Apart from empowering citizens on various technical aspects including dielogues and negotiation  skills, undestanding of contractual terms and legal implications; they also help in brokering a space for expanded negotiations between investors, the state and communities

Can aslo help in making the state and investors accountable and ensure responsiveness and effectiveness

am not sure if there is a monitoring mechnism and specific indicators for tracking the extent at which community benefit and fulfiment of the investors obligations

Dear Discussants,

We wish to relay our appreciation for the wonderful discussion we had over the previous two weeks. It was a very fruitful conversation, with valuable contributions from varying geographies and sectors.  A good number of people provided their expertise and insights to ensure we attained to our intended goals for the dialogue.

Building from last week’s summary report, we would like to close the ‘debate’ by highlighting some additional key issues that emerged:

• Regarding Village Land Use Planning (VLUP), there were inquiries into the feasibilities as well as liabilities of companies conducting village land use plans. We heard from our discussants that there are ongoing concerns about companies taking on this role, largely due to conflicts of interest. This is further complicated by the difficulties, as noted elsewhere in the conversation, for companies to fully grasp the complexities of land use, access, and ownership. Still, government seems to be endorsing this process, at least in some areas. Questions remain around how to ensure protection of local community interests and avoid biased processes, while not halting the process altogether.
• An important point about transparency in the investment contractual process was raised. OpenLandContracts, developed by the Columbia Center for Sustainable Investment (CCSI), was highlighted as one effort to increase transparency through the establishment of an online repository of publicly available investor – state land contracts and associated documents. One of the challenges, though, is the extent to which governments willingly participate and make such contracts publicly available on a regular basis, or as a matter of law or policy, including the government of Tanzania.
• Strengthening land investment policies and regulations, especially through the ongoing National Land Policy review process, is important to ensure responsible investments. A need to put legal guarantee for resettlement and rehabilitation assistance to reconstruct livelihoods of victims affected by compulsory acquisition and displacement, for example, is one necessary component. Adopting gender sensitive models and including relevant accountability mechanisms to facilitate gender equity is another necessary step.
• Establishment and strengthening of platforms can enrich productive and healthy dialogues and improve transparency and accountability. In Tanzania, this includes the Women’s Rights and Leadership Forums (WRLF), the District Multi-Stakeholder Forums (DMF), the Tanzania Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (TEITI), farmer-pastoralist platforms, etc. Generally, decentralization of these kinds of platforms is encouraged to include grassroots experiences and voices. However, without good facilitation and restraint, these platforms can become a conduit for exacerbating struggles amongst members at the expense of constructive and productive dialogue and coordination.  
• On the role of CSOs and media, discussants continued to emphasize their importance in the investment process. CSOs, especially, can provide important technical expertise and support to communities, offering information and tools to make them more equitable business partners. They can serve important brokering and monitoring roles. However, CSOs are advised to be especially thoughtful about their engagement strategies with stakeholders, as some levels or types of activism can have counter productive effects.
• Importantly, having guides for investment that are context specific may be especially helpful to secure community interests, improve bargaining powers and enhance community participation.
• Finally, it is important and valuable for all of us to take lessons from previous failed investments for necessary changes as we move, or ‘fail’ forward. In this regard, we very much appreciate the tenor of honesty throughout this discussion

These are just a few highlights among the many valuable insights that were provided on responsible investments in land, bringing to the fore some of the practical realities faced in the Tanzanian context. As the organizers, it has been our pleasure to have your participation in the debate over the past two weeks. Personally, we have learned a lot and take note of the advice and suggestions provided as we move forward in our own work. For everyone, we hope and expect that these conversations will continue, and that we will continue to learn from one another and find ways for constructive and collaborative solutions as we go forward.

Kind regards,

Godfrey and Lukasz

This I am sure is not the way to go. If it works by chance in one village, that is fine, but for sure it will buckfire in another village and the concequences will be far reaching. Sorry but to put it in a blunt way,  if you ask an accused criminal to pay for his trial, just because the state has no resources, expect the worst from him if he fails the case. Or expect the judge will not be impartial

and sometimes for-profit companies advance their interests through self-established or third party charities..

Naomi,

You have raised an incredibly important point, and I think it relates back to earlier discussions here about the nature of participation. Are project-affected peoples able to engage and participate in meaningful ways? Are they empowered to do so? If not, how can other parties involved (government, agribusiness, CSOs) work to give these communities a meaningful voice? The FPIC standard is key here, but we have to be sure that the free prior and informed consent is the result of true choice.

It is in the interest of the investors to consistently consult with affected communities in order to maintain social license to operate. I hope that the Landesa RIPL guidebooks will help to show all of the necessary stakeholders the importance of consistent and meaningful consultation, along with providing steps on how to make those engagements. 

Hi Baha and Godfrey,

The idea of having a Multi-stakeholders forum on this is very important, but I think we have some bricks to start with here in Tanzania especially from the extractive sector point of view. We are members of EITI and therefore there is Tanzania Extractive Industry Transparency Initiative (TEITI) and we have gone far to TEITI Act of 2015. In this case, therefore we have a Multistakeholder Group -(MSGs ) or (forum if want you to call it) with members from CSOs, Govt and Extractive Companies. While these MSGs are good, they are also playgrounds of 'different struggles' among the members. 

I personally conducted investigative journalism on land issues particularly investigation on land grabbing in various parts in Tanzania such as US-AgriSol company limited controversial acquisition of land in the former Burundians refugee settlements of Katumba  and Mishamo in Mpanda district, in Katavi region, (formally part of Rukwa region) and the former Congolese refugee settlements in Lugufu, Kigoma region. (The article titled green revolution or green plunder is also posted on the Oakland institute in USA).

This investment failed completely as it could not see the light at the end of the tunnel.

Major concerns about this investment

 Iowa State University (ISU) which intended on partnering with the project to conduct the small-farmer training programme pulled out of the project and remained with an advisory role only.

The project did not take training for small scale farmers seriously

Concerned about demands in AgriSol Energy’s proposal to Tanzania requiring permission to cultivate GMOs and guaranteed access to export markets

The second case study

I also conducted an investigative journalism on biofuel investments in Kisarawe, Coastal region where Sunbiofuel acquired some 8,211 ha, but managed to cultivate only a quarter of the area. According to interviewed villagers, the Sunbiofuel started the process to acquire land in 2006 and promised that more than 5,000 villagers would be employed.

Initially, they had applied for 20,000ha but Kisarawe district authorities discovered this

was too big an area to lease to any investor, hence the decision to limit the area to only

8,210 ha. One of the conditions for land acquisition was that the investor should pay

compensation to the villagers as individuals and for each village, the amount should be Sh840 million

The villagers were asked whether they were involved in the whole process. They

replied that they learnt of the investor through the then Member of Parliament Athuman

Janguo, adding that later on Kisarawe district authorities followed the natter up with

wide campaign in support of the project. The villagers succumbed to the campaign and

surrendered their land in the hope that the investment would help bring an end to their

poverty and improve the living standard.

During the implementation of the project, the investor only managed to employ 750 people out of 5,000 initially promised. What is worse is that, within no time the company started retrenchments, and to date there is nothing at all.  The investor cited shortage of water and fusarium as reasons for the Massive layoffs.

On realizing that the investor would not fulfill his promises, the villagers convened a

meeting at Muhaga Village on October 11, last year (2011) and formed a task force

to make a follow-up of their demands. It was a tag of war as the follow-ups took almost two years. The villagers from eleven villages in Kisarawe district, vowed to staged demonstration against the investor for failure to pay compensations for their village land amounting to 549 million Tanzania shillings.

With the help of several publications from the Guardian newspaper although, they were compensated, although, they had lost their land which is the only capital for a poor farmer in many African countries

NB: We realized that many media houses in Tanzania are reactive rather than being pro-active on agriculture and land based investments. We journalists decided to form Tanzania agricultural Journalists’ Forum (TAJF) to report and create public awareness on these issues on daily basis.  

Some of my work

http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/index.php?l=31766

http://www.tabef.or.tz/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/INVESTIGATIVE-REPORT-O...

http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/index.php?l=36298

http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/?l=41048

http://www.oaklandinstitute.org/us-varsity-faults-agrisol-katumba-misham...

http://www.ippmedia.com/frontend/index.php?l=36560

https://www.facebook.com/PanAfricanistInternational/posts/135857986527271

Gerald Kitabu

Senior reporter, The Guardian, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

Chairman-Tanzania Agricultural Journalists’ Forum (TAJF)

+2557612698

+255713612698

I would like to add some more examples of platforms to build on your contribution, Gemma. This is also adding to the list mentioned by Baha and Valentine above. District level-multistakeholder forum, as argued in this paper by Masalu, can help in improving transparency and accountability and in resolving some land disputes. Farmer-pastoralist platform, which i have written on recently,  is not only a democratic way of resolving land conflicts but a forum where stronger bargaining power is established to engage with investors in the tourism sector. 

