Customary Land Tenure Security - SAHARAN AFRICA (a

CUSTOMARY LAND TENURE SECURITY:

TOOLS AND APPROACHES IN SUB-

SAHARAN AFRICA (a synthesis report)

REPORT 06/2019

A WORLD IN WHICH EVERYONE ENJOYS SECURE LAND RIGHTS

REPORT 06/2019

Customary Land Tenure Security: Tools and Approaches in Sub-Saharan Africa (a synthesis report)

Copyright © United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), 2019

HS Number: HS/048/19E

DISCLAIMERThe designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations or the city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries, or regarding its economic system or degree of development. The analysis, conclusions and recommendations of the report do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme, the Governing Council of the United Nations Human Settlements Programme or its Member States,

United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat)PO Box 30030, Nairobi 00100, KenyaTel: +254 2 623 120Fax: +254 2 624 266www.unhabitat.org

Photos: ©UN Photo/Lucien Rajaonina, ©Uganda Community Based Association for Child Welfare, ©UN-Habitat, ©UN Photo/Rick Bajornas

Acknowledgements

Authors: Anthony Arko-Adjei and Emmanuel Offei Akrofi

Coordinator: Danilo Antonio, Agatha Wanyonyi and Samuel Mabikke

Contributors: Oumar Sylla, Danilo Antonio, Agatha Wanyonyi, Hellen Nyamweru Ndungu, Samuel Mabikke, Dinah van der Geest

Editing: Victoria Quinlan

Technical and Editorial Support: Agatha Wanyonyi, Hellen Nyamweru Ndungu and Judith Mulinge

Design: Stefanie Freccia

Layout: Godfrey Munanga (UNON, Publishing Services Section, Nairobi)

Sponsors: The Governments of the Netherlands, Norway, and the Swedish International Cooperation Agency (Sida)

Printing: UNON, Publishing Services Section, Nairobi, ISO 14001:2004 certified

A WORLD IN WHICH EVERYONE ENJOYS SECURE LAND RIGHTS

CUSTOMARY LAND TENURE

SECURITY: TOOLS AND

APPROACHES IN SUB-SAHARAN

AFRICA (a synthesis report)

II

CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .....................................................................................................................VI

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... VII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................... VIII

CHAPTER 1. CUSTOMARY LAND TENURE ..........................................................................................................X

1.1. Customary Land Tenure Systems ....................................................................................................1

1.1.1 Definition ...........................................................................................................................1

1.1.2 Building blocks of customary tenure ....................................................................................1

1.2. Tenure security for customary lands ...............................................................................................1

1.2.1 Common problems and threats contributing to insecure customary land rights ....................1

1.3. Customary land tenure reform and development of land tools: ....................................................3

1.3.1 Innovative land tools as a solution .......................................................................................4

1.4. Features of GLTNS’s land tools and themes ...................................................................................4

CHAPTER 2. SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA..................................................................................................................6

2.1. Historical background of customary land tenure systems ...............................................................7

2.2. Failure of conventional land administration systems in Sub-Saharan Africa .....................................8

CHAPTER 3. ANALYSIS OF LAND TOOLS ..........................................................................................................10

3.1. Tools for grassroots participation and empowerment ...................................................................11

3.1.1 Analysis .............................................................................................................................11

3.1.2 Best practices ....................................................................................................................13

3.2. Tools for local recording of land transactions ...............................................................................13

3.2.1 Analysis .............................................................................................................................13

3.2.2 Best practices ....................................................................................................................13

3.3. Tools for local capacity development ............................................................................................13

3.3.1 Analysis .............................................................................................................................14

3.4. Tools for registration and certification ..........................................................................................14

3.4.1 Analysis .............................................................................................................................15

3.4.2 Best practices ....................................................................................................................15

3.5. Tools for informal settlement upgrading ......................................................................................16

3.5.1 Analysis .............................................................................................................................16

3.5.2 Best practices ....................................................................................................................16

3.6. Tools for gender and equity .........................................................................................................17

3.6.1 Analysis .............................................................................................................................18

3.6.2 Best practices ....................................................................................................................19

III

CONTENTS

3.7. Tools for governance ...................................................................................................................19

3.7.1 Analysis .............................................................................................................................20

3.7.2 Best practices ....................................................................................................................21

3.8. Tools for dispute resolution ..........................................................................................................21

3.8.1 Analysis .............................................................................................................................21

3.8.2 Best practices ....................................................................................................................23

3.9. Tools for economic empowerment and natural resource management .........................................23

3.9.1 Analysis .............................................................................................................................24

3.9.2 Best practices ....................................................................................................................25

CHAPTER 4. CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................26

4.1. Emerging trends ..........................................................................................................................27

4.2. Key factors influencing the design and development of customary tools ......................................29

4.2.1 Key factors influencing customary tool development .........................................................29

4.2.2 Key success factors ............................................................................................................29

4.2.3 Key factors for the scalability of customary tools ................................................................29

4.2.4 Key factors enabling customary and statutory systems to work together ...........................30

4.2.5 Key factors making customary tools respond to GLTN core values ......................................30

4.3. Concluding remarks ...................................................................................................................32

REFEFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................33

ANNEXES ..........................................................................................................................................................36

IV

LISTS OF BOXES

BOX 1: EXAMPLES OF TOOLS FOR GRASSROOTS PARTICIPATION AND EMPOWERMENT ...................................11

BOX 2: EXAMPLES OF NON-STANDARDIZED DOCUMENTATION OF LAND TRANSACTIONS IN WEST AFRICA .....13

BOX 3: EXAMPLES OF TOOLS FOR CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT ...........................................................................14

BOX 4: EXAMPLE OF CERTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION TOOLS .....................................................................16

BOX 5: EXAMPLES OF NON-STANDARDIZED DOCUMENTATION OF LAND TRANSACTIONS IN WEST AFRICA .....17

BOX 6: EXAMPLE OF GENDER AND EQUITY TOOLS ...........................................................................................19

BOX 7: EXAMPLE OF GOVERNANCE TOOL ........................................................................................................21

BOX 8: EXAMPLE OF A TOOL FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION ..................................................................................22

BOX 9: EXAMPLE OF TOOL FOR ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT .......24

V

LISTS OF FIGURES & TABLES

TABLE 1: TOOLS FOR GRASSROOTS PARTICIPATION AND EMPOWERMENT ....................................................40

TABLE 2: TOOLS FOR LOCAL LAND RECORDING ............................................................................................41

TABLE 3: TOOLS FOR LOCAL CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT ...........................................................................42-43

TABLE 4: TOOLS FOR REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATION ........................................................................44-45

TABLE 5: TOOLS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENT UPGRADING ..........................................................................46

TABLE 6: GENDER AND EQUITY RESPONSIVE TOOLS .....................................................................................47

TABLE 7: TOOLS FOR GOVERNANCE .............................................................................................................48

TABLE 8: TOOLS FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION ..................................................................................................49

TABLE 9: TOOLS FOR ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ....................50

TABLE 10: ANALYSIS OF TOOLS FOR GRASSROOTS PARTICIPATION AND EMPOWERMENT AGAINST GLTN CORE VALUES.........................................................................................................51

TABLE 11: ANALYSIS OF TOOLS FOR LOCAL RECORDING OF LAND TRANSACTIONS AGAINST GLTN CORE VALUES ........................................................................................................................52

TABLE 12: ANALYSIS OF TOOLS FOR LOCAL CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT AGAINST GLTN CORE VALUES ............53

TABLE 13: ANALYSIS OF TOOLS FOR LOCAL REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATION AGAINST GLTN CORE VALUES ............................................................................................................................54-55

TABLE 14: ANALYSIS OF TOOLS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENT UPGRADING AGAINST GLTN CORE VALUES ......56

TABLE 15: ANALYSIS OF TOOLS FOR GENDER AND EQUITY AGAINST GLTN CORE VALUES ..............................57

TABLE 16: ANALYSIS OF TOOLS FOR GOVERNANCE AGAINST GLTN CORE VALUES .........................................58

TABLE 17: ANALYSIS OF TOOLS FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION AGAINST GLTN CORE VALUES ..............................59

TABLE 18: ANALYSIS OF TOOLS FOR ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AGAINST GLTN CORE VALUES................................................................................60

VI

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution

AfDB African Development Bank

COR Certificate of Occupancy Rights

CLS Customary Land Secretariat

CSIR Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (Ghana)

DUAT Direito do Uso e Aproveitamento da Terra (state-granted land right in Mozambique)

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

GLTN Global Land Tool Network

IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development

MWEDO Maasai Women’s Development Organization

PFR Plan Foncier Rural (customary land rights registration)

PPP Participatory Planning Processes

PRA Participatory Rural Appraisal

STDM Social Tenure Domain Model

UN-Habitat United Nations Human Settlements Programme

USAID United States Agency for International Development

VODP Vegetable Oil Development Project

VII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge Anthony Arko-Adjei and

Emmanuel Offei Akrofi who were the principal authors

of this publication and instrumental in its preparation

and finalization.

The Synthesis Report was made possible with support

and contribution from a team of land experts who

identified the gaps and opportunities on the use and

application of appropriate land tools and approaches

in improving customary land tenure security during

the Expert Group Meeting (EGM) held in Addis Ababa-

Ethiopia in 2014. The experts included Barnes Grenville

(University of Florida), Emmanuel Offei Akrofi and

Anthony Arko-Adjei (Kwame Nkrumah University of

Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana), Michael

Lufkin and Hirut Girma (Landesa), Winrose Nyaguthi

Mwangi (GROOTS - Kenya/Huairou Commission), Fati Al

Hassan (Grassroots Foundation/Huairou Commission),

Regina Pritchett (Huairou Commission), Luz María

Sánchez Hurtado (Estrategia Grassroots Women-

Peru), Dewi Kartika (Konsorsium Pembaruan Agraria

(KPA) Indonesia), Massa Kone (Malian Convergence

Against Land Grabbing (CMAT)/FIAN), Gaynor Paradza

(UWC, South Africa), Esupat Ngulupa (MWEDO),

Akloweg Nigatu (OXFAM Ethiopia Programme), Jaap

Zevenbergen (ITC/ University of Twente), Siraj Sait

(University of East London), Clarissa Augustinus,

Cyprian Selebalo and Samuel Mabikke (UN-Habitat/

GLTN), Susana Rojas Williams (Habitat for Humanity

International), Rebecca Sittie (High Court of Ghana),

Susan Lakwonyero (Vegetable Oil Development Project/

IFAD), Prossy Namale (UN-Women Uganda), Chantal

Jacovetti (Malian Convergence Against Land Grabbing

(CMAT)/FIAN), Jan Peterson (Huairou Commission),

Alain Durand-Lasserve (National Center for Scientific

Research) and Maushe Kidundi (International Institute

for Rural Reconstruction).

To strengthen the tool development process, promote

tenure security for the most vulnerable and to strengthen

the knowledge base in the area of customary land, three

customary tenure scoping studies were produced. These

reports included: a Global Scoping Study on Customary

Tenure Security Tools by Landesa; a Scoping Study on

Land Tools for Customary Tenure in Sub-Saharan Africa,

including customary tools used in IFAD supported

projects in Eastern and Southern Africa by the Kwame

Nkrumah University of Science and Technology; and

documenting the Ejido Land Tenure and Registration

System in Mexico by the University of Florida. The studies

were also presented during the Annual World Bank

Conference on Land and Poverty held in Washington

D.C in 2015 and during the 2014 EGM in Addis Ababa.

The events provided the opportunity to validate the

findings and recommendations of the studies and to

explore potential next steps in the development of

customary land tenure tools including the preparation

of this publication.

The GLTN secretariat who coordinated and managed

the development of the report include Danilo Antonio,

Agatha Wanyonyi, Hellen Nyamweru Ndungu, Samuel

Mabikke and Dinah van der Geest. Further thanks go

to Oumar Sylla, Leader of UN-Habitat’s Land and GLTN

Unit for his strategic support and guidance.

VIII

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The existence of customary tenure in sub-Saharan Africa

transcends the pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial

epochs of history and has persisted to present times

by encompassing the administration and management

of land in society. Customary tenure systems generally

function best in communities with complex secondary

land rights that ensure community members are not

left landless. However, despite these systems’ resilience

and crucial role in enabling access to land, their

administration faces challenges in terms of ownership

and boundary conflicts, unregulated land developments

and informal settlements, weak governance, lack of

information about transactions and unscrupulous

dealings, all of which lead to tenure insecurity.

Colonial property laws introduced conventional

(Western style) land administration solutions for the

problem of tenure security gaps, with limited success;

this culminated in calls for reform of land administration

and management and the development of innovative

and effective land tools in sub-Saharan Africa. The

innovations included tools based on customary systems

of land governance. The notion that customary rights are

not enough to generate optimal levels of investment in

land use has changed since 2000 as focus on customary

tenure policy has had more scholarly attention.

Global Land Tool Network’s land tool development is

one such imitative; it seeks to secure land rights and

promote the recognition of all forms of rights, including

customary land rights, to improve security of tenure

and property rights for the urban and rural poor using

pro-poor tools.

Customary tools analysed in this report exhibit promise

in enhancing grass root participation, managing

competing interests, using non-standardized methods

to document land transactions at informal offices

and improving local capacity for administration of

land rights. They also promote securing/upgrading

land rights for the urban poor, scaling up equity tools

through capacity development, scaling up governance

by development of policies that ensure participation of

locals in tool development, using alternative dispute-

resolution mechanisms to complement court systems

and sustainable natural resource management by

ensuring local communities deal with investors on

equal terms.

Despite showing elements of best practices, with some

being outstanding especially when they rely on simple

technologies to address localized problems, the tools

also show some weaknesses. This is due to their inability

to scale up, especially when they are dependent on

technical experts, and their over-reliance on computer

technology, government or external support. Success

for use of the tools points to those that are community

based, operated or controlled, as they would be the

most adoptable, cheapest and sustainable. Proper

adoption of customary tools will reduce insecurity of

customary tenure and especially the threat of land

scarcity, land-related conflicts, poor land governance,

women’s tenure insecurity and capacity constraints.

Indeed, the role of customary tenure systems is critical for

tenure security and governance, food security, natural

resource management and agricultural productivity.

Strengthening customary tools’ implementation to

meet the needs of society is thus paramount.

This report focuses on sub-Saharan-Africa. It aims to

identify, document and analyse customary tenure

security tools that are developed and/or delivered

through customary governance systems, either as part

of a statutory system, at the community level, or as

a partnership between community and government

structures or outside partners. The report forms part of

GLTN’s overall vision of tenure security for all and its aim

to develop alternative tools that are more affordable for

customary and group tenure systems and conventional

land systems. The report also helps to bridge the gap

IX

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

between policy intention and the reality on the ground

by supporting customary approaches in high level

events such as the Expert Group Meetings conducted in

the course of developing this report, and making space

for grassroots and vulnerable groups, such as women

and young people to discuss their worldview.

Food crops cultivation in South Kivu in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Rural land used for agricultural and residential

purposes has become highly individualized in some areas over the years. Photo ©UN-Habitat/John Gitau

CHAPTER I


1


1.1. CUSTOMARY LAND TENURE SYSTEMS

1.1.1 Definition This report will focus on customary land tenure, which

can be defined as “laws, rules and norms governing

rights to land and natural resources that are upheld by

an authority other than the state and subscribed to by a

collective defined by characteristics other than national

citizenship” (Knox, 2010). Customary land tenure is

characterized by its largely unwritten nature; it is based

on local practices and norms, and is flexible, negotiable

and location specific. Its principles stem from rights

established through first clearance of land or conquest.

Customary systems are usually managed by traditional

rulers or a council of elders. These systems are continually

evolving as a result of a number of interrelated and

diverse factors such as cultural interactions, socio-

economic change and political processes.

1.1.2 Building blocks of customary tenureHanstad (2010) describes land tenure systems as being

made up of four components: the land resource, the

right-holders, the rules and the governing authorities.

Customary land tenure and tenure security can also be

understood through this four-part framework.

In a customary tenure system, the land and land-based

resources might consist of land that a community

has occupied since time immemorial, agricultural

plots cultivated by clan families, a sacred forest, or

commonly shared natural resources. The right-holders

could be a member of a larger group, community, clan

or lineage. They could be members of subgroups, such

as extended or nuclear families, women or men, or

specific vulnerable groups. They could also be smaller

units, a wife or husband, a daughter or son, or an elder.

The rules in a customary tenure system consist of laws

and norms that regulate land and natural resource

rights which could emerge from long-held customs

associated with common kinship, ancestry, religion and

heritage (Knox, 2010). Customary law might permit

occupation and use of customary land as a matter of

lineal descent or it might determine the process through

which a stranger gains access to land. The rules may

also be affected by formal law.

Lastly, the governing authorities in a customary setting

are those non-state bodies that administer customary

land and resource tenure (Knox, 2010). Their authority

may derive from ancestral religious education, norms

or democratic processes (ibid.). In some instances,

customary and formal authorities might be conflated,

for example statutorily appointed chiefs.

1.2. TENURE SECURITY FOR CUSTOMARY LANDS

Tenure security is the level of certainty that a person’s

rights to land will be recognized by others and protected

in cases of specific challenges (Mabikke, 2016). The

framework in this report uses the dimensions that rights

to land must be legitimate, durable and enforceable,

ensure equality and must withstand changes in the

community.

1.2.1 Common problems and threats contributing to insecure customary land rights

Land scarcity: Land scarcity is increasing demand

for customary land and generating customary land

tenure insecurity, often with disproportionate impact

on women and other vulnerable groups. Land scarcity

is fuelled by population growth, environmental

degradation and climate change, urbanization and

large-scale commercial acquisitions (Knight, 2010).

Land-related conflicts: Land-related conflicts may

arise over concerns about the access, control, or benefit

of scarce resources, and they may occur within the

2


community or between the community and external

groups or individuals. These various types of conflict

can become exacerbated if there is no redress through

justice institutions and mechanisms.

Poor land governance: The causes of poor governance

vary. It may be the result of an inadequate or poorly

designed legal and policy frameworks or insufficient

coordination and overlapping mandates between

land institutions (FAO, 2007). Capacity shortcomings

can affect the ability of stakeholders to carry out their

responsibilities; unclear and inaccessible procedures can

undermine the rights of those that they are intended

to protect (ibid.). Finally, lack of accountability and

transparency mechanisms in governance systems can

foster corruption (ibid).

Women’s tenure Insecurity: Gender relations

underpin all land systems and mediate access to, control

of and benefit from land. Typically, women are assigned

fewer and weaker rights to men. In many contexts,

customary systems are part of a legal pluralism,

alongside statutory, religious and traditional law.

Recognizing and understanding this legal plurality is

critical to assessing gender relations and is also central to

identifying potential interventions to redress inequitable

gendered property relations. Where statutory laws are

formulated without considering pre-existing protections

Farmers in Lesotho. The customary land tenure system in Lesotho is governed by traditional rules and administered by traditional community leaders such as chiefs. Active occupation or use of a piece of land is the main evidence of ownership. Photo © FAO Lesotho/Lechoko Noko

3


of women’s rights under customs or the family and

community norms around wealth distribution and land,

statutory laws could undermine customary protection of

women’s right to land.

Capacity constraints: Inconsistencies and overlays of

laws governing customary land rights are particularly

evident in contexts where both statutory and customary

laws apply. Clear, coherent and consistent land policies

and laws in regard to customary lands can substantially

contribute to the creation of an enabling environment

for secure tenure.

Implementation of responsive policies and laws

ultimately hinges on institutional capacity to perform

functions effectively, efficiently and sustainably.

Institutional challenges associated with formal land

administration of customary lands can range from highly

centralized systems with inadequate public participation

to decentralized systems that are not always compatible

with available human and financial resources at the

local level. Authentic decentralization is likely to require

institutional re-orientation and skill development. The

realization of genuine decentralization also requires

that state actors are adequately resourced.

Customary governance systems are gaining statutory

recognition, which typically includes legal recognition

of customary rights by the state coupled with local

administration of customary land rights. Full legal

recognition of women’s rights to land and equal access

to local administrative bodies are other key challenges

related to customary land governance.

1.3. CUSTOMARY LAND TENURE REFORM AND DEVELOPMENT OF LAND TOOLS:

Reasons for launching land reform tend to accumulate

over time and build into a commitment to overhaul

the whole rather than to amend in piecemeal ways

(Alden Wily, 2003). This has been signalled in a wave

of new independence or political regimes in the last

decade (Eritrea, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Mozambique,

Namibia, South Africa, Zambia, Malawi and Uganda).

The thorough political nature of land distribution and

security means that ‘reform’ readily becomes a focus in

times of political uncertainty (ibid).

Since the process of modernizing rural agriculture

began, several attempts have been made to replace

or modernize customary tenure in sub-Saharan Africa

in the form of institutions and statutes (Nkwae, 2006;

Benjaminsen, Holden, Lund & Shaastad, 2009; Arko-

Adjei, 2011; Akrofi, 2013). The long-standing notion

that customary tenure is an impediment to economic

development and thus a major cause of Africa’s

high levels of rural poverty (Dorner, 1972), and that

customary rights are insufficiently secure to promote

optimal levels of investment in land use (De Soto, 2000),

have been the major drive for those formalization

strategies. Yet customary systems have been resilient;

they continue to be the main source of access to land

in most rural, peri-urban and urban areas despite the

problem of customary systems of administering tenure,

such as land ownership conflicts, boundary disputes,

haphazard and unregulated land developments.

Since the year 2000, customary tenure has had increasing

attention in policy and scholarly circles. A new school

of thought gives prominence to local or community-

level tenure reforms, particularly the importance of

recognizing customary land rights and building on

customary tenure systems in order to achieve equitable

land management, in the context of poverty reduction

(Toulmin and Quan, 2000; Deininger, 2003; UN-, 2004;

World Bank, 2005; UN-Habitat, 2006).

4


1.3.1 Innovative land tools as a solutionInternational organizations have been the most

prominent actors in these policy and research initiatives

and GLTN’s land tool development is one such initiative.

Land tools might take the form of political statements

giving assurance of non-eviction to settlements,

household surveys in a settlement, issuance of

documents on occupancy, or issuance of land titles.

The term pro-poor was introduced to emphasize the

importance of land rights and tenure security for the

poor. Meanwhile, it has become clear that conventional

land tools did not have a monopoly on tenure security

and that people could also derive a sense of security

from political statements or water bills, for instance.

Additionally, communities have organized themselves

to acquire land as a group and issue land rights for each

individual member. Land rights and their administration

are no longer exclusively the domain of statutory or

customary institutions.

In light of the GLTN definition of a pro-poor land policy

(UN-Habitat, 2007) and the range of pro-poor land

tenure reforms described by (Hanstad, Prosterman &

Mitchell, 2009), pro-poor land tools can be defined as

those which increase the ability of the poor and other

marginalized groups to gain access and secure rights

to land.

1.4. FEATURES OF GLTNS’S LAND TOOLS AND THEMES

GLTN’s land tools and themes have been developed

to benefit the poor and disadvantaged and to be

responsive to the needs of both women and men. The

features of GLTN’s tools can be guiding principles for

building the customary land tenure security framework.

To benefit the poor and disadvantaged, tools have to be

pro-poor; equitable, gender-responsive and affordable.

They should be sustainable, foster subsidiarity and

governance, be systematic and scalable.

The thematic focus of GLTN includes the following

areas: Information gathering and analysis, governance,

recognition, recording and registration; mapping and

boundary definition, natural resources; transactions,

dispute resolution and advocacy, communication and

social mobilization. This has been used in the analysis

of customary land tools under part IV.

Informal land rights

Formal land rights

Perceived tenure

approaches OccupancyAdverse

possession Leases

Customarytenure

Anti-eviction Group tenure Registered freehold

Figure 1: The continuum of land rights offers a powerful and practical alternative to the dominant focus on titling of individually held private property as the ultimate form of tenure security, or the end goal of land tenure reforms. (Barry and Augustinus, 2016)

5


Land Rights Registry teams in Mukono, central Uganda learning how to use and apply various land tools in mapping and recording land rights. Photo ©Uganda Community Based Association for Child Welfare

CHAPTER 2

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

7

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

2.1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF CUSTOMARY LAND TENURE SYSTEMS

In general, sub-Saharan Africa went through the

following three phases: pre-colonial; colonial and post-

colonial rule which was after the withdrawal of colonial

powers.

