Land is the Link: Climate, Gender, Sustainable Change and the Future of Development

The world of land tenure and administration is also constantly evolving, influenced by political change, climate disruption, and technological evolution. Global official development assistance (ODA) fell in 2024 for the first time in five years, dropping by 7.1% as donor countries shifted their priorities inward and scaled back commitments. Although some countries – like Korea, Portugal, and Belgium – increased their contributions, the overall decline highlights an alarming recalibration in donor country priorities. Over the course of 2025, we will need to remain vigilant and flexible as the global development community reacts to these readjusted priorities and the growing questions around the value and effectiveness of bilateral aid.

As the landscape increases in complexity, we attempt to unpack the major trends on our minds here at LEI, from the funding challenges brought about by global political shifts to the impacts of climate change and the exciting promise of digital land systems and localised service delivery.

What’s working? What’s not? And how should these reflections shape the way we approach land governance work in 2025 and beyond?

Financing High-Impact, Large Scale Land Administration Projects

Secure land rights and good land governance underpins a plethora of other big-ticket development goals, for example the carbon market. This image is from an article on social integrity in forest carbon markets in the Mekong region, where our MRLG Project operates.

In order to witness meaningful change in this space and ensure that smaller projects lead to effective and sustainable outcomes, we must secure financing for large scale land reform. Unfortunately, the international development space is becoming a challenging environment for the financing and implementation of large-scale, long-term land administration projects.  As attention shifts to the climate crisis and doubts arise on the impact of foreign aid, multi-donor trust funds and bilateral aid programs are increasingly designing projects that focus on climate change, or that have arguably more easily measurable outcomes.

Thus, of late, while LEI’s work all falls under the umbrella of ‘land administration and tenure security’, we have seen that the overall focus of our projects are much wider – with projects we work on targeting irrigated agriculture, improved food security, the development of affordable housing and the strengthening of carbon markets. This is testimony to the reality that; tenure and tenure security are the foundations to address a plethora of pressing global challenges. For example, and as is discussed above, secure land rights have continually been recognised as integral to addressing the climate crisis and directing investment to the recognition of vulnerable and often indigenous communities is critical for a liveable planet in future. While this recognition may have increased the integration of land issues into projects targeting other sectors, we are concerned that this not enough to make meaningful and holistic progress on improving the widespread reality of under-resourced, ineffective and non-transparent land systems that proliferate around the globe.

Whilst it’s a continuing challenge to get large-scale land specific projects funded, there are opportunities to work with the private sector, philanthropists and development banks if there is the risk appetite and reform-minded government ready to engage with these novel approaches to development. Alternative financing methods that work based on payment by results require a strong focus on innovations in dealing with traditional issues around the financing of the land sector – including exploring self-financing models like local value capture, improved property taxation and valuation estimates and collection to generate revenue in the land sector. Legal and institutional reform alongside a strong political will are also essential to finance options. Attracting alternate financing brings with it a new set of stakeholders and partnership arrangements, with technical experts, banking institutions, and compliance regulators. These types of innovations in the land sector could also have the effect of bolstering global efforts to prioritise development approaches which are locally led and needs-based, however far greater momentum is required. The messaging from last weeks UN flagship decadal event, Financing For Development, in Seville, Spain, revealed the latency around innovative financing and called for multilateral banks to better leverage their resources. The Seville Commitment, adopted at the conclusion of the event, aims to triple multilateral lending capacity, enhance tax revenues, and provide debt relief. Yet, again, the concluding message was a need for coordinated action and political will.

Climate Change and Disasters

Earthquake damage in Port Vila: for months after the 7.3 magnitude earthquake hit Port Vila, the downtown area remained closed as demolition of damaged buildings continues.

As cities and rural landscapes transform under the pressure of population growth, economic development and climate change, how land is used and managed becomes critical. In both urban and rural settings, securing tenure is one of the best tools that we have to address the interlinked challenges that arises from climate change, population growth and rapid economic development. Our work at LEI has taught us that when people feel confident in their rights to occupy and use land, free from the threat of eviction or other forms of dispossession, they will use that land in a way that is more climate-risk sensitive.

Why is this the case? First, informal tenure arrangements without tenure security disincentivise investments in climate-resilient housing as participants don’t know how long they will able to stay there. Second, residents without tenure security are less likely to leave disaster-prone areas out of fear that their property will be claimed by others if they do so. In short, a system that recognises and provides security to legitimate tenure rights – whether formal or customary – provide the confidence that people need to make long-term decisions in support of resilience and sustainability.

