Workshop Report

(1)

1

Global Land Tool Network Expert Group Meeting

Exploring the Youth Dimensions of the Global Land Agenda

Workshop Report

January 24‐25, 2012

Centre for Land Tenure Studies (CLTS‐UMB) Norwegian University of Life Sciences

Ås, Norway

(2)

2

B

^ACKGROUND

&

CONTEXT OF EXPERT GROUP MEETING

The Case for a GLTN Youth and Land Agenda

The Global Land Tool Network (GLTN), with its secretariat at the Urban Land, Legislation and Governance Branch of UN‐Habitat, is a multi‐sector and multi‐stakeholder partnership focused on establishing a continuum of land rights and the creation of innovative, pro poor, scalable and gender‐

sensitive land management and land tenure tools. It achieves the overall goals through a range of activities such as promoting research and disseminating materials on land, supporting documentation of tools and best practices, developing innovative methodologies and approaches, organising workshops and consultations, facilitating a wide range of stakeholder inputs and strengthening capacity of land stakeholders (for more information see see www.gltn.net).

GLTN has a wide range of audiences, interested in different land‐related topics and disciplines—working at different levels, with different skill sets and professional and geographical ’lenses’. These include national and local governments in developing and transition countries; land professionals, NGOs and community‐based groups, academic, research and advisory services, donors and UN organizations; and the media and through them, the general public in developed and developing countries. One of the key goals for GLTN is to communicate effectively with each group, and to bring the range of experiences together and build bridges across these lenses.

Youth account for up to 70% of the population in many developing countries, and make up a large proportion of slum‐dwellers in the urban centres of the developing world. The youth population worldwide (those aged 15–24 years) is estimated to be around 1.3 billion, prompting the reference to this being the “age of youth”, and demanding greater youth focus from all stakeholders in development.

Youth are increasingly seen as partners, rather than as merely beneficiaries, in poverty reduction interventions and within the sustainable urbanisation discourse. However, their visibility within the land sector is limited. While young people seek more economic opportunities and claim further property rights, there appears to be a lack of understanding and specific responses to youth land needs. Young people who are able to own land are invariably from privileged backgrounds, while the majority of middle class and poor youth’s access to land is mediated through family and community.

The debate over how, even whether, to promote youth land rights is at early stages. A leading question is whether youth automatically and sufficiently benefit from flexible generic land tools and interventions or whether the tools have to be specifically designed or adapted to youth needs. Equally, policy makers ponder over how to negotiate the challenges of enhancing land rights during the ‘transitory’ youth phase

The Global Land Tool Network (GLTN) has commissioned a scoping study to explore how the Network could help advance the global youth and land agenda, keeping in mind its mandate, work programme and comparative advantage. The Expert Group Meeting was organized to advance the knowledge and ideas generated by this scoping study, and to better understand the relationship between youth and land as well as specific youth needs in this area.

(4)

4 Expert Group Meeting on Youth and Land

In order to discuss issues related to youth and land, and explore a potential youth dimension of the GLTN agenda, an Expert Group Meeting was held from 24‐25 January 2012 in Norway.

Meeting objectives

The Expert Group Meeting had the theme “Exploring the Youth Dimensions of the Global Land Agenda”.

The meeting explored the linkages between youth and land issues and identified how GLTN, and other organizations, can most effectively with youth as target beneficiaries and partners.

The specific objectives of the meeting were to:

i. Validate the findings of the above scoping study on youth and land commissioned by GLTN in regards to linkages between youth and land issues;

ii. Map the knowledge, activities and interest of GLTN partners and other organizations on youth and land issues and identify potential youth and land champions;

iii. Develop recommendations to the secretariat on GLTN’s engagement on youth issues.

The intention of the Expert Group Meeting was to seek suggestions from participants on how GLTN can best engage with youth in its work, to be brought to the attention of, and for further discussion by, the GLTN Partners meeting and International Advisory Board meetings later in the year.

The 2‐day facilitated meeting was highly interactive and engaged participants of diverse background in discussions on the topic (see Annex 2: List of Participants).

(5)

5

B. T

RAINING PROCEEDINGS

DAY 1

SESSION 1: OPENING ADDRESS AND WELCOME MESSAGES (09:00‐09:45)

Chair: Clarissa Augustinus, United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN‐Habitat)

Opening address: Erik Berg, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Welcome address: Hans Fredrik Hoen, Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) Welcome to the Centre: Stein Holden, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, UMB

Message from GLTN partner: Fiona Fairweather, Faculty of Law & Social Sciences, University of East London

Message on youth mainstreaming: Anantha Krishnan, UN‐HABITAT

Introduction to the Global Land Tool Network and its mandate: Åsa Jonsson, UN‐Habitat

CLARISSA AUGUSTINUS, Land and GLTN Unit of UN‐Habitat, welcomed and thanked all present for attending. She emphasised that land and youth was an issue for the present and next generation, and that she was sure that all present looked forward to commencing the discussions. She thanked the Centre for Land Tenure Studies and the Norwegian University for Life Sciences for hosting the meeting, and the University of East London for partnering in the event. She extended gratitude to the Government of Norway, in particular Erik Berg and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for making the meeting possible and for their on‐going support to UN‐Habitat and the Global Land Tool Network.