Thanks to the organizers for the idea to create this platform, it has been my pleasure to participate and indeed I have gained a lot from the contributions on various topics that have been covered. I think as CSOs we need to rethink our strategies and engagement with all stakeholders, i.e. government, private sector and the general public. This is in terms of how we package and deliver our messages, no body is disputing the significance of FDIs specifically in agriculture, we still need investments from outside but yes we need to make sure there are safeguards to ensure that the investment is in our best interest and not otherwise, a win-win? and secondly we should also focus on domestic investors/speculators! I think this explains best what we have on the ground, one of the contributors in this platform shared the experience of Agrisol, I lead the team and I understand the dynamics, I had opportunity to discuss face to face with the people behind the project, Godfrey may recall better as a note taker since mine was just questioning and trying my level best to understand the motive. I still recall one question to date, "Mr.Baha we are first and foremost Tanzanians and truly patriotic, whatever we want to do is in the best interest of the country and its people, can you please share with us a model and or show us practically where and how an investment in agriculture can be a win-win situation? the investor is happy the beneficiaries and communities around are also happy?it was not easy for me to explain to them.

We have learnt a lot and I think we should avoid experiments, if we are sincere the first priority should be on how we design the policy itself and the regulations that will come as a result of the policy process, poor design of the policy will end up with bad laws and at best another chaotic ten years until another review. I also think another option is to strengthen dialogue platforms, if it is through such processes as TALA-NES, Landesa/Land Portal etc they are very important and we need to decentralise the platform by having grassroots experiences and voice. Lastly to the organizers is it possible to get this edition as it is? hope another round will come and may be this time from us the practioners and will take into consideration the voices from the ground. Once again thanks very much, Aksanteni sana kwa kutuleta pamoja katika mjadala huu.

I wish to share the work undertaken by the East African Legislative Assembly (EALA), the parliament of the East African Community, with the support of the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), on responsible investment in agriculture. The parliament is currently in the process of adopting the “EAC Model Contract for Farmland Investments,” the first regional parliament in the world to adopt a model contract for farmland investments. They see in this contract, a legal instrument, which is based on global best practices and reflects regional priorities and policies.

There is also important recognition that investment contracts are only one of a number of tools that exist to govern investment projects. There are other stages in the investment process, which require proper sequencing, prioritizing of issues, and an understanding of the economic context. Indeed, a well-drafted contract will not remove all possibility of negative impacts, nor will it guarantee that investments are successful and benefit the host country. Other processes are critical too; in particular, prior screening of investors, meaningful engagement of communities, and ongoing monitoring and evaluation after the contract is signed.

The EAC Model Contract for Farmland Investments was motivated by the need to create a tool that is flexible enough to allow member State to adapt the provisions of the contract to their own legal systems, and local contexts.

The best guarantee to achieve positive benefits from foreign investment is a solid foundation of domestic laws that are properly enforced. But in many countries the necessary domestic laws may not be in place or may not be sufficiently detailed.

The starting point for the development of the EAC Model Contract for Farmland Investments was to assess and compare the existing legal frameworks in five of the six EAC member States and identify where one or all of the countries fall short of best international practice and standards. Over 450 laws and regulations were reviewed and a range of problems identified. South Sudan was not yet a member of EAC at the start of the project, but there are plans to integrate South Sudan at a future date.

The contract requires investors to certify that they have identified all legitimate land tenure rights holders–whether formally recorded or not–and that women are given equal status to men. Investors are also required to conduct a social impact assessment and engage in consultations with local stakeholders to develop a community agreement.

The contract increases the likelihood that projects will succeed by requiring a commercial feasibility study and business plan: both of which must be approved by the state.

It supports local business development with a clause that requires investors and their sub-contractors to give first preference to local goods and services. It helps to create jobs and improve skills by giving first preference to locals.

The contract protects the environment by requiring an independently-verified environmental impact assessment and a plan to avoid, minimize, mitigate, rehabilitate and offset impacts on: forest conservation; biological diversity; groundwater; and soil quality. It requires a plan to assess and mitigate the impacts of climate change on the project and to avoid or minimize green house gas emissions. Investors are also required to carefully managing the use and disposal of chemicals, pesticides, fertilizers, fuel and other hazards.

The parliament plans to adopt the contract in August 2017, at which time it will become publicly available.

This is very interesting concept/idea Zakaria. I know institutuions such as the World Bank (Inspection Panel) and the IMF (CAO) have redress/grievance/complaint/recourse mechanism. They developed such a mechanism to protect communities that might be affected by projects they fund. Would you mind explaining how will companies/investors independently, fairly and without bias develop and implement such a mechanism? 

While the connotation of company facilitated village land use planning and issuance of tenure rights in Tanzania sounds vague among many of us and we might not support it. However, on the ground such tendency is not a new thing again and has taken a new momentum in land tenure right, gaining support both from the government departments and the communities at National, District and Village level. From my vast experience of working in village land use in Tanzania, numbers of Village Land Use Plans have been prepared and are being prepared and CCROs issued through companies funding. Over recently, we have been working on 15 VLUP of Madaba, Njombe-Mji, Ludewa and Nyasa Districts under the auspices of `Pandamiti kibiashara` which is the private company in forest plantation. And this is just one of the examples, there are several of them. In fact the companies` interventions in terms of number village land use plans and issuance of CCROs is anticipated to increase in a very near future given the fact that government allocation is decreasing dramatically. By the way the company is planning to provide CCRO to majority. My point here is whether financial resources are channelled through companies or otherwise the interest of the communities over the resources in question solely depends on the existing guidelines and laws over which the process (I mean Village land Use Planning) is carried out. With the existing guideline for example among other things land suitability and availability is one of the requirement for designating an area for any use, and the large scale land investors are given surplus land. Actually even in land related conflicts point of view one will find that areas with large-scale investment with no land use plans have more conflicts than in areas without village land use plan, regardless on whether that land use plan was facilitated by company or Government.

To bring it together, we need to embrace the movement but impontantly, update our land related laws and regulations. I am very  happy with ongoing movement in land use planning over which the requirement for facilitating land use planning one should be a registered planner, this will ultimately allow only professions in that niche to work as per standards and regulation. One might argue about the number of villages versus land use planning profesions, that is a challenge which to me is easy to solve than the current situation where everybody can embark on the land use planning process if he/she wish.

Lukasz, I think this is a question of power relations and democracy. Unfortunately, a technical fix won't do

J.

Below are some best practices from Tanzania, developed by Ujamaa Community Resource Team, that are worth adoption.

1.Women Rights and Leadership Forums (WRLF)

Ujamaa Community Resource Team has used the WRLFs platform as a way of increasing women’s voice at the grassroots level on matters concerning land rights since 2012. The results have exceeded expectations. For example, in Simanjiro district, where the expansion of a game reserve was being pushed towards the village land and family homes were being burned down, the WRLFs platform mobilized other women to resist. They felt compelled to react due to the negative impact it would bring. The community living within that land would lose a significant portion of the land they depended on for their livelihoods. As a result of women’s protest, the community retained access to the land.

This success and many other successes are attributed to the WRLF approach, which is:

• Election of 24 women representatives by the village women general assembly
• The 24 women are selected in equal representation from existing sub-villages within a particular village. Which means these representatives come from all corners of the respective villages.
• The 24 women selected, existing traditional leaders within target villages, the village chairs and village executive officers become our target group to build capacity in various areas particularly land rights.
• We first build the capacity of women themselves to have enough courage to engage in ongoing issues within their areas and beyond
• When women are ready, we bring in traditional leaders and village leaders and further build their capacity as a joint group.
• These groups further have the role of building the capacity of the wider community.

This model/ approach has created a grassroots social movement that responds to issues among others; land grabbing, active participation to engagement in issues such as large scale land based investment and other issues affecting women’s livelihoods.

2.Shared Certificate of Customary Right of Occupancy (CCROs) among the hunter gatherer and pastoralist groups as a form of security of land tenure.

For marginalized groups such as pastoralists and hunter gatherers, who still maintain their land as communally owned, large scale land based investment is a particular threat to them.

Securing their communal use of land and ownership reduces the vulnerability these communities face.

Thus through communal CCROs, communities’ lands are secured, hence livelihoods are protected. Having security in place does not prevent large scale land based investment from taking place. However, they are able to choose investments that go in harmony with their own practices for example conserved forests are increasingly attractive to carbon trading.

