FUENTES Y RECURSOS BIBLIOGRÁFICOS SOBRE LA EDUCACION EN DERECHOS HUMANOS EN ESPAÑA

The capability approach when applied to land reforms investigates the extent to which various land tenure regimes support the ability of different actors to access the resources they require to live meaningful lives. These capabilities could take the form of laws, communication systems, policies, conflict resolution mechanisms, resource allocation strategies, planning frameworks and participatory approaches that are seen by the poor as enabling and just enough to support their ability to access, use, withdraw, manage and alienate land resources.

According to Spicker (2007), poverty perceived in this sense, means that it is possible for someone to be classified as poor, even though she/he is not in need of the basic necessities of life as defined by other theorists. It is an approach which is in sync with Dreze and Sen’s argument that deprivation and lack of resources are a reflection of lack of entitlements, as opposed to the absence of essential items in themselves (Dreze & Sen, 1989).

This approach pays minimal attention to the effects of poverty, such as, hunger, landlessness and homelessness. Instead it provides a better understanding of the nature and causes of poverty within the context of land tenure reforms. Conclusively therefore, this study conceptualizes and situates poverty within the context of Sen’s basic capabilities analysis. Basic capabilities, construed as a subset of general capabilities, are about the freedom of individuals to engage in the basic things that provide an escape route from poverty and are required for survival (Robeyns, 2005). Figure 2 is the analytical framework within which the land–poverty–capability relationship is conceptualized.

70

Measuring poverty in this realm will lead to outcomes and policies that provide an escape route from poverty for the poor. This notion of poverty is well within the argument by Robeyns (2005) in favour of Sen’s capability approach that it is not solely used to evaluate capability sets of communities and social systems but also to examine the context within which economic production and social interactions occur. It is used to scrutinize a system to understand the real opportunities people have to avoid poverty and is deemed essential for poverty and well-being studies in the developing world. This analytical framework is much more appropriate for examining the socio-economic structures governing land relations under public, community and/or private tenure arrangements anywhere in the world.

1.7.1 Components of the conceptual framework

The capability space of land reforms has three key components. These are the land tenure/reforms space, the capability space and the poverty reduction space. The land tenure/reform space examines the features of land reform measures being introduced to

71

improve the welfare of the poor. The capability space profiles the capabilities (inhibitors/opportunities) imbedded in different land tenure reform options and the extent to which they can be said to be pro-poor. The poverty reduction space is concerned with the extent to which such capability measures are inhibiting or enabling the poor to live valuable lives.

1.7.1.1 The land tenure/reforms space

Lands exist in different quantities and qualities in different countries and under varied tenure regimes. As the composition and structure of society changes, there will often be attempts to modify tenure relations in ways that ensure efficiency and equity. The argument is that in seeking to undertake land reforms there should be minimal concern with cosmetic changes in tenure regimes (i.e., from community to state or private). Instead, the land reform space should concentrate on creating an environment that is enabling and just enough to support the rights of the various actors to obtain the resources they need to live meaningfully. In fact, I am calling for the pursuit of ‘minimalists’ approaches’ in the reform space. That is to say, enabling all land based actors to have access to a basic minimum of land to meet their livelihood needs.

1.7.1.2 The capability space

The capability space examines the opportunities resulting from various reform initiatives that are seen by land users as enabling and supportive of their daily activities. This should not be limited only to opportunities but also take into account constraints and inhibitions as well. The expectation is that a reform process that is participatory and pro-poor should provide equitable opportunities for the various actors to have access to the resources they require. Such opportunities and/or inhibitions can take the form of credits, unconditional state transfers, land use planning, relationships and partnerships, indigenous knowledge, alternative energy, inclusion and participation and other safety nets. These factors can be

72

positive, as in opportunities, or negative, as in constraints that enhance or limit the ability of land users to access land resources. It basically seeks to understand the extent to which land reform initiatives are non-discriminatory against interests of one group or the other in the social system.

1.7.1.3 The poverty reduction space

The poverty reduction space simply examines the opportunities and/or constraints space to ascertain the extent to which they are just and enabling for the poor to escape poverty. They are considered just and enabling when the ability of the poor to access, withdraw, manage, exclude and alienate land resources are enhanced and vice versa. These terms are further explained in the following:

Access refers simply to the right to enter the area. Use, or withdrawal, rights refer to the right to obtain

resources, such as timber, firewood or other forest products, and remove them from the forest. Management refers to ‘the right to regulate internal use patterns or transform the resource’ (Agrawal

and Ostrom, 2001: 489), which could include tree planting, timber management or conversion to agriculture. Exclusion is the right to decide who can use the resource and who is prevented from doing

so. Alienation is usually understood as the sale or lease of the land, which also includes the sale of

these other rights. The last three rights are seen as decision-making rights and are, therefore, particularly significant for tenure reforms (Larson et al., 2010, p. 12).

At the very basic level, pro-poor land reforms should support the rights of pastoralists, tenant farmers, women and other disadvantaged land use actors to access and withdraw land resources. Any land reform initiative which does not guarantee these basic rights cannot be seen to be pro-poor. This is the space within which poverty in the land reform space should be assessed. This is so because inability to access and withdraw land resources impoverishes these categories of actors and vice versa. Providing an escape route from poverty, therefore, means guaranteeing these basic but essential rights of the disadvantaged. These are the rights which will enable the poor to afford food, raise income, construct housing, educate their

73

children and clothe themselves. Deny them these rights and they will not be in a position to meet these basic necessaries of life.

1.8 Conclusion

Poverty has been with the human race since creation. Indeed it is such a vexed concept that there is no universal consensus on what constitutes poverty or how it should be addressed. As a result various measures are formulated and implemented in diverse contexts with the sole intention of eradicating poverty and improving human well-being. I have sought to argue in this article that to reduce poverty, our interventions must be targeted, both at the instruments and the outcomes. This means we must be clear in our minds from the outset as to the outcomes we expect to achieve with our interventions. Applying this understanding to land reforms as a tool for poverty reduction, I have argued that the outcomes of such initiatives can only be situated within the capability approach. It is only within the capability approach that the social and environmental conversion factors which improve the land access and use rights of the poor can be properly analyzed within land reform environments. Recourse to other poverty measurement approaches, I have argued, would not necessarily

74

Chapter 4