Institutional Frameworks, Policies, and Land Data: Insights from Monitoring Land Governance and Tenure Security in the Context of Sustainable Development Goals in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia

Abstract

Within the sustainable development goals (SDGs) framework, access to land, its governance, and tenure security play pivotal roles in fostering inclusive and sustainable development. The United Nations estimates that by 2050, Africa’s population will reach close to 2.5 billion. Moreover, the pressure exerted on African lands by climate change has significantly impacted productivity of arable land, thereby affecting agriculture—the continent’s most important sector. Therefore, effective management of land resources and protecting land rights of all citizens are now more than ever essential for attaining sustainable development and social stability. This research paper examines the critical role of land governance and tenure security in fostering sustainable development in Africa, a region facing rapid population growth and climate-related challenges. It analyses the institutional frameworks, policies, and land data availability in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia and how these factors intersect to enhance monitoring land governance and tenure security within the context of the sustainable development goals. The paper explores lessons learnt in these four countries, focusing on SDG indicators related to equitable access to land, secure land rights, and responsible land management practices.

1. Introduction

Land is a fundamental and essential asset that underpins the economic, social, and environmental well-being of societies across Africa. Indeed, land governance and tenure security are of critical importance in Africa, a region experiencing rapid population growth, urbanization, and economic development, all of which exert increasing pressures on land resources [1,2,3]. As countries strive to achieve the sustainable development goals (SDGs), particularly those relating to poverty eradication, eradicating hunger and ensuring food security, gender equality and the empowerment of women and girls, ensuring sustainable cities and communities, and sustaining life on land, the importance of effective land governance and secure land tenure has become increasingly evident [4].

Within the SDGs framework, access to land, its governance, and tenure security play pivotal roles in fostering inclusive and sustainable development, as land is a fundamental and essential asset that underpins the economic, social, and environmental well-being of societies across Africa [5]. However, Africa continues to face significant and persistent challenges in the effective management of land resources and the securing of land rights for all citizens, particularly in the context of rapid population growth, accelerating urbanization, the climate crisis, and dynamic economic development [6,7,8]. The SDGs offer a relatively comprehensive framework for monitoring land rights, enabling countries to leverage the power of quality evidence bases to enhance policies and institutional reforms for equitable land governance and secure tenure rights. By ensuring equitable land governance and secure land rights, governments stand a significantly heightened chance of achieving the following SDGs:

SDG 1—End poverty: Secure land rights empower individuals and communities, enabling them to access resources, generate income, and improve their livelihoods [9]. Land ownership can provide collateral for loans, facilitating access to finance and fostering economic opportunities [10].

SDG 2—End hunger: Secure land rights are crucial for food security [11]. Farmers with secure land tenure are more likely to invest in land improvement, adopt sustainable agricultural practices, and increase productivity, contributing to food production and reducing hunger [12].

SDG 5—Gender equality: Secure land rights promote gender equality by ensuring that women have equal access to land ownership and inheritance [13]. This strengthens women’s economic independence and empowers them to participate fully in decision-making processes related to land use and resource management [10].

SDG 11—Sustainable Cities and Communities: Secure land tenure promotes urban planning and development by providing clarity and stability in land ownership, reducing land disputes, and fostering sustainable urban growth [14].

SDG 13—Climate action: Secure land tenure incentivizes long-term investments in sustainable land management practices that build climate resilience [15].

SDG 15—Life on Land: Secure land tenure encourages responsible land management practices, mitigating environmental degradation, and protecting biodiversity [16].

Despite the clear socio-economic development dividends at stake and a relatively comprehensive monitoring framework, global monitoring of progress on land-related SDG indicators remains limited, with many countries struggling to effectively monitor and report on land governance and tenure security [9]. This gap in data and analysis persists even in regions where land governance challenges are most acute, such as Sub-Saharan Africa. While various studies have examined land tenure in individual African countries, comparative analyses of institutional frameworks, policies, and land data across multiple countries in this region remain scarce [9].

This paper aims to fill this gap by providing a comparative analysis of land governance and tenure security in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia, using both qualitative and quantitative data from the SDG framework. The study highlights lessons learned from these four countries in monitoring land governance and tenure security, offering insights into how institutional frameworks, policies, and data systems interact to influence tenure outcomes. By focusing on these countries’ efforts to monitor SDG indicators 1.4.2, 5.a.1, and 5.a.2, this paper contributes new evidence to the literature on land governance and tenure security and identifies best practices that can inform future policy interventions in other African contexts.

Context of Land Governance and Tenure Security in Sub-Saharan Africa

Land governance and tenure security are paramount in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), a region characterized by rapid population growth, urbanization, and dynamic economic development. Sub-Saharan Africa is an extremely diverse region, composed of low, lower-middle, upper-middle, and high-income countries—22 of which are fragile or conflict-affected—and 13 small states characterized by a small population, limited human capital, and a confined land area [17]. Today, sub-Saharan Africa faces several pressing challenges whose resolution significantly relies on sound land governance and secured tenure rights. These include:

-

Population Growth and Urbanization: The region’s population is projected to double by 2050, with significant urban growth. This demographic pressure increases demand for land and exacerbates competition over land resources [18].

-

Land Conflicts: Land disputes are common in (SSA), often arising from overlapping claims under customary and statutory tenure systems. These conflicts can escalate into violence, affecting social cohesion and stability [19].

-

Land Degradation and Climate Change: Unsustainable land use practices, combined with the impacts of climate change, lead to land degradation, reducing agricultural productivity and threatening food security [20].

-

Gender Inequality: Women, who are crucial contributors to agricultural production, often face discrimination in land ownership and access. Customary practices and legal constraints limit their land rights, affecting their economic empowerment and household welfare [21].

-

Abject Poverty: About 462 million people in the region are still living in extreme poverty in 2023 [17].

Land tenure systems in Sub-Saharan Africa are more often than not characterized by a complex interplay of customary and statutory frameworks [22]. Customary land tenure, rooted in traditional practices and social norms, governs most of the land use and ownership [23]. These systems often involve communal land ownership, with decisions made by traditional authorities or community assemblies [23]. In contrast, statutory land tenure is based on written laws and regulations, typically established by colonial powers or post-independence governments1. These systems often emphasize individual land ownership and registration, aiming to provide a more formal and secure land tenure framework. The co-existence of customary and statutory land tenure systems often creates challenges [24]. In response, innovative approaches are being explored to integrate customary land rights into the formal land administration system [25]. While traditional land tenure systems have often been criticized for their perceived inefficiencies, these systems actually provide important social and cultural benefits, ensuring land access for communities and upholding traditional values [26]. Sub-Saharan Africa faces a unique set of challenges and opportunities when it comes to land management, driven by historical, social, economic, and political factors [27].

In the context of Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia, the existing institutional frameworks, policies, and availability, access, and quality (or lack thereof) of land data provide valuable insights into the progress and challenges in achieving tenure security and sustainable land governance [5]. The experiences of these countries highlight the complexities of land governance and the need for a holistic, context-specific approach that considers local tenure systems, customary practices, and the unique socio-economic and political dynamics in each setting [5]. For instance, in Rwanda, the country-wide land registration programme has led to the assumption of high tenure security, but in reality, the country continues to face additional land-related challenges, such as high population density and fragmentation of landholdings [6]. Similarly, in Kenya, the devolution of land governance to county governments has introduced new complexities, with varying levels of capacity and coordination among different institutions [3]. In Zambia, the dual system of customary and statutory land tenure has resulted in overlapping claims and insecure tenure for many citizens, particularly vulnerable groups [9].

