By the Witness Radio Team.

For many women, securing land rights is not just about having a law that recognizes their ownership. Even after participating in land registration programs, some lack the documents to prove their claims because they cannot afford the fees, travel long distances to government offices, or navigate complicated procedures.

Experiences from Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia show how these barriers keep women from completing the final stages of land documentation, leaving their claims vulnerable even after the registration process has begun.

Land rights practitioners discussed these challenges during an online webinar organized by TenureSecurity.org with LandBridge International on the recent International Day of Rural Women. The event commemorated the day and examined why women with recognized land claims can remain without legal documentation and what must change to help them secure and exercise their rights.

Ms. Rania Ahmed, a co-founder of LandBridge International, said the organization began focusing on these barriers after noticing a gap between men’s and women’s access to land titles in Zambia. She says data from land-titling work showed that women-headed households participated in the process but did not receive their titles.

“We started to wonder how many other women have a recognized claim to land and have even begun the documentation process but couldn’t complete the final steps needed to secure legal ownership,” Ms. Ahmed said.

The organization initially suspected that the upfront payment to complete registration prevented women from obtaining their documents. This concern led to the creation of LandBridge, which works through local partners to help women overcome practical obstacles to obtaining documentation in their own names.

According to Ahmed, the problem extends beyond the absence of legal rights. In many places, she said, women have recognized claims to land and government documentation programs are already in place, yet they remain unable to complete the process.

“Without documentation in their names, their homes and land remain vulnerable, especially after divorce or the death of a spouse,” she added.

Ms. Ailey Kaiser-Hughes, a land tenure and women’s land rights specialist and co-founder of LandBridge, said the barriers often go beyond the cost of obtaining a title.

“We see common barriers across countries, and a fee is rarely the whole story. Women may lack clear information, money for transportation, or the documents needed to enter the registration process. Some also lack the confidence or support to navigate government bureaucracy and unfamiliar offices,” she added.

“I saw this firsthand during land titling work in Monrovia “I saw this firsthand during land titling work in Monrovia, Liberia. To participate, landholders needed an official ID costing about US$5, plus travel expenses to a government office. As a result, few community members had the required ID, and even fewer were women. This prevented many women from participating from the start. We negotiated with the government to bring identification services directly to the community, significantly increasing participation,” she added.

Identification remains a significant obstacle, particularly for widows and older women who may have limited financial resources.

Mr. Mustafa Issa, CEO of Tanzania Land Tenure Assistance, said the organization has worked for about 20 years to help women obtain Certificates of Customary Right of Occupancy (CCROs). He added that about 60 percent of women in the villages they worked with could not afford the payment.

He explained that awareness of land rights had improved through government initiatives and the work of implementing partners. However, paying for documentation remained a serious challenge.

“Most of the women we’ve been working with face challenges in getting financial support to contribute to their land registration and receive certification,” Mustafa said. explained that the cost of obtaining a certificate had risen from about US$10 per parcel to about US$20, making it unaffordable for many rural women.

“Those with husbands can manage, but widows and older women struggle to pay for their CCROs,” he added. He called for targeted financial support to help disadvantaged women complete land registration and suggested incorporating such assistance into local government financing systems.

In Uganda’s Oyam District, some women have land titles already produced under a government project but remain uncollected because of the costs and administrative procedures required to release them.

Ms. Christine Kajumba, research manager at Associates Research Trust, explained that the government had completed the technical work and delivered the titles to the district. However, applicants still needed to pay outstanding government fees and have caveats removed before receiving their documents. She added that the required payments amounted to approximately US$28 to US$30 per title.

Kajumba described how the process can stall even after people pay and submit titles to the relevant offices.

“When we paid for those 100 titles, we spent six months without getting the land titles,” she said, attributing the delays to administrative procedures involving the national land information system, which requires titles to pass through a digital process before they can be released.

Ms. Kajumba adds that distance is another obstacle, as offices are located far away.

“Even when a woman can afford the US$30, she must navigate a lengthy process involving separate government offices. She first goes to the district land office to collect the title, then travels about 70 kilometers to the regional Ministry of Lands, Housing and Urban Development office in Lira. For women from sub-counties or villages 80 to 100 kilometers away, the journey is even more challenging. This creates an opportunity cost. A woman may ask why she should spend time and money traveling to collect a document when she can continue using her land without it. Even when the title is ready, she may decide the cost and effort are not worth it,” she added.

