Abstract
Landscape restoration plays a key role in mitigating the impacts of climate change, providing food and energy for growing populations, and protecting biodiversity. When rolling out large-scale land restoration programmes it is crucial—both from economic and social justice standpoints—to secure and protect legitimate claims to land. Yet, the implementation and enforcement of land policy is weak in many countries.
This chapter presents two cases, from Kenya and Burkina Faso, in which women’s access to land was secured through alternative, locally driven approaches. TMG Research and partners piloted social innovations that give farmers secure land use rights through formal leases and intra-household tenure arrangements. The success of these innovations depended on strong community participation, facilitation by trusted and neutral civil society organisations, and the alignment of customary and statutory land tenure systems.
A variety of approaches is needed to address the nexus of land tenure security and soil restoration. The inclusion of innovative, community-driven approaches within land and soil policy frameworks and development programmes is particularly effective where the implementation of broader land reforms is weak.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
SDG 15.3: “By 2030, combat desertification, restore degraded land and soil, including land affected by desertification, drought and floods, and strive to achieve a land degradation-neutral world”.
- 2.
IPCC (2019).
- 3.
See: https://www.unenvironment.org/news-and-stories/press-release/new-un-decade-ecosystem-restoration-offers-unparalleled-opportunity. [accessed on 25 August, 2021].
- 4.
- 5.
IPCC (2019), p. 31.
- 6.
See: https://www.unccd.int/sites/default/files/sessions/documents/2019-11/26-cop14.pdf. [accessed on 25 August, 2021].
- 7.
Koudougou and Stiem (2017).
- 8.
Enemark et al. (2015).
- 9.
- 10.
For the concept of “continuum of land rights”, see UN Habitat (2008).
- 11.
The Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context of National Food Security (VGGT) emphasise the need to recognise and protect legitimate land tenure rights. There is no formal definition of legitimate land rights, as the notion of legitimacy is highly contextual. However, the VGGT refer to legitimate land rights in the context of informal tenure rights that are regarded as socially legitimate at the local level.
- 12.
More information about this research project can be found here: https://soilmates.org/. More information about the GIZ-led global programme can be found here: https://www.giz.de/en/worldwide/32181.html.
- 13.
The idea of this accompanying research project was born at the Global Soil Week, a platform bringing together a diverse range of actors to initiate and strengthen policies and actions on sustainable soil management and responsible land governance. The results of the accompanying research project were regularly discussed at the Global Soil Week and provided lessons learnt for a broad range of stakeholders from the partner countries and beyond. More information can be found here: https://globalsoilweek.org/.
- 14.
Hughes (2014).
- 15.
Paradza (2011).
- 16.
- 17.
Bock (2012).
- 18.
Neumeier (2017), p. 35.
- 19.
Phills et al. (2008), p. 36.
- 20.
Neumeier (2017).
- 21.
Government of Burkina Faso (2018a).
- 22.
Government of Burkina Faso (2018b).
- 23.
- 24.
Linkow (2016).
- 25.
Kevane and Gray (1999).
- 26.
Government of Burkina Faso (2009).
- 27.
Hughes (2014).
- 28.
Bambio and Bouayad Agha (2018).
- 29.
See: www.graf-bf.org.
- 30.
cf. Stiem-Bhatia and Koudougou (2018).
- 31.
cf. Koudougou and Stiem (2017).
- 32.
cf. Koudougou et al. (2017).
- 33.
The primary land rights holder here was the head of clan or chef de terre, who has the right to allocate plots of the clan’s communal land to families. He has the authority to approve land rights transactions within and across families.
- 34.
The head of the family farm (mostly equates with the head of the household) has the right to control the land (i.e., decide on the use of land), but must seek consent from the head of clan or chef de terre if the family decides to transfer land rights. Therefore, the head of the family farm/household is referred to as the secondary land rights holder.
- 35.
The monitoring of the research process took place between March 2018 and February 2020. Qualitative data provided an in-depth understanding of the process and outcomes of this research project. Data were collected through multi-stakeholder workshops (2), focus groups discussions (26), individual farmer (16) and expert interviews (6), and informal communication with farmers, village leaders, the mayor and other resource people. Local perceptions of farmers, extension workers and municipal administrators helped us to understand how the research process resulted in the development of socially legitimate tenure agreements between women and men. Observation as a participant in and evaluator of the research process complemented the data (ex-post self-evaluation). Document analysis and literature reviews completed the data triangulation.
- 36.
During the focus group discussions, one household was found to have had ulterior motives for participating in the research process. The woman who was supposed to benefit from land allocation never even saw the land she was allegedly given.
