Discussion
Accelerated, human induced soil erosion is a major threat to soils
globally (Borrelli et al, 2017). This paper contributes to the
literature on sustainable land management in (post-conflict) development
settings (see: Betge, 2019). Furthermore, it shows a way to create
synergies between two relatively new and highly innovative approaches in
development cooperation, the PIP approach and a fit-for-purpose land
tenure registration approach. The result of this paper is a sketch
concept for an integrated approach towards improved land management,
including land tenure security, reduction of land related conflicts,
improved agricultural productivity and climate smart practices with a
focus on combating soil erosion.
I argue that sustainable results, in particular in (post-conflict)
developing countries, will only be achieved through such integrated
approaches. Soil protection and more broadly the combating of
environmental degradation are not simply technical issues and in many
countries around the world state actors lack the capacities to deliver
the necessary services. The FAO underlines that land tenure is a key
factor in resources management and resource degradation (FAO, 2002).
Complex land systems involve multitudes of actors that place demands on
natural resources which can only be addressed through coherent land use
planning (Briassouli, 2019: 2). Farmers need to have an intrinsic
motivation to invest in their land and protect soils. In the long-term,
this motivation will only be sustained if land rights are secure. “If a
farmer cannot look to the future with security, little can be hazarded
by him beyond the expenses which the returns of the year will defray;
and not only will all great improvements, but even the most common works
of the season, be imperfectly performed.” (D. Low 1844; Landed Property
and the Economy of Estates; LONDON. Cited after Bruce/Migot-Adholla
1994).
The argument made here is that significant results regarding improved
land management and in particular relating to soil erosion can be
achieved through an integrated approach such as the one proposed. This
requires different actors to adapt their ways of working, including
donors to adapt their ways of funding in order to make such projects
possible. Short-term financing or consortia of implementers who work
alongside each other instead of together will not suffice to make
sustainable and scalable results possible. Furthermore, clear regulatory
frameworks are needed that enable efficient and effective consortia
management including necessary lobbying and advocacy activities towards
policy makers.
Investments in land rights work strongly contribute to the resilience of
local communities and resilience in turn is closely related to the food
security of smallholders (Van Hecke, 2018). If land rights work is
combined with targeted livelihood support including soil protection
providing people with economic opportunities, they are likely to also
invest in soil protection. Land rights work done right contributes to
better social relations and better state-society relations. These
objectives can only be achieved by flexible, conflict sensitive and
above all participatory approaches. Generally, land rights work needs to
be focused on improving governance structures, be they formal or
informal. Therefore, land rights work is always a social intervention
and never just a technical process and it needs to go beyond securing
rights. Improvements in people’s lives need to be tangible and possible
to be achieved in a foreseeable timeframe. Soil protection and
restoration as well as increased agricultural production are key
elements to achieve this.