In Zambia, the financial burden becomes particularly evident at the final stage of land registration, when applicants receive an offer letter specifying the payment required to obtain a certificate of title.

Ms. Kamiji Malasha, a gender specialist with LandBridge International in Zambia, explained that the government’s land formalization program takes households through sensitization, enumeration, verification, and the offer-letter stage, adding that, although women may complete the earlier steps, the required payment can prevent them from receiving their certificates.

“Many women want to secure their title deeds, but the upfront cost is simply out of reach for them,” Kamiji said.

“The initial payment required by the Ministry of Lands was about 1,000 Zambian Kwachas, roughly US$50 at the time. The total cost to obtain a title was about US$150. For a woman-headed household in an informal settlement, that’s less than $2 a day. That’s nearly a month’s household income. As a result, women may have to choose between paying for land documents and meeting immediate family needs like food, rent, and other basic expenses,” she said.

Kamiji said targeted support could help women overcome this final barrier, while community outreach and sensitization could ensure they understand the registration process and the importance of obtaining their documents.

She also called for services to be brought closer to women, rather than requiring them to travel repeatedly to government offices.

“Services must come to the women, rather than requiring the women to come to the system,” she said.

By the Witness Radio Team

Communities and organizations defending their land, livelihoods, and environment demand that global investors and development finance institutions take responsibility for projects they believe harm people and the planet.

Environmental and human rights defenders from Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, and India gathered at the World Bank Group Annual Meetings to share stories of communities fighting to be heard and seeking justice for harm caused by development projects.

Ms. Ueangfa Chamket, representing Chachoengsao Re: Power in Thailand, described her community’s long battle to defend the land that sustains their way of life. For over twenty years, residents have stood firm against the Burapa power plant, first proposed as a coal-fired facility and later changed to a gas-fired plant.

She explained that this region is a lifeline for farming communities, whose fields not only ensure local food security but also supply Bangkok markets with fresh produce.

“Our communities are agricultural communities which practice organic farming and later sell some of our produce in Bangkok,” she said.

Chamket voiced concerns about the power plant’s environmental impact and its effects on local livelihoods, citing air pollution, dust, and strain on water resources. She warned these threats endanger both people’s health and the biodiversity that sustains the community.

The Burapa Power Plant Project is a proposed 540 MW fossil gas-fired combined cycle power plant under construction in Khao Hin Son, Phanom Sarakham, Chachoengsao Province, Thailand. The project began in 2007 as a 600 MW coal-fired power plant awarded to Advance Agro (now Double A Power/National Power Supply, NPS), according to research from Bank Track, an international organization that tracks private-sector commercial banks and their financed activities.

Despite strong opposition from local communities and four rejections of its Environmental and Health Impact Assessments, most recently in 2016, the project remains in Thailand’s National Power Development Plans.al-fired proposal was replaced by plans for the 540-megawatt Burapa natural gas-fired power plant at the same location. The developers subsequently signed a 25-year Power Purchase Agreement with the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT), alongside a long-term gas supply agreement with PTT PCL.

Chamket says residents refuse more industrial development unless their concerns are addressed, stressing their determination to resist the power plant and what they see as the taking of their local resources.

Beyond environmental worries, Chamket said the community felt shut out of key decisions, from consultations to public hearings. She questioned why residents’ voices mattered less than those of powerful financiers.

“They do not hear our comments and only listen to the funders and financiers of the project. We want to share in public hearing forums, but they block us by saying there is limited time, creating a situation where we cannot report the actual situation in the area,” she said.

Similar worries have surfaced in Prachinburi province, where communities are pushing back against industrial waste incineration projects promoted under the banner of a circular economy.

The Gulf Waste-to-Energy (GWTE) Circular Economy Project aims to build and operate 12 waste-to-energy power plants across five Thai provinces: Saraburi, Ayutthaya, Prachinburi, Rayong, and Chonburi.

Mr. Ridtidat Boonyaburanakit, of the Strong Prachinburi Community Network, described how the project area supports rice, cassava, maize, and poultry farming. He said residents struggle to be heard at public hearings.

“We do not have the opportunities for public hearings,” he said.

