Land Governance and Transparency Land Transparency Initiative Roundtable Anna Locke & Giles Henley – Agricultural Development and Policy Programme ODI 10 December 2013

Transformative transparency in land Lessons for land from existing transparency initiatives Extractives International aid Construction Forestry Open contracting Conditions for transformative transparency in land Possible aim and scope of a land transparency initiative

Transparency is not an objective but a means to an end need to think carefully about the aims, pathways and underlying conditions required to achieve desired end While the five TIs reviewed were quite clear about what they were trying to address, there seems to be a sizeable gap between the original goal and the final outcome, which itself was not always clearly articulated.

Underlying Conditions for Transformative Transparency Provision of data in standardised, consolidated, openly accessible format Transparency Info provides sufficient basis for analysis and monitoring Adequate civil society capacity and organisation for constructive advocacy Accountability Adequate government and civil society capacity for follow-up and enforcement Meaningful Change

Process needs to be underpinned by: Meaningful consultation and participation to build consensus for transformative change and define the desired end Clear indicators of success and a monitoring system established from the start but with flexibility to adapt to gauge whether aim has been met A clear institutional structure set up with distinct roles and mandates at international and national levels To define aims, scope and format of information. Indicators of success need to clearly envisage an impact that can be attributable to the TAI with a good monitoring system in place from the start and who the final end user will be. Perhaps the most relevant TAI is the MFST with the most direct indicators relevant to land – info in the public domain; rebalancing of power relations with stronger CSO participation and advocacy. The EITI didn’t have this in place at the start, hence some difficulty in measuring its impact beyond the publication of data on revenue transfers. Subsequent review used micro indicators of adherence plus some “big picture” indicators proposed (and used?). National institutional framework needs to embody the spirit of participation and make provision for independent verification of progress Important to have an international body to set minimum benchmarks for data standards and transparency indicators, and to monitor progress towards these. Institutional framework: best TAI to study is the EITI as the others are at an initial stage or a project without a permanent institutional structure (MFST). Possibly like LTI, EITI has implementation at national level and a body at international level with role of: setting international data and reporting standards; approving accession and validation of candidate countries; and monitoring compliance.

Possible aim and scope of a land transparency initiative “Improve the impact of land investments on poverty alleviation and food security in developing countries, and increase security of tenure and transparency of land governance” Focus on transparency or governance? International vs national CSOs LGAF as point of reference for indicators? Pilot institutional structures