Local Level Participatory Planning, an approach towards tenure security and development planning Esther Lusepani Ministry of Lands - Namibia Esther.Lusepani@mlr.gov.na Washington March 2014

Structure Introduction Land Reform in Namibia The Need for Communal land reform Program for Communal Land Development The need for a Local Level Participatory Planning Approach The LLPP Methodology LLPP results – the Okongo example Outcomes Replication potential to be finished

Land reform in Namibia Colonial and apartheid legacy Two major policy responses Redistributive land reform Tenure reform and development of communal areas

Need for tenure reform and development of communal areas Legacy of colonial period System of traditional authorities instrumentalised but lacking administration Tenure insecurity, particularly for women… Absence of a private sector establishment Marked lag in investments Post-independence Vacuum, establishment of CLBs undermines TA in the short run Proliferation of land use options Defensive fencing Conceptual challenge born from perception of high investment agriculture in freehold areas Flavour of the month

Programme for communal land development Development of 5 million ha Components Land right registration Land use planning, both at regional and local level Infrastructure development Advisory services Capacity building

LLPP, planning for change LLPP is used to tackles complexities due to: High degree of variance in terms of Agro-ecological potential Farming systems Social settings and aspirations Expectations from government Investments needs Immature regulatory framework; e.g. Group rights Being true to the “local level” and “participation”

Principles in response to the complexity Principle 1: The consideration of all originally targeted PCLD areas for support via the basket fund Principle 2: The development of commercial agriculture in communal areas Principle 3: Co-financing / co-contribution is required, and leaseholds reflect level of investment Principle 4: Local residents are primary beneficiaries, and the uprooting and relocation of people is to be avoided Principle 5: An integrated implementation approach is pursued Principle 6: Advisory services will be provided 1 we do not exclude areas where an engagement by MLR has been the order – also, we build on local needs - however, MLR retains the right to spend money sensibly 2 no social infrastr considered 3 “how to” still a gap – stratification, informed by GM analysis, and easy to administer 4 local processes 5 slide follows 6 fences alone do not make successful farmers

LLPP-basic components Well structured facilitation tool for decision making process of regional, local level authorities and communities/ resident farmers All decisions are made within the public domain with a high degree of free prior informed consent Key decisions and forward actions from each meeting are recorded and culminate in a site file Broad validation of decisions made with process of published leasehold applications

Investment and development plan LLPP outputs Locality of prioritized investment areas Selection of beneficiaries Land use scenarios Type of investment Defining rules of affiliation that govern access to and use of resources and infrastructure Investment and development plan

LLPP: Implementation approach Infrastructure development Advisory Services STAGE I Base maps and zooming in - Mobilize stakeholders - Create information base - Validate information and maps - Define focus area STAGE II Beneficiary selection and scenario planning - Investigation on land rights - Selection of beneficiaries for land and investments - Designing of the development scenario - Selection of desired infrastructure - Facilitating agreement on the rules of affiliation STAGE III Validation and formalisation - Validation of land rights - Validation of the development scenario and investment plan with relevant stakeholders, at local, regional and national level - Publication of investment plans and lease applications via the Communal Land Board Add more meat to this one and delete the following

LLPP results – the Okongo example LLPP has been piloted in 3 sites Okongo (Ohangwena region) Otjetjekua (Omusati region) Ongandjera East (Omusati region)

Original concept for the area

Mapping of the realities on the ground – LLPP Stage I

Unveiling the lack of congruence between main players LLPP – Stage I

Process of adjudication LLPP - Stage II Mapping of SSCF area indicate extent of fences for farmers Grid largely ignored Most people have ‘taken’ less than the 2,500 ha Most people have invited others to farm with them CLB issue notification of removal of fences; lack of congruence between TA approved and CLB approved fences Notion of removal of all fences (do not align with the grid) Meeting between TA, CLB and farmers, facilitated by MLR and LLPP team Resolutions Removal of some fences Adjustment to SSCF area Reduction of land holding if excessive Leasehold applications required Letter of consent by TA

Infrastructure development plan in LLPP - Stage II

Validation in stage III During the validation stage the following was adjusted: The western areas where there are 3 villages will form a cooperative which will also receive support There are eight additional land rights that obtained approval and one land right was contested Some of the infrastructure to be developed was shifted due to social or economical reasons Additional water distribution infrastructure was defined Some illegal fences were given notices and were removed

Okongo Infrastructure and land rights

LLPP Okongo end result Support to 15 individual small scale farmers Commercially oriented, total of 3200 LSU Regularized land tenure regimes (Leaseholds) PCLD is complementing private investments Rules of affiliation for shared infrastructure in place Support to about 150 households in western settlements Secure access to commonage (cooperative leasehold) Development of shared infrastructure to enhance commercial production Rules of affiliation for shared infrastructure

Overall LLPP outcomes LLPP provides a platform for community members, TAs, RCs, CLBs to: Streamline overlapping land uses Adjudicate blatant and latent land right issues Define their own resource management plans and land investments Determine and secure access rights, shaping rules of affiliations to selected land uses

Replication potential Approach that works because Political will, priority for GRN. It really matters at all levels (political, orginisational, local) Commitment Timeframe (overall; equally important the willingness to put foot on the brake when answers are not obvious) Funding (volume overall, but also resources put into “flanking measures” and soliciting expertise) Embeddedness in government structures However, the inverse probably also holds true; replicability?