From war to wealth? Land policies and the peace economy in Côte d’Ivoire

Abstract

This article studies the production of economic domination after the end of the Ivorian armed conflict. It investigates the interaction between post-conflict development policies, people's expectations and fears unleashed by the end of war, and the capacity of local actors to establish external alliances. The inquiry focuses on a region located at the margins of the conflict, but at the core of post-war development schemes. In this warless land, policies implemented in the name of peace provide resources for dominant actors seeking to consolidate their position, thus reinforcing the social structures of agrarian capitalism that had been challenged during the war. RésuméCet article étudie la production de la domination économique après la fin du conflit armé ivoirien. Il analyse l'interaction entre les politiques de développement et sortie de conflit, les attentes et les craintes déclenchées par la fin de la guerre, et la capacité des acteurs locaux à établir des alliances externes. L'enquête se concentre sur une région située en marge du conflit, mais au coeur des programmes de développement post-conflit. Dans cette terre sans guerre, les politiques mises en oeuvre au nom de la paix fournissent des ressources aux acteurs dominants qui cherchent à consolider leur position, renforçant ainsi les structures sociales du capitalisme agraire qui avaient été mises en cause pendant la guerre.

Land reform and peacebuilding in Côte d'Ivoire: Navigating the minefield

“…For example, the push to promote the formalization of land, a central feature of the Rural Land Act, means that individuals must attempt to secure a property title, which has proven to be a long and expensive procedure. This raises serious concerns that formalization policies could facilitate the dispossession of the most vulnerable claim holders (i.e., migrants, rural youth, and women), while enabling more privileged groups to increase their concentration of land (Grajales, 2020, p. 83). Moreover, there is a general lack of awareness surrounding the legal framework governing land.…”

“…As the immediate period following the end of the post‐election conflict was marked by continued political unrest and episodic outbreaks of violence, the promotion of more robust land reforms might have further alienated segments of the Ivorian population who were already opposed to Ouattara's Presidency. Rather than tackle land reform in this period of fragile peace, Ouattara instead tried to seek support beyond his political base by strengthening the role of “neo‐customary” authorities in the domain of land governance, authorities who had been seen as largely supportive of Gbagbo (Grajales, 2020, p. 87). While this strategy is unlikely to create conditions for promoting long term “positive peace” regarding the land question, it arguably contributed to more unity, social cohesion, and peace in the short term.…”

“…Despite failing to gain wider public buy‐in regarding the new Constitution, there is evidence to suggest the ruling government strategically opted to incorporate land‐related provisions in the text to garner support from political adversaries. By strengthening statutory provisions from the 1998 land law which prevented foreign residents from acquiring access to ownership of rural land, this measure provided a modicum of reassurance to supporters from the Gbagbo camp and Ouattara's allies within the PDCI (Grajales, 2020, p. 89). Although this provision could be interpreted by some within Ouattara's political base (e.g., descendants of migrants) as running counter to their interests, major reforms to the land law were once again cast aside in order to avoid further political pushback.…”

“…Finally, the creation of a Rural Land Agency in 2016, which is mandated to implement a nationwide formalization policy within the largely preexisting land legal framework, reveals additional measures taken to strengthen governance in the land sector. Interestingly, though, “[w]hile there has been strong civil society and donor pressure on the Ivorian government to adopt a more ‘bottom‐up’ approach, combined with instruments of community governance and conflict management,” this agency is essentially viewed from the government's perspective as a vehicle for distributing land titles in a more flexible and effective way (Grajales, 2020, p. 82). This underscores the point that while there has arguably been a shift of late to invest more to improve technical capacities in the governance of land, the government remains steadfast in its commitment to not radically overhaul the content of the land law itself.…”

“…This raises concerns around how the project will be able to address the land problems in the area that is most in need of institutional support. Writing about the Bank's propensity to invest in more “stable” zones, Grajales (2020, p. 85) notes that it is far easier to support economic development initiatives in already prosperous territories “than to endeavour to transform the troubled lands of the west into a new capitalist frontier.” Finally, the objective of the project is ultimately to accelerate the implementation of the 1998 land law, rather than provide institutional support for revisiting the law itself. In other words, it is unclear how this project will contribute to resolving the most contentious element of the law: the impact it has on migrants' precarious rights to land.…”