History and Prospects for African Land Governance: Institutions, Technology and ‘Land Rights for All’

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Land issues are very important on the way to achieve sustainable development. The review paper “A review of history and prospects for African land governance: Institutions, technology and land rights for all” is well conceived and clearly written. Challenges in sub-Saharan Africa have been analyzed from a legal, technical, and administrative point of view. By emphasizing the activities of the most important institutions, it is possible to predict future events. In conclusion, the author suggests future trends and raises hopes that the unfairly tradition will improve in the near future.

I suggest publishing the paper with a correction of the technical issues listed below.

 

Technical issues:

The citation style is not in line with the rules of the journal, should be aligned.

Line 326 - are square brackets needed?

Author Response

Thanks for your positive review.

Citation style and square brackets have been revised.

Reviewer 2 Report

I find this paper very interesting and important. As an important precondition for establishment of any type of land administration it is important to analyze existing problems and approaches to establish land administration.

This paper gives good introduction and points to a great need for land administration in African countries. Author points to some particular problems and describes some technologies and the LADM standard as way for a solution.  But, what I am missing, and it is the main issue in this paper,  is a concreate example and proposition how these problems could be solved. It would be great to see the results as some workflow diagram with steps that lead to a solution.

 

Author Response

Thanks for your positive review.

I have revised referencing style to journal guidelines. Regarding resolving the issues, I have revised my conclusions, but considered a work-flow diagram towards solutions was not appropriate, because of individual country particularities and also the complex interactions between stake-holders.

Reviewer 3 Report

The author presents a paper on the pressing issue of land governance and administration in Sub-Saharan Africa. The language used is perfect, however I have the feeling that the article lacks relevance or misses to make its points more explicitly. This can however be a personal impression and other reviewers might disagree. Maybe it is also due to the fact that this is a review article, however, I personally think it could also be an opinion article!? Guidelines and frameworks are not really reviewed, but rather presented in a narrative form with some relevant aspects but not put against an assessment framework, comparable measurments etc. 

0. In terms of formatting, the style of referencing has to be changed. Currently, it does not fit the guidelines of the journal. 

1. Prominent in the Abstract is the aim to review"recent advances in geo-spatial technology, and their relevance to issues". However, I could not find this review, but rather a random list of programs, technical standards and remote sensing sensor types mixed up together. The three examples seem to be picked randomly and are not really reviewed, but rather presented!? maybe the expectations in the abstract can be lowered (or it is my understanding and a problem of language)

2. Although the paper talks about the "African dimension", Sub-Saharan Africa, Anglophone countries (Table 1) and former British Colonies are used as study or exemplarly regions which is confusing to me. Maybe the argumentation of the study/review regions can me made a bit more consisent or be explained better. 

3. To me, the paper does not really build up, but rather new (I have to admit relevant) points are made throughout the paper. For instance, several technical solutions and three examples have been presented, but don't play a role in the later chapters of regional case studies. The same with the guidelines. Have the FIG and AU issues and concepts now been implemented in the countries, did they have an effect on the national and sub-national levels. Instead of answering these questions, new aspects like ANC housing policies and ratios of surveyors are brought up. 

4. Because of the lack of a specific research/review question or framework the local examples are evaluated, the conclusion also lacks to mentions specific results from the study. What has been demonstrated what? How does the paper show that causes for optimism exist? Maybe, it is only me missing a question or narrative, all aspects in the paper are evaluated against.

I chose minor revision, as I am not sure if the misunderstanding is on my side only.

Author Response

Reviewer comments have been generally helpful, and have informed further revisions to the submission to improve clarity and ease of expression. On the four specific points:

1. Abstract has been amended as suggested.
2. Choice of four Anglophone SSA countries has been clarified early in section 3.2.
3. Further comments added on reception of FIG and AU guidance, especially poor implementation by national governments.
4. Lack of specific 'results' is considered less necessary in review article, and reflects the difference between land survey/administration and wider issues of land law/governance, also the interdisciplinary approach adopted.

