1
THE LAND GOVERNANCE ASSESSMENT
FRAMEWORK (LGAF)
AN APPROACH FOR PARTICIPATORY
BENCHMARKING, MONITORING, AND
DIALOGUE
Thea Hilhorst –December 10th 2013
Overview presentation
2




Aim and approach LGAF
Structure of the framework
Some findings
Using data for improving land governance
Why LGAF instrument was developed
(2008)
3




Land sector reforms to be driven by country level,
evidence-based assessment
Should be based on broad, participatory policy
dialogue between/ within government and other
stakeholders
Comprehensive assessment – across silos & strategic
priority setting
Need for land governance baseline to track
progress both for in-country policy reform and for
regional/global initiatives (VGGT, LPI )
Aim and Structure LGAF Framework
4






Set baseline (country scorecard) - for tracking progress
Consistent with the VGGT principles, and other (emerging)
principles (‘responsible agro-investment’)
Pre-coded framework based on global experience
Rankings assigned by panels of local experts (gov, CSO,
academia, private sector), justified by evidence
 Goal is to arrive at consensus scoring- Aim for consensus: on
strong points; what to improve and where to start (priority
recommendations)
Results validated in national technical workshop, translation
into policy recommendation
Conclusion presented to policy makers for concrete followup
LGAF approach: Substance and
process
5

Substance:
Comprehensive analysis of land sector;
 Assessment guided by framework of indicators, based on
global experience of “good” land governance
 Evidence-based (administrative data, studies, tacit
knowledge)


Process:
Fast, low-cost assessment - Use available information – no
new primary research (gaps can be identified)
 Driven by national experts - Participatory - multiple sectors
and stakeholders
 Led by a country coordinator, working with national
specialists to prepare background analysis; Scoring in 9
thematic panels

Voluntary Guidelines (VG) Topics Covered by the LGAF
VG Topics
6
# of Corresponding
LGAF Dimensions
Cont’d.
#
Tenure Rights and
Responsibilities
16
Valuation
2
Policy, Legal and
Organizational Frameworks
17
Taxation
5
Delivery of Services
15
Regulated Spatial Planning
12
Safeguards
8
4
Public Land, Fisheries and
Forests
Resolution of Disputes Over Tenure
Rights
12
1
Indigenous Peoples,
Communities with Customary
Tenure Systems
Land Consolidation and Other
Readjustment Approaches
3
Restitution
0
Informal Tenure
6
Transboundary Matters
0
Markets
6
Climate Change
1
Investments
13
Natural Disasters
1
Redistributive Reforms
5
19
Expropriation and
Compensation
Conflicts in Respect to Tenure of
Land, Fisheries and Forests
5
Records of Tenure Rights
16
Process and Steps: 4-6 months
7
Inception
Phase
1
Background
Report
based on
9 Panels
information of Experts
existing
2
3
Draft
Report
4
Technical
Validation
Workshop
& Policy
Dialogue
5
Final
report
&
Score
card
6
Follow
Up
Platform/
observatory
Dialogue
monitoring
8
Framework
5 thematic governance areas
9
Recognition and respect for existing rights
Land Use Planning, Management, and
Taxation
Management of Public Land
Public Provision of Land Information
Dispute Resolution and Conflict
Management
9 Panels
10
Panel 1
Land Tenure Recognition
Panel 2
Rights to Forest and Common Lands; Rural Land Use Regulations
Panel 3
Urban Land Use, Planning, and Development
Panel 4
Public Land Management
Panel 5
Panel 6
Transfer of Public Land to Private Use Follows a Clear,
Transparent, and Competitive Process
Public Provision of Land Information: Registry and Cadastre
Panel 7
Land Valuation and Taxation
Panel 8
Dispute Resolution
Panel 9
Review of Institutional Arrangements and Policies
Panel – Indicator, dimensions and
scores
11
Dimension 1
Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 2
Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 3
Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 4
Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 1
Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 2
Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 3
Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 4
Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 5
Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 6
Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Dimension 7
Ranked on a scale from A to D by the panel
Panel 1
Indicator 1
Indicator 2
Example
12
Area
Area 3:
Management
of Public
land
Panel 5:
Transfer of
large tracts
of land to
investors
Indicators
Transfer of public
land to private use
follows a clear,
transparent, and
competitive process;
payments are
collected and audited
Private Investment
Strategy
Policy
implementation is
effective, consistent
and transparent and
involves local
stakeholders
Contracts involving
public land are public
with agreements
monitored and
enforced
Dimensions
Public land transactions are
conducted in an open transparent
manner.
Payments for public leases are
collected.
Public land is transacted at market
prices unless guided by equity
objectives.
The public captures benefits
arising from changes in permitted
land use.
Policy to improve equity in asset
access and use by the poor exists,
is implemented effectively and
monitored.
Score
A
B
C
D
The scoring/ ranking: based on global
experience
13
Dimension
Assessment
Brief description A – Best option towards a good land governance
of dimension
scenario.
B – Second best set of options for making progress
towards good land governance.
C – Generally struggles to meet the criteria for good
land governance however some attempts are
being made.
D – No attempts in this area towards good land
governance.
Example of coded answers
14
Dimension
5.1.1
Public land
transactions
are conducted
in an open
transparent
manner. (with
the exception of
transfers to
improve asset
equity such as
land distribution
and land for
social housing).
Assessment
–The share of public land disposed of in the past 3
years through sale or lease through public auction or
open tender process is greater than 90% (Except for
equity transfers).
–The share of public land disposed of in the past 3
years through sale or lease through public auction or
open tender process is between 70% and 90%.
(Except for equity transfers).
–The share of public land disposed of in the past 3
years through sale or lease through public auction or
open tender process is between 50% and 70%.
– The share of public land disposed of in the past 3
years through sale or lease through public auction or
open tender process is less than 50%. (Except for
equity transfers).
11 Indicators important for large-scale
land acquisitions
15




