Where Land Deals Cause Conflict: “Land for Life” Promotes Compromise through Dialog

Who decides to whom the land belongs? Who is allowed to use it for personal gain? In many countries, these are difficult questions to answer. Land titles are often poorly documented. Various administrative systems clash – legal, traditional or post-colonial practices. Laws on land ownership are often inconsistent, have gaps, or – above all – are not properly implemented. In addition, citizens often have little knowledge of laws and court rulings that affect them. This provides fertile ground for land grabbing, violent conflicts, intimidation or resettlement of local residents, marginalization and, in the final analysis, hunger.

In rural areas, access to land is directly linked to access to food and prosperity. Where the use of land is not legally secured, the risk of hunger and poverty increases. Large-scale private agricultural investments, which are characteristic of many countries in the global South, demonstrate most clearly what drastic effects land loss and the lack of involvement and compensation of local land users can have. In recent years, many laws, international guidelines and principles have addressed the issue and strengthened the rights of local populations in theory. In practice, however, tangible improvements in their favor are still a long way off.

After all, ensuring fair access to land means much more than investors complying with legal regulations. How can the land rights of local users be legally protected and formalized? How can local land users be given sufficient legal knowledge and support to make informed decisions? Who ensures that agreements are respected and implemented? How is land and potential profit managed and distributed within local communities? A holistic approach to the many layers of fair land governance needs to go further than often inconclusive consultations between communities and investors. It must deliver robust results rather than simulating solutions.

Discrimination against Women

Indicative of the problem as a whole is the widespread plight of women who do most of the work in agricultural production while it is predominantly men who own the land on which women work. In the case of this particular imbalance, the wide gap between legal requirements and the situation on the ground is particularly glaring. Only on paper are women, young people, people with disabilities and other marginalized groups given the respect in land issues they deserve – despite considerable progress worldwide over the past ten years to improve the legal framework for land policy and responsible agricultural investment. Far too often, fair administration of land fails because of corruption, lack of accountability and lack of transparency.

In most cases, politics, business and traditional leaders seeking to advance their own interests all play a negative role in this regard. While local communities are consulted and formally involved in negotiations with investors who want to take over land, this supposed participation rarely takes place on an equal footing. Individual communities are usually unable to stand up to large companies, their own government or influential traditional leaders because they simply lack the necessary legal knowledge and a clear representational structure.

The Example of Sierra Leone

Progressive land reforms were adopted in Sierra Leone in 2022. Among other matters, the Customary Land Rights Act & Land Commission Act strengthened the rights of local communities in decisions on the use of their land. Communities must give their prior, informed and free consent (FPIC) to any decision affecting their land. As part of strengthening the rights of women, they must now be involved in local structures at chiefdom and community level for decision-making on land issues (land committees), for example. "Land for Life” played a central role in uniting civil society around the common goal of law reform and overcoming traditional barriers to legislation.

The country on the West African Atlantic coast is characterized by large-scale agricultural investments, such as for the production of palm oil or rubber, which have caused discord and sometimes violent conflict over land. Traditional authorities in particular, the so-called paramount chiefs, play a major role. As traditional and legally recognized "custodians" of the land, traditional leaders made decisions on land directly with investors and the government – over the heads of the communities. Local users were not involved, sometimes displaced and exposed to poverty and hunger since they had no alternative sources of income. The interests of women and other marginalized groups in particular suffer as a result of exclusive deals made by powerful actors.

As part of the "Land for Life" initiative, a civil society consortium of four organizations was founded in Sierra Leone which set up multi-stakeholder platforms at district level and jointly strengthened the civil society and grassroots level in a government-led working group on land. Through capacity building and repeated community dialog events, activists were able to participate meaningfully in consultations on the new land laws and stand up for their interests. Supported by coordinated advocacy at the national level, the interests of smallholder farmers, women and other marginalized groups were respected in the law-making process.

The dialog-centered approach played another important role that contributed to the success of the laws: It helped to break down hardened fronts that had long prevented the laws from being passed. Traditional authorities in particular had put up stubborn resistance, as the laws meant a not inconsiderable loss of power for them. A series of dialog-centered meetings of all stakeholder groups – combined with public pressure – ultimately led to a compromise and a successful conclusion to the negotiations.

“Land for Life” will also play a central role in the implementation of the laws on the ground through participation and capacity building when decentralized committees are established in local communities. Apart from the formalization of land rights and inclusive negotiations with investors, power structures and power imbalances within the communities must also be taken into account – they lie at the core of the exclusion of individual groups and the unequal distribution of proceeds.

Hurdles to Implementation in Other Countries

Experience in other "Land for Life" countries shows that implementation is the real challenge of successful land reform. In Liberia, there had already been far-reaching reforms to the Land Act in 2018, which primarily provide for the formalization of community land rights. A lack of resources and capacity proved to be the main hurdle to implementation in view of the high complexity of defining and allocating such land rights fairly. The MAP plays an important role here in better coordinating civil society and government projects, in cooperating rather than competing.

In Burkina Faso, too, it is clear that laws alone are not enough to make for a fair land policy. Women's land rights are enshrined in law here, for example, but in practice land is managed according to traditional systems, which means that land is only inherited by men. The MAP (PMAF) supported by "Land for Life" tried to achieve improvements by specifically involving traditional authorities. After special training, a group of them could be recruited to act as champions for women's land rights.

Land Reform Alone is Not Enough

With sufficient resources, accountability mechanisms and political will for implementation, land reform can be the key to making decisions on land and agricultural investment profitable for all stakeholders. But it is not a patent solution for all possible scenarios. One example are investments in land that are formally based on inclusive agreements and do not legally constitute a land grab. All legal frameworks may have been respected in such cases, but imbalances, exploitation and conflict can persist if local communities lack awareness of their legal rights, communication channels between investors and local government do not work and there is insufficient accountability.

In Ethiopia, “Land for Life” is trying to help close these gaps through community-investor-local government forums (CILGFs). In one case, there was an intractable conflict between a community and an investor running a farm for ornamental plants. The local community felt that a payment to compensate them for the loss of their land was insufficient even though it had been determined in negotiations. In addition, there were social issues, such as the prevailing working conditions for local workers, and environmental problems, such as the chemical contamination of the community’s agricultural land.