Southern African Regional Poverty Network (SARPN) SARPN thematic photo
Home  |  Subscribe  |  Contact SARPN  |  Site map Français   Portuguкs            
Events Last update: 2020-11-27  
leftnavspacer


Search

[previous] [table of contents] [1] [2] [3] [4]  

Seeking ways out of the impasse on land reform in Southern Africa: Notes from an informal 'think tank' meeting

4. Appendices
 
Appendix I: Participants in the Pretoria ‘Think Tank’ Meeting2
 
Name Organisation/Affiliation E-mail address
Martin Adams International Land Policy Consultant, UK madams@mokoro.co.uk
Michael Aliber Researcher, Human Sciences Research Council, South Africa MAliber@hsrc.ac.za
Hella Alikuru Regional Secretary, Africa; International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Worker’s Association halikuru@yahoo.com
Ben Cousins Director, Programme for Land and Agrarian Studies (PLAAS), South Africa bcousins@uwc.ac.za
Scott Drimie Researcher, Human Sciences Research Council, South Africa sedrimie@hsrc.ac.za
Kaori Izumi Land Tenure and Rural Institutions Officer, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) sub-regional office for Southern and Eastern Africa, Zimbabwe Kaori.Izumi@fao.org
Simphiwe Mini Researcher, Human Sciences Research Council, South Africa Smini@hsrc.ac.za
Adebayo Olukoshi President, CODESRIA, Dakar, Senegal adebayo.olukoshi@codesria.sn
Robin Palmer Land Policy Adviser, Oxfam GB, UK rpalmer@oxfam.org.uk
Lloyd Sachikonye International Development Studies, University of Zimbabwe sachi@zol.co.zw
Chris Tanner Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Senior Land Policy Adviser to the Government of Mozambique tanner@tropical.co.mz
Cherryl Walker Research fellow, Human Sciences Research Council, South Africa Cwalker@hsrc.ac.za
Wolfgang Werner Land Policy Consultant, Namibia wwerner@iway.na
Shaun Williams International Land Policy Consultant, Malawi advyz@bigpond.com.kh


Appendix II: Status of land reform in countries in the Southern African region

Angola

  1. Emerging from several decades of civil war with a huge population of internally displaced people, Angola clearly needs a land policy that will help contribute to the recovery from conflict. In the first instance, such a land policy should deal with the immediate chaos of property destruction and population displacement caused by the civil war. Returning refugees will require shelter and incentives to return to their original areas. In towns, disputes over remaining housing stock will need to be minimised. Records relating to land should be collected and restored. A functioning system of land administration needs to be re-built. All these issues require urgent attention, not simply to provide humanitarian relief and allow economic reconstruction, but to prevent a new round of land transactions causing further conflicts.


  2. Secondly, land policy must work to create institutions and laws to meet claims for land restitution. Such claims will come from returning refugees, those who acquired lands under previous regimes, and those who lost them. Without resolution of claims, investment will be deterred, reconstruction slowed, and social and political stability put at risk. Yet resolving property restitution claims will present a host of difficult and complex issues. Because land is life in countries suffering from violent conflict, thoroughgoing consultation and community acceptance and political support are essential components of a viable system of land administration.


  3. Aside from war and huge inequalities, Angola has a long history of cynical, corrupt, highly centralised, and top-down governance - and spectacularly callous indifference to the poor. In many areas displaced people have occupied former Portuguese-owned fazendas. Some former owners are returning and trying to reclaim old land, in some cases from officials who have grabbed it. Land grabbing is common knowledge, with UNITA’s land grabbing being part of the peace deal. Government seems to think land is not an issue as there is an abundance of it, echoing the opinions of conservative policy makers in many other countries when land rights issues are raised.


  4. Civil society, even by contrast to most other countries in Africa, is weak and inexperienced but has established a toehold with international community support. A Land Forum (Rede Terra) was formed officially in August 2002 after a land conference. It was originally Luanda-based, but is now expanding into the provinces. Donors are willing, because of strategic interests, to continue to channel resources through NGOs.


  5. A draft land law (Lei de Terras) has emerged from a curious political process, amid strong rumours and suspicions that in the immediate post-war phase the elite is merely trying to secure by law its past illegal land grabbing. In his new year address, the President pushed for an early end to discussion, but at a meeting on 5 February 2003 Rede Terra appealed for continued discussion on the draft bill with communities and other interested parties; for the law to recognise the rural community, rather than only individuals, as a legal entity able to hold title to land; for a clear definition of the concept of rural community; for the definition of the nature of state land title; and for the creation of a regulatory mechanism for the law itself, once it is approved.