Panel 1: Land Rights Recognition
 Recognition of a continuum of rights
 Respect for and enforcement of rights
Panel 2: Rights to Forest and Common Lands & Rural Land Use Regulations
 Rights to forest and common lands
 Effectiveness and equity of rural land use regulations
Panel 4: Public Land Management
 Identification of public land and clear management
 Justification and time-efficiency of acquisition processes
 Transparency and fairness of acquisition procedures
Panel 5: Transfer of large tracts of public/communal land to investors
 Transfer of public land to private use follows a clear, transparent, and
competitive process and payments are collected and audited
 Private Investment Strategy
 Policy implementation is effective, consistent and transparent and involves
local stakeholders.
 Contracts involving public land are public with agreements monitored and
enforced.
16
Results
Countries with LGAF (33)
17
pilot
completed
Ongoing
Starting 2014
Burkina faso
Bangladesh
Ethiopia
Brazil*
DR Congo
Colombia
Cameroon
Burundi
Indonesia
Gambia
DRC- Kinshasa*
Mozambique
Kyrgyzstan
Georgia *
Peru **
Ghana
Guinea
Honduras
Kalimantan-Indonesia*
Timor Leste
Tanzania
Madagascar*
Malawi *
Benin **
Mauritania
Moldova
***-monitoring
** 2nd round
*=+sub-national
Philippines
South Africa
South Sudan
Ukraine
India -7 States*
Mali
Rwanda
Sudan
Uganda
Vanuatu
Vietnam
18
Scorecards
Recognition and Respect for Existing Rights: Legal and Institutional Environment
Brazil
Recognition of a continuum of rights
Land tenure rights recognition (rural)
Land tenure rights recognition (urban)
Rural group rights recognition
Urban group rights recognition in informal areas
Opportunities for tenure individualization
Enforcement of Rights
Mapping/registration of communal land
Registration of individual rural land
Registration of individual urban land
Formal recog of women's right
Condominium regime
Compensation due to land use changes
Mechanisms for recognition of rights
Non-documentary evidence to recognize rights
Recognition of long-term possession
Formal fees for 1st time registration low
No high informal fees for 1st time registration
Formalizing housing is feasible & affordable
Clear process for formal recognition of possession
Restrictions on Rights
Restrictions on urban land use, ownership and transferability
Restrictions on rural land use, ownership and transferability
Clarity of Institutional Mandates
Clear separation of institutional roles
Institutional overlap
Administrative overlap
Information sharing among institutions
Equity and Nondiscrimination in the Decision-Making Process
Clear land policy developed in a participatory manner
Meaningful incorporation of equity goals
Cost of implementing policy is estimated, matched with benefits, and
adequately resourced
Regular, public reports indicating progress in policy implementation
19
National
Para
State
Piauí
State
Georgia
Peru
Philippines
South
Africa
Senegal
Ukraine
A
B
C
C
D
B
D
B
A
A
D
D
C
C
C
A
A
D
A
A
A
A
C
A
B
A
A
B
B
B
B
C
C
A
C
A
C
B
A
B
C
C
B
B
A
D
C
C
A
A
C
D
A
A
C
C
D
C
C
D
B
D
D
A
A
D
A
A
D
B
D
C
C
A
B
D
A
A
A
A
B
D
D
D
D
A
B
C
C
B
A
C
C
C
A
C
A
C
C
C
A
B
A
C
B
C
A
B
A
D
B
B
A
A
A
A
B
A
B
A
A
C
D
B
A
A B D
B C
C
A
C
C
D
B
C
C
D
D
A
B
D
C
C
D
C
C
A
B
A
B
A
B
C
A
D
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
C
C
C
D
C
B
C
C
B
A
B
D
A
A
B
B
D
D
D
B
C
C
B
B
C
C
C
C
C
B
C
C
C
B
C
C
B
C
C
C
B
A
A
C
D
B
C
C
C
C
C
C
A
C
C
C
C
C
C
D
C
C
C
C
D
A
C
C
C
Management of Public Land
Brazil
Identification and Clear Management of Pulic Land
Public ownership is justified
Complete recording of public land
