You are on page 1of 134

1 Contents

Land Governance Indicators Database

Prepared for the Global Land Tools Network

Author: Tim Bending

August 29, 2013

[Insert logos? Whose?]

-

DRAFT

Contents

This publication contains the following sheets:

  • 1 Contents

- Notes are included at the bottom of this sheet

  • 2 Categorical Framework

  • 3 Data sources

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

- 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.

  • 4 Other frameworks

    • - Relevance to different monitoring contexts is commented.

- 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 - Shows the distribution on different topics in Living Standards Measurement Study surveys published since 1995.

LSMS surveys

  • 8 - Shows the distribution of different topics in a sample of 10 World Census of Agriculture 2010 round censuses/surveys.

WCA 2010

Page 1

Notes

1 Contents

  • - 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

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

2 Categorical framework Land governance indicators database – DRAFT Categorization of land governance indicators The tables

Page 3

2 Categorical framework

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.

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

2 Categorical framework Different phases of the policy process require different data collection methodologies - Legal

Page 4

2 Categorical framework

2 Categorical framework Dimension 3: Different parameters for evaluating land governance – characteristics and outputs Process

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 decision- making.

Page 5

2 Categorical framework

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 cross- cutting 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

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

2 Categorical framework Very many indicators also address whether best practice in different contexts is followed

Page 6

2 Categorical framework

2 Categorical framework Page 7

Page 7

2 Categorical framework

2 Categorical framework

2 Categorical framework

2 Categorical framework

2 Categorical framework

3 Data sources

Land governance indicators database – DRAFT

Data Sources – Initiatives that produce primary land governanc

Organization

Initiative

Abbr. used

Data coverage

Regularity

Short description

Censuses

National statistics Population and houPH-Census FAO/National stat World Census of A WCA

National-level sample surveys

200+ countries (2 10 years 140 countries (20 10 years

Enumeration of entir Enumeration/sampli

World Bank

Living Standards MLSMS

29 countries (199 No common scheNational household

UNICEF

Multiple Indicator

MICS

52 countries (MIC3 years (prev. 5) National household

USAID

Demographic and DHS

34 countries (DHS5 years (now 3?) National household

National statistics National household and agricultur Not determined

n/a

National household

UN-HABITAT

Urban Iniquities SuUIS

Piloted in several n/a

City-wide household

Landesa, Renmin 17 province China Landesa CS

17 provinces of C 2-4 years

An independent hou

Global surveys

World Bank/IFC

Doing Business

DB

185 countries

Annual

Global expert survey

Transparency InteGlobal Corruption GCB

107 countries (20 Annual or biannu Global opinion surve

WEF

Executive Opinion EOS

Global

Annual

Business opinion su

Crowd-sourcing initiatives

 

CDE, CIRAD, GIGLand Matrix

Land Matrix

Global

n/a

An initiative to gath

Expert assessment frameworks (may also include use of secondary data and key informant interviews)

World Bank

Land Governance LGAF

17 completed, 18 No regular sched A framework for nati

OECD

Social Institutions SIGI

100+ countries

3 years (2009, 20Framework for the a

UN HABITAT/GLTLegal and Instituti LIFI

Piloted in several No fixed scheduleAn qualitative evalu

IFAD Performance-BasePBAS Global

Annual

An expert evaluation

World Bank Country Policy Inst CPIA Global

Annual

A scoring system us

Habitat for HumanGlobal Housing IndGHI

Results published No fixed scheduleA detailed indicator f

CIPE/IRPF

International PropeIPMS

Results published No fixed scheduleA rapid expert asses

CEPII

Institutional Profil

IPD

143 countries

3 years

Wide-ranging govern

Bertelsmann Stift Bertelsmann TransBTI

128 countries

2 years

Wide-ranging govern

Economist Intellig Democracy Index EIU

Global

Annual

Wide-ranging govern

Heritage FoundatiIndex of Economic IEF Global

Annual

A governance index

Project monitoring frameworks

 

MCC

Common Indicator MCC

MMC projects

Project limited

Harmonized indicato

World Bank

Core Sector Indica CSI

Word Bank land aProject limited

Harmonized indicato

IFAD

Results and Impac RIMS

Global (IFAD pro Annual

A system of standard

Participatory assessment frameworks (may also include use of secondary data and key informant intervie

GLTN

Gender Evaluation GEC

Sub-national use No fixed scheduleMulti-stakeholder ev

Page 13

3 Data sources

e data

Focus

Methodology

Comments

Reference

Basic demographTraditionally the Population census http://unstats.un.org/unsd/pubs/gesgrid.asp? Basic indicators oIn the 2010 round Core topics promo http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-wca/en

Household incom Very detailed repr Data on tenure sta http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERN Demographic, ed A large scale repr A highly reliable d http://www.childinfo.org/mics.html Demographic, ed A large scale repr A highly reliable d http://www.measuredhs.com/What-We-Do/S

Often closely co

Often closely com National household or agriculture surveys are also implemented

Includes questionHousehold survey Piloting has demonSee Bazogu et al. 2011, Monitoring Security Land governance This household suThis impressive suhttp://www.landesa.org/our-research-countri

The registering prA limited survey ofThe methodology http://www.doingbusiness.org/ Corruption in diffeGlobal opinion/perIncludes one indic http://www.transparency.org/research/gcb/ One indicator on Opinion survey of The survey questiohttps://wefsurvey.org/index.php?sid=28226&

Large-scale land The initiative invo The Land Matrix aihttp://www.landmatrix.org/; http://www.tandfo

The primary focusExpert assessmenLGAF has proven thttp://go.worldbank.org/TDR9FDC7M0 Includes indicatorExpert legal assesA source of data ofhttp://genderindex.org/ Legal and institut Expert legal analy LIFI builds to a gr See Bazogu et al. 2011, Monitoring Security One section of seExpert assessmenThe PBAS is cost- http://www.ifad.org/operations/pbas/; http://w Land governance Qualitative assessDifferent aspects ohttp://www.worldbank.org/ida/IRAI-2011.html Detailed indicator Legal/policy analy The framework is dhttp://globalhousingindicators.org/en One section on prA mixture of refereRelevant chiefly to http://worldcitizenconsulting.net/images/Scor One indicator on Expert assessmenHard to evaluate t http://www.cepii.fr/institutions/EN/ipd.asp One indicator on Expert assessmenThe indicator is ha http://www.bti-project.org/index/methode/ One indicator on Scoring by countryHard to interpret b http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMO One indicator on Scoring based on Hard to interpret b http://www.heritage.org/index/property-rights

The land compon Project M&E, admStrong overlap withhttp://www.mcc.gov/documents/guidance/gui Cost of tenure regProject M&E, admStrong overlap with MCC Common Indicators.

