“How can “property” own property?” It means how can a woman own property like land or housing if she is considered as a man’s property herself. I learned of this “phrase” from Tanzanian colleagues during a global team workshop in Oxford, UK, last autumn with the WOLTS project. They shared with me about how women in Tanzania are sometimes viewed by men as belonging to them – as their property! Something I thought was quite different to Mongolia.

WOLTS stands for Women’s Land Tenure Security.

Liberia in the 1990s was a place of turmoil, host to a brutal civil war that would kill at least 250,000 people and leave many thousands more displaced.

The war uprooted Martha* from her farm in Lofa County. Her husband, Joseph, was a rebel fighter aligned with one of the factions vying for control, and had taken her and the couple’s four children away from the family’s land, to a city closer to the rebels’ base.

On the day in 1996 that he was killed, Martha felt her own life slipping away.

There is broad global agreement that secure property rights help eradicate poverty and that securing women’s land rights reduces gender inequality. But our understanding remains strikingly limited when it comes to the extent to which women’s land rights are – or are not – secure and the impact of women’s tenure security (or lack thereof) on women’s empowerment.

This is true even in Africa, where the most studies have been published, due to shortcomings in both the quality and quantity of research on these questions.

In the effort to address global sustainability challenges affecting people, prosperity, and planet, in 2015, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were adopted by the global community to replace the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). SDGs have recognized women’s land rights as opposed to its predecessor, MDGs. Of over 230 indicators, three are on women’s land rights and seven are generally on land rights.

By Tim Hanstad, Co-Founder & Senior Advisor, Landesa

This is the second blog in a series of two that are based on a keynote address made at the 2018 India Land Development Conference.

By Tim Hanstad, Co-Founder & Senior Advisor, Landesa

This is the first blog in a series of two that are based on a keynote address made at the 2018 India Land Development Conference.

I have been working on issues of land rights for more than 31 years in more than 22 countries, but no country has captured my attention, focus and heart more than India.  

Land is connected to many of our most pressing global issues. For example, a significant body of empirical evidence supports the view that strengthening indigenous and local communities’ legal rights to their land is a crucial strategy for avoiding deforestation and mitigating climate change.

2018 could be transformative for the indigenous and community land rights movement, with unprecedented opportunities for scaling up rights recognition around the world.

It's time to ditch the jargon and tell stories about property rights that create the impact needed for change

In a world bombarded with information, stories are everything. Strong storylines can inspire movements and shift attitudes. The “99 percent” story sparked a global conversation about income inequality, and fueled the Occupy Wall Street movement.

There’s been quite a hubbub in the land community the last month over the reclassification of two land indicators from ‘Tier III’ to ‘Tier II’. So what’s this all about? For the uninitiated, each SDG indicator has to go through a validation process before it gets included in the formal SDG reporting process that will run from 2020 to 2030.

The recent series of devastating hurricanes in the Caribbean has reminded the world, once again, that natural disasters are not equal-opportunity destroyers. The economically marginalized and those lacking secure land and property rights are often disproportionately affected for at least three reasons:

The legal rights afforded to Indigenous communities in Bolivia and Chile differ greatly. Val Reynoso investigates. 

Bolivia and Chile differ significantly in the ways their governments address issues pertaining to Indigenous peoples. These differences are caused by the neoliberal economic system and legacies from the Pinochet era in Chile, as well as the centering of Indigenous issues and redistribution of wealth in Bolivia.