Carolin Dieterle investigates the how, when and where of large-scale land investments in Uganda. This article is part of the #PublicAuthority blog series, part of the ESRC-funded Centre for Public Authority and International Development

Dieterle, Carolin

LSE Research Online

What	Land	Governance	in	Uganda	can	teach	us	about#PublicAuthorityCarolin	Dieterle	investigates	the	how,	when	and	where	of	large-scale	land	investments	in	Uganda.This	article	is	part	of	the	#PublicAuthority	blog	series,	part	of	the	ESRC-funded	Centre	for	Public	Authorityand	International	Development.	In	the	last	decade	since	the	financial	and	food	price	crisis	of	2007/08,	large	tracts	of	land	across	the	developingworld,	especially	in	Africa,	have	been	acquired	by	domestic	and	foreign	investors	for	the	development	of	commercialagriculture,	forestry	projects,	infrastructure,	and	oil	and	gas	exploration.		Uganda,	in	particular,	has	received	aconsiderable	influx	of	foreign	large-scale	land	investments,	which	are	strongly	promoted	by	the	Ugandan	governmentunder	their	Vision	2040	development	strategy.	According	to	the	Land	Matrix	Observatory,	an	online	database	onglobal	land	investments,	there	are	currently	17	registered	large-scale	land	investments	across	Uganda.Large-scale	land	investments	are	often	understood	and	promoted	by	governments	and	international	developmentorganisations	as	‘win-win’	scenarios	and	as	drivers	of	‘inclusive	growth’.	According	to	this	view,	investment	projectscontribute	to	development	and	poverty	reduction	through	increased	job	opportunities,	the	expansion	of	infrastructure,and	the	transfer	of	technologies.	In	addition,	the	World	Bank,	various	UN	organisations	as	well	as	nationaldevelopment	agencies	have	developed	an	array	of	‘best	practice’	standards	and	(voluntary)	guidelines	for	large-scaleagricultural	investments.	These	are	based	on	the	principle	of	‘inclusive	growth’,	with	the	aim	of	guiding	investors	insetting	up	socially	and	environmentally	sustainable	projects	that	allow	the	reaping	of	economic	benefits.However,	there	is	relatively	little	knowledge	about	how,	when,	and	where	such	‘win-win’	situations	are	created	inpractice,	and	about	the	actors	and	processes	involved	in	shaping	these	land	investments.	As	multi-scaledphenomena,	large-scale	land	investments	may	involve	various	stakeholders	at	various	levels,	such	as	hostgovernment	agencies	(i.e.	state	actors	wielding	public	authority	at	national	and	local	levels),	local	and	traditionalauthorities	(i.e.	customary	chiefs,	clan	leaders,	elders,	who	also	act	as	public	authorities),	investors	and	farmmanagers,	civil	society	groups	(including	international	and	local	NGOs,	farmer	associations	etc.),	local	communities,and	international	donors.		There	is	considerable	potential	for	conflict.My	PhD	project	aims	to	analyse	the	various	processes	(i.e.	land	allocation,	land	transfer,	negotiations,	localconsultations	etc.)	and	the	roles,	interests,	and	actions	of	diverse	actors	and	diverse	forms	of	public	authority	aroundland	investments	in	Uganda,	at	multiple	levels.	I	will	examine	how	these	actors	and	stakeholders	interact,	whatshapes	their	relationships,	and	how	different	public	actors	contribute	to	these	processes.	In	particular,	this	projectaims	to	scrutinise	how	these	interactions	and	relationships	between	actors	vary	across	space,	from	project	to	project,within	the	Ugandan	context,	and	what	effect	this	may	have	for	the	prospects	of	‘win-win’	situations	and	the	shaping	ofpublic	authority	around	land.	From	the	premise	that	land	investments	hold	the	potential	to	drive	development	in	thecontext	of	inclusive	growth	and	‘win-win’	scenarios,	how	and	under	what	conditions	is	such	inclusive	growthnegotiated	from	international,	national	to	local	levels	by	various	actors?So	far,	I	have	observed	that:Large-scale	investment	projects	in	Uganda	are	embedded	in	a	lively	debate	on	whether	they	help	or	hinderdevelopment.	This	is	not	least	highlighted	by	the	recent	controversy	around	the	proposed	amendment	to	Article	26	ofthe	Ugandan	Constitution.	