Great Lakes: Land, Conflict and Livelihoods in the Great Lakes Region
The relationship between land and conflict is intuitive. Historically, land has been significant in war in the form of a “prize” of territorial control enjoyed by the victors at the expense of the vanquished – losing groups would often be forced to flee, relinquishing their homes, fields and properties. More recently however, increased interest in conflict analysis has revealed various complex relationships between control over land (and land-based resources) and conflict. Combatants involved in conflict within states – by far the most significant kind of conflict today – often claim that unequal access to land is one of the causes of violence. During conflict, land access is affected not just for belligerents, but for entire communities, who become targets of violence due to the ethnicization of conflict. And in post-conflict situations, the land and shelter needs of returning internally displaced populations (IDPs) and refugees must be carefully managed in order to avoid dangerous disputes and further violence.
This problem is compounded in many developing countries by the challenging structural nature of land ownership, which may include demographic pressure, gross inequalities between and within communities, inadequate land administration and different conceptions of land tenure according to different land use norms. Therefore, land policies in post-conflict countries – and indeed, across the world – should consider the possible destabilizing effects that can result from inequalities and inefficiencies. In Africa as elsewhere, a key problem relates to the mismatch between customary land tenure systems, which are undergoing changes related to modernization and globalization, and state-managed systems based on western models. For this reason, the founder of ACTS, Prof. Calestous Juma, argued in 1996 that, “the way land use is governed is not simply an economic question, but also a critical aspect of the management of political affairs. It may be argued that the governance of land use is the most important political issue in most African countries.”
>>>>>To read the full article, please click on the link below.
African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS)
Ecopolicy No. 14
Land, Conflict and Livelihoods in the Great Lakes Region: Testing Policies to the Limit
Chris Huggins, with Prisca Kamungi, Joan Kariuki, Herman Musahara, Johnstone Summit Oketch, and Koen Vlassenroot
(Summary: Full article at http://www.acts.or.ke/Ecopolicy%2014.pdf)
This publication looks at the relationship between land tenure, land use, and population movements, and conflict, defined here as large-scale, violent conflict. The concepts are illustrated with case studies by the African Centre for Technology Studies (ACTS) on Rwanda, Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Burundi.
The relationship between land and conflict is intuitive. Historically, land has been significant in war in the form of a “prize” of territorial control enjoyed by the victors at the expense of the vanquished – losing groups would often be forced to flee, relinquishing their homes, fields and properties. More recently however, increased interest in conflict analysis has revealed various complex relationships between control over land (and land-based resources) and conflict. Combatants involved in conflict within states – by far the most significant kind of conflict today – often claim that unequal access to land is one of the causes of violence. During conflict, land access is affected not just for belligerents, but for entire communities, who become targets of violence due to the ethnicization of conflict. And in post-conflict situations, the land and shelter needs of returning internally displaced populations (IDPs) and refugees must be carefully managed in order to avoid dangerous disputes and further violence.
This problem is compounded in many developing countries by the challenging structural nature of land ownership, which may include demographic pressure, gross inequalities between and within communities, inadequate land administration and different conceptions of land tenure according to different land use norms. Therefore, land policies in post-conflict countries – and indeed, across the world – should consider the possible destabilizing effects that can result from inequalities and inefficiencies. In Africa as elsewhere, a key problem relates to the mismatch between customary land tenure systems, which are undergoing changes related to modernization and globalization, and state-managed systems based on western models. For this reason, the founder of ACTS, Prof. Calestous Juma, argued in 1996 that, “the way land use is governed is not simply an economic question, but also a critical aspect of the management of political affairs. It may be argued that the governance of land use is the most important political issue in most African countries.”
This Ecopolicy is one of the outputs of a twelve-month research project, part of ACTS’ continuing work on the “Ecological Sources of Conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa”. Since September 2003, ACTS, in collaboration with other organisations including the Institute of Security Studies (ISS), has conducted research into the issue of contested rights to land and natural resources in conflict zones, with an emphasis on areas affected by waves of outward and inward migration in Burundi, Rwanda, and Eastern DRC. Research findings will be published in various formats, including a volume to be released in early 2005.
