Land reforms should be re-energised

Despite the centrality of land to the country’s development, the national focus on land reform has waned over the last few years. The evidence of this can be seen in the ongoing discussions around the report of the Building Bridges Initiative taskforce.

Although the original report released in 2019 did not deal with land, the one released a few weeks ago acknowledges the need to address land reforms to reduce ethnic antagonism and competition.

However, despite the challenges that land reforms have faced since the adoption of the 2010 Constitution, the report shies away from interrogating the action needed to actualise land reforms in the country. The report recognises the problem of land grabbing and then critiques a recent Court of Appeal decision that suggests that those who buy are immune from the illegality of the process. The other issues are captured only as sentiments from the public.

The fact that a report that is poised to have a huge impact on the governance of the country is reticent on practical recommendations on pushing land reforms forward is evidence of the waning attention being paid to the process. The question that this raises is whether the past decade has succeeded in resolving the key land problems to an extent that it is no longer a priority governance issue.

Unfortunately, the answer to this question is in the negative. From communities struggling with recognition of their communal land rights, continued evictions both in urban and rural areas, encroachment on critical ecosystems, to land grabbing and land conflicts, challenges still abound.

What then is the cause of the silence on land of reforms? While there are numerous laws, institutions and policy frameworks, far-reaching and fundamental reforms do not seem to be gaining enough traction.

The explanation can be traced to the political nature of land reforms. Most of the major land problems are extremely sensitive politically. Consequently, politicians and government skirt around them and instead focus on the softer and easier issues revolving around land administration and titling.

Dealing with historical land injustices, for example, despite the constitutional recognition of its importance has not been properly addressed. This is not to say that there are no initiatives focusing on it. The initiatives are not robust and geared towards finding lasting solutions.

Changing this requires that we introspect. A key group that was at the forefront in pushing for land reforms in the run up to the adoption of the 2009 National Land Policy and the 2010 Constitution was civil society. While civil society groups are still engaged in land issues, their voice has muted. It is important that the sector recognises the changed context of society and identify new strategies for pushing for land reforms.

As they do so they should not seek to supplant themselves for the government. Partnership with government cannot be taken to mean that you seek to replace the same government.

The reform priorities also need to be relooked. The country spent a lot of energy in putting in place a sound legal, policy and institutional framework. The experience has generated valuable lessons, which demonstrate that it takes more than sound regulatory frameworks to realise true land reforms.

Focus must therefore move beyond this to actualising the land rights of citizens, improving land administration, and delivering on sustainability, equity, productivity, and efficiency as required by Article 60 of the Constitution.

The Constitution called for a new national land policy. There has been some ongoing work towards this end. But this has taken place in a manner contrary to the approach which led to the birth of the 2009 policy. Then the process was robust, consultative and inclusive.

It is necessary that a similar process is put together with the involvement of all stakeholders, including community groups, civil society, the private sector, the national and county governments and development partners.