The Relationship between Land Tenure and Conflict

In some countries, lack of access to land is a major livelihood constraint for many people. This is the case particularly in areas suffering marginalization due to political and geographic factors. Where major local grievances exist, poverty can be an underlying reason for recruitment into armed groups as militia members or members of regular forces are able to sustain themselves by looting. Land tenure may not be mentioned as a reason for conflict, but it is linked to poverty which is in turn related to violence. Land scarcity, in the absence of off-farm livelihood options, is therefore often a structural cause of conflict in parts of Africa, and the developing world.

In addition to these structural aspects, land can also be a proximate, or visible, cause of conflict: for example, when land disputes, tenure insecurity, or inequality in land access are recognized as major grievances, which can motivate violence. Usually, grievances over land are combined with other political problems; conflicts are by definition complex and have a number of causes. The nature of mediation and dispute resolution mechanisms are important factors in determining whether parties involved in a conflict will resort to violence: if they are seen as biased or ineffective, violence is likely. Political and military interference in local or traditional systems, such as courts or mediatotion committees, can exacerbate tensions and lead to violence. In many places, local conflict-reconciliation mechanisms are compromised during times of war, but can still offer a potential for addressing disputes over land if they can regain credibility after conflict ceases.

Of course, not all land-scarce countries, or areas with unequal land ownership, suffer conflict. Research suggests that the key determinant of whether violence will occur is not the extent of grievance in any given society, but rather the forms of social and political organization and cleavage which enable “boundaries” to be formed and people mobilized for violent ends. Unfortunately, land access disputes often have ethnic dimensions, as land use patterns and customary land tenure systems have an ethnic basis. Hence, the frequency of disputes involving farmers and pastoralists, and the use of the ‘ethnic card’ by conflict entrepreneurs.

In addition to the “legalistic” aspects of land access and control, there are other dimensions - economic, political, social and spiritual - which are equally important. For example, land may often be significant as a means of production, an area where political authority is expressed and taxes may be raised (the concept of “territory”), a means by which families and individuals maintain social status and also as a source of feelings of ancestral “belonging”, as ancestors are buried within traditional territories. Land is, therefore, by definition an emotional issue, and linked to cultural and other values.