  6. As in Mozambique, FAO has been involved with both technical assistance and in the highly strategic work of lobbying to safeguard and secure historical community land rights and to have these affirmed by government – a process which is helped by the ‘deconcentration’ of resources and responsibilities to provincial governments, which now have great autonomy. Securing customary rights at this level is likely to prove more effective than focussing all attention on the new land law, given the government’s limited capacity to implement it.
Botswana

  1. Like other countries in the region, Botswana inherited a dual system of statutory and customary tenure at independence. Despite the contrasting characteristics of these two systems, it has developed a robust land administration, which has greatly contributed to good governance and economic progress. Botswana continues to adapt its land administration, based on customary rights and values, to a rapidly urbanizing economy and expanding land market. Its approach is of interest because it is finding solutions to problems that continue to elude many of its neighbours. Systems of land administration cannot be exported wholesale to other countries, but lessons can be learned from their experience with different types of tenure, land institutions and the harmonisation of statutory and customary law. In no other country in the region has land been so judiciously administered as an essential component of good governance. Notable exceptions are issues relating to the land rights of the San and other minorities and the related problem of privatisation of the commons by the elite.


  2. Botswana has succeeded where others have failed partly because of the consultative and systematic policymaking processes that it follows in the various sectors, including land. This process of policy development and change is in stark contrast to that played out elsewhere in some countries of the region where it is difficult to detect a linear relationship (or any kind of systematic relationship) between the analysis of a problem or opportunity and the assessment of the evidence, the formulation of recommendations and the announcement of the policy change.


  3. Land tenure reform in Botswana has been both flexible and gradualist with regard to the role of traditional authorities. Because widespread departures from existing systems are rarely immediately feasible, successive governments have moved in a measured way to reduce the powers of undemocratic traditional leaders. Botswana’s experience with district-level land boards has been of interest to other countries in the region, but more work has still to be done in Botswana to devolve responsibility for land rights management to local people.


  4. Some would argue that Botswana has little to offer in the way of lessons to the region because it is unrepresentative. Its population is modest in size and ethnically relatively homogeneous. By comparison with neighbouring countries, it is relatively wealthy and has no impairing legacy of colonial settlement. These points have some validity. But it should be noted that Botswana set out to democratise its land administration shortly after its independence in 1968, when it was still one of the poorest countries in Africa. The costs of Botswana’s land administration are modest. In current 2002/03 prices the combined recurrent expenditure of all the institutions in the land sector grew from P51 million in 1989/90 to P165 million (c.Ј20m) in 2002/03. This represents 0.8% to 1.2% of total annual government expenditure over the period.


  5. Some ten years after the last government paper on land tenure policy and the amendments to the Tribal Land Act, a team was appointed in April 2002 to conduct a comprehensive review of land policy and do the groundwork for a government paper on the subject. Stakeholders from all over the country energetically debated the conclusions of two draft reports on land policy by the team in the last quarter of 2002. The review covered the length and breadth of both land administration and land management. It once again drew the government’s attention to the concerns that have been raised on the privatisation of the commons by sectional interests in the cattle industry and the likely negative impact on the livelihoods of the poor.


  6. The review concluded that Botswana’s overall land policy and institutional framework are fundamentally sound and that, despite the profound changes witnessed by Botswana in the last two decades, the 1983 strategy of careful change, and responding to particular needs with specific tenure innovations remains valid. Nonetheless, some important adjustments to the policy are called for. Government is studying the Land Policy Review, with the intention of placing a draft White Paper before Parliament during 2003
Lesotho

  1. The development of land policy and land law in Lesotho has had a long and chequered history. Lesotho provides a microcosm of the difficulties of tenure reform on over-crowded and depleted communal lands, chronic poverty, rapid urbanisation, a large (but declining) migrant labour force and very high incidence of HIV/AIDS. The sustainable management of Lesotho’s mountainous and fragile natural environment is dependent on the development of a coherent land policy that embraces both administration of customary and leasehold land in urban areas and both peri-urban and rural land management.


  2. The land policy process was restarted with a Land Policy Review Commission appointed by the Prime Minister, which reported in 2000. The Commission’s report is currently under review by government. By the end of 2003 a draft land policy and draft land code are due to be tabled for Cabinet and Parliament and for public consultation, together with a study of the institutional and financial implications for implementation. Technical assistance for this purpose is being provided by DFID within the framework of the jointly funded Agricultural Policy and Capacity Building Project (APCBP) to which the World Bank and GTZ are also providing assistance.
Malawi

  1. In January 2002, the Government of Malawi published its National Land Policy following a countrywide consultation process. The government is preparing a Sector Wide Approach (SWAP) to the implementation of the policy to which the World Bank, EU, DFID and USAID are contributing. Component projects under design include land acquisition and resettlement on under-utilised land to relieve landlessness.


  2. Important aspects of the land policy are: the clarification and strengthening of customary land rights and formalizing the role of traditional authorities in the administration of customary land which covers some 80% ofthe country; providing for all customary land to be registered and protected against arbitrary conversion to public land; encouraging all customary landholders (entire communities, families or individuals) to register their holdings as private customary estates in ways that preserve the advantages of customary ownership but also ensure security of tenure; allowing private leases to be created as subsidiary interests out of any private land, including registered customary estates, without relinquishing the underlying ownership of the customary landholder; the strengthening of the land rights of women and orphans; and the regulation of land access by non-citizens.