“We do not have opportunities for public hearings,” he said. AIIB, along with other lenders, backs the project. In February 2026, the ADB announced loan agreements totaling 16.6 billion Thai baht (approximately US$511.9 million) with 12 companies indirectly owned by Gulf Waste to Energy Holdings Company Limited, a subsidiary of Gulf Development Public Company Limited (GULF), with the intention of supporting energy generation from nonhazardous industrial waste, promoting diversion from landfills, and reducing illegal waste disposal activities in Thailand.

On the ground, community leaders say the project has failed to meet its promises. Boonyaburanakit also reported security personnel intimidated residents who tried to join project discussions. Counsel Aaron Pedrosa, of the Philippine Movement for Climate Justice, highlighted the uphill battle communities face in holding investors accountable for environmental and social harm.

The Philippine Movement for Climate Justice is a coalition of more than 150 grassroots, sectoral, and other organizations working nationwide to advance climate justice.

Pedrosa said the coalition filed a case in 2017 against the International Finance Corporation (IFC), the private-sector arm of the World Bank Group, over financing linked to 19 coal power projects in the Philippines through a financial intermediary, Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation.

He explained this financing fueled the spread of coal power in the country, with 16 of 19 proposed projects ultimately built.

“This is happening in a country where for 13 years now, according to the recent Global Witness Report, we remain the deadliest place for land and defenders,” Pedrosa said, highlighting the dangers people face when defending their land and environment.

Despite the challenge of confronting powerful financial institutions, Pedrosa emphasized the need to keep fighting for accountability, vowing to persist even when justice seems out of reach in Bangkok also sparked debate over who ultimately shoulders the burden of environmental damage and climate disasters.

Sutharee WannasiSutharee Wannasiri, a senior community associate with Accountability Counsel and one of the event’s moderators, referred to recent flooding in Thailand and questioned who pays the price of such farmers cries, vendors, and families seeking shelter as those most vulnerable to the fallout, even as powerful institutions make decisions that shape their futures.

Her remarks linked communities’ opposition to individual projects to a broader concern, suggesting people facing environmental risks may have little influence over investment decisions that affect them.

Advocates demanded stronger accountability for harmful projects, insisting that affected communities must be heard and that investors and operators take responsibility for the outcomes of their choices.

Margaux Day, the policy director at Accountability Counsel, said investors could make better decisions by listening to communities with direct knowledge of their environments and livelihoods.

“Local communities are the experts in their own lives and environments, and if investors were to listen to them, then those projects would be more sustainable and successful because they would be more informed by the actual experts,” Day said.

Yet advocates argue that complaint mechanisms alone are not enough. Communities need a real voice before projects are approved, protection from intimidation when they speak up, and access to remedies when their rights and livelihoods are threatened.

“The polluter and the financier should fix it and pay for it and stop silencing the people for speaking the truth,” said Margaux Day, policy director at Accountability Counsel.

By the Witness Radio Team.

Protecting forests, breathing new life into exhausted land, and confronting climate change hinge not only on policies but on whether those who live on the land truly hold secure rights to it.

The challenge is significant. Between 2015 and 2019, at least 100 million hectares of healthy, productive land were degraded worldwide each year, affecting about 1.3 billion people, according to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD). A 2026 global assessment by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Land Coalition (ILC), and the French agricultural research organization CIRAD found that only 35 percent of the world’s land has formally documented ownership, tenure, or use rights. These figures highlight the scale of land degradation and the gaps in recognizing and documenting people’s land rights.

Across Africa, communities depend on farmland, forests, and grazing lands not just for food, but to keep their traditions and livelihoods alive. When climate and environmental policies ignore their rights to these resources, their power to protect the land and shape its destiny fades.

This is why land rights advocates across Africa are calling for land governance to be more deeply woven into climate action and conservation, insisting that securing people’s land rights is the foundation for protecting the environment.

The issue was discussed during an online webinar organized by ILC Africa in partnership with the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the German development agency GIZ. Practitioners and policy actors shared experiences from several African countries on integrating land governance into climate and environmental policies.

Ms. Johanna von Braun, People, Climate and Nature Lead at the International Land Coalition, explained that land rights are fundamental to achieving the objectives of the three major global environmental conventions addressing climate change, biodiversity loss and desertification.

