 First of all, I had a great and an insightful session. I was part of the gender discussion and it certainly was interesting. And we will now hear from our reporters slash panelists. And let me quickly introduce them to you. First, we have Frida Frida-Hituko. She's the Executive Director of Groots Kenya, which is a national movement of grassroots women and girls. She's a Vocal Champion for Gender Justice in Land Governance, an awardee of the 2018-1 Campaign Woman of the Year Award for Advocating Equal Land Rights for Women and Men. She's the Global Co-Chair of the ILC and she's also a member of the London Professional Learning Program. Then we have Marco Lankhorst, the Strategic Program Development Advisor for ITLO. And Marco is also a member of the Advisory Committee of Land at Scales, so we're very happy to have him here too. Then Lorenzo Cotula, Head of Law, Economies and Justice Program at IIED. And his work focuses on land governance, particularly in the context of international investment and trade. Fourth, we have Rick DeSatre, a Senior Research Associate at Puglesani NPC and also Knowledge Engagement Researcher for the Land Portal Foundation. He has long been involved in land and tenure reform with a focus specifically on Southern Africa. And last but not least, we have Mohammad Abdulaym Maloum. He's a land governance specialist based in Chad. Maloum has worked with Cadastral International in the Land at Scale Intervention there. And he's currently working with the FAO on Chads Land Policy Development. So I will give each of the panelists about three to four minutes to report back on and share the results of the discussions. So first of all, I'll give the floor to Frida to share the results of the discussion with her group on gender and her thoughts on the tenured security study. Frida. Thank you. Thank you very much. I think there was consensus that the theme is gender and marginalized groups, not weak group. I hope that can be corrected in the report. And thank you to Japan who's for that wonderful report that was presented. I had the opportunity to read it before. And it's really informative. So on the number one on the major, the main courses of insecurity for our theme, gender and vulnerable groups, we discussed that cultural law still privileges men. During marriage, even after divorce, making it very hard for women to claim their rights. So they are big contributor to the tenured insecurity for women. The investors, especially in the extractive sector, they are also a contributor to the insecurity of land tenured for women. And also because that in their businesses, they are likely to co-opt men as workers more than women. So women lose both their land and they lose opportunity to benefit in the new land use. Change of land tenured regimes due to land scarcity again. Things around underrepresentation of women in the whole land administration system, meaning the experience of women are rarely taken into account when designing this kind of the intervention that would promote secure land tenor. The registration process is also a very expensive process and considering that there are already existing gender income inequality that can again enhance those insecurity. The issues of literacy because of inequality in education, sometimes women are not aware of this right. And even when they are, they do not know how to claim them across that value chain. The issue of accountability, especially in states where we have a very weak judicial system, they are then impunity tends to drive because people think they can do things just because they can do them. And the fact that they will not be held accountable because the system is weak. In terms of what are the enabling conditions that if they are put in place, they could lead to tenor security. One of the things that we discussed, if you look at the interventions like mapping and registration, mostly they are done by corporate companies. They are using technologies and both the corporate space and the tech space is not the space where women are driving very much at this point in time. So if we could relook at those approaches and adopt more bottom-up approach, then that process will aid a better gendered outcome. Again, taking into account the voices and representations of women, we've seen experiences where women are represented from the onset of such intervention at policy and even when they are being implemented that we are likely to achieve the better security for both men and women. We did discuss about looking at these interventions from both the technical angle and the social angle because if we see the social angle of this kind of intervention, then we are more likely to invest in community organizing and reaching out to different community groups, women, men, people living with disability, even before we get to the technical part, we already have the aspiration and their wishes and how that security will be reflected in their own life. So it's very important that we look at both angles. That could be a good enabler. We also discussed about the state and other non-state actors looking at themselves and the role they are playing in that process and calling out acknowledging and addressing and overcoming their own biases because the problem is that we tend to assume that as actors in these processes, we are neutral and we are free of biases, which is not true because we come from the same society that is perpetuating the patriarchal biases. What are the greatest risks for certain group if we do land registration in your context? That was the other issue that we were discussing. Some of the risk that we identified is of course the over-consolidation and concentration of power in men. Some interventions could resort to that and they have, we have such experiences, not just to men but also to those who are already powerful in the community, commodification of some different categories of land, especially matrimonial property, making it more available for land grabbers and for transfer, even if that is, that was not the original intervention. We also know that the market perceives, sorry, I know I'm taking extra time, I'm about to wind up. We also know that the market perceives women as men as better market actors. And so the moment we equip them with this registered land and the market is already in favor of them as better actors than women, then we have layers and layers of privileges that are going towards one gender and not the other. Of course the risk around conversation and