You are on page 1of 85

2 Categorical framework

Land governance indicators database DRAFT

Categorization of land governance indicators


The tables of indicators in this document use a system of categorization that is based on standard evaluation
concepts and that has been developed with particular reference to the FAO Voluntary Guidelines on the
Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests (VGGT) and the Framework and
Guidelines on Land Policy in Africa. It is designed to help stakeholders select appropriate indicators for
different monitoring contexts, and to identify where there are gaps in coverage.

Dimension 1: Inputs to impacts


Indicators can be categorized according to the phase of the policy or project process that they assess:
Inputs Processes Outputs Outcomes Impacts
These phases are illustrated in Table 1.
Table 1: Illustrating the policy phase concept

Different phases of the policy process require different data collection methodologies - Legal and policy
input indicators may just require desk-based analysis of documents. Key tools for assessing policy
implementation characteristics and outputs include administrative data, surveys of expert opinion, surveys of
users, and participatory evaluation and action research. Large sample surveys can be relevant for some
outputs such as possession of tenure documentation. Outcomes and impacts, by contrast, can usually only be
assessed though methods that gather information from affected people: censuses, household surveys and
small surveys, crowd-sourcing and action-research.
Different monitoring contexts require a focus on different policy phases - Inputs and outputs (in so far as
administrative data can be used) may thus be relatively easy to assess. Assessing outcomes can be more
expensive. But for a national policy evaluation process it can be essential to assess outcomes to determine if
policy itself is appropriate. For global contexts such as the MDGs, it can be essential to assess whether policy
goals (outcomes, impacts) are being achieved. However, it is also essential for national policy processes to
monitor whether policy is being implemented as intended, by assessing implementation process
characteristics and outputs.

Page 1

2 Categorical framework
Dimension 2: Different land governance processes
The land governance process involves different governance services and programmes. It can also be seen as
including activities of community-level institutions such as customary institutions, and also household-level
decision-making (something that is very important from a gender perspective). Different indicators are often
appropriate to different elements of land governance. Figure 1 illustrates the concept of different land
governance processes, drawing closely from the VGGT on categories of government services and transfers.
The list of main indicator topics is given in Table 2 below.
Figure 1: Land governance phases and processes

Page 2

2 Categorical framework
Dimension 3: Different parameters for evaluating land governance
characteristics and outputs
Process characteristics There are a wide range of parameters that can be used to describe how land
policy is being implemented, of what any land governance process is like. In relation to policy implementation,
many key characteristics can be summarized in terms of constraints faced by users or by those charged with
implementation. These include:
- Cost constraints fees (formal and informal), legal and survey costs, time, travel, budget requirements.
- Procedural and cultural barriers required evidence of tenure, procedures for joint registration, cultural
acceptance of women as tenure holders.
- Capacity constraints requirements in terms of literacy, language, understanding of rights and procedures.
- Information constraints accessibility of government records, notification of changes, information for
effective participation.
- Accountability influence of vested interests, means of complaint and redress, participation in decisionmaking.
Very many indicators also address whether best practice in different contexts is followed in order to counter
these constraints. For example: Is a clear schedule of fees for different services publicly accessible (LGAF
19i)? Is legal aid provided to potential evictees (LIFI 3.2)?

Process outputs Key outputs include tenure records created, tenure documents conferred, planning
decisions made and enforced, building permits issued, disputes resolved, large-scale leasehold contracts
negotiated and enforced, land consolidated, readjusted, restituted or redistributed, land expropriated,
compensation paid and households resettled. In evaluating these outputs there are a number of key crosscutting considerations:
- Coverage by land area, by population, and thereof by gender, ethnicity, income group, etc..
- Bias in adjudication, planning decisions and land allocation, by gender, ethnicity, income group, etc..
- Accuracy of tenure records, maps, valuations.
- Adequacy of compensation, of land restituted or distributed, of spatial development plans

Page 3

2 Categorical framework
Indicator topics, relationship to VGGT and F&G
In this publication, indicators have been categorized first by policy phase, then by main indicator topic. Under
inputs, outcomes and impacts, main topics and sub-topics have been selected based on the focus of the
indicators catalogued. Potential topics and sub-topics not found to be represented by any indicators have been
excluded. Under processes, main topics have been selected based on Chapters 12 to 21 of the VGGT, with
reference also to LGAF thematic areas. Process sub-topics have then been selected based on the focus of
the indicators catalogued. Many process characteristic and output parameters are represented under these
process subtopics. However, potential sub-topics have only been included where they are represented by
indicators.
Table 2 lists the main indicator topics used. Indicative references from important corresponding parts of the
VGGT and F&G are also given.
Table 2: Main indicator topics, relationship to VGGT and F&G

Page 4

3 Data sources
Land
governance
indicators
database
DRAFT

Data Sources Initiatives that produce primary land governance data


Organization Initiative
Censuses
National
statistics
agencies

Abbr. used Data coverage Regularity

Population PH-Census 200+ countries


(2010 round)
and housing
censuses

10 years

Short description Focus

Enumeration of
entire national
population

Basic
demographic,
social and
economic and
housing
indicators.

Page 1

Methodology

Comments

Reference

Traditionally the enumeration of all


households once every 10 years.
Information from population
registers and sample surveys is
also increasingly being used as
part of methodologies. A housing
census is almost always included
with the population census.

Population censuses provide data on http://unstats.un.org/un


population working in agriculture and sd/pubs/gesgrid.asp?id
=383
employment status, however this
does not seem to be regarded as
sufficient to determine the population
working on their own-account (i.e.
with their own agricultural holding).
Supplementary questions on ownaccount employment in agriculture
and year-round agricultural work are
suggested, principally as a way of
setting up an enumeration framework
for agricultural censuses. Housing
censuses include core questions on
housing unit ownership and tenure,
but in practice only owneroccupation and renting are
distinguished. Rental and owneroccupier housing costs are suggested
as a supplementary question.

3 Data sources
FAO/National World
Census of
statistics
Agriculture
agencies

WCA

140 countries
(2010 round)

10 years

Enumeration/sampl
ing of all
agricultural holding
in a country

Basic indicators
on land tenure,
use, tenure,
crops, livestock,
etc..

Page 2

In the 2010 round (2006-2015)102


countries have completed, 38 are
planned and in 13 countries
agricultural aspects have been
included in the population census.
Countries for which there is not
information are predominantly
small and small island States. At
core an enumeration approach,
although in practice it appears that
many countries conduct sample
surveys. Under the FAO World
Programme for the Census of
Agriculture 2010, there has been
an shift to encouraging the
collection of a reduced number of
indicators (core topics) through
enumeration, creating a sample
frame, and then collecting
additional, optional modules of
indicators through sample
surveys. The line between the
census and national surveys of
agriculture (such as under the
LSMS) is thus not always distinct.

Core topics promoted by the WCA


2010 programme include the legal
status, sex and age of agricultural
holders, the area of holdings and land
tenure. The FAO land tenure
categories definitions for WCA 2010
(FAO 2005) distinguish between legal
ownership and ownership-like tenure,
and non-legal ownership and
ownership-like tenure, rental and
other (squatting, etc.). The first
category includes customary tenure
that is legally recognized and to some
degree protected by the state. It
should be noted that the holder may
be an individual/household or a
community depending on the who
holds what rights. A preliminary
review of WCA 2010 round
censuses/surveys (see sheet 8)
revealed that these in fact may only
record simple tenure categories
(ownership, rental) in a majority of
cases. Data on gender of holder and
holding area is consistently collected,
though their may be a tendency to
record the holder as male unless the
household is female headed.

http://www.fao.org/econ
omic/ess/ess-wca/en/;
http://www.fao.org/econ
omic/the-statisticsdivision-ess/worldcensus-ofagriculture/worldprogramme-for-thecensus-of-agriculture2010/en/

3 Data sources
National-level
sample
surveys
World Bank

Living
LSMS
Standards
Measureme
nt Surveys
(incl.
Integrated
Surveys on
Agriculture)

29 countries
(1995-2011)

No common National household Household


income,
and community
schedule
expenditure,
surveys
employment,
health, education,
agriculture.

Page 3

Very detailed representative


household surveys. Surveys use
similar formats but the exact
questions differ between countries,
so coverage of issue varies
greatly. Series have been
implemented in several countries,
but in many countries these are
not ongoing. In countries with a
published survey after 1995, the
mean elapsed time since the last
completed survey is 9.4 years,
although there has been a recent
increase in the number of surveys.
In some cases, detailed questions
on land tenure issues are asked.
For more information see Sheet 6.

Data on tenure status, area and value


of dwellings and agricultural land is
normally collected,though not always
sensitive to tenure complexities in the
past. A broad range of land tenurerelated questions have also been
included in different surveys,
including on tenure documentation,
involuntary changes to tenure and
perceptions of tenure security. Data is
highly representative and reliable, but
coverage is a major limitation, in
general and for specific indicators.
Because of the great length of these
surveys, they are always likely to be
implemented in a limited number of
countries according to demand.
Where they are implemented, they
can provide an excellent complement
to expert-based methodologies like
the LGAF. It is worth promoting more
systematic and comprehensive
coverage of land issues in future
surveys.

http://econ.worldbank.or
g/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/
EXTDEC/EXTRESEAR
CH/EXTLSMS/0,,menu
PK:3359053~pagePK:6
4168427~piPK:641684
35~theSitePK:3358997,
00.html;
http://web.worldbank.or
g/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/
EXTDEC/EXTRESEAR
CH/EXTLSMS/EXTSUR
AGRI/0,,menuPK:7420
268~pagePK:64168427
~piPK:64168435~theSit
ePK:7420261,00.html

3 Data sources
UNICEF

Multiple
Indicator
Cluster
Survey

USAID

Demographi DHS
c and
Health
Surveys

MICS

52 countries
(MICS4)

3 years
(prev. 5)

National household Demographic,


survey
education and
health indicators.
Land and dwelling
ownership
included for
wealth estimation.

A large scale representative


household survey. Questions and
country coverage is closely
coordinated with the DHS.
Questions on ownership of
dwelling and agricultural land (in
whole hectares up to 94, then
95+), are included and used with
other questions to estimate
household wealth. No information
on weather households are
actually engaged in agriculture.

A highly reliable data source used for http://www.childinfo.org/


mics.html
several MDG indicators. Data could
provide an indicator of dwelling
ownership vs. rental (currently
unpublished). This would probably be
more relevant for urban areas.
Unpublished data on agricultural land
ownership could theoretically be used
to calculate a Gini coefficient
measure of ownership inequality,
though this would exclude nonhousehol-held land assets and might
not be statistically valid for very small
and very large land holdings. Further
questions (e.g. types of tenure
documentation, gender of tenure
holders, perceptions of tenure
security, experience of evictions, or
that seek a simple estimate of land
type or value) could theoretically be
added, though questionnaire length is
obviously a constraint and this would
be a divergence from the health focus
of the survey.

34 countries
(DHS VI)

5 years
(now 3?)

National household Demographic,


survey
education and
health indicators.
Agricultural land
ownership
included for
wealth estimation.

A large scale representative


household survey. Questions and
country coverage is closely
coordinated with the MICS.
Questions on ownership of
agricultural land (in hectares to 1
decimal place up to 94, then 95+),
are included and used with other
questions to estimate household
wealth. No question on dwelling
ownership. No information on
weather households are actually
engaged in agriculture.

A highly reliable data source used for


several MDG indicators. Unpublished
data on agricultural land ownership
could theoretically be used to
calculate a Gini coefficient measure
of ownership inequality, though this
would exclude non-household-held
land assets. Further questions (e.g.
ownership of dwelling, types of tenure
documentation, gender of tenure
holders, perceptions of tenure
security, experience of evictions, or
that seek a simple estimate of land
type or value) could theoretically be
added, though questionnaire length is
obviously a constraint and this would
be a divergence from the health focus
of the survey.

Page 4

http://www.measuredhs.
com/What-WeDo/SurveyTypes/DHS.cfm;
http://www.measuredhs.
com/publications/public
ation-cr6-comparativereports.cfm

3 Data sources
National
statistics
agencies

National
household
and
agriculture
surveys

Not determined n/a

National household
surveys
implemented
outside the scope
of LSMS, DHS and
MICS.

Often closely
comparable to
LSMS or
DHS/MICS
surveys.

Page 5

Often closely comparable to LSMS National household or agriculture


or DHS/MICS surveys.
surveys are also implemented by
national statistics agencies beyond
the scope of programs such as
LSMS, DHS and MICS, although they
may be implemented with the support
of actors such as the World Bank,
UNICEF and USAID. The coverage of
land issues by these surveys has not
been determined here. However,
some can be seen as closely
comparable to LSMS surveys (e.g.
Kenya Integrated Household Budget
Survey 2004/5 and the Uganda
National Household Survey 2005/06),
while others are closely related to or
based on DHS/MICS surveys (e.g.
the Botswana Core Welfare Indicators
Survey). Separate agricultural and
labour force surveys may closely
relate to components of LSMS
surveys. The coverage of LSMS-type
and DHS/MICS-type surveys can thus
be assumed to be better than that of
surveys that strictly belong to the
LSMS, DHS and MICS programmes.
Core nutrition indicators are based on
about one third each of DHS, MICS
and other national surveys. Coverage
for all agricultural surveys is likely to
be much more patchy.

3 Data sources
UN-HABITAT Urban
Iniquities
Survey

Landesa,
Renmin Uni.,
Michigan St.
Uni.

UIS

Piloted in
several cities

n/a

17 province Landesa CS 17 provinces of 2-4 years


China
China
survey

City-wide
household survey
containing
household, women
and community
questionnaires.

Includes
questions on
tenure
documentation
and perception of
tenure security.

An independent
Land governance
household survey. outputs,
outcomes and
impacts.

Page 6

Household survey. Some


elements have been piloted as a
supplementary module of DHS
surveys. Probabilistic sampling is
used, with a sample of 1000-4000
for a large city. Envisioned ti be
implemented in partnership with
national statistics agencies, major
land institutions and selected
universities.

Piloting has demonstrated feasibility


but also identified many challenges to
be overcome. As a stand alone
survey, costs are high, particularly for
consultants used in sample design
and preparation. Questionnaires were
adapted to local tenure contexts but
this reduced comparability and there
was a need to ensure that questions
address common indicators.
Questions on documentation and
evictions tended to intimidate
respondents and reduced response
rates on these issues. Indicators
listed are taken from Box 4.1 in
Bazogu et al. (2011).

See Bazogu et al. 2011,


Monitoring Security of
Tenure in Cities:
People, Land and
Policies, UN-HABITAT,
http://www.unhabitat.org
/pmss/listItemDetails.as
px?publicationID=3262

This household surveyachieves a


high degree of statistical accuracy
and can claim to be representative
of 83% of China's rural population.
Around 1500-2000 households are
typically interviewed. It has been
implemented 6 times since 1999.
University students are used as
interviewers, which may help limit
costs. It could be a useful model
for a survey methodology to
assess documentation rates,
prevalence of expropriations,
procedures and compensation in
cases of expropriation,
perceptions of tenure security and
rates of investment by farmers.

This impressive survey could be a


useful model for a survey
methodology to assess
documentation rates, prevalence of
expropriations, procedures and
compensation in cases of
expropriation, perceptions of tenure
security and rates of investment by
farmers. Survey questions have here
been inferred from reported results
and presented in the main table in
and indicator statement form.

http://www.landesa.org/
our-research-countriesand-regions/china/;
http://www.landesa.org/
wpcontent/uploads/2011/0
1/2007_01_NYU17ProvSurvey.pdf

3 Data sources
Global
surveys
World
Bank/IFC

Doing
Business

DB

185 countries

Annual

Global expert
survey ease of
doing business.

Transparency Global
International Corruption
Barometer

GCB

107 countries
(2013)

Annual or
biannual

Global opinion
survey

WEF

EOS

Global

Annual

Business opinion
survey

Executive
Opinion
Survey

The registering
property
indicators
focuses on the
costs faced by a
domestic firms is
registering a
commercial real
estate transfer.
Corruption in
different sectors.

One indicator on
property rights,
including over
financial assets.

Page 7

A limited survey of experts (land


professionals) who are asked to
determine the requirements in a
hypothetical tenure transfer
situation involving, formal freehold
tenure, domestic firms,
commercial real estate in the
largest business city, and no
informal fees.
Global opinion/perception survey.
Sample methodology requires
further investigation.

The methodology has been carefully


designed to promote comparability.
However, the degree to which the
data is representative of user costs
across a wide range of tenure
situations is often overestimated.

Includes one indicator: % of


respondents who report paying
bribes, by sector. Registry and
permit services is always included as
a category. Land services was
included as a distinct category in
2009. This represents a possible way
to address governance issues that
are important across sectors, not just
land. Opinion/perception surveys
conducted independently, including
by commercial survey firms and
NGOs, could be an alternative
approach used in the post-2015
context.
The survey question is too general to
Opinion survey of business
executives. Respondents rank one draw conclusions from about land
question on enforcement of
issues, particularly as it explicitly
property rights.
refers to financial assets. However, it
is used by the WEF Global
Competitiveness Report and the
International Property Rights Index.

http://www.doingbusine
ss.org/

http://www.transparency
.org/research/gcb/

https://wefsurvey.org/in
dex.php?sid=28226&int
ro=0

3 Data sources
Crowdsourcing
initiatives
CDE, CIRAD, Land Matrix Land Matrix Global
GIGA, GIZ,
ILC

n/a

An initiative to
gather and verify
information on
large-scale land
acquisitions,
including through
crown-sourcing.

Large-scale land
acquisitions

Page 8

The initiative involves a number of


observatories: global, regional
(being developed in collaboration
with LPI), national (being
developed in 5 pilot countries) and
thematic (1 being developed on
rangelands). Web interfaces
(functioning now at the global
level) allow stakeholders
(members of the public, NGO's,
private sector, etc.) to up-load
quantitative and qualitative georeferenced information to a central
publicly-accessible database, thus
allowing the inclusion of new
information and the crosschecking of existing data. The
global database, which initially
built on collated media reports and
has been refined through crowdsourced information, currently
contains information on 808
concluded deals, covering 34
million hectares.