One indicator on tIndicators are ev

The indicator on tehttp://www.ifad.org/operations/rims/

ws) Gender sensitivityA rapid evaluation An example of a tohttp://www.gltn.net/index.php/resources/publ

Page 14

id=383

3 Data sources

/; http://www.fao.org/economic/the-statistics-division-ess/world-census-of-agriculture/world-programme-f

AL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXTLSMS/0,,menuPK:3359053~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~the

urvey-Types/DHS.cfm; http://www.measuredhs.com/publications/publication-cr6-comparative-reports.cfm by national statistics agencies beyond the scope of programs such as LSMS, DHS and MICS, although of Tenure in Cities: People, Land and Policies, UN-HABITAT, http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDeta es-and-regions/china/; http://www.landesa.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/2007_01_NYU-17ProvSurvey

intro=0

nline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/03066150.2013.803071

of Tenure in Cities: People, Land and Policies, UN-HABITAT, http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDeta ww.gaportal.org/resources/detail/ifad-land-tenure-indicators; http://www.ifad.org/events/legal/doc/scoring

ecard_Methodology_Chapter_1.pdf; http://www.irpf.org/resource/score-card-reports2

CRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf

dance-2012001109601-common-indicators.pdf

ications/publications-list/finish/3-gltn-documents/31-gender-evaluation-criteria-for-large-scale-land-tools-

Page 15

3 Data sources

or-the-census-of-agriculture-2010/en/

SitePK:3358997,00.html; http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/EXT

they may be implemented with the support of actors such as the World Bank, UNICEF and USAID. The

ils.aspx?publicationID=3262

.pdf

ils.aspx?publicationID=3262

.pdf

brief-eng-2012

Page 16

3 Data sources

LSMS/EXTSURAGRI/0,,menuPK:7420268~pagePK:64168427~piPK:64168435~theSitePK:7420261,00

coverage of land issues by these surveys has not been determined here. However, some can be seen a

Page 17

.html

3 Data sources

s closely comparable to LSMS surveys (e.g. Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey 2004/5 and the

Page 18

3 Data sources

Uganda National Household Survey 2005/06), while others are closely related to or based on DHS/MIC

Page 19

3 Data sources

S surveys (e.g. the Botswana Core Welfare Indicators Survey). Separate agricultural and labour force su

Page 20

3 Data sources

rveys may closely relate to components of LSMS surveys. The coverage of LSMS-type and DHS/MICS-t

Page 21

3 Data sources

ype surveys can thus be assumed to be better than that of surveys that strictly belong to the LSMS, DHS

Page 22

3 Data sources

and MICS programmes. Core nutrition indicators are based on about one third each of DHS, MICS and

Page 23

3 Data sources

other national surveys. Coverage for all agricultural surveys is likely to be much more patchy.

Page 24

4 Other frameworks

Land governance indicators database – DRAFT

Published indicator or evaluation frameworks and indicator

Included are indicator and other evaluation frameworks that have not been significantly used to collect

Organization

Initiative

Abbr. used

Piloted?

Short description Focus

Indicator/evaluation question frameworks

 

UN HABITAT

Urban IndicatoUI

Tenure security nIndicators devised Includes indicators

ILC members

Land Watch A LWA

Piloted in 7 counA framework for asTenure-related conf

GCIF

Global City IndGCIF

 

Initiative that allo

Includes shelter ind

Landesa

Landesa PractLandesa PG

Detailed framewor

Land property right

FAO Governing lan TGG

A guide to support

Gender equity aspe

Indicator proposals

UN HABITAT/GL Proposed syst GLTN2011

Largely piloted t 2011 proposal for Five core tenure se

World Bank

Indicators sug WB prop.

Indicators propose Land governance o

UN Women

“A transformat UN Women

Proposal on a goalTwo indicators focu

Namati

Justice 2015 CNamati

Proposal on legal

Access to justice, ri

Page 25

proposals

4 Other frameworks

primary data, and proposals relating to post-2015

Methodology Comments Reference

The suggested meThe tenure securityhttp://www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/Urban_Indicators.pdf The indicators hav The Land Watch Ashttp://www.landcoalition.org/publications/cso-land-reform-monitoring-asia

Draws on secondaMore information o http://www.cityindicators.org/Default.aspx Legal analysis, alt Practical Guides 2 http://www.landesa.libguides.com/

The guide suggest This is the first in

http://www.fao.org/docrep/017/i3114e/i3114e.pdf

For household leveThe proposal includSee Bazogu et al. 2011, Monitoring Security of Tenure in Cities: People, L

All the indicators

LGAF coordinators have suggested 6 indicators that all happen to be output indicators. They

None discussed, b Indicators on dwelli http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2013/6/un-women-launches-glo

The suggested meThe perception survhttp://www.namati.org/consultations/; http://www.namati.org/wp-content/u

Page 26

4 Other frameworks

and and Policies, UN-HABITAT, http://www.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=326 have a strong overlap to LGAF concerns but are not specifically LGAF indicators (or are not phrased in bal-call-for-a-transformative-agenda-to-make-gender-equality-a-reality/

ploads/2013/06/Justice-2015-Annex-I.pdf

Page 27

4 Other frameworks

2

the same way. At the moment, the rationale given for these indicators and coordinators assessment of

Page 28

4 Other frameworks

national-level data availability has not been reviewed.

5 Indicators analysis

Land governance indicators database – DRAFT

Summary and analysis of indicators by sub-topic

Phase

Main topic

Sub-topic

Indicator/question

 

sources

Inputs

Policy development process

Participation in land policy development

LGAF 6i. LIFI 1. GEC 2. TGG.

 

Monitoring of policy implementation

LGAF 6ii, 6iv. GEC 3-4.

 

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 11-12. ILC

 

Discrimination in

UI 1.4.5, 1.5.6. LIFI 5.1-

UI 1.4.6. LIFI 5.3. SIGI.

property rights

2, 5.4. PBAS B. SIGI.

(general)

GHI P1.1, 1.3, 1.5.