  3. The new treatment of foreign owned land is worrying some people. Existing land holders have to convert their freeholds into 50 year State leaseholds, and future investors are subject to a series of restrictions. The 50 year period is considered by many to be too short for investment, and there are concerns that the new policy will undermine investor confidence and impact badly on rural development in general.


  4. A land code incorporating these and other measures is under preparation. In the process, it is hoped that various policy ambiguities will be clarified, especially those relating to the conditions for the alienation of customary land. A major programme to train land clerks (e.g. for land registration) is also underway.


  5. Among the major impediments to implementation are the high incidences of natural disaster (floods and drought), the HIV/AIDS pandemic, the very weak state of the economy and the long running political uncertainties, which have caused the withdrawal of some donor funds. Civil society pressure for and in support of sustainable land reform is weak.
Mozambique

  1. Like Botswana, the National Land Policy (1995) and 1997 Land Law of Mozambique were developed after a period of empirical research and consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. The Law retains the principle that land is the property of the State and cannot be sold or mortgaged, but it attempts to adjust this legacy from the socialist past to the reality of a market economy. Thus the State and its agents are the only bodies able to authorise a Land Use Right, but this right is now privately held, inheritable, and transferable between third parties, akin to state leasehold.


  2. Research also showed clearly the continuing relevance and validity of customary land management systems and the Policy accordingly accepts that they must be integrated into the overall land management and administration system. The new law was drafted only after such key policy points were agreed.


  3. The Land Policy and Land Law provide a progressive and innovative framework for decentralised rural development and poverty alleviation. The legal framework recognises customary land allocation as one of three ways in which a state-allocated Land Use Right is acquired. With this simple device, the Land Law in effect restores all pre-colonial customarily acquired land rights, except those in the public domain (former state farms, National Parks, public infrastructure, etc.) and provides for a single, integrated legal structure that covers a range of different tenure systems and situations.


  4. Private investment is seen as essential for initiating rural development. The Land Law allows for new investors to request a Land Use Right anywhere in the country. It requires that the local population is consulted and agrees that the state can allocate what is effectively ‘their land’ to the newcomer. Thus the Land Policy and Land Law are core components of a broader rural development strategy. Uneven implementation is however undermining the potential for promoting development, and allowing a de facto land grab of the best resources by elite and investor groups.


  5. While the Land Policy and Law set the basic conditions for land access and use, other new laws (Forests and Wildlife, Environment, Mining etc.) determine how natural resources should be allocated and used. The separation of resources from the land has created dissent amongst both pro-community and investor groups, who argue that holding a Land Use Right also gives one a right over the resources on the land. The issuing of logging licences appears to bypass these concerns and is fuelling conflicts over resources rather than land per se. In all cases where a project occupies local land, the community should be able to negotiate the terms by which it cedes its rights.


  6. The Land Law leaves open the forms of contract that can be used, and thus sets the stage for a flexible form of development that is mutually acceptable to the various interest groups that negotiate and agree over resource access and use. This mechanism is still at an early stage however, and is not widely tested. An important recent step forward has been the provision that local communities will receive 20 percent of all public revenues from commercial forest and wildlife activities.


  7. Where the State decrees that land must be found for large-scale projects, just compensation should be paid to dispossessed rights holders. Yet in many instances, scant attention is paid to local rights and negotiated agreements to date are still a long way from achieving the equity goals of the Land Policy. The manner of relocating people to make way for new large-scale projects is in places reminiscent of colonial forms of land dispossession.


  8. In spite of these problems, the political and economic climate is largely favourable to negotiated processes, based upon the principles of the new legislation. The Government is also committed to improving implementation of the Land Law. NGO campaigns have been very effective in taking the new law out into the countryside and in areas where they have continued to support development initiatives using the new framework, people’s awareness of their new rights vis-а-vis the State and outsiders is very high.


  9. Nevertheless local people lack the capacity to engage effectively as stakeholders in land development initiatives. Laws relating to natural resources and land administration place too much power in the hands of land professionals (land administrators, land surveyors). Civil society has not yet managed sufficiently to empower local people to benefit from these policies. NGOs – the major ‘pro-community’ agent in Mozambique to date – have seen their funding fall dramatically as donors shift support to programme assistance and budgetary support to central government.


  10. Looking ahead, with elite groups seeking access to valuable resources and land administration services both overstretched and mostly serving the needs of the ‘private sector’, land conflicts between local people and new investors are common and are likely to increase. Mozambique does not have a white/black issue, but there are signs of a class struggle emerging over the means of production as new investors and urban groups pay scant attention to local rights in their rush for the best land and resources.