The Land Matrix aims both to quantify


the issue of large-scale land
acquisitions, and to be a catalyst for
inclusive policy dialogue, particularly
at national levels. It may be
particularly effective in relation to the
latter as the crowd-sourcing
methodology allows for public
participation in creating policyrelevant data, and the data generated
(which in some cases may be
contested by different stakeholders)
can provide a catalyst for informed
debate it puts in the public sphere
information that would otherwise
remain hidden. However, it is also
recognized that the dataset has
inevitable limitations in terms of
representativeness, and this makes it
hard to use for a global indicator.

http://www.landmatrix.or
g/;
http://www.tandfonline.c
om/doi/pdf/10.1080/030
66150.2013.803071

3 Data sources
Expert
assessment
frameworks
(may also
include use of
secondary
data and key
informant
interviews)
LGAF
World Bank
Land
Governance
Assessment
Framework

OECD

Social
SIGI
Institutions
and Gender
Index

17 completed, No regular
18 in process or schedule,
but some
starting
assessment
s being
repeated
after 3-4
years

A framework for
national level,
comprehensive
policy evaluation

The primary focus


is on the
characteristics
and outputs of
policy
implementation
processes,
particularly tenure
administration
(including
information
systems). The
legal recognition
of a continuum of
land rights is
assessed. The
focus on
outcomes is
limited to the
effectiveness of
spatial planning.
An additional
optional module
focuses on largescale land
acquisitions
(LSLA)

Expert assessment building on


available secondary data. A
consultant team collates
secondary data and other
information sources, where
available, to prepare background
reports. Expert groups
representing different stakeholders
(administrators, land
professionals, NGO
representatives, etc.) then
evaluate each indicator based on
the background reports and their
own experience. Limited small
surveys were used in the pilot
countries as a supplementary
measure as thus is suggested as
an option where costs allow.

100+ countries

Framework for the


assessment of
gender
discrimination in
laws and
institutions

Includes
indicators on
inheritance (not
just land) and
land ownership
rights.

http://genderindex.org/
Expert legal assessment, referring A source of data of legal gender
to traditional and religious law as discrimination and a methodology that
could inform other legal analysis
well as formal law.
indicators.

3 years
(2009,
2012)

Page 9

LGAF has proven to be a relatively


http://go.worldbank.org/
cost effective way to assess a large
TDR9FDC7M0
number of indicators (80). It is a
framework for collating secondary
data and for governments and others
to seek the expert opinion of a range
of experts. It allows for secondary
data to be used where available, and
otherwise for estimates to be made. It
is more difficult to apply to any
context where the evaluation of
certain indicators may be
controversial, there is little hard data
and there may be little consensus
among panel members. If used as a
source of data for high profile
indicators, there is a risk that the
methodology and results might be
questioned by stakeholders not
involved in the process.
Comparability between countries may
also be an issue where indicator
assessment draws on expert
estimates or non-comparable
secondary data sources.

3 Data sources
Legal and LIFI
UN
HABITAT/GLT Institutional
Framework
N
Index

Piloted in
several cities

No fixed
schedule

An qualitative
evaluation
framework

Legal and
Expert legal analysis and
institutional
evaluation of institutional factors.
issues connected
with tenure
security

LIFI builds to a great extent in the UNHABITAT Urban Indicators. The


detailed framework is not currently
published.

See Bazogu et al. 2011,


Monitoring Security of
Tenure in Cities:
People, Land and
Policies, UN-HABITAT,
http://www.unhabitat.org
/pmss/listItemDetails.as
px?publicationID=3262

IFAD

Performanc PBAS
e-Based
Allocation
System

Global

Annual

An expert
evaluation system
that is used for
fund allocation.

One section of
secure access to
land focuses on
legal protections,
documentation,
land markets and
common property
regulation.

The PBAS is cost-effective, but the


country analyses are not published,
limiting transparency and usefulness
for policy dialogue. Can be difficult to
apply indicators consistently and
across different contexts.

http://www.ifad.org/oper
ations/pbas/;
http://www.gaportal.org/
resources/detail/ifadland-tenure-indicators;
http://www.ifad.org/even
ts/legal/doc/scoring.pdf

World Bank

Country
CPIA
Policy
Institutional
Assessment
s

Global

Annual

A scoring system
used for fund
allocation.

Land governance Qualitative assessment and


issues are
scoring by Bank staff.
covered as part
of three different
criteria.

Habitat for
Humanity

Global
Housing
Indicators

GHI

No fixed
Results
published for 19 schedule
cities

Expert assessment using a


qualitative scoring matrix. The
indicators described here include
the indicator title and the highest
level of the scoring matrix.

A detailed indicator Detailed


Legal/policy analysis and key
framework for city- indicators on
informant interviews are the main
level evaluation
property rights
methods suggested.
(including legal,
registration and
eviction aspects)
and land
administration
costs.

Page 10

Different aspects of land governance http://www.worldbank.or


are incorporated in scoring guidelines g/ida/IRAI-2011.html
for three criteria: 6 Business
regulatory environment, 7 Gender
equality and 12 property rights and
rule-base governance. However, it is
impossible to separate assessments
on land issues from other issues
within each criteria.
The framework is designed for inhttp://globalhousingindi
depth city-level evaluation. There is a cators.org/en
risk of bias if limited key informant
interviews are used, but the method
could be adapted for multistakeholder evaluation processes.
The focus on mass evictions risks
over-looking isolated evictions of
households and individuals,
especially women.

3 Data sources
CIPE/IRPF

Internationa IPMS
l Property
Markets
Scorecard

No fixed
Results
published for 15 schedule
countries

A rapid expert
assessment tool
with a broadly antiregulatory
approach

CEPII

Institutional IPD
Profiles
Database
Bertelsman BTI
n
Transformat
ion Index

143 countries

3 years

Wide-ranging
One indicator on
governance index. property rights.

128 countries

2 years

Wide-ranging
One indicator on
governance index. property rights.

Economist
Intelligence
Unit

Democracy EIU
Index

Global

Annual

Wide-ranging
One indicator on
governance index. property rights.

Scoring by country corespondents Hard to interpret because the


indicator is very broad.
and regional experts is used for
the property rights indicator.

Heritage
Foundation

Index of
Economic
Freedon

Global

Annual

A governance
One indicator on
index
property rights.
predominantly
based on other
reporting initiatives

Scoring based on scores from


other initiatives such as the
Economist Intelligence Unit, and
some media articles.

Bertelsmann
Stiftung

IEF

One section on
property rights
and protection
thereof. Mostly
relevant for
formal sector
businesses.

A mixture of referencing other


indexes (such as DB), key
informant interviews and legal
analysis.

Relevant chiefly to the formal


business sector. Scoring is done on
the basis that all government
regulation of or involvement in land
use is bad. A strong element of
subjectivity is possible. Tenure
security is effectively defined as the
possibility of legally challenging
government actions.
Expert assessment survey of AFD Hard to evaluate the robustness of
country staff.
assessments. Hard to interpret
because broad.
Expert assessment methodology The indicator is hard to interpret as in
involving country experts writing
practice it covers legal rights, the
country evaluation reports which
existence of restrictions on property
are published, and intra and inter- rights in the public interest (seen as a
regional reviewing of the scores
bad thing), the cost of enforcing legal
for consistency.
titles and the ease of acquisition of
land by corporations (see country
reports). Despite attempts to ensure
consistency, there is great potential
for subjectivity in country reports,
the universe of land governance
issues is typically reduced to a single
paragraph without reference to
information sources.

Page 11

http://worldcitizenconsul
ting.net/images/Scorec
ard_Methodology_Chap
ter_1.pdf;
http://www.irpf.org/reso
urce/score-cardreports2

http://www.cepii.fr/instit
utions/EN/ipd.asp
http://www.btiproject.org/index/metho
de/

http://www.economist.c
om/media/pdf/DEMOC
RACY_INDEX_2007_v
3.pdf
http://www.heritage.org/i
Hard to interpret because the
indicator covers different issues. Data ndex/property-rights
only as good as the sources it is
based on.

3 Data sources
Project
monitoring
frameworks
MCC

Common
Indicators

MCC

MMC projects

Project
limited

Harmonized
indicators for use
in the evaluation of
MCC projects.

Project M&E, administrative


The land
records
component
focuses on policy
change, training,
dispute resolution
and tenure
adminsitration.

Strong overlap with WB CSI


indicators.

http://www.mcc.gov/doc
uments/guidance/guida
nce-2012001109601common-indicators.pdf

World Bank

Core Sector CSI


Indicators

Word Bank land Project


limited
administration
projects

Harmonized
indicators for use
in the evaluation of
World Bank land
administration
projects.

Project M&E, administrative


Cost of tenure
records
registration,
outputs of tenure
registration,

Strong overlap with MCC Common


Indicators.

IFAD

Results and RIMS


Impact
Manageme
nt System

Global (IFAD
programmes)

A system of
standard indicators
for evaluating the
impact of IFAD
projects.

One indicator on Indicators are evaluated by IFAD


tenure security in programs based on their own
M&E.
the 2003
framework.

The indicator on tenure security is no http://www.ifad.org/oper


ations/rims/
longer included in the 2011
Handbook. Because data is from
projects it is not representative at
country level, but could inform
standardized project reporting.

Annual

Page 12

3 Data sources
Participatory
assessment
frameworks
(may also
include use of
secondary
data and key
informant
interviews)
GLTN

Gender
Evaluation
Criteria

GEC

Sub-national
use in several
countries

No fixed
schedule

Multi-stakeholder Gender sensitivity


evaluation drawing of land tools.
on secondary data
and interviews

A rapid evaluation technique. An


evaluation team gathers available
secondary data and primary data
from key informant interviews, or a
small survey in some cases. The
information is then evaluated
against the criteria and evaluation
questions through a workshop of
key stakeholders. What
differentiates this from an expert
assessment methodology is that
participants are selected to
represent key stakeholders in a
policy dialogue process, rather
than as experts as such. A
scorecard approach is sometimes
used, though the key output is not
the scores as such so much as
the dialogue and
recommendations for action that
may be agreed.

Page 13

An example of a tool for assessing


land policy processes with regard to a
cross-cutting policy issue, in this case
gender-sensitivity. It is designed to
focus on a single tool such as a
program, a municipal planning
process or a particular institution. It is
best adapted to sub-national contexts
such as a municipality.

http://www.gltn.net/inde
x.php/resources/publica
tions/publicationslist/finish/3-gltndocuments/31-genderevaluation-criteria-forlarge-scale-land-toolsbrief-eng-2012

4 Other frameworks
Land governance indicators database DRAFT

Published indicator or evaluation frameworks and indicator proposals


Included are indicator and other evaluation frameworks that have not been significantly used to collect primary data, and proposals relating to post-2015
Organization

Initiative

Abbr. used

Indicator/evaluation question frameworks


UN HABITAT
Urban
UI
Indicators

ILC members

Land Watch
Asia Land
Reform
Monitoring
Indicators

LWA

Piloted?

Short
description

Focus

Methodology

Comments

Reference

Tenure security
not collected in
global
implementation

Indicators devised
by UN-HABITAT
Global Urban
Observatory to
monitor the
Habitat Agenda
and MDG7,
Target 11. Tenure
security indicators
were devised but
not used to
calculate slum
population.

Includes indicators
on property rights,
protections
against eviction
and rates of
eviction.

The suggested
methodology includes
legal anaysis, expert
opinion (land
professionals, NGOs
working of shelter) and
secondary data from
different stakeholders.

The tenure security indicators have


not been implemented, but remain a
useful reference. They have been
substantially succeded by the Urban
Inequities Survey (UIS) and LIFI.

http://www.un
habitat.org/do
wnloads/docs
/Urban_Indic
ators.pdf

Piloted in 7
countries

A framework for
assessing the
outcomes of (or
need for) land
reforms.

Tenure-related
conflicts and land
ownership
distribution.

The indicators have been


used as a framework for
collating and analyzing
secondary data at the
national level.

The Land Watch Asia indicators


were developed as a way to focus
on the need for, and outcomes of,
land reform processes in Asian
countries. Piloting revealed data
available for different indicators in
different countries, allowing for
national-level evaluations. However,
there were significant limitations in
terms of data gaps, comparability
and sometimes reliability.

http://www.la
ndcoalition.or
g/publications
/cso-landreformmonitoringasia

Page 1

4 Other frameworks
GCIF

Global City
Indicators
Facility

GCIF

Landesa

Landesa
Practical
Guides

Landesa PG

FAO

Governing
land for
women and
men
technical
guide

TGG

Initiative that
allows member
cities to share
data on a
standard set of
indicators
Detailed
frameworks for
the analysis of
tenure and
inheritance rights
from a gender
perspective.

Includes shelter
indicators.

More information on methodology is http://www.cit


Draws on secondary
yindicators.or
needed.
data, including UNg/Default.asp
HABITAT data on slums.
x

Land property
rights and
inheritance rights
under statutory
and customary
regimes.

Legal analysis, although


expert knowledge of
customary regimes
(where norms may not
be written) is also
implied.

Practical Guides 2 and 3 offer very http://www.la


detailed frameworks of evaluation
ndesa.libguid
questions on women's property and es.com/
inheritance rights that could inform
the development of indicators. In the
main table, some evaluation
questions (e.g. detailed questions
on marital law and custom, or where
there is overlap between the guides)
have not been included, but could
nonetheless be relevant.
Subquestions have generally been
included in the same entry as main
questions.

The guide suggests over


30 indicators that may be
useful for monitoring
gender-equitable tenure
governance. The guide
does not present a
monitoring framework as
such, however, and there
is no suggestion that
these indicators should
be seen as
comprehensive.

This is the first in a series of


Technical Guides to be produced by
FAO to support the implementation
of the VGGT. The indicators
proposed reflect many of the topics
in the guide and may complement
other gender evaluation tools.

A guide to support Gender equity


gender-equitable aspects of land
governance
governance of
tenure

Page 2

http://www.fa
o.org/docrep/
017/i3114e/i3
114e.pdf

4 Other frameworks
Indicator proposals
UN
Proposed
HABITAT/GLTN system for
monitoring
security of
tenure

GLTN2011

Largely piloted
through LIFI
and UIS

2011 proposal for Five core tenure


security-related
monitoring
security of tenure. indicators at
household,
community and
city/country levels
(GLTN2011),
and a longer list of
household/individu
al tenure security
indicators
(GLTN2011ext).

Page 3

For household level


indicators, several
options are discussed:
the Urban Inequities
sample survey (UIS),
adding question(s) to an
existing household
survey, adding
question(s) to censuses,
or a small dedicated
sample survey. For the
indicator on the status of
informal settlements,
proposed options are:
aerial/satellite imagery to
identify informal
settlements
supplemented by survey
data; aerial/satellite
imagery to identify
informal settlements
supplemented by focus
group interviews; added
questions to household
surveys; and qualitative
stakeholder analysis on
a settlement by
settlement basis. For the
legal/institutional
analysis, the LIFI or
LGAF methodology is
proposed.

The proposal includes five core


tenure indicators at household,
community and city/country levels
(Bazogu et al. 2011, Table 4.2, here
abbreviated as GLTN2011), and a
longer list of household/individual
tenure security indicators (Bazogu et
al. 2011, Table 5.1, here
GLTN2011ext). Feasible survey
methods for the household level
indicators are proposed and their
use in surveys has been piloted.
The community level indicator is
really adapted to the urban context
(slums) and its feasibility at wider
scales appears debatable.

See Bazogu
et al. 2011,
Monitoring
Security of
Tenure in
Cities:
People, Land
and Policies,
UNHABITAT,
http://www.un
habitat.org/p
mss/listItemD
etails.aspx?p
ublicationID=
3262

4 Other frameworks
All the indicators should
be measurable using
administrative data,
where available.

LGAF coordinators have suggested


6 indicators that all happen to be
output indicators. They have a
strong overlap to LGAF concerns
but are not specifically LGAF
indicators (or are not phrased in the
same way. At the moment, the
rationale given for these indicators
and coordinators assessment of
national-level data availability has
not been reviewed.

Two indicators
focus on gender
disaggregated
ownership of land
and dwellings.

None discussed, but the


emphasis is heavily on
outcomes, including
perceptions, and most of
the indicators would
seem to imply a
household or perception
survey methodology.

Indicators on dwelling and land


ownership equality are related to
targets on eradicating women's
poverty and building women's
access to and control over
productive resources. Indicators on
perceptions of women's say within
the household on different issues
are also included. They don't
specifically mention land but this
could be suggested.

Access to justice,
right to legal
identity, right to
information and
resource rights.

The suggested
methodologies are legal
analysis (namati1),
surveys for perception
questions and
administrative data, 3rd
party monitoring for the
others.

The perception survey approach is


similar to the GLTN2011 proposal.
The question on accountability of
local decision-making is potentially
relevant in relation to spatial
planning, accountability of
customary regimes and LSLA.
However, the proposal may
overestimate the consistent
availability of administrative data on
community lands.

World Bank

WB prop.
Indicators
suggested for
reg.
monitoring

Land governance
Indicators
outputs
proposed for
regular monitoring
by LGAF
coordinators.

UN Women

A
UN Women
transformativ
e stand-alone
goal on
achieving
gender
equality,
women's
rights and
women's
empowermen
t

Proposal on a
goal, targets and
indicators on
gender for the
post-2015
agenda.

Namati

Justice 2015 Namati


Consultations

Proposal on legal
empowerment
indicators for the
post-2015
agenda.

Page 4

http://www.un
women.org/e
n/news/storie
s/2013/6/unwomenlaunchesglobal-call-foratransformativ
e-agenda-tomake-genderequality-areality/
http://www.na
mati.org/cons
ultations/;
http://www.na
mati.org/wpcontent/uploa
ds/2013/06/J
ustice-2015Annex-I.pdf

5 Indicators analysis
Land governance indicators database DRAFT

Summary and analysis of indicators by sub-topic


Phase

Main topic

Inputs

Policy
development
process

Sub-topic

Indicator/questi Topic overview


on sources
Participation in LGAF 6i. LIFI 1. Participation in land policy development,
land policy
GEC 2. TGG.
including legal drafting and the
development
development of procedures. There are
very many aspects of policy
development best practice that can be
assessed, but the single issue that is
most focused upon is participation. This
issue is very prominent in both the F&G
and the VGGT. Because policy
development is itself a process, it could
be evaluated with regards to a wide
range of process characteristics. These
include cultural, cost, capacity,
information and accountability
constraints to meaningful participation
by different stakeholder groups, and the
actual degree to which each of these
groups participate. Outcomes in terms of
the effect of stakeholder inputs on the
final policies, laws and procedures could
also be assessed in principle.
Monitoring of
LGAF 6ii, 6iv.
policy
GEC 3-4.
implementation

Tracking is a key focus of the F&G, but


is relatively overlooked by indicators.
Key issues include whether
implementation is monitored at all,
whether it is participatory and whether it
uses disaggregated data to capture
gender aspects.

