Results
Human activity and changes in land use are the primary cause of the
global increase in soil erosion (Borrelli et al, 2017). However, this
global phenomenon receives little attention and its socio-political
implications appear to be underappreciated. As Lal (2001: 519) writes:
“Soil degradation is a biophysical process exacerbated by
socio-economic and political factors.” Lal lists land tenure as one of
six important anthropogenic factors for soil degradation. The centrality
of land tenure for combating soil erosion relates to the fact that
conflicts around (access to) land and perceived security of tenure
affect people’s willingness and ability to invest in land (see: Ravnborg
et al 2013). However, tenure security alone will not suffice to enable
people to invest in their land and address soil erosion. As long as
human needs are pressing, sustainable land management is likely to be
viewed as secondary to income and livelihoods. The necessity of
addressing soil erosion to ensure long-term ability to profit from the
land is not equally clear to every land user. Nevertheless, even in
circumstances where people are aware of the existence and risks of soil
degradation this awareness does not necessarily lead to sustainable land
management (Ndagijimana et al, 2018). It has been argued that extrinsic
motivation tends to be insufficient to ensure that farmers invest in
sustainable land management. Intrinsic motivation is seen to be the key
variable (ibid.). This paper argues that (perceived) tenure security
presents an important component of sustainable intrinsic motivation for
sustainable land management. To perceive one’s tenure are secure is a
key driver of investing in agriculture and land more generally (see
also: Ghebru et al, 2016).
The basis for investing in sustainable land management for many farmers
is be to both motivated to undertake action and to have the means to
invest (Ndagijimana et al, 2018). The Integrated Farm Planning approach
(PIP) strives to enable farmers to invest in and profit from their land
by applying simple methods for developing a household farm‐plan with
activities focusing on family competences and building a vision on
household level. At its core is peer-to-peer learning among farmers. A
group of farmers is trained to create a development vision on the
household level as well to apply simple, resource-adequate techniques to
improve farming results. These farmers in turn train a second group,
which in turn trains a third. The trainings received in the context of
the PIP approach (building a vision, soil and water conservation,
integrated soil fertility management and others) help farmers to develop
an integrated farm plan that addresses different dimensions of household
development (Ndagijimana et al, 2018). The motivation of the farmers to
change their life and practices are key to this approach. The PIP
approach has been applied in Burundi by the Dutch NGOs ZOA and Oxfam
Novib and achieved highly positive results (Kessler/Van Reemst, 2018).
The application of PIP in Burundi has led farmers to significantly
change their practices not only related to farming itself but also in
terms of household and community relations. People have started to do
joint planning and to make decisions together within the household
(PAPAB, 2018). It has also led to increased collaboration on community
level. A qualitative analysis of the work has also indicated that the
PIP approach can contribute to reinforcing the role of women in the
household, strengthening their say in household matters (ibid.).
Overall, better communication and collaboration within the household was
among the most significant findings of the evaluation. People also
mentioned that a lack of cultivable land was contributing to an initial
feeling of helplessness and lack of perspective that was changed by the
peer training and positive developments observed among other
participants. One farmer reported: “(…) I was trained on modern
agricultural techniques, I learned that the use of selected seeds, the
respect of spacings and the use of organic manure mixed with mineral
manure increases agricultural production if they are done on farms
protected against erosion” (PAPAB, 2018).
The PIP approach thus combines mentality changes with integrated soil
fertility management, anti-erosion control and management of natural
resources in the context of the integrated farm plans. The integrated
farm plan that gives the approach its name (PIP) essentially consists of
two pictures, one that depicts the farm’s current situation and one that
visualises the vision of the household. Crucially, the PIP includes a
concrete action plan. This motivates the family to plan and invest in
their future (Kessler/Van Reemst, 2018).
Analyses of the PIP approach specifically refer to land tenure security
(having official land registration) as a key component of intrinsic
motivation needed to invest in sustainable land management (Ndagijimana
et al, 2018). In Burundi, unregistered land is still considered as state
property and having unregistered land can be discouraging the users from
introducing sustainable land management investments (ibid.).
Furthermore, many people experience land conflicts with neighbours,
family members or returnees who come back after years of internal
displacement or living as refugees in neighbouring countries (Betge et
al, 2017). This increases insecurity of tenure and discourages people
from long-term investments in land or even prevents them from accessing
parts of it.
In late 2013, the Dutch Humanitarian organization ZOA started a project
financed by the Dutch Embassy in Bujumbura, designed to establish a
functioning local land administration linked to an envisioned scaled-up
land registration program initiated on the national level (ZOA, 2013).
