Land rights in the balance: navigating the impact of funding disruptions on global land rights indicators

By Clinton Omusula, Robert Ndugwa, Anseeuw Ward, Fransina Amutenya and Timothy Mutunga

Inclusive land governance and secure land tenure rights are increasingly recognised as a cornerstone of sustainable development. Secure land rights empower individuals and communities by fostering a sense of belonging, incentivising land-based investment, enhancing agricultural productivity, and serving as a foundation for peaceful coexistence, poverty reduction, climate action and environmental conservation, and gender equality.

One of the efforts by the global community to promote responsible governance, particularly land governance, has increasingly been focused on monitoring progress towards globally agreed targets. This was structured around the adoption of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), including three land-related indicators:

• SDG indicator 1.4.2, which measures the proportion of the adult population with legally recognised documentation and perceived security of tenure,
• SDG indicator 5.a.1, which assesses the extent to which women own or have secure rights to agricultural land, and
• SDG indicator 5.a.2, which evaluates legal frameworks (including customary laws) on the basis of explicit guarantees for women’s rights to land ownership and control.

While SDG indicators 1.4.2 and 5.a.1 are quantitative in nature and reliant on national household surveys for data collection, analysis and reporting, SDG indicator 5.a.2 is qualitative and computed through expert-led national analysis of existing legal provisions.

Together, these indicators not only provide a critical evidence base for informing inclusive land policy and reforms but also offer a systematic lens through which to monitor the intersection of land, gender and development at national, regional and global levels.

Land-related SDG indicators offer the opportunity to systematically monitor the intersection of land,
gender and development at national, regional and global levels.
Photo: FAO/ Petterik Wiggers 

Over the past decade, significant progress has been made in monitoring land rights-related SDG indicators through the coordinated efforts of international partners – particularly the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), the World Bank, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), and the United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women). Through continuous collaboration, these agencies have supported national statistical offices (NSOs) in harmonising methodologies, strengthening data collection capacities and enhancing indicator reporting. In parallel, they have catalysed the formation of technical communities of practice and advanced multi-stakeholder dialogue to foster a concerted, evidence-based approach to land governance at global, regional and national levels.

Central to these monitoring efforts has been national survey data generated through multi-topic surveys such as the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), the Living Standards Measurements Study (LSMS), and the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) countries Living Standards and Conditions Surveys, which provide standardised, internationally comparable data on land ownership and tenure security across low- and middle-income countries. However, recent funding disruptions – largely driven by shifts in the foreign aid priorities of the USA, the primary DHS funder, and a significant contributor to other similar surveys/ initiatives – now threaten the sustainability and reliability of these data collection and reporting efforts.

Why land governance and tenure data matters – a highlight of development linkages

The increasing acknowledgement of the importance of secure land rights by the global community is substantiated by a growing body of empirical research that underscores their centrality to multiple development outcomes – from productivity and investment to social cohesion and gender equality. What transforms land tenure from a concept into a development driver is not merely the existence of rights, but the ability to leverage reliable data on these rights to inform policies that incentivise land-based investments for socio-economic growth and development.

Economically, secure land tenure incentivises land-based investment and improves land management. Tenure security reduces expropriation risks and increases long-term land productivity. It also facilitates access to credit, as land becomes viable collateral – enabling better resource allocation and economic mobility.

For women, land rights are not only a pathway to empowerment but also to improved welfare outcomes. Women’s access, ownership or control of land strengthens their bargaining power, leading to higher household investment in children’s health and education. It also enhances their resilience against domestic violence and increases participation in community-level governance.

Socially and politically, secure tenure contributes to peace and conflict prevention. In regions such as sub-Saharan Africa, land-related disputes – often rooted in tenure insecurity – can exacerbate political instability. At the same time, customary land tenure systems, when adequately recognised and integrated into formal legal frameworks, help foster social cohesion and reduce the likelihood of land-related conflict.

Environmentally, secure land tenure is a key enabler of climate change adaptation and mitigation. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) emphasises that insecure land tenure undermines people’s capacity to invest in sustainable land management, contributing to land degradation and making communities more vulnerable to climate shocks. Conversely, communities with secure rights to land and natural resources are more likely to adopt long-term, climate-smart practices – such as agroforestry, soil conservation and water harvesting – which contribute to carbon sequestration and ecosystem restoration. Moreover, securing land rights for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IP&LCs) facilitates the integration of traditional knowledge systems into climate responses, thereby enhancing the legitimacy and effectiveness of adaptation strategies.