Definitional issues

Data collection methodology

Possible applications

A key problem is assessing to what


extent participation is really
meaningful. In principle this can be
assessed by examining the
outcomes of participation in terms
of the effect of stakeholder inputs
on the final policies, laws and
procedures. The majority of
indicators developed for this topic
address representative
participation (i.e. gender) in terms
of numbers of participants. Even
with such quantitive indicators it is
difficult to ensure meaningful
comparability because processes
may be very different and
"participation" can mean very
different things.

Records of participants, expert and


participatory assessment. The
meaningfulness and representativity
of participation can best be
assessed expert and participatory
assessment methodologies that can
draw on a large number of context
specific information and make
assessments that are qualitative as
well as quantitative. Simple data on
participant numbers is hard to
interpret in isolation.

Potentially important in relation


to national-level policy
evaluation, and in relation to
the F&G and VGGT. Also a
good topic for in-depth
assessment in countries
undergoing a major policy
review.

As with any part of the policy


Expert and participatory
development process, a great
assessment, drawing on M&E data,
policy documents and procedures.
number of best practice issues
could be assessed. However, it
would be difficult to meaningfully
combine these in a single indicator.

Page 1

Could be a stronger focus in


national-level evaluation,
particularly in relation to the
F&G. Other wise in-depth
assessment.

5 Indicators analysis
Legal and
policy
frameworks

Legal
protection of all
legitimate land
rights and uses

LGAF 1i-iv,
LSLA10. UI 1.4
(2,6), 1.5 (1-2).
LIFI 2, 3.1, 4.1-2,
5.4, 6.71. PBAS
A. GHI P1.4.
Namati. Landesa
PG3. GEC 1112. ILC

These indicators are concerned with the


recognition of the rights of land users
(not to be arbitrarily evicted, to
compensation, etc.), and to whether
these rights extend to all legitimate
users, including those without tenure
documentation and with customary
forms of tenure. This is a key concern of
the VGGT (e.g 3A, 4.1-5, 5.3, 9.4-5,10.12, 10.6), F&G (3.1.3, 4.5.2). This issue
can also be conceptualized as the need
to recognize a continuum of land rights.
The need to give legal protection to
undocumented customary and legitimate
informal rights is a common theme in
many assessment frameworks and
indicator proposals. A related issue is
whether unfarmed common lands are
legally recognized as belonging to rural
communities in the first instance, or
whether the existence of customary
tenure over these lands is denied de
jure .

There are two main definitional


issues: what counts as
recognition, and which tenure
rights are legitimate" and require
protection. Legal recognition is
generally undefined (i.e. LGAFi-iv
Global housing indicators, Namati
proposal and the Landesa Practical
Guide 3). Recognition is often
used to mean conferring some kind
of title, but the sense used here is
that the law recognizes a tenure
regime as creating legally
meaningful private property rights.
The UNHABITAT Urban Indicators
and LIFI, as well as the ILC
proposal, define recognition
implicitly in terms of whether land
users enjoy legal protection from
forced eviction, regardless of
tenure status. According to
established human rights
standards, land users are legally
protected from forced eviction
when they are legally protected
from all forms of land taking and
eviction by non-state actors, and
when the law prescribes a series of
procedures, for any form of
compulsory land use or tenure
change, designed to ensure that
the fulfillment of the affected
individuals' human rights is not

Page 2

All of these indicators can in


principle be analyzed using expert
legal analysis, drawing on published
laws and policy documents. This is
the approach used by LGAF i-iv and
3ii and by LIFI. Data is currently
limited (principally from LGAF), but
could be expanded at relatively low
cost (see also the OECD SIGI
initiative). Assessment in practice
requires quite a detailed framework
of questions, such as developed for
the UN-HABITAT urban indicators.
There is a need to make a clear
distinction between legal rights and
their implementation, as indicators
sometimes refer to both in subquestions, and these may require
different assessment
methodologies.

An indicator on legal
recognition or legal protection
from forced eviction is a strong
candidate for a core global
indicator, and should also be
seen as an important element
of any national-level
comprehensive evaluation,
such as currently through
LGAF. The human rightsbased approach has particular
methodological merit in
avoiding key definitional
problems, although there is
also merit in emphasizing the
need to legally recognize
customary tenure or the
concept of a continuum of
tenure rights.

5 Indicators analysis
Discrimination UI 1.4.5, 1.5.6.
in property
LIFI 5.1-2, 5.4.
rights (general) PBAS B. SIGI.
GHI P1.1, 1.3,
1.5. Landesa
PG3. GEC 8.
TGG.

Discrimination
in property
rights
(inheritance)
Statutory
regulation of
common an
customary
properties

UI 1.4.6. LIFI
5.3. SIGI.
Landesa PG2.
TGG.
LGAF 1v, 2v.
PBAS E.

Discrimination Landesa PG3,


in non-statutory PG2.
laws/rules

Whether the land property rights


afforded by national law are the same
for all natural persons. Gender is the
overwhelming focus. Key issues are the
right to buy, own, sell, bequeath and
inherit land. Such an indicator would be
required by the UN HLP report
illustrative target on equal legal rights
(2c). It is also relevant to the VGGT
implementation principles of gender
equality and non-discrimination, and the
F&G (e.g. 2.5.2, 3.1.4). Relevant
indicators are included in the UNHABITAT Urban Indicators and LIFI,
IFAD PBAS, OECD SIGI and the Global
Housing Indicators, amongst others.

Assessment of legal discrimination


in practice requires a detailed
framework of questions, as
illustrated by the Landesa Practical
Guides on women's land and
inheritance rights. Property rights
and inheritance have the potential
to be assessed separately, but
could also theoretically be
combined in one indicator.

Assessment at a global scale and at


reasonable cost using an expert
assessment approach nonetheless
appears feasible. The OECD SIGI
initiative currently produces data for
100+ countries every three years.

A good candidate for a core


global indicator. The SIGI
should be evaluated as a
potential global source of data
and as a source that could be
integrated into national-level
evaluation processes.

See: Discrimination in property rights


(general)

See: Discrimination in property


rights (general)

See: Discrimination in property


rights (general)

See: Discrimination in property


rights (general)

Expert legal analysis.

Each indicator is likely to have


a different degree of relevance
in different national settings.
While some may have a place
in standardized frameworks for
national-level assessment,
others may be relevant
primarily for in-depth analysis
relating to common-property
and customary regimes.

Expert or participatory analysis, but


may require detailed knowledge of
customary rules that are not
documented or not easily available.
For this reason, participatory or
action research methods with and
by communities may be most
effective.

The main application is likely


to be for in-depth evaluation of
customary tenure regimes in
countries whether this is most
relevant, and in-depth
evaluation of gender equality
in land governance.

A very diverse range of topics that


The framework for the exercise of
cannot effectively be reduced to a
customary or common property rights
single indicator.
created by statutory law. A range of
different issues are covered by
indicators, including whether the right to
individualize and formalize customary
tenure is created by law, whether the
law facilitates the management of
common property under condominiums,
whether the law prescribes customary
and common-property land
management that is gender equitable,
and how the law allocates responsibility
for dispute resolution.
Not concerned with statutory law but
with "custom", such as the laws and
rules governing tenure in customary and
indigenous people's tenure regimes.
Religious laws may also fall under this
category. Gender equality under
customary law is a significant policy
issue, for example in the F&G (3.1.3,
4.5.2) and the VGGT (9.2).

No widely used indicators refer to


this topic, but the Landesa
Practical Guides on women's land
rights and inheritance rights
provide detailed frameworks for
assessing the gender equity of
customary law.

Page 3

5 Indicators analysis
Resources

Adequacy of
budget
allocation

LGAF 6iii, 12iv,


18iii. GEC 5.

The availability and adequacy of


resources for different policy
implementation processes.

Institutions

Clarity of
institutional
mandates

LGAF 5i-ii, 12iii.

Clarity and non-overlap of mandates for


land governance institutions. The LGAF
contains 4 different indicators on this
topic.

This is difficult to assess because


"adequacy" is always relative to
context and likely to be very
subjective.

Expert and participatory assessment For national-level and in-depth


approaches.
policy evaluation it is relevant
to ask whether particular
constraints are imposed by
financial and human resources
availability. For the evaluation
of particular policies or
programmes, it can be
relevant to ask whether a
budget exists at all for
particular activities such as
capacity-building, as does the
Gender Evaluation Criteria.

Expert assessment.

Page 4

National-level evaluation and


the evaluation of particular
functions such as the
management of public land.

5 Indicators analysis
Process Recording
tenure rights
es

Costs of tenure LGAF 3iii-v, 18i.


registration
WB CSI4. DB
Registering
property. IPMS
1.2.3. LIFI 6.5.
GHI R5.1-2.
MCC L-7-8.
LSMS.

Other barriers
to tenure
registration

LGAF 3i, 3v-vi.


GHI P2.1, 3.1,
3.4. Landesa
PG3, PG2.

User cost constraints to formally


recording tenure transfers, or for first
time recording of tenure. A key concern
from a formal business perspective and
also a key indicator for land
administration programme M&E (WB
CSI, MMC common indicators).

Within the concept of user costs,


many different things may be
measured: formal fees (DB, etc.),
informal fees (LGAF 3iv), routine
transfers (DB, etc.), first-time
registration (LGAF 3iii-v, GHI 5.12), time and travel costs, number of
procedures. Costs may be very
different depending on the user,
location, type of transfer, degree of
corruption and type of property.
This is why Doing Business uses a
detailed and rigorous methodology
based on a hypothetical firm-to-firm
transfer. It is also why it is difficult
to infer costs in other situations
from DB data.

A key non-cost constraint identified in


indicators is procedural stipulations as
regards evidence of tenure (are nondocumentary forms accepted? Etc.) and
the co-registration of spouses and other
family members. A wide range of other
barriers could also potentially be
included (see Costs of tenure
administration).

Some indicators ask experts to


Expert and participatory assessment National-level and in-depth
simultaneously assess many
approaches. User surveys.
evaluation.
different barriers (e.g. LGAF 3v) to
give an overview of ease of
registration. Assessment could also
involve quite detailed evaluation
questions on procedures, as in the
Landesa Practical Guides.

Page 5

Expert assessment, drawing on


procedures and user experience.
Administrative data could be used
for formal fees in some cases. User
surveys are another approach
some LSMS surveys have asked
respondents why they don't have
tenure documentation (with cost as
a possible answer). Global data
exists for the Doing Business
indicators. However additional data
collection would be needed to
reliably reflect the situation for
households, for rural properties,
rural communal holding,s and for
first time registration. The expert
assessment approach may be less
feasible in these situations because
of less involvement by land
professionals.

The Doing Business indicators


are an established measure of
ease of doing business. It is
also clearly important as a
potential common indicator for
land administration
programme and project
monitoring. Formal fees and
procedure duration are among
an number of potential
constraints that include
corruption, tenure
disputes,cultural barriers,
capacity and information
constraints. The importance of
assessing each of these
constraints may vary greatly
and can potentially be
assessed by survey methods
or community-level action
research. The relative
importance of routine and firsttime registration will vary
greatly by country, as will the
relative importance of formal
administration vs
administration by customary
institutions.

5 Indicators analysis
Quality of
tenure records

LGAF 5iv, 16i-iii,


17i. IPMS 1.2.
LIFI 6.1.
GLTN2011
City1.

Issues include accuracy, whether


records are up to date, consistency, the
use of maps and whether private
encumbrances (e.g. mortgages), public
restrictions (e.g. zoning) and non-formal
forms of tenure are included.

In practice, a wide range of


indicators are needed which may
have different levels of relevance
to different national contexts

Accessibility of LGAF 5iv, 16 i-vi, The ability of the public to access land
tenure records LSLA3. IPMS
registry information (records), and the
1.2.1, 1.2.3.
constraints involved in doing so.

Transparency/c LGAF 3iv, 17i,


orruption of
19i-ii. LIFI 6.6.
tenure
GCB.
administration

Institutional
capacity and
efficiency

The existence of petty corruption and


measures taken to combat it.

LGAF 18ii. LIFI Different measures of institutional


6.2-4. MCC L-2. capacity.

Definitional issues are raised by the


Global Corruption Barometer
(GCB), specifically likely
respondent understandings of
registry and permit services and
land services.

Expert assessment based on


examination of procedures and
registry information. However,
assessing accuracy and whether
records are up-to date really
requires the assessment of
outcomes in terms of current land
use and tenure holders. This could
be done by comparing aggregate
figures form registries with survey
data.
Expert assessment.

LGAF relies on expert opinion and


focuses as much on measures
taken to ensure accountability as on
the extent of corruption. The
Transparency International GCB
(particular the 2009 survey)
provides quantitative data on
respondent reports of bribe-paying.

LIFI indicators measure capacity,


Expert and participatory
capability and stability, but it is
assessment.
unclear how these are defined in
practice. LGAF assesses
administration cost against revenue
collected which is a measure of
efficiency, but needs to be
interpreted in the context of the
size of the fees charged.

Page 6

National-level and in-depth


evaluation.

National-level and in-depth


evaluation. A significant focus
of LGAF. Target 10d of the
HLP report concerns the right
to information and accessibility
of government data.
In the UN HLP report, target
10e focuses on bribery,
corruption and accountability.
Indicators used to assess such
a target might rely on a survey
measure such as the GCB. In
this case, the possibility of
disaggregating data by sector
to include land registry
services, or spatial planning,
would be a valuable way to
obtain global data on land
sector corruption. This is
otherwise an important issue
for national-level and in-depth
evaluation and a significant
focus of LGAF.

National-level and in-depth


evaluation.

5 Indicators analysis
Recorded
tenure rights by
land area/#
properties

LGAF 2i-iii,
LSLA1. WB
CSI2-3. PBAS C.
GHI P2.2-3.
MCC L-5.

The extent of formal registration or


documentation of tenure rights is widely
used and proposed as a key output
indicator. It measures a critical and
central element of very many land policy
efforts. Formal registration or
documentation is often understood as
amounting in itself to tenure security. In
the classification used here, however, it
is strictly seen as an policy output that
contributes to the outcome of tenure
security, in combination with other
factors. Tenure security may also
depend, for example, on the State's
capacity to enforce formal tenure rights,
and individuals' capacity to avail of State
enforcement services. Alternatively,
tenure security may be regarded as
secure where it is perceived to be so, or
where the risk of forced eviction is very
low, regardless of documentation status.

Recorded
tenure rights by
population
(gender)

See: Recorded tenure rights by land


LGAF 2iv, WB
CSI1. UIS 2-10. area/# properties
GLTN2011 HH1,
ext2.1. GCIF.
RIMS. GHI 3.2b.
MCC L-6.
Landesa CS.
LWA. LSMS.

Indicators and survey questions


vary widely in the terms they use,
making comparison and data
aggregation difficult. Progress in
tenure documentation/registration
may be measured by land area,
land value, number of holdings,
properties or parcels, number of
households or individuals who
benefit. A related, but different
issue is the number of transfers
registered. The definition of the
output achieved also varies,
including land/properties/rights
registered, recorded, mapped, with
possession of title, with title
registered, and with various locally
specific types of documents
(certificates of occupation, receipt
of purchase, etc.). Documentation
can also be assessed in terms of
whether it meets legal
requirements (as in the Landesa
China survey), and whether the
names of family members,
particularly women, are included on
the document. The ideal indicator
would probably use individual land
holders as the denominator, and as
the numerator the number of
individual holders whose tenure
rights are recorded in a form that
locallyRecorded
provides tenure
legal evidence
See:
rights byof
land area/# properties

Page 7

These indicators can be assessed


either through administrative data or
through surveys/censuses. Some
LSMS and WCA surveys allow
respondents to report different
categories of documentation or
registration status. Some others
simply ask if owners have title,
which may be sufficient in some
contexts. The UN-HABITAT Urban
Iniquities Survey has piloted
detailed questions about possession
of documentation. Administrative
data may provide a low cost
alternative, but may have
limitations. These include: absence
of data on forms of legally
significant documentary evidence of
tenure not centrally recorded;
absence of data on the number of
tenure holders without
documentation, including
households, family members and
holders of subsidiary rights;
reliability of data (the Landesa
China survey has revealed that local
administrators often massively
exaggerate the figures they report to
central agencies).

The
recordation/documentation of
tenure rights is a key indicator
in any national or sub-national
context in which tenure rights
formalization is an important
policy objective. This often the
case but not always. Their is
also widespread recognition
that extensive formalization is
not always cost effective, and
that alternative approaches
based on strengthening the
security provided by a
continuum of tenure rights
may be more cost effective in
many contexts. In such
contexts, other indicators may
be more relevant. Nonetheless
this can be seen as a key
national-level and project
indicator.

See: Recorded tenure rights by land See: Recorded tenure rights


area/# properties
by land area/# properties

5 Indicators analysis
Land valuation

Accuracy and
accessibility of
valuation
records

LGAF 10i-ii

Land taxation

Scope,
consistency
and efficiency
of taxation

LGAF 7iii, 11i-iv. Land valuation is treated as a significant


LSMS
land governance function in the VGGT
(Chapter 19). LGAF indicators cover the
existence of mechanisms for the public
to internalize gains from (prescribed)
land use changes; exemptions, the
coverage of tax roles, and the extent
and efficiency of tax collection.

Spatial planning Public


LGAF 7i-ii.
participation in
spatial planning

Land valuation is treated as a significant


land governance function in the VGGT
(Chapter 18), but only two (LGAF)
indicators were identified that deal
specifically with valuation (on accuracy
of valuations, and whether valuation
records are publicly accessible.

Pubic participation in national, regional


and local land use planning.

Expert assessment has to rely


Expert assessment. Survey data
National-level and in-depth
expert opinion about accuracy, or would be valuable but unlikely to be evaluation.
infer accuracy from the valuation
cost effective.
approach used. The actual
difference between valuations and
market prices is difficult to assess
directly except through a survey of
transactions. It might be possible
by comparing aggregate cadastral
and land market figures for
different property categories.
Ideally, a land valuation service
should incorporate a system of
value-checking against market
prices.

Indicators cover very different


issues, comparable to the subtopics listed under land
administration.

