Michael Taylor
The LANDac Annual International Conference in Utrecht, held on 1–2 July 2026, chose its theme well. “Land in Peace and Conflict” brought together researchers, practitioners, and policymakers at a moment when the connections between land governance and wider global struggles — for climate, for biodiversity, for post-war reconstruction — feel more urgent than ever. Three themes stayed with me as I reflected on the two days.
The green transition is the new frontier for land grabbing
The green transition is reshaping the politics of land at a remarkable pace. This was already a prominent theme in the 2025 LANDac, as blogged by our own Chris Tanner. Across the 2026 conference, presentations highlighted how governments and private companies are acquiring land at scale for renewable energy generation, voluntary carbon markets, and transition minerals, often with little regard for the communities already living there. A panel organised by the International Land Coalition was particularly stark in its emphasis on urgency: where high-value resources are involved, the window for securing community land rights can close very quickly.
This is not a minor adjustment to familiar patterns of land grabbing — it is a significant escalation. The legal and institutional frameworks that communities need to protect themselves are often simply not in place. Robust legal support, strong community organisation, and effective enforcement of environmental and social regulations are more necessary now than ever.
A striking example from India illustrated how Indigenous communities have successfully resisted state land acquisition for green energy by securing support from global biodiversity agencies for protected area designation. The growing convergence between conservation funding and land claims of Indigenous Peoples and of Local Communities is something we are actively working with at Mokoro, including my own work for the restitution of Indigenous territories in Botswana.
Post-conflict land governance: good enough must be good enough
The conference’s focus on post-conflict contexts was less familiar territory for me, but the lessons resonated widely. One of the most important messages was about the danger of pursuing perfect administrative solutions in the chaos that follows conflict. In countries like Syria and Yemen, the complexity and speed of displacement make formal titling systems impractical. Community-based and para-legal approaches — faster, more flexible, more locally legitimate — often serve people far better.
Ethiopia offered a different but related insight: the value of participatory processes in securing community land rights often lies less in the final legal certificate and more in the process itself. When communities are genuinely involved in defining and recording their rights, the local institutions and conflict resolution mechanisms that result carry real legitimacy — and that legitimacy is what actually makes land rights work day to day.
The Burundi case gave cause for reflection on the risks of land registration in contexts of overlapping claims. But it also raised a more challenging point: avoiding conflict is not always the right goal. In situations of deep inequality — whether rooted in gender, ethnicity, or historical dispossession — bringing hidden conflicts to the surface through land rights processes may be precisely what moves the needle towards greater justice. Sometimes, the discomfort of surfacing inequality is the beginning of addressing it.
No peace without land justice
The overarching message from the conference was clear: there can be no sustainable peace without land justice, particularly for women and Indigenous Peoples. The pressure on land and natural resources has never been greater. The monetisation of common-pool resources through carbon and biodiversity markets is generating new forms of dispossession, often at the expense of communities whose relationship with the land reflects diverse worldviews that do not fit neatly into market frameworks. And yet, there are reasons for cautious optimism. New alliances are forming. Philanthropic funders are increasingly recognising the centrality of land rights to their broader goals around biodiversity, climate, and equity. The alignment between Indigenous rights and conservation is gaining traction in policy spaces. The tools available — legal, technical, and organisational — are expanding.
Mike was able to reconnect with old friends from the Land sector in the breakout sessions during LANDac
What remains constant is the need for approaches that are innovative, people-centered, and rooted in genuine partnership with communities. This is, I believe, what Mokoro is distinctively placed to offer: the combination of technical rigour, long experience, and a genuine commitment to locally grounded, participatory ways of working. The challenges are greater than ever. But so too, I came away thinking, are the possibilities.
The featured image used in this write-up belongs to LANDac.
Michael Taylor attended the LANDac Annual International Conference as a Mokoro Delegate in Utrecht on 1–2 July 2026.