2. Methodology

This study follows a systematic mixed-methods approach to examine the institutional frameworks, policies, and land data availability across Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia, focusing on SDG indicators related to land governance and tenure security. This combination of qualitative insights from reports and capacity-building sessions, along with quantitative analysis from global databases and surveys, offers a well-rounded understanding of the institutional, technical, and data-related factors influencing land tenure security monitoring and progress in the selected countries. The methodology comprises five key steps:

(a)

Selection of Case Study Countries:

The four case study countries (Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia) were purposively selected based on the authors’ direct experience in supporting the technical capacity building of these countries’ national government agencies. The authors’ practical experience was drawn from projects directly implemented in these countries by UN-Habitat, the Global Land Tool Network (GLTN), and their partners, with a focus on institutionalize the monitoring of land governance and tenure security through enhanced and comparable data collection and management systems, in line with the provisions of monitoring SDG indicators 1.4.22, 5.a.13, and 5.a.24—as a pathway for policy review to ensure inclusive land governance and secure land tenure rights for all.

• (b) Review of Technical Reports

In the next step, the authors reviewed technical reports generated during capacity-building sessions in the respective countries. These reports provided critical insights into the challenges and opportunities in monitoring SDG land tenure security indicators, particularly SDG indicators 1.4.2, 5.a.1, and 5.a.2. The reports provide valuable context on the institutional readiness and land data management capabilities of the selected countries, thus enriching the study’s findings.

• (c) Quantitative Analysis of Global SDG Database

Further, quantitative analysis was conducted using data on SDG indicators 1.4.2, 5.a.1, and 5.a.2 from the Global SDG Indicators Database5 maintained by the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD). This step was essential for assessing the progress made by the selected countries in monitoring land tenure security.

• (d) Review of Existing Literature and Publications

A comprehensive literature review was conducted, including key publications on land governance and tenure security in the four countries. This review included a report by the Global Land Indicators Initiative (GLII), which focuses on countries’ preparedness for monitoring SDG indicator 1.4.26. providing broader context to the study. This literature provided a broader perspective on the monitoring systems and governance structures in the four countries, highlighting areas of progress and ongoing challenges.

• (e) Survey Data Analysis

The final step involved analyzing responses from a 2023 survey conducted by custodian agencies (UN-Habitat, FAO, and the World Bank) that gathered feedback from National Statistics Offices (NSOs) and SDG focal persons in 65 countries. This provided valuable insights into the interest, challenges, and opportunities related to land tenure security monitoring on a global scale, with reference to SDG indicators 1.4.2 and 5.a.1. This helped identify common themes and country-specific challenges in data collection and reporting against these indicators.

Rationale for Comparative Analysis of Selected Countries

(a)

Shared colonial experience:

Besides having been purposively selected, the four focus countries also share a colonial legacy that had a profound and lasting impact on land governance, overshadowing their pre-colonial history [28].

In the former British colonies of Kenya (1920–1963), Uganda (1894–1962), and Zambia (1888–1964), colonial policies consolidated land ownership and disrupted traditional systems of land governance [29]. This disruption was often achieved through the introduction of formal titling, private property rights, and the concentration of land in the hands of colonial administrators and European settlers [28,30]. In contrast, Rwanda, which was under German (1894–1918) and later Belgian (1919–1962) colonial rule, experienced a different set of land policies that emphasized centralized control and the marginalization of local decision making [29].

Despite these shared colonial legacies, the countries have since navigated the complexities of land governance in distinct ways. Kenya, for instance, has grappled with the legacy of a dual system of land tenure, with formal titling coexisting alongside customary systems [31]. Uganda, on the other hand, has sought to decentralize land administration, though the efficacy of these efforts has been questioned [29]. Zambia, meanwhile, has struggled to balance the demands of its rapidly growing population with the need to preserve communal land ownership [29]. In contrast, Rwanda has charted a more centralized path, with the government playing a dominant role in land management and the implementation of land reforms [32]. These reforms, which aimed to address land-related conflicts and promote equitable access, have had significant environmental and gender-related implications, serving as a model for other African nations grappling with similar challenges.

• (b) Regional Context and Collaboration:

As active participants in the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia have a unique opportunity to leverage their shared interests in eliminating trade barriers and boosting inter-country trade to foster regional collaboration and cross learning [33]. Through this comparative research, these countries can identify best practices and common challenges in land governance, paving the way for harmonized land policies that reduce regulatory barriers and enhance investment opportunities [34]. This collaborative approach not only supports regional integration but also promotes cohesive and sustainable land governance strategies. By addressing key land governance constraints, these countries can create a more stable and attractive environment for investors, boost intra-African trade, and drive the collective economic growth envisaged by the AfCFTA [35].

• (c) Shared Challenges and Opportunities:

Despite the variations in their historical and post-independence institutional contexts, Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia face common challenges related to rapid population growth, persistent land conflicts, gender inequality in land access and ownership, and the increasing existential threat of climate change [6,7,31,36].

As demonstrated in

Table 1. Selected demographic statistics for Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and Zambia.

Country	Population
	Total	Male (%)	Female (%)	Growth Rate (%)	Density	Rural (%)	Urban (%)
Kenya	47,564,296	49.5	50.5	2.2	82	68.8	31.2
Rwanda	13,246,394	48.5	51.5	2.3	501	72.1	27.9
Uganda	45,935,046	49.0	51.0	2.9	227	-	-
Zambia	19,610,769	49.0	51.0	3.4	26.1	60.0	40.0

Sources: Kenya Demographic Statistics: https://www.knbs.or.ke/#:~:text=Gender%20Distribution,gender%20composition%20of%20the%20population, accessed on 10 August 2024; Uganda Demographic Statistics: https://www.ubos.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/National-Population-and-Housing-Census-2024-Preliminary-Report.pdf, accessed on 10 August 2024; Rwanda Demographic Statistics: https://statistics.gov.rw/publication/Rwanda_population_2022, accessed on 10 August 2024; Zambia Demographic Statistics: https://www.ilo.org/resource/2022-census-population-and-housing, accessed on 10 August 2024.

, the demographic statistics for Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia reveal several shared trends:

Balanced Gender Distribution: All four countries exhibit a relatively balanced gender distribution, with females slightly outnumbering males in each case. In Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia, the percentage of females is around 50.5% to 51.5%, which is consistent across the board. This gender balance suggests that any policies or interventions related to land governance and tenure security will need to account for the near-equal distribution of males and females.

High Population Growth Rates: The population growth rates are relatively high across all four countries, with Zambia having the highest growth rate at 3.4%, followed by Uganda at 2.9%, Rwanda at 2.3%, and Kenya at 2.2%. These high growth rates indicate significant demographic pressure on land resources, which is a critical factor in land tenure security and governance. The shared high growth rates make these countries suitable for comparison, as they face similar challenges in managing expanding populations.