This is particularly the case for Indigenous Peoples who often lack secure tenure rights. Indigenous Peoples are among the most important stewards of the planet’s biodiversity and carbon sinks. Managing around 25% of the world’s land, Indigenous Peoples offer effective and localised nature-based solutions for climate adaptation and mitigation.  Despite this critical role, Indigenous Peoples still lack legal recognition of their land and resource rights. Without legal recognition of ownership and decision-making authority over their lands and territories, Indigenous Peoples remain vulnerable to displacement and land grabbing – alongside the degradation of the ecosystems which they protect. In brief, absence of tenure security means that many Indigenous People cannot act effectively as frontline climate leaders. Protecting their land rights is therefore essential for the protection of the world’s forests and other key biodiversity hot spots. Tenure security alone is not the answer, however – Indigenous People’s rights to full and effective participation in national and global climate efforts needs to be recognised and upheld nationally and internationally.

Tenure security is not the only aspect of land administration that matters to the fight against climate change. Across the world, governments struggle with inadequate spatial data infrastructure – that is, information that describes the location and shape of geographic features of a particular landscape and their relationship with each other. In some cases, while spatial data is available, it is housed in different institutions and not utilised by decision-makers to inform urban decision making and planning. Spatial data is important in the fight against climate change, because it can be used by governments to identify areas where climate impacts and disasters are more likely (or at least likely to have a higher impact) and areas that should be conserved due to their offset potential and biodiversity importance. Indeed, spatial data is essential for climate-sensitive city planning – without reliable climate risk data developers are disincentivised to build vertical high density housing developments in climate-safe zones. At the same time citiziens will continue to settle in areas that face high climate risks due to their low costs, or that should be protected because of their biodiversity and potential to offset climate emissions. Conversely, robust spatial data can facilitate climate-sensitive urban planning and the establishment of ‘no build’ zones. Overall pre-disaster risks reduction efforts are aided by land-use plans that are based on reliable data and aligned with hazard exposure.

The existence of a functioning and up to date land administration system also reduce the social and economic risks associated with post-disaster recovery. Disaster recovery support can be more effectively targeted when residents have their rights reflected in the official land register and when dispute-resolution mechanisms are in place.

More broadly, strengthened land governance and tenure reform cannot be separated from the broader climate agenda. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has also identified insecure tenure as a barrier to climate adaptation and highlighted that land rights underpin climate mitigation infrastructure and green business development. For example, transitioning to low-carbon energy systems requires access to land for solar and wind farms, and electricity grid infrastructure. Unclear tenure can delay such projects, while inadequate acquisition processes increase the risk of resistance to and conflicts around such climate mitigation projects. Ensuring tenure transparency and equitable benefit-sharing in this transition phase is critical – such processes must also recognise customary and indigenous rights.

Imperative funding and inclusive design to address gender inequalities

Women discussing their specific land challenges in the MDIH Land & Gender Community Dialogues in Phamong.

When it comes to gender and social inclusion in land projects, over the last decade we have accumulated a great deal of knowledge around the strategies that are needed to achieve results. Despite this knowledge, women still own less than 20% of the world’s land. Which begs the question – why are we making such slow progress?   Based on our experience at LEI, we would argue that this is because land projects, are still seen as primarily technical, gender-blind projects aiming to ‘fix’ a given system, with gender seen as an add on rather than an integrated necessity. While there has been some important advances over the last decade, we firmly believe that to achieve tangible results on women’s land rights, gender and social inclusion, these issues need to be adequately funded and integrated across land project reform design from the outset.

We recognise that in the current global environment this is no easy ask. The demise of USAID demonstrates that traditional development goals (e.g. poverty reduction and ‘leaving no one behind’), are increasingly being replaced with development focused on national interest and targeting geopolitical objectives.  Despite many countries backsliding on women’s rights, commitment to women’s rights and women’s economic empowerment are still reflected in many donor priorities. Australia’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, for example, released its much more favourable and progressive International Gender Equality Strategy in early 2025, signaling the country’s firm commitment to progressing gender equality as part of its ongoing diplomatic, trade and aid activities.

“Australia is always better off if our region and world is more prosperous and more secure. So as we advance our interests in the world, policies that contribute to gender equality and to women and girls’ empowerment are not simply an appendix to the rest of our foreign policy.”

Hon Senator Penny Wong, Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs

Within this diverse donor context, there is also no dispute that there is more engagement, commitment and interest than ever when it comes to issues of gender and land.  Campaigns like Stand for Her Land and the UNCCD’s HerLand publication continue to raise the profile of just how interconnected land tenure and rights are with the global push for gender equality.