LGAF relies on expert assessment,


drawing on and analysis of
procedures and administrative data
such as budgets for tax collection
and tax revenue achieved. Many
LSMS household surveys collect
data on the payment of land
taxation. Where available this is
potentially an alternative source of
data, though it may also have
reliability issues (respondents may
hide tax evasion).

The LGAF indicators each cover


Expert and participatory
three aspects: whether public input assessment.
is sought, whether public inputs are
referenced in outcome documents,
and whether the latter are publicly
accessible. These are easily
assessed variable that can be seen
as proxies for whether participation
is really meaningful. An alternative
approach could be the outcome
indicator proposed by Namati on
perception of accountability of local
decision-making over land use.

Page 8

National-level and in-depth


evaluation.

National-level and in-depth


evaluation.

5 Indicators analysis
Extent/Appropri LGAF 4i-ii, IPMS Justifiability of land use restrictions.
ateness of land 1.1.3, 1.3.1. GHI Another potentially important issue
use regulations R5.6.
included here is whether alternative
tenure documents can be used to obtain
building permits.

Costs of
planning
permissions

LGAF 9i-ii. GHI


R5.3-5.

Enforcement of LGAF 4i-ii. GHI


land use
P3..
decisions/
regulations

Dispute
resolution

Clarity/nonLGAF 20ii-iii.
overlap of
Landesa PG3.
responsibilities

Accessibility of LGAF 20i-ii, iv.


dispute
Landesa PG3.
resolution
TGG.

Gender
Landesa PG3.
sensitivity
GEC 10. TGG.
(excluding
general access
issues)

Defining justifiable is difficult and Expert and participatory


may make expert assessments
assessment.
open to dispute. Participatory
approaches aiming to foster
dialogue may be more appropriate
in some circumstances.

Users costs (e.g. formal fees, time and Comparable issues as for costs of
number of procedures are covered by
tenure administration.
indicators) involved in obtaining a
building permit.
Whether efforts are made to enforce
spatial planning regulations. Two LGAF
indicators refer to enforcement, but a
larger number cover the effectiveness of
spatial planning. The latter are
addressed under Outcomes Land
use.
The critical issue here is the prevention
of forum-shopping by making sure that
responsibilities are clearly defined, nonoverlapping, with the hierarchy of
instances clear. The formal allocation of
a role to customary and alternative
dispute resolutions institutions is part of
this.
Cultural, cost, capacity, information and
accountability constraints on the use of
dispute resolution/judicial services by all
land users.

This is an issue that can potentially


be assessed in great detail,
examining different constraints. In
practice, indicators tend to ask for
an expert opinion overview of
accessibility.

Indicators that particularly focus on


See: Accessibility of dispute
constraints to women's access to justice resolution.

Page 9

National-level and in-depth


evaluation.

Expert and participatory


assessment, user surveys.

National-level and in-depth


evaluation.

Expert and participatory


assessment.

National-level and in-depth


evaluation.

Assessment by legal experts and


dispute resolution professionals.

National-level and in-depth


evaluation.

Expert and participatory


assessment. Potentially,
respondents to surveys on tenure
security could be asked whether
they have/have not sought dispute
resolution services, and if not, why
not.
See: Accessibility of dispute
resolution.

National-level and in-depth


evaluation. Targets 11b and d
of the HLP report relate to
accessibility and accountability
of judicial services.

See: Accessibility of dispute


resolution.

5 Indicators analysis
Efficiency of
dispute
resolution

LGAF 21 ii-iii.
MCC L-4. LWA.
LSMS. TGG.

Public land
Appropriatenes LGAF 12i
management
s of public land
and
designations
management of
LSLA

Accessibility of LGAF 12ii, v-vi.


information on
pubic lands

Efficiency of dispute resolution is


concerned with the ability of dispute
resolution/judicial services to respond to
demand.

Time taken for dispute resolution is Expert assessment, administrative


(court) data.
a relatively simple measure of
dispute resolution efficiency,
though not if the severity or
complexity of cases varies greatly.
Measures based on the number of
court cases are harder to interpret.
A large number of cases can be
evidence of a high rate of disputes
arising, or of a dispute resolution
service that is highly accessible. A
high number of court cases is thus
not necessarily a good indicator of
the prevalence of disputes and
thus tenure insecurity. The
prevalence of long-standing
disputes among cases has merit as
a way of assessing past
performance of dispute resolution
services.

National-level and in-depth


evaluation.

Whether public land ownership is


justified by the provision of public goods
at the an appropriate level of
government.

Defining justifiable is difficult and Expert and participatory


may make expert assessments
assessment.
open to dispute. Participatory
approaches aiming to foster
dialogue may be more appropriate
in some circumstances.

National-level and in-depth


evaluation.

The accessibility of information on public


lands and regarding land concessions.

Expert and participatory


assessment.

Page 10

National-level and in-depth


evaluation. A significant focus
of LGAF. Target 10d of the
HLP report concerns the right
to information and accessibility
of government data.

5 Indicators analysis
Assessment of LGAF LSLA 14.
potential
impacts of
public land
disposal/LSLA

Whether procedures are in place to


ensure that large-scale land transfers
are economically, environmentally and
socially beneficial, including for affected
communities.

A single indicator is used to cover a Expert and participatory


assessment.
lot of issues. There is a need to
specify concrete procedures such
as impact assessments,
consultation with affected
communities, etc. There is a high
degree of overlap between LGAF
indicators on public land
management and disposal, and
those explicitly concerned with
LSLA. However, it is also
necessary not to assume that
LSLA and public land disposal are
always (or even usually) the same
thing.
Expert assessment. Disclosure of
Efficiency of
LGAF LSLA 11. Time required for obtaining approval for
information by investors could be
a LSLA. Other cost issues could also be
public land
assessed (formally required expenditure
important for other cost issues.
disposal/LSLA
decisions
(on impact assessments, etc.), informal
charges, etc.).
Many of the indicators refer to
Transparency LGAF 15i, iii,
A range of indicators concerned with
Expert assessment. Disclosure of
of public land
LSLA 4-9.
clarity and consistency of process,
concrete procedures like
information by investors would play
disposal/LSLA
access to information and its disclosure, competitive tendering, or direct
and important role.
negotiations with affected rights
and transparency in general. None of
the indicators covered explicitly address holders. But even in these cases,
the issue of corruption.
transparency may be hard to
define and hard to assess (e.g.
whether competitive tendering is
really competitive), particularly
without very thorough information
disclosure. Disposal of public land
at market prices is hard to assess
in contexts (LSLA) where there are
few comparable market
transactions.
Monitoring and LGAF 15ii, LSLA These indicators are largely concerned Issues such as whether social and Expert and participatory
contract
environmental requirements are
assessment.
12-16.
with whether activities to monitor and
enforcement of
enforce contracts take place. The rate of clearly defined and implemented
payment of lease fees is a potentially
have to be precisely defined and
LSLA
important indicator in the context of
could potentially be seen as
widespread and large-scale leasing of
subjective and open to dispute.
public lands.

Page 11

National-level and in-depth


evaluation.

National-level and in-depth


evaluation.

National-level and in-depth


evaluation.

National-level and in-depth


evaluation.

5 Indicators analysis
Land reforms
Eligibility and
(Readjustment, rights of
restitution,
beneficiaries
redistribution)

Expropriation
and eviction

Landesa PG3

Land consolidation, readjustment,


restitution and redistributive reforms are
treated as significant land governance
function in the VGGT (Chapters 13-15).
However, they are given scant attention
by monitoring initiatives and proposals.

Readjustment
outputs

Landesa CS.
LSMS.

Readjustment is a major cause of tenure


insecurity in China. The Landesa China
survey and on LSMS survey have
assessed the frequency of land
readjustments.

Household surveys

Treatment of
affected land
users, by
tenure status

LGAF 2vi, 14ii.

These two LGAF indicators assess


whether protections against forced
eviction are implemented equally for
land users with different tenure status
(legal owners, not legal owners;
registered/unregistered tenure).

LGAF uses expert assessment,


ideally drawing on implementation
rules and expert experience.
Surveys could be an alternative
method.

Provision of
compensation
and other
procedures

The Landesa Practical Guide on


gender and land rights provides a
number of useful evaluation
questions concerning land reform
regulations and procedures,

Expert and participatory assessment The evaluation questions


approaches.
listed are most appropriate to
an in-depth evaluation.

These are valuable output


indicators in national contexts
(like China) where
readjustments or other
redistributive state transfers
are a significant policy output.

These are significant


indicators of the extent to
which the right to freedom
from forced eviction is
implemented in practice.
National-level and in-depth
evaluation.
LGAF 14i, iii. UI These indicators assess whether
LGAF, UN-HABITAT and GHI
There are many elements to
Compensation payment is
1.5.3. GHI P4.1- procedures designed to avoid forced
indicators rely on expert
procedures for avoiding forced
potentially a key national-level
b, d. Landesa
assessment. The reliability of expert output indicator of measure to
evictions in the context of expropriation eviction and the UN-HABITAT
CS. LSMS.
assessment should be critically
and other compulsory land use changes indicator lists these in what is
prevent forced evictions. Other
actually an evaluation framework. examined as adequacy of treatment indicators of expropriation
are followed in practice. A key focus is
the payment and adequacy of
Adequacy of compensation is not in eviction cases may be a hotly
procedures are more likely to
contested issue, with no agreement be appropriate to in-depth
compensation.
hard to define in principle (e.g.
on the value of assets lost, for
equivalent assets), but may be
evaluation.
hard to assess in an objective way. example. The UN-HABITAT Urban
Indicator has not proven
The Landesa China survey
implementable at scale. Survey
therefore assesses farmer
satisfaction with compensation
respondent reports of compensation
payments.
payments and their satisfaction
therewith may provide an alternative
way of assessing the abusiveness
of compulsory land use changes, if
is accepted that respondents may
never be fully satisfied with their
treatment.

Page 12

5 Indicators analysis
Provision of
means of
redress

LGAF 14iv-v. UI
1.5., 1.5.5. LIFI
3.2, 6.7.2.
GLTN2011
City2. Landesa
CS.

Legal means of redress in cases of


eviction is another key element of
measures to prevent forced evictions.
Indicators measure a range of
connected issues such as accessibility,
time taken for decision and provision of
legal aid.

Defining accessible may be an


issue for some indicators.
Otherwise a problem with
indicators that ask whether legal
aid is provided is with establishing
the adequacy and frequency of
legal aid provision in practice.

Extent of
expropriation

WB prop 5

This proposed indicator measures the


number and value of expropriation
cases.

State compensation of legally


recognized property is referred to,
not other types of eviction.

Page 13

LGAF and LIFI indicators use expert


assessment and may in practice
refer to procedures, rather than
whether these are followed. The
Landesa China survey uses a
different approach in evaluating how
many land holders subject to
readjustments used means of
redress, and in how many instances
this resulted in a change in
compensation.
Presumably intended to use
administrative data. The reliability of
such data needs to be critically
examined as property rights and
asset values in expropriation cases
are often contested.

The provision of legal means


of redress in cases of
compulsory tenure changes is
a key indicator in relation to
measures to prevent forced
eviction. National-level and indepth evaluation.

Expropriations may be a major


source of tenure insecurity in
some contexts, and may
regularly result in forced
evictions. From this
perspective, reducing
expropriation can be seen as a
policy objective. On the other
hand, expropriation is
regarded as a important and in
principle justifiable part of the
State's role in land
governance (e.g. in the
VGGT). Expropriation need
not result in forced evictions
where proper procedures are
followed and adequate
compensation is paid. Where
the latter is true, it may not
even be a source of tenure
insecurity, as it should not
cause land holders to fear a
loss of asset value. It therefore
needs to be considered
whether adequacy of
procedures and
compensation, or extent of
expropriation is a more useful
performance indicator.

5 Indicators analysis

Community/
indigenous
tenure
administration

Household
decisionmaking

Justifiability of
expropriation,
eviction

LGAF 13i-ii.
Standards on the avoidance of forced
Namati. Landesa eviction require that expropriation only
CS.
take place for a legitimate public interest
(and not, for example, as a way of
providing cheap land for private actors).
These indicators thus test another
aspect of preventing forced evictions
whether expropriated land is in fact used
for private purposes.

The definition of public interest is


problematic. The indicators either
assess whether expropriated land
is used for private purposes as an
approximation of non in the pubic
interest. San alternative is provided
by LGAF 13ii which assesses
whether land has in fact been
converted to the use for which it
was officially expropriated.

Expert assessment and survey


National-level and in-depth
techniques. This is one indicator for evaluation.
which crowdsourcing (already being
used by the land matrix to track
large-scale land acquisitions), could
potentially be very useful.

Allocation and
transfers

Landesa PG3,
PG2. TGG.

The Landesa Practical Guides on


gender and land rights and inheritance
provide a detailed series of evaluation
questions on customary practices that
could impact of the gender equitability of
customary tenure regimes. The FAO
Technical Guide on gender also
provides some indicators on gender
balance in customary institutions.
Gender equity is a key issue in relation
to customary tenure regimes, but it is
not the only issues, and generally there
is a lack of development of indicators
and assessment approaches for
evaluating the work of customary
institutions.

In-depth knowledge of customary


rules, institutions and practices is
required. Therefore participatory
evaluation approaches may be
particularly effective, although
surveys and normal expert
assessment may both also be
appropriate.

In practice, very many rural


land users gain access to land
through customary institutions,
and these may play a key role
in resolving tenure disputes
such as inheritance disputes.
Where policy acknowledges a
role for customary tenure
institutions, it becomes
important to evaluate how
these institutions perform.

Dispute
resolution

LGAF 20ii.
Landesa PG3,
PG2.

See: above.

See: above.

See: above.

Household
decisionmaking

Landesa PG2.
LSMS.

Household-level decision-making is not


usually regarded as a land governance
process, but power relations with the
household are of critical importance to
the gender equity of land governance
outcomes and impacts. This issue is
barely addressed by indicators and
monitoring frameworks.

LSMS surveys occasionally ask


Addressing household-level issues
about management responsibility
is likely to require in-depth,
for land within the household, but
participatory evaluation activities.
this information is hard to interpret
because it is more about identifying
the manager of particular parcels,
than about decision-making power
with regard to tenure issues such
as the disposal of assets, or the
control of the benefits arising from
land use.

Page 14

In-depth evaluation.

5 Indicators analysis
Cross-cutting
characteristics

Gender-related GEC 6-7, 9, 1314, 17, 19-20,


22. TGG.

Outcome Tenure security Prevalence/sev LGAF 21i,


erity of
LSLA2. UI 1.7.
s
disputes/
UIS 11.
GLTN2011ext
evictions
1.1. GHI P4.1,
5.2. Landesa
CS. LWA.
LSMS.

A number of evaluation questions from


the Gender Evaluation Criteria and
indicators from the Technical Guide on
gender refer to gender-related aspects
of land governance in a way that cuts
across, or does not specify, different
land governance processes. Key issues
are clarity of information, gender
sensitization activities and genderbalance within institutions.
Tenure security outcomes can be
assessed in terns of the objective rate of
eviction instances or the subjective
perception of insecurity. While LGAF
focuses on judicial system data, UNHABITAT indicators focus on recording
the number of evictions. The Land
Watch Asia initiative has evaluated the
availability of secondary data on various
measures of land conflicts, including
from official sources and NGOs.
Meanwhile the Landesa China survey
and a number of LSMS surveys provide
examples of survey approaches to
gathering data on evictions

Expert and participatory assessment Likely to be most relevant to inapproaches.


depth. Gender-focused
evaluation.

Judicial system data really refer to


a policy output and is hard to
interpret as an indicator of tenure
security outcomes. Land court
cases as a proportion of all court
cases could reflect the prevalence
of land disputes, but is also
affected by the prevalence of other
types of disputes and issues such
as whether legal aid is provided for
common land-related cases. The
definition of
evictions/disputes/conflicts is also
important. The mere existence of
contradictory claims is not
necessarily a good indicator of the
likelihood of forced evictions, for
example. If disputes (e.g. over
inheritance, sales or mortgage
arrears) arise frequently but are
expeditiously resolved by courts,
this might not be seen as
amounting to widespread tenure
insecurity. Likewise, overlapping
claims cannot be seen as creating
tenure insecurity where they
actually pose little threat to land
users and are perceived as posing
little threat. The rate of evictions is
thus a better measure of objective
tenure insecurity. Evictions is
taken here to encompass any
involuntary tenure change, such as

Page 15

Administrative data may be


A key outcome indicator with
available for court cases and
applicability at all levels.
expropriations. However, the use of
such data as an indicator of tenure
insecurity is problematic (see
definitional issues). Land Watch
Asia revealed that secondary data
on land conflicts from government
and NGO sources may exist, but
may not be reliable, with
contradictory evidence from
different sources and problems of
representativeness. Piloting by UNHABITAT/GLTN, as well as
question in the Landesa China
survey and a few LSMS surveys
have shown how surveys can be
used. One problem is that numbers
of individuals/ households with
experience of eviction can be very
low, and statistically problematic.
The Landesa survey thus asked
about land takings within the
community, which may be a better
method. The need to differentiate
between forced and unforced
evictions means that where
respondents report an eviction (of
themselves or in their community) it
may be good to ask a further
question or questions about the
eviction process. A simple question
on perception of compensation

5 Indicators analysis
Perceptions of UIS
tenure security 12.GLTN2011
HH2, ext1.3.
Namati3.
Landesa CS.
LSMS.

On the one hand, perceptions of tenure


insecurity can be seen as a subjective
but informed (expert assessment)
measure of the objective risk of forced
eviction. On the other, perceived tenure
insecurity can be seen as a form of
tenure insecurity in it own right. Whether
people live in fear of forced eviction is a
serious welfare issue. It is also
perceptions of tenure security, not the
objective rate of evictions, that directly
influences decisions on capital
investment decisions (relating to
housing improvement, small businesses
development, agricultural improvements
and sustainable management of
resources). Perceptions can thus been
seen as the subjective aspect of tenure
security, and not just as a proxy.

History of
possession

Indicators on mode of acquisition and


duration of possession have been
suggested as proxies for tenure security
by GLTN. Duration of possession is a
proxy for adverse possession.

GLTN2011ext
2.2, 3. LSMS.