Urban-Rural Linkages: All four countries maintain a large proportion of their populations in rural areas. Rwanda has the highest rural population at 72.1%, followed by Kenya with 68.8% and Zambia with 60%. This demonstrates that rural land governance is especially relevant across these nations. At the same time, urbanization is progressing steadily, particularly in Kenya and Zambia, with significant urban populations that require policies balancing rural and urban land needs.

Population Density: Rwanda stands out with an exceptionally high population density of 501 people per square kilometre, compared to Kenya’s 82, Uganda’s 227, and Zambia’s much lower density of 26.1. Despite this variation, the overall trend of increasing population density due to growth rates is common. High-density areas exacerbate land scarcity and the competition for resources, adding another layer of complexity to land governance in all four countries.

These shared demographic trends—high population growth rates, rural-centric populations, balanced gender distributions, and growing urbanization—highlight the importance of a comparative study. All four countries face similar challenges concerning land tenure and governance, particularly in balancing the demands of rapidly growing populations with equitable land access and sustainable land management. If not sustainably addressed, these challenges have the potential to create pressure on land resources, exacerbate competition, and heighten the risk of conflicts, which can undermine social stability and economic development [37].

• (d) Diverse Approaches to Land Reform:

The diverse approaches to land reform and governance in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia provide a rich tapestry of policy responses to similar challenges. Rwanda’s comprehensive Land Tenure Regularization program has successfully demarcated and registered land parcels, significantly improving tenure security and reducing conflicts (UN-Habitat, 2021). Kenya has focused on digitizing land records through initiatives like the National Land Information Management System (NLIMS) dubbed Ardhisasa, enhancing transparency and accessibility in land administration. Zambia’s efforts to integrate customary and statutory land tenure systems aim to harmonize land governance and reduce conflicts between traditional authorities and formal institutions ([38]). Uganda’s approach involves managing the complexities of the mailo system while documenting customary land rights to provide secure tenure to a broader segment of the population ([39]). These varied strategies reflect the unique contexts and priorities of each country and offer a broad spectrum of policy responses that can be analyzed and adapted to address land governance challenges across the focus countries.

• (e) Learning from Successes and Failures:

A comparison of the land governance experiences—including the development of evidence bases for monitoring—of Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia allows for the identification of best practices and lessons learned from both successes and failures. Successful policies and reforms in one country can serve as models for others, providing valuable insights into what works and what does not. For instance, Rwanda’s success in land tenure regularization can offer lessons on how to implement similar programs in other contexts, while Kenya’s challenges in digitizing land records can highlight potential pitfalls to avoid [40]. This comparative analysis facilitates regional knowledge sharing and capacity building, enabling countries to learn from each other’s experiences and adapt successful strategies to their own contexts. By fostering a culture of continuous learning and improvement, this study contributes to the development of more effective and sustainable land governance frameworks across the region, ultimately enhancing tenure security, promoting equitable access to land, and supporting the broader goals of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA).

This research paper examines the institutional frameworks, policies, and the availability, quality, and accessibility of land governance and tenure security data in four SSA countries—Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia—leveraging the extensive experience by the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat), the Global Land Tool Network (GLTN), and partners in promoting good land governance and secure land rights to derive lessons and insights on the challenges and opportunities in monitoring land governance and tenure security in the context of the SDGs.

3. Results

3.1. Overview of Historical Context of Land Governance in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda and Zambia

3.1.1. Kenya

In Kenya, the colonial legacy of land expropriation and the establishment of settler farms resulted in significant land inequality and disputes that continue to impact land governance today. During the colonial period, large tracts of fertile land were appropriated by European settlers, displacing indigenous communities to less fertile areas. Post-independence efforts to address these injustices, such as land redistribution and settlement schemes, have had mixed success and often led to further conflicts [41]. The persistence of these historical grievances underpins many of the current challenges in land governance. Key among the manifestations of ineffective land governance include gross disparities in land ownership, gender, and transgenerational discrimination in succession, transfer of land, and the exclusion of women in land decision-making processes [42].

3.1.2. Rwanda

Rwanda’s land governance landscape has been profoundly shaped by the events surrounding the 1994 genocide, which resulted in the destruction of land records and large-scale population displacements, further intensifying the preexisting challenges associated with land tenure insecurity [6]. Post genocide, the Rwandan government implemented significant land reforms to address these issues, including the land tenure regularization (LTR) program7, which aimed to demarcate and register all land parcels [6]. This effort has been largely successful, significantly improving tenure security and reducing conflicts over land [43,44]. However, the program faced numerous challenges, with continued land claims and disputes attributed to the manner in which land-related matters were handled during the emergency and early recovery periods of the post-conflict era, particularly in the context of land sharing initiatives and Imidugudu [45].

3.1.3. Uganda

The precolonial land governance systems in Uganda were largely decentralized, with local communities holding significant autonomy in administering land resources [46]. These systems often incorporated holistic approaches to natural resource management, where land was viewed as a communal asset to be shared and utilized by the people. [47]. However, the colonial and post-colonial governance structures introduced in Uganda significantly altered these traditional land management practices, leading to a centralization of power and the marginalization of local communities [48]. Currently, Uganda’s land governance landscape is marked by a complex dual tenure system, a legacy of the colonial era [49]. The introduction of the mailo land tenure system in central Uganda, where land is held in perpetuity by private individuals, often chiefs, has created a web of overlapping rights between landlords and tenants [50]. In the post-independence era, land reforms aimed at addressing these issues have faced resistance and met with varying degrees of success [51]. Recent efforts have focused on formalizing land rights and improving land administration to enhance tenure security and reduce conflicts [30].

3.1.4. Zambia

In Zambia, the history of land governance is marked by the dual land tenure system introduced during the colonial period, which distinguished between state land (formerly crown land) and customary land [52]. State land, primarily in urban areas, is governed by statutory law, while customary land, mostly in rural areas, is managed according to traditional practices [38]. This dual system has often led to conflicts and inconsistencies in land administration. Post independence, Zambia has struggled to integrate these systems effectively, leading to ongoing challenges in land tenure security and equitable land distribution [53]. Some of the key manifestations of a dysfunctional land governance system include inequalities between landholders of customary and state land [42]. Moreover, urban land access is characterized by expensive, timeous, and bureaucratic processes, while rural land access is based on traditional practices as espoused by each ethnic group. Both these forms of access in their current state are viewed as discriminatory to women, youth, and other vulnerable groups [38].

Considering the historical context and unique aspects of land governance in the four countries, it is critical to account for the evolution and dynamics of their land administration and management systems through robust and transparent evidence bases. This approach is essential for achieving sustainable development, social stability, and economic growth.

3.2. Importance of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in Addressing Land Governance and Tenure Security

The sustainable development goals (SDGs), by placing a significant emphasis on the need for secure land tenure and effective land governance as essential components of sustainable development [5], provide a crucial pathway for addressing land governance and tenure security challenges, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa [27]. By setting specific targets and indicators related to land tenure, the SDGs have provided a relatively comprehensive framework for monitoring progress and holding governments accountable for implementing reforms (Kelm et al., 2021). This global commitment has spurred initiatives to improve land governance, promote equitable access to land, and enhance the security of land tenure rights [54].

