I assume that the ‘conceptual framework’ (mentioned in the discussants’ TOR) refers to the study objectives and the testing of assumptions made by the authors about the impact of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, the land tenure system and the nature of rural livelihoods. Some of these assumptions appear on page 1 of the Country Study. The objectives of the study were:
- To identify the coping strategies that households affected by HIV/AIDS adopt in order to survive.
- To assess how these coping strategies are related to land tenure provisions and their implications for food security and sustainable livelihoods.
- To document the experiences of affected families regarding protection of the land rights of widows and orphans.
- To find out the extent to which the provision for leases has provided opportunities for households affected by HIV/AIDS.
- To determine the link between the problem of HIV/AIDS and increasing land sales and conversions.
Several of these objectives, e.g. on coping strategies, the experiences of affected families regarding the protection of land rights (e.g. an increase in share cropping and mafisa arrangements) seem to have been identified. There is some doubt about the achievement of other objectives. The authors perhaps made the assumption that there would be a connection between the ‘land tenure provisions’, i.e. the prescribed system of land administration and management and the land tenure system in place. This may be a reasonable assumption in some countries, but not in Lesotho because of the vast gap between law and practice in Lesotho. This state of affairs warrants some attention in the text. Statements in the report about provisions for leases and the revocation of rights after two years fallow certainly need clarification, where appropriate, referring to the relevant legislation – chapter and verse. If this a not legal provisions but emerging policy, this should be made clear.
The formal land administration arrangements should be described, even if they are ignored because this would be relevant to the conclusions reached by the Country Study.
Until well into the 1970s, a hierarchy of chiefs administered the land with powers of land allocation and revocation of rights over the areas within their jurisdiction. Principal, Ward, Area, Village Chiefs and headmen are directly answerable to the King. Under the Laws of Lerotholi, every chief and every headman is responsible within his area of jurisdiction for the fair and impartial allocation of land to his subjects. Land may be allocated for several purposes, e.g. residential, business, planting of trees, growing of crops, kraals, and burial of the dead.
In law, at least this was changed by the Land Act 1979. It is the basic law governing non-customary land tenure in Lesotho, although it provides that where customary law is inconsistent with the Act, the Act shall prevail. Under the Act, The Commissioner of Lands is meant to be in charge of day-to-day land administration. A number of divisions under various ministries provide the basic land management services. These include the Department of Lands, Surveys and Physical Planning (Local Government and Home Affairs), Land Use Planning (Agriculture and Co-operatives), Deeds Registry (Justice and Human Rights, Law, Constitutional Affairs and Rehabilitation), Urban Councils and Village Development Councils.
The transition to land administration by Village Development Councils under the Land Act of 1979 has not been smooth. In Lesotho, the authority to allocate land is strongly contested (see Box 1). It would be helpful if the authors of the paper had described this background and perhaps explained why the Land Act of 1979 is such a toothless tiger. It would also help us to assess some of the findings relating to the role of traditional leaders.
|
Related documents