Before sub-Saharan Africa was colonized by Western

countries, the continent was inhabited by groups who

were socially organized into tribes without national

boundaries. (Shaw, 1992). Land was managed under

customary law, i.e. an unwritten system of law

administered by chiefs and their advisors. Chiefs, also

referred to as traditional authorities, were deemed

to hold the land in trust for their people and could

grant land rights for different land uses to their people

(Mabogunje, 1992). Such land tenure systems, called

customary tenure, have evolved over hundreds of years

and generally functioned properly, at least within the

local communities (Deininger, 2003; Fitzpatrick, 2005).

When parts of sub-Saharan Africa became colonized,

national boundaries were defined and the colonial

powers introduced statutory law, usually modelled on

systems in their home countries and used to exploit

the land and protect their own interests. (Lavigne and

Durand-Lasserve, 2008). Other parts of the country

could remain under customary law. The result was a

dual system of land tenure.

Things changed when the sub-Saharan African

countries became independent as the ban on local

populations settling on land that had been deemed

statutory land was lifted. This legal change set off a

rapid pace of urbanization (Satterthwaite, 2007). Most

countries chose to maintain dual systems, even though

that meant keeping on the books of some statutory

laws that were not only imported but, in most cases,

outdated too (Lavigne and Durand-Lasserve, 2008). As

a result, people still failed to access land under statutory

tenure. They then found other ways of accessing land

in the vicinity of towns, either by settling on vacant

land or by purchasing land from customary land owners

(ibid).

In many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, the majority of

landholdings are based on customary forms of tenure.

Landholders’ rights depend on agreements that are

embedded in local communities and that derive from

their social relations with families, clans, lineages and

communities (Berry, 1993). The customary tenure in its

stable form is overlaid with complex secondary rights so

that no community member is left landless. Although

customary land is often described as group ‘owned’,

it does not necessarily mean that all members of the

group have equal access to the land. Individuals within

a customary group have distinct and often different

interests and rights to use, control and transfer land

and land-based resources. Some rights are vested

exclusively with particular individuals; some are vested

in families or households; and others may be shared

equally between all or a large number of the group’s

members (AusAID, 2008).

Tenure insecurity problems in customary land are

complex and may stem from many sources. Common

among them are loss of usufructs rights, forced eviction,

divorce and disenfranchisement (Mahama and Dixon,

2006). In some areas, poor and disadvantaged groups

live in fear of losing their land. These issues create the

need to approach the security of tenure from several

perspectives. Any analysis of security of tenure and

rights in land needs to take into account that there are

a range of land rights in most countries which range

along a continuum, and also it is possible to separate

these different types of land rights into those that are

legal and those that are not legal (UN-Habitat, 2003).

8

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

2.2. FAILURE OF CONVENTIONAL LAND ADMINISTRATION SYSTEMS IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

Arguments to explain why conventional land

administration has failed in large parts of sub-Saharan

Africa can largely be clustered into four reasons.

First, most sub-Saharan countries lack the capacity to

implement a high-standard land administration system

(Augustinus, 2003). Conventional land administration

systems are considered complex, slow and expensive

(Durand-Lasserve and Royston, 2002; Arko-Adjei, 2011;

Reerink, 2011). Estimates for developing countries state

that less than 30 per cent of the land is covered by such

systems (Deininger, Augustinus, Enemark & Munro-

Faure, 2009).

Secondly, Payne, Durand-Lasserve et al. (2009) have

found no significant evidence that poverty levels are

reduced through formal land titling. Such systems

could even fail to deliver tenure security to the poor as

they tend to push poor people off their land rather than

strengthen their rights.

Thirdly, conventional land administration systems are not

always appropriate for the range of tenure types and

land rights found in real-life situations, such as the rights

commonly found in informal settlements and customary

A Focused Group Discussion in Wau State, South Sudan on women access to land within the ‘Enhancing Women’s Access to Land to Consolidate Peace in South Sudan’ project. Photo © UN-Habitat

9

SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA

areas (Augustinus, 2010). Therefore, a continuum of

land rights has been designed and promoted.

Fourthly, some scholars and practitioners recommend

taking local mechanisms into account when developing

land administration systems. Local mechanisms cannot

be supported by a standard model alone; it is better to use

a progressive crafting process of rules and procedures.

However, localized approaches are not favoured by

everyone. Dekker (2003), for example, claims that land

administration requires radical standardization and

national codification to be effective.

A community member in Chamuka Chiefdom, Zambia collecting data using the participatory enumeration tool. Photo © People’s Process on Housing and Poverty in Zambia

CHAPTER 3

ANALYSIS OF LAND TOOLS


11

In the following section, the tools are described based

on the thematic areas used for their categorization:

gender and equity, dispute resolution, participation and

empowerment, local recording of land transactions,

etc. As the report aims to contribute to bridging the

gap between policy intention and the reality on the

ground, there is a particular focus on customary land

tenure systems, which has been emphasized in order

to promote customary approaches in high-level events,

as well as making space for grassroots and vulnerable

groups such as women and youth, to discuss their

worldview of issues.

3.1. TOOLS FOR GRASSROOTS PARTICIPATION AND EMPOWERMENT

Tools for grassroots participation are used to address

common challenges faced by grassroots communities

as they strengthen their participation and influence in

the provision of tenure security. Tools for grassroots

participation are meant to improve the degree of

participation, management of competing interests

and/or reconcile local and technical knowledge. Tools

like participatory spatial and development planning,

participatory enumeration and mapping, Participatory

Rural Appraisal (PRA) and participatory planning

processes (PPP) have been used to empower local

communities to map, record information on land rights

or for preparation of spatial plans.

3.1.1 AnalysisLand policy interventions often fail to involve the

communities that they are meant to serve. The main

benefits and importance of grassroots participation

and empowerment in land tools and policies are to

address the real needs of priorities of the poor and

Participatory enumeration and mappingOver the past decade, participatory enumeration and mapping have been used as a tool to build the capacity of communities to produce information at an improved technical level. Participatory mapping at the community level has been used to promote grassroots participation in land recording, land development planning and forest management. In land reform programmes, such as the Community Land Trust (Kenya), Land Tenure Regularization (Rwanda), Rural Land Registration and Certification (Ethiopia), participatory enumeration and mapping have been used to demarcate, map, record or legitimize land rights and occupation. In the Land Regularization Programme of Rwanda, a team of surveyors who collected data in the field used paper copies of aerial photographs. Community members proved legitimacy of occupation of the landholders’ through participatory enumeration (Ayalew, Deininger, Goldstein & Stickler, 2010).

Women’s Participation in Village Land-Use Planning in TanzaniaIn Tanzania, legislation allows women, widows or their daughters to own and have control over land just like men. However, customary norms and land administrative practices continue to show bias against women and girls’ ownership, and control of land and other inheritance of properties. The Maasai Women’s Development Organization (MWEDO) identifies grassroots women’s empowerment as key to finding a solution to this problem. MWEDO’s empowerment programme aims to facilitate women’s access to land and the certification of land rights under the Village Land Act 1999.

In 2005, using an integrated learning model through an adult education programme, Maasai women were engaged on issues that reflect daily life activities. Gender sensitization, participatory enumeration, community dialogue and leadership training were also an integral part of the process. Through gender sensitization, both men and women are engaged in the process in the land campaigns. Leadership training and skills development for women leaders are also part of the tools used. Through leadership training, women’s knowledge was broadened, thereby building their confidence and empowering them.

Since 2000, MWEDO has advocated both locally and globally with the aim of promoting the rights of indigenous Maasai women to benefit from land and other natural resources that improve community livelihoods. MWEDO integrated work has benefited over 60,000 households with a membership of over 5,000 member groups (UN-Habitat, 2012b).

Participatory spatial and development planning In many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, local communities are empowered to set up transparent and participatory local socio-economic planning systems in accordance with national requirements. In most of these projects, the spatial aspect has been left out of developing planning. Recently, spatial dimension has been introduced into the local socio-economic development planning. Local communities are empowered to produce thematic maps showing the location of technical and social infrastructure. These maps are used as baseline information for the planning activities. The base maps are produced using satellite imagery (if available) or prepared by hand in the form of sketch maps. Participatory spatial and development tool has been used in Mali (in a project called PACT sponsored by GTZ) and some parts of Tanzania (IIED, 2010; GTZ, 2011).

Box 1: Examples of tools for grassroots participation and empowerment


12

to encourage their direct involvement in the design

and implementation of the land tools. A second

benefit is that grassroots communities can provide

essential information on local issues in the design

and implementation of tools. A third benefit is

that grassroots communities can mobilize time and

resources and legitimize the effectiveness of the tool.

By engaging in implementation processes, grassroots

organizations can critically inform policymaking at the

highest level (UN-Habitat, 2012a).

This is the main reason for the poor implementation

of land policies (UN-Habitat, 2012a). Exclusion leads to

legislation, policies and tools that are not well designed,

are difficult to implement and do not represent the

needs and interest of those they are supposed to benefit.

Common challenges faced by grassroots communities

as they strengthen their participation and influence are

related to: 1) degree of participation; 2) management

of competing interests; and 3) reconciliation of local

and technical knowledge. GLTN has developed criteria

for assessing and promoting grassroots participation

(UN-Habitat, 2007a). In these tools, participative

enumeration, photomapping, PRA and PPP have been

used to empower local communities to map, record

information on land rights or for development planning.

Area Land Committee members during the adjudication and mapping of land boundaries in Pader district Uganda. Between 70% and 80% of land in Uganda is under customary tenure, particularly in Northern Uganda. Photo© Uganda Community Based Association for Child Welfare


13

3.1.2 Best practices:The implementation of the tools demonstrates local

variations while analysis indicates that they are good

practice tools. Almost all the tools address or incorporate

the GLTN core values. Although participatory spatial

and development planning (Mali and Tanzania) and

participatory enumeration and mapping (Ethiopia,

Kenya and Rwanda) do not specifically address gender

and equity responsiveness, the constitutions of these

countries support gender equity.

3.2. TOOLS FOR LOCAL RECORDING OF LAND TRANSACTIONS

Tools for recording local land transactions use non-

standardized methods to document land transactions

at informal land offices (e.g. Kenya, Ghana). Some of

these paper transactions have to be authenticated or

witnessed by local leaders. Petits papier is an example

of non-standardized paper documentation in countries

like Madagascar and Cote d’Ivoire.

3.2.1 Analysis:These tools focus on understanding the legal, policy

and institutional environment that structures and

regulates transactions. They assist communities and

other investment stakeholders to understand this

environment and focus on protecting the interests

of women and vulnerable groups in the context of

customary land transactions. Even in rural areas where

most land transactions continue to be oral, there is

the desire by landholders to have customary land

transactions recorded. Some forms of local records are

kept through informal land offices (e.g. Kibera in Kenya)

and customary institutions (Ghana) or through non-

standardised writings to document land transactions.

In some areas, marks on the ground are used to define

boundaries before they are recorded on paper. Some

of these paper transactions must be authenticated or

witnessed by local leaders.

3.2.2 Best practices:Most of the tools categorized in this theme generally

rely on local capacity and resources. The tools use

simple procedures and technology to secure land

rights and address the need of poor landholders who

cannot register their land in the formal sector but need

evidence of allocation and therefore can be described

as built on pro-poor objectives. The development of

these tools does not need technical and legal costs.

They are sustainable because almost all of them can

be implemented at the local level without input from

outside sources. These factors make the implementation

of the tools very sustainable.

3.3. TOOLS FOR LOCAL CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT

These tools, including the Tribal Land Integrated

Management System (Botswana), land boards and

In Cote d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Mali, Benin and Guinea, the PFRs (customary land rights registration) seek to secure land rights thereby helping to

manage and reduce conflicts over land and promote rural development. PFR is a hybrid registration system, which institutes a shift in focus from an

oral tradition to the written documentation of customary transactions. PFRs use systematic procedures for identifying and mapping land rights, and

for generating registers of rights that is based on the principle of land registration. However, the level of rights to be registered – that is, whether they

are individual or collective – is determined by local actors, on a case-by-case basis. The programme entails identification of all locally recognized rights

using surveys with local people to investigate their respective claims to land. Topographic maps are used to demarcate the plots identified through

interviews. This is followed by recording of the land rights. The programme also puts in place local structures (e.g. Village Land Committees) to keep

documentation of land tenure and to ensure that it is put into practice. In Benin, the programme is privatized to allow private agencies to record land

transactions (Chauveau, 2003; Delville, 2010; Houangni, 2013).

Box 2: Examples of non-standardized documentation of land transactions in West Africa


14

proliferation of educated chiefs, are used to improve

local capacity needed for administration of land rights

and to improve customary land administration. They

also equip local communities with the needed capacity

to provide pro-poor, accountable and equitable output

by facilitating dealings in customary land for improved

tenure security and development. Scaling up local

capacity development tools depends on the extent to

which technical and legal expertise has been used in

the design and implementation of the tool.

3.3.1 AnalysisTo meet the scale of capacity needed for administering

land rights and to improve customary land

administration, different capacity development

strategies have been developed. These are meant to

protect and assist customary groups in land dealings

for pro-poor, accountable and equitable output, or as

a means of facilitating dealings in customary land for

improved tenure security and development. Among

other things, capacity development tools aim to

assist people to resolve disputes, adopt simple land-

use planning procedures, develop landholding rules,

establish registries to record land transactions and land-

use planning decisions and to develop mechanisms that

improve tenure security for the vulnerable.

Some capacity development tools, such as Customary

Land Secretariat (Ghana), Tribal Land Integrated

Management System (Botswana) and Community

Land Trust (Kenya) are initiated by governments, NGOs

and/or donor agencies. Others are developed through

local initiatives. For example, in some customary areas

of Ghana, local land management committees have

been set up to manage lands. These committees are

responsible for land allocations and management

of natural resources. Electing chiefs outside the

main traditional lineage to help in administration of

customary areas (proliferation of educated chiefs) is an

example of tools for capacity development.

3.4. TOOLS FOR REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATION

Most donors have supported projects that strengthen

individual and group rights through registration and

certification. Village and community titling initiatives

(Tanzania), land regularization (Rwanda) and urban land

registry (Benin), certificate of occupancy rights (Botswana),

rural land registration and certification (Ethiopia) are

examples of land registration and certification tools.

Some of the tools secure land rights of the urban poor

or upgrade their land rights, and others provide security

of land rights to rural areas, especially farmers. Scaling

registration and certification tools requires building

capacity among local institutions responsible for the

administration of land at the local level. Sustainability of

tools for land regularization, titling and reform of land

Land Boards

In some parts of sub-Saharan Africa, community members elect people to ‘land boards’ in democratic elections. These boards are mandated to

allocate land, adjudicate and carry out land-related activities, such as planning and collecting rents. A number of land boards were established in

Botswana, Tanzania, Uganda, Madagascar and Mozambique. In Botswana, the Tribal Land Act of 1968 established a number of land boards which

were vested with rights and title to land in each tribal area. The functions of the land boards are land allocation, land registration, land-use planning,

land-use monitoring, land acquisition and land adjudication. The Act was amended in 1993 to streamline the duties and responsibilities of the land

boards. Since 2011, the Government of Botswana has initiated a five-year collaborative project called the Improvement of Land Administration

Procedures, Capacity and Systems with development partners to improve the work of the land boards among other things (Tembo and Simela, 2004;

UN-Habitat, 2010; Malatsi and Finnstrom, 2011).

Box 3: Examples of tools for capacity development


15

rights are highly influenced by subsidy or regular funding

from partners or other donors.

3.4.1 Analysis:Since the 1970s, several land tools aimed at registration

or certification of customary land rights have been

developed and tested. These registration and

certification programmes have had varying degrees of

emphasis and success.

These innovative land tools support the recognition

and formalization of customary land rights for

communities, women and men. There are three sub-

themes: the first focuses on social recognition, which

helps to recognize socially legitimate interests in

land, regardless of whether legitimacy accrues under

formal law. The second is forms and processes of legal

recognition tools that help facilitate legal recognition of

customary land rights. Thirdly, approaches to recording

and registering customary land rights contain tools that

provide guidance on understanding and implementing

approaches to formalizing customary tenure.

STDM has been captured as a special tool used to help

in the certification and local recording of land rights.

3.4.2 Best practices:All the tools, namely village and community titling

initiatives (Tanzania, Mozambique), land regularization

(Rwanda), flexible land tenure (Namibia), urban land

A woman displays her Customary land ownership certificate during an issuance ceremony in Bulemu, Chamuka Chiefdom, Zambia. Photo ©Peoples Process on Housing and Poverty in Zambia


16

registry (Benin, Nigeria), Rural land certification and

registration (Ethiopia) and Social Tenure Domain

Model (STDM) (Uganda and Kenya) satisfy the GLTN

best practice criteria. All these tools are capable of

reducing poverty, are equitable and gender responsive.

However, village and community titling initiatives, land

regularization, flexible land tenure and urban land

registry have high initial costs beyond the capacity of

the local communities. Though the implementations

of some of the tools (e.g. urban land registry, Benin)

have been successful, local communities have been

too slow to recognize their value and therefore raise

the question of sustainability of such projects. Rural

land certification and registration (Ethiopia) and STDM

(Uganda and Kenya) stand out as the most desirable

tools in this category, satisfying all the GLTN core values.

3.5. TOOLS FOR INFORMAL SETTLEMENT UPGRADING

Tools for informal settlement upgrading aim to secure

rights of many people who live on the outskirts of cities

as squatters and have no formal documentation on the

land they occupy. Development of informal upgrading

tools has been a concern to central governments, local

authorities, NGOs and bilateral donor organizations.

Examples of informal settlements upgrading programmes

are flexible land tenure (Namibia), residential licences

(Tanzania), certificate of occupancy rights (Botswana)

and slum upgrading (South Africa, Kenya).

3.5.1 Analysis:Cities in developing countries are growing in size

and expanding, with development patterns showing

increases at city outskirts. Many of those who live there

are squatters who have no formal documentation on

ownership or types of use. As the land they live on

becomes desirable for development and most people

in these communities do not have proof of ownership,

evictions are constant threats that can destroy not

only property, but also assets, social networks and

access to services. With increasing urbanization and

the development of slum or squatter settlements in

urban areas, the need to address human settlements

issues in urban areas has been a concern to central

governments, local authorities, NGOs and bilateral

donor organizations. Several attempts aimed at

upgrading informal settlements and improving housing

for the poor have been tried. These innovative tools

have been used to survey, negotiate, and formalize land

rights in the form of occupancy rights and licences.

Some of these tools are heavily dependent on

government subsidies and the use of intricate legal

and institutional frameworks which are not easily

understood by local communities and administrators

(e.g. CLT), making them unsustainable and difficult to

replicate in areas where such support is not available.

3.5.2 Best practices:All the tools for informal settlements are open to all

citizens without cost and therefore are pro-poor. The

Urban Land Registry

In Benin, a tool was developed which uses addressed-based maps prepared through a participatory field survey to create an urban database. These

databases are used by the local government to assess and collect tax as well as land management. The process involves taking inventory of landholders

as well as detailed description of the nature of land tenure rights. This approach has improved land taxation. In addition to an Urban Land Registry, the

customary land rights registration (PFR) is a system which institutes a shift in focus from an oral tradition to the written documentation of customary

transactions (Delville, 2010). The PFR uses systematic procedures in identifying and mapping land rights and for generating a register of rights.

However, the level of rights to be registered – that is, whether they are individual or collective – is determined by local actors, on a case-by-case basis.

In Nigeria, under the Land Use Act, 1978 urban land registry has been implemented in some urban areas.

Box 4: Example of certification and registration tools


17

tools enjoy large coverage. Most of these projects

provide infrastructural developments and certificates to

landholders and therefore improve land value.

3.6. TOOLS FOR GENDER AND EQUITY

Gender and equity revolve around the need to

strengthen women’s rights to land and natural

resources. Most tools addressing gender inequity use

advocacy, awareness creation, training and capacity

Youth from Freedom Square informal settlement in Gobabis municipality, Namibia, pose for a photo after a numbering exercise. In Namibia, the Flexible Land Tenure System provides affordable security of tenure to inhabitants in informal settlements, parallel and complementary to the formal system of freehold tenure. Photo © Namibia Housing Action Group

The Certificate of Occupancy Rights (COR) was introduced in Botswana in the 1970s to provide a secure and inexpensive form of tenure to

support site and service schemes for the urban poor. COR provides landholders with the right to use and develop land, while retaining state ownership.

Usufructuary rights are inheritable and can be assigned, pledged and ceded with the consent of the city/town council concerned. The boundary of

COR plot is demarcated on the basis of general plans or block diagrams. Over time, the COR is upgradeable to a full title – a Fixed Period State Grant

(99-year lease). This occurs after a cadastral survey has been carried out and the title registered. COR allows titles to be progressively upgraded. It now

applies to 75 per cent of all plots in towns and is supported by free government surveys, physical planning and land administration (Durand-Lasserve,

2006; Nkwae and Dumba, 2009).

In the sub-region, securing tenure and improving housing for the poor have been achieved through participatory slum upgrading. This tool has

been used in Kenya and South Africa.

Box 5: Examples of non-standardized documentation of land transactions in West Africa


18

development and community-based association.

Awareness creation and capacity development have

been extensively used to secure women’s land rights

and access to land and natural resources. Through

community-based organizations, women demonstrate

considerable leadership skills and articulate their own

interests and concerns. Scaling up gender and equity

tools in customary areas not only requires promulgation

of legislation but also enforcement. Due to entrenched

cultural inequality in customary areas, enforcement can

be enhanced through awareness raising and capacity

development.

3.6.1 Analysis:In the past, most land policies were centred on issues

that do not just benefit the poor but also improve the

situation of women. Gender and inequality, especially

with respect to women tenure rights and women’s

voice within customary governance systems, have

been well debated and documented. Many women are

doubly disadvantaged by poverty and gender. Thus, it is

important to understand why it is necessary to improve

women’s access to land: firstly, because it improves

chances of livelihoods; secondly, it improves access

to finance, and thirdly, it recognizes women as active

agents of change. Several women’s organizations,

especially members of the Huairou Commission, have

been at the forefront of this crusade. A number of tools

have been developed to improve gender equality and

grassroots women participation. These tools emphasise

women’s empowerment, legal recognition of women

rights, economic considerations with respect to

Recipients of Certificates of Customary Ownership in Adjumani district, Uganda proudly display their certificates during a handover ceremony presided over by the Vice President of Uganda in July 2019. Photo © UN-Habitat/Aoibheann O’Sullivan


19

access to land, and social and cultural considerations

with respect to women, among other things. Local

Livelihood Fora (South Nyanza, Kenya), Maasai Women

Land Demarcation (Tanzania, Uganda) and Grassroots

Sisterhood Foundation (Ghana) are examples of

programmes that address gender issues.

These programmes rely on tools such as the gender

evaluation criteria, spousal consent, education and

literacy programmes, household working approach,

participatory enumeration, community dialogue,

awareness creation, community self-analysis and

leadership training to explore various avenues to

sensitize communities on gender equality and promote

women tenure rights.

3.6.2 Best practices:All the tools categorized under gender and equity meet

GLTN best practice criteria. Spousal consent is gaining

traction in land tenure security in sub-Saharan African

countries. Many countries in the sub-region are gender

sensitive - their constitutions and policies address

gender discrimination in all aspects of the economy.

Countries like Ethiopia, Rwanda, Uganda, Mozambique

and Madagascar have developed specific legislation to

support the spousal consent, while others are in the

process of developing policies to support this course.

3.7. TOOLS FOR GOVERNANCE

Governance issues are addressed through legal and

institutional reforms, quota systems and policies.

Tools that are used to build governance in customary

land tool development include anti-eviction laws,

statutory recognition of slums or informal settlements,

outlawing of outmoded customary practices, spousal

consents and compensation approaches. These tools

use mechanisms that improve community participation,

manage competing interests in land and improve

efficiency in land recording at the local level. Scaling-up

Gender evaluation criteria

GLTN has developed a set of gender evaluation criteria which can be used to check whether land tools incorporate gender issues and to show how

they can be adapted. The framework for evaluation is flexible and can be adapted to a wide range of different situations. The criteria which were

developed through consultations among various GLTN partners consist of six elements and 22 evaluation questions. These criteria have been tested

in Brazil (Espaco Feminista), Ghana (Grassroots Sister Foundation), Uganda (Land Alliance Experience) and Nepal (Lumanti) (UN-Habitat, 2012a).

