Existing and potential tools to
regulate land access for investors in
Madagascar
Beby Seheno Andriamanalina
Research and Knowledge Management Officer – Land Observatory
Perrine Burnod
Phd Economist - CIRAD & Land Observatory
2014 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty
The World Bank – Washington DC, March 25, 2014
Introduction
Between 2005 and 2010: + 50 companies look for more than 2
millions ha of agricultural land. Since then, 1/3 abandoned.
Despite the high controversies on Daewoo’s large-scale project and
the political crisis, large-scale investments continue and, without
debate, their promotion are still on the political agenda
The legal framework seems to be appropriate to regulate private
investments: pro local rights land laws, investment and
environmental laws
However, there is a lack of transparency and effective
implementation and enforcement.
• Question : What are, beyond the laws, the interventions that
can regulate large-scale investments in Madagascar?
•Objective: To analyze current and potential regulatory tools in
Madagascar in the light of international experiences
• Methodology: capitalization
 case studies in agricultural sector in Madagascar,
 multi-country comparative analysis (literature, expertise
of the Observatory team)
Advantages and limits of the
existing regulatory tools
Investment and environment laws
 Investment
One-Stop Office for investors (2006) : role of promotion of
investments rather than regulation
Investment law (2007): designed to ease investors access
to land ownership… But absence of decree and competition
with land administration
Environment
Compulsory Environmental Impact Assessment for
agricultural projects > 1,000 hectares.. But does not condition
land access and questionable quality
Land laws
 Since 2005 land reform: local/customary land rights legally recognized and
land management decentralized (landowner can apply for a land certificate )
=> State land services can only lease or sell to investors titled land in the name
of the State or actually un-titled and unoccupied land
However, local/customary rights are ignored (more or less deliberately) to get
some rents for the territory or extract unofficial advantages
 New circular (in 2010) issued by land administration relative to land access
> 2,500 ha : impose lease contract, recall the authority of the central
administration and impose an initial evaluation
However, new process on land access: multiplies the cost for the investors rather
than regulates (no selection of projects nor investors)
Non-binding regulatory tools
 Soft laws: eg VGGT (CFS), RAI, etc,
 CSR tools: social reporting, labels, norms and standards, etc.
 could be sometimes more efficient than laws (because affect
directly companies’ reputation) but:
in some cases, these tools are not enough precise on land issues
to enable efficient implementation
they are little known and little mobilized in Madagascar
 most of the companies and the public don’t pay enough
attention on local reputation
Non-state actors’ contribution to regulation
Non-state actors (media, civil society, observatory, research
centers) : key role in promoting transparency
 all these actors: lack of means
passive and resigned public opinion, little reaction of decision
makers
media and civil society: limited freedom of expression, recent
experiences in land issues
and lack of connection with rural areas for most of them
Propositions of regulatory
interventions in Madagascar
Open an enlarged debate on:
•The future for rural development :
what business model to promote or prioritize
design corresponding incentive tools
•Improving existing laws:
define an upper-limit of land area allocated to investors ,
define the limit beyond which the Council of Ministers or
parliament decision is needed,
publish the list of investors authorized to prospect land,
opte for a progressive allocation (conditioned on effective
cultivation and the respect of socio-environmental obligations),
limit the length of the lease (eg. to a 30 years period as practiced
in recent years),
Legally recognize pastoralist rights.
Open an enlarged debate on:
•Selection of investors:
A better transparency through a public auction for land
allocation
Screening & due diligence based on administration services
and qualified experts to assess the financial capacity, the
viability of the projects, the type of business models and the
respect of social and environmental issues (especially respect
of local land rights)
Publication of the selection criteria and the selected
investors
Open an enlarged debate on:
•Identification of land areas for investors:
 land bank managed by a para-governmental agency and gathering
the state owned land .. but few success stories in other countries and
the number of state owned land that are actually non appropriate is
questionable ...
create a kind of mini land banks managed by the municipality
Local development plan designed at the municipality level, based
on identified zones (not static and negotiated between different local
actors)
Improve assessment of land uses and rights
Open an enlarged debate on:
• Improving local consultations and negotiations:
set a compulsory number of public hearings,
precise number of men and women that must attend,
publish systematically the minutes,
involve a qualified third party to support communities
during negotiations,
let time to people to get informed and informally debate,
make local representatives signatories of land contracts,
etc.
Open an enlarged debate on:
•Improving the
commitments:
means
to
enforce
the
stakeholder’s
publish contracts and requirements’ documents (current
project on a web Platform of Land based Investments to
publish the large-scale land investments),
transform all requirements’ documents in legally binding
agreement and make sure they are specified (quantity,
quality, deadlines)
promote synergy between State institutions, civil society,
media and research organizations (such as Observatory) to
monitor commitment and ensure appropriate funding
Thank you for your
attention
www.observatoire-foncier.mg