Discrimination in

Landesa PG3. GEC 8. TGG.

property rights

Landesa PG2. TGG.

(inheritance)

Statutory regulation of common an customary properties

LGAF 1v, 2v. PBAS E.

Discrimination in

Landesa PG3, PG2.

non-statutory

laws/rules

 

Resources

Adequacy of budget allocation

LGAF 6iii, 12iv, 18iii. GEC 5.

Institutions

Clarity of institutional mandates

LGAF 5i-ii, 12iii.

Processes

Recording tenure

Costs of tenure

LGAF 3iii-v, 18i. WB

rights

registration

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.

Page 30

5 Indicators analysis

Quality of tenure records

LGAF 5iv, 16i-iii, 17i. IPMS 1.2. LIFI 6.1. GLTN2011 City1.

Accessibility of

LGAF 5iv, 16 i-vi, LSLA3.

tenure records

IPMS 1.2.1, 1.2.3.

Transparency/corrup tion of tenure administration

LGAF 3iv, 17i, 19i-ii. LIFI 6.6. GCB.

Institutional capacity and efficiency

LGAF 18ii. LIFI 6.2-4. MCC L-2.

Recorded tenure rights by land area/# properties

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

Recorded tenure rights by population (gender)

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

Land valuation

Accuracy and

LGAF 10i-ii

accessibility of

valuation records

Land taxation

Scope, consistency and efficiency of taxation

LGAF 7iii, 11i-iv. LSMS

Spatial planning

Public participation in spatial planning

LGAF 7i-ii.

Extent/Appropriaten ess of land use regulations

LGAF 4i-ii, IPMS 1.1.3, 1.3.1. GHI R5.6.

Costs of planning permissions

LGAF 9i-ii. GHI R5.3-5.

Enforcement of land use decisions/ regulations

LGAF 4i-ii. GHI P3 ..

Dispute resolution

Clarity/non-overlap

LGAF 20ii-iii. Landesa

of responsibilities

PG3.

Accessibility of

LGAF 20i-ii, iv. Landesa

dispute resolution

PG3. TGG.

Gender sensitivity (excluding general access issues)

Landesa PG3. GEC 10. TGG.

Efficiency of dispute resolution

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

Page 31

5 Indicators analysis

Public land

Appropriateness of

LGAF 12i

management and

public land

management of

designations

LSLA

 

Accessibility of information on pubic lands

LGAF 12ii, v-vi.

Assessment of potential impacts of public land disposal/LSLA

LGAF LSLA 14.

Efficiency of public land disposal/LSLA decisions

LGAF LSLA 11.

Transparency of

LGAF 15i, iii, LSLA 4-9.

public land

disposal/LSLA

Monitoring and

LGAF 15ii, LSLA 12-16.

contract

enforcement of

LSLA

Land reforms

Eligibility and rights

Landesa PG3

(Readjustment,

of beneficiaries

restitution,

redistribution)

 

Readjustment

Landesa CS. LSMS.

outputs

Expropriation and

Treatment of

LGAF 2vi, 14ii.

eviction

affected land users, by tenure status

Provision of compensation and other procedures

LGAF 14i, iii. UI 1.5.3. GHI P4.1-b, d. Landesa CS. LSMS.

Provision of means of redress

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

Extent of

WB prop 5

expropriation

Justifiability of

LGAF 13i-ii. Namati.

expropriation,

Landesa CS.

eviction

Community/

Allocation and

Landesa PG3, PG2.

indigenous tenure

transfers

TGG.

administration

 

Dispute resolution

LGAF 20ii. Landesa PG3, PG2.

Page 32

5 Indicators analysis

Household decision- making

Household decision- making

Landesa PG2. LSMS.

 

Cross-cutting

Gender-related

GEC 6-7, 9, 13-14, 17,

characteristics

19-20, 22. TGG.

Outcomes

Tenure security

Prevalence/severity

LGAF 21i, LSLA2. UI 1.7.

 

of disputes/ evictions UIS 11. GLTN2011ext

 

1.1. GHI P4.1, 5.2. Landesa CS. LWA. LSMS.

 

Perceptions of

UIS 12.GLTN2011 HH2,

GLTN2011ext 2.2, 3.

tenure security

ext1.3. Namati3.

History of

Landesa CS. LSMS.

possession

LSMS.

Perceptions of rights

GLTN2011ext 4.1-4. Landesa CS. LSMS.

 

Perceptions of

Accountability of

Namati

accountability

local land decision- making

Access to land

Access to land (agricultural)

Namati. LWA. MICS HC11-12. DHS 119-20. LSMS. PH-Census. WCA.

 

Access to land (housing)

GCIF. MICS HC10. UIS 1. LSMS. PH-Census.

Land ownership by gender

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

 

Transfers

Rates of inheritance by gender

GHI P1.2. LSMS.

 

Market functionality

PBAS D. Landesa CS.

Extent and nature of LSLA

Matrix

Page 33

5 Indicators analysis

 

Land use

Conformity of land use with decisions/ regulations

LGAF 7iv, 8i-v. UI 1.6. GLTN2011 Sett-Com. GHI P3.3.

Impacts

Investment

Investments made by farmers

Landesa CS. LSMS.

Unclassified Unclassified

Unclassified

IEF. EIU 5. BTI 9.1. IPD A600. EOS 1.01. PH- Census. WCA. GEC 1, 4.

Page 34

5 Indicators analysis

Topic overview

Definitional issues

Data collection methodology

Participation in land policy development, including legal

drafting and the development of “Tracking” is a key focus of the

A key problem is assessing to what extent participation is really

meaningful. In principle this can be As with any part of the policy

F&G, but is relatively overlooked by development process, a great

Records of participants, expert and participatory assessment. The meaningfulness and representativity Expert and participatory assessment, drawing on M&E data,

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

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,

See: Discrimination in property rights (general)

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

Assessment of legal discrimination in practice requires a detailed framework of questions, as illustrated by the Landesa Practical Guides on women's land and

See: Discrimination in property rights (general)

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

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

See: Discrimination in property rights (general)

The framework for the exercise of customary or common property rights created by statutory law. A range of different issues are

Not concerned with statutory law

A very diverse range of topics that cannot effectively be reduced to a single indicator.

No widely used indicators refer to

but with "custom", such as the laws this topic, but the Landesa Practical

and rules governing tenure in

Guides on women's land rights and

Expert legal analysis.

