The Rethinking Expropriation Law initiative hosted a Conference on Compensation for Expropriation in Cape Town, South Africa on December 7-9, 2016. The final session of the Conference took place on December 9 and aimed at discussing the development of a protocol on fair compensation.
For the final session in Cape Town, scholars, judges, activists, and government officials from around the world sat together to provide input on what guidance and principles should be included in the protocol on fair compensation.
Background on the compensation protocol project:
In 2016, the Dutch Land Governance Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue initiated the development of a protocol on fair compensation in case of land tenure changes, expropriation in particular. This protocol will serve as guidance to the various actors operating in this field, such as affected people, governments, project developers, financiers, donors and civil society organisation in cases where fair compensation needs to be determine
The final session of the Conference aimed at presenting the progress of the first phase, a review of existing international guidelines and the findings of a stakeholder consultation on the key challenges from the field that call for additional guidance on compensation.
The final session consisted of four discussions on four substantive aspects of the protocol:
1. Inclusion of purpose and process requirements in a compensation protocol,
2. How to develop a fair process? How to address changing and delayed projects?
3. How to address issues of compensation for informal rights holders?
4. How to address issues of compensation for collective tenure rights?
Participants who made verbal comments during the final plenary sessions:
Professor Dr. Leon Verstappen (Professor of Law, University of Groningen)
Dr. Hanri Mostert (University of Cape Town, Professor of Law)
Professor Jacques Sluysmans (Professor/Lawyer, Radboud Universiteit– Netherlands)
Dr. Antonie Gildenhuys
Dr. Liz Alden Wily (Independent Land Tenure Specialist)
Dr. Shai Stern (Professor of Law, Bar-Ilan University)
Dr. Mike McDermott (Managing Director, Global Property Advisory)
Mr. Henk Smith (Attorney, Legal Resources Centre)
Professor Yifat Holzman-Gazit (Professor of law, The College of Management Academic Studies)
Dr. Rachel Walsh (Professor of Law, Trinity College Dublin):
Ms. Nina Braude (Candidate Attorney, Baker & McKenzie)
Mr. Marcello De Maria (Land Portal Foundation, University of Reading)
Mr. Nicholas Tagliarino (Land Portal Foundation, University of Groningen)
Mr. Jean du Plessis ( Capacity Development Expert: UN-Habitat, Land & GLTN Unit)
Ms. Maartjie Van Eerd (Senior Expert, Housing & Social Development, IHS Erasmus University, Rotterdam)
Prof Elmien du Plessis (Lecturer, Faculty of Law, North West University)
Dr. Leon Verstappen began the session by presenting the input document, co-written by True Price and the University of Groningen, which was commissioned by the Dutch Land Governance Multi-Stakeholder Dialogue in 2016 (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands). The input document established a participatory process for developing a protocol on fair compensation in case of land tenure changes, expropriation in particular.
Dr. Verstappen posed a series of questions to the audience, including:
Should the protocol focus on rural land or only certain countries?
Should the protocol only apply in developing countries or should it apply globally?
Who should be the target audience--(e.g. NGOs, civil societies, governments)?
What should be the relationship between this protocol and other existing international standards/ guidelines and national legislation?
Dr. Verstappen noted that the protocol should be focused on fair compensation, but there are important pre-requisitions to fair compensation, including genuine public purpose and due process. He noted that the protocol could be a living document, which may change over the years. He also noted that the protocol should be flexible and subject to changing circumstances that arise in the future.
One of the participants asked about the approach to developing a protocol on fair compensation. Dr. Verstappen responded that the protocol should be developed following a multi-stakeholder approach involving companies, investors, governments, civil societies, academia, and other stakeholders. The protocol should not duplicate guidelines and other documents that already exist. Drafters of the protocol need to understand that there is no global legislator that will make this document legally binding, but we want to make it as effective as possible. The goal should be to achieve buy-in and consensus from multiple stakeholders. These are only guidelines but drafters could adopt a ‘comply or explain’ rule that we recommend stakeholders follow.
Dr. Verstappen noted that it will be difficult to shape the protocol in a way that will cover all cases. But there must be some guidelines in place. The protocol must be contextualized so that it can be used in a variety of scenarios and cases. One of the participants proposed that the protocol could provide lots of options, possibilities, examples, and ways to deal with different situations.
