Networking to help strengthen the participating organizations, but also to improve representation and strength in policy dialogue Innovative projects to both empower the proponent organizations, and contribute to policy debate through exemplar results; and Availability of good quality information useful for policy dialogue and for advocacy, it can also strengthen national/ regional expertise and research on land policies. Project Status Since beginning in April 2014, the project has established a regional office in Laos, comprised of a small team including the Team and Deputy Team Leader, Fund Manager, Regional Strategy Co-ordinator and across all target Mekong countries a National Land Governance Facilitator. The co-ordination of the project pivots around the Project Implementation Unit through the development of country and regional strategies. These strategies have been developed during the inception phase through a process of reform actor mapping. The project conducted stakeholder mapping in the four countries and at regional level. The expected outcome of this preliminary exercise was to: Identify interested, voluntary reform actors (organizations and persons) who can both learn and teach something in the field of land governance Learn about their activities and knowledge/ experience in land governance Assess strength and weaknesses, needs/ interest in terms of capacity building Engage dialogue on project strategy, collecting their suggestions.

13 Starting initially based on existing network of the national land governance facilitators in each country and a literature search, it grew into a wide coverage of stakeholders, particularly through land sector working groups that in some countries included government members, while others are a civil society base network. In some cases semi-structured interviews were carried out by facilitators with stakeholders to document clearly interests and thematic areas of work, activities, capacity etc. While in other cases, survey forms were used and a synthesis of results prepared by the facilitator and follow up conversations where necessary to clarify answers. An inception report was prepared based on the reform actor mapping and an analysis from the project perspective of how well aligned stakeholders are to the project goal has been made, this helps to inform the country strategy and place priorities on varying actors for learning and alliance building. The initial round of reform actor mapping culminated in a consultative meeting / preliminary workshop to synthesize ideas and identify key representatives as an organizing committee for a larger and broader stakeholder consultation workshop. This broader more public event was a Consultation Workshop held in October or November in each country, CLMV, and attracted approximately 50 stakeholders (per country) representing government agencies, civil society organizations, research institutes and academia, and some minimal private sector engagement. The diversity between sector participation varied across the countries, however all with strong civil society representation, as expected, and a limited ability to attract private sector. Reflections on current participation will be considered in the project annual planning process (March) for country and regional strategies to ensure not only low hanging fruit options are made, and instead concerted efforts for tackling more difficult and more resistant reform actors are made. The MRLG Stakeholder Consultation two-day workshops in CLMV were a key event in the inception phase calendar for reform actors and the project to jointly develop capacity building themes and strategies to build their effectiveness in addressing family farmer tenure security. It was an important platform for sharing ideas and developing common thematic streams of interests for ongoing joint activities. During the workshops the results of the reform actor mapping were presented to the stakeholders and stakeholders with key research and activities were invited to present on the initial themes that were emerging during this mapping process. During the workshop there was discussion time for feedback on presented results and on the selection of thematic areas for strategizing around. Participants were asked to form groups along their main interest areas to discuss strategic activity ideas that could be implemented over the course of 2015 funded and facilitated by the project. Each group selected a focal point for coordinating the group. The initial round of activity ideas were presented in the workshop so that critical feedback from other groups and the Project team could help to revise the activity planning during a second round of group discussion. After the two day workshop each activity group proposal still required

14 additional thought and preparation, therefore the facilitators and focal point persons of the groups have reconvened meetings to complete the proposal, that must go into resourcing, time line, and budgeting details. The activity plans are currently undergoing review process by the PIU and will be finalized during February. It is expected activities will begin during February and March. The proposals must take affirmative action to include ethnic minority and the participation of women in capacity building and exchange opportunities. These activities must also identify outcome targets that would meet the primary thematic and capacity building objectives of the activity. At the regional level, the mapping process has relied on meetings with individual actors and in particular land-working groups that provide a coordination function mainly on land policy based activities for improving land governance and opening up ideas for discussion. A regional consultation and planning workshop is planned for the 4-6 th March that will invite key actors from each of the four project countries, as well as from the greater Mekong sub-region. The workshop seeks to bring together active stakeholder representatives of the four countries, and identified regional level key reform actors, to prepare a first year plan for regional level learning and advocacy component activities. Consultation is critical to strengthen existing organization and networks and to avoid duplication of already existing initiatives, either at regional or country level. This workshop aims to establish a regional agenda that integrates actors and activities across borders. This event will be a preliminary step towards larger regional knowledge sharing events in the following years. Based on cross mapping of country level thematic interests and regional stakeholder interest, four themes have been preliminary selected to be presented at the workshop, these include: Engaging with private sector, Dispute resolution mechanisms, Recognition of customary tenure, and Research based policy dialogue on Foreign Direct Investment in agriculture. While these themes will be clarified by participants, and the priorities for project engagement judged on the level of commitment from regional actors to work together. It is anticipated that the regional strategy and activity plans may be more difficult to prepare due to stakeholders not necessarily located in the same city. Special efforts are being made to brief focal point organizations such that coordinators are already aware of the expectations and have been briefed on potential activity scopes. The following four abstracts provide a brief orientation on the areas of interest and discussions that the project has been engaging on with various stakeholders.