Surveys can ask different


questions about perceptions.
Examples include whether
respondents fear eviction or loss of
land, whether women fear eviction
in cases of divorce, separation or
loss of husband, the perceived
likelihood of further land
readjustments and trust in
authorities to provide support in
cases of eviction. There are two
main issues. One is the need to
ensure that different types of
eviction are covered (including,
eviction of family members, loss of
dwelling and/or access to land).
The other is the need to focus on
forced eviction rather than any
eviction. One approach to the first
problem could be to ask different
questions about different types of
eviction. This has the advantage of
producing disaggregated data
about these types (e.g. fear of
evictions by family vs fear of
evictions of whole household).
Another approach is for a survey
question to e phrased in such a
way as to mention different types of
eviction. The UIS question on trust
in the support of authorities really
assesses perception of the
likelihood of government taking

Page 16

Household or smaller scale surveys.


Examples include the UIS, Landesa
China survey and isolated LSMS
surveys. There is a risk that such
questions may intimidate
respondents, reducing reliability
(see UIS). The identity of the
interviewer and context of the
interview may be important in this
regard. In the Landesa China
survey, care is taken that local
officials are not present (an
important issue also with regard to
questions about documentation and
prevalence of compulsory tenure
changes).

A key indicator that is


complementary to, or could be
an alternative to, an indicator
on prevalence of forced tenure
changes(evictions).

GLTN proposes a survey


methodology based on the UIS.
Comparable questions are also
asked in some LSMS surveys.

A potentially useful
supplementary indicator to
include in household surveys.

5 Indicators analysis

Perceptions of
accountability

Perceptions of
rights

GLTN2011ext
4.1-4. Landesa
CS. LSMS.

Perceptions of rights and understanding


of policies are an important policy
outcome that contributes to impact. This
is the context of the Landesa survey
question. The GLTN indicators,
however, seem to be more related to
assessing what rights urban dwellers
may have in practice.

Accountability
of local land
decisionmaking

Namati

This is an outcome indicator that


indirectly assesses participation,
transparency and corruption in locallevel land decision-making, particularly
spatial planning or local level reform
processes such as locally managed land
readjustment. The Namati indicator
focuses on the accountability of
customary or common-property regimes.
A wider indicator would also reflect state
actions in relation to large-scale land
acquisitions and other land takings.

It could be a challenge to ensure


consistency in what local refers
to, as in different contexts it could
be taken to mean, customary
institutions, formal commonproperty management institutions,
local or municipal governance, and
national agencies. Appropriate
survey questions would also need
to be developed that effectively
define accountability, such as: Do
you think your views or the views of
people like you are taken into
account in decision-making about
how land is used in your
community/town/city?

Page 17

Surveys.

Useful for more in-depth


analysis of urban tenure or
policy reforms processes in
specific national contexts.

Surveys. Could be part of


household surveys or a simple
opinion survey of the kind used by
Transparency International.
However, no such indicator has
apparently been piloted.

An outcome indicator,
principally on the spatial
planning aspect of responsible
land governance, that
potentially has relevance
across urban and rural,
developed and developing
contexts. However, this is not
a central policy focus at the
moment.

5 Indicators analysis
Access to land

Access to land Namati. LWA.


(agricultural)
MICS HC11-12.
DHS 119-20.
LSMS. PHCensus. WCA.

The Gini-coefficient of agricultural land


holding size has traditionally be used as
an indicator of land distribution equity.
Another approach is to assess
landlessness in terms of the proportion
of rural or agricultural households
without land or with very small owned
holdings, and who are thus in a
disadvantaged position as agricultural
labourers or renters. Variables such as
rent paid and rent earned are also
pertinent to the analysis of access to
land.

There are several important


definitional issues with the use of
the Gini coefficient measure that
need to be considered: whether
land size is used (which may not
be a good measure of value) or
land value (which is less commonly
estimated); whether data is by
holding (including land rented-in) or
by ownership (including land rented
out); and whether the measure
encompasses agricultural
households or individuals without
ownership and/or without holdings
(i.e. landless). Common usage
refers to size per holding and thus
excludes landless persons,
including women without tenure
rights. Attention also needs to be
paid to how holdings of institutions
(communities, cooperatives, firms,
state and parastatal agencies) are
included in the data. Data on
landlessness (as collated by Land
Watch Asia) is typically defined as
land holding households with very
small holdings, but data on
landlessness per rural household
or per agricultural household is
given in some cases. The definition
of the denominator for landless
individuals or households is
obviously important and needs to

Page 18

Data on agricultural land owned and


rented by area is consistently
collected by agricultural censuses
(10 year interval) and these also
provide information on land use
which could potentially help to
correct for value differences. Other
agricultural surveys (LSMS) are
much less widespread but provide
data on land area and often
estimated value. DHS/MICS ask a
simple question on agricultural land
area owned which could be used to
track trends between censuses. For
estimating landless worker or
households, agricultural censuses
and surveys provide data rented
holdings and hired labour inputs.
Economic household surveys
(LSMS) also provide data on
sources of employment. Population
censuses and labour-force surveys
provide data on employment in
agriculture and own-account or
employee status. From such
sources it may be possible to
calculate non-land-owners as % of
agricultural workforce (i.e.,
landless). Data on land ownership
and holdings can obviously also be
obtained as part of a dedicated
survey, which would allow much
greater control over definitional

Equitable access to land has


long been a key land policy
issue. It is reflected in the
VGGT (3B.3, 8.6, 9.2, 11.2,
15.1-3), described as a
fundamental aspiration in the
F&G (4.1.3) and is a key
resolution of the Declaration
on land issues and challenges
in Africa (Sirte Declaration). In
the context of widespread
concern LSLA and the
possible large-scale
conversion of small-holder and
common-property lands, land
ownership distribution and
landless agricultural workforce
are also key indicators of longterm changes. Little recent
work has been done on land
distribution indicators so an
evaluation of their feasibility
and relevance could be
considered.

5 Indicators analysis
Access to land GCIF. MICS
(housing)
HC10. UIS 1.
LSMS. PHCensus.

Land
ownership by
gender

GHI P1.2. UN
Women. LSMS.
PH-Census.
WCA.

Ownership of dwelling is an indicator of


access to land for all households, but is
obviously particularly important in urban
areas where land values and rents often
are very high.

Data sources typically ask whether


a dwelling is owned or rented.
Sometimes other or other
categories (e.g. squatted) are
offered. Reported ownership will
thus tend to include informal and
customary ownership-like tenure,
which seems reasonable, but the
possible inclusion of highly
insecure tenure does not. The
inclusion in surveys of more locally
relevant tenure categories or
questions on documentation may
allow for a more sensitive indicator
of ownership.

The rate of home ownership is


not widely seen as a key
policy goal and data is often
collected (e.g. MICS) as apart
of a method for estimating
household wealth.
Nonetheless dwelling
ownership may have a strong
impact on the cost of urban
living, and thus on the
effective poverty and food
security of poor urban
residents. For this reason,
rates of home ownership could
be considered as a potentially
useful outcome indicator to be
calculated in its own right for
national or city-level
evaluation.
The UN Women proposal on
Data for this indicator is scarce for
Gender equity of access to and
The definition of ownership or
the post-2015 agenda puts
tenure rights may be problematic. dwelling ownership because the
ownership of land is an important
forward ownership of dwelling
outcome indicator reflecting the gender- Agricultural censuses and surveys household is treated as the unit of
ownership in surveys (see Access and land by gender as its sole
sensitivity of many aspects of land
typically record the sex of the
indicators relating to land.
to land (housing) above). Some
governance. Indicators cover ownership holder, but it is possible that a
female holder may be the land
LSMS surveys include questions on These are potentially key core
of dwellings and agricultural land.
global or nation-level
which household members are
manager, while male family
indicators.
members are actually the owners. owners or have their names on a
The categorization and reporting of document. For agricultural land,
insecure forms of tenure as
agricultural censuses and surveys
ownership is also an issue. More provide data on the sex of land
holders, which may not necessarily
generally, there is a problem with
indicate tenure rights. There is
defining the owner as the
household.
theoretically potential to adapt
household surveys such as MICS to
ask whether the owner of the
dwelling and land is a male
household member, female, or
whether ownership is joint.
Questions on tenure documentation
should always seek to determine
the gender of (the) holder(s),
although undocumented forms of
ownership should not be
automatically excluded.

Page 19

Data on dwelling ownership vs.


rental is provided by population
censuses, LSMA surveys and
MICS. A dedicated survey such as
UIS would also provide this data.
Existing data sources unfortunately
tend not to disaggregate owners by
sex (the household is the unit) or
take joint ownership into account.

5 Indicators analysis
Transfers

Rates of
inheritance by
gender

GHI P1.2. LSMS. The rate of the inheritance of land and


dwellings, disaggregated by gender.

The concept of an instance of


inheritance is fairly simple. An
indicator would be more sensitive if
it accounted for the land area or
value of the inherited assets. Data
might differentiate between
widow/widower inheritance and
son/daughter inheritance.

The only identified data source was


a LSMS survey in Tanzania that
asked community representatives if,
in practice, women inherit land in
their community. It is also possible
that some surveys that ask how
land is acquired and identify the
gender of the owner could also
provide data, but this would be rare.
In principle, it would not be difficult
for a survey methodology to ask
gender-identified respondents to
state how they acquired their
tenure.

Market
functionality

PBAS D.
Landesa CS.

Survey questions, such as those


used in the Landesa China survey,
can focus on the frequency and
value of market transactions.

National-level and in-depth


Agricultural census and LSMS
survey data of land rental and sales evaluation.
could be evaluated as a source of
data on the scale of market
transactions. For more qualitative
information on the effectiveness of
markets, expert assessment
methods may be appropriate.

Indicators assess the emergence and


functioning of markets for land.

Page 20

The right of women to inherit


land is a key gender concern.
In principle this should be an
important outcome indicator.

5 Indicators analysis
Extent and
Matrix
nature of LSLA

Land use

Conformity of
land use with
decisions/
regulations

LGAF 7iv, 8i-v.


UI 1.6.
GLTN2011 SettCom. GHI P3.3.

Large-scale land acquisitions are a


particular category of land tenure
transfer that may take place through a
market but more typically occurs through
non-market negotiation between
commercial actors and the State or a
community. Very many different
characteristics of LSLAs can be
monitored, including land area, value,
land use, use of expropriation, other
forms of land takings, sharing of benefits
and so on.

No one indicator can be expected


to sum up all the different variable
that can be monitored, but land
area is usually the most high profile
variable.

Monitoring requires the identification


and characterization of individual
cases. Information disclosure by
State agencies or commercial
actors is very important in this
regard. In the absence of
widespread disclosure, crowdsourcing methods such as that used
by the Land Matrix partnership can
play a vital role. The
representativeness of crowdsourced data is hard to determine,
but the methodology allows for the
cost effective identification of cases,
submission of documentary forms of
evidence to back-up reports, and for
information on any one case to be
gathered from multiple sources,
allowing for some assessment of
data reliability. Open access to data
so that anyone can contribute to its
verification is a key element in this
approach.

Land use is to an extent a land


governance outcome that can be
particularly related to spatial planning
decisions. Land use therefore measures
the effectiveness of spatial planning
decisions, thought it will also be
influenced by other factors.

In many respects, land use could


be defined as an impact of land
governance, but the extent to
which land use conforms to
prescribed land use can be seen
as an outcome of spatial planning
regulations and decisions and
efforts to enforce them. Suggested
indicators mostly involve qualitative
assessment by expert panels and
include terms like effective control
and compliance that require
careful definition. One indicator on
change in land use to assigned use
(LGAF 7iv) offers a more concrete
measure.

LGAF provides a range of indicators National-level and in-depth


for expert assessment on this issue. evaluation.
In principle, land use changes and
conformity with regulations, permits
and changes in assigned use can
also be objectively verified. Aerial or
satellite imagery backed up by
ground-truthing could also be useful
for in-depth assessment.

Page 21

Without widespread and


reliable disclosure of
information, there is little
potential for a comparable
indicator on the scale of LSLA.
However, monitoring at
national and global scale can
provide important inputs to
policy processes.

5 Indicators analysis
Impacts

Investment

Unclassif Unclassified
ied

Investments
made by
farmers

Landesa CS.
LSMS.

Investment by farmers and home


owners is regarded as an important
knock-on effect of tenure security and
therefore is an impact of land
governance. Sustainable land use
management can also be regarded as a
form of investment in this sense.

Simple indicators on the frequency


of certain types of capital
investment and land management
practices can be developed. A
more comparable indicator on the
value of investment is harder to
estimate, particularly as much
investment is of unpaid labour
time.

Unclassified

IEF. EIU 5. BTI


9.1. IPD A600.
EOS 1.01. PHCensus. WCA.
GEC 1, 4.

A number of indicators have been


included in the main table but not
classified. These include general
indicators on property rights protection
used by several global expert
assessment and survey initiatives,
census questions on employment that
might have some relevance for
determining landless populations, and
three indicators/questions that are hard
to categorize in the above framework.

The indicators on property rights


used by IEF, EIU, BTI, IPD and
EOS are all quite similar and are
based on an expert respondent
giving a more or less subjective
overall assessment of the degree
to which property rights are
protected by the State and safe
from State interference. The extent
to which property rights can be
taken to include forms of land
tenure is unclear. Scoring may also
reflect expert/respondent views
about legal issues, policy
implementation, and tenure
insecurity. These indicators are
thus hard to interpret.

Page 22

Some surveys, such as some LSMS


surveys have recorded the
frequency and value of certain types
of capital investment. Some surveys
may also ask agricultural holders
about land use practices. Aggregate
country data on tenure security,
where available, can also be
compared with aggregate data on
agricultural infrastructure (such as
the use of irrigation) and
environmental data on issue such
as soil erosion, deforestation and
GHG emissions, in order to
investigate the link between tenure
security and investment/
management practice.

There is potential for


encouraging the collection of
data on tenure security and on
investment and management
practices within the same
surveys in order to allow
analyses of correlation at the
national level. Such analyses
are particularly important to
demonstrating the impact of
tenure (in)security.

6 Indicators main table


Land governance indicators database DRAFT

Indicators main table


Phase

Topic

Sub-topic

Inputs

Participation in land
Policy
developm policy development
process
ent
process

Abbr.

Indicator/question

LGAF 6i

A comprehensive policy exists or can be inferred by the existing legislation. Land policy decisions that
affect sections of the community are based on consultation with those affected, and their feedback on
the resulting policy is sought and incorporated in the resulting policy

LIFI 1
GEC 2

Multi-stakeholder involvement
Is the decision making process in developing the tool, and within the tool itself, transparent and
inclusive for both women and men?
% of women and men members of formal land policy-making institutions and structures.

TGG
TGG
TGG
TGG
TGG
TGG
TGG
TGG
TGG
TGG

% of formal land policy-making meetings and fora that include participation from grassroots groups
representing both women and men.
% of government officials directly involved in the land policy-making process who have been trained
and sensitized on gender issues.
% of women and men among government officials participating in land policy-making structures and
institutions.
% of women and men among civil society representatives participating in land policy-making structures
and institutions.
% of women and men among private sector representatives participating in land policy-making
structures and institutions.
% of women and men members of land law reform commissions.
% of women and men members of legal drafting teams working on land-related subsidiary laws,
regulations and procedures.
Presence of participatory and consultative legal drafting processes involving women and men from the
grassroots.
% of womens groups proposals taken into account and integrated in the adopted legal instruments.

Page 1

6 Indicators main table


Monitoring of policy
implementation

LGAF 6ii

Land policies incorporate equity objectives that are regularly and meaningfully monitored, and their
impact on equity issues is compared to that of other policy instruments

LGAF 6iv Land institutions report on land policy implementation in a regular, meaningful, and comprehensive
way, with reports being publicly accessible.
GEC 3
Does the tool rely on and provide sex-disaggregated data?
GEC 7
Does the tool provide mechanisms for assessment and evaluation (at numerous levels) by female and
male stakeholders?
Legal and Legal protection of all LGAF 1i
policy
legitimate land rights
framework and uses
s
LGAF 1ii

Existing legal framework recognizes rights held by most of the rural population, either through
customary or statutory tenure regimes.

Existing legal framework recognizes rights held by most of the urban population, either through
customary or statutory tenure regimes.
LGAF 1iii The tenure of most groups in rural areas is formally recognized, and clear regulations exist regarding
groups internal organization and legal representation.
LGAF 1iv Group tenure in informal urban areas is formally recognized, and clear regulations exist regarding the
internal organization and legal representation of groups.
LGAF 3ii

Legislation exists to formally recognize long-term, unchallenged possession and applies to both public
and private land, although different rules may apply.

LGAF
LSLA10

Contractual provisions regarding acquisition of land from communities or the public are required by law
to explicitly mention the way in which benefits and risks will be shared

UI 1.4

Achievements of the right to adequate housing in the Constitution or National law for all citizens

UI 1.4.2

a) Does the Constitution or national law promote the full and progressive realisation of the right to
adequate housing? b) If yes, is this right mentioned as one to which everybody is entitled? c) If yes, is
this right mentioned for particular groups?

Page 2

6 Indicators main table


UI 1.5

Level at which secure tenure is ensured for households and individuals as measured by the questions
(below) on the legal framework related to eviction

UI 1.5.1
UI 1.5.2
LIFI 2
LIFI 3.1
LIFI 4.1
LIFI 4.2

Does the Constitution include protections against eviction?


Does the national law include protections against eviction?
Process prior to evictions: 1) Consultation; 2) Justification; 3) Notification; 4) Recording; 5)
Compensation/relocation
Legal aid to potential evictees - Legal provisions for legal aid exist
Constitution and land laws protect occupants and their possession rights
Coherent, unambiguous and non-contradictory land laws and pro-poor land-use practices

LIFI 5.4

Renters have tenure security according to clear regulations and rent is regulated

LIFI 6.7.1 Individuals have legal entitlement to access information and consultation about decisions that might
violate their right to adequate housing
PBAS A Access to land for rural poor households - The law guarantees secure, equal and enforceable land
rights to all
GHI P1.4 Does the law recognize the customary or tribal land rights of indigenous people?
Namati
Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3
GEC 11
GEC 12

The number of countries that legally recognize customary land tenure and/or community land and
resource rights
What rights to land does the State retain? (State owns all land; State owns natural resources but not
urban or agricultural land; State has the right to take private land for public purpose, etc.)
Does the law recognize private property rights?
Are communal rights to land recognized by law? If so, what is the nature and scope of those rights?
Are customary rights to land recognized by law? If so, what is the nature and scope of those rights?
Does the tool promote the principle of a bundle of rights?
Does the tool provide different tenure options, recognizing a continuum of rights?

