While a taboo subject just a few years ago, today corruption is widely debated in both national and international forums. Efforts have been made to identify the underlying structural problems and reasons for lack of transparency in the land sector. Civil society and grassroots organisations are increasingly making efforts to hold their governments accountable. Donor agencies are exploring how they can share knowledge, lessons learned and data from development interventions to improve the results of their efforts. 

The question we are asking ourselves at the Land Portal is, “can open data become a tool to increase transparency and fight land corruption?”. Although the amount of data and information on land has grown exponentially over the past decade, increased data availability doesn’t necessarily mean increased data accessibility. How do we ensure that the availability of this data democratises the information ecosystem, rather than amplifying already existing power-differences? How do we ensure that the full potential of data can be realised and people are aware and educated on how to use land data to meet their goals, to protect communities, to defend their land rights?  

A strong case has now been made that open data should be part of the anti-corruption toolbox with the recognition that, given the highly sensitive nature of land data (particularly for vulnerable communities), not everything can or should be made entirely open.

There are many examples that show opportunities for land data to be used. Where data is open it can generate more research and support in investigative journalism efforts, for example. It can empower communities and inform advocacy efforts, government strategies and private sector investments. Despite this global availability of land data, ownership data is especially scattered as tracked by the Open Data Index and Open Data Barometer, which both report that land registry data continues to be the least available category of data. To help us dig into this particular type of data, we have invited the Cadasta Foundation as one of our esteemed partners to help us looking into the risks and opportunities of opening cadastral and ownership data.

Besides land administration data, what other data types and information can support research and advocacy in the land sector and increase transparency? How does responsible, effective and responsible data management influence the way data and information is published and accessed by people? Can data literacy play a role to support people’s capacity in dealing with data and use data in a responsible way? 

We are well aware that it takes more than Open Data to fight corruption. We are also well attuned to the fact that opening up information comes with its responsibilities. One unintended consequence is that those in power can take advantage of this information. What should the global community do to ensure that we open up information in ways, and at levels, which can at once empower and protect people? Opening up information can promote transparency, but much work remains to be done on empowering people’s participation.

We firmly believe that kicking off a debate around these issues can open the door and stimulate thought-provoking contributions that can enrich the debate around open data as a tool to increase transparency and accountability, and therefore reduce corruption.  

We welcome you to our online discussion on “Open Data as an Anti-Corruption Tool” taking place from today to 27th. We would like to thank our partners and colleagues at the Cadasta Foundation and GIZ for helping to spearhead this discussion. I am confident that our facilitators Tim, Amy and Lisette will get some thought-provoking and stimulating conversations going… let’s get started! 

The GIZ Anti-Corruption and Integrity Programme is pleased to be a part of this discussion on Open Data in the Fight Against Corruption.

Corruption is one of the greatest obstacles to development, as it misuses public resources for private purposes. It weakens public administration, prevents equitable decisions from being made for the common good, and reduces the quality of public services. It can weaken the legitimacy of a government and democratic institutions and significantly slow down reform processes. 

Supporting anti-corruption measures and strengthening good governance therefore form a central element of German development cooperation. This work is based on the Anti-Corruption and Integrity Strategy of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). The objective of the sector programme is to support the implementation of this strategy in the German development cooperation.

Good land governance is an important prerequisite for the achievement of the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. Considering the costs of corruption, effective anti-corruption in land and land policies is a fundamental requirement for achieving these goals. 

Land corruption is a complex crime. It is driven by networks of officials, professional intermediaries and companies. So in order to tackle corruption effectively, one needs to understand and dismantle these networks. Furthermore, experience has shown that development work on land issues in general is not sufficiently attentive to the integration of good governance and anti-corruption principles in the design, implementation and effectiveness control of decision making processes in land governance. 

It is our hope that this discussion will raise awareness of the relationship between open data, land governance and transparency as well as public sector integrity. We therefore invite concerned stakeholders to add your voice to this discussion, which will serve to inform the Conference on Land Policy in Africa, CLPA-2019: “Winning the fight against Corruption in the Land Sector: Sustainable Pathway for Africa’s Transformation", which will take place from 25-29 November, 2019.

The online Open Data Handbook defines Open Data as “data that can be freely used, re-used and redistributed by anyone – subject only, at most, to the  requirement to attribute and share alike” . Williamson, Enemark, Wallace, and Rajabifard, (2010) pointed out that land information is a major asset of government for informed policy decisions and service delivery. They further intreat the need know the producers of data and how it is made available for land administration operations and functions. Thus, further emphasised that the information is valuable, even if not sold (Williamson et al., 2010, p.22).

Open access to land data is further highlighted by Zúñiga, (2018) to be crucial for effective and transparent land management, secure and equitable land rights for the attainment of UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, there are reported cases of corruption in the land sector, linked to weak land governance, administration institutions and systems in developing countries (Wheatland, 2016; Zúñiga, 2018). Corruption in the land sector can have serious consequences such; reduction of people’s access to land and disruption of livelihood for vulnerable communities. Hence, the need for advocacy to make land data available to all individuals and organisations as it has the power to improve land administration processes and service delivery and act as catalyst to fight corruption.

Even though the use of open data is recognised to provide numerous benefits for economic development, its adoption is not widely accepted especially in the land administration sector. Below are some of the reasons why (land)data is not being made freely available:
• The assumption that it is time consuming and costly to produce, analyse and interpret land data, hence public must pay for cost recovery;
• Fear of invoking public reaction and critical questioning, eg. related to skewed distribution of land also that can lead to disputes and litigation;
• Unaware of the potential positive impacts which can result from the use of open data (unclear trade-offs);

• Absence of policies and guideline to prescribe what data to be made open and what are the standards and conditions e.g. licencing, agreements;
• Political interference;
• Data not well arranged, incomplete, inaccurate and outdated therefore difficult to publicise;
• Secrecy or privacy culture;
• Focus is on organisational interests and service delivery;
• Fragmentation of systems and software application, that make interoperability difficult; (Janssen, Charalabidis, & Zuiderwijk, 2012) and;
• Low levels of advocacy and awareness creation. Only a few people know about the availability of data

References
Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, Adoption Barriers and Myths of Open Data and Open Government. Information Systems Management, 29(4), 258– 268. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2012.716740
Wheatland, B. (2016). Corruption risks and mitigation measures in land administration.
Williamson, I., Enemark, S., Wallace, J., & Rajabifard, A. (2010). Land Administration for Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development. Redlands, California: ESRI Press Academic. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.86.8_Pt_2.P.4
Zúñiga, N. (2018). Land Corruption. Transparency International.

Can open land and property rights records fight corruption? This is indeed a powerful question. The answer? On the surface, we want to declare an unequivocal, “yes!”  Yet a more nuanced and thoughtful response is our collective challenge over the course of this discussion hosted by Land Portal. So let’s begin. 

A few minutes ago, I typed in my search bar “who owns ...” and put my home address in Maryland. And there it was, my home’s listing, with home and land specifications, plot size, square footage, our names, when we bought it, for how much, the taxes paid on it, and who the neighbors are. This record comes from the county in which we live. How’s that for open records? Is there a downside? And perhaps more relevantly, Is my privacy being violated? Are my rights being protected by having this information made public? Do I feel more secure about not being evicted or having my land grabbed?

My answers to those questions are completely contextual. Where I live, this transparency doesn’t feel threatening. I believe my tenure to be secure. But if I were in Nairobi, Chang Mai, or Bogota, the answer might be quite different. 

At Cadasta Foundation, our mission is to provide technical tools and services to support documentation of land and resources rights in order to build more sustainable communities. We believe that documenting communities and households that are “invisible” and literally putting them on a map does in fact advance people’s rights. The visibility achieved by documented claims brings transparency and clarity. In theory, this can cut down on the ability to profit from opaque and confusing land systems, help people feel more secure about their tenure, and forge a path to more formal recognition.  

But many questions are also raised: what if there are competing claims to the land? What if more visibility in a conflict setting can lead to targeting of vulnerable people, coercion to sell, raising of rents, denying of inheritance rights, solicitation of bribes, or other corrupt practices? Does openness and clarity always mean reduced corruption? What if governments and land officials are complicit in corrupt practices? What if companies use these data to advance their own interests at the expense of the communities? What if the land data is NOT shared with the owners or communities, but rather, stays in the hands of intermediaries? What is government’s role in protecting these data and people’s rights?

These are some of the tough questions, among others, that frame our discussion. Cadasta is committed to empowering people through the collection, ownership, and management of their own data, using community-led mapping and accessible technologies. We share these aggregated data sets on our global platform--now with over 1.6 million people’s land documentation from 17 countries-- but without personal identifiers, unless our partners choose to share. Our partners decide who can upload, view, and edit their land records, and whether or not they will be made public. 

Cadasta’s answers to our opening questions include a core principle: people need some say over their data in places where protections are not in place. This empowers people in their own contexts to decide what open data means to them. In some cases, sharing these data can help people access titles, government services, or private services. In others, people are afraid to share and instead use their land data for their own planning and development objectives. In my case, my local government has decided to make my land information public. In Maryland, I am ok with that. But assuming that is okay in other places is not a good starting point.

We look forward to hearing your thoughts on these questions and how you, your organization or agency are answering these ethical and practical issues in your context. Let’s hear from you and let’s learn from each other!
 

“There are valid privacy and security issues that play a role in publishing land data, as well as the enormous challenge that lies before land registries to digitize the available land ownership records, while keeping up with a rapidly changing and ever-moving (informal) land market. Does this mean that we should give up the mission to make land data available as open data?”

• I believe that open data is critical to a transparent land market and something we fought hard for during the days of drafting registration legislation  with countries in the FSU and Eastern Europe.
• My concerns all relate to how a push to digitize land ownership records could affect women. Old records may not include women’s names even if, by law, women have ownership rights to the land. This could happen in many ways, including that the registration process did not require all rights holders’ names to be documented or because the law changed after documentation of rights.
• In those instances where women have rights to a parcel of land, by law, but are not named on the document, digitization should include updating the record. That process would need to include public information about the law, what is being done, why, etc. Such public information would need to reach women, and they would need to know how to act on it. To simply digitize existing records without updating them would not help to secure land rights—an inaccurate registry is not useful. So the process of digitization /updating could put women at risk. Thus, digitization would need to be undertaken with the necessary support to women and with funding to ensure its accuracy.

