The Country Study describes investigations at the national, local, community and household level. The most significant level for obtaining an understanding of the interaction of the pandemic and land tenure and livelihoods is of course the community and household level. Consultations took place in two chosen rural communities, Ha Poli and Matsatsaneng. The report explains that they were conducted ‘through their respective chiefs’ (p. 4): one in the lowlands, the other in the highlands.
The densely settled urban or per-urban zone of Maseru was not included, an issue to which I shall return later.
Fieldwork of this nature is highly sensitive and calls for very great patience and tact. As the report describes, it was necessary to approach the topic of HIV/AIDS and its impact on land tenure and livelihoods with some circumspection, especially within affected communities.
The approach adopted at the community level and the valuable insights obtained indicate that the work was conducted with sensitivity. However, one would have liked to see more detail on dates and places visited, number of interviews conducted and so on. Such information is important if the conclusions of the study are to receive credence and if the work is ever to be followed up. This information is essential for placing the results of a qualitative and exploratory study in context. The authors’ assessment of the methodological problems encountered would be useful in planning any follow up investigations.
The description of the policy, legal and administrative framework is extremely threadbare in the Country Study. Vague references are made to ‘land administrators’ (presumably government land administrators), but it is not clear where they fit into the picture and what laws they are administering. In the description of the field results, much is made of the negative impact of a clause in the Land Act of 1979 relating to the revocation of land left fallow for more than two years and the efforts of the chiefs to circumvent it. But I have not been able to find that clause, either in the initial Act or in subsequent amendments. Nor do the comments relating to leases in customary areas seem relevant. It is generally only in urban areas that the ‘grant in title’ is in the form of a lease. A summary of the Land Act 1979 is attached to these comments in Box 2.
Several references are made to the Land Policy Review Commission, which reported in late 2000. It would have been interesting to have an assessment of the recommendations of the LPRC on customary tenure in the light of the findings of the Country Study. While the LPRC proposals on women’s land rights are well formulated, other recommendations of the LPRC were less helpful. For example the LPRC stated:
For the avoidance of doubt, (the) customary land tenure system must be abolished forthwith as it is not conducive to efficient land administration, security of land tenure, high productivity and development. All land that was formerly held under customary tenure shall now be held on leasehold tenure. (page 42)
Throughout 2001, the Department of Land, Surveys and Physical Planning in the Ministry of Local Government worked on a draft land policy White Paper, which attempted to make sense of the LPRC. The draft White Paper was reviewed by Cabinet in December last year but held over until after the elections in May. This might have been mentioned in the Country Study. Again an assessment of the preliminary draft White Paper would be useful in the light of the Country Study.
The Country Study makes references to the LPRC Commission’s proposal for “centralised” Land Boards on the Botswana model. I believe that Government has not accepted this proposal. It is likely that, under the Local Government Act 1997, the land-related work of the Village Development Councils will be taken over by land committees of the local Community Councils (or by the Community Councils themselves, reconvened as land standing committees). As is currently the case with the VDCs, Community Councils can be expected to have chiefs among their members. However, the Local Government Act (Section 4) requires that no more than two gazetted chiefs shall be elected to Community Councils, which shall consist of between 9 and 15 elected members.
|
Related documents