Connecting people, sharing knowledge, increasing transparency
From 6 to 20 February
DISCUSSION CLOSED - Proceedings
Given the rapid expansion of the internet and the increasing number of users, including in the Global South, the full potential of online platforms for promoting inclusive consultation of issues of high global interest is certainly not yet realised. An online discussion is being organised to share views and perspectives on how online platforms could be used more creatively and effectively to share experiences on a key area where information and lessons learned through various interventions from around the world are generally dispersed, that is the area of monitoring women’s land rights. The objective of the online discussion is therefore twofold: (a) engage a collective reflection on ways of optimitising the use of online platforms in efforts to promote equitable and sustainable natural governance and social justice; and, (b) to share experiences on approaches to monitoring women’s land rights. We invite Land Portal users to answer one or more of the following questions:
- What concrete example of monitoring women’s land rights would you like to share that other might find useful? What have you learned from your successes or mistakes that you would like to share with others in a land governance on-line community?
And:
- Have you used collaborative online platforms to help promote equitable access to land and natural resources? Can you share with us an example?
- To what extent can collaborative online platforms contribute to the opening of data? Can you share with us an example?
- Can you share with us any examples on how can they contribute to increasing transparency in land and natural resource governance?
- For the collaborative online platforms you have used, what have been the advantages and drawbacks? What suggestions do you have to improve them?
How Can I Participate?
You can type your comment below and answer one or more of the suggested questions in English, French, or Spanish. If you have any questions feel free to contact us at hello@landportal.info
the discussion is running in parallel on the following partner on-line platforms: Wikigender, E-agriculture; Open-Development list
Background information
Over the past decade, there has been a growing understanding of how ICTs, in particular the Internet, can be a powerful instrument for advancing economic and social development and enhancing networking, participation and advocacy. ICTs also have the potential to improve interaction between different stakeholders. The rise of the Internet and online platforms have changed the ways in which people connect, exchange ideas and build knowledge. Open, collaborative and user-driven online platforms encourage dialogue and the sharing of information and good practices around critical issues and have a good potential for generating new knowledge and increasing transparency – and, ultimately, to improve social equity and strengthen democracy.
The Land Portal is a good example as it acts as an online hub for sharing information and fostering dialogue on land related issues. This is accomplished through a user driven platform which allows users to share information by uploading content, commenting and rating existing information, and retrieving information using specific filters. The Land Portal enthusiastically advocates for open-data and open knowledge, believing that open and transparent information is the key means to achieving sound and sustainable land governance. The Portal also provides a forum for dialogue, recognising online discussions as a means for bringing people from different countries and different sectors together around pertinent issues. These two functions- data aggregation and stakeholder dialogue- provide the framework for new partnerships by empowering land-concerned individuals, communities, organisations, practitioners, and policy makers to share perspectives and best practices, and to collaborate strategically.
Alongside the Land Portal, platforms such as Wikigender, e-agriculture, AIMS, FSN-Forum and the Open Development list offer services including list serves, communities of practice and knowledge sharing platforms on the issues of natural resource governance and/or gender equity.
This discussion aims to bridge institutional, academic and community experiences in using online platforms and monitoring women’s land rights, collecting contributions from grassroots organisations, civil society, IGO’s and governments.
The discussion will be facilitated by the International Land Coalitions (ILC) and will take advantage of ILC expertise in monitoring land processes in collaboration with ILC members and other Land Portal partners.
Results of the discussion are to be analysed and synthesized into a synthesis report/policy brief to be distributed across all platforms, as well as into a more in-depth paper to be presented at the annual World Bank Land and Poverty Conference, to be held in Washington DC from April 8-11 2013.
Comments
The Internet and Online platforms have made things much easier for women all across the world, now they can choose, like, and order anything of their choice by sitting at home. Not only the rights but they are also offered many opportunities online like jobs, online shopping with deals, and discounts on clothing by using voucher codes like Just My Size promo codes, etc. In short, online platforms have made life much easier for women as well.
Synthesis 3 – February 15-20
Dear all,
thanks for such an interesting discussion! You can find all the contributions received in the proceedings, and soon there will be a brief synthesising main points. Questions of the consultation were not so easy to be addressed, as they requested both ICTs and women’s land rights experts to challenge their own acquired expertise and explore collaboration.
Even if a number of projects and dialogues are on-going worldwide on this topic, at different levels, under the umbrella of ICT4D (information and communications technologies for development), it is clear that there are still some gaps to be bridged (including a urban/rural gap) and a lot of potential to be explored, tested, and documented, including failures.
We received very thoughtful contributions, addressing various sub-topics, and highlighting:
• difficulties in carrying out effective and genuinely participatory on-line debates, with a concrete immediate or longer-term impact, either on advocacy/policy, or on the ground;
• the immense challenges of bringing the potential of on-line platforms to rural communities, and even more to rural women;
• the risk of watered-down definitions, robustness and consistency of data gathered through crowd-sourcing;
• the need to create services concretely useful for local land users, by being context-specific, geographically located, and very practical, and by ensuring local ownership and engagement, and participatory assessment of local information needs.
At the same time, a number of examples have been mentioned that are worth-studying, especially those from FrontlineSMS, who mentioned a case study about monitoring – through crowd-sourced information sent through SMS - palm oil extraction in Indonesia http://www.frontlinesms.com/2012/05/08/mobile-networks-and-citizen-journalists-empower-communities/ and forestry conservation in Cambodia http://www.frontlinesms.com/2012/02/20/monitoring-conservation-via-sms-pact-uses-frontlineforms-in-cambodia/ . I do invite you to read more from these resources, as well as from the “gender mapper” (http://gender.mappr.info/explore.php), an attempt developed by IFPRI and the International Water Management Institute (IWMI) to crowd source basic gender patterns of farming systems.