Expert or participatory analysis, but may require detailed knowledge of customary rules that are not

The availability and adequacy of resources for different policy

This is difficult to assess because "adequacy" is always relative to

Expert and participatory assessment approaches.

Clarity and non-overlap of mandates for land governance institutions. The LGAF contains 4

Expert assessment.

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

A key non-cost constraint identified in indicators is procedural stipulations as regards evidence of

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

Some indicators ask experts to simultaneously assess many different barriers (e.g. LGAF 3v) to

Expert assessment, drawing on procedures and user experience. Administrative data could be used for formal fees in some cases. User surveys are another approach –

Expert and participatory assessment approaches. User surveys.

Page 35

5 Indicators analysis

Issues include accuracy, whether

In practice, a wide range of

records are up to date, consistency, indicators are needed which may

the use of maps and whether

have different levels of relevance to

Expert assessment based on examination of procedures and registry information. However,

The ability of the public to access land registry information (records), and the constraints involved in

Expert assessment.

The existence of petty corruption and measures taken to combat it.

Different measures of institutional capacity.

Definitional issues are raised by the Global Corruption Barometer (GCB), specifically likely

LGAF relies on expert opinion and focuses as much on measures taken to ensure accountability as on

LIFI indicators measure capacity, capability and stability, but it is unclear how these are defined in

Expert and participatory assessment.

The extent of formal registration or documentation of tenure rights is

Indicators and survey questions vary widely in the terms they use,

widely used and proposed as a key making comparison and data

These indicators can be assessed either through administrative data or through surveys/censuses. Some

See: Recorded tenure rights by land area/# properties

See: Recorded tenure rights by land area/# properties

See: Recorded tenure rights by land area/# properties

Land valuation is treated as a significant land governance function in the VGGT (Chapter 18),

Expert assessment has to rely expert opinion about accuracy, or infer accuracy from the valuation

Expert assessment. Survey data would be valuable but unlikely to be cost effective.

Land valuation is treated as a significant land governance function in the VGGT (Chapter 19).

Indicators cover very different issues, comparable to the sub- topics listed under land

LGAF relies on expert assessment, drawing on and analysis of procedures and administrative data

Pubic participation in national, regional and local land use

The LGAF indicators each cover three aspects: whether public input

Justifiability of land use restrictions. Another potentially important issue

Defining “justifiable” is difficult and may make expert assessments

Expert and participatory assessment.

Expert and participatory assessment.

included here is whether alternative open to dispute. Participatory

Users costs (e.g. formal fees, time and number of procedures are

Whether efforts are made to enforce spatial planning regulations. Two LGAF indicators

Comparable issues as for costs of tenure administration.

Expert and participatory assessment, user surveys.

Expert and participatory assessment.

The critical issue here is the prevention of forum-shopping by

Cultural, cost, capacity, information and accountability constraints on

Indicators that particularly focus on constraints to women's access to justice

This is an issue that can potentially be assessed in great detail,

See: Accessibility of dispute resolution.

Efficiency of dispute resolution is concerned with the ability of

Time taken for dispute resolution is a relatively simple measure of

Assessment by legal experts and dispute resolution professionals.

Expert and participatory assessment. Potentially,

See: Accessibility of dispute resolution.

Expert assessment, administrative (court) data.

Page 36

5 Indicators analysis

Whether public land ownership is justified by the provision of public

Defining “justifiable” is difficult and may make expert assessments

Expert and participatory assessment.

goods at the an appropriate level of open to dispute. Participatory

government.

The accessibility of information on public lands and regarding land concessions.

approaches aiming to foster

Expert and participatory assessment.

Whether procedures are in place to A single indicator is used to cover a

ensure that large-scale land transfers are economically, environmentally and socially

Time required for obtaining approval for a LSLA. Other cost issues could also be assessed

lot of issues. There is a need to specify concrete procedures such as impact assessments,

Expert and participatory assessment.

Expert assessment. Disclosure of information by investors could be important for other cost issues.

A range of indicators concerned with clarity and consistency of process, access to information and

Many of the indicators refer to concrete procedures like competitive tendering, or direct

Expert assessment. Disclosure of information by investors would play and important role.

These indicators are largely

Issues such as whether social and

concerned with whether activities to environmental requirements are

monitor and enforce contracts take

“clearly defined and implemented”

Expert and participatory assessment.

place. The rate of payment of lease have to be precisely defined and

Land consolidation, readjustment, restitution and redistributive reforms are treated as significant land governance function in the

Readjustment is a major cause of tenure insecurity in China. The

The Landesa Practical Guide on gender and land rights provides a number of useful evaluation questions concerning land reform

Expert and participatory assessment approaches.

Household surveys

These two LGAF indicators assess whether protections against forced eviction are implemented equally

LGAF uses expert assessment, ideally drawing on implementation rules and expert experience.

These indicators assess whether procedures designed to avoid forced evictions in the context of

There are many elements to procedures for avoiding forced eviction and the UN-HABITAT

LGAF, UN-HABITAT and GHI indicators rely on expert assessment. The reliability of expert

Legal means of redress in cases of eviction is another key element of measures to prevent forced evictions. Indicators measure a

This proposed indicator measures the number and value of

Standards on the avoidance of forced eviction require that expropriation only take place for a

Defining “accessible” may be an issue for some indicators.

LGAF and LIFI indicators use expert assessment and may in practice

Otherwise a problem with indicators refer to procedures, rather than

that ask whether legal aid is State compensation of legally recognized property is referred to, The definition of “public interest” is problematic. The indicators either assess whether expropriated land

whether these are followed. The

Presumably intended to use administrative data. The reliability of

Expert assessment and survey techniques. This is one indicator for which crowdsourcing (already being

The Landesa Practical Guides on gender and land rights and inheritance provide a detailed

See: above.

In-depth knowledge of customary rules, institutions and practices is required. Therefore participatory

Page 37

See: above.

5 Indicators analysis

Household-level decision-making is LSMS surveys occasionally ask

not usually regarded as a land

about management responsibility

Addressing household-level issues

is likely to require in-depth,

A number of evaluation questions

from the Gender Evaluation Criteria

Expert and participatory assessment

approaches.

