inherent in land relations.
29 Formalising tenure in law is but one issue among many
in the rural socio-political process, and by no means a sufficient condition.
Clarke concludes further that post-independence government policies have
favoured a centralised, top-down approach in tenure reforms, assuming it is the
most effective in ensuring productive exploitation.
30 Lack of and inadequate state
capacity and enforcement, however, made centralised efforts to manage the commons ineffective and generally led to de facto open access regimes.
31
Since the 1980s there has been increasing recognition that despite statutory
reforms to limit their authority, in many cases customary authorities remain effective
at managing access to communal land and regulating sustainable exploitation.
32
This growing interest in customary management systems, combined with governance trends towards decentralization, citizen participation and the prominence of
sustainable development discourse, have laid the foundation for an officially
recognised role for communities in managing the commons.
Policy regarding community management of the commons has in recent times
been dominated by the community-based natural resource management (CBNRM)
approach.
33 While primarily a technical (as opposed to legal) methodology,
CBNRM recognises the importance of secure rights of access and exclusion as a
basic precondition of effective management. further requires a well-defined social
group, clear regulations that limit levels of exploitation and a capacity to monitor and
enforce the rules. Rather than a prescriptive policy, CBNRM is more a model that
requires modification due to the nature of the particular resource, the technical
capability of government authorities, local power dynamics and external interests
regarding extraction. Despite the need for context specificity, CBNRM is today
widely considered the most effective strategy to balance the needs of sustainable
exploitation and environmental management.
34 Current policy regarding tenure of
the commons appears to have learnt the mistakes of centralised titling programs.
To dismiss customary institutions as unrepresentative and undemocratic fails to
appreciate the reality many rural communities face. Across the region, large-scale
attempts at land reform have had minimal impact and the state rarely has a legitimate
presence in rural areas regarding land affairs. So if it is accepted that customary
institutions are generally best placed to manage communal land and resources, then
the question remains how can equity and accountability be achieved in undemocratic
institutions? Quota systems can be put in place to guarantee representation of certain
vulnerable groups such as women and minorities, however this may not address how
29 See i.a. McAuslan (2005), Cotula and Mathieu (2008), Meizen-Dick et al. (2008) and Monteiro
et al. (2014).
30 Clarke (2009).
31 Hilhorst and Aarnink (1999).
32 See i.a. Sheperd (1992), Chimhowu and Woodhouse (2006) and Biitir and Nara (2016).
33 See for example the CBNRM approach in Ngamiland, Botswana examined in Kgathi and
Ngwenya (2005).
34 See the analysis provided in Dressler et al. (2010) for further reference.
Overview of Main Challenges with Regards to Land Tenure in Africa:. . .
129
29 Formalising tenure in law is but one issue among many
in the rural socio-political process, and by no means a sufficient condition.
Clarke concludes further that post-independence government policies have
favoured a centralised, top-down approach in tenure reforms, assuming it is the
most effective in ensuring productive exploitation.
30 Lack of and inadequate state
capacity and enforcement, however, made centralised efforts to manage the commons ineffective and generally led to de facto open access regimes.
31
Since the 1980s there has been increasing recognition that despite statutory
reforms to limit their authority, in many cases customary authorities remain effective
at managing access to communal land and regulating sustainable exploitation.
32
This growing interest in customary management systems, combined with governance trends towards decentralization, citizen participation and the prominence of
sustainable development discourse, have laid the foundation for an officially
recognised role for communities in managing the commons.
Policy regarding community management of the commons has in recent times
been dominated by the community-based natural resource management (CBNRM)
approach.
33 While primarily a technical (as opposed to legal) methodology,
CBNRM recognises the importance of secure rights of access and exclusion as a
basic precondition of effective management. further requires a well-defined social
group, clear regulations that limit levels of exploitation and a capacity to monitor and
enforce the rules. Rather than a prescriptive policy, CBNRM is more a model that
requires modification due to the nature of the particular resource, the technical
capability of government authorities, local power dynamics and external interests
regarding extraction. Despite the need for context specificity, CBNRM is today
widely considered the most effective strategy to balance the needs of sustainable
exploitation and environmental management.
34 Current policy regarding tenure of
the commons appears to have learnt the mistakes of centralised titling programs.
To dismiss customary institutions as unrepresentative and undemocratic fails to
appreciate the reality many rural communities face. Across the region, large-scale
attempts at land reform have had minimal impact and the state rarely has a legitimate
presence in rural areas regarding land affairs. So if it is accepted that customary
institutions are generally best placed to manage communal land and resources, then
the question remains how can equity and accountability be achieved in undemocratic
institutions? Quota systems can be put in place to guarantee representation of certain
vulnerable groups such as women and minorities, however this may not address how
29 See i.a. McAuslan (2005), Cotula and Mathieu (2008), Meizen-Dick et al. (2008) and Monteiro
et al. (2014).
30 Clarke (2009).
31 Hilhorst and Aarnink (1999).
32 See i.a. Sheperd (1992), Chimhowu and Woodhouse (2006) and Biitir and Nara (2016).
33 See for example the CBNRM approach in Ngamiland, Botswana examined in Kgathi and
Ngwenya (2005).
34 See the analysis provided in Dressler et al. (2010) for further reference.
Overview of Main Challenges with Regards to Land Tenure in Africa:. . .
129