ERIK BERG, Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stated that it was a great honour and pleasure to welcome the participants to this important expert group meeting. He was speaking on behalf of Mr.

Arvinn Eikeland Gadgil, Norwegian Junior Minister of Foreign Affairs, unable to attend due to an urgent meeting in Parliament. The Norwegian Government and the Ministry recognize the importance of the youth dimension and have been advocating for the Global Land Tool Network to give higher priority to youth and land, in an intergenerational perspective. They were very pleased that this expert group meeting was now taking place, also because it represented an attempt from Norway to mainstream youth in all the work of UN‐Habitat. He thanked the many creative efforts of UN‐Habitat, the Global Land Tool Network, the Centre for Land Tenure Studies, the University of East London and many others who had made the meeting possible. He commended the scoping report of UN‐Habitat, GLTN and the

(6)

6

University of East London. He was convinced that this report would form the basis for the discussions during the two‐day meeting.

He shared that he had been the author of the former government’s development strategy for youth, Three Billion Reasons: Norway’s Development Strategy for Children and Young People in the South.

During the research and writing process he learnt that, in order to fight poverty and exploitation, one needs to understand the processes and structures that created it, at international, national, local and household levels. For this struggle to be successful, one needs to find the real democratic change agents and strategies, involving different classes and social structures, and work with and support them.

Norway supports a human rights based approach which is about improving the possibilities for demanding that human rights are realized. This implies strengthening and empowering vulnerable groups, those who lack of the ‘power of influence’. He noted that human rights education is critical for the realization of a rights‐based approach.

In the context of land and property rights for youth, he underscored the need to expand the limits of the land and human rights conventions. These need to be strengthened and made more effective, and land issues will have important part of such a future convention. New legal instruments are needed, such as the Voluntary Guidelines on the Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests, and guidelines on forced evictions including rights of youth and children. The focus needs to be not only on economic, social and cultural rights, but also safeguarding civil and political rights. These are important to hold Governments accountable when it comes to young people’s needs, problems and perspectives. He hoped that the expert group meeting would bring that agenda forward.

HANS FREDERIK HOEN, Norwegian University of Life Sciences also extended his welcome to the meeting participants. He provided the meeting with a short background on the history of the University.

Founded in 1859 as the only Norwegian agricultural postgraduate college, the Norwegian University of Life Sciences is now recognized as a leading international centre of knowledge, focused on higher education and research within environmental‐ and bio‐sciences. UMB focuses specifically on biology, food, environment, land‐ and natural resource management.

Referring to his background in forestry, he noted that a number of issues relevant to the meeting emerge in this discipline, notably the size of the property and the growing stock. He stressed the fact that land and its acreage is a given, finite resource. If we want to develop into a renewal society, and at a global scale, we will consequently need to be more dependent on a wise, efficient management of the land. From his perspective this fact demonstrated the importance of the topic in the meeting.

STEIN HOLDEN, Centre for Land Tenure Studies, UMB, as host and co‐organizer of the meeting also welcomed the participants to the Centre and provided a short background on the Centre activities.

FIONA FAIRWEATHER, University of East London expressed her pleasure at being at the meeting on behalf of the University Vice‐Chancellor. As a long standing partner of the Global Land Tool Network, she thanked the Network for taking on the issue of youth and land, and the Norwegian Government for supporting this work. She also noted with appreciation the high impact and quality work being undertaken by the Network. She highlighted that the University of East London is keen to co‐sponsor work in this area, and that she looked forward to inputs from those attending the meeting on how to move forward.

She shared that with the restructuring at the University of East London, the faculties of Law and Social Sciences have merged. This faculty now hosts four centres on human rights and conflict, social change, narrative studies, and refugees and migration. All of the centres have a youth component, and these

(7)

7

issues have a high priority within the University. She congratulated Siraj Sait (see below) for his pioneering work in the area of youth and gender on behalf of the University.

In closing she noted that attitudes are hard to overcome, including those on how youth are perceived.

She informed the meeting of a high‐level strategy on youth engagement that the University is currently involved with. This strategy includes a project targeting young men vulnerable to get involved with gang culture.

ANANTHA KRISHNAN, Youth Unit of UN‐Habitat expressed his enthusiasm that this meeting was being held and that youth issues were being addressed by the land sector. He shared some global statistics on youth including that there today are 1.2 billion youth in the world, the largest number to have ever existed. He noted that the United Nations defines youth and those aged between 15 and 24 years. 60%

of all urban dwellers will be under the age of 18 by 2030. The vast majority of the “youth bulge” – 87% ‐ live in developing countries and face such challenges as limited access to resources, education, training, employment, and broader economic development opportunities. These young people are very often concentrated in urban areas with limited access to basic social services.

He emphasised that UN‐Habitat considers youth to be a key priority cross‐cutting issue. This means that at all levels of UN‐HABITAT’s they strive to consider how to involve and engage youth. In terms of the linkages between youth and land he highlighted three critical areas of concern. Firstly, land as a cornerstone of the economy in most developing countries, is a key issue for youth who face unemployment and poverty. Secondly, land dispossession, an increasingly global phenomenon, can contribute to urbanization and also impact youth. Thirdly, the gender implications of land ownership impact on today’s youth and need to be better understood and addressed. He conclude by providing reflection of how youth issues can most effectively be mainstreamed, concluding that ‘the state of youth is a litmus test for a whole society’.