Reviewer 4 Report

I have read this manuscript, A review of history and prospects for African land governance: Institutions, technology and land rights for all, and consider more an opinion piece than a review article for three major reasons: (1) it is a highly opinionated article. (2) It lacks a theoretical base and is not firm in terms of evidence. (3) It neither stimulates a specific debate nor advances a new thinking. On these bases, I would not recommend the article for a “review” publication. The article presents (alas from the perspective of the writer) but does not provide a rigorous review of the issues it claims to investigate - i.e., the history and prospects of land rights, Institutions, technology in Africa’s land governance or affairs. The authors did not adopt or embrace any known method or theory as a bases of the review. This makes it impossible to replicate. Further, the depth of the work is shallow, and this is probably due to the broad scope (in terms of number of countries) chosen by the authors.

However, the tone, the “facts” presented, and the argumentation of the article situate it better as an “opinion” or “communication”. And it is only on this regard that I recommend for publication, after the following imbalances may have been addressed:

• In its effort to reflect on the theoretical cum historical dimension of colonial power (and intellectual) hold on land/property rights, the authors noted that “The so-called ‘colonial masters’ favoured an evolutionary theory of land rights - precursor of the GLTN's land rights continuum - under which customary or communal tenure would be extinguished over time by an inevitable progress towards individual property rights. (220-222)”. This statement needs further clarification as it could be understood in various ways. It can even be grasped to mean that the “GLTN’s land rights continuum” is derived (or emerged) a long the same thinking as the colonial evolutionary theory of land rights. The colonial premise was based on the notion/impression/assumption that Africans cannot manage their land whereas the continuum of land rights assumes (and a reality) that those land rights (not regarded by colonial theories) are part of a continuum to be respected by all. Both may have evolutionary perspectives, but one is exclusive and the other is inclusive. It is important to mention their deviations and not just their similarities.
• The authors views of Africa's so called ‘youth bulge’ is entirely on-sided. How can the “youth bulge” be merely (or only) a “a reliable predictor of social unrest, leading to war and terrorism from stress factors of poverty, mass unemployment, unmanaged urban growth, food and water shortages, and disease” (lines 174-176). In the context of land governance, Africa (despite having the largest land area comparatively) has a population that is less than that of both India and China (which are countries), and its “youth bulge” can represent potential energy for sustainable land use, opportunities for growth in capacity development and on and on. I got a sense of imbalance in the argument being presented by the authors in this regard.

In general, the article makes for an interesting reading, but it delivered less than it promised. The “institutional and legal analyses” provided were mere commentaries best qualified as opinions than a “review.” It did not quite summarize “the history of land laws for one in each sub-region (South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, and Zambia)” (line 189) as promised. It presented the authors’ narratives of the key laws. And this pattern of authors’ viewpoints on selective narratives on technology, land rights continued all over the manuscript. This makes it lack rigor and scientific pattern in delivery. Yet, the opinionated content makes for “new insight” on the matter from the authors viewpoint. That is why I recommend it to be rejected as a “review article” but accepted as a “communication” or “opinion” piece.

Author Response

Reviewer 4 comments have been helpful in some respects (similar to Reviewer 3 but more severe), and informed a revised submission. I was not aware that the journal included .communication' or 'opinion' submissions, but if that is the way forward (rather than a review), then I have no objection. My intention was to open up a wider and needed conversation in the subject area, giving space to alternative disciplinary and inter-disciplinary approaches to land administration/governance.

The reviewer states that the submission lacked 'any known method or delivery' (but see introduction), is 'impossible to replicate' (is that a requirement for a review?). The reviewer seems unfamiliar with relevant well-regarded research in different disciplines, included in the 160 references cited. His concerns about lack of 'rigor and scientific pattern  in delivery' reinforce my points about 'academic tribes' and 'silo mentality'.

On specific points:

• lines174-176 on 'youth bulge' amended to respond to comments.
• lines 220-22 on 'evolutionary approach' amended likewise.

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I still think you should add digram which contains a roadmap on abstract level that emphasize the most important steps to overcome the problem.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

I quickly went thorough this article again with renewed interest. The authors  revised the paper accordingly, and beyond my initial recommendation. I also read the authors' response to my comments with interest and do appreciate the scholarly dig with which they defended their work. Further in their response (and in the paper), they raised some critical concerns.

It is important that the authors recognize that the citation of 160 references in an opinion piece does not necessarily give product to "rigor and scientific pattern  in delivery." That also can reflect allegiance to what the authors rightly identified as "academic tribes" and "silo mentality". For instance, the slogan "land rights for all" used in the title and severally in the body of their work leans towards the UN-Habitat/GLTN school of thought. This reflects an "academic tribe" but a crucial one. This opinion piece is written with  scholarly joviality, and I accept.