*Please note that the following transcript paraphrases the key points made by the participants. The transcript does not directly quote the speakers, and any mistakes in paraphrasing are unintentional.
For full discussion, see footage on Land Portal’s YouTube channel.
Plenary session 1: Inclusion of public purpose requirement and inclusion of process requirements in the compensation protocol (chair: Dr. Ernst Marais)
Preliminary discussion on public purpose: Purpose and process requirements relating to the substantive requirements for expropriation. Mere compensation cannot justify an expropriation – there needs to be a valid public purpose. There needs to be a way in which the objective of the expropriation is realized; procedure should be just and fair.
Questions posed to the participants concerning “genuine” public purpose:
What is the primary justification for expropriation?
How broad do we want to define purpose for purposes of Protocol?
Should we limit to age-old public purpose justification (e.g. road, schools), or should we include public interest?
Could we also address the danger of economic development purposes in the protocol.
Should we extend the definition of “public purpose” to include land reform?
Which public purposes justify the increase in compensation?
Dr. Shai Stern: The purpose and process are very important. In the land reform context, the purpose is changing from focal point of compensation. Process can become part of the remedy, and if managed the right way, we will be able to turn the process into a remedy, and save public money this way. We must try to understand the negotiation process, and the impact on the landowners other parties. We may be able include the process as part of the remedy the protocol is trying to provide and then use the protocol when making decisions on compensation. We can include instructions on the process and save public money by reducing delays in the process. The protocol must speak in legalist and economic terms, in a way for lawyers and economists to understand.
Mr. Bjorn Hoops: I suggest that we need to include a public purpose requirement in protocol, but we need it to be flexible. We should focus on procedural government aspect and the role of the competence of national legislation when involved with the definition of purposes. Rather look at procedural and governance aspects of it. We need to examine the role of the legislature is – how specific a purpose needs to be. When the purpose is more specific in legislation, it enables judges to apply new purposes to a case. This way, judges can provide better protection from arbitrary expropriation. If there is no specific public purposes in legislation, courts will defer the authority’ s decision on what constitutes a public purpose.
Dr. Liz Alden Wily: There is an implied presumption that public purpose equals necessary public ownership. Do all lands set aside in public interest have to be owned by the state? This is fundamental to the process. Does public land i.e. land that is set aside for public purposes need to be put in the hands of the state? Land could be used for public purposes (e.g. protected areas) and could also be owned and managed by communities or local landholders.
Few laws have taken a progressive step on appropriately distinguishing between public, private and community land. A major issue is how to define the relationship between public land, community land, and private land. Perhaps the protocol should could question this presumption. Critical for the “process” is determining how best to use the land, and questioning whether putting expropriated land in hands of state is really needed. The protocol should suggest alternatives to expropriation, which don’t involve forcibly removing affected populations.
Dr. Hanri Mostert: In response to Dr. Shai Stern’s comment, we should not dismiss the therapeutic process so quickly, there is something to be said about developing guidance on a process which divests someone of land ownership
Response from Dr. Shai Stern: If you use therapeutic language in a document it won’t be accepted by financial stakeholders. The protocol must be written in a way that legalists and economists will accept.
Dr. Mike McDermott: Several countries articulate the public purpose precisely in law, but there is much work that need to be done of the ground. The civil countries where they articulate the process (e.g. Azerbaijan), but how can we hold governments accountable for making fair decisions on what constitutes a public purpose?
Mr. Jean du Plessis: At a certain point, the decision needs to be made to expropriate. But in many cases, there may be alternative mechanisms to expropriation. Other mechanisms may better suited. How do we hold judges and decision-makers accountable for the decision to expropriate? We must able to ask a decision-maker (e.g. a judge) why expropriation was the chosen the mechanism? Expropriation is a very expensive and a blunt tool to achieve what it is trying to achieve. It is a big portion of local budgets, and we need to explore alternatives.
Dr. Rachel Walsh: We need options or alternatives to expropriations. We need to develop a better understanding of what truly constitutes a public purpose. I think this work needs to be grounded in empirical research on the impact expropriations have on affected people. Three requirements to fair compensation needs to be included in the protocol: public purpose, due process, and fair compensation – must refer either to all three requirements for expropriation, and not mention compensation alone. If we include only compensation in the title, it inherently skews the focus if only compensation is mentioned in title of the protocol, regardless of what is said in the body of the text.