Under SDG indicator 1.4.2, for instance, countries are encouraged to document all legally recognized land tenure rights as well as unpack citizens’ perceptions of all legitimate rights, ensuring that all landholders, particularly women, and youth, among other marginalized groups, enjoy the full benefits of rights along the continuum of land rights [5]. Similarly, SDG 5.a.1 focuses on eliminating gender disparities in agricultural land ownership, promoting reforms that grant women equal rights to land and other economic resources [5]. Additionally, SDG indicator 5.a.2 mandates the interrogation of the extent to which countries—through their statutory and customary laws—provide guarantees for gender equality in access, ownership, and/or control over land [3].

By aligning national and subnational policies and programs with the SDGs, countries can leverage global commitments and access technical and financial support to strengthen land tenure security, improve land administration, and promote sustainable land use [7]. Specifically, the SDGs highlight the need to secure land rights for all, ensure equal access to land for women and men, and promote responsible land-based investments that respect the rights of local communities [7]. To achieve these goals, countries must invest in robust data infrastructure, foster inclusive land governance mechanisms, and implement comprehensive institutional reforms that address the unique challenges faced by each context [9].

3.3. Progress in Monitoring Land Governance & Tenure Security in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia: SDG Indicators 1.4.2, 5.a.1 and 5.a.2

As regards SDG Indicator 1.4.2, the focus is on assessing the proportion of total adult population with secure tenure rights to land, (a) with legally recognized documentation, and (b) who perceive their rights to land as secure, by sex and type of tenure. According to

Table 2. Country Reporting Status on SDG indicators 1.4.2, 5.a.1 and 5.a.2.

Country	SDG Indicators on Land Governance and Tenure Security
	1.4.2 (a) (%)	1.4.2 (b) (%)	5.a.1 (a) (%)			5.a.1 (b) (%)	5.a.2 (Score)
			Male	Female	Total
Kenya	-	-	48.79	45.32	46.84	54.46	5
Rwanda	85.80	96.90	55.74	50.33	52.72	53.32	6
Uganda	8.00	91.90	52.00	30.40	40.80	38.70	5
Zambia	10.30	-	-	-	-	-	-

Source: SDG Global Database8.

, Kenya has not yet reported official data on this indicator.

In Rwanda, 85.8% of adults are estimated to have legally recognized documentation (1.4.2 (a)), indicating strong formalization of land rights, in tandem with Rwanda’s land tenure regularization program (LTR). An estimated 96.9% of landholders in Rwanda feel secure in their land tenure (1.4.2 (b)), suggesting that the vast majority of people are confident in their land rights.

On the other hand, in Uganda, only 8% of adults are estimated to have legally recognized documentation (1.4.2 (a)), highlighting a significant gap in formal land ownership/holding. This is in tandem with Uganda’s customary tenure prevalence, constituting up to 80% of total land holding. However, an estimated 91.9% of the adult population in Uganda feel secure in their tenure (1.4.2 (b)), which shows a strong perception of land security despite the lack of formal documentation.

In Zambia, only 10.3% of the population has legally recognized documentation (1.4.2 (a)), but no data is available for perceived tenure security (1.4.2 (b)), making it challenging to comprehensively assess the effectiveness of formal documentation in promoting a sense of land tenure security.

For SDG Indicator 5.a.19, the focus is on assessing (a) proportion of total agricultural population with ownership or secure rights over agricultural land, by sex; and (b) share of women among owners or rights-bearers of agricultural land, by type of tenure (FAO 2024). According to Table 2 above, in Kenya, an estimated 48.79% of men and 45.32% of women in the total agricultural population own or have secure rights over agricultural land. The gap between male and female land ownership is not large, but men still hold a slightly higher share. The overall total is 46.84%, reflecting moderate gender equality in land ownership, with 54.46% being the share of women among owners or tights-bearers of agricultural land.

In Rwanda, an estimated 55.74% of men and 50.33% of women in the total agricultural population own or have secure rights over agricultural land, indicating a more substantial gender disparity compared to Kenya. The total ownership percentage is 52.72% in Rwanda, showing that most of the agricultural land is owned by men, but women have relatively strong access.

In Uganda, 52% of men and 30.4% of women of the total agricultural population own or have secure rights over agricultural land, revealing a significant gender gap. The overall land ownership tenure security over agricultural land in Uganda is 40.8%, with men dominating ownership/tenure security over agricultural land.

In Zambia, no data are available for land ownership under this indicator, limiting any analysis for gender equality in ownership or tenure security over agricultural land.

For SDG Indicator 5.a.210, the focus is on measuring the proportion of countries where the legal framework (including customary law) guarantees women’s equal rights to land ownership and/or control. At the national level, it ‘measures’ the extent to which the legal and policy framework protects women’s land rights against the six proxies defined for monitoring SDG indicator 5.a.2.

The six proxies are:

Proxy A: Joint registration of land is compulsory or encouraged through economic incentives

Proxy B: Compulsory spousal consent for land transactions

Proxy C: Women’s and girls’ equal inheritance rights

Proxy D: Allocation of financial resources to increase women’s ownership and control over land

Proxy E: In legal systems that recognize customary land tenure, the existence of explicit protection of the land rights of women

Proxy F: Mandatory quotas for women’s participation in land management and administration institutions.

According to the number of proxies identified, countries are classified in a band system ranging from 1 = No evidence to 6 = Highest levels of guarantees.

For this indicator, Kenya scores 5 out of 6, indicating that the legal framework is fairly strong in providing equal land rights for women. Rwanda scores 6, reflecting the highest possible score, meaning its legal framework is highly supportive of women’s land rights. Uganda scores 5, suggesting the legal framework supports women’s land rights, but there might be areas for improvement. For Zambia, no official data are available, so the strength of the legal framework concerning women’s land rights was not assessed.

Overall, Rwanda shows the strongest performance in terms of both legally recognized documentation and perceived land tenure security (SDG indicator 1.4.2), as well as the highest gender parity in land ownership (SDG indicator 5.a.1) and the strongest legal framework supporting women’s land rights (SDG indicator 5.a.2).

Kenya demonstrates relatively balanced gender equality in agricultural land ownership or tenure security, as well as strong evidence of legal frameworks guaranteeing women’s land rights, but lacks data for SDG 1.4.2, making it hard to assess the broader context of land tenure security.

Uganda has significant gaps in gender equality in land ownership, with a large disparity between men and women, despite high perceived tenure security. The legal framework is supportive of women’s land rights, but implementation may be lagging.

Finally, Zambia has very limited data, with only 10.3% having legally recognized land documentation and no available data on perceived tenure security, nor on agricultural land ownership and tenure security by gender, nor the strength of the legal framework supporting women’s land rights.

For countries like Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia, having strong legal and policy frameworks on land and fit-for-purpose institutional systems for administering land rights is a critical foundation. However, effective land governance requires more than just good laws and institutions. These elements must work in tandem with high-quality, comprehensive, and ‘up-to-technology’ data within a structured framework for monitoring and reporting to ensure evidence-based improvements in land tenure security.

By addressing land governance and tenure security within the SDG framework, countries, particularly those in Sub-Saharan Africa, can leverage international support, share best practices, and adopt innovative approaches that unlock the profound social, economic, and environmental dividends of inclusive land governance and secure land tenure rights [7,55]. This, in turn, contributes to broader development goals such as poverty reduction, food security, gender equality, sustainable urbanization, and environmental sustainability [3].

