Due to the affordances of new digital data technologies in conjunction with policy paradigms of efficiency, participation, transparency, and open government, innovative tools and approaches for tenure documentation have emerged in recent years. This brief paper discusses these apps/tools and experiences in implementation within their respective contexts

Lengoiboni, M.

Richter, C.

van Asperen, P.C.M.

English

University of Twente Research Information

Digitalisation in Africa: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Technology, Development, and Justice 26 and 27 September 2018, Tübingen, Germany https://www.da-ethics2018.de/Innovative approaches through mobile apps to improve tenure security in subSaharan AfricaAbstractDr. Ir. Paul van AsperenDr. Monica LengoiboniDr. Christine RichterUniversity of TwenteITCEnschedeThe NetherlandsIntroductionDue to the affordances of new digital data technologies in conjunction with policy paradigms of efficiency, participation, transparency, and open government, innovative tools and approaches for tenure documentation have emerged in recent years. The new technologies present a variety of innovative alternative and complementary solutions for development and support of Land Information Systems (LIS). An array of innovative tools for tenure recordation have been piloted and implemented since 2011, for example, through fit-for-purpose land administration initiatives (FIG, 2014; UN-HABITAT 2016). They aim to address the challenge of unavailability of tenure information as well as the concerns of weak administrative and legal statutory environments around the tenure documentation by advocating for openness of land tenure information for informed decision making by third parties (e.g. large scale investors), emphasizing diversity in land tenure systems and rights, with special emphasis on women’s and other vulnerable groups’ rights, aspiring to work with and working with community driven and/or community generated digital data, data collection at scale and the use of such data for strengthening tenure security. Tenure security is considered fundamental for land holders, because they are assured of continued use and occupation of the land.This paper discusses these apps/tools and experiences in implementation within their respective contexts. The apps and tools and pilot implementations that will be discussed are listed in table 1; each of one has been piloted and/or implemented in at least one African country between 2011 and 2018 (Lengoiboni, et al 2018).Tool	Number of African countries 	Implementer type	Fee	Focus	DataSTDM	7	Network		Urban/rural/post-disaster	Local database (on site)FAO OpenTenure	4	Multilateral donor		Rural	CloudCadasta	6	NGO (international)		Urban/rural	CloudCaVaTeCo	1	NGO (national)		Rural	Local database (on site)Meridia	1	Company	110 €	Rural	Local database (at company)Aumentum Open Title	2	Company		Schools	Local database (on site)Medeem	1	Company	50 U$	Urban/rural	Local database (at company)Mast	1	Bilateral donor		Rural	Local database (on site)Table 1 Basic characteristics of innovative tools (adapted from Lengoiboni et al, 2018)Along with the implementation of these innovate approaches came new actors, especially the innovative tool developers and implementers. This raises the following questions, central to ICT4D:How are the North-South relationship framed within the implementation of FFP-approaches? What are the concerns regarding the uptake of these approaches?What are the ethical implications of the implementation of these apps/tools?North-south relationshipsFigure 1 shows the number of implementers being active in each country. In addition, some tools have several pilots or implementations in one country, like STDM is implemented 15 times in Uganda and 3 times in Kenya (https://stdm.gltn.net/applications/). We identified four dimensions along which north-south relationships can be described:The first dimension contains the location of the headquarters of the implementers (as is displayed in figure 2).The second dimension includes local offices. This creates some fuzziness, because local settings differ. For example, companies might have permanent local offices, while donors only have temporal offices during project implementation.The third dimension locates the investors and partners of the implementers. They also consist of different types of organizations, like donors, professional bodies, training/research institutions, international civil society organizations, hard- and software companies and investors and philanthropic organisations.  The fourth dimension pertains to the involvement of local organizations at the level of project implementation, including communities, advocacy groups, CBOs and local NGOs. Some for-profit implementers do include local investors and business people and establish local businesses. In addition, linkages between layers exist as well, because organizations might have multiple relations at corporate and project implementation level with different implementers. The north-south relationships are not one-directional, they are layered and interconnected at various levels. An open and flexible field of operations has emerged, where even donors, for example, do not automatically stick to tools which they have developed or sponsored themselves.Figure 1 Number of implementers per countryFigure 2 Locations of implementers’ main officesUptakeThe uptake of the innovative approaches is studied from three perspectives: upscale, upgrade and update. Upscaling refers to the spatial coverage and user-base. As of now, coverage is in general limited and scattered (between tens and ten-thousands of registrations for each implementer in total). Nevertheless, all developers are willing to scale up and they are confident that their tools can do so with support of other stakeholders. Upgrade refers to the abilities of the tools to support the registration of a variety of land rights along the continuum of land rights (UN-HABITAT, 2016). The implementers mainly focus on first registration of land holdings, while some have a system design towards upgrading of the rights with higher levels of tenure security. What we observe is a whole range of options with regard to linkage with the formal system: from none at all, leaving a copy of the informal land rights at the formal land administration authority, to anticipated or prepared for upgrading to formal administration, to completely linked and integrated.Updating is fundamental for land administration. Changes in (socio-)legal relationships between land and people need to be continuously administered. The implementers can roughly be split up into two groups: permanent and temporary. Permanent implementers are mostly the local companies who can still update the registers, because it fits their business models. The temporary implementers are largely the donor-funded projects, who ensure that the communities themselves will be capable to update the