|
5. General policy recommendations
|
5.1 Policies and programmes complementary to land reform
- The papers and debates noted that although the original objectives of land reform programmes in many countries include the alleviation of poverty, the link between land policy and poverty alleviation is unclear.This requires the stated objectives of the land reform policies in each country to be revisited. As these are often different to the achievements of implementation, the outcomes should be measured against the stated objectives.
- There is often a gap between country-based anti-poverty strategies and land reform although poverty alleviation and land reform are inextricably linked. This is largely responsible for the failure to reduce poverty levels even though both land reform and broader poverty alleviation programmes are being implemented.
- There are, however, more options open to land reform and economic development than just the establishment of small-scale farmers.Participative management, profit sharing and equity schemes are feasible alternatives.
- In the absence of agrarian reform in many countries the intention with agrarian reform has been for the state to move beyond land redistribution and tenure reform and to support the implementation of other rural development measures. The terms “agrarian reform” and “land reform” are often used interchangeably although the latter is only one component of agrarian reform, which is in turn only one component of rural reform. “Agrarian reform” is a broad term used to describe the attempt to change the agrarian structure, which may include land redistribution, land tenure reform, and other supportive reforms. A comprehensive strategy should include the improvement of farm credit for smallholder farmers, co-operatives for farm-input supply and marketing, and extension services to facilitate the productive use of reallocated land.
- HIV/Aids and its impact on land reform is a neglected area in all the countries. There is often an inadequate conceptualisation of the impact of the pandemic on the land reform process (for example on the implementing agencies and on the beneficiaries) as well as on an integrated strategy that links land reform objectives with the impact of HIV/Aids.
- The requirements of marginalised groups are often superficially acknowledged without any actual engagement with them. These groups include farm workers, the disabled, women, HIV/AIDS infected and affected people who are used to legitimise the state or political party in the reform process.
- Post land transfer support is often inadequately provided. The complex process, the resultant institutional change, inadequate capacity, little political will, and budgetary constraints are some of the factors responsible for lack of adequate government support.
- Environmental considerations of land reform are often inadequately conceptualised despite being a central consideration of sustainable land use.
From these considerations one broad recommendation may be derived for policy makers in government, civil society, donor agencies and private sector institutions:
The original objectives of land reform (which acknowledge poverty alleviation) need to be emphasised to refocus on the stated intentions of the process. This would facilitate an all-encompassing approach to the different aspects of land reform as well the targeting of a broader range of beneficiaries, especially the marginalised. This approach includes the explicit factoring in of the impact of HIV/Aids on the various components of land reform processes.
5.2 Policy processes and political dynamics
- The conference noted that there is often a lack of consultation with various stakeholders in the policy process. This is especially true for the beneficiary groups. Participation has been a largely rhetorical undertaking for governments in the policy process. The lack of consultation requires urgent attention if the reform processes are to comply with the democratic rules of transparency and accountability. In addition it is essential in this process to take into account indigenous perspectives, knowledge and understanding.
- There is often a lack of political will to underpin effective, sustained land reform. It should be noted that many proposed land reforms have faltered largely because they were conceived in order to mobilise support at a critical time in the life of a government (or an aspiring government) (Adams, 2001b).
- The cyclical nature of land reform means that certain vested interests have an influence on policy at different times during its cycle. As a result, land reform often becomes a "tradable asset" for politicians to resurrect or emphasise at certain times to advance their own cause.
- Since land reform is a political process it is naРїve to recommend a de-politicisation of the process, which de-politicisation was suggested a number of times during the conference. Rather, one should attempt to ameliorate the negative impact that politics might have on land reform. A clearly defined policy that is firmly in place would explicitly define the parameters in which governments and politicians can operate. Clearly defined policy guidelines would also allow for their monitoring by vigilant sectoral interests, such as the private sector, media and NGOs, and would ensure greater compliance of all parties with policy parameters. Such involvement of a broad range of stakeholders would also reduce the centrality of government to the land reform and policy process. In addition, a well-trained civil service could provide an additional counterweight to political manipulation. A transparent, open process would ensure that the obligations embodied in a number of constitutions across the region were adhered to. It should be recognised that some political dynamics such as grassroots organisation and mobilisation and NGO militancy can be highly positive for land reform processes.
- The state is ambivalent towards traditional authorities. The tension between democracy and hereditary, traditional leadership was a recurring theme in the presentations. This ambivalence requires attention. The progressive elements of customary tenure should be enhanced where possible and attention paid to gender inequality, hereditary title, accountability and transparency. The land boards of Botswana were presented as a successful example of synergy between elected local government and traditional authorities. 6
- For land reform to be effective it must conceptualise adequately the role of women in the rural economy. This would ensure that land reform embodied a development focus.
From these considerations one broad recommendation may be derived for governments, civil society, donor agencies and private sector institutions:
Land reform policy should be formulated through participation by a wide range of stakeholders, be clearly defined and be firmly legislated and implemented. This would limit the extent to which governments can manipulate the process of implementing people-centred land reforms away from the interests of beneficiaries. Civil society organisations in particular should be vigilant throughout the land reform process.