Spousal consent

Spousal consent is one of the tools used to protect the rights of women and other family members. The object of the tool is to prevent the transfer

of land through sale, donation or exchange by a family member without the consent of the others. The tool requires written consent of the other

parties before the transaction can be effected. Spousal consents in Ghana, Rwanda and Kenya have been promoted through legislative reforms and

awareness creation. For example, In Mau Forest, Kenya, through awareness creation, there is a harmonization of traditional and statutory justice

systems and the traditional chiefs, which now requires spousal consent for all land transactions. In Rwanda, the law has moved to protect not only

spouses but other members of the family who are joint owners of the land. The Family Code 2000 of Ethiopia provides for community of property in

relation to property acquired after marriage, creates presumption of common property of goods registered in the name of one spouse and requires

the consent of both spouses for transfer of property (FAO, 2002).

Awareness creation

In many parts of sub-Saharan Africa, gender and inequality issues have been addressed through awareness creation, with targeted campaigns

focusing on one group of rights-holders or campaigns targeting broader society. Issues addressed in awareness-raising include: 1) women’s equal

access to land under the law; 2) the inclusion of women in decision-making processes and in the design of development programmes; 3) the

involvement of government and local actors on gender issues; and 4) working with women’s groups on legal literacy. Examples of these strategies

can be found in Burundi, Rwanda and Tanzania.

Box 6: Example of gender and equity tools


20

governance tools must emphasize the development of

policies that ensure active participation of local people

in all aspects of the tools’ development.

3.7.1 Analysis:Recent decades have seen more and more African states

restructuring the legal pattern of land rights within

their societies through constitutional and land policy

reforms. Tools that have been developed to deal with

governance issues include anti-eviction laws, statutory

recognition of slums or informal settlements, promotion

and protection of women’s land rights, gender equity,

outlawing of outmoded customary practices in land

ownership, recognition of local and indigenous

knowledge, inheritance, spousal consents in land

transactions, group rights, decentralized administration

of land rights, compensation approaches, etc. These tools

also promote accountability, responsible and responsive

governance institutions that act in accordance with the

will of the community and refrain from inappropriate,

illegal or corrupt actions. These tools also promote

community representation and participation in order to

improve democratic governance.

In countries like Malawi, Zambia, Mozambique, Uganda

and Kenya, national constitutions and legislation, for

example, enshrine new principles through which the

rights of women, children and minority land interests

Women in Zambia display a map generated from the enumeration and mapping exerscise in Chamuka Chiefdom. Photo © UN-Habitat


21

must be accorded respect and to which new land

policies and laws must themselves adhere. For example,

the Local Government Acts of Lesotho and Ghana vest

control over land allocation and natural resources in

districts and community councils/traditional leaders.

3.7.2 Best practices:All the tools meant to promote good governance

incorporate one or more GLTN core values and

therefore meet GLTN best practice criteria. Among

these tools, compensation approaches have been

developed locally based on customary governance

system. The tool is innovative, flexible, subsidiary and

flexible to be adapted into other communities. Though

compensation approaches are built on pro-poor

objectives, the compensation packages are determined

solely by the traditional institutions. Despite the stiff

opposition in culturally entrenched communities,

outlawing outmoded inheritance practices is gaining

support in countries like Mozambique, Ghana and

Rwanda. In Ethiopia, the Family law Code 2000 provides

for community of property in relation to property

acquired after marriage (Alden Wily, 2003). In Uganda

and South Africa, anti-eviction tools have successfully

been implemented. The tools gain their support from

anti-eviction advocacies like UN-Habitat.

3.8. TOOLS FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION

In the past, informal dispute resolution has been

identified as a pro-poor and equitable alternative

dispute resolution (ADR) mechanism to complement

the state court machinery. Different informal conflict-

resolution mechanisms like arbitration, mediation and

negotiation have been used to address various land

conflicts in the sub-region and have proved to be

effective in many instances (FAO, 2007).

3.8.1 Analysis:The decentralization of land administration and

management in sub-Saharan Africa has been

accompanied by localization of dispute-resolution

Outlawing outmoded inheritance laws

In most sub-Saharan African countries, rules of inheritance are derived from customary and statutory systems. Under customary laws system,

inheritance is with a few exceptions, determined by rules that favour males. This gender issue in inheritance is being addressed through constitutional

and legislative reforms, mostly through family and succession laws. In some countries, like Ghana, the inheritance laws (Interstate Succession Law

1985 and amended in 1991) tends to exclude land from their equity provisions. The Organic Land Law of Rwanda (2005) emphasizes gender equality

in all matters relating to land ownership presumably including inheritance of land (Article 4). The Family Act (2003) is one of the most innovative

pieces of legislation for emancipation of women in Mozambique. The majority of Mozambicans, especially the illiterate, regulate their lives using

local customs and practices. However, the official laws were drafted with very little consideration of local customs. In the past, women married under

customary law could not inherit or claim any property because their marriages were not recognized by the official law of Mozambique. The Family

Law (2003) of Mozambique protects a broad range of women’s rights and legally recognizes customary marriages. This law protects informal unions

between men and women. Under the Family Law, women who have lived with their partners for more than a year are entitled to inherit the property

of their husbands (Family Law, 2003).

Statutory recognition of occupancy rights, slums and informal settlements

DUAT, direito de uso e aproveitamento da terra (state-granted land right), is currently Mozambique’s single form of land tenure right. It is exclusive,

inheritable and transmittable (subject to state approval). DUAT recognizes occupancy rights as equivalent to registered land rights. The law gives

rights to three forms of occupation: a) customary (traditional) occupation: the occupation of land by individual persons and by local communities, in

accordance with customary norms and practices, so long as these do not contradict the Constitution; good faith occupation: the occupation of land

by individual national persons who have been using the land in good faith for at least ten years; and c) award: new rights to land, awarded with the

authorization of an application submitted by an individual or corporate person (renewable 50-year state leasehold). The law equates oral evidence to

title evidence (Norfolk and Tanner, 2007).

Box 7: Example of a Governance Tool


22

mechanisms. Access to justice is still a critical challenge

for poor and marginalized communities in many parts

of the sub-region. For a poor farmer, navigating judicial/

legal processes designed for representation by trained

advocates can be an intimidating and traumatizing

experience, from the confusing and occasionally

incomprehensible language of the courtroom to the

litigants’ unfamiliarity with the applicable rules and

procedures. These issues highlight the need for attention

to be given to establishing mechanisms and adopting

procedures that are not only accessible to those in need of

redress but are also affordable for the majority of people.

A woman walks past some temporary manyattas in Turkana County, Kenya. Most of the land in the county is unregistered community land held in trust by the government. Photo ©UN-Habitat

In Rwanda, the land tenure regularization process used community mediation and agreement to settle competing claims. In Madagascar, the

national decentralized land certification programme uses mediation and arbitration for dispute resolution. Roughly 20 per cent of the disputes were

resolved through mediation conducted by local authorities. In rural communities of Kenya, like Kianyaga, there is an absence of legal practitioners

and services so an overwhelming majority of people facing disputes have found themselves facing legal issues without the resources to address them.

NGOs have been aiding these communities to undertake ADR processes and this has had positive results. In Ghana, some land-related conflicts that

had proved impossible to resolve in the state courts have been resolved using customary conflict-resolution mechanisms. Again, under the Customary

Land Secretariat (CLS), after the training programme in 2009, over 770 land disputes across 20 customary areas were successfully resolved through

ADR (Arko-Adjei, 2011).

Box 8: Example of a tool for dispute resolution


23

3.8.2 Best practices:Informal dispute-resolution mechanisms (ADR) satisfy

GLTN criteria for best practice. They are pro-poor,

affordable, and take into account the local mechanisms

of resolving disputes. ADR is scalable – has been

implemented on large scale in several countries (Ghana,

Uganda and Tanzania). The use of the ADR mechanism

has gained support across various parts of the sub-

region. High cost continues to drive the support for

informal dispute resolution mechanisms. Legislation

and enforcement of human rights issues in most

national constitutions has led to steady improvements

in governance of ADRs.

3.9. TOOLS FOR ECONOMIC EMPOWERMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT

Tools for economic empowerment are based on the

linkage between poverty reduction and tenure security.

Examples of economic empowerment tools are joint

venture rubber plantation (Ghana) and community-

investor partnership project (Mozambique). These

models ensure beneficial partnership agreements

between smallholder farmers and private-sector

investors. Some of the tools (community-based natural

resources management schemes) promote sustainable

natural resource management. The success of these

economic empowerment tools depends on the level of

ownership, voice (governance), risk and benefit sharing

between partners. Scaling up these tools requires

Community members in Kabale, South-western Uganda engage in a simulation exercise during a training on the land mediation tool. Photo ©UN-Habitat/Simon-Peter Mwesigye


24

measures that ensure that local communities are

capable of dealing with the investors and outside world

on equal terms. The current controversy about large-

scale land acquisition by foreign investors has put land

rights issues and responsible agricultural investment

back on the global development agenda.

3.9.1 Analysis:In recent decades, there has been a growing interest

in many African countries to strengthen agricultural

development to improve food security, yields and outputs.

Because of the resource constraints of governments in

sub-Saharan Africa and the tight budgetary conditions in

many donor countries, the private sector, both domestic

and foreign, has a potentially important role to play in

financing agricultural investments in the region (FAO,

2010). However, large-scale land acquisition by foreign

investors has put land rights issues at the forefront of the

global development agenda. For example, it is estimated

that about 70 per cent of Africa’s arable land has been

taken by foreign investors for large-scale agricultural

production. This phenomenon is threatening food

security, water security, income and cultural integrity of

local people (Steve, 2011).

The controversy has opened up the discussion on how

to improve land administration systems and investment

in agriculture so that the land rights and the livelihoods

of small farmers, pastoralists and other vulnerable

groups are strengthened. One of the approaches used is

developing beneficial partnerships between small-scale

farmers and private investors - preferably partnerships

that do not require large-scale land acquisitions. Further,

the need for sustainable natural resource management

and climate change mitigation measures provide an

opportunity to reconsider the way large-scale farming

companies relate to their host communities. Sustainable

sourcing and investments can drive benefits for both

private companies and communities. Such partnerships

can take the form of out-grower schemes, contract

farming or joint share equity schemes, in which

outside investors focus mainly on providing expertise

and other support in agro-processing or improved

access to markets. The success of such partnerships

and the real benefits to smallholder farmers and rural

communities more generally, depends on the level of

ownership, voice (governance), risk sharing and benefit

sharing between partners. Examples of these economic

empowerment initiatives include joint share rubber

Joint venture rubber plantation in Ghana

Rubber plantation is becoming a lucrative cash cropping venture in Ghana. To address challenges in rubber plantations, a partnership approach

has been adopted. In this partnership agreement, five stakeholders are involved: the cooperative farmers, rubber buying agencies, banks/funding

institutions, technical experts (CSIR) and landowners. To ensure large volumes of rubber production, the farmers are made to form cooperatives.

Landowners guarantee continuous use of the land for about 20 years. The rubber buying agencies supply farmers seedlings and guarantee to buy the

product. The banks provide financial support to the farmers while CSIR provides technical support. This project which is being piloted in the Eastern

and Western regions of Ghana is overseen by the Ministry of Finance.

Community-based natural resources management schemes

In Mozambique, the land law empowers communities to participate in natural resource management and allocation. This is done through

consultation processes and by using customary norms and practices as an integral part of formal natural resource management. Sometimes, these

natural resource management arrangements are through contractual arrangements.

For example, in Madagascar, there is a contractual arrangement between the government and communities to manage forests. Among other things,

the community-based management schemes aim at slowing down forest degradation by working with communities on fire management measures

and providing alternatives to slash and burn agriculture. The project also aims at managing forest resources more efficiently through the creation of

management plans, the rationalization of forest exploitation and the increase in management capacity (Norfolk and Tanner, 2007).

Box 9: Example of a tool for economic empowerment and natural resource management


25

plantations (Ghana), irrigation schemes (Ghana),

community-investor partnership project (Mozambique),

Vegetable Oil Development Project (VODP) in Uganda,

bio carburant SA in Mali, etc. Sometimes, governments

also sign contractual agreements with communities to

ensure the sustainable use of natural resources. Apart

from the investment in the improvement and continuity

of their farms and the increase in income levels of

households and communities, these management

schemes result in inclusiveness, participation and

gender equity and empowerment.

3.9.2 Best practices:All the tools discussed satisfy the GLTN best practice

criteria. They all aim to reduce poverty and increase

productivity of small-scale farmers and low-income

communities and are therefore pro-poor. They are

affordable and scalable. Some of the tools may require

sustained support from a range of service providers

(government, civil society, private sector). However,

such partnerships can only benefit smallholder farmers

and rural communities if there is transparency, and

active and informed participation of communities in

management and decision-making processes.

Geo-spatial enumeration in the Ndekia zone of the Mwea Irrigation Scheme in Kirinyaga County, Kenya. Photo ©UN-Habitat

CHAPTER 4

CONCLUSION

27

CONCLUSION

In recent decades, different tools have been developed

to secure tenure in sub-Saharan Africa. These tools

address specific issues and are developed either through

the customary governance structure or as a partnership

between government and other structures.

The tools are implemented at village, community or

local government levels, and some have been scaled

up to district and national levels. Depending on how

the tools were developed and how the beneficiaries

embrace the concepts, they have had varied degrees of

success. This report has described and analysed secure

tenure tools based on eight themes, namely: grassroots

participation and empowerment, local recording,

capacity development, registration and certification,

informal settlement upgrading, gender and equity,

governance, and dispute resolution. In conclusion,

the emerging trends, strengths and weaknesses, and

common factors that influence the development,

implementation and maintenance of the tool are

presented.

4.1. EMERGING TRENDS

The analysis provided above shows that developing

secure tenure tools is by no means uniform or

straightforward and in practice each tool needs to be

examined individually. Some of the overall trends are

identified below.

q Development of land tools in the sub-region is sub-

stantial, with almost all the countries making ef-

forts to recognize localized rights or customary land

rights.

q Development of land tenure security tools is driven

by several external factors, such as rural and urban

poverty, low agricultural productivity, urbanization,

food security and climate change, and internal fac-

tors such as land conflicts, access to land and gen-

der inequity. The tools are mostly developed to solve

local problems, yet in some cases the implementa-

tion is based on top-down approach.

q Land tool development is predominantly focused on

securing the rights of marginalized groups in mostly

rural and peri-urban areas where the majority of the

population live and where the properties that rural

people use and/or hold in common are.

q Generally, land tools are developed based on exist-

ing or new structures: customary governance struc-

tures, government structures or as partnerships be-

tween community and government structures. Tools

developed through local community initiatives or

built on existing customary governance structures

are more sustainable compared with those built on

government structures or funded by government or

donor agencies. There are three levels at which the

tools are implemented: local community, local gov-

ernment (district, municipal, provincial) and national

levels.

q A few of the tools are supported by well-developed

or specific legislation. Tools that are based on well-

developed legislative frameworks have been scaled-

up horizontally and/or vertically. Some of the tools

are not linked to specific legislation and derive their

legal legitimacy from national land policies or the

constitutional provisions. The tools which are neither

supported by specific legislation or land policy/con-

stitution need local legitimacy. These tools are usu-

ally developed through local community initiatives or

built on local customary governance structure.

q There are various levels at which community mem-

bers can be involved in the development and imple-

mentation of tools; either through active represen-

tation or active participation.

q With most of the tools studied, community mem-

bers do not participate directly in the decision-mak-

ing process. Only selected members of the steering

committees take decisions on the use of land.

q The status of customary land interests, recording of

land rights and land governance are the three areas

28

CONCLUSION

most focused on and discussed in relation to the

land tools. Tools for securing land rights are not im-

plemented or discussed without reference to these

elements. In the tools, land governance is addressed

through community participation, transparency, eq-

uity and gender responsiveness.

q Most tools developed through government initia-

tives are usually based on a top-down approach.

Such tools exhibit elements of bureaucracy and are

therefore unsustainable.

q Some tools use available local capacity to address

localized problems, especially those that are devel-

oped within the customary institutional structures.

Some tools are funded either through local commu-

nity resources, local cooperatives, local NGOs, inter-

national NGOs, and bilateral organizations (e.g. the

World Bank, FAO, IFAD, AfDB, UN-Habitat and US-

AID). These funding organizations provide financial

support, coordination and supervision, and build ca-

pacity for tool development. The donors use capac-

ity building such as training, learning-by-doing and

local institutional strengthening to build governance

in the tool and to improve sustainability.

q Tools that mostly depend on technical expertise,

even when they are meant to adhere to pro-poor

objectives, tend to be costly and unaffordable.

q Costs of developing, implementing and maintaining

secure tenure tools in practice vary and range from

high to low. In general, the more sophisticated the

land tool operation, the more dependent the local

community is on government/donors for finance

and technical expertise (Alden Wily, 2003).

Rice production in Chad. In Chad, customary and Islamic laws govern issues regarding access to and control of land and natural resources in urban and rural areas. Photo ©UNCHAD

29

CONCLUSION

q Scalability ranges from the minor to the comprehen-

sive.

q Development and/or enforcement of legislation that

redresses gendered issues on security of tenure is

growing.

4.2. KEY FACTORS INFLUENCING THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF CUSTOMARY TOOLS

4.2.1 Key factors influencing customary tool development

There are a range of factors that influence the design of

customary security tools in sub-Saharan Africa. Access

to land is considered to be a vital ingredient for poverty

reduction and most customary tools in the region

are developed to ensure sustainable access to land,

particularly for vulnerable groups. Tenure security has

been addressed through registration and certification,

tenure regularization and gender equity.

Customary land transactions are mostly unrecorded or

at best recorded by informal processes managed by

families or communities. This has contributed to tenure

insecurity in the sub-region. Tools for local recording are

done through non-standardized writings to document

land transactions. Other tools to record local land

transactions use simple, pro-poor, accountable and

equitable tools. Such local capacity programmes have

been supported by donors.

Food security is a major factor in the design of customary

tools but the need to diversify and strengthen local

livelihoods is also a major consideration. Most of the

tools designed to address food security issues also

address poverty reduction. Tools for poverty reduction

are linked with economic empowerment, natural

resource management and conservation.

Accountability and transparency in land transactions

are crucial for tenure security in customary areas. Tools

for governance involve the use of transparent and

accountable systems that give legal patterning of land

rights within customary societies and the way in which

rights are regulated. Grassroots participation improves

good governance and is therefore an important factor

for the design of customary tools.

Good governance requires land tools to incorporate

mechanisms that prevent conflicts over land rights and

deliver just resolutions to these disputes. Disputes over

boundaries and land rights are prevalent in customary

areas, especially where there is pressure on land

as a result of population growth and urbanization.

Affordable and effective dispute-resolution mechanisms

are essential components for the design of customary

tools.

4.2.2 Key success factorsFrom the foregoing analysis and discussions, there

seem to be a range of common factors critical to the

success of the customary tenure security tools. These

include the level of implementation and community

participation, building customary tools on existing

structures and new structures, the empowerment

of local actors and devolution of power, technical

autonomy by local actors, self-sustaining costs and

social and local legitimacy.

4.2.3 Key factors for the scalability of customary tools

Most of the tools reviewed in this report have been

developed at the local level. Some of them have been

scaled vertically or horizontally. Tools built on customary

norms and structures and that address similar needs

to other customary areas are scalable across these

customary groups. Such tools are at best scalable only

30

CONCLUSION

horizontally as far as to the limits of the traditional

authority. Customary tools supported by legislation can

be scaled both horizontally and vertically. The design and

development of such tools may be through a top-down

approach or through consultative processes usually

spearheaded by national or international advocacy

groups. Scaling gender and equity tools in customary

areas requires legislative support and enforcement.

Tools like mapping and registration that work on a

national scale require substantial adaptation if they are

to fit local conditions. The analysis indicates that tools

work best when built from the bottom up, especially

when the tools take cognizance of sound local

knowledge and resources. Scalability of these tools also

depends on affordability.

The sustainability of a tool is also crucial for scalability.

Tools that are sustainable can easily be scaled, particularly

in areas with similar conditions. Acceptability of the tool

by local communities improves sustainability and thus

scalability. For tools like land regularization and titling

that are heavily dependent on donor support, scalability

is highly influenced by subsidy or regular funding from

donors.

For tools that promote economic empowerment,

scalability requires a clear agreement on the roles,

responsibilities and activities of all stakeholders.

4.2.4 Key factors enabling customary and statutory systems to work together

Even where customary tenure tools are not supported

by legislation, they can work alongside the existing

statutory systems. When a customary system is the

main access to land for the majority of people, then the

customary and statutory systems must work together.

Likewise, they work together when customary

institutions are strong and recognized by users, and

the statutory system, customary systems are readily

available and provide an alternative source of tenure

security, including dispute resolution. In places where

documentation and maintenance of land records and

decision-making cuts across the customary and statutory

institutions, and in instances where to the majority

are poor, customary systems are easily accessible and

relatively cheap, even when security of tenure provided

is perceived to be weaker than the statutory system.

4.2.5 Key factors making customary tools respond to GLTN core values

The analysis of the tools with respect to GLTN core

values shows that there are key factors that make a

customary tool embody the GLTN core values.

Key factors that make a customary tool pro-poor:

The tool is built on the principle of improving the lives of

the poor and marginalized; it relies on simple procedures

and technologies to address localized problems, thereby

reducing the cost of securing land rights; it secures

the rights of poor and marginalized groups; promotes

effective and equitable linkages between poor and

market opportunities; uses simple and affordable

dispute-resolution mechanism; engages the poor in

all aspects of its development and implementation;

and uses mechanisms that accommodate and secure

varying land rights (continuum of land rights).

Key factors that make a customary tool gender

responsive: It protects the interests of the poor, the

weak and women; ensures that the interests of women

and men are specifically addressed in a balanced way;

allows women to articulate their own interests and

concerns, sometimes putting these issues on the agenda

in their community and at national level; redresses

unfair customary and cultural practices, especially with

regard to inheritance issues; it prioritizes gender issues,

supports gender-affirmative actions and makes direct

provisions for women’s access to land.

31

CONCLUSION

Key factors that make a customary tool affordable: It

secures tenure through the use of the tool at minimal

cost to the community and the cost of design and

maintenance of the tool is affordable. Cost of design

and maintenance tend to be low when the tools are less

dependent on technical and legal expertise; community

participation is crucial; a community is willing to and can

afford to maintain the tool; it uses para-professionals

and simple techniques to secure tenure at reduced cost.

Key factors that make a customary tool sustainable:

It is developed and managed locally with high

community participation; community members accept

it as a community resource; people take ownership

of the tool and are actively involved in all processes; it

uses available local resources and capacity to address

localized problems; it can easily be implemented and

it should be self-financing. However, for tools that are

highly dependent on external support (e.g. tools for

land regularization and registration), sustainability is

influenced by the availability of a subsidy or sustained

funding from donors, while tools that rely on technical

expertise and high initial investment cost, sustainability

requires well-developed successive plans that analyse

and address human capacity development and the cost

of maintenance all with respect to the objectives of the

tool.

Tools that promote gender equity sustainability

depend on the level at which cultural inequality is

entrenched in the customary practices and norms.

In this case awareness-raising and capacity building

should be centred on helping women and men to

overcome ignorance of their rights in law. Awareness-

raising is useful in customary areas with entrenched

cultural inequality; with tools that promote economic

empowerment, sustainability requires measures

ensuring that local communities are able to deal with

the investors and the outside world on equal terms,

that there is political will on the part of power players

and support from all stakeholders, including state

institutions

Key factors that build governance in a customary

tool: The tool is used to improve community

participation, including women’s participation, in

decision-making processes; it uses local mechanisms

to manage competing interests in land; it promotes

economic empowerment based on partnerships -

building governance in a customary tool depends

on the level of ownership, voice (governance), risk

sharing and benefit sharing between partners involved;

the framework for dispute resolution is accessible,

flexible and affordable; it uses local knowledge and

actors to enhance transparency and accountability; it

improves efficiency in land recording at the local level

and improves access to information; and it takes into

account how decisions are made with regard to the use

of land and local land governance.

Key factors influencing subsidiarity of a customary

tool: The principle of subsidiarity means that the

responsibilities for the provision and management

of any service must be vested in the lowest level of

authority. In this case, local communities are best

positioned to deliver tenure security in an efficient

and cost-effective manner. Enabling them to develop

and implement the customary tools in consultation

with other stakeholders reflects the principles of

subsidiarity. The principle of subsidiarity ensures that

the local communities are empowered to facilitate

the development and implementation of the tools for

their benefit. Subsidiarity ensures that customary tool

meets local aspirations and needs, and their views

are incorporated in decision-making. In particular,

subsidiarity of customary tools means that the tool has

been built to secure localized land rights. These allow

local communities to take ownership of the tool and

ensure its sustainability.