Management responsibility for public land is clear
Institutions are properly resourced
Public land inventory with public access
Key information on land concessions is public
Incidence of Expropriation
Expropriated land is used for private purposes
Speed of use of expropriated land
Transparency of Expropriation Procedures
Fair compensation for expropriation of ownership
Fair compensation for expropriation of other rights
Promptness of compensation
Independent & accessible appeal
Time it takes for a first-instance decision on an appeal
Transparent Processes for Divestiture
Openness of public land transactions
Collection of payments for public leases
Modalities of lease/sale of public land
20
National
Para
State
Piauí
State
Georgia
Peru
Philippines
B
A
B
C
A
A
C
B
C
D
C
B
B
C
D
D
C
C
A
C
A
A
B
A
C
D
C
D
C
A
C
A
C
C
C
C
A
D
A
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
D
A
A
B
B
C
D
B
C
C
D
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
B
B
D
B
B
C
A
B
A
A
C
D
D
D
D
A
A
A
D
A
A
A
South
Africa
Senegal
Ukraine
B
C
B
D
C
D
B
C
D
D
C
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
B
B
D
B
C
A
C
D
C
D
D
A
A
D
C
C
D
D
D
D
A
C
B
A
B
C
C
B
C
Public Provision of Land Information
Brazil
Para
State
Piauí
State
Georgia
Peru
Philippines
South
Africa
Senegal
Ukraine
A
A
A
A
B
D
A
A
B
A
C
D
A
A
A
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
C
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
B
A
A
C
A
B
C
A
A
A
C
C
B
D
D
D
D
D
A
D
A
D
D
C
A
D
B
B
C
A
A
D
C
A
C
D
A
D
A
A
A
C
A
A
B
C
A
A
D
A
B
B
C
A
A
A
A
D
C
D
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
D
A
C
National
Completeness of Registry Information
Mapping of registry records
Relevant private encumbrances
Relevant public restrictions
Searchability of the registry
Accessibility of registry records
Timely response to requests
Reliability of Registry Records
Registry focus on client satisfaction
Cadastral/registry info up-to-date
Cost Effectiveness, Accessibility, and Sustainability
Cost for registering a property transfer
Financial sustainability of registry
Capital investment in the system to record rights
Transparency
Schedule of fees for services is public
Informal payments discouraged
21
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
C
D
A
A
A
B
Transfer of Public Land to Private Use Follows a Clear, Transparent, and
Competitive Process
Brazil
22
South
Africa
Senegal
Ukraine
B
A
C
C
C
C
C
D
D
C
D
D
D
D
A
D
B
A
C
C
D
A
C
C
C
B
D
C
A
C
D
C
C
B
C
B
A
B
B
B
C
B
C
C
C
A
B
B
B
C
B
D
C
A
C
D
D
C
C
A
C
B
B
C
C
C
C
B
B
National
Para
State
Piauí
State
Georgia
Philippines
LSLA
Most forest land is mapped; rights are registered
Few conflicts generated and how they are addressed
Land use restrictions on rural land parcels generally identifiable
Clear, consistent public institutions in land acquisition
Incentives for investors are clear and consistent
Benefit sharing mechanisms for investments in agriculture
Direct/transparent negotiations between right holders and investors
Sufficient information required from investors
Investors provide required information
C
D
A
A
C
C
A
A
A
C
D
D
D
B
C
A
D
C
C
D
C
C
B
C
A
D
C
A
C
A
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
D
B
C
C
C
B
Contractual provisions on benefits/risks sharing
A
D
D
Duration of procedure to obtain approval
Social requirements clearly defined
Environmental requirements clearly defined
D
D
C
D
C
C
Procedures for economically, environmentally, and socially beneficial investments
A
Compliance with safeguards is checked
Procedures to lodge complaints
A
C
A
D
C
B
23
Conclusions
Process
24