Can you imagine a corruption case in which data is not used? This is difficult to imagine.

This is a really interesting point. I can't imagine a case where documents and evidence are not used, but I can imagine many cases where digital datasets are not used. 

This highlights some of the different ways in which different communities talk and think about 'data'.

Whilst it is legitimate think of any evidence as a piece of data (e.g. the paper or PDF showing a plot boundary and title), open data communities are often thinking in terms of large digital datasets (think a spreadsheet or GIS system with all the land titles for a particular area). 

We could think of the problem in terms of which requirements data needs to help meet to support different anti-corruption efforts. For example:

• If I am faced with the need to prove title to particular land, then the ability to search for, and access title documents without charge or restriction, may help. 
• If I am investigating land transactions that might have been used to launder money, then being able to export a list of corporate land transactions and the companies involved, and link these with other records may be important.
• If I'm looking at how well land policy is functioning, particularly with respect to gender rights, (in order to propose new anti-corruption measures perhaps) then I might need a comprehensive datast on all the land transactions in a given area, along with information about the gender of the title holders. 

You make a very good point that "It is also important to appreciate that there has to be data before one can speak of open data.". The advantage of designing our data collection with open data in mind, is that we can think not only about a narrow set of 'user requirements' for the data that institutions might collect, but we can think more broadly about all the potential uses to which land data could be put, and can consider how the particular models of data collection can serve the widest range of pro-social needs. 

Land ownership remains a challenging topic. In all the discussions, we have advanced the individual ownership of land and this could become a problem in the future. Creating a more divided society. While no one will deny the need to challenge corruption and to curtail the act of governments forcefully taking land without the real landowners benefiting, we also need to be careful what land data should do to help us now and generations to come.

In Liberia, during our discussions for the enactment of the Liberia Land Rights Act 2018, we realize that for residency, it makes a whole lot of sense to own land individually. But there are other uses that could jeopardize such individualist ownership such as the need for public buildings and spaces for market, agriculture development, climate change (forest land and bush land to fight desertification and flooding). 

Considering the above, it becomes clear that the ancient communal ownership of land was not bad. What was bad was its management. This is while we need to focus some attention backwards and generate evidence using land data to show that land itself is for generations and it should be used for generations. In this case, the regulations should be mindful of demarcations which in the future could become boundaries exactly what we have now as countries, territories and borders. 

Let us take for instance, people who are owning agriculture land could decide in the future to create their own countries and human rights could be used to permit such a claim. The very constitutions we have now are weak enough to allow this happening. 

In another situation, women who have registered land to them, could sell it to men, wave it to their boys and at the end of the day, most of the land is owned by men. 

The above examples are just a few situations we need to carefully look at, see what land data can do to support not just this generation but also future generations. 

Communal ownership with flexibility and stronger laws to avoid chaos in the future needs to be integrated into land data and processes now.  My argument is that we must allow people to make use of land, benefit from land and protect it for the good of all. This should be supported by land data. 

A wise and sensible government would recognize that the problem of poverty and unjust social conditions derives from the lack of opportunities to work, earn and sensibly reside. It can be solved by the introduction of a tax system which encourages the proper use of land and which stops penalizing almost everyone else who does not own it. Such a tax system was discussed about 140 years ago by Henry George, a (North) American economist. In his 1879 classic book “Progress and Poverty”, George proposed a single tax on land values without any other kinds of taxes (on earnings, purchases, capital gains, developed property not including its sites, gambling, etc.). Land value taxation (LVT) has 17 features that benefit almost everyone in the economy, except for the employment of big tax departments, landlords and bankers, all of which or whom do nothing productive—where the last two exploit the rights for land monopolization, the ill effects which are encouraged and supported by legislation through the government.  

17 Aspects of LVT Affecting Government, Land Owners, Communities and Ethics

Four Aspects for Better Government:

1. LVT, adds to the national income as do other taxation systems, but it should replace them.

2. The cost of collecting the LVT is less than for any other kind of production or capital goods related tax. It is more efficient and tax avoidance becomes impossible. Sites of land are visible to all and their ownership is public knowledge, due to the introduction and use of land-value maps with tables of sites (parcels), with formal numbering and definitions of them.

3. Consumers will pay less for their purchases, due to lower production costs (see below) and no purchase tax. This means there is more satisfaction with the better management of our national and local affairs, which are seen to be on a fairer basis, without favouring the wealthy.

4. The speculation in its selling price and the withholding of unused land is mostly eliminated, see item 7, and the national economy stabilizes. It no longer experiences the 18 year business boom/bust cycle, due to periodic speculation in land values (see below).

Six Aspects Affecting Land Owners:

5. LVT is progressive–owners of the most potentially productive sites pay the most tax. Urban sites provide the most productivity and should be charged the greatest resulting tax. Comparatively, rural sites have less productivity and associated value. As a result they are farmed for production in an appropriate way and at a lower cost.

6. The land owner pays LVT regardless of how the site is used, but according to its potential for use. Nearly all of the existing ground-rent from tenants becomes the LVT. This results in the land eventually having less sales-value but it retains a significant rental-value, even when it is unused.

7. LVT stops speculation in land prices because the withholding of land from proper use will no longer be worthwhile. It costs the land owner the same, regardless of its actual use, or when this opportunity is lost by the withholding of the site from access for production, residence, etc.

8. The introduction of LVT initially reduces the sales price of sites, because more of them become available and the competition for the access rights to them becomes less fierce. Their rental values grow over a longer term due to the increase in the local infrastructure, which is a required aspect during the greater resulting site development.

9. With LVT, land owners are unable to pass the tax on to their tenants as rent hikes, due to the reduced competition for access to the additional sites that become available, from item 7 above.

10. Speculators and monopolists in real-estate will want to foreclose on their mortgages and withdraw their money for reinvestment. Therefore LVT should be introduced gradually, to allow these speculators sufficient time to transfer their money to company-shares, etc., and simultaneously to meet the increased demand for produce (see below, items 12 and 13).

Three Aspects Regarding Improved Communities:

11. With LVT, there is an incentive to better use the land for production, commerce and residence, rather than it being left idle. Communities become more efficient in communications, introduce less sprawl and improve their living standards.

12. With LVT, greater working opportunities exist due to cheaper land and a greater number of available sites. Consumer goods become cheaper too, because entrepreneurs have less difficulty in starting-up their businesses. They initially pay less ground-rent and production costs will fall, goods supply will grow and unemployment will decrease.

13. Previous investment money is withdrawn from land and instead is placed in the shares of companies and used for purchasing durable capital goods. This means more advances in technology, greater productive efficiency and cheaper goods, too.

Four Aspects About Ethics and Social Justice:

14. The collection of taxes from productive effort and commerce is seen as socially unjust. It reduces the progress of the nation (due to the need for a big tax collection “army”) and certainly redistributes where the money goes. The rent and added sales-values of land due to its monopolization and non-use, are generated without any exertion on the part of the land owner or by the banks. LVT replaces this national extortion by gathering the surplus rental income–LVT being a natural system of national income-gathering.

15. The previous degree of bribery and corruption, for gaining privileged information about proposed land developments, will cease. This previously was due to the leaking of news of municipal plans for housing and industrial development, causing shock-waves in local land prices (and municipal workers’ and lawyers’ bank balances).

16. The improved use of the more central land sites of cities reduces the environmental damage and pollution due to a) unused sites being dumping-grounds and b) the smaller amount of fossil-fuel use when travelling between home and workplace.

17. Because the LVT eliminates the advantage that landlords currently hold over our society, LVT provides a greater equality of opportunity to earn a living. Entrepreneurs can operate in a natural way–to provide more jobs because their production costs are reduced. Then untaxed earnings will correspond more closely to the value that the labour puts into the product or service. Consequently, after LVT has been properly and fully introduced as a single tax, it will eliminate poverty and improve business ethics.

Using open data in the fight against land corruption underscored the name of Transparency and Accountability. The Government of every nation should identify, register, recognise and respect all legitimate land tenure rights holders and safeguard those rights from threats and violatios, including protecting the rights holders from forced eviction. Furthermore, state Government should make sure that access to Justice is underscored, in order to deal with cases of violations of legitimate land tenure rights holders. 

Legitimate land rights is crucial in achieving human rights, food security, poverty eradication, sustainability of livelihoods, social stability, housing, and rural development. 

Corruption happens at many levels 1) Individual, 2) Family, 3) Tribe, 4) Government systems. What we discuss in this topic is only Corruption within government systems. The other three levels of corruption is social and unless the society decides that it is wrong, it is difficult to deal with. Again trying to tell a society their values are not right raises the issue of being racial, bigoted and egocentric. This is where dealing with corruption at this level is very complicated and confused. 

Dealing with government is easier as we expect that government has the mandate to work for the people. It requires politicians and government servants who believe in the system and leave behind their racial and political biases. In a developing country being honest and implementing activities according to the rules, does not normally lead to promotion and praise in the government. It can however, lead to being demoted, transferred, or maybe even being arrested. NGOs and Donors expect officials to follow international standards however, when the government official is arrested, transferred or demoted the Civil Society Institutions find it difficult to question the government in power. Given this situation government officials who do take risks to uphold the 'rule of law' do it at their own risk. 

With regards to the first question, about the types of land data that play a role in the fight against corruption, I would say that open data about land transactions play a strong role in increasing transparency and participation therefore can significantly contribute to reducing corruption in the land sector. These types of data include land administration data, contract data, parcel data and ownership information, data and information on land investments. Land policy information is also important. An example from an online publication by Cadasta gave examples of how journalist and anti-corruption activists have been using land data to reveal the role of government in some large-scale land. “In 2015, Private Eye used Her Majesty’s Land Registry  (HMLR) of the United Kingdom (UK) data to produce interactive maps that show foreign-owned properties and explain why real estate prices in the UK are skyrocketing.”

When it comes to sources of land data, we should be looking also to civil society, bilateral agencies and international organizations as they also collect and at times publish land data and information. The data they have if appropriately prepared can be shared as open. 

Finally, it is the responsibility of civil society organisations and the research community to inform government on how open data and information can improve government programmes, e.g. land reform programmes. It is also the responsibility for every citizen to be aware of their constitution and its provisions to access to information. More and more countries have in their constitution’s commitments to open data, however this is unknown to ordinary people, therefore no demands are made on government to provide open land data and information. Furthermore we see that a culture of secrecy is embedded in government and their officials, particularly in developing nations. 

