By Anna Fish
Hosting the breakout session was Harold Liversage from IFAD. First to speak was Everlyne Nairesiae from the Global Land Tool Network (GLTN), who started by explaining the Global Land Indicators Initiative (GLII) hosted by the GLTN and UN Habitat. The mission for the GLII is to ‘make global scale monitoring of land governance a reality’.
Following this, Everlyne explained why land in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) holds importance. Firstly, it keeps land on the global policy agenda, where land underpins 6 SDGs including 1, 2, 5, 11, 15, and 16. Secondly, the SDG creates a sense of focus and urgency for evidence-based policy dialogues. Lastly, it means that NSO Metadata generates more and better data, which is key for policy decision-making.
Under the Global Land Indicators for monitoring land governance issues for comparable data, Everlyne explained that there are 15 comparable land indicators categorised into four groups: land tenure security, land administration, land and conflict, and sustainable land use and management. These indicators are crucial for measuring success in the 6 SDGs in which land is involved.
The indicators are classified by the Inter-Agency Expert Group on SDGs into three tiers, where most land indicators are classified as Tier II:
‘Indicator is conceptually clear, has established methodology and standards available, but data is not regularly produced by countries.’
Continuing from this, complementary data sources such as household surveys and census, administrative data, geospatial data, data from CSOs, GDWGL and other development agencies were explained. Everlyne questioned, how can data inform policy at the local and global scale? This lead to a call to go beyond data to develop a Global Status Report on Land Governance (GSRLG), by looking at issues found it data results in further detail in the form of a global report.’
Benefits of the GSRLG were then listed, where the report would:
- Serve as a mechanism for monitoring and documentation of land governance issues
- Broaden the scope of the SDGs annual report
- Act as a tool for policy dialogue and inform government planning and decision making
- Provide information where more effort is needed
- Act as a global resource
The panel then handed over to Ward Anseeuw from the ILC. When asked by Harold about his thoughts about the GSRLG, he began his presentation by proposing that the Civil Society should be a part of the endeavour. He identified that the Civil Society has been a key stakeholder beyond data, adding legitimacy to the indicators talked about by Everlyne. When creating a report, Ward stated that you need to ‘shed light where no one else is looking’ as a call for new data to be collected.
Recognising that countries need support in reporting on these indicators, he suggested that national statistical offices need to be urges to collect data; the capacity for data collection and analysis needs to be enhanced; and the methodological refinements to the indicator’s guidance and the tools for data collection needs to be supported.
Ward followed by introducing the Dashboard: a tool to promote common indicators developed by ILC members and beyond, and to give priority to people-centered data. The aim of the Dashboard is to:
- Develop an alternative land monitoring system recognised as legitimate in the global framework
- Shed light on land governance perspectives from and with under-represented sectors of the population
He explained the three layers of indicators: the legal layer, the implementing layer, and the impact/perception layer. It was highlighted that it is essential for the impact/perception layer to be the focus of the report. Questioning how we go beyond the data and indicators, Ward claimed that by 2020, we will have a few data sources related to the dashboard. He emphasised the importance for the data source to be accepted in the Dashboard, as opposing them would be counter-productive.
In agreement with Everlyne, Ward outlined some benefits of a GSRLG. He explained that it would provide a clear objective and definition of value and scope, going beyond SDGs and including people-centred data. A GSRLG would also accept an ecosystem of data and data sources, and would not be limiting to data quantities and types. Ward agreed that the GSRLG shouldn’t be owned by the UN alone, but should involve a number of groups such as the Civil Society and the Private Sector. He highlighted that the report should shed light on what is not covered in the SDGs.
Malcolm Childress, Director of Global Land Alliance, was next to talk about the PRIndex contributions to a global status report on land governance. He began by pointing out that the land sector has never had a basic matrix. The health sector has simple ways of measuring progress, such as life expectancy, which allows change and progress to be made in relations to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, the lack of matrix in the land sector has set it broadly apart from other development sectors, preventing it from measuring progress and weakening the perception of the land governance sector.
Following from Ward’s perception indicator, he said that this indicator can be measured in a way that is direct such as asking direct questions about whether people feel threatened which forms the basis of PRIndex data. PRIndex has been introduced in 33 countries, and aims to expand to 140 countries by 2020. Showing findings from three test countries (India, Colombia and Tanzania), results from PRIndex data clearly showed that between ¼ and ⅓ of adults in these countries were expressing worry about losing rights to the current land they are living on against their will in the next 5 years. This is the first time we have simple numbers to show the simple dynamics of this issue, demonstrated by results from perception indicators. Malcolm was excited to collaborate with the ILC Dashboard as PRIndex has great potential to fill data gaps, and will be launching datasets at the Committee for Food Security Meetings in October.
When asked by the audience, ‘how will you engage stakeholders at the local level?’, Ward emphasised the importance of this and describe the example in Senegal. As there are huge differences between north and south Senegal, data segregation is essential, opening an opportunity to add value to the report.
When asked about ensuring data validity, Everlyne responded, ‘as data is generated by many different sources, we can bridge data gaps in such as report.’ This is also an opportunity get appropriate methodology with government support, and allows us to improve the report over time.
The audience also questioned how such a report will discuss inequality. Evelyne said that report should have the intention to have data that shows trends in inequality, leading to solutions to inequality and an understanding in the approaches that will work to achieve it.
At the end of the session, there was a consensus for the GSRLG to invest in obtaining data as many countries have very little or no data regarding land governance. Although it was recognised that there is no common reference that is legit and creditable to all countries, it was agreed that a global document comparing the situation of one country to another gives much more strength to policy at country level. There was a call for more land indicators, to measure quantities of land: “You can have total rights to 0.001 ha of land, but you can not feed your families,” Everlyne stated. Overall, a need for a GSRLG was agreed by all.