  11. The challenge is to re-orient the focus and coverage of the land administration and reinvigorate the commitment to partnerships between rights holders and those who have the capital and know-how to open up areas for the benefit of all. New debates are however also emerging, over land privatisation, the transmission of rights, how to admit to and regulate the de facto land market. Poverty and existing rights often seem to take a back seat, with the emphasis on improving conditions for would-be investors (particularly large foreign investors), rather than supporting the more equitable model outlined above.
Namibia

  1. Namibia has vast areas of semi-arid rangeland, generally infertile soils and a low population density. Agriculturally usable land is subdivided into the commercial farming area (c. 36.2 million ha) mostly subdivided into freehold ranches, and the so-called Communal Areas (c. 33.5 million ha) on state land. Land reform presents very different challenges than in higher potential agricultural areas of the sub-region. Yet, in common with South Africa, there is a basic disjuncture between the renewed public commitment of the Namibian Government to land redistribution, the financial and administrative resources available for realising them, and the reality of the ‘pro-poor’ rhetoric that accompanies the historical case for redistribution. Namibia has been unable to devise technical solutions to land use problems arising from the high costs of resettling small-scale farmers in a sparsely populated semi-arid pastoral environment.


  2. Namibia has the usual policy dilemmas (e.g. economic production versus poverty alleviation) in the communal and commercial areas and of deciding what the role of stakeholders (national, regional, traditional leaders, local users and occupiers) should be. These policy differences are played out in tensions between the highly politicised Ministry of Lands (MLRR) and the more technocratic Ministry of Agriculture (MAWRD). Weak leadership, management and chronic incapacity in the former have been a major constraint. This has been reflected in the comparative performance of two different types of land redistribution programme: MLRR’s land settlement programme for the landless, which has been a dreadful failure; and MAWRD’s affirmative action loan scheme (facilitated by the Land Bank) for emerging black commercial farmers, which seems to have been a success in terms of its stated objectives. A third element of the land reform programme is the development of ‘unused’ land in non-freehold or communal areas.


  3. Five years after independence, the Commercial (Agricultural) Land Reform Act was passed in 1995. In 1998, the National Land Policy was published. The law provided for the acquisition by the government of large, under-utilised and foreign owned farms for resettlement, and grants the government the right of first refusal on farmland offered for sale. Compensation has to be at market prices. By the end of 2002, government had purchased 118 farms totalling 710,000 hectares. Most of these farms have been allocated to beneficiaries, but the land allocation process lacks transparency.


  4. Relatively little progress has been made over the last decade, but the events that unfolded in Zimbabwe in March and April 2000 resulted in a renewed interest in land reform in Namibia. In December 2000, the President announced that land redistribution would be greatly accelerated. Government committed itself to the redistribution of 9.5 million ha in five years, which is approximately 25% of the farmland in private hands and five or six times the area redistributed since 1991. Donors are being asked to contribute to the resolution of the problem and both EU and GTZ have expressed their willingness to help. In a very recent development, the Namibian Agricultural Union has engaged in consultations with its members around the country, finalised in mid-February 2003, with the purpose of coming with their own proposals for land redistribution.


  5. Recent government efforts have focused on developing a tax on commercial farms to encourage farmers to dispose of unutilised land, despite the lack of evidence of the feasibility of taxes for this purpose. The long-awaited Communal Land Reform Act was passed in 2002, which provides for the recording and registration of all land rights in communal areas, either as customary rights or rights of leasehold. The Act also provides for the administration of customary rights along similar lines to those adopted in Botswana. Whether the necessary funds for setting up the land administration will be forthcoming remains to be seen.


  6. In a trend that is evident across the region, the lack of practical policy and a real commitment to equitable implementation in practice is being exploited by national elites who have enclosed large areas where customary land rights prevail but are not surveyed and lack effective legal protection. A class of emerging black commercial farmers might redress (slightly) the skewed racial access to land, but will do little to address underlying issues of poverty and a real redistribution not just of land but also of wealth in other forms.
South Africa

  1. The comprehensive but painfully slow land reform programme in South Africa shows no sign of picking up speed, despite events north of the Limpopo. It is evident that land reform is not a priority in the wider macro-economic framework of the ANC government.


  2. The emergence of the critical phase of the land crisis in Zimbabwe closely coincided with the change of leadership in the Ministry and senior management in the Department of Land Affairs (DLA) in mid 1999. This was followed by a suspension of the land redistribution programme and draft tenure reform legislation, a haemorrhage of experienced professionals and changes in policy direction, resulting in a critical loss of time.


  3. The gap between government promises and the capacity to deliver land to the landless grows ever larger. Although progress was made in the period of the Mandela presidency (1994-9), intractable problems of policy and implementation were apparent long before the hand-over to the new Minister in 1999. Institutional fragmentation and divided responsibilities between the DLA and provincial agricultural departments compound the problems and hinder effective progress.


