|
|
|
Integrating Land Issues and Land Policy with Poverty Reduction
and Rural Development in Southern Africa
|
|
| 6. Conclusions: Steps to Better Incorporate Land Issues in the PRSP |
| |
It is useful to return to a point made by Okoth-Ogendo that reflects the sentiments of a number of speakers at this conference – “…the land question is the single most important problem which Sub-Saharan Africa (and I would conclude Southern Africa) must resolve if it is to emerge from…economic and social crisis…” Easy solutions are not in abundance. The twin forces of population pressure and environmental degradation, in many situations, have all but made it impossible to fully redress what the white man has stolen. But as many speakers and commentators have noted, the land question is burning in the guts of many within the region.
I cannot say with any confidence that the PRSP is an appropriate mechanism for coordinating policy to address poverty. Nevertheless, if the PRSP is a fact of life that we must live with, there are a few practical guidelines that might help ease concern over it’s implementation.
First, there is a clear need to conceptualize and validate linkages between specific land interventions and poverty outcomes in ways that justify funds and fit with the budgetary process. It is not unexpected that a conference with so many land experts should conclude that land is a fundamental factor of production and source of livelihoods. But, in addition, policymakers and civil society groups will need to tell better stories how specific land interventions affect the poor, how, and with what impacts. There was far too much complacency at the conference over land’s importance in the livelihood strategies of the rural poor. Without greater attention and focus to advocacy and land-poverty analysis and impact, there is real risk that land policy will descend in the ranks of budget priorities.
Second, there is need to correctly identify causes of poverty in rural and urban sectors (land may be central or peripheral to the poverty debate depending on the case). Poverty studies will increasingly be asked to move beyond who is poor and who is not, to focused questions on which policy options are most effective in addressing poverty and how.
Third, there is need for technical interventions (land institutions, land restitution, land redistribution, land demarcation, mapping, surveying and registration) that while serving the population at large help target or improve the lot of the poor. One shoe need not fit all. But at the end of the day, an instrument or agenda that is vague in terms what might or might not benefit the poor is at risk of seeing diminished funding.
Fourth, there is need for a new strategic partnership between government, multilateral organizations, donors and civil society organizations based on principles of trust, transparency, fewer un-funded mandates, unconditional debt relief, fewer conditionalities, and more give and take to expedite delivery to the poor.
Fifth, invest in capacity and skills development at all levels – government, civil society and society at large. It is hard to see how broad stakeholder participation in the PRSPs is feasible, or even realistic given current divisions. Trust needs to be established, and checks and balances are needed on the powers of both government and civil society organizations to ensure accountability and responsibility. The focus should be on decentralizing and devolving power, not necessarily to government or even to civil society organizations, but to communities and the poor who ultimately serve as our clients.
|
|
Related documents