Contact Us | Jobs And Opportunities | Register/Log-in |

The Global Land Tool Network (GLTN) contributes to the
implementation of pro poor land policies to achieve
secure land rights for all. Read more...

Home arrow Forum

May 17th, 2012

Forum
Login
If you do not have an account, please click here to register
Stay Connected
           
   
Facts
Forum  


 User post
 Moderator post or edited by moderator
Asa Maria Jonsson

 
Click here to see the profile of this user
Drawing Criteria from Studies in Tanzania & Ethiopia - 2008/09/12 10:37 GMT Dear e-forum participants,

On behalf of the GLTN Secretariat, thank you for your interest, suggestions and insights so far, and we look forward to hearing more in the coming days and weeks.

To trigger further thinking around criteria, please see below some thoughts from Clarissa Augustinus, Chief of UN-HABITAT's Land, Tenure and Property Administration Section, where she draws criteria from two recent studies made in Ethiopia and Tanzania. Hope this will give us more to think about over the weekend!

Åsa Jonsson

Criteria for evaluation of large scale land tools:
Input by Clarissa Augustinus

Introduction

The development of criteria for the evaluation of large scale land tools is a work in progress. The criteria are being drawn from GLTN Grassroots and Land Professional workshops on this issue, and will be further enriched through this e-forum.

This synthesis draws on material produced for GLTN of country studies of existing large scale land tools, also focusing on gender issues, but not gender criteria. Although gender criteria were not specifically considered in these case studies, they usefully enable me to synthesize and draw together a gender evaluation criteria list (see below). These studies are:-

1. Holden and Tefera/GLTN (2008) From Being Property of Men to Becoming Equal Owners? Early impacts of Land Registration and Certification on Women in Southern Ethiopia. Ethiopia has over 25 million land certificates, and in many parts of the country, women may own or jointly own with their partners. This is therefore a large scale land tool that can give us insights into how gender works at scale and what can be evaluated.

2. Kironde (N.D) Issuing of Residential Licenses in Unplanned Settlements in Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania (unpublished). Tanzania has delivered over 43,000 residential licenses in one urban area of the country. These licenses can be jointly held. This is therefore a large scale land tool, although not comparable to Ethiopia in size, which can give insights into gender issues as well.

The criteria identified from these studies are grouped under a number of headings which reflect the steps found in land registration.

Evaluation criteria for gender: Facilitating structures
1. Gender awareness is a strategic objective of the Project/Programme.
2. Political will exists to address traditional approaches which discriminate against women.
3. Legal framework exists that addresses traditional approaches which discriminate against women.
4. To what extent is there a divergence between traditional rules and new land proclamations with respect to women’s land rights.
5. The legal framework accommodates joint tenures/certificates.
6. The legal framework for the renting out of land supports both men and women.
7. The country or city has a gender policy for upgrading informal settlements that takes into account the needs, resources, skill base and time of female-headed households or women in general.
8. There are legal institutions that support women in the enforcement of their land rights.
9. When the legal framework accommodates joint land tenures by spouses (ownership or use rights), what proportion of land certificates are held by men only, by women only, or jointly.
10. The acquisition of information and land information management system is set up to allow for sex disaggregated data.

Evaluation criteria for gender: Process activities and role of civil society
1. When the legal framework accommodates joint tenures by spouses (ownership or use rights), there was gender sensitization phase prior to adjudication and the awarding of land rights.
2. The local land committee has a reserved number of spaces for women.
3. There have been specific activities to encourage women to be part of land committees.
4. Knowledge of an anti-discrimination land law by both men and women at household level in regard also to specific gender provisions about equal sharing of land after divorce, spousal agreement on disposal of land, general land management provisions.
5. Women participated in land meetings.
6. Women dare to speak out and claim their land rights.
7. Women’s knowledge of the law and their rights.
8. Participation by men and women in land reform activities.
9. Civil society has been involved during the project implementation phase at local level in regard to information dissemination, ensuring that men and women are clear that they can hold land individually and/or jointly, monitoring and evaluating for gender sensitivity of the adjudication and allocation of land rights and land. While sensitization at national, district, municipal and ward and community leader level is important, it has been found that to successfully reach women at household level this sensitization also has to take place at local level. This sensitization has to include officials and representatives but go beyond them to include the general public, both men and women. The lower the income of the settlement, the more important that the local sensitization becomes and the role of the interviewer. Sensitization has to both encourage people to register jointly, as well as allay fears about what will happen if they do it jointly.
10. The organizations that traditionally represent women’s views were involved in the designing and implementing of the Programme/Project.