  4. As in Zimbabwe, the lack of a comprehensive rural development strategy, complete with practical and sustainable support programmes, means that an essential precondition for an improved land redistribution and land reform effort is absent. Without this, any kind of land redistribution programme – even a well regulated and non-violent one – will have little real impact on poverty and quality of life issues for the ‘beneficiary’ population.


  5. Notwithstanding progress in the formal settlement of restitution claims, the three principal legs of the land reform policy (Land Restitution, Land Redistribution and Land Tenure Reform) set out in the 1997 White Paper look increasingly wobbly. The measures announced in the Budget speech of the Finance Minister in February 2003 indicate that the Department has no coherent long-term plan for sustainable land reform. The DLA’s hard-pressed bureaucracy is under great pressure to deliver, but morale is low. Effective M&E systems have not been in operation since early 2000. National statistics are not reliable and it is no longer clear how much land is being transferred and to whom.


  6. The recently announced budget for the land sector of R1.9 billion is for two years 2003/4 and 2004/5, doubling this year, but levelling off for the remainder of the Medium Term Expenditure Framework (MTEF). While the increase in the budget for the land sector is welcome, it is not clear how this relates to the plans for land reform. Most of the budget (R854 million) for 2003/4 will be to meet the cost of land restitution claims, many of them urban, probably in cash rather than restoring the land. The failure to make substantial headway against the large number of outstanding rural claims (reported as 10,040 by the Minister in her budget speech of April 2003) is a growing cause for concern because this is where grievances are most likely to spill over into violence.


  7. Land Redistribution to provide land for the landless in rural areas has been very slow and falls far below the government’s target of transferring 30% of agricultural land by 2015. At the current rate, it is unlikely to reach 5% by that date. The general failure to deliver post-transfer support services to land reform farmers emerges as a fundamental issue. And despite the evident need to give more dynamism to redistribution and provide effective follow-up programmes, the budget allocation to redistributive land reform is a plan for failure.


  8. The latest draft of the Communal Land Rights Bill (CLRB) has been under preparation for more than 5 years but, in its present form, it is not expected to secure the land rights of those occupying and using the communal areas (the former homelands comprising 13% of the land and accommodating about one third of the population). The real thrust of the CLRB is apparently to divest the State of its current responsibility for land administration in these historically deprived areas through a process of transferring land ownership to ‘communities’.


  9. Land reform activists (both researchers and NGOs) in South Africa are currently reviewing the status of all three land reform programmes with a view to learning lessons and seeking alternative ways of moving forward, but relationships with government are often poor. Efforts are also being made to design and implement training programmes.
Swaziland

  1. Swaziland is remarkable in the sub-region for its successful repossession of land alienated by whites. During the latter parts of the 19th century, two thirds of the land held by the Swazi people came into the possession of white settlers. Following the Anglo-Boer war, a central objective of the Swazi monarchy was the repossession of the lost lands. In the early 20th century, many of the settlers’ concessions were converted into freehold. The remainder of the century was largely spent in recovering this land into the ownership of the Swazi Nation, repossessed with funds raised by taxes on Swazis and with grants from the UK. Today, the chiefs administer almost two thirds of the country, but the arbitrary manner in which some of them do this is an increasing cause for concern and, unless changes are made, will surely bring about their downfall.


  2. Swaziland embarked on a land policy process in 1996 (assisted by DFID), which progressed fitfully until the beginning of 2001, when the land debate was enlivened by high profile evictions of peasant households by traditional leaders. This was followed by a national land conference in February 2001 when civil society organisations reviewed the draft Swaziland Land Policy and began to grapple with the issues. In 2002, Swaziland was wracked by disputes between the High Court and the government over the constitutional powers of the monarchy. Constitutional changes, spurred by the feudal tenure arrangements, could result in requests for urgent assistance for tenure reform on Swazi Nation Land.
Zambia

  1. At independence in 1964, Zambia inherited four categories of land: State Land (formerly Crown Land), Freehold Land, Reserves and Trust Land. Under the socialist-leaning United National Independence Party (UNIP), Zambia became a one-party state in 1973. Only small-scale private property was permitted and large-scale enterprises, whether industrial, commercial, agricultural or financial had to be undertaken either by the state or by institutions controlled by the state.


  2. The Land (Conversion of Titles) Act 1975 confirmed and completed the land nationalisation programme by vesting all land in Zambia in the President, to be held by him in perpetuity on behalf of the people of Zambia. Freehold land held by commercial farmers was converted into leaseholds for 100 years and unutilised tracts of land were taken over by the state. In the 1960s, some 75% of white commercial farmers left Zambia for what was then Rhodesia and South Africa, leaving only about 300 remaining on state leases.


  3. Since the current land crisis in Zimbabwe, the government is reported to be sympathetic to helping farmers who left Zambia and have now lost their farms in Zimbabwe, to return. This willingness to receive expelled farmers from Zimbabwe is also echoed in Mozambique, where some 50 ‘farmeiros’ have been allocated land and are now contributing with varying degrees of success and local acceptance to the development of Manica Province.