ANNEXES TO SOME LINKS

 I.http://www.ujamaacrt.org/uploads/1/2/5/7/12575135/womens_rights_and_lead...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUt9HH_Lcq8

http://www.ujamaa-crt.org/uploads/1/2/5/7/12575135/ucrt_ccro_brief_2014.pdf

My PhD study at the University of Groningen Faculty of Law focuses on the legal frameworks that apply when land is compulsorily acquired to serve a public purpose, including compulsory acquisitions for land investments. The study covers 50 countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Thus my contribution to this online discussion focuses on cases where Tanzanian landholders are displaced from their land after such land is compulsorily acquired by the government for investment purposes. The legal research I've conducted thus far has several important implications for land investments in Tanzania. In Tanzania, the term “public purpose” is not defined by law; the President has broad discretion to establish a public purpose justification for the compulsory acquisition of land. Presumably, land can be expropriated for land investment, which is often considered to serve the broad purpose of “economic development”. However, the government is legally obligated to provide compensation for expropriated land.

According to my recent Land Journal article, the compensation procedures established by Tanzania laws  adopt several international standards on compensation valuation. For instance, the law requires the government to adopt alternative approaches to the “fair market value” approach to calculating land compensation in areas where land markets are weak or non-existent (sec. 10, Village Land Regulations). Furthermore, the law requires assessors to account for economic activities, improvements made on the land, and communal assets; and, alternative land may be granted as a compensation option in lieu of monetary compensation (See VGGT infographic on Tanzania country portfolio). Importantly, the law also provides compensation for expropriated land regardless of whether a customary right of occupancy is formally registered or not (Sec. 8, Village Land Regulations).

What is problematic for landholders in Tanzania, and many other developing countries (see VGGT dataset), is the fact that the government has not enacted a legally binding law or regulation that ensures these landholders are guaranteed the resettlement and rehabilitation assistance necessary to reconstruct their livelihoods subsequent to compulsory acquisition and displacement. Without a legally binding resettlement and rehabilitation procedure that provides legal rights to the displaced, displaced populations are unable to hold governments and private actors accountable by seeking redress in court after they are forcibly evicted. Furthermore, the government is not legally obligated to minimize or avoid involuntary resettlement. Failure to provide displaced populations with adequate legal protection puts these populations at serious risk of impoverishment, landlessness, and other socioeconomic risks.

With respect to compensation valuation, since the law on the books is relatively strong compared to other countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, legal and policy reforms should focus more on ensuring effective implementation on the part of the government and private investors. There should be mechanisms in place, including judicial oversight and other accountability mechanisms, to ensure the government and private actors respect and enforce provisions that grant the right to fair compensation for landholders affected by land investments. While section 11 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1967 provides affected landholders with the legal right to negotiate compensation amounts, the government should ensure that, in practice, affected landholders are adequately informed and given the opportunity to effectively negotiate compensation amounts. The World Bank’s LGAF research in Tanzania suggested that in some cases compensation decisions were made behind closed doors. Negotiation procedures should be fair and transparenct, and ensure that compensation is agreed on and paid in a timely manner. When land is compulsorily acquired for land investors, investors should be required to pay compensation that comes in the form of suitable alternative land, profit sharing, and/or sufficient money to purchase alternative land, housing, and other basic amenities. Compulsory acquistion should only occur as a last resort and should not result in landholders ending up worse-off than before their land was taken.

Many thanks, Godfrey, for highlighting OpenLandContracts.org, which as you note is a global online repository of publicly available investor-state land contracts and associated documents. Given the nature of Tanzanian land laws and policies, while several types of documents may fall within the scope of the agreements and associated documents we make available on the repository, derivative titles likely come closest to what we would ordinarily refer to as “investor-state” contracts for land-based investments. Our understanding is that these agreements have yet to be made publicly available on a regular basis, or as a matter of law or policy, in Tanzania.

Through OpenLandContracts.org, we hope to demonstrate that proactive disclosure of these agreements is both feasible and valuable for all stakeholders. The platform allows CCSI and relevant partners, including host country governments, to establish country-specific sites for contract disclosure, providing an efficient solution for public disclosure of these agreements. Summaries (or “annotations”) of key social, environmental, fiscal, and operational provisions can also be added to each contract, facilitating greater understanding of the implications of contractual provisions (these summaries are added to all contracts currently available on the global site). Establishing a country-specific repository in Tanzania would make agreements and associated documents concerning land-based investments more accessible and understandable, in turn potentially helping to: support monitoring of compliance with obligations contained in these documents; provide access to information necessary to assess the costs and benefits of these projects; inform the negotiation of improved terms; and improve the stability of the investment climate by reducing tensions typically associated with opaque processes. Moreover, in Tanzania, as in many countries targeted for land-based investment, several agencies are involved in the governance and negotiation of these projects: making land contracts accessible through a centralized OpenLandContracts.org repository can improve information sharing and, ideally, coordination among relevant agencies and departments.

While increasing transparency can improve the nature and outcomes of land-based investments, transparency alone is not sufficient to guarantee equitable access to information, effective participation of stakeholders in decision-making around land-based investments, and accountability for decisions made and any potential or actual harms caused. Masalu Luhula and several other dialogue contributors have noted that legal and practical challenges can undermine informed and meaningful participation by affected communities in decisions concerning lands upon which they depend. At CCSI, we are exploring options for addressing the legal and technical support gaps faced by individuals and communities affected by land-based investments. In this context, we are working with Namati to develop targeted guidance for communities and their advisors on whether and how to negotiate with investors. Related to this work, we recently published a Directory of Community Guidance on Agreements Relating to Agriculture or Forestry Investments, and a draft paper on benefit-sharing arrangements tied to agricultural investments, which will soon be finalized and re-published. We have also recently explored how best to include community consultation and FPIC into negotiation processes between investors and governments, and have begun work on assessing and addressing barriers that affected communities face in obtaining access to justice, including barriers created or exacerbated by the relatively greater access to justice that is often available to foreign investors through, for example, investor-state dispute settlement.

Lastly, with respect to defining “participation” and stakeholder obligations that arise in the context of land-based investments, international and regional human rights law can help to inform and shape understanding of standards contained in voluntary guidance applicable to land-based investment, including the VGGTs, CFS Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems, LPI’s Guiding Principles on LSLBI in Africa, and other region/stakeholder-specific guidance. Advocacy efforts seeking implementation of non-binding standards can also be strengthened by drawing closer links between existing obligations under human rights law and best practices contained in voluntary guidance.

Hi Jevgeniy, 

I am of the opinion that rural people successfully reoccupied the land that was under NAFCO/NARCO by making their claims on it. One, they were former owners of the land and that the Govenment failed to develop the land. Two, that their population have increased and that they need the land to sustain their livelihood. Three, that there is no any other alternative land available for their use. With a good cause, the President and the Commissioner of Lands can always revert back the land to the communities. 

Thanks Renee for pointing some critical questions for our reflection. I would like to contribute here while also building on contributions made by Paine, Beatha and Mkama. 

After realizing that rural women do not actively participate in the decision making processes around land-based investment, LEAT, TAWLA and WRI developed a model gender-sensitive village bylaws. The bylaws were developed in collaboration with village leaders, women groups, and district officials in Kisarawe District. These bylaws put in-place a requirement for women to participant, air their views, and have their views considered by the village government. So far, they have been piloted and adopted in four villages in Kisarawe. Efforts are underway to have then adopted at the national level.

Last year, IIED documented them in their case study report which can be accessed here. I hope, these bylaws, like others that are currently developed by Landesa in Tanzania, are more context specific and can help to secure women’s rights and improve their bargaining power in the decision making process in LSLBI. 

Three inter-connected areas in which private sector practice can improve that can bring about more equitable and socially responsible land investments are: 

i) due diligence procedures, including the assessment of land related risks, and for existing investments and extended supply chains as well as new investments that involve land acquisitions.

ii) community engagement and consultation processes, directly engaging women and all sections of the community and including the need to obtain Free Prior and Informed Consent as part of broader and more sustained engagement to obtain (or retain) social licence to operate;

iii) disclosure and transparency of investment and business plans with governments, affected communities and other stakeholders, including plans and actions to address land related issues, conflicts and risks

Progress is being made, largely at the level of principles and commitments by more enlightened companies in context of broader efforts to address sustainability and human rights, strengthened international guidance, in response to global advocacy by civil society.   There is much that civil society can do to help companies improve practice in these key areas and a number of donor agencies are now promoting partnerships between CSOs and private sector companies on the ground, (for instance through the LEGEND Challenge Fund) to pilot new approaches and tools that the private sector can take up and to enlarge the “precompetitive space for dialogue” notably through the Interlaken Group initiative.

On the other hand, the scope to bring about broader changes in private sector practice through efforts of individual companies and site specific pilots is limited, given that many companies, including most domestic and south-south investors and businesses controlled by national elites fall outside the network of these initiatives, the skills capacities and resources in civil society remain limited remain limited and the legal framework and business environment within which agribusiness companies and investors operate at the country level is often not favourable. Therefore the voluntary efforts of progressive companies and NGOs need to be complemented by attention to the policy and institutional framework, and coherence and relevance of government and supporting donors’ programmes on land, agriculture, investment and development planning generally are important parts of the equation to bring about broader change.

