Start up Google Earth, zoom in on Africa, make sure you’ve ticked “borders” and you’ll see how surprisingly often national boundaries all over the continent correspond either with natural features such as rivers or with parts of the geographical grid: meridians and parallels. They have done ever since 1885, when the colonial powers imposed dominion upon the African continent as a result of the Berlin Congo Conference of 1884-1885. Fourteen nations participated, the main players being Belgium, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Portugal and Spain. Not a single African nation was represented. Frontier configuration has undergone little change since. The hodgepodge of natural and geometrical borders blended on European drawing boards fragmented one thousand indigenous cultures, divided what was once united and merged what had been separate. “The northern boundary will follow the parallel situated at 2º30’ from the coast to the point where it meets the geographical basin of the Congo”. So the tone was set at the outset of enactment in Berlin (Article 1, sub 2).

No sooner had it implemented its new map of political boundaries than Europe imposed laws and decrees on Africa. Incorporated legal systems of land ownership ignored the fact that for most African peoples land is owned in lieu of ancestors and successors, which leaves no space for individual ownership and genuinely leads to a complex of communal rights. Instead, colonial decrees proclaimed that land ownership which could not be proven by documentary evidence was the individual property of the sovereign. And right up until recent times customary tenure systems have in many countries enjoyed no legal recognition; rather, they have been seen as an anachronism. According to Okoth-Ogendo, professor in public law at the University of Nairobi, from the beginning of the twentieth century until relatively recently land in Africa was considered terra nullius. Addressing the workshop on Land Tenure Security for Poverty Reduction in Eastern and Southern Africa held in Kampala from 27th to 29th June 2006, the professor said that up until now in many African countries the great proportion, meaning on average 90%, of land remains under customary tenure.

And again today, in the eighth year of the third millennium, in Africa and more specifically sub-Saharan Africa, millions upon millions are suffering desperate poverty, and that poverty mainly has a rural face. How can this be combated? Access to land and security of tenure are generally agreed to lie at the core of inhibiting rural poverty. Secure property rights will encourage investment, generate better credit access; provide some insurance cover when needed and a pension in old age. According to the 2003 World Bank Policy Report Land Policies for growth and Poverty Reduction, “for most of the poor in developing countries, land is the primary means for generating a livelihood and a main vehicle for investing, accumulating wealth, and transferring it between generations. Land is also a key element of household wealth.” The same document recognises that “secure land tenure facilitates the transfer of land at low cost through rentals and sales, improving the allocation of land while at the same time supporting the development of financial markets. Without secure rights landowners are less willing to rent out their land, which may impede their ability and willingness to engage in non-agricultural employment or rural-urban migration”. In the wake of these insights come eager attempts at introducing tenure systems, and those implemented have a proven security record in developed countries. At the heart of western systems lies the tacitly agreed premise that individuals who have rights to land can be identified and physically pinpointed. No room here for such abstractions as ownership by a vaguely defined group, maybe even not yet born, and which rights may vary depending on degree of membership or gender. Once upon a time, customary tenure systems provided security for all members of the group. But traditional security, erased by colonial decree and law, has never been restored.

In the meantime, lessons have been learnt; some were summarised during the 2006 Kampala conference. Formal titling is not only expensive but fails to capture customary rights, these being location-specific. Rights should therefore be developed in a decentralised way and in situ, an approach that would also help to protect the rights of the poor and the vulnerable. Neither does formal titling necessarily lead to improved security or greater investment. Land is a key generator of conflict and registration alone will not prevent this. Formal courts do not in themselves suffice to resolve land disputes; recognition is required of diverse and often overlapping claims. Vital at all levels are broad stakeholder participation and home-grown leadership. However, the state as leader has often proved a less than trustworthy partner and a bad shepherd. Complaints about the ‘grabbing’ of public land are widespread, and just as endemic is neglect of regulations, whether due to lack of capacity and resources or sheer unwillingness. State land institutions, local government and communities thus need to strengthen capacity, and for this investment is needed in higher education and training. So much for the lessons learnt.

The sceptic might ask what relief will be afforded by solutions blended on the drawing boards of Washington DC or Brussels, the blemishes of intervention having become so evident since 1885. The retort? After more than four decades of independence most African nations have not yet seen even the glimmer of stable leadership appearing on the horizon.