Professor Yifat Holzman-Gazit: What is the relation between protocol and legislation – part of legislation in future, or an interpretative tool? This is a question that cannot be answered in advance, but should be held in mind. What should be the relationship between this purpose and the law of the land? If the law of the land defines public purposes, maybe we should define purposes in the protocol.
Dr. Leon Verstappen: This is the same difficulty as faced with the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGs). The VGs deals with legitimate tenure rights but does not define what are “legitimate tenure rights.” This is a problem that we must be addressed when developing the protocol on fair compensation. By using multi-stakeholder approach, we hope to develop a sufficiently effective tool. By using banks, pension funds, civil societies, NGOs, and governments, we hope it will be useful. However, developing a legally binding tool is simply not possible.
Dr. Ernst Marais discussed the procedural requirements for expropriation. He posed the following the questions to the participants:
What kind of factors should be set out in process for calculating compensation – constitution factors, or others?
Or should it left over to particular jurisdiction to decide on factors?
If expropriation infringes customary law right, what should be the process?
What factors should be set out for expropriation decision-making processes?
Mr. Bjorn Hoops: I propose we divide the procedure into a planning part and an expropriation part. For example, we should address cases where projects are prepared in secrecy and then the state approaches owner to acquire land. And also we should address the issue of whether the expropriation is actually necessary. Planning in a participatory way would make procedure a lot more effective. Preparations made in secrecy are complete, and, without prior consultation, no minds can be changed. Participation should be included as early as possible.
Ms. Maartjie Van Eerd: A major issue is how do we make sure all different groups within communities are well-represented in the planning process?
Dr. Mike McDermott: Timing is of the essence – always look at person receiving compensation, look at the before and after principle. Timing of compensation can destroy the whole effect of restoring livelihoods.
Mr. Henk Smith: Typically, payment is only made years later, and beneficiaries do not receive payment. This is major issue that protocol needs to address.
Dr. Liz Alden Wily: Reinforced Henk’s comment looking through constitutions in Africa, only 16 require prior payment of compensation.
· Delays in payment are major issues. Many claims in Africa are outstanding.
· In many places, this a massive problem.
· Compensation payments made prior to eviction is necessary in Africa and Asia.
· Process is really where emphasis should lie.
· Planning must happen as early as possible with public purpose, and we need to bring the affected people back into the process.
Plenary session 2: Inclusion of public purpose requirement and inclusion of process requirements in the compensation protocol (chair: Dr. Hanri Mostert)
Does the consultation process come after the planning of the project? If it does, the consultation element is way too late. The consultation must come before the decision-making on planning occurs.
Professor Hanri Mostert: What is the process in various countries?
Dr. Rachel Walsh: Generally in Ireland, prior to expropriation, consultation occurs in the planning process not only with affected parties but also with third parties. Before getting to the point of notice to expropriation, land in Ireland needs to be zoned, and consultation with any third party interest must occur.
Mr. Bjorn Hoops: Does the consultation process come after the planning of the project? If it does, the consultation element is way too late. The consultation must come before the decision-making or the planning occurs.
Professor Yifat Holzman-Gazit: In Israel, the Committee hears why the land is needed for a public purpose, whether there are alternatives, but only provides recommendations to the Minister of Finance. The judicial review of the decision is limited to the legality of the expropriation and proportionality, but does not examine the compensation decision.
Professor Verstappen: If put consultation occurs early it will instantly affect market. Be aware of mechanisms to try and prevent negative effects on the land market.
Dr. Hanri Mostert lead the next discussion reacquisition rights in cases where there is a change of public purpose or delay in the realization of public purpose. Professor Mostert presented Bjorn Hoops’ research in a diagram, which provided a spectrum of country approaches to reacquisition in cases where projects are delayed or abandoned.
Mr. Bjorn Hoops: One side of spectrum, you have the United States which doesn’t offer a right to reacquire unless authority acted in bad faith and don’t care if purpose changed unless it’s in bad faith. In the Philippines, if a new purpose does not realize or constitute a genuine public purpose, then reacquisition rights may be granted.
Mr. Nicholas Tagliarino: Bangladesh and India have legal issues relating to reacquisition rights. In India, if land is completely unutilized after 5 years, then reacquisition rights may be granted to the previous affected family. In Bangladesh and other countries, the land reverts back to the government if the land is not used for a public purpose, but it is not automatically granted back to the affected persons.
