DRAFT Report on the Internal Review of the Regionalization Process

Review of International Land Coalition’s Regionalisation Process
An Asia Regional Perspective
(Draft Report)
By
Roshan Chitrakar
Community Self Reliance Centre
Nepal
October 2010

Draft, only for internal use of ILC, please do not quote.
An Asian Perspective, draft report October 2010. 1
Contents
List of Acronyms ..................................................................................................1
Introduction ..........................................................................................................1
Purpose of the Review ...................................................................................1
The Approach.................................................................................................1
Limitations ......................................................................................................1
Organisation of the Report..............................................................................1
ILC Regionalisation: An Historical Perspective ....................................................1
Genesis and Rationale of the Regionalisation Concept..................................1
ILC Asia Node: History and Governance Structure ........................................1
Governance and Results .....................................................................................1
Outreach and Membership .............................................................................1
Members‘ Roles and Contributions.................................................................1
Result-based Management.............................................................................1
Communication...............................................................................................1
Diversification of Resource Base....................................................................1
Summary ........................................................................................................1
Efficiency and Effectiveness of ILC Asia..............................................................1
Composition, Roles and Resources ...............................................................1
Hosting Arrangements....................................................................................1
Staff Performance...........................................................................................1
Relation with ILC Rome, Steering Committee and the Host ...........................1
Coordination and Collaboration ......................................................................1
Summary ........................................................................................................1
Members‘ Perception and Satisfaction.................................................................1
Appropriation of Regionalisation Concept ......................................................1
Response to Regional Activities .....................................................................1
Summary ........................................................................................................1
Conclusion and Recommendations .....................................................................1
References ..........................................................................................................1
Annexes...............................................................................................................1
Annex A. List of Asia based ILC member-CSOs/IGOs/INGOs in 2008 .........1

List of Acronyms
ANGOC Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development
KPA Consortium for Agrarian Reform
ALRD Association for Land Rights and Development????
FAO-RP
MISEREOR and KZE
LWA Land Watch Asia

Introduction
The Charter and Governance Framework of the International Land Coalition defines the
coalition as ―an independent global alliance of civil society and intergovernmental
organisations that is accountable to and governed by its members.‖ The ILC in its
purpose statement mentions that it works together with its members to promote secure
and equitable access to and control over land for poor women and men through
advocacy, dialogue and capacity building. It envisages a world where every farmer
enjoys secure and equitable access to and control over land–a precondition for reducing
poverty and securing identity, dignity and inclusion for every human being. To realise
this vision ILC is poised to enhance capacities of its members and partners as well as
their opportunities, at all levels, for pro-poor policy dialogue and influence. The
members and partners are expected to complement their programmes and strategies
with successful results and lessons from their collective initiatives.1
These are of course
huge global tasks that the ILC members and partners have agreed to undertake
collectively as well as incorporate in their organisations‘ activities. The key issue that
the ILC and its partners consciously value is to ensure that local contexts remain well
connected with the global alliance through strengthened networks. It is precisely in this
context and in operationalising one of ILC‘s strategic objectives, that the initiative for
regionalisation of ILC has taken effect.
Purpose of the Review
The overarching purpose of this internal review is to assess ILC‘s performance to date
in undertaking the regionalisation process in Asia and to generate findings and
recommendations to inform ILC‘s future decisions related to strengthening its
regionalisation/decentralisation strategy and its implementation in the region.
More specifically the review is carried out to:
• analyse the current regional governance structure, its history and its milestones
from the critical perspective;
• assess progress towards objectives and expected results of the regionalisation
process in the region;
• evaluate effectiveness and efficiency of regionalisation strategies and systems;
and
• examine Asian members‘ assessment of the regionalisation process and their
appropriation and participation in the process, at country and regional levels.
The Approach
Limitations
1
These are the paraphrases of the purpose statement outlined in the ―Charter and Governance Framework of the
ILC (2003??)

Organisation of the Report
ILC Regionalisation: An Historical Perspective
The ILC Charter outlines that it ―was established as the outcome of the Conference on
Hunger and Poverty which took place in Brussels in November 1995 under the
leadership of the International Fund for Agricultural Development. Originally called the
Popular Coalition to Eradicate Hunger and Poverty, the Assembly of Members, at its
meeting of February 2003, formally changed the name to the International Land
Coalition, in order to better reflect its mission, nature and objectives‖ (ILC 2003). In the
past 15 years since the Brussels meeting and the subsequent founding of the Popular
Coalition, the ILC has evolved into being a more transformed broad based global
network with the members and partners contributing to the development of clearer ILC
principles, strategies and objectives. More notably, the bi-annual Assemblies of
Members that took place during these years contributed to ILC‘s broader institutional
transformation and discussed with priority the regionalisation/decentralisation strategy
and process.
Genesis and Rationale of the Regionalisation Concept
The Assembly of Members (AoM) of 2007 in Uganda was particularly an important
milestone in the ILC history in that the members met for 4 days to streamline ILC‘s core
principles and finalise the Strategic Framework 2007-2011, Resource Mobilisation
Strategy and the ILC Constitution, which laid the ground for the ILC council to draw ILC
Operating Framework. The strategy of regionalisation appeared consistently in the
chronology of events during the AoM 2007 and more categorically in the Strategic
Framework 2007-2011. In the following year the Coalition Council worked on the details
of the ILC principles and the Strategic Framework 2007-11 to came up with the
Operating Framework. The Operating Framework underscores the ILC principles, core
strategies and outlines that:
The ILC will increasingly support regionalization as a means by which the global
coalition will work through regional plans. This will provide opportunities for
members to take increased ownership and ensure that the actions of the ILC
remain relevant to the specific regional contexts of Latin America, Asia and Africa.2
On the ground set by the ILC core strategies about regionalisation, the Operating
Framework has specified seven core functions of regional networks. The Operating
Framework has also outlined the detailed roles and responsibilities of the Regional
Platforms on all aspects of ILC‘s operations.
With such a specification of the ILC‘s position on regionalisation, the members in the
three continental regions (Latin America, Africa and Asia) were mandated by the
Assembly of Members 2007 to prepare region specific strategies in relation to the ILC‘s
5 Strategic Objectives (SOs) explicating as to how the regionalisation process adds
value to members‘ effort to maximise the organisational contributions to achieving those
2
The International Land Coalition Operating Framework (p. 2), approved by ILC Council in April 2008.

objectives. The regional strategies thus prepared were to be approved by the Coalition
Council.
ILC Asia Node: History and Governance Structure
The history of Asia-based ILC members‘ initiative to push the agenda for what has
currently evolved and operationalised as the ILC Asia Node can be traced back to the
period during and, with more strategic importance, soon after the ILC Assembly of
Members 2005 in Bolivia. The document to this effect is well archived in Asian NGO
Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC), the current hosting
entity of ILC Asia Region. ANGOC had been organising several meetings of Asia-
based CSO representatives, most of whom were also ILC members, to discuss issues
of access to land. In that context, the 3-day meeting in Subic, Philippines from 12 to 14
October 20063
was of particular significance as it provided a ―regional lens‖ to ILC in its
processes of institutional development and finalisation of the 2007-2010 global strategy.
The meeting report was submitted to ILC secretariat and was believed to have validated
the need for members to interact more at regional level and offered justifications for the
ILC to push the regionalisation process further.4
Subsequently, during the ILC
Assembly of Members 2007 in Uganda the agenda of regionalisation was specifically
discussed and, in turn, the principles
outlined in the new Strategic Framework
2007-2010 duly acknowledged its
operationalisation.
In Asia, the ILC regionalisation process
took a notable momentum as the Assembly
of Members 2007 mandated the Asia
based members5
to explore the process
and map out the details needing
consideration. Meanwhile, the ILC
secretariat and ANGOC entered into an
institutional agreement on 28 August 2007
for the later to engage with members and
partners, and start a Land Watch Asia
(LWA) initiative by carrying out a ―Piloting
of a Process to Decentralise the ILC in
Asia.‖ The study offered an opportunity to
consolidate information on status of
people‘s access to land vis-a-vis the legal
provisions on land issues and key actors
involved in programmes on access to land
in six Asian countries. The study also explored access-to-land related policies and
3
The meeting was jointly organised by the International Land Coalition (ILC), Consortium for Agrarian Reform (KPA)
and Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development ANGOC) with the support of ILC, MISEREOR
and KZE.
4
E-mail correspondence with the Executive Director, ANGOC, 22 September 2010.
5
According to the ILC Working Group for Asia‘s minutes of the 1st
meeting (28-29 May 2008), the ILC members then
in Asia numbered 15 CSOs and 2 IGOs.
The core functions of the regional networks are to:
• Prioritise actions in line with the Strategic
Framework taking account of the regional, national
and local contexts
• Coordinate planning of activities to be undertaken by
members
• Implement and monitor regional and cross-regional
activities, including programmes funded by ILC
grants and joint actions
• Coordinate monitoring and reporting of activities
undertaken by members
• Conduct and coordinate evaluation activities as
agreed in the annual planning process
• Facilitate member-to-member relationships within
the region, including joint action and communication
among members and with other strategic
stakeholders
• Represent the ILC as required
Box 1. Core functions of ILC’s regional networks
Source: The ILC Operating Framework, 2008 (p. 4)

priorities of intergovernmental and international organisations, and donor countries
engaged in development assistance in these countries. The process and the outcome
of the study provided a helpful foundation for the ILC and its members in the region to
take the ILC regionalisation process forward in Asia.6
With the help of ANGOC and LWA, the members started their consultation process to
come up with the region specific strategies, work plan, priority areas of ILC Asia
institutional development, and possible future course of action. In this connection, a
survey of members and partners was carried out in February 2008, which identified
organisational views about what and how members could contribute to ILC, the focal
areas of their work, benefits of association with the ILC network, and division of
responsibilities or functions between ILC Rome and ILC Asia.
Following this survey a 3-day workshop of Asia based ILC members was organised in
Bangkok in March 2008 which was participated by 11 CSO and 2 IGO members
together with partners and some non-member CSOs involved in national land rights
campaigns. The meeting built on the survey result and discussed, among others, ILC
Asia strategic objectives along with the processes of the ILC Asia region institutional
development and decentralisation.7
The meeting also appointed a Working Group (WG)
to develop regional strategy, follow-up plan for 2008-2010, estimate required resources
and prepare the resource mobilisation strategy. The Working Group comprising
ANGOC, KPA, ALRD and FAO-RP was supported by ILC secretariat with the
appointment of an Interim ILC Focal Point for Asia. The Bangkok workshop produced a
report identifying and outlining the key areas for the regional programme, ILC Asia
institutional development needs, and the way forward. The report was conditionally
approved by the ILC Council in its 11th
session held on 29-30 April 2008.
The Working Group supported by the ILC Focal Point held its first meeting on 28-29
May 2008 which led to the development of a comprehensive report of the meeting
supplemented by the information on the post-meeting progress until the end of August
2008.8
In preparing the minutes, the Working Group, through the Focal Point had a
rigorous exchange of ideas and opinions with the Director of ILC global secretariat.9
It
also went through a consultative process with the members in the region to seek their
views. These were incorporated in the drafting of the ―Regional Programme for Asia
2008-2010‖ and outlining the governing structure of the ILC Regional Presence in Asia.
The outline of the structure proposed composition of the Steering Committee, its roles
and responsibilities, provision of a Regional Coordinator/Facilitator and the details of the
recruitment process, eligibility criteria and roles of the Host Organisation, and the
6
See Final Narrative Report of Piloting of a Process to Decentralise the ILC in Asia, July 2008.
7
Recorded in the ILC Working Group for Asia – minutes of the first meeting, 28-29 May 2008
8
Meanwhile, the Working Group‘s decision to appoint Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural
Development (ANGOC) as the Hosting Organisation of the ILC Asia Node for an initial 30-month period from
October 2008 to December 2010 was approved by the ILC Director in August 2008 by which time there were 15
CSO ILC members that belonged to Asia region and the same number of international and inter governmental ILC
member organisations working in Asia (see Annex A of the Letter of Agreement on the project ―ILC Regionalisation
Process in Asia: A Step Forward‖ signed between ILC and ANGOC on 25 February 2009).
9
Email exchange of 27 September 2010 with Antonio Quizon, the then ILC Focal Person for Asia. He wrote ―I drew
up the talking points of the MOU & exchanged this with ANGOC and the ILC Director in July & August, & continued
consulting with ANGOC until October. The negotiation was discontinued because by August, the ILC Director
(Bruce) was already on leave, and the new ILC Director (Madiodio) assumed office only in late November 2008.‖

number and type of the secretariat support staff. The Working Group, by virtue of being
an interim support body of the Asia Node, also proactively discussed its obligatory role
in the ILC Global Assembly to be held in the region (Kathmandu, Nepal) from March
23rd to 27th, 2009 and proposed some initial steps needing immediate consideration.
Several ILC events followed during the time between the first and the second meeting of
the Working Group, due to which ILC‘s attention to its regionalisation process in Asia
remained limited. There was also a 4-month period taken to replace the ILC Secretariat
Director that resulted in delaying decisions related to regionalisation, as during this
period communications between the ILC global secretariat and Asia Working Group had
confined mostly to either administrative and technical matters or on-going grant
projects.10
In that context, the ILC Asia Working Group acted as an interim entity to
―oversee and guide the work in the Asia region until the next ILC Council meeting . . .‖11
Meanwhile, the WG members remained engaged in their individual capacity to take
forward the initial activities related to regionalisation and those related to the ILC AoM
2009. Three of the WG members also paid a preparatory mission to Nepal on 18-20
September 2008. The WG widely circulated the draft of the ―Regional Programme for
Asia 2008-2010‖ among the ILC members for comments and feedback.12
However, the
response received prior to the second WG meeting was very poor with comments
obtained only from one member from India.13
Nonetheless, the draft programme 2008-
2010 and budget was revised on the basis of the comments and further discussions of
the WG members.
The second meeting of the Working Group held on 24-25 September 2008 endorsed
the changes brought in the draft Regional Programme for Asia 2008-2010. The meeting
also took note of the progress on the preparation of the 2009 ALC Assembly of
Members in Kathmandu and endorsed the Nepal Coordination Committees‘ proposal for
ANGOC to take the role of documenter of the AoM 2009 proceedings. Discussion was
held on the need for ILC Asia to make itself visible in the AoM by hosting relevant Asia
region specific events. The 2nd
WG meeting also reached to a consensus on the entire
process of recruiting the ILC Asia Coordinator and the follow up tasks of the ILC Focal
Point leading to the handover of responsibilities to the incumbent Regional Coordinator
in due course of time.14
10
Ibid
11
Minutes of the 1
st
Meeting of the ILC Working Group for Asia, 28-29 May 2008 (p. 3).
12
The ILC Asia’s initial activities ranging from the formation of the working group to the development of the draft
regional strategy and details of the work plan and budget for 2008-2010 is documented in the minutes of the 1st
meeting of the ILC Working Group for Asia held on 28-29 May 2008.
13
See the minutes of the ILC Working Group for Asia - Second Meeting, 20-25 September 2008.
14
Ibid.