32

CONCLUSION

4.3. CONCLUDING REMARKS

In summary, the analysis in this report with respect to

the core values of GLTN indicates that almost all the

tools show elements of best practices as defined by

GLTN. Nevertheless, weaknesses identified in some of

the tools make it difficult to scale them up, especially

when the tools are built on the use of technical experts

and over-reliance on computer technology, or they are

heavily dependent on government or external support.

There is evidence to suggest that tools that are

community-based, community-operated, community-

controlled would be most adoptable, cheapest, the

most owned and the most sustainable. Simplification

of the technical procedures, minimal reliance on

technical expertise and minimal dependency on

government or external support is critical to success.

In general, the more sophisticated the tool, the more

dependent the local people who are the ultimate users

on the government or donor agencies for financial and

technical expertise.

An analysis of the tools with respect to the GLTN core

values indicates that almost all the tools satisfy GLTN’s

best practice criteria. However, some of the tools are

outstanding. Such tools rely on simple technologies to

address localized problems, thereby reducing the cost

of securing land rights. These tools have the potential

to be scaled-up (horizontally and vertically) within and

across countries.

Tools such as spousal consent, local land committees,

petit papiers and compensation approaches and DUAT

may be further documented. Though the tools are not

well-documented, they are popular in the sub-region.

They have been scaled up horizontally across different

customary areas and in some cases across different

countries.

Adaptation and scaling-up of these tools may require a

complete analysis of local conditions. The analysis should

be centred on key issues that need to be monitored

closely. For example, once the implementation of the

tools gets underway, it will be important to assess the

progress of the tools against the following criteria:

what is changing during the implementation of the

land tool; whether the modifications being made are

the result of unanticipated cost, faltering political

will, or reluctance to give up autonomy to the local

institutions; whether more rights are being secured or

land rights are being lost or downgraded in the process;

and whether ordinary landholders are really gaining a

larger and more effective share in managing their own

land relations.

33

REFERENCES

Akrofi, E. O. (2013). “Assessing Customary Land Administration Systems for Peri-urban Land in Ghana”. Cape Town: University of Cape Town. Ph.D dissertation 266.

Alden Wily, A. L. (2003). “Governance and Land Relations: A review of decentralization of land administra-tion and management in Africa. Land Tenure and Resource Access in Africa, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London.

Arko-Adjei, A. (2011). “Adapting Land Administration to the Institutional Framework of Customary Tenure”. Delft: Delft University of Technology. Ph.D Dissertation 262.

Augustinus, C. (2003). Comparative Analysis of Land Administration Systems: African review, with special refer-ence to Mozambique, Uganda, Namibia, Ghana, South Africa.

Augustinus, C. (2010). “Social Tenure Domain Model: What it can mean for the land industry and for the poor”. FIG Congress 2010: Facing the Challenges - Building the Capacity, Sydney.

AusAID (2008). “Making Land Work. Reconciling customary land and development in the Pacific”. Canberra, Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). Vol.1.

Ayalew, A., Deininger, K., Goldstein, M. and Stickler, M. (2010). “Pilot Land Tenure Registration in Rwanda: Evidence of initial impact”. World Bank Case Study Series.

Berry, S. (1993). No Condition is Permanent: The social dynamics of agrarian change in sub-Saharan Africa. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Benjaminsen, T. A., Holden, S., Lund, C. and Sjaastad, E. (2009). “Formalization of Land Rights: Some empirical evidence from Mali, Niger and South Africa”. Land Use Policy, 26(1): pp. 28-35.

Chauveau, J. P. (2003). “Rural Land Plans: Establishing relevant systems for identifying and recording customary rights”. Issue paper No. 122, International Institute for Environment and Development (Dryland Project).

De Soto, H. (2000). The Mystery of Capital: Why capitalism triumphs in the West and fails everywhere else. Basic Books.

Deininger, K. (ed.) (2003). “Land policies for growth and poverty reduction”. World Bank Policy Research Report. Washington D.C.: World Bank and Oxford University Press.

Deininger, K., Augustinus, C., Enemark, S. and Munro-Faure, P. (2009). “Innovations in Land Rights Recognition, Administration and Governance”. Annual Conference on Land Policy and Administration, Washington, D.C.

Dekker, H. A. L. (2003). The Invisible Line: Land reform, land tenure security, and land registration. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Delville, P. L. (2010). “Competing conceptions of customary land rights registration (Rural Land Maps PFRs in Benin): methodological, policy and polity issues”. Communication to the annual conference on Land Policy and Land Administration. Washington D.C., April 26 and 27, 2010.

Durand-Lasserve, A. and Royston, L. (2002). “International Trends and Country Contexts - From Tenure Regularization to Tenure Security”. In A. Durand-Lasserve and L. Royston (eds.), Holding Their Ground: Secure land tenure for the urban poor in developing countries. Abingdon: Earthscan.

Durand-Lasserve, A. (2006). “Informal Settlements and the Millennium Development Goals: Global policy debates on property ownership and security of tenure”. Global Urban Development, vol. 2(1).

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2010). “Private Sector Agribusiness Investment in Sub-Saharan Africa: Agricultural Management, Marketing and Finance”. Working Document 27. Rome: FAO.

34

REFERENCES

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2007). Good Governance in Land Tenure and Administration. Rome. FAO Land Tenure Studies. Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1179e/a1179e00.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (2007). Good Governance in Land Tenure and Administration. Rome. FAO Land Tenure Studies. Available at ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1179e/a1179e00.pdf

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2002). “Law and Sustainable Development Since Rio. Legal trends in agriculture and natural resource management”. Legislative Study No. 73. Rome: FAO.

Fitzpatrick, D. (2005). “‘Best Practice’ Options for the Legal Recognition of Customary Tenure”. Development and Change 36(3): pp. 449-475.

Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (2011). Land-Use Planning: Concepts, tools and appli-cations. Bonn: GIZ.

Hanstad, T. (2010). “Poverty and Land Rights: An Introduction”. A seminar based on “One Billion Rising: Law, land and the alleviation of global poverty”. Presentation, Landesa Core Concepts Training, Seattle..

Hanstad, T. & Prosterman, R. & Mitchell, R. (2009). “Law and Land Tenure Reform”, in Prosterman, Mitchell, Hanstad, (eds.) One Billion Rising: Law, land and the alleviation of global poverty, pp. 17-55, University of Chicago Press / Leiden University Press.

Houangni, V. (ed.) (2013). Rural Land Reform in Benin. Konrad Adenauer Stiftung - African Law Study Library. Berlin, Germany, Rule of Law Programme for Sub-Saharan Africa.

IIED (2010). Participatory Land-Use Planning as a Tool for Community Empowerment in Northern Tanzania. U. C. R. Team.

Knight, Rachel S. (2010). “Statutory Recognition of Customary Land Rights in Africa: An Investigation into the Best Practices for Lawmaking and Implementation”. FAO Legislative Study 105. Rome: Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1945e/i1945e00.pdf

Knox, A. (2010). “Customary Land and Natural Resource Tenure”. Presentation, Landesa Core Concepts Training, Seattle.

Lavigne Delville, P. and Durand-Lasserve, A. (2008). “Land Governance and Security of Tenure in Developing Countries”. White Paper. Paris: French Development Cooperation.

Mabikke, S. B. (2016). “Historical Continuum of Land Rights in Uganda: A review of land tenure systems and approaches for improving tenure security”. Journal of Land and Rural Studies 4(2) pp.153-171.

Mabogunje, A. L. (1992). “Perspective on Urban Land and Urban Management Policies in Sub-Saharan Africa”. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Mahama, C. and Dixon, M. (2006). “Acquisition and Affordability of Land for Housing in Urban Ghana: A study in the formal land market dynamics”. RICS Research paper series 6(10).

Malatsi, B. and Finnstrom, Å. (2011). “Reformation of the Land Administration in Botswana”. FIG Working Week 2011: Bridging the Gap between Cultures. Marrakech, Morocco, 18-22 May 2011.

Mvunga, M. P. (1982). Land Law and Policy in Zambia. Lusaka: Institute for African Studies.

Nkwae, B. (2006). “Conceptual Framework for Modelling and Analysing Peri-urban Land Problems in Southern Africa”. Department of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering. New Brunswick, University of New Brunswick. Ph.D dissertation.

Nkwae, B. and Dumba, D. (2009). “From Certificate of Rights to Long-term Leaseholds in Botswana”. Habitat International 34(4): pp. 367-373.

35

REFERENCES

Norfolk, S. and Tanner, C. (2007). “Improving Tenure Security for the Rural Poor: Mozambique country study”. LEP Working Paper No. 5. Rome: FAO.

Reerink, G. (2011). Tenure Security for Indonesia’s Urban Poor: A socio-legal study on land, decentralisation, and the rule of law in Bandung. Ph.D dissertation. Leiden University.

Satterthwaite, D. (2007). “The Transition to a Predominantly Urban World and its Underpinnings”. Human Settlements Discussion Paper Series. London: International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED).

World Bank (2005). “Promoting Local Innovation: Enhancing IK dynamics and links with scientific knowledge”. IK Knotes, World Bank. No. 76: http://www.worldbank.org/afr/ik/iknt76.htm

36

ANNEXESANNEXES

Table 1 Tools for grassroots participation and empowerment

Table 2 Tools for local land recording

Table 3 Tools for local capacity development

Table 4 Tools for registration and certification

Table 5 Tools for informal settlement upgrading

Table 6 Gender and equity responsive tools

Table 7 Tools for governance

Table 8 Tools for dispute resolution

Table 9 Tools for economic empowerment and natural resource management

Table 10 Analysis of tools for grassroots participation and empowerment against GLTN core values

Table 11 Analysis of tools for local recording of land transactions against GLTN core values

Table 12 Analysis of tools for local capacity development against GLTN core values

Table 13 Analysis of tools for local registration and certification against GLTN core values

Table 14 Analysis of tools for informal settlement upgrading against GLTN core values

Table 15 Analysis of tools for gender and equity against GLTN core values

Table 16 Analysis of tools for governance against GLTN core values

Table 17 Analysis of tools for dispute resolution against GLTN core values

Table 18 Analysis of tools for economic empowerment and natural resource management against GLTN core values

37

ANNEXESTo

olTa

rget

gro

upSt

akeh

olde

rs

Fact

ors

influ

enci

ng t

he d

esig

n of

the

to

olTe

nure

inse

curi

ty

issu

es

Ope

rati

on in

th

e cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

syst

em

Scal

e of

op

erat

ion

Lega

l rec

ogni

tion

an

d su

ppor

t fo

r de

velo

pmen

t of

th

e to

ol

Impl

emen

tati

on

chal

leng

es

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

1. P

artic

ipat

ory

spat

ial a

nd

deve

lopm

ent

plan

ning

(Mal

i an

d Ta

nzan

ia)

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ities

• N

GO

s

• G

over

nmen

t

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ities

• N

eed

to

inte

grat

e th

e pe

rspe

ctiv

e of

lo

cal p

eopl

e in

de

velo

pmen

t pl

anni

ng

• La

ck o

f th

e ca

paci

ty a

nd

reso

urce

s to

sec

ure

cert

ain

form

of

tec

hnic

al

supp

ort

in

plan

ning

• N

eed

for

expe

rts

to c

olla

bora

te

with

loca

l co

mm

uniti

es

• Sp

atia

l di

men

sion

is

bein

g in

trod

uced

in

to t

he lo

cal

soci

o-ec

onom

ic

deve

lopm

ent

plan

ning

• N

eed

to s

et u

p a

tran

spar

ent

and

part

icip

ator

y lo

cal s

ocio

-ec

onom

ic

plan

ning

sys

tem

s in

acc

orda

nce

with

nat

iona

l re

quire

men

ts.

• La

ck o

f kn

owle

dge

abou

t fo

rmal

la

nd u

se

plan

ning

pr

oces

s

• lo

cal

know

ledg

e an

d pe

rspe

ctiv

e in

de

velo

pmen

t pl

anni

ng

• U

nsup

port

ed

deve

lopm

ent

plan

s

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h pa

rtne

rshi

p be

twee

n co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

an

d go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

or o

ther

st

ruct

ures

(N

GO

s)

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

leve

l

• Su

ppor

ted

by

dece

ntra

lisat

ion

polic

ies

in la

nd

use

plan

ning

• Ra

llyin

g co

mm

unity

su

ppor

t

2. W

omen

’s Pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in V

illag

e La

nd

Use

Pla

nnin

g (T

anza

nia)

• W

omen

• W

omen

• N

GO

s

• N

eed

for

impr

oved

co

mm

unity

liv

elih

oods

• A

dvoc

acy

to p

rom

ote

the

right

s of

in

dige

nous

w

omen

to

bene

fit f

rom

la

nd a

nd o

ther

na

tura

l res

ourc

es

• Bi

asne

ss

of la

ws

on

owne

rshi

p an

d co

ntro

l of

land

and

oth

er

inhe

ritan

ce

of p

rope

rtie

s ag

ains

t w

omen

an

d gi

rls

• D

evel

oped

ba

sed

on

orga

nise

d w

omen

gr

oup

stru

ctur

es

and

asso

ciat

ions

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

leve

l

• M

ay b

e su

ppor

ted

by

legi

slat

ion

• Ill

itera

cy

• Th

reat

fro

m

outm

oded

cu

stom

ary

prac

tices

3. P

artic

ipat

ory

enum

erat

ion

and

map

ping

(E

thio

pia,

K

enya

, Tan

zani

a,

Rwan

da)

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ities

•

Trad

ition

al

lead

ers

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs

• La

nd

prof

essi

onal

s

• St

ate

inst

itutio

ns

• N

GO

s

• N

eed

to

supp

ort

non-

docu

men

tary

ev

iden

ce w

ith

docu

men

ts

• N

eed

to

prom

ote

gras

sroo

ts

part

icip

atio

n in

land

re

cord

ing,

la

nd

deve

lopm

ent

• pl

anni

ng

and

fore

st

man

agem

ent

• N

eed

to

brid

ge t

he g

ap

betw

een

loca

l an

d te

chni

cal

know

ledg

e an

d be

twee

n lo

cal

com

mun

ities

an

d te

chni

cal

expe

rts

• In

abili

ty

for

form

al

adju

dica

tion

to a

ccep

t or

al

evid

ence

• La

ck o

f co

mm

unity

pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in

dem

arca

tion,

m

appi

ng la

nd

reco

rdin

g an

d ot

her

land

de

velo

pmen

t ac

tiviti

es

• N

eed

for

pro-

poor

too

l fo

r m

appi

ng

land

rec

ordi

ng

right

s

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h pa

rtne

rshi

p be

twee

n co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

an

d go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

or o

ther

st

ruct

ures

(N

GO

s)

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

leve

l

• Su

ppor

ted

by

legi

slat

ion

• Ill

itera

cy

• H

igh

cost

of

acq

uirin

g da

ta f

or

map

ping

Tab

le 1

: To

ols

fo

r g

rass

roo

ts p

arti

cip

atio

n a

nd

em

po

wer

men

t

38

ANNEXESTo

olTa

rget

gro

upSt

akeh

olde

rs

Fact

ors

influ

enci

ng t

he d

esig

n of

the

to

olTe

nure

inse

curi

ty

issu

es

Ope

rati

on in

th

e cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

syst

em

Scal

e of

op

erat

ion

Lega

l rec

ogni

tion

an

d su

ppor

t fo

r de

velo

pmen

t of

th

e to

ol

Impl

emen

tati

on

chal

leng

es

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

1. In

form

al

reco

rdin

g of

land

tr

ansa

ctio

n an

d la

nd

info

rmat

ion

Petit

s pa

pier

s’

(Ben

in, I

vory

C

oast

, Mal

i, G

hana

),

• In

dige

nous

co

mm

uniti

es•

Trad

ition

al

lead

ers

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs

• In

crea

sing

land

tr

ansa

ctio

n

• N

eed

to

reco

rd la

nd

info

rmat

ion

at c

omm

unity

le

vel

• Em

erge

nce

of

hete

roge

neou

s co

mm

uniti

es

• La

nd c

onfli

cts

• La

ck o

f re

cord

ed

land

info

rmat

ion

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

stru

ctur

e

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

leve

l

• N

o sp

ecifi

c le

gisl

atio

n•

Illite

racy

• Po

or

mai

nten

ance

of

reco

rds

2. L

and

allo

catio

n co

mm

ittee

s (G

hana

) and

in

form

al

land

offi

ces

(Ken

ya)

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ities

• Tr

aditi

onal

le

ader

s

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs

• N

eed

for

tran

spar

ent

and

acco

unta

ble

land

m

anag

emen

t pr

oces

ses

at

the

loca

l lev

el

• N

eed

for

fair

repr

esen

tatio

n of

st

akeh

olde

rs

in t

he la

nd

man

agem

ent

proc

esse

s

• Em

erge

nce

of

exte

rnal

land

in

vest

men

t

• U

nava

ilabi

lity

or in

acce

ssib

le

cust

omar

y la

nd

info

rmat

ion

• U

nreg

ulat

ed la

nd

deve

lopm

ents

• C

orru

ptio

n an

d un

scru

pulo

us

deal

ings

in la

nd

tran

sact

ions

• La

ck o

f ac

coun

tabi

lity

and

stew

ards

hip

of

com

mun

ity le

ader

s

• La

ck o

f tra

nspa

renc

y in

land

tra

nsac

tions

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

stru

ctur

e

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

leve

l

• N

o sp

ecifi

c le

gisl

atio

n

• In

som

e ar

eas

they

are

re

cogn

ised

by

legi

slat

ion

and

land

pol

icie

s

• Fu

ndin

g

• La

ck o

f ex

pert

ise

• Pr

oces

ses

may

te

nd u

p to

be

com

plex

and

ex

pens

ive

• A

buse

of

offic

e

3. A

lloca

tion

note

(G

hana

)

• La

ndho

lder

s •

Trad

ition

al

lead

ers

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs

• N

eed

to h

ave

evid

ence

of

allo

catio

n

• In

crea

sing

land

di

sput

es

• D

oubl

e al

loca

tion

• La

ck o

f re

cord

s on

la

nd a

lloca

tion

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

stru

ctur

e

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

leve

l

• Th

ough

it is

re

cogn

ised

an

d us

ed

even

for

land

re

gist

ratio

n,

ther

e is

no

spec

ific

legi

slat

ion

deve

lope

d fo

r its

im

plem

enta

tion

• Ill

itera

cy

4. P

FRs

(rur

al

land

pla

ns)

(Cot

e d’

Ivoi

re,

Burk

ina

Faso

, Mal

i, Be

nin

and

Gui

nea)

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ities

•

Trad

ition

al

lead

ers

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs

• St

ate

inst

itutio

ns

• D

onor

ag

enci

es

• N

eed

to s

ecur

e la

nd r

ight

s fo

r ru

ral a

reas

• N

eed

to

redu

ce a

nd

man

age

land

co

nflic

t

• N

eed

to

prom

ote

rura

l de

velo

pmen

t

• In

secu

rity

of la

nd

right

s

• La

nd c

onfli

cts

• La

nd u

se

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h pa

rtne

rshi

p be

twee

n co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

and

go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

• So

me

oper

ate

at

natio

nal

scal

e

• Su

ppor

ted

by

legi

slat

ion

• O

rgan

isat

iona

l an

d fin

anci

al

diffi

culti

es

• M

ultip

le

inst

itutio

nal a

nd

lega

l str

uctu

res

resu

lts t

o co

ntra

dict

ions

an

d in

secu

ritie

s

Tab

le 2

: To

ols

fo

r lo

cal l

and

rec

ord

ing

39

ANNEXESTo

olTa

rget

gro

upSt

akeh

olde

rs

Fact

ors

influ

enci

ng t

he d

esig

n of

the

to

olTe

nure

inse

curi

ty

issu

es

Ope

rati

on in

th

e cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

syst

em

Scal

e of

op

erat

ion

Lega

l re

cogn

itio

n an

d su

ppor

t fo

r de

velo

pmen

t of

th

e to

ol

Impl

emen

tati

on

chal

leng

es

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

1. L

and

Boar

ds

(Bot

swan

a,

Tanz

ania

, U

gand

a,

Mad

agas

car

and

Moz

ambi

que)

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ities

• Tr

aditi

onal

le

ader

s

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs

• La

nd

prof

essi

onal

s

• St

ate

inst

itutio

ns

• N

GO

s

• N

eed

for

tran

spar

ent

and

acco

unta

ble

land

m

anag

emen

t pr

oces

ses

at

the

loca

l lev

el

• N

eed

for

fair

repr

esen

tatio

n of

st

akeh

olde

rs

in t

he la

nd

man

agem

ent

proc

esse

s

• U

rban

isat

ion

• Em

erge

nce

of

exte

rnal

land

in

vest

men

t

• U

nava

ilabi

lity

or in

acce

ssib

le

cust

omar

y la

nd

info

rmat

ion

• U

nreg

ulat

ed la

nd

deve

lopm

ents

• C

orru

ptio

n an

d un

scru

pulo

us

deal

ings

in la

nd

tran

sact

ions

• La

ck o

f ac

coun

tabi

lity

and

stew

ards

hip

of

com

mun

ity le

ader

s

• La

ck o

f tr

ansp

aren

cy in

la

nd t

rans

actio

ns

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

stru

ctur

e or

as

par

tner

ship

be

twee

n co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

and

go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

or o

ther

st

ruct

ures

• C

omm

unity

le

vel

• Lo

cal

gove

rnm

ent

leve

l

• N

atio

nal

leve

l

• Su

ppor

ted

by le

gisl

atio

n an

d la

nd

polic

ies

• So

me

have

sp

ecifi

c le

gisl

atio

ns

(Bot

swan

a)

• Fu

ndin

g

• La

ck o

f qu

alifi

ed

man

pow

er

• Pr

oces

ses

may

ten

d up

to

be

com

plex

and

ex

pens

ive

• A

buse

of

offic

e

2. C

usto

mar

y La

nd

Secr

etar

iat

(CLS

) (G

hana

)

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

mem

bers

• Tr

aditi

onal

le

ader

s

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs

• La

nd

prof

essi

onal

s

• St

ate

inst

itutio

ns

• D

onor

ag

enci

es

• N

eed

for

acce

ssib

le la

nd

info

rmat

ion

• N

eed

for

tran

spar

ent

and

acco

unta

ble

trad

ition

al

auth

oriti

es

• N

eed

to

stre

ngth

en

capa

city

of

exi

stin

g cu

stom

ary

auth

oriti

es t

o ad

min

iste

r la

nd

• N

eed

to p

rovi

de

effe

ctiv

e cu

stom

ary

land

m

anag

emen

t ha

rmon

ised

with

go

vern

men

t la

nd a

genc

ies

and

dist

rict

asse

mbl

ies

• N

eed

for

unifi

ed,

dece

ntra

lised

pu

blic

rec

ord

of

land

ava

ilabi

lity,

us

e an

d tr

ansa

ctio

ns

• La

ck o

f la

nd

info

rmat

ion

• M

anip

ulat

ion

of

cust

omar

y la

w

• La

ndle

ssne

ss,

evic

tion

and

ineq

uity

in d

eliv

ery

of ju

stic

e

• La

ck o

f tr

ansp

aren

cy a

nd

acco

unta

bilit

y in

cu

stom

ary

land

de

liver

y pr

oces

s

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

stru

ctur

e

• A

t st

ool

leve

l und

er a

pa

ram

ount

ch

ief,

or

unde

r th

e la

nd-o

wni

ng

fam

ilies

• Su

ppor

ted

by

Con

stitu

tion

(199

2) a

nd

Nat

iona

l La

nd P

olic

y (1

999)

• Fe

ar o

f lo

sing

ow

ners

hip

and

cont

rol

by c

usto

mar

y le

ader

s

• In

abili

ty t

o pa

y st

aff

sala

ry a

nd

runn

ing

cost

• Li

mite

d tr

ansp

aren

cy

and

grea

ter

expe

ctat

ion

from

go

vern

men

t fo

r C

LS

sust

aina

bilit

y

Tab

le 3

: To

ols

fo

r lo

cal c

apac

ity

dev

elo

pm

ent

40

ANNEXESTo

olTa

rget

gro

upSt

akeh

olde

rs

Fact

ors

influ

enci

ng t

he d

esig

n of

the

to

olTe

nure

inse

curi

ty

issu

es

Ope

rati

on in

th

e cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

syst

em

Scal

e of

op

erat

ion

Lega

l re

cogn

itio

n an

d su

ppor

t fo

r de

velo

pmen

t of

th

e to

ol

Impl

emen

tati

on

chal

leng

es

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

3. T

ribal

land

in

tegr

ated

m

anag

emen

t Sy

stem

(B

otsw

ana)