Corruption in the land sector is a global challenge, denying citizens and businesses the right to access, use and manage land resources while also denying states the resources from transactions on land. Consequently corruption in the land sector leads to food insecurity, poverty and dithering of livelihoods particularly of the rural poor. It has been established that corruption in the land sector is highly dependent on the extent of breakdown of a country’s overall governance. Confronting corruption in the land sector requires an appreciation of various aspects of corrupt deeds and practices in the sector. There are two broad categories of corruption in the land sector, which include administrative corruption and political corruption.

Administrative corruption includes small bribes and other favours that are offered to facilitate property registrations, processing titles, acquisition of land information and to influence land use plans. Such bribery is facilitated by the lack of transparency in the processes, limited information on land-related services and lack of clarity of applicable fees for various services in land administration. On the other hand political corruption entails the use of political, social, and economic power to influence land reforms, development projects and land transactions in favour of the agents who posses the power. Political corruption is more pervasive and is more challenging to deal with as it is systemic in nature. For instance, in Kenya, the Ndung’u Land Commission report unearthed nearly 40 years of political corruption in the land sector that had been perpetuated by government actors in all the post-independence governments of the country from 1963 - 2003.

Advances in open data initiatives promise to make an effective contribution in the fight against corruption in the land sector. Specifically, making land-related laws, policies, regulations and data openly and freely available to the public can potentially improve the transparency in the sector hence reducing instances of administrative corruption. In addition, linking the open data on land to secure and centralised financial management systems which allow users to pay for services interactively can promote accountability by keeping track of the transactions for each services
and ensuring that the citizens are aware of the cost of the services that they are paying for.

Regarding political corruption, open data regarding land use plans, land tenure systems and related cadastral maps could provide information on all land resources and reduce the temptation for government actors to use their political power to perpetuate corruption in the land sector. In addition, open data could also provide the necessary evidence that is required to prosecute corruption cases within the judiciary. Further to facilitate the use of open data in fighting corruption in the land sector, independent bodies and commissions with proper legal and prosecutorial powers, could be established in various countries to provide oversight and regulation in the land sectors. Similarly, public participation can also augment the use of open
data in the fight against corruption in the land sector.

In conclusion, it is noteworthy that, while open data provides an opportunity for improved transparency and accountability in the land sector, it is not a panacea for all the forms of corruption and malaise in the sector. The proliferation of open data must go in tandem with advocacy and capacity , as away of creating awareness on land related issues and sharpening the technical skills among citizens to access, use and improve the data on land. Finally, the security and confidentiality of sensitive land-related data must also be ensured.

This is a very important point.

One of the often used 'theories of change' for work on open data (and open government more broadly) has been that it can provide resources that allow reformers inside institutions to pursue reform. 

For example, an official might know that there are corrupt land deals taking place, but if they raise their concerns internally, they will suffer the kinds of problems you outline. But if they can promote open data (potentially 'sold' to the institutions in terms of efficiency or technical innovation, rather than transparency), then they can make information available that creates pressure from outside the institution for change. 

I realise this theory of change makes quite a lot of assumption (including that there is capacity in civil society to access and use open information, and to then there is a social context in which problems revealed by that information can be used to pressure institutions) - but I would be curious whether you think it can operate in some fom in the developing country and family/tribe contexts you are considering?

In other words: can you imagine cases where people who want to act honestly and according to the rules, could use open data as a tool to help them do that? 

Thanks for this excellent framing of our discussion, Laura!

States Government should endeavour to prevent corruption in all forms, at all levels, and in all settings. States Government have the responsibility to adopt and apply measures to fight corruption in relation to governance and land tenure rights holders, such as establishing checks and balances, limiting the arbitrary use of power, resolving conflicts of interestand adopt clear rules and regulations. 

It also that states Government should facilitate administratiive or judicial review of decisions of implementing agencies. It bring about transparency and accountability. 

The examples I know of are those where countries have gone from paper certificates to a digitized titling system through systematic registration. In that case, they were not just digitizing, of course, so they basically went house to house, adjudicating household rights, and identified current owners. Kyrgyzstan is a good example of that. Unfortunately, I do not have other type of examples, but I would love to hear from those who know about what is possible.

The Ministry of Lands Housing and Urban Development (MLHUD) under the Land Component of the Competitiveness and Enterprise Development Project (CEDP) project, is implementing as part of its activities the National Land Information System as one of the approach to provide Land Information, Data and Land services to the citizens and all other property owners.

The Uganda Land Information System (UgNLIS) establishment is also developed on the concept of interoperability, supporting Land Administration and Management data sharing through the Web Portals. UgNLIS has integrated with other spatial data in the country like Forestry, Roads, Environment, Physical Planning and the administrative boundaries which are vital in the economic development of the country.

More so, UgNLIS tracks history of all the Land transactions supporting transparency and accountability within the regional Land Offices. The submitted applications can be tracked online by the applicant, sms and email notifications for all ongoing transactions on the property. This has contributed to the securing of the tenure security and also the ease to access of Land records in the regional.

Uganda`s Land is mostly customary tenure and not registered, this has created a gap of securing ownership and contributed to limited access of the Land data through the National Land Information System. However, there are efforts towards registering and securing Land rights in the regional hence this will increase availability of Land data to the public through the Geo portals.

Access freely to Land ownership dataset/ Land data remains a challenge in Uganda based on laws and regulations like the data privacy Act, registration of title Act among others. The Government of Uganda generates revenue from the Land Sector through the access to the Land data/ Land Information, so there is a need for data cleansing or data cleaning. During this process the classification of Land Data will be done to determine the level of access and identity of who has rights view property information (Land data).

Furthermore, Land open data is the future for Land governance and a strong tool for fighting corruption in the Land sector, however more enhancements of the business processes should be encouraged in the region. Adopting the concept of Web applications shall support the access to Land data and further making it easier for development Application programming interfaces for system to system integration.

I may not be exact to mentioned cases of such, but for the case of my country, the Government lack the capacity to published data information from the Justice system. Publication of data is a major challenge faced the judiciary system in the country. For example, information critical to fight corruption and promote fair competition, such as company registers, public sector contracts and land titles is even harder to get from the Government. 

Corruption has a devastating impact on the lives of people around the world. When money that should be spend on schools, hospitals, and other government services ends up in the hands (pockets) of dishonest officials, and everyone suffers. 

Open Data is information anyone can access, use and share. Publication of government information in this way has the potential to allow government officials, journalists and citizens to follow financial flows, understand who's providing government services among others. 

One of the major challenges we have confronted in the planning, implementation and monitoring of land reform in South Africa is the unavailability or inadequacy of land data for the majority of land rights holders. Overall, it is estimated that the property rights of between 60 - 70% of South African citizens remain either unrecorded or off-register. There has been a general failure of government to meet its constitutional obligations in terms of section 25(6) of the constitution which requires that a person or community whose tenure of land is legally insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an act of Parliament, either to tenure which is legally secure or to comparable redress.
 
There has been a collapse land administration on much of the land formerly designated as reserves, 'homelands' or 'bantustans' where land is held under systems described as 'communal tenure'. In the previous dispensation people's rights to land in these areas were allocated by means of permits, known as permissions to occupy (PTOs) or through quitrent title. These old systems are in disarray. Records have been lost which creates opportunities for land grabs and elite deals which see vulnerable rural households dispossessed of their rights in land favour of mining or agribusiness transactions which benefit the few.  Likewise in the urban areas land rights in informal settlements are unrecorded and the transfer of title to people obtaining access to housing through state subsidy programmes has broken down. Even where title has been awarded ownership on the title deed frequently bears little resemblance to ownership and occupation on the ground. This reflects the unaffordability and inappropriateness of current property rights systems designed to secure the rights of the affluent in a context of deep poverty and inequality.
 
Between 1994 and March 2018 some 8,4 million ha of land have been acquired by government through the combined restitution and redistribution programmes. However individual rights to much of this land remain unclear. In the earlier phases of the land reform programme much of the land acquired was allocated to communal property institutions which hold land on behalf of their members. However very little state or NGO support has been provided to the communal property associations and trusts which are the owners of this land to assist them to establish and update registers of members and to allocate secure individual and household rights in land on the properties acquired. This has opened the door to corruption and misappropriation of resources where some trustees and/or members of executive committees have sold land or assets held in the name of beneficiaries, or entered into deals which have not resulted in any flow of benefits to the majority of those with rights to the land.
 
In the recent phases of the land reform programme the state has opted to retain ownership of land acquired for redistribution and is supposed to provide long leases to approved beneficiaries. However, research clearly indicates that in the majority of instances no such leases have been issued. This grey space has again enabled corrupt transactions in land  which thrive in a context lacking data to enable this to be tracked and addressed.

While it is clear that open data has the potential to prevent and expose corrupt practices, this requires institutional capacity and systems of land administration to enable credible data to be captured and updated to identify those with rights to land. The primary problems which have to be confronted are the absence of this data (in any form),  a lack that is exacerbated by the absence of appropriate land rights recordal and land administration systems and the failure to provide support to update and maintain the relevant records.
 
At present, it could be said that our foundational challenge is a skewed data and property rights system which privileges private title that is both unaffordable for poorer citizens and often inappropriate in contexts where social tenures prevail. The overwhelming majority of South African citizens face a ‘no data’ problem. Their rights in land remain largely invisible and at risk of capture. This has to be rectified in such a way that creates a universal, open and accessible system of land rights recordal underpinned by the requisite spatial data infrastructure and open data land administration systems. It is only once these are in place that the potential of open data to counteract corruption can be properly realised.
 
The recent report of the Presidential Advisory Panel on Agriculture and Land Reform has advised on “an immediate process of recordal of rights in rural and per- urban areas with legislative amendments to accommodate forms of collective ownership as currently only freehold is accommodated by Registry”.  The report proposed that Land Administration should constitute the fourth pillar of Land Reform - and one premised on an open data system.

In the report "Towards Transparency in Land Ownership" https://www.landportal.org/library/resources/towards-transparency-land-ownership-framework-research-beneficial-land-ownership, Transparency International together with the International Land Coalition, IALTA, Global Witness, Transparency International Sierra Leone https://www.transparency.org/whatwedo/publication/towards_land_ownership_transparency_in_sierra_leone, and Community Land Scotland https://www.communitylandscotland.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/CLS_Towards-Land-Ownership-Transparency-in-Scotland.pdf, have highlighted the difficulty the public can face in accessing data and information in land registries, as well as the often unclear procedures and jurisdiction of access in general.