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

On the one hand, perceptions of

tenure insecurity can be seen as a

subjective but informed (“expert

Indicators on ” mode of acquisition

and duration of possession have

been suggested as proxies for

Perceptions of rights and

understanding of policies are an

important policy outcome that

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

Administrative data may be

available for court cases and

expropriations. However, the use of

such data as an indicator of tenure

insecurity is problematic (see

Surveys can ask different questions

about perceptions. Examples

include whether respondents fear

Household or smaller scale surveys.

Examples include the UIS, Landesa

China survey and isolated LSMS

GLTN proposes a survey

methodology based on the UIS.

Comparable questions are also

Surveys.

This is an outcome indicator that

indirectly assesses participation,

transparency and corruption in

local-level land decision-making,

particularly spatial planning or local

It could be a challenge to ensure

Surveys. Could be part of

consistency in what “local” refers to, household surveys or a simple

as in different contexts it could be

taken to mean, customary

institutions, formal common-

opinion survey of the kind used by

Transparency International.

However, no such indicator has

The Gini-coefficient of agricultural

land holding size has traditionally

be used as an indicator of land

distribution equity. Another

There are several important

definitional issues with the use of

the Gini coefficient measure that

need to be considered: whether

approach is to assess landlessness land size is used (which may not be

in terms of the proportion of rural or a good measure of value) or land

“agricultural” households without

Ownership of dwelling is an

indicator of access to land for all

households, but is obviously

particularly important in urban

Gender equity of access to and

ownership of land is an important

outcome indicator reflecting the

gender-sensitivity of many aspects

of land governance. Indicators

value (which is less commonly

Data sources typically ask whether

a dwelling is owned or rented.

Sometimes “other” or other

categories (e.g. “squatted”) are

The definition of ownership or

tenure rights may be problematic.

Agricultural censuses and surveys

typically record the sex of the

holder, but it is possible that a

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

Data on dwelling ownership vs.

rental is provided by population

censuses, LSMA surveys and MICS.

A dedicated survey such as UIS

Data for this indicator is scarce for

dwelling ownership because the

household is treated as the unit of

ownership in surveys (see “Access

to land (housing)” above). Some

The rate of the inheritance of land

and dwellings, disaggregated by

gender.

Indicators assess the emergence

and functioning of markets for land.

Large-scale land acquisitions are a

particular category of land tenure

The concept of an instance of

inheritance is fairly simple. An

indicator would be more sensitive if

Survey questions, such as those

used in the Landesa China survey,

No one indicator can be expected

to sum up all the different variable

The only identified data source was

a LSMS survey in Tanzania that

asked community representatives if,

Agricultural census and LSMS

survey data of land rental and sales

Monitoring requires the identification

and characterization of individual

Page 38

5 Indicators analysis

Land use is to an extent a land

governance outcome that can be

particularly related to spatial

In many respects, land use could

be defined as an impact of land

governance, but the extent to which

LGAF provides a range of indicators

for expert assessment on this issue.

In principle, land use changes and

Investment by farmers and home

Simple indicators on the frequency

owners is regarded as an important of certain types of capital

k

k

ff

t

f t

it

i

t

t

d l

d

t

Some surveys, such as some LSMS

surveys have recorded the

f

d

l

f

t

i

t

A number of indicators have been

included in the main table but not

classified. These include general

indicators on “property rights”

The indicators on property rights

used by IEF, EIU, BTI, IPD and

EOS are all quite similar and are

based on an expert respondent

Page 39

5 Indicators analysis

Possible applications

Potentially important in relation to

national-level policy evaluation, and

in relation to the F&G and VGGT.

Could be a stronger focus in

national-level evaluation,

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

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-

See: Discrimination in property

rights (general)

Each indicator is likely to have a

different degree of relevance in

different national settings. While

some may have a place in

The main application is likely to be

for in-depth evaluation of customary

tenure regimes in countries whether

For national-level and in-depth

policy evaluation it is relevant to ask

National-level evaluation and the

evaluation of particular functions

such as the management of public

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

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

National-level and in-depth

evaluation. A significant focus of

LGAF. Target 10d of the HLP report

In the UN HLP report, target 10e

focuses on bribery, corruption and

accountability. Indicators used to

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

The recordation/documentation of

tenure rights is a key indicator in

any national or sub-national context

See: Recorded tenure rights by land

area/# properties

5 Indicators analysis

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

National-level and in-depth

evaluation. Targets 11b and d of the

See: Accessibility of dispute

resolution.

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

National-level and in-depth

evaluation. A significant focus of

LGAF. Target 10d of the HLP report

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

The evaluation questions listed are

most appropriate to an in-depth

evaluation.

These are valuable output

indicators in national contexts (like

These are significant indicators of

the extent to which the right to

freedom from forced eviction is

Compensation payment is

potentially a key national-level

output indicator of measure to

The provision of legal means of

redress in cases of compulsory

tenure changes is a key indicator in

relation to measures to prevent

Expropriations may be a major

source of tenure insecurity in some

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

In practice, very many rural land

users gain access to land through

customary institutions, and these

See: above.

5 Indicators analysis

In-depth evaluation.

Likely to be most relevant to in-

depth. Gender-focused evaluation.

A key outcome indicator with

applicability at all levels.

5 Indicators analysis

A key indicator that is

complementary to, or could be an

alternative to, an indicator on

A potentially useful supplementary

indicator to include in household

surveys.

Useful for more in-depth analysis of

urban tenure or policy reforms

processes in specific national

An outcome indicator, principally on

the spatial planning aspect of

responsible land governance, that

potentially has relevance across

urban and rural, developed and

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

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

The UN Women proposal on the

post-2015 agenda puts forward

ownership of dwelling and land by

gender as its sole indicators relating

to land. These are potentially key

The right of women to inherit land is

a key gender concern. In principle

this should be an important

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

Without widespread and reliable

disclosure of information, there is

National-level and in-depth

evaluation.

There is potential for encouraging

the collection of data on tenure

it

d

i

t

t

d

5 Indicators analysis

6 Indicators main table

Land governance indicators database – DRAFT

Indicators main table

Phase

Topic

Sub-topic

Abbr.