With reference to Tanzania,  I would like to focus on some of the gaps between internationally accepted principles and practice, and the roles that civil society can play in helping to insure that land investment takes place responsibly, enhances rather than undermining land based livelihoods and contributes to inclusive, broad -based economic development.

A critical gap is that between policies and institutions responsible for land and those responsible for agricultural development and the management of inward investments. This is reflected in a parallel gap in donor programming between conventional land sector programmes focuses on land registration and titling (or LTR) and technical and policy support to land administration, and programmes to assist investment, private sector development and supporting infrastructure and services in the agricultural sector, for instance programmes that support SAGCOT and AgDevCo as investment vehicles. I would like to suggest three areas where more coherent goernmetn and donor programming could make a real difference:

i) Better coordinated planning and delivery of land and investment programmes:  Land Tenure Registration – or “regularisation” (LTR) programmes need to become more responsive to the often conflict prone land investment contexts and better articulated with the planning and development of agricultural and other investments programmes.  The regions and specific locations targeted for mass delivery of titles (or in the case of Tanzania, CCROs) need to be better prioritised to better reflect real demand for and utility of individual plot or household level Demand is likely to be greater in cases where agribusiness investments are established and underway, villages that are active in supplying agricultural value chains and areas subject to urbanisation and increasing competition for land. 

A stronger focus on participatory planning: private sector investments – for instance Illovo Sugar’s Kilombero sugar estates – have huge economic footprints which stimulate in-migration of labour, population growth, urbanisation and  development of service industries straining existing social and economic infrastructure – in this case in a context of increasing overall land scarcity due to the presence of large conservation areas within which existing investments, infrastructure, urban settlements and farming communities are squeezed. Additional large scale investments are taking place within the same landscape and Illovo is considering further expansion of its outgrower scheme. In this context there is a case for land programmes to place greater emphasis on planning than on mass land registration per se, and to work in closer coordination with companies present and with urban and agricultural planners. Land programmes can potentially add greater value through village level land use planning and capacity building, including:  definition of definition of village boundaries;  participatory and zoning of areas for urban settlement, where individual land registration may be needed, or where existing customary management practices can prove adequate and where land is available for investment; securing collective rights to grazing land or community forests through group CCROs; and supporting local mechanisms for adjudicating and managing land disputes and conflicts.   

Resourcing civil society capacity to act at scale:    There is a clear role for CSOs to collaborate as partners in forging real links and collaboration between government, businesses and communities, by acting as trusted independent intermediaries. Capacity is presently limited; CSOs need to combine legal, technical and practical skills in land, agricultural development, rural livelihoods, communications and community engagement; and knowledge practical experience and tools need to be developed, as public goods, that all can draw on, requiring practical links between local, national and global sources of expertise. To avoid restriction to islands of good practice, and risks of compromise and loss of independence due to reliance on commercial contracts public funding is needed to build relevant capacity and tools and direct private companies towards relevant sources of assistance to carry out better due diligence, field assessments, and community consultations, and develop new practices and procedures.   Although Public-Private partnerships are very much in vogue to promote agribusiness development, CSOs are potentially key players, but in the field of land governance PPPs remain in their infancy. But given the interest of government, private sector donors and civil society in finding new solutions to ensure that increased agricultural investment is both sustainable and inclusive time is ripe to consider how to mobilise a public-private funding to enable civil society and research institutions to engage on the ground alongside local and regional governments and private companies at much greater scale. Three particular opportunities could be explored in Tanzania in which both local and global CSOS can play active roles both in the field and in crafting effective policy solutions and programme vehicles:

i) Development of a resource centre to strengthen civil society capacity and enable companies to access and apply relevant skills and tools

ii)  pre-competitive dialogue and collaborative action by private companies alongside government and civil society at a landscape scale, targeted at specific regions and  clusters of investors to help resolve the development planning issues; and

iii) engage private sector and CSO  service providers more fully in delivering land registration, land  administration services and land use planning services locally to address priorities at greater scale and with greater responsiveness to the land investment and ongoing land competition context.

Hello Lukasz 

It is in no doubt that men and women take part in economic activities but the latter is  limited or faced with restraints. Empowering men to see women as contributors to the economy rather than as something beside men and also sensitising women to break the shackles of exclusion in economic activities and make them understand that they are part of the economic development has helped to change the mindset of men around women involvement in economic activities. This approach is applied through our Land governance program where it targets men and women in villages (Land Rights Monitors-LRMs) who promote gender equality.

Drawing fromm LRMs feedback, it shows that men and women in rural areas do change in terms of behaviour and attitude which further entails that customs and traditions do change positively by giving opportunities to women to involve themselves in economic activities. Though the trend has not reached a level to say there is full gender equality but such a progress is worth sharing in areas where there is minimal women support so as to empower and influence men to allow women to fully engage in economic activities

 Further, due to existing gender inequalities, women have continued to be progressive and advance their economic and social struggles. The trend should  be recognised in the society especially policy makers and also be featured in CSOs program interventions to empower and influence men to to support women involvement in economic activities.  Further, mainstreaming national agenda, strategies, policies programs and projects aimed at gender equality and women advancement in the society is useful as it serves as an opportunity for both men and women to discuss and resolve existing gender inequalities and opening new ways of thinking and understanding that change  mindset of men 

 I have always used these influential words in most of my  community training and  women land rights dialogues that…. both men and women struggle to generate economic growth that can provide a better life for all and both should contribute instead of blocking women from contributing to their true potential.  So strategic /gender approach training coupled with reliable and concrete information on economic role of women is very useful as it is where foundation upon which change is built.

In the context of a Learning Platform on Inclusive Business, Land Governance and Food Security (a joint project of LANDac, CIFOR, Shared Value Foundation and F&BKP), we have recently brought together a number of companies in Tanzania's Kilombero Valley to stimulate mutual learning as well as to create more synergies between different interventions (including those of civil society and government) and the local context. In this contribution we wanted to share some of our experiences from the platform.

Entry point of the platform discussions in the Kilombero Valley were realities at the local level: whereas we have seen quite an increase in multi-stakeholder dialogues around land-based investments worldwide, the platform's discussions were grounded in research findings from communities living around the investments. The research showed that people viewed employment creation and contributions to local development projects through company social funds as the most visible positive impacts of investments on local development. In relation to the still existing constraints on the relationship between companies and surrounding communities, insufficient communication and transparency, limited involvement of youth, and access to finances were mentioned as important. In regards to future aspirations for household and community development, community preferences very much linked to agriculture: expanding current production as well as diversifying the number of crops grown in order to become more resilient in terms of food security. in addition to challenges from the existence of the company. Communities also identified a number of challenges to their livelihoods that posed additional threads to achieving their aspirations; they prioritized climate change, poor governance, and low education. These additional challenges are a reality for companies to take into account when working with communities; either to be aware of how their activities might exacerbate existing challenges, or how they could offer options to ease impacts/challenges external but relevant to their own operations. The research also revealed different existing development priorities among community members, and different levels of involvement with the investment between men and women, different age groups and between recent migrants and natives.

The platform showed a number of lessons in the use of multi-stakeholder approaches to making investments more inclusive and sustainable. First, the exchange of experiences between companies in different value chains - and how such exchange can contribute to adaptive learning of different stakeholders. Even though business models are quite different, in terms of their organisation and potential to be inclusive, companies did face similar challenges and appreciated an open platform to learn from each other's experiences. It also showed the value of information coming straight from communities, and companies in particular appreciated the attendance of a number of individual community members, which led to increased understanding of local priorities - and how their business activities fit (or don't fit) in those existing local ideas of development. The platform members came up with a number of very concrete ideas for improving development impact of investments, and are currently working on activities to increase transparency, improve communication and strengthen community involvement in the business models. 

Emilinah Namaganda & Gemma Betsema

Hi Carol, thank you for raising a very important point. Thank you Dr. Adam for your input on the discussion.

I think what is tricky here is how much involvement of stakeholders is enought and the quality of those invovement. I agree there has been consultation with some stakeholders, however, my main concern is more on valuing the stakeholder's view that speaks on behalf of many instead of few individuals or groups.

For example on the issues of women's land rights which to me is  very important and  if done wrong its  impact affects more than 70% of the women especially those in rural areas and those depending on land as a means of livelihood. Unless there's a new draft  that we haven't seen, but the existing draft has consistently guranteed only access and nothing about decision making or ownwership . The ministry at least few that we had a discussion with think access has been  clearly defined and therefore covers all issues and gurantees women all the rights. My arguement is  simple, access is not ownership  and leaving it loose like that has major impact on women who contributes to this country's economy. Acess does not guarantee transfer, morgage, decision making, control, or any independence of women to natural resources. Acess keep women where they have been of depending on make figures to enjoy opportunities and resources.

