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.