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

mem

bers

• G

over

nmen

t

• Tr

aditi

onal

le

ader

s

• V

illag

e de

velo

pmen

t C

omm

ittee

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs

• La

nd B

oard

s

• Pr

ofes

sion

al /

Con

sulta

nts

• St

ate

inst

itutio

ns

• Po

or r

ecor

d ke

epin

g at

m

any

Land

Bo

ard

offic

es

• N

o un

ique

pl

ot n

umbe

rs

or s

imila

r re

fere

ncin

g

• La

nd

allo

cate

d by

ch

iefs

, unt

il 19

70, n

ot

docu

men

ted

• N

o co

mm

on

regi

ster

for

tr

ibal

land

• N

eed

for

impr

oved

m

anag

emen

t

• of

land

re

sour

ces

• N

eed

for

impr

oved

re

liabi

lity

of

• la

nd

info

rmat

ion

• N

eed

for

impr

oved

rec

ord

keep

ing

• N

eed

to

impr

ove

mon

itorin

g of

la

nd u

se

• N

eed

to

impr

ove

land

di

sput

es

reso

lutio

n an

d pr

even

tion

• N

eed

for

incr

ease

d co

llect

ion

of

• le

ase

paym

ents

• Re

duce

d co

sts

in la

nd

allo

catio

n

• La

ck o

f re

cord

s on

la

nd in

trib

al a

reas

• La

ck o

f tr

ansp

aren

cy a

nd

acco

unta

bilit

y in

cu

stom

ary

land

de

liver

y pr

oces

s

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h pa

rtne

rshi

p be

twee

n co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

and

go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

or o

ther

st

ruct

ures

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h pa

rtne

rshi

p be

twee

n co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

an

d go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

or o

ther

st

ruct

ures

• Su

ppor

ted

by T

ribal

La

nd A

ct a

nd

Bots

wan

a N

atio

nal

Land

Pol

icy

(200

3)

• O

verr

elia

nce

on

com

pute

rs in

ru

ral a

rea

• La

ck o

f qu

alifi

ed

staf

f

4. P

rolif

erat

ion

of e

duca

ted

chie

fs,

deve

lopm

ent

chie

fs a

nd

advi

sors

(G

hana

)

• M

embe

rs

and

non-

mem

bers

of

roya

l fam

ily

• Tr

aditi

onal

le

ader

s

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs

• Ph

ilant

hrop

ists

• N

eed

for

expe

rtis

e in

cu

stom

ary

land

go

vern

ance

• N

eed

for

acco

unta

bilit

y

• N

eed

for

effe

ctiv

e co

mm

unic

atio

n be

twee

n th

e co

mm

unity

le

ader

ship

an

d st

ate

inst

itutio

ns/

polit

icia

ns

• In

appr

opria

te

reco

rd k

eepi

ng

• La

ck o

f ex

pert

ise

in a

spec

ts o

f la

nd

man

agem

ent

and

disp

ute

reso

lutio

n pr

oces

ses

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

stru

ctur

e

• Lo

cal/

com

mun

ity

leve

l

• N

o sp

ecifi

c le

gisl

atio

n bu

t C

onst

itutio

n (1

992)

su

ppor

ts

chie

ftai

ncy

• Po

ssib

ility

of

a c

orru

pt

trad

ition

al

lead

ers

surr

ound

ing

them

selv

es

with

cro

nies

Tab

le 3

: To

ols

fo

r lo

cal c

apac

ity

dev

elo

pm

ent

(Co

nti

nu

ed)

41

ANNEXESTo

olTa

rget

gro

upSt

akeh

olde

rs

Fact

ors

influ

enci

ng t

he d

esig

n of

the

to

olTe

nure

in

secu

rity

is

sues

Ope

rati

on in

th

e cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

syst

em

Scal

e of

op

erat

ion

Lega

l re

cogn

itio

n an

d su

ppor

t fo

r de

velo

pmen

t of

the

too

l

Impl

emen

tati

on

chal

leng

es

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

1. V

illag

e an

d co

mm

unity

tit

ling

initi

ativ

es

(Tan

zani

a,

Moz

ambi

que)

• M

embe

rs o

f vi

llage

s as

de

fined

by

Vill

age

Land

A

ct

• M

embe

rs o

f th

e vi

llage

s

• G

over

nmen

t au

thor

ities

• D

istr

ict

• A

utho

ritie

s

• V

illag

e C

ounc

il m

embe

rs

• N

GO

s

• N

eed

for

title

to

land

for

co

llate

ral

• N

eed

for

adeq

uate

se

curit

y of

te

nure

for

m

ajor

ity o

f ru

ral p

oor

• N

eed

for

equi

tabl

e di

strib

utio

n of

la

nd r

esou

rces

in

divi

dual

• N

eed

to e

nsur

e pr

oduc

tive

use

of la

nd

• N

eed

for

tran

spar

ent

and

effic

ient

land

ad

min

istr

atio

n

• La

ck o

f ad

equa

te

secu

rity

of

tenu

re f

or

maj

ority

of

rura

l poo

r

• C

onfli

cts

of

land

use

in

rura

l are

as

espe

cial

ly

betw

een

farm

ers

and

lives

tock

ke

eper

s

• Pe

rsis

tent

la

nd

disp

utes

as

a r

esul

t of

rap

id

expa

nsio

n of

tow

ns

encr

oach

ing

on

surr

ound

ing

farm

ing

area

s

• Te

nure

co

nflic

ts

betw

een

cust

omar

y an

d gr

ante

d la

nd r

ight

s.

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h pa

rtne

rshi

p be

twee

n co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

an

d go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

• V

illag

e le

vel

• O

pera

te a

t na

tiona

l sc

ale

• Su

ppor

ted

by t

he

land

pol

icy,

V

illag

e La

nd A

ct

and

Loca

l G

over

nmen

t A

ct

• C

hang

ing

lega

l fr

amew

ork

• Re

stric

ted

acce

ss t

o la

nd

info

rmat

ion

by c

itize

nry

• Le

ss

enga

gem

ent

of lo

cal

com

mun

ities

• A

bsen

ce o

f la

nd u

se p

lans

• Bu

reau

crac

y

• La

ck o

f re

sour

ces

• H

igh

cost

of

esta

blis

hing

vi

llage

re

gist

ries

2. La

nd

regu

laris

atio

n (R

wan

da)

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ities

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ities

• C

omm

unity

le

ader

s

• La

nd

prof

essi

onal

s

• G

over

nmen

t ag

enci

es

• Po

pula

tion

pres

sure

s

• In

herit

ance

pr

actic

es a

nd

frag

men

tatio

n of

land

• N

eed

for

unita

ry s

yste

m

of la

nd

hold

ing

• C

omm

odifi

catio

n of

land

• In

form

al m

arke

t

• La

nd s

harin

g be

twee

n la

nd

occu

pant

s an

d re

turn

ees

afte

r th

e 19

94 c

onfli

ct

• La

ndle

ssne

ss

• La

nd

litig

atio

n

• Le

gal

reso

lutio

n of

re

stitu

tion

clai

ms

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h pa

rtne

rshi

ps

betw

een

com

mun

ity

lead

ersh

ip

and

stat

e in

stitu

tions

• N

atio

nal

leve

l•

Back

ed b

y le

gisl

atio

n O

rgan

ic

Land

Law

[O

LL] (

2005

).

• La

ck o

f lo

cal

land

exp

erts

• M

aint

enan

ce

of s

yste

m

Tab

le 4

: To

ols

fo

r re

gis

trat

ion

an

d c

erti

fica

tio

n

42

ANNEXESTo

olTa

rget

gro

upSt

akeh

olde

rsFa

ctor

s in

fluen

cing

the

des

ign

of t

he t

ool

Tenu

re

inse

curi

ty

issu

es

Ope

rati

on in

th

e cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

syst

em

Scal

e of

op

erat

ion

Lega

l re

cogn

ition

an

d su

ppor

t for

de

velo

pmen

t of

the

tool

Impl

emen

tati

on

chal

leng

esIn

tern

alEx

tern

al

3. Fl

exib

le

land

ten

ure

(Nam

ibia

)

• Lo

w-in

com

e co

mm

uniti

es

• In

form

al

sett

lers

• In

form

al

sett

lers

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ities

• N

atio

nal

and

loca

l go

vern

men

t au

thor

ities

• N

GO

s

• N

eed

for

pro-

poor

regi

stra

tion

• Po

pula

tion

grow

th a

nd

pove

rty

• N

eed

for

secu

re

land

rig

hts

to

ease

acc

ess

to c

redi

t fo

r in

vest

men

t

• Sl

ow a

nd

cum

bers

ome

surv

eyin

g an

d re

gist

ratio

n pr

oces

ses

• N

eed

to h

ave

land

te

nure

sys

tem

to

secu

re a

con

tinuu

m

land

rig

hts

fit f

or a

ll pu

rpos

es

• N

eed

to h

ave

sim

ple,

aff

orda

ble

and

fast

for

m

of s

ecur

e te

nure

to

low

-inco

me

com

mun

ities

and

in

form

al s

ettle

rs

• In

equi

ty in

ac

cess

to

tenu

re r

ight

s

• La

ck o

f tit

les

to s

ecur

e co

llate

ral

• H

igh

cost

of

sur

veyi

ng

and

regi

stra

tion

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h pa

rtne

rshi

p be

twee

n co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

an

d go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

leve

l

• N

atio

nal

scal

e

• Su

ppor

ted

by F

lexi

ble

Land

Ten

ure

Act

201

2

• En

shrin

ed

in N

atio

nal

land

pol

icy

of N

amib

ia

(199

9)

• Sl

ow

impl

emen

tatio

n of

th

e FL

TR A

ct

• U

nfor

esee

n co

st

and

dela

ys in

in

form

atio

n flo

w

• Re

quire

s ex

tens

ive

tech

nica

l res

ourc

es

• Po

tent

ial r

isk

of

crea

ting

info

rmal

ity

in t

he lo

ng t

erm

4. U

rban

land

re

gist

ry

(Ben

in,

Nig

eria

)

• La

ndow

ner

in u

rban

/pe

ri-ur

ban

area

s

• La

ndow

ners

in

urb

an/p

eri-

urba

n ar

eas

• C

omm

unity

or

gani

satio

ns

• N

atio

nal

and

loca

l go

vern

men

t au

thor

ities

• Sp

ecia

lised

co

mpa

nies

• N

eed

for

impr

oved

ten

ure

right

s fo

r ur

ban/

peri-

urba

n dw

elle

rs

• N

eed

for

secu

re

land

rig

hts

for

colla

tera

l

• N

eed

for

com

preh

ensi

ve

mun

icip

al la

nd

info

rmat

ion

syst

em

for

tax

asse

ssm

ent

and

land

m

anag

emen

t

• Te

nure

in

secu

rity

due

to

land

less

ness

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

an

d go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

• M

unic

ipal

le

vel

• Su

ppor

ted

by la

w•

In B

enin

, onl

y th

ree

of t

he c

ompo

nent

s m

appi

ng,

gene

ratio

n of

da

taba

se f

rom

fie

ld d

ata

and

taxa

tion

have

bee

n im

plem

ente

d

• C

omm

uniti

es

have

bee

n sl

ow t

o re

cogn

ise

its v

alue

5. R

ural

land

ce

rtifi

catio

n an

d re

gist

ratio

n

(Eth

iopi

a)

• Ru

ral

farm

ers

• La

nd o

wne

rs

• Te

nant

fa

rmer

s

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

com

mitt

ees

• La

nd

prof

essi

onal

s

• H

ighl

y un

deru

tilis

ed

land

aff

ectin

g pr

oduc

tivity

and

in

vest

men

t

• N

eed

to r

educ

e w

ides

prea

d te

nure

in

secu

rity

and

its

nega

tive

impa

ct o

n in

vest

men

t

• N

eed

to p

rom

ote

land

con

serv

atio

n

• H

igh

tenu

re

inse

curit

y

• A

rbitr

ary

evic

tions

• In

equi

ty

in la

nd

owne

rshi

p

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

an

d go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

• C

omm

unity

le

vel

• O

pera

tes

at d

istr

ict

leve

l and

on

nat

iona

l sc

ale

• Su

ppor

ted

by le

gisl

atio

n •

Add

ing

phot

os

to d

ocum

ent

in

the

seco

nd p

hase

ha

s pr

oven

slo

wer

an

d m

uch

mor

e di

fficu

lt

6. S

TDM

(P

ilote

d in

in

form

al

sett

lem

ents

in

Uga

nda

and

Ken

ya)

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ities

• La

nd

prof

essi

onal

s

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ities

• La

nd

prof

essi

onal

s

• G

LTN

• FI

G

• IT

C

• O

ther

Don

or

agen

cies

• N

eed

for

a si

mpl

e an

d us

er-f

riend

ly

tool

to

reco

rd

all f

orm

s of

land

rig

hts

incl

udin

g in

form

al r

ight

s

• La

nd a

dmin

istr

atio

n ne

ed t

o be

fle

xibl

e to

ser

ve

non-

conv

entio

nal

situ

atio

ns

• N

eed

to r

ecog

nise

so

cial

ten

ure

in

land

adm

inis

trat

ion

mod

ellin

g

• La

ck o

f ap

prop

riate

to

ol t

o re

cord

se

cond

ary

right

s, s

ocia

l te

nure

and

ov

erla

ppin

g sp

atia

l uni

ts

• C

an b

e ad

apte

d to

co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

an

d go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

• C

omm

unity

le

vel a

nd

all l

evel

s of

so

ciet

y

• In

pilo

t st

ate.

N

ot d

irect

ly

supp

orte

d by

le

gisl

atio

n

Tab

le 4

: To

ols

fo

r re

gis

trat

ion

an

d c

erti

fica

tio

n (

Co

nti

nu

ed)

43

ANNEXESTo

olTa

rget

gro

upSt

akeh

olde

rs

Fact

ors

influ

enci

ng t

he d

esig

n of

th

e to

olTe

nure

inse

curi

ty

issu

es

Ope

rati

on in

th

e cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

syst

em

Scal

e of

op

erat

ion

Lega

l rec

ogni

tion

an

d su

ppor

t fo

r de

velo

pmen

t of

th

e to

ol

Impl

emen

tati

on

chal

leng

es

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

1. R

esid

entia

l lic

ense

(T

anza

nia)

• In

form

al

sett

lers

• In

form

al

sett

lers

• La

nd o

wne

rs

• N

atio

nal

and

loca

l go

vern

men

t au

thor

ities

• N

GO

s

• Bi

late

ral

dono

r or

gani

satio

ns

• Po

vert

y

• Po

pula

tion

grow

th

• Fa

ilure

of

the

form

al s

yste

m

to e

nsur

e ap

prop

riate

pl

anni

ng

and

prov

ide

adeq

uate

sh

elte

r

• N

eed

for

adeq

uate

and

co

ordi

nate

d la

nd

info

rmat

ion

• In

crea

sing

ur

bani

satio

n

• N

eed

to

addr

ess

hum

an

sett

lem

ents

is

sues

in

urba

n ar

eas

• A

nti-e

vict

ion

advo

cacy

• La

ndle

ssne

ss

• La

ck o

f ad

equa

te

secu

rity

of t

enur

e fo

r m

ajor

ity o

f ur

ban

peop

le.

• La

ck o

f of

ficia

l tit

les

or li

cens

es

to la

nd

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h pa

rtne

rshi

p be

twee

n co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

an

d go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

or o

ther

st

ruct

ures

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

leve

l

• So

me

oper

ate

on

a na

tiona

l sc

ale

• Su

ppor

ted

by

legi

slat

ion

• D

istr

ess

sale

s of

indi

vidu

al

title

s

• In

adeq

uate

hu

man

and

fin

anci

al

reso

urce

s

• Sl

ow a

nd

cum

bers

ome

regi

stra

tion

proc

edur

es

• Le

gal

com

plex

ity o

f so

me

of t

he

mod

els

2. C

omm

unal

La

nd

Trus

t an

d A

ssoc

iatio

ns

(Ken

ya,

Zam

bia)

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

mem

bers

• Tr

aditi

onal

le

ader

s

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs

• Lo

cal

gove

rnm

ent

auth

oriti

es

• La

nd

prof

essi

onal

s

• St

ate

inst

itutio

ns

• N

GO

s

• N

eed

for

tran

spar

ent

and

all

incl

usiv

e de

cisi

on-

mak

ing

and

land

ad

min

istr

atio

n

• La

nd t

enur

e re

form

to

addr

ess

incr

easi

ng

urba

niza

tion

and

issu

es

rela

ted

to

hum

an

sett

lem

ents

• N

eed

for

natu

ral

reso

urce

co

nser

vatio

n

• La

ndle

ssne

ss

for

mar

gina

lised

gr

oups

• N

eed

to h

ave

grou

p te

nure

an

d in

divi

dual

tit

les

with

in t

he

Trus

t

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h pa

rtne

rshi

p be

twee

n co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

an

d go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

or o

ther

st

ruct

ures

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

leve

l

• In

mos

t ca

ses

they

are

ba

cked

by

legi

slat

ion

• In

adeq

uate

m

anpo

wer

• C

ost

of le

ase

fee

• M

aint

enan

ce

of a

ctiv

e co

mm

unity

pa

rtic

ipat

ion

• Ef

fect

ive

confl

ict

reso

lutio

n m

echa

nism

• D

ecis

ion

betw

een

profi

t m

akin

g as

aga

inst

de

velo

pmen

t of

hum

an

capa

city

3. P

artic

ipat

ory

Slum

up

grad

ing

(Sou

th

Afr

ica,

K

enya

)

• In

form

al

sett

lers

• In

form

al

sett

lers

• Lo

cal

gove

rnm

ent

and

rele

vant

go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

• N

GO

s

• C

ivil

orga

nisa

tions

• U

nhea

lthy

and

inse

cure

livi

ng

• En

viro

nmen

ts

• Po

vert

y an

d vu

lner

abili

ty

• G

over

nmen

t ad

dres

sing

ap

arth

eid

lega

cy

• A

dher

ence

to

Inte

rnal

co

nven

tions

• In

situ

up

grad

ing

of in

form

al

sett

lem

ents

• N

eed

for

form

alis

ing

the

tenu

re r

ight

s of

res

iden

ts

with

in in

form

al

sett

lem

ents

• O

pera

te o

n st

atut

ory

gove

rnan

ce

stru

ctur

es

• Lo

cal

gove

rnm

ent

leve

l

• Su

ppor

ted

by

legi

slat

ion

and

Inte

rnat

iona

l co

nven

tions

• Li

mite

d fu

ndin

g re

sour

ces

Tab

le 5

: To

ols

fo

r in

form

al s

ettl

emen

t u

pg

rad

ing

44

ANNEXESTo

olTa

rget

gro

upSt

akeh

olde

rs

Fact

ors

influ

enci

ng t

he d

esig

n of

the

too

lTe

nure

in

secu

rity

is

sues

Ope

rati

on in

th

e cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

syst

em

Scal

e of

op

erat

ion

Lega

l rec

ogni

tion

an

d su

ppor

t fo

r de

velo

pmen

t of

th

e to

ol

Impl

emen

tati

on

chal

leng

es

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

1. G

ende

r ev

alua

tion

crite

ria

• W

omen

• M

en

• Yo

ung

peop

le

• W

omen

• W

idow

s

• G

LTN

par

tner

s

• H

uairo

u C

omm

issi

on

• FI

G

• U

nive

rsity

of

East

Lon

don

• U

N-H

abita

t

• N

GO

s

• G

over

nmen

t in

stitu

tions

• G

ende

r ba

rrie

r in

acc

ess

to,

cont

rol o

ver,

and

owne

rshi

p of

la

nd a

nd n

atur

al

reso

urce

s

• M

argi

nalis

atio

n of

wom

en b

y cu

stom

s an

d cu

lture

• N

eed

to im

prov

e th

e rig

hts

to

land

of

wom

en

and

othe

r m

argi

nalis

ed

grou

ps

• G

ende

r ad

voca

cy f

or

wom

en’s

acce

ss

to la

nd

• La

ck o

f te

nure

se

curit

y fo

r w

omen

an

d yo

ung

peop

le

• In

equa

lity

in a

cces

s to

la

nd

• D

evel

oped

th

roug

h pa

rtne

rshi

p be

twee

n co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

an

d go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

or o

ther

st

ruct

ures

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

leve

l

• M

ost

land

po

licie

s su

ppor

t ge

nder

equ

ity

• La

xity

in

enfo

rcem

ent

due

to c

ultu

ral

and

relig

ious

be

liefs

2. S

pous

al

cons

ent

(Eth

iopi

a,

Mad

agas

car,

Moz

ambi

que,

U

gand

a)

• W

omen

• M

en

• Yo

ung

peop

le

• M

arrie

d m

en

• M

arrie

d w

omen

• C

hild

ren

• Fa

mily

hea

ds

• N

GO

s

• G

over

nmen

t

• Tr

ansf

er o

f la

nd

right

s w

ithou

t co

nsen

t

• G

ende

r ad

voca

cy

• H

uman

rig

hts

activ

ism

• Lo

ss o

f la

nd

right

s of

sp

ouse

s an

d ch

ildre

n

• O

pera

te o

n st

atut

ory

gove

rnan

ce

stru

ctur

e

• N

atio

nal

leve

l•

Land

pol

icie

s an

d ot

her

legi

slat

ive

inst

rum

ents

• La

xity

in

enfo

rcem

ent

due

to c

ultu

ral

and

relig

ious

be

liefs

3. A

war

enes

s cr

eatio

n (T

anza

nia,

U

gand

a,

Moz

ambi

que)

• Tr

aditi

onal

le

ader

s

• O

pini

on

lead

ers

• St

ate

agen

cies

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs

• Tr

aditi

onal

le

ader

s

• O

pini

on

lead

ers

• St

ate

agen

cies

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs

• N

GO

s

• La

ck o

f aw

aren

ess

of is

sues

rel

ated

to

ten

ure

secu

rity,

rig

hts,

re

stric

tions

and

re

spon

sibi

litie

s

• W

rong

in

terp

reta

tion

and

impl

emen

tatio

n of

cus

tom

ary

law

s

• Le

gal p

lura

lism

• La

ck o

f ac

cess

to

land

• Fo

rced

ev

ictio

ns

• U

nlaw

ful

inhe

ritan

ce

• La

nd

disp

utes

• C

usto

mar

y an

d st

atut

ory

gove

rnan

ce

stru

ctur

e

• Lo

cal a

nd

natio

nal

leve

l

• N

ot a

war

e of

spe

cific

le

gisl

atio

n th

at s

uppo

rts

impl

emen

tatio

n

• La

ck o

f fu

nds

• La

ck o

f po

litic

al

will

4. C

omm

unity

di

alog

ue

(com

mun

ity

conv

ersa

tion)

• M

en

• W

omen

• Yo

ung

peop

le

• N

GO

s

• W

omen

gr

oups

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ities

• G

over

nmen

t in

stitu

tions

• La

ck o

f op

en

dial

ogue

bet

wee

n m

en, w

omen

and

yo

uth

abou

t th

eir

land

rig

ht a

nd

inhe

ritan

ce i

ssue

s

• Le

gisl

ativ

e ch

ange

s an

d la

nd r

efor

m

• In

equi

ty

in la

nd

owne

rshi

p an

d in

herit

ance

la

ws

• C

usto

mar

y an

d st

atut

ory

gove

rnan

ce

leve

ls

• Lo

cal a

nd

natio

nal

leve

l

• C

onst

itutio

nal

prov

isio

ns,

land

pol

icie

s an

d ot

her

legi

slat

ure

in m

ost

sub-

Sa

hara

n A

fric

a co

untr

ies

• D

ifficu

lty in

in

itiat

ing

open

co

mm

unity

di

alog

ue.

