Earlier this month, Liberian President and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Ellen Johnson Sirleaf warned that Africa would continue to be stalked by poverty, hunger and famine until governments provide smallholder farmers with secure rights to land.
She was speaking from experience, both personal and political.
Johnson Sirleaf and her tiny West African nation are perfect examples of the steep toll that insecure land rights take on individuals, communities and nations.
Disputes over land ownership were a key driver of Liberia’s bloody 14-year civil war, and overlapping claims to land continue to foment conflict and impede foreign investment.
Not even the president is immune to weak land-tenure laws; squatters invaded a 1.6 hectare parcel that Johnson Sirleaf bought in 1979 and refused to move for years.
Stories like these can be heard across the continent. According to the World Bank, more than 90 percent of Africa’s rural land is undocumented. Overlapping and conflicting land-management systems are the norm, as are inaccessible, out-of-date, inaccurate or nonexistent land records.
However, while dysfunctional systems of land tenure have no doubt cost African governments millions in foreign investment, they have hurt African farmers most directly.
Africa’s small family farmers — already burdened by soil degradation, climate change and resource competition fueled by surging populations — face an even more challenging bureaucratic hurdle: no paper to prove that the land they call home is theirs. Uncertain of their ability to control their farms into the next season, farmers’ planning horizons shrink. Instead of investing in terraced fields, planting trees and buying high-quality fertilizer, Africa’s farmers seek to maximize short-term profits. This is particularly true of female farmers, who face an additional thicket of discriminatory land laws and customs.
Studies show there is no way to reduce poverty, improve nutrition or achieve other key development goals without strengthening land rights, especially for women. Secure rights to land are simply a prerequisite of development.
In Tanzania, women with secure rights earn three times more than their landless counterparts. In Nepal, children whose mothers have secure land rights are 33 percent more likely to be well-nourished. And in Zambia, in areas where women’s land rights are weak and HIV infection rates are high, women are less likely to make investments to improve harvests — even when their husbands are not HIV positive.
These women anticipate that they will be forced off their land if and when they are widowed, and that expectation depresses farm investment, affecting harvests and family nutrition for years.
Given that there are 400 million female farmers, such findings suggest the high global costs — measured in terms of lost productivity and unrealized economic potential — of insecure land rights for women.
In Africa, the signs of insecure land rights are literally etched into the landscape. In some regions, poor recordkeeping and weak administrative structures have forced landowners to post notices in their fields or on their homes, warning prospective buyers that they may be duped into purchasing parcels from people who are not the legitimate owners.
Communities with clear legal control over land manage those resources more assiduously than those with shaky tenure. The same can be said for individuals. In Ghana, farmers with strong land rights are 39 percent more likely to plant trees. In Ethiopia, farmers are 60 percent more likely to invest in preventing soil erosion when they have secure rights to their plots.
However, while the evidence is clear, nearly 1 billion people worldwide continue to lack secure rights to the land they rely on for a living.
As the Cadasta Foundation and Habitat for Humanity’s Solid Ground campaign recently demonstrated in a new online survey, these uncertainties have far-reaching consequences. Weak land rights can limit farmers’ access to crop insurance, make it difficult for their children to register for school and can even contribute to higher rates of suicide.
The Liberian Senate is considering legislation that would dramatically strengthen land rights for farmers, including female farmers. Many other countries in Africa and in Asia have done, or are planning to do, the same. These efforts should be supported and replicated.
Yet people are not waiting for their leaders to act. Innovative technologies are already providing a path forward for communities in countries with unwilling or incapable governments.
Advances in GPS, drones and cloud computing have given communities the ability to document land — with or without official recognition or support. Together with the Cadasta Foundation, communities from Nigeria to India are using handheld devices to map property and support land claims with hard evidence, thereby allowing for strengthening of tenure.
Liberia’s drive to spearhead a continent-wide overhaul of land rights is welcome; leaders like Johnson Sirleaf understand the challenges that come with weak land laws.
However, structural changes will take time. In the absence of more assertive government intervention, it will be up to communities and individuals to leapfrog conventional efforts and fill in the blank spaces on the map.
Frank Pichel is chief programs officer and cofounder of the Cadasta Foundation.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with