3.4. Institutional Frameworks and Policies

The institutional frameworks and policies for land governance and tenure security across Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia show considerable variation, as summarized in

Table 3. Legal and Institutional Frameworks, and Policies for Land Governance and Tenure Security in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia.

Country	Legal Framework	Key Institutions	Key Policies/Regulations	Challenges	Innovations/Reforms
Kenya	Constitution of Kenya 2010,	- Ministry of Lands, Public Works, Housing, and Urban Development - National Land Commission (NLC) - County governments, district and community land boards	National Land Use Policy (2017); Community Land Act (2016); Land Act 2012; Land Registration Act 2012; National Land Commission Act 2012; Environment and Land Court Act 2011; National Land Policy 2009.	- Harmonizing formal and customary systems - Tenure insecurity and land disputes - Inadequate land records - Marginalized groups affected by tenure insecurity	- National Land Information Management System (NLIMS) - Ongoing digitization of land records - National Land Use Policy (2017)
Rwanda	Constitution (2003); Law governing lands 2013; Organic Land Law 2005	Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority (RLMUA); Ministry of Environment; Land commission; district land bureaus; sector land management offices and communities; offices or registry of titles, and abunzi (land mediators).	- National Land Policy (2004)	- Challenges integrating customary and formal systems - Patriarchal norms limit women’s ability to claim land rights	- Comprehensive land titling program - Co-ownership requirement for spouses - Gender-equality measures in land administration
Uganda	Constitution of Uganda 1995;	Ministry of Lands, Housing, and Urban Development (MLHUD); Uganda Land Commission; District land boards and land committees at various levels	- National Land Policy (2013) - Physical Planning Act (2010) - Land Use Policy 2007 - Land Act (1998) - Public Lands Act (1969)	- Tenure insecurity for marginalized groups - Inadequate harmonization of formal and informal governance systems	- District-level Land Boards - Ongoing decentralization of land administration - Integration of customary land records in the national land information system.
Zambia	Constitution (1991, rev. 2016)	- Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources - Traditional Leaders (Chiefs, Chieftainesses)	- Land Deeds Registry Act 2010 - Land Act (1995) - Land Survey Act (1995) - Housing Act (1975) -Town & country planning Act (1971) - Agricultural Land Act (1960).	- Lack of transparency and accountability in customary land governance. - Challenges balancing statutory and customary systems	- Application of fit-for-purpose land administration technologies - Customary land reforms to improve transparency and accountability

. Kenya’s legal framework, strengthened by the 2010 Constitution and subsequent policies such as the Land Act (2012) and the Community Land Act (2016), emphasizes the importance of integrating land use planning into national development strategies. However, Kenya still faces significant challenges in harmonizing formal and customary land systems and addressing tenure insecurity, particularly for women and marginalized groups [42]. Innovations such as the national land information management system (NLIMS), dubbed ardhisasa, aim to address these challenges through improved land records management [40].

In Rwanda, the government’s land governance efforts are built upon a comprehensive legal framework that includes the Land Policy of 2004 and the Land Law of 2013. Following the 1994 genocide, Rwanda has implemented a successful land titling program—the Land Tenure Regularization Program (LTRP), which includes measures to formalize property ownership across the country [56]. However, integrating customary land rights with the formal system has proven difficult, particularly in rural areas where traditional norms still dominate land use and ownership patterns [57], as well as the cost of registration being considered costly. While the constitutional and policy framework is strong, the actual implementation and impact on the lived experiences of rural women suggest a more complex reality, as patriarchal attitudes and unequal power dynamics within households continue to limit women’s ability to claim their land rights in practice [56].

Uganda’s land governance system is characterized by the recognition of four land tenure systems—customary, freehold, leasehold, and mailo—through its 1995 Constitution and the Land Act of 1998. This decentralized approach, involving district land boards, has attempted to balance local land management with national policy goals [58]. However, persistent issues with tenure insecurity, particularly for marginalized groups, and the lack of harmonization between formal and traditional governance systems highlight the need for further reforms in Uganda’s land administration framework [29]. These challenges underscore the complexity of integrating diverse land tenure systems within Uganda’s evolving land governance framework.

Zambia’s land governance system is dominated by customary land tenure, with traditional leaders such as chiefs and chieftainesses playing a central role in rural land administration. The Zambian Constitution and the Land Act of 1995 recognize customary tenure, but efforts to integrate customary and statutory systems remain challenging [59].

The government’s exploration of fit-for-purpose technologies in land administration aims to address these challenges by providing more transparent and accountable systems for land management [5].

3.5. Land Governance and Tenure Security Data Availability, Accessibility, and Quality

The availability, accessibility, and quality of land governance and tenure security data vary significantly across the four countries studied. Recent years have seen notable improvements, driven by increased awareness of the importance of monitoring land rights and the adoption of technological advancements [38,39,60,61,62]. Stakeholders now better understand the critical role of accurate land data in promoting equitable land governance. Technologies such as mobile data collection, geographic information systems (GIS), remote sensing, and digital land registries have enhanced the accuracy, accessibility, and comprehensiveness of land data, which is vital for policy decisions, resolving disputes, and ensuring secure land tenure [63].

Despite these advancements, the focus on computerizing land information systems has mainly benefited formal land tenure arrangements, often neglecting informal social tenure systems [5]. This gap has led to the use of community-generated information to support land administration [64]. While technology cannot solve all land administration challenges, it offers effective means to manage land transactions, provide digital documentation for informal land markets, and reduce inefficiencies in land systems [65,66,67,68].

3.5.1. Data Availability

Table 4. Availability of Land Governance and Tenure Security Data in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia.