resettlement, I will not overdo it in that because I know it's an old conversation that have been heard by people in this call. We can mitigate this risk but by having women participating, including what we define as technical roles as education mapping and registration, adopting the bottom-up approach, investing in community organizing that precedes even the registration and mapping intervention and building much more strong women movements, movements for other populations that are left behind because when they are together, they are able to articulate their rights more strongly and they are more likely to be heard. Thank you and sorry. Thank you Greena for wrapping up so much into so little time. Let me now hand the floor to Marco to tell us about the land and conflict discussion. Marco, to you. Thanks so much. And I'll say at the outside, this is going to be challenging because we had 22 very vocal participants in our group from Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, the Middle East, Asia, all giving examples, very rich discussion, no room for Hema or myself even to insert any idea. So I'll give it my best try. That's what I can promise you. So one, our session was on tenure security and conflict and I guess one of the lessons or realizations for me was first that we need to start unpacking a bit what we mean by conflict because we spoke about conflict in many different ways at the level of disputes between neighbors or family members. We spoke about intra-community and inter-community disputes and we spoke more about societal level, historical conflict, impacting on land-people relations and all of these are often connected in different ways and through different directions of causality. And as I said, one of the realizations is that we may need to delve into this a bit deeper to understand how actually they impact things. Also mentioned that there are conflicts, conflicts that are out in the open but there are groups of people who can be affected by changes in laws or policies relating to land who are disenfranchised or have little rights to begin with and who may not immediately run to a court or start drumming on making noise but are in a situation of a sort of a frozen conflict where they cannot enforce their rights. So that's just one. And then two, this was about tenure security and conflicts but I guess very quickly and perhaps this is also because of how we framed the session, we started looking from the beginning at land tenure registration and conflict which is obviously not necessarily the same. And it was very helpful for me that the point was raised in our session that there are other ways of trying to improve tenure security that our field should concentrate perhaps on more and that some of those might be more adequate in given situations and less prone to produce conflict. Then a point that was made that I think is important also is that there are, having a high level of land disputes or land conflict can be a reason for starting land tenure registration but it was mentioned that it's important to realize that there is a range of different factors contributing to dispute and conflict levels, not all of which you will be able to influence through registration. So there are socioeconomic factors like demographics and what have you that prove pressure on land resources and whether you register or not, those will continue to exert that pressure. There are also conflict factors or societal conflict rifts between society having led to displacements or dispossession that you cannot necessarily take away through. Oh, that's going to be very difficult, point two of six. I will go fast. So just to say that registration can be part of a solution but it will not solve the issue of there being disputes on the whole. The question was asked, so do participants recognize that there is a tension between land registration and land conflict in the sense that it may be aimed to reduce it in the long term, but it can certainly contribute to additional dispute or a worsening of disputes in the short and medium term. I guess overall our participants gave us a resounding yes to that and we had examples from all regions that I mentioned of disputes emerging during registration, disputes emerging after registration. And the conclusion in this regard was that we should look at the interrelation between conflict and registration as a very dynamic one that starts well before registration where there can be conflicts and frictions and land tenure registration happens in that context and can either contribute or reduce it. I fear that on the issue of what can we do to prevent and mitigate? It's my final point of each guy, I promise. We didn't have quite enough time for that but I'll mention two important points that were raised. First, several participants mentioned the importance at the start of these kind of initiatives to adopt a broad participatory approach to ensure that people are aware of what is happening and have agency in the process and could perhaps also say, well, this is not the most suitable thing for our circumstances, we actually don't want it. And two that are situations also on the side of government or development organizations who are contemplating initiating these type that there is an obligation also to inform yourself very well and to conduct the necessary analysis, risk assessment, conflict sensitivity assessment to make sure that there aren't too big risks involved to actually not want to do this. And for me, a final point if you allow me, which I think the difficulty if you want to make that kind of assessment for me is how are you going to make a judgment on a situation where likely you're going to get a good number of people in an area where you register who may derive some form of economic benefit from the fact that they have their land registered or at least they sleep more quietly because they know they have a certificate. And some groups in the same society who will have been disenfranchised or don't see their land, some people who get into a conflict because of this. So the effects are never going to be uniform throughout the community, but it's going to be different for many people depending on their starting situation. And how do you make a judgment as to whether that is something that you can go ahead with, yes or no? Yeah, very difficult question that you leave in our middle here, Marco. Thank you for reporting back on such a dense discussion. Let us now give the floor to Lorenzo. To talk more