Is it possible to have all stakeholder's views taken into consideration probbaly not, but it is important to take on board the most important issues raised by stakeholders. Land rights for women, land management and administration, large scale invetsment are some of the issues that needs a close look because their effects are paramount to rurall communities specifically  women.So I agree with the governemnt to expand its consultative process but more importantly to value those  consultation views and stress buttons on what is more important.

Dear all,

We appreciate the very constructive contributions we have received over the first week of the debate. As we enter into the second week of the debate, we wanted to provide a summary of some key takeaways thus far:

It has been observed that Tanzania is an agrarian state where smallholder farmers and pastoralists are dominant and depend on subsistence production. Also as a country, it has taken a number of initiatives, including Agriculture first, Big Results Now and the establishment of the Southern Agricultural Growth Corridor to manifest its vision. However, due to the top-down nature of the decisions, there has been limited success.

Second, responsible land based investment finds its origin from efforts by the international community to address the impacts of land grabs in Africa and other parts of the world. An investment that is responsible must be inclusive, socially acceptable, sustainable, transparent and that which puts community members at the center throughout its lifecycle. To ensure responsible investments in Tanzania, specifically, the following must be observed:

• There is a need to revamp cooperatives and farmers’ unions as alternative models for people-centered investment in land and the village council as a body corporate should have the mandate to sign investment contracts on behalf of villagers. Land should not necessarily be transferred to general land.
• Establishing multi-stakeholder forums that encourage open dialogue is necessary to increase all stakeholders’ opportunities for inclusion in the process.
• Civil society actors, as important stakeholders to responsible investments, should (a) continue the role of monitoring and sensitizing communities who face investment challenges, (b) provide pro bono legal aid, (c) find ways to coordinate their efforts and (d) remain independent and autonomous.
• Despite legislation being gender progressive, there needs to be specific efforts for women’s inclusion in all processes. This includes integrating women’s issues and gender perspectives from the field, including how women use land. One of the discussants made an important point that it can be necessary to talk to activists available in the community since even women leaders may not articulate the roles women play within the household and make use of household land. Overall, gender mainstreaming across community programs should be emphasized.
• Also there is a need to strengthen the existing investment laws and policies to accommodate international standards for responsible investment. The current National Land Policy Review process is one such opportunity.
• The government should not take the central role in the process of land acquisition for investment as it makes it more difficult for the land-holder to be compensated fairly.
• Village Land Use Plans is very important before investments take place. However, if not done properly, it can be a vehicle for land dispossession. There is a need for the process to be country-driven where civil society can assist in the preparation stages.
• Finally, three areas where identified where investors/companies need to strongly improve their business practices: (1) due diligence procedures; (2) community engagement and consultation processes; and (3) disclosure and transparency of an investment.

Moreover, the existing best practices of companies’ commitments for compliance of international standards, such as those from Illovo Sugar, Coca-Cola and Nestle, can help to improve the public–private partnership model of operation and thus enhance the company’s social license to operate.

Finally, the discussion highlights that international guidelines and the development of operational guidebooks for community, government and investors can be used to push necessary legal reforms and can also bridge gaps between the global and local context. However, any such developments are constrained by national and local governance. For Tanzania, the National Land Policy Review will determine their fate.

We wish relay our thanks once again to everyone for your fruitful contributions and generosity that has made the discussion thus far engaging and productive. As a reminder, the debate will close on the 16^th of June. We hope that you will continue to engage in the debate and look forward to the continued learning opportunity for us all.

Regards,

Godfrey and Lukasz

Given the prevalence of failed projects, in Tanzania and elsewhere, there must be robust provisions in land administration for the restitution of land converted to general land back to villagers. As I (and many others) saw in Kisarawe, Sun Biofuels gained an 8,000-ha concession for jatropha on the basis of a broad set of promises for community investments and jobs. They planted 2,000 ha in jatropha, at which point the project's financing collapsed, one of the many failed jatropha projects. With the failure, though, the land did not revert to its original village owners, nor was the company required to restore the land to its original condition. Rather, a shuffling of Sun Biofuels' board of directors brought in a sub-lessor, Mtanga Foods. When I interviewed someone from Mtanga, she disavowed responsibility for any of Sun Biofuels' original commitments to the community - wells, roads, clinics, schools, etc. She basically said that as long as compensation was paid, Mtanga had no further obligations. Complaints about this led to a "due diligence" review by Mtanga's board, but the last I knew the board had renewed its commitment to establish a cattle operation in Kisarawe. Villagers had made it clear to me when I spoke to them two years ago that they did not want cattle, did not know cattle, they just wanted their land back, and in a condition in which it could be used. Again, last I knew 2,000 ha are still planted in useless jatropha.

This highlights two yawning gaps in land governance in Tanzania, which I've seen in several other African countries as well. First, projects fail. It is the curse of start-ups that the vast majority fail in their first year, so it should not be surprising that the same is true of large-scale land projects. So there must be a coherent policy to deal with such cases, and as Youjin Chung points out, they are perhaps more common than are the projects that actually enter into production. It is critical that villagers be protected from failed projects by giving them the first option on repossessing the land. Right now, the state has that first option, it unfailingly retains it as general land, and as in this case it allows the failed project-holder to seek a sub-lessee to take over the project. In the Kisarawe case, when I asked in the land ministry if that was a possibility, the attorney there said it was very unlikely, mainly because the government wants to get its hands on village land for general use.

Second, land governance must include provisions that enforce the terms of the original agreement in the case of a sub-lease arrangement. Mtanga Foods should have been forced to provide all the things Sun Biofuels had promised the villagers in Kisarawe - jobs, clinics, roads, etc. Those commitments, especially jobs but not only jobs, are the entire reasons the communities agreed to give up their land. Again, when I asked the land ministry if the community has any rights in such circumstances, the same attorney said no, only if those provisions were written into the contract with the Tanzanian government. Generally, such commitments to communities are not included. So either those commitments need to be put in writing and enforced at the national level, or the original commitments need to be recognized as part of the sub-leasing process. 

The combination of these two gaps in land governance make it seem as if the Tanzanian government is looking for investors who can help them convert village to general land then "flip" the land to another investor, with the community on the outside - of the process and of their former land - looking in. In Kisarawe, they were staring at fenced off land guarded by 50 people (the only jobs the project was providing), and 2,000 ha of it was still planted in useless and untended jatropha. Mtanga Foods may actually have started cattle production there by now, but the question remains whether the land should revert to the villagers and whether Mtanga should obligated to fulfill the commitments originally made by Sun Biofuels.

I will have a chapter on this case in my forthcoming book, Feeding Illusions: Agribusiness, Family Farmers, and the Future of Food. And I have written about it here:

Picking up the pieces from a failed land grab project in Tanzania, Timothy A. Wise, GlobalPost, June 27, 2014 

(I welcome updates on Mtanga's work and relationship with the villagers in Kisarawe.)

Thank you Baha for your thoughts on this. Happy to hear you are planning to share more on this. 

Hi Jevgeniy and Jens, 

You are right- the concept of adverse possession is recognized in Tanzania. Just to remind you that this concept, although is a legal way to get legitimate land ownership, it does not apply to land that belong to the government. Often when land is allocated to the investor it has to be transfered to general land, the title deed given in the name of TIC by the Commissioner of Lands, and then a derivative rights of occupancy is given to the investor. Thus, the land is under the ownership of the TIC which is the government entity. 

Moreover, a land may not be developed but the investor is paying rents and has submitted to the commissioner genuine reasons for not developing it. Villagers aren't informed because the land has moved from their control to the direct administation of the commissioner. 

Having said that, i must very much agree with you that failure to develop land (within three years as in Tanzania), is enough reason to make a case for revocation of ownership. Not developing land attracts trespassers and land use conflicts. 

Thanks, Masalu,

Very good points. Not sure I've seen those two studies you cite, and the links didn't work for me. Could you post the full URLs?

Tim

Dr. Adam, 

You are right. What the National Land Use Planning Commission does is to include a clause in the contract with the company/investor that the land use plan they will facilitate will not gurantee him/her/them land. 

Hi Godfrey,

The "contract with the company/investor that the land use plan they will facilitate will not gurantee him/her/them land" is very tricky my friend. Companies do not give free lunch! Anyway, may be isolated instances are there where companies do so but my pessimism suggests that we shun from these kind of practices if we can.

