www.ascleiden.nl ASC Infosheet 30 Post-conflict land governance reform in the African Great Lakes region Part I – The challenges of post-conflict land reform Disputes over land are a prominent feature of many situations of protracted violent conflict in Burundi, Uganda and South Sudan. Research conducted as part of the programme ‘Grounding Land Govern- ance’ underscores that war reshuffles access and ownership, but also critically changes the ways in which land is governed. Land issues often come to resonate with other conflicts in society, thereby affecting overall stability. This makes interventions in land governance politically sensitive. While in- tended to improve land governance practices, re- forms often result in unintended and unpredictable outcomes, and have significant impacts for the le- gitimacy of the state. We therefore conclude that land governance in post-conflict settings deserves particular attention from academics and policymak- ers. The second part of this infosheet discusses de- centralization, which is a prominent feature of re- form programmes throughout the region. Our stud- ies found that transferring responsibilities for land administration and dispute resolution to local gov- ernment and non-state institutions may indeed enhance the protection of local properties and re- duce land-related conflicts. Likewise, it may fuel existing power struggles, or effectively enhance the power of the state. Policymakers should therefore not have too high expectations about the ability of decentralization to enhance local tenure security. Local council court judging a land dispute, Yei river County, South Sudan The pertinence of land disputes in post-conflict settings Research conducted as part of the programme ‘Grounding Land Governance’ makes clear that disputes over land are a prominent feature of many situations of protracted violent conflict. Case stud- ies in Burundi, Uganda and South Sudan underscore that violent conflict often has significant impact on land access. During conflict, land is misappropriat- ed, while displacement and (partial) return give rise to competing claims to land. The transition from war to peace ignites old and new claims and may provide a window of opportunity for irregular ac- quisitions of land, further weakening the entitle- ments of vulnerable groups in society. After conflict, land disputes are a politically sensitive issue, and may create instability and even result in new out- breaks of violence. However, violent conflict not only reshuffles ac- cess and ownership, but critically alters the ways in which land is governed. Violent conflict tends to erode the capacity of state and local institutions to deal with land disputes, and calls into question the legitimacy of land governing authorities and the rules applied. Through violence, new tenure ar- rangements may be enforced or promoted, while reform programmes may introduce equally con- tested ways of governing land. Critical in this regard is that conflict around land often relates to other contestations in society. Dis- putes about land access and control may be locally understood as reflecting more general inequalities in the distribution of resources, development, and decision-taking power between different (ethnic) groups; or between elites and those without the necessary connections to the state. Frequently, disputes about land are linked to questions of citi- zenship and ethnic belonging. Framing the resulting disputes as ‘land-dispute’ may, in fact, hide the complex and changing nature of issues involved. 1 1 Mathijs van Leeuwen & Gemma van der Haar (2016) ‘Theorizing the Land–Violent Conflict Nexus’, World Development, 78(Feb.2016):94–104.