As of January 2009, the regionalisation process was further concretised with the signing
of a Memorandum of Agreement between ILC secretariat and ANGOC leading to the
official establishment of the ILC Asia Regional Node. Subsequently, the ILC Asia Node
Co-ordinator along with a Project and Communication Officer were hired and the
implementation of the planned programmes continued with the support of ANGOC as
the hosting organisation. Meanwhile, in February 2009, a Letter of Agreement was
signed between ILC and ANGOC for the later to undertake a UD$ 91,675 project
entitled ―ILC Regionalisation in Asia: A Step Forward‖ within a period of 12 months
between January and December, 2009. Moreover, during the Asian Regional Caucus
held in conjunction with ILC Assembly of Members in April 2009, the ILC Asian
members nominated a 6-member ILC Asia Steering Committee represented by two
Asia-based ILC Coalition Council members, two IGOs working in Asia, the ILC
Secretariat Director or his/her nominee and the Asia Region Host organisation.
Representation in ILC governance structures
The ILC‘s journey of regionalisation in Asia that had begun in 2006 has now arrived to a
point where a governance structure of the regional platform is now established with
clear lines of communication among the interlinked entities and the distinctive roles
each has to play. The structure is illustrated in Figure 1. It is clear from the sequence of
ILC ASIA REGIONAL PLATFORM
Support Staff
REGIONAL NODE
COORDINATOR
ILC ASIA STEERING
GROUP
GLOBAL
SECRETARIAT
in Rome
COALITION
COUNCIL
ILC ASIA NODE
HOST Organisation
Figure 1. ILC Asia current governance structure
Source: ILC Secretariat, Rome

ILC events and Asia-based members‘ activities taking place since 2006 that the
governance structure of the Asia Node stands on a solid historical foundation backed by
succession of participatory and consultative processes. While the Subic workshop of
Asian land rights and agrarian reform actors in 2006 offered an Asian perspective for
ILC to consider just when its members were coming to a consensus on a new strategic
framework, the approval by the Coalition Council of the regional strategy developed by
the ILC members with the mandate of AoM 2007 opened up the formal door for the
establishment of the ILC‘s Asia Regional Platform. The regionalisation process was
further strengthened as the Asia based members formed an interim Working Group to
map out the details of ILC Asia‘s overall strategy, programme and budget for 2008-2010
and the strategy for resource mobilisation. The two projects carried out by ANGOC with
the letters of agreement with ILC complemented the regionalisation process with
concrete experiences and evidence that ILC‘s presence closer to countries in the region
makes all the more difference in realising the impact ILC intends to make by being what
it calls itself a ―glocal‖ network.
Governance and Results
With a persistent consultative and participatory process exercised over the period of
almost 4 years, the ILC Asia Regional Platform has been established as an extended
wing of ILC global network. Putting aside the initial interim period of ILC Asia‘s activities
led by the Working Group and that of the overlap between the ILC Focal Point and Asia
Node Coordinator, the regular day-to-day governance in the ILC Asia Platform started
only after the meeting of the Asia Regional Caucus and the subsequent formation of the
Steering Committee during the June 2009 Assembly of Members in Kathmandu.
Although ILC members and partners in Asia, since then, are engaged in a regionalised
governance structure, they are still bounded by the globally agreed ILC operating
principles and, therefore, obliged to work towards achieving the ILC‘s global Strategic
Objectives by setting up appropriate governance and management modalities that are
effective not only in attracting membership but also for the members to share
experiences, cross-pollinate learning and collectively build members‘ capacities to be
effective in access-to-land related policy dialogues, advocacy as well as activisms. The
core purpose of ILC‘s regionalisation in Asia, as in other regions, is to produce results
demonstrating what and how the regional platform has added value to ILC global
network. Thought the regionalisation process the ILC aims to be effective in the region
in expanding membership, engaging the members creatively and constructively. The
regional node is expected to ensure a result oriented management system, improve
communication and diversify resource base so that, at the end of the day, the poor
women and men in the region, whose subsistence economy depends on agriculture,
enjoy better and secured livelihoods through improved access to and control over land
and other natural resources. Progress in these aspects in the governance and
management practices of the ILC in its Asian Platform are assessed in the following
sections.

Outreach and Membership
One of the critical issues outlined in the ILC Strategic Framework 2007-2011 is the need
for ILC ―to clarify its plans and strategies for membership growth, for which particular
attention needs to be given to engage with social movements and research centres.‖15
This intent was made clear to the Asia-based members by the ILC Assembly of
Members 2007 in its authorisation to the Asian members, as to those in the other
regions, to explore the regionalisation process and chart out the potential value-added
for ILC global network in achieving its Strategic Objectives 2007-2011.
Historically ANGOC has been engaged in land-rights and agrarian reform related
dialogues with several CSOs of Asia–many are also ILC members. The 2006 Subic
workshop is a good example, in which participation of both ILC-member and non-
member CSO-representatives were invited. ANGOC also brought together 15 CSOs,
which included non-ILC members, in a planning meeting to launch Land Watch Asia.
The participation in these events might have allowed the non-members to assess the
potential benefits and relevance of and possibly motivated many to apply for the ILC
membership. However, ANGOC reports on such events do not record if they had
brought new members on board and if there had been any outreach initiative or
persuasion for new memberships to ILC.
The ILC Asia Node appears to be somewhat cautious, rather indifferent, in widely
expanding memberships in the region. The two Asia specific projects implemented by
ANGOC for ILC in the past 2 years did not specifically prioritise this aspect, although
building and developing ―the membership and network in Asia under the guidance of the
regional Steering Group for Asia‖16
was one of the objectives of the piloting of the
regionalisation process. However, with or without ILC membership several CSOs are
connected with ANGOC through means such as workshops and Land Watch Asia
initiative. Publication of LWA electronic newsletter has been regularised and as many
as 111 CSOs and IGOs that are in the ANGOC mailing list receive the newsletter.17
An ILC Regional Consultation meeting recommended that ―membership expansion
should be purposive so as not to disrupt organisational systems and retain ‗institutional
memory.‘‖18
This recommendation clearly sends a message that expansion of
membership should be viewed as a contentious and critical issue. This view was also
reflected by some members in their responses to the survey carried out for this review
(see Box 2). There were concerns that getting new CSOs attracted for ILC membership
would not be as much of a problem as it would be to prevent the collapse of an
exponentially grown network of members due to its own weight. In an interview session
with ALRD Executives it was argued strongly that the current approach to membership
expansion did not guarantee fairness. The arrangement of new membership approval
by the ILC AoM on the basis of simple recommendations of current members did not
ensure a reasonable assessment of the applicants about their appropriateness. The
15
ILC (2007). Strategic Framework 2007-2011: Putting a Pro-poor Land Agenda into Practice, p. 3.
16
Letter of Agreement between ILC and ANGOC for the later to implement the project ―ILC Regionalisation Process
in Asia: A Step Forward,‖ 25 February 2009, p. 8.
17
ANGOC, 2008, final narrative report of ―Piloting of a Process to Decentralise the International Land Coalition in
Asia,‖ p. 11
18
Ibid, p. 8.

ILC, therefore, needed to adopt a more
rigorous approach to recommending
and approving new memberships.19
The ILC Assembly of Members 2009 in
Kathmandu approved 19 new members
of which 7 are from Asia.20
This can be
seen as a positive development in line
with the 5th
ILC‘s Strategic Objective,
i.e., to evolve ILC as an autonomous,
decentralised, globally-representative,
member-led and financially sustainable
coalition. However, whether the value
added by and justification of the
admission of the new members were
discussed and agreed upon in the
global assembly, or earlier in regional
platforms, is not clear. Nor is it clear
what role the Steering Committee
played in recommending these
organisations for the membership.
Recently, the ILC global secretariat had
sent out the call for new membership
through various media. Some ILC
Asian members, however, want to see
the ILC taking more strategic options in
deciding how and who should be
granted new membership so that the
ILC‘s global platform will not only be
sustained but also will remain relevant
and constructive in building stronger
alliance of CSOs, IGOs and partners in
assuring poor and marginalised
people‘s rights to land.
As reflected in the 3rd
response (see Box 2), the fact that ILC memberships in Asia lack
representation of most countries of the region (see Table 1) has not been an issue of
discussion. The 23 members represent only 7 (12%) countries from Asia, with India
having the highest representation of 6 members.
Of the 7 new CSOs from Asia getting the new membership in the last global Assemble
of Members in Kathmandu, 3 are from the Philippines, 2 from India, 1 each from
Bangladesh and Nepal. This raises the question of fairness of the current method of
19
The Executive Director and Deputy Director was interviewed on October 23, 2010. Issues related to membership
expansion was thoroughly discussed during the interview. They also proposed a set of alternative criteria to the way
new members are approved currently.
20
See International Land Coalition, Conference & Assembly of Members Nepal 2009: Ensuring Rights to Land for
Peace and Food Security, p. 34
Response 1
Membership and membership strategy are issues that
are, & must be defined first at global level. . . . Do we
want to expand membership, what kinds of members,
which countries or areas, what strategy? I don't think that
there is any problem about expanding at all, but the
bottom-line questions are related to the strategic
objectives and general directions of ILC, and whether we
have the resources to service such large membership.
Note that the very founding congress of the Popular
Coalition (Brussels Conference) was attended by about
800 groups. Also, over the years there were many
international networks that grew very big but seemed to
"collapse" on their own weight. It is easy to bring in 100
groups in Asia over a period of one year, but what next?
And will Africa & Latin America do the same (on the basis
of parity)? I think the issue is "strategy" rather than
"membership". Thus there is hesitancy to move too strong
or too fast.
Response 2
While there has been a lot of interest to join ILC thus an
increase in membership application, the Coalition should
further develop its process of accepting membership so
that it could ensure that the applicant organisation will be
able to contribute to the Coalition's mission while attaining
also its own objectives.
Response 3
In Asia [ILC membership] is still limited [to only a few]
countries . . . [namely,] India, Nepal, Bangladesh,
Philippines, Indonesia [and] Pakistan. [While considering
new memberships] Asia Node should identify the land
prone countries . . . [consult] with CSO[s] and people's
organisation . . . [that] are working on land issues. In Asia
there is also [an increase in incidents of] land grabbing . .
. so ILC Asia should carry out the campaign against land
grabbing and food insecurity.
Box 2. Members’ views on new ILC memberships
Source: Responses to the survey on the Review of ILC Asia
Regionalisation Process, received between 4-22 October 2010

approving new membership, which is primarily based on 2 standing members
recommending a prospective new member and the global Assemble of Members
approving such recommendations. Some of the Asian ILC members who provided their
views for this review have disapproved this way of introducing the new member. As the
ALRD executives pointed out in the interview, track records of organisations
recommended for membership are not seriously assessed prior to approving their
memberships, that there could be
organisations taking advantage of the
sloppy process and possibly promoting nepotism in selecting new members. This of
course is a serious concern.
The Asian members have also raised the point that there is no system in place to
assess members‘ contributions to raising the ILC profile. The question raised was why
should any undeserving organisation continue being the ILC member. Members are not
recognised for their significant performance nor is any member warned or dismissed for
not performing.
The other point needing consideration is that the seven new ILC membership from Asia
region are all CSOs that raises the question whether the memberships also need to be
balanced, not necessarily equalled, by new IGO members. While some IGOs, e.g.
SAARC, ASIAN, or other regional international organisations, with interests on land
rights issues can be persuaded for new memberships, some clarity about the regional
participation and contribution of the current IGO members such as IFAD, FAO, EC or
WB can be helpful in optimising the effectiveness of the membership composition and
ILC‘s outreach to its regional nodes.
It is also equally important, as a CSO member representative pointed out, that ILC
makes its institutional position clear as to what institutional arrangement would ensure
close contacts and dialogical engagements with the non-members or those not wanting
to take up the ILC memberships but are critically important from the point of view of
experiences in or contributions they have made to the debates on land-rights issues.
So far, contacts and dialogues with such organisations and their participation in ILC
Asia meetings or workshops, which ANGOC has consistently maintained, have been
largely ad-hoc in its form.
Members’ Roles and Contributions
For the ILC to progress toward achieving its objective of becoming a member-led,
autonomous, decentralised, globally-representative and financially sustainable network
it is important that members demonstrate innovations in and engage in innovative
approaches to creating synergy in addressing issues of land rights at local, country,
regional and global levels. ILC Asia Node is expected to provide space and
opportunities for members to be creatively engaged in the regional platform bringing
lessons, experiences and innovations from their works at the local and national
contexts. Comparatively, however, there seems to be a need to optimise the roles of
IGO members, especially, of those (e.g. World Bank, FAO, IFAD, EC) whose roles in
the ILC‘s global platform has been quite significant, but absent at the regional front.
Country ILC Member Percent
India 6 26
The Philippines 4 17
Indonesia 3 13
Nepal 3 13
Cambodia 2 9
Bangladesh 2 9
Pakistan 1 4
ANGOC (Philippines) 1 4
ICRAF (Indonesia) 1 4
Total 23 100
Countries No. of countries Percent
In ILC 6 12
Not in ILC 45 88
In all of Asia region 51 100
Table 1
Representation of Asian countries in ILC membership
Source: ILC Asia, 2010

