Presentation to ILC Land Reporting Initiative workshop Rome December 2008

1. Government – civil society partnerships to evaluate government programmes: the experience of AFRA in a few initiatives in South Africa Presentation to ILC Land Reporting Initiative workshopRomeDecember 2008

2. AFRA as a CSO in SA • The Association For Rural Advancement (AFRA) is an voluntary membership organization established in 1979 by concerned South African citizens • AFRA has always prided itself in the value of being rooted amongst the people it strives to support. Through the various changes in government policies and dispensations it has always come back to this core value to review its impact and usefulness in the changing South African landscape.

3. Trajectories & relevance of CSO • South African experience – pre 1994 – active anti state policy – pro reform & also charities • Post 1994 – 2000 – honeymoon period • 2000 -2008 – counselling and separation

4. Partnerships & monitoring in this period • Evictions Monitoring project 1998-2000 • Land Legal Cluster project 2001-2007 • Legal Entity Assessment Project 1999- • Motivation, purpose, institution, issues

5. EMP • Motivation • PDLA had insufficient capacity to implement – n • Joint action was seen to have greater impact on conflict mediation and negotiations for settlements; • DLA had no additional resources for off-site settlement options so a strategic focus given to eviction prevention and protection of rights; • Concerns about land owners using the Act to move people off the land.

6. EMP purpose • Monitor the number and nature of incidents described as unlawful, lawful, threatened, constructive or actual evictions; • Maintain a database of incidents for monthly stats; • Establish a network of organizations, lawyers and others who can respond to incidences

7. EMP issues • Collected information on 669 cases in 2 years; • Comprehensive database maintained and monthly statistical reports produced; • Appeared that number of evictions were declining but data reliability unclear. • Unable to determine whether unlawful matters became lawful ones; • Too narrowly focused on evictions – leaves out agreements reached; • Database not adequately linked to a Tracking system – what was monitored? • Unable to say whether tenure security was enhanced – inappropriate tools; • Monthly stats reports not used by government to inform strategy • Unable to use information to lobby • AFRA unable to make more meaningful impact in implementation of ESTA; • The states Legal Aid Board failed to support this strategy adequately • EMP failed to develop an alternative strategy; • At the end of two years government still did not have a strategy

8. Issues for AFRA • EMP was government initiated and driven project and AFRA went into it without defining its strategic objectives and interests clearly; • AFRA did not have direct interaction with the people it is established to work with – its core value – and this project prevented AFRA from playing that important role; • AFRA could also not involve itself in advocating specific resolutions to cases that arose – conflicting interests; • By separating monitoring from management ( AFRA was not party to managing the monitors) of the actions being monitored no reflection on action took place or resulted in changes in actions; • The database was not used to determine trends and patterns for reflection and change; • This raised issues about ownership and responsibility and liability; • The Joint management committee became a symbolic structure with no powers. • Project not envisaged as an interim arrangement in its objectives and not linked to a longer term strategy to provide affordable and accessible legal services to the poor; • Project not clearly linked to internal strategies and vision of tenure security of each organization therefore took on a very narrow interventionist approach and simply monitored this intervention. – Monitor to achieve what outcome?

9. Legal Cluster • Motivation – no government solution SO • The specific objectives of this project was to provide affordable and accessible legal services to people on farms; to disseminate information on rights and training to stakeholders affecting these rights; and to advocate for the state to establish a long term solution to this gap.

10. Issues • This partnership lasted 6 years. It was consciously shut down in 2007 by the partners when it became apparent that the state was using this partnership as a way to suggest that the land rights issues were being addressed. • AFRA defined its role clearly; • CSO’s could and did use information collected to lobby and advocate effectively; • AFRA could maintain and be involved in close relations with landless families affected by land rights issues and could support solutions within and outside the legal framework to support peoples rights; • Sufficient flexibility to allow the structure to evolve and adapt to changing circumstances or identified problems; • Implementation and flexibility allowed the partners to showcase possible solutions to the state; • No other reliable database existed so even if attempts were made to discredit the data there was nothing to compare it with.

11. LEAP • Motivation • LEAP started in 1999 in KwaZulu-Natal in response to concerns from many parties about the apparent dysfunctionality of the legal entities established under land reform programmes. These were most commonly Trusts and Communal Property Associations (CPA’s), which were being established to take title for land on behalf of groups of beneficiaries of land reform.

12. Leap purpose/s • Phase 1-to better understand the nature of the problems the CPIs were facing, and what factors affected their ability to function. • Phase 2 -developing a conceptual framework for examining cases in the field, and analysing underlying causes of dysfunction and possible solutions • Phase 3-map the components of common property tenure, through testing concepts in the field with complex realities. In so doing the project developed a framework that provides tools that can assist in specific problem solving with CPI’s as well as help to assess tenure legislation and policy. • Phase 4 - potential for fruitful work on tenure across the rural – urban, or land - housing “divide”.

13. LEAP institutional issues • started as a collaboration between MIDNET, AFRA, and the Provincial Department of Land Affairs • Over phase three there was a withdrawal of participation by the DLA– with DLA becoming less willing to engage in a partnership mode. • Core team of practitioners/ researchers/ experts (?) meeting regularly driving project field work and analysis; • Steering committee of broader interest groups where learnings and sharings take place and advice and strategic guidance is given – made up of partners from CSO’s and government and individual practitioners; • Field teams – made p of local community leaders/ contacts/ committees/ LEAP core team and CSO member working with community - based on understanding that LEAP core team have no direct or long term relation with the community where field work is done to support addressing their issues;

14. LEAP issues • Could not retain involvement by government; • Context around tenure systems remains fraught in South Africa and changes in political leadership affected CSO participation in policy issues – shutting down; • CSO’s “tainted” with ex DLA staff who had been recruited when the department was established post 1994.; • LEAP institution made up of individual practitioners and organizations –; • This speaks to LEAPS ability to position itself for advocacy from the field / action research and learning; • As a Action learning institution it could and has developed in depth work on tenure issues in South Africa which should position it well for engaging with policy; BUT • It does not seem to have managed to do this once government pulled away; • Some of the answer might lie in the action research approach which is a learning action for leap participants more than an action research in support of community action – its advocacy action relied/s on expert witness – academic reports and papers rather than local community action and engagement with the state – this remained a contestation that AFRA has with LEAP’s current approach in phase 4; • Relationship between researcher/ CSO/ community/ state in policy engagements needs more thought even though it might be locally specific.

15. General comments • Role of CSO in society and in relation to the state generally and in specific local contexts matters – monitoring and research towards what objective – is it about supporting organizations or people to influence change? – levels of public participation and influence? • We would promote the role of CSO’s towards what? Is it about inclusion, influence, engagement i.e. making policy, implementing policy or revieiwing policy or all of these? • Relationships are dynamic and change with context – how long to / can partner? Power outside partnerships? If there is no partnership how best to use monitoring for change? • Constraints of doing Advocacy inside partnership arrangements if monitoring is to inform advocating change? Difference between local and global situation? Being “captured” – can be in and out? How does ILC link help at different levels? Validation of research is critical here. • Monitoring and action – involvement in implementation of the policy being monitored for credibility in advocacy? Eg. Action research (LEAP) or database (cluster) • Most difficult to suggest what issues – content aside from participation levels – perhaps they are issue and time based – do they need to be longitudinal?