Evaluation criteria for gender: Adjudication of land rights
1. Gender sensitive adjudication of land rights for creating land records.
2. Women are included on the land certificates.
3. Participation in the adjudication process by men and women.
4. During systematic adjudication and the award of land rights, married couples are encouraged to apply for the certificate jointly.
5. The adjudication forms used to gather information and apply for rights during the adjudication phase, has space for several and not just one name. (questionnaire, application form, certificate, land record book). There should also be space on the questionnaire for establishing marital status, identify who is the household head, identify if the person being interviewed is male or female. If the questionnaire is very long and complex, women who are more often illiterate than men and have less time may be discouraged from answering all the questions. The gender problems found in the questionnaire can become mirrored in the land records if the questionnaire is used to create the land rights and land records.
6. When households are adjudicated, the adjudication team needs to have been trained both in terms of legal options in regard to marital property, as well as in gender sensitivity so that they can also give advice to households about their options. For example if no joint ownership is allowed, then married couples have to choose as to which individual will own the land. If joint ownership is allowed then married couples must know that they can choose joint or individual, husband or wife ownership.
7. The use of photographs on an adjudication form or land record can be positive especially in largely illiterate societies, and all owners can have their photos on display. This however is a problem in some societies where the women are veiled.
8. A complex or difficult adjudication process means that women are the disadvantaged (time, negotiation skills, illiteracy, male office cultures).

Evaluation criteria for gender: Security of joint tenure
1. Men know and accept women’s legal land rights.
2. Women feel secure about their land tenure and whether land certificates enhance their feeling of tenure security.
3. Men in general feel more tenure secure after the land certification.
4. Polygamous women have the land certificate in their name.
5. Polygamous men accept that their second etc. wives can have the land certificate in their names.
6. Polygamous men feel more tenure secure of insecure after the land certification.

Evaluation criteria for gender: Empowerment through joint titling
1. Women have equal decision-making power over the land, such as control over rental income, income from crops, investment decisions.
2. Men and women are involved in common resource utilization and management.
3. Land brought into the marriage by the woman enhances the decision making power of the woman over land issues.
4. A woman or man can deny their spouse from renting out the land.
5. Land is shared equally whoever brought the land into the marriage.
6. A woman or man can prevent their spouse from selling land.

Evaluation criteria for gender: Transferring land rights
1. New joint land certificates are issued upon marriage.
2. Gender sensitive transfer of land rights and/or land records in regard to inheritance.
3. Gender sensitive transfer of land rights and/or land records in regard to donations/giftings.
4. Gender sensitive management of transfer of land rights and/or land records disputes in regard to illegal land sales.
5. Gender sensitive management of compensation payments for land (e.g. peri-urban areas).
6. Gender quota in local decision making bodies in regard to land with respect to adjudication, disputes, transfers, donations, illegal sales.
7. How women (wives and partners) are treated in regard to land holdings after divorce
8. How women (wives and partners) are treated in regard to land holdings after death.
9. How are wives in a polygamous household treated by comparison to a single wife household in regard to land holdings
10. How are polygamous wives treated in regard to land by comparison to the first wife.
11. Widows retain control over the land after the death of their husband or whether in-laws take over the land
12. Divorced women get their legal share of the land upon divorce or whether the in-laws take over the land
13. The women keep the children after divorce as land rights are given to the one who takes responsibility for the children in many situations.
14. Boys and girls have equal inheritance.

Evaluation criteria for gender: Dispute resolution
1. Gender sensitive dispute resolution of land rights and/or land records.
2. Women dare to involve themselves in land disputes when their rights are threatened.
3. Gender sensitive management of land issues by local conflict mediation structures.
4. Gender sensitive management of land issues by local traditional structures responsible for conflict mediation.
5. Gender sensitive management of land issues by the local, district, federal and national courts.
6. Women take their cases to the local and other courts.
7. Women win their cases according to the law in the case of land disputes.

Way forward
The evaluation criteria identified above will have to be integrated with the criteria from the workshops and e-conference. The evaluation framework is being designed to be useful to the whole range of land stakeholders. The criteria will then have to be piloted. The piloting exercise will:-

• Need to decide which of the criteria are appropriate for the particular situation and country and tool being assessed.
• Need to decide, where new tools are being developed which should be gendered, which criteria can be implemented in a particular situation, country, and what is suitable to the tool being developed, as well as timing and sequencing and cost.
• Need to decide which stakeholder is driving the gender agenda, as this will change which criteria are prioritized.
• Need to decide which scale is being used, different criteria will be more appropriate for different scales.

The pilots will need to be constantly evaluated for learning to 1/fill gaps 2/to assess costs of upscaling 3/see what works and what does not. The pilots should then go to scale and guidelines should be developed to encourage replication.
  | | The topic has been locked.
Re:Drawing Criteria from Studies in Tanzania & Ethiopia - 2008/09/12 12:13 GMT Assa
The presentation gives a very comprehensive evaluation criteria based on two case studies from Ethiopia and Tanzania. What come to mind immediately is that these two countries have tenures that emphasise on user rights rather than ownership rights.It would be interesting to know if similar evaluation criteria would wholly be applicable to countries that emphasise on formal land ownership.
  | | The topic has been locked.
diane dumashie

 
Click here to see the profile of this user
Re:Drawing Criteria from Studies in Tanzania & Ethiopia - 2008/09/13 12:06 GMT Good day Rosemary

Considering your point, the main headings outlined by Clarissa could be equally applicable to formal and User rights based approaches:

i.e. main headings
- Facilitating structures
- Process activities and Role of civil society
- Adjudication of land rights
- Security of joint tenure
- Empowerment through joint titling
- Transferring land rights
- Dispute resolution

So is it possible to find commonality in the individual criteria (such as those listed), between formal and use rights based criteria?.