She said secure land rights can support emissions reduction, help communities adapt to climate change and strengthen biodiversity conservation. In the Amazon, she noted, research shows that recognizing Indigenous peoples’ territories helps protect tropical forests and preserve carbon sinks.

“For mitigation, we know now that with land rights, we can ensure the protection of critical carbon sinks,” Ms. von Braun said.

Land rights are equally important for communities whose livelihoods depend on adapting to changing environmental conditions. Ms. von Braun explained that pastoralist communities with secure rights to move their livestock are better positioned to respond to climate change and manage grazing areas sustainably.

Evidence on rangeland loss reinforces this connection. Research has found that 92 percent of rangeland loss through land-use conversion between 2016 and 2024 occurred in areas where Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ land rights were not secure, were unknown, or the land fell outside mapped community territories, facts which highlight the importance of recognizing community land rights in efforts to protect rangelands and strengthen climate resilience.

Ms. von Braun also pointed to Namibia, where communal conservancies cover about 20 percent of the country and support biodiversity conservation. She said community-based conservation initiatives can help countries advance global biodiversity commitments, including the 30×30 target to conserve at least 30 percent of the world’s land and sea by 2030.

Despite the clear connection between land rights and environmental protection, bringing land governance into national climate policies remains a persistent and difficult challenge.

Moise Mbimbe, a regional program analyst with ILC Africa, described efforts to address this gap in Burkina Faso, Liberia, Togo and Senegal.

With catalytic funding, the coalition ignited efforts to weave land governance into countries’ Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which serve as blueprints for their climate commitments under the Paris Agreement. This meant reviewing policies, amplifying community voices, and bringing together a wide range of actors to shape recommendations that place land issues at the core of national climate plans.

Mr. Mbimbe said the process had helped participating countries consider land governance.

“Whether it’s in Togo, Burkina Faso or Liberia, we have made considerable progress when it comes to taking or considering land when it comes to NDCs,” he said.

In Burkina Faso, an assessment of the country’s previous climate commitments revealed that land governance had received limited attention.

Mr. Blaise Bama, coordinator of the Multi-Stakeholder Platform on Land (PMAF) in Burkina Faso, said the assessment reviewed policy documents and gathered perspectives from institutional, community, and regional stakeholders.

The findings pointed to significant gaps in how the country’s previous NDC addressed land issues.

“This assessment identified a very weak level where land was not considered in the previous NDC,” Mr. Bama said. assessment recommended recognizing the central role of land rights in climate action and securing community land rights. Mr. Bama added that local consultations allowed community-level actors to share their views and contribute to the policy process.

“It was a moment of close analysis, and these local consultations allow us to consider the opinions of local actors, especially at the community level,” he said.

In Senegal, practitioners are forging new links between land governance, environmental restoration, and active local community participation.

Ms. Nicole Chaby Hary, facilitator of the National Land Governance Platform (PNGF), said consultations revealed that land security and environmental restoration are top priorities. Yet, motivating communities to invest in restoration has proven difficult, highlighting the need for practical tools, clear responsibilities, and authentic participation.

She emphasized that women, youth, local leaders, government bodies, and all stakeholders must have a seat at the table when managing and restoring land.

“We have to put in place tools, like pastoral units, to help with consultations and community responsibilities, especially for women and youth,” Ms. Hary said.

In Madagascar, efforts are underway to ensure that community rights are reflected in biodiversity policies and implementation.

Ms. Stefana Raharijaona, a senior program officer at Natural Justice Madagascar, said the organization has worked to incorporate local communities’ concerns into national biodiversity priorities and translate them into monitorable actions.

This work has meant championing the recognition of community rights and land tenure, supporting community-led management, and striving to formalize and protect these hard-earned rights.

Ms. Raharijaona also described efforts to support implementation of Madagascar’s National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan, including work related to Target 22 and the establishment of a national biodiversity platform to improve coordination among the different actors involved.

Across these countries, practitioners confront a common challenge: climate and biodiversity goals will stay out of reach unless the rights of those who depend on and nurture the land are genuinely recognized.

As African nations strengthen their environmental policies, securing community land rights and ensuring meaningful participation in decision-making will be essential to protect ecosystems, heal damaged land, and build resilience to climate change.