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
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>
From the ILC Secretariat - 2008/09/12 09:31 GMT Dear Diane and colleagues on the forum,

First of all, I would like to congratulate you for merging the two lists of criteria – rather than keeping the two separate, as this is an important step to build consensus among various stakeholders with an interest in land tools, be they grassroots or professionals. It is apparent that there is a large degree of overlap between what participants in either of the workshops held consider to be important criteria, so this is a welcome effort indeed.

I’ll briefly introduce myself, I work as a programme officer on women’s access to land at the Secretariat of the International Land Coalition (ILC), a global alliance of civil society and intergovernmental organisations working together to promote secure and equitable access to and control over land for poor women and men through advocacy, dialogue and capacity building (see www.landcoalition.org to find out more).

Before getting into a discussion on the issues surrounding the application of such criteria for evaluation of existing tools and, indeed, ways of making tools more gender-responsive in practise and the monitoring such ‘new and improved’ tools, I would like to suggest that the criteria as they stand now can be further synthesised and put into an order of priority.

While this may mean having to let go of some nuances it would make the criteria applicable across contexts. In other words, I am suggesting that we make a strategic decision to focus on those criteria for evaluation that, when used, are most likely to result in a positive change.

There are currently 26 criteria in the merged list. In my opinion, the more succinct such a list is, the easier it will be to use, thus increasing its impact. To give an example for the first section on Information/Data, I would suggest the following to capture the essential aspects of data collection and information dissemination:

• Is data disaggregated according to gender? (as a minimum, if also disaggregated according to other factors, even better)
• Is information on the tool disseminated to affected groups in an appropriate format?

I guess we will get on to looking at the most important criteria over coming weeks, for now, the question I want to ask other participants is:
• to what degree you think it is feasible to further synthesise this list?
• on what basis do we prioritise criteria (for instance, easy to use for which group, etc.)?

I would also like to refer specifically to what Diane reminded us was much talked about at the Bagamoyo workshop, i.e. the “change agents” that need to brought on board. During our discussions, we should bear in mind how we can achieve this result together. A clear and concise list of criteria put together with its audience in mind is a good start!

Looking forward to hearing from all of you,
Sabine
  | | The topic has been locked.
diane dumashie

 
Click here to see the profile of this user
Re:From the ILC Secretariat - 2008/09/14 15:32 GMT Good day Sabine

Many thanks for your comprehensive posting- much food for thought as we journey along.

What you have helpfully done is to take us speeding toward our next ride- This starts on Tuesday 16th September and considers in detail "clustering of the criteria" much as your posting implies.

Whether these criteria should be prioritised or simply clustered is likely to lead to an interesting debate. Your 2 clear questions: on synthesis and prioritisation and of course the third question, the crux of implementing change- i.e the audience we target. All these questions will certainly start the debate on positive tracks

All, while you begin to ponder these thoughts, do not forget there is still 24 hours left to add/ annotate to the ongoing dialogues centred upon merged criteria until 18.00hrs (Kenyan time)

Best wishes
dd
  | | The topic has been locked.
Re:Welcome - 2008/09/15 10:25 GMT DD
Your posting on 2008/09/11refers. In it you raised the issue of how user rights and title can be resolved.It is accepted that not everybody will be able to own the limited land resource and yet it is accepted that there is a lot of idle land held under titled land and legally not accessible to people in need of use of land. This is what has been called for innovative approaches that will resolve this dilema especially under the current world food crisis.
It is true that one of the likely approach is the 'rental market'. and how they can be regulated. None the less whereas this approach is feasible in rural areas it poses complexities in its application in urban areas.
A case that is worthy noting is the mostly common user rights practiced in the coastral regions of Kenya. This practice commonly refered to as 'Tenant at will' where the landlords allows users to put a house on their land at an annual rent payable to the landlord by the tenant. This approach which has been on practice for along time has its own limitation particularly the role of the 'service provider' under such settlements. Lately there are indication that the long stading tenant at will are beginning to agitate for some formal recognition.
Organising Women under cooperatives in the urban areas could be one way that assistance could be extended to them for purchase of land and construction of houses.
  | | The topic has been locked.
diane dumashie

 
Click here to see the profile of this user
Re:Welcome - 2008/09/15 16:26 GMT Dear Rosemary

Many thanks for all your thought provoking postings, these are most welcomed- In particular in respect to the one above, perhaps

All would like to respond? to:

If vacant/ idle land is a criteria for gender sensitivity? OR
If it should be reserved under land development control/ policy (I assume you do mean urban land?)

Best wishes

DD
  | | The topic has been locked.
<< Start < Prev 1 2 Next > End >>