In the case of the members (particularly the CSO members) from Asia region, there is
no dearth of examples
documented in the ILC Asia and
ANGOC reports produced in the
past 2 years that demonstrate
members‘ active roles at the
regional and global platforms.21
In essence, the Asia based
members have had a diverse,
plentiful and regionally
meaningful roles to play in the
regionalised and to some extend
decentralised structure of the
ILC. While the Working Group,
Steering Committee and the host
ANGOC played critical support
and facilitating role, the
substantive inputs came from the
members in the process of ILC
regionalisation in Asia, and in
determining region‘s priority
programmes and the resource
mobilisation strategy (see Boxes
3). The members were also
either the key actor in region-
focused activities such as Asia
caucus and sharing of
experiences among Asia-based member during ILC AoM 2009, or initiators of country
specific policy dialogues.22
The opportunities that the members have had conducting country studies, attending
meetings, sharing and engaging in
workshops and programme development,
reviewing the work plans and
implementing activities at the regional
level can be seen as strengthened
members‘ role in the ILC and contributing
to achieving ILC‘s aim of becoming
relevant at the local as well as global
levels. The Asia Node specifically
allowed the members to consolidate the
unique characteristic of access-to-land
issues and initiatives in the countries of
the region that in turn offered ILC an
21
See the minutes of 1
st
and 2
nd
meetings of ILC Asia WG, ANGOC narrative reports on ―Piloting of a Process to
Decentralise the International Land Coalition in Asia, 2008‖ and ―ILC Regionalisation in Asia: A Step Forward 2010.‖
22
See ANGOC 2010, narrative report on ―ILC Regionalisation in Asia: A Step Forward.‖
Source: Minutes of Regional Assembly of ILC Asia 2009, p. 15.
[M]embers were grouped according to their sub-region. The
following questions served as guides in formulating the plan for the
above mentioned years:
For the year 2011:
1. In terms of land issues in your country (and in the Asia region),
what do you think need/s immediate attention?
2. In light of the above mentioned and in consideration of ILC‘s
Strategic Objectives, what activities do you think ILC should
express interest and provide support for?
3. What form of assistance will you be expected from other ILC
members and the Secretariat (i.e. technical advice, funds, human
resources, etc.)?
For the year 2012-2013:
1. What key themes, campaigns and /or advocacies should ILC
Asia focus on or pursue?
2. What are the strategic plans of your organisation for this period?
3. In what Strategic Objective/s of the ILC will these fall under?
4. What form of support will you be expecting from other ILC
members and the ILC Secretariat?
5. What inter-country projects or programmes and regional
activities should we initiate to seek (funding) support from donors
outside the ILC network? Who will serve as project proponents?
Box 3. Activities planning in ILC Asia AoM 2009
ILC [Asia] put us in touch/link with other groups in the
country, and also in the Asia region. Also, the constant
flow of information (about land issues) which we would
not normally access on our own, has helped our staff
gain a broader perspective of land issues. perhaps the
regional node should not only send information to the
"ED" or "headquarters" of member-organisations, but
should send directly to field offices, staff & partners of
member-organisations. The effort is the same, but the
spread effects are much wider.
Box 4. A member’s view of its role in the ILC Asia
Source: A response to the survey on the Review of ILC Asia
Regionalisation Process, received on 4 October 2010

Asian perspective (see, e.g.,
Boxes 4 and 5).
SARRA, a CSO in India, an
active ILC member since the
beginning, has partnered with
forest and revenue department
in Andorra Pradesh to work on
issues related to tribal peoples‘
rights to land and those related
to their livelihoods. SARRA has
been organising agriculture and
food security related training
programmes at national and
South Asia region levels, which
is well known among and
acknowledged by the ILC
members. In collaboration with
the ILC Asia, SARRA will be
organising an Asia level training
programme on ―participatory
approach to good governance
and good agricultural practices
on food security for marginal
and small farmers,‖ which is
scheduled for 17 to 22
November 2010. Several Asian
ILC members will be benefitting
from this training programme.23
In the similar vein, ALRD
Bangladesh as the founding
member of the ILC has made
significant contributions of its
own to strengthening and
raising the profile of the ILC‘s
regional and global platforms.
In June 2010, ALRD had co-
hosted the Land Watch Asia
workshop together with
ANGOC, in which several Asian
ILC members participated and
presented their country specific
works. ALRD is also the Asian
focal point for women and land
issues and with this capacity it
23
This information was provided by SARRA in their response to the internet survey carried out for this review.
Source: Responses to the survey on the Review of ILC Asia Regionalisation
Process, received on 4-20 October 2010
Response 1.
Among many others, we have done studies of our on-the-ground
work on land reform, land management schemes, and linking land
issues to markets -- and have presented them in international
meetings of ILC (plus national meetings in the Philippines, regional
conferences, regional meetings of ADB and World Bank). This helps
build visibility for us, but more so for ILC, by portraying it as a global
and regional network that is "grounded" at field and village and even
household level. We have also done advocacies, filed resolutions and
position papers, conducted mass mobilisations, at times identifying
ourselves with ILC thus helping ILC gain recognition even from our
government.
Response 2.
We projected name of ILC through programmes such as seminars,
etc. and on promotional material.
Response 3.
KPA has [coordinated] at national level in encouraging the expansion
of agrarian reform work, one of the main agenda of the ILC. [At the]
national level [it is linking] global [and] regional [works] of ILC to . . .
our network in Indonesia. . . . At the global level with the support of
ILC, KPA has also encouraged the involvement of the Indonesian
government [in] the forum ICARRD in Brazil.
Response 4.
CARRD's info[rmation] materials such as newsletter includes ongoing
partnership with ILC. CARRD also promotes ILC through its website,
social networking sites, and other internet platforms.
Response 5.
JKPP has actively promoted ILC in Indonesia and organised
meetings among ILC's existing members within the country to discuss
ILC's issues at hand and future actions. More organisations in
Indonesia are now aware about ILC.
Response 6.
We [have been] continuing the community organisation process to
[promote poor peoples‘] access [to] and control [over] land and other
natural richness. . . In 2010 the community and National Park signed
[to allocate]. . . 398 hectors [of land] as collaborative forest
management area. Other success story is . . . the recognition of
Indigenous peoples‘ area (including forest and other natural
richness) . We still don‘t get any support from ILC Asia node.
Response 7.
CSRC has been facilitating land rights campaign at community ,
national and international levels. We have been contributing to ILC
regional and global plateforms by participating in their assemblies,
CC and SC meetings, workshop and other programmes and sharing
our experiences of working with the poor farmers, tillers and landless
tenants.
Box 5. Roles played by ILC members through the Asia Node

has recently hosted the workshop on ―Women‘s Access to Land‖ on October 25-26,
2010 in Dhaka. SARRA and ALRD, as others, present themselves as examples of the
ILC members in Asia that are meaningfully and constructively fulfilling their roles that
have potentially contributed to strengthening ILC‘s regional and global platforms.
The members from this region have also begun to see a separate role that the diverse
ILC members can play and the significance for them to work together at the South Asia
region level to offer the ILC a distinctive perspective. For example, the issues related to
South Asian women‘s access to land received due priority in ILC Asia Node and a
scoping study was initiated by Dhaatri Resource Centre for Adivasi Women and
Children, India. As expected, the findings of the study have provided useful input to
South Asian ILC members in the regional workshop on Women‘s Access to Land.
Because of the presence of the highest proportion of women and men affected by
abject poverty in most countries of South Asia, ILC‘s categoric focus to South Asia can
potentially bring an added dimension in the global discourse on understanding and
addressing poverty and access to land issues.
In a general term, the establishment of the ILC Asia Node can be considered to have
strengthened the Asian members‘ role to be more active and constructive
Result-based Management
Keeping the 5 Strategic Objectives of ILC in focus, the ILC Asia Node, through its
Working Committee, drafted a broad outline of the Asia Node thematic areas and work
programme for a period of 30 months starting June 2008.24
This outline provided a
basis to prepare the annual ILC Asia work plans and budgets for 2008, 2009 and 2010.
The expected results and the associated key indicators stated in the 30-month work
programme essentially seek outputs and outcomes that are somewhat loose in terms of
quality assurance. On a positive note, however, the outline can be viewed to be
adequately flexible for members and partners presumably taking the responsibility of
executing the programmes to use their own discretion in assuring the quality of results
they will have produced.
24
Understandably, during the initial interim period, when no Steering Committee nor the Node coordinator was
available, the Working Group had to rightly take this initiative.

In any case, the implementation of activities in ILC Asia Node is clearly informed by the
systematically developed programme framework with clearly stated budget and time
frame. However, the extended matrices of the annual work plan and budget of 2008,
2009 and 2010 have omitted the ―expected results‖ and ―Key Indicators‖ columns. This
has resulted in the lack of clarity in the way reporting system is managed by the ILC
Asia Node. There is no ground to assert that the governance and management of ILC
Asia Node is result oriented, although progress achieved so far might have informally or
subtly met or exceeded the expected results (as can be seen in some members‘
responses to the survey question ―what were the results produced by the current
management structure of the ILC Asia Node?‖ See Box 6). While two third members
who responded to the survey questions reported positively on the results produced by
the ILC Asia Node‘s management, the progress narratives prepared by the node did not
Source: Responses to the survey on Review of ILC Regionalisation in Asia, received between 4 and 20 October, 2010
Box 6. Results produced by ILC Asia as reported by the members
Response 1.
Over the past 2 years: There is better visibility for our work in the region. There is better information flow,
awareness & info sharing (on issues & related events). This has also helped our CSO, by "informing" our internal
strategic planning processes, ex, on World Bank perspectives on land reform (w/c we disagree with), and issues
about foreign land-grabs (crucial for our land-related advocacies). There is a country-based "informal" network of
ILC members, which ANGOC & the node facilitated. Normally we would not relate to each other in the course of
our work -- not because of any "differences", but just because that's the way it always was.
Response 2.
The Asia Node was able to strengthen ILC's presence in the Region. It was able to effectively link the local and
grassroots organisations with the advocacy of ILC.There is better information flow, awareness & info sharing (on
issues & related events). This has also helped our CSO, by "informing" our internal strategic planning processes,
ex, on World Bank perspectives on land reform (w/c we disagree with), and issues about foreign land-grabs
(crucial for our land-related advocacies)
Response 3.
Although Steering Committee has the overseeing role over the regional node and regional coordinator, in many
cases regional coordinator took the decisions without much consultation with the SC. In some cases, such action
was fine, but the past coordinator often decided on the distribution of funding by consulting the global
headquarters, but not SC.
Response 4.
We don't know yet, event report we still don't get it. We just receive e-file bulletin from ANGOC which is compile
the share experiences of ANGOC members and ILC members
Response 5.
Land Watch Asia has been established and it has been advocating land reform and trying to mobilise the national
government. The programme proposals have been developed and forwarded to ILC Rome. There have been
carried out working committee meeting regularly. The national issues have been linked at regional and
international level.
Response 6.
The Asia Node was able to strengthen ILC's presence in the Region. It was able to effectively link the local and
grassroots organisations with the advocacy of ILC.I seem not acknowledge of that issues
Response 7.
Asia is so big continent and the problems of the East Asia and south Asia are totally different even the land
related issues and policies. Hence a single node cannot do justice. It is appropriate to have two nodes in South
Asia and South East Asia. It is very difficult to satisfy all the partners since they have different approaches.