Even if data is published and available, the pathways to locate and access the data can be challenging and therewith contributing to opaqueness, lack of information and participation. Ultimately, these challenges can lead to corruption, the impossibleness of holding officials accountable on the one hand and the impossibleness of officials proving their accountability on the other hand.

Especially women can encounter sexual harrassment when trying to access land data; one currency of corruption, the exchange of sexual favours for a service,  is a phenomenon known as sextortion https://landportal.org/blog-post/2018/07/addressing-land-governance-and-sextortion-next-steps; moreover, power imbalances can make it difficult for women to use technology that might be needed to access data https://landportal.org/news/2017/07/can-tech-help-ugandas-women-combat-land-corruption.

Therefore, while it is of utmost importance to open data, the availability of data and information does not automatically mean that it is easily accessible for everyone and that everyone is included. This adds another layer to the discussion around open data as a tool to counteract land corruption.

 Which types of land data can play a role in the fight against corruption? Does a solid baseline of available open land data exist? Are there examples on how this data was used in the fight against corruption?

State land data can be used to fight corruption if it is open to the public. As state lands specifically water bodies and forest lands which are more prone to get acquired illegally if these data is open to the public, people would be able to know which areas are the public property and which are not. So they can hold concerned person accountable if these lands are taken. It is seen in Bangladesh that the wetlands are more prone to get acquired in such a way that in city areas most of the wetlands are taken already. So it would make the data transparent and open to all which will in return make the govt. and other sources accountable for making those lands safe. 

There should be other sources available for land data as the ruling political parties are at the forefront of corruption towards land and to make them accountable 

Example. In early 2016, the New York Times published a series of pieces that trace shell companies buying high-value real estate across the U.S. to the people behind them. In 2015, Private Eye used Her Majesty’s Land Registry (HMLR) of the United Kingdom (UK) data to produce interactive maps that show foreign-owned properties and explain why real estate prices in the UK are skyrocketing (Cadasta). 

Is government the only source of land data, or should we also be looking at other sources of data in the fight against corruption? Are there examples of how this data was used in the fight against corruption?

There are several organizations working for land rights (like for conserving water bodies, forest land, agriculture land, housing organizations, consultancy firms, indigenous people’s land). All these organizations have some data regarding their respective fields which can be a source of valuable land data. Also there are researches conducted in universities which is also a source of land data. For example, organization like “Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD”) has specific program on land that call for organizations working in South Asia and empowers and strengthens local women to securing land rights of their community. They work with them to create local sensitivity on land rights and build movement to fight against corruption. So here local data is used directly in order to fight corruption related to land and making the authority accountable.

What have been the main concerns for policy makers and funders not to prioritize openness of data and information in their programs and priorities? What would it take to increase policy maker and funder interest in open land data?

The policy makers don’t want to make the powerful ones unhappy. Also sometimes it is not about change or an update, when foreign policy makers come to make policies they tend to stick to safe options and elongate their stay making their salary life longer. The policy makers do not attempt to cover all areas of policy-relevant research, where the tools of rigorous analysis and evaluation are sometimes brought to bear on controversial or innovative policy development. 

Putting the right man on the job can be a solution to many land problems which is very difficult in a stagnant condition like Bangladesh. Also more fresh blood needs to be incorporated with this process so that they are updated about the current world and can implement things like open data in the policy making process. Another thing can be to preaching to the policy makers, as the biggest institutions aka the religious institutions were built through preaching, so use of open land data would be easier to be incorporated. Like calling them to various workshops, awareness programs, putting them to the university short courses. 

Dear Tim,

Many thanks for drilling down on those two important points. The Open Up Guide on Using Open Data to Combat Corruption is indeed a great unifier when considering the value of open data from two very different perspectives. As open data is often discussed among experts in both fields separately, sector data and anti-corruption data, the “mainstreaming” of datasets that help track, detect or investigate corruption in the respective sector could take pages from the experience that mainstreaming of anti-corruption efforts in sectors acquired throughout the years. Risk-based approaches found their way as integral part of the overall sector strategic policies and plans.

Starting from looking how people interact in each sector and what risks are inherent to certain processes, we should also pay attention to the benefit of supporting or “related” datasets. As the Guide says: “The higher the number of connections, the better the chance of using the datasets to spot potential corruption red flags.” To that extent, discussions should include how both, an anti-corruption data and sector specific data infrastructures (Land, Water, Health etc.) can support each other and what datasets are needed for what risks. This should go hand-in-hand with further deliberations on a data standard framework. For example, corruption risks in the licensing whether for logging, fishery or largescale land-based investments should be accompanied by data that “can talk” to each other but more importantly “talks” to anti-corruption datasets that can reveal insight on the corruption risk analysis for a sector.

Our debate in Week 1 began with the provocation: “The Land Sector is Not There Yet: Before we can talk about open data, we need to have good data.” 

Our discussions have illustrated many of the limitations of current data in the land sector, including:

• Lack of coverage and poor digitisation. Few countries appear to have all property titles in digital systems, and in many, such as South Africa, coverage is low (>). Certain types of tenure may be under-represented in digital systems, either because of how digitisation has taken place, or because certain types of land have not historically been registered. Many long-term digitisation programmes, such as Uganda’s UgNLIS, are ongoing (>).

• Gender bias in digital data. When digital data is created, attention must be paid to whether the gender bias of old records is being reproduced (>).

• Difficulty integrating different systems - as in the example of 10 different cadastars in Ukraine (>), or in pilot projects that have found conflicts between land ownership information discovered through on the ground surveying, and digitisation of historic records. 

• Managing privacy concerns - recognising that, from context to context, there are different privacy concerns about land data, and that advocacy around open data is not about a simple black and white binary (>).

Although, taken together, this suggests there are substantial data gaps when it comes to understanding land registration in most countries, discussions have also illustrated that there are other datasets that can be used as part of addressing land corruption. The lack of comprehensive national cadastres and land registries, whilst inhibiting some kinds of anti-corruption effort, does not mean there are no opportunities to use open data against corruption. Other relevant sources of data can include:

• Land use data

• Licensing data from specific ministries

• Data from the justice system (>), and data on bribery

• Data on ‘Politically Exposed Persons’, asset and interest declarations;

• Data on publicly owned land, and land transactions

• Corporate ownership data and corporate disclosures

Much of this data does come from government, but there are also an increasing number of cases where citizens and NGOs are making use of low-cost tools to collect their own data. There is a recognition that this needs to be managed carefully to get information that is accurate enough to help groups defend their land claims. One comment noted that “there's a level of authority that comes with government-sanctioned land data as opposed to community-driven data, even in the eyes of communities” (>) and raised the question of whether work should seek to replace government data collection, or to support governments to adopt better tools and systems to improve their data collection and management. 

When it comes to examples of how open data has been used in the fight against corruption, the discussion did not surface many detailed case studies. This will be an important area to explore in our next week of discussion about how open data could be used as an anti-corruption tool. However, submissions do suggest that if individuals are made aware of their rights to access data, then some of the data sources discussed above might help anti-corruption work in particular cases, whereas other datasets may be more useful in shaping policy: helping to understand the patterns of corruption risk, and addressing problems through policy formation, execution and monitoring. 

Our final prompt question for this week was “What have been the main concerns for policy makers and funders not to prioritize openness of data and information in their programs and priorities? What would it take to increase policy maker and funder interest in open land data?”. The answers to this pointed in three distinct directions:

• A technical capacity gap - focussing on the low capacity of many governments when it comes to managing land data systems, and thus the challenges they may have in opening up.
   

• The political-economy of opening land data - highlighting that governments may lack the incentives to improve transparency of land records, particularly in cases where data is managed in different institutional silos, and there may be competing interests inside government. In cases where agencies currently generate revenue through selling access to data, this also presents a barrier to opening up.
   

• An advocacy gap - noting that there hasn’t been a concerted and focussed campaign on open land data, that it is not always clear what advocacy should be asking for, and that organisations working on land reform often have to work with government and so are reluctant to push on openness (>). As one comment noted: “Misinformation of policy makers and funders has caused an ‘over-cautious’ approach to the call for open data in the lands sector. Continued advocacy and sensitization are thus required as a corrective mechanism which sets the stage for engagement to demystify what open data is, its benefits, potential risks and the degree to which data can be made open without compromising privacy and security.” (>).

Suggested approaches to address these challenges included better indicators of openness in the land sector, better networking of the advocacy community, and more work on the enabling environment for openness of land data (>). A number of comments also suggest that donor attention on open land data needs to be led by government interest in reform. To get there we may need governments to better understand the benefit case for greater openness around land ownership and transactions, including both anti-corruption benefits, and wider benefits for their policy agendas. 

Returning to this week’s provocation: are we there yet? If talk about open data in the land sector is just about open publication of land registers - then we are a long way off. But if we dig deeper into the ways open data can be a tool to shape land policy, and support specific kinds of anti-corruption effort, and we think of all the different data sources relevant for land - then we don’t need to wait to start exploring it’s potential. However, as our next week of discussion will explore: we certainly can’t assume that opening data on it’s own is enough. 

Yes. No doubt. As a land practitioner I can confidently answer in the affirmative THE LAND SECTOR IS NOT THERE YET. I  am in charge of a land registry mandated with the custody of all statutory titles and instruments as well as their (legal) registration. I agree with you that Land ownership data is almost zero for most of the developing world. For the three questions, I revert with the following response:

Land ownership data can play a significant role in the fight against corruption. It will enable us to know who owns what and at what location. In Nigeria there are several examples on how these data (where available) were used in the fight against corruption. An anti graft institution in the country known as Economic and Financial Crime Commission uses that to confiscate some landed properties of corrupt public officials.

Is government the only source of land data? I can say yes, because data is not information, for it to be ascertained as a data it most get a formal and most importantly a legal recognition. So far the machinery for that is exclusive preserve of the government.

What have been the main concerns for policy makers and funders not to prioritize openness of data and information in their programs and priorities? Because the policy makers are the main beneficiaries of this scenario.

 

What are the needs of the different stakeholders to use Open Data? Why is it not happening?

• Civil society, bilateral agencies, governments and international organizations need awareness and understanding of common principles, processes and standards for making such land data open. 