LGAF proven to be a good diagnostic tool
Comprehensive analysis across stakeholder much
appreciated; Breaking down traditional silos in country =
panels are important
Creates baseline for tracking progress – regular monitoring
key quantitative indicators
Helps to focus efforts in land sector and encourage
collaboration, basis for building platforms for stakeholder
dialogue
Helped to start taking sometimes controversial issues
forward / create space for dialogue
Tool for expressing & communicating country demand
 Provides justification for investments/ interventions in land
sector reforms
 move up “land issues” on broad policy agenda;
Contribution to transparency & change
25



Information land sector pulled together, brings tacit
knowledge on actual practice in the public domain
Brings (potential) change agents together; podium for
potential “champions”
Building block for
Implementation (can agreement on strong and weak points
(evidence) lead to change?) – allign…
 Innovation? (pilot, sharing practice, capacity etc.)
 Institutionalize dialogues and monitoring – allign.. VGGT
 Demand for data from administrative system =>
transparency & performance?


More monitoring (timely check) & impact
Presenting data in accessible format
26
LGAF Framework
 Structures analysis
 Structures assessment : comparable over time and
between countries
 Produces scorecards: strong & weak points
 Baseline; also helps to identify opportunities for
sharing good practice
LGAF prepares the ground for regular
–reporting on land governance
27



Produces baseline & national platform demanding
data & ability to use these data
Uses data from administrative systems: government
responsibility to supply data (accountability) and has
incentive to
 Improve ability of systems to produce data
 Undertake actions that will show progress)
Work towards regular reporting on short list of
global land indicators (see also) –incl. Post- 2015
land indicators (land in name of women; mapping
communal land; transactions recorded; expropriation,
conflict, taxation)
More Information on LGAF instrument
and findings
28

http://econ.worldbank.org/lgaf