The	amendment	bill	would	effectively	allow	the	government	to	force	the	sale	of	land	forthe	purpose	of	government	infrastructure	and	investment	projects,	the	argument	being	that	such	projects	are	delayeddue	to	land	disputes	and	refusal	of	sale.	While	some	argue	that	the	expropriation	of	land	owners	for	the	sake	ofdevelopment	is	justified,	others	see	this	as	a	threat	to	fundamental	rights	of	Ugandan	citizens.Africa at LSE: What Land Governance in Uganda can teach us about #PublicAuthority Page 1 of 4		Date originally posted: 2018-07-16Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2018/07/16/what-land-governance-in-uganda-can-teach-us-about-publicauthority/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/Photo	Credit:	Sophie	AubertFuelling	this	debate,	large-scale	investment	projects	across	Uganda	are	highly	diverse.	While	some	investmentshave	been	successful	and	expanded	over	the	years,	others	have	erupted	in	much	publicised	local	conflict	and	wereforced	to	stall	or	abandon	their	operations.	Investment	projects	also	differ	by	sector,	with	most	projects	involved	insugarcane,	coffee,	tea,	and	other	agricultural	commodities,	forestry,	oil	and	gas,	or	infrastructure.	This	sectoralvariation	determines	some	of	the	structural	differences	between	investments.	For	example,	sugarcane,	tea	andcoffee	plantations	usually	involve	higher	numbers	of	hired	plantation	workers	as	well	as	smallholder	contract	farmerswhereas	forestry	projects	and	investments	for	the	purpose	of	oil	exploration	usually	depend	less	on	the	involvementof	local	farmers.	What	is	less	obvious,	however,	is	that	these	investment	projects	also	present	vastly	differentscenarios	regarding	the	forms	of	public	authority	involved,	conflict	dynamics	and	claims	on	land	rights	by	localcommunities,	and	the	way	that	investments	are	regulated.A	large	scale	forestry	plantation	in	Eastern	UgandaImage	Credit:	Carolin	DieterleAfrica at LSE: What Land Governance in Uganda can teach us about #PublicAuthority Page 2 of 4		Date originally posted: 2018-07-16Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2018/07/16/what-land-governance-in-uganda-can-teach-us-about-publicauthority/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/Mainstream	literature	usually	outlines	three	actor	groups	involved	in	large-scale	land	acquisitions:	the	host	countrygovernment	as	the	public	authority,	the	investor	as	the	outsider,	and	local	communities	as	the	threatened	citizens.My	findings	show	that	in	Uganda,	claims	of	authority	over	land	go	far	beyond	these	three	categories.	In	particular,	therole	of	public	authority	around	land	investments	is	often	misunderstood.	The	Centre	for	Public	Authority	andInternational	Development	(CPAID)	understands	“public	authority”	to	include	social	institutions	that	exist	beyond	theimmediate	family	and	exercise	a	degree	of	voluntary	compliance.	In	line	with	this,	public	authority	around	landinvestments	is	not	only	represented	by	a	range	of	diverse	actors,	but	also	varies	from	context	to	context	and	acrossspace.For	one,	the	central	state	in	land	investments	is	not	present	as	one	homogenous	official	public	authority.	Severalgovernment	bodies	have	different	interests,	roles	and	mandates	around	land	investments.	For	example,	theUgandan	Investment	authority	(UIA)	carries	the	mandate	to	promote	and	facilitate	private	sector	investment	inUganda,	as	stipulated	in	the	1991	Investment	Code	Act.	The	National	Forest	Authority	(NFA)	is	responsible	formanaging	Central	Forest	Reserves,	owned	by	the	central	state.	Several	of	these	reserves	have	been	leased	out	toprivate	investors	for	the	development	of	pine	and	eucalyptus	plantations.	Further,	the	National	EnvironmentalManagement	Authority	(NEMA)	oversees	social	and	environmental	impact	assessments	of	planned	investments	andmanages	the	preservations	of	wetlands,	river	banks	and	lake	shores.	Several	investment	projects	in	Uganda	coverareas	that	include	forests,	wetlands	and/or	lakeshores,	thereby	creating	questions	about	authority	relations	betweendifferent	government	agencies.	In	addition,	the	President	himself	has	at	times	become	personally	involved	inlegislative	matters	around	land	investments,	such	as	personally	granting	land	rights	to	affected	communities.Another	form	of	public	authority	over	land	in	Uganda	comes	from	the	five	traditional	kingdoms	active	in	present-dayUganda,	namely	the	Buganda,	Bunyoro,	Busoga,	Toro	and	Ankole	Kingdoms.	