This publication summarizes some of the findings of this latest research, and puts them into a broader context which has been developed through reference to other studies.
Evidence supports the contention that, “land issues are almost always part of the conflict, and ignoring these could lead to a non-sustainable land administration system, and even threaten the post-conflict situation in general”. The situation in any country, and indeed in different parts of single states, is unique. However, there are some general patterns that are often evident in post-conflict situations. Access to land for many people is often fundamentally altered. The most visible aspect of this is population displacement; often due to systematic ethnic cleansing. However, the direct use of force to alter patterns of land access is only one of a number of process involved. Land tenure is a system of rights and responsibilities–essentially, a social contract between people. Conflict changes social relationships in profound ways, and perceptions of mutual rights and responsibilities between individuals, social groups, and the state are altered due to changes in perceived legitimacy of institutions and obligations. In countries such as DRC, Rwanda and Burundi, the role of local leaders – both traditional and “modern” – are key to this.
External support for land administration systems in Africa often focus on titling programmes and other activities which aim to provide maximum security of tenure for commercial activities in urban areas as well as large rural farms. While there is some justification in this approach–based on the assumption that improved tenure security will lead to increased domestic and foreign investment, and hence economic growth – it should not be pursued at the expense of the rights of the rural majority. Given the threats to rural land rights – from intimidation, from “land grabbing” by non-violent means, and from sheer lack of access to information, and justice, especially for women – these should be prioritized. As stated earlier, the solution will not be found in the extension of “urban” solutions (i.e. titling) across the country, but rather a process of adaptation and melding of customary and “modern” systems.
The case studies demonstrate that the long-term social and political consequences of forced displacement and re-allocation of land belonging to those who have fled have been exacerbated by the lack of an effective legal framework for land allocation and distribution. This has led to great uncertainty about the security of tenure.
More profoundly perhaps, even those situations with a clear (if insufficient) legal framework have proven problematic, not just due to corruption, lack of enforcement capacity and lack of political will, but also due to a fundamental conceptual disconnect between state systems and customary systems. Because of this, there is a need for all activities related to land to look not just at the de jure systems, but at the de facto realities on the ground, which may differ widely across a single country.
A range of important questions remain about the nature of policy reforms necessary to address land issues in order to prevent violence, during and following conflict. The transition between “conflict” and “post-conflict” is never clear. In terms of the causes of violence, conflict may never be fully resolved; in terms of the violence itself, it may continue sporadically well past the official declaration of “peace”. Certain areas may be particularly affected, and indeed may not come under the control of the post-conflict government for months, or years. This is especially true in Africa, where remote areas are inaccessible due to lack of infrastructure. In such cases, given the long-term nature of insecurity, land issues in remote areas should not be neglected until “peace” comes. Solutions, no matter how imperfect, should be found.
Another issue of particular relevance in situations where transitional governments incorporate former belligerents, who remain divided in terms of the national vision and development objectives. A common situation involves former military or political leaders being given control of particular Ministries or institutions under the terms of a peace agreement. This leads to differing objectives in government being reflected by inter-ministerial struggles. Much more research is needed on the politics of policy-making in such difficult institutional environments, especially in terms of the role of civil society organisations, the most effective means of external support, the mechanisms for consultation and participation of local people, and the timing of policy processes in the transition from open conflict to “normal” development activities.
Finally, it is clear that despite the surge in interest in addressing land issues in post-conflict contexts, each situation is still being tackled in ad hoc ways. There is an urgent need for the UN and other agencies to develop a systematic set of guidelines and policies for post-conflict land administration and assistance for land and property issues arising due to conflict and population displacement. This has been recognized by experts in this field including UNHCR and UN-HABITAT personnel, and efforts are underway to develop such guidelines and policies. Improved convergence by donors and international development agencies on best practice in conflict-sensitive land policy design is also necessary.
* Chris Huggins
* This article was submitted to Pambazuka News by the publishers. Please send comments to [email protected]