Country	Key Survey Data Sources	Key Administrative Data Sources	Data Challenges	Innovations/Reforms
Kenya	- Kenya Continuous Household Survey (KCHS) - Kenya Demographic and Health Survey (KDHS) - Kenya Population and Housing Census - Kenya Integrated Household Budget Survey (KIHBS) - Kenya National Housing Survey (KNHS)	- National Land Information Management System (NLIMS) dubbed ArdhiSasa. - Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock development	- Incomplete land data records. - Gaps in data disaggregation for SDG land governance and tenure indicators - Insufficient automation of statistical systems. - Insufficient capacity and resources of land institutions hinder the effective maintenance and updating of the land information system.	- Integration of SDG land indicators into key national surveys - Data disaggregation by sex, type of tenure, age, residence (rural vs. urban), etc. - Ongoing digitization of land records by the Ministry of Lands, Public Works, Housing, and Urban Development. - Ongoing collaboration with custodians of SDG land governance and tenure indicators—the World Bank, FAO, and UN-Habitat.
Rwanda	- Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey (EICV) - Agricultural Household Survey (AHS) - Rwanda Demographic and Health Survey (RDHS)	- National land register (Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority—RLMUA) - Ministry of Agriculture and Animal Resources (MINAGRI)	- Integration of customary land data into the formal system	- Routine updates of national land register - High-quality survey integration with SDG land governance and tenure indicators - Data disaggregation by age, sex, residence (rural/urban), province, etc. - Ongoing collaboration with custodians of SDG land governance and tenure indicators—the World Bank, FAO, and UN-Habitat.
Uganda	- Uganda Demographic and Health Survey (UDHS) - Uganda National Household Survey (UNHS) - National Service Delivery Survey (NSDS) - Uganda National Panel Survey (UNPS) - Annual Agricultural Survey (AAS) - Uganda Household Integrated Survey - The 50 × 2030 Initiative	- National Land Information System (LIS) of the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development (MLHUD).	- Insufficient detail in SDG land tenure indicators’ reporting - Incomplete data on customary tenure	- Adoption of customized modules for data collection on SDG land tenure indicators 1.4.2 & 5.a.1 - Enhanced data disaggregation—by age, sex, residence (rural/urban), type of tenure etc. - Ongoing computerization of over 500,000 land records and recordation in the LIS. - Integration of customary land tenure data in the national Land information System (LIS) - Ongoing collaboration with custodians of SDG land governance and tenure indicators—the World Bank, FAO, and UN-Habitat.
Zambia	- Crop Forecasting Survey (CFS) - Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) - Labor Force Survey (LFS) - Census of Population and Housing - Living Conditions Monitoring Survey (LCMS) - Rural Agricultural Livelihood Survey (RALS)	- Zambia Integrated Land Administration System (ZILAS) - Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources (MLNR) - Ministry for Infrastructure, Housing and Urban Development - Ministry of Local Government and Rural Development	- Fragmented land registration systems - Inadequate integration of customary and statutory tenure systems	- Transition from ZILMIS to ZILAS for integrated land management data. - Adoption of customized modules for data collection on SDG land tenure indicators 1.4.2 & 5.a.1 - Data disaggregation by sex, type of tenure, age, province etc. - Ongoing collaboration with custodians of SDG land governance and tenure indicators—the World Bank, FAO, and UN-Habitat.

highlights the data landscape for availability of land governance and tenure security data in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia, focusing on key survey data, administrative data sources, challenges, and innovations/reforms aimed at improving data systems.

Kenya has made progress in digitizing its land records through the national land information management system (ArdhiSasa11) and integrating SDG indicators into subsequent rounds of national statistical surveys [62]. This is geared towards addressing the persistent challenges of incomplete land records and insufficient disaggregation of data, particularly for SDG land indicators [62]. Ongoing digitization efforts and improved data disaggregation by sex, age, tenure, and residence are promising reforms to bridge existing gaps.

Rwanda has robust data systems, with surveys such as the Integrated Household Living Conditions Survey (EICV) and a comprehensive national land register maintained by the Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority (RLMUA) [61]. Despite these strengths, there remain challenges regarding the integration of customary land data into formal systems. Routine updates of the land register and high-quality survey integration with SDG land indicators demonstrate the country’s commitment to improving data availability [61].

Uganda is working on enhancing its land data systems through a digital national land information system (LIS) and the computerization of land records. However, gaps remain in the detail of SDG land indicator reporting and the integration of customary tenure data into the LIS. The adoption of customized modules for SDG indicators and the ongoing digitization of over 500,000 land records (including on customary tenure) represent important steps toward building a more comprehensive land governance data system [39].

Zambia faces challenges with fragmented land registration systems and insufficient integration between customary and statutory land tenure data ([38]). The country’s transition from the Zambia Integrated Land Management Information System (ZILMIS) to the more advanced Zambia Integrated Land Administration System (ZILAS) aims to streamline land management data. Additionally, Zambia is adopting customized modules for SDG land indicators’ data collection, hence improving data disaggregation and addressing key data gaps [38].

3.5.2. Data Quality

In this context, data quality is assessed based on metrics such as national coverage, and levels of disaggregation by sex, type of tenure—key components for reporting against SDG indicators 1.4.2 and 5.a.1.

Table 5. Quality of Land Governance and Tenure security Data in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia.

Country	Key Survey Data Quality Metrics	Administrative Data Systems	Data Quality Challenges	Innovations/Reforms
Kenya	- High data quality standards through Kenya National Quality Assurance Framework (KeSQAF) - National coverage, disaggregation by sex and tenure type.	- National Land Information System (ArdhiSasa), of the Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development. - Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock Development	- Initial challenges in operationalizing ArdhiSasa at scale. - Incomplete data on customary and informal tenure systems.	- Capacity-building by Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) through Technical Working Committees (TWCs) - Ongoing digitization of land records.
Rwanda	- Comprehensive coverage and disaggregation by sex, age, and tenure. - High-quality, real-time updates via Land Administration Information System (LAIS) and Rwanda Geodetic Network (RGN). - National coverage, disaggregation by sex and tenure type.	- Land Administration Information System (LAIS) - Rwanda Geodetic Network (RGN)	- Integration of customary land data.	- Routine updates of the national land register. - High standards in data collection for surveys and administrative data.
Uganda	- Improvements in agricultural land statistics through 50 × 2030 Initiative. - Data disaggregation improving to include coverage on key aspects such as perceptions of tenure security.	- National Land Information System (LIS) - MLHUD’s digitization efforts of land records, including on customary land tenure.	- Initial scope and framing of survey questions limit data comprehensiveness. - Limited data on customary land tenure data	- Adoption of a customized module for SDG indicators 1.4.2 and 5.a.1. - Ongoing digitization of over 500,000 land records, with intent to integrate customary land tenure records.
Zambia	- High standards for transparency and accountability in data handling, supported by legislative framework (e.g., Statistics Act, Data Protection Act). - National coverage, disaggregated by sex and tenure.	- Zambia Integrated Land Administration System (ZILAS)	- Inconsistent application of land tenure data for policy formulation. - Data gaps in integrating customary and statutory data systems.	- Leveraging GIS technology in ZILAS for land mapping. - Reforms to improve production and sharing of land data. - Adoption of a customized module for SDG indicators 1.4.2 and 5.a.1.

above provides a summary of the data quality landscape for land governance and tenure security across Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia. Each country has developed mechanisms to ensure accurate and comprehensive data yet faces distinct challenges and innovations:

Kenya has strong data quality standards through its National Quality Assurance Framework (KeSQAF)12, along with the implementation of Quality Management Systems (QMS)13 and the 2019/20–2022/23 Kenya Strategy for the Development of Statistics (KSDS)14 [62]. These efforts are further bolstered by capacity-building initiatives, technical assistance missions from custodian agencies of SDG land indicators 1.4.2 and 5.a.1, and ongoing reviews and updates of data collection tools [62]. As the coordinator of the National Statistics System (NSS), KNBS works closely with various ministries and state agencies to standardize and validate data through Technical Working Committees (TWCs) [62]. However, it still faces challenges in fully operationalizing its land information system, particularly for informal tenure systems. Ongoing digitization and capacity-building initiatives are key steps toward resolving these issues.

Rwanda boasts comprehensive land data coverage with real-time updates through its advanced systems—the Land Administration Information System (LAIS)15, and the Rwanda Geodetic Network (RGN)16 administered by the Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority (RLMUA)17 [61]. Moreover, data collection standards and quality control mechanisms are in place as supported by the National Quality Assurance Framework18 [61]. Hence, the available official survey and administrative data meet all key considerations, including national coverage and disaggregation by sex and tenure type. Rwanda’s high-quality data systems serve as a model for other nations.