Professor Yifat Holzman-Gazit: In Israel, the Authority does not have to indicate timeframe of project, resulting in 25/30 year delays. Courts are highly reluctant to regard a 25 year delay as a delay. In 2010 law changed –authority has to specify time frame. The authority must specify the process for the project and has up to 15 years. Not an easy question. Change of public purpose can happen – just notify owner – but if its purposes becomes private, the the land must revert back to owner. What about too much land used? New law – if land was not used, must return it. What do you do with land is not used for a public purpose, the expropriating body must notify the owner and the owner gets back the land in its current condition.
Professor Jacques Sluysmans: In the Netherlands, people do not only have a right to acquisition but can also apply for additional compensation. The landowner decides. Another common problem in the Netherlands is delays in expropriation.
Dr. Antonie Gildenhuys: I would like to mention an aspect of land reform in South Africa. Labour tenants are, by law and under certain conditions, entitled to claim ownership of the land they occupy. The South African Government invited labour tenants some years ago to submit claims. Many claims were received. Unless a claim is settled between the parties, the claimed land must be expropriated in order to transfer ownership thereof from the existing owner to the labour tenant. The expropriation process takes place in the Land Claims Court. Despite receipt of the claims, the Government Department concerned did very little to prosecute the claims. Very few claims reached the Land Claims Court. Some claims vanished into thin air. The Land Claims Court yesterday issued an Order requiring the Department to submit a plan, with time frames, on how they will manage the claims. It is important for the success of land reform initiatives that methods be developed to deal with delays.
Dr. Rachel Walsh: UK and Irish situation shows that it is at the bottom left hand of tier – no scrutiny in change of purpose. Public authority can sell to private person. There is no possibility for retransfer to original owner.
Professor Hanri Mostert: What are the recommendations?
Professor Jacques Sluysmans: A good system would provide that former owner has a choice of what to do especially where there is a long time between the expropriation and change of purpose. You should reacquire property not same use it was to him and he doesn’t want it back, then can ask for additional compensation. If initial owner wants it back, he must pay back excess compensation in part.
Dr. Mike McDermott: In case where delay is one year, acquisition of land should be deemed as abandoned. Many countries in Africa are affected. It is tough government to perform task. Otherwise wait three more years to acquire same land again.
Dr. Hanri Mostert: What if compensation was received for loss of income or relocation under original expropriation? Should compensation cover the legal costs to effectuate expropriation? Included? Improvements? Devaluation in the meantime?
Mr. Nicholas Tagliarino: Compensation should reflect the economic activities associated with the land. We should require government or acquiring body to look to similarly situated lands to establish estimates of financial loss.
Dr. Shai Stern: Expropriation preserves relationship between owner and land. This is not the appropriate way. US way – once expropriation has been realized, must think about whether owner stays in picture. Reacquisition rights could have ridiculous consequences. If something is built on land that can longer be used, should it be returned to owner? We should think about making ‘the cut’; a clean break.
Dr. Hanri Mostert: Having a clean break is one way to go. Argument for a clean break comes from premise that the state acts in good faith and that is not necessarily so in all countries.
Professor Yifat Holzman-Gazit: There is always resentment against cases of delay and unused land. Built in tension. Would the participatory process deal with tension? If you have not agreed to expropriation, difficult to have a clean ‘afterwards’.
Mr. Bjorn Hoops: Establishing a “clean break” is not the right thing to do (commenting on Shai’s argument). It would not be appropriate in cases of illegitimate expropriation projects which experience delays No obligation to reacquire, but this should be an option, and there should be additional compensation for illegitimate projects once there is delay. There should be no obligation to reacquire, but an option to reacquire, against additional compensation.
Dr. Liz Alden Wily: We should focus on land transparency and accountability. In most countries, the power to be able to take the land and to not have to return it presents an open invitation to take as must land as government wants. Usually affected people still use a portion of expropriated and. If viable, the land should be returned. Problem with reacquisition is that excess compensation must be paid back to the government. But no one is going to keep compensation, but instead spend the money. We need to be a little bit careful on this – states that have a lack of transparency and accountability is the line from which to work from (for the protocol), not the “perfect state”.
