Kenya needs workable land use policy

Land issues continue to be emotive in Kenya. It formed the basis for the fight for colonialism and the fight for independence. Successive governments have grappled with the land problem with very little success.

The adoption of the National Land Policy in 2009 and constitutional provisions on land in 2010 heralded a firm and progressive path for resolving the intractable land problems that had bedevilled the country for ages.

Eight years after the above events the country recently adopted a National Land Use Policy. The policy document, justifies its development on the challenges that the sector has experienced in the past as a result of absence of a comprehensive national landuse policy. These are stated as including haphazard management of the different land use practices and uncoordinated legal and policy responses and frameworks.

The policy, it is argued will help provide the much-needed solution to the land use problem that continue to be witnessed in the country. However, on reading the Policy one is not fully persuaded that it will deliver on its stated promise.

First, the county already has a National Land Policy. It is difficult to conceptually clarify the issues that should be the focus of a national land Policy as distinct from those that require a separate National Land Use Policy. Key issue in land management include land tenure, land use and land administration.

All theses are dealt with in the National Land Policy. Chapter Three of the National Land Use Policy deals with all these issues and more. One wonders where to get the policy position on land tenure issues, for example. Is it from the National Land Policy or the National Land Use Policy?

Secondly the policy argues against existence of several sectoral policies and states that it is their multiplicity and duplicity that continues to create confusion in land use and administration. It, then argues for the revision and harmonization of the relevant sectoral laws and policies.

Some of the sectoral laws and policies it identifies include the Land Act, the County Government Act and the National Land Commission Act. How these, especially the Land Act and National Land Policy can be seen as sectoral policies in the context of land use is baffling. The argument would seem to suggest that a national land Use policy is overarching while a national land use policy is sectoral.

The other issue that is a point of concern relates to institutional co-ordination. As the Policy correctly recognizes there is multiplicity of institutions responsible for regulation of and use.

The need to harmonize these is essential. However, the suggestion by the Policy to create both a National Land Use Council and the National Technical Implementation Committee bringing together all the different agencies with a mandate for land use may only serve to demonstrate and not solve the problem.

Why should we continue having close to ten agencies performing overlapping mandates and only suggest a meeting chaired by the Head of Public Service as the solution? This is a simplistic way to harmonization.

Recent events demonstrate that we require decisive action much more than a new policy document to deal with the numerous land use problems in the country.

On institutions, the current institutional architecture is unwieldy. It requires to be rethought and not just co-ordinated.

In a devolved system of government, and with the responsibility grated to the National Land Commission to have oversight over land use, how does the role of the National Land Commission sit with that of National Environmental Management Authority? How do these relate? Is the policy clarifying their relationships? This is much more urgent than just proposing creation of a Council.

A key issue in land use is the issue of planning. The country’s planning framework is currently uncoordinated. The legal framework governing planning is pre-2010 and does not recognize the changes brought by the Constitution. Instead of addressing land use, the policy should have focused on issues of planning only.