• In situations where there are complicated land ownership schemes or where there are few reliable official data sources, creating a unified system for land information is difficult. This is the case in Africa where approximately 70% of land is still governed under customary tenure regime, with limited or no data, including cadastral maps. This may be resolved by creating open data systems for land management. By establishing proper mechanisms for processing feedback from data users, opening data will help land administration agencies to improve data quality, while protecting the rights of individuals, including the most vulnerable.

2. Which capacities or tools are needed to increase data use?

• Very little attention is given to the interoperability of the different existing platforms and systems on land data and information. Investing in their harmonisation and use, would allow greater visibility and reduce duplication. 

• Therefore training in data management sharing principles is crucial. These include understanding the FAIR data principles which set out the criteria to ensure land data is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable.  

• Linked Open Data principles make use of standards, so that if all content is structured in a standardized way (i.e. the same format or file type and having a URL for each type of information), the content is "machine readable" and therefore, for example, is more likely to show up in search engines.

• Resources like LandVoc standardize the classification of content and resources, to improve the discoverability of and access to land-related information, from both global and grassroots sources, from all over the world.

3. How to avoid that increasing accessibility to open land data increases the digital divide?

• To ensure no one is left behind by open land data initiatives, it is important that we design projects that include components of digital literacy for local citizens. Awareness creation is important to ensure they understand the methods being used to collect their data and what protections they will receive. Training  also will aid in lifting of cultural constraints to land data sharing. 

• We also need to ensuring approaches are engendered to promote participation and  inclusion of women. 

4. How can we ensure that use of Open Data is used as a means to combat corruption without invoking harmful side effects, such as putting land rights defenders at risk? What safeguards are needed to ensure data is used responsibly?

• Any new transparency or open data intervention should be assessed to review the implications for all stakeholders, and particularly for those who are in the most vulnerable or precarious situations. The sensitivity of certain datasets is dependent on context as well as cultural views of privacy, which sometimes makes it difficult to determine which datasets should be deemed open.

• In addition, we need to ensure that we establish proper mechanisms for processing feedback from data users, opening data will help land administration agencies to improve data quality, while protecting the rights of individuals, including the most vulnerable.

Increasingly, both governments and citizens are using information technology to improve governance, shape government-citizen relations, and reduce corruption in the land sector.  According to a recent blog post shared on the Land Portal, a variety of new and affordable technologies are now available to us, meaning that land administration and the act of improving tenure security is no longer only the domain of the government and of professional classes like surveyors.  These technologies allow communities to represent themselves and with more affordable and accessible technologies such as mobile devices, allows them to take matters into their own hands.  The tools can help them map their own land and property, document it and defend it and allows them to be part of the data collection process!

One example, given by Shreya Deb of the Omidyar Network India, is that the state government had passed a law through which they intended to give land titles to close to 200,000 informal settlement dwellers across the state.  One of the important precursors to this was mapping these households.  Drones were therefore used to map communities across the state.  The advantage of using drones was that the entire community was able to be involved. The accuracy of the imagery allowed community members to recognize their own homes and better delineate community boundaries.  This allowed consensus to be reached more quickly and efficiently.  

While technology can certainly give more of us access to the information and data we need, it does remain important that decision-makers are well prepared to understand complex technologies that are in question, like blockchain for example, in order to be able to fight corruption in this sector.  

Once again, you can read more by clicking here: https://landportal.org/blog-post/2019/08/tech-and-transparency-democratizing-data-and-empowering-communities-cutting-edge

Open data is one component of broader efforts to advance meaningful transparency, which itself is often regarded as a means to more critical ends, such as the fulfillment and protection of human rights and the reduction of corruption. Yet there is often a disconnect between open data tools and the ability of rights holders and other actors in the global south to access, understand, and use that information to advance such important objectives. Open data initiatives must therefore continue to explore how dazzling technology achievements can be paired with long-term investment in the development of sustainably-resourced, local information users.

For this reason, the Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment is currently researching a demand-driven approach to transparency, within the prescribed
context of land investments, focusing on the transparency needs of affected communities (and their civil society allies) and host governments. While this includes considerations around information disclosure and open data, for transparency to be transformative for these stakeholders, I am keen to see if our research uncovers strong calls for: increased technical support and skill development; host government allowance of space for the exercise of civil and political freedoms that can facilitate grass-roots focused organization and mobilization; and/or ideas for new governance processes and initiatives that can create more—and better—opportunities for local actors to access and use disclosed relevant information to participate in and
influence decision-making, protect human rights, and address corruption.

Which brings me to the question posed by this online debate: how can we leverage the Open Data revolution to ensure that data related to land ownership becomes open in ways that can be used to tackle land corruption? Our current research leads me to pose additional critical questions rather than offer a definitive answer. (My thinking here also extends beyond data related to land ownership to cover other data relevant to land investments.) Technology and international initiatives can have immense potential for transformative change, but it is important to keep the perspectives and needs of in-country actors foremost in mind. Specific questions warranting additional investigation and discussion include:

• What information, and what opportunities to understand and mobilize such information, do local actors need in order to battle corruption and/or protect human rights?
• How can open data initiatives be attuned to the fact that many project-affected communities, civil society organizations, and local government agencies may not have regular internet access, advanced document literacy, or experience navigating formal and political processes to achieve meaningful change? (Through our OpenLandContracts.org platform, we have strived to make the site’s operation and content as accessible as possible. We also pair the site with guidance, training modules and even mini-grants for global south-based CSOs who work with project-affected communities to unlock and operationalize the information they find in relevant investment contracts, which often involves printing and translating online resources.)
• How can community-driven efforts at data generation, including the growing data sovereignty movement, be legitimized and incorporated into open data initiatives and, more importantly, official decision-making processes?
• And what risks might open data initiatives actually introduce, when data becomes more accessible to actors disposed to exploiting this openness to their advantage, while continuing to stifle efforts at advancing meaningful transparency for local actors?

On this last question, my colleague, Kaitlin Cordes, helpfully noted the following in a previous Land Portal debate:

While I firmly believe that increased transparency of land contracts will be widely beneficial, I also urge caution for transparency and open data
enthusiasts. In my view, any new transparency or open data intervention should be assessed ex ante to review the possible implications for all stakeholders, and particularly for those who are in the most vulnerable or precarious situations. As Malcolm Childress noted earlier, open data can backfire when governance institutions are weak. One cautionary story comes from southwest India, where the digitization of land records may have created more opportunities to exploit already marginalized people (although this program has also been described as a success). As Michael Gurstein has explained in arguing for an “effective use” approach, “in the absence of efforts to equalize the playing field with respect to enabling opportunities for the use of newly available data, the end result may be increased social divides rather than reduced ones particularly with respect to the already poor and
marginalized.”

This is why I cringe when I hear the argument that transparency efforts are “neutral.” While the opening of data can be considered neutral in a very narrow sense, any effort always happens in a specific and non-neutral setting. Understanding the socio-political context is thus important for ensuring that an effort does more good than bad. Opening up data in many cases can be beneficial, but it must be done with sufficient safeguards to protect the most
vulnerable from the potential downsides of transparency. For those of us concerned about land rights, I would argue that this means that the most vulnerable of legitimate land rights holders should be at the front of our analyses and at the heart of our decisions.

“Let Me Google That For You” - Why Data Can’t Just Be Available. It must be Accessible.

It was the mid-1990s, and the fledgling World Wide Web was quickly being populated with information. In order to help a growing body of users make sense of the internet, dozens of search engines began to appear: Lycos, Yahoo and Altavista, to name a few. These primitive search engines ranked web pages based on their content and keywords.

Around the same time, two Stanford PhD students began to tinker in a friend’s garage with a new type of search engine, one that would incorporate “back-links” (the number of times other web pages referred to a particular page) to determine a site’s importance. The students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, decided to name their search engine “Google”.

Fast forward twenty years, and the Google search engine is ubiquitous around the world, while most of its initial competitors have packed it up. In fact, “to google” has been added as a verb to English language dictionaries. 

Why? Because Google search found a way to not only make information available, but to make it accessible. Its innovative algorithm allowed people to quickly find the information they needed, and to trust the results, instead of making them wade through a sea of online detritus in search of buried insights.

The land community should keep this history lesson in mind, as it grapples with the question of open data.

For the purpose of this online discussion, Land Portal defines open data as data that can be “freely used, shared and built on by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose”. On one hand, that sounds nice. On the other hand, it sounds like chaos. 

There are 7.7 billion people on this earth. We’d like to know where they live, how much their homes are worth, the coordinates of their farm plots and whether those farms are in use. We want to know how recently families bought their homes, or if they aren’t owners, when they started to rent and how much they pay. We want to know whose land was condemned and when they were forced off the land, and whether they were paid compensation. We want to know whether the names of all family members are on the housing document, or only of the male head of household.

That is a lot of data, much of  which must be updated daily to keep current. In an open data environment, how will users find the information they need? Will they be able to query only for individual data points, or will they be able to derive insights, for example about housing trends or land insecurity hot spots?

Not only that - the definition of open data suggests that “anyone, anywhere” can share and contribute to the data set. How do we know the veracity of the data being contributed? And how do we know if the information shared is current? 

Are we envisioning a “Wikipedia” of land, a database whose content is freely developed and moderated by the entire community, with those who require a higher degree of fidelity (banks or courts, for example) relying less on the open data set and more on a closed and verified “official” data set?

These are not questions meant to shut down the discussion of open data, but rather to encourage us to think about how we structure this data set, with an eye not only towards openness, but towards accessibility. 

How do we build the equivalent of a Google search engine for the land community? I don’t mean a literal search engine (though perhaps that is the right answer here). What I mean is a system that makes land data accessible and intuitive, not just to professionals but to the layperson. 

After all, if the purpose of open land data is to democratize land governance and reduce corruption, then we must find a way to make it easy for everyone to use, not just the savvy, rich and powerful.

Corruption is a term that can be quite confusing. As long as it is not fully clear about the content we might use synonyms like bribery, fraud and related terms like illegal transactions, manipulation of database content. Solution to combat corruption depends very much on the specific situation. 

Open access to the land registers can be of great help to trace suspected transactions or to uncover (not declared or hidden) properties from politicians, high ranking (governmental) officers and so forth. Suspicious transaction in real estate could also be traced for instance when the owner of a given property changes 2 or 3 times on the same day or when sales prices of the same property are very different over a short period of time. 