These	kingdoms	historically	controlledsubstantial	parts	of	land	across	the	country	before	they	were	abolished,	and	their	land	placed	under	centralgovernment	control	in	1967.	After	President	Museveni	reinstated	the	kingdoms	in	1992	as	cultural	(not	political)institutions,	some	of	this	land	was	returned	(unequally)	to	the	kingdoms.	However,	tensions	over	historical	claims	andrightful	ownership	of	land	between	the	central	government	and	the	kingdoms	still	remain	unresolved	today.	Somelarge	investment	projects	in	Uganda	cover	land	that	is	(partially)	claimed	by	a	kingdom,	leading	to	questions	overownership	and	authority.A	tea	plantation	in	central	UgandaImage	Credit:	Carolin	DieteleAfrica at LSE: What Land Governance in Uganda can teach us about #PublicAuthority Page 3 of 4		Date originally posted: 2018-07-16Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2018/07/16/what-land-governance-in-uganda-can-teach-us-about-publicauthority/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/At	the	local	level,	local	leaders	and	community-based	activist	groups	act	as	public	authorities	around	landinvestments.	To	varying	extents,	local	leaders	are	involved	in	negotiations	around	land	acquisitions	concerning	thebasis	of	land	rights	of	communities,	the	terms	and	conditions	of	resettlement,	and	compensation	payments.	Inseveral	cases,	local	land	users	have	(successfully)	resisted	the	acquisition	of	their	land	for	the	purpose	of	large-scaleinvestment	projects.	Such	local	resistance	can	be	organised	by	individual	activists,	or	by	lawyers	and	communityleaders	such	as	chiefs	and	elders.	Communities	are	also	often	supported	and	organised	by	international	and	localNGOs.Civil	society	groups	and	NGOs	play	an	important	role	in	supporting	communities	in	disputes	around	landinvestments.	For	example,	international	NGOs	such	as	Action	Aid,	Oxfam,	and	Transparency	International	havebeen	involved	in	some	cases	of	large-scale	land	acquisition	across	Uganda,	where	they	provided	legal	supportduring	court	cases,	supported	local	communities	in	negotiations	with	the	investor	and	the	government,	and	guidedland	users	in	exercising	(peaceful)	resistance.	International	and	national	NGOs	exert	public	authority	for	communitiesin	the	way	that	they	disseminate	information	about	planned	investments,	educate	land	users	about	their	land	andhuman	rights	and	how	to	defend	these,	and	provide	access	to	grievance	mechanisms.	In	addition,	these	NGOs	canact	as	‘watchdogs’	by	publishing	reports	about	investment	cases	that	can	scale	up	to	the	global	level	and	canthreaten	the	reputation	of	investors.In	sum,	considering	the	variety	of	actors	around	land	investments	as	outlined	above	challenges	our	understanding	ofpublic	authority	around	investment	projects	and	shows	the	complexity	of	these	multi-scaled	phenomena.	Continuingmy	research,	I	hope	to	analyse	in	more	detail	the	different	contexts	(i.e.	regional	differences,	land	tenure	variations,historic	factors)	that	determine	the	diverse	ways	that	investment	projects	unfold	across	Uganda.Read	more	about	#PublicAuthority	and	visit	our	website.Carolin	Dieterle	is	a	doctoral	researcher	in	LSE’s	Department	of	International	Development.	The	views	expressed	in	this	post	are	those	of	the	author	and	in	no	way	reflect	those	of	the	Africa	at	LSEblog,	the	Firoz	Lalji	Centre	for	Africa	or	the	London	School	of	Economics	and	Political	Science.Africa at LSE: What Land Governance in Uganda can teach us about #PublicAuthority Page 4 of 4		Date originally posted: 2018-07-16Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/2018/07/16/what-land-governance-in-uganda-can-teach-us-about-publicauthority/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/africaatlse/

What land governance in Uganda can teach us about #PublicAuthority

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/90971/1/Dieterle_What-land-governance_Author.pdf

What land governance in Uganda can teach us about #PublicAuthority

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online