reflect whether results achieved met the expectations and the preset programme
targets. Quarterly and annual progresses reported by the Asian Node present
substantive narrative accounts25
but they are not summarised against indicators and
targets. Moreover, and understandably, the ILC Asia Node is yet to establish a bench-
mark status of the region-wide agrarian land, peasants, tillers, tenants and other related
aspects to inform its programme development process, identify critical issues, and find
ways to address them and optimise the synergy and impacts in the region. There
seems, therefore, room for improvement in the way the ILC Asia Node manages its
programmes and thereby be able to experience that the management practices are
more clearly result oriented. On the other hand, and in the apparent absence of a
definition of result based management for the Asia Node, question arises whether
expecting indicators specific results according to a defined framework (e.g. log frame,
design monitoring, strategic objective framework, etc.) would be appropriate for a
network organisation like the ILC Asia Node. It is also necessary to be clear about
whether the ILC Asia Node needs to broaden its coverage within the region in terms of
understanding and establishing a region wide bench mark and defining the regional
targets and results. This question is posed not to argue in favour of this need, but to
seek clarity in regards to the scope and boundary within which the ILC Asia should aim
to bring about the desired impact.
How did the Asia Node manage the ILC supported programmes that the member
organisations implemented? This was one question among the list of questions
included in the survey form. None of the 12 members responding to the survey
indicated that there was any specific management expectation of the Asia Node from
the members that they should be aware of and are required to report the progress
accordingly. There appears to be a confusion amongst the members as to how they are
required to be result oriented in implementing the ILC supported programme. Their
responses to the survey question implied that the Asia Node‘s management of
programmes did not involve specific reporting requirement nor did the members, upon
submitting their progress reports, receive any critical feedback from the Asia Node.
There could be several issues linked to this scenario. But the most important one could
not be other than the professional role of the Node coordinator, which precisely is the
issue that the Asia Node has confronted for the past several months. Clarity cannot be
obtained in programme management unless the Node secretariat is staffed with a team
led by an able coordinator. In fact, two members responding to the survey question
were specifically concerned about the coordinator‘s performance and his eventual
resignation from the post (see Box 7).
The role of ILC Asia Node is limited in its power to chart out and get approval for longer
term programmes of say 5 years, because ILC Global platform cannot devolve such
power to its node outside the global secretariat as it is constrained by the financially
non-liability clues with IFAD, its hosting organisation. ILC Asia is required to rely on
year-by-year programatic and financial commitments from ILC Rome. In such a
constraining regionalised context it becomes difficult for the Asia Node to be result
25
The ILC Asia Node publishes e-bulletins regularly–6 issues are in the web archive–that document reports on
specific programmes with graphic details along with other relevant news and current information.

oriented in its management process.26
Result
means not only producing outputs but also
making impact which is not possible through
disjoint short term interventions. With piece
meal programatic efforts the continuum on the
path of making impact breaks down.
Therefore, management of Asia Node needs
ILC support to be result oriented and
contribute to ILC‘s global task of promoting
poor people‘s secured and equitable access
to and control over land through advocacy,
dialogue and capacity building.
Communication
The Charter and Governance Framework of
ILC includes the following task as one of the
functions of the regional platforms. ―Facilitate
member-to-member relationships within the
region, including joint action and
communication among members and with
other strategic stakeholders.‖27
It must be
acknowledged first that ANGOC is best
placed as the hosting institution for the ILC
Asia Node that has contributed to strengthening communication among CSOs (both
member and non-member) and partners. Its networking history of over 30 years lay a
solid foundation for ILC Asia that allows members, partners and other organisations a
conducive platform for sharing, learning and creating synergy.
With this favourable hosting arrangement within ANGOC, ILC Asia has been adopting
several means through which the process, progress, development and events of the
Asia Node and its members from the region are being communicated widely. In its
periodic reports submitted to the ILC Council and the ILC Asia Steering Committee, the
Asia Node mentions that monthly and bi-monthly e-bulletin are regularly published and
sent out widely–at least to 111 CSOs that are in the mailing list of ANGOC. To date 6
issues have been circulated which proves the regularity of the bulletin publication.28
To
what extent these circulations promoted and enriched the discourse and debates on
land issues and are likely to bring about change in the status of poor peoples‘ access to
and control over land is yet to be understood.
As far as the communication within the management structure of the ILC and its Asia
Node is concerned, there seems to be scope for improvement. It is praiseworthy that
ILC Asia has managed to initiate and organise diverse programmes in some countries
of the region within a very short period of time. And, as can be understood from the
26
This issue has been discussed in details in the ILC Asia Node Steering Committee Meeting on 8-9 April 2010 in
Bankok.
27
Charter and Governance Framework of the International Land Coalition, p. 10.
28
See, e.g., ―A Report to the ILC Council and the ILC Steering Committee for Asia‖ (09 April – 14 June 2009) 14 June
2009, p. 6.
Response 1.
Although Steering Committee has the overseeing
role over the regional node and regional
coordinator, in many cases regional coordinator
took the decisions without much consultation with
the SC. In some cases, such action was fine, but
the past coordinator often decided on the
distribution of funding by consulting the global
headquarters, but not SC.
Response 2.
The reporting guidelines made ILC Asia more
complicated than previously. Decision-making
mechanisms for project management is still
unclear. ILC coordinator[‗s] . . . [accountability
toward] Asia [SC] and Council Member remains
unclear. The reporting guidelines made ILC Asia
more complicated than previously.
Response 3.
Since there was turn over of Asia Regional
Coordinator, . . . [the ILC Asia] could not . . .
[perform] as expected.
Box 7. Members’ view of the Node Coordinator
Source: Responses to the survey on Review of ILC Asia
Regionalisation Process, received on 4-20 October 2010

reports of number of regional events, the platform for sharing the experiences has been
quite vibrant. However, there is no evidence to support that the core purpose of
regionalised networking, i.e., creating synergy,
adapting good practices across different
national contexts, influencing the regional and
global policy environment, etc., is being
achieved nor is there any indicative trend
towards achieving this purpose. This brings
the issue of quality of communication on the
surface. The ILC through its Asia Node might
have been strong in sending out messages
but equally important is to experience that
there is a reasonably matching inflow of
enthusiastic responses (see Box 8). The fact
that there had been only one organisation
sending comments and feedback to the ILC
Asia‘s 30-month programme, plans and
budget (Jun 2008 to December 2010) initiated
by the Working Committee is an example to
cite.29
Regarding the quality of materials that the
Asia Node adopted, produced or used are
generally felt useful, informative and
accessible by the members who responded to
the survey–email correspondences and e-
newsletters were much appreciated.
However, while some found the contents of
the newsletters to be of good quality most mentioned that they could be improved. As
one member wrote, ―E-bulletins mostly cover the activities of Asia Node . . . but it does
not [facilitate] opinion and dialogue building. Sometimes its seems ANGOC and ILC
bulletin and publications.‖ Some members also took the responsibility of not being
proactive and taking part in making the communication materials more interactive.
Responses such as those in Box 10 clearly reflect members‘ inability to contribute to
making them more interactive and member-owned.
It is also evident that neither the project narrative reports nor the periodic progress of
overall Asia Node submitted to ILC Coalition Council or the Asia Node Steering
Committee by the regional secretariat gives an impression that they are received to be
critically reviewed and responded to. Understandably, the apex bodies like ILC CC and
the regional Steering Committee might find detailed accounts of progress too much to
comprehend and digest, but a concise summary presented in an accessible format
might be appreciated. Such summaries are lacking in the reports submitted, but this
lack has remained unnoticed or not raised as an issue in the chain of command. This is
an issue more related to the technical compliance in the overall process of
regionalisation and decentralisation than the one related to the reporting process of the
29
See the minutes of the ILC Working Group for Asia - Second Meeting, 20-25 September 2008.
Response 1.
The information flow that is perhaps lacking is
from members to the node. But unless there is a
real need or incentive to do so (voluntarily
sending information to the centre or node), I don‘t
think that the staff in our CSO would take on that
extra work. The best we can do is just to include
the node in our regular information mailing list.
Response 2.
We were given regular updates through emails
which I think is the most effective and efficient
way of communication given the limitation of
resources (time and financial). Newsletters were
also sent to give updates on what the Asia Node
was doing.
Response 3.
The secretariat has done a good job in
communicating the progress and issues at hand.
The problem is that the members do not respond
as expected in important issues. To solve this it
would be probably good to have a chat room
(Skype or Yahoo Messenger) for the members so
that everyone can reach each other easily.
Box 8. Members’ views on communication

Asia Node. Perhaps the required initial
investment of time, resources and expertise
in the regionalisation/decentralisation
process would have been worthy of serious
consideration.
It may be generalised from the opinions of
the members that the Asia Node lacks
technical and logistic base for it to
strengthen a system of effective
communication and involve members and
partners in a more meaningful exchange of
information, discussions and experiences.
Short term professional support may prove
beneficial in establishing such a system.
Diversification of Resource Base
Mobilising ―financial resources required by
the programme of work and agreed priority
actions‖ is one of the core functions of the
regional platform.30
The specification of this
role of the ILC regional nodes, in principle,
allows them to directly engage with donors
or partners seeking financial support for
planned programmes. However, the
resources for the programmes of 2008, 2009 and 2010 were mobilised entirely from the
earmarked ILC funds for the Asia Node. Experiences thus far point to a context that the
Asia Node has struggled hard but is still overshadowed by number of issues related to
diversification and mobilisation of resources. In an email consultation the ANGOC‘s
Executive Director who also is one of the members of the Asia Node Steering
Committee explains about the confusing legal status of the Asia Node, the
complications associated with
fund mobilisation and how its
effort has failed (see Box 10).
It is clear from his explanation that
resource mobilisation by Asia
Node on its own is extremely
challenging, if not impossible.
The bottleneck is that the ILC Asia
does not have any legal status
and, as also pointed out by the
interim ILC Focal Point for Asia,
―some donors might not be
comfortable supporting a broad
‗rainbow coalition‘ with members
30
Response 1
The newsletter[s] . . . we received often [are] used
[as] reference [for] more understanding. We just . .
. [are] thankful to them and satisfied with the
response; quite good! quite [regular and useful for
improving] knowledge [but] we never send
comment
Response 2
So far we did not send comments but try to share
[information] in meetings.
Response 3.
There should be a special motivation for members
to contribute [to] the media made by ILC Asia Node
Response 4
Members are also too silent . . . , they want . . .
updates but rarely sent materials for the newsletter
Response 5
The newsletter can still be improved. I think
members should maximise the newsletter in
making people aware of what they're doing to
gather more support.
The substance of publicity materials and
communications through the Asian ILC has not
been good.
Box 9. Members’ assessment of Asia newsletter
In principle, ILC Asia can mobilise resources independent from
ILC Secretariat. For 2010, a regional proposal was submitted to
EU (upon the suggestion of ILC Secretariat) to cover some of the
items not yet covered by the existing budget available. For this
purpose, ANGOC being the regional host, acted as project holder
since ILC Asia is not registered, and also ILC is not eligible to
submit a proposal to EU; ANGOC used the existing work
programme and budget for 2010 as basis for the proposal
submitted to EU; unfortunately as per email of EU, the proposal
has not been approved
Box 10. Resource mobilisation issue in ILC Asia
Source: Email response of the ILC Asia SC member cum the hosting
organisation ANGOC‘s Executive Director, 4 October 2010

having very diverse interests; some donors may have specific advocacies and may
have basic disagreement with some ILC members on issues.‖31
Lack of interest among ILC partners in the Asia region too has added complications for
members to be effective in their effort to mobilise funds. As one member has
mentioned (Box 11, Response 5) it is not evident that the regionally extended ILC‘s
strategic partners ever reflect upon the common agenda which they have appreciated at
the global level. At the country and region level the partners are less keen and not
appreciative of ILC‘s presence that is working to strengthen the network of the members
through a much closer regional platform for the members to share, learn and engage
with people on the ground and bring
about much wider impacts. It is
indicative in the members views (Box 12)
that there is no reason for the partners to
disregard ILC Asia Node‘s call for
deeper association and partnership
leading to more fruitful resource
mobilisation to finance programmes of
mutual interests.
The case of European Union
disapproving the ANGOC‘s proposal
should be a good lesson learned.32
Could the dialogues, advocacy and
engagements with EU be more proactive
and stronger so that the ILC and EU
have common priority programmes to
co-finance at the Asia region? It‘s not
clear what had been ILC global
secretariat‘s reaction to the EU‘s refusal
of funding it in Asia through ANGOC.
The ILC‘s efforts, if any, to engage its
IOG members and strategic partners at
the regional and country levels do not
always seem to produce results. Neither
the regional and country organisations of
the IGO members nor those of ILC‘s
strategic partners are in some form of
meaningful cooperative or functional
relationships with the ILC Asia Node.
However, some Asian ILC members at
the country level are engaged with the
country offices of FAO, IFAD and World
Bank particularly in policy dialogues (see
Don‘s e-mail in Box 10). Such a country
31
Email response of the ILC Focal Point for Asia
32
Because of the lack of a legal status of ILC Asia, ANGOC on its behalf approached the donor for funding.
Response 1.
There should first be consensus among Asian members
on this need for separate fund-raising (aside from what
comes through ILC-Rome). Also, agreement on what
these funds are to be used for (strategic purpose) as
they could compete with members in terms of sources
and purpose. A principle of subsidiarity could be
followed, where the role of the centre or node is that of a
"facilitator & enabler", building capacity from existing
work & institutions.
Response 2.
One strategy that ILC should look into is possible
cooperation with other funding agencies in funding
grassroots or local initiatives of members. Example
would be a possible consortium in implementing a
regional project that will fit in the mission of ILC and also
the concerned members.
Response 3.
The funds are too limited while the members are
growing. Therefore it is crucial for ILC Asia to raise
funds directly, not through the global secretariat. Also
the distribution of funds should be decided by SC not by
regional coordinator.
Response 4.
ILC Asia Node still depends on ILC Rome for funding.
Need a new strategy for the consolidation of funding
beyond the existing mechanisms
Response 5.
The partners . . . need to be challenged to raise
resources and Asia node can provide matching grant. . .
. Excessive dependency on ILC is not a good sign of
partnership. The relationship with ILC is based on
common agenda, financial partnership alone will not help
in building a healthy and productive partnership.
Box 11. Members’ views on fund mobilisation

