 You're welcome. Thank you for joining us on this LAN portal webinar. I'm just going to give us a few moments as everyone's coming into this main room and we'll start in 30 seconds or so. So it looks like we've got people have joined us. Welcome. Thank you for joining this session of a LAN portal webinar where we're going to be exploring some really important themes around open data, anti-corruption and land governance. My name's Tim Davies. I'm going to be chairing our discussion and we've got three fantastic expert panelists with us who will each introduce themselves shortly. Just to start, I'm going to set the scene and tell you about the themes we'll be exploring and some of the angles we will take before we come to our panelists. We'll then have a discussion as a panel and then we'll also be open to your questions and inputs which you can put into the question or chat window and that I will try and then pose as many of your questions as possible to our panelists. So we're going to be exploring three themes today. The first of those is clearly land governance, the core focus and work of the LAN portal. Secondly, we're going to be looking at the scourge of corruption and work to tackle corruption in relation to LAN. And lastly, we're going to be looking at open data as a promising tool to deploy in the fight against land-related corruption. And this is a really timely debate right now. Ideas around open data have been on the global stage for almost a decade. And open data is at once a simple and a complex idea. The simple idea is that public data should be made accessible to the public, more transparent, data used as a resource so that records can be searched, sorted and analysed in new ways. The complex part is putting that into practice. There can be some data that's held by public agencies that can't be opened by default. There can be power dynamics that mean releasing data has adverse effects and underlying problems of poor data quality and public data systems can frustrate attempts to open it up. However, even with these general aspects of open data noted, in the recent state of open data book from the OD4D network, a book I was involved in co-editing, we explored how open data still holds great potential as a tool for anti-corruption. Yet in land, the global availability of data remains very patchy. And although millions of dollars have been spent on building land registration systems around the world, very few of those systems currently make data available. And in part, that might reflect the need for nuance when it comes to land data. There are particular issues of privacy and power that need a more sophisticated approach to be taken. And that was something that was particularly evident in the land debate we hosted on the land portal over September. And I believe many of you joining us may have taken part in that. That was a dialogue where over three weeks we had 100 contributions from 48 different contributors pointing to the breadth of different datasets relevant to anti-corruption in land, from cadastres and land use information datasets to corporate registers and court records. In that dialogue, people pointed out the need for a multi-stakeholder approach that can achieve the right level of openness in land data and can make it easier for marginalised groups to discover data to support their struggles whilst avoiding data digitisation that reinforces gender bias or excludes particular groups. And in the right up of that discussion that you'll find on the land portal, we highlight the need for work on research to understand the current state of land information. We highlight the need for experimentation that can find politically aware best fit approaches to use open data as an anti-corruption tool. And we highlight the need for networking, spot knowledge sharing at regional and global levels. Now all those kind of interventions need support. They need knowledge. They need resourcing and they need capacity building. And that's where today's panel comes in to explore what are the forms of support that can be there to build work on open data in the land sector and what are the challenges we need to confront and engage with if we want that to move forward. And so this discussion is part two of a three-part process that's going to culminate at the conference on land policy in Africa at the end of November. The first part being that online dialogue I mentioned. So as we get into those discussions I'm going to invite each of our panelists now to briefly introduce themselves and which part of the open data anti-corruption and land governance landscape they come from. They'll have a few minutes each for that. And then we'll go into some questions to really get into some deeper discussion. And then very much I hope will come to your questions to the panel which just to remind you you can put in that chat window at any point. So without further ado Katie, can I come to you first to ask you just to tell us two or three minutes about yourself, about the OD4D network and why IDRC and OD4D have taken an interest in open data over the last decade as a development issue. Thanks so much Tim. So my name is Katie Clancy. I'm a program officer with International Development Research Center and one of the projects I am responsible for coordinating is the Open Data for Development Network which is a global partnership between IDRC, Global Affairs Canada and the Hewlett Foundation to advance the creation of locally driven and sustainable open data ecosystems around the world. So OD4D works with leading open data organizations to create knowledge to inform open data policies, develop new standards, innovation and research. So broad theory of change is understanding how open data is released and use is informing better development, in particular how it is increasing good governance, improving service delivery and ultimately addressing information asymmetries in ways to help people to exercise their rights. We have a really broad mandate and our network is ultimately driven by six regional hubs that act as leaders and that help to identify local priorities as well as work with policymakers to pilot new innovations around data use and to inform creation of new infrastructure and interoperability and build capacity in both governments and civil society. So these hubs are the Africa Open Data Network which is based in Kenya and they actually do some work on land governance. Open Data Asia which is based in Cambodia and Malaysia and actually both of the partners which include the center project as well as Open Data Mekong also work on these issues. We have the Open Data Middle East and North Africa Network, the Caribbean Open Institute, ILDA which is based in Nira Gwai, and the Community d'Afrique Francophone d'Année Verte which is based in Burkina Faso. So each of these regional networks ultimately aim to create this local leadership and capacity. OD4D has also supported a number of global initiatives aimed at supporting the release and use and research on open data. So these include things like the Open Data Barometer, Open Data Index, the International Open Data Conference, the State of Open Data that Tim was just discussing, and the Feminist Open Government Initiative. Our regional hubs are also working for example with Nati and the Open Data Charter to pilot new anti-corruption initiatives and I'll let her get a little bit more into detail on what that looks like. So OD4D Network has existed in this current form since 2015 but we've actually been doing work on open data and related issues since about 2010 and part of our initial interest was my team focuses on technology and innovation and our interest is in better understanding the feedback loops and links and how new technology innovations influence existing development challenges and issues. So we take a really broad view and have a broad mandate. We tend to be informed by social science but also by technology issues and we want to understand the long chain so we're not just interested in releasing open data but ultimately in understanding how open data is put into use and drives development impact and so that involves taking both a positivist but also a critical perspective on open data issues. So the land governance space is not one that I am necessarily an expert in so please be gentle with me. It's definitely an area that I think we're quite interested in and one that we've been interested in exploring but also a little bit cautious about in the past in part due to some initial publications for example from Michael Gerstein around the Bumi project and so we're really interested in understanding how open data can increase light and decrease harms and so we want to take a really holistic view and perspective when we work with our partners to explore these issues to make sure that we're ultimately supporting work that's improving development outcomes and minimizing potential harms to security or privacy for example. So that's it in a nutshell and I'll be happy to get into it more in a bit. Thank you Katie that's really useful to see that long-term interest in open data but also already some of those tensions that come up particularly around land that we'll be digging into. I'd like to come next to Peter now, you've been involved in the land sector for many years both as an innovator and now working as a funder supporting work on property rights. Could I invite you just to tell us briefly about yourself, your role and the particular perspectives that that gives you on work around anti-corruption in land. Yeah thanks Tim and thanks to the land portal for hosting the webinar. It's a pleasure to be here with my fellow panelists Katie and Natty. Thanks to everyone also for joining no matter where you are. Good evening, good afternoon, good morning. My name is Peter Abli, I've been at Amidia Network for seven years. We are an impactor investor or philanthropic capital firm that is we deploy money either as grants or for-profit investments towards social positive social change and I lead one of our initiatives, one of our six initiatives called property rights and put simply we think the world is