Page 3

6 Indicators main table


Discrimination in
property rights
(general)

UI 1.4.5

a) Are there impediments to women owning land? b) Are there impediments to particular groups
owning land?

UI 1.5.6

Are spouses living in the same dwelling as the owner automatically recognised as co-owners in the
law?
Laws of property inheritance and property registration are non-discriminatory.

LIFI 5.1
LIFI 5.2
PBAS B

Co-tenure registration of multiple household members is possible


Access to land for women, indigenous populations and other vulnerable groups - The law guarantees
secure, equal and enforceable land rights to poor men and women

SIGI
GHI P1.1
GHI P1.3
GHI P1.5
Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3

Women have the same legal rights as men to own and access land
Can women legally own or inherit land?
Can land be jointly owned by husband and wife?
Are immigrants, refugees and non-citizens allowed to own land?
Does the law recognize womens rights to property?

Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3

Does the law limit the category of land women can own (vs. men)? For example, there are often
restrictions on women owning ancestral land.
Does a womans marital status have an impact on her right to own land? If yes, which land? In what
way?
Does the law permit common ownership (co-ownership) of land between individuals? (This may be in
the law on property rights, land laws, or personal laws or elsewhere.)

Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3

Does the law restrict who may be a common owner? Does the law restrict what category of land can be
co-owned?
Does the law presume joint property rights for married couples? (Do married couples by law have joint
property rights unless they contract out of their rights?)

Landesa
PG3

Does the law provide for division of property between spouses in the event of disappearance or
abandonment? What does the law say about abandonment? What does the law say about out
migration of husbands?

If the law recognizes custom as a source of law, how does it handle conflicts between the statutory law
and customs, particularly when it comes to land rights for women? Which law is dispositive?

Page 4

6 Indicators main table

Discrimination in
property rights
(inheritance)

Landesa
PG3

What does the law say about compensation for compulsory acquisition and/or the state taking land?
How is compensation determined? Who is compensation paid to? Who has the right to compensation
for the loss of rights?

GEC 8

Is the tool based on the principle of gender equality and does it protect womens land/ tenure rights?

TGG

existence of laws and polices supporting gender-equitable governance of land tenure.

UI 1.4.6

a) Are there impediments to women inheriting land and housing? b) Are there impediments to particular
groups inheriting land and housing?

LIFI 5.3
SIGI

Household members have inheritance and development rights


Women have equal rights of inheritance with men and there are no reported discriminatory practices

Landesa
PG2
Landesa
PG2

Is a surviving wife an heir under the law? What are the wife's rights? Are they the same in nature and
scope as those of other heirs?
Does the law recognize cohabitation/consensual unions/couples who put themselves forward as
married? If so, what are the inheritance rights for women in those relationships?

Landesa
PG2

What is the nature and scope of the right to inherit as a wife? Is the right that is inherited limited in time
or by some event (e.g. until she remarries or until her children are of the age of majority)? Is it an
ownership right? Or is it ownership like (e.g. long-term, secure use rights)? Can she transfer the rights
gained by inheritance, sale, bequest, gift, or otherwise? Do wives have a right to a lifetime use right to
any or all of the land (house, household garden, etc.)? Is land specifically mentioned? How/who
decides which land? What are the requirements? Are different use rights (e.g. the right to collect herbs
or graze animals) accounted for?

Landesa
PG2

Is there a right of survivorship (one spouse automatically inherits the whole of the land they hold
in common ownership or joint tenure)? If yes, does it only apply to married couples or to all people who
have joint rights to land? If it only applies to married couples, what proof of marriage is required? If
there is not a right of survivorship, how is inheritance of jointly held property handled? Are there limits to
physical partition of property in this or any other law?

Page 5

6 Indicators main table


Landesa
PG2

What do the intestate inheritance provisions say about wives inheritance? If wives inherit, what land is
included? What is not? Is the family home included? What percentage of a husbands property do
wives inherit if she has children? What percentage of a husbands property do wives inherit if she has
no children?

Landesa
PG2

Are there any procedures which must be followed to ensure inheritance provisions apply? For example,
must the death be registered and death certificate received?

Landesa
PG2

Are the intestate provisions for spouses triggered only when there is a formal marriage? If yes: What
constitutes a formal (statutory) marriage? What documents are required for proof of marriage? What
documents are required to register a marriage (birth certificates, residency certificates, etc.)? If no:
What other types of marriages trigger the intestate law (e.g. customary or religious)? What is required
for proof of these marriages?

Landesa
PG2

Can a wife be disinherited completely by will? If no, what is the mandatory set aside for wives? If yes,
are there any other protections for her (e.g. use of family home until she dies or remarries)?

Landesa
PG2
Landesa
PG2

Can use rights be transferred by inheritance?

Landesa
PG2

Landesa
PG2

Is polygamy legal? If yes, how is land (or other property) divided between the wives? Are there
provisions related to the children of more than one wife? If yes, how is land (or other property) divided
between the children?
Are daughters and sons both considered heirs by law? Are they heirs of the same order? If yes, do
daughters and sons have an equal right to inherit property? Does this apply to movable and immovable
property? Do the intestate provisions specifically mention a daughters right to inherit land? Are a
daughters rights to inherit affected by her marital status or a by a change in her marital status? What
are the rights to inherit of a daughter from a subsequent wife in a polygamous relationship?

Is there any type of land a daughter cannot inherit (e.g. ancestral land)?

Page 6

6 Indicators main table


Landesa
PG2

What does the law say about distribution of resources, and rights to those resources, if land cannot be
physically partitioned? Can children (either males or females) be completely disinherited by will or by
law (intestate)? If yes, are there specific grounds? Is there a mandatory set aside for children (meaning
that they cannot be fully disinherited by will)? If yes, what portion of the inheritance must be set aside?

TGG

existence of inheritance laws coherent with and supportive of tenure reforms and gender-equitable
governance of land tenure.
The law provides opportunities for those holding land under customary, group, or collective tenure to
fully or partially individualize land ownership and use. Procedures for doing so are affordable, clearly
specified, safeguarded, and followed in practice.

Statutory regulation LGAF 1v


of common and
customary properties
LGAF 2v

Common property under condominiums is recognized, and there are clear provisions in the law to
establish arrangements for the management and maintenance of this common property

PBAS E

Regulation for the allocation and management of common property resources - Clear and equitable

Landesa
PG3

Are the communal/customary governance rules codified or otherwise written? By law, who determines
what these rights are? Are they subject to legal review? Who (which body?) has authority to govern
land held under communal/customary tenure?

Landesa
PG3

Does the formal law recognize any rights for women within that customary group? If so, what rights do
women have to communal/customary land? Do women have the right to own land, use land, control
land, use land for specific purpose, use land at a specific time?

Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3

Which forums have statutory authority to hear property rights cases involving communal or customary
land?
Which forums have statutory authority to hear cases of division of marital property for those married
under customary rules?
Does the law recognize or require any pre-steps before taking a case to court (e.g. compulsory
mediation, alternative dispute resolution, traditional courts, etc.)? If so, are the findings of those
hearings used in the formal court?

Page 7

6 Indicators main table


Discrimination in non- Landesa
statutory laws/rules PG3

Which individuals have rights to the communally/customarily held land? Is the right based on
membership in a household, village, clan, tribe, group? How are those rights different for men and
women? What is the nature and scope of rights for men and women who are members of or affiliated
with the group?

Landesa
PG3

Are there circumstances in which women lose their rights to communal/customary land? If so, what are
these circumstances (divorce, death of spouse, abandonment, etc.)? Are the rules different for
communal or customary land than they are for individual or household land?

Landesa
PG3

Does the customary land governance system recognize womens rights to own land? Under what
circumstances? (What if a woman is married, single, divorced, widowed, remarried, has children out of
wedlock or children from another marriage?) What is the nature and scope of this right? Is it different
from the rights of similarly situated men?

Landesa
PG3

Does the customary land governance system recognize womens rights to control land? Under what
circumstances? (What if a woman is married, single, divorced, widowed?) What is the nature and
scope of this right? Is it different from the rights of similarly situated men?

Landesa
PG3

Does the customary land governance system recognize womens rights to use land? Under what
circumstances? (What if a woman is married, single, divorced, widowed?) What is the nature and
scope of this right? Is it different from the rights of similarly situated men?

Landesa
PG3

Does the customary land governance system recognize womens rights to exercise decisions over land
and income from the land? Under what circumstances? (What if a woman is married, single, divorced,
widowed?) What is the nature and scope of this right? Is it different from the rights of similarly situated
men?

Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG2

Is there any recourse to a higher authority/right to appeal? If so, who?

Landesa
PG2

If land is owned communally but is allocated to individual households for their use, what is the nature
and scope of the rights for the individual household? Can those rights be transferred by inheritance (or
otherwise)?
Are there different rights for people within the household? I.e. is the male household head presumed to
be the manager of the land?

Page 8

6 Indicators main table

Resource Adequacy of budget


s
allocation

Landesa
PG2

Is brideprice or dowry exchanged at the time of marriage? If yes, is this considered a daughters premortem inheritance? If yes, who receives the marital gift? (Possible recipients include: daughter, son,
parents of daughter, or parents of son.) If yes, who has control over the marital gift once it is received?

Landesa
PG2
Landesa
PG2

If yes, does the family ever sell land to provide this marriage gift?

Landesa
PG2
Landesa
PG2
Landesa
PG2
Landesa
PG2
Landesa
PG2

If polygamy is legal, how are the land and house(s) divided among the wives?

Landesa
PG2

Do unmarried women (single, divorced, or widowed) inherit land from their fathers if they are living at
home?

Do widows remain on their deceased husbands land/ house? If yes, are there any limitations to this
(e.g. widows can only remain on the land/house until the time she remarries or until her children are of
the age of majority or are married)?

Who decides who gets what if there is no will?


Does the division of property depend on the number and gender of the wives' children?
If polygamy is not legal, how are the land and house(s) divided among wives?
Are daughters and sons both considered heirs? Do daughters and sons inherit land rights equally? If
not, who usually inherits landdaughters or sons? Does birth order matter? For polygamous families,
does order of marriage of the mothers affect inheritance?

LGAF 6iii. Cost of implementation of land policy is estimated, expected benefits are identified and compared to
cost, and there are sufficient budget, resources, and institutional capacity for implementation
LGAF 18iii There is significant investment in capital in the system to record rights in land so that the system is
sustainable but still accessible by the poor.
GEC 5
Are financial resources explicitly allocated for capacity building of both women and men to benefit from
the tool?
LGAF12iv There are adequate budgets and human resources that ensure responsible management of public
lands.

Page 9

6 Indicators main table


Institution Clarity of institutional LGAF 5i
s
mandates
LGAF 5ii

There is a clear separation in the roles of policy formulation, implementation of policy through land
management and administration, and the arbitration of any disputes that may arise as a result of
implementation of policy.
The mandated responsibilities exercised by the authorities dealing with land administration issues are
clearly defined and nonoverlapping with those of other land sector agencies.

LGAF 5iii Assignment of land-related responsibilities between the different levels of government is clear and
nonoverlapping.
LGAF12iii The management responsibility for different types of public land is unambiguously assigned.

Processe Recording Costs of tenure


tenure
registration
s
rights

LGAF 3iii The costs for first-time sporadic registration for a typical urban property is low compared to the property
value.
LGAF 3iv There are no informal fees that need to be paid to effect first registration.
LGAF 3v The requirements for formalizing housing in urban areas are clear, straightforward, affordable, and
implemented consistently in a transparent manner.
LGAF 18i The cost for registering a property transfer is minimal compared to the property value.
WB CSI4 Average number of days to complete the recordation of a purchase/sale of a property in the land
administration system (days, by rural/urban)
DB
Procedures to legally transfer title (between two local companies) on immovable property in country's
Registerin largest business city (number)
g property
DB
Cost to legally transfer title (between two local companies) on immovable property in country's largest
Registerin business city (% property value)
g property
DB
Time to legally transfer title (between two local companies) on immovable property in country's largest
Registerin business city (days)
g property

Page 10

6 Indicators main table


IPMS
1.2.3
LIFI 6.5

Mortgage registry Does a notary need to be involved in the registration process?


Functioning of Land Management and Land Administration Institutions - Affordability of services

GHI R5.1 What is the number of days required to register a property?


GHI R5.2 What are the typical costs involved in registering a property (in local currency)?

Other barriers to
tenure registration

MCC L-7

Percentage change in time for property transactions - The average percentage change in number of
days for an individual or company to conduct a property transaction within the formal system ((A) First
time registration/Transfers; (B) Commercial/Non-commercial)

MCC L-8

Percentage change in cost for property transactions - The average percentage change in US Dollars of
out of pocket cost for an individual or company to conduct a property transaction within the formal
system ((A) First time registration/Transfers; (B) Commercial/Non-commercial)

LSMS
LSMS
LGAF 3i

Reasons for not having tenure documentation for dwelling


Reasons for (lack of) progress in documentation in community
Non-documentary forms of evidence are used alone to obtain full recognition of claims to property
when other forms of evidence are not available.
The requirements for formalizing housing in urban areas are clear, straightforward, affordable, and
implemented consistently in a transparent manner.

LGAF 3v

LGAF 3vi There is a clear, practical process for the formal recognition of possession, and this process is
implemented effectively, consistently, and transparently.
GHI P2.1 Is there an operating program to register titles or incremental tenure documents?
GHI P3.1 Is there a policy or program that supports the regularization of titles or alternative documents in
established informal settlements?
GHI P3.4 Is there a process or program to recognize occupancy of public land? For example, certificates of
occupancy, street addressing or other official documents are given to informal settlers.
Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3

Does the state/national government provide any incentives for registering land in womens names?
What documents are required to register land jointly?

Page 11

6 Indicators main table

Quality of tenure
records

Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG2

What documents are required to prove eligibility for presumed joint ownership or compulsory joint
ownership?
In the context of documentation of land rights, what are the rules around polygamy and co-owned land?

Landesa
PG2

How is a transfer of land rights by inheritance documented? Are transfers of land rights by inheritance
registered? If so, where? Is this different for intestate and testate inheritance?

If land is distributed (or formalized) to households, by law, whose name must be listed on the title?
Whose name(s) has to be registered?
What process is required to legally recognize the transfer of land rights that occur via inheritance? Are
any documents such as a land title, deed or certificate required? Is a death certificate required?

Landesa What is the process required to formalize an inherited right to land?where do people go, what is
PG2
required for proof, etc.?
LGAF 5iv Information related to rights in land is available to other institutions that need this information at
reasonable cost and is readily accessible, largely because land information is maintained in a uniform
way.
LGAF 16i Most records for privately held land registered in the registry are readily identifiable in maps in the
registry or cadastre.
LGAF 16ii Relevant private encumbrances are recorded consistently and in a reliable fashion and can be verified
at low cost by any interested party.
LGAF 16iii Relevant public restrictions or charges are recorded consistently and in a reliable fashion and can be
verified at a low cost by any interested party.
LGAF 17ii There are meaningful published service standards, and the registry actively monitors its performance
against these standards.
LGAF 17i Most ownership information in the registry or cadastre is up to date.
IPMS
Cadastral information Is zoning/permitted use information included and are regulations respoected
1.2.1
and enforced?
IPMS
Cadastral information Are GIS/GPS used to create and update the registry?
1.2.1
LIFI 6.1
Basic land registration / recording systems are in place and operational. HHs with informal tenure are
included in the information systems
GLTN201 Informal settlements are included within the land information systems
1 City1

Page 12

6 Indicators main table


Accessibility of tenure LGAF 5iv Information related to rights in land is available to other institutions that need this information at
records
reasonable cost and is readily accessible, largely because land information is maintained in a uniform
way.
LGAF 16i Most records for privately held land registered in the registry are readily identifiable in maps in the
registry or cadastre.
LGAF 16ii Relevant private encumbrances are recorded consistently and in a reliable fashion and can be verified
at low cost by any interested party.
LGAF 16iii Relevant public restrictions or charges are recorded consistently and in a reliable fashion and can be
verified at a low cost by any interested party.
LGAF 16iv The records in the registry can be searched by both right-holder name and parcel.
LGAF 16v Copies or extracts of documents recording rights in property can be obtained by anyone who pays the
necessary formal fee, if any.
LGAF 16vi Copies or extracts of documents recording rights in property can generally be obtained within one day
of request.
LGAF
Land use restrictions on rural land parcels can generally be identified
LSLA 3
IPMS
Cadastral information accessible to the public?
1.2.1
Mortgage registry Is information in the registry available electronically?
IPMS
1.2.3
Transparency/corrupt LGAF 3iv There are no informal fees that need to be paid to effect first registration.
ion of tenure
administration
LGAF 17i There are meaningful published service standards, and the registry actively monitors its performance
against these standards.
LGAF 19i A clear schedule of fees for different services is publicly accessible, and receipts are issued for all
transactions.
LGAF 19ii Mechanisms to detect and deal with illegal staff behavior exist in all registry offices, and all cases are
promptly dealt with.
LIFI 6.6
Functioning of Land Management and Land Administration Institutions - Transparency
GCB

% of respondents who report paying bribes, by sector (includes Registry and permit services, Land
services (in 2009 survey))

Page 13

6 Indicators main table


Institutional capacity
and efficiency

LGAF 18ii The total fees collected by the registry exceed the total registry operating costs.
LIFI 6.2

Functioning of Land Management and Land Administration Institutions - Institutional capacity

LIFI 6.3

Functioning of Land Management and Land Administration Institutions - Capability

LIFI 6.4

Functioning of Land Management and Land Administration Institutions - Stability

MCC L-2

Land administration offices established or upgraded - The number of land administration and service
offices or other related facilities that the project physically establishes or upgrades (Urban/Rural)

LGAF 2i
Tenure
documentation/registr
ation by land area/#
properties
LGAF 2ii
LGAF 2iii
LGAF
LSLA 1
WB CSI2

Most communal lands have boundaries demarcated and surveyed or mapped and communal rights
registered.

Most individual properties in rural areas are formally registered.