In Uganda, the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) oversees the quality of data collection in various national survey initiatives, including the 50 × 2030 Initiative [39]. However, there are noted limitations in the scope, framing of questions, and indicator definitions, which have previously limited the comprehensiveness of the collected data [39]. Despite these challenges, Uganda has significantly improved the quality of its agricultural statistics, particularly for SDG indicator 5.a.1, through rigorous training and partnerships, notably with the 50 × 2030 Initiative. This progress contributed to Uganda receiving the highest score in East Africa on the World Bank’s Statistical Performance Indicators (50 × 2030 Initiative, 2022). Collaborative efforts, like the 50 × 2030 Initiative and ongoing digitization of land records, are crucial steps forward.

The Zambia Statistics Agency (ZamStats) ensures high data quality through a robust legislative framework such as the Statistics Act of 2018, the Electronic Government Act No. 41 of 2021, and the Data Protection Act No. 3 of 2021 [38], but challenges persist in using the collected data consistently for policy making. The adoption of the Zambia Integrated Land Administration System (ZILAS) by the Ministry of Lands and Natural Resources (MLNR) is an important reform aimed at improving the quality of land data by mandating the collection of data disaggregated by gender, age, and other key metrics [69]. Additionally, ZILAS leverages digital technologies, such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), to map land and resource locations and manage land ownership and transactions [69].

3.5.3. Data Accessibility

Table 6. Accessibility of Land Governance and Tenure Security Data in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia.

Country	Key Data Accessibility Mechanisms	Key Challenges	Key Innovations and Reforms
Kenya	- Ardhisasa platform (Kenya’s Land Information Management System) - KNBS data portals for land tenure data	- Incomplete digitization of land records through Ardhisasa - Some datasets require formal requests to KNBS for access	- Ongoing digitization of land records for full regional coverage - Enhanced access through the Ardhisasa platform once fully operational
Rwanda	- NISR provides public access to survey datasets (EICV, AHS, SAS) - RLMUA’s Land Administration Information System (LAIS) - IREMBO platform for land transactions	- Some administrative data integration challenges between units - Limited integration of customary land data	- Digitization of land records - Online applications for land transactions via IREMBO
Uganda	- UBOS provides access to datasets through its website and formal requests - Collaboration between UBOS and MLHUD on land data	- Data dissemination could be more timely - Direct accessibility remains limited for some key stakeholders	- Enhanced collaboration between stakeholders to improve data use for land governance and tenure monitoring
Zambia	- National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) portal - ZamStats portal for statistical data on land - ZILAS web-based system	- Accessibility of customary land data remains low - Fragmentation of land data between statutory and customary systems	- Transition from ZILMIS to ZILAS for better accessibility of land data - National Land Titling Programme to improve first registration documentation

below outlines the current mechanisms for accessing land data in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia, along with the challenges they face and the innovations/reforms they are implementing to improve data accessibility.

Kenya has made significant strides with the launch of the Ardhisasa platform, its land information system (LIS), which aims to digitize land records for easier public access. Although still in its early stages, this online platform is designed to digitize and manage land records, enhancing public and stakeholder access to data on land ownership, use, and tenure (MoLPP, 2021). The ongoing digitization aims to cover all regions, thereby improving the timeliness, accuracy, and reliability of land data. Additionally, the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS) provides partial open access to land tenure data through its data Portals19 [62].

Rwanda offers a high level of accessibility through the National Institute of Statistics of Rwanda’s (NISR’s) public survey datasets and the IREMBO platform for land transactions [61]. Moreover, the Rwanda Land Management and Use Authority (RLMUA) data systems (e.g., Land Administration Information System) are designed to be accessible to various stakeholders, including government agencies and the public [61]. Additionally, efforts to digitize land records and integrate data from different administrative units enhance data accessibility. The IREMBO20 platform facilitates online applications for land transactions, ensuring streamlined data collection and accessibility [61].

Uganda provides data accessibility through the Uganda Bureau of Statistics (UBOS) website, though more timely dissemination is needed to improve accessibility ([39]). Collaborative efforts between UBOS, MLHUD, and other stakeholders are key to enhancing data use for land governance [39].

Accessibility of land data in Zambia is challenged by the existing land information infrastructure. Currently, the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) portal and the Zambian Statistical Agency’s portal provide access to spatial and statistical data, including on land ownership and use [38]. The transition from the Zambia Integrated Land Management and Information System (ZILMIS) to the new Zambia Integrated Land Administration System (ZILAS) aims to provide a more robust and secure web-based government service, addressing accessibility issues [38]. The National Land Titling Programme (NLTP) has developed systems for creating first registration documents, survey diagrams, offer letters, and certificates of titles [38]. However, integrating customary land data into the national data system remains a significant challenge, implying the low accessibility of customary records [38].

4. Discussion

This study offers valuable insights and key lessons into the institutional frameworks, policies, and availability, accessibility, and quality of land governance and tenure security data in Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia. It underscores the intersectionality of these elements, highlighting the critical challenges and significant potential in creating a feedback loop where quality, transparent, and timely data inform policy and institutional reforms. This cycle is essential, as sound policies and strengthened institutions foster new data frontiers for continuous monitoring and improvement [7,63]. Across these countries, the availability and quality of land data, although advancing, remain a significant constraint, hindering effective monitoring and evidence-based policymaking. Studies from other countries, such as Ghana and Tanzania, have similarly found that data deficiencies weaken institutional capacity for secure land tenure [23,70], further underscoring the need for a coordinated approach to land administration that accounts for the complexities of land tenure systems, particularly amidst rapid urbanization, climatic changes, and socio-economic development [64].

4.1. Limitations of the Study

There are some methodological limitations associated with this study. While numerous countries continue to receive technical capacity-building support from UN-Habitat, GLTN, and their partners over the years, this study focuses on four anglophone countries in East and Southern Africa. This selection introduces a geographical and linguistic bias, as the chosen countries—Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia—were prioritized due to the depth and comprehensiveness of the support they received between 2020 and 2024. During this period, these countries underwent multiple rounds of training for national land and data officials, resulting in the establishment of robust communities of practice on land governance monitoring.

This capacity-strengthening support to the four countries led to several key outcomes: consolidation of pre-existing official data for possible reporting progress against SDG indicators 1.4.2 and 5.a.1, customization of the global joint methodology21 for monitoring these indicators to fit national contexts, and the national commitment to integrate the methodology into relevant upcoming rounds of national surveys and censuses for collection of current, nationally relevant data on land tenure security [38,39,61,62]. Furthermore, the national assessment reports from these capacity-building efforts were more advanced in these countries, providing a solid foundation for this study’s reference points.

Despite the in-depth analysis possible through this focused selection, the study’s scope is limited by its exclusion of francophone, lusophone, and other regions that also face unique and/or similar challenges [70]. Thus, while valuable, these findings may not fully capture the diversity of experiences in other parts of Africa or beyond, particularly where capacity-building efforts are less advanced or implemented later.

