While the scoping paper “Access to land in post-conflict situations: an analytical paper” (Thomson 2003) contributes much in terms of a way ahead for assessing formal tenure structure in post-conflict environments, additional questions added to the section on “Key Questions” might allow for more of the informal land tenure activity, patterns, and direction to be included. Such questions might include, among others: what is government doing to draw legitimacy from what is already going on in the informal sector? What is government doing to actively engage the informal sector so that the redevelopment of the formal sector stays connected to the direction that the informal sector is taking? More basically, what is government doing to find out what is actually going on “on the ground?”
The time dilemma (informal tenure activity occurs quickly, formal tenure system reconstruction occurs slowly) is a significant problem. Attention needs to be placed on finding out what the formal system can do quickly to engage, and stay connected to the evolving informal system. The Rwanda case study provides an interesting example for part of this problem, where the government publicized the 1996 Ministerial order on temporary occupation of land in order to reassure refugees that they would be able to reclaim property when they returned (Huggins 2004). As well, the speech given by then vice president Paul Kagame, at the end of 1997 had an interesting effect on those that had occupied the houses and lands of refugees. To many of the occupiers (old caseload refugees) the motivation for vacating properties was this speech, and not the new regulations that obligated them to do depart. This seemed to operate from a mix of both respect for Kagame, and also to the commitment he made in the speech ensuring that the army would be available to evict any temporary occupants who refused to depart from properties on time (Huggins 2004). Both can be seen as attempts to connect with the informal sector early on in the process of formal tenure reconstruction. Whether or not such efforts can be sustained, refrain from being heavy-handed, seen as fair, and can learn to adapt to the informal sector, remains to be seen. The potential for this type of connection resides in the PIPs component of the SL approach, and further consideration of this component in a post-conflict tenure context might benefit from an examination of the possibilities involving time.
