According to the keynote presentation
by Martin Adams, there is very little evidence of renewed progress with land reform in the region despite the Zimbabwe land crisis, which came to a head in March 20003. There is an unbridgeable gap between the continuing public statements of politicians about land reform and the ability of governments to deliver. International donors want to help government agencies with funding for land reform but agreements have been slow in forthcoming. The ability of the public sector to manage development assistance constructively is declining. At the same time, civil society organisations, which have been working with governments on land reform over the last decade, are losing morale and staff for lack of funding. This applies to university departments, private sector service providers and non-governmental organisations (NGOs).
The following is a brief synopsis of the status of land reform in the region derived from Adams (2001a), presentations at the conference and other recent publications on land reform in SADC states. It is clear that there is a renewed interest in land reform, at least from civil society, and that land issues remain an important component of public policy and political debate.
The situation pertaining to land reform in Zimbabwe has received intensive media coverage over the past eighteen months. The promising land policy developments in 1998, as gleaned from systematic research, which established that the performance of small farmers had generally been good both in terms of farm production and household income (Kinsey, 1999), evaporated in the pre-election violence and land occupations of 2000. If the United Nations Development Programme offer of assistance to resettle the targeted five million hectares were to be accepted, then there would be a major requirement for external assistance in a short period of time and a work programme larger in geographical scope than anything previously undertaken in the region.
Since the 1991 National Land Conference on land reform in Namibia, one year after independence, little has been achieved either in the field of tenure reform or land redistribution, despite the promising start. Government and non-governmental institutions remain weak. However, the press has recently been carrying more than the usual number of reports about new government land reform initiatives. A new Minister of Lands Resettlement and Rehabilitation was recently appointed.
The land policy process in Lesotho was restarted recently with a Land Policy Review Commission appointed by the prime minister. Tenure reform is subject to debate between those in favour of the traditional system and modernists who believe that land should be tradable. The commission's report is currently being reviewed and revised and is expected to appear as a draft White Paper later in 2001. The initiative could result in a serious attempt to tackle the country's intractable land tenure problems. If so, land tenure reform in both urban and rural areas will require external assistance for several years.
Swaziland embarked on a land policy process in 1996 that progressed fitfully until the beginning of 2001 when the land debate was enlivened by high-profile evictions by certain traditional leaders. This was followed by a land conference in February 2001 when civil society organisations reviewed the draft Swaziland Land Policy and began to grapple with the issues. Demands for tenure reform on Swazi "nation land" have increased recently but much will depend on progress with wider issues relating to democratic reforms in the kingdom.
In Mozambique the dominant discourse on land, dating back to the 1970s, has centred around two key issues - productive use and ownership of land. The 1997 Land Law is seen as a positive step towards devolution of authority and autonomy to local holders of rights. However, there are practical problems of implementation due to lack of capacity at provincial level, but more especially at district level. External assistance continues to be needed but it is difficult for donors to find worthwhile government projects to support.
In South Africa progress was being made in the period 1995-1999, but over the past two years there have been serious setbacks. While land restitution may have picked up, work on land redistribution and land tenure reform has undoubtedly slumped. Donors have little to show for their attempts to reach agreement with government on future assistance to land reform. Government appears set in financing the programme from the national fiscus.
Malawi is in the process of finalising a National Land Policy following the 1999 Report of the Presidential Commission of Enquiry into Land Policy Reform. The implementation of the envisaged reforms is expected to require substantial donor assistance.
Two countries not presented at the conference, namely Zambia and Botswana, are included below to indicate the continuity of some of the issues within the region. The lessons learned from them are intended to be of use to all SADC countries undergoing land reform.
In Zambia recent research by Oxfam (Feeney, 1998)4, which examined how people whose livelihoods once depended on the copper mines have begun looking for land, highlights the problems of an uncoordinated government response to land reform. The 1995 Lands Act has failed to protect people living as squatters on council, private, forest and Zambian Copper Consolidated Mines land. The privatisation of the mines and party politics has further eroded the fragile position of people forced to look to land for survival.
In Botswana the Tribal Land Act of 1968 transferred the authority over land from traditional authorities or chiefs to representative land boards with the aim of reducing discrimination between tribes. This approach may be described as one of careful change, responding to particular needs with specific tenure innovations, and has resulted in Botswana long being recognised for its competence in the administration of customary tenure. Despite this successful approach, miserable conditions are still endured by farm workers employed on freehold farms and in cattle posts in communal areas, and the Basarwa (San or Bushmen) have been consistently denied their traditional rights to occupying land (Adams et al., 2000).
|