Godfrey has provided a useful historical overview of processes of land alienation in Tanzania. We would like to highlight a few important aspects that need to be considered when we look back at this history of dispossession and its contemporary dynamics, and try to learn from both history and present:

1. Land alienation has always been an outcome of multiple drivers, from agriculture to mining to conservation and tourism. When people lose land, or access to land, or control over land, it is often an outcome of intersecting or cascading effects of these various drivers
2. Effects of land alienation are compounded by
   1. physical or economic displacement that leads to migration which promotes land conflicts elsewhere (e.g. evictions of Barabaig, evictions from Usangu plains, etc etc), and
   2. jobless economic growth that leaves smallholders without an alternative to land dependence (best example is conservation that takes up around 30% of Tanzania’s land for conservation-based tourism without generating jobs at a significant scale)
3. Formalization of land tenure through village land-use planning (VLUP) is often well-intended but has, in practice, in many instances been a vehicle for dispossession due to the uneven power relations at play when people try to secure land rights through land use planning. Key questions to ask here are: who is paying and/or facilitating land use planning for whom? With what objective/purpose? Does land use planning accommodate for future land demand for the youth? Is land use planning restricting pastoral mobility? Problematic examples are Wildlife Management Area Resource Zone Management Plans that are facilitated by conservation NGOs and District authorities, and WMA CBOs with the goal to restrict land use for non-conservation activities without a viable option to change/update land use plans
4. The Village Land Act 1999 recognizes the concept of adverse possession for people who have been residing in an area for at least 12 years, yet this legal provision has not gained traction and affected people remain vulnerable to threats of eviction
5. Contrary to official pronouncements, Tanzania arguably does not have large swaths of ‘unused’, ‘vacant’, ‘underutilized’ land and we should be weary of statistics that suggest so. While there may be large dryland areas that appear underutilized, it is unlikely that these can be used for agricultural production the absence of huge investments in irrigation – if this is at all feasible, as competition over water is also on the rise. Indicators of a growing land squeeze in Tanzania are land conflicts, migration, displacement and evictions. Conservation alone takes up around 40% of all terrestrial land (30 % of which can be used for tourism), and if all WMAs would be implemented, we can add another 10 % to this. In a country with a growing, land dependent population, and a large share of land taken out of rural production with only 0,6-1,2 million tourism jobs in return, land becomes increasingly a valuable commodity. This is at odds with narratives of ‘vacant land’.
6. The more valuable land becomes, the higher the chances that the poor will sell to the wealthy which in the long run will exacerbate unequal land distribution, creating classes of rentiers and classes of landless. Thus, simply securing individual land rights for poor will not necessarily be sufficient as they may feel pressured to sell their land.
7. Even when investments in large-scale agriculture fail (which they often do), land conflicts are produced and may remain after the investor has left, people may have been dispossessed even before anything has been produced.
8. If participation means that all ‘stakeholders’ were consulted (which is how it is often understood by government officials), it means not much in terms of securing rights for the most vulnerable because of their limited powers to influence decisions at the ‘participatory stakeholder table’.

We are currently in the process of getting a research article published, that further elaborates on these issues.

Jevgeniy Bluwstein and Jens Friis Lund

University of Copenhagen

Dear Karol,

I attempt to respond to your concerns on the Tanzania national Land Policy review. take my views as personal and not from the Government.

The Government of Tanzania is in the process of revising the National Land Policy to meet evolving needs in the country.
>>>Yes National Land Policy is being reviewed and I am happy to have participated as a member of the secretariat of the review. Thank you for being interested.

The current draft raises a number of concerns
>>>Yes there can still be concerns. In my opinion there is no perfect way to go about making a policy. And consultations are representative, otherwise a referendum is the only way to have all people say on something. Even with rigorous consultations and awareness there will still be different perceptions.

concerns including very limited attention to continuing problems related to women's ability to exercise and enforce formal land rights;
>>>Stakeholders were given opportunity to even craft text of what could be included in the policy.

concerns including limited discussion of how to address concerns related to pastoralist communities and conflict with farmers;
>>>there was discussion with many groups of pastoral communities

concerns including: issues related to equitable engagement with communities impacted by large-scale land based investments.
>>> there was consultations, what is it that is missing that you thought would have been included?

The draft NLP also does not align with the VGGT or Africa-focused guidance from the AU/LPI.
>>> May be you could clarify what is in the draft policy that you can authoritatively present as being not consistent with VGGT or Africa-focused guidelines, otherwise a sweeping statement like this cannot easily be worked on.

Hi Valentin,

Thanks for the very expository issue you raise here. And most of all, for the link. A key problem with understanding the work is that the author did not expressly define "participation" or what he/she means by "participatory" in the context of the program/initiative and weighed in the context of societal expectation. The problem is that oftentimes, the government and local people have different ideas of what "participation" mean. Sometimes the government refer to mere "involvement" as participation whereas the people are seeking for "collaboration". Sometimes the government do "partnership" (in some bad cases "manipulation" of selected people) and call it "participation". Since it is difficult to get absolute participation, there will always be some sort of levels or ladders participation. See Sherry Anstein's ladders of participation to particularly spot where all of these lie. 

In the context of our discussion here, it appears the people of Tanzania wanted "citizenship power" or "partnerships" while the program was only offering a mix of "consultation", "placation" and "delegated power" where it pleased them.

These levels of participation are not bad and do serve good purpose if well utilised. The issue with gaining citizens power is that in cases where the people are not involved (that is participating) in the funding provision, it is difficult for funders and government to want to share "power".

I strongly encourage that we gun for the upper levels of participation but we must be definitive with what we mean by participation. Most times, neither the people and the government are definitive. It then makes it difficult.

My fifty cents contribution on this.

Help in land use planning- CSOs can monitor how the land use planning projects operated by the government and (other private investors-financed by) are implemented as in the case of  Land tenure support program in Kilombero, Malinyi, Ulanga. Moreover they can also assist in land use planning preparations especially in rural areas.

Issue early warnings- especially on the intensity of conflicts among different land users and offer a call for resolving them before they escalate. CSOs can partner with other likeminded international organisations and media when doing this work. A good case is on how CSOs addressing rights of pastoralists have worked and are still working with International Working Group on Indigenous Affairs.

Document the best practices in resolving land conflicts among different land use stakeholders and file cases-public interest litigation cases-for jurisprudence development on dispute resolution and land governance issues. A good example is the recent decision in favour of Ogiek community. 

I honour valuable contributions made regarding gender responsive investment

I should also pinpoint that most rural women work load cannot be compared to men due to limited or unavailable access to services. For instance women spend a lot of time in search of wood for fuel and water. Hence gender equitable investment will be realised where there is equitable access to services or rather services are improved to allow both men and women participate in investment

Lack of full property rights like land   especially to women is an obstacle since most feel not attached to resources hence limited willingness to invest in production. This obstacle has its root in most Tanzania traditions which are patriotic and women do not enjoy full rights of occupancy of resources like land. Hence affirmative action of the state such as gender mainstreaming in all its programs is very crucial so as to allow both men and women  participate in investment .Also providing women more opportunities such as  micro financing trainings, credits and entrepreneurship program  is crucial to narrow the existing gender inequalities in investment

From social and economic perspective getting men support is very crucial in realising gender responsive investment. This is so because most intervention i coordinated in the field shows that women are not allowed or have limited chance or permission from their families or spouse to engage in economic activities and even in decision making.

Baha, 

Would you mind explaining a bit more about he multistakeholder forum that you were engaged with during biofuel boom in Tanzania. I know context might have changed  but if one is to be established now, what suggestions would you make interms of its composition, roles and engagement strategy?

Hello Betha! I couldn't agree with you more. Based on your expereince, I was wondering if you could share some useful approaches / best practices that help change the mindset of men around women's invovlment in economic activities? 

While I agree with Baha, it's imperative for CSOs to continue working along with communities and looking for information. From experiences, we all know information especially from the government and companies do not come easy. If we stick to lets monistor, how can we monitor situations we are not sure of? How do we now what to monitor or what not withought fighting for those spaces and sources no matter how slim they might be.

I think CSOs have  been sensitizing communities for a loing time and they should continue doing so, but they also have to keep fighting and creating spaces no matter how small or challenging they might be.

Godfrey,

I think you are better placed to elaborate on this since this was under your docket! remember for the first time, conservationists, livelihood-right based organizations, government at both level, local and national actively participated, companies specifically those with alternative models and who thought they were implementing socially, environmentally responsible investments participated. I remember leading colleagues to Mpanda where PROKON Renewable Energy Company invited us to learn the investment model they were employing.

The context has changed but we already have processes going on and may be as Marry rightly points out we as CSOs need to engage into little spaces that are provided or demand for more opening up,or innovate ways of ecreating platforms that can bring us together and we already are doing that, will elaborate on this but not at this point.  I remember during the implementation of ASDP the government invited us and my organization at that time granted me the opportunity to participate, in a way there was opennes where the government was sharing on what was going on in terms of implementation and would ask what role can or are you playing and how you wish to be involved. Let us hear from members on this as I do not want to pre empty, apart from sharing experience for me it is a space where I am learning a lot, will come back on this topic at some point as we continue debating and exchanging ideas. 