Indicator/que

Inputs

Policy development Participation in land policy development procLGAF 6i

A comprehens

 

LIFI 1

Multi-stakehold

GEC 2

Is the decision

TGG

% of women a

TGG

% of formal lan

TGG

% of governme

TGG

% of women a

TGG

% of women a

TGG

% of women a

TGG

% of women a

TGG

% of women a

TGG

Presence of pa

TGG

% of women’s

 

Monitoring of policy implementation

LGAF 6ii

Land policies i

 

LGAF 6iv

Land institution

GEC 3

Does the tool r

GEC 7

Does the tool p

 

Legal and policy fr

Legal protection of all legitimate land rights

LGAF 1i

Existing legal f

 

LGAF 1ii

Existing legal f

LGAF 1iii

The tenure of

LGAF 1iv

Group tenure i

LGAF 3ii

Legislation exi

LGAF LSLA10

Contractual pr

UI 1.4

Achievements

UI 1.4.2

a) Does the Co

UI 1.5

Level at which

UI 1.5.1

Does the Cons

UI 1.5.2

Does the natio

LIFI 2

Process prior t

LIFI 3.1

Legal aid to po

LIFI 4.1

Constitution an

LIFI 4.2

Coherent, una

LIFI 5.4

Renters have t

LIFI 6.7.1

Individuals hav

PBAS A Access to land

GHI P1.4

Does the law r

Namati The number of

Landesa PG3

What rights to

Landesa PG3

Does the law r

Landesa PG3

Are communal

Landesa PG3

Are customary

GEC 11

Does the tool p

Page 45

6 Indicators main table

 

GEC 12

Does the tool p

Discrimination in property rights (general)

UI 1.4.5

a) Are there im

UI 1.5.6

Are spouses li

LIFI 5.1

Laws of prope

LIFI 5.2

Co-tenure regi

PBAS B

Access to land

SIGI

Women have t

GHI P1.1

Can women le

GHI P1.3

Can land be jo

GHI P1.5

Are immigrants

Landesa PG3

Does the law r

Landesa PG3

If the law reco

Landesa PG3

Does the law li

Landesa PG3

Does a woman

Landesa PG3

Does the law p

Landesa PG3

Does the law r

Landesa PG3

Does the law p

Landesa PG3

Does the law p

Landesa PG3

What does the

GEC 8

Is the tool bas

TGG

existence of la

Discrimination in property rights (inheritance)UI 1.4.6

a) Are there im

 

LIFI 5.3

Household me

SIGI

Women have

Landesa PG2

Is a surviving w

Landesa PG2

Does the law r

Landesa PG2

What is the na

Landesa PG2

Is there a right

Landesa PG2

What do the in

Landesa PG2

Are there any

Landesa PG2

Are the intesta

Landesa PG2

Can a wife be

Landesa PG2

Can use rights

Landesa PG2

Is polygamy le

Landesa PG2

Are daughters

Landesa PG2

Is there any ty

Landesa PG2

What does the

TGG

existence of in

Statutory regulation of common and customaLGAF 1v

The law provid

 

LGAF 2v

Common prop

PBAS E

Regulation for

Landesa PG3

Are the comm

Landesa PG3

Does the form

Landesa PG3

Which forums

Landesa PG3

Which forums

Landesa PG3

Does the law r

Discrimination in non-statutory laws/rules

Landesa PG3

Which individu

Landesa PG3

Are there circu

Landesa PG3

Does the custo

Landesa PG3

Does the custo

Landesa PG3

Does the custo

Landesa PG3

Does the custo

Page 46

6 Indicators main table

 

Landesa PG3

Is there any re

Landesa PG2

If land is owne

Landesa PG2

Are there diffe

Landesa PG2

Is brideprice o

Landesa PG2

If yes, does th

Landesa PG2

Do widows rem

Landesa PG2

If polygamy is

Landesa PG2

Who decides w

Landesa PG2

Does the divisi

Landesa PG2

If polygamy is

Landesa PG2

Are daughters

Landesa PG2

Do unmarried

 

Resources

Adequacy of budget allocation

LGAF 6iii.

Cost of implem

 

LGAF 18iii

There is signifi

GEC 5

Are financial re

LGAF12iv

There are ade

 

Institutions

Clarity of institutional mandates

LGAF 5i

There is a clea

 

LGAF 5ii

The mandated

LGAF 5iii

Assignment of

LGAF12iii

The managem

Processes

Recording tenure rigCosts of tenure registration

LGAF 3iii

The costs for f

 

LGAF 3iv

There are no i

LGAF 3v

The requireme

LGAF 18i

The cost for re

WB CSI4

Average numb

DB Registering Procedures to

DB Registering Cost to legally

DB Registering Time to legally

 

IPMS 1.2.3

Mortgage regis

LIFI 6.5

Functioning of

GHI R5.1

What is the nu

GHI R5.2

What are the t

MCC

L-7

Percentage ch

MCC

L-8

Percentage ch

LSMS

Reasons for n

LSMS

Reasons for (l

Other barriers to tenure registration

LGAF 3i

Non-document

LGAF 3v

The requireme

LGAF 3vi

There is a clea

GHI P2.1

Is there an ope

GHI P3.1

Is there a polic

GHI P3.4

Is there a proc

Landesa PG3

Does the state

Landesa PG3

What docume

Landesa PG3

What docume

Landesa PG3

In the context

Landesa PG3

If land is distrib

Landesa PG2

What process

Landesa PG2

How is a trans

Page 47

6 Indicators main table

 

Landesa PG2

What is the pr

Quality of tenure records

LGAF 5iv

Information rel

LGAF 16i

Most records f

LGAF 16ii

Relevant priva

LGAF 16iii

Relevant publi

LGAF 17ii

There are mea

LGAF 17i

Most ownershi

IPMS 1.2.1

Cadastral infor

IPMS 1.2.1

Cadastral infor

LIFI 6.1

Basic land regi

GLTN2011 City1Informal settle

Accessibility of tenure records

LGAF 5iv

Information rel

LGAF 16i

Most records f

LGAF 16ii

Relevant priva

LGAF 16iii

Relevant publi

LGAF 16iv

The records in

LGAF 16v

Copies or extr

LGAF 16vi

Copies or extr

LGAF LSLA 3

Land use restr

IPMS 1.2.1

Cadastral infor

IPMS 1.2.3

Mortgage regis

Transparency/corruption of tenure administraLGAF 3iv

There are no i

 

LGAF 17i

There are mea

LGAF

19i

A clear schedu

LGAF 19ii

Mechanisms to

LIFI 6.6

Functioning of

GCB % of responde

Institutional capacity and efficiency

LGAF 18ii

The total fees

LIFI 6.2

Functioning of

LIFI 6.3

Functioning of

LIFI 6.4

Functioning of

MCC

L-2 Land administr

Tenure documentation/registration by land arLGAF 2i

Most commun

 