There are also several effective tools to realise and transform the engagement of women and men on land issues. For example, the Gender Action Learning System (GALS) offers a pathway for rural projects and programs to mainstream gender equality by addressing the power relationships at the root of inequality. The GALS approach works by inspiring behavioural and norm change at the household level, and subsequently fuelling wider change through peer-engagement. Access to knowledge and services is a common barrier to achieving equitable outcomes regarding women and other vulnerable people.

Happily, there is no short f champions of gender issues in land administration across the globe. The work of one such champion, Odeta Nӓks, provides a compelling image of what effective empowerment of women and youths can look like when it comes to land systems. Odeta is the project manager of the Public Information and Awareness Services for Vulnerable Communities in Kosovo (PIAKOS) Project, which addresses the critical need for improved access to information and counselling services around property rights and registration for women, youth, and vulnerable people. The Project tackles this problem through door-knocking and other awareness raising activities that target 250 secondary schools and universities in Kosovo, in addition to reaching out to non-majority communities.

At the end of the day the key message that we see arise time and time again is the need for inclusivity and the incorporation of diverse perspectives when building land solutions. At all levels and stages of the planning process it is imperative that a diverse range of stakeholders have a say.

Integrated Planning for Urbanisation

In Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, informal settlements cannot meet existing planning standards without resulting in large-scale displacement – preventing regularisation of land and property rights and the benefits that offers in terms of tenure security.

Across the world, rapid and unplanned urbanisation continues relentlessly. It is predicted that by 2050 almost 70% of the world’s population will be living in cities – up from 55% today. Without effective planning and secure land rights, this rapid expansion will lead to the proliferation of informal settlements and, in turn, deepen socio-economic inequalities, strain infrastructure and increase exposure to climate risks.

Informal settlements, often on the peripheries, but also  within deteriorating urban cores, typically lack basic infrastructure and access to infrastructure. Informal settlements in the outskirts of cities areas are frequently situated in hazard-prone zones such unstable slopes and floodplains, and rely on poor-quality construction. Without formal land rights, residents are discouraged from investing in safer housing or relocating pre-emptively in the face of climate threats, fearing that their property will be seized or claimed by others.

A significant challenge around controlled urban growth is that land administration systems in many low and middle-income countries are fragmented and disconnected from urban planning processes. For example, in some contexts rural and urban land records are often managed by separate institutions, making it difficult to convert rural land rights to urban status as city boundaries expand. In Ethiopia and other rapidly urbanising countries, this has led to a proliferation of unregulated developments that bypass planning systems altogether.

To address these challenges, there needs to be a more integrated approach to urban land management that integrates land tenure security, spatial planning, climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction mandates and responsibilities. . Rural displacement due to conflict, climate change or economic pressures often drives urban migration. To manage this connection effectively, countries must engage in integrated territorial planning. This planning should link rural land records with urban land records,  to effectively manage land transitions in a fair and sustainable way.

If cities are to thrive in the face of escalating climate risks and social pressures, land tenure systems must no longer be treated as an administrative afterthought. They are the foundation upon which inclusive adaptive and sustainable urban futures will be built.

Digital Disruption: Investing in Realistic and People-Focused Tech Solutions

When properly designed and accompanied by capacity building efforts, digitalisation has the potential to make land systems more efficient.

Technology is transforming land governance – but its value depends on how well it is tailored to the people and context it serves, and the outcomes it aims to achieve.

The COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally reshaped how societies operate – and in doing so accelerated the digital transformation of land administration. Both governments and citizens increasingly required reliable digital infrastructure and access to digital land systems, spatial data and tenure records. Initially an adaptation strategy, it quickly became a long-term imperative.

Emerging technologies like AI enable faster, more transparent and secure land systems and, when well applied, these innovations have the potential to reduce corruption and improve tenure security and data accessibility. However, the shift from manual to digital systems often challenges deeply embedded institutional norms and processes. Without cultural change, capacity building, and strong leadership to support this transition, digital reforms risk being stalled or undermined from within.

Digitalisation also comes with real costs. Governments must not only invest in new infrastructure but also in the ongoing maintenance, upgrades and technical capacity needs of the systems after they are introduced. Tech must therefore be fit-for-purpose – financially viable, scalable and appropriate to the context within which it is operating. It is critical that projects implementing tech solutions plan for obsolescence, ensuring that systems can evolve, and undertaking the necessary capacity building measures to support them. Poorly matched or over-engineered solutions will drain resources and risk failing to deliver meaningful outcomes as intended.