ÅSA JONSSON, Land and GLTN Unit of UN‐Habitat provided an overview of the Global Land Tool Network mandate and functions. The network was initiated in 2004 and officially launched at the World Urban Forum in 2006 in Vancouver. As of the day, it has 45 international partners covering land stakeholders from the land professions, civil society and grassroots organizations, academia and training institutions, bilateral and multilateral organizations. The vision of the Network is to provide appropriate land tools at global scale to implement prop‐poor land policies and land reform. The mandate is to work through its network of partners in implementing land policies that are prop‐poor, gender and youth‐

responsive through in collaboration with United Nations member states. A criterion for becoming a partner is to agree with the objectives and core values of the Network.

Network partners can contribute to the operations either substantively and/or financially. Activities may include sharing knowledge and information, advocacy and awareness building, join activities (such as events, publications or tools), tool development processes, capacity development activities, resource mobilization efforts, in‐country pilots or activities and tool implementation at the local/national levels.

(8)

8

SESSION 2: WORKSHOP EXPECTATIONS (09:45‐10:15)

The participants undertook an exercise to reflect and capture their expectations for the meeting. These were compiled and later referred to at the end of the meeting to see whether the expectations were met. The list of expectations and the degree to which they were met are listed in Annex 3.

SESSION 3: WHY FOCUS ON YOUTH AND LAND? (9:30‐10:30)

Presentation of GLTN Scoping Study findings: Siraj Sait, University of East London Discussant: Willem van Vliet, University of Colorado

SIRAJ SAIT, University of East London presented the methodology and key findings from the Global Land Tool Network Scoping Study on Youth and Land. The presentation outlined the research methodology and questions set out to answer, how youth as a category of study were defined, results of the literature review and from interviews with youth, land sector partners and UN‐Habitat colleagues.

Some of the themes covered in the study include: that the social construct of both age and gender impacts young women and men’s access to land; youth participation being key to define the issues and opportunities; the multiple roles of youth vis‐à‐vis land, as beneficiaries, partners and leaders; the rights based framework within to address youth and land; and the shift that the development community has seen from projects ‘’empowering youth’’ to being ‘’youth‐led’’.

He presented a range of rights applicable to youth and land identified in the Study, as follows:

Economic Rights: Land for livelihoods; work place; economic assets; income generation (renting); markets/shopping; accessing services; and skills training.

Social Rights: Land for shelter and family life; education; recreation, sport; open spaces, parks; health including sexual health, HIV counselling.

Cultural Rights: Land and public space for community events, religious practices, entertainment, cultural/art events.

Civil & Political Rights: Land allocated for youth projects; one stop centres; information; media;

meeting places and advocacy.

A key question to consider, especially as the Global Land Tool Network starts engaging at a more practical level, is whether youth land concerns can be addressed within the generic approach of the Network, or whether specific youth‐oriented solutions and tools are required. Another is to identify the

(9)

9

best ways for youth to engage as technical partners in land tool development, and what related capacity building may be necessary for their meaningful engagement. Such identification could draw from the experience that the Network already has working with women’s and grassroots groups.

He stated that in general, the literature review shows very scarce research specifically on the topic of youth and land. Much more is available around youth health, education, employment, crime, environment, and to some extent housing and shelter. This means that many questions remain, but also provides a very exciting and pioneering opportunity to build new knowledge.

WILLEM VAN VLIET, University of Colorado stated of the discussion with a set of reflections on the presentation. He noted that the presentation highlighted not only the demographic forces of youth, but also rights‐based ones. It emphasised that research needs to be anchored in the real world, and practice informed by research (evidence‐based approaches). He put forward a set of questions as a framework to guide the group discussions:

1. It may not be the shortage of land that primarily influences youth access, but rather the impact of attitudes (such as attitudinal barriers and institutional discrimination). This would mean that the challenges are not only to provide technical land toolkits, but rather how to engage in the political and cultural arena. This requires an understanding of where the resistance lays— which stakeholders, with what at stake, and the reasons behind the resistance.

2. What models do we have available of youth responses to such resistance? These include docility (which is proving costly), fighting fire with fire (also costly, even more than docility); or resisting in the margins. A question for further research could be what strategic models youth use, even if unconsciously. This would include an exploration of the usage of a consensus model (and whether this is possible), as well as the usage of rational planning (gathering the facts, resolving conflicts and planning rationally).

3. What normative platform are we starting with? What good and promising practices do we have available, and how do we propose that these are used in different contexts? Would they be used as blueprints (likely to be controversial), or adaptation (with adjustments for contextual differences), or as inspiration and stimulus for other places. We need to be careful not to assume that good examples can automatically be successfully replicated elsewhere.

Group discussion

The discussion that followed agreed that the challenges of youth access to land is not only about lack of land as a resource, or just to get tools made, but require a paradigm shift whereby attitudes towards youth are changed. The question then becomes how such a shift can be encouraged. Youth have, for example, demonstrated their ability to take this advocacy on, and are getting better at it as they go along. It was also noted that youth lack of access to land, and the solutions, may differ in urban and rural contexts. The need for land may, for example differ, and be primarily a livelihood concern in rural areas while more an issue of shelter/housing in cities.