level engagement is yet to be extended to programmatic collaborations and joint co-
financing of programmes at the regional level (see Box 10).
One critical aspect that needs clarity is on the extent to which ILC or its regional nodes
on their own should be involved in approaching partners or potential donors for resource
mobilisation. The executives of ALRD and some other members are of the view that the
ILC should not be involved in fund raising by itself, but engage and lobby more
prominently with partners and donors at global to country levels so that the members
are able to get positive responses for funding quality programmes of common interests.
Members‘ survey also points to this concern (see Box 11) that ILC Asia needs to be
clear about whether it should engage in raising funds by itself (with defined legal status)
to be channelised to members for priority programmes or play a role of ―facilitator or
enabler‖ for members to be successful in mobilising funds for such programmes. What
seems a common concern is that resource mobilisation is an issue that demands a
definite strategy.
The other issue that has surfaced from the discussions and correspondences with some
Asian ILC general and steering committee members pertains to the basis of resources
distribution among members to fund their programmes. As referred in the email
exchange of the reviewer with the SC member and Executive Director of ANGOC (see
On Mon, 4 Oct 2010 17:45:17 +0530, Roshan Chitrakar wrote:
Don, this is a helpful response. I‘m using it to support the
discussion on resource mobilisation issue in the review report. I
have also used a related point raised by Tony.
I have a follow up question for you: Do you have anything in
record why EU didn‘t approve our proposal (you mentioned they
notified through an email, maybe they have explained the
reason)? And what did ILC have to say about it?
The point you raised about the relevance of work program and
the proposals submitted by member is a crucial one to persuade
donors for funds--a logical reason to seek a co-financing
agreement. I also agree, and I think Jagat had also mentioned,
that dividing the funds received from ILC amongst members for
―superficial‖ programs is not healthy, in fact such a practice can
potentially disintegrate the network. I will make this point clear in
my report. Linked to this issue is also the roles that the IGO
members are playing. As many as 15 IGOs that are ILC
members also work in Asia, but apart from ICRAF and now
IFAD, none others are active with the Asia Node. What has
been our effort to contact their regional offices in Asia? What
could we do (or have we done anything) at the country level with
them? As you know CSRC has been quite successful in
convincing donors to fund programs on land issues. I think
resource mobilisation is a critical issue.
Regards,
Roshan
October 6, 2010, Reply from Don:
As per mail from EC, it stated that the
proposal though "it fulfils the criteria required
for a favourable opinion, it has been
awarded a lower score than the ones
selected to go through to the next stage of
the procedure." there was no explanation
from EC regarding the rating.
As for the IGOs, the members that we have
been engaging at the regional are: FAO,
ICRAF, IFAD, For World Bank, our contact
is located in Washington DC since there is
no regional office. In the past, the Task
Manager of World Bank (based in
Washington Dc) participated in the meeting
last March 2008.
At the country level, based on the
information I receive, there has been
engagements (mostly policy discussions)
with:
- in Bangladesh: World Bank
- in Indonesia: FAO
- in Nepal: FAO, World Bank
- in Philippines: World Bank, FAO, IFAD
- in India: IFAD
regards,
Don
Box 12. Exchange of emails between ANGOC Executive Director and the reviewer
Source: Emails exchange on October 4
th
and 6
th
, 2010, roshan@shantimarg.org and ndemarquez@angoc.org

Box 12), members take the scare ILC funds for granted to be utilised in programmes
without critically assuring their importance and relevance in the light of ILC‘s Strategic
Objectives. The current practice is too simplistic and is based on the principle of equal
division that has allowed members an access to a resource base which is often too
meagre to meet the funding requirements of meaningful programmes. At the first place
the funds that the ILC makes available to the Asia Node are relatively small compared
to those allocated for Africa and Latin America Nodes.33
Secondly, even the smallest
share of the ILC resources available for the Asia Node does not seem to be utilised
more strategically.
The discussions above clearly indicate that there are still number of unresolved issues
in the regionalisation process that are related to diversifying resource base and its
effective mobilisation in the ILC‘s Asian platform. These include lack of clarity of ILC
Asia‘s legal status to formally approach donors and strategic partners with proposals,
inadequate follow up or coordination to ensure IGO members‘ active role in the region,
unfair share of ILC resources to fund Asia programmes, unjustified distribution of ILC‘s
meagre funds to Asian members and lack of strategy to define the roles of the ILC, its
Asia Node and members in programme fund mobilisation.
Summary
Efficiency and Effectiveness of ILC Asia
As is indicative in the write up in the earlier sections, the ILC Asia Node: identifies and
prioritises the regional activities keeping in view the global Strategic Framework;
coordinates planning and implementation of such activities to be undertaken by
members both at national and regional levels; mobilises financial resources; co-
ordinates the reporting and evaluation of regional programmes and activities; and
facilitates communication, collaboration and joint actions among members and with
other strategic stakeholders.34
As a newly established platform the road ahead is tough
and full of challenges for ILC Asia Node. It is expected that the ILC in its Asia region
performs these functions with such an efficiency and effectiveness that there would be
an optimised support to the members and partners, raised institutional profile and
increased visibility of the ILC in the region. Appropriate institutional arrangements,
clarity of roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders and their approach to engaging in
management of the regional platform is critical for realising its effectiveness and
efficiency.
Composition, Roles and Resources
The Asia Regional Node, as shown in Figure 2, is structured with the Steering
Committee as the apex body comprised of 6 members represented by CSOs, IGOs, ILC
Director and ANGOC as the hosting member. There was an understanding in forming
the current SC that it struck a balance in terms of the representation of the IGO and
33
See the minutes of ILC Asia Steering Committee meeting, 8-9 April 2010.
34

CSO members as well as a balance in terms of sub-regional representations of the
CSOs. As such, CSRC and JKP represent the CSO members from South Asia and Asia
Pacific sub-regions respectively while ICRAF and FAO represent the IGO members.
The SC manages the ILC Asia node to facilitate, among others, the networking of the 23
members and an undisclosed number of partners and potential partners and support
them to carry out ILC‘s planned programmes in the region. More over the SC takes the
responsibility of fulfilling 11 specific tasks outlined in its terms of reference (see Box 14).
Realistically, the SC members themselves cannot be expected to put in the amount and
time that its role demands. Effective and successful execution of the tasks associated
to the role depends upon how the SC gets support from the regional secretariat, and
obviously the capacity of its staff is critical. Its worth mentioning upfront that the Asia
Node has been without the coordinator for the past 10 months since January 2010. The
burden of overseeing the role of the coordinator was shouldered by the Executive
Director of the ANGOC who also is a member of SC. He has been fulfilling this interim
role with the administrative support of the single secretariat staff designated as the
Project and Communication Officer.35
35
While the absence of the Node coordinator has been felt as a major set back for the ILC Asia Node in the
management of its activities, the Steering Committee appointed a three-member selection committee supported by
an expert independent consult to fulfil the vacant position. After over 3-month long rigorous process the selection
committee has recently completed its task and Ms. Seema Gaikwad of India has been appointed as the new Asia
Node Coordinator to start her work from 1 December 2010.
Response 1
[The present composition of the SC is] just about right. The
challenge also is keeping the interest & representation of IGOs.
Many IGO offices in Asia are not even aware of ILC. Also, the
headquarters must take initiative to inform & also endorse ILC
with their colleagues.
Response 2
The composition is correct, but the [SC does not] seem to
understand and create synergy among the members.
Response 3
The current structure is fine. However, it needs female
members.
Respons 4
Quite fair. Improve in gender issues . . . in SC.
Response 5
The composition . . . seems OK but it should be more active and
the committee members give more time.
Response 6
Periodic communications . . . [between SC members and
partners at sub region levels, namely South Asia and South East
Asia levels] will enhance the quality of partnership.
Box 13. Views about the ILC Asia Steering Committee
Source: Responses to the survey on Review of ILC Asia Regionalisation
Process, received on 4-20 October 2010

A general question seeking
members‘ perception about the
appropriateness of the current
composition of the ILC Asia
Node‘s Steering Committee was
asked in the members‘ survey.
Most of the 12 respondents found
the composition just about right
and were generally happy with
the committee‘s performance
(see Box 13 for sample
responses). One member
wanted to see more active role of
the SC members with increased
investment of time for committee
activities. The SC‘s lack of
sensitivity towards substantive
matters such as enhancing
member-to-member
communication and building
synergy has been raised as a
concern by yet another member.
The other critical observation of
this management structure pertains to the lack of conscious effort on the part of the
Node as well as members to ensure that gender balance is struck in member
organisations‘ nomination of the representatives for the SC. Currently, the SC is
composed of all male representatives of the member organisations. The very lack of
female representation could be understood as being responsible for the SC‘s apparent
gender blindness–none of the 2 SC meetings held so far looked at the all-male
composition as gender biased that might have obstructed the entry of female‘s point of
view in the management of the Asia Node.
The two IGO members in the Steering Committee has practically represented 100%
IGO members in the region. The issue here is not so much on ―over‖ representation of
the IGO members but rather about the poor motivation of the region or country based
IGOs towards the ILC regional platform even when their interests and participation are
evident at the global level. This situation, as also pointed out by a member in the
survey, invites a challenge for ILC Asia and its SC as to how it brings more ―interest and
representation of IGOs. Many IGO offices in Asia are not even aware of ILC. Also the
headquarters must take initiative to inform and also endorse ILC with their
colleagues.‖36
The challenge also is for the current two IGO members not only to keep
their own interest and motivation toward the regional platform alive but also to use their
organisational stature to advocate and push the land agenda in the regional and country
strategies of other IGOs so that the regional presence of the ILC Asia becomes
meaningful to them.
36
Response to the survey on Review of ILC Regionalisation in Asia, received on 4 October 2010.
1. Decide on priority themes and issues for the Asia Region
2. Develop the annual work plan and budget for regional
activities
3. Submit reports (updates, missions, travels, etc.) of its
activities to the ILC Council
4. Organize audit/financial statements of projects it manages
5. Consult members in Asia in regard to activities initiated by the
ILC Secretariat in Rome, for example, the annual members
survey
6. Manage joint reviews of regional activities and cross-regional
activities
7. Manage evaluation studies of regional and cross-regional
activities as delegated by the ILC Secretariat
8. Agree on a membership development strategy for the Asia
region
9. Provide advice and oversight on the work of the Asia
Regional Node Coordinator
10.Review the performance of the Asia Regional Node and Asia
Regional Coordinator
11. Organize activities or initiate processes aimed to support
equal and secure land access for all, including addressing
cases of discrimination and injustice as and when required.
Box 14. Role of the ILC Asia Steering Committee
Source: Terms of reference of the Steering Committee for the Asia Regional
Network of the International Land Coalition, ILC Asia Node, 2009