Plenary session 3: Eligibility of informal rights holders (chair: Professor Jacques Sluysman)
Introduction: Professor Jacques Sluysmans
- Label farmer as a tenant.
- How should we take care of the issue of eligibility?
- How do we establish who is a rights holder?
- How do we address issues of urban dwelling vs. farm land? Also private person vs. corporation?
Mr. Nicholas Tagliarino: The protocol should address the registration requirement and how that is a hurdle in terms of gaining recognition. In 5 of the countries assessed in my 30 country study of Asian and African legal frameworks, informal customary rights are recognised automatically. We should prescribe in the protocol a consultation process where expropriating company or government goes into affected area. We should require acquiring bodies to do proper due diligence. This process should also consult women and men differently and provide a gender-sensitive approach. This should be a part of this protocol.
Dr. Maartje van Eerd: Those affected (poor and vulnerable) should profit from the development (e.g. shareholding).
Mr. Henk Smith: In many countries, informal property rights are not recognised. Regarded as not civilised enough, where people hold settler rights and we treat them as if the land is not recognised. How do we address this and give monetary values and the relations that exist in those local systems?
Dr. Rachel Walsh: De facto connection that individual has with the land is important to account for. We should look beyond legal rights such as squatters, s that those should not be left out of the scope of the protocol.
Dr. Liz Alden Wily: Customary rights- we are making process globally. Let’s not look backwards in time. Protocol must be clear on what we are paying compensation for. Gives examples in the protocol of best practice.
Mr. Jean du Plessis: Organisations using tenure is overwhelming and this must be mentioned in the protocol. “Security of tenure for women.” Difficulty lies in the implementation. Many instances of emerging tenure types which don’t have an immediate place in law. This is due to the crisis in urbanisation. How do you incorporate this issue in society? The numbers (of informal tenure rights holders) are overwhelming. There is a crisis in rural areas where these rights are not being recognised. Problem lies in the issue of legitimacy, there needs to be guidance and standards.
Dr. Mike McDermott: Native title land is of the same value as freehold title land in Australi. (Dr. McDermott discussed a recent Australian case where compensation was awarded for extinguished native titles)
Dr. Antonie Gildenhuys: How do we deal with cases where the same land is occupied by more than one community, each having its own chief. Or with cases where a person acquired ownership of land registered in the name of another, through prescription?
Professor Jacques Sluysman (in response to Mr. Gildenhuys’ comments): In the Netherlands, if the owner obtained his or her rights through prescription then you should be entitled to compensation. The next question asked whether the negative impacts suffered by those whose live in close proximity to the expropriation project should be taken into account?
Dr. Liz Alden Wily: The language in many constitutions and laws which do cover that situation and again we have to in the protocol have best practice in there. It isn’t just the owner but also those with an interest in the property.
Dr. Antonie Gildenhuys: There may be several legal interests in the same land affected by expropriation. For example, interests of an owner, tenant, servitude holder, bond holder etc. In some jurisdictions, the property is valued as unencumbered by separate interests; such value is thereafter apportioned between the various interest holders. In other jurisdictions, each interest is valued separately; the total thereof may exceed or be less than the value of the property as unencumbered.
Dr. Ernst Marais: If the burden is excessive, it shouldn’t be labeled as compensation.
Dr. Rachel Walsh: In Ireland, only impact on land that is part of the expropriated land and not the impact of the project on adjacent land .
Mr. Jean du Plessis: In the UK context, what about tenants in neighboring property, what about increase for the benefit of the area and detrimental affect on human beings who have been working there for ages?
Dr. Rachel Walsh: In Ireland, there are no entitlements to compensation for affected tenants. Compensation is only for the owner. In terms of the broader impact, tenants should have an opportunity to be heard prior. There should be a consultation processes and there would be a right to be heard.
Dr. Mike McDermott: That is the same law as in Australia. But you need market evidence that is sophisticated. Valuation reasons were also prevalent at the time.
Plenary session 4: Collective tenure rights (chair: Mr. Bjorn Hoops)
Mr. Bjorn Hoops posed the following questions: How do we address customary land tenure systems, unregistered customary land tenure?
How do we calculate and determine compensation for members of the communities under customary law but who do not have registered title?
What should be the procedure for determining who has a right to the acquired land?
