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
Brainstorming on potential criteria - 2008/09/20 05:18 GMT Hello everyone,
The clusters of questions in the Merged List (itself a good idea) still need a lot of thinking. For example, I do not understand why participation is separated from Land Governance. Perhaps, 2.Participation and Empowerment should be titled “Capacity Building, Organizing and Empowerment” (or leveling the playing field) because this section needs to be expanded with additional criteria. I feel participation is a critical aspect of 3. Land Governance or can be a separate item by itself…
Under 2, there is only one item that refers to capacity building – i.e., training of the different groups using/implementing / benefiting” from the tool. As Elena indicated so well, 1) empowerment comes through organizing (not only through technical training), and 2) subsidies/credit mechanisms/ resources are also necessary to strengthen the position of women in accessing land… Also, Bina referred to legal aid.
I strongly agree with Bina and Particia’s points that it is totally unrealistic to expect “mutually beneficient relationships/alliances among power brokers and beneficiaries of tool” given the inequalities and conflicting interests among the stakeholder groups. Even the term “beneficiary” here places women in a passive role….
3) Legal: I hope ‘bundle of rights’ refers to right to infrastructure services, credit, etc. but it is not clear. The next item refers to “a variety of land types” but all women are put together in one category with no reference to race/ethnicity/class differences! Several people pointed that out, too.
Political: Again, Bina has already picked up on “impact positively on all bodies” – I, too, wonder positively from whose perspective? It seems contradictory with the last item on this list that refers to “economic and power redistribution”… That means potential conflict.
4) Social and Cultural: I’d just delete the second item on “social realities” – Bina and Patricia already argued this point well.
5) Scale and Sustainability: I do not see a clear and direct reference to monitoring or outcomes assessment mechanisms here. Women’s organizations could play an important role in this respect.
As Priscilla indicated, it would be a good idea to include a category/question on environmental concerns of women. But, Birte, in terms of land markets, I think it is necessary to be a little more specific – such as “Do women, and especially poor women, have equal power (access to information, credit/subsidies, options and support for pooling of resources and cooperative mechanisms) in the market so that they can gain and maintain access to land and housing?” And we should also consider some questions that refer to mechanisms to withhold land from the market and to prevent land value increases, gentrification and displacement; taxation schemes to prevent speculation; etc. (These are all related to leveling the playing field.) This also relates to Florah’s point on mechanisms for women's participation in land use decisions, planning and development processes.
I recently heard a presentation on the GenderAlp project at a planning conference. It sounded very interesting, but the presenters made a case that it seemed to have increased the bureaucratic procedures… Also, urban, peri-urban and rural clustering sounds interesting, given the issues of jurisdictional boundaries and coordination among different government agencies. But I am not sure how this relates to gender.
PS: Lukenya document seems to be damaged – I could not open it.
  | | The topic has been locked.

      Topics Author Date
    thread link
Brainstorming on potential criteria
ayse yonder 2008/09/20 05:18 GMT
    thread link
thread linkthread link Re:Brainstorming on potential criteria
Birte Scholz 2008/09/20 20:56 GMT