registers. In the latter case, there is a risk that these projects may suffer the “forever-pilot syndrome” as a challenge for public funded projects (Heeks, 2018). Ethical implicationsEthical implications have been studied from the development and information perspective. From a development perspective, we focus on inclusivity and the legitimacy of the registered land rights. Inclusivity relates to the inclusion of the poor and vulnerable, mainly land holders in customary areas and informal settlements. Registration in customary areas is often complicated by customary authorities. Several implementers (both for-profit and not-for-profit) discussed the necessity of payments of chiefs to sign the documents, and the challenges this poses (Guthe and Sommerville, 2018; Kumwenda, 2018; Salifu, 2018). Especially in customary tenure systems, women are in a disadvantaged position compared to men (Archambault and Zoomers, 2015). All implementers are aware of the disadvantageous position of women. Most important is to have the option of joint registration, where the tools should facilitate to register both partners of a couple as co-owners of a plot (Williamson et al, 2010, Archambault and Zoomers, 2015). Joint registration is in most cases facilitated through the tools. After the implementation, database reports can easily generate reports with frequencies about male, female and joint ownership, which can act as a proxy for gender equality. From the interviews and literature review a variety of experiences were reported, varying from promoting land access for women by a chief, ‘interrogating’ male land owners to co-register land and the complexity of registering land rights in polygamous arrangements. Regarding legitimacy, it is observed that the resulting tenure documentation is in most cases not backed by a legal framework, making it an extralegal exercise. The implementers are aware of that and assure that they inform the communities about the advantages and disadvantages of the documentation. In addition, the signature of chiefs in case of customary land documentation does increase legitimacy. Having discussed the payment of chiefs, table 1 shows that two for profit implementers are imposing fees on the documentation, while the donor funded implementers do not raise fees at all. It appears that the implementers create the multi-faceted complex interface between statutory, customary authorities and land holders. The questions of legality, legitimacy and/or financing, (which ultimately influence tenure security), are very closely interlinked. In order to gain legitimacy or recognition by the legal statutory system, an approach needs to be sustainable; and in this respect the for-profit initiatives may be more sustainable, but these in turn select land holders on fee-based criteria potentially changing the role of citizens vis-à-vis land administration agents.From the information perspective, the focus is on the balance between the needed openness of land administration data and privacy. The types of information and to whom information is made accessible in the first instance is closely associated and embedded into the development framework supported by land administrative initiatives. On the other hand, land information is private and sensitive as it lists personal details in relation to property rights. At the same time, it is important to note that “privacy” holds different meanings in different societies and cultures; and is not limited to individual rights (Taylor et al 2017). Especially in the domain of land administration, rights to land and the related social relationships, are often not of an individual nature. Emphasis on groups’ rights and  extended family rights in recent LIS4D initiatives reflect this concern for the communal nature of rights, but in the case of the land administration domain this complicates the question of data privacy further.ConclusionsThis paper describes 8 implementers of fit-for-purpose approaches for tenure registration in Africa. We conclude that each implementer shapes their own interface between the complex constellation of customary authorities, informal settlement leadership, statutory authorities and land holders. The north-south relationships are dynamic and swing towards increased southern participation through local for-profit partners and participation of local organizations. The tensions between developmental goals and respective underpinning philosophies of development, on one hand; and the negotiated and localized character of implementation initiatives, on the other, become apparent especially in questions related to financing, legitimacy concerns of documents, and data privacy and openness. Because the implementations are recent and limited in coverage, there is need for further research on evaluation and monitoring.ReferencesArchambault, C. S., & Zoomers, A. (2015). Part II From de facto to de jure: formalizing patriarchy in the codification of customary tenure? In C.S. Archambault, & A. Zoomers (Eds.), Global Trends in Land Tenure Reform: Gender Impacts (pp. 71-73). London: Routledge.FIG (International Federation of Surveyors) & World Bank (2014). Fit-For-Purpose Land Administration. FIG Publications No 60. Copenhagen: FIG Office. Guthe, E., & Sommerville, M. (2018). Examining the Real Costs of Community-led Rights Documentation from USAID’s Experience in Burma and Zambia. World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty. Washington DC.Heeks, R. (2018). Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D). London: Routledge.Kumwenda, M, Shumba, F., Ncube, N., Antonio, D., Nyamweru, H., Gitau, J., Sylla, O., Mkumbwa, S. & Chileshe, A. (2018). Innovations for securing tenure rights on customary lands through traditional authorities: experiences from Chamuka Chiefdom, Zambia. World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty. Washington DC.Lengoiboni, M., Richter, C. & Zevenbergen, J. (2018). An overview of innovative tools for land tenure documentation. World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty. Washington DC.Salifu, F.W. (2018). Innovative approaches to land tenure documentation in Ghana: an institutional perspective. MSc-thesis. Enschede: University of Twente/ITC.UN-HABITAT (2016). Fit-For-Purpose Land Administration, Guiding Principles for Country Implementation. Report 2/2016. Nairobi.Taylor, L., Floridi, L., & van der Sloot, B. (2017). Introduction: A New Perspective on Privacy. In L. Taylor, L. Floridi, & B. van der Sloot (Eds.), Group Privacy: New Challenges of Data Technologies (pp. 1-12). Cham: Springer International Publishing.Williamson, I., Enemark, S., Wallace, J., & Rajabifard, A. (2010). Land Administrationfor Sustainable Development. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press Academic. 1

Innovative approaches through mobile apps to improve tenure security in subSaharan Africa

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Twente Research Information

NARCIS