1. THE DUALITY OF LOCAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE IN RURAL LIBERIA Alexandra Hartman 1, Heather Huntington 2 and Kate Marple-Cantrell 2 1 University College London, Political Science 2 Cloudburst Consulting Group

2. LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE RESEARCH AT USAID USAID’s research agenda helps fill tenure and resource governance evidence gaps, especially in context of customary land rights How well do new innovations or approaches work? Which interventions can/should be scaled up? How are benefits achieved? How do programs differently affect different types of beneficiaries? Build evidence base on inter-related agriculture, climate change, economic policy, governance, women’s empowerment and land conflict issues USAID supporting 8 impact evaluations of land/forest tenure programs in Africa Ethiopia: Pastoral and farmland rights certification programs (3 IEs) Guinea: Community land and artisanal diamond rights certification Liberia: Community land rights protection program (Namati/SDI) Tanzania: Farmland rights certification program Zambia: Agroforestry and land certification pilot, REDD+ pilot (2 IEs) Innovative approaches and standards for land sector research and impact evaluation work Mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative)  Context, whether/why Standardized data collection instruments  Generalizable findings Geospatial integration (site selection, contextual understanding)

3. RESEARCH MOTIVATIONS Efficacy of CPR institutions to manage commons resources Continued pressures from investors and governments Legal and other challenges to community-based structures Uncertain state of local resource governance

4. RESEARCH MOTIVATIONS How does local resource governance function in rural Liberia on the eve of national land reform? How do different kinds of data help provide a more complete picture of how communities manage their natural resources? LOCAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE: The management of communally-held natural resources and the creation and enforcement of rules governing their use Fine-grained quantitative data via household surveys Detailed narratives via focus groups and semi-structured interviews

5. COMMUNITY LAND PROTECTION PROGRAM (CLPP) Laying the groundwork: legal empowerment and capacity building; Land documentation: land mapping, conflict resolution, boundary harmonization; Good governance: unwritten community rules for land and natural resources management into written by-laws, election of a diverse governing body; Strengthening communities vis-a-vis external actors: preparing communities to protect their land rights when interfacing with government actors and potential investors.

6. Qualitative & quantitative data collection in communities participating in the CLPP in 3 rural counties: Lofa Maryland River Gee BASELINE DATA COLLECTION

7. Baseline data collection in 2014: Quantitative household survey of 2,100 individuals in 79 communities Community leader survey (N=209) Community-level survey on land conflict and investment (N=156) 49 focus groups and semi-structured interviews in 9 communities

8. Q: RESEARCH QUESTIONS What are the gains from analyzing qualitative and quantitative data on local resource governance systems together? How does qualitative data help explain complexities and contradictions in the survey data on local resource governance and the actual property rights of women and minority groups?

9. Findings confirm that communities manage resources with local rule- based systems that are tailored to and enforced according to community needs. Systems entail local norms, practices, and rules that: Govern the use of communal spaces; Sanction behavior; Structure interactions with external actors; Manage conflict. FINDINGS: NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE CPR Institutions Intact

10. Yet: ~ 30% of survey respondents reported that their leaders took bribes, were involved in criminal activities or were ineffectual at their jobs. FINDINGS: NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE Breakdown of traditional authority

11. “Yes on the land dispute we want for you to help us to empower the authority people, the government because this land here we have been talking, talking until we don't know what the government is doing now this land business they took people from here to Monrovia that went in the house of senate they give document and all but still people still putting up resistant.” — Community 5, Hunters' Leader KII, February 18, 2014 Long-term boundary disputes with neighboring communities. Leaders express exasperation at the seeming impossibility of resolving conflicts with other communities, e.g.: FINDINGS: NATURAL RESOURCE GOVERNANCE Intractable land disputes

12. About 60% of respondents report that women and men do not enjoy equal property rights (women have more limited usage and ownership rights) But only 34% of respondents believe women have been disadvantaged or overlooked due to community rules for customary or traditional land In addition, women in this study were: Significantly less active in local resource governance in the community; Less likely to enforce rules; Attend fewer meetings; Less likely to speak their opinions about matters involving property rights. FINDINGS II: WOMEN’S PROPERTY RIGHTS Mixed results on women’s authority

13. “It is for the boy children... for example I who here, I am a Kru by tribe from way Sas Town side. I left my home I come way here. I come married to a different man... How will I claim that Cocoa farm? I think it will be for the boys.” — Community 9, Women's Focus Group, March 12, 2014 “No that the man get the land... girl children are strangers [here]... We met this rule here (this rule is an old rule).” — Community 4, Hunter Focus Group, March 2, 2014 FINDINGS: WOMEN’S PROPERTY RIGHTS Obstacles to accessing and passing down property rights

14. Yet: Some individuals stated clearly that women had equal rights over land. FINDINGS: WOMEN’S PROPERTY RIGHTS Permeation of statutory legal regime One Youth Leader explained that women do have equal rights for inheritance (in his view that is the "law") but that this wasn't what was practiced in the past, and as a result, the people are still being "sensitized" on this issue. — Community 2, Youth Leader KI, February 21, 2014

15. KEY MESSAGES Overlapping statutory and customary regimes in natural resource governance and property rights in study counties demonstrate challenging dualities, and identify opportunities for new land reforms to address. Within the community, traditional authorities confidently dictate rules about land, but when problems arise with outsiders ignoring community-based enforcement, local leaders turn to the government for help and struggle to effectively push forward their claims. Neocustomary practices do not tell the full story about opportunities for women and minorities to access and inherit land. Rather, the current landscape of access to land is varied and changing.

16. CONCLUSIONS Prevalence of ongoing, protracted boundary conflicts in study areas speaks to the relevance of the CLPP intervention activities to: Clarify boundaries; Build capacity for communities to advocate for their needs with the government when traditional avenues for resolution break down.

17. CONCLUSIONS Reform should maintain a nuanced understanding of existing resource governance systems with some areas that function well and others that do not; Understanding nature and causes of existing weaknesses, including the position of women and minority groups, has important implications of the success of the reform.

18. NEXT STEPS Program scheduled to be implemented in 22 communities in 2016 Next round of data collection late 2016 / early 2017

19. THANK YOU Many thanks to all the researchers and experts who contributed to make this research possible. Many thanks to IDRC and USAID for supporting this research. www.usaidlandtenure.net/data