GSDRC

Governance, social development, conflict and humanitarian knowledge services

  • Research
    • Governance
      • Democracy & elections
      • Public sector management
      • Security & justice
      • Service delivery
      • State-society relations
      • Supporting economic development
    • Social Development
      • Gender
      • Inequalities & exclusion
      • Poverty & wellbeing
      • Social protection
    • Conflict
      • Conflict analysis
      • Conflict prevention
      • Conflict response
      • Conflict sensitivity
      • Impacts of conflict
      • Peacebuilding
    • Humanitarian Issues
      • Humanitarian financing
      • Humanitarian response
      • Recovery & reconstruction
      • Refugees/IDPs
      • Risk & resilience
    • Development Pressures
      • Climate change
      • Food security
      • Fragility
      • Migration & diaspora
      • Population growth
      • Urbanisation
    • Approaches
      • Complexity & systems thinking
      • Institutions & social norms
      • Theories of change
      • Results-based approaches
      • Rights-based approaches
      • Thinking & working politically
    • Aid Instruments
      • Budget support & SWAps
      • Capacity building
      • Civil society partnerships
      • Multilateral aid
      • Private sector partnerships
      • Technical assistance
    • Monitoring and evaluation
      • Indicators
      • Learning
      • M&E approaches
  • Services
    • Research Helpdesk
    • Professional development
  • News & commentary
  • Publication types
    • Helpdesk reports
    • Topic guides
    • Conflict analyses
    • Literature reviews
    • Professional development packs
    • Working Papers
    • Webinars
    • Covid-19 evidence summaries
  • About us
    • Staff profiles
    • International partnerships
    • Privacy policy
    • Terms and conditions
    • Contact Us
Home»GSDRC Publications»Land transparency programmes and land data platforms

Land transparency programmes and land data platforms

Helpdesk Report
  • Oliver Walton
January 2013

Question

Identify evidence of successful land transparency programmes, focusing on how these programmes were delivered, challenges encountered and how these were overcome. Identify examples of successful pilots of national land data platforms that could be scaled up and assess whether these are the same as online land registers. If available, provide details of the costs associated with developing a public and open database.

Summary

Key findings: Land administration in developing countries often fails to be pro-active, service-oriented, inclusive and pro-poor. These failures can lead to a range of issues including corruption, fraud, extortion and human rights violations. Several countries are currently reforming land policies and introducing new approaches to land administration. These efforts generally involve providing legal recognition to tenure rights that are considered legitimate but are currently not protected by law. A second step may involve promoting more transparent and effective land certification and registration systems.

This report provides some examples of land administration programmes that have attempted to improve transparency. It describes the key features of these programmes, challenges faced and how these have been overcome. The report finds that the programmes vary considerably in their design, addressing transparency in a variety of ways – for example, by conducting awareness raising programmes (Cambodia, Burkina Faso, Senegal), publishing new maps or databases online (India, Indonesia) or decentralising registration processes (Ghana). These programmes typically involved a range of components – for example, providing legal support to government land reform efforts, supporting computerisation, awareness-raising and building capacity.

Examples of pilot programmes to establish a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) or a National Land Information System (NLIS) are also identified in this report. In most cases these involved the use of regional or local pilots. No documents of the costs associated with developing a public and open land database were identified. Moreover, most of the cases identified did not mention establishing ‘online land registers’, though they did involve the digitisation of land data.

 

file type icon See Full Report [PDF]

Enquirer:

  • DFID

Related Content

Infrastructure Project Failures in Colombia
Helpdesk Report
2018
Transparency and performance
Helpdesk Report
2017
Transparency and accountability initiatives in the extractives sector
Helpdesk Report
2017
Parliamentary transparency and accountability
Helpdesk Report
2017

University of Birmingham

Connect with us: Bluesky Linkedin X.com

Outputs supported by DFID are © DFID Crown Copyright 2025; outputs supported by the Australian Government are © Australian Government 2025; and outputs supported by the European Commission are © European Union 2025

We use cookies to remember settings and choices, and to count visitor numbers and usage trends. These cookies do not identify you personally. By using this site you indicate agreement with the use of cookies. For details, click "read more" and see "use of cookies".