Mr. Nicholas Tagliarino: Protocol should establish a guideline to address issues of elite capture. Transparency for how compensation decisions are made within the community is key. There is a potential risk of elite capture of compensation allotments by chiefs and other local authorities.
Dr. Liz Alden Wily: We need to be clear on what we mean by collective tenure. It is governed under community based jurisdiction. There are 5 models on community based tenure and the most dominant is where the jurisdiction is over the territory but within that there is family parcels of land and collective tenures of land. It is clear that the jurisdiction is the community and it is up to that community how it is distributed. One approach: community first defines its shares. If the law is clear, has to be decided by 2/3rds and they decide if the land is going to be taken and through that procedure will decide how the compensation is distributed if that is the case.
Dr. Antonie Gildenhuys: Some communal lands are held under democratically elected bodies. It is the task of the expropriating authority to identify the person or body entitled to receive the compensation, and to ensure that all internal processes have been followed to authorise such person or body to accept the compensation. The internal processes and the efficacy thereof are regulated by their own laws and customs, and do not form part of expropriation law
Dr. Leon Verstappen: In several jurisdictions, the local village is entitled to compensation for expropriation and whether they hand it over to the individuals who have the right. Protocol should recognise that these tenure forms exist and there should be a clear regulation as to who should be entitled to compensation in such a case.
Prof Elmien du Plessis: We do have the informal protection land reform act in South Africa. Our court says living customary law is applicable and courts have found that there is a system of accountability and thus recognition of communities should all be involved in that compensation consultation.
Ms. Nina Braude: We should be wary of putting in anything that is too descriptive. What is recognised is that local/indigenous needs to be respected but we should not establish precisely how much compensation, but instead what kind of compensation is appropriate. Also, we should decide whether this protocol is dealing with compensating loss of livelihoods etc and the method in conducting consultations will all different depending on where you are sitting.
Dr. Liz Alden Wily: Protocol should remind us that the procedure for compensation should be in accordance with certain principles.
Dr. Antonie Gildenhuys: Questions whether it is part of the expropriation law or whether it is other governing law.
Mr. Nicholas Tagliarino: I agree. It is important to think carefully about which laws should be reformed: the expropriation law or other laws (e.g. mining law).
Mr. Bjorn Hoops: To address the real risk of elite capture, there should there be any normative rules in the protocol as that would be in interference in the way in which the community accepts them.
Dr. Liz Alden Wily: Intention of the protocl is to lay out best practice in these cases, and establish what should be done in the protocol.
Dr. Leon Verstappen: Document should be sensitive to certain circumstances and regions, must be contextualised.
Mr. Bjorn Hoops: Whether these rules/guidelines should differ or depend on the tenure regime that is applicable.
Mr. Henk Smith: I find support from Mike McDermott’s article - Extensive accountability mechanisms on the issue of compensation. The judgment shows shortcomings on the process as it is so much about the social boundaries of the communities and spatial boundaries where the social boundaries overlap or do not overlap. Those are two further issues that the judgment raises and is crucial in looking at formal or informal recognition issues.
Dr. Antonie Gildenhuys: The Protocol should include a provision that, where land is held by a community, corporation or other legal entity, the expropriating authority must ascertain which person or body is entitled, in terms of the laws and rules governing the procedures of such community, corporation or legal entity, to accept and receive the compensation. The expropriating authority should furthermore satisfy itself that all internal requirements have been complied with to entitle the person or body concerned to accept and receive the compensation.
Dr. Liz Alden Wily: What about in highly populated countries like India? For the purpose of landholding, a community is a legal person. Furthermore, you hold the land directly in your name. Namibia for example says that a community group is considered a legal person. Malawi has abandoned a legal entity to be formed. Protocol should have concrete examples of different ways of reaching collective title and the pros and cons of each.
Mr. Jean du Plessis: In urban areas a similar thing emerged, where people formed associations and they were being recognized.
Mr. Bjorn Hoops: To what extent should the state interfere and measures to be taken in that regard?
Ms. Nina Braude: It is permissible to say there are standards of transparency etc but can one really push this in terms of what you want people to do and what you would like people to do. One needs to be wary of this.
Mr. Marcello De Maria: You can go more in detail and description as to what jurisdiction and context you are referring to. Transparency may be applicable in the majority of jurisdiction. Difference in jurisdictions must thus be clear and say these are best practice in these specific contexts.
End of Session