Click the star to add/remove an item to/from your individual schedule.
You need to be logged in to avail of this functionality.
Log in
- Convenor:
-
Camilla Toulmin
(Lancaster University)
- Stream:
- Human, plant and animal health
- Location:
- G51
- Start time:
- 12 September, 2006 at
Time zone: Europe/London
- Session slots:
- 1
Short Abstract:
none
Long Abstract:
Land is a key asset for rural livelihoods and economic development across Africa. In much of the continent, land-based activities contribute a major share of GDP and employment, and constitute the main livelihood basis for a large portion of the rural population. In many areas, however, land is becoming increasingly scarce due to a variety of pressures, including demographic growth. These pressures have resulted in increased competition for land between different groups, such as multiple land users (farmers, herders, etc.), urban elites and foreign investors. Moreover, socio-economic change has in many places eroded the customary rules and institutions that have traditionally administered land rights. Policies and programmes to increase land tenure security for local resource users are crucial to improving rural livelihoods and promoting pro-poor growth, equity, sustainable land use and peaceful coexistence in Africa.
Ongoing experimentation in several African countries with new approaches to securing land rights may provide insights on how to do this. In Ethiopia, for instance, innovative land registration systems are being designed and pilot programmes carried out in several states. In Ghana, an ambitious Land Administration Programme has begun, which has chosen to do much of its work through Customary Land Secretariats. In Mozambique, the 1997 Land Law is being implemented, a law which has been recognised internationally as demonstrating a strong pro-poor approach. And, in some recent large-scale foreign investment projects, attention has been paid to tackling issues of land expropriation and compensation - overall, with mixed results. What lessons can be learnt from this experience?
Accepted papers:
Session 1Lorenzo Cotula (IIED)
Paper long abstract:
Natural resources (e.g. land, water, forests, minerals and oil/gas) and natural resource-related infrastructure (e.g. dams and pipelines) constitute important sectors for foreign investment in the developing world. Developing countries endowed with valuable natural resources may lack capital and technology to exploit them, while investors with the necessary capital and technology look for investment opportunities in countries rich in natural resources. In Africa, foreign investment flows are heavily concentrated in countries with important petroleum, mineral and other natural resources (UNCTAD, 2005).
However, if appropriate conditions are not in place, natural resource-based investment projects may undermine the ability of local resource users to access the resources on which they depend for their survival. This may take the form of expropriation of local land rights without adequate compensation. Also, even in the absence of expropriation, investors may be granted exploitation rights that severely affect the ability of local groups to use their resources. And, in many cases, natural resource investment projects have led to pollution of water and other resources essential to local groups. These problems are compounded by the fact that local users commonly gain access to resources through customary norms, and therefore lack registered titles; and by the fact that many developing countries lack legislative measures as well as institutional and financial capacity to safeguard the property rights of local resource users.
This paper will discuss these issues, focusing on two case studies from West Africa.
Julian Quan (University of Greenwich)
Paper long abstract:
The paper summarises the main features of Ghana's ongoing Land Administration Project (LAP) and considers the location of support for piloting of Customary Land Secretariats (CLS) within a contemporary policy consensus that decentralised approaches to land administration can provide greater security for customarily established land rights.
There are strong economic arguments for establishing a more coherent policy, legislative and institutional framework which resolves the tensions between land management by the state and by customary authorities, and provides, as LAP intends, for greater certainty of land rights and more effective resolution of disputes. However there is empirical evidence that under conditions of rising land values, Chiefs seek to maximise revenues from land transactions, and may not manage lands in the interests of the communities who utilise and claim them. Criticisms of the approach adopted by LAP draw on anthropological and historical analysis of the nature of customary rights, arguing that these are subject to reinterpretation by different actors in contestation of land claims and of jurisdiction over land. Further, neo-Marxist critique identifies the objectives of LAP as part of a broadly neo-liberal approach focused on the promotion of free land markets and private property rights.
The paper outlines the work undertaken so far attempting to pilot CLS and identifies key issues arising. LAP requires coordination of a complex range of actions and processes at different levels, yet the policy perspectives of government and donors with regard to customary authority remain ambiguous, and constraints in project implementation are substantial. There are significant risks that powerful customary leaders may utilise CLS to consolidate their political control over land, with negative consequences for poorer, less powerful land users. The paper reflects on possible courses of action to mitigate these risks and concludes that concludes that there is a need for more comprehensive redefinition of political relationships between state, chiefs and citizens if a more equitable regulatory framework for land management is to be put in place.
Camilla Toulmin (Lancaster University)
Paper long abstract:
>This paper draws on case studies from Ethiopia, Ghana and Mozambique. The
>research shows that land registration is not inherently anti-poor in its
>impacts and that the distributional consequences of land registration depend
>on the design of the process and institutions responsible for its
>management. Land registration systems can be designed to address the risks
>of bias against poorer and marginalised groups. To protect and secure the
>land rights of these groups, attention needs to be paid to procedures for
>registration, such as the language used, level of fees charged, and physical
>accessibility. Questions of recognising secondary rights are important, as
>well as establishing accountability and oversight of the institutions
>responsible for land registration. Above all, we need to avoid a "one size
>fits all" approach to securing rights to land.
>