Here we need to think of two critical, if linked questions, viz.,
- What is HIV/AIDS doing to land entitlement?
- What could land entitlement or lack thereof do to HIV/AIDS?
The two bullet points above seek to illustrate the bi-directional relationship between land and risk to HIV as well as vulnerability to AIDS.
Perhaps the easiest point to start with is the second bullet point and it consists the issues I am raising below.
- Does lack of access to land entail or constitute a higher risk to HIV/AIDS or vice versa?
- Does the combination between widowhood and/or ophanhood and lack of access to land render survivors more susceptible to HIV?
The other epistemological question raised above on “what HIV is doing to access to land” refers mostly to institutional dynamics. Analysing the impact of HIV/AIDS on land is essentially an analysis on changes in social institutions in which rights to land are anchored. My emphasis here is on the impact of HIV on formal institutions essential for securing land rights (ministry of land, ministry of justice, etc.). How is this kind of impact affecting the entitlement of AIDS survivors?
The corollary question to all these is whether entitlement to land is enough to secure the lives and livelihoods of survivors. Aren’t other [subsidiary] assets such as cash, livestock, seed, etc., necessary? Isn’t there need therefore to look beyond the immediacy of access to land to other inputs that would ensure that land is secured and utilised productively?
Entitlement to land is certainly not static. It is a dynamic process resulting from both conflict and negotiation. It affects different people differently…it is therefore contextual hence the need to avoid over generalisation of isolated pockets of reality in time and/or space.
Going back to the age/gender dimensions, there is need to unravel the differences in terms of dynamics of entitlement positions of children vs adults, male vs females, widows with [male] children vs barren ones or those with no male children, patrilineal vs matrilineal inheritance of land, etc.
This kind of analysis is not only relevant in customary law but also in terms of Roman/Common law which, in many countries, tend to be male-centric.
The interaction between HIV/AIDS – demography – and access to land is a certainly a complex constellation of factors. There is a continuum out there ranging from landless people to landed ones whose entitlement to land is being changed or challenged by the epidemic.
I am sure that most, if not all of the issues I have raised above, are attended to in the studies to be presented. BUT studies are a means to an end…the findings, while showing that the epidemic has impact on land entitlement, the real value of this exercise should lie in the ability to inform policy. The policy issue we are always likely to encounter is: How access to land can contribute to prevention, care and support, and impact mitigation…The issue is not only to demonstrate this relationship but also to guide policy makers on how to address these challenges.
|
Related documents