• T. Deligiannis
    This is a very interesting and thoughtful posting.  Environmental security researchers have long considered conflicts over access to and control of land as crucial to many local conflicts, but we've not heard enough about potential solutions like land reform, titling efforts, and tenure security policies. While we celebrate and promote these efforts, we shouldn't lose sight of how they are also often highly conflictual.  Expectations for change are raised which sometimes cannot be satisfied, or which are subverted by elites of those in the reform process, setting in motion new dynamics of conflict.  This was evident in many areas of Latin America in the 1960s and 1970s. In Peru, expectations of land reform far outstripped the available land for redistribution, resulting in many highland peasants getting little from the land reform process. Those who lost out in reform or failed to benefit were radicalized against the state in many cases. The lesson is certainly that reform must go forward to bring justice to land rights; however, we can't forget that there will be losers in the process. Good public policy should plan for helping those who lose out or who don't benefit in the process, if social peace is to be maintained.
  • Tara Innes
    A really interesting article — I am missing one key link however — how do communities/interest groups/the disadvantaged mobilize and pursue change in a way which causes nations to fail, particularly in cases where the state/govt/elite groups have hoarded wealth/resources for themselves? Particularly where elites are willing to murder land rights activists, there seems to be little incentive for the impoverished to throw themselves into harms way. Studies of civil conflict would seem to indicate these potential rebel groups are doomed to failure or will never organize in the first place.
Mobile Theme