The first SC meeting was held on 15-16 June 2009 in Bogor-Indonesia, which included
the organisation of a half-day meeting of the SC members and Indonesian CSO/NGO
partners. The consecutive half-day meeting should be considered as a positive initiative
which, as intended, made best use of the SC members‘ time and resources.37
The
meeting allowed a smooth handing over of responsibilities undertaken by the interim
Working Group to the formal Steering Committee, while its minutes documented the
discussion of agenda items and the subsequent decisions that were much in line with
the given role of the SC (see Box 14). The discussions held covered agendas related to
priority programmes and work plan for 2010-2011, aspects of training plans of
members, programme proposals including the concept and approach to funding them,
and issues about monitoring and evaluation.38
The availability of the Node Coordinator
appears to have made a difference in the systematic organisation of the meeting.
Comparatively, the second SC meeting appeared less organised yet, perhaps, overly
substantive. The meeting was held in Bangkok-Thailand on 8-9 April 2010. By this
time, it had already been over 3 months that the ILC Asia Node had been without the
coordinator as the one hired in January 2008 chose not to renew the contract.39
Apparently, due the complications involved in the contract renewing process, he found
the job temporary and insecure. In any case, the prolonged absence of the node
coordinator was reflected in the preparation and organisation of the 2nd
SC meeting.
The minutes which is literally a verbatim transcription of the proceeding does not explain
how the 2-day meeting was structured. This meeting did not seem to make an optimum
use of the time and resources as in the 1st
SC meeting during which time a public CSO
interaction programme was also organised. The 2nd
SC meeting however, as the
minutes explains, had been a marathon session of discussion that dealt on wide
spectrum of issues ranging, e.g., from legal status of the ILC Asia network to resource
mobilisation, from the fundamental question of the very identity, functions and core
purpose of the regional node and its link with the ILC global platform to lack of clarity to
arrive at the decision on the modality of selecting next regional host and giving hosting
arrangement the continuity, from the quality of regional activities carried out by
members, e.g. scoping study on women and land, programmes carried out under the 5
Strategic Objectives of the ILC to proposed or prospective programmes for coming
years and so on.
The proceedings of the 2nd
SC meeting are minuted in a document of 34 pages which,
for all practical purposes, would have been useful if a synthesised executive summary
was available.40
For instance, it is not clear how several important decisions made in
the first SC meeting were followed up and reviewed in the 2nd
meeting. On the other
hand, it could not right to expect that the SC members themselves should have minutely
followed up on the progress made and targets achieved by the regional platform. This is
where the SC needs full support of the secretariat, which unfortunately was not
available due to the premature departure of the node coordinator. In such a context one
can only be cautiously optimistic that the outcome of the 2nd
SC meeting would provide
37
Minutes of ILC Asia Steering Committee meeting, 16 July 2009.
38
Ibid.
39
Minutes of ILC Asia Steering Committee meeting, 8-9 April 2010.
40
Incidentally, the ED of ANGOC has recently forwarded the synthesised version of the meeting minutes. But it has
been very last moment to incorporate that into this report.

useful guidance and course of action for the ILC Asia Node to be effective in the months
ahead.
On the basis of the submission and approval of year-by-year plans and budgets the ILC
Asia Node receives financial support from ILC global platform to meet its operational
costs and also fund some agreed priority programmes with limited resources. The
dilemma that the ILC faces in being unable to commit longer term regional plans and
budget has already been discussed in length in an earlier section. It has also been
already discussed that the ILC Asia does not have a legal institutional status to be able
to approach donors for resource mobilisation. These issues and the possible strategies
have also been discussed extensively in the last two SC meetings and in 2009 regional
assembly. For example, in the 1st
SC meeting it was anticipated that the regional
assembly would have developed broad Asian priorities identifying key activities that
could be funded by ILC and non-ILC sources and that the ILC members in Asia would
have formed a consortium and submitted a common proposal to non-ILC donors.41
It is,
however, not clear from the available documents that these ideas have been formally
pursued and members have actually formed the consortium to mobilise the required
non-ILC resources.
Despite such an uncertain
regional resource mobilisation
scenario, some Asian members
have been able to obtain required
resources to fund programmes
that fall within the ILC priority
area. Such funds are made
available directly through the ILC
global platform which allows the
regional members to directly
communicate with ILC Rome
without being obliged to contact
the regional node. This has raised the issue related not only to the strategy of resource
mobilisation but also the protocol of communication among partners, the regional node
and the global platform. This situation has been perceived to be problematic by ILC
members in Asia who advocate for stronger and fully authorised regional Steering
Committee (see, e.g., Box 15).
There is a general agreement among the Asia based members that the current
composition of the ILC Asia Steering Committee is appropriate both in terms of size and
representations. The composition, however, fall short in terms of attaining gender
balance. Because of this bias, female‘s voice is marginalised in the management
structure. By and large, the SC has effectively assumed its role as outlined in the terms
of reference. However, it could have been more effective had there been necessary
support from the regional secretariat. For almost all of 2010, the SC has been left
without a node coordinator to take care of management nitty gritty. Meanwhile, the SC
has managed to appoint a selection committee to hire a new coordinator and recently
41
Minutes of ILC Asia Steering Committee meeting, 16 July 2009.
Since most of the things [are] controlled by the ILC Rome, . . .
Asia node is no other than just an implementing platform. ILC
Rome should give full authority to Steering Committee and the
Steering Committee should be able to assess and approve the
regional programme proposals. ILC Rome should provide the
budgetory support for such programmes.
Box 15. Scope of authority for ILC Asia and its SC
Source: Response to the survey on Review of ILC Regionalisation in Asia,
received on 22 October 2010.

approved the nomination of a successful candidate. The new coordinator, who will
participate in the upcoming regional assembly, will join the ILC Asia office as of 1
December 2010. The lack of interest and motivation of most of the IGO members to be
active at the region and country level has been felt as a serious issue that is mainly
challenging for the two IGOs SC members to address. On the issue of resource
mobilisation and the limited role of ILC Asia, there still are several uncertainties–ILC
Asia‘s lack of legal institutional status, year-by-year funding support, dependancy on
ILC Rome for resources and slackness in pursuing the viable alternative, and lack of
regional authority and decisive role of the SC. These uncertainties can potentially come
in the way of establishing and sustaining an effectively functioning regional node of ILC
in Asia.
Hosting Arrangements

As already mentioned in several sections of this report, the Asian NGO Coalition for
Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC) has been the hosting entity of ILC
Asia Region since its inception and establishment. ANGOC carries a history of over 30
years strengthening the network of CSOs in the region. Its historical track record makes
it a credible network organisation for ILC to have confidence and arrive at a decision
that it hosts the ILC Asia Node. Prior to this appointment, ANGOC had already been
organising several meetings of Asia-based CSO representatives which included ILC
members, to discuss issues of access to land. In fact ANGOC, with this and other
experiences, assisted ILC to have a ―regional lens‖ in its processes of institutional
development and finalisation of the 2007-2010 global strategy.
Has ANGOC been a right choice as the host? Two third members responding to the
survey endorsed that ANGOC has been the right choice not only because of its credible
history and the space it has provided for the regional secretariat but also because of its
contribution to raising the profile and visibility of ILC in Asia.
Apparently, there is no major issue pertaining to the current hosting arrangement.
However, members have expressed the feeling that the strategy related this
Response 1
They are just right, positive, efficient and fit.
Response 2
I think ANGOC is more than capable of being the host of ILC Asia Node. ANGOC is known not only in the
Philippines but in the Region as an advocate for land rights and rural development. It has various linkages and
networks that can help sustain the ILC Asia Node.
Response 3
At the moment ANGOC with its experience is the right choice. However, the host should be rotated among ILC
members. The position will enable to increase the visibility of ILC in a respective country as well as enhancing the
capacities of the host organisation.
Response 4
It is good [that] ANGOC [is the] host, but . . . better if the host can [be] mobile from one country to other country,
for example Indonesia (KPA/Consortium of Agrarian Reform).
Response 5
ANGOC is the right host because they provide excellent support and have long experience in land advocacy in
Asia and well respected in the region.
Response 6
Yes. Since they have experience working with UN agencies it is right but they have to work [for] ILC Asia as well.
Sometimes ANGOC would be in front and ILC . . . in shadow.
Response 7
I think ANGOC now is the right one as host. However, the host should be . . . rotate[d] . . . if you think that is
required.
Response 8
ANGOC . . . [has a] history and track record of significant accomplishments on land issue. In my opinion no other
network has produced quality research documents related to agrarian reforms [as much as ANGOC]. [However,
with] the changing times ANGOC . . . needs to reflect on its functioning styles, taking . . . suggestions of the
partners into consideration and involving them actively.
Box 16. Members’ view about the hosting arrangement
Source: Responses to the survey on Review of ILC Asia Regionalisation Process, received on 4-20 October 2010

arrangement has to be reviewed. The concern is whether one member organisation
should retain the hosting responsibility for ever or should it also be rotated among other
members. One suggestion is that it should be rotated every two years. But what seems
important is to develop an understanding whether all members are equally capable to
host the regional node, what may be the resource implications, and what can be other
consequences.
Staff Performance
The ILC Asia Node has the provision of two secretariat staff, namely the Node
Coordinator and Communication and Information Officer. The Node Coordinator is an
international position while the Communication and Information Officer is a national
position. Mr. Rolando Madina of the Philippines was hired as the Node Coordinator in
January 2009 who chose not to renew the contract after one year. Therefore, the post
remained vacant since January 2010, which is again filled by a new incumbent Ms.
Seema Gaikwad of India, who will be joining the regional secretariat in Manila as of 1
December 2010. Ms. Shem Toledo was hired as the Project and Communication
Officer.
The original idea of hiring the Regional Coordinator did not materialise due to the non
liability clause in the agreement between ILC and IFAD. This surfaced as an issue
because ILC depended on IFAD for budgetary support. The hiring responsibility was
shifted to the regional host, namely ANGOC in Asia. The non-liability clause also
refrained the host from offering long term contract beyond one year to the incumbent.
After all, ANGOC has to rely on ILC for meeting the operational costs of the regional
secretariat while ILC itself rely on IFAD for the entire global and regional operational
costs. The funding arrangement is rather complicated for the secretariat staff to
understand. For the Node Coordinator the yearly contract of appointment was short-
term and insure tenure. The insecurity of tenure led the Coordinator to look for career
opportunity elsewhere. Finally he chose not to renew the contract beyond one year,
which obviously was a set back for ILC Asia Node. Although a substitute is recently
found through a transparent and rigorous hiring process, the Asia Node and its Steering
Committee suffered from the prolonged gap of almost one year. Obviously, this is a
staff performance and retention issue not so much linked to the individual staff member
but to the structural constraints of the organisation itself.
As far as members‘ perceptions are concerned, clearly it will be absurd to expect
objective staff assessment from them. Their assessment could only be based on how
efficiently the staff members maintained contacts with the members, and with what
quality and frequency they produced, exchanged or circulated communication and/or
other resource materials. For the purpose of this review, members were sought to
respond to a general question, whether they found the provision and performance of the
two staff to manage the secretariat was appropriate. As far as the number of staff is
concerned, almost all the members found it just right. However, the responses on staff
performance obviously lacked specificity, although most of them assessed the
performance positively. The prolonged vacant post of the Node Coordinator, however,
was viewed by one member as affecting negatively to the node‘s activities. One

member frankly refused to respond to the question saying that there was no information
for her to make comment on the appropriateness of staff provision and performance.
Review of annual staff performance appraisal can be a more scientific basis to arrive at
a definite conclusion. Since the only serving staff has not yet completed one year of
tenure such a review can only be a task for the future.
Relation with ILC Rome, Steering Committee and the Host
Whatever progress the ILC Asia achieve in the past 2 years is an outcome of its
intimate working relationships with the ILC Global Secretariat, the regional Steering
Committee and the hosting organisation ANGOC. In ILC Asia platform all the core
functions defined for ILC regional nodes have been executed with direct or indirect
involvements of all of these three entities. Generally, the Asian members have accepted
the current structure and relationships as being favourable and effective (see, e.g., Box
17)
The Asia Node relied heavily on the interim Working Group and ILC Focal Point to draft
and finalise the 30-month (July 2008-December 2010) regional work programmes
ensuring that they were in line with ILC Strategic Objectives. Until the Steering
Committee was formally formed in June 2009, the interim WG remained engaged in
accomplishing most of the ground works related to the regionalisation process. The
work programme that the WG helped finalise provided a framework for the Steering
Committee to finalise the annual work plans for 2009 and 2010.
The Steering Committee, that has had 2 intensive meetings since its formation, has
given the required management support to the Asia Node. The SC maintained contacts
with members through the
regional secretariat to circulate
notifications related to regional
priority programmes and seek
proposals, consolidate them into
annual plans and forward the
plans to the global platform for
approval and funding. The SC
through the regional secretariat
disburse ILC resource to support
the implementation of the
proposed and approved
programmes. The SC also
mobilise the secretariat staff to follow up with members monitoring the progress and
obtaining reports to be forwarded to ILC Rome for final approval.
ANGOC as the hosting organisation has offered the space for the Asia Node. More
importantly, ANGOG supported the Node as the interim regional coordinator for almost
a year since the post became vacant. The Asia Node was saved from falling apart
because of the extra effort of ANGOC and its Executive Director besides being the
hosting organisation. In their responses to the survey members have appreciated
ANGOC‘s contribution to the Asia Node (see Box 16).
I think the current structure is good and has responded well to
the attainment of its objectives.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The relationship is good. [The ILC Director] understands very
well the needs of the node and has done a lot to support
regionalization. ANGOC has also given a lot of time and
resources to support the secretariat. The steering committee is a
good enough size and decision making is efficiently done.
Box 17. Members’ perception about Asia Node’s relation with
Global Secretariate, Steering Committee and the host
Source: Responses to the survey on Review of ILC Regionalisation in Asia,
received on 4-22 October 2010.