a better place when people have their property rights and the problem is many people don't have any formal property rights whatsoever. Prior to ON I was in the commercial sector running software and technology companies often related to geospatial remote sensing and land registry and mapping and taxation. I think the notion of open data is an interesting one and I think we have a more ambivalent view about how important open data is and how much it can help towards corruption in land. So I'm looking forward to having that discussion here and again happy to be on the on the call. Thank you, Tim. Thank you Peter and last but not least on our panel I come to Natty. Now Natty you've seen the development of open data from a number of different sides both inside government and now working in civil society and multi stakeholder context so can I ask you to share a bit of your background and in particular how the open data charter has been exploring these connections between open data and anti-corruption across the board and then more recently looking at that land connection. Yep hi everybody thanks for the invite as Tim said I'm Natty Karfi I'm now the deputy director of the open data charter but in my previous life I used to be government official I've run the open government policy for Argentina until May last year and Freda was head of open government for the Chilean government in Bachelet second government so I've been I've been I've been working on open government and open data for over eight years now in a row mostly from government but now I'm seeing the perspective from from civil society. As far as the open data charter work on open data and anti-corruption goes we've been working closely with many of our partners the open data charter is it's consisted of a network of governments of different levels and in different parts of the globe and multilateral and civil society organizations from from everywhere and we've been exploring with our partners how the connection between open data and anti-corruption goes and in a practical exercise we've developed alongside with other partners what is now known as the open up guide on anti-corruption which is a set of 30 key datasets that any government would want to open if they want to engage in an open data and anti-corruption policy and we've managed to to test that guide in insight firstly in Mexico which was a very interesting very interesting project a very interesting a very interesting idea to test we had many discoveries there because often every in practice don't matter exactly for example in Mexico just like as a number the 30 datasets turned out to be 64 in Mexico because of the way the government gathers and collects the information land data is one of the key 30 datasets that is that that is part of the open up guide and what we're seeing in both in Mexico and in other implementations that we're not doing is that is not part of the key datasets that that governments actually want to start the work with when they're talking about open enough data for anti-corruption and as Katie mentioned we're now working with closely with the open government partnership also in a project revolving around open data and anti-corruption commitments but I would want to talk a little bit more about that in a bit. Fantastic thank you all so what we see there is a picture of many years work on open data some emerging work in connecting that to land but also something that came out of the dialogue we had was that there are some big gaps there's perhaps not been as much activity on open data in the land sector as some had anticipated there could be or thought we might be able to benefit from open data as an anti-corruption tool so in our first of the questions I want to dig into into that gap and what are the reasons we see and what are some of the particular challenges that work on pursuing open data as an anti-corruption tool in land need to engage with and maybe on that I can come to you first Peter I know you've got colleagues at Luminate who've worked a lot on the open data agenda and Midyar's worked a lot on property rights but we don't really see any high profile open data land anti-corruption initiatives out there why do you think that is of what are the challenges we need to be thinking about? Yeah thanks Tim I think first of all it's probably because land itself is low down on the development agenda and many other things get far more attention whether it's health education financial inclusion or the latest shiny fintech tool land is also an issue that many donors tend to shy away from because rightly or wrongly they feel that they'll do more harm than good by getting engaged and ultimately it's a sovereign issue that should be managed solely by by that state so a lot of the engagement and funding typically has come from bilateral funding relationships government to government and in fact most of the funding and resources has gone into trying to upgrade and upscale those institutions nationally that deal with land issues and that's been the classic form of aid delivery if you will over the last 50 to 60 years so I think it's a small issue it's an issue people typically don't want to touch and they'll go into should I dare say easier things that everyone can get their heads around like putting everyone in school or giving everyone a vaccine shot and and land is is a is a little bit more tricky than those things so I think in general it's useful to set this the scene there and then I think you guys are far more expert in open data than me but in talking to my illuminate colleagues I think this open data journey is only just beginning in general when you compare to many other things and the jury is still out as to the efficacy of much of it including governments signing up to ogp and then having a special person at the president's office and who then gets frustrated by the line ministries who have no intention of living up to the commitments the national government made so I think still early days even on the open data digging in and having traction and and so I think those two items is probably why in general open data for land in my opinion anyway is further down the the interest ladder if you would that's really useful framing to take that bigger picture now Katie you've already touched a bit on how land has had some particular features as a sector and in the od4d work you've looked across a wide range of different sectors are you seeing reasons why land might be different or are you seeing learning from other sectors that you think we should be bringing across into the land land space it's a really good question um I think uh overall uh within od4d I mean Keater has made an excellent point you know despite having worked on these issues for 10 years in many ways they're only just reaching maturity at this point um and so despite a lot of investments and and efforts in a variety of different sectors we're seeing you know we've built out some infrastructure within governments and some capacity within social society but there's a lot more work to do so one of our core challenges is just around prioritization is in that there's so many different sectors but I think for us um there's a lot of learning that could be brought into the land sector uh definitely we're seeing a lot uh I think there's a lot of work from um for example on on contracting and procurement it could be useful um you know having read through some of the initial discussions um from last month around the availability and and the variety of different actors um I think there's a lot of room for uh sort of multi stakeholder dialogues to start to kick off in many cases we're dealing with a supply and demand um context and and there's a need to bring together these different stakeholders and provide them with with additional capacity and support and that includes um working with you know potentially land ministries who might not have received as much focus um uh from the open data actors as maybe some other key ministries like within agriculture um or or the ministries of ICTs who are you know I think working a lot more on on issues relating to data and information sharing um I think that there are still concerns around privacy and security and then I think a lot of different governments have those years around data sharing or around you know doing open by default approaches which doesn't mean that they should stop but it means that we need to do more work to build their capacity and to engage on those issues and then I think that there are a lot of opportunities and again that comes down to like multi stakeholder dialogues and I would also love to see more case studies on where um open data approaches have been useful or have been driving you know even initial kinds of impact because I think where we as funders see um interest or activity uh ongoing a lot of our focus again coming back to priorities and having limited resources is um focusing more on on low hanging fruit and I think Peter you know sort of articulated it very well that there are a lot of different development priority areas and you know we see a broad mandate within their governance but you know if you can get more um if there if there's a higher regional priority and and there's more interest on working on uh agriculture or procurement issues than we're more likely to support those so it also comes down to regional prioritization so working with local actors um uh and and having those kinds of dialogues um with both the main experts but also technical experts who can start to spearhead and explore interesting issues um that those are maybe some spaces because I think Peter's right that you know the open data experiment is still ongoing we we're starting to see some really I think high impact activities that open data book captures some really interesting case studies but it's a long process it's a long cycle to drive this kind of impact in use and so uh that's an area that for us you know we need to keep exploring fantastic thank you Katie and and I think I'm seeing in there some of the journey the the open data chart has already been on from talking very much about open