The group also agreed that the gap in research is clear. There is a need to understand the political, social and economic forces at play on how young people come of age, and how this differs from place to place. The ways in which young people move on into adulthood needs to be better understood so as to better understand the obstacles.

(10)

10

Some exchange took place as to how ‘’youth participation’’ takes place in practice, and the difference between ‘’structural participation’’ and ‘’event participation’’. It was agreed that the latter may be useful at specific times but runs the risk of being tokenistic, not sustainable, and has to be carefully crafted so as to not to be disempowering for young people. The example of Brazil was shared whereby the assumptions that land is an adult issue and that youth with ‘’eventually get there’’. To challenge these presumption require structural participation in land governance.

The discussion also flagged the need to understand what a sustainable partnership with youth groups would look like. In addition, important youth participation related to decisions on land can also take place at in the informal sphere, for example in family discussions and in community areas and local streets. Successful discussions and negotiation at this level can then help pave the way for more formal participation.

The implications of different forms of land ownership on youth also need to be unpacked. One example is the obstacles to inheritance due to minimum plot requirements (or the land fragmentation when land is divided up over generations). It was noted that the Global Land Tool Network is in a good position to research alternative tenure types and their impact and opportunities for youth based on their work on the continuum of land rights (a range of land rights).

It was emphasised that access to land has to be put in the context of the political economy and the employment opportunities for youth both in the formal and informal sectors.

(11)

11

SESSION 4: PANEL 1: SETTING THE CONTEXT: IDENTIFYING THE YOUTH AND LAND CONCERNS (11:45‐13:30)

Indigenous youth and land in Mexico: Mindahi Munoz, COMDES, Mexico Youth and land in the Arab world: Hoda Mansour, Egypt

Youth and land in the Norwegian context: Erling Berge, Department of Landscape Planning, UMB Youth and land in Tanzania: the contexts of foreign investment and HIV/AIDS: Richard Mabala, TAMASHA, Tanzania

Youth and land fragmentation in Ethiopia, Sosina Besu, Addis Abeba University

Discussant: Stein Holden, CLTS‐UMB

Followed by facilitated discussion

INDIGENOUS YOUTH AND LAND IN MEXICO

Mindahi Munoz provided a presentation on ‘’First peoples, Youth and Land in Mexico’’ highlighting the need for indigenous young people to be involved in public policy regarding harmonic land management.

He argued that there is more bio diversity when you have cultural diversity. It is important to ensure that knowledge on bio diversity is effectively tapped, including enhancement of university degrees in this area. He shared the situation of First Peoples when it comes to land in Mexico, noting that there is very little land available per inhabitant (1.7 hectares).

Most indigenous youth are not interested in land production. Factors such as migration, low revenue, land fragmentation, poor agricultural areas, land monopolization and chemicals and mechanized cropping is resulting in a decreased importance of agriculture. Further contributing factors include that local agronomic knowledge is undermined, there is a loss of traditional knowledge, and the top soil structure is eroded. As a result, land is perceived by indigenous youth as something that is part of their past, but they cannot see a future related to land because of uncertainty and a crisis in identity.

YOUTH AND LAND IN THE ARAB WORLD

Hoda Mansour shared her insights into the impact of the Arab Spring and how it has marginalized young people from lower income backgrounds. The revolutionaries were middle and upper class. She also outlines how the land and taxation system is according to the Islamic framework. If landowners paid the 20% they should it would solve the problems of resources needed and their redistribution.

(12)

12 YOUTH AND LAND IN THE NORWEGIAN CONTEXT

Erling Berge highlighting that the meaning of both youth and land depends on the context. In the case of Norway there are two sets of issues around land: that for agriculture and that for living. Land for agriculture (land for farming as defined by the Norwegian Government) can be inherited, rented or purchased. He stated that access to agricultural land is not easier in Norway that, for example, in Malawi. While the rules of Parliament states that all children should inherit equally, only one has the holding. The Odelsrett (or right of odel, an ancient Scandinavian allodial title which has survived in Norway) established preference for lineage and land. If there is a lineage, they have right to take the land from those not in lineage. If the property is sold to a stranger, family members have the right within a specified period of time redeem it at the price paid, with the additional cost of the improvements The one who takes the land as olel has the right not to sub‐divide it. Hence while all children would inherit, there is an assessment procedure to pay siblings their share and avoid sub‐division. The rigid market regulations for agriculture are worrisome, resulting in farmers leaving the land and not cultivating.

Land for living (housing units) which students have the most difficulty accessing and the supply has been stagnant for a decade. He shared that the rigid market regulations for agricultural land is worrying. For young people, however, the biggest land related problem is that of housing.

YOUTH AND LAND IN T^ANZANIA: THE CONTEXT OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT AND HIV/^AIDS

Richard Mabala described the struggle over the Tanzanian Land Act from a gender and youth‐

perspective. He provided some history of the Act, and that a strong coalition has forced it to be rewritten. The Government has agreed that women’s land rights could override customary rights, and women’s groups have supported this position. The real problem, however, is that of foreign investors.

The National presidential commission says that communities should own the land but currently the state owns the land. By selling off land to foreign investors, there are increased shortages in land, a huge wave of land alienation and speculation, and a displacement of Tanzanian families and communities.