LGAF 2ii

Most individua

LGAF 2iii

Most individua

LGAF LSLA 1

Most forest lan

WB CSI2

Land parcels w

WB CSI3

Target land are

WB prop 2

No. of land tra

WB prop 4

Share of privat

PBAS C

Land tenure -

GHI P2.2

Estimated perc

GHI P2.3

Are titles upda

MCC

L-5 Parcels correc

Tenure documentation/registration by populaLGAF 2iv

A high percent

 

WB CSI1

Target populati

WB prop 1

Share of land (

UIS 2

(If owner) Do y

UIS 3

Does this docu

UIS 4

Does it (docum

UIS 5

Does it provide

UIS 6

(If yes(to 5)) R

Page 48

6 Indicators main table

 

UIS 7

(If yes(to 5)) R

UIS 8

(If renter) Do y

UIS 9

Do you have a

UIS 10

(If no (to 9)) H

GLTN2011 HH1 Proportion unit

GLTN2011ext 2.% families whi

GCIF

No. of househ

RIMS

Number of HH

GHI P3.2b

Number of hou

MCC L-6

Household lan

Landesa CS

Number of hou

Landesa CS

Date of issuan

Landesa CS

Number of ten

Landesa CS

Frequency of i

LWA

Percentage of

LSMS

Presence and

LSMS

Household me

LSMS

Presence and

LSMS

Registration of

LSMS

Household me

LSMS

Documentation

LSMS

Prevalence of

Land valuation

Accuracy and accessibility of valuation

LGAF 10i

The assessme

 

LGAF 10ii

There is a poli

Land taxation

Scope, consistency and efficiency of taxationLGAF 7iii

Mechanisms to

 

LGAF 11i

There are limit

LGAF 11ii

Most property

LGAF 11iii

Most assessed

LGAF 11iv

The amount of

WB prop 3

Total receipts o

LSMS

Payment of lan

Spatial planning

Public participation in spatial planning

LGAF 7i

In urban areas

 

LGAF 7ii

In rural areas,

 

Extent/appropriateness of land use regulatio LGAF 4i

There is a seri

 

LGAF 4ii

There is a seri

IPMS 1.1.3

Bundle of right

IPMS 1.3.1

Land – What i

GHI R5.6

Can alternative

 

Costs of planning permissions

LGAF 9i

Requirements

 

LGAF 9ii

All applications

GHI R5.3

What is the nu

GHI R5.4

What is the nu

GHI R5.5

What are the t

 

Enforcement of land use decisions/regulatio LGAF 4i

There is a seri

 

LGAF 4ii

There is a seri

GHI P3.3

Is the occupati

Dispute resolution

Clarity/non-overlap of responsibilities

LGAF 20ii

There is an inf

 

LGAF 20iii

There are no p

Page 49

6 Indicators main table

 

Landesa PG3

If there are mu

Accessibility of dispute resolution

LGAF 20i

Institutions for

LGAF 20iv

A process and

Landesa PG3

For division of

Landesa PG3

Are there barri

Landesa PG3

Are women ab

Landesa PG3

What are the b

TGG

% of women a

TGG

% of women a

TGG

% of women a

Gender sensitivity (excluding general accessLandesa PG3

What forums h

 

Landesa PG3

What forums h

Landesa PG3

Do women and

Landesa PG3

Where do wom

Landesa PG3

Which dispute

GEC 10

Does the tool p

TGG

% of women a

Efficiency of dispute resolution

LGAF 21ii

A decision in a

LGAF 21iii

Long-standing

WB prop. 6

No. of land-rel

MCC L-4

Conflicts succe

LWA

Number of cas

LWA

Number of cas

LWA

Number of cas

LWA

Average time i

LSMS

Type/success

TGG

% of disputes

Public land manag Appropriateness of public land designations LGAF 12i

Public land ow

Accessibility of information on pubic lands

LGAF 12ii

The majority o

LGAF 12v

All the informa

LGAF 12vi

Key informatio

Assessment of potential impacts of public la LGAF LSLA14

For transfers o

Efficiency of public land disposal/LSLA decisLGAF LSLA11

The procedure

Transparency of public land disposal/LSLA LGAF 15i Most public lan

 

LGAF 15iii

All types of pu

LGAF LSLA4

Public institutio

LGAF LSLA5

Incentives for i

LGAF LSLA6

Benefit sharing

LGAF LSLA7

There are dire

LGAF LSLA8

Sufficient infor

LGAF LSLA9

For cases of la

Monitoring and contract enforcement of LSL LGAF 15ii

A majority of th

 

LGAF LSLA12

Social require

LGAF LSLA13

Environmental

LGAF LSLA14

For transfers o

LGAF LSLA15

Compliance wi

LGAF LSLA16

There are ave

Land reforms (ReadEligibility and rights of beneficiaries

Landesa PG3

If the Governm

Landesa PG3

Are women an

Landesa PG3

If land is distrib

Page 50

6 Indicators main table

 

Landesa PG3

What are the r

Landesa PG3

What does the

Readjustment outputs

Landesa CS

Frequency of v

Landesa CS

Reported purp

Landesa CS

Destination of

LSMS

Prevalence of

Expropriation and e Treatment of affected land users, by tenure sLGAF 2vi

When loss of r

 

LGAF 14ii

Fair compensa

Provision of compensation and other proced LGAF 14i

Where propert

 

LGAF 14iii

Most expropria

UI 1.5.3

Are the followi

GHI P4.1a

Did the evictio

GHI P4.1b

How long in ad

GHI P4.1d

The percentag

Landesa CS

Payment of co

Landesa CS

Farmer satisfa

Landesa CS

Provision of ad

Landesa CS

Prior consultat

LSMS

Receipt of com

LSMS Compensation

Provision of means of redress

LGAF 14iv

Independent a

LGAF 14v

A first-instance

UI 1.5.4

Is there legal a

UI 1.5.5

Is there legal a

LIFI 3.2 Legal aid to po

LIFI 6.7.2

Institutions are

GLTN2011 City2Legal provision

Landesa CS

Use of means

Landesa CS

Change of com

Extent of expropriation

WB prop 5

No. and value

Justifiability of

expropriation, eviction

LGAF 13i

A minimal amo

 