Hi Lukasz,

Thanks for your contribution and the work you all are doing here. The point I wanted to make concerning "citizen power" (which did not come as I wanted it) is that. As a level of participation, the points of "citizen power" or "partnership" is a hard nut to crack because usually communities (or local municipalities tend not to be involved in the funding provision for projects within their localities. This is generally the case in most countries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In high-level funded programs such we can see in Tanzania,  Local people fail in their bid to gain "power" over development because they are not involved (that is participating) in the funding provision. So, the government partner with funders and hold on to top-down structures because that's from where and how the funds flow down.

I have always wondered that...

If local communities can source their own fund (contribution) to some of these projects -even if something like 1% or 0.5% -they will have a stronger stake to broker stronger participation. I know this is can sound unrealistic in SSA but it is something local municipalities/communities can try (with banks, third-party funding agencies) when such big programs are being designed.

On the part of all, gaining full participation demands for a change in approaches and behaviours to project design and implementation.

Hallo Baha, 

Great contribution. While we are waiting for Jolyne to respond, i would like to add a footnote contribution on this. International and regional voluntary guidelines are not one size fits all, efforts must be made to domesticate them into a binding domestic laws, as you rightly put. In my views, new tools do not depart from the existing tools but are more refined into country and context specific situtation. Thus, making them more effective and implementable. 

By piloting such new tools, one build a body of envidence that can be used to push for reforms agenda in the country. Karol (in her post above) shared that the ongoin National Land Policy Review in Tanzania has not borrowed alot from the existing international and regional  guidelines. Indeed, that might partly be because of less advocacy work done in promoting them or, i would argue, lack of evidence from Tanzania in support of their effectiveness and understanding of policy makers to warrant policy considerations. 

In his blog post last year, Gregory Myers, reflects on VGGTs and documents diffent cases that shows they are working. I agree with you that we need to do more advoacy work in this area and, perhaps,i would say, by using some more context and country specific guides.

Thanks for your very important question, Lukasz.

In general, the following document provides very important information concerning SAGCOT. See http://www.sagcot.com/uploads/media/Invest-Blueprint-SAGCOT_High_res.pdf

True gender challenges, especially as they relate to women's capacity to negotiate land deals and rights have been reported to be slowing SAGCOT outcomes due to top-down procedures.  Of course, this is serious because 98% of rural women who are economically active in Tanzania are engaged in agriculture. Despite this problem, "Tanzania has one of the strongest land law frameworks in Sub-Saharan Africa for the protection of rural land rights" (as confirmed by World Bank).  This alone provides a principle for implementation.

What makes SAGCOT unique is that it recognizes that it is an agricultural country. The rural areas are not completely left out mainly because the "agriculture" is located in rural areas. As a result, they are not being ignored, but the program is definitely not catering for all their needs due to the Top-down procedures involved.

 I conquer with majority contributors here especially on the challenge around lack of transparency and accountability in managing land investment deals and the whole process of community consultation in the land acquisition processes. Reflecting in the current National Land Policy review process, among the issues raised by CSOs platform is call for more inclusive process and insures that the majority of Tanzanians are participating in the process and are able to provide their opinion. It is an-disputable that land is an important resource which is attached to our lives and national identity, therefore inclusive decisions on handling and managing land affairs becomes a key aspect when considering policy change. Among the major proposed shift in the Draft National Land Policy is the abolition of Certificate of customary rights of Occupancy (CCROs). The simple questions would be what the change means to the 70% of land which is in the village land, what does the change mean to 80% of the population whose livelihood depends on small scale farming? And the discussion can go further on the implication to the poor women producers. The mandate for managing and protecting village land is vested to the village land council on behalf of the villagers however, with the proposed changes, it means the power vested to this body is going to be transformed to the central government or Commissioner for Land.  In this context, land users under village will have to comply with conditions set under the granted right of occupancy including paying rent, adherence to development/ improvement of the land standards and other cost related to processing title deeds. An anticipated challenge to poor small scale producers’ majority being women is failure to meet conditions set and ultimately they will become landless. If the motive behind the shift is to simplify the process for acquiring land for investment, this will create more tenure insecurity that will result into more land related conflicts. 

Civil Society Organizations should consider the following when advocating for responsible investments. 

United by a common goal with a coordinated efforts: When united and coordinate by common goals, CSOs can find issues that need to be addressed and do advocacy work irrespective of their different priorities. Joint advocacy is a key in achieving meaningful results when addressing issues around investments that affects communities. Government will also give recognition

Generate information: CSOs should generate information, interpreter and transfer it to communities, the government and investors. Information is source of empower and voice to women, men, small holder farmers, community members, and every individual or group whose livelihood depend on land and other natural resources. Therefore, research and capacity building programs are critical tools of generating information that can be used when doing advocacy.

 Maintain autonomy and independence: There are likely chances of cooptation by the government or companies when not careful in addressing issues around investment. To remain fair and objective, CSOs must maintain autonomy and independence in their work. 

To Build on Mary’s contribution, I would add;

CSOs have the mandate to provide legal aid: Legal aid is important way for communities to seek grievance mechanism when affected by investment operations. This can also be a way of helping the Village Council in the process of negotiation and contracting with investors. All these should be done free of costs (probono) because communities cannot afford paying for such services.  

Capacity Building: Often when investor approach communities, it is the government officials from the district or regional level who speak on behalf of investors. CSOs should train villagers on how to engage with investors during consultation, negotiation and contracting, and even in monitoring investment. CSOs can also be allowed to speak on behalf of communities on technical issues at all stages of investment life cycle.

Monitoring and Evalutaion: This is very important role that can at best be played by CSOs. A more user friendly monitoring tool need to be developed that put criteria for responsible investment. The tool should be open to investors and communities. CSOs can use the tool to monitor investment and present the findings to a multi-stakeholder forum such as the one that Baha hinted above. 

I agree to what you have written Karol, the National land policy draft do not align with the VGGT or F&G for land policy in Africa. I personally do not see the draft putting its focus on small holder farmers and pastoralist women and men. I see it not responding to what has not been working for these group but rather what was not working better for investors.

I see it responding to the National's five years development plan 2016  which suggest to make  the process of land acquisation easy and avoid complications and length of the time to acquire land. It suggests review of the two land law to support industrialisation and social economic transformation.

All what the plan is suggesting may be good, but I think there is a need to balance or make sure ambitions to quicken  investments procedures do not compromise rights and well being of its citizen.

Hi Lukasz and Naomi,

The top-down "thing" is a major problem and has consequences on "inclusiveness" and "participation". It demands for a change in "thinking" and "practices" within our institutions, governments and societies. As you know, this is not something that will get resolved on the within a short period. One way will be to adopt an incremental sensitisation approach based on development activism (for inclusive gender-mainstreamed participation). This is already happening, and I am hopeful it will improve on the long-run.

Dr. Chiagu, I couldn't agree with you more on the importance of defining and clarifying "participation". By aligning expectations, goverment, the community and the company will be in a better postion to build trust, credibilty and help the company establish a social liscense with the the community. Appreciate you adding the link to the ladders. Its's very useful. 

Hi Mr. Baha. I’m jumping in to provide some more clarity on the guidance Jolyne mentioned. What Landesa has noticed is that while internationally accepted instruments such as the VGGTs and AU Guidelines provide much-needed higher level principles on socially responsible land-related investments, they lack practical, country specific detail that is needed for government, companies and communities to carry out investments in a socially responsible manner. In my opinion, the lack of detail in many of the existing “guides” makes it difficult for them to be tested. Given this, we have found that companies are seeking more granular information on how to, for example, carry out FPIC within the Tanzania context. Government, particularly at the district level, seems to have a strong desire to improve their current practices around investments in land and communities want to be empowered to meaningfully participate in the investment process.

So in coordination with MLHHSD, local civil society and academia, three step-by-step guidebooks - one for investor, one for government, and one for community – are being developed to address issues / topics outlined in David Bledsoe's post -consultation and engagement, impact assessment, rights identification, FPIC, fair compensation, good contracts, and accessible grievance mechanisms. They idea is that these guides will help government, communities and companies negotiation and implement a discrete investment in a responsible manner.

I do agree with you that the timing may not be the best given that the government is reviewing the national land policy. At some point, the guidebooks will need to be updated or they will not be useful. That said, amending laws and policies can take years. And I’m not convinced that investments will wait until laws are in place, responsibilities clarified, etc. So, I think, and hope that these will be off use and value, at least in the interim.

Hi Lukasz, 

I would recommend you read Youjin's blog. It has a lot of information on her research work in Bagamoyo. 