From a youth perspective, freehold means ‘’no‐hold’’. He referred to the case in Kenya whereby a study found Church women to find titling a curse, as their husbands would sell it off in bars and they would lose their land. In Tanzania youth have complained about the same things with their fathers. Youth are not considered equal with adults and have very low negotiating power. While young people are expected to do all the community work (build roads, work on land, schools) they have no decision making role. If they try, and go agsit adults, they are usually beaten. This results in young people being alienated. As land is lost, so there are less resources and many are forced to migrate. The fact that older men are blocking access or younger men is also a reason why young men are turning to violence.

Concerning HIV/AIDS, he argued that if we address slums and unemployment this will also lead to addressing HIV/AIDS for young people. He ended by emphasizing the need to provide young people the physical space to organize themselves.

YOUTH AND LAND FRAGMENTATION IN ETHIOPIA

Sosina Besu started her presentation by sharing relevant data on Ethiopia, including the fact that there is rapid population growth and a very large youth population. 66% of the population is below 25 years old. While being a large population sub‐group, youth in Ethiopia hold only 9% of the land. As land is a major input in agriculture it is important for rural youth. In urban areas the problem is housing, with young people having difficulty to build or rent. Most people pay two‐thirds of their income to housing.

(13)

13

More than 60% of households have 4‐5 members living on less than 1 acre. This causes food shortages, a condition facing 34% of rural households. Further land division is not possible in a context of acute land shortages. Further land fragmentation takes place through marriages that bring in additional family members. One of the only livelihood strategies for young people is to ‘’farm with the family’’. This creates a disguised unemployment within farming families. Official unemployment figures in rural Ethiopia are only 2.6%, yet a closer look reveals that 55% of the unemployed are ‘’unpaid family workers’’. There are hardly any non‐farm employment options, representing 3% of overall employment in rural areas. Migration to cities is not a sustainable solution as most urban youth are unemployed and further migration only exacerbating this. Many young people end up opting for international migration, an example being young women migrating to Libya and Sudan illegally and without a network, and hence very vulnerable.

Stein Holden, CLTS‐UMB, as discussant, encouraging discussion around the following questions:

1. Are youth demanding land or do they want to escape from the land? Should policies help them to exit from their poverty situations for better options? What tools useful for this? Need to better understand whether to support an exit versus investment for young people to stay on land.

2. What can we learn from comparing the experience from, for example, Uganda and Ethiopia?

While Uganda allows land sales, Ethiopia does not. Uganda has high population pressure and a high value of land. Ethiopia has a different strategy – one cannot sell land, and the law is such that if you migrate for 2 years or more, the farm will be taken from you and given to someone else with no compensation. This creates an obligation to use land, forcing people to stay. He also summarized the redistribution process in Ethiopia under their Constitution, whereby land certification gives security, but increased landlessness, and creates complex inheritance issues.

3. Our social responsibility to invest in youth, noting the negative consequences of not doing so, such as the Rwanda genocide which was rooted in land conflicts.

Themes and topics that came up in the discussion included the negative effects of Tanzania’s land alienation and large scale land acquisition on young people’s prospects; the issue of forced evictions and the importance of legal frameworks to handle this; that land and livelihoods are linked, with particular impact for young people; and the challenges of maintaining collective land rights that have previously worked well for many indigenous peoples (as indigenous knowledge is now in international laws, how could this, for example, be used in the land debate).

A number of areas for further research were suggested. These include the impact of the changing land market on youth, noting that the market has become even more competitive and skewed after the so called ‘’land rush’’. Another proposed research topic was on young people accessing the rental market.

It was also suggested that more information is made available on what range of tenures are needed by different young people.

Questions raised also included how to lobby civil society groups to address youth concerns. Perhaps the financial crisis could be an opportunity for groups to call more attention to youth. Ultimately, youth

(14)

14

need to have access to governance structures to speak for themselves, including at congresses and international meetings. Young people need to be part of governance structures rather than older age‐

groups protecting themselves against the younger generation.

SESSION 5: PANEL 2: EXAMPLES OF PROJECTS WITH A YOUTH AND LAND DIMENSION (14:30‐16:00)

Making the invisible visible: youth engagement in mapping of informal settlements:

Jamie Lundine, MAP Kibera, Kenya

Empowering communities to achieve their right to the city‐ a youth‐led participatory approach:

Joao Scarpelini, Brazil

Youth and land in the context of urban informal settlements in South Africa: Kholeka Xuza and Siswe Mxhoba, Slum Dwellers International, South Africa

Facilitating land access to young farners in Mexico: Fernando Galeana, World Bank

Discussant: Richard Mabala, TAMASHA

Followed by facilitated discussion

MAKING THE INVISIBLE VISIBLE: YOUTH ENGAGEMENT IN MAPPING OF INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS

Jamie Lundine described the work of Map Kibera in engaging youth in the mapping of informal settlements. She shared that while there was progress there were also some challenges, such as copyright issues with Google, and the fact that the maps generated were being sold in the community.

They are now adapting more a community development approach, where mapping is undertaken as a basis for community action around areas such as sanitation, unsafe areas and gang activities with the aim of partnering with service providers. The initiative makes extensive use of social networks in its approach and in engaging a wider young audience on human settlement issues.

