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.