It also needs to be emphasised that emerging technologies must serve the end users – the people who collect, store, access and use the data. Land data is not just for government officials in national capitals – it is for the people i.e. the communities, landholders and frontline users. Investments in education and social safety nets are essential to ensuring that digital technologies can positively contribute to development goals in an effective and equitable manner. These groups mut be brought along from design through to the rollout and governance of these digital tools. Groundbreaking tech will quickly become redundant if its design does not appropriately consider the needs and habits of those communities who will use it.

Effective tech solutions will look at this bigger picture, to unlock new and more effective methods of facilitating land governance. LEI partner PLACE is a global non-profit that makes datasets available to developing countries that otherwise couldn’t afford to capture it, by completing mapping for free and then licensing the products back to governments. PLACE stewards the data in PLACE Trust, a permanent legal data trust set up as an approach to looking after and making decisions around data in a similar way that you might for other forms of assets – e.g. land trusts that are stewarded on behalf of local communities.

Lessons learned on Decentralisation

Bokong Valley in Lesotho’s Highlands.

Across the last decade, the decentralisation of land administration is increasingly supported as a mechanism to bring land administration closer to the people it is meant to serve. While it is not a panacea to the problems facing dysfunctional land systems, it can work reduce costs and where services and capacity function well. For instance, decentralisation solves common issues where land administration is hindered by the sheer amount off effort to travel to limited registry offices.

Customary tenure systems also work at a local level, and having statutory systems operating at the same level helps statutory land offices to be more reflective and inclusive of these localised practices.

Many countries have implemented varying forms of decentralisation, but they haven’t necessarily been implemented well. For example, in Ethiopia land administration is decentralised with the federal government setting broader frameworks and regional states handling policymaking within their jurisdictions. This has lead to a complex and fragmented legal and policy framework with significant gaps, and lower-level government offices that lack the capacity to continue carrying out land administration work. In Uganda land administration is managed at the local level. While decentralisation efforts did make remarkable progress in Uganda, there are various barriers emerging to the continuation of Uganda’s success – such as lack of financing and capacity building, and the abandonment or obsolescence of local government departments.

Decentralisation of services can be facilitated by an approach to improved land administration systems that involves first piloting and testing a program and then scaling it once its success is determined. Arguably, this is a much more responsible method of funding larger scale reform and allows pilots to be born from smaller funding opportunities, thus laying the groundwork (in the form of a case study or proof of concept) for a stronger business case for national level reform.

Transparency is of course a key element of this process. Allocating resourcing and budgets with responsibility includes making sure that there is a level of transparency to encourage accountability. By nature, localisation helps to break the monopoly of power (held by international organisations, the private sector and other larger actors) and strengthens government accountability to citizens by involving them in monitoring government performance and demanding corrective action and improved service delivery. However, there is still a risk of local governments being captured by the elites. In a context where political interference in local affairs is rampant and/or institutions championing participation and accountability are weak, then localisation may increase opportunities for corruption. It is because of this that it is so important to focus on the surrounding contextual issues at play in land administration or land rights projects – including good governance and transparency, community education and involvement, cultural dimensions, issues of gender equality, and the like. Breaking these cycles of power requires holistic, multilayered interventions and partnerships with both land and non-land groups.

Ultimately, we’re asking ourselves: how do we get solutions to the everyday people, without just localising corruption?

Conclusion

Land tenure is no siloed technical issue – it is a central lever for achieving equitable and sustainable development outcomes.  Whether we’re talking about securing financing for national land reform, ensuring women and Indigenous Peoples have equal access to land, or integrating geospatial systems into urban planning, the common thread is the need for context-aware, inclusive and future-ready land governance systems.

Business as usual approaches are not enough. In a rapidly shifting global context, land administration must adapt – not by chasing trends, but by grounding itself in what works: local ownership and capacity building, cross-sectoral collaboration, fit-for-purpose technology, and policies that reflect the lived realities of people on the ground. Land rights and the ways we manage them are at the heart of many crucial development challenges that we are facing globally. As we build our solutions to these challenges, we need to keep asking the hard questions, listening to those most affected, and designing for scale, longevity and justice.  The world is complex, but the mandate is simple: secure land rights for all, as the foundation for inclusive, climate resilient and sustainable development.

So lets keep learning, adapting and building systems that work – for people, for the planet and for the future.