Suchergebnisse

Fostering legitimate authority has become a priority of the international peacebuilding and development community, notably in fragile states and conflict-affected settings. Yet, how peacebuilding and development interventions feed into legitimation practices of public authorities remains underexplored, let alone how interveners can strategize on this. Analysis of programs to support land registration in Northern Uganda brings out how interventions not just enhance the legitimacy of targeted authorities. Often unintentionally, they impact on struggles for legitimacy between different state and nonstate authorities and change their relative legitimacy. They do so by redistributing land governance roles and responsibilities; stimulating certain practices of land governance; and contributing to the discussion on legitimacy assessments. The conclusion argues for more sensitivity to legitimation effects of peacebuilding and development interventions.

ABSTRACTThis paper argues that violent conflict prominently impacts on land governance and so contributes to land conflicts in post-conflict settings. In the natural resources literature, the relationship between land and conflict is often explained in terms of environmental security or political ecology, and many have pointed out that the way land is governed in itself may be a source of conflict. However, less attention has been given to the effects of violent conflict on land and its governance in post-conflict situations. This paper argues that violent conflict affects land governance in many ways and that this in turn might contribute to further violent conflict. The argument builds around an extended case study of the Apaa evictions in Amuru District in Northern Uganda. The case illustrates how conflict around land is not just the result of resource scarcity and competition, but is the outcome of a combination of political, historical and social dynamics. Past policies on land and practices of land governance play a critical role in this. However at the same time, violent conflict has a critical impact on land access, transforms land governance authority and the rules applied. The land conflicts resulting from this, in turn, fuel ethnic tensions between local population groups, and grievances about those in power and the institutions that govern natural resources. The ways in which such problematic conflict-induced changes in land access and governance are dealt with by policymakers is critical for post-conflict stability.

ABSTRACTThere is a growing interest in localized land registration, in which user rights are acknowledged and recorded through a community‐based procedure, as an alternative to centralized titling to promote secure tenure in sub‐Saharan Africa. Localized land registration is expected to reduce land disputes, yet it remains unclear how it impacts disputes in practice. This is an urgent question for war‐affected settings that experience sensitive land disputes. This article discusses findings from ethnographic fieldwork in Burundi on pilot projects for land certification. It identifies three ways in which certification feeds into land conflicts rather than preventing or resolving them. First, land certification represents a chance for local people to enter a new round of claim making, as those ignored or disenfranchised in earlier rounds see new opportunities. Second, it offers an avenue for institutional competition between different land‐governing institutions. Third, certification provides politicians with openings to interfere in tenure relations and to expand their support base. The authors conclude that these problems are not simply a matter of inadequate policy design. Rather, there are crucial political dimensions to land conflicts and land tenure in Burundi, which means that land registration programmes run the risk of inflaming conflictive property relations in rural communities.

Literature on transformations to sustainability increasingly recognizes transformation as inherently political, but the field still struggles to study these politics. Our research project 'Securing Tenure, Sustainable Peace?' on efforts to localize land registration in conflict-affected settings, both illustrates and contributes to understanding the politics of transformation. Building on insights from political ecology/economy, legal and political anthropology, and the anthropology of conflict, we analyse the politics involved in (1) the overarching policy discourses that legitimize these interventions; (2) the competition around these programmes; and (3) the outcomes, or the risks and contradictory effects of these programmes. We present insights that we consider relevant to develop better conceptualizations of the politics of transformations in sustainability studies more broadly. In particular, we draw attention to the tendency of de-politicization, which involves the hiding in technical formats of what are in essence political choices; as well as the need to give attention to institutional competition and to risks involved and unexpected outcomes of transformation.

Literature on transformations to sustainability increasingly recognizes transformation as inherently political, but the field still struggles to study these politics. Our research project 'Securing Tenure, Sustainable Peace?' on efforts to localize land registration in conflict-affected settings, both illustrates and contributes to understanding the politics of transformation. Building on insights from political ecology/economy, legal and political anthropology, and the anthropology of conflict, we analyse the politics involved in (1) the overarching policy discourses that legitimize these interventions; (2) the competition around these programmes; and (3) the outcomes, or the risks and contradictory effects of these programmes. We present insights that we consider relevant to develop better conceptualizations of the politics of transformations in sustainability studies more broadly. In particular, we draw attention to the tendency of de-politicization, which involves the hiding in technical formats of what are in essence political choices; as well as the need to give attention to institutional competition and to risks involved and unexpected outcomes of transformation.