about economic development, production and productivity discussion. Lorenzo, please. Yes, thank you very much, Witzke. And before maybe starting with the report back, I just wanted to highlight, I guess on a personal note, that the discussion about this topic has been going on for a long time, partly because of the strategic importance of this question for many national policy processes, where governments are looking to harness land for economic development, but also I think because of the complexities that are involved here, what do we mean by development or economic development? How do we measure production and productivity, tenure security for whom, in what form, et cetera? And these questions are often very highly contested, so there's significantly different views as to what these terms mean or should mean. And also it's important to note that many actors do not frame land issues primarily in economic terms, but rather in terms of sociocultural values, in terms of questions of justice, historical redress, the importance of securing the rights of indigenous peoples as part of strategies to tackle climate change, just to mention a few examples. But coming to the specific question that we were tasked with to address as a breakout group, we had a good discussion relying on both reflections and also very concrete experiences that were shared in the group from Columbia, San Lucia, South Africa, Namibia and so on. And we really focused on two strands of exploration, both relevant to the question of the relationship between tenure security on the one hand and economic development on the other. The first strand is whether and through what channels there are different forms of tenure security can contribute to economic development. So it's effectively acquisition question and it's a question about the modalities through which tenure security can contribute to economic development. And we had a discussion about that, that also problematized that sort of, the assumptions that underlie that question. So for example, a question was raised as to whether the causation could be the other way around. Does economic development increase demand for land registration services, for example? How about looking at aspects broader than just economic? There was one experience that was shared where stronger land rights enable certain groups to more effectively engage with local government bodies, for example. And also strong emphasis on the issues of winners and losers in land governance interventions. So well known issue. And particularly as was mentioned that particularly because land titling itself can increase land value and land values and as such, potentially also increase competition for land. And there we had a couple of experiences that were shared. One contribution from South Africa highlighted the specific challenges that women's groups face in accessing land and related services. And then we also had one experience relating to Namibia where most of those involved were in fact women due to proactive efforts of design and implementation stage with women representatives highlighting different priorities compared to those articulated typically by men. So really problematizing that notion of this linkage, this direct linkage between tenure security and economic development by highlighting the distributive aspects, the wider issues of relations to government and so on. One particular point that we discussed was the issue of collateralization. So the notion whereby formalization of land rights would enable landholders to secure a bank loan through using the land as collateral. There is interest in this in Colombia. For example, we heard during a discussion but there was also some skepticism in our group about this effect in particular. It was felt by some that banks are often more interested in income and bank statements than small plots of rural land. So the evidence of us whether this collateralization effect that materialized was debated. So that's the first strand of thoughts and the first strand of exploration. The second one is which approaches then are most effective in strengthening tenure security with a view to promoting economic development. And so here the discussion was much more about the practical side of land tenure interventions. There was an emphasis on the fact that land title and registration is not the same as tenure security. Mixed evidence, it was felt on the effectiveness of conventional land registration approaches and also a distinction drawn between land reform narrowly focused on certain land issues on the one hand and on the other a more comprehensive agrarian reform approach that would also address issues of credits and so on. The experience of San Lucia was mentioned in that it seems that there was a shift in the 1980s from a digital registration system to a torrent system which led to significant increase of the scale of registered land in the country, the number of parcels at least but there were also challenges associated with that. It seems particularly the ability, the pressure on the administrative structures to handle the conflicts that arose partly in connection with that process, not just the process itself but also the outcomes of the process. And then finally, and I'm from the city. Yeah, finally the issue of risks we spent a fair amount of time discussing the issue of risk and the fact again we linked to the winners and losers aspect the fact that the design of the project and the fact that the better connected people are able to essentially secure deeds while others cannot. And so the question of how does one ensure that the rights of more vulnerable groups socially, politically, juridically marginalized groups are protected in land formalization processes and the issue of local ownership and participation has already been mentioned sort of connects to some of the other speakers was seen as very much a key to achieving that and yet felt it was felt this often neglected particularly in top-down interventions. So those are some of the issues that came up and yeah, I'm happy to elaborate more in the discussion if there's time. Okay, thank you Lorenzo and I understand that there's a lot to put into a very small amount of time and even the interpreters are struggling to keep up. Rick, next with you on the role of the state and yeah, please try to keep it as short as possible. I'm gonna keep it as very short as possible. Thank you. What I'm going to do is I'm gonna zoom into our discussion and then try to zoom