Presentation on theme: "Tanzania Land Transparency Partnership Key Findings from Mission, September 16-27, 2013 Anna Locke, Rugemeleza Nshala & Giles Henley September 27, 2013."— Presentation transcript:
Objective: To achieve transparency of land tenure conditions and procedures, and of land governance 3. Regularisation of Land Tenure in pilot areas 2. Policy and Institutional Development 1.Transparency and Benefits of Land Deals 4. Participation and consultation 5. Building capacity and raising awareness a. Conduct adjudication, surveying and mapping b. Undertake strengthened Participatory Land Use Planning c. Undertake scaled-up titling in pilot areas d. Establish coordinated land registry a. Publish data on land allocated to large scale agricultural projects b. Identify, publish and test models for greater benefits from land deals c. Clarify and formalise roles and responsibilities of investors, governments and villages. d. Clarify procedures for land acquisition/transfer a. Promote debate on current legislation and policy evolution b. Undertake institutional mapping c. Strengthen dispute resolution systems Build on existing programmes and initiatives - SPILL - ILMIS - BEST - BIG RESULTS NOW - New Alliance Reduced conflict over land More investment More efficient land administration Reduced social tension Better deals Land Tenure Support Programme 0-6 months 0-36 months 6-36 months 0 months Long-term support for land sector 36+months
Key findings General support for areas of intervention with different emphasis from different stakeholders (within GoT and outside) Questions/challenges that need to be addressed during the programme through: – Institutional/policy dialogue – Analysis – Activities on the ground – M & E
Institutional/policy dialogue Perceived inconsistencies between legislation Different interpretations of legislation (e.g., “village land”) Land & investment – greater coordination Institutional roles & responsibilities: Investment: TIC/ML/PMORALG/MA?? Accountability & resourcing: PMORALG or ML
Analysis Key issues and existing evidence: – Methods of LTR – Perceived and realised benefits from titling (Univ. Michigan): Security Access to loans Land market development Land administration – Disputes – nature and resolution mechanisms (Law Reform Commission) – CBA study of mapping infrastructure
Activities on the ground Build on findings from existing experiences, refine and stress test LTR process through scaling up over two (?) districts (CVL, VLUPs, CCROs) testing: Level of demand for CCROs (cost vs benefits) Incentives for demand for titling (free CCROs? Tax waivers?) Cost efficiencies/economies of scale Planning process/adjudication Rural/urban differences – Capacity building – village governance – Awareness raising – refining message; mapping stakeholders and key concerns; delivering message
M & E Robust framework Baseline data University of Michigan + others?
Next steps ActivityOutputDeadline Draft report and outline of business case and terms of reference for the PMU Draft report and business case outline October 25, 2013 Receive commentsSet of combined comments (GoT, DFID, SIDA) November 15, 2013 Production of final report and terms of reference for the LTU Final reportNovember 30, 2013 Draft business case December 03, 2013 Receive commentsSet of combined comments (GoT, DFID, SIDA) December 07, 2013 Production of final business caseFinal business caseDecember 14, 2013
Outstanding questions Selection of districts for pilot LTR – criteria? flexibility to respond to requests? Mbozi model? Land Tenure Support Programme with implementing team? Strategic policy advice function? SPILL review? MOU with Sweden on land registry? Dispute resolution mechanisms - emphasis? Base maps? Ground receiving station? Programme team composition/structure Resources available & needed?