The discussion has been lively:
• Chris Baulman, from landrights4all, reinforced his previous post and advocated for going very “local”.
• Gine Zwart, from OXFAM, highlighted challenges in running on-line discussions, which can be very labour-intensive. She also raised some very relevant issues on who actually participate in on-line discussions and for which reason.
• Tim Davies, from Open Development, identified key issues from previous posts, including the importance of the right timescale for an on-line dialogue and some lack of confidence to comment that may impede broader participation. He also raised probably the most serious question: building to what? Participation increases if participants perceive the discussion as relevant and actually addressing a concrete problem.
• Amy O’Donnell, from FrontlineSMS, mentioned the very interesting projects I described above, and brought in an issue that is still relevant i.e. the gap between mobile services and the net, and the power of SMS.
• Sandra Apaza, from ILC America Latina, shed some light on the gendered patterns in access to and use of ICTs (25% less among women, meaning 200 million in the world!). Sandra, this is a very interesting topic. Are research papers assessing the impact of such a gap in women’s livelihoods available?
• Ruth Meinzen-Dick, from IFPRI, put on the table the critical issue of reliability, robustness, and consistency of data in crowd-sourcing exercises. This is - again - crucial, especially when over data (or over the lack of data) advocacy and policy strategies are built. She also mentioned the IFPRI toolkit on qualitative and quantitative methods to measure assets, (I invite you to download it here: http://gaap.ifpri.info/gender-and-assets-toolkit/ ) and the Gender Mapper project – including some challenges encountered.
• Chiara Novarik presented some IFPRI work on monitoring women’s land rights and highlighted the need to measure also decision-making/control over assets to fully capture gender issues in land governance. Chiara, I look forward to reading your paper! Does it collect information over decision-making at household level or also decision-making in broader land governance? Is it based on the WAEI?
• Natalia Vaccarezza, from the World Bank, provided some thoughtful thinking on the impact SMS or Twitter had in civic participation in urban areas in the States.
• Angela Hariche, from OECD, Salema, and Estelle Loiseau, from Wikigender, further discussed the power of wiki-platforms to ensure quality control; the idea that online platforms take work and money; and the role SMS services can play to reach rural communities.
Thanks again for such stimulating debate! A synthesis of main points touched upon by participants will be available soon on this page. We also encourage you to use the Land Portal to host your discussions.
Dear all,
Discussion closed
Dear all,
This discussion is now closed. We would like to thank you all for your participation and valuable comments. In few days we will be posting the discussion synthesis which will try to capture the richness of your contributions.
As anticipated, results of this discussion will also be included into a paper to be presented at the annual World Bank Land and Poverty Conference, to be held in Washington DC from April 8-11 2013.
Looking forward to having you again in our forums.
Visit the Portal to stay up to date with our latest news, events and publications.
This comment is on behalf of Dana Barón - CINEP/Programa por la Paz
¿Qué ejemplos concretos sobre monitoreo de derechos de la mujeres a la tierra desearía compartir que otros puedan considerar útiles?
En Colombia existen diversas experiencias de mujeres campesinas, víctimas del conflicto armado, indígenas y afrodescedientes que vale la pena destacar. Una de ellas es la Mesa de incidencia política de mujeres rurales colombianas. Esta Mesa es un colectivo que agrupa organizaciones de carácter nacional y regional cuyo propósito es impulsar acciones de incidencia frente a las políticas para las mujeres rurales. La integran organizaciones de mujeres y organizaciones mixtas con trayectoria en la lucha por la defensa de derechos humanos, los derechos de las mujeres y los derechos del campesinado. El espacio propende por lograr la visibilización de las mujeres rurales colombianas como actoras políticas dentro de la sociedad colombiana. Igualmente, apuesta por incidir en la reglamentación de la Ley 731 de 2002 de Mujeres Rurales, que pese a haber sido aprobada hace años no ha sido implementada. Otras de las líneas de acción son: fortalecer y posibilitar la articulación entre las diversas organizaciones de mujeres rurales de Colombia, la defensa de la economía campesina, posicionar el mandato agrario a nivel nacional y fortalecer las mesas regionales de mujeres.
En aras de contribuir en el monitoreo de los derechos de las mujeres rurales en Colombia, participaron en el Informe de Desarrollo Humano del Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo- PNUD 2011, en el que hay un capítulo dedicado a las mujeres campesinas, negras e indígenas. Cuentan además con una página web que es el mecanismo de comunicación para la divulgación de información y de acciones, y de articulación con otras redes y organizaciones de mujeres y campesinas.·
¿Qué ha aprendido de sus logros o errores que le gustaría compartir con otros en una comunidad en línea sobre gobernanza de la tierra?
Uno de los aprendizajes en términos comunicativos tiene que ver con la necesidad de democratizar el acceso y uso de las tecnologías de información y comunicación, en particular, facilitar a las mujeres su participación, movilización, articulación e incidencia a través de éstas herramientas, dado que por motivos geográficos, económicos, culturales, sociales, entre otros, las mujeres no cuentan con la posibilidad de hacer uso de dichos instrumentos.·
¿En qué medida pueden las plataformas colaborativas en línea contribuir a la apertura de datos? ¿Puede compartir con nosotros un ejemplo?