The approach is based on a concept for fit-for-purpose land rights work
(see: Betge et al, 2017b). ZOA targets areas with high levels of
repatriation of former refugees and displaced people and a special focus
is put on safeguarding the interests of women in the process of land
rights registration. One of the central objectives of the project is to
enable men and women to invest in their land and increase household food
security and income. ZOA cooperates with local partner Mi-Parec
(Ministry for Peace and Reconciliation under the Cross) who support the
project in resolving conflicts related to land and training local land
registration committees in mediation (Betge et al, 2017). The
combination of land tenure registration (LTR) and conflict resolution is
central to the project. Mediation between conflict parties, particularly
between returnees and residents, and a recording of the results of these
mediations are seen as the basis for ensuring sustainable conflict
resolution and tenure security of all parties and a basis for future
land investments. The efforts around land tenure registration in Burundi
are viewed as essential aspects of broader efforts to increase peace and
stability as well as to contribute to food security for the population
(Netherlands Embassy Office Bujumbura-Burundi, 2011).
At the core of ZOA’s land registration work is the documentation of the
location of a plot of land and the dimensions of the parcel. This data
is put on a certificate so that the owner has evidence, serving to
reduce uncertainties and future conflicts concerning boundaries. A
public registry ensures that everyone who wants to acquire land can
verify who the owner is and that his (or her) assertions as to the
dimensions and other aspects of the land are true (IDLO/ZOA, 2016).
Recognition Committees on Colline level were created (CRCs). These
committees publicly establish whether there are land disputes regarding
a plot, determine who occupies that land and who holds the de facto
rights to that land. They then conduct plot surveys using handheld GPS
devices, mobile phones with Kobo collect software and aerial photos. All
of the neighbours of the particular plot participate in this exercise.
The outcomes of the process are published and if after a period of 15
days no objection is made a certificate is issued. The owner needs to
retrieve the certificate from the local land administration office.
After this has happened there follows another 30 day period during which
objections to the registration can be voiced (Betge et al, 2017).
ZOA followed a systematic approach to registration that enables all
landholders to access the registration service (approche groupée). The
systematic approach strives to address the social complexities of land
tenure registration by including a broad range of stakeholders and
making the process as accessible as possible. This also requires
incremental capacity building of statutory and customary authorities who
are responsible for maintaining the tenure system in the long term.
One of the central challenges of the registration process is increasing
women’s tenure security. While legally, women’s land rights can be
registered, this does not always ensure the factual access to land e.g.
after the death of a husband. Specific efforts have been undertaken to
ensure women are not excluded from the tenure registration. This aspect
remains a point of attention as it means addressing norms and beliefs.
State and customary authorities also play a crucial role in this.
ZOA’s land rights program is designed as part of a holistic approach
integrated in interventions by ZOA and other organizations targeting the
effects of tensions over refugee resettlement, high population growth
and declining agricultural productivity (Betge et al, 2017). In this
sense, the land registration program relates to efforts for intensifying
agricultural production through distributing agricultural inputs such as
seeds, fertilizer, organic manure or animals and providing trainings on
improved agricultural practices. A basic idea of the program is that
conflict mediation, land certification and activities aimed at increased
investments in agriculture and increased agricultural productivity are
mutually reinforcing (ZOA, 2013). Recent outcome evaluations have shown
that the local land administrations have become functional and enabled
the registration of more than 43.000 parcels. The roles of state
authorities and customary authorities are crucial in this. Without their
cooperation the functionality and legitimacy of the outputs would be
extremely limited while LTR interventions can have significant effects
on the legitimacy of various actors (Betge et al, 2019). Strong efforts
are still needed to ensure long-term conflict resolution as access to
justice remains a challenge. However, there are clear indications that
there is high demand for having land registered and conflicts resolved.
At the same time, farmers are waiting to see clear, tangible benefits
from improved tenure security. In many contexts, people have become used
to receiving free inputs and support (see also: Reincke et al, 2018).
Approaches, relying on material incentives often fail to deliver
sustainable outcomes as they do not activate the crucial intrinsic
motivation of men and women to improve their lives and livelihoods.
Combining the PIP approach and the systematic approach to land tenure
registration and conflict resolution appears to be highly logical. There
are clear indications that improved tenure security can contribute to
food security (Ghebru/Holden, 2013) and there is a logical link between
tenure security and investments in combating soil erosion. Applying
approaches that create synergies between these aspects should therefore
be self-evident. Interestingly, in many contexts where tenure
registration programmes are ongoing such integrated approaches are not
standard practice, as to the knowledge of the author. The Netherlands
Embassy in Bujumbura and its partners realized the unique opportunity of
combining the two approaches and designed a multi-stakeholder approach
that integrates central elements of the Land Tenure Approach and the PIP
and complements them with access to finance elements and a strategy to
provide strategic advice to farmers and enabling better market access.