Conservation and “land grabbing” in rangelands: Part of the problem or part of the solution?

Large-scale land acquisitions have increased in scale and pace due to changes in commodity markets, agricultural investment strategies, land prices, and a range of other policy and market forces. The areas most affected are the global “commons” – lands that local people traditionally use collectively — including much of the world’s forests, wetlands, and rangelands. In some cases land acquisition occurs with environmental objectives in sight – including the setting aside of land as protected areas for biodiversity conservation. On the other hand, current trends and patterns of commercial land acquisition present a major and growing threat not just to local livelihoods and human rights, but also to conservation objectives. There is a potential opportunity here for greater collaboration between conservation interests, and local communities’ land rights interests with their supporters amongst human rights and social justice movements. This Issue Paper documents experiences from the rangelands of Mongolia, Kenya, India, Ethiopia, and other countries, which were presented at a Conference on Conservation and Land Grabbing held in London in 2013

Comparative Analysis of CBRM Cases in Kenya, Ethiopia and Tunisia

In various countries, development and conservation organizations and national policymakers have been experimenting with ways of applying the community-based natural resource management approach to the unique social and biophysical characteristics of pastoralist rangeland settings, with mixed results. We carried out comparative case study research on community-based rangeland management (CBRM) in a variety of settings in Ethiopia, Kenya and Tunisia with the objective of identifying what kinds of strategies and methods work in which social and ecological contexts. We used an “options by context” approach guided by a research protocol that includes key variables and descriptors for characterizing the implementing organization’s approach to CBRM and important contextual factors that may vary from place to place and affect the implementation and success of the approach. The commonalities among our cases include: i) community governance and management structures for rangeland management; ii) the geographic rangeland unit which those structures are managing, and iii) a development agent that is supporting the community. We found that differences among the cases in the challenges faced and their degree of success depended at least as much on certain aspects of social and biophysical context as it did on the exact nature of the approach being implemented by the development agent. For example, the extent to which there are effective natural or social borders that provide the rangeland community with some degree of separation from neighbours is crucial; without such landscape features, the design principle of clearly defined rights to a clearly defined piece of land belonging to a clearly defined community is difficult to implement in any straightforward way. In some pastoral rangeland contexts, conventional community-based approaches need substantial modification to be effective in contexts with the highest levels of spatio-temporal variability, mobility and openness of the landscape

Village land politics and the legacy of ujamaa

The paper explores the legacies of ujamaa for Tanzanian village land management through the analysis of ethnographic data. The first section considers the ujamaa legacies for Tanzanian village administrative and political institutions and the weight of past top-down politics. In the second section, village land politics are investigated in the light of the reform of the land laws in order then to underline the role of village authorities in collective land claims and to illustrate how village land allocations occur in practice. The third section analyses data from three villages to reflect on the salience of village land politics and Village Land Use Plans. Ujamaa leaves its legacy in the continuity of a potential for democratisation from below resisting the continuity of authoritarianism and centralised decision making from above