La contribución de estas plataformas a la apertura de datos puede contribuir en varios aspectos, teniendo en cuenta que los hombres y las mujeres han tenido diferentes niveles de acceso y control sobre los recursos y las oportunidades. Por un lado, en el ejercicio de los derechos y los procesos de participación de las mujeres. En este sentido, aporta en la divulgación y construcción de información, conocimiento y experiencias de las mujeres y sus procesos organizativos. Por otro lado, contribuye a los procesos de liderazgo y organizativos en la medida en la que permite conocer y comunicarse con otras experiencias individuales, organizativas e institucionales; también concertar acciones conjuntas que les permitan articularse y llevar a cabo procesos de movilización y participación de exigibilidad, promoción y defensa de los derechos de las mujeres, en particular acciones de incidencia en la opinión pública. Otras de las contribuciones, tiene que ver con la visibilización de los aportes al desarrollo que realizan las mujeres día a día.·
¿Cuáles han sido las ventajas y desventajas que encuentra en las plataformas colaborativas en línea que ha utilizado? ¿Qué sugerencias tiene para mejorarlas?
Una de las ventajas es que se permite la participación sin exclusiones geográficas, económicas, culturales y sociales a las mujeres y en ese sentido, aporta en la apropiación de las tecnologías y la democratización del conocimiento por parte de las mujeres, más aún de las campesinas, víctimas, indígenas y afrodescendientes. Así mismo, en la medida en que se generen las condiciones para ello, estas plataformas permiten la diversidad, la innovación y la cooperación de actores, opiniones y acciones.
Sin embargo, persisten algunas condiciones particulares de las mujeres que pueden significar desventajas. Una de ellas es el nivel de alfabetización y formación en tecnologías de información y comunicación, junto con el acceso a medios informáticos que permitan la participación de las mujeres en estas plataformas. Estos niveles de formación de las mujeres en términos de alfabetización y del uso de tecnologías de información y comunicación, podría reducirse con el apoyo de otras entidades u organizaciones que puedan contribuir en este sentido.
Otro de los factores tiene que ver con las capacidades económicas y geográficas que permitan el acceso y control de estas plataformas, dado que una importante proporción de las mujeres rurales no cuentan con los recursos económicos suficientes y/o se encuentran en lugares alejados de aquellos en los que se ubican los equipos necesarios para hacer uso de las plataformas.
A esto se suman los obstáculos culturales y sociales, como por ejemplo el lenguaje y los imaginarios alrededor de la diversidad cultural y los estereotipos de género, etnia y clase que aún persisten en los procesos comunicativos.
Tim Davis blog post, Open Development
Open data and land
The dialogue asks about how online platforms are contributing to the opening of land data. There are three broad sources of data I can see:
Official data – where governments have well managed land ownership databases then as part of national open government data programmes citizens may be able to secure the ongoing publication of this data in open forms. In the United Kingdom we’ve recently seen the Land Registry place data online, detailing land sale transactions in CSV and linked data; and a publicly owned land is a commonly featured dataset on local open data portals in the UK. However, this data itself may be tricky to use directly, and intermediaries are needed to make it accessible. In Kirklees, the Who Owns My Neighbourhood presents an interesting approach to using official data, and combining it with social features for citizens to input local knowledge and news about publicly owned plots of land: making official land data more ‘social’.
Crowdsourced data – in many cases there may not be an official source for the data activists want, or there may be limited prospect of getting access to the official data. Here a range of ‘crowdsourcing’ approaches exist. The LandMatrix approach uses researchers, and works to verify reports before sharing them. There may be other approaches available that use tools like pybossa to crowdsource extraction of structured information from semi-structured documents, or to split analysis of records into micro-tasks. The Open Street Map platform may also be able to act as source of data, allowing tags to be applied to land. Tools like CrowdMap (based on the Ushahidi platform) make it possible to collate reports submitted on a range of platforms including phone, and to verify reports, although the challenge with any crowdmap project is recruiting people to submit data.
Inferred data – at one of the RHOK Hack Days I took part in at Southampton I was interested to hear about a groups project using satellite data to work out crop types on plots of land. I suspect there are ways this data could be used to detect changes in land use that might indicate also changes in ownership – and the conversion of land from multiple crops to large agribusiness.
Using land data
Having open data on land ownership and land rights is only one part of the story. As the Bhoomi case illustrates, the regulatory framework around the data matters: is a dataset taken as authoritative, or are documents or other customary practices able to override the descriptions held in data? Does the data model through which land ownership and rights are described capture the subtlety and nuance of land use practices (see Srinivasan’s field note for a discussion of the need to mash-up multiple schemas of data to get a view of complex land practices)? And what intermediaries are active to help citizens mobilise land records to secure their rights, rather than those records being only truly accessible to private actors with technical and financial capital?
In the ongoing Land Coalition dialogue I’m interested to learn more about the cases of how data on land rights is being mobilised to create change: whether at the level of global advocacy, where big numbers may matter most; or at the level of individual struggles over ownership, access and rights, where detailed, accurate and timely data on particular plots is likely to be most important.
Open data and women’s land rights
I will admit to knowing very little about the specific issues around women’s land rights. However, in making the connection between open data and women’s land rights I did want to briefly explore whether a focus on digital platforms and open data introduces any particular gender issues. For example, whilst statistics on mobile phone penetration in developing countries suggest widespread access to mobile devices, there is a significant gender gap in mobile ownership and access, with women much less likely to have control of a handset than men. Gender issues may also arise in relation to the culture and practices around open data.