out to some bigger reflections on the conversation as a whole. In our discussion, we started from the assumption that the state was often seen as the key agent for the formalization of rights and we asked the question, how does the state contribute to 10-year security or conversely insecurity? And we had a range of participants and we went to a range of different countries and I don't have the time to like profile all of those different country examples but I'm just going to try and pull out some key issues that emerged. So we went to Namibia and we looked particularly at flexible land tenure, the role of the state there and we looked at some conflicts between the state and communities in communal areas given the fact that in Namibia, the constitution recognizes both customary and statutory law. And Royal Manare, who was in our panel, gave us the example of where a group of people in the North of the country basically refused to register their land rights and said it would be in contravention of their cultural norms and the state had no alternative but to accept that. We also looked at the experience in Trinidad and Tobago, we went to Uganda, we went to Mozambique and we went to Canada. So each of these places, they are very, very different scenarios and I'm afraid in the three minutes I can't do justice to them but I have made notes and I'll make the notes available for the summary. From my own reflection, I'd like to zoom out now and in many respects, even take on a slightly more theoretical approach. My own reflection is that the state, we talk about the state all the time but it remains a remarkably slippery concept, one that we have to critically interrogate and think carefully about the normative assumptions and received wisdom about the nature of the state and the government and the distinctions between the two. So in the standard narrative, the state is permanent, it exercises sovereignty, it has a population, it's territorially bounded and has a government but when we start to look at this more closely, even these key elements are not as self-evident as one might first appear. So yes, the state has a population, the majority of whom are citizens. However, in our fast-changing world, this population is increasingly heterogeneous. Some may be farmers, others are pastoralists, artisanal miners or fishers. Many have urbanized and live in sprawling informal settlements. Populations though, increasingly contain a significant number of citizens who are either internally displaced as well as increasing numbers of non-citizens to economic migrants or who have fled across borders as refugees from conflict and climate change. Against this backdrop, many populations increasingly experience conflicting and overlapping rights in land and crucially to water and natural resources. The states have territory demarcated by boundaries but these boundaries themselves are often disputed and frequently porous. In much of the global South as we know, boundaries are almost always arbitrarily demarcated by the colonial powers which ignored realities on the ground. And of course, the South doesn't have a monopoly here if we look at a changing map of Europe. Over the last hundred years, we'd see massive territorial shifts. I'm getting there, I'm nearly there. So finally where there's government which exercises power on behalf of the state but which may or may not democratically represented citizens, the government is expected to play a significant part in securing their land rights. And these come in many different shapes and sizes from democracies, monarchies and dictatorships. And it would be a really interesting example if participants in this discussion wrote in the chat the first three words that came to mind to characterize the state and government in their own country. I'm from South Africa and where I'm based the words fractured, corrupted and untrustworthy would be first in the queue. And this is crucial to thinking about the state. How do we understand the state? How do we take a real world perspective on the role of the state? And if we pay much closer attention to understanding the particularities of the different context in which we work and the struggles for power and the way these are framed by history, this could help identify much more viable starting points to clarify how tenure can be made more secure for whom, for what purpose and against what threat. Thank you. Excellent, thank you very much, Rika, on those insights. Then lastly, I want to give the floor to Malum. There was a very lively French debate. Malum, if you can please try and wrap that up in three minutes, he will speak in French. So there will be translation available. I see that Malum is not in the panel list. Is Malum here? No, Barbara, can I ask you to very quickly wrap up? He's here, he's here. Is he? Can you allow him to talk, Neil? I allowed him to talk, I changed his permission. Okay, is Malum? Yes, Rika, can you follow me? Yes, yes, yes, okay. Two minutes, please. Is it possible? Malum is here. Yes, yes, thank you. Thank you. Okay, thank you Whisker. In fact, our group of francophones, we exchanged a particular accent on the French security. We started our exchanges regarding the perception of the security of the photos and we came to the conclusion according to which the concept of security is not static, it is dynamic. Our panel was not well-planned. We started at two, then we were barely at five. So we thought we were going to have time to say everything, but unfortunately, the subject was so interesting that we missed time, even though we were barely at five. So one of the questions we addressed was the cause of insecurity, what impact did the population have? The exchanges around, especially in Africa, are much more cultural. And we also specified because the French regimes do not exclude me, but it is the abuses that exclude some categories, especially young people and women. And these abuses are linked to the mutation of the French dynamic. More precisely, there is demographic growth, there is the HRCRS and so on, all these elements have made the status of the land to change and have passed from a patrimonial to a merchant. And beyond that, the main insecurity is not only women and young people are touching everyone, but particularly women. And there is the question of the difference of customs. So beyond that, we addressed the question of security in terms of registration or title. It is clear that there would be some debate on whether the security must be