From Conflict to Hope: How Effective Land Governance Unlocks Post-War Opportunity
- Dr. Jamal Browne
- 2 days ago
- 7 min read
Secure, transparent, and inclusive land governance is key to post-conflict recovery. Restoring property rights and access to land lays the foundation for lasting peace and opportunity.
Editorial – In Gaza, where nearly two years of relentless war have left vast stretches of land unrecognisable, the challenge of rebuilding is as physical as it is institutional. With destruction estimated at 84 per cent across the enclave — reaching 92 per cent in parts of Gaza City — the scale of recovery borders on the unimaginable.
Speaking from Jerusalem, Jaco Cilliers, the UN Development Programme’s Special Representative for the Programme of Assistance to the Palestinian People, confirmed that the joint UN, World Bank, and European Union Interim Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment puts the total damage at about $70 billion. “To kickstart the massive operation,” he told journalists in Geneva, “some $20 billion will be required in the next three years alone.”
As policymakers, donors, and humanitarian agencies turn their attention to Gaza’s reconstruction, similar conversations are unfolding in Ukraine, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, and beyond. Each context differs, yet a common thread binds them: Recovery and peace can gain no real traction without addressing the land question — who owns it, who can access it, and who decides how it is used.
At the recent World Bank and IMF Annual Meetings, one session stood out for its candour and realism on the subject. Under the theme “Emerging from Conflict: Recovery, Stabilization and Financing,” panellists explored how societies can rebuild in the aftermath of war.
The discussion, moderated by Dr. Nigel Clarke, the IMF’s Deputy Managing Director, brought together three influential voices on the subject: Dr. Muhammad Sulaiman Al Jasser, President of the Islamic Development Bank; Ms. Odile Renaud-Basso, President of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD); and Professor Joel Hellman, Dean of the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University.
Their insights — ranging from macroeconomic stabilisation and institutional reform to human capital and social cohesion — echoed the key principles that underpin effective land governance, thereby reinforcing a simple truth: Without secure, equitable, and transparent management of land, reconstruction remains fragile, no matter how much money is poured into rebuilding.
The Foundations – Fostering Stability
H.E. Dr. Al Jasser was unambiguous. “You need to start with social cohesion and social stability within the society,” he said. “If you don’t have that, all the others will not work as effectively as they should.” His remarks strike at the heart of recovery: Peace built on unstable or unjust foundations will not hold.
In land governance, social cohesion begins with justice — restoring displaced people’s rights, resolving overlapping claims, and preventing elite capture or land grabs. In Syria, where millions remain displaced internally and abroad, addressing land and property rights is integral to reconciliation.
The return of refugees cannot be divorced from access to land, restitution of property, or protection from forced re-development. As Dr. Al Jasser observed, rebuilding must prioritise fairness and “ensure that there are no injustices related to minorities or sects or what have you.”
His comments align with one of the most critical building blocks of post-conflict land governance: A clear legal and policy framework that safeguards housing, land, and property (HLP) rights. Early protection measures — such as eviction moratoria, interim registries, and transparent restitution mechanisms — create the legal stability necessary for social healing and economic reactivation.
Building Institutions, Not Just Infrastructure
Wars dismantle more than buildings; they erode the institutions that give society structure and legitimacy. Ms. Renaud-Basso underscored this, noting that “rebuilding resilient institutions, credible institutions is absolutely fundamental.” Her words resonate deeply in contexts like Yemen and Sudan, where the collapse of governance structures has left millions in limbo.
Strong land institutions — registries, courts, and local land offices — are not luxuries; they are the scaffolding upon which recovery rests. Professor Hellman described institution building as “the hardest part of development,” particularly where conflict has decimated human capacity.
“Institutions from the outside really can’t be built,” he cautioned. “You can bring over the rules, the guidebooks, the experience of other countries... but you can’t put institutions in a box and carry them across oceans.”
His prescription — deep, sustained, in-country engagement — mirrors best practice in land governance reform. Effective systems are rooted in local context, combining international technical support with domestic ownership. Where formal registries have been destroyed or corrupted, for example, community-based verification and digital mapping can serve as transitional measures, balancing accuracy with inclusivity.
The Economics of Land and Livelihood
Dr. Al Jasser reminded the audience that reconstruction is not only about spending, but spending wisely. “Sometimes it’s really how efficient the amounts that are provided are really put to good use in these societies,” he said. Efficiency, in post-conflict settings, often begins with land.