Despite their wide-ranging importance, the ability to design effective land policies and interventions hinges on the availability of reliable (timely, disaggregated, and comparable) survey data — especially in countries where administrative land data systems remain weak. Fragmented and inconsistent land data limit both national policy-making and global accountability. Cross-country national survey instruments, therefore, have been essential in closing such data gaps by generating standardised, nationally representative data on land ownership, tenure security and gender disparities. Without such data, land tenure reforms risk being blind to the very inequalities they aim to address. In this context, any disruption to national survey mechanisms poses not just a statistical setback, but a broader development risk.

Securing land rights for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IP&LCs) facilitates the integration
of traditional knowledge systems into climate responses.
Photo: FAO/ Luis Tato

The role of multi-country national surveys in monitoring SDG land rights indicators

Inherently, monitoring of SDG land tenure indicators is a process significantly reliant on relevant multi-topic national surveys and censuses. Thus, multi-country surveys such as the Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS), the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS), Labour Force Surveys (LFS), the West African Economic and Monetary Union (WAEMU) Harmonised Survey on Living Conditions, and the Living Standards Measurement Study - Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) among others, have proven quite useful in not only enabling data collection on land rights, but also ensuring comparability of results and lessons learned across countries/regions. Since their inception, these surveys have increasingly become a global public good, providing nationally representative and cross-country comparable data on a wide range of demographic, health, and socio-economic indicators – including patterns of land ownership and related tenure security. Undoubtedly, they are the most widely used standardised survey instruments for land governance monitoring, particularly in low- and middle-income countries.

The United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD) reports as of March 2025 that:

• 98 countries have reported progress on at least one of the SDG Indicator 1.4.2 proxies (secure tenure rights through legal documentation and perceived security), with at least 63 countries reporting documented rights, and 27 reporting perceived tenure security. National reporting on the indicator predominantly relied on cross-country survey programmes, notably the 2024 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's Housing Market Indicator 1.3 (OECD 2024 HM1.3) survey (40.8 % of reporting countries) and the Demographic and Health Surveys (DHS, 31.6 % of reporting countries). Additional data sources include the Living Standards Measurement Study (LSMS, 5.1 % of reporting countries), the West African Economic and Monetary Union’s CIV1 survey (UEMOA, 8.2 %), the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA, 3.1 %) and the Millennium Challenge Corporation's Survey of Household Perception and Satisfaction (MCC-SHPS, 2.0 %).
   
• Similarly, for SDG Indicator 5.a.1, which measures the proportion of agricultural population with secure rights to land and the share of women as rights bearers over agricultural land, 49 countries had reported as of March 2025. DHS remain the predominant data source, accounting for 55.1 per cent of the reporting countries. Other significant sources include UEMOA’s I1V1 survey (14.3 %), while LSMS and LSMS-ISA each account for 2.0 per cent of reports.

The reliance on multiple cross-country surveys – including OECD’s HM1.3, DHS, LSMS, LSMS-ISA, WAEMU/UEMOA C1V1, and MCC-SHPS – highlights not only the inadequacy of nationally representative administrative land data systems, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, but also emphasises the inherent complexity involved in effectively monitoring land rights. Administrative data alone, while important, cannot sufficiently capture the nuanced and comprehensive realities of land tenure systems.

Consequently, these surveys, largely supported by donors such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, remain critical in providing essential complementary data necessary for holistic land rights monitoring. Their synchronised survey rounds, uniform sampling protocols and clearly defined target populations facilitate cross-country comparability, which is invaluable for exchanging best practices, informing land policy decisions and fostering international cooperation in land governance.

Beyond their statistical contributions, these surveys and similar initiatives such as the 50 x 2030 Initiative (a ten-year, ~ USD 500 million multi-agency partnership that seeks to bridge the agricultural data gap by transforming data systems in 50 countries in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America by 2030) have enabled policy-makers, researchers and development partners to track progress, identify inequalities and design targeted interventions in agrarian reform (50 x 2030 Initiative – Case of Ethiopia).

Global Reporting Landscape for SDG Indicators 1.4.2 and 5.a.1

Impact of funding disruptions

The recent US government decisions affecting foreign aid allocations have significantly disrupted funding for ongoing and planned DHS among other national survey programmes. These disruptions echo the setbacks of the Covid-19 pandemic, which delayed critical advancements in land governance monitoring among other monitoring obligations at country level due to heavy disruptions of national surveys – critical for methodological implementation.