15 Engaging with the private sector The private sector is a very important stakeholder in the land governance. Both national and foreign companies are playing a major role in large scale land acquisition via the Land Economic Concessions in particular, but also they can invest in contract farming arrangements involving short or medium term land leases. These arrangements are the basis for large investments in agriculture and hoped for modernization and increase in production, but they also can have negative impacts on the local communities and on the environment and result in conflicts which are difficult to solve. There is clearly a need to develop regulatory frameworks. One option is to develop guidelines that can be adopted voluntarily by the concerned companies (in the framework of CSR), but also forms of control that can come from the States (Codes of investment, safeguards measures in authorizing FDI or allocating concessions) or from the civil society in the form of campaigns aiming at the final consumers and also targeting financial institutions, particularly aid related finance institutions. Dispute resolution mechanisms Land related disputes are often complicated and difficult to solve, and tend to remain unsolved over long periods. The justice system is often slow, difficult to access, and cannot solve all the cases. In some cases, these situations lead to open conflicts which can disrupt the social peace. There is a lot of interest on the part of affected communities and of the governments to find alternative methods of conflict resolution, and also to develop prevention mechanisms by consulting potentially affected communities and individuals before the decisions affecting land are made. One of the methods proposed involve the use of mediators and mediation mechanisms, another approach is to use conflict mapping as a tool for advocacy and to improve the bargaining power of affected groups, especially in relation to the state and judiciary. Other approaches (right based approaches) are based on mobilizing the national and international opinion and legal mechanisms to engage the concerned companies in considering the claims of the affected communities and establishing resolution mechanism (often with some third party involvement as mediators or observers). Recognition of customary tenure This topic is of broad interest in all concerned countries. National legislations often do not recognize customary tenure, and if they do, put stringent conditions on their recognition. Whilst the rights of farmers on permanently cultivated plots are usually recognized and protected (mostly on lowland rice plots and permanent agro-forestry plantations), the rights once traditional rotational swidden cropping systems characteristics of uplands are usually not recognized and often branded and restricted as the cause of deforestation and environmental degradation. This

16 affects predominantly (but not only) ethnic groups who occupy the mountainous areas. As a result, they are often the most affected by the occupation of their land by new comers and investors from other areas and its conversion to large scale plantations, and often are displaced and loose part or all of their livelihood, with limited measures to compensate or alleviate their losses. Various mechanisms which have been put in place by the governments to allow for the recognition of traditional farmers rights, they include communal land titling, demarcation of community forest areas, recognition of community manages agricultural lands, participatory land use plans, etc. Research based policy dialogue on FDI in agriculture Governments of the CMLV countries have encouraged, to various degrees, foreign direct investment in agriculture and forestry as a way to attract capital and modernize the agricultural and forestry sector as a contribution to national economic growth strategies. The investments have come either under the mode of large scale land acquisition via concessions, or with contract farming arrangements often involving land lease or the use of land titles as collateral for credit. The opening of the AEC+ will further encourage cross-border investments and exchanges in agriculture and forestry. As it is known that these FDI have very strong impacts on the rural economy and rural populations, and that the results of these FDI have sometimes been disappointing (investors coming to exploit the natural resources rather than invest in plantations, failed contract farming agreements etc ), a research based comparative evaluation of the impacts of FDI in the Mekong region would be quite useful to serve as the basis for a regional policy dialogue on agricultural investments policies. This regional dialogue is particularly useful in the context where some countries are in fact at the origin of FDI and others are recipients. From this perspective, it would be desirable to also involve China (Yunan) in this exercise. The country level activities and preliminary scoping of regional activities indicates the following learning and advocacy tools will be used in the first year of implementation: Policy dialogue Academic based research Action-based and case study research Training module development Training activities Pilot activities Cross border exchange

