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.