by default to a focus on publishing with purpose and connecting data with particular problem spaces and Natty you mentioned the the open up guides you've been developing and and the one on empty corruption which I understand you're currently in the process of kind of rolling out or piloting and using in different countries are you seeing an appetite to engage with land or wherever people want to put their energy right now yes thanks Tim um so with the open up guide what we did was as I said piloted in in Mexico uh but now the open up guide on on corruption is part of a hemispheric program of the Organization of American States so 33 countries decided to take on the challenge of opening up uh data for anti-corruption and using the open up guide as a framework um so one good lesson about this this guide in particular and any guide uh that we develop is that having one request for governments so this is like implement this guide actually made the conversation between 33 countries easier uh so when they decided that they wanted to tackle anti-corruption using open data uh they had they had this framework to discuss on so that's a very good lesson that we learned um probably um with with this with the discussion aside from from this program we are now working with Colombia and Ecuador also implementing uh or starting to implement these this guide in the conversations and uh they are very keen on on working on this because uh the idea was for open data to move past the bit of transparency and anti-corruption but unfortunately we've seen many cases of corruption especially in in Latin America where the corruption networks are very well entangled and connected between countries so trying to open up data uh that actually is standardized and can make can help make comparisons across national borders is actually something that is now more needed than ever um and now we have the capacity to do so uh as far as land data as as I said in in the introduction out of the 30 datasets of the open up guide is is unfortunately one of the ones that gets that gets behind the every country seems every government seems to be willing to start by procurement data um lobby registration and uh and and other types of datasets aside from from land uh one mostly I don't I don't know the exact reasons but I think mostly because of the quality and the quantity of data that they've gathered around land data um which is which is in many of the cases not good and not enough to even open so that that that particular dataset gets left behind for uh for the long run publication plan when they are working with the open up guide on on anti-corruption that's really interesting so some of the just land again being seen as a really challenging one not the low hanging fruit to to grapple with and I think also as comes up in what you've said there the fact that this is a cross-border problem so the challenge is not just building national data infrastructures but it's finding the connections uh across borders and I wanted to come to that theme next of cross-border collaboration and and how we foster that or support that um because I think although we recognize that work on anti-corruption in the global south is a long-term change process we have seen some gains in recent years in a few countries publishing more land related data so for example the UK disclosing corporate owned land uh and land transactions being published in a number of countries and increasingly beneficial ownership data at least for companies involved in land deals being being increasingly kind of in open registers um and now Peter I I started thinking about this when when as we were preparing for this webinar you talked about the need to look at corruption not only in the global south but also in the UK the US in Europe as well as looking at those land grabs in the global south and I wonder if you could say a bit more about how uh developed world corruption vectors fit into this picture as we're trying to open up the landscape yeah I mean again I think back to basics land is a very valuable asset and as WC Fields famously said by land they ain't making more of it um so as as the world develops we're going to see more and more pressure on land because it is such a valuable a valuable asset one only has to look at Scotland and the ownership structures of land in Scotland to understand that a handful of people own 80 percent of the land and many communities are under leasing agreements and and arrangements and that's only recently come to light as as people have began to campaign and and get to the registers and open them up also land registers in particular always served a different function they they sort of weren't built for um like procurement which is how you spend the government purse that has a much more natural feel to say well how are we spending our taxpayers money as opposed to I don't want people knowing about my land why should I care about putting that on a public register whereas I care much more about how the government spending my tax money so I think you know just simply having that frame of reference you know also what we see is um and I think we don't talk enough about is that the information about land is itself an asset and is viewed as an asset by those who manage and control it and they would like to extract it whether you are an employee in a land institution in Colombia that says I get paid $50 a month to do my job but somebody's willing to come and pay me an awful lot of money to speed a transaction through the system you're not going to be interested in transparency around that land data information right and then conversely in the north we see models in in the UK for example ordinance survey that essentially says we're trading fund the data is our asset we return money to the treasury every year and we will set a 75 year copyright on it and we're very against open data but not from the perspective of of sort of corruption but from the fact that you know they view it as a commercial asset that they will maintain and gatekeeper out so I think it's interesting to look at different different aspects both in the north and the south the final point is of course as you mentioned before there are different types of cadastres cadastres essentially means book about land and we have mining cadastres right we have other types of cadastres and government don't share those either and they have very little interest in sharing them there have been some attempts around contracts and land there's the open land contracts hub that columbia university has set up and maintains that currently has about 22 countries reporting against for open land contracts so there have been some attempts there so it's an interesting issue in that it manifests itself in many different ways depending on where you are in the globe and how people see the asset and the value around the asset that's really useful for him and Peter Katie I wanted to pick up on the question of kind of capacity building with people to use the data that is there because I think so often week there's always a gap of data more things could be available but as Peter's outlined there's often a lot of politics power and perverse incentives to making things more open but with the information we have got how from a development funder's perspective can we build capacity for people to use the data that's being made available that that later chain of kind of use of their experiences you've got from only for these work or wider networks yeah that's a really good question I mean for us this is such a tricky playing field because it is as a you know as part of Canada's international assistance portfolio there's a lot of power and politics that go on here and Peter was discussing sovereignty earlier but that being said you know at the same time our model at IDRC is very much to empower and build the capacity of local actors to pursue a lot of that work so a good example I think from our past work was around the Panama Papers and the very wide release of data which wasn't necessarily a government release of data it was a whistleblower who leaked it but one thing that that we were able to do both through the OD4D network and and through other networks was to support capacity not necessarily for us to do any kind of analysis with it because it's not you know our mandate but to support for example journalists and researchers to build their capacity around how to use and analyze that data and to better understand the linkages of that data to their own country and priorities I was able to actually lead to some very interesting revelations and some very interesting follow-ups that came up afterwards as a result of the analysis of that data so I think we see that there's a strong need there's a lot of intermediaries who exist we need to build the capacity both of sort of policymakers and and Peter a lot of those workers that you're discussing to build those a lot of the people who manage the information systems and I think there will always be attention around the commercialization of that data but then also around for example the intermediaries that include like researchers civil society groups and there's a really wide range of them many of whom sort of lack the technical capacity at the moment do really interesting kinds of data analysis and more and more we're seeing that as an area of focus where we can potentially help people use the data that's being released to exercise their rights and address information asymmetries and so that's a really sort of important focus area I think in terms of driving that that longer chain of use and being able to use data in a variety of different ways it can help to you know whether it's to to demand accountability whether it's to foster more information or analysis about a particular issue whether for example I think there's some really interesting gender debates they're going on you know how we can include other rights groups in exploring some of those issues from a data-focused perspective that there's a lot of really important avenues that contribute both to the anti-corruption angle but also to other sort of more rights-focused