This disruption risks hindering the ability of low- and middle-income countries to monitor progress towards SDGs overall, particularly those related to land rights, potentially resulting in policy blindness and further complicating international reporting obligations. Consequently, the diminished data availability could undermine evidence-based land policy decisions, reducing accountability and eroding critical gains made in securing land tenure rights, especially among vulnerable populations such as women, the poor, and Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities.

Consequences of disrupted data collection

The interruption of data funding and survey operations has several critical implications:

1. Data gaps: Without the few yet consistent, rigorous and cross-country/region survey mechanisms, many low- and middle-income countries will face deepening challenges in generating standardised and comparable data on land rights. This is going to deepen data gaps, impeding the ability to monitor progress towards SDG targets, particularly indicators 1.4.2 and 5.a.1.


2. Policy blindness: Robust, timely and disaggregated data are indispensable in the design, implementation and monitoring of effective land reforms by governments among other stakeholders. In the absence of reliable data, policy-makers risk flying blind – potentially stalling reforms, misallocating resources, or overlooking the land-related drivers of inequality. This is especially concerning for a resource whose governance has far-reaching economic, social and environmental implications.
    
3. International reporting disruption: Many low- and middle-income countries may find it increasingly difficult to meet international reporting obligations under the SDG framework. This threatens their ability to demonstrate progress, identify policy gaps, or attract technical and financial support. In the long term, continued disruption may undermine the credibility and utility of land-related SDG indicators – at a time when stronger global accountability is most needed.

Risk of SDG land rights indicators being dropped from the SDG Indicator Framework

These funding disruptions come at a time when SDG indicators 1.4.2 and 5.a.1 have made reporting progress, but significant work remains to ensure adequate and regular country reporting. The lack of sufficient data threatens their classification as Tier I indicators, which require regular data collection in at least 50 per cent of countries and population coverage in every region where the indicator is relevant.

Failure to meet these criteria risks these indicators being dropped from the SDG indicator framework, which would jeopardise evidence-based land policy processes, leading to further data scarcity and reduced accountability. Such a setback would erode hard-won progress toward securing land tenure rights, particularly for vulnerable populations, including women, the poor, and Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs).

UN Statistical Commission's Commitment                                   

Recognising the gravity of this issue, the 56^th session of the United Nations Statistical Commission (UNSC) (March 4^th–7^th, 2025), through the Intersecretariat Working Group on Household Surveys (ISWGHS), emphasised the urgent need for sustainable funding mechanisms for essential surveys like the DHS. The Commission highlighted that ensuring open access to data as a public good – particularly for global indicators like land rights – requires innovative financing models and long-term strategic partnerships to maintain the continuity and reliability of data collection. Addressing this funding crisis proactively through the ISWGHS task force on DHS surveys will be crucial in safeguarding the integrity of global land rights monitoring.

Recommendations for mitigating the impact

The recent funding disruptions serve as a stark reminder of the vulnerabilities inherent in relying on single funding sources for global data collection efforts. To ensure the resilience and continuity of land governance monitoring systems, a concerted global effort is essential. By diversifying funding, strengthening local capacities, and embracing innovative methodologies, we can mitigate these disruptions and accelerate progress towards the SDGs.

To mitigate future risks, the following actions should be prioritised:

1. Expand and diversify funding sources: Encourage international development partners – including SDG indicator custodians, donor countries, and agencies – to collaborate in financing and supporting national statistical offices to run survey mechanisms and ensure continuous data collection. Additionally, sustainable funding models blending international and national fund pooling have proven effective in cases such as the 50 x 2030 initiative and should be further explored.
2. Strengthen national capacity: Encourage national governments to prioritise investing in national statistical systems to enhance their ability to design, implement, and analyse surveys independently, reducing dependence on externally funded programs like DHS.
3. Innovate methodologies: Explore alternative data collection approaches, such as integrating administrative data, remote sensing, and community-based monitoring, to complement traditional survey methods and enhance resilience.
4. Quantify the demonstrable impact of continuously enhancing the quality and availability of land-related data and statistics,especially the social and distributional impacts of better policy- making and the role data plays in that process – e.g. in informing land policy review and inclusive governance – to attract funding.