Open access to these kinds of data is a political issue in itself. Many countries do not allow to inspect the registers freely: only authorized persons are able to check (online) the data. Some countries are indeed very strict like Germany or rather strict (Spain, France, Belgium)  and other countries are very open (Netherlands, Sweden, UK, Austria, etc). Some countries have no central portal, in which case it can be a hassle to get relevant information. In some countries information is available only at the counter of the Land Registry office.

Most registers have the option to block access to information for certain persons, in most cases when disclosure of information (eg on the value of property or the address) could harm the person.

In most countries the public attorney or police officials have free access upon request when information is need for a case where corruption or fraud is suspected.     

A special form of corruption is the illegal or unauthorized change of the data in the registers by staff of the Land Register or by external hackers. A good track and tracing system can help to fight this type of corruption but is by far not enough. To prevent manipulation of data Blockchain technology can be a great support. See for instance an article on blockchain published in the LAND JOURNAL magazine of RICS. By nature BC-technology is a very strong concept to safeguard the exclusivity of the data. The weaker to general rule of law and the protection of IT-systems, the higher the risk. Especially high risk countries in Africa and Asia, Land Registers could benefit from BC to combat this specific type of corruption.

Hi Rami, thank you for your very interesting insight. When reading your contribution, two specific questions came to my mind:

1) When you talk about simplifiying the use of land data, who do you think has a role here? Are you thinking about governments, or other stakeholders as well? Do you think that there is sufficient capacity within those institutions to address these aspects of simplification of data use?

2)  Your statement about dangers of data secrecy as opposed to the openness are really interesting. I would tend to agree that in Western countries for example, with systems in place where citizens are protected and can defend their rights to land whenever it would be contested -- in those countries indeed there is a greater danger in secrecy than in openness. However, in the context of this discussion, we are talking about countries beyond Europe and North America as well and are talking about corruption specifically. We hear stories of communities that prefer data 'secrecy' because opening up data on their settlements or productivity of their land for example, can result in displacement: loss of land, livelihood and even identity. 

With that context in mind, I am curious to hear more from you about the list of data that should be kept private in accordance with international practice. As the contribution by Rik Wouters (link) shows, there is great variety between countries in how open they are about their land registers. What international practice are you referring to and what list of data should, in your opinion, be kept private?

There may be some value in considering information on a spectrum between open and closed. Various participants in land tenure can have information that others don't (yet) have.

For example, consider rental markets: a landlord and tenant make a contract together that is not public. Later--if payment is not made, or the premises are unlivable in some way--in an ideally functioning system, the landlord or tenant may publicize the agreement to a court and have the matter rectified.

The key to making this work against corruption is to provide a way for a less-advantaged person to campaign against a more-advantaged person. If the tenant in the example above does not have a written contract, they are at a huge disadvantage when the landlord evicts them without notice.

Technology can also help here, especially in conjunction with math (cryptography). It's possible, for example, to publicly register a piece of information that means nothing until the person who registered reveals what it means to a court.

To clarify with another example: suppose the above tenant takes a digital picture of their rental contract at the time she began renting. Using cryptography, the mobile app that takes the picture could calculate something called a "hash" that is a large, unique number that can only be matched to that picture (no other picture will generate the same number when "hashed"). She then submits the hash to a public register (it could be a database, or a blockchain*). This way, if the landlord were to try to assert that the contract started later than it did, the tenant could show proof that her contract matches the hash of a document that was publicly registered previously, and the true date of entry for the contract can be established with evidence.

There are a number of ways that systems can be developed to use asymmetric information so that (legally or financially) disadvantaged people can assert their rights. This can be done while preserving other protections, like privacy, which fully open systems fail to do.

* Duane Johnson is a software engineer at Medici Land Governance, a for-benefit company bringing blockchain technology to land titling and administration systems

Thanks Yuliya: these are fantastic points. 

It raises a very key question about the kind of technical infrastuctures we are seeking to build, and the relationship between public, commercial and non-profit infrastructures. Of course, Google's other key innovation was AdWords - enabling them to profit from providing a massive centralised search index of the Web, and thus sustain the investment it takes to provide that service.

At a simple level, one answer to the question "How do we build the equivalent of a Google search engine for the land community?" is through common standards. The adoption of standards for how data is structured lowers the costs of making data interoperable, and can allow emergence of meta-data driven search platforms and knowledge graphs. In many different domains, markups like Schema.org are being deployed to enable more structured data search. Whilst these do exist in an 'anyone can say anything about anything (AAA)' world, the use of domains (e.g. trust content from .gov.xyz) and other trust layers could help at least distinguish official from unofficial claims. 

However, such approaches also rely on deeper technical standards and capacities of governments to maintain land registries with consistent URLs for land information. Experience suggests that in many countries, such capacities are still lacking. 

At the wider level, I think your comment goes a really long way in helping to define what standards will need to cover: highlighting that what good and accessible data looks like depends on the use-case to which you want to put it.

• For example, someone looking for information to deal with a particular land conflict may benefit from a well-designed global search tool that can highlight all the data (from both government and non-government sources) related to a particular parcel or location - but they may not need bulk access to all the land register data, and may be ok if a land register provides, say, five free title downloads a month.
•  By contrast, someone doing in-depth gender analysis, will need much better meta-data to be provided, and will want bulk access to data (but may not need exact parcel boundaries); 

Having these kinds of conversations to link user needs to technical requirements is really important in setting out the future we want to see. 

Reflecting on this does bring to mind that much early open data advocacy (at least in experience of the UK and US) was rooted in a frustration with the inability of governments to build websites that actually met user needs. Making a call for 'raw data now' was seen as a way for technologists to get hold of data, and build websites that were more accessible than those governments were building in house (the UK Govt ran a competition back in 2008 called 'ShowUsABetteWay' premised on disrupting how government tech was made - enabling government insiders to sidestep the frustrating of trying to procure the kinds of user-focussed websites they wanted). Whether such an approach remains relevant today is a question worth asking. 

Thanks for signposting this. You mention that "A special form of corruption is the illegal or unauthorized change of the data in the registers by staff of the Land Register or by external hackers." Do you know if there are any statistics or reports on the prevalence of this problem? 

Civil Society has been a driving force in advancing Open Data agandas l, including through standard setting, and taking Open Data ideas in to new fields. 

The conceptual ambiguity of Open Government Data presents strategic dilemmas for Civil Society, and can leads to competition between Civil Society and start - up for resources. 

Smaller Civil Society Organizations still lack the resources needed to invest in the hard technical capacities they need to take advantage of Open Data. 

Future work should move beyond engagement with usual suspects at international events to focus on the Open Data capacity and needs of established national - level Civil Society Organizations. 

My concern is; yes we strive harder into fighting corruption by providing Open Land Data for everyone yet we don't field professionals to help interpret, implement and utilize these open data provided for the optimum best use of land while enforcing sustainability agenda. All i mean is as a team concerned with Global Land Use and Management, we should also start offering job opportunities to our brothers and sisters who are professionals who can help drive away this corruption menace powerfully driven by land cartels in our economies.

There is some good work on Open Data Intermediaries in this paper: https://webfoundation.org/research/open-data-intermediaries-in-developing-countries/ which speaks to some of this. Will think about other potential places this has been discussed in the literature. 

Thanks Pyrou for this insighful post. I've been reading up on some of the attached papers, and was particularly struck by your descriptions of Indigenous Data Sovereignty pilots in "Indigenous data sovereignty in the Mekong Region" where you say:

"Continued progress in this arena would perhaps be seeing the use of data collected on self-identified traditional land boundaries being used in this government process and related reviews."

I found this really challenges some of the assumptions I had made in responding to Yuliya's exploration of what an open land information ecosystem could look like, where I had thought it might be possible to draw a relatively binary distinction between 'official' (government) data, and other data. Yet - it seems any worldwide system to support discovery and access (not neccessarily open data access) to data on land that are sensitive to IDS (whilst also managing against risks of data being polluted with adversarial/malicious/spam data) - would need to rely on some sort of infrastructures to identify 'authoriative' IDS sources. Is this a coherent thing to ask for? 

There are few, if any, magic bullets to address complex challenges of corruption in the land sector. In our discussions we have identified how the use of open data, in particular, relies upon:

• having usable and reliable data (>)

• hardware and software to access the specialist file formats it is encoded in (>), or having access to platforms built by intermediaries (>). 

• an understanding of land governance, and the cultural context of data about particular land;

• And having “the contacts needed to gain a public voice and influence a debate, or the political skill to take on a well-resourced and savvy opponent” (>).

As Baba Hope notes, this is often not just a question of capacity, but also of employment (>): are enough people in roles that afford them the time and resources to do the hard work of turning land data into advocacy and impact?

Getting all these ‘inputs’, ‘processes’ and ‘outputs’ of an open data theory of change to work together to produce outcomes and impacts is undoubtedly tricky, but we have seen at least one example in our conversation of where, through interventions to provide training and build community, open data is being put to use. Juliet Tsuma described training for journalists and activists to dig into large land deals data, resulting in “breaking of stories that has held leaders accountable in Nigeria and Liberia” (>). The importance of training and capacity building, and creating cultural awareness, comes up across a range of contributions. 

However, we may also want to ask why don’t we see more examples come up in our discussion of open data use? Is the reason that case study sites like ODImpact.org lack anything about land because the cases don’t exist? Or is it because they have not been written up? Personally, I think at least some of the gap relates to research. An over-restrictive research lens, that looks only for cases of use of datasets licensed under the open definition may have a small sample of cases to draw upon, but if we step back and look for ways in which open approaches are supporting discovery of data, stakeholder collaboration, and advocacy work - we can learn more about what open data approaches bring. 

Yuliya Panfil also calls for us to step back and consider not open datasets, but the creation of a global system of data that is “accessible and intuitive, not just to professionals but to the layperson” (>). This raises questions of interoperability and standardisation, but also of governance, and how to combine state-created data, with data created by communities, and in particular, by indigenous groups (>). It also ties into conversational threads this week on what should be fully open, and how privacy and human rights should be protected. If we starting from defining specific ‘user needs’ for data, in some cases discovering where records exist without needing to disclose full title records may be enough (or all that can be safely carried out given lacking political, legal or institutional frameworks (>)). Duane Johnson also points to ways in which cryptographic tools can provide a space between open and closed, where claims can be verified without their content being fully revealed (>). 