angles as well that are very important and potentially really a lot more powerful in terms of holding both their own countrymen but also other countries to account where we've signed on to international agreements that around financial illicit financial flows and more. So we're really seeing the connections here between work on land and a number of different fields if we're going to put this all together and something coming out there are a lot about all the different stakeholders involved so I'm going to start bringing in a few of the questions we're getting in through the chat and if other people have questions they'd like to pose please do start posting those in but John Dean Markunus was asking about this question of who the different stakeholders are who need to be part of a change process and I think Katie you've just touched on some of those so I'm going to put that question actually to Natty initially to reflect on some of the ways the work of the charter or other fora in the open data and open government space can help convene different stakeholders and who are the kinds of stakeholders we need at the table in order to advance work both on data availability but also crucially on data being used to make a difference. Thanks team so one thing that we've learned the the open up the open up guides that the charter creates are more than just the anti-corruption one we have one on agriculture data one on climate change but they all have the same logic behind and so whenever we're implementing one of the guides we always have one or two workshops in site in in the country that we're implementing that with that's publishers and that's our users and what we say is in those workshops we create we get people interoperability it's not just about data interoperability we need people to actually connect and know each other and and discuss and so it's important to get the right actors in the room when we talk about anti-corruption it depends on the institutional arrangements each of the country has because some countries have an anti-corruption office that depends on the presidency other halves other have anti-corruption offices that are totally autonomous from from the government other have zillion of organizations that work for anti-corruption but not a single office so we have to evaluate and and understand the institutional arrangement of each of the country and then understand also civil society community in in that country both the open data and the anti-corruption one because we need both sets of knowledge together in the same room because as Katie said not not every has like data literacy within themselves within the city so we need the anti-corruption organizations to be working hand in hand with the open data community within that country part of the work that we do in as I said in each of the countries that we implement the guide is tried to help out making that making those connections with the purpose of and the idea of actually implementing that and that is what people bring that that is what brings people together as far as international fora goes the open government partnership actually promotes this this kind of dialogues between governmental officials and and civil society organizations and academics and so what we've seen is out of the anti-corruption open up guide the data sets that that are being more engaging for governments are the ones that also have like a formal initiative behind like procurement data the open contracting partnership which also collaborates with the open government partnership actually has made a good point in helping out governments creating these commitments and then implementing them so when governments see that that they are not alone then in the implementation of of the of the opening of the data they they obviously tend to be more prone to opening up that data because it's not just it's not just pushing on buttons and and opening up the data you have to do a proper work and and so whenever there's an international community behind an international initiative behind those seems to be seem to be the ones that that governments tend to open more just because they know there's there's help out there and there's actually a community that's going to help not only open up the data but get the conversation going with their users so that's that's something that I think it's it's something important to learn from from these global initiatives on certain types of data the one the initiatives that are that are working on a theme between the open data even within the open data and anti-corruption policy fantastic and I wonder if if we can switch track now to looking at some of those examples that as you have cited there examples from the procurement space or other spaces but any examples either from land or other neighboring spaces that we look at and think that's showing us where either the low hanging fruit might be in this land anti-corruption and open data space or that's showing us an example that we really can learn from to do something more for example PTU mentioned open land contracts but there are other things you look at and say there's some promise there even if there's a long way to go anything that comes to mind for you yeah I so what I think's interesting is that land data in particular works because typically the official data and it's worth distinguishing between official data that recorded by a registry or a government agency tends to work because it's singular unless it's a federated state or provincial structure government like Canada where you might have then eight or nine registries it's not as if you have within government 23 different departments that are procuring within one government entity land data officially works because it's singular in nature it's a single register a single source of information which which creates a lot of the perverse incentives for not doing things we have more and more data available to us that allows us to go around official registers right and so one of our grantees is global witness and we funded them to do more work on using satellite imagery and drones for example to get at what's clearly going on on the land if the official data is not forthcoming or available and so I think we've seen good examples there I don't think what we need is more guides or more I think there's plenty of information and knowledge out there we have 17 guides on the voluntary guidelines for land tenure we in fact did a guide to the guides as a sort of bit of a tongue-in-cheek so I would I would ask all of the community that we don't need more guides and we don't need more models I think we have enough I think if you're going to get real scale change on land you have to engage the commercial sector and you have to try and align incentives and I think the one example that I've seen that from the north is actually out of Cambridge and digital built Britain which is something called the Gemini principles as geospatial technology gets more and more efficient and the cost of collecting data gets lower and lower we're actually now in the stage of creating a one-to-one model of the world around this digital model hence the term digital twin and therefore the Gemini principles and I think the Gemini principles were put together by a combination of commercial interests academic civil society and government who said there are many issues related to the collection of data at this scale and this frequency that go well beyond disadvantaged groups and so forth and get into deep ethical and other considerations but there's a very simple set of nine principles around how that works and I think that Gemini principle set works because it's got everybody it allows everybody to engage positively from from agreeing to those principles including the commercial sector and including the government and and I think it's a matter of therefore in aligning incentives and it may be in many developing countries at the moment it's not possible to align those incentives and therefore it's purely an advocacy play for the next five to ten years and and that may be the only reason that the only way we get any sort of attraction on the issue and that's okay we should call it out and say this is an advocacy play it's nothing more nothing less and we're not going to expect government to really do anything because we're just chipping away from the outside but yeah let me stop there because I think hopefully that's a useful couple of examples that's really useful Peter and I think you point there to something that comes out in a lot of early advocacy for open data which was recognizing this isn't just there for anti-corruption this isn't just there for transparency this has to be there to align the interests of innovators technology developers government itself so maybe then Natty I could come to you because that's something obviously you've worked within the charter of how you align those different incentives and on whether it makes sense to have a guide that's focused purely on anti-corruption or or those datasets you're talking about do you just talk about them in terms of anti-corruption or do you pick up on those other narratives of why sharing this data matters the idea behind thanks for the question and the idea behind the guide was just we didn't create any new standards we didn't create any new datasets we just put in order the the data that was out there and we worked with of course with transparency organizations to build up that guide so we made it easier for governments to actually have that discussion about open data and its corruption and that's the logic behind the of the open up guides which is with organizations actually know more about this that we're working on and gathering and collecting the already existing standards and putting that information together because having a zillion guides can be sometimes challenging and and and bring in the wrong conversations with with governments and then one of the of the key work that we do in in anything that we do in the charter is actually um building up in the mode of publishing with the purpose we don't we don't want to open data just because of the