EMPOWERING COMMUNITIES TO ACHIEVE THEIR RIGHT TO THE CITY‐

A YOUTH‐LED PARTICIPATORY APPROACH IN BRAZIL

Joao Scarpelini described a youth‐led participatory approach used in Brazil called the ‘’Oasis Game’’. It is an open‐source social technology developed by a group of young people called Elos Institute (in Brazil) to empower communities to actively engage in grassroots transformation in a participatory way. The seven step methodology invites communities to play together, and by doing so restores and strengthens

(15)

15

relationships and connections that unite the community and fosters cooperation among all stakeholders (local authorities, CSOs and businesses) from the community regardless of their age.

The Oasis method creates a culture of participation that he argued is a core base for truly democratic management of the city. Although young people (aged between 18‐24) represents 51 million citizens in Brazil (2010), "youth" were only included into the Brazilian Constitutional text in 2011. The text states that young people should have better access to education and to employment opportunities. This inclusion opened space for new policies specific to the youth population, and led into the creation of the

"Statute of Youth". He placed this development in the context of Brazil’s urban policy and the Statute of the Cities, which, amongst other things, guarantee of the right to sustainable cities, understood as the right to urban land, housing, sanitation, infrastructure, transportation and public services, to work and leisure, including for the next generations.

YOUTH AND LAND IN THE CONTEXT OF URBAN INFORMAL SETTLEMENTS IN SOUTH AFRICA

Kholeka Xuza and Siswe Mxhoba’s presentation gave an overview if the issues youth face living in South Africa’s informal settlements. These include unemployment, high crime rates, land of infrastructure and an overall context of poverty. She then explained the methodology used by Slum Dwellers International (SDI) in working towards improving lives in these settlements, notably savings, enumerations and mapping, slum upgrading and peer exchanges across communities.

She illustrated these methods by the case study of Langrug, and informal settlements in the village of Franschhoek, and home to almost 1,800 families who settled there illegally during the 1990s. Although the municipality has provided the community with basic sanitation services and moving forward with an upgrading programme, these services remain severely limited. Kholeka described the paradigm shift that is taking place through a partnership whereby the community leads the upgrading process and the government provides the infrastructure. She explained in detail the enumeration process that SDi had supported in the community, and involving many young people, which has demonstrated that the community is capable of providing data on space, population and existing infrastructure themselves.

This can be a great asset, and used as a common platform for detailed planning and project delivery.

FACILITATING LAND ACCESS FOR YOUNG FARMERS IN MEXICO

Fernando Galeana provided a critical review of a market‐assisted land access project to support the young population in the ejido sector in Mexico. The World Bank‐supported project aimed to facilitate the intergenerational transfer of land rights through the creation of a land fund and the provision of incentives to senior landholders who choose to transfer their land rights to young farmer; provide technical and financial support to young farmers to invest in off‐ and on‐farm activities; and study possible measures to stimulate land markets in the social sector within the existing constitutional framework and the introduction of social welfare schemes or plans for senior landholders.

He placed the project in the context and history of the social tenure regime created after the Mexican Revolution. The 1992 Constitutional Amendment removed strict restrictions on land transactions, and a land certification programme was implemented. However, there is a low volume of land transactions.

More than 50% of full member ejidatario are older than 50 years old. The younger population—with more education and potential innovation—suffered from significant land shortages.

A number of project challenges have emerged, notably a high debt/equity ratio and debt ceiling (loans up to US$ 30,000). The average age was 31 years old (18‐30 years old self‐excluded from the second

(16)

16

phase). Furthermore, training and technical assistance focused on capital intensive agro‐enterprises, with no insertion into value chains. In the end, the project no longer focused on land transactions. He concluded that the project had perhaps aimed at too idealistic an objective of training young people and giving them a loan, which runs the risk of creating large debts.

Policy options to consider in the future include mainstreaming the objective of access to land for young farmers into broader rural enterprise programs; encouraging the formation of alliances between the young with more experienced farmers or in family enterprises; facilitate land rentals and donations when it is more appropriate than land sales; and acknowledge the special needs of the young (e.g.

housing).

Richard Mabala of TAMASHA initiated the discussion by highlighting the following:

1. The importance of learning before doing, which is what the mapping of a settlement, does.

2. Appreciative methodology works, as presented in the Oasis Game from Brazil. It brings everyone in and has been proven to work. It is oriented towards an atmosphere where ‘’no one is right’

but everyone has something to contribute.

3. Young people make very good facilitators, leading to increased community respect for and involvement of young people; and

4. Young people should be involved from the beginning; not adult initiated and directed.

The group discussion that followed highlighted the importance of public space for youth. In terms of processes, it was agreed that youth projects appear to be more effective if they focus on a peer to peer level (among youth) first and let adults come in later. Some reflection was made as to why the project from Mexico had not been as successful as it had intended to be, where young people (the intended beneficiaries) did not benefit as planned. Paternalism, which is often in inherent in agriculture, was hard to break‐through in the project, as was its technological orientation, and the young people were not sufficiently involved in the decisions that were to affect them.