4.2. Lessons Learned

This study underscores that a strong legal and policy framework is the bedrock of land governance. Countries with robust legal and policy frameworks, such as Rwanda, demonstrate the importance of clear, enforceable laws that define land rights, regulate land use, and ensure equitable access to land. These frameworks often outline specific protections for vulnerable groups, including women, and establish the mechanisms for land titling, registration, and dispute resolution. Similar findings in Ethiopia, Ghana, and Mozambique highlight how enforceable legal frameworks are crucial for safeguarding land rights and mitigating disputes [23,71]. However, even the best frameworks require reliable data to function effectively, as legal and policy provisions must be continuously informed by evidence to measure system performance in terms of equity, efficiency, and perceived security [60]. For instance (from Table 2), while Kenya has a strong legal foundation for women’s land rights (5/6 score in SDG indicator 5.a.2), the absence of comprehensive land tenure data (SDG indicator 1.4.2) limits the ability to evaluate the framework’s impact and identify gaps. Rwanda, with its high score in both legal and institutional frameworks, shows that these frameworks perform best when backed by strong data, allowing for constant adjustments and improvements.

Institutional frameworks and capacity are equally important to ensure an efficient land administration and enforcement environment [5]. Countries must have capable administrative bodies to manage land registration, enforce land rights, and resolve disputes. These institutions are essential for operationalizing legal frameworks and translating policies into on-the-ground action. Nonetheless, institutions cannot function effectively without structured data and reporting frameworks. Institutions like national land commissions, survey departments, and local land registries need reliable data to track progress, identify bottlenecks, and adjust operational strategies. Uganda, for example (from Table 2), has a significant institutional presence in land governance, but without extensive documentation data (only 8% of adults have legally documented rights), institutions cannot fully assess the effectiveness of interventions regarding land registration nor efficiently target areas needing improvement [57]. In Zambia, where only 10.3% of the adult population has documented land rights but lacks data on the other complementary indicators (5.a.1, and 5.a.2), institutions would be working with incomplete datasets, which hinders efforts to ensure comprehensive land registration and limits the ability to resolve disputes equitably or to strengthen policy frameworks for equitable land access [63].

The study also underscores the key role of data as the bridge between policy, institutions, and outcomes. The availability and quality of data act as a crucial bridge between policy frameworks, institutional effectiveness, and actual improvements in land governance [63]. Countries with established legal and institutional systems must maintain structured, comprehensive data collection frameworks to continuously assess progress. This includes a combination of regular national surveys on land ownership and tenure security, disaggregated by sex, age, and geography, among other relevant disaggregation levels, perception surveys to gauge the security felt by landholders, regardless of formal documentation (SDG 1.4.2 (b)); and administrative data complied through land registries and dispute resolution systems, which provide real-time insights into the functioning of the institutional frameworks. For example (from Table 2), Rwanda’s high levels of legally documented land rights (85.8%) and perception of tenure security (96.9%), coupled with the highest possible score (6) for its legal framework’s support of women’s land rights, reflect how comprehensive data collection enables institutions to work efficiently, constantly improving, based on evidence [57].

The findings also emphasize the need for robust monitoring frameworks that convert data into actionable insights. National frameworks for tracking SDG land indicators through SDG Portals and consistent updates in Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs)22 are essential for tracking progress and assessing the impact of land governance reforms [72]. This is particularly made easier considering the inter-reporting period of 3–5 years for SDG land indicators [21]. This should be supplemented by periodic policy reviews informed by data, allowing policymakers to assess the impact of land governance reforms and adjust strategies, and inclusive stakeholder engagement, where the public, civil society, and local communities contribute to monitoring processes, ensuring that the data reflects the realities of diverse populations [72]. In contrast, without structured monitoring, the gap between legal rights, perceived tenure security, and actual implementation widens, missing opportunities for evidence-based policy improvements [57].

One of the study’s critical conclusions is the urgent need to address the financial gap for establishing robust data infrastructure, adopting technological advancements, and continually upskilling human resources. Investment in these areas is fundamental to ensuring that policies, institutional frameworks, and data systems work in synergy [1]. Without dedicated funding, comprehensive land information systems cannot develop, and institutional capacity remains limited, hampering efforts to monitor and secure land tenure [63].

International institutions like UN-Habitat, FAO, and the World Bank—custodians of the SDG indicators—play a pivotal role in providing technical support, developing methodologies, and advocating for resource mobilization. However, their efforts must be bolstered by increased commitments to transform land governance by funding initiatives that strengthen data systems, empower institutions, and ultimately ensure equitable access to land and secure tenure rights. This would particularly be transformative considering the role of land in sustainable development; it is the foundation for social equity, economic growth, food security, climate resilience, and community well-being. Therefore, investing in land governance and tenure is not just a financial imperative, it is a moral responsibility. This serves as a rallying call to financiers and development partners to bridge the funding gap and commit to sustainable, inclusive development by supporting systems that uphold secure land rights and responsible management.

This study also underscores the critical role played by regional training institutions, such as the Network of Excellence on Land Governance in Africa (NELGA) and the Africa Land Policy Centre (ALPC), in continually upskilling land and related data professionals to enhance their capacity to tackle the evolving challenges of land governance. By providing technical training and collaborative forums such as the Conference on Land Policy in Africa (CLPA), these institutions facilitate best practice sharing and innovation, fostering a network of skilled professionals who contribute to effective, inclusive land governance. This would also help bridge the gap in skilled land experts essential for delivering quality services across various countries, particularly in areas like land administration and land information management, as observed in Ethiopia [73].

Events such as the 2023 CLPA showcase the power of such collaboration and capacity-building. During the conference, Zambia and Uganda, along with Senegal, with the facilitation of UN-Habitat and GLTN, were at the forefront of championing effective monitoring of land governance and tenure security. By sharing their experiences and successes, they paved the way for others to adopt similar practices, setting a precedent for transparent, evidence-based monitoring and policy reform in the land sector. Nonetheless, for such efforts to translate into sustainable progress, continued investment in the training and development of land professionals is vital. By fostering a culture of continuous learning and capacity enhancement, countries can better align national policies, allocate the necessary resources, and foster inter-agency collaboration to operationalize robust systems of land governance monitoring. Nurturing a network of skilled professionals and informed stakeholders is key to driving effective land governance practices that are responsive to current and future challenges.

Conclusively, the ultimate goal of inclusive land governance is to ensure secure, equitable land rights for all, which requires evidence-based policy improvements [57]. Data-driven insights should directly inform legal reforms, institutional strategies, and resource allocation to address emerging issues in land governance. In Rwanda, for instance, the combination of strong data availability, an effective legal framework, and robust institutions has enabled continuous improvement in land tenure security, creating a cycle where policies evolve based on solid evidence [74]. In Kenya, integrating more comprehensive land tenure data would help policymakers identify the remaining barriers to secure land rights for women and other marginalized groups, enabling tailored interventions to close gaps in tenure security [62]. For effective land governance and enhanced tenure security, strong legal frameworks, capable institutions, and comprehensive data must work simultaneously [63]. Countries like Kenya, Rwanda, Uganda, and Zambia already have the legal and institutional infrastructure in place. The missing link for many of them is consistent, high-quality, comprehensive data and structured monitoring frameworks. Without data, laws remain theoretical, institutions lack direction, and policy reforms miss the mark. However, when these elements act in tandem—laws ensuring rights, institutions enforcing them, and data guiding progress—countries can achieve secure land tenure for all, address gender disparities, and sustainably improve land governance for future generations.