1. Size, productivity, and obstacles confronted Implications for policy Hashim Ahmed

2.  Attracting agric. investment critical for Ethiopia  Parallel to poverty in the 1980s  Power of an indicator & institutional commitment to move things  Data issues, methodology, and policy go hand in hand  Stepwise process that will take time to evolve  Relatively narrow scope: Excluded many things (assets/gender)  But Top level indicator only  Need to make a start somewhere & keep improving  Link global indicator with country strategies (PRSP)  Process could be faster in the case of land  Technology – spatial much better (big data)  Can draw on wide range of data providers (communities)  … as well as experience from first  … but need to have criteria to assess instruments  Choices are required  Even if we are clear on what we want in terms of indicators

3.  Frequency of updates  Country coverage  Scope for disaggregation  Cost-effectiveness  Objectivity/replicability

4. Expert opinion Participatory Monitoring Opinion surveys Census data Household surveys Admin. data And we have a number of options

5. Freq Ctry cvgDisagg.CostReplic. Expert opinion HHVLLL Partic. M’toring HMLLM Opinion surveys MHMMH Census data LMVHM Hhld surveys MLHHH Admin. data VH? M How do options score?

6.  Expert opinion  Illustrates power of global comparison (DB) & push for reforms  Well-suited to legal framework (infrequent change; impl. issues)  Less suited for complex multi-dimensional issues (titles vs. deeds)  Prone to oversimplification & ‘gaming the system’  Participatory monitoring/observatories  Better suited to complex & country-specific realities of land sector  Can draw on & help improve available data  But some standardization needed  Well suited to generate consensus on reform

7.  Global opinion/perception surveys  High country coverage, reasonable replicability (sample-based)  But standardized with large minimum detectable effects  Limited to perceptions that may be far from reality  Cost is high (Global FINDEX example; some $ 10 mn)  Household surveys  Provide a very differentiated picture of formal & informal rights  Differentiated by gender & asset ownership  Impact on wide range of outcome variables  Well suited to identify economic/poverty impact of interventions  Arguably with spillovers on local capacity  But building up a global data base will take time & money  Census data  Similar to household surveys

8.  Administrative data  Collect. is land institutions’ core mandate -> improve data (gender), take action in lagging regions & reward performance, country dialogue & capacity  Spatial referencing & overlays: Expose inconsistencies (>100%), visualize inequality over space, integrate with ‘lesser’ documents (tax maps, land use plans)  Frequency of data availability -> dynamics (inheritance, informal transfers), monitor market activity  High upfront cost but essential for sustainability of systems  Link to admin. & hh data (tax, land use), for better service delivery, LGUs  Scope for spatial disaggregation (poverty maps, economic activity)  Should be mandatory in any country where land programs are undertaken  If available, can generate reliable global indicators almost as a by-product  Monitoring will be critical to ensure sustainability, inform LGUs  Plenty of scope for improvement & strengthening (gender)  Record sharing & data standards (fits into ongoing efforts)

9.  Participatory monitoring: Consensus on/momentum for high level reforms globally  Opinion surveys: HH-level perceptions for quick global coverage  Household surveys: Economic/poverty impacts of interventions, distributional aspects  Administrative Data: Effectiveness & coverage of service delivery  Debate should be how to combine these to get coverage/have impact  … and on who should drive this (external or country)

10.  Is the issue admin. data availability or inter-agency coordination/access?  The more it’s the latter, the more important it is to focus on admin. data  If admin. data available in principle, it should be the primary reference; global indicator should be used to foster coordination  This leaves us with countries where such data do not readily exist  Is a perception-based indicator meaningful & worth investing in?  Incidence of mis-perceptions (feel secure, but can be evicted by investor) – test  Are there better questions (e.g. demand for documentation)?  How much can it be disaggregated by gender at reasonable cost?  Does it add enough value over existing participatory monitoring  What is the cost of filling in/generating new data?  Should one start with individuals or with area mapped/recorded (incl. to groups)?  Does new technology & actors (cities, crowd-sourcing) make data acquisition cheaper?  What are the criteria for accepting data generated by other sources (private sector)?  Who is the target audience - what will be meaningful to them?  Is ‘5/0% of area mapped with owners/claimants recorded’ a meaningful indicator of country risk for potential investors/financial intermediaries?  Can it help communities demand better service provision?  Complement existing risk indicators & make data more consistent by overlays?

11.  Slightly reformulate indicators  Area mapped with claimants recorded (risk) -> map: poverty & potential for strategy  Share of land recorded in the name of women -> changes reflect inheritance  No. of recorded land transactions -> Sustainability of the system  Legal scope for recognition of plurality of tenure regimes  Focus on administrative for any global indicator in the long-term source  Perceptions less relevant in face of external threats  Spatial disaggregation to foster action (pinpoint weaknesses)  Fits into drive for ‘big’ data & crowd-sourcing (data standards)  Integration into country strategies (poverty maps, potential, LUP)  Participatory country level monitoring needed to complement  Ensure data are properly interpreted& translated into policy objectives  Regular follow up on implementation of reforms & adjustment if needed  Admin. data provide needed input information to make roundtables meaningful  Perception surveys if somebody has money to spare  Ensure data are properly interpreted& translated into policy objectives  Regular follow up on implementation of reforms & adjustment if needed

12.  Global land indicator to foster institutional coordination at natinal level  Increase transparency/accountability within the country  Can start with quality control and updating of registry data  Needs to integrate with household & other spatial data (tax maps, land use plans, etc.)  Requires standards for integration and publicity  Needs a lead agency to work with countries  Bring in others – and show value added to all stakeholders  Be not afraid to show that situation is a mess – we would not need  Targets at country level  Complement with capacity building at country level  Initial analysis to illustrate potential & meaning  Mechanisms for quality control and updating  Use this to document usefulness & potential for all stakeholders  Donors to get better value for money (output-based)  Governments for better service delivery  Private businesses to make smarter decisions  Civil society to increase accountability & transparency  This is a long-term agenda  But integration depends more on political will than data availability  And many actors ready to contribute