Are Standalone Land Policies a Luxury the Global South Can No Longer Afford?

Editorial - Land policy has long occupied a paradoxical position in development. It is widely recognised as foundational to housing, agriculture, infrastructure, climate adaptation and economic inclusion, yet it is often among the last reforms to be funded, implemented or completed.

Secure land rights underpin Rwanda’s agricultural and urban reforms, showing how land policy gains traction when embedded within broader development and service delivery systems. (Photo: Emmanuel Kwizera)

As development financing tightens and priorities shift towards climate resilience, crisis response and measurable short-term outcomes, an uncomfortable question has resurfaced: Are standalone land policies now counter-intuitive, even obsolete, in light of changing global realities?

The question is neither academic nor ideological. Across the Global South, governments are grappling with severe fiscal constraints, rising climate vulnerability and increasing scrutiny from donors and international financial institutions.

Land policy development, typically spanning many years and requiring sustained political commitment, technical capacity and public resources, sits uneasily within this environment. The evidence shows that while land policy remains indispensable, its form, sequencing and positioning within national development agendas must evolve if it is to remain relevant.

The Cost, Time and Risk of Standalone Land Policy Reform

Developing a national land policy is rarely a quick or inexpensive undertaking. Empirical evidence from Africa, Asia and small island states points to timelines ranging from five to ten years, often longer, from inception to formal adoption.

The process usually involves legal reviews, institutional restructuring, stakeholder consultations, customary tenure recognition, gender assessments, mapping exercises and alignment with constitutional provisions. Each stage carries political risk and financial cost.

Across the Caribbean, climate-exposed communities highlight why land policy cannot stand alone, but must enable housing recovery, disaster risk reduction and climate-resilient development. (Photo: Nancy Pauwels)

For low-income and small states such as those of the Caribbean, these costs are not trivial. Technical assistance, national consultations and legislative reform compete directly with urgent demands such as housing reconstruction, economic recovery and disaster response.

In contexts where public administrations are thinly staffed and heavily donor-dependent, land policy processes frequently stall once external funding cycles end. This has contributed to a persistent implementation gap: Policies are adopted but remain partially operationalised, under-resourced or sidelined by subsequent crises.

Donor behaviour has reinforced this pattern. Over the past decade, development cooperation has shifted decisively towards results-based financing, climate adaptation and crisis-responsive programming.

Standalone land policy reform, with its long gestation period and indirect outcomes, struggles to compete with projects that can demonstrate measurable impact within three to five years. As a result, many land policy initiatives are funded as technical exercises rather than embedded reforms, increasing the likelihood that they remain aspirational documents rather than operational tools.

This dynamic has led some policymakers to question whether scarce public resources would be better spent elsewhere. When budgets are constrained and political attention is fragmented, the opportunity cost of land policy reform becomes difficult to ignore.

Why Land Policy Has Not Disappeared from the Development Agenda

Despite these constraints, land policy has not vanished from contemporary development conversations. Instead, it has been reframed. The reason is empirical rather than normative: Land governance failures continue to undermine outcomes across multiple sectors that donors and governments now prioritise.

Housing recovery programmes falter where land tenure is unclear. Climate adaptation investments are weakened when settlement patterns remain unregulated. Agricultural productivity gains are limited when land rights are insecure, particularly for women and smallholders. Infrastructure projects are delayed by disputes and resettlement challenges. In each case, the absence of coherent land policy imposes hidden costs that often exceed the upfront expense of reform.

International financial institutions have increasingly acknowledged this reality. While few now fund comprehensive land policy reform as a standalone objective, many incorporate land governance requirements into broader investment frameworks. Development banks routinely condition infrastructure financing on land acquisition and resettlement standards.

Climate funds assess land tenure arrangements when evaluating ecosystem restoration and adaptation projects. Humanitarian-development programmes recognise tenure security as critical to durable recovery.

The political economy of development finance therefore does not suggest that land policy is obsolete. Rather, it indicates that land policy is no longer viewed as a self-contained reform agenda. Its relevance is judged by its ability to enable delivery in other priority areas.

Urban expansion and economic growth in Vietnam have been shaped by land reforms integrated into national planning, demonstrating the limits of land policy when separated from wider development priorities. (Photos: Lord Lunar)

Examples from the Global South illustrate this shift. In Rwanda, land policy reform was tightly linked to agricultural transformation and decentralised service delivery. In Vietnam, land administration reforms were embedded within broader economic liberalisation and urban development strategies. In the Caribbean, post-disaster recovery efforts increasingly confront land tenure challenges that cannot be resolved through project-by-project interventions alone.

These cases suggest that the question is not whether land policy should exist, but how it is framed, financed and sequenced.

Integrating Land Policy into Contemporary Development Practice

If standalone land policies are perceived as counter-intuitive, it is often because they are designed and implemented in isolation from pressing national priorities. Best practice now points towards a more integrated approach, where land policy is positioned as an enabling framework rather than an end in itself.

This begins with political realism. Governments must be clear about what a land policy can and cannot achieve within existing institutional capacity and fiscal constraints. Incremental reform, focused on priority issues such as tenure security in informal settlements or land access for climate-resilient agriculture, is often more effective than comprehensive but unfunded ambition.

It also requires strategic alignment with financing realities. Embedding land policy objectives within nationally determined contributions, housing strategies or disaster risk management frameworks increases their visibility and fundability. Donors and development banks are more likely to support land governance components when they are directly linked to outcomes they already prioritise.

Institutionally, implementation matters more than adoption. Evidence consistently shows that land policies fail not because they are poorly conceived, but because institutions lack the authority, staffing or budget to operationalise them. Strengthening land administration agencies, clarifying mandates and investing in basic systems such as land information management often yield higher returns than drafting new policy documents.

For small states, regional cooperation offers additional opportunities. Shared technical resources, pooled expertise and harmonised standards can reduce costs and accelerate learning. In a global environment where development financing increasingly favours scale and demonstrable impact, regional approaches can enhance credibility.

Finally, transparency and public engagement remain critical. Land is inherently political, and reforms imposed without social legitimacy are unlikely to endure. However, consultation processes must be proportionate and focused, avoiding open-ended dialogues that delay action without resolving core issues.

The evidence suggests that land policy is not a relic of a bygone development era, but neither can it be pursued as it once was. In a world of constrained resources, climate urgency and evolving donor priorities, land policy must earn its place by enabling delivery, reducing risk and supporting measurable outcomes.

For governments across the Global South, the challenge is not to abandon land policy, but to stop treating it as a standalone exercise divorced from contemporary realities. When land policy is integrated, pragmatic and implementation-focused, it remains one of the most powerful, if underappreciated, tools available for sustainable development.