LGAF 13ii

The majority o

Namati

Reduction in a

Landesa CS

Use of expropr

Community/indigen Allocation and transfers

Landesa PG3

Are communal

Landesa PG3

Who is respon

Landesa PG3

Is the ethnic or

Landesa PG3

Is the ethnic or

Landesa PG3

Is polygamy pr

Landesa PG3

Who decides

Landesa PG3

Do men bring l

Landesa PG3

How are land r

Landesa PG3

What happens

Landesa PG3

Do women wh

Landesa PG3

What is the pr

Landesa PG3

What happens

Landesa PG3

Do women kno

Landesa PG2

If land is held c

Landesa PG2

Who is usually

TGG

% of women a

Page 51

6 Indicators main table

 

TGG

% of women a

TGG

% number of c

 

Dispute resolution

LGAF 20ii

There is an inf

 

Landesa PG3

Are women re

Landesa PG3

Who is respon

Landesa PG3

Can women ac

Landesa PG3

Is there any re

Landesa PG2

How are inheri

Landesa PG2

Do both wome

Landesa PG2

Are there any

 

Household decision-making

Landesa PG2

Who makes de

 

LSMS

Control over la

 

Cross-cutting chara Gender-related

GEC

6

Is the informati

 

GEC 7

Does the tool p

GEC 9

Does the tool a

GEC 13

Does the tool t

GEC 14

Does the tool d

GEC 17

Does the tool e

GEC 19

Can the tool b

GEC 20

Can the tool b

GEC 22

Is there formal

TGG

number of land

TGG

% of women a

TGG

number of gen

TGG

number of gen

TGG

number of com

TGG

% of women a

TGG

% of women a

TGG

% of women a

TGG

% of women a

Outcomes

Tenure security

Prevalence/severity of disputes/evictions

LGAF 21i

Land disputes

 

LGAF LSLA2

Land acquisitio

UI 1.7

Average annu

UIS 11

Have you hear

GLTN2011ext 1.Number of hou

GHI P4.1

The number of

GHI P5.2

The governme

Landesa CS

Frequency of v

Landesa CS

Frequency of l

Landesa CS

Date of most r

LWA

Number of peo

LWA

Number of peo

LWA

Number of peo

LWA

Number of cas

LWA

Percentage of

LWA

Annual loss of

LWA

Annual Moneta

LWA

Annual loss of

LWA

Number of hou

Page 52

6 Indicators main table

 

LWA

Number of hou

LSMS

Existence of di

LSMS

Experience of

LSMS

Loss of land a

LSMS

Real property l

LSMS

Prevalence of

Perceptions of tenure security

UIS 12

(If yes (to 11) D

GLTN2011 HH2 Proportion of u

GLTN2011ext 1.% women who

Namati3

Confidence in

Landesa CS

Farmers' confi

LSMS

Perception of t

LSMS

Reason for pe

History of possession

GLTN2011ext 2.% families acq

GLTN2011ext 3 % households

LSMS

Duration of oc

LSMS

Mode of acqui

LSMS

Duration of po

Perceptions of rights

GLTN2011ext 4.% families beli

GLTN2011ext 4.% families beli

GLTN2011ext 4.% families beli

GLTN2011ext 4.% families beli

 

Landesa CS

Farmer's unde

LSMS

Right to sell/us

Accountability

Accountability of local land decision-making Namati

Proportion of h

Access to land

Access to land (agricultural)

Namati

Amount of land

 

LWA

Land ownershi

LWA

Number of sha

LWA

Number and p

MICS HC11

Household ow

MICS HC12

Household ow

DHS 119

Household ow

DHS 120

Household ow

LSMS

Tenure status

LSMS

Area of agricul

LSMS

Value of agricu

LSMS

Rent paid for a

LSMS

Legal owner of

LSMS

Income from re

LSMS

Income from re

LSMS

Number of lan

PH-Census

Own-account a

WCA

Legal status of

WCA

Total area of h

WCA

Land tenure ty

WCA

Area (parcel)(S

WCA

Land tenure (p

WCA

Terms of renta

 

Access to land (housing)

GCIF

No. of homele

 

MICS HC10

Dwelling owne

Page 53

6 Indicators main table

 

UIS 1

Do you own or

LSMS

Tenure status

LSMS

Size of dwellin

LSMS

Value of dwelli

LSMS

Rent paid for d

LSMS

Income from re

LSMS

Income from re

PH-Census

Housing unit o

PH-Census

Tenure of hous

 

Land ownership by gender

GHI P1.2

In practice, do

 

UN Women

Ownership of d

UN Women

Proportion of a

LSMS

Household me

LSMS

Household me

WCA

Sex of agricult

 

Transfers

Rates of inheritance by gender

GHI P1.2

In practice, do

 

LSMS

Inheritance of

 

Market functionality

PBAS D

Formal land m

 

Landesa CS

Number of lan

Landesa CS

Duration of lan

Landesa CS

Rental fees/lan

 

Extent and nature of LSLA

Matrix

Extent of large

 

Land use

Conformity of land use with decisions/regula LGAF 7iv

Most land that

 

LGAF 8i

In the largest c

LGAF 8ii

In the four maj

LGAF 8iii

In the largest c

LGAF 8iv

Existing requir

LGAF 8v

The share of la

UI 1.6

Percentage of

GLTN2011 Sett-Proportion of i

Impacts

Investment

Investments made by farmers

Landesa CS

Number of inst

 

LSMS

Agricultural inv

Unclassified Unclassified

Unclassified

IEF

Property Right

 

EIU 56

Extent to whic

BTI 9.1

To what extent

IPD A600

Sécurité des d

EOS 1.01

Property rights

PH-Census

Occupation (C

PH-Census

Industry (of em

PH-Census

Status in empl

PH-Census

Characteristics

WCA

Age of agricult

GEC 1

Does the tool d

GEC 4

Does the tool d

Page 54

stion

6 Indicators main table

ive policy exists or can be inferred by the existing legislation. Land policy decisions that affect sections of

er involvement

making process in developing the tool, and within the tool itself, transparent and inclusive for both wome

nd men members of formal land policy-making institutions and structures.

  • d policy-making meetings and fora that include participation from grassroots groups representing both w

nt officials directly involved in the land policy-making process who have been trained and sensitized on

nd men among government officials participating in land policy-making structures and institutions.

nd men among civil society representatives participating in land policy-making structures and institutions.

nd men among private sector representatives participating in land policy-making structures and institutio<