  4. Zambia, nonetheless, does have chronic land problems, which are the subject of a current land policy review. A Draft Land Policy was published for public comment on 21 November 2002. The Zambia Land Alliance, an initiative of Zambian NGOs, supported by Oxfam GB, is seeking funds to facilitate more grassroots participation. USAID provided technical assistance for policy development to the land sector in the early years (1992-95) of the MMD government, but since then donor assistance has faded. DFID, in its current review of possible support to the agricultural sector, has been looking at the impact of land problems on agricultural production.


  5. Many current land problems arise from the dual system of tenure inherited from the British, from attempts by UNIP to resolve them by nationalising all land and placing it within the gift of the President, and from attempts by the Chiluba MMD government to provide for a climate for foreign investment and development through the Land Act of 1995, which repealed the Land (Conversion of Titles) Act. The policy review process is in grave danger of being under-funded and rushed. Legislative changes that emerge from it could also create problems if there is not adequate consultation as was the case in 1995.
Zimbabwe

  1. The price paid for failing to take timely and adequate action to redistribute land in Zimbabwe has undoubtedly been huge. More money may now be spent on food aid than was ever to be spent on land reform. The long-term costs of foodaid dependency (crowding out food trade) must also be considered. Long-overdue land redistribution has now taken place in an anarchic and violent manner with immense damage to the economy, and indifference to human rights and the rule of law. This process has resulted in an unprecedented humanitarian crisis and widespread hunger.


  2. Specific attention needs to be given to the serious situation facing the estimated 200,000 farm workers who are threatened with eviction from occupied farms. Some continue to stay on the farms or live around the edges, others have moved away entirely, but all are facing impoverishment, a lack of shelter, and the total disruption of their lives. Together with their families, the numbers affected could be as high as 1.0 - 1.5 million people.


  3. The irony now is that thousands of farms and millions of hectares of productive land are lying idle, while the best of the ‘redistributed’ land has been handed out to elite figures in a wave of cynical cronyism. New conflicts are emerging between some of the new elite owners and those settled on the land in the ‘fast track’ programme. The wider economy is in a shambles, offering no prospects for employment or relief, and indeed it is this wider collapse that has contributed to the urgency and the anarchy of the land occupations. Even where land is now in the hands of new small farmer occupants, there are no support measures to help them get going, and there is no rural development programme of any kind that will provide an adequate framework for this kind of peasant or small scale agriculture.


  4. In the longer term, some form of reconciliation and consensus must be achieved if Zimbabwe is to reap positive benefits from the hardship and suffering of all of its citizens over the last few years. Comprehensive policies will be needed, new skills must be learned, and new institutions created to promote a productive and equitable model of land occupation and resource use. The consensus building approaches adopted in countries like Mozambique serve as a good example, while lessons can also be learned from other countries such as Swaziland where land repossession has resulted in something more akin to a feudal situation with little to offer the poor. The donor community must be ready to provide support when the moment for moving ahead arrives.

Appendix III: Overview of current land issues in Southern Africa

ISSUES ANGOLA BOTSWANA LESOTHO MALAWI MOZAMBIQUE NAMIBIA SOUTH AFRICA SWAZILAND ZAMBIA ZIMBABWE
Land Policy None at present but civil society and donors pushing for it Thorough review 2002. Draft White Paper due 2003. Tribal Land Grazing Policy failed. Draft land policy due end 2003 Adopted January 2002 but critically ambiguous National Land Policy 1995 National Land Policy published 1998 Constitution 1996 White Paper 1997 Ministerial statement 2000 Land policy review in 1987. Draft National Land Policy 1999; approval awaiting constitutional review Current land policy review.Draft Land Policy published November 2002 Adopted May 2002
Property laws Land Law (21/C) 1992

Regulations 1995

Draft land law (Lei de Terras) recently emerged from curious political process 		1992 White Paper and Tribal Land (Amendment) Act 1993 New land act being drafted, due end 2003

Women legal minors without property rights of their own 		Land Code under construction Land Law 1997 integrates customary & 'formal' land access as means of securing a State land use right, with role for local people in land management.

Regulations and Annex completed 2000.Forest and Wildlife Law 1999 weakens local rights over resources.

New Mines Law 2002 can override land rights 		Commercial (Agricultural) Land Reform Act 1995

Communal Land Reform Act 2002 		Constitution of 1996 plus a wide range of laws dealing with land claims, extension of security of tenure to farm workers and tenants, the acquisition of land for redistribution purposes, and development facilitation and planning Land Act 1979Farm Dwellers Control Act. Swazi Administration Order 1998 reinforces link between land ownership and jurisdiction.