5. C

omm

unity

se

lf-an

alys

is

(Rw

anda

)

• M

en

• W

omen

• Yo

ung

peop

le

• W

omen

gr

oups

• Yo

ung

peop

le

• G

over

nmen

t

• N

GO

s

• A

war

enes

s of

ge

nder

equ

ality

in

dim

ensi

ons

of

deci

sion

-mak

ing

• G

ende

r ad

voca

cy a

nd

activ

ists

• H

uman

rig

hts

advo

cacy

• La

ck o

f la

nd t

enur

e se

curit

y fo

r w

omen

and

yo

uth

• O

pera

te o

n st

atut

ory

gove

rnan

ce

stru

ctur

e

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

leve

l

• O

pera

te a

t na

tiona

l le

vel

• C

onst

itutio

nal

and

legi

slat

ive

supp

ort

• C

hang

ing

orga

nisa

tiona

l cu

lture

, st

ruct

ures

and

pr

oces

ses

Tab

le 6

: Gen

der

an

d e

qu

ity

resp

on

sive

to

ols

45

ANNEXESTo

olTa

rget

gro

upSt

akeh

olde

rs

Fact

ors

influ

enci

ng t

he d

esig

n of

the

to

olTe

nure

inse

curi

ty

issu

es

Ope

rati

on in

th

e cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

syst

em

Scal

e of

op

erat

ion

Lega

l re

cogn

itio

n an

d su

ppor

t fo

r de

velo

pmen

t of

th

e to

ol

Impl

emen

tati

on

chal

leng

es

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

1. C

ompe

nsat

ion

appr

oach

es

(Gha

na)

• In

dige

nous

fa

rmer

s

• Te

nant

fa

rmer

s

• C

hief

s

• Fa

mily

hea

ds

• La

nd B

oard

s

• In

dige

nes

• In

crea

se la

nd

valu

e

• Po

pula

tion

grow

th

• N

eed

for

infr

astr

uctu

ral

serv

ices

• In

disc

rimin

ate

sale

of

land

by

indi

gene

s

• U

rban

isat

ion

• Fo

od s

ecur

ity

and

com

mer

cial

fa

rmin

g

• M

inin

g an

d lu

mbe

ring

• Fe

ar o

f ev

ictio

n

• Fo

rced

ev

ictio

n

• La

nd

cont

esta

tions

be

twee

n tr

aditi

onal

au

thor

ities

an

d in

dige

nous

m

embe

rs o

f la

ndow

ning

gr

oups

• D

evel

oped

an

d op

erat

e on

the

cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

stru

ctur

e

• C

omm

unity

an

d tr

ibal

le

vel

• Le

gally

re

cogn

ised

in

som

e co

untr

ies

• Vo

lunt

ary

evic

tion

and

land

less

ness

• D

istr

ess

sale

• U

nsat

isfa

ctor

y co

mpe

nsat

ion

pack

ages

• D

ifficu

lty in

en

forc

emen

t

2. O

utla

win

g ou

tmod

ed

Inhe

ritan

ce

law

s (M

ozam

biqu

e,

Ethi

opia

, Rw

anda

)

• W

idow

s

• C

hild

ren

• Fa

mily

hea

ds

• G

over

nmen

t

• N

GO

s

• In

divi

dual

la

ndho

lder

s

• D

ying

in

ters

tate

• Po

lyga

mou

s m

arria

ge

• C

hild

ren

outs

ide

mar

riage

• Re

ligio

us a

nd

polit

ical

influ

ence

s•

Loss

of

land

an

d la

nded

pr

oper

ty

for

wid

ows

and

child

ren

espe

cial

ly

fem

ales

• D

evel

oped

un

der

stat

utor

y an

d cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

stru

ctur

e

• Lo

cal a

nd

natio

nal

leve

ls

• C

onst

itutio

n,

legi

slat

ive,

la

nd

polic

ies

and

cust

omar

y re

cogn

ition

• Fr

agm

enta

tion

and

unec

onom

ic

use

of la

nd

3. S

tatu

tory

re

cogn

ition

of

occ

upan

cy

right

s, s

lum

s an

d in

form

al

sett

lem

ents

(K

enya

, N

amib

ia,

Bots

wan

a)

• In

dige

nous

co

mm

uniti

es

• Te

nant

fa

rmer

s

• In

form

al

sett

lers

• Tr

aditi

onal

au

thor

ities

• St

atut

ory

inst

itutio

ns

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ities

• N

GO

s

• G

over

nmen

ts

• In

crea

se la

nd

valu

e

• Po

pula

tion

grow

th

• N

eed

for

infr

astr

uctu

ral

serv

ices

• Fo

od

inse

curit

y

• U

rban

isat

ion

• La

nd g

rabb

ing

• C

omm

erci

alis

atio

n of

land

• Fo

rced

ev

ictio

n

• La

ck o

f pa

ymen

t of

co

mpe

nsat

ion

• D

evel

oped

un

der

stat

utor

y an

d cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

stru

ctur

e

• C

omm

unity

le

vel

• C

onst

itutio

n,

legi

slat

ive

and

land

pol

icie

s

• La

ck o

f en

forc

emen

t of

co

nstit

utio

nal

and

stat

utor

y pr

ovis

ions

.

4. A

nti-e

vict

ion

(Uga

nda,

So

uth

Afr

ica)

• Te

nant

fa

rmer

s

• In

dige

nous

co

mm

unity

m

embe

rs

• In

form

al

sett

lers

• In

divi

dual

la

ndho

lder

s

• G

over

nmen

t

• St

ate

inst

itutio

ns

• N

GO

s

• D

iscr

etio

nary

al

loca

tion

of la

nd t

o in

divi

dual

s an

d or

gani

satio

ns

• In

effe

ctiv

e di

sput

e re

solu

tion

mec

hani

sm

• U

rban

pov

erty

• C

omm

erci

alis

atio

n of

land

• Em

erge

nce

of

hum

an r

ight

s ca

mpa

igne

rs

• Lo

opho

les

in t

he

law

tha

t m

ake

the

poor

vic

tims

of

evic

tion

• Su

prem

acy

of t

itles

ove

r cu

stom

ary

right

s an

d sq

uatt

ers’

rig

hts

• Fo

rced

ev

ictio

n

• La

ck o

f co

mpe

nsat

ion

• D

evel

oped

on

cus

tom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

stru

ctur

e an

d in

som

e ca

ses

gove

rnm

ent/

NG

Os

stru

ctur

es

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ity

leve

l

• C

usto

mar

y la

w,

Con

stitu

tion

and

othe

r le

gal

fram

ewor

ks

• En

forc

emen

t of

evi

ctio

n la

ws

• La

ck o

f po

litic

al w

ill

• Pe

rcei

ved

Inve

stm

ent

oppo

rtun

ities

Tab

le 7

: To

ols

fo

r g

ove

rnan

ce

46

ANNEXESTo

olTa

rget

gro

upSt

akeh

olde

rs

Fact

ors

influ

enci

ng t

he d

esig

n of

th

e to

olTe

nure

inse

curi

ty

issu

es

Ope

rati

on in

th

e cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

syst

em

Scal

e of

op

erat

ion

Lega

l re

cogn

itio

n an

d su

ppor

t fo

r de

velo

pmen

t of

the

too

l

Impl

emen

tati

on

chal

leng

es

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

1. In

form

al

disp

ute

reso

lutio

n (A

ltern

ativ

e D

ispu

te

Reso

lutio

n)

mec

hani

sms

- G

hana

, Ta

nzan

ia,

Uga

nda,

Ben

in,

Ken

ya.

• V

ulne

rabl

e gr

oup

mem

bers

• Tr

aditi

onal

le

ader

s

• Fo

rmal

cou

rts

• N

GO

s

• Re

ligio

us

lead

ers

• In

crea

sing

la

nd

disp

utes

and

lit

igat

ions

• H

igh

cost

of

res

olvi

ng

disp

utes

in

form

al c

ourt

s

• Pe

rcei

ved

corr

uptio

n of

co

mm

unity

le

ader

s

• Bu

reau

crac

y in

con

flict

re

solu

tion

mec

hani

sms

• U

nres

olve

d la

nd c

ases

in

form

al c

ourt

s

• La

nd c

onfli

cts

and

litig

atio

n•

Dev

elop

ed

thro

ugh

form

al

and

cust

omar

y/in

form

al

inst

itutio

ns a

nd

proc

esse

s

• Lo

cal

leve

ls•

Supp

orte

d by

le

gisl

atio

n an

d la

nd

polic

ies

• Im

plem

enta

tion

of

adju

dica

ted

deci

sion

s

Tab

le 8

: To

ols

fo

r d

isp

ute

res

olu

tio

n

47

ANNEXESTo

olTa

rget

gro

upSt

akeh

olde

rs

Fact

ors

influ

enci

ng t

he d

esig

n of

the

to

olTe

nure

in

secu

rity

issu

es

Ope

rati

on in

th

e cu

stom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

syst

em

Scal

e of

op

erat

ion

Lega

l rec

ogni

tion

an

d su

ppor

t fo

r de

velo

pmen

t of

th

e to

ol

Impl

emen

tati

on

chal

leng

es

Inte

rnal

Exte

rnal

1. C

omm

unity

-in

vest

or

part

ners

hip

proj

ect

(CIP

P)

(Moz

ambi

que,

M

adag

asca

r, U

gand

a G

hana

)

• Sm

allh

olde

r fa

rmer

s

• Pr

ivat

e-se

ctor

in

vest

ors

• Ru

ral

com

mun

ities

• O

pini

on

lead

ers

• In

dige

nous

m

embe

rs

• In

form

al

sett

lers

• St

ate

inst

itutio

ns

• N

GO

s

• N

eed

to

dive

rsify

and

st

reng

then

loca

l liv

elih

oods

and

fo

od s

ecur

ity.

• N

eed

to

impr

ove

know

ledg

e m

anag

emen

t st

rate

gies

and

ap

proa

ches

to

war

ds

pro-

poor

and

ge

nder

-sen

sitiv

e la

nd a

nd

natu

ral r

esou

rce

tenu

re r

ight

s

• Po

vert

y

• A

cces

s to

la

nd

• D

evel

oped

on

cus

tom

ary

gove

rnan

ce

stru

ctur

e or

a h

ybrid

sy

stem

bas

ed

on c

usto

mar

y an

d st

atut

ory

syst

ems

• Lo

cal l

evel

• C

onst

itutio

n,

legi

slat

ive

inst

rum

ents

, an

d/or

land

po

licie

s

• La

ck o

f fu

ndin

g

• M

anip

ulat

ion

by p

ower

ful

inve

stor

s

2. J

oint

ven

ture

ca

sh c

rop

plan

tatio

ns

(rub

ber

plan

tatio

n in

G

hana

)

• Te

nant

fa

rmer

s•

Tena

nt

farm

ers

in

coop

erat

ives

• La

nd o

wne

rs

• St

ate

agen

cies

• Fi

nanc

ial

inst

itutio

ns

• Pr

ivat

e or

gani

satio

n

• N

GO

s

• Fu

ndin

g

• M

arke

t fo

r pr

oduc

e

• Se

curit

y of

te

nant

far

mer

s

• H

igh

dem

and

for

cash

cro

ps•

Secu

rity

of

tena

ncy

• A

cces

s to

cre

dit

by t

enan

t fa

rmer

s

• A

s pa

rtne

rshi

p be

twee

n co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

, go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

and

priv

ate

orga

nisa

tions

• C

omm

unity

an

d lo

cal

leve

l

• Su

ppor

t by

sta

te

inst

itutio

ns

• Th

ere

is n

o le

galis

atio

n ye

t in

pla

ce

for

thei

r op

erat

ions

• D

istin

ctio

n be

twee

n th

e la

nd a

nd t

he

prop

erty

on

the

land

3. C

omm

unity

-ba

sed

natu

ral

reso

urce

m

anag

emen

t sc

hem

es

(Irrig

atio

n,

Wat

er, F

ishi

ng,

Live

stoc

k as

soci

atio

ns)-

Zam

bia,

M

ozam

biqu

e,

Swaz

iland

, U

gand

a,

Ken

ya

• La

ndow

ners

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs

• C

oope

rativ

e la

nd u

sers

• La

nd o

wne

rs

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs

• St

ate

agen

cies

• Fi

nanc

ial

inst

itutio

ns

• Pr

ivat

e or

gani

satio

n

• N

GO

s

• Fo

od s

ecur

ity

• N

eed

for

econ

omic

em

pow

erm

ent

• A

cces

s to

land

• N

atur

al

reso

urce

s co

nser

vatio

n an

d m

anag

emen

t

• M

itiga

tion

mea

sure

s fo

r cl

imat

e ch

ange

• En

surin

g su

stai

nabl

e de

velo

pmen

t

• La

ck o

f ac

cess

to

land

and

na

tura

l re

sour

ces

• A

s pa

rtne

rshi

p be

twee

n co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

, go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

and

priv

ate

orga

nisa

tions

/N

GO

s

• C

omm

unity

, lo

cal a

nd

natio

nal

leve

ls

• Su

ppor

ted

by n

atio

nal

polic

ies

and

legi

slat

ion

• Te

nden

cy f

or

elite

cap

ture

• In

stitu

tiona

l po

wer

pla

y

Tab

le 9

: To

ols

fo

r ec

on

om

ic e

mp

ow

erm

ent

and

nat

ura

l res

ou

rce

man

agem

ent

48

ANNEXES

GLT

N c

ore

valu

es

Tool

sPr

o-po

orEq

uity

and

gen

der

resp

onsi

vene

ss

Aff

orda

bilit

y Su

stai

nabi

lity

Subs

idia

ry

Gov

erna

nce

Scal

abili

ty

A.

Too

ls f

or

Gra

ssro

ots

Pa

rtic

ipat

ion

an

d

Emp

ow

erm

ent

1. P

artic

ipat

ory

spat

ial a

nd

deve

lopm

ent

plan

ning

(Mal

i an

d Ta

nzan

ia)

Yes

• A

ppro

ach

is b

uilt

on im

prov

ing

the

lives

of

the

poor

Yes/

No

• N

o ap

pare

nt

disc

rimin

atio

n ag

ains

t w

omen

an

d yo

ung

peop

le

but

whe

re lo

cal

cust

omar

y ro

les

bars

wom

en f

rom

pa

rtic

ipat

ion,

th

e to

ol c

anno

t ad

dres

s

Yes

• A

ffor

dabl

e to

al

l man

ner

of

pers

ons

Yes

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs a

re

activ

ely

invo

lved

an

d ow

n th

e fin

al

prod

uct

ther

efor

e w

ill b

e ab

le t

o pr

otec

t th

e to

ol

Yes

• V

iew

s of

co

mm

unity

m

embe

rs a

re

take

n ca

re o

f in

the

pla

nnin

g pr

oces

s

Yes

• En

able

s vi

llage

s to

be

ful

ly in

volv

ed

in f

acili

tatin

g th

eir

plan

ning

pro

cess

Yes

• It

is fl

exib

le a

nd

ther

efor

e ad

apta

ble

to lo

cal s

itua6

ion

• C

an b

e im

plem

ente

d at

larg

e sc

ale

2. E

mpo

wer

ing

Gra

ssro

ots

Wom

en

(Tan

zani

a, K

enya

, U

gand

a)

Yes

• En

able

gra

ssro

ots

wom

en t

o en

hanc

e th

eir

secu

rity

of

tenu

re o

ver

land

an

d th

us t

heir

econ

omic

sta

tus

• Em

pow

erin

g w

omen

cha

nge

thei

r ec

onom

ic

situ

atio

n

Yes

• A

ddre

sses

gen

der

issu

es, p

artic

ular

ly

gras

sroo

ts w

omen

em

pow

erm

ent

Yes

• Pr

ojec

t is

af

ford

able

to

com

mun

ity

mem

bers

Yes

• O

nce

wom

en a

re

empo

wer

ed o

n th

eir

right

s, t

hey

can

cont

inue

to

hold

and

mak

e th

e pr

ojec

t su

stai

nabl

e

Yes

• A

ddre

sses

w

omen

issu

es a

t th

e lo

cal l

evel

Yes

• Pr

omot

es w

omen

pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in v

illag

e go

vern

ance

• G

ives

wom

en a

voi

ce

in la

nd g

over

nanc

e

Yes

• Fl

exib

le t

o be

ada

pted

to

diff

eren

t si

tuat

ions

an

d th

eref

ore

can

be

impl

emen

ted

at la

rge

scal

e

3. P

artic

ipat

ory

enum

erat

ion

and

map

ping

(E

thio

pia,

Ken

ya,

Rwan

da)

Yes

• Fo

rmat

ion

of t

he

tool

is t

o as

sist

lo

w-in

com

e co

mm

uniti

es

take

inve

ntor

y of

th

eir

land

rec

ords

us

ing

sim

ple

tool

s

Yes/

No

• N

o ev

iden

ce o

f de

alin

g w

ith

gend

er a

nd

ineq

uity

issu

es

Yes

Less

exp

ensi

ve

• Fl

exib

le

Less

for

mal

Yes

• Re

lies

on lo

cal

know

ledg

e an

d re

sour

ces

• D

iffer

ent

way

s en

umer

atio

n an

d m

appi

ng c

an b

e de

sign

ed a

nd

the

data

can

be

used

for

man

y pu

rpos

es b

y lo

cal

com

mun

ities

and

go

vern

men

t

Yes

• Lo

cal p

eopl

e gi

ve

enum

erat

ion

on

thei

r ow

n la

nd

right

s

• C

an b

e re

plic

ated

to

sui

t th

e lo

cal

stre

ngth

and

ne

eds

Yes

• U

se b

otto

m-u

p vi

llage

map

ping

and

co

mm

unity

driv

en

adju

dica

tion

• C

entr

ed o

n lo

cal k

now

ledg

e an

d co

mm

unity

pa

rtic

ipat

ion

• H

elps

to

prov

ide

info

rmat

ion

on n

on-

docu

men

ted

form

s of

ev

iden

ce

Yes

• U

se s

impl

e to

ols

and

loca

l kno

wle

dge

and

ther

efor

e fle

xibl

e to

be

adap

ted

to

diff

eren

t si

tuat

ions

Tab

le 1

0: A

nal

ysis

of

too

ls f

or

gra

ssro

ots

par

tici

pat

ion

an

d e

mp

ow

erm

ent

agai

nst

GLT

N c

ore

val

ues

49

ANNEXES

GLT

N c

ore

valu

es

Tool

sPr

o-po

orEq

uity

and

gen

der

resp

onsi

vene

ss

Aff

orda

bilit

y Su

stai

nabi

lity

Subs

idia

ry

Gov

erna

nce

Scal

abili

ty

1. In

form

al

reco

rdin

g of

land

tr

ansa

ctio

n an

d la

nd

info

rmat

ion

Petit

s pa

pier

s’

(Ben

in, I

vory

C

oast

, Mal

i, G

hana

),

Yes

• U

se a

vaila

ble

loca

l res

ourc

es

in r

ecor

ding

and

up

datin

g of

land

re

cord

s

Yes

/No

• N

on-

disc

rimin

ator

y

• W

omen

are

le

ss in

volv

ed in

th

e re

cord

ing

proc

ess

Yes

• Le

ss c

ostly

an

d ac

cess

ible

to

com

mun

ity

mem

bers

Yes

• U

se lo

cal

reso

urce

s

• In

volv

emen

t of

com

mun

ity

mak

es it

eas

y to

upd

ate

and

mai

ntai

n

Yes/

No

• A

ddre

sses

the

nee

d of

the

loca

l peo

ple

• In

som

e in

stan

ces

publ

ic r

ecor

ds

are

kept

at

the

com

mun

ity/ r

egio

nal

and

natio

nal l

evel

s.

Yes

• U

se o

f lo

cal k

now

ledg

e an

d ac

tors

enh

ance

tra

nspa

renc

y an

d ac

coun

tabi

lity

Yes

• Be

st p

ract

ices

ar

e re

plic

ated

in

oth

er

com

mun

ities

2. L

and

allo

catio

n co

mm

ittee

s (G

hana

) and

in

form

al

land

offi

ces

(Ken

ya)

Yes

• Bu

ilt w

ith p

ro-p

oor

obje

ctiv

es

No

• D

o no

t di

rect

ly

addr

ess

gend

er

issu

es

• G

ener

ally

w

omen

ar

e le

ast

repr

esen

ted

in t

hese

co

mm

ittee

s

Yes

• A

ffor

dabl

e to

all

soci

al

grou

ps

Yes

• Th

ey a

re b

uilt

on

loca

l cap

acity

and

re

sour

ces

and

are

ther

efor

e se

lf-fin

anci

ng

• C

an b

e im

plem

ente

d at

th

e lo

cal l

evel

w

ithou

t or

with

lim

ited

supp

ort

from

out

side

rs

Yes

• C

omm

ittee

s ar

e co

nstit

uted

with

lo

cal r

esou

rces

and

ca

paci

ty a

nd b

uilt

to

secu

re lo

calis

ed r

ight

s

• C

apab

le o

f be

ing

impl

emen

ted

at t

he

low

est

leve

l

Yes

/No

• Pr

omot

e tr

ansp

aren

cy,

part

icip

atio

n an

d im

prov

e ac

cess

to

info

rmat

ion

• It

is r

iske

d to

cor

rupt

ion,

es

peci

ally

whe

re t

he

com

mitt

ee is

not

ac

coun

tabl

e to

the

peo

ple

Yes

• It

is

impl

emen

ted

on a

larg

e sc

ale

• Bu

ilt o

n lo

cal

reso

urce

s an

d th

eref

ore

can

be r

eplic

ated

w

ith li

ttle

cos

t

3. A

lloca

tion

note

(Gha

na)

Yes

• U

se s

impl

e pr

oced

ures

and

te

chno

logy

to

secu

re la

nd r

ight

s

• A

ddre

sses

the

nee

d of

poo

r la

ndho

lder

s w

ho c

anno

t re

gist

er

thei

r la

nd in

the

fo

rmal

sec

tor

but

need

evi

denc

e of

al

loca

tion

Yes/

No

• N

o ge

nder

di

scrim

inat

ion

– ca

n be

issu

ed

to a

nybo

dy

irres

pect

ive

of

gend

er

• H

owev

er,

it do

es n

ot

dire

ctly

add

ress

ge

nder

and

eq

uity

issu

es

No

• Is

issu

ed

as p

art

of

the

land

ac

quis

ition

pr

oces

s w

hich

is

exp

ensi

ve

to m

ajor

ity o

f th

e po

or

Yes

• Bu

ilt o

n th

e us

e of

loca

l res

ourc

es

and

ther

efor

e ca

n be

impl

emen

ted

at t

he lo

cal l

evel

w

ithou

t in

put

from

out

side

so

urce

s

Yes

• A

ddre

sses

the

nee

d of

poo

r la

ndho

lder

s w

ho c

anno

t re

gist

er

thei

r la

nd in

the

fo

rmal

sec

tor

but

need

evi

denc

e of

al

loca

tion

• Is

app

lied

at t

he

low

est

leve

l of

auth

ority

Yes

• Im

prov

e ef

ficie

ncy

in la

nd

reco

rdin

g at

the

loca

l lev

el

• Im

prov

es a

cces

s to

in

form

atio

n

Yes

• To

ol w

as fi

rst

pilo

ted

in o

ne

cust

omar

y ar

ea in

Gha

na

and

is n

ow

impl

emen

ted

in m

any

part

s of

Gha

na

4. P

FRs

(rur

al

land

pla

ns)

(Cot

e d’

Ivoi

re,

Burk

ina

Faso

, M

ali,

Beni

n an

d G

uine

a)

No

• D

evel

oped

with

the

ai

m o

f re

duci

ng

pove

rty

• th

roug

h pa

rtne

rshi

p be

twee

n co

mm

unity

st

ruct

ures

and

go

vern

men

t ag

enci

es

Yes/

No

• D

o no

t di

rect

ly

addr

ess

gend

er

issu

es

Yes

• C

ost

of

secu

ring

right

s th

roug

h PF

R is

af

ford

able

to

all m

anne

r of

pe

rson

s

No

• O

rgan

isat

iona

l an

d fin

anci

al

diffi

culti

es m

ake

it di

fficu

lt to

be

impl

emen

ted

with

out

inpu

t fr

om o

utsi

de

reso

urce

s

Yes

• A

ddre

ss t

he

need

s of

the

rur

al

com

mun

ities

• O

rgan

isat

iona

l and

fin

anci

al d

ifficu

lties

m

ake

it un

sust

aina

ble

Yes/

No

• D

evel

oped

thr

ough

pa

rtne

rshi

p be

twee

n co

mm

unity

str

uctu

res

and

gove

rnm

ent

agen

cies

• Tr

ansp

aren

cy a

nd lo

cal

part

icip

atio

n ar

e lo

w

• M

ultip

le in

stitu

tiona

l and

le

gal s

truc

ture

s re

sult

in c

ontr

adic

tions

and

in

secu

ritie

s

• Su

ppor

ted

by le

gisl

atio

n

Yes

• D

evel

oped

at

loca

l lev

el

but

som

e ar

e im

plem

ente

d on

a la

rge

scal

e

• Is

ada

ptab

le

to d

iffer

ent

situ

atio

ns

Tab

le 1

1: A

nal

ysis

of

too

ls f

or

loca

l rec

ord

ing

of

lan

d t

ran

sact

ion

s ag

ain

st G

LTN

co

re v

alu

es

50

ANNEXES

GLT

N c

ore

valu

es

Tool

sPr

o-po

orEq

uity

and

gen

der

resp

onsi

vene

ss

Aff

orda

bilit

y Su

stai

nabi

lity

Subs

idia

ry

Gov

erna

nce

Scal

abili

ty

1. L

and

Boar

ds

(Bot

swan

a,

Tanz

ania

, U

gand

a,

Nam

ibia

, M

adag

asca

r an

d M

ozam

biqu

e)

Yes

• M

eant

to

redu

ce

cost

of

secu

ring

land

rig

hts

• D

evel

op t

o re

duce

ur

ban

and

rura

l poo

r

Yes/

No

• M

embe

rshi

p ar

e el

ecte

d or

sel

ecte

d in

som

e ca

ses

• In

typ

ical

tra

ditio

nal

/cus

tom

ary

area

s m

embe

rshi

p fa

vour

s m

ales

tha

n fe

mal

es a

nd o

ther

di

sadv

anta

ged

grou

ps

Yes/

No

• U

naff

orda

ble

if th

e co

mm

unity

be

ars

the

mai

nten

ance

co

st

Yes/

No

• Su

stai

nabl

e if

com

mun

ity m

embe

rs

with

loca

l or

tech

nica

l kn

owle

dge

are

elec

ted

or a

ppoi

nted

• U

naff

orda

ble

whe

re

com

mun

ities

can

not

affo

rd p

roje

ct

mai

nten

ance

cos

t

Yes

• To

sec

ure

loca

lised

rig

hts

and

addr

esse

s th

e ne

eds

of lo

cal

com

mun

ity a

nd it

is

impl

emen

ted

at

the

loca

l lev

el

Yes

• Im

prov

es

repr

esen

tativ

enes

s,

fair

ness

and

tr

ansp

aren

cy

• U

ses

loca

l mec

hani

sm

to a

ddre

ss c

onfli

ctin

g in

tere

sts

Yes

• A

dapt

able

to

com

mun

ity

need

s,

repl

icat

ed in

m

any

plac

es

and

ther

efor

e sc

alab

le.