17 Development of research networks Advocacy Development of a temporary website and online repository for initial information sharing. At a country level, strategies for following the policy dialogue and land, forest and fisheries government political environment will be further developed to complement activities by the thematic based activities. While at a regional level strategic interventions will involve potential interventions that provide access and engagement within the ASEAN network. Similarly, ongoing is the preparation of a regional strategy for alignment of voluntary guidelines across the region in partnership with UNFAO where possible. A possible extension of the regional coordination role of the project may be facilitate discussions on voluntary guidelines into existing ASEAN meeting and agendas. The ASEAN engagement plan and reform actors through their thematic areas also need to create specific opportunities to promote the Guidelines. The value of the Voluntary Guidelines can be further enhanced as they use tenure in the context of a human rights based approach, such as the right to food and water. The MRLG and reform actor partnership could work with ASEAN human right mechanisms and national human rights commissions for Voluntary Guidelines (VGGT) advancement. Long term MRLG strategies may consist of several approaches which can be applied over the life of the project and on specific regional themes, with periodic evaluation to be adjusted as needs and environments change. These can include the use of concepts (codes of conduct, guidelines), approaches (research, dialogue and debate, changing investment narratives) and applying the combined convening power project donors and implementers in collaboration with reform actors. Convening power will be a key strategy the project will apply with identified reform actors who already hold this capacity. For intergovernmental reform actors to accept MRLG invitations to participate may need donor assistance through diplomatic channels and when convening forums a donor presence may be required. An option to spur intergovernmental and private sector involves support for single RA group (private sector or intergovernmental) meetings/forums/training/workshops or facilitate different combination of RA forums, training and workshops. Such support would slowly introduce sectors, which are normally apprehensive to civil society organization engagement, to the multi-reform actor platform. What and who these will be must be worked out during the regional workshop and as part of the ASEAN and private sector planning phase. An important contribution to the Project will be the results of a Research Mapping and Political Analysis Study that will be completed by June Preliminary results are anticipated to be completed in March 2015 and will help to formulate the annual Project Planning. The research mapping will integrate published academic research, relevant grey literature produced as technical reports, specific studies,

18 primary databases and statistics, case studies, etc. It will be multidisciplinary and cover all the areas relevant for a systemic analysis of the status, causes and consequences of growing land insecurity in Mekong region. Grant Facility Progress A critical process of review was undertaken in the development of the Grant Facility Operations Manual, to ensure there is a transparent process for awarding QDF and IF grants. Upon finalizing of the Grant Facility Operations Manual, the QDF funding window launched in October 2014 and accepted applications almost immediately. During country level consultation workshops, the QDF funding window was launched and briefly presented to participants. In February and March, formal proposal writing training will be conducted in each country to train stakeholders in the selection criteria, aware process, and requirements for each of the proposal stages. There are currently two (2) on-going activities, the first for Laos PDR and the second for Myanmar, a third QDF proposal has recently received the first level of approval, with a full proposal currently being prepared. The first QDF, is a Laos Integrated Natural Resource Management Project that galvanizes a wide base of civil society actors to develop and pilot a replicable capacity development model. This model is implemented through partner organizations interventions in Xiengkhouang and Phongsaly Provinces to enable family farmers in target villages to protect their land rights and livelihoods, and negotiate more favorable outcomes in potential large-scale land and natural resource management deals. The pilot project is implemented by the Land Issues Working Group (LIWG) with a project duration of six (6) months (between September 2014 and March 2015) and a total project cost of US$ 55,350 with US$ 49,265 contribution from the QDF. Additional external funding is also supporting a Project Coordinator to better facilitate the implementation of training events and opportunities for learning lessons and building a community of practice around information dissemination on sensitive land governance issues. In Myanmar, the activity funded by the QDF helped ensure the meaningful participation of civil society in the consultations on the proposed National Land Use Policy through a series of pre-consultation workshops with local civil society organisations. The activity is expected to build the capacity of local civil society and enable them to bring forward their issues and concerns to the formal consultation process and thereby also into national policy making. The activity is implemented by the Land Core Group (LCG)

19 within a duration of 4 months and a QDF funding of US$50,000. The activity also received funding from Pyoe Pin. Results of the first QDF applications are expected prior to the Project Planning period in March The second funding window will open a call for proposals on the 2 nd March, with a 2 month application preparation period prior to shortlisting. At the time of writing this paper January 2015, the project had received eight (8) quick disbursement fund Concept Notes, of which 3 were approved. In a number of cases that were not approved did not meet the key criteria of time bound urgency. The Project team expects a number of high quality proposals to be submitted during the first round of Innovation Fund call for proposals. Conclusion The Inception phase of the project has undergone a considerable consultation process and with many positive contributions by the initial round of reform actors. There are more avenues for the project to continue to explore and the flexible programming and responsive design enables this continuing process. The results and mapping of improved policy and practice and capacities built over the following implementation phase will be important to monitor, evaluate and feed back into the rolling project design. The initial uptake of quick disbursement funded opportunities indicates there is strong interest in activities aligned with the project goal and that there is initial interest to access this type of funding mechanism. The project aims to deliver a sound project strategy for Year 2 with country and regional activities shaping implementation activities that will progress the project goal and immediate policy and practice objectives. Important reflection and consultation workshops towards the end of Year 2 will be necessary interjection periods to take stock of where project inputs have resulted in influential moments or opportunities for change. The project looks forward to reporting over the coming years on innovative strategies and lesson to effect change. The author wishes to acknowledge contributions within this report from Raewyn Porter and Richard Hackman. For further enquiries and clarification, please contact Project Team Leader Kate Rickersey, krickersey@landequity.com.au. The project is being implemented by Land Equity International and Gret, (Professionals for Fair Development).

20