My feeling is that criteria do need to indicate and direct across the continuum of rights (use/ customary based through to formal titles), but that these may be clustered under different headings - a topic to be explored further next week

All- do comment before 1800hrs Monday 15th September, when we'll move onto th enext section of our train ride

Best wishes

dd
  | | The topic has been locked.
Re:Drawing Criteria from Studies in Tanzania & Ethiopia - 2008/09/13 16:32 GMT Hi everybody again,
It is so good to see how much you have advanced since our last meeting in Lukenya - Nairobi. I am very pleased to be part of the discussion again.

I have just two questions/doubts:

1- It seems like all the criterias are very much based on Africa reality and african agrarian structure, which is completed different from other regions, such as my region - latin america. Saying that, my question is: land reform is a critical objective in our region and it cannot be seen as a neutral process. So, how can we say that "needs and interests of all stakeholders can be met or taken into consideration" if they are stakeholders whose interests are just opposite and antagoneous. I just don't understand how can this work in practice.

2- It seems like we all agreed that equity in the access to land is a critical issue for women worldwide and that is our focus, specially in a period of food crisis. Land ownership is one of the most powerfull asset, owing land is having power. Therefore, my question is: does the merged criteria take into consideration the need to empower women in terms of land/housing ownership rather than just involving them/us in the process. The definition of empowerment is not in the Finding Commom Definitions document. I quite don`t understand if "mutual beneficient relationships/alliances between among power brokers and beneficiares" means breaking the established power relations, in benefit of women.

I am very happy to be back with the group.

Patricia Chaves


[b]diane dumashie wrote:[/b]
[quote]Good day Rosemary

Considering your point, the main headings outlined by Clarissa could be equally applicable to formal and User rights based approaches:

i.e. main headings
- Facilitating structures
- Process activities and Role of civil society
- Adjudication of land rights
- Security of joint tenure
- Empowerment through joint titling
- Transferring land rights
- Dispute resolution

So is it possible to find commonality in the individual criteria (such as those listed), between formal and use rights based criteria?.

My feeling is that criteria do need to indicate and direct across the continuum of rights (use/ customary based through to formal titles), but that these may be clustered under different headings - a topic to be explored further next week

All- do comment before 1800hrs Monday 15th September, when we'll move onto th enext section of our train ride

Best wishes

dd[/quote]
  | | The topic has been locked.
diane dumashie

 
Click here to see the profile of this user
Re:Drawing Criteria from Studies in Tanzania & Ethiopia - 2008/09/14 15:15 GMT Welcome Patricia and thank you for your comments.

You have reminded us than we are not just talking abut the African context, you are right it is important that any indicators are capable of being translated across all continents, including yours.

In terms of your second observation- I find that the use of the word stakeholders is often used loosely (just as sustainability is!).

But from my own perspective our Aim is to achieve a gender sensitive land tool. Criteria will form the basis of an indication that
a) this Aim is possible, or,
b) capable of being possible, and if necessary
c) should promote action to become so.

All stakeholders need to understand and where required accept change- i.e change to a gender sensitive/ equal approach. It is this that will require the practical engagement of all stakeholders and change agents.

In response to your third point- ownership and empowerment. This was certainly discussed at length at the workshops, and was intended to be captured in the original lists. So if omitted, yes, lets look at including a mechanism in the merged list. But, worth mentioning is the earlier debate and recognition that not all people can own their land/ homes, but what should be underscored is the need for security in the right to use the land/ property.

Would this sit comfortably with you own thinking? if not do explain why not.

Finally your observation that empowerment is not defined- if you or your fellow passengers have a definition to hand, please do supply.

Best wishes

dd
  | | The topic has been locked.
Re:Drawing Criteria from Studies in Tanzania & Ethiopia - 2008/09/15 09:18 GMT DD/ Patricia

Patricia on your first question, you raised a key issue of whether the criteria developed would clear a path that will enable to break through the lines of resistance in any one society. This is critical because women issues are not in isolation of the wider society. The starting point is to acknowledge that these conflicting interests and goals exist in order to be able to develop a tool that will minimize the resistant and conflicting forces.
The other issue that you raise is whether the criteria cuts across the many scenarios experienced globally. This is an important point to ponder as we proceed to the next stage inorder that we do not develop tools that only applies to some regions or specific societies.
The second question you raised on women empowerment is critical because eventually the goal is to empower women economically and in the arena of governance. However it must be acknowledged that such an achievement will come from interplay of many sectors with land playing the most key role. The question that hence comes to mind is do the criteria consider the following:
 How the tool will facilitate integration of women land issues with the wider developmental issues?
 Will the tool be able to monitor and evaluate the impact of projects and programme that have a bearing on gender and land?
  | | The topic has been locked.
diane dumashie

 
Click here to see the profile of this user
Re:Drawing Criteria from Studies in Tanzania & Ethiopia - 2008/09/15 16:21 GMT Rosemary

Many thanks for your specific criteria points- please do refer to my summary, where I hope I've included your thinking

Best wishes

DD
  | | The topic has been locked.