Land determines where displaced families can return, where housing can be rebuilt, and where livelihoods can resume. It shapes agricultural recovery, urban regeneration, and access to basic services. Secure tenure, even in provisional form, unlocks investment and reduces dependency on humanitarian aid.
When Dr. Al Jasser warned against “building a steel mill out in the desert,” advocating instead for support to micro, small, and medium enterprises, his logic applied equally to land. Productive land use — whether through smallholder agriculture, community reconstruction projects, or urban renewal — creates jobs and rebuilds trust in government. It empowers citizens to become stakeholders in recovery rather than passive recipients of aid.
This philosophy is not new. Yet, in practice, land governance remains the missing link between macroeconomic stabilisation and human development. Without secure land tenure, private investment stalls, public infrastructure lacks durability, and displaced populations remain trapped in cycles of informality.
From War Economies to Peace Economies
Professor Hellman captured this transition succinctly. “Even during wartime, there is a vibrant private sector,” he noted. “It’s just a vibrant private sector that’s focused on destruction.” The challenge, then, is to transform a war economy into one that is productive, inclusive, and transparent. That transformation begins with land — its management, regulation, and equitable distribution.
Across Ukraine’s mined farmlands, Sudan’s contested corridors, and the Sahel’s fragile grazing routes, access to land underpins livelihoods and food security. De-mining and environmental remediation, often viewed as technical exercises, are in fact precursors to economic revival. In Ukraine alone, the World Bank estimates that over six million hectares of farmland are contaminated by explosives. Without clearance and accurate mapping, recovery cannot take hold.
As Ms. Renaud-Basso observed, “the more you keep the economy going, the business functioning, the easier it will be to do the reconstruction because people still have jobs.” Her call for early investment and blended finance models echoes a broader principle: Recovery is cumulative. Each cleared field, each registered parcel, each restored property lays the groundwork for stability.
Financing Trust
Money alone does not build resilience. As Dr. Al Jasser cautioned, “You can’t just sign a loan or a financing and then say, okay, I trust you. Do it. There has to be engagement.” He called for “sympathetic, not condescending” partnerships, where donors and multilateral banks remain actively involved in implementation, ensuring funds are used transparently and effectively.
This echoes one of the cardinal rules of post-conflict land governance: Accountability. Transparent procurement systems, participatory mapping, and digital registries reduce opportunities for corruption and ensure that recovery benefits communities rather than elites. In fragile states, where public trust is often shattered, transparent land administration can be a powerful tool of reconciliation.
When combined with sound fiscal management — such as reforming tax systems and strengthening property valuation — land governance contributes directly to macroeconomic stability. Land taxes, lease revenues, and service fees can help replenish public coffers, allowing governments to finance essential services without deepening debt.
Land, Human Capital, and the Long Road to Peace
Rebuilding after war is not just about physical assets. As Ms. Renaud-Basso noted, “You have population displaced in the country... you have people who have been fighting, who have been involved in the war... getting out with physical handicap or post-traumatic stress.” Land plays a quiet but vital role in healing these wounds. It provides space for shelter, livelihood, and reintegration — a foundation on which human capital can be rebuilt.
Her example from Ukraine, where the EBRD partners with banks to make workplaces accessible for veterans and people with disabilities, highlights the intersection between land, economy, and dignity. Recovery that overlooks this human dimension risks repeating the cycle of exclusion and instability.
Tailored Solutions, Shared Principles
No two conflicts are alike. As Professor Hellman reminded the audience, “It is very, very difficult to say there’s a common playbook... the contexts are so specific.” Yet amid this diversity, certain principles hold true: inclusion, justice, transparency, and sustainability. These are not abstract ideals — they are the essence of good land governance.
In Gaza, they will determine whether reconstruction builds resilience or entrenches dependency. In Sudan and Yemen, they will shape whether displaced populations can return home or remain permanently uprooted. In Ukraine, they will decide whether farmland once littered with mines can again feed the world.
A Blueprint for Hope
As the world grapples with the overlapping crises of war, displacement, and environmental degradation, land emerges not merely as a casualty of conflict but as a cornerstone of peace. Effective land governance — anchored in law, data, participation, and transparency — offers a framework for aligning humanitarian, development, and peace-building agendas.
The words of Dr. Al Jasser perhaps best capture the spirit of the challenge ahead: “Attaining social peace is the most important condition. It will help with attaining macroeconomic stabilization.” To achieve that peace, the work must begin beneath our feet — on the land itself, where recovery, justice, and hope take root.
Comments