1. GENDERED TOOL FOR MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ON LSLBI IN AFRICA

2. Background on LSLBI in africa.
Africa accounts for 422 concluded agricultural deals (42% of all deals and about 10 million hectares.
It also has the highest number of intended deals (147 deals; 13.2 million hectares).
AU member states endorsed the Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy in Africa
Adopted the Declaration on Land Issues and Challenges in Africa in 2009;
Adopted the Guiding Principles on Large Scale Land Based Investment in Africa (2014).
Heads of State and Governments in Africa have made several commitments towards fighting poverty, improving social and economic standards including promoting gender equality in the access and control over land and land related resources.
guide decision making on LSLBI,
offer AU Member States and other stakeholders with direction on how to realize, investments in land which are sustainable and beneficial to African economies,
provide investors with a tool to inform their engagement with African governments, other land bodies including traditional authorities and,
provide a framework to track Sustainable Land Based Investment in Africa. .

3. Context of Gender in LSLBI
Limited participation, involvement and representation of women in decision making on LSLBI
Inadequate gender issues considered in investment projects:
Women insecure land rights
Impact assessment and benefits sharing, employment and labour rights
Free prior and informed consent
Resettlement and compensation – for livelihood recovery
Ensuring gender equality in decision making is crucial to social inclusion, women empowerment and improving livelihoods

4. Why a Gendered Tool
Put women at the centre of decision making on LSLBI
Time to give effect to the Guiding Principles on LSLBI, VGGTs
Increase community ability to make informed decision in relations to agricultural investments
Minimize conflicts associated with LSLBI – linked to land
A SIMPLE and PRACTICAL TOOL
Offer a 360 degree step-by-step guide to help ensure that women in particular and communities in general directly participate in decision-making regarding LSLBIs that affect them

5. Methodology
Approach: participatory, gender sensitive and inclusive of other stakeholders
Participating Countries: Representative of 4/5 regional blocks – consultations conduced in Senegal, Zambia, Cameroon, Kenya
Two sites hosting LSLBI in Agric selected: convenience, size of project, security and accessibility, status of project
Field visits: conducted women specific focus group discussions and mixed groups. Reached: 255 respondents (240 community representatives – 163 female and 77 male) at community level, 15 other stakeholders reached
In-depth interviews: with local traditional leaders, local authorities, and officials from Government and private sector
Literature review: national policies, regional and international instruments and guidelines,
Peer Review
Pilot testing

6. Tools referenced
CFS Principles For Responsible Investment In Agriculture And Food Systems
FAO Governing land for women and men: A technical guide to support the achievement of responsible gender-equitable governance of land tenure
FAO Safeguarding land tenure rights in the context of agricultural investment
FAO Respecting free, prior and informed consent. Practical guidance for governments, companies, NGOs, indigenous peoples and local communities in relation to land acquisition
Guiding Principles for LSLBI in Agriculture in Africa
GLTN – Social tenure Domain Model or pro-poor land recordation model GLTN – Gender evaluation criteria
IISD Guide to negotiating contracts for farmland and water

8. Arrangement of Gendered Tool
Investment Scoping: Investor is undertaking due diligence activities
LSLBI Planning: There is now a tacit understanding between the investor and governments that LSLBI will be undertaken, but details not final
Contract Negotiation: Contractual terms are being discussed by investor and other parties
Project Implementation: Investor’s project activities are underway. LSLBI outcomes and impacts are being assessed
Investor Exit: LSLBI has come to an end or as investor has withdrawn .

9. Symbol/Action Description
DEFINE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT. This symbol indicates what community engagement should look like
WORK TO BE DONE. What communities can do to be prepared fro engagement.
WHAT TO DEMAND. Communities need to be prepared to make relevant demands in order to ensure the LSLBI is beneficial if it goes ahead.   
WHAT TO WATCH FOR. Caution! LSLBI can be laden with traps, politics and other challenges and may entrench gender inequality. Take note to watch out for.
TARGET OBJECTIVE. What does a positive outcome look like at this stage?

11. Matrix for Community & Women’s Participation
Scoping/ identification stage
Project planning stage
Contract negotiations stage
Contract implementation stage / M&E
Exit
What does meaningful community engagement look like?
How are women empowered to meaningfully participate?
What can communities contribute?
What is required to support community contribution?
What must be prevented in order to promote community & women’s participation?
What is an ideal outcome for the community in this situation?
Matrix for Community & Women’s Participation

12. Pilot testing In northern Uganda Amuru and Hoima Districts
Proposed investment in plantation sugar cane production
Company, Mahdivani, one of Uganda’s largest companies involved in a number of sectors.
Omer farm, partnership between local business family and Australian investor.

13. Pilot testing .
Community members involved:
Men
Women

14. Key observations and discussions
The tool was viewed as being very narrow with specific focus on large scale agriculture, it was realised that it can be applicable to other investments.
Concerns were in relation to costs and risks (i.e. legal fees in disputes) applicable when pursuing some LSLBI issues which might be legal in nature.
The structuring of the tools allows the community to engage in any LSLBI processes at any stage even when the processes are fast, complex and sometimes not easily accessed by communities.
Despite the tools, it will be challenging for communities to engage if the investor is not willing to cooperate and follow proper procedures.

15. .
There will always be risks of divisions and misunderstandings within communities.
Beside the legal supports, there is need to include psycho-social support in cases where community members are arrested in their attempts to resist irregular and unconstitutional acquisition of land.
The introduction of the tool needs time to gradually expose community members and ensure they own the process and understand the tool.
Communities have more trust in the civil society organizations than the local leaders and traditional leaders but also expect more tangible support (i.e. mainly financial) from the civil society organizations.
There is need to translate the tool to local languages.

16. ...
It was found the tool did empower and give confidence to the community representatives to meet and engage the local leaders.
The importance of political will of the local leaders to work with and support community structures.
It is essential to make available to the community information on possible investments.

17. Thank You – Merci Beaucoup – Asante Sana

18. GROUP DISCUSSION Project planning stage Contract negotiations stage
Project planning stage
Contract negotiations stage
What does meaningful community engagement look like?
How are women empowered to meaningfully participate?
What can communities contribute?
What is required to support community contribution?