Blue Helmets: Women in peacekeeping

This blog, written by Vision of Humanity's Natalia Beghin, is about women's growing role in UN peacekeeping, peacebuilding and reconciliation in conflict-prone areas as deployed females perform the same roles as their male counterparts. This post is a part of Wikiprogress' series on Gender Equality.

Women are beginning to comprise a larger proportion of UN peacekeepers than ever before, and are changing the landscape of peacebuilding and reconciliation for the better.

Although the greatest proportion of non-professional and civilian positions, such as cooks, administrative officers, and support staff within the United Nations are filled by women, they have traditionally represented less than 2% of all peacekeeping forces. Between 1957 and 1989, this number was even smaller, when a total of only 20 women served as uniformed peacekeepers with the UN. In addition to their service, these female officers acted as a vanguard in advance of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution 1325 made in the year 2000, which called for the increased participation of women in peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction.

Since then, three all-female peacekeeping units have been deployed around the world. The largest and most successful of the assignments has been the United Nations Mission in Liberia (UNMIL) which has seen a deployment of around 100 Indian women rotated each year since 2007. The women are supported by a team of cooks, drivers, and administration staff, and perform all the same armed duties of their male counterparts deployed in other parts of the world.

Not only has the increased participation of female military personnel in UN peacekeeping missions strengthened the universal movement for gender equality, but it has also brought an above average degree of stability to UNMIL and other female led missions that is noteworthy. In Monrovia, where the large majority of the Indian peacekeepers are based, the frequent foot patrols through dangerous neighbourhoods have decreased the crime rate by up to 65%.

"Importantly, the presence of women in peacekeeping also acts to empower female members of host communities to improve their status within their own society."

This is demonstrated by the rising numbers of host-country women seeking employment in the police and armed forces throughout the period of a UN mission, such as in Liberia, where the percentage of women in the police force has risen from 6% in 2007 to approximately 15% in 2012. Additionally, female peace keepers tend to use force less often than their male counterparts, and have been shown in some studies to be more likely to successfully mediate violent situations. These qualities help to make female peacekeepers more approachable than their male counterparts, particularly for women who have been the victims of the sexual and gender based violence that is often systemic in conflict and post-conflict environments.

Although the target set by Secretary-General Ban-Ki Moon in 2009 to increase the amount of female police in UN forces to 20% by 2014 has not been reached, all the ground-breaking work completed by UN women personnel has been indispensable for both the fight for peace, and the struggle for gender equality. The success of the Indian mission in Liberia and others like it have paved the way for the valuable participation of women in peacebuilding and post-conflict reconstruction, now and into the future. 

- Natalia Beghin

*This post was first published on the Vision of Humanity blog site on 7 January, 2014.

Transparency and governance in the land sector: two sides of the same coin?

This blog, written by ODI's Anna Locke, discusses land governance and transparency definitions, initiatives and key lessons. The post is part of Wikiprogress' spotlight on governance. 

Land transparency has been on the public agenda again since the G8 summit in June this year. Two events in the same week in October showcased the issue: the Open Government Partnership annual summit in London (which publicised the recent Open Government Guide on Land), and the Global Soil Week conference in Berlin, which dedicated a session to partnerships for responsible land governance – an issue that is rarely discussed by soil scientists. 

A couple of things hit me from these recent discussions. First, the public discussion has broadened from land transparency to land governance. The G8 communique published in June does not refer to a land transparency initiative as such but talks about ‘global activities to improve land tenure governance’. 

Transparency served as an immediate umbrella to bring together different initiatives in a very short time in the run-up to the G8 summit 2013 but seems to have been a launch pad rather than the end point. Similarly, the Open Government Guide on Land focuses on land governance while acknowledging the need for transparency, participation and accountability at the heart of open government. 

I welcome this broader agenda as it provides more of a framework to see how transparency can effect meaningful change.

However, at the risk of being pedantic on this issue (I have form on this– see my blog on the World Bank conference) once again, I want to pin down the terms of the debate and look at the underlying assumptions. It is important to make sure that we are all talking about the same thing, particularly as we prepare for an ODI Roundtable on the whole issue of Land Transparency in December.

First, definitions

What is land governance? The Open Government Guide on Land defines it as a series of processes, including recognition, registration and enforcement of land tenure rights, land-use administration, management planning and taxation, information provision and dispute resolution.

It then identifies the elements that characterise good governance: governments should help to ensure that these processes are ‘clear, transparent and fair… [with] human rights of citizens protected’; that they include‘accountable decision-making about how best to use land… improving the openness’[of those processes, I assume]; and that they ensure ‘consultation with those potentially affected by changes… [which] can help communities and households protect their rights’. 

The Guide suggests the Land Governance Assessment Framework (LGAF) mechanism launched by the World Bank as the main reference point for a baseline evaluation of the state of land governance. The LGAF measures governance in five thematic areas: legal and institutional framework; land use planning, management and taxation; management of public land; public provision of land information; and dispute resolution and conflict management. In turn, the main reference point for the LGAF is the World Bank’s definition of governance as the ‘manner in which public officials and institutions acquire and exercise the authority to shape public policy and provide public goods and services’. 