2. C

usto

mar

y La

nd

Secr

etar

iat

(CLS

) (G

hana

)

Yes/

No

• U

ses

sim

ple

disp

ute

reso

lutio

n m

echa

nism

• So

me

mar

gina

lised

gr

oups

hav

e se

cure

la

nd

• A

dmin

istr

atio

n an

d ot

her

char

ges

are

expe

nsiv

e

No

• Re

gula

tions

do

not

mak

e di

rect

pr

ovis

ion

for

wom

en a

cces

s to

la

nd

• Le

ss w

omen

are

in

volv

ed in

the

land

go

vern

ance

sys

tem

Yes/

No

• Le

ss

affo

rdab

le t

o m

argi

nalis

ed

grou

ps

• Ea

sy t

o op

erat

e by

the

go

vern

men

t an

d po

or

com

mun

ities

• In

volv

es

min

imal

lega

l an

d te

chni

cal

cost

Yes

• H

as c

apab

ility

to

be im

plem

ente

d lo

cally

with

min

imal

or

with

out

exte

rnal

su

ppor

t

• Se

lf-fin

anci

ng

• C

omm

uniti

es s

ee

the

tool

as

thei

r ow

n re

sour

ce

• C

onst

itutio

n an

d ot

her

lega

l pro

visi

ons

prot

ect

right

s se

cure

d by

the

to

ol

Yes

• A

ddre

sses

the

ne

eds

of t

he lo

cal

com

mun

ities

by

prov

idin

g th

em

with

sec

ure

and

inex

pens

ive

land

rig

hts

• Fu

nctio

ns a

t th

e lo

cal l

evel

• Bu

ilt o

n lo

cal

cust

oms

and

prot

ects

loca

lised

la

nd r

ight

s

Yes

• Ta

kes

into

acc

ount

ho

w d

ecis

ions

are

m

ade

with

reg

ards

to

use

of la

nd a

nd lo

cal

land

gov

erna

nce

• D

ispu

te r

esol

utio

n is

bas

ed o

n lo

cal

mec

hani

sm f

or

reso

lvin

g co

nflic

ts

• Lo

cal c

omm

uniti

es

mak

e in

put

in

deci

sion

-mak

ing

thro

ugh

cons

ulta

tion

and

repr

esen

tatio

n

Yes

• To

ol c

an b

e im

plem

ente

d on

a la

rge

scal

e

• Fl

exib

le a

nd

adap

tabl

e to

lo

cal s

ituat

ions

• C

an b

e re

plic

ated

eas

ily

with

out

cost

3. T

ribal

land

in

tegr

ated

m

anag

emen

t Sy

stem

(B

otsw

ana)

No

• D

oes

not

bene

fit t

he

poor

dire

ctly

but

the

y be

nefit

indi

rect

ly ju

st

• lik

e an

y m

embe

r of

th

e pu

blic

thr

ough

im

prov

ed s

ervi

ce

deliv

ery,

qui

cker

land

al

loca

tion

proc

ess,

sp

eedi

er r

esol

utio

n of

dis

pute

s si

nce

info

rmat

ion

is e

asie

r to

acc

ess

No

• M

arrie

d w

omen

w

ere

deni

ed

cust

omar

y gr

ants

ev

en t

houg

h th

ey

are

not

regi

ster

able

No

• H

ave

too

man

y te

chni

cal a

nd

lega

l cos

t

• N

ot s

elf-

finan

cing

be

caus

e lo

cal

com

mun

ities

ca

nnot

ac

quire

the

re

sour

ces

need

ed f

or

such

pro

ject

s

No

• C

entr

ally

bas

ed

and

diffi

cult

to b

e im

plem

ente

d at

the

lo

cal l

evel

with

out

supp

ort

from

Min

istr

y of

Lan

ds a

nd H

ousi

ng

No

• In

vent

ory

only

ca

ptur

e th

e rig

hts

of la

nd o

ccup

iers

bu

t no

oth

er

publ

ic r

ight

s

No

• Pu

blic

hav

e lim

ited

acce

ss t

o th

e sy

stem

in

ord

er f

or t

hem

to

be

appr

aise

d of

de

velo

pmen

ts a

nd

avai

labi

lity

of la

nds

in

thei

r re

spec

tive

area

s.

• Pr

oces

s is

cen

tral

ised

, to

p-do

wn

cont

rolle

d an

d re

quire

s te

chni

cal e

xper

ts

Yes/

No

• Th

e to

ol is

fle

xibl

e fo

r la

rge

rang

e of

si

tuat

ions

• H

owev

er, u

se

of t

echn

ical

ex

pert

s an

d ov

er-r

elia

nce

of c

ompu

ters

m

akes

it

diffi

cult

to b

e im

plem

ente

d on

a la

rge

scal

e

4. P

rolif

erat

ion

of e

duca

ted

chie

fs,

deve

lopm

ent

chie

fs a

nd

advi

sors

(G

hana

)

Yes

• C

hief

s ar

e se

lect

ed

on t

he b

asis

of

thei

r ab

ility

to

perf

orm

ce

rtai

n fu

nctio

ns

whi

ch h

ave

posi

tive

effe

ct o

n th

e po

or

Yes

• G

ende

r ne

utra

l

Yes

• Se

rvic

es a

re

rend

ered

mos

t of

the

tim

e w

ith m

inim

al

cost

to

com

mun

ity

Yes

/No

• Su

stai

nabl

e if

chie

fs a

re

perm

anen

t m

embe

rs o

f co

mm

unity

or

able

to

empo

wer

mem

bers

of

the

com

mun

ity t

o ca

rry

out

such

tas

ks

Yes

• A

ddre

sses

te

chni

cal a

nd

hum

an r

esou

rce

gaps

in t

he lo

cal

com

mun

ity

Yes

• H

elps

impr

ove

repr

esen

tativ

enes

s of

lo

cal c

omm

uniti

es,

impr

oves

tr

ansp

aren

cy a

nd

acco

unta

bilit

y

Yes

• Be

ing

repl

icat

ed

in s

ome

com

mun

ities

Tab

le 1

2: A

nal

ysis

of

too

ls f

or

loca

l cap

acit

y d

evel

op

men

t ag

ain

st G

LTN

co

re v

alu

es

51

ANNEXESG

LTN

cor

e va

lues

To

ols

Pro-

poor

Equi

ty a

nd g

ende

r re

spon

sive

ness

A

ffor

dabi

lity

Sust

aina

bilit

y Su

bsid

iary

G

over

nanc

eSc

alab

ility

1. V

illag

e an

d co

mm

unity

tit

ling

initi

ativ

es

(Tan

zani

a,

Moz

ambi

que)

Yes

• In

som

e ca

ses,

vi

llage

rs h

ave

obta

ined

loan

s fr

om

cred

it in

stitu

tions

us

ing

Cer

tifica

tes

of

Cus

tom

ary

Righ

ts

(CC

ROs)

Yes

• A

ddre

sses

se

curit

y of

te

nure

for

vu

lner

able

gr

oups

es

peci

ally

w

omen

No

• In

itial

cos

t of

es

tabl

ishi

ng

regi

stry

is h

igh.

No

• H

igh

cost

of

esta

blis

hing

vi

llage

reg

istr

y.

Unl

ess

supp

orte

d by

the

don

ors

or g

over

nmen

t,

villa

gers

can

’t

affo

rd b

y th

emse

lves

No

• A

ddre

sses

the

ne

eds

of t

he

loca

l lev

el b

ut

impl

emen

tatio

n is

at

dist

rict

leve

l

• C

omm

unity

m

embe

rs a

re

not

used

to

the

conc

ept

Yes/

No

• D

evol

utio

n of

fun

ctio

ns

and

reso

urce

s to

loca

l au

thor

ities

• La

ck o

f eq

uipm

ent

and

reso

urce

s at

dis

tric

ts

mak

es r

egis

trat

ion

proc

edur

es s

low

, cos

tly

and

expe

nsiv

e

• Pr

oces

s in

volv

es lo

cal

gove

rnm

ent

auth

oriti

es,

com

mun

ities

and

civ

il so

ciet

y in

a c

onst

ruct

ive

enga

gem

ent

Yes

• In

Tan

zani

a, v

illag

e tit

ling

has

been

re

plic

ated

in

diff

eren

t D

istr

icts

• It

can

be r

eplic

ated

in

oth

er c

usto

mar

y ar

eas

2. L

and

regu

laris

atio

n (R

wan

da)

Yes

• Re

duce

land

dis

pute

s

• A

bilit

y to

acc

ess

cred

it

• Re

cogn

ise

wom

en

land

rig

hts

Yes

• M

en a

nd

wom

en h

ave

equa

l rig

hts

• G

ende

r bl

ind

deci

sion

mak

ing

proc

ess

No

• D

epen

ds o

n su

bsid

y an

d te

chni

cal

expe

rtis

e

No

• H

igh

initi

al a

nd

mai

nten

ance

cos

t

Yes/

No

• En

sure

sec

urity

of

ten

ure

but

at

a co

st t

hat

loca

l co

mm

uniti

es

cann

ot a

ffor

d

Yes

• C

omm

unity

pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

and

disp

ute

reso

lutio

n

Yes

• C

apab

le o

f re

plic

atio

n un

der

sim

ilar

cond

ition

s

3. F

lexi

ble

land

ten

ure

(Nam

ibia

),

Yes/

No

• U

se s

impl

e su

rvey

de

scrip

tions

and

re

gist

ratio

n

• U

pgra

deab

le a

nd

ther

efor

e se

rve

a ra

nge

of in

tere

st

grou

ps in

clud

ing

the

poor

• C

ost

of r

egis

terin

g do

cum

ent

is s

till h

igh

Yes

Add

ress

ineq

ualit

y

• In

prin

cipl

e, a

ll m

embe

rs o

f th

e co

mm

unity

ha

ve e

qual

ac

cess

sin

ce

the

Nam

ibia

n C

onst

itutio

n gu

aran

tee

that

Yes

• U

se o

f pa

ra-

prof

essi

onal

s m

akes

it m

ore

affo

rdab

le t

o m

any

of t

he

urba

n po

or

• U

se s

impl

e su

rvey

ing

met

hods

Yes

• Pr

oces

s is

tr

ansp

aren

t am

ong

stak

ehol

ders

an

d is

cru

cial

for

su

stai

nabi

lity.

Yes

• D

ecis

ion

mak

ing

is a

t th

e gr

assr

oots

.

Yes

• Th

rives

on

the

prin

cipl

es

of g

ood

gove

rnan

ce,

part

icip

atio

n,

tran

spar

ency

, sm

ooth

in

form

atio

n flo

w

amon

g ot

hers

• Lo

cal c

omm

uniti

es

who

ow

n th

e bl

ock

are

activ

ely

invo

lved

Yes

• U

se o

f pa

ra-

prof

essi

onal

s an

d st

akeh

olde

rs m

akes

it

capa

ble

of b

eing

up

-sca

led

to o

ther

ar

eas

in t

he c

ount

ry

and

sub

regi

on

4. U

rban

land

re

gist

ry (B

enin

, N

iger

ia)

Yes

• Pr

ojec

t is

fun

ded

on

pro-

poor

initi

ativ

es

No

• G

ende

r is

sues

are

not

ad

dres

sed

Yes

• It

is b

ased

on

prin

cipl

e of

af

ford

abili

ty

No

• Th

ough

the

im

plem

enta

tion

has

been

qui

et

succ

essf

ul

(Ben

in),

loca

l co

mm

uniti

es

have

bee

n to

o sl

ow t

o re

cogn

ise

the

valu

es o

f ur

ban

land

re

gist

ry t

here

fore

it

cann

ot b

e su

stai

nabl

e.

Yes/

No

• Lo

cal

com

mun

ities

ha

ve b

een

too

slow

to

reco

gnis

e th

e va

lues

of

urba

n la

nd r

egis

try

ther

efor

e it

cann

ot b

e su

stai

nabl

e.

Yes/

No

• In

corp

orat

e lo

cal

dim

ensi

on o

f la

nd

confl

ict

reso

lutio

n

• Lo

cal p

eopl

e ha

ve

limite

d pa

rtic

ipat

ion

in

the

regi

stra

tion

proc

ess

Yes

• H

ave

been

re

plic

ated

in o

ther

ar

eas

Tab

le 1

3: A

nal

ysis

of

too

ls f

or

loca

l reg

istr

atio

n a

nd

cer

tifi

cati

on

ag

ain

st G

LTN

co

re v

alu

es

52

ANNEXES

GLT

N c

ore

valu

es

Tool

sPr

o-po

orEq

uity

and

gen

der

resp

onsi

vene

ss

Aff

orda

bilit

y Su

stai

nabi

lity

Subs

idia

ry

Gov

erna

nce

Scal

abili

ty

5. R

ural

land

ce

rtifi

catio

n an

d re

gist

ratio

n

(Eth

iopi

a)

Yes

• D

evel

oped

to

addr

ess

the

need

s of

the

rur

al

poor

Yes

• La

nd is

re

gist

ered

in t

he

nam

es o

f bo

th

spou

ses.

• Fe

mal

e-he

aded

ho

useh

olds

(w

idow

s,

divo

rced

and

si

ngle

wom

en)

also

rec

eive

ce

rtifi

cate

s in

th

eir

nam

e fo

r th

e la

nd in

the

ir po

sses

sion

Yes

• H

ighl

y su

bsid

ed

and

ther

efor

e af

ford

able

to

rura

l far

mer

s

Yes

• U

ses

low

-cos

t te

chno

logy

to

adj

udic

ate

boun

darie

s an

d re

gist

er la

nd

right

s

• Lo

cal p

eopl

e ar

e ac

tivel

y in

volv

ed

and

ther

efor

e fe

el o

wne

rshi

p

Yes

• D

evel

oped

to

addr

ess

the

need

s of

the

ru

ral p

oor

• H

as b

een

repl

icat

ed in

di

ffer

ent

area

s co

untr

y-w

ide

• U

se o

f si

mpl

e to

ols

and

loca

l kn

owle

dge

mak

es it

eas

y to

be

rep

licat

ed in

di

ffer

ent

area

s in

the

sub

-re

gion

Yes

• Pr

ogra

mm

e is

car

ried

out

in a

dec

entr

alis

ed,

part

icip

ator

y, e

quita

ble

and

tran

spar

ent

man

ner

• Im

plem

enta

tion

at

com

mun

ity le

vel m

akes

it

acce

ssib

le f

or m

ost

land

use

rs.

• C

omm

unity

mem

bers

an

d fa

rmer

s ar

e hi

ghly

in

volv

ed t

he c

ertifi

catio

n pr

oces

s

Yes

• Fl

exib

ility

in t

he

gene

ral l

aws

guid

ing

the

cert

ifica

tion

prog

ram

me

allo

wed

for

im

plem

enta

tion

in

diff

eren

t re

gion

s

6. S

TDM

(Pilo

ted

in in

form

al

sett

lem

ents

in

Uga

nda

and

Ken

ya)

Yes

• A

llow

s al

l kin

ds o

f la

nd r

ight

s to

be

reco

rded

usi

ng s

impl

e to

ols

mak

es it

less

co

stly

and

the

refo

re

can

redu

ce p

over

ty

Yes/

No

• D

oes

not

dire

ctly

cat

er f

or

gend

er is

sues

• Re

cord

s al

l fo

rms

of t

enur

e in

clud

ing

wom

en a

nd

yout

h rig

hts

Yes

• A

ffor

dabl

e to

all

soci

al g

roup

s

• Ea

sily

un

ders

tand

able

an

d do

es n

ot

have

too

man

y te

chni

cal c

ost

Yes

• C

an b

e us

ed a

t th

e lo

cal l

evel

w

ith li

ttle

/with

out

inpu

t fr

om

outs

ide

sour

ces

Yes

• A

ll fo

rms

of

loca

lised

land

rig

hts

can

reco

rded

with

th

e to

ol a

nd

ther

efor

e su

ited

to a

ddre

ss t

he

need

s of

the

lo

cal p

eopl

e

Yes

• M

ore

tran

spar

ent-

Info

rmat

ion

gath

ered

is

pub

licly

dis

play

ed in

lo

cal a

reas

for

cor

rect

ion

and

valid

atio

n

Yes

• C

an b

e ad

apta

ble

to lo

cal

envi

ronm

ent

with

lit

tle m

odifi

catio

n an

d th

eref

ore

can

be s

cale

d up

Tab

le 1

3: A

nal

ysis

of

too

ls f

or

loca

l reg

istr

atio

n a

nd

cer

tifi

cati

on

ag

ain

st G

LTN

co

re v

alu

es (

Co

nti

nu

ed)

53

ANNEXES

GLT

N c

ore

valu

es

Tool

s

Pro-

poor

Equi

ty a

nd g

ende

r re

spon

sive

ness

A

ffor

dabi

lity

Sust

aina

bilit

y Su

bsid

iary

G

over

nanc

eSc

alab

ility

1. C

ertifi

cate

of

occu

panc

y rig

hts

(Bot

swan

a)

Yes

• O

pen

to a

ll in

dige

nes

with

out

cost

• In

expe

nsiv

e su

rvey

pr

oced

ure

No

• W

omen

hav

e lim

ited

right

s

Yes

• Li

mite

d fo

rmal

pr

oces

ses

of p

lann

ing,

su

rvey

ing

and

regi

stra

tion

and

ther

efor

e af

ford

able

to

mos

t in

dige

nes

No

• D

epen

ds o

n co

ntin

ual s

uppo

rt

of lo

cal a

nd c

entr

al

gove

rnm

ent

No

• O

wne

rshi

p of

the

in

itiat

ive

seem

s to

lie

on lo

cal

gove

rnm

ent

and

not

the

com

mun

ity a

nd

ther

efor

e m

ay le

ad t

o so

me

chal

leng

es

Yes/

No

• M

anag

ed b

y lo

cal

auth

ority

with

com

mun

ity

repr

esen

tativ

es

• Lo

cal d

ispu

te r

esol

utio

n by

the

Lan

d Bo

ards

• C

omm

unity

mem

bers

ar

e pa

rtly

invo

lved

in

deci

sion

-mak

ing

Yes/

No

• H

as w

ide

cove

rage

in

Bot

swan

a bu

t m

ay n

ot b

e ea

sy

to b

e ad

apte

d by

ot

her

cust

omar

y co

mm

uniti

es

in s

ub-S

ahar

an

Afr

ica

due

to it

s he

avy

depe

nden

ce

on g

over

nmen

t su

bsid

y

2. C

omm

unal

La

nd

Trus

t an

d A

ssoc

iatio

ns

(Ken

ya,

Zam

bia)

Yes/

No

• Pr

ovid

es

mem

bers

with

af

ford

able

ac

cess

to

land

• Fi

nanc

ing

of

the

proj

ect

depe

nds

on

the

abili

ty o

f th

e in

divi

dual

s in

the

co

mm

uniti

es

to s

ecur

e cr

edit

Yes

• Ea

ch m

embe

r ha

s eq

ual v

ote

• N

o ap

pare

nt

disc

rimin

atio

n w

ith r

espe

ct

to g

ende

r ob

serv

ed

• M

en a

nd

wom

en h

ave

equa

l voi

ce in

th

e de

cisi

on-

mak

ing

proc

ess

No

• Le

ase

fee

appe

ars

unaf

ford

able

to

som

e co

mm

unity

m

embe

rs

Yes/

No

• Fi

nanc

ing

of t

he

proj

ect

depe

nds

on

the

abili

ty o

f th

e in

divi

dual

s in

the

co

mm

uniti

es t

o se

cure

cre

dit

• So

me

mem

bers

do

not

see

the

proj

ect

as

com

mun

ity r

esou

rce

• St

ate

prov

ides

the

la

nd a

nd t

here

fore

ha

ve c

onst

itutio

nal

back

ing

Yes/

No

• Pr

ovid

es m

embe

rs

affo

rdab

le a

cces

s to

la

nd

• A

pplie

d at

the

co

mm

unity

leve

l

• N

o kn

owle

dge

of h

ow

loca

lised

rig

hts

are

prot

ecte

d is

obs

erve

d

Yes/

No

• U

ses

intr

icat

e le

gal a

nd

inst

itutio

nal f

ram

ewor

k,

not

easi

ly u

nder

stoo

d by

ad

min

istr

ator

s

• C

ontr

ols

prop

erty

tr

ansf

er a

nd d

isco

urag

e sp

ecul

atio

n

• Re

cogn

ised

loca

l de

cisi

on-m

akin

g st

ruct

ure

• C

omm

unity

mem

bers

are

in

volv

ed in

the

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g pr

oces

s

No

• H

as le

ss p

oten

tial

to b

e im

plem

ente

d on

larg

e sc

ale

due

to s

ome

prej

udic

e is

sues

obs

erve

d

• Le

ss fl

exib

le t

o ad

apt

to d

iffer

ent

situ

atio

n

• C

an o

nly

be

repl

icat

ed a

t lo

wer

co

st o

nly

whe

n th

e go

vern

men

t m

akes

la

nd a

vaila

ble

3. S

lum

up

grad

ing

(Sou

th

Afr

ica)

Yes

• A

cces

s to

land

, in

fras

truc

tura

l se

rvic

es

• Pr

ovis

ion

of h

ousi

ng

subs

idy

Yes

• G

ende

r bl

ind,

op

ened

to

all

elig

ible

info

rmal

se

ttle

rs

• M

en a

nd

wom

en h

ave

equa

l voi

ce in

de

cisi

on m

akin

g

Yes

• Pr

ovis

ion

of la

nd

avai

labi

lity

of

subs

idy

Yes/

No

• Su

stai

nabi

lity

depe

nds

on

avai

labi

lity

of o

ther

liv

elih

oods

oth

erw

ise

dist

ress

sel

ling

and

re-c

reat

ion

of n

ew

info

rmal

set

tlem

ents

Yes/

No

• N

eeds

of

form

al

sett

lers

are

met

• U

pgra

ding

at

leve

ls

low

er t

han

the

loca

l gov

ernm

ent

is

not

feas

ible

due

to

logi

stic

s

Yes

/no

• A

lthou

gh u

pgra

ding

is

base

d on

Com

mun

ity

part

icip

atio

n un

equa

l po

wer

pla

y ca

n ne

gativ

ely

affe

ct o

utco

mes

Yes/

No

• D

epen

dent

on

avai

labi

lity

of

reso

urce

s an

d co

oper

atio

n of

in

form

al s

ettle

rs

Tab

le 1

4: A

nal

ysis

of

too

ls f

or

info

rmal

set

tlem

ent

up

gra

din

g a

gai

nst

GLT

N c

ore

val

ues

54

ANNEXESG

LTN

cor

e va

lues

To

ols

Pro-

poor

Equi

ty a

nd g

ende

r re

spon

sive

ness

A

ffor

dabi

lity

Sust

aina

bilit

y Su

bsid

iary

G

over

nanc

eSc

alab

ility

1. G

ende

r ev

alua

tion

crite

ria

Yes

• Ev

alua

tion

fram

ewor

k dr

ives

on

impr

ovin

g liv

es o

f po

or a

nd

disa

dvan

tage

d gr

oups

Yes

• A

ll th

e in

dica

tors

us

ed f

or e

valu

atio

n st

rive

on g

ende

r an

d eq

uity

• C

apab

le o

f m

ains

trea

min

g ge

nder

into

land

is

sues

Mus

lim a

nd

Hin

du c

omm

uniti

es

No

• Ev

alua

tion

fram

ewor

k do

es

not

dire

ctly

ad

dres

s is

sue

of

affo

rdab

ility

Yes

• To

ols

aim

to

empo

wer

gr

assr

oots

pa

rtic

ipat

ion

and

ther

efor

e ca

n be

impl

emen

ted

with

out

exte

rnal

in

volv

emen

t

Yes

• Fr

amew

ork

for

eval

uatio

n ha

ve

been

dev

elop

ed

to a

ddre

ss t

he k

ey

issu

es a

t th

e lo

cal

leve

l

• G

ives

a v

oice

to

gras

sroo

ts p

eopl

e in

dec

isio

n-m

akin

g

Yes

• Em

phas

ise

on e

qual

pa

rtic

ipat

ion

by

wom

en in

gen

der

resp

onsi

ve g

over

nanc

e

• Bu

ilds

requ

ired

skill

s in

clud

ing

com

mun

icat

ion,

ne

gotia

tion,

med

iatio

n an

d so

cial

incl

usio

n

Yes

• Th

e fr

amew

ork

for

eval

uatio

n is

fle

xibl

e an

d ca

n be

ad

apte

d to

a w

ide

rang

e of

diff

eren

t si

tuat

ions

2. S

pous

al

cons

ent

(Eth

iopi

a,

Mad

agas

car,

Moz

ambi

que,

U

gand

a)

Yes

• Pr

otec

t vu

lner

able

w

idow

s/w

idow

er

and

child

ren

from

illic

it la

nd

tran

sact

ions

Yes

• M

en a

nd w

omen

co

llabo

rate

in

deci

sion

s co

ncer

ning

th

eir

land

and

pr

oper

ty

Yes

• C

heap

and

eas

y to

impl

emen

t af

ter

the

initi

al

soci

al b

arrie

rs a

re

brok

en

Yes

• O

nce

acce

pted

it

beco

mes

par

t of

th

e so

cial

nor

m

Yes

• La

nd r

ight

s of

lo

cal v

ulne

rabl

e pe

ople

are

ad

dres

sed

Yes

• Re

quire

s pa

rtic

ipat

ion

of m

en a

nd w

omen

in

deci

sion

mak

ing

and

confl

ict

reso

lutio

n

Yes

• Fl

exib

le e

noug

h to

be

impl

emen

ted

acro

ss d

iffer

ent

com

mun

ities

3. A

war

enes

s cr

eatio

nYe

s

• C

hang

es v

alue

s an

d at

titud

es.