In a recent First Monday article, Joseph Reagle suggests that the ‘free culture’ movement associated with open source software and open knowledge products like Wikipedia possess a gender gap that is potentially event greater than the very gender unequal general computing culture from which it arose. Reagle argues that the ideas of ‘openness’ current in these communities can be used to dismiss concerns about gender gaps, and paint them as an issue of choice, rather than highlighting the wider structural factors that lead to the massive underrepresentation of women in online free software and open knowledge construction. For example, Reagle points to the “double shift” of women’s time, and the ways in which the ‘free time’ used to contribute to creation of open culture, whether through evenings away from work, or hack-days and other events, is unequally distributed between women and men.
Does this critique carry across the open data? It is apparent that the open data field is far from gender equal – at least in terms of advocates for open data, and the creators of tools, platforms and analysis built upon data – although whether it is male dominated to the extent that other fields such as open source contribution are is yet to be measured. In part any gender imbalance may be attributed to the connections between the open data community and the open source and free culture communities, which are already have a significant gender imbalance. However, we should also be open to deeper issues of epistemology: whether the very notion of resolving questions of ownership or fact through datasets, rather than through processes of dialogue, is itself gendered. How far advocacy to open up datasets moves into advocacy for the primacy of data over other ways of knowing, and how data is used and interpreted, has a bearing on whether gendered systems of power are being reinforced or challenged.
Thank you for your
Hi Tim,
Thank you for your thoughtful contribution. I have included your blog post into the discussion thread for Land Portal users to easily read it.
Looking forward to having more people from the open development list participating.
Laura
A platform to collectively promote equitable and sustainable governance and social justice and strategies for monitoring women’s land rights has a great deal of potential value. However, a number of questions arise when we start to think about the implication, applications and utilizations: who is participating/contributing? who is accessing the information? how is the information collected? how can/will the information be used? how can such a tool account for multiple languages and cultural specificities and nuances?
Tim brings up the need to think of a regulatory framework for data which is obviously in many ways a contradiction to open-source knowledge sharing but given the sensitivity of land tenure issues and women’s access, this is a necessary step.
Tim also usefully identified three broad sources of data. I would add to crowdsourced data a focus on participatory mapping processes that give women the space and the tools to reflect on their relationship to land, their resources and their rights. This usefully complements the more legal tools and provides perspective. This is normally a very non-technical process (maps drawn on large pieces of paper, or in the sand). These can be translated into more technical formats or pictures with descriptions uploaded. However, this often relies on a field worker, an academic, or a facilitator doing the work and committing to the process of sharing information.
This links us to the issue of over-saturation of information and overworked people: there are numerous portals, networks, platforms, wikis, blogs, websites, listservs and many are operating with similar principles, goals and a great deal of member overlap. The implications of new resources that require contributions can be simply more stress on already stressed workers to contribute and share information that has been shared elsewhere.
We must remember that online tools can be highly political, especially as they are likely to completely bypass the women whose land rights they are seeking to strengthen by virtual of limited connectivity and low levels of literacy. Chris gets to this point in his post.
My experience with collaborative platforms relates to working with a platform host and communities to try and ensure relevant and reliable content makes it to the platform. I have yet to see this approach work successfully in areas where there is low literacy and low connectivity to existing online platforms. The communities see no value in the platform and the onus to add content falls to NGO staff or academics working in the community. This is not necessarily a bad thing as the tools are likely most relevant to their work.
With an NGO in Gujarat, India, we are designing a programme built around mobile phones: a technology that has far more reach in the communities where land rights and land tenure are increasingly an issue. We are working to create a formalized call-centre/ kiosk that will share information out (through voicemail to ensure that those with low literacy are kept informed) and to accept calls in. An online platform would not be a tool that could be used widely amongst those most affected. Smartphones would not be useful in this context because of issues of literacy, connectivity and cost. There are no best practices as the project is being developed but there could be a way to link the data collected through the call centre to an online platform. The issue would again be the capacity of staff.
The issue of communication and support through such platforms is addressed by Chris but I want to emphasise that there is often the need for facilitators to push the conversations forward and to find links across the platform which may be missed by participants. There is a need to recognise that participating in these conversations, and therefore making the platform dynamic, takes time and adds to the workload of already time-poor people. This means that for the platform to remain dynamic and active there needs to be a benefit for people: the outcomes have to come fast, or they will not dedicate time to it.
n.sorensen provided the example of Open Development Cambodia which I agree is a good example and is perhaps functional because it is limited in scope to one country. This makes it manageable and it also means that it can emerge as the “go to” site for information about development for Cambodia which will encourage participation and engagement from actors across multiple sectors in the way that a global platform for women’s rights around the world, simply can´t.
To sum things up, a collection of best practices and tools for monitoring women’s land rights would of course be valuable but I am not convinced that we need another online collaborative platform at the global level.
Summary of points:
- Need to consider broad implications and applications
- People are overworked and have limited time to share information with a site that does not give them immediate benefits
- Such platforms are exclusionary (language, connectivity)
- Benefits of narrowing down to geographic area to attract people from diverse sectors with interest in the region
Dear all –
Synthesis nr. 2
Dear all – thank you so much for your continued interest in the discussion.
This week we had some very thought-provoking contributions that raise fundamental issues about use of ICTs, gender and power! I’ll make an attempt at synthesising some of the points that resonated strongly for me, rather than summarising all contributions.
This discussion assumes both an internet connection and literacy as starting points. However, a good point was made by Chris on new technologies being developed to overcome the literacy hurdle, for instance, by using smartphones with voice recognition programmes. Technology develops quickly, so access may get better sooner than we think!