I would be more specific on two things. Yes, the discussion of land governance highlights the issue of how institutions can carry out the work of land titling, registration and administration. But it also needs to look at how they take and implement decisions on land – who takes part in decisions on land allocation, use and management, and how different interests in competing social and economic functions of land are reconciled. That goes beyond consultation. Indeed, it goes to the heart of the political economy of decision-making and the power relations that are involved. This is recognised implicitly in the Open Government Guide in its recommendation for participatory land and resource use planning. 

And what is the role of the private sector in all of this? Does the shift (back?) from transparency to governance mean a refocusing on governments, instead of the broader private sector actors targeted under pre-G8 discussions? These have been targeted directly through efforts to increase contract disclosure and public provision of information on holdings.

Second, what is the relationship that is assumed between transparency and governance? 

The G-8 Communique talks about the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure as ‘providing global policy guidance for good land governance and transparency’. So are they of equal importance or does one feed into the other?

The Open Government Guide takes the transparency of processes as a central element that feeds into governance (openness and accountability are others). The LGAF recognises the role of transparency in promoting better governance in the land sector, particularly in land-use restrictions, valuations, expropriation, the transfer of public to private land and in levying fees for different services provided by governments. Its emphasis on the provision of information, particularly through registries and cadastres, is the starting point for transparency in any form. 

The work of ODI (ADP,PoGo) and others, such as Global Witness, on transparency reveals a growing recognition of the importance of transparency for good governance. But it also shows that transparency is not enough, on its own to achieve the standard of governance in the land sector that we are striving for. This was also acknowledged in the Berlin discussions in October.

So, what can we take away from this? I see three key lessons.

1. Yes, the shift to a broader perspective on land governance is useful. But we need to acknowledge areas of agreement and difference on what we mean by governance, particularly in the presence of conflicting interests in land processes, and recognise the role of the private sector. 
2. We need to be clear about the role of transparency in promoting good governance – transparency and governance are not two sides of the same coin although progress on one depends on progress in the other. 
3. And finally, let’s carry the debate on the pathways from transparency to accountability to meaningful change into the debate on governance. This means talking about the content, timing and transmission of information; mechanisms and timescales to ensure meaningful participation and consultation; and getting accurate indicators that measure impact, not just processes.

All of these will issues were discussed at the ODI Roundtable on Land Transparency at ODI on 10 December 2013.

- Anna Locke

*The blog first appeared on 20 November 2013 on the ODI blog site. 

This post features the author's personal view and does not represent the view of ODI.    

Trust in Government: Causes, consequences and solutions

This blog post on trust in governments is a compilation of presentations given at the OECD Workshop entitled "Joint Learning for an OECD Trust Strategy", held on 14 October 2013. The post, composed by Melinda Deleuze, is part of Wikiprogress' December spotlight on governance.

During the workshop, a variety of topics were discussed regarding trust in governments. Some common themes were why measuring trust is important, how to measure trust, the reflection of trust in governments on quality of governments, the crisis' impact on trust and reasons for lack of trust.

To give some highlights:

• Trust in government is intermingled with many other areas, namely:
• policy effectiveness
• economic policy
• the economy
• the economic crisis
• compliance
• accountability
• regulation
• education
• social capital

• After the crisis, in Iceland, trust in institutions remained relatively high, trust in politicians very low, and voter turnout relatively high.
• To strengthen the quality of government, there should be:
• free universal education
• universal social services/insurance systems
• fairness (impartiality) in the implementation of public policies
• merit-based recruitment and promotion to the civil service
• gender equality

•  Unemployment has a strong, negative effect on trust in public institutions. 

In the presentation below, Yann Algan discusses the relationships between institutions, inequality/segmentation and trust. He also examines how to identify impact of policy on trust.

In the presentation below, Tracy Burns discusses trends in governance and education, satisfaction with the education system, accountability, and positive outcomes possible with educated adults.

 

In the presentation below,  Diane Coyle discusses how trust affects the economy and the challenges faced.

In the presentation below, Dóra Györffy discusses trust in-depth including its relationship with decision-making, economic policy, popularity of government and its influence on the crisis.

In the presentation below, Pall Thorhallsson discusses the pre-crash situation, the nature of the 2008 crash, and the crash's impact on trust. He also mentions reasons for the lacking trust.

 

In the presentation below, Marco Mira d’Ercole discusses the interest and importance of trust, how trust should be measured and trust's broader relationship with the quality of democratic institutions.

 

In the presentation below, Felix Roth discusses the consequences of citizens declining trust and the driving factors of declining trust in Europe. He also provides an econometric analysis of trust and unemployment.

In the presentation below,  Bo Rothstein discusses how to capture the quality of government and its impact on social trust. He also provides suggestions for what can be done to strengthen quality of government.

In the presentation below, Frédérique Six discusses effective regulation, the trust triangle, compliance and a trust regime.

In the presentation below,  Mario Solis-Garcia discusses why trust matters and uses a simple economic model to see how government trust influences environment, government, households and timing.