The bottom‐up example from South Africa was found very interesting and generated a series of follow‐

up questions. These included what happens with the information after the mapping process, and whether there is a willingness by local authorizes and those in power to engage on this. The Stellenbosch Human Settlements Department is very new and seeing how to engage. In the case of Mathare in Kenya, the local authorities were found surprisingly receptive to the maps, but the challenge is to take action based on this data. It was noted that partnership with the Government is a challenge in terms of capacity. The Global Land Tool Network is currently involved in supporting participatory enumeration, and learning from promising co‐management practices such as in Nambia (also by Slum Dwellers International) where there has been an effective collaboration between the Government and local communities in data collection and management.

New technology creates an opportunity for collaboration between the older and younger generations in a community, for example by the elders being the facilitators of the information while the younger can take responsibility for the technology side.

(17)

17 SESSION 6: GROUP WORK (16.00‐17.30)

Facilitator: Jean du Plessis, UN‐HABITAT

The group work session was focused on participants dividing into groups of four to discuss the following questions:

1. What are the most pressing youth and land concerns globally?

2. Are there any regions/countries and particular issues that stand‐out as needing particular attention?

3. How can youth perspectives best be integrated into land projects?

4. What challenges and opportunities arise from the above?

The key areas highlighted by the group work and presentations are summarized in Box 1 below.

Plenary presentations and discussions

The group presentations and discussions highlighted the following key themes:

,

Box 1: Key areas highlighted by group work I

Pressing youth and land concerns

Relocations, public spaces, conflict, lack of political voice or power, access to decision‐making, difficult to access land/access too late, lack of livelihood options/ employment, lack of funds, lack of integration, foreign acquisition of scarce land, rights not recognized, youth not involved, environmental degradation, and lack of incentives to stay in rural areas

Priority regions /countries /areas

Countries with high unemployment, Africa, indigenous peoples, young women, Europe after the collapse of housing market, and urban slum areas

Challenges and opportunities

Investing in the youth and providing decision‐making space for them (drivers of change), the need for youth land rights indicators index, recognition of informality, promoting cross‐

generational cooperation, tapping the opportunity of young people’s energy of engagement and innovation

(18)

18 DAY 2

SESSION 1: REFLECTIONS FROM THE PREVIOUS DAY (09:00‐09:30) Facilitator: Åsa Jonsson and Jean du Plessis, UN‐HABITAT

The second day started with a reflection exercise where participants reviewed the notes they had prepared on their expectations on the beginning of the meeting. The particpants ranked which areas they considered particluarly important and which had already been addressed during the first day. The summary can be found in Annex 1.

The key points that the participants highlighted from this exercise were :

 The need for working partnerships

 Importance of participatory mapping

 Moving from pilot to structured programmes for long‐term impact (scaling‐up)

 Low tech, low cost means of securing tenure

 Cultural/societal perceptions of youth in regard to land access (public space; private ownership/

access)

 How perceptions, often negative, of youth impact upon young people’s ability to organise in public space and to possess land

 That youth issues are complex and growing worldwide, and need adjusted strategies to get them involved in decision making

 Definition of “youth”

 Challenges of up‐scaling participatory tools (how to create space for participation in formal institutions)

 Intersectionality of land rights with other livelihood rights and entitlements

 Enabling people to access land requires participation

 Young people are very good facilitators for change

(19)

19

SESSION 2: PANEL 3: PROGRAMME RESPONSES TO YOUTH AND LAND CHALLENGES (09:30‐10:45)

Youth‐friendly cities: Willem van Vliet, University of Colorado

Recruiting youth into the land profession: Kate Farie, Young Surveyors Network, FIG Lessons from working on gender and land: Siraj Sait, University of East London

Discussant: Clarissa Augustinus, UN‐HABITAT

Followed by facilitated discussion

YOUTH‐FRIENDLY CITIES

Willem van Vliet provided a brief historical assessment of city planning, which has been for the production and consumption of services and for utilities. He shared a number of examples of how important physical space is for young people in cities, and made a case, in particular, for public spaces.

He outlines the ‘’child‐friendly cities’’ movement, and explored how important it is to explore what this means for youth (rather than strictly children).

RECRUITING YOUTH INTO THE LAND PROFESSION

Kate Fairlie of the Young Surveyors Network (of the International Federation of Surveyors) outlined the key objectives of this youth network. These are to facilitate an international network of young surveyors, and as a result promote international opportunities and experiences for young surveyors, and improve the image of surveying as a profession.

She shared that the key challenges for young surveyors are to get into the profession (need to access technology and training); staying in the profession; and promoting the profession (including engaging with local communities and grassroot groups). The key needs of young surveyors are to find guidance and good mentors, identify international skill‐sharing opportunities, and learn about community initiatives (as done in this meeting). For this to happen networks are critical. Future activities of the Young Surveyors Network may include on‐line networking and learning, student and lecture exchanges, industry‐sponsored technology projects and community‐led projects.

(20)

20 LESSONS FROM WORKING WITH GENDER AND LAND

Siraj Sait provided a short reflection on the similarities between engaging on youth dimensions of land, and the areas of gender and land, which the Global Land Tool Network (and the development community as whole) has much more experience with. One of the interesting similarities is that just as youth organizations generally have not had ‘’land’’ as their main mandate, there is a similar trend with women’s organizations. While both stakeholder groups have a crucial stake and interest to engage with the land sector, it may be that the technical nature of the sector makes it hard to advocate within.

Interestingly, both sets of organizations also often do work on land issues, but do not define them as such (falling instead under issues of livelihoods or, for example, inheritance rights).