A number of other approaches to manage the tension between openness and privacy were also explored this week. These all recognise the importance of context, with Rami putting the succinct question: “What is the greater danger: data secrecy or openness?” (>) - a question that will have different answers by country, context and stakeholder group. Pyrou Chung reported on ongoing work to develop a responsible data policy that also takes account of Indigenous Data Sovereignty (>), and Soen Nonen suggests one way to take steps towards transparency is to start with data on state lands (>), only later thinking about individual property titles. 

If one overarching message comes out though across this weeks contributions, it is that future work on open data in anti-corruption needs to have a clear bottom-up, user-need and demand-driven approach to complement work on building standards and systems for interoperable data exchange. This has to recognise that the creation and use of land data is rarely politically neutral (>), and whilst in some other sectors (agriculture, aid etc.), different stakeholders may have been able to find consensus about what to open up and how, in land, there is likely to be ongoing contestation. 

As we look to the next week of discussions, we may want to keep in mind the kinds of guidance that can help governments and other stakeholders to take more systemic and demand-driven approaches to their work on land governance.

Strong Collaboration among various Stakeholders can facilitate and strengthen the use of Open Land Data by national Government. Open Data on Land should be accessible to all Stakeholders to facilitate transparency and accountability in the fight against land Corruption at all levels. It is the duty and responsibility of Government to make data accessible on all its services being provided to gain the trust of its citizens. The use of Open Data by national government at all levels will serve as the means of Government being accountable to its citizens. 

Can we search for more collaboration between research institutions and industry, therefore governments and policy makers? This would allow and encourage industry/gov to learn from research data and the open practices. Resources such as in R4L initiative can leverage such collaborations in developing countries.

• Can smallholders and farmer organisations be educated/informed to unlock and demand the transparency issues in land registry? Farmer profiling and digital agriculture services could be the ways to tackle land corruptions.  (this point refers to farmers’ data management course content)
• Do policy makers benefit from increasing their capacity in policy development, responsible use of data, data protection, and obtaining strategic data skills (e.g. data sharing frameworks/principles)? Existing efforts such as GODAN Action capacity development experience can be used for that purpose.   
• What is the proportion of lack of infrastructure in opening up the land data? How can existing platforms such as AGRIS, GARDIAN, CERN Portal support governments to unlock their data? 
• Important to understand legal pluralism (when one or more legal systems are used in the same community, town, region, or country.
• Legal scholarship is crucial for researching the law where you have an intersection between customary law and inherited legal systems from colonialism.
• Scholarship becomes hugely important when we are talking about a society with multiple legal frameworks in place because it can help us better understand how these systems operate together.
• Legal scholarship can help identify a) Relevant customary law and its evolution  b) Impact of application of a western approach to a legal subject where custom existed previously c) Marginalized populations and how the different legal systems impact their access to the law  e) Approaches that neighbouring countries have taken to address legal issues  f) Potential human rights concerns. These all tie into land ownership and the fight against corruption.

We understood that open data could be used as tool. Most importanly we have to think about the methods to implement tool. Methods can vary based on the context and culture. Landowners behavior is also important to develop methods. We found that vulnerable landowners particularly women, widow, religious minorities, persons with disabilities, single mothers, never married and divorces are happy to go through the methods. By the way of my experience, I found that landowners willing to present at plot/parcel on the day of parcel's spatial data collection, describe the ownership documentation to surveyors, correction of errors, understanding the exiting land disputes, collection of initial registration documents, finalize the title etc. We added few more events in order to combat corruption i.e. a) public display of draft maps and landowners data, b) sending mobile phone based SMS to absent landowners, c) identification of women landowners and help to describe ownerhsip documents, d) identification of state, public and private land during public display. We found that only tool would'nt helpful without support of methods. Vulnerable landowners are scared to share that they are received threathen from big landowners/negibors. Especially women landowners are more affaird to share their insecurity. So we organised community events where we show all data. Our volunteers built the relationship with women first. Then women shared their stories of vulnerabilities. Then volunteers assist women to come to public display, check the information and file complain if necessary. It is also important to educate women on land literacy. So that they can find-out own parcel in the Mouza map. Then they can find-out deed, registration, tax reciept, mutation documents etc.  Method also includes coordinated with ocal elected bodies  of local government and surveyed women landowners in order to combat fake sucession certification. This is another area of corruption. We found that one Mouza map publication taking 10-12 years. Within this time, changes are coming on land size, ownership and classification. Huge corruption taking place due to delay publication of Mouza map.  We tested all of the methods at field level and found it is working for combating corruption. 

How can we build stronger, sustainable and more effective connections among those working on land, corruption and/or open data? 

• National working groups to be established with members of Ministries of Information and Communication Technology ICT, Ministries of Lands, Inspectorates of Government, governmental Anti-Corruption Units, Open Data experts, Data Protection experts, actors of the private sector providing technology solutions, CSOs advocating for Open Data, Land Rights, Women’s Land Rights, Youth Land Rights and Data Privacy as well as CSOs advocating against corruption in order to exchange information and up to date knowledge.
• Working groups to develop and finalise context and country specific guidelines for the gradual publication of land related data taking into consideration privacy and security risks associated to making such data available to the public. 

How can we leverage a nuanced Open Data message that convinces land data stakeholders across the globe to open up land data responsibly? 

• As a first step, land related laws, regulations and policies to be made accessible to the public online.
• Secondly, land related laws, regulations and policies published online to be presented in a simplified and comprehensible way, in multiple (official and vernacular) languages and including pictograms – thereby, issues surrounding language barriers, low levels or lack of education and illiteracy can be addressed. This would particularly assist (rural) women as they face gender related barriers to information based on fewer years of schooling and societal obstacles to accessing justice. 
• The publishing of such content does not pose any privacy or security risk to stakeholders as it does not contain any private information. On the contrary, it would address the issue of the lack of access to comprehensible legal, institutional and policy framework as one of the driving forces behind land corruption.
• The publication of more sensitive land related data should only occur according to previously established context and country specific guidelines and post public awareness campaigns efforts informing civil society, lawmakers and government officials how concerns surrounding privacy and security issues are taken into consideration and are addressed.

How can we facilitate and strengthen the work of various stakeholders to generate and use data evidence to demand accountability and to lead in the fight against land corruption?

• Regional Multi-Stakeholder Platforms on Open Data and Land Corruption to be held to showcase best practice examples how the generation and use of land related Open Data assists in demanding accountability and fighting land corruption, and to promote South-South learning and cooperation.
• These platforms to further facilitate dialogue and cooperation among participating countries for the enhancement of their capacities for better management of land related Open Data in the fight against land corruption, and to strengthen the work of various stakeholders through information collection and dissemination. 
• At country level, public awareness campaigns to be implemented to highlight the benefits of land related Open Data for the fight of land corruption, but also to demonstrate how concerns surrounding privacy and security issues are taken into consideration by various stakeholders.
• Webinars and online courses on Open Data Management and Land Governance to be provided for the professional development of stakeholders who generate, use and manage Open Data. The development and advertisement of these webinars and online courses to target youth and women to increase the participation and inclusion of young people and female professionals in the fight against land corruption. 

Some actors in the land space are jumping on new technologies and treating them as a panacea, hoping and assuming that a new technology will solve a range of problems that that technology is not necessarily equipped to solve.  We have seen this in the blockchain example, early on after blockchain was introduced we saw many government policy makers jump on the technology and try to implement it to solve things like digitizing records, which is not a problem that blockchain can help with.  After that boom, we saw a bust and a wave of cynicism of policy makers discarding the technology, saying that it was useless.  In fact, the issue was that the technology was being applied to problems that it couldn’t solve.  On the flipside, blockchain can solve things like increasing the tamper proof nature of a land registry, for example.  

It is important to keep in mind that governments, and other actors alike, need the necessary guidance to use technology, including open data, responsibly and make sure that these technologies fit the situation in question.

How can we build stronger, sustainable and more effective connections among those working on land, corruption and/or open data?We need to start by building on existing connections, as these do exist given the close correlation between land rights, corruption and data. Those who work on land rights will at some point or other be confronted with and have to deal with corruption, especially in developing countries, and data is the basis on which land rights advocacy is done. We should then endeavour to bring together the three groups, as happened in the regional workshop organised by the Land Portal and others in Nairobi in May 2019, and use such interactions to strategize on how to interact positively going forward. Lastly, we should take advantage of forums organised by any of the three groups to organize side events on open data and the fight against corruption. A community of practice involving actors from the three sectors should ultimately emerge from these interactions.

So land practitioners need to come forward to try something new which is being implemented in some countries and proven to be successful. 

In many sectors - a drive towards innovation has supported and encouraged work on open data, or forms of opening up. For example, the introduction of Open Banking standards in a number of countries is seen as a way to support innovation in services for consumers. However, I wonder how far this driver can work in land governance - which, by its nature, is perhaps less open to innovation and where 'consumer transactions' with land are few and large, rather than small and many. 

How can we build stronger, sustainable and more effective connections among those working on land, corruption and/or open data?

Open data can play a crucial role in breaking through silos and bridging stakeholders to each other in the cases where they were simply unaware of each other. In instances of distrust, access to data and information can enable evidence-based discussions and empower local communities, generally the more vulnerable group in the above-mentioned list of stakeholders, to provide an “alternate” narrative to the one(s) they disagree with, and open the discussion in a more equal discussion.

Open data can help to surface all perspectives and enable an open debate with all stakeholders at the table. The momentum around the SDGs, where land tenure security plays an important role and data and land are topics of discussion and funding on local, regional and local levels, provides a unique opportunity to show how open data - even when open land ownership data is hardly existent in the global South - can make a difference and positive impact for smallholder farmers and their rights to their land.

How can we facilitate and strengthen the work of various stakeholders to generate and use data evidence to demand accountability and to lead in the fight against land corruption?

At the global level: 

• Maintain platforms to increase access to existing data and information and, within that complete picture, identify real data gaps;

• Capacity building in data management practices.

At the regional level:

• Create new or build on existing platforms to improve access to data and to widen the networks in the region;

• Provide insight in the meaning of data for laymen without endorsing a particular agenda (e.g. government, activists, or otherwise);

• Standardize meaning of data across the region in different languages to harmonize interpretation of data;

• Provide more visibility for alternative stories in national debate with governments or other actors.