Yes

• G

ende

r an

d pr

actic

al w

ays

of a

ddre

ssin

g th

em f

rom

the

ir pe

rspe

ctiv

e in

form

s po

licy

No

• A

war

enes

s cr

eatio

n ca

n be

ex

pens

ive

and

time

cons

umin

g bu

t ve

ry

impo

rtan

t fo

r vu

lner

able

land

rig

hts.

Yes/

No

Hig

h in

itial

cos

t

• C

once

pt

beco

mes

par

t of

th

e no

rm o

nce

acce

pted

Yes

• Lo

cal c

omm

uniti

es

free

ly e

xpre

ss t

heir

view

s on

land

rig

hts.

• C

omm

unic

atio

n is

in t

he lo

cal

lang

uage

s to

br

idge

the

di

alog

ue g

ap

Yes

• In

clus

ive

and

part

icip

ator

y pr

oces

s.

• Pa

rtne

rshi

p be

twee

n na

tiona

l and

loca

l lan

d ag

enci

es a

nd lo

cal l

evel

la

nd a

dmin

istr

atio

n

Yes

• To

ol c

an b

e ad

apte

d to

di

ffer

ent

envi

ronm

ents

4. C

omm

unity

di

alog

ueYe

s

• Th

e po

or s

hare

th

eir

cons

trai

nts

and

sugg

est

prac

tical

sol

utio

ns

for

polic

y

Yes

• Fr

ee p

artic

ipat

ion

by m

en a

nd w

omen

w

ithou

t an

y im

pedi

men

ts

Yes/

No

• Ex

pens

ive

and

beyo

nd t

he r

each

of

the

poo

r at

co

mm

unity

leve

l

• In

form

al

dial

ogue

be

twee

n sm

all

loca

l gro

ups

is

mor

e af

ford

able

No

• Po

litic

al w

ill

on t

he p

art

of

pow

er p

laye

rs

and

supp

ort

by

all s

take

hold

ers

is e

ssen

tial

Yes

• In

form

al s

mal

l gr

oup

dial

ogue

at

loca

l lev

el

• Th

e sm

all g

roup

s ca

n be

bro

ught

to

geth

er a

t co

mm

unity

leve

l

Yes/

No

• D

ecen

tral

isat

ion

allo

ws

loca

l var

iatio

ns in

cu

stom

to

be t

aken

in

to a

ccou

nt.

• Lo

cal p

ower

pla

y ca

n ad

vers

ely

affe

ct

part

icip

atio

n an

d di

sput

e re

solu

tion

Yes

• A

dapt

able

to

diff

eren

t en

viro

nmen

ts

• C

apab

le o

f im

plem

entin

g at

lo

wes

t le

vel

5. C

omm

unity

se

lf-an

alys

is

(Rw

anda

)

Yes

• Id

entif

y ge

nder

in

equa

litie

s so

as

• to

cre

ate

a hu

man

rig

hts

frie

ndly

en

viro

nmen

t th

at

is c

ondu

cive

for

po

vert

y re

duct

ion

and

deve

lopm

ent

Yes

• M

en a

nd w

omen

ar

e fr

ee t

o vo

ice

thei

r op

inio

ns o

n ge

nder

situ

atio

n

Yes/

No

• D

epen

ding

on

the

polit

ical

will

an

d su

ppor

t, t

he

proc

ess

may

be

affo

rdab

le

Yes/

No

• Su

stai

nabl

e w

ith

exte

rnal

sup

port

an

d re

sour

ces

• Lo

cal a

ctor

s co

nfro

nt lo

cal

gend

er is

sues

and

su

gges

t so

lutio

ns

Yes

• A

ctiv

e pa

rtic

ipat

ion

of c

omm

unity

in

cont

ribut

ing

to p

olic

y de

velo

pmen

t

• Pr

oces

ses

of d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

and

disp

ute

reso

lutio

n ar

e as

sess

ed

by a

ll

Yes/

No

Tool

use

d na

tionw

ide.

• C

usto

m

and

cultu

ral

impe

dim

ents

may

no

t m

ake

it ea

sy

to b

e du

plic

ated

in

othe

r na

tions

Tab

le 1

5: A

nal

ysis

of

too

ls f

or

gen

der

an

d e

qu

ity

agai

nst

GLT

N c

ore

val

ues

55

ANNEXESG

LTN

cor

e va

lues

To

ols

Pro-

poor

Equi

ty a

nd g

ende

r re

spon

sive

ness

A

ffor

dabi

lity

Sust

aina

bilit

y Su

bsid

iary

G

over

nanc

eSc

alab

ility

1. C

ompe

nsat

ion

appr

oach

es

(Gha

na)

Yes/

No

• In

dige

nous

land

rig

ht h

olde

rs

rece

ive

port

ions

of

thei

r la

nd

• Tr

aditi

onal

lead

ers

norm

ally

dec

ides

on

per

cent

ages

to

be p

aid

Yes/

No

• D

o no

t sp

ecifi

cally

ad

dres

s ge

nder

is

sues

• C

usto

m

and

cultu

ral

prac

tices

ar

e us

ed t

o de

term

ine

bene

fact

ors

Yes

• N

o di

rect

cos

t to

indi

gene

s

• Es

tabl

ishm

ent

has

no c

ost

impl

icat

ion

Yes/

No

• D

evel

oped

and

m

anag

ed lo

cally

• In

are

as w

here

in

dige

nes

are

not

happ

y w

ith

com

pens

atio

n pa

ckag

es la

nd

disp

utes

abo

und

No

• Te

nant

far

mer

s ot

her

than

in

dige

nous

rig

hts

hold

ers

loos

e ou

t of

the

co

mpe

nsat

ion

pack

ages

Yes/

No

• Tr

aditi

onal

lead

ers

norm

ally

dec

ide

on

perc

enta

ges

to b

e pa

id

• C

ompe

nsat

ions

are

pa

id b

ased

on

the

loca

l cus

tom

s an

d go

vern

ance

sys

tem

Yes

• It

is fl

exib

le e

noug

h to

be

adap

ted

into

ot

her

com

mun

ities

2. O

utla

win

g ou

tmod

ed

Inhe

ritan

ce

law

s (M

ozam

biqu

e,

Rwan

da,

Ethi

opia

)

Yes

• En

sure

s th

e di

sman

tling

of

disc

rimin

atin

g cu

stom

s an

d pr

actic

es

Yes

• Eq

ual

owne

rshi

p an

d in

herit

ance

rig

hts

for

men

an

d w

omen

No

• Ex

tern

al s

uppo

rt

to d

ism

antle

lo

ng e

stab

lishe

d an

d en

tren

ched

cu

stom

s an

d cu

ltura

l pr

actic

es

No

• Ex

tern

al s

uppo

rt

and

pres

sure

on

exis

ting

syst

em is

cr

ucia

l

Yes

• To

ol a

pplic

able

at

all

leve

ls w

ith

legi

slat

ive

and

good

will

of

gove

rnm

ent

Yes

• Pr

omot

es p

artic

ipat

ion

of m

en a

nd w

omen

on

equ

al f

ootin

g an

d pr

omot

es t

he r

ule

of

law

Yes

• C

apab

le t

o be

ap

plie

d at

sca

le.

3. S

tatu

tory

re

cogn

ition

of

occ

upan

cy

right

s, s

lum

s an

d in

form

al

sett

lem

ents

(K

enya

, N

amib

ia,

Bots

wan

a)

Yes

• A

leve

l of

tenu

re s

ecur

ity

for

sett

lers

irr

espe

ctiv

e of

st

atus

Yes

• A

ll se

ttle

rs a

re

trea

ted

equa

lly

Yes/

No

• D

epen

ding

on

the

leve

l of

deve

lopm

ent,

pr

ovis

ion

of

infr

astr

uctu

re

may

be

proh

ibiti

ve t

o se

ttle

rs

Yes/

No

• Pe

rcei

ved

tenu

re s

ecur

ity

may

pro

mot

e de

velo

pmen

t

• Ex

tern

al s

uppo

rt

may

be

esse

ntia

l

Yes/

No

• Se

curit

y ne

eds

of

loca

l com

mun

ity

are

met

.

• C

usto

mar

y le

ader

s an

d la

nd lo

rds

may

lit

igat

e

Yes

• In

form

al s

ettle

rs

can

part

icip

ate

in

gove

rnan

ce

• N

egot

iate

the

ir te

nure

st

atus

Yes

• C

apab

le o

f re

plic

atio

n in

ot

her

cust

omar

y co

mm

uniti

es

4. A

nti-e

vict

ion

(Uga

nda,

So

uth

Afr

ica)

Yes

• Pr

efer

ence

is g

iven

to

the

gen

uine

ur

ban

poor

fo

r pe

rman

ent

sett

lem

ent

inst

ead

of r

ich

spec

ulat

ors

• Re

gula

te

rela

tions

hips

be

twee

n la

ndlo

rds

and

tena

nts

• Pr

ovid

es a

leve

l of

secu

rity

of t

enur

e fo

r te

nant

s

Yes

• En

sure

ten

ure

secu

rity

for

men

and

w

omen

equ

ally

Yes/

No

• W

here

the

re

are

litig

atio

ns

the

poor

are

di

sadv

anta

ged

with

out

lega

l ai

d

Yes/

No

• D

epen

ding

on

polit

ical

will

• up

grad

ing

Yes

• C

an b

e en

forc

ed

at lo

cal l

evel

de

pend

ing

on

grou

p co

hesi

on

Yes/

No

• W

ell o

rgan

ised

gr

oups

can

neg

otia

te

and

part

icip

ate

in

gove

rnan

ce

Yes

• C

apab

le o

f re

plic

atio

n

Tab

le 1

6: A

nal

ysis

of

too

ls f

or

go

vern

ance

ag

ain

st G

LTN

co

re v

alu

es

56

ANNEXESG

LTN

cor

e va

lues

To

ols

Pro-

poor

Equi

ty a

nd g

ende

r re

spon

sive

ness

A

ffor

dabi

lity

Sust

aina

bilit

y Su

bsid

iary

G

over

nanc

eSc

alab

ility

1. In

form

al d

ispu

te

reso

lutio

n (A

ltern

ativ

e D

ispu

te

Reso

lutio

n)

mec

hani

sms

- G

hana

, Tan

zani

a,

Uga

nda,

Ben

in,

Ken

ya

Yes

• U

sers

hav

e a

voic

e in

the

di

sput

e re

solu

tion

proc

ess

• A

lway

s a

win

-

win

situ

atio

n

Yes/

No

• D

epen

ding

on

its f

orm

atio

n an

d cu

ltura

l co

ntex

t th

ere

coul

d be

in

here

nt g

ende

r di

scrim

inat

ion

prac

tices

and

pr

oced

ures

Yes

• Re

lativ

ely

chea

per,

easi

ly

acce

ssib

le a

nd

user

frie

ndly

Yes/

No

• D

epen

ds o

n lo

cal r

esou

rces

, th

eref

ore

can

easi

ly b

e im

plem

ente

d

• D

epen

ding

on

the

lega

l fra

mew

ork

unde

r w

hich

it

oper

ates

, dis

pute

s re

solv

ed m

ay

or m

ay n

ot b

e su

stai

nabl

e

Yes

• Ba

sed

on lo

cal

know

ledg

e an

d re

sour

ces

the

deci

sion

s ar

e ac

cept

able

to

the

loca

l peo

ple.

• A

ppea

ls c

an b

e m

ade

to t

he h

ighe

r tr

aditi

onal

aut

horit

ies

or s

tand

ardi

sed

cour

ts

Yes

• U

ses

loca

l m

echa

nism

for

ad

dres

sing

con

flict

• A

llow

s al

l st

akeh

olde

rs in

the

de

cisi

on-m

akin

g pr

oces

s

• Le

gisl

atio

n an

d en

forc

emen

t of

H

uman

rig

hts

issu

es

in m

ost

natio

nal

cons

titut

ions

has

le

d to

ste

ady

impr

ovem

ents

in

gove

rnan

ce o

f A

DRs

.

Yes

• A

DRs

are

gra

dual

ly

beco

min

g th

e fir

st

port

of

call

for

mos

t la

nd r

ight

is

sues

Tab

le 1

7 :

An

alys

is o

f to

ols

fo

r d

isp

ute

res

olu

tio

n a

gai

nst

GLT

N c

ore

val

ues

57

ANNEXESG

LTN

cor

e va

lues

To

ols

Pro-

poor

Equi

ty a

nd g

ende

r re

spon

sive

ness

A

ffor

dabi

lity

Sust

aina

bilit

y Su

bsid

iary

G

over

nanc

eSc

alab

ility

1. C

omm

unity

-in

vest

or

part

ners

hip

proj

ect

(CIP

P)

(Moz

ambi

que,

M

adag

asca

r, U

gand

a G

hana

)

Yes

Mos

t of

the

sc

hem

es a

re f

unde

d on

prin

cipl

es t

hat

ensu

re p

over

ty

redu

ctio

n

Yes

Som

e pa

rtne

rshi

p pr

ojec

ts a

im a

t st

reng

then

ing

wom

en’s

acce

ss

to la

nd

Yes/

No

Proj

ect

may

be

aff

orda

ble

but

proc

esse

s ca

n m

ake

it in

acce

ssib

le t

o fa

rmer

s

Yes/

No

Hav

e ca

pabi

lity

to

be im

plem

ente

d at

the

low

er

leve

l but

req

uire

su

stai

ned

supp

ort

from

a r

ange

of

serv

ice

prov

ider

s (g

over

nmen

t, c

ivil

soci

ety,

priv

ate

sect

or),

as w

ell a

s ef

fort

and

tim

e

Yes

Reco

gniz

e an

d do

cum

ent

smal

l-sca

le f

arm

ers

land

an

d w

ater

rig

hts,

gro

up

right

s, f

ocus

es o

n ra

nge

and

graz

ing

land

s, f

ores

ts

and

artis

anal

fish

ing

area

an

d th

eref

ore

adap

tive

to

loca

l rig

hts

Yes/

No

Agr

eem

ent

may

not

be

tran

spar

ent

Empo

wer

ing

smal

lhol

der

farm

ers

and

rura

l com

mun

ities

to

enga

ge o

n eq

ual t

erm

s w

ith o

utsi

de in

vest

ors

is c

ruci

al

Yes

Can

be

repl

icat

ed

but

the

succ

ess

depe

nds

on

sust

aine

d su

ppor

t fr

om p

rovi

ders

2. J

oint

ven

ture

cas

h cr

op p

lant

atio

ns

(rub

ber

plan

tatio

n in

Gha

na)

Yes

Prot

ects

the

rig

hts

of t

enan

t fa

rmer

s an

d en

gage

s th

em

in c

ash

crop

far

min

g

Yes

Non

dis

crim

inat

ory

Gen

der

neut

ral i

n te

rms

of s

ecur

ity

of t

enur

e

Yes

Aff

orda

ble

to a

ll m

embe

rs o

f th

e co

oper

ativ

e

Yes

/No

Sust

aina

bilit

y de

pend

s on

the

pr

evai

ling

mar

ket

cond

ition

of

the

prod

uct

and

com

mitm

ent

leve

l of

part

ies

invo

lved

.

No

Com

mitm

ent

leve

l of

fund

ing

auth

oriti

es is

al

way

s cr

ucia

l

Yes/

No

Tool

ens

ures

pa

rtic

ipat

ion

of p

artie

s bu

t po

wer

pla

y of

fu

ndin

g ag

enci

es a

nd

prod

uct

buye

rs m

ay

redu

ce c

onfid

ence

leve

l in

the

sch

eme

Yes/

No

Can

be

repl

icat

ed

only

in p

lace

s w

ith

sim

ilar

tenu

re

arra

ngem

ents

3. C

omm

unity

-ba

sed

natu

ral

reso

urce

m

anag

emen

t sc

hem

es

(Irrig

atio

n, W

ater

, Fi

shin

g, L

ives

tock

as

soci

atio

ns)-

Za

mbi

a,

Moz

ambi

que,

Sw

azila

nd,

Uga

nda,

Ken

ya)

Yes

The

view

s an

d as

pira

tions

of

all s

take

hold

ers

are

take

n in

to

cons

ider

atio

n

Yes

Gen

eral

ly g

ende

r is

sues

are

pr

iorit

ised

Mos

t by

e la

ws

are

gend

er n

eutr

al,

alth

ough

the

y ar

e ap

plie

d in

a

gend

ered

con

text

.

Mos

t of

the

se

sche

mes

hav

e af

firm

ativ

e ac

tion

prov

isio

ns t

o fo

re

stor

e ge

nder

eq

uity

Yes

In m

ost

case

s,

the

cond

ition

for

su

ch c

oope

rativ

e sc

hem

es m

ake

them

aff

orda

ble

to m

ajor

ity o

f th

e m

embe

rs

Yes

Com

mun

ity t

akes

ac

tive

inte

rest

to

ensu

re s

usta

inab

ility

Effe

ctiv

e pa

rtic

ipat

ion

and

owne

rshi

p of

sc

hem

es e

nsur

es

sust

aina

bilit

y

Yes

Tool

add

ress

es t

he n

eeds

of

loca

l com

mun

ities

Tool

is c

apab

le t

o be

ap

plie

d at

the

low

est

leve

l

Whe

re s

imila

r ac

tiviti

es

are

perf

orm

ed in

di

ffer

ent

com

mun

ities

, re

gion

al o

rgan

isat

ions

are

fo

rmed

but

bas

ical

ly e

ach

unit

is in

depe

nden

t to

a

larg

e ex

tent

Yes

Allo

catio

ns a

re m

ade

in

tran

spar

ent

man

ner.

Man

ager

s of

the

sc

hem

es a

re e

lect

ed

and

they

are

ac

coun

tabl

e to

use

rs o

f th

e sc

hem

e

Act

ive

part

icip

atio

n of

com

mun

ities

in

man

agem

ent

and

deci

sion

mak

ing

proc

edur

es e

nhan

ces

good

gov

erna

nce

Yes

Is s

cala

ble

How

ever

, suc

cess

of

each

pro

gram

me

is

larg

ely

depe

nden

t on

le

vel o

f co

hesi

on a

nd

loca

l con

text

Tab

le 1

8: A

nal

ysis

of

too

ls f

or

eco

no

mic

em

po

wer

men

t an

d n

atu

ral r

eso

urc

e m

anag

emen

t ag

ain

st G

LTN

co

re v

alu

es

58

ANNEXES

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PROGRAMME (UN-HABITAT)

UN-Habitat helps the urban poor by transforming cities into safer, healthier, greener places with better opportunities

where everyone can live in dignity. UN-Habitat works with organizations at every level, including all spheres

of government, civil society and the private sector to help build, manage, plan and finance sustainable urban

development. Our mission is to promote socially and environmentally sustainable human settlements development

and the achievement of adequate shelter for all. For more information, visit the UN-Habitat website at www.

unhabitat.org

THE GLOBAL LAND TOOL NETWORK (GLTN)

GLTN is an alliance of international partners committed to increasing access to land and tenure security for all, with

a special focus on women, youth and vulnerable groups. The Network has an established global land partnership,

drawn from international civil society organizations, international finance institutions, international research and

training institutions, donors and professional bodies. GLTN develops, disseminates and implements pro-poor and

gender-responsive land tools. These tools and approaches contribute to land reform, good land governance,

inclusive land administration, sustainable land management, and functional land sector coordination. For more

information, visit the GLTN website at www.gltn.net

ABOUT THIS PUBLICATION

This publication identifies, documents and analyses customary tenure security tools that are developed and/or

delivered through customary governance systems, either as part of a statutory system, at the community level, or

as a partnership between community and government structures or outside partners. The publication forms part

of GLTN’s overall vision of tenure security for all and its aim to develop alternative tools that are more affordable

for customary and group tenure systems as well as for conventional land systems. The report also helps to bridge

the gap between policy intention and the reality on the ground by supporting customary approaches in high-level

events and making space for grassroots and vulnerable groups, such as women and young people to discuss their

worldview.

The publication is intended for policy makers, land professionals and various stakeholders involved in land

governance. It showcases the tools’ elements of best practices when managing customary tenure with some

being outstanding especially when they rely on simple technologies to address localized problems as well as

their weakness. It further analyses factors that can strengthen the tools to enhance scalability and applicability to

strengthen tenure security for land under customary tenure and beyond.

HS Number: HS/048/19E

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN SETTLEMENTS PROGRAMME (UN-Habitat)Urban Legislation, Land and Governance BranchLand and GLTN UnitP.O. 30030, Nairobi 00100, KenyaTel: +254 20 76 23120; Fax: +254 20 762 4266Website: www.unhabitat.org

Global Land Tool Network (GLTN) SecretariatFacilitated by UN-HabitatP.O. 30030, Nairobi 00100, KenyaTel: +254 20 762 4577 ; Fax: +254 20 762 4256E-mail: [email protected]: www.gltn.net

For more information please contact us:

Customary Land Tenure Security - SAHARAN AFRICA (a

Documents

Transcript of Customary Land Tenure Security - SAHARAN AFRICA (a