He shared the idea of the Gender Evaluation Criteria as a possible tool that could be adapted to also use for youth, as a way to check whether youth‐needs are responded to in land activities. He also noted that there is an important convergence between ‘’youth’’ and ‘’gender’’ and that we should explicitly consider the needs of young men and women, which are often different, rather than see ‘’youth’’ as a generic gender‐neutral group.

The session also included a short presentation on IALTA projects in Argentina by Nienke Busscher, International Alliance on Land Tenure and Administration, and the showing of a video from Map Kibera.

SESSION 3: NEXT STEPS FOR GLTN PARTNERS AND OTHER ACTORS (11:15‐12:45)

GLTN’S RESPONSES TO LAND CONCERNS

Clarissa Augustinus provided an overview of the work of the Global land Tool Network, in order to set the context for the forthcoming work on youth. This also helped set the framework for the group work that followed. The presentation described what GLTN is about and how it started; the structure of GLTN and its key areas of work; responses to key bottlenecks for poor people to access land (including young women and men); and some thoughts on potential areas of youth engagement in land.

The key gap that GLTN is responding to are the fact that many examples exist of good land policies, but few are implemented due to the lack of pro‐poor, gender‐responsive and large scale ‘’land tools’’.

Conventional land titling systems have largely failed, and there is an urgent need to find alternative, more affordable solutions. GLTN defines a tool as a practical method to achieve a defined objective in a particular context. It can, as an example, be a guide, criteria, software, training package, manuals, guidelines, or framework. GLTN focuses on land tool development across the five themes of land rights:

recording and registration; land use planning; land management, administration and information; land

(21)

21

law and enforcement and land value capture. It also integrates a set of critical cross‐cutting issues including grassroots participation, gender, environment, Islamic principles, capacity development, and most recently youth.

She outlined the key challenges for young people, notably to ensure secure tenure as soon as possible to all citizens (70% citizens in developing world being outside of land registration system), and increase the ownership for women (presently as low as 3% of land ownership in developing countries).There is also a need to extend land administration systems beyond individual titling and cadastre to include informal settlements, pastoralists, over lapping claims and rights from post conflict situations. This requires recognition of a range of rights, known as a “continuum of land rights’’. She suggested that young people should consider organizing and getting the facts on land (empowerment through knowledge);

advocating for a continuum of land rights; getting a space in land governance and thinking both short and long term.

SESSION 4: GROUP WORK TO DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS (14.00‐15.30)

The second group work of the meeting focused on recommendations and the way forward. Participants divided into three groups to discuss (i) what the Global Land Tool Network should do next on youth and land issues, and (ii) what other groups and organizations should do, based on the discussions of the two days. The discussions were focused on four areas of work: capacity development, advocacy and communications, research gaps and tools (including indicators and guidelines).

The summary of the discussions are presented in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Recommended next steps for GLTN and other groups/organizations on youth and land

What should GLTN do on youth and land? What should other groups do?

Capacity Development

Scoping study

Establishing a body to consult with to ensure meaningful participation and consultation with youth – on and offline

Develop guidelines for skills building – e.g. 3 month training course

Capacity building for stakeholders on how to work with youth

Funding for exchange programmes

Social networking for organizations and youth to connect

Hold workshops on skills for land and youth – Training of trainers (peer‐to‐peer)

(22)

22 Funding for exchange programmes

Social networking for organizations and youth to connect

Create a pool of youth trainers on various topics within the intersection of youth and land

Mapping of youth organizations working on the various youth and land issues

Take advantage of educational institutions and provide contexts and links for research on the topic

Develop a core curriculum on land issues

Train a group of core trainers (preferably from youth organizations)

Collaborate with the UN‐Habitat Youth Unit using the Urban Youth Fund as a laboratory; look at scaling of successful projects and share project leanings

Core trainers taking forward the training in a cascading model (contracting other national youth organizations)

Link university with community (youth and land) needs

Advocacy and communications

Making land definitions more accessible

Target information on land issues to youth

Distribute newsletters and best practices to land related organizations – highlight youth

dimensions

Strengthening linkages for partners and other organizations – eg establishing a sub‐group on youth

Advocating for member states to provide processes and space (physical and virtual) for youth to connect and network and express their issues

Make the GLTN website more youth‐friendly

Utilise UN’s convening power to share

information on the importance of land for youth with Governments/Ministries

Highlight partner activities over social networks (UN‐DESA)

Blog about the workshop

Hold side events at larger meetings to highlight youth and land issues

Utilize peer‐to‐peer education to communicate the topic of youth and land (and rights)

Invite other organizations to produce youth‐friendly documents on land issues

National trainers to contact media to highlight issue

Identify an organisation that can help host a website to continue dialogue on the topic

FIG to assist with sharing

information on youth land rights (with assistance from SDI) Research gaps Gathering data from youth needs/demands for

land and examine land issues from a youth perspective (including youth expectations)

Develop and share case studies

Encourage academic institutions

Workshop Report

Global Land Tool Network Expert Group Meeting

Exploring the Youth Dimensions of the Global Land Agenda

Workshop Report

January 24‐25, 2012

Centre for Land Tenure Studies (CLTS‐UMB) Norwegian University of Life Sciences

Ås, Norway

Contents

B

&

B. T