The review of various ILC Asia reports and correspondences reveals that the relation of
the Asia Node with ILC Global secretariat has been strictly functional and disciplined as
expected by the formal arrangements. As the members have indicated in several
sections above, communications, exchange of information, execution of programme
matters, resource disbursements, actions to address staff issues, etc. have been
efficient in the Asia Node which has been possible because of its amicable relation with
the Global Secretariat. However, there are some systemic issues and fundamental
principles (see Box 18) which the Asia based members and the Steering Committee are
concerned about, which may be addressed by the ILC Coalition Council or Assembly of
Members or maybe through the bilateral consultation between the Asia and Global
platforms.
The ILC Asia Steering Committee‘s 2nd
meeting in Bangkok raised a concern that the
the ILC Rome did not have a focal person for Asia that made the job of the new Asia
Regional Coordinator unrealistically challenging. African and Latin America on the other
hand always enjoyed having their respective focal persons within the ILC. The absence
of a focal person for Asia has caused a relational gap between members in the region
and the global secretariat. Jagat
Basnet, the Co-chair of the SC
specifically highlighted that
members are left with missed
opportunities to benefit from
global perspective in critical
national initiatives and events.
As a CSO representative from
Nepal he passionately talked
about Nepal to argue the case.
He could be understood as saying
that Nepal currently was at the
crossroads of history in that the people have elected a Constituent Assembly to write a
brand new constitution for the country. He indicated that CSRC as a Nepali CSO
promoting land rights movements was engaged with CA members to make sure that the
new constitution upheld poor and landless farmers‗ rights to land. The organisation of
the 2009 ILC AoM in Kathmandu had created an important ripple in the socio-political
arena that made the political leaders and constitution experts pledge that land reform
and landless people‘s right to land would be given due priority in the new constitution.
However, the AoM turned out to be just one flash of an event.
The continuity of ILC‘s interest in Nepal‘s constitution making process would add value
and bring global perspective to CSRC‘s engagement with the CA members. But due to
the absence of a designated Asia focal person in ILC global secretariat CSRC‘s reach
has not gone beyond the Asia Node. He went on to say that this absence of the focal
person was felt by other Asian members too in their respective programmes, e.g. land
grabbing, women‘s access to land, commercial pressure on land, etc. This argument
was also reiterated by another SC member and the ED of ANGOC Nathaniel Don
Marquez who informed the SC that lately Barbara Cadispoti was assigned as the Asia
focal person but it was not known how much of her professional time is dedicated for
The only weakness in the relationship is that ILC Asia is too
dependent on ILC Secretariat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ILC Asia should have an independent role and authority. The
region should give the financial support to the centre. The policy
should be such that the resource should come to region first and
certain percentage to be given to the central.
Box 18. Concerns about Asia Node’s dependent status
Source: Response to the survey on Review of ILC Regionalisation in Asia,
received on 22 October 2010.

this purpose.
The 2nd
SC meeting also discussed in length the ILC‘s current programme and budget
approval mechanism along with its practice of directly communicating with individual
members in the region. ILC Asia‘s heavy dependence on ILC Rome for funding every
programme is one issue needing strategic decision (see Box 19). The Asia Node,
because of its obligatory administrative link with ILC Global Secretary, has felt the effect
M1: . . . all the contract [approval of plans are done] from Rome. The [ILC Asia‘s] role only is identifying and
reviewing proposals. . . . [In a] decentralized [system], . . . the [decision regarding] budget will have to [be
that of] the region, right? [The available resource] should be handed to the region and [a proportion of it]
can be returned to Rome. But [currently], all the contracts and deposits . . . [are channelized through]
Rome. Sometimes they also contract directly [with members] in Asia and . . . [the Steering Committee is
not informed]
M2: Our concern is that if the hosting institution will be empowered to make these contracts, then let us put that
as one of the action points. . . . For that ILC Secretariat will ask about our plans and whether we all have
approved it. If the legal and institutional management that ILC Secretariat has is not acceptable to both the
ILC management and the donors, then I think that is a problem. So what is our justification? Our
justification is to reduce the projectile costs between ILC Secretariat and the hosting institution and the
Coalition members or partners that are to carry out the work. . . . If this is going to work within the work
plan, it is very important for us to see our very own budget cycle of ILC. So if the objective is
regionalization, and the regions are where things actually happen, then I think we can put that as an action
point—a justification of the proposed solution.
M3: Of course, this also depends on the approved programme of work and the existing relationship between
ILC and the hosting institution. Normally, when a grant is approved, it has a four-year or five-year planning
cycle. And the funding is released on tranche-basis. I am not aware of this contract between the ILC and
ANGOC.
M4: it is a one-year contract. So we submit a proposal every year. For last year, they provided USD 91,000 that
covers the salary and the benefits of the Coordinator, the travel costs for the Coordinator, and overhead for
ANGOC for hosting the Node.
M3: In that case, I think ANGOC shall have the authority in spending the money and reporting on a six-monthly
or a yearly basis.
M4: That is actually happening. But I think [M1‘s] point is the sub-contract with the other members.
M2: So KPA will propose an activity that should be within the plan and the program and everything? But KPA
has a contract with ILC. It is not bypassing totally but that is how the financial matters go. But ANGOC is
out there as a Regional Coordinator, having to run after the reports and see what is happening . . . But
again, in the coalition and in the network, if funds are released on a one-year basis, according to the World
Bank, the deport implication is that you always propose activities on a one-year basis. This . . . has larger
ramification when you are dealing with issues of land reforms, tenure which is not a one-year, episodic
event. So I think there ought to be an understanding on the long-term sets of activities that would be carried
out.
Now, with the hosting institution overhead and all of that, we can talk about it here in light of one-year. But
the project proposals, etc, they are the elements that demand a longer term implementation. They will
have, obviously, a different set of scrutiny than one that is of one-year term. For the rest, substantively, let
us use that as another action point.
It is true that we are coming to another strategic framework for 2011-2015. So this year is very important. If
it is for 2011-2015, there is no reason for us not to conceive a two or three-year program. So I think this
should be our goal. We might have activities that might not allow us to inter-link with one another, but this
long-term perspective will be able to do that. So let us suggest this to ILC. If this would require Council
members to intervene, I would take it up to them.
Box 19. ILC Asis Steering Committee’s discussion on ILC Global and Regional relation
Source: Responses to the survey on Review of ILC Asia Regionalisation Process, received on 4-20 October 2010

of the non-obligatory clause in the agreement between ILC and IFAD. The compelling
situation to remain short term in planning and resource mobilisation has been viewed as
obstructing to the Asia Node from being forward looking and impact oriented.
Coordination and Collaboration
Summary
Members’ Perception and Satisfaction
Appropriation of Regionalisation Concept
Response to Regional Activities
Summary
Conclusion and Recommendations
The ILC‘s regionalisation process in Asia that had officially started in July 2008 with an
arrangement of an interim Working Group and the appointment of ANGOC as the
hosting organisation has crossed several important milestones, yet it is still evolving.
This review has found that the regionalisation process has advanced significantly
accomplishing the planned activities. Basic ground works related to programmatic,
governance and administrative matters have been initiated. The thematic area for the
first 30 months work programme outlined by the interim Working Group in 2008
provided a framework for annual work plans of 2009 and 2010. The ILC Asian Caucus
that had met during the ILC AoM in Kathmandu gave birth to an official governing body
or the Steering Committee for ILC Asia Node. Asian ILC members that had shown
interest in undertaking specific programmes that are one way or other linked with the
ILC‘s Strategic Objectives have had their proposals approved, programmes
implemented and outputs produced until the end of 2009. The implementation of 2010
programmes is due to be completed in December. The Steering Committee with the
given authority has fulfilled their obligation of meeting at least once a year to review
programme plans, progress, and channelise resources for regional programmes and
governance. These, among others, are important accomplishments. All of these
aspects have been reviewed and assessed to draw lessons and recommendations for
the region‘s future course of action. This section presents a summary of key findings or

lessons and a set of recommendations for the ILC and its Asia regional node to
consider taking some critical and viable action steps.
Governance and Results
Outreach and Membership
The ILC‘s process of seeking new memberships would have made the Asian members
more content if the Asia Node and its Steering Committee have had a major role to play
in bringing and approving new Asian members. More objective approach to
membership expansion with more focus on quality than quantity has been deemed
necessary.
Recommendation. Revisit and revise the current criteria by paying more attention to the
track records and the extent to which the organisations aspiring to be an ILC member
focuses on land issues in the programmes of, or research studies carried out by them.
A window period of at least a year should be allowed for a recommending member to
closely monitor and objectively assess the appropriateness, interests and commitments
of the applicant. The recommending member must be from the same country, if not,
from the same region to allow proximity during the assessment process.
The fact that ILC in Asia is represented only by 7 countries of the region contradicts its
strategic principle of becoming a globally representative network. There are many
CSOs working in number of countries in Asia (e.g. Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, etc.) that
are contributing to promoting debates on issues of land and natural resources.
Balanced inclusion of such CSOs to ILC membership potentially add value to the ILC‘s
global movement in achieving its Strategic Objectives. While a proactive effort might
work to strike such a balance, there could still be some suitable and effective
organisations who for some reason would not want to be part of ILC. It could (should)
still be to ILC‘s best interest to have contacts with them, understand their work and
allow ILC and its member a broad based and enriched perspective on land issues and
debates.
Recommendation. A membership assessment committee may be formed to do a rapid
assessment of CSOs/IGOs working in some of such non-member countries to establish
contacts, explore country experiences and recommend possibilities of membership
expansion as well as strategies to remain in touch with other vibrant CSOs who opt not
to be ILC member.
Members’ Roles and Contributions
The ILC Asia regional network will be able to sustain and contribute to strengthening the
global platform only if the network is stronger and vibrant demonstrated through
improved members‗ participation, member-to-member sharing and professional growth.
There is a need for a systemic approach to ensuring that members are seriously playing
their roles and fulfilling their commitments.
Recommendation. A system of assessing members‘ performance needs to be in place
either through self reporting or by a process of peer review. The assessment result
should be the basis for renewal of memberships. The Steering Committee should have
the authority to make the membership renewal decision.

The debates and discourse on land issues could have been more scrutinised through
plurality of voices and different positions organisations have taken. While the CSOs do
bring views of some diversity, increased and active participation of more IGOs in the
regional platform could have potentially brought additional dimensions to the land
debate and discourse. This is an area in which the ILC Asia Node has to do more.
Recommendation. ILC Asia Steering Committee should be more strategic in addressing
the issue of lack of representation of ILC IGO members in the regional platform. The
membership assessment committee recommended above can include this task in its
terms of reference.
Regular regional and country specific programmes (such as assemblies, seminar,
meeting, workshops, training and sharing sessions) of ILC Asia with support from ILC
Rome have not only raise the profile and visibility of ILC in countries and the region, but
also enhanced members capacity to be more impact oriented. The significance of
members to have initiated activities at South Asia Region level is also an emerging
issue in the discussion of regionalisation of ILC but the case still needs to be argued
strongly.
Recommendations. ILC should retain its current approach to involving members in
regional and country level activities. ILC Rome and Asia (through its Steering
Committee) should be more strategic in inviting expression of interests and call for
proposals and supporting them, while the message that ILC on its own is not a funding
entity should be made clearer which should imply that members make best and
optimum use of the support they receive from the ILC. It is also a time now for the
Global and Asian platforms to start listening to the faint voice and concern of members
from South Asia for them to be able to collectively start focusing on land issues
specifically of South Asia.
Result-based Management
The ILC Asia Node could have asserted the validity of the current management
practice, which is largely flexible and not strongly based on indicator specific framework,
if it had clearly documented as to why it needed to take such an approach, and what the
result-base management meant for the regional node.
Recommendation. ILC Asia Node should allow members to be more critically engaged
in debates and discussions to come to a consensus on a framework of management
and customised definition of result-based management for the Asia Node.
For the ILC Asia Node to be more impact oriented, it should be able to develop longer
term strategic plans, not just annual plans. Complicated conditions of the agreement
reached at the global level (e.g., the non-liability clause in the agreement between ILC
Rome and IFAD) has been found counter productive in managing the regional node with
the spirit of decentralisation let along in developing its own long term indicators and
targets.
Recommendation. ILC Rome and Asia should develop an understanding about how the
Asia Node can/should do business differently so that it will be able to define a
management framework, agree upon a set of indicators and targets that are both sort
and long terms in nature and demonstrate results and impact against them.