- 37.
During the final multi-stakeholder workshop (atelier de bilan) to conclude the process in Tiarako, men who had transferred land use rights to women publicly committed to support the women in making best use of the fields they received in the context of the land rights transfer process.
- 38.
UNDP (2019).
- 39.
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (2016).
- 40.
Kiragu and Flohr (2016).
- 41.
Women, while not the only social grou** disadvantaged in terms of land tenure, were the focus of the social innovations analysed in the context of this chapter.
- 42.
Kameri-Mbote (2002).
- 43.
Musangi (2017).
- 44.
Nyangena (2010).
- 45.
Government of Kenya (2019).
- 46.
County Government Kakamega (2018).
- 47.
Lusweti (2017).
- 48.
- 49.
The monitoring of the research process combined qualitative and quantitative research methods. Data were collected through records of land lease agreements, multi-stakeholder workshops (2), focus groups discussions (26), individual farmer (16) and expert interviews (6), and informal communication with farmers, village leaders, the mayor and other resource people. Local perceptions helped us to understand how the research process resulted in the development of socially legitimate tenure agreements between women and men. Observation as a participant in and evaluator of the research process complemented the data (ex-post self-evaluation). Document analysis and literature reviews completed the data triangulation.
- 50.
TMG Research (2019).
- 51.
Civil society organisations and community-based organisations are used interchangeably in this context because both are non-governmental organisations representing civil society. Community-based organisations here are understood as civil society organisations at community level.
- 52.
Muok and Kingiri (2015).
- 53.
Koudougou and Stiem (2017).
- 54.
Paradza (2011).
- 55.
Paradza (2011), p. 11.
- 56.
- 57.
Zevenbergen et al. (2013).
- 58.
- 59.
Moulaert et al. (2005), p. 1978.
- 60.
Ali et al. (2014).
- 61.
Zevenbergen et al. (2013).
- 62.
Zevenbergen (2013).
- 63.
- 64.
World Bank (2006).
- 65.
FAO and TerraAfrica (2016).
- 66.
Ibid.
- 67.
Paradza (2011).
References
Ali DA, Deininger K, Goldstein M (2014) Environmental and gender impacts of land tenure regularization in Africa: Pilot evidence from Rwanda. J. Dev. Econ. 110:262–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2013.12.009
Awono A, Somorin OA, Eba’a Atyi R, Levang P (2014) Tenure and participation in local REDD+ projects: Insights from southern Cameroon. Environ. Sci. Policy 35:76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.01.017
Bambio Y, Bouayad Agha S (2018) Land tenure security and investment: does strength of land right really matter in rural Burkina Faso? World Dev. 111:130–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2018.06.026
Bock BB (2012) Social innovation and sustainability; how to disentangle the buzzword and its application in the fi eld of agriculture and rural development. Stud. Agric. Econ. 114:57–63. https://doi.org/10.7896/j.1209
County Government of Kakamega (2018) Kakagema County Integrated Development Plan 2018–2022. https://kakamega.go.ke/download/county-integrated-development-plan-2018-2022/ [last accessed 28 August, 2021]
Deininger K, Savastano S, **a F (2017) Smallholders’ land access in Sub-Saharan Africa: a new landscape? Food Policy 67:78–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2016.09.012
Enemark S, Bel KC, Lemmen C, McLaren R (2015) Fit-for-purpose land administration, FIG/ World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050326.1978.10441468
FAO, TerraAfrica (2016) Informing Future Interventions for Scaling-up Sustainable Land Management
Goldstein M, Udry C (2008) The profits of power: land rights and agricultural investment in Ghana. J. Polit. Econ. 116:981–1022
Government of Burkina Faso (2009) LOI N° 034-2009/AN PORTANT REGIME FONCIER RURAL
Government of Burkina Faso (2018a) PROGRAMME DE DEFINITIONS DES CIBLES DE LA NEUTRALITE EN MATEIRE DE DEGRADATION DES TERRES (PDC/NDT)
Government of Burkina Faso (2018b) Deuxième Programme National du Secteur Rural (PNSR II)
Government of Kenya (2019) Kenya Population and Housing Census Volume I: Population by County and Sub-County. https://www.knbs.or.ke/?wpdmpro=2019-kenya-population-and-housing-census-volume-i-population-by-county-and-sub-county [last accessed 28 August, 2021]
Higgins D, Balint T, Liversage H, Winters P (2018) Investigating the impacts of increased rural land tenure security: a systematic review of the evidence. J. Rural Stud. 61:34–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.05.001
Hughes O (2014) Literature review of land tenure in Niger, Burkina Faso, and Mali. Context and Opportunities, Baltimore, USA