Most individual properties in urban areas are formally registered.
Most forest land is mapped and rights are registered
Land parcels with use or ownership rights recorded as a result of the project (number, by gender)

WB CSI3 Target land area with use or ownership rights recorded as a result of the project (ha)
WB prop
2
WB prop
4
PBAS C

No. of land transfers of different types (sales, mortgages, gifts, inheritances, etc.) registered
Share of privately owned and state land area mapped
Land tenure - Secure and enforceable land rights. The majority of land holdings are titled or registered

GHI P2.2 Estimated percent of all the properties in the greater municipality that have their title properly
registered. (%)
GHI P2.3 Are titles updated regularly when property is transferred?

Page 14

6 Indicators main table


MCC L-5

Parcels corrected or incorporated in land system - The number of parcels with relevant parcel
information corrected or newly incorporated into an official land information system (whether a system
for the property registry, cadastre or an integrated system)

LGAF 2iv A high percentage of land registered to physical persons is registered in the name of women, either
Tenure
individually or jointly.
documentation/registr
ation by population
(incl. Gender)
WB CSI1 Target population with use or ownership rights recorded as a result of the project (number)
WB prop
1
UIS 2

Share of land (by value or size) registered in a womens name

UIS 3
UIS 4
UIS 5
UIS 6
UIS 7
UIS 8
UIS 9
UIS 10
GLTN201
1 HH1
GLTN201
1ext 2.1
GCIF
RIMS

Does this document help you improve your dwelling?


Does it (document) help you inherit or sell this dwelling?
Does it provide you with rights over land (full/shared) (yes/no)
(If yes(to 5)) Right to develop over land?
(If yes(to 5)) Right to sell/inherit?
(If renter) Do you have a formal contract with landlord?
Do you have an informal contract with landlord?
(If no (to 9)) Have you sub-let the dwelling you live in?
Proportion units with documents as evidence of legality or legitimacy for access to land rights

(If owner) Do you have one of the below documents as evidence of your rights over this dwelling?

% families which hold: Titles; Certificate of occupation; Purchase agreement/receipt; Property tax
receipts; Utility bills; No documents
No. of households without registered legal titles
Number of HHs provided with long-term security of tenure of natural resources, including land and
water
GHI P3.2b Number of households living in informal settlements in the greater municipality who have titles provided
by a regularization program.

Page 15

6 Indicators main table

Land
valuation

Accuracy and
accessibility of
valuation records

MCC L-6

Household land rights formalized - The number of households receiving formal recognition of
ownership and/or use rights through certificates, titles, leases, or other recorded documentation by
government institutions or traditional authorities at national or local levels ((A) Urban/Rural; (B)
Community/Male(only)/Female (only) /Joint male and female/Joint male/Joint female (Note that the
disaggregations in B should be mutually exclusive and not include multiple selections.))

Landesa
CS
Landesa
CS
Landesa
CS
Landesa
CS
LWA
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS

Number of households with recognized land tenure documentation (land contract or land certificate)

Percentage of sharecroppers with legal documents


Presence and type of tenure documentation for dwelling
Household members who are owners of dwelling/have name on document
Presence and type of tenure documentation for agricultural land
Registration of tenure of agricultural land
Household members who are owners of agricultural land/have name on document

LSMS
LSMS

Documentation or legal status of communal land


Prevalence of tenure types and documentation in community

Date of issuance of tenure documents


Number of tenure documents in compliance with legal requirements
Frequency of inclusion of wife's name on tenure documentation

LGAF 10i The assessment of land and property values for tax purposes is based on market prices with minimal
differences between recorded values and market prices across different uses and types of users, and
valuation rolls are regularly updated.
LGAF 10ii There is a policy that valuation rolls be publicly accessible, and this policy is effective for all properties
that are considered for taxation.

Land
taxation

Scope, consistency
and efficiency of
taxation

LGAF 7iii Mechanisms to allow the public to capture a significant share of the gains from changing land use are
regularly used and applied transparently based on clear regulation.

Page 16

6 Indicators main table


LGAF 11i There are limited exemptions to the payment of land and property taxes, and the exemptions that exist
are clearly based on equity or efficiency grounds and applied in a transparent and consistent manner.
LGAF 11ii Most property holders liable for land and property tax are listed on the tax roll.
LGAF 11iii Most assessed property taxes are collected.
LGAF 11iv The amount of property taxes collected exceeds the cost of staff in charge of collection by a factor of
more than 5.
WB prop Total receipts of land tax revenue
3
LSMS
Payment of land or real estate tax
Spatial
planning

Public participation in LGAF 7i


spatial planning

LGAF 7ii

Extent/appropriatene LGAF 4i
ss of land use
regulations
LGAF 4ii

In urban areas, public input is sought in preparing and amending changes in land use plans, and the
public responses are explicitly referenced in the report prepared by the public body responsible for
preparing the new public plans. This report is publicly accessible.
In rural areas, public input is sought in preparing and amending changes in land use plans, and the
public responses are explicitly referenced in the report prepared by the public body responsible for
preparing the new public plans. This report is publicly accessible.
There is a series of regulations regarding urban land use, ownership, and transferability that are for the
most part justified on the basis of overall public interest and that are enforced.
There is a series of regulations regarding rural land use, ownership, and transferability that are for the
most part justified on the basis of overall public interest and that are enforced.

IPMS
Bundle of rights (extent of restrictions imposed on property rights)
1.1.3
IPMS
Land What is the status of land ownership? (extent of restrictions imposed on property rights)
1.3.1
GHI R5.6 Can alternative documents be used in place of official property title to obtain construction permits?
Costs of planning
permissions

LGAF 9i

Requirements to obtain a building permit are technically justified, affordable, and clearly disseminated.

Page 17

6 Indicators main table


LGAF 9ii All applications for building permits receive a decision in a short period.
GHI R5.3 What is the number of days required to obtain building permits for residential construction?
GHI R5.4 What is the number of agencies that an individual is required to visit to obtain a permit for new
construction?
GHI R5.5 What are the typical costs associated with obtaining a building permit (in local currency)?
Enforcement of land LGAF 4i
use
decisions/regulations
LGAF 4ii

There is a series of regulations regarding urban land use, ownership, and transferability that are for the
most part justified on the basis of overall public interest and that are enforced.

There is a series of regulations regarding rural land use, ownership, and transferability that are for the
most part justified on the basis of overall public interest and that are enforced.

GHI P3.3 Is the occupation of public land tolerated?


Dispute
Clarity/non-overlap of LGAF 20ii There is an informal or community-based system that resolves disputes in an equitable manner, and
resolution responsibilities
decisions made by this system have some recognition in the formal judicial or administrative dispute
resolution system.
LGAF 20iii There are no parallel avenues for conflict resolution or, if parallel avenues exist, responsibilities are
clearly assigned and widely known, and explicit rules for shifting from one to the other are in place to
minimize the scope for forum shopping.

Accessibility of
dispute resolution

Landesa If there are multiple legal systems that deal with marital property, what is the process for determining
PG3
which law and adjudicative body applies?
LGAF 20i Institutions for providing a first instance of conflict resolution are accessible at the local level in the
majority of communities.
LGAF 20iv A process and mechanism exist to appeal rulings on land cases at reasonable cost, with disputes
resolved in a timely manner.
Landesa For division of property upon divorce, are there any requirements for getting into court? Are there any
PG3
up-front payments?
Landesa Are there barriers to accessing the formal system of adjudication? I.e. fees, assumption of literacy
PG3
(does something need to be written), identification documents, etc.

Page 18

6 Indicators main table

Gender sensitivity
(excluding general
access issues)

Efficiency of dispute
resolution

Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3

Are women able to access all enforcement institutions?

TGG
TGG

% of women and men receiving training in access to land justice.


% of women and men receiving legal support in land cases in the formal justice system.

TGG

% of women and men receiving advocacy and legal literacy training focusing on land.

Landesa
PG3

What forums have statutory jurisdiction to hear property or land rights related cases? (E.g. formal
courts, courts of special jurisdiction, traditional dispute resolution actors recognized for certain cases,
etc.) Do those forums have female representation?

Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3
GEC 10
TGG

What forums have statutory jurisdiction to hear marital property cases? Do those forums have female
representation?
Do women and men have the same right to decide which law or adjudicative body applies?

What are the barriers that women face in resolving disputes? Possible barriers include: costs
associated with dispute resolution, location and hours of dispute resolution or enforcement bodies,
comfort dealing with these systems, social barriers, complexity of paperwork requirements, etc.

Where do women usually go when they have a land dispute? Why?


Which dispute resolution actors know womens rights? Support womens rights?

Does the tool provide gender-sensitive dispute resolution?


% of women and men members of land dispute resolution institutions and mechanisms, including local
watchdog groups.
LGAF 21ii A decision in a land-related conflict is reached in the first-instance court within 1 year in the majority of
cases.
LGAF 21iii Long-standing land conflicts are a small proportion of the total pending land dispute court cases.
WB prop. No. of land-related conflicts in the courts
6
MCC L-4 Conflicts successfully mediated - The number of disputed land and property rights cases that have
been resolved by local authorities, contractors, mediators or courts with compact support

Page 19

6 Indicators main table


LWA
LWA
LWA
LWA
LSMS
TGG

Public
Appropriateness of
land
public land
managem designations
ent and
managem
ent of
LSLA
Accessibility of
information on pubic
lands

Number of cases received (per 100,000 population)


Number of cases investigated (per 100,000 population)
Number of cases adjudicated (per 100,000 population)
Average time in years for dispute resolution
Type/success of conflict resolution
% of disputes regarding womens land and property rights before the courts and alternative dispute
resolution mechanisms

LGAF 12i Public land ownership is justified by the provision of public goods at the appropriate level of
government, and such land is managed in a transparent and effective way.

LGAF 12ii The majority of public land is clearly identified on the ground or on maps.

LGAF 12v All the information in the public land inventory is accessible to the public.
LGAF 12vi Key information for land concessions is recorded and publicly accessible.
Assessment of
potential impacts of
public land
disposal/LSLA
Efficiency of public
land disposal/LSLA
decisions
Transparency of
public land
disposal/LSLA

LGAF
LSLA14

For transfers of public/community lands, public institutions have procedures in place to identify and
select economically, environmentally, and socially beneficial investments and implement these
effectively

LGAF
LSLA11

The procedure to obtain approval for a project where it is required is reasonably short

LGAF 15i Most public land disposed of in the past 3 years is through sale or lease through public auction or open
tender process.
LGAF 15iii All types of public land are generally divested at market prices in a transparent process irrespective of
the investors status (for example, domestic or foreign).

Page 20

6 Indicators main table

Monitoring and
contract enforcement
of LSLA

LGAF
LSLA4
LGAF
LSLA5
LGAF
LSLA6

Public institutions involved in land acquisition operate in a clear and consistent manner

LGAF
LSLA7
LGAF
LSLA8
LGAF
LSLA9
LGAF 15ii

There are direct and transparent negotiations between right holders and investors

LGAF
LSLA12
LGAF
LSLA13
LGAF
LSLA14
LGAF
LSLA15
LGAF
LSLA16

Incentives for investors are clear, transparent and consistent


Benefit sharing mechanisms regarding investments in agriculture (food crops, biofuels, forestry,
livestock, game farm/conservation) are regularly used and transparently applied

Sufficient information is required from investors to assess the desirability of projects on


public/communal land
For cases of land acquisition on public/community land, investors provide the required information and
this information is publicly available
A majority of the total agreed-upon payments are collected from private parties on the lease of public
lands.

Social requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are clearly defined and implemented
Environmental requirements for large scale investments in agriculture are clearly defined and
implemented
For transfers of public/community lands, public institutions have procedures in place to identify and
select economically, environmentally, and socially beneficial investments and implement these
effectively
Compliance with safeguards related to investment in agriculture is checked
There are avenues to lodge complaints if agricultural investors do not comply with requirements

Page 21

6 Indicators main table


Land
Eligibility and rights of Landesa
beneficiaries
PG3
reforms
(Readjust
ment,
restitution,
redistributi
on)

Readjustment
outputs

If the Government has a land distribution program, who is eligible for land? Who is prioritized? What
documents are required? Do both women and men have access to the documents required for
eligibility? Are both women and mens names on the documents required for eligibility?

Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3

Are women and men treated equally in the program? If not, in what ways?

Landesa
PG3
Landesa
CS
Landesa
CS
Landesa
CS
LSMS

What does the law say about household members who leave the household after distribution? (divorce,
married out, etc.)?
Frequency of village level land readjustments/re-contracting/

If land is distributed (or formalized) to households, by law, whose name must be listed on the title?
Whose name(s) has to be registered?
What are the rules for transfer of state land once it has been distributed to households? Are there
restrictions on sale, lease, or inheritance? Can the land be partitioned?

Reported purpose of land readjustment


Destination of proceeds from re-contracting land to non-villagers
Prevalence of land adjustment and reallocations in community

Expropriat Treatment of affected LGAF 2vi When loss of rights occurs as a result of land use change not involving expropriation, compensation in
land users, by tenure
cash or in kind is paid such that these people have comparable assets and can continue to maintain
ion and
status
prior social and economic status.
eviction

Provision of
compensation and
other procedures

LGAF 14ii Fair compensation, in kind or in cash, is paid to all those with rights expropriated regardless of the
registration status.
LGAF 14i Where property is expropriated, fair compensation, in kind or in cash, is paid so that the displaced
households have comparable assets and can continue to maintain prior social and economic status.

Page 22

6 Indicators main table


LGAF 14iii Most expropriated land owners receive compensation within one year.
UI 1.5.3

Are the followings steps undertaken during eviction? a) Consultation (the future evictees are consulted
through formal meetings); b) Notification (the future evictees are formally notified in writing about the
date and process of eviction); c) Recording (the eviction case is formally recorded by the police, local
authority or any government institution); d) Compensation (compensation is provided to the evictee in
the form of property or funds); e) Relocation (the evictee is relocated in a new safe accommodation)

GHI P4.1a Did the eviction follow established legal guidelines for evictions?
GHI P4.1b How long in advance of the actual eviction were people first informed? (months)
GHI P4.1d The percentage of people who were resettled or given compensation roughly equivalent to the value of
their homes. (%)
Landesa Payment of compensation in cases of expropriation
CS
Landesa Farmer satisfaction with compensation payments
CS
Landesa Provision of advance notification
CS
Landesa Prior consultation on the amount of compensation
CS
LSMS
Receipt of compensation for readjustment/expropriation
LSMS
Compensation received for readjustment and reallocations in community
Provision of means of LGAF 14iv Independent avenues to lodge a complaint against expropriation exist and are easily accessible.
redress
LGAF 14v A first-instance decision has been reached for the majority of complaints about expropriation lodged
during the past 3 years.
UI 1.5.4
Is there legal aid support to evicted people?
UI 1.5.5
Is there legal aid support to family-related evictions (result of domestic violence, eviction by family
members, etc)?
LIFI 3.2
Legal aid to potential evictees - Legal provisions are practiced
LIFI 6.7.2 Institutions are accessible at local level and provide information and assistance

Page 23

6 Indicators main table

Extent of
expropriation
Justifiability of
expropriation, eviction

GLTN201
1 City2
Landesa
CS
Landesa
CS
WB prop
5
LGAF 13i

Legal provisions against forced evictions are accessible and effective


Use of means of redress/appeal with regard to compensation amounts
Change of compensation amounts after appeal
No. and value of expropriation cases
A minimal amount of land expropriated in the past 3 years is used for private purposes.

LGAF 13ii The majority of land that has been expropriated in the past 3 years has been transferred to its destined
use.
Namati
Reduction in amount/proportion of communal land expropriated per year for private purposes, or
through compulsory state acquisition
Landesa Use of expropriated land
CS
Communit Allocation and
y/indigeno transfers
us tenure
administra
tion

Landesa
PG3

Are communal/customary land rights allocated to individuals or to members of the group?

Landesa
PG3

Who is responsible for the allocation of communal/customary land? What criteria are used for
allocation? What are the terms of use for communal/customary land?

Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3

Is the ethnic or tribal group matrilineal or patrilineal?


Is the ethnic or tribal group matrilocal or patrilocal?
Is polygamy practiced? If yes, do wives live separately or together with their husbands? Does each wife
live in her own house, or is there another arrangement? Does each wife have her own piece of land
allocated for her use? Are there any restrictions on polygamy (e.g. number of wives, etc.)?

Page 24

6 Indicators main table


Landesa
PG3

Who decides when and whom a person should marry? Is there dowry or brideprice? Who receives it?
Does it ever include land? Who determines the amount?

Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3

Do men bring land and/or housing to a new marriage? Are men allocated land by their families upon
marriage?
How are land rights allocated within marriage? When a couple marries, do they keep separate control
over the land they brought to the marriage? If new land is purchased during marriage, who does it
belong to?
What happens when a woman separates from or divorces her husband? Can she return to her parents
home? Does it matter whether or not she has children? Does it matter whether the children are girls or
boys? If she has to return home, is land allocated to her? By whom?

Landesa
PG3

Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG3

Do women who leave their husbands receive any land from his family? Do they receive any other
property or assets? Who decides this (e.g. husband, judge, tribal leader, etc.)? Is this decision
appealable?
What is the process a woman has to go through to receive land if she leaves her husband? What about
with other property/assets?
What happens when a woman separates from or divorces her husband? Can she return to her parents
home? Does it matter whether or not she has children? Does it matter whether the children are girls or
boys? If she has to return home, is land allocated to her? By whom?

Landesa
PG3
Landesa
PG2
Landesa
PG2

Do women know their customary rights to land?

TGG
TGG

% of women and men members of customary authorities dealing with land.


% of women and men in customary land institutions and other land-related local institutions.

TGG

% number of customary land institutions and other land-related local institutions trained and sensitized
on gender and land issues.

If land is held communally, who is ultimately responsible for land distribution? Are women in that group?
Who is usually responsible for taking care of widows? If a specific child is responsible for taking care of
a widow or widows, what does that child usually inherit?

Page 25

6 Indicators main table


Dispute resolution

Househol
d decisionmaking

Gender-related
Crosscutting
characteri
stics

LGAF 20ii There is an informal or community-based system that resolves disputes in an equitable manner, and
decisions made by this system have some recognition in the formal judicial or administrative dispute
resolution system.
Landesa Are women represented among those who resolve disputes?
PG3
Landesa Who is responsible for enforcing traditional court decisions?
PG3
Landesa Can women access the dispute resolution body on their own, or is there a required intermediary?
PG3
Landesa Is there any recourse to a higher authority/right to appeal? If so, who?
PG3
Landesa How are inheritance disputes resolved by custom?
PG2
Landesa Do both women and men bring inheritance complaints?
PG2
Landesa Are there any customary barriers to women going to court, government offices, or informal dispute
resolution bodies?
PG2
Landesa
PG2

Who makes decisions about how the land is allocated, managed, or used in the household? In the
community?

