Interview

What is the nature today of the main land conflicts on the African continent?

Essentially, they are problems concerning access, regularization, use, and management of land, which are the basic components of what we call the "land equation" in mathematical terms. From my perspective, we can say that the root of the entire land issue in Africa is the scant (or limited) recognition of the historical rights of rural communities over their lands. Throughout the continent, communities existed before the invention of the modern state. For some time, these communities have been reclaiming these rights, through titles of possession or ownership which the modern states had never before recognized.

The model imposed by the colonial powers was always based on the theory that whoever had the political power also had power over the land, and they never recognized any local rights. After independence, the model was maintained, and ownership of all the land was held by the states, through the governments (and here there is some institutional confusion between State and Government which deserves more attention).

Today, as a consequence of a process of raising democratic awareness, many of these local actors (communities, small farmers, etc.) are reclaiming their historical rights, which conflict in many cases with legislation implemented after independence. These conflicts can reach very serious dimensions, growing into armed confrontation. To not recognize the right to land and to accept the governments and their laws as the only voice will never resolve the conflictive situation linked to land in Africa. The agencies of the United Nations are interested in the theme from the perspective of recognition of human rights.

In this same perspective, the strategy that the FAO is applying in Africa begins with the theory that there is a multiplicity of partners to deal with in order to find a pragmatic solution to a land problem. The simplest and most sensible way is to undertake a process of negotiation beginning with the recognition of the right that attorneys would call "right of eminent domain" over the land, which does not signify ownership in the Western sense but rather of community. To the extent that the rural communities and their territorial rights are accepted as key elements in all negotiation related to land, it is possible to open dialogue that can lead to positive results. However, we should not forget that the issue of access, as mentioned before, is part of a broader problem, which includes the regularization of these rights, the use and management of natural resources; nor should we forget that, in a systemic vision, everything becomes related. That is, to resolve the problem of access, without creating conditions for viable production systems for the small producers and the rural communities, is not sufficient. Therefore, the principle of the Social Territorial Pact should be understood not only as an instrument to facilitate land access or to resolve conflicts, but also as a methodological platform to approach the problem of territorial development, within a sustainable perspective, where the poorest of the poor are recognized as they deserve to be.

Who should be included in this negotiation? What role does FAO have in it?

FAO's role is to stimulate and facilitate these negotiations at the same time as it continues to fulfil its classical function of technical assistance in legal and institutional matters. It is not FAO that negotiates but rather the country's legitimate institutions, formal and informal (governments and local communities). The cases in which FAO has played a more important part in this sense in Africa and Mozambique, Angola, Guinea Bissau, Mauritania, etc.. These are countries that are equipping themselves with technical instruments (new land laws) through the process proposed by FAO. Clearly, in these processes, civil society and its institutions have a central role, as without them it would be highly problematic to lay out a viable framework of negotiation. Similarly, the other partners-of course, the private sector-should form part of the pact, due to the implications, in terms of development, that this type of approach seeks to foster.

What strategies does FAO adopt in countries with a democratic deficit? Are there macroeconomic or governability conditions that must be met for FAO to intervene?

We can say that, little by little, countries are becoming sensitized to the strategy of participative planning through approaches similar to the one of the Social Pact that the FAO is proposing. Today the economic and social viability of this approach is far more evident than it was ten years ago, but it still cannot be taken for granted.

The level of democracy or corruption in a country when we enter to work is clearly important, and this can determine de facto the scope of such intervention because, as opposed to many of the current approaches related to the theme of natural resources, the central point of the Territorial Social Pact is, precisely, the human dimension. If some of the key partners present a democratic deficit, obviously everything becomes more difficult.

However, through the pact, we also seek to give encouragement, recognition and strength to those actors that are normally left out of the decisions that concern them. To speak of a participative territorial ordering, which looks towards the Territorial Social Pacts, implies enormous work of raising awareness both of those "at the bottom" as well as "those at top", to understand that an agreement negotiated democratically between all the partners involved has a far greater chance of being respected and implemented and, ultimately, of rendering positive results.

Is this new vision that you are describing shared by other agencies of the United Nations? How are they coordinating themselves to resolve the problem of land?

In the places where we have worked, moving from the overall principles to the practical methodologies, we have found, fortunately, a series of local actors that have arrived, by different paths, to the same consideration. I do not believe that there is an intellectual leadership of the FAO in this approach. It is a matter of awareness raising concerning the roles of the different partners in the complex problem of land, and what is important is that the results are far-reaching in order to exert a positive influence over land policies. The fundamental point is for the communities and their representative organizations, as well as governments at all levels, to understand that there is an overall benefit for everyone concerning these rights. That security in land tenure leads to a more sustainable agriculture and rural development. International investment will reach countries more easily if there is land-tenure security. Security does not necessarily mean a formal role without a solid social pact, where what is written on paper (formally or informally) is confirmed by the neighbours. Without an accord on the part of the local communities, a formal title is hardly adequate to assure the security needed for investors.