Communication
Experienced and stable host with proven track record of its prolonged association with
organisations of diverse orientation, philosophy, principles and approaches plays a
significant role in establishing and maintaining a good communication, both at horizontal
and vertical directions. Selection of ANGOC to host Asia node has been a favourable
choice. However, it has been learnt that sending out information regularly through
effective means is necessary but not sufficient to assert that the communication has
taken place unless it is two-way and substantive in the exchange of information and
feedback.
Recommendation. More needs to be done in promoting member-to-member
communication. The idea shared by one of the members about using a ―chat room‖
such as Skype or Yahoo Messenger so that greater synergy is created. Opportunities
for bi-lateral and multilateral professional exchanges between and among members can
be helpful too.
Member organisations are obviously required to give priority to their own activities than
to invest time and resources to communicate with or respond to the communications of
the ILC unless they find meaningful value in such communications.
Recommendation. ILC Asia Node needs to be more strategic to ensure that members
find it professionally rewarding in improving member-to-node and member-to-member
communications, making them two-way traffic and more substantive. Moreover,
interactions with IGO members and potential partners need to be enhanced by
mandating relevant member(s) in the region to organise meetings to discuss, advocate
or persuade IGOs and partners to enhance communications, participation, dialogues
and constructive collaborations. Members at the regional gatherings will have to
dedicate time to discuss what the members can do or have done in this aspect. The
discussion should include identification of substantive ingredients of advocacy agenda
to initiate communication with partners and that with not-very-active regional IGO
members.
Resource Mobilisation
Resource mobilisation without clarity of its legal status is not possible for ILC Asian
Node. ANGOC with its registered institutional legal status in the Philippines and as the
host organisation could act on the Asia Node‘s behalf, but it could not be a long term
solution and, apparently, not so favoured by donors. Moreover, without the support and
clear guidance from the ILC Rome, the regional node in Asia can barely make a good
headway in resource mobilisation and in working with ILC partners for joint co-financing
the annual priority programmes, let along the longer duration programmes.
Recommendation. ILC Rome and Asia should sort out the issue of legal status of the
Asia regional node and come up with a long term solution to the problem of resource
mobilisation at the region level. ILC Asia needs to be introduced to the potential donors
by ILC Rome as the former approach the donors with proposal and funding request.
The success that the ILC members have experienced in mobilising programme funds
from donors other that ILC‘s strategic partners, does not necessarily make them equally
successful in obtaining funds from ILC‘s strategic partners working at the country level.

Similarly, the favourable supports that the strategic partners extend to ILC at the global
level does not necessarily mean that the ILC members in country would have the same
experience. On the contrary, there are instances when some partners have taken
position on land issues that is against ILC‘s own position.
Recommendation. ILC‘s policy to engage with IGOs and partners need to be reviewed.
While the ILC should consider minimising its involvement in fund raising by itself,
strategically the members‗ capacity to raise funds need to be enhanced. What the ILC
should do is to advocate and loby strategic partners and donors at the global to country
levels to be more responsive to ILC members in supporting their programmes in
countries and in the region.
The practice of dividing and allocating equal funds (mobilised by ILC) to members in the
region resulted in the development of arbitrary programmes. Such a practice does not
allow members to be creative in addressing local issues of land and poor people nor
does it help them develop capacity to negotiate with donors or ILC partners for resource
mobilisation.
Recommendation. ILC needs to review its strategy to support members with resources.
The funding for members‘ programme should be based on a critical assessment of their
track record, on-going programme, their strategic visions, short and longer term work
programmes, and the quality and relevance of the proposal which the ILC may want to
consider funding.
Efficiency and Effectiveness
Composition, Roles and Resources
While the 6-member Steering Committee is found appropriate in size to manage the ILC
Asian Node, the support it should get from the regional secretariat is not clear and
assured. Overburdening the Steering Committee with excessive reading of reports and
other communications decreases its efficiency.
Critical and substantive feedback on technical documents such as periodic progress
reports prepared at the country level could be received from apex bodies like the
Steering Committee and the ILC Coalition council only if such documents are reviewed,
discussed, commented upon for further improvement and, in turn, summarised and
synthesised at the regional level with the facilitation of the Regional Coordinator.
Recommendation. The Secretariat of the Asia Node needs to be led by a capable
professional and a competent support staff. Asia Node Secretariat needs to ensure that
every programme report is professionally synthesised, consolidated and packaged in an
apex-management-friendly manner prior to sending them to the Steering Committee
and Coalition Council. The regional Coordinator is expected to carryout this task.
However, short-term external professional support is deemed necessary as the ILC Asia
Node is in the process of hiring a fresh Coordinator who will need an incubating period
to adapt to the Node‘s challenging work context.
The lack of interest among IGO members in the region and to educate such IGOs about
ILC and its regional presence is a serious challenge for the Steering Committee. The
Steering Committee is represented by two important IGO members. Obviously, these

IGOs are expected not only to remain interested and active as the ILC member, but also
persuade other IGO members for their active participation in ILC‘s regional
programmes.
Recommendation. A workshop or discussion session focusing specifically on the issue
of IGO members participation in ILC‘s activities in Asia should be organised to find out
constraints, possibilities and chart out the action plan.
The follow up to the Steering Committee decisions is crucial in practically addressing
critical management issues of the ILC Asia Node. Formation of a consortium of
members to prepare and submit to non-ILC member donors was a decision that
suffered from implementation due to lack of follow up. In its meeting the Steering
Committee also raised the concern about its confused role and authority when Asian
members are eligible to receiving programme funds directly from the ILC and the SC not
being notified.
Recommendation. The Steering Committee of ILC Asia needs to be appropriately
empowered and authorised to make financial and programme decision pertaining to the
region.
Without a conscious effort and acknowledgement of gender unfriendly composition of
the Steering Committee, the issue of the lack of gender balance does not get
addressed. The organisational membership of the Steering Committee assured no
female sitting in any of the SC meetings, thereby the SC decisions could be perceived
to have lacked female‘s perspective.
Recommendation. The election of the next SC committee should ensure that gender
balance is attained in its formation.
Hosting Arrangement
Although ANGOC has been perceived to be an appropriate host for the ILC Asia Node,
taking it as the host for ever does not allow opportunity to other members from the
region to host and develop their own capacity.
Recommendation. The hosting policy of ILC needs a review. Rotating hosting
arrangement among members in every two year is a preferred option, but all the
consequences must be critically assessed and presented to members before a decision
to this effect is taken.
Staff Performance
The experience of a prolong vacancy of the ILC Asia Node Coordinator teaches a
lesson that insecure job tenure can lead to premature staff turnover, while rehiring is a
tenuous and an expensive process.
Recommendation. ILC should review its regionalisation and the human resource
management policy. It needs to be proactive in addressing the possible staff turnover
issue before more such incident takes place.
Relation with ILC Rome, Steering Committee and the Host
The fact that the ILC Asia Node sustained so far, even without the Node Coordinator for
almost a year, and is able to accomplish range of activities in the past two years is

primary due to the collective efforts of the regional members, the host, the Steering
Committee and the support from ILC Rome. However, good relation also needs to be
complemented by good management practice. The Asia Node Steering Committee
finds that there is a systemic weakness in the global-regional chain of command. There
are two specific aspects needing consideration. One is that the SC is not sufficiently
authorised for decision making related to the regional matters. And the other is that
members in Asia have not been able to take full advantage of their alliance with ILC
Rome due to the absence of a dedicated focal point for Asia.
Recommendation. ILC Rome should review the minutes of ILC Asia Steering
Committee meetings either to clarify why the current management practice is justified or
take the SC meeting as the basis for improving the practice.

References
ILC (2003????). Charter and Governance Framework of the International Land
Coalition. Rome: ILC
ANGOC (2006). Asia Regional Meeting, Trends and Challenges on Agrarian Reform &
Access to Land: Meeting Report and Framework for Action, 12-14 October 2006,
Subic, Philippines. Manila: ANGOC
ANGOC (2008). Final Narrative Report of Piloting of a Process to Decentralise the ILC
in Asia. Manila: ANGOC
ILC Asia Node (2008). Minutes of the 1st
Meeting of the ILC Working Group for Asia,
28-29 May 2008. Manila: ILC Asia
ILC (2008). The International Land Coalition Operating Framework, approved by ILC
Council in April 2008. Rome: ILC
ILC Asia Node (2008). Minutes of the ILC Working Group for Asia - Second Meeting,
20-25 September 2008. Manila: ILC Asia
ILC (2007). Strategic Framework 2007-2011: Putting a Pro-poor Land Agenda into
Practice. Rome: ILC
ANGOC (2008). Final narrative report of Piloting of a Process to Decentralise the
International Land Coalition in Asia. Manila: ANGOC.
ILC (2009). Letter of Agreement between ILC and ANGOC for the later to implement
the project ―ILC Regionalisation Process in Asia: A Step Forward,‖ 25 February 2009.
ILC (2009). International Land Coalition, Conference & Assembly of Members Nepal
2009: Ensuring Rights to Land for Peace and Food Security. Rome: ILC

41
Annexes
Annex A. List of Asia based ILC member-CSOs/IGOs/INGOs in 2008
In 2008, the following CSO members of ILC were based in Asia:
1. Asian NGO Coalition for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ANGOC)
2. Association for Land Reform and Development (ALRD)
3. Bhartiy Jan Sewa Ashram (BJSA)
4. Community Self-Reliance Center (CSRC)
5. Cooperation Committee for Cambodia (CCC)
6. Jaringan Kerja Pemetaan Partisipatif (JKPP)
7. Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria (KPA)
8. Mobilisation and Development (MODE) –Nepal
9. Social Development Foundation (SDF)
10. Society for Conservation and Protection of the Environment (SCOPE)
11. Society for Development of Drought Prone Areas (SDDPA)
12. South Asia Rural Reconstruction Association (SARRA)
13. Star Kampuchea (STAR)
14. Task Force Mapalad (TFM)
15. The Indonesian Institute for Forest and Environment (RMI)
Additionally, the following international and intergovernmental members of ILC were working in
Asia:
1. Environmental Liaison Center International (ELCI)
2. European Commission (EC)
3. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO)
4. International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP)
5. International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)
6. International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied
Workers Associations (IUF)
7. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
8. Secours Populaire Français (SPF)
9. United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
10. World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF)
11. World Bank - International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (WB)
12. World Food Programme (WFP)
13. Global Land Tools Network (GLTN)
14. International Institute of Environment and Development (IIED)

42
15. Rural Development Initiative (RDI)
Source: Annex A of the Letter of Agreement between ILC and ANGOC on the implementation of
the project ―ILC Regionalisation Process in Asia: A Step Forward,‖ 25 February 2009.

43
From: Nathaniel Don Marquez <ndemarquez@angoc.org>
Subject: Re: ILC Review of the Process of Regionalisation and Decentralisation
in Asia
Date: October 18, 2010 12:26:01 PM GMT+05:30
To: rolando modina <rmodina@yahoo.com>, Roshan Chitrakar
<roshan@shantimarg.org>
Roshan, Roland,
Yes you can ask the SC Members about these questions, though they may not have
responses to some of them, particularly those the pertains to daily operations of the
regional node. Below are some of my thoughts, as an interim coordinator this 2010. I
invite Roland to provide feedback.
What inspires the new memberships in Asia? Did the Steering Committee
circulate the request for new memberships and screen the applications? What
are the reasons why organisations want to be or not want to be the ILC member?
From the global call for applications, the ILC Regional Node has been more on the
receiving end --- responding to groups inquiring about ILC or requesting assistance in
getting endorsements from existing members.
While the criteria have been specified for potential members, there is a need to put
details in them. At the same time, we have heard feedback from the region that
endorsement of a potential member from an existing member should not be seen as the
sole determinant for accepting new members.
Membership concerns also need time, and should not be dealt on an adhoc basis.
Given the work load of the Regional Node, there are other programmatic and
institutional concerns that need to be addressed.
At the same time, there is an equally important aspect of assessing how existing
members are contributing to the Coalition.
I have no idea in terms of the motive of an organization applying for membership. To my
understanding, there is a committee that reviews but te deliberations are not shared to
the regional node. also, as to my understanding, the only process of validation of
applicants are through email, or basically from the endorsement received.
Is there a mechanism in place through which the Asia Node becomes successful
in receiving responses and feedback to its circulation of e.g. progress reports, e-
bulletin, surveys, invitation to attend meetings or other events, etc.? How much
of responses does the secretariat receive and how substantive are they? Both
from regional members/partners and global platform/CC?

44
What communication problem does the ILC Asia face? What could be the
solutions?
Various aspects:
a) Objective -- what do we want to achieve with our communication system? How do we
define "successful"? will a mere acknowledgment enough in saying that a response has
been generated?
b) On the content --- what do we want to receive and send on a regular basis?
c) How often do we send updates? In what form?
d) How do we encourage members to share information beyond the usulal project
reports?
e) Feedback mechanism for both sides (recepient and sender)
f) How do we capture the member-to-member exchanges, and not just member-node
I think the Steering Committee will need a special strategy session on this matter. The
agenda items for the regional assembly this November is already full. Nonetheless,
perhaps you can extract some ideas from the members when you present the initial
results.
At the moment none. We just keep sending follow-up letters or call them.
What have been the ILC Asia Node’s efforts to mobilise funds for its programme
and budget? How effective and successful were the efforts? What problems or
obstacles come in the way of fund mobilisation effortts?
I have responded this earlier. yes we submitted to EC but wasnot approved.
I think what we need to get a sense also is the contribution of individual members to the
work done for the Coalition. For instance ANGOC has mobilized
funding from other donors to compliment an exisitng ILC-funded project or vice versa.
What new way of (or improvements in) working relationship among and between
the ILC global secretariat at Rome, Asia Node and Asia Steering Committee would
like to see?
A regionalization strategy should be clearly defined first. Each of the entitites above
have different interpretations. An important aspect is the definition of roles.
These are some of my views.
Thanks,
Don

DRAFT Report on the Internal Review of the Regionalization Process

More Related Content

Viewers also liked (12)

Similar to DRAFT Report on the Internal Review of the Regionalization Process (20)

More from Roshan Chitrakar (15)

DRAFT Report on the Internal Review of the Regionalization Process