I am excited to contribute to a discussion on responsible investment in land. This is a very timely discussion not only for Tanzania but also to the World given the food security agenda and the pressure exerted to by large scale land based investors. For Tanzania, the context is:

1. a large country blessed with large tracts of fertile lands,
2. the communities are predominantly rural and mostly depend on subsistence agriculture,
3. there is potential for large scale land based investments,
4. there is a land tenure system with a notion of securing customary land
5. in place and accessible online: the National Land Policy 1995, the Land Act 1999, the Village Land Act 1999
6. in place are sound institutions for land administration: the Ministry of Lands, district councils and village councils
7. the land policy is currently being reviewed to cater for, among other things, enhanced access to land for large scale land based investments and monitoring the land for the highest and best use

As regards responsible investment, academic definitions may be formulated but in my view, inherent in the responsibility should be:

1. previous land occupiers should be compensated for loss of land
2. proceeds from the investment should benefit not only the investor but also the local and central governments and the community
3. the benefits to the community should not be only one off, instead they should be long term benefits in the form of equity or rent, community development fund, extension of appropriate technology and practices and farmer-outgrower practices
4. the investment should not ruin the environment
5. communities should be consulted/engaged throughout the life cycle of the investment
6. none serous people or companies posing as investors should not hold the land idle for speculation

Currently large scale land based investments in Africa vary in terms of responsibility. For example, community-investor disputes relating to lack of inadequate compensation are common.  Also common are unfulfilled promises to communities and poor relations which sometimes culminate to aggressiveness which may also lead to sabotage. Women suffer the more when relations between investors and communities sour.

I thank the organizers for bringing this discussion up. In my opinion, my understanding is that a responsible investor in land enjoys a social license necessary for the investment to survive. As land investments are long term, an irresponsible investor is destined to failure. What are your views?

The Government of Tanzania is in the process of revising the National Land Policy to meet evolving needs in the country.  The current draft raises a number of concerns including: very limited attention to continuing problems related to women's ability to exercise and enforce formal land rights; limited discussion of how to address concerns related to pastoralist communities and conflict with farmers; and issues related to equitable engagement with communities impacted by large-scale land based investments. The draft NLP also does not align with the VGGT or Africa-focused guidance from the AU/LPI. The government should expand its consultative process, engage more actively with women's groups and pastoralist groups and also work to align the draft document with international good practice documents. 

Hi Dr. Uchendu, 

I would like to add a broader definition of inclusive agriculture in the context of large-scale agricultural investment as construed by Prof. Ruth Hall of PLAAS. According to her;

"Inclusive agricultural growth means avoiding big corporate takeovers of farming and value chains, and the food system as a whole, from production to retail. Rather, inclusion requires that agricultural growth helps existing farmers, traders, and others in the value chain to mitigate risk, to become more profitable and to scale up what they are doing. Inclusion cannot be only at the level of primary production. Inclusion means that family farmers must be able to access markets, by aggregating their outputs, and selling into value chains that are able to efficiently get produce to the growing numbers of urban consumers. Inclusive growth means there must be equity in ownership and income, which means that incomes from agriculture need to be reinvested to stimulate further growth in farming, in the rural non-farm economy and, through rural-urban linkages, into the urban food economy, to feed Africa’s growing and urbanizing population. Inclusive agricultural growth means that the needs of rural population must be achieved by meeting the needs of the urban population."

See : http://www.plaas.org.za/blog/what-inclusive-agricultural-growth-agricult...

Hello Dr. Uchendu! Thank you for your thoughts. Godfrey's comment and Mr. Baha's post (futher below) led me to wonder how effective the Kilimo Kwanza Initiative and SAGCOT have been in considering and addressing the needs of local communities. I ask becasue there is a perception in our sector that these sorts of partnerships are generally top down and as a result, don't account for needs of rural villagesrs, don't equitablly compensate them, etc. Oftentimes women and men living in rural communties are left worse off. Given this, are there any examples or best practices you could share with us from Kilimo Kwanza Initiative and SAGCOT? 

While acknowledging contributions from other discussants, one among other challenges which face responsible investment in Tanzania and many other least and developing Countries is lack of government accountability (central and local) and transparency in the investment lifecycle. Experience shows that most of investment contracts are negotiated and singed by governments with investors behind closed doors and in exclusion of community interests' agenda. On the same note, a need to clearly define the level of community consultation  to avoid concept misuse is more important. For instance, at what time a community decision is free and informed? do members understand the agenda in question or they are influenced by alluring and undocumented promises? how men and women are engaged and consulted differently? who makes the final decision for land allocation to an investor? are local institutions strengthened enough to administer powers over land?. All these issues need to be addressed at policy and implementation level to attain responsible investment in the proper sense.

Companies – both Tanzanian and multi-national – need to become aware of the steps and approaches called for by international best practices aimed at responsible investment. The first step in gaining this awareness is to publicly make commitments to these practices. We have seen Coca Cola, Illovo Sugar, Nestle, and many others make this important move. Plus, they have committed to make their efforts apply to supply chain partners. Then companies need to become familiar with the details of the practices – consultation and engagement, impact assessment, rights identification, FPIC, fair compensation, good contracts, and accessible grievance mechanisms. Plus, the companies need to learn how to contextualize the practices to the situation on the ground. That is, what does it take to make good on the commitments in Tanzania? All of these measures will call for serious business commitment and planning – company policies, personnel, and other resources.

A big part of the challenge for any company operating in Tanzania will be mating best practices with the national governance framework and the national and local government capacity to assist or enable the company in implementing them. Sometimes best practices for socially responsible investment in land don’t easily fit within national frameworks. For example, land rights identification can be challenging under the best of circumstances. Tanzanian law provides for a specific approach that involves land use planning and certification. Sometimes this is time consuming and always calls for state resources. Companies often don’t understand the state processes and aren’t sure how to initiate them. Some businesses may seek to use one-off approaches that promise faster turn-around time and more focused efforts. These realities need to be reconciled.

In some cases the national governance framework may not mesh with best practices. Tanzania arguably offers an example of this. Under national law, a company cannot simply pay a community or individual land holder directly for a lease of land. The ground rent is directed to the government, after the land has been reclassified. This may not be the best way to ensure that fair compensation is passed along to the entity that has agreed to part with the land asset – communities and individuals. Perhaps some work is needed in this area. I’d be interested in hearing from others on their perspective on this issue.

Finally, we know that meeting best practices commitments as they relate to women land users and rights holders isn’t easy. It calls for a special and particularized emphasis on reaching women and hearing from them. Investments need to reflect this input or women may be made worse off. Most businesses will need help in this. In Tanzania, companies should look to experienced gender practitioners from both the private and civil sectors. Some Tanzanian CSOs/NGOs might have the needed expertise. Government might be a good resource here as well. Do others have specific recommendations on gender-related expertise that can be resourced in Tanzania?

It is good to hear of different initiatives and experiences in addressing the question of large scale land based investment, and the work of Landesa around these issues, but guides can be developed if they are not domesticated may not yield the desirable fruits. I am worried that we are focusing much on development of new tools while even the existing ones have never been tested. I thought the best approach should be directing energy on campaigns to domesticate the voluntary guidelines like VGGT and for country like Tanzania which is a signatory to AU Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy in Africa and the 2014 AU Guiding Principles on Large Scale Land Based Investment, I see no justification as to why put aside the guides which came as a result of internal demand among African countries and at a time when as a counrty we are reviewing the National Land Policy, this is an opportunity, to translate the guides into policy and later on as a set of binding provisions spelling out responsibilities of a company,state, lines of accountability and different roles that civil society and the communities can or are supposed to play.

Again, why should an investor worry about land use plans?as a country there is a need to ensure that all land available is documented and where land is sufficient enough to accommodate investors, investment models that will ensure full participation of the community are adopted. Experience on the ground at least from documented cases show the opposite, villagers have always cried foul, feeling that they have been shortchanged etc.

What role if any can civil society play? currently different models of engagement are being explored to see if this can work, from constituting multistakeholders platforms that bring together different stakeholders from government, private sector and civil society and where possible the communities in areas targeted for investment. Can companies and civil society collaborate? the question of entry point matters and country framework, companies are more likely to work closely with the government and its institutions, whereas civil society have always played the role of sensitizing, monitoring and in some cases support community to secure their land rights through documentation. My feeling is that with the entry of multistakeholders platforms we may develop a culture where we are all accountable and open on our operations. The good example I have in mind is during the biofuel campaigns when CSOs working on land rights, conservation etc came together with companies and at some point government and where the companies involved shared the models they were employing on the ground unfortunately it was not sustainable as it stoped once the interest in biofuels shifted unto other areas.

I think different approaches can still be explored and adopted, the work on investors guidebooks but at the sametime focusing on campaigns to domesticate the VGGT and the African Union Guiding Principles together with its Framework on land policy.