Tim raised some interesting questions on the gendered nature of ICTs: statistics exist on the gender gap in mobile ownership, to name one example, but there may be gender issues with respect to open data also. Partly, this is due to a “very unequal general computing culture” (please do join this debate, female IT professionals!), partly due to the idea of ‘openness’ that obfuscates that there is an underrepresentation of women in the open data movement that may be due to the same factors as underrepresentation of women in public spaces in general: i.e. the double (or triple) burden on women’s time and their lack of ‘free time’ to spend in open-data related events. Add to this the over-saturation of information and overworked people made by foodgovernance and the disconnect between scarce time available and a plethora of tools to use becomes even more marked!
What data are we talking about? There were a number of contributors who discussed types of data: official data, crowdsourced data (for instance, via a wiki) which has the advantage of being diverse, or inferred data (i.e. using proxies). And is advocacy for open data also advocacy for the primacy of data over other ways of knowing reality?
The challenges noted by Chris on the nature of online platforms, how exclusive they can be and how far they can go to translate conversation into action without creating hierarchies of leaders over followers also addresses a similar question of power. Are there online platforms with “inbuilt protection” for collaborative processes? Do we need such regulation or is it contrary to the spirit of ‘openness’? Chris, do let us know how you are getting on in your endeavour!
Some of the key issues discussed on the effectiveness of online platforms are:
The challenges discussed this week relate to the above questions, one of the most important ones, in my opinion, is that women in communities may see little or no value in online platforms and that these this bypass the very women whose land rights are under threat. The example Gonzalo gives from Peru shows both the limit and potential of using online platforms – they can exclude due to limited connectivity and low literacy of the women that were to be consulted I this case, but they also have a potential to involve many more people without the need for large sums of money to arrange for transport and venues – not to mention the time women may not be free to sacrifice to travel to a meeting . Foodgovernance makes an excellent point about the onus of adding content and sharing information via online platforms may fall to NGO staff or academics working in a community – this might be a mutually beneficial way of using online platforms?
Two contributors emphasised the importance of looking at how internet and telephone services can be brought to remote areas where land rights are a key issue, foodgovernance gave us the example of a programme now being designed in Gujarat around mobile phones – which are already available widely - by setting up a call centre to share information through voicemail and offering a call-in service. This is definitely one to watch out for!
I hope there are others out there who can share concrete cases, whether it’s about online platforms already used, or cases of how data on land rights is being accessed, at what level, and how it can be used to promote change.
Have a lovely weekend and keep the comments coming!
On behalf of Gine Zwart - Oxfam-Novib
This morning I had a conversation with Gine Zwart from Oxfam-Novib, and I am making this post on her behalf.
Gine was in charge of organising Oxfam’s global online policy discussion on the Future of Agriculture and shared some lessons from that experience with me. This discussion, which took place on ten days in December 2012, was intended to explore four key issues, one of which was women’s land ownership, and was based on essays by key experts posted every day that people visiting the page could then comment on.
“In the Future of Agriculture debate there was quite a lot of participation, but it was incredibly labour-intensive to get this. It was a global discussion, with more than 4000 visitors on the website during most days of the discussion and announcements on more than 35 other websites worldwide. Many people knew about it and respected that Oxfam organised something like this, but still the hurdle to actively post a comment is enormous. Still, we got 300 comments, which is not bad, but for something rolled out globally, we expected a bit more.
One major lesson was that the content of the discussion was too dense. On LinkedIn, for instance, you sometimes get a statement and people react to it, which can be really lively. We had essays by experts, which probably hundreds, maybe thousands of people read, but few commented. People think about and have ideas about such essays but might not share their ideas.
We did get comments from all corners of the world and got comments from people who would never ever be in a meeting with some of the people who wrote the essays – like for for instance, the Director General of FAO – and could comment directly. Some authors were active in reacting again, but not all.
What might be of more interest to a bigger audience will be the synthesis report which Oxfam will put out together with all the essays.
We also realised that relationships matter, so people in an inner circle know you and are more likely to react than those in an outer circle. We saw this very clearly, Oxfam has a good network in the Netherlands of agriculture experts and those were quite active in the debate. In other countries they might have networks but these were not as engaged, or maybe are networks that are not as relevant to such a debate.
On the technical side, one limitation was that we could not make it a real discussion, we had essays and you could comment under the essay, with someone else then commenting again. The way we set it up, 2-3 essays were slightly opposing each other to stimulate debate, but there was no real space for debate as essays were not all in one place. Comments were on each individual essays, so it was more like someone addressing an audience in a conference, with people commenting the presentation.
We had this in three languages with brief summaries for the next day, a recommendation we have for such a debate is to have it first in English for two weeks, then hand over lead to a French-speaking Oxfam, then run it for two weeks, then hand it over to a Spanish-speaking Oxfam to run it in Spanish. That would probably work much better, with less pressure to translate quickly and various language participants benefiting from previous comments.
A big question related to online platforms is: what is in it for you as a commenter? On LinkedIn, for instance, you see that consultants are very active in such debates, probably for the visibility (for professional purposes). There may be other reasons, but the important thing is to bear in mind what is in it for those whose participation you want.”
Thanks to Gine for sharing her thoughts!
Hablar de uso de plataformas online para el intercambio y el impulso de acciones en torno al monitoreo de derechos de las mujeres a la tierra implica varias cuestiones. Una primera pregunta que se viene a mi mente es quiénes están participando y/o tienen el potencial de participar en las plataformas online sobre este tópico.