Clinton Omusula is a Geospatial and Land Monitoring Specialist at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). He holds a Master’s in economics.

Robert Ndugwa is Chief of the Data and Analytics Unit (DAU) at the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat). He holds a PhD in epidemiology and biostatistics .

Ward Anseeuw is a Senior Land Tenure Officer and leads the Land Tenure Team at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). He holds a PhD in international and development economics.

Fransina Amutenya is a Senior Welfare Economist and Lead Statistician at the Namibia Statistics Agency (NSA). She holds a Master’s in applied statistics and demography.

Timothy Mutunga is a Statistician, Data Scientist, and AI Consultant at the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), and a PhD candidate in statistics.

Contact: omusulaclinton.co(at)gmail.com

More information:

The 50x2030 initiative

Rural 21 Dossier on land

Rural 21 no 2016 on "Land govenance"

References:

1. Deininger, K., & Feder, G. (2009). Land registration, governance, and development: Evidence and implications for policy. The World Bank Research Observer, 24(2), 233–266.
2. Besley, T. (1995). Property rights and investment incentives: Theory and evidence from Ghana. *Journal of Political Economy, 103(5), 903–937.
3. Doss, C., Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., & Theis, S. (2015). Women's land ownership and empowerment: Evidence from six countries in Africa (IFPRI Discussion Paper No. 01413). International Food Policy Research Institute.
4. Agarwal, B. (1994). A field of one’s own: Gender and land rights in South Asia. Cambridge University Press.
5. Boone, C. (2014). Property and political order in Africa: Land rights and the structure of politics. Cambridge University Press.
6. Meinzen-Dick, R., & Pradhan, R. (2002). Legal pluralism and dynamic property rights (CAPRi Working Paper No. 22). International Food Policy Research Institute.
7. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2019). Special report on climate change and land. (https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/)
8. United States Agency for International Development (USAID). (2014). Land tenure and climate change: USAID issue brief.
9. IPCC. (2019). Special report on climate change and land: Chapter 7 - Risk management and decision-making in relation to sustainable development. (https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/chapter/chapter-7/)
10. Gauri, V. (2011). Redressing grievances and complaints regarding basic service delivery. The World Bank. (https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/153741468331778598)
11. Beegle, K., Coudouel, A., & Monsalve, E. (2016). Realizing the full potential of household surveys in the SDG era. World Bank Group.
12. United Nations. (n.d.). SDG global database. (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/database/)
13. UN-Habitat. (2019). Guidelines for Impact Evaluation of Land tenure and Governance Interventions. (https://unhabitat.org)
14. FAO, World Bank, & UN-Habitat. (2019). Measuring Individuals' Rights to Land: An Integrated Approach to Data Collection for SDG Indicators 1.4.2 and 5.a.1.
15. UN-Habitat. (2022). Global Land Indicators Initiative (GLII) at 10 (2012-2022): Partners and stakeholders’ Meeting Report.
16. UN Women, UN ECA, & AfDB. (2019). Minimum set of gender indicators for Africa (MSGIA).
17. UN-Habitat. (2021). Availability of Official Data to Report on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) Land Tenure Indicators 1.4.2 and 5.a.1 in Kenya, Rwanda and Tunisia, and DRC. https://gltn.net/2021/12/15/official-data-to-report-on-sustainable-development-goals-sdgs-land-tenure-indicators-1-4-2-and-5-a-1-in-kenya-and-rwanda/
18. Brookings Institution. (n.d.). An Ode to the Demographic and Health Survey Program. (https://www.brookings.edu/articles/an-ode-to-the-demographic-and-health-survey-program/)
19.  World Bank Group. (n.d.). Living Standards Measurement Study. (https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/lsms)
20. Ndugwa, R. P., & Omusula, C. (2025). Institutional frameworks, policies, and land data: Insights from monitoring land governance and tenure security in the context of Sustainable Development Goals in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia. Land, 13(x). (https://doi.org/10.3390/land14050960))
21. Committee for the Coordination of Statistical Activities (CCSA). (2021). How COVID-19 is changing the world: A statistical perspective (Vol. III).
22. Committee for the Coordination of Statistical Activities (CCSA). (2020). How COVID-19 is changing the world: A statistical perspective (Vol. II)
23. United Nations Statistics Division. (n.d.). Tier classification for global SDG indicators. https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/tier-classification/