Women as minors without property right of their own. In practice unmarried adults may not hold land. 		Land Act 1995 Section 5 (Preliminary Notice Of Acquisition Order) and section 8(Compulsory Acquisition Order) of Land Acquisition Act 2002
Implementation strategy Participatory approaches and empowerment of local communities supported by FAO in partnership between CSOs/ NGOs and Land Directorate of the Government. Resettlement of IDPs Delimitation and titling Decentralised land management Democratic, flexible and gradualist Concurrently developed with the land policy and land law Under construction Skewed application favours private sector, with NGOs mainly responsible for community rights Excessively technical approach by MAWRD

Introduction of land tax by MLRR to acquire land for redistribution but at slow pace 		Bogged down. Land sector budget R1.9 billion 2003/4 and 2004/5, levelling off Gradual adjustment of existing land tenure    
Capacity building Rebuilding of land administration

Training in participatory delimitation and basic GIS. Far from sufficient 		District-level land boards Declining capacity

Capacity building should be part of implementation strategy 		Started but only on small scale Priority issue but not adequately addressed as yet MLRR weak leadership, management, capacity Attempts to design and implement new training programmes; institutional fragmentation, divided responsibilities hinder progress Needs to develop institutional coherence and efficiency Need to examine capacity of land administration and efficiency Loss of government personnel and declining capacity
Civil society engagement in land reform Land Forum, an NGO coalition formed 2002, recently appealed for more consultation

Increasing engagement by international and national NGOs/CSOs, but limited resources 		Mostly involved in displacement of San Broad consultations during the policy review process

Need for more engagement in new land law and sensitisation 		Weak pressure for and support of sustainable land reform NGO campaigns have been very effective in creating awareness of new rights vis-а-vis the State and outsiders

Very reduced resources for NGOs to continue their support 		Weak pressure by NGOs for protecting land rights of the vulnerable.

Namibian Agricultural Union devising own proposals for land redistribution 		Strong in the past but relations with government have deteriorated in recent years No civil society participation in 1999 Draft National Policy.

2001 civil society began to engage in land issues, subsequently contentious battles in courts over role of the monarch 		Consortium of Zambian NGOs, seeking funds Widespread disengagement and depletion of resources
Land grabbing MPLA and UNITA elites as part of the peace agreement Land grabbing and eviction of AIDS widows and orphans in peri-urban/ urban areas Immigrant Chinese business community arbitrarily taking over peri-urban land for industrial construction Across border into Mozambique Significant problem in best resource areas and coast though land taxes and consultation process had curbed worst excesses Local elites Policies favour elites over the poor in practice 2001 high profile evictions of peasant households by traditional leaders Nationalisation 1966 Land around Copperbelt given out as political reward to Kaunda supporters War veterans and political elite
Land occupations Not an issue at the moment, butsome IDP encroachment on former colonial plantations   Encroachment into prime agricultural land in urban/ peri-urban areas for housing.

Ongoing court actions and demolitions' Campaign to stop land encroachment 		Isolated cases An issue in ex-state farms and contested ex-colonial farms now being given to new 'owners', where local people have settled over years October 2002 by 100 SWAPO youth as protest against eviction of farm workers Reports of land encroachment in commercial farming areas, plus land invasions in peri-urban areas for housing and settlement purposes     Started in February 2000 and still continuing
Land utilisation Much land abandoned during decades of war. Limited utilisation. Mining sector a bottleneck. Lack of basic instruments for small farmers.Some animal recovery in Huila, Huambo Large parts of country extremely arid. Low settlement densities in urban and over-utilised and poor conservation of arable land in rural areas. Revocation of underutilised land a concern for HIV/AIDS affected households Low, many foreclosed mortgages and large areas of under- utilised customary land Very low percentage of potential area is effectively used by communities and by private occupants (hence push by government to attract investors) Unused land tax introduced but vast areas of semi-arid rangeland, generally infertile soils

50% of HIV/AIDS affected households leaving part of land fallow 		Well-developed & extensive commercial sector, with areas where utilisation is low, alongside dense settlement and very low productively and poor land utilisation in former reserve areas Extensive soil erosion due to excessive cattle grazing Large rural areas with low population densities Extensive productive lands idle

Contracts between previous (white) owners to continue farming and share profits with new (black) owners
Landlessness Limited IDPs prefer not to go back to original place Rapidly urbanising population Diminishing arable land is leading to landlessness Significant No 'landless' class yet, but current trends could lead to this in medium term MLRR's land settlement programme for the landless has failed Difficult to quantify. High levels of land hunger in former reserves; intense pressure to secure land for settlement in peri-urban areas. Serious landlessness (25% of the rural population land less) Government may help ex-Zambian white farmers evicted from Zimbabwe to return 0.5 million farm workers and families and youth
Land conflicts Limited as IDPs acquiring land through customary authorities, avoiding confrontation with the elite over land
Foreseen conflict as land shortage increases in future. Likely to be overlapping claims as people resettle land abandoned during war 		Fencing of common grazing lands. Between different rural communities over grazing land, government and settlers in arable land or land reserved for development, traditional leaders on allocation powers. Demolition of illegal settlement by government Most common form of civil action Between locals and new investors, due to inadequate application of law and contradictions with Forest Law Racial and ethnic divisions inherited from the colonial and apartheid past Tensions over slow pace of delivery in rural restitution and redistribution