Brecha de género en el acceso y uso de la tierra - y también en la arena Online
Si bien es cierto que el trabajo sobre los derechos de las mujeres a la tierra importa tanto a hombres y mujeres por las implicancias que tienen – vínculos con la seguridad alimentaria, con la reducción de la pobreza, por un tema de reconocimiento y derechos, etc. – creo que es importante promover y facilitar la activa participación de mujeres/organizaciones de mujeres en iniciativas online vinculadas a este tópico.
Así como la data desagregada por género en cuanto al acceso y uso de la tierra es escasa, también lo es a nivel de acceso y uso de Internet. Si bien es cierto que el uso de Internet está incrementándose en los países en desarrollo, debemos recordar que aún persisten brechas significativas. De acuerdo a un estudio reciente llevado a cabo por Intel en consulta con ONU Mujeres, World Pulse y el Department´s Office of Global Women´s issue de los EE.UU sobre usos de la web por parte de mujeres en países en desarrollo, se calcula que el porcentaje de mujeres en línea es 25% menor (¡lo que equivale a aprox. a 200 millones de mujeres!) que el de sus pares varones, brecha que se agudiza en regiones como África Subsahariana, en donde la brecha alcanza un 40%. Más allá de las cifras, se sostiene que no todos los acceso a Internet –y por ende a las comunidades en línea– promueven en igual medida el empoderamiento de las mujeres, en tanto que un involucramiento pleno implica sentirse familiarizado/a a diferentes niveles: saber qué se está buscando, cómo buscar la información y cómo hacer uso y/o aprovechar las redes que se gestan en la web, el conocimiento y los servicios que se encuentran en línea.
La brecha de género digital –que abarca además del acceso los usos y habilidades relacionadas situaciones de desigualdad por razones de género– sigue siendo una limitante para las oportunidades que ofrece el Internet y las plataformas en línea para el empoderamiento, la participación y el activismo de las mujeres en torno a temáticas clave como la tierra. Esta brecha es un reflejo de las desigualdades por género que imperan en las distintas sociedades y puede dar lugar, en ciertos casos, a que las desigualdades se amplíen. Esto, en tanto que las mujeres que no están conectadas corren el riesgo de ser más marginadas, mientras que aquellas que sí lo están pueden contribuir de forma activa al flujo de información y la incidencia a favor de los derechos de las mujeres. Además, es importante anotar que la brecha digital se acrecienta justamente en el sector de las mujeres rurales y que las desigualdades entre los diversos ámbitos tienden a retroalimentarse.
En suma, las desigualdades por género afectan potencialmente la aplicación y el uso que se puede dar a las plataformas colaborativas en línea. Es importante entonces impulsar mecanismos que permitan incorporar los conocimientos, perspectivas y capacidades de las mismas mujeres y sus organizaciones en estas plataformas, así como la participación de otros actores clave.
Finalmente, comentar que tras revisar el perfil de participantes en un foro en línea realizado sobre mujeres y acceso a la tierra, encontré por ejemplo que el número de participantes varones superaba de largo al número de mujeres. Al impulsar estas plataformas participativas, conviene entonces preguntarnos quiénes están participando y qué mecanismos se están adoptando para asegurar el diálogo y la participación inclusiva (si se está facilitando también la participación de mujeres, participantes de distintas zonas –incluyendo el Sur–, facilidades idiomáticas, entre otros).
Otra pregunta obligada es la orientación de este tipo de plataformas:
Plataformas en línea para trabajar el tema de los derechos de las mujeres a la tierra ¿para qué y cómo?
Las plataformas en línea colaborativas son herramientas con diversos y ricos potenciales para los y las interesadas en promover una gobernanza de la tierra inclusiva y con enfoque de género. Los aspectos que se pueden destacar de estas herramientas son varios y mayormente conocidos: permiten compartir información sobre lo que está pasando con la tierra, conocimiento y buenas prácticas en torno a los procesos que afectan (positivamente o negativamente) los derechos de las mujeres a la tierra; facilitan el trabajo en red/networking; permiten que personas y organizaciones interesadas en esta temática se conecten y potencia colaboraciones, entre otros.
El involucramiento de mujeres en estas plataformas permite que participen activamente en la producción de conocimiento sobre un tema tan central como es el acceso y uso de la tierra y otros RRNN, lo que favorece que la información que se recoge y se produce contemple una dimensión de género. Estas plataformas, además, tienen un potencial para fomentar relaciones/ estrategias y labores de incidencia por parte de las OSC y son un recurso valioso para los/las que abogan por una mayor igualdad en el acceso a los recursos.
Actualmente existen plataformas online muy interesantes que se vinculan a labores de monitoreo y vigilancia de los derechos a la tierra y la Apertura de Datos (Open Data). Una de ellas es la Land Matrix , una base de datos en línea sobre adquisiciones de tierra que permite a los usuarios contribuir con el mejoramiento de los datos sobre dichas adquisiciones y visualizar la data.
Otro proyecto en línea vinculado es el Observatorio de Adquisiciones de Tierra (Observatorio de la tierra/Land Observatory), una plataforma interactiva en línea a lanzarse próximamente que permitirá a individuos y organizaciones proveer información, generar información espacial y propiciar diálogos políticos sobre los procesos que afectan los derechos a la tierra de los/las más vulnerables. Estas dos iniciativas contemplan métodos de Crowdsourcing, una metodología que puede ser clave para mejorar la información vinculada a la tenencia de la tierra, en tanto que permite a los ciudadanos/as aportar directamente información sobre afectaciones a sus derechos respecto a la tierra y otros.