Can we say then that the security in land tenure is one of the pillars of rural development?

Yes, absolutely. And it is not only a pillar for rural development, but also for the resolution of conflicts and for food security. We are finding this not only in Angola but also in other countries such as Sudan. The FAO is closely linking land tenure to food security. Any humanitarian operation, furthermore, has to confront this problem if it intends to lay the minimum foundation for development.

Can you illustrate this for us with an example of the application of this approach in an African country?

The country that has seen the greatest theoretic and practical development in this sense on the part of the FAO has been Mozambique. Our involvement was requested at the beginning of the 1990s, during the period of negotiations for peace. The process began with an exemplary logical sequence: first an internal debate within the society of Mozambique to clarify the type of model (integrated or divisive) to be adopted in the country for its land policy. In the integrated model, development is conceived from the standpoint of all the existing human resources (small farmers, communities, medium and large businesses). In this case, there was no distinction between commercial agriculture and subsistence, because, as occurred in practice, all these actors produce for the local, regional, national or international market. The other model, of colonial heritage, is based on turning over the best lands to the "businessmen" so that they take charge of commercial agriculture, while the rural communities remain on the sidelines, providing labour and being preoccupied with their own subsistence. In this way, a dualistic agriculture is created. In Mozambique in 1995 the debate gave rise to an integrated model and thus entered a process of formulating a land law which was coherent with this vision, based on the recognition of the rights of the communities. The end of the legal process laid down the methodological and practical bases for the implementation of this philosophy. The key, I insist, is not in registry titles, but in the comprehension of this philosophy on the part of the partners, both within the government and outside it (civil society, private sector). This is a step that cannot be taken in two or three years after the proclamation of the land law. It takes time. We are putting it to the test, with some variations, in Angola, although within a different context because it is a country that has just come out of war. There are specific results that are being recognized on the part of the donors.

Is this exclusively an African model, or is it applicable to all continents?

In reality, the word "model" is not the most appropriate one. It is more a set of methodological elements based on respect for diversity, jointly working out solutions according to the socio-economic or political situation of each country, putting into practice the historical tenets of the FAO, such as participation and decentralization. Of course, we have no magical solution for each country, but we are finding that this negotiation process for a social pact is being successful both in the countries with old land reform, such as the Philippines, as well as in countries now trying to decide the type of solution to apply to land, such as Brazil. Let's be clear that we are talking about small-scale intervention-that is, we cannot yet speak of processes on the level of entire countries. Nevertheless, many signs in the negotiation process (what we call a participative territorial ordering that reaches a territorial social pact) indicate a path that would deserve to be reinforced and applied on larger scales.

How can the structure of the Network contribute, through the national Thematic Groups, to this social pact?

The Thematic Groups can have a very important function. We are not, as I have been explaining all along, faced with a technical theme for specialized lawyers, agricultural experts or economists. It is a question of democratic awareness. What is really necessary, in each country as well as in each social and territorial reality, is to begin a process of political-institutional maturity, with a systemic focus on the recognition of rights. The Thematic Groups can be very useful in each country not only to take concrete actions towards the recognition of rights, whether on education, health or land, but also to contribute conceptual reflection and debate that enables each country to form its own vision. In Mozambique or Angola or any other country, we are not making models to copy, but rather encouraging reflections that can be very useful, beyond the land problem, in order to clarify what role civil society can play in each country, and what type of political formulation (centralized or decentralized) is appropriate. If the final aim is to improve the living conditions of the citizens of the member countries of the United Nations (and the FAO works to make it possible in the rural world), a generalized recognition of the right to land is necessary. The Thematic Groups can contribute to the intellectual growth in countries in this sense, through reflection and discussion groups on the points of interest concerning land reform in each country. At the international level, the exchange of information on this debate is vital.

You have spoken of civil society, of governments, and of the United Nations. What role can the private sector have in all this?

As we have quickly mentioned, its participation is key in this process. Above all in the African context, where the governments do not have adequate financial-investment capacity. We include the local private sector (that of the small producers) in civil society, and its participation is crucial. In the Mozambique experience the business sector's support to the recognition of local communities' land rights, allowed the booster of the overall debate concerning the issue of land. They did so essentially because this recognition immediately reduces the conflicts in the areas in which they were working.