Conflict along borders between commercial and communal areas 		Boundary disputes between chiefdoms Around Copperbelt Violent
Land redistribution Not relevant   Expected to be stimulated by introduction of land market under the new land law Resettlement projects under design Land Law in principle restores and protects extensive local rights, but 'redistribution' now taking place to private sector interests By end 2002 government purchased 118 farms totaling 710 000 ha. Most farms allocated to beneficiaries, but process lacks transparency Continuing but slow target of redistribution of 30% of agricultural land by 2015 is likely to be less than 5%,

M&E breakdown 		Land purchase programme with mixed results. In some cases targeted landlessdid not benefit Needs efficient and fair market for existing State Lands Chaotic and arbitrary, no post transfer support services
Land tenure Lack of land policy a bottleneck. Implementation of land law will be difficult due to limited knowledge on tenure regimes. Attempts to recognise customary claims Transforming freehold land tenure into customary Phasing out of customary tenure under the new law

Discriminatory against womenSub-division

Revocation of underutilised land 		Improving administration of customary land Law integrates customary and formal tenure into one structure over whole country in progressive system that requires stronger implementation and capacity building

Legal framework recognises customary land allocation as one of three ways a state-allocated Land Use Right can be acquired 		Illegal fencing

Unused communal land can be leased to promote agricultural development 		Strategy of transferring whole farms to fairly amorphous groups has been principal cause of difficulty

Draft Communal Land Rights Bill criticised by NGOs but also rejected by traditional leaders 		'Swazi Nation Land' held by the state (the King) administered by chiefs. May not be sold but in practice this happening in peri-urban areas.

Arbitrary administration by chiefs 		Conversion of customary lands to state titled lands chaotic and corrupt

Tenure insecurity of women, HIV/AIDS affected, retrenched mine workers, the poor 		Multiple processes: legitimisation of settlers, eviction of settlers, reversal of land acquisition; uncertain tenure
Land administration Serious lack of institutional and technical capacity both in Government and CSO/NGOs. Neither really functioning cadastre nor registry system Adapting land administration based on customary rights and values to rapidly urbanising economy, expanding land market Need for administration of both customary and leasehold land in urban, peri-urban and rural areas

Involvement of local authorities under Local Government Act 		Decentralisation of very low central capacity. Innovative programme to train land clerks (e.g. for land registration) underway Natural resources and land administration laws place too much power in land administrators, land surveyors; decentralised services will help, but training in new approaches needed Administration of customary rights similar to Botswana Chaotic and conflicting systems in former reserve areas Chiefs administer almost two thirds of the country Chiefs in theory have absolute rights to give away customary land No current records

Attempt to set up land information systems
Donor/ financier support Donors willing, because of strategic interests, to continue channeling resources through NGOs. Limited funding. Limited recognition on the importance of agricultural sector for national recovery Needed much less than elsewhere in the region DFID (land policy and law)
GTZ (land use planning)
World Bank via APCBP

Need for data capture support 		DFID, EU, USAID/ World Bank long running political uncertainties have caused withdrawal of budget support Donors support achievements to date and willing to continue, but budget support model has reduced NGO funding (and thus support to communities) EU and GTZ coalition of the willing

FAO on valuation and land tax 		USAID (linking white commercial farmers and emerging black farmers)

EU (post transfer support, local economy development)

Belgian support for restitution 		DFID assisted drafting of land policy in 1996 Past policy assistance from USAID

Potential support by DFID OXFAM supporting civil society 		None
Impediments Top-down governance. PRSP yet to be presented by government to donors.Oil revenues not included in GDP Land rights of marginal groups HIV/AIDS epidemic, retention of qualified staff, weak civil society

High land pressure (less than 9% of land arable).

Conflicting land uses 		Frequent natural disasters

HIV/AIDS pandemic

Weak economy 		Conservative attitudes amongst technical staff

Collapse of inter-sectoral coordination mechanisms

Corruption 		Lack of practical policy or real commitment to equitable implementation exploited by national elites enclosing large areas where customary land rights lack legal protection No comprehensive rural development strategy and practical and sustainable support programme

Weak civil society organisation in rural areas 		Population growth, acute shortage of arable land, HID/AIDS. Overgrazing Lack of resources and limited administrative capacity in GOZ Drought, food and humanitarian crisis

HIV/AIDS

Economic meltdown



Footnote:

  1. The logistical arrangements for the meeting and the costs of travel, board and accommodation of the participants were partly covered by the Southern African Regional Poverty Network programme (SARPN) of the Human Sciences Research Council (South Africa) and by the FAO. We gratefully acknowledge this assistance.
[previous] [table of contents] [1] [2] [3] [4]  


Octoplus Information Solutions Top of page | Home | Contact SARPN | Disclaimer