sake of opening up data um the opening up data on anti-corruption is not going to solve corruption we need data re-users journalists academics uh in geos civil society Japanese agents of any kind actually being able to use that data and bring light into whatever is going on that shouldn't be going on um but first trying to understand what the key issue in each of the of the countries is and understanding what the purpose of the of the policy on open data and anti-corruption is is the first milestone of any implementation of that we do in any of the countries um the anti-corruption agenda is a big one and each of the countries has its its its own um key problems that they want to tackle and so maybe trying to open up the 30 datasets at the same time is not the solution it's trying to understand uh which uh which of these datasets are actually the the cornerstone for the fight on corruption in those countries um but I think uh that is also something that we need to explore and understand on a on a country per country basis uh and then of course if there's the possibility as I said um the corruption um corruption or a corruptive or a corruptive organizations actually work uh passed by the limits of each of the countries so we if you want to if you want to actually tackle corruption at least in in the northern south out of the my personally uh my personal experience it would be good to try to um make collaboration between countries actually happen and I think land land data that could actually help out with that also fantastic Tim could I could I just jump in on that Natty can I ask you what would the incentive be for two countries to work together on on sharing land data I do think that any of the datasets in in the in the guide can actually bring in a new light to go between uh organizations that foster or promote corruption between the between the countries so any of the theory datasets is actually or we've just lost Natty they're breaking up slightly so so we'll come back to that theme and I'll try and draw that out a bit more uh in a while uh but maybe coming to you Katie uh on this round just around kind of examples or cases you look at and you think we can learn from that and I want to pick up from one of the questions that we've had through from from Gavin Heyman who's particularly interesting cases that are um protecting the rights of marginalized groups um and I know some of the OD for the network have looked at that so maybe you can reflect on those cases you find uh oh you are muted Katie thank you I was just being polite they thank you so much that that's a really interesting um question and I think in a way one that kind of starts to tip away at the complexity of the space that we're talking about Peter on the one hand is talking about some of the uh commercialization and innovation dialogues and we deal with this tension a lot with OD for D but we're also talking about this for development side of things so we see this sort of sometimes the tension between social and economic forces um and the political will behind addressing one or the other so some of our it would be quite interesting work that's been coming out lately through both our feminist open government initiative some of the work that's on the ground is working with for example um indigenous groups around uh learning more about data advocacy and that covers a lot of different ground or working with women um to develop a better understanding of for example femicides in Latin America so these aren't necessarily linked to land data yet although they might be at some point um there's some really interesting analysis but uh what some of the complexities of dealing with these spaces are understanding and and I think Peter's right about like what's in it for me or you know what for actors have to bring to the table but more you can convene them together um whether those are in small meetings um whether those are in workshops that that deliberately attempt to bring together these multiple stakeholder perspectives um whether these are through uh research uh um sort of activities that where you're working directly with for example uh data providers and data users to understand both of their needs because sometimes we're just not talking to each other and there's no um it's just a lack of information and and not necessarily um any anything else um versus other times you know there are very much tension between different groups and there are different perspectives and needs um and their different sort of advocacy approaches and so recognizing uh and recognizing the complexity of those issues more you can convene them together to at least start to have these dialogues has been a really important thing that we've been finding in terms of dealing with marginalized groups in in terms of being able to exercise their rights so some of that comes through capacity building activities and some of it comes through that deliberative dialogue um there's no doubt that it's challenging in part because of the different perspectives that that might be emerging in some of these spaces and the local contexts that they're working in uh and the level of trust I mean that's one of the sort of underlying premises behind open data that Lisa and and I don't know that this has been proven at all and see don't feel free to put goals in this is that um open data was supposed to by increasing the sort of transparency and accountability was ultimately supposed to lead to enhanced trust between governments and citizens of all different um kinds and I would say that the jury is definitely a fill out as to whether that hypothesis is true but it certainly the approaches that I would say the open data community has had in the past which is bringing together people who have both substantive expertise with technical experts with policymakers um and particularly now in in deliberately reaching out to to marginalized groups um to to start to engage and understand how these approaches are working has yielded some interesting initial results it might be an approach that's worth um uh you know dealing with a little bit more in the future but these are complex dialogues there's no doubt about it and they can lead to some really interesting uh challenges as well fantastic and I'm just going to check Natty are you still with us uh on the call at the moment so we may have lost Natty for for the moment hopefully we'll get Natty me connected uh but that puts Peter and Katie in the hot seat as I start going to some of the questions that they're all are all are uh webinar participants have been sharing so I'm going to just start bringing in some of those uh I might direct those to one or the other of you but but if if if if others want to to jump in please please do um so uh starting out um we had just a clarification question from uh uh and yet Annette uh Jane uh asking when we talk open data are we really looking only at government data or more broadly and I think Peter you started to pick up on that topic but uh maybe I can just put that directly to you do you see this as a government data only question or something broader than that yeah it's a it's a good question just one quick point and uh hello Gavin thank you for that question uh and Katie there there um so the indigenous groups who make claims about their lands um one of the areas that we've had to be very careful with in the land field is in fact indigenous groups who find themselves often if they put themselves on the map can be at risk for exploitation and various other things and so there are organizations like cabasta that we fund and um uh the tenure facility uh that work very carefully with these groups to provide you know the tools and understanding of what data should you share if at all and under what circumstances uh there's no disagreement that they need to collect the data to state their claim but it's how do you share it and so there are uh numerous examples um and good groups who've done work uh around that cadastro and tenure facility being the two the two key ones I think around the the data itself you know what's really interesting is this asymmetry that now exists if you look at let's say sub-Saharan Africa and you look at the the official data sets that just simply aren't there because governments aren't able to collect them or don't want to or both um you know Facebook now knows far more about the citizens of Zambia than the government of Zambia does itself and I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing um and the the platforms that have the power to and the money and resources to collect data from ever more improving tools like satellite imagery machine learning and other things that allow us to calculate where populations are at great fidelity and temporal frequency belong now in the hands of of extremely powerful platforms um and that data can't be used for the public good so I think we should broaden the conversation in fact we've just funded the Geovation Center in the UK's Ordinary Survey to talk about the ethics around spatial data and whether or not more of this data that commercial entities collect or are interested in collecting should also be opened up and made available for research purposes and non-commercial use given that it's likely that government entities in many countries will never be able to collect data uh at that scale and therefore there's no public good purpose which is one of the things that you want to open up data for um so what how do we think about open data when it belongs to very powerful private platforms I would posit that there's a there's a role and a need for a dialogue around engaging these powerful commercial entities to make more of their data more open and less restrictive and it doesn't just mean making it open on google maps because the license terms are extremely restrictive if you then want to use those those data sets to create your own data sets they then say well we get to use those as well for our own purposes so um I would like to see the dialogue broadened out more around open data not just to be around official uh government data sets yes that raises some really key themes