IPCC (2019) Climate Change and Land: an IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems, IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784710644
Kameri-Mbote DP (2002) Gender Dimensions of Law, Colonialism and Inheritance in East Africa
Kevane M, Gray LC (1999) A woman’s field is made at night: gendered land rights and norms in Burkina Faso. Fem. Econ. 5:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/135457099337789
Kiragu S, Flohr A (2016) Sustainable Land Management in Western Kenya – Lessons Learnt and Future Directions. Potsdam, Germany. https://doi.org/10.2312/iass.2016.012
Koudougou S, Stiem L (ed., 2017) La Gestion Durable des Terres au Burkina Faso: une analyse d’expériences de projets dans le Houet, le Tuy et le Ioba. Potsdam, Germany. https://doi.org/10.2312/iass.2017.006
Koudougou S, Stiem-Bhatia L, Bary H, Tall F (2017) Genre, foncier et gestion durable des terres au Burkina Faso. Potsdam, Germany. https://doi.org/10.2312/iass.2017.024
Linkow B (2016) Causes and consequences of perceived land tenure insecurity: survey evidence from Burkina Faso. Land Econ. 92:308–327. https://doi.org/10.3368/le.92.2.308
Lusweti I (2017) Land leasing rapid appraisal in Isukha West ward, Shinyalu sub-county, Kakamega County, Kenya. Internal TMG Report. Unpublished
Mburu J, Kiragu-Wissler S (2018) Sustainable Land Management in Western Kenya: An Analysis of Project-Basd Interventions. Berlin, Germany
Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (2016) Kenya Strategic Investment Framework for Sustainable Land Management 2017–2027. http://www.environment.go.ke/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/KSIF-Kenya-Strategic-Investment-Framework-on-SLM-2017-2027.pdf [last accessed 28 August, 2021]
Moulaert F, Martinelli F, Swyngedouw E, González S (2005) Towards alternative model(s) of local innovation. Urban Stud. 42:1969–1990. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980500279893
Muok BO, Kingiri A (2015) The role of civil society organizations in low-carbon innovation in Kenya. Innov. Dev. 5:207–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2015.1064558
Musangi P (2017) Women, land and property rights in Kenya, Paper prepared for presentation at the “2017 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty.”
Namubiru-Mwaura E (2014) Land Tenure and Gender: Approaches and challenges for strengthening rural women’s land rights (No. 7 92761). Women’s Voice and Agency Research Series
Neumeier S (2017) Social innovation in rural development: identifying the key factors of success. Geogr. J. 183:34–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12180
Nyangena W (2010) Determinants of household participation in land rental markets in Rural Kenya. University of Nairobi, School of Economics, Nairobi, Kenya
Paradza G (2011) Innovations for securing women’s access to land in Eastern Africa. The International Land Coalition
Phills JA Jr, Deiglmeier K, Miller DT (2008) Rediscovering social innovation. Stanford Soc Innov Rev
Stiem L, Krause T (2016) Exploring the impact of social norms and perceptions on women’s participation in customary forest and land governance in the Democratic Republic of Congo— implications for REDD+. Int. For. Rev. 18:110–122. https://doi.org/10.1505/146554816818206113
Stiem-Bhatia L, Koudougou S (2018) Innovations for women’s land access. Rural 21 52
TMG Research (2019) Global Soil Week 2019: Creating an Enabling Environment for Sustainable and Climate-Resilient Agriculture in Africa. Berlin, Germany. https://globalsoilweek.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/gsw_report_edit_v3-1.pdf [last accessed 28 August, 2021]
UNDP (2019) Kenya [WWW Document]. Hum Dev Reports. URL http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/KEN [last accessed 28 August, 2021]
World Bank (2006) Sustainable Land Management: Challenges, Opportunities, and Trade-offs. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, Washington, DC
Zevenbergen J, Augustinus C, Antonio D, Bennett R (2013) Pro-poor land administration: principles for recording the land rights of the underrepresented. Land Use Policy 31:595–604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.09.005
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Stiem-Bhatia, L., Kiragu-Wissler, S., Kramer, A. (2022). Sustainable Land Management Through Social Innovation in Land Tenure. In: Ginzky, H., et al. International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy 2020/2021. International Yearbook of Soil Law and Policy, vol 2020. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96347-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96347-7_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-96346-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-96347-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)