At local grassroots level:

• Advocacy and lobbying for which they need alternative narratives and data to equip them to governments as well as debates on regional and global levels;

• Capacity building with tools and technologies to concretely map land rights with local communities;

• Documenting and collecting data.

• Enhance visibility of land conflicts at a rural level.

How can we build stronger, sustainable and more effective connections among those working on land, corruption, and/or open data?

Multi-stakeholder platforms are essential to bridge the gap between those conducting and contributing to research on land and corruption, including researchers, civil society organisations, non-governmental organisations, and community leaders, among others, to those that will use data to inform policy, such as governments. Bringing these different actors around the table for a common objective is a good way to build these connections. The Land Matrix’s National Land Observatories (NLOs), for example, are an important tool which provide an opportunity for information-sharing and dialogue within existing

Multi-stakeholder platforms and facilitate policy influence at national level (where most land governance decisions are made). NLOs initiate decentralised activities at country level and strive for more inclusive participation of local partners in collecting, managing, and reviewing land data, thereby promoting transparency and accountability in decision-making processes over land and investments in their countries. 

How can we leverage a nuanced Open Data message that convinces land data stakeholders across the globe to open up land data responsibly?

Overall, this requires showing land data stakeholders that the data is viewed objectively and in an unbiased way. In terms of data provided by investors in particular, for example, it is important this is not used to generate negative publicity about them, but rather to focus on how to strengthen any weaknesses. They are far more likely to be transparent if they do not feel threatened about being exposed to bad press. 

How can we facilitate and strengthen the work of various stakeholders to generate and use data evidence to demand accountability and to lead in the fight against land corruption?

According to the Land Matrix Analytical Report II, one problem that was cited by policy-makers, researchers, and the public alike is the scarcity of robust data. However, the opaque nature of land acquisitions imposes certain limits on the data gathering process, particularly as their controversial context and potential for creating conflict means they tend to take place behind closed doors. Although private and governmental investors are beginning to share more information on land deals, transparency is still not the norm, and we continue to face a major challenge in complementing global data with local data. Some of the ways we can overcome this include:

• Building stronger, more sustainable, and more effective connections among the various stakeholders; 
• Using open land data to better understand the impact of land acquisition and inform intervention management; 
• Involving existing local landholders in negotiations over land deals based on the free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) standard; 
• Leveraging open land data on land deals to advance community-based tenure through lobbying, national legislation, administrative and institutional capacity building, and implementation of inclusive and sustainable land tenure and policy; 
• Maximising existing reference points such as the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT), Principles for Responsible Investment in Agriculture and Food Systems (CFS-RAI), 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and the Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy in Africa (F&G); and 
• With regard to the processes and dynamics of land acquisitions on the ground, monitoring land deals, scrutinising government contracting practices, and fostering public participation in land contract negotiations through advocacy, which are some of the core activities of the Land Matrix’s NLOs. 

Monica, thank you. I find your contribution on the ownership of change processes extremely important. Would you be aware of any positive or negative example of an "open land data change process?"

I am joining the conversation slightly late unfortunately, but I have to say the discussion above expresses some very important ideas, opinions and aspirations. Took me sometime to go through it, but well worth the time!

As open data activists, it is clear to us that the larger movement for increasing open data, especially in governance, is built on top of broad goals such as accountability, transparency, innovation, research and so on. As soon as we go to any of its applications, such as the one we are discussing 'open data and the land sector' (with a clear goal to reduce corruption) nuance becomes necessary and highly relevant to develop any sort of strategy, objective or policy. This has been observed in other sectors as well, such open water data or open humanitarian data, where individuals and organizations, be it government or non-government, have come together to develop specific policies and standards that apply to their context.

Land data is one of the most important areas where privacy becomes a major concern when we talk about open data. Tim Davies mentioned the Bhoomi case above that highlights this concern really well. Taking a cue from that, questions such as who is collecting the data, who is the data point, and who gets to the use the data are significant - they force us to acknowledge the power balance or imbalance within which we are working. These are complex political questions, as they should be. It is clear that while open data is a powerful tool, it is but limited to how and where it is used.

In India, the open government data project has lost steam in the last few years, and land data never gained importance within it anyway. The most common insight that researchers, journalists and data enthusiasts have gained from all the government data that has been shared under the open license is: recognizing the low quality of data and information technology practices that our government departments and offices are following. There is a lot of open government data in India, but a lot of it is poor and unreliable. At the same time, Indian citizens are facing sophisticated invasive technologies that are very explicitly collecting and commodifying personal and private data. It's an uphill battle: the data that governments demands from the citizens is abundant, of higher quality, well maitained, but closed; at the same time, the data that the citizenry demands of the government is rather unreliable, inaccurate and far from being up to date. It is also obvious that the most vulnerable communities have the least say on who collects their data, what is recorded, how often and how. I may not work in the land sector but I am sadly confident that land rights activists, and development organizations are dealing with such an uphill batlle as well.

I will attempt to answer the questions of this weeks topics directly, but with the context of the region I belong to:

In India, we must first demand that land data related to government's land acquisition and private corporations' land deals be open, while the land data of individuals is not published with personal identifiable information included, at least we maintain status quo until we have a socially and politically just data privacy law in place. "Open by default" should apply to the powerful not the powerless, especially when it comes to data such as land. Secondly, we need more standardization on data recording to enable more datasets to talk to each other. Linked open data is the next logical step. Finally, data practices of government organizations need to be under enhanced regulations to make sure data is collected, managed and shared responsibly.

Such common and contextual goals should build sustainable and effective connections among those working on land, corruption and open data. And the recognition of prevelant power dynamics, among other socioeconomic and political factors, can bring in the necessary nuance on how open data is used and where.

And as far as faciliation and strengthening of the work of different organizations, groups and individuals that generate or use data for demanding accountability is concerned - the role of online and offline communities, platforms and networks is hugely important. Especially those that are informal in nature, and consist of like minded entities from many different backgrounds. Maybe I am biased here since I have been part of such a community for a while.

Looking forward to reading more on this thread.

Sorry, I don’t have any examples from the Land Sector, but I can share some from the Open Data for Latin America Health Data Initiative.

First of all, the three pilot initiatives from Mexico, Peru and Uruguay all involved collaboration and cooperation between at least two of these actors: civil society, the private sector and the government. Nonetheless, there were some hitches.

In Peru, initiating an open data initiative in a sector in the absence of an overall Open Government Policy led to fragmentation and poor implementation due to limited opportunities for dialogue at the national level.

Obtaining the data to digitize was difficult as records were being kept manually and the initiative was led by civil society (an NGO). Obtaining the data required 52 Freedom of Information Requests to multiple authorities, which were fulfilled with the information on paper. Across the board in Peru, Mexico and Uruguay, the process of transforming data from manual to electronic proved to be a bigger challenge than anticipated.

In Uruguay, the data was released on proprietary software that people needed to buy to access and analyse the data.

One of the challenges of opening up data is what to do with it once it is open. This is why it is important to have a clear theory of change. In Mexico,  health data had already been digitized, but a lot of it still existed in manual form. One NGO Sonora Ciudadana, allowed people to submit complaints about the health system on their website. They cross-referenced the complaints with the data, filed FOI request for additional information and decided to pursue strategic litigation to improve the performance of the system.

Despite the limitations, open data change processes can have positive aspects. One of these is building governments’ capacity in this area, as governments in developing countries often lag behind the private sector in going digital. Another benefit is government and civil society working together for a common cause and working towards the same policy objectives, a change from the often-adversarial nature of government-CSO interactions.

Israel from Land Coalition has been in touch to share some links and cases:

Liberia: https://www.liberianobserver.com/news/tracing-the-land-rights-of-farmers-in-kinjor/

 

Malawi: https://mwnation.com/mzimba-project-stops-over-land-wrangles/

 

DRC: http://www.emergenceplus-rdc.com/nord-kivu-linsecurite-ragaillardi-les-conflits-de-terre/

 

Nigeria : https://tell.ng/the-battle-for-land-rights-and-agony-of-displaced-lagos-residents/?v=1db208cbcff2

 

In Liberia there was a new land code. Nigeria, a corrupt official was forced not to stand for office. In DRC, there was citizen debates and in Malawi, the same.

My final remark is to thank our co-organizers and colleagues from Cadasta and GIZ, as well as our great facilitators Tim Davies, Lisette Mey and Amy Coughenour, for making this possible and for facilitating such an incredibly rich and stimulating discussion.

Over the past three weeks, we have received over one hundred contributions by colleagues from the private sector, the government, civil society and grassroots organizations sharing different perspectives and ideas on how open data can become a tool to increase transparency, support innovation and increase civic engagement, and hopefully all this can help to fight land corruption.

We realize that this is a debate and a topic which is very nuanced and we hope that the conversation can continue through various avenues and different channels in the months to come. On this note, I wish to thank each of you for your valuable contributions. We will soon be sharing a report with you, where we will summarize the main discussion points which will hopefully feed into further discussions at the upcoming Conference on land policy in Africa, which will focus on "Winning the fight against land corruption: sustainable path for the transformation of Africa ".

This is an important point to bring into the debate. 

However, I did want to note that there are some scenarios in which open data can address data manipulation, and ways in which it changes the available ‘moves’ in a contestation over evidence. When manipulation is taking place at the point records are requested, then moving en-masse to a situation in which the full cadastre / land registration dataset is public, can make future cases of tampering more difficult (as the public have a copy of the register they can compare to the tampered with copy, and where they can watch for changes that would signal corruption). Even if the public authority does not use blockchain or other cryptographic solutions to ‘prove’ the integrity of the data, third parties can take a regular snapshot of a published dataset, and (a) track any changes; and (b) use blockchain or other assurance services to establish proof that their snapshot has not been tampered with. 

This does not get around the need to then get the courts to understand, and have confidence in, the integrity of these public copies, nor does it remove the ability of actors to, for example, falsify the paperwork or records for a change in the register if the change process is not digitised and secured. And there remain other issues that might mitigate against opening land registries. However, we should note that moving a process from closed to open changes the dynamics and spaces where manipulation and corruption can take place. 

Put another way: a corrupt official who currently takes bribes ad-hoc to manipulate records would, if the full register was going to be put online as open data tomorrow, have to work out in advance which records to manipulate, or would have a more complex task at hand in creating fake records.