LSMS

Control over land use/use of outputs within household

GEC 6

Is the information clear to, and does it empower, both women and men to utilize the tool and know their
rights related to this tool?

GEC 7

Does the tool provide mechanisms for assessment and evaluation (at numerous levels) by female and
male stakeholders?
Does the tool acknowledge conflict of interests and the different gender impacts this may have?

GEC 9
GEC 13

Does the tool take into consideration statutory and customary laws and practices affecting womens
land rights?

Page 26

6 Indicators main table


GEC 14

GEC 19
GEC 20
GEC 22

Does the tool demand positive results for women particularly in the context of traditional land
structures?
Does the tool encourage a market that is accessible to women and provides equity for women and
men?
Can the tool be implemented at city or national level?
Can the tool be implemented consistently (rather than ad-hoc)?
Is there formal engagement between communities and local/national governments?

TGG
TGG

number of land officials receiving gender sensitization and training.


% of women and men attending training on use of new land-related technologies

TGG

number of gender sensitization and awareness-raising initiatives focusing on land.

TGG

number of gender-sensitive advocacy and legal literacy training sessions focusing on land.

TGG
TGG

number of communication tools and media used to get the message across on gender-equitable land
tenure governance.
% of women and men in central land administration and management institutions.

TGG

% of women and men in district land administration and management institutions.

TGG

% of women and men in local land administration and management institutions.

TGG

% of women and men working in the technical professions of land administration (surveying, valuation,
geodetics, GPS, etc.).

GEC 17

Outcome Tenure
security
s

Prevalence/severity
of disputes/evictions

LGAF 21i Land disputes in the formal court system are low compared to the total number of court cases.
LGAF
LSLA2
UI 1.7

Land acquisition generates few conflicts and these are addressed expeditiously and transparently

Average annual number of men-headed and women-headed households evicted from their dwellings
during the past five years
UIS 11
Have you heard of any forceful evictions in the city (yes/no)
GLTN201 Number of households evicted in the last five years per 10,000
1ext 1.1

Page 27

6 Indicators main table


GHI P4.1 The number of people evicted in the largest mass eviction that took place in the greater municipality in
the last three years
GHI P5.2 The government has torn down existing low-income neighborhoods and transferred the vacant lands to
the private sector for development of new commercial, infrastructure or higher-end residential
Landesa
CS
Landesa
CS
Landesa
CS
LWA
LWA
LWA
LWA
LWA
LWA
LWA
LWA
LWA
LWA
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
Perceptions of tenure UIS 12
security
GLTN201
1 HH2
GLTN201
1ext 1.3

Frequency of village level land readjustments/re-contracting/


Frequency of land expropriation (land takings) per village
Date of most recent land expropriation per village
Number of people killed (per 100,000 population)
Number of people detained(per 100,000 population)
Number of people harassed (per 100,000 population)
Number of cases of land grabbing
Percentage of area of land grabbed
Annual loss of time due to disputes
Annual Monetary loss associated with land disputes/litigation
Annual loss of assets due to land disputes
Number of households evicted/ displaced from farms (per 100,000 population)
Number of households becoming totally homeless because of eviction
Existence of dispute over ownership of dwelling
Experience of disputes, conflicts, involuntary tenure changes
Loss of land as a shocks experienced by households
Real property loss by displaced persons
Prevalence of land adjustment and reallocations in community
(If yes (to 11) Do you trust you would be supported by the authorities if you are subject to forceful
evictions?
Proportion of units where people trust they will not be evicted
% women who fear they will be evicted from HHs after divorce/separation/loss of husband

Page 28

6 Indicators main table


Namati3

Landesa
CS
LSMS
LSMS
History of possession GLTN201
1ext 2.2
GLTN201
1ext 3
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
Perceptions of rights GLTN201
1ext 4.1
GLTN201
1ext 4.2
GLTN201
1ext 4.3
GLTN201
1ext 4.4
Landesa
CS
LSMS

Confidence in tenure security: The proportion of households who believe that household and
community land will not be confiscated or wrongfully acquired
Farmers' confidence in tenure security (perceived likelihood of further land readjustments)
Perception of tenure security
Reason for perception of tenure security
% families acquiring land by: Formal finance sources (public or private); Direct purchase from private
individuals/developers; Self-arranged building (direct labouring or via a developer)
% households residing at current dwelling for 10+ years (proxy indicator for adverse possession). The
same formula also holds for workplaces
Duration of occupation of dwelling
Mode of acquisition of agricultural land
Duration of possession/use of agricultural land
% families believing they have the right to prevent others from entering
% families believing they have the right to develop their dwelling
% families believing they have the right to sell
% families believing they have the right to inherit
Farmer's understanding of key provisions of national land laws and policies
Right to sell/use as collateral agricultural land

Accounta Accountability of local Namati


bility
land decision-making

Proportion of households who believe they have a fair say in decisions about local land and natural
resources

Access to Access to land


land
(agricultural)

Amount of land (ha) for which a) local communities possess rights to own, use, and conserve, and b)
decisions about land and natural resource use are taken through a process of local democratic
governance
Land ownership distribution by size (Gini coefficient)

Namati

LWA

Page 29

6 Indicators main table


LWA
LWA
MICS
HC11
MICS
HC12
DHS 119
DHS 120
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
PHCensus
WCA

WCA
WCA

Access to land
(housing)

Number of sharecroppers
Number and percentage of landless persons among rural population
Household ownership of agricultural land
Household ownership of agricultural land (hectares)
Household ownership of agricultural land
Household ownership of agricultural land (hectares)
Tenure status of agricultural land (ownership, rental, sharecropping, squatted, other)
Area of agricultural land owned/rented/used
Value of agricultural land owned (also rental value)
Rent paid for agricultural land
Legal owner of land where land occupied without consent
Income from real estate sales
Income from real estate rent
Number of landless labourers in community
Own-account agriculture production (Supplementary topic, see UN 2007: 2.389-90)
Legal status of agricultural holder (Core topic, An individual; two or more individuals; juridical person
(the latter may be further sub-divided: public, corporation, religious institution, etc.) (Core topic, see
FAO 2005: 11.710)
Total area of holding (Core topic, see FAO 2005: 11.4045).
Land tenure types on the holding (Legal ownership or legal owner-like possession; non-legal ownership
or non-legal owner-like possession; rented from someone else; other types of land tenure) (Core topic,
see FAO 2005: 11.4652)

WCA
WCA

Area (parcel)(Supplementary module topic, see FAO 2005: 11.56)


Land tenure (per parcel) (Supplementary module topic, see FAO 2005: 11.5758)

WCA

Terms of rental (for rented parcels) (For an agreed amount of money and/or produce; for a share of
produce; in exchange for services; under other rental arrangements) (Supplementary module topic, see
FAO 2005: 11.59).
No. of homeless people per 100,000 population

GCIF

Page 30

6 Indicators main table


MICS
HC10
UIS 1
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
LSMS
PHCensus
PHCensus

Land ownership by
gender

Market functionality

Do you own or rent this unit (dwelling)?


Tenure status of dwelling(ownership, rental, squatted, other)
Size of dwelling
Value of dwelling (including rental value)
Rent paid for dwelling
Income from real estate sales
Income from real estate rent
Housing unit ownership-type of (Owner-occupied; Non owner-occupied (Publicly owned, Privately
owned, Communally owned, Cooperatively owned, Other)) (Core topic, see UN 2007: 2.467-71)
Tenure of household (over housing unit) (Member of household owns housing unit; Member of
household rents all or a part of housing unit; Member of household rents all or a part of housing unit as
a main tenant; Member of household rents a part of housing unit as a subtenant; Occupied free of rent;
Other arrangement) (Core topic, see UN 2007: 2.536-9)

GHI P1.2 In practice, do women own or inherit land?


UN
Women
UN
Women
LSMS
LSMS

Transfers Rates of inheritance


by gender

Dwelling ownership vs. rental

Ownership of dwelling, by sex


Proportion of adult population owning land, by sex
Household members who are owners of dwelling/have name on document
Household members who are owners of agricultural land/have name on document

WCA
Sex of agricultural holder (Core topic, see FAO 2005: 11.1113)
GHI P1.2 In practice, do women own or inherit land?
LSMS
PBAS D
Landesa
CS
Landesa
CS

Inheritance of property by men/women


Formal land markets - function effectively
Number of land transfers (leases) per household
Duration of land leases

Page 31

6 Indicators main table

Extent and nature of


LSLA

Landesa
CS
Matrix

Rental fees/land area


Extent of large-scale land deals (data by negotiation and implementation status, intended size, size
under contract, operated size, location, investor country, land use, crop, etc.)

Land use Conformity of land


LGAF 7iv Most land that has had a change in land use assignment in the past 3 years has changed to the
use with
destined use.
decisions/regulations
LGAF 8i

In the largest city in the country, urban development is controlled effectively by a hierarchy of regional
and detailed land use plans that are kept up to date.

LGAF 8ii

In the four major cities, urban development is controlled effectively by a hierarchy of regional and
detailed land use plans that are kept up to date.
LGAF 8iii In the largest city in the country, the urban planning process or authority is able to cope with the
increasing demand for serviced units and land as evidenced by the fact that almost all new dwellings
are formal.
LGAF 8iv Existing requirements for residential plot sizes are met in most plots.
LGAF 8v The share of land set aside for specific use that is used for a nonspecified purpose in contravention of
existing regulations is low.
UI 1.6
Percentage of the total housing stock in compliance with current land and building regulations
GLTN201 Proportion of informal occupants using public land that is not planned for infrastructure or other
1 Settservices within total city population
Com
Impacts

Investmen Investments made by Landesa


t
farmers
CS
LSMS

Unclassif Unclassifi Unclassified


ed
ied

IEF

Number of instances of mid- to long-term investment made per farmer per year
Agricultural investments (type and value)
Property Rights Private property is guaranteed by the government. The court system enforces
contracts efficiently and quickly. The justice system punishes those who unlawfully confiscate private
property. There is no corruption or expropriation

Page 32

6 Indicators main table


EIU 56
BTI 9.1

Extent to which private property rights protected and private business is free from undue government
influence
To what extent do government authorities ensure well-defined rights of private property and regulate
the acquisition, benefits, use and sale of property?

IPD A600 Scurit des droits de proprit


EOS 1.01 Property rights, including over financial assets (1 = are poorly defined and not protected by law, 7 = are
clearly defined and well protected by law)
PHOccupation (Core topic, see UN 2007: 2.301-5)
Census
PHIndustry (of employment) (Core topic, see UN 2007: 2.306-9)
Census
PHStatus in employment (Employees; Employers; Own-account workers; Contributing family workers;
Census
Members of producers' cooperatives; Persons not classifiable by status) (Core topic, see UN 2007:
2.381-90)
PHCharacteristics of all agricultural jobs during the last year (Supplementary topic, see UN 2007: 2.389Census
90)
WCA
Age of agricultural holder (Core topic, see FAO 2005: 11.1416)
GEC 1
Does the tool demand and generate political understanding and will to positively implement a gender
balanced approach?
GEC 4
Does the tool demand positive results for women from public and private bodies responsible for land
management?

Page 33

7 LSMS surveys
Land governance indicators database DRAFT

LSMS surveys published since 1995


Survey topic

Survey
Most recent completion of implementation
Years elapsed
Dwellings

Agricultural land

Tenure status (ownership, rental, squatted, other)


Size of dwelling
Value of dwelling (including rental value)
Rent paid
Duration of occupation
Presence and type of tenure documentation
Household members who are owners/have name on document
Reasons for not having tenure documentation
Existence of dispute over ownership
Tenure status (ownership, rental, sharecropping, squatted,
other)
Area of land owned/rented/used
Value of land owned (also rental value)
Rent paid
Mode of acquisition
Right to sell/use as collateral
Duration of possession/use
Presence and type of tenure documentation
Registration of tenure
Household members who are owners/have name on document
Legal owner where land occupied without consent
Perception of tenure security
Reason for perception of tenure security
Experience of disputes, conflicts, involuntary tenure changes
Receipt of compensation for readjustment/expropriation
Type/success of conflict resolution
Control over land use/use of outputs within household

Agricultural investments (type and value)


Income from real estate sales
Income from real estate rent
Payment of land or real estate tax
Shocks experienced by HH
Real property loss by displaced persons
Community-level questions

Loss of land
Documentation or legal status of communal land
Prevalence of tenure types and documentation in community
Reasons for (lack of) progress in documentation
Land adjustment and reallocations
Compensation received for readjustment and reallocations
Inheritance of property by men/women
Number of landless labourers in community

Page 1

7 LSMS surveys

1
Albania
LSMS

2
Armenia
Household
Budget
Survey

3
Azerbaijan
Survey of
Living
Conditions

4
Living in
BosniaHerzegovina
Survey

5
Brazil Survey
of Living
Conditions

6
7
Bulgaria Multi- China-Heibei
topic
and Liaoning
household
Living
survey
Standards
Survey

2005
8
1
1
1
1

1996
17
1
1

1995
18
1
1

1995
18
1

2007
6
1
1

2005
8
1
1
1
1

1
1

1997
16
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
1

1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

Page 2

7 LSMS surveys

8
EcuadorEncuesta
Condiciones
de Vida

9
EthiopiaRural
socioeconomi
c survey

10
Ghana living
standards
survey

11
Guatemala
ENCOVI
survey

12
India - Uttar
Pradesh and
Bihar Survey
of Living
Conditions

13
Iraq
Household
SocioEconomic
Survey

14
Jamaica
Survey of
Living
Conditions

1998
15
1

2011
2
1

1998
15
1

2000
13
1

1998
15
1

2007
6
1
1
1

1997
16
1

1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
1
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1

Page 3

7 LSMS surveys

15
16
Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan
Living
Standards
Measurement
Survey

17
Malawi Third
Integrated
Household
Survey

18
Nepal Living
Standards
Survey

1996
17
1
1

2011
2
1

2011
2
1
1
1
1

1998
15
1
1
1
1
1

1
1

19
NicaraguaEncuesta
Nacional de
Hogares
sobre
Medicin de
Nivel
2005 de Vida
8
1

20
Nigerl'Enqute
Nationale sur
les
Conditions de
Vie des
Mnages
et
2011
2
1

1
1

1
1

21
Nigeria GHSpanel

2011
2
1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

Page 4

7 LSMS surveys

22
Panama
Living
Standards
Survey

23
Papua New
Guinea
Household
Survey

24
Serbia Living
Standards
Measurement
Survey

25
Tajikistan
Living
Standards
Measurement
Survey

26
Tanzania
National
Panel Survey

27
Timor Leste
Survey of
Living
Standards

28
Uganda
National
Panel Survey

2008
5
1
1
1
1

1996
17

2007
6
1
1

2009
4

2011
2
1

2007
6
1

2011
2
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1

1
1
1

Page 5

1
1

7 LSMS surveys

29
Viet Nam
Household
Living
Standards
Survey
2004
9
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1

Total

27
13
15
21
4
10
4
3
1
27

26
16
12
11
3
9
14
3
9

1
3
1
3

1
1

1
1
1

1
1

2
1
4
4
12
17
7
3
2
1
4

Mean

Comments

9,379310345 There has


Ownership
Floor area.
Respondent

Often this is a
Often it is
asked which
For example,
Ownership
and rental
This
Respondent
In cash or in
How the

Often this is a
Whether
Often it is
asked which
Very different
i.e. the nature
This includes
a wide range
The Niger
It is not
This may be
This may be
This is
Many surveys
i.e. whether
Surveys often

1
2
1
1
1

Page 6

8 WCA 2010
Land governance indicators database DRAFT

World Census of Agriculture 2010 round survey topics in a sample


Total
Ethiopia
Gender of holder
Age of holder
Ethnicity of holder
Area of holdings
Ownership/rental
Individual/collective
Possession of title
Registered tenure
Other tenure categories
How acquired?

Mozambique Niger
1
1
1
1

Rwanda

Tanzania

1
1

1
1

1
1

El Salvador

Guatemala
1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1

1
1
1
1

Page 1

India

Lao PDR

1
1

1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1

1
1

Nicaragua

10
8
4
3
10
7
3
3
1
4
3

1 Contents

Land Governance Indicators Database

DRAFT

Prepared for the Global Land Tools Network


Author: Tim Bending
August 29, 2013

[Insert logos? Whose?]

Contents
This publication contains the following sheets:
1 Contents

- Notes are included at the bottom of this sheet

2 Categorical Framework

- Provides information on how indicators have been categorized by topic.

3 Data sources

- Describes systems and initiatives that produce primary data on land


governance issues - one source of the indicators catalogued in this
publication.
- Information is given on coverage and regularity of collection, focus,
methodology, and the abbreviation used in the tables.
- Relevance to different monitoring contexts is commented.

4 Other frameworks

- Describes published evaluation frameworks which may not have been used
for primary data collection, and indicator proposals made in relation to the
post-2015 development agenda - the other source of the indicators
catalogued in this publication.
- Information is given on piloting, focus, methodology, web-available reference,
and the abbreviation used in the tables.
- Relevance to different monitoring contexts is commented.

5 Indicators analysis

- For each indicator topic, indicators in the main table are listed by
abbreviation.
- Comments discuss the relevance of the topics to different monitoring
contexts, highlight possible key indicators and discuss methodological
issues.

6 Indicators main table

- Lists all indicators by topic.

7 LSMS surveys

- Shows the distribution on different topics in Living Standards Measurement


Study surveys published since 1995.

8 WCA 2010

- Shows the distribution of different topics in a sample of 10 World Census of


Agriculture 2010 round censuses/surveys.

Page 1

1 Contents

Notes
- Whilst an effort has been made to provide comprehensive coverage of
relevant initiatives and proposals, no guarantee can be made that all relevant
data collection initiatives and indicator proposals are represented. This
publication may be revised in the future to take account of changes and new
information.
- This publication assumes a very broad definition of indicator in order to
encompass usage across a wide range of initiatives. Many maybe properly
regarded as data items or variables. In some cases, evaluation questions
have been listed alongside indicators.
- Whilst an effort has been made to be comprehensive, some indicators from
some initiatives have been left out where they appeared to be beyond the
scope of this publication.

Page 2