Maps, Metaphors, and Meanings: Boundary Struggles and Village Forest Use on Private and State Land in Malawi

Resisting Legibility: State and Conservation Boundaries, Pastoralism, and the Risk of Dispossession through Geospatial Surveys in Tanzania

“…Formalization of land tenure and property ownership through clear boundaries and land use plans bears the risks of dispossession when state and non-state actors with an interest in land digitize, demarcate, title, and thereby make land claims visible (Bluwstein et al, 2018a;Boone, 2019;Chung, 2019;German, Unks and King, 2016;Maganga et al, 2016;Walwa, 2017). Formalization of land rights can also undermine access to land and resources across larger scales, suggesting that there is a trade-off between bounded territories with clear property rights and environmental resilience through access to spatially and temporally shifting resources (UCRT, 2010;Walker and Peters, 2001). Furthermore, boundaries are not simply technical objects that can be readily surveyed and clarified.…”

“…Furthermore, boundaries are not simply technical objects that can be readily surveyed and clarified. Rather, the 'social life of boundaries' makes them 'inherently resistant to uncomplicated clarification' (Harwell, 2011: 181; also see Walker and Peters, 2001).…”

“…Contra a state-centrist view that relies on abstraction and simplification of complex socio-ecological arrangements, rural livelihoods may rely on customary land tenure and land use practices that are entangled with spatially variable, non-territorialized environmental conditions. These practices often have deep historical roots and are not always dependent on fixed territorial rights over a bounded piece of land (Harwell, 2011;Walker and Peters, 2001). Ultimately, invisibility (or illegibility) vis-à-vis the state can even be a precondition for the maintenance of rural land use practices and land tenure regimes that are at odds with a state-centrist administrative logic (Wainwright and Bryan, 2009).…”