necessarily passed by registration, but registration is different. We cannot talk about the registration that can lead to the title and the registration that is specific to rural areas. So that's why our friend from Burkina, from Mali, talked about a disaster in a different instrument from that of the disaster. So the question of registration has also been addressed. The question of the people has been raised that we have to work a lot more on the mentality, on the change of mentality. We need to have a legal basis and negotiations, because the people also have questions that there are risks related to registration. Risks related to instruments. So it is a question of having an approach, a cooperative approach, an inclusive approach and a participative approach. That's about the different elements that I noted in relation to the exchange. As far as I am concerned, I think that the debates should be focused on who belongs to the land. I think that's a question that is at the heart of the debate in our society, especially in Africa. Does the land belong to the state or the land belongs to the community? And the question is to find a formula at that level. So I will stop here and then I think I could make another one. Thank you. Thank you very much, Maloum. Thank you very much. All the panellists, in the sake of time, I will skip the poll that we wanted to do again to see if any of you had changed your minds on some of these statements. And I would like to ask Yap to wrap up with some final reflections, please. Yap. Can you hear me? Yap. Thanks a lot, everybody. I jumped into all four groups. I didn't go to the francophone one, but I did listen into the translation earlier on. Very interesting discussions. And I think it shows how complex the issue is and how layered. And I'm glad with everything I hear. I'm not sure how we're going to make this into the next version of the paper. That still remains quite a challenge. I wrote a few things down. First of all, apologies for using this word weak. We are so focusing on the tennis security and we didn't have the time to good proof read. We shouldn't have used that and probably both are marginalized. We'll appear theirs. Apologies for that. And many of you said it and I'm very happy. And we might have to change even the order of some things. We have to start from insecurity. The real problem is insecurity for many people. And then who is threatened by whom or by what? As many of you said, internal and external pressures, sometimes mixed, sometimes layered. And I think that is really important. And that also makes it indeed dynamic as some of the people already reported back from their group. To my students, I always say the two biggest threats to land tenure security is actually big brother and the government and brother-in-law, the family especially, for women. And I think that both came by quite sometimes. The only thing I personally always miss in these type of discussions is the autonomous development in society. If we do not have an intervention, we are also not these groups losing out. And then the question is, does the intervention, when we make it as good as we can, make the most vulnerable groups in a better position? Or do we make those in the middle a bit safer at the cost of those at the bottom of the vulnerability ladder, if something like that could be said? I think that is one of the things we really struggle with. And this is exactly what Mark also said, the local diversity. And how do you then judge whose position should be prioritized? Unequality seems to be the key issue. There is unequality in how people are accessing land and the systems. And we talked a lot about registration and mapping, even though tenure security was really the topic, but somehow we always end up focusing a lot, even though we all say it's more, we still talk about it a lot. The intervention seems to go along with unequality. And I think that's where the most of the work has to be understanding the current inequalities and making sure the system makes them less and not more. And in practice, we often see they make it more because they are focusing on doing things more efficient instead of more equitable. And I think that came out also in almost every group. But when I listen to everything, and then maybe I'm too philosophical, I also thought in the end, yes, but interventions, mapping, pipeline, and anything we want to put around it, they cannot solve all the problems of the society. And that's what we always end up. We talk about everything. And in the end, yes, the government is corrupt. This doesn't work. So we need to get rid of government, corrupt government and inequality we don't want, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. So there's this chicken and egg. Can we do some things in land registration, mapping that already improves the situation there and get the whole country in a better place? Or does the country has to be in a better place before we can actually do a fair and honest than your security improvement through an intervention? And I don't think we have the answers there. I think our audience was very nicely representing a broad range of these assumptions, and many of them were aware of it. I think that's also important to know. We will also go with a bit more depth with our colleagues in the different land scale projects to see on a more local level how things are. Thanks. OK. Thank you, Jaap. So, yeah, I see that we have gone slightly over time. So I'd like to wrap it up here. We could continue our discussions for hours, I'm sure. But a big thank you to all the panelists and thank you for joining us here today. We appreciate your participation, your engagement and your insights. Thank you to all the participants as well for sharing your thoughts and idea. We do, as I said, going to publish a study on this and we will take into account the discussions that have taken place today. We try to feed them in and we will make sure that we sense the final paper with you once ready. Then, lastly, I want to ask you to take a survey, especially with the new setup, but we would like to know how you like this webinar. There will be a link in the chat, I understand, where you can share your feedback on this particular event. With that, I want you to have a happy festive season and I look forward to engaging with you all in the new year. Thank you all and God bless. Thank you too, bye-bye. Thank you everybody, I know. I'll share the survey and a follow-up email. Thank you. Thank you.