really this question of what data from who should be how open and to whom uh if not too many parts of that question but I'll pick them up to something Priscilla Cuba is asking uh particularly asking about if anyone has experience with the CAR the rural environmental registry in Brazil uh where she comments there were several debates and conflicts about it due to the risk of ownership loss or lack of trust uh with the government so I don't know I'm seeing Peter nodding a bit but maybe Kate if I come to you first you talked about Boomi and other cases where there are these these these privacy kind of concerns um either from that Brazilian case or other cases have you seen how this has played out of of these questions about trust and fear of loss of ownership absolutely um I think we're we're now getting into some of the really tangible and current discussions and Peter your points are excellently placed I think as part of this as well and there's new discussions around indigenous data sovereignty and what indigenous data sharing should look like when we have talked about open data in the past um we think our proud view open data means data with an open license mostly from government but also from other sources um and and the utility of that and so then getting down to these questions around um we haven't worked that much with CAR unfortunately we don't work that much in Brazil at the moment uh so uh maybe I'll I'll leave that to Peter to discuss a little bit more since he seems a lot more familiar with with them but I think um around the questions of data sharing and data ownership I mean the ideal there's okay there's a difference between the ideal and the reality and I think we need to accept that there's a very broad spectrum and we've definitely seen that in a lot of the work that we're doing there's a lot of I would say northern governments that have strong sort of regimes that they're very much trying to promote you know they they have strong underlying access to information laws they have strong intellectual property regimes and even they are struggling with it and so we need to understand that that um there's very much a spectrum of data sharing and data openness but the ideal standard is that the data that's being produced by both governments um and owned by them and also by other groups and potentially shared um you know there there are a number of licensing and sharing regimes that are available and and they're new experiments and different kinds of data sharing that might be useful but they're coming back to Tim's uh initial premise which is that sharing data particularly data produced by governments should be made openly available um but data produced by other organizations with public interest um focus might also want to make that data available because there is utility in combining and using those data sets we have to get to the understanding that you know we we need to be using sort of creative commons models that allow but but don't necessarily attribute ownership to one group or that allow for remixing and reuse um and that these need to be approaches and these are approaches that are being thought through within within the open data community on how best to do this think in the land rights um sector coming back to this boomy I mean I think we share your concerns and this is actually another one of the reasons for our risks why we've been a bit hesitant in this space is that there's uh I think a number of security as well as privacy risks um uh our we IDRC not my team necessarily works a lot in agriculture um and we work a lot in different governance we we work in fragile contexts and we've seen a lot of abuse that emerges from information asymmetries or that can come from people seizing um you know with knowledge in the know-how seizing um information and using it to their own ends and not and not being able to be used for the benefit of local communities when that's what it's shared and intended for um and so these are very much I would just say tensions are still being worked out I don't think there's an easy answer to that but that being said you know there are new models around data collaboratives data trust and other different kinds of data sharing that are being explored um as a means to to address some of these ownership ownership interest challenges so you know it's an active question and an active space for experimentation and one that I think we're definitely interested in so it strikes me there's something really interesting for us to take away here from the dialogue so far about the information asymmetries being a key concern that we need to understand in more depth rather than just open data as a tool it's which information asymmetries are most harmful and should be addressed I think we've got Natty connected again but before we come to a question with Natty Peter I noticed you might have something to say on the CAR specifically yeah do it first of all we funded CPI a climate policy initiative along with Pook University in Rio uh Department of Economics to do a series of documents about land land issues uh car um as well um this is sort of a case of you're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't I think the intention behind CARs was good which is to get an up-to-date register to help control deforestation and also as a means to get subsidies as well as official recognition I think like anything in these situations you have to realize that most of it probably goes reasonably well and there are always edge cases and you have to try and plan for how you deal with the edge cases what you can't do is not let perfect be the enemy of good you have to move forward if you're going to get 80% of people on car and it works well then ring fence and deal with the 20% but don't hold up the 20% as a reason not to move forward um uh so and Bumi is another sort of uh ghost that's held up and oh look at Bumi but you know Bumi was the first digitization process in uh in India in Karnataka and what it did interestingly enough was simply shift the power dynamic from the local tesla officers and revenue officers and local traders in land that power imbalance was always there it wasn't made because Bumi came along what it did is shift the power imbalance to those that could access the data and make something of it mostly actually investors from Mumbai who then got access to the records and started doing nasty things in high value land areas um disenfranchising actually not the local villager in case of Bumi but really the local traders that had traditionally done it and those traders uh while they benefited it was less pernicious on the local villager because it was in their self-interest to maintain and limit the amount of extraction that they were realizing at the village level whereas that's not the case of investors from Mumbai so it's always kind of a nuance and I would argue it's better to be digital and deal with these issues at scale because the overall benefit is better than not being digital which is you know we still get tremendous amounts of abuse going on when things are not digitalized um so just those are two quick comments there for you Tim on Bumi and Carp fantastic so I'm going to come to a question uh from a net in a moment that will kind of wrap up some of those those themes but before we get there um uh Gabriella uh Mercedes put a question on how we see the participation of civil society in public policy for building open data as a way to avoid data that is just for government so how the civil society engagement helps shape data so it can be used by other stakeholders and that feels natty like that's a question that that could perhaps come come in your direction sorry first of all sorry for like internet went totally down um so now that I'm back uh the the core idea behind the published with the purpose is understanding that the purpose has to be co-created between government and civil society is not just what government decides to open but in the discussion about the purpose of the open data policy understanding what the needs uh and and and requests and challenges from civil society organizations are um so the corner store cornerstone of any open data policy that actually wants to create change is to get the conversation going with the the civil society organizations the possible possible re-users from the get go um before even uh even understanding maybe what the problem is sit together understand what the core problem is between uh between all the actors and then decide uh what the what the publication plan is going to be uh understanding also the challenge exam that needs from government um because opening up data is not easy and so uh the recommendation is to always get the conversation going from the start fantastic so I'm going to go to a few quickfire questions uh we've we've got in and then we'll we'll we'll try and round off in about 10 uh also minutes uh we did have a very first question in uh from John Dean Markunus particularly to Katie's where where you referred to focus of your team on technology and it's the obligatory blockchain question of have you been exploring or investing in blockchain as part of your work on uh technology and transparency there's Peter's answer on video with the thumbs down but Katie I'm just a little bit like that too um we'd IDRC publish a white paper uh I can't remember the link but if you look up IDRC blockchain you can find it it explores the uses of blockchain uh for development in a variety of different arenas and avenues um while we're interested in the technology and the efficiency that can bang in it it might even be useful for digitization of some systems um we uh we've sort of come to the conclusion that that the broader based impacts that are sometimes attributed to blockchain aren't necessarily showing up yet and so won't be investing any further um other than that white paper for the time being we are however and this is the other obligatory um looking at artificial intelligence which might have some interesting benefits uh in terms of being able for the digitization of land records but you'd have to proceed with caution fantastic uh and