Ambas plataformas colaborativas permiten recoger valiosa información relacionada a los derechos de las mujeres rurales, por ejemplo aprender más sobre cómo los procesos comerciales están impactando de forma diferenciada a las mujeres. Aun cuando el recojo de esta información puede ser desafiante, resulta fundamental que estas plataformas incorporen en su diseño la variable de género para contar con más elementos para la defensa de los derechos de las mujeres rurales ante la falta de información existente.
Sandra Apaza Lanyi
International Land Coalition- América Latina y el Caribe
Hablar de uso de plataformas online para el intercambio y el impulso de acciones en torno al monitoreo de derechos de las mujeres a la tierra implica varias cuestiones. Una primera pregunta que se viene a mi mente es quiénes están participando y/o tienen el potencial de participar en las plataformas online sobre este tópico.
Brecha de género en el acceso y uso de la tierra - y también en la arena Online
Si bien es cierto que el trabajo sobre los derechos de las mujeres a la tierra importa tanto a hombres y mujeres por las implicancias que tienen – vínculos con la seguridad alimentaria, con la reducción de la pobreza, por un tema de reconocimiento y derechos, etc. – creo que es importante promover y facilitar la activa participación de mujeres/organizaciones de mujeres en iniciativas online vinculadas a este tópico.
Así como la data desagregada por género en cuanto al acceso y uso de la tierra es escasa, también lo es a nivel de acceso y uso de Internet. Si bien es cierto que el uso de Internet está incrementándose en los países en desarrollo, debemos recordar que aún persisten brechas significativas. De acuerdo a un estudio reciente llevado a cabo por Intel en consulta con ONU Mujeres, World Pulse y el Department´s Office of Global Women´s issue de los EE.UU sobre usos de la web por parte de mujeres en países en desarrollo, se calcula que el porcentaje de mujeres en línea es 25% menor (¡lo que equivale a aprox. a 200 millones de mujeres!) que el de sus pares varones, brecha que se agudiza en regiones como África Subsahariana, en donde la brecha alcanza un 40%. Más allá de las cifras, se sostiene que no todos los acceso a Internet –y por ende a las comunidades en línea– promueven en igual medida el empoderamiento de las mujeres, en tanto que un involucramiento pleno implica sentirse familiarizado/a a diferentes niveles: saber qué se está buscando, cómo buscar la información y cómo hacer uso y/o aprovechar las redes que se gestan en la web, el conocimiento y los servicios que se encuentran en línea.
La brecha de género digital –que abarca además del acceso los usos y habilidades relacionadas situaciones de desigualdad por razones de género– sigue siendo una limitante para las oportunidades que ofrece el Internet y las plataformas en línea para el empoderamiento, la participación y el activismo de las mujeres en torno a temáticas clave como la tierra. Esta brecha es un reflejo de las desigualdades por género que imperan en las distintas sociedades y puede dar lugar, en ciertos casos, a que las desigualdades se amplíen. Esto, en tanto que las mujeres que no están conectadas corren el riesgo de ser más marginadas, mientras que aquellas que sí lo están pueden contribuir de forma activa al flujo de información y la incidencia a favor de los derechos de las mujeres. Además, es importante anotar que la brecha digital se acrecienta justamente en el sector de las mujeres rurales y que las desigualdades entre los diversos ámbitos tienden a retroalimentarse.
En suma, las desigualdades por género afectan potencialmente la aplicación y el uso que se puede dar a las plataformas colaborativas en línea. Es importante entonces impulsar mecanismos que permitan incorporar los conocimientos, perspectivas y capacidades de las mismas mujeres y sus organizaciones en estas plataformas, así como la participación de otros actores clave.
Finalmente, comentar que tras revisar el perfil de participantes en un foro en línea realizado sobre mujeres y acceso a la tierra, encontré por ejemplo que el número de participantes varones superaba de largo al número de mujeres. Al impulsar estas plataformas participativas, conviene entonces preguntarnos quiénes están participando y qué mecanismos se están adoptando para asegurar el diálogo y la participación inclusiva (si se está facilitando también la participación de mujeres, participantes de distintas zonas –incluyendo el Sur–, facilidades idiomáticas, entre otros).
Otra pregunta obligada es la orientación de este tipo de plataformas:
Plataformas en línea para trabajar el tema de los derechos de las mujeres a la tierra ¿para qué y cómo?
Las plataformas en línea colaborativas son herramientas con diversos y ricos potenciales para los y las interesadas en promover una gobernanza de la tierra inclusiva y con enfoque de género. Los aspectos que se pueden destacar de estas herramientas son varios y mayormente conocidos: permiten compartir información sobre lo que está pasando con la tierra, conocimiento y buenas prácticas en torno a los procesos que afectan (positivamente o negativamente) los derechos de las mujeres a la tierra; facilitan el trabajo en red/networking; permiten que personas y organizaciones interesadas en esta temática se conecten y potencia colaboraciones, entre otros.
El involucramiento de mujeres en estas plataformas permite que participen activamente en la producción de conocimiento sobre un tema tan central como es el acceso y uso de la tierra y otros RRNN, lo que favorece que la información que se recoge y se produce contemple una dimensión de género. Estas plataformas, además, tienen un potencial para fomentar relaciones/ estrategias y labores de incidencia por parte de las OSC y son un recurso valioso para los/las que abogan por una mayor igualdad en el acceso a los recursos.