5.3 The role of civil society
- It was noted at the conference that it is difficult to gauge the role of civil society in the land reform process considering the complexity of the state/civil society relationship in the land issue. Relations between civil society and governments engaged in land reform are invariably tense.
- There are different definitions and contested notions of civil society. Civil society is inherently dynamic and highly differentiated, with unequal power relations and a multiplicity of interests. The term "civil society" (and many others such as "household", "community", "farmers", "government", and "donors") should be used and understood critically. At the conference "civil society" was predominantly taken to mean NGOs and the voluntary sector.
- Civil society should have a significant role in the policy process. Unfortunately, the limited involvement of civil society in the process has meant that this potential contribution has been lost in many countries within the region. This has happened to the detriment of the development and implementation of effective land reforms in national settings throughout the region.
- Civil society should be included in the policy dialogue and decision making to ensure social equity7, to strengthen buy-in by various stakeholders, to maintain a “watchdog” element to limit the extent of political manipulation and to keep the interests of marginalised groups clearly in focus. Arguments for good governance and transparency often define a role for civil society beyond mere deliverers of services to land reform beneficiaries.
- There is generally a lack of expression of the actual pressure for land reform from below. Civil society should be in a position to articulate this pressure and to support marginalised groups to mobilise themselves to engage with the reform process.
- NGOs should be challenged to position themselves to legitimately talk on behalf and with beneficiaries of land reform as well as the marginalised.
- Adversarial relations between state and civil society should be accepted, as such relations are inevitable. However, constructive consultation and interaction should be encouraged.
- Creative coalitions are required although this recommendation does not necessarily call for the creation of additional regional or national networks. Rather, those already in existence should be made more effective through encouraging coalitions between them and across the NGO-government divide.
- Regional dialogue could be used to strengthen creative coalitions to elicit both regional and national voices.
- A challenge for civil society is to build capacity in order to engage effectively with land reform. This requires the identification and teaching of appropriate skills to enhance its engagement.
From these considerations one broad recommendation may be derived for policy makers from civil society, donor agencies and private sector institutions:
NGOs/civil society organisations should embrace a more visible, proactive role that facilitates the articulation of voices from below. This may involve civil society agencies taking on more co-operative relationships with other land sector agencies. NGOs/civil society organisations need to work together on creating frameworks and models for agrarian reform, which they can feed into policy debates with governments.
5.4 State capacity
- Capacity constraints at all levels within the state should be clearly recognised throughout the region. Although this lack of recognition is widely identified as a reason for the "failure" of land reform, it is not easily defined or understood. An understanding of capacity can only be achieved through an honest audit of state capacity and what is required to enable the successful implementation of planned land reforms. Once this is known, resources can be allocated by the state, private or donor sectors to make the requisite changes.
- It has been widely recognised that land reform is expensive, involving lengthy consultation and a complex legislative process, and that it involves a major programme of institution building, training and awareness raising, as well as costs pertaining to increasing staff capacity (see Adams, 2000: 135; Toulmin and Quan, 2000: 15). One implication of this is the need to find cheaper, pragmatic solutions for addressing the implementation of land policies. This was the view of several of the Mozambican delegates who emphasised the village lands registration programme in Mozambique, which builds on the commitment of a number of paralegals and existing structures at village level.
- Governments can in principle outsource certain functions of their land reform programmes to civil society or the private sector so that in spite of the limitations faced by government departments, the implementation objectives of the policy are still met.
- Inter-departmental and ministerial co-ordination often requires attention in the land reform process. Constraints to effective land reform include inconsistent objectives between land-related policies and even an apparent confusion of aims within singular programmes. These contradictions and duplications waste scarce financial and personnel resources. These constraints may be avoided through the careful co-ordination of policies and programmes through broad and effective consultation and focussed integration of objectives.
- Why is the state is allocated such a central role in land reform considering its capacity constraints. It is necessary to ask what the state’s role should be and how it should be played. It should act more as partner and facilitator than as director.
From these considerations two broad recommendations may be derived for policy makers from governments, civil society, donor agencies and private sector institutions:
The incapacity of the state to deliver land reform must be remedied. The extent of the capacity required for effective implementation must be understood and provided by the state—or outsourced to other sectors. This is related to a central issue indicated in 5.2: Political ownership of land reform generally lies at the national level and should be devolved to local level political processes to identify sustainable solutions.
Although capacity constraints have been recognised as a reason for the “failure” to attain the targets of land reform programmes, the issue of capacity is not easily defined or understood. An understanding can only be achieved through an honest audit of state capacity in relation to what is required for implementation. Once this is known, appropriate resources can be allocated by the state, private and donor sectors. In addition, certain functions such as evaluating land reform projects and providing aftercare to beneficiaries can be outsourced to civil society or the private sector for effective implementation.
|
Footnote:
-
See Adams' conference paper.
- “Social equity” refers to the distribution of assets and the total output between individuals or social groups within the society.
|
|
|
Related documents