I'm going to bring us back then to the real corruption connection here we've got a question uh again actually from John Dean Markunus about the types of data sharing that are the best to fight corruption where should we if our if our goal is not open data on land but is very very specifically the fight against corruption and looking for the the most important things to either open up or increase the sharing of even if we're not talking full open data but we we recognize some information asymmetries around uh land data that uh that uh that addressing those could be useful in the fight against corruption maybe I can come to each of you to say where do you see the the most important place to focus um being uh and I don't know maybe Nati if I can come to you first yeah I was just uh I just uh sent the the link to the year table on the open up guide on anti-corruption so for the conversations that we've been having um and and working with with Transparency International Mexico in the implementation there and and then the Organization of American States program for uh combating anti-cor, combating corruption um this tend to be the 30 datasets that make more sense in in getting this conversation going so you have you have land registration and the tax records and asset declarations uh public procurement of course um and uh and meeting records it there seems to be the the the data that that um actually has come we have consensus around that should be this the beginning of this of this policy but fighting corruption is is uh it's more complicated than just opening up data so these are the the three the thirty datasets that we um collected for the open up guide but then as I said in any of the countries we need to understand its own uh corruption uh system and anti-corruption system to tackle uh what did that key datasets would be um just going back to yeah to a comment that I I couldn't I couldn't do because I was I was uh going offline sorry um as far as what what can land what the incentive could be about publishing land land registration for countries that are trying to combat corruption um in collaboration um maybe understanding if there's actually purchases of land done by dirty land by dirty money uh could could be a mixed up of actually this information without a kind of information and we can actually understand how corruption organizations are actually working cross cutting between uh the the limits of each of the countries so um I I do believe that there's there's actually added value this is just a super e-perduper simple example uh but I do think there's that it makes sense that the land registry is part of the key datasets to combat corruption peter are there specific information asymmetries maybe more detailed than the land registers you think we should be attacking first yeah I mean for me um if the government is not interested in incentivize to share information or is not able to then it strikes me that it has to be an advocacy play and therefore uh I would say that the the two quickest ways that you do that are by using drones and satellite imagery and sort of half joking go around to all the local surveyors and pay pay them for their surveys that they hold privately by the way because all of the valuable transactions sit with the surveyors um and their data belongs to them under copyright typically so I would I would say that you know you have to use those tools to get at it I think that if the government is potentially willing to begin to share its data if it has decent data then it cannot just be a dialogue between civil society and governments and I keep hearing the references civil society and governments civil society and governments and that strikes me as an advocacy play which is fine and it's great and it has its place but if you're going to really get changed you have got to engage commercial sector and provide data that can be used for innovation and building opportunities on top because otherwise why would people do it they'll simply hide in the shadows for their own personal benefit it's very different when you have a thousand startups and a bunch of major investors and others saying you know we can build businesses on top of Her Majesty's land register if you lower the price and access to that data set and it's not just about who's the beneficial owner of the offshore trust that owns half London right it's because I'm land insight and I can build a business on top of it yeah so maybe to pick up from there one of the questions coming up also is around the legal frameworks needed to protect vulnerable groups so if we recognize there's the need for the private sector to be thoroughly part of the process of opening up but we also recognize not only then the information asymmetries but the power asymmetries that were illustrating some of those cases we've touched on Katie are you seeing anything from the work OD for these engaged with about the kind of legal frameworks or protections that are needed and I might put that to others as well in a moment um yes I mean I I think the land sector in particular I think it's quite complex and there's a number of different legal frameworks but we're definitely sort of that's a broader network and and my team's sort of broader mandate is very much engaged around digital rights and human rights frameworks as well as regulatory working with regulatory bodies if we need to be cautious as we release more information that Peter some of those discussions you were just bringing up around the potential harms it to lead to vulnerable groups um those are brought into consideration and that does mean that you have to be cautious when sharing data and there needs to be some some good foresight around particularly around personal even beyond that I mean in terms of legal frameworks and I've already mentioned data trust which are a legal um they're a legal mechanism they're they're relatively untested in the global south they're being proposed right now um as a as a potential mechanism that could actually include corporations in terms of sharing their data um and overseen I mean there's a few different models of them in which they're overseen by a board of trustees uh and the trustees essentially determined who is able to access the data and they also have legal recourse um based on the use of that data so they're able to within taxes so they're based on on that financial model like I said there's a few different models so there's other versions of that anyways that's the basic um so those are are being um pitched as a potential opportunity for data sharing uh along a particular end it could be anti-corruption or to hold data in trust around a particular issue of the land registries um like I said they're relatively untested there's not that many examples yet we're not totally sure but it's definitely an area that people are exploring like what are the legal options for um protection social protection and and it's going to become a more and more essential question I think over the next few years um given uh you know GDPR um given that other countries are now you know looking at GDPR as a model um or or developing their own data protection schemes um and and how that is also fitting into other regulatory agencies and and their approaches will be a really interesting I think in a lot of evolutions um in terms of how data shared and governed in the next sort of five to ten years um but I think there's still our hope still that we see that sort of underlying openness where possible you know where it makes sense um where you know the data is relatively low risk we're sharing that data and Natty's point we're being able to publish your purpose um and that we're very much working with government to publish not just government data for government but data that it has you has utility and is interesting both corporations to civil society groups and even individuals who are looking to do kinds of analysis and I think we need to start making those cases better in data community um and that's part of the problem is that we haven't necessarily fully articulated those aspects or those cases and we need to start doing more of that um in order to really start to make inroads with some of those um various sprint communities fantastic we've got a few last minute questions coming in one I'll just address directly from uh Selina and how we're classifying openness whether we're talking inter-organizational or to the public at large I think in our discussion we've been using openness to refer to data that is accessible to the public at large but also talking about maybe places where data should be shared rather than for the open so I think Katie was pointing there to the way in which the open data community has matured over the last decade from maybe a binary stuff is open everyone can have it or it's closed no one can have it too much more a recognition of a data spectrum where sometimes accessibility to the public is what's needed sometimes greater sharing inter-organization is what's needed and sometimes very strong protection of data is required um then Gabriella, Gabriella Mercedes put in a question that picks up though on that that legal protection theme uh reflecting on the way in which some big companies might be investing in studies to get information about the best place to buy land um considering conflicts for example um uh seeing the potential there for data to enable increasing speculation and Gabriella puts the question do we first need specific laws to regulate the action maybe the speculation before we go down the opening uh data route so I don't picture on that if you've got any thoughts on like where shouldn't we be pursuing open data until laws are in place other particular laws we need to be pursuing as part of our advocacy yeah well I I think trying to um I think it's a terrible idea to try and block a market when you don't know where the market's going to go there's always going to be speculation and I think it's a lost cause there are usually many good laws on the books in fact in many countries already that allow safeguards against these actions they it's usually a question of poor institutions