Actualmente existen plataformas online muy interesantes que se vinculan a labores de monitoreo y vigilancia de los derechos a la tierra y la Apertura de Datos (Open Data). Una de ellas es la Land Matrix , una base de datos en línea sobre adquisiciones de tierra que permite a los usuarios contribuir con el mejoramiento de los datos sobre dichas adquisiciones y visualizar la data.
Otro proyecto en línea vinculado es el Observatorio de Adquisiciones de Tierra (Observatorio de la tierra/Land Observatory), una plataforma interactiva en línea a lanzarse próximamente que permitirá a individuos y organizaciones proveer información, generar información espacial y propiciar diálogos políticos sobre los procesos que afectan los derechos a la tierra de los/las más vulnerables. Estas dos iniciativas contemplan métodos de Crowdsourcing, una metodología que puede ser clave para mejorar la información vinculada a la tenencia de la tierra, en tanto que permite a los ciudadanos/as aportar directamente información sobre afectaciones a sus derechos respecto a la tierra y otros.
Ambas plataformas colaborativas permiten recoger valiosa información relacionada a los derechos de las mujeres rurales, por ejemplo aprender más sobre cómo los procesos comerciales están impactando de forma diferenciada a las mujeres. Aun cuando el recojo de esta información puede ser desafiante, resulta fundamental que estas plataformas incorporen en su diseño la variable de género para contar con más elementos para la defensa de los derechos de las mujeres rurales ante la falta de información existente.
Sandra Apaza Lanyi
International Land Coalition- América Latina y el Caribe
Open access data, but also good data
I agree in principle with the value of open data sources and platforms for discussion, but at the same time, we need reliable data. So much of what we see about the amount of land that women "own" is not clear where the data come from, or even what is meant by "ownership". I'm afraid that crowdsourcing without clear guidelines, definitions, and quality control could generate some very misleading numbers.
As part of our Gender, Agriculture, and Assets Program (GAAP) we have put together a "toolkit" of qualitative and quantitative methods for looking at all kinds of assets (see http://gaap.ifpri.info/gender-and-assets-toolkit/ )
Of the resources we have found, the Gender Asset Gap Project's to be especially valuable. http://genderassetgap.iimb.ernet.in/
In particular, they have a paper on how different ways of asking the question gives different results
In terms of crowdsourcing, we have developed a "Gender Mapper" http://gender.mappr.info/explore.php
to invite people to put in information on basic gender patterns of farming systems (whehter they are male-dominated, female-dominated, joint male-female, or men and women have separate holdings) as a way to help target interventions. We have received some submissions, but are now looking at how we can use large nationally-representative data sets like LSMS, DHS, or agricultural censuses to do this instead. (But contributions are still welcome!)
Thanks to the ILC for stimulating this discussion.
WRI along with Landesa have developed a platform for to promote equitable access to land for women, www.focusonland.com. Each country that is represented has or will have a lesson solely devoted to women's issues in land tenure and with property rights. The distribution of this information to the rights hands is a mian concern. Identifying partners with field experience that want to share their successes and failures is one way that we think will add not only to this platform but to the land discussion. We have also identified mobile devices as another way of distributing information and are working to place this infromation in a format suitable for cell sized screens. But are these being used to access and push infromation in the field in gender projects? If so, in what countries, what types of information? And where are there information gaps? I am curious as to who else is also working on such activities and how they have pushed for wider user and distribution.
Synthesis for the first 3 days (February 6-9)
Here it is a synthesis of the very first three days of discussion. As you know, the debate is taking place on five different on-line platforms and tries to bridge ICTs and land rights expertise, to explore the potential of e-communities to promote inclusive land governance, with a special focus on women’s land rights. And we are getting the first very interesting contributions! Keep posting!
On how collaborative online platforms can contribute to transparency and informed debate in natural resources governance:
As you know, to explore more in depth a specific field of land rights, we also asked participants to share some examples - on this on-line platform - on monitoring women’s land rights:
Look forward to receiving more contributions!
I'm really impressed with Open Development Cambodia's online platform, which among other things, brings together laws and regulations on land, land concession maps for all resource categories and news and a blog that puts all of this information in a context. It is also a useful tool that includes information on stock markets and industries, so that in the sensitive political context of Cambodia, they really manage to bring together a complex set of components that it helping people step-by-step:
http://www.opendevelopmentcambodia.net/
In terms of collaborative open data projects, I really like Open Corporates: http://opencorporates.com/
It has put together information on 51,112,973 companies by open participation, and one can only imagine what can be done with such information.
I recently came upon open data and visualization groups on meetup.com:
http://www.meetup.com/The-Visual-ly-Data-Visualization-Meetup/
http://www.meetup.com/Open-Data-Bay-Area/
Most of these groups seem to be in California or Silicon valley, but they represent the cutting edge of these kinds of communities. One observation that I have is that these platforms seem to work on a local or national level, if the country is small enough. There really needs to be a targeted group of users that stand to benefit in some way by using the platforms and participating in the discussions.
On an international level, there needs to a different element that motivates people to participate, perhaps prestige and visibility for their professional career. E-agriculture has seemed to reach the critical mass of contributors and interest in the topic.
I suspect it would be useful to connect women's cooperatives, functioning economic groups, together with groups working on land rights, and create the types of platforms that offer these groups not only the chance to discuss, but to access services, etc. serve as a useful everyday tool. The ILO and Coop Africa produced a publication in 2010 about some of the interesting women's cooperative groups and the work they are doing: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/ent/coop/africa/download/wo...
We should ask ourselves if we are we bringing the rights groups together.