Rethinking the Funding Model: Why Land Tenure Security Needs a Course-Correction

Editorial — For decades, land tenure security in developing countries has been treated as a sector almost entirely dependent on international cooperation. Dedicated funds from multilateral institutions and donor-driven programming have supported cadastral modernisation, legal reforms, and pilot projects across Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Yet despite billions of dollars spent, progress has often been uneven, fragmented, and unsustainable.

Delegates at the World Bank/IMF Spring Meetings’ IDA Forum, where global financing priorities are set — highlighting the need to rethink over-reliance on multilateral aid for land tenure security (Photo: Iam Foulk/ World Bank Group)

The sector’s over-reliance on multilateral aid may itself be part of the problem — locking tenure reforms into cycles of external dependency rather than fostering resilient, locally grounded systems. A course-correction is overdue.

The Limits of Multilateral Dependency

Multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, UN-Habitat, and regional development banks have been central to advancing land administration reforms. Dedicated platforms like the Global Land Tool Network (GLTN) or other donor-backed tenure programs have provided essential technical expertise but limited financing. Over time, the model has revealed notable structural limitations.

First, donor funding cycles tend to be short-term, while tenure reform typically demands longer-term (sometimes generational) commitments. When programmes close, institutional memory often disappears, leaving local agencies to restart efforts with the next round of funding.

Second, donor priorities shift with global agendas — from climate to food security to gender — causing land tenure to be reframed and repackaged rather than treated as a foundational development goal in its own right.

Third, the concentration of funding in a handful of institutions has stifled diversity of approaches. Countries receive similar “templates” for reform, even when local contexts demand radically different solutions.

The result is a patchwork of pilot projects and incomplete or low-ROI national rollouts. In many countries, cadastral systems remain outdated, legal pluralism unresolved, and vulnerable groups still without protection against eviction.

Alternative Avenues Beyond Traditional Aid

If multilateral dependency has limited progress, what are the available alternatives? One clear path lies in blended and integrated funding models. Rather than isolating land tenure under standalone programs, tenure security can be embedded within larger development investments.

For example, climate resilience projects can incorporate tenure as a precondition for sustainable forestry, agricultural productivity, or disaster recovery. Infrastructure development can integrate compensation, resettlement, and titling measures into design and financing. By mainstreaming tenure within broader initiatives, countries reduce fragmentation while leveraging larger resource flows.

A second avenue is private and philanthropic capital. Land tenure, traditionally viewed as a governance or legal matter, is increasingly recognized as an enabler of investment. Secure land rights unlock credit, incentivise sustainable land use, and reduce conflict — all outcomes of interest to impact investors and philanthropic foundations.

This not-withstanding, engagement remains limited because the sector has not effectively built pipelines for private participation. Mechanisms such as social impact bonds, blended finance vehicles, or partnerships with insurance companies could create new streams of funding for tenure security.

Third, domestic financing must play a larger role. Many governments underinvest in their own land administration systems, relying instead on donor projects to fill gaps. But land registries, cadastral fees, and property taxation — if modernised — can provide sustainable revenue streams. Reinvesting those revenues back into system improvements would reduce aid dependency while creating accountability to local citizens rather than foreign donors.

Locally Designed, Locally Owned

Just as critical as diversifying funding is rethinking how solutions are designed. Too often, tenure interventions have been shaped by external consultants and global frameworks with limited adaptation to local realities. This risks importing technical systems that are expensive to maintain or legal frameworks that clash with customary practices.

Evidence shows that locally configured solutions are more sustainable. Community-based mapping, participatory land use planning, and recognition of customary tenure systems have gained traction precisely because they reflect local social contracts. In Rwanda and Ethiopia, for example, mass land certification campaigns succeeded in part because governments simplified processes and mobilized communities directly, rather than outsourcing to external contractors alone.

A stronger emphasis on local universities, civil society organizations, and municipal administrations in project design and delivery would not only build capacity but also ensure reforms respond to citizens’ needs. Multilateral partners still have a role — providing technical standards, platforms for peer exchange, and catalytic finance — but the centre of gravity should shift toward local actors.

Why the Shift Matters Now

The urgency for a course-correction cannot be overstated. Secure land tenure is central to achieving global development goals — from reducing poverty and food insecurity to managing urbanization and advancing climate adaptation. Yet the mismatch between the scale of the challenge and the current funding model is stark.

According to global estimates, more than 70 percent of the world’s population lacks access to formal land registration systems. Multilateral programs alone cannot close this gap.

Moreover, geopolitical shifts are reshaping aid flows. Traditional donors are scaling-back amidst budget constraints, while recipient countries are increasingly asserting ownership over their development agendas.

At the same time, the private sector, philanthropies, and local governments are exploring new roles in financing social and environmental goods. This creates a window of opportunity to redefine how tenure security is advanced.

Toward a New Compact

Correcting course does not mean abandoning multilateral cooperation. International institutions remain vital conveners and technical leaders. But their role should evolve — from primary financiers to catalysts of broader ecosystems of support.

Three priorities stand out:

1. Mainstream tenure security across sectors so it is not treated as an isolated issue.

2. Develop financing mechanisms that attract private and philanthropic capital alongside public resources.

3. Prioritise locally designed and implemented solutions to ensure sustainability and legitimacy.

This recalibration would place land tenure security where it belongs: as a shared responsibility among key local actors, rather than the domain of an over-stretched multilateral order.

Beyond "Pockets of Progress"

The pursuit of secure land tenure has long been framed as a technical challenge in need of external assistance. But its stagnation reveals a deeper structural flaw: over-dependence on multilateral aid that delivers projects but not systems.

A new approach is required — one that blends financing sources, embeds tenure within broader development strategies, and elevates local solutions. Only then can the promise of land tenure security shift from mere pockets of progress to durable national realities.