and lack of enforcement so I wouldn't jump to conclusions that necessarily laws are needed I would also say I think that things like GDPR are things that can and should be bolted on to there's already an advancing dialogue around the ethics of data and the use this idea and notion of Bill of Rights which our lumenate group has been looking at spending a lot of time and money on and and we shouldn't as a niche of open data just try and create our own set of standards where we can very much bolt bolt on to those I would also use I think adha in India as another good example around something called a consent based architecture for publicly collected data that is an individual in nature and is allowed to be shared through a consent in architecture called the India stack and what that enables where people have a have a choice in saying how their data can be used and just to point out that in US counties by the way I can find out exactly what my neighbors pay for in tax I can find out what the value of the property is and how much tax they pay on it and that scene is a very good thing that's a very good use of open data in terms of democratic norms I'm not sure everyone would feel the same way yeah so we've got just a few minutes left so what I'm going to do is come around each of our panelists and ask for their reflections on this opening theme we have of what ways can there be support to move forward in this space so it's clear that there's there is some potential here there are some major challenges we need to be very focused in the problems we address we need to make sure we're really engaging the full range of stakeholders public sector private sector civil society that we're aligning incentives and that we're being clear when we're doing advocacy for the long game or when we're looking for those those low hanging fruits where things can move forward maybe if I can ask each of you just to reflect if if you were able to say that the actions you think should be taken to support work in this area I know on our call we've got people who are involved in policy people from civil society a number of people involved in funding work wherever the actions you'd like people to to really explore and if I come to Natty first yes thanks well building up on what you said I think and what Peter said having clear incentives for each of the actors within the community is important I do agree with Peter that that that not only civil society as I said should be involved here we need to create incentives for everybody involved both government private sector and civil society I do believe that there's a there's a good a good idea in involving the global conversations and platforms that already exist like the open government partnership there there seem to be that it seems to be a good platform to bring together the conversation between all the actors and actually trying to create a commitment for two years which then you can held accountable you can be held accountable for so as far as having at least small commitments and go in step by step I do believe that global conversations are are a way to to move forward with any of the of the open data thematic priorities and I do believe that there's there is something to be learned out of this the experience that we've had with with this open up that on anti-corruption for the hemispheric program actually being super blunt and direct on what is being asked governments to do so having the guide building up as a framework for the conversation for 33 countries all together actually made sense so so having a clear a clear call a clear request it's not that there aren't any any more data sets that should be open but just to get the conversation going having a clear request it actually made perfect sense and allowed the conversation and the negotiations between these 33 countries to actually move forward rather quick so using some of those global processes and regional processes to move stuff forward Katie what's what's what's next for you yeah I mean I think in terms of what Nati articulated I would agree with all of that I would also build on the need to do more local collaboration like I think so much of this of what we're discussing really looks different in the different contexts so as well as engaging with these global processes looking at local change makers and local drivers of change and that might mean engaging more with the media or working with media to do data focused advocacy that could include working with local stakeholders like local companies as well as of course engaging with government and encouraging them where there's possible where it's possible if they're part of the OTP for example I totally agree with Nati I consider pursuing a commitment to release their land data but I also think it will involve doing more sort of active research like sometimes it just involves supporting different kinds of case studies or building evidence around the youth and utility and I mean I think sometimes that's why we're on taking ground is more we have evidence of people trying and using and creating change with these processes the more there is to hook on to in terms of advocating or asking for that data to be released in the future so the more we can support some of those case studies and some of that activity I mean I for different communities that are different levels of maturity in terms of using open data but for being able to access and use open data but the more we can sort of follow and learn from the more mature communities I think there's new learning to be had obviously but there's a lot of space to potentially garner new interest and new investment by taking that approach and by proposing new new ideas to at least start to pilot I think Peter's point that that perfection is the enemy of the good is an excellent one that sometimes you just have to sort of roll up your sleeves and say well what can we do will this be successful or not and sometimes it won't work but at least trying to pilot some of these initiatives and do some sort of action research and capture that and be able to share it back either regionally locally regionally or globally it's super powerful particularly striking they're starting with building on some of the media examples there's where the ones that came out in our online debate of where where there has been use of data that's having an impact and so building on some of those things and and doing that research and experimentation you describe offers us some ways forward Peter closing thoughts where were the ways forward for you you know well at both Katie and Natty make excellent points so I sort of double click on on all of those I had four ideas that I that I sort of put down despite all my bumbling around the field for so long I'm not sure still what good looks like I think it would be helpful if somebody I don't know who came up with what does good look like the second one is there's a real lack of exchange between government organizations that deal with land you know if you look at financial regulators they have very well advanced both in the south south south south to north around financial regulation even even around other areas education standards health standards it doesn't exist in land there is no international organization of land registers for example or ministers of land and I think that's a big hole because you don't exchange what is you know what works what why did it work what didn't work etc and I think there's a lot of value that could be could be put there I think an interesting angle for advocacy around land is on supply chain and I think as we see more and more people care about where stuff comes from where is it made how's it made and a lot of it has to come from somewhere on the earth's surface or on the on the maritime surface and so it's often those people buying leases for oil palm plantations or extractive purposes and others and I think that's if government is not reactive to pressure certainly I think some of the supply chain is being worked in that area but I think there could be more and then I think new corporate models for government government where government it's one thing to bash away to government for not having or opening up land but if they're not really able to do it and the models of financing them have proven not to work then it's sort of it's like flogging a dead horse you know you're not going to get forward so are there new corporate models where private sector can work with governments to help build those data sets that can benefit people and I think there are you know new examples Stefan Verholtz at GovLab in New York talks about data collaboratives and civic trust which I know Katie mentioned I think there's some interesting concepts that could be explored there which are sort of new to the land field but I certainly think could offer some real solution on how you get more official data in place fantastic well it only is left for me to say thank you to all our panelists who've given us a real tour through some of the opportunities some of the challenges nuances and ways forward for exploring open data land and anti-corruption as I said this is stage two of a three-part process so I'd really encourage people on landportal.info to find the write-up of our last dialogue I believe there'll be some sort of write-up and recording of this discussion and that will feed into further discussions as this is a theme that I know our colleagues at Land Portal have really been seeking to keep the dialogue moving forward on and seek to support action on advancing the kind of targeted focused action that can help us address corruption problems in land and really realize more secure tenure for for more people to support the development journey so thank you to all our panelists thank you to everyone who's putting questions to Neil who behind the scenes has kept us running and we will end our webinar there thank you all thank you very much here everybody bye everybody thank you bye bye and there's a brief survey you'll now be getting I think at the end of the webinar participants to respond to so please do take a take a response to that thank you