TABLE OF CONTENTS

Some Suggestion By The Elf-Ngo Land Working Group
 Introduction

Section A: Options For Enhancing The Institutional Framework For The Lrrp-2- A. Dengu
1.0 Background
2.0 The Current Institutional Framework And Its Strengths And Constraints
3.0 The Proposed Institutional Framework -What Or Where Are The Institutional Innovations?
3.1 Proposed Institutional Innovations
3.1.1 Rdc Level
3.1.2 Innovations At The Central Level
3.1.3 Institutional Innovations For Non-State Stakeholder Participation.
4.0 The Options For Enhancing The Institutional Framework For The Lrrp
5.0 Conclusion
References

Section B: Stakeholder Participation, Information Awareness And Communication- G.Magaramombe
1.0 Background
2.0 Stakeholder Participation
3.0 The Current Information Dissemination And Communication Systems
4.0 Recommendations
References

Section C: Innovative And Complementary Approaches To Land Reform And Resettlement Program-N. Moyo
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Background
2.0 Analysis Of Failures And Successes Of Previous Resettlement Efforts
2.1 Previous Land Delivery Approaches
2.2 Identification Of Settlers In Phase I
2.3 The Settlement Processes Employed Before
2.4 Support Services And Productivity Of Settled Farmers/Individuals
3.0 Review And Analysis Of Proposals Made Under Ipfp
3.1 Interpretation Of Proposals In Ipfp
3.2 Implications Of The Proposals
3.0 Possible Innovative And Complementary Uses Of Land
4.1 Direct Improvements On Existing Government Approaches
4.2 Improved Land Delivery
4.3 Voluntary Sub-Division Of Land
4.4 Induced Sub-Division Of Land
4.5 Land Tax Incentives
4.5.1 Efficiency Of Planning Services
4.5.2 Minimum Infrastructure Before Settlement
4.6 Shareholding On Land Rather Than Exclusive Ownership And Use
 4.6.1 Non-Participatory By Urban Dwellers (Or Off-Farm Dwellers)
 4.6.2 Participatory By Farm-Workers
4.6.3 Non-Participatory By Related Industry Workers And/Or Farm-Workers
 4.7 Intensive Production Systems
4.8 Irrigated High Value Crop
4.9 Feed-Lot Livestock Production
4.10 Eco-Tourism
5.0 Community Operated
5.1 Individual Operated
6.0 Integrated Production And Processing Systems
7.0 Recommendations On Delivery Mechanisms Of The Land
7.1 Commercial Farmers Initiatives
7.2 Settlers Initiatives
7.3 Use Of Private Sector Scheme Development Approaches
7.4 Commercial Farmer Development Programmes
7.5 Agricultural College Farm-Based Apprenticeship
7.6 Own-Farm-Based Apprenticeship Annex
7.7 Farmer-To-Farmer Supervision Programme
8.0 Private Sector Initiatives
8.1 Residential Stands In Rural Service Centres
8.2 Commercial/Industrial Stands In Rural Service Centres
9.0 Strategies For Implementation Of Innovative And Complementary Approaches
9.1 Institutional Support Requirements
9.2 Coordination Of Various Efforts
9.3 Minimum Infrastructural Requirements
9.4 Resource Mobilization
9.5 Environmental Impact Considerations

INTRODUCTION

In early 1998 several NGOs came together to see how they could contribute to the design and implementation of the LRRP phase 2. To this end a brainstorming retreat was convened in May 1999, under the auspices of the Environment Liaison Forum (ELF) to discuss the problems relating to the process of formulating and implementing the program. The objective of the workshop was form a sustainable informal network of like minded NGOs with interest in land issues to make suggestions to help the government in coming up with a program that addresses the needs of the rural population. The workshop identified the following three critical areas as the important pillars for the LRRP 2:

Capacity Building and Institutional Framework, Stakeholder Participation, Information Awareness and Communication; Innovative Complementary Approaches to Land Reform and Land-use.

Three members of the group were selected to draft position papers on the above (N. Moyo-Indigenous Commercial Farming Union, Abbie Dengu Intermediate Technology Development Group and G Magaramombe Farm Community Development Trust the group during several meetings discussed the draft position papers. The draft papers were also used as the basis for the NGOs contribution at the National stakeholders' workshop on the Inception Phase as well as the National Workshop on the draft land policy.

This paper, a consolidation of the position papers, is a reflection of the group's thinking on the LRRP and is meant to provide decision-makers in government as well as other interested stakeholders with a number of suggestions on the three critical areas. The paper consists of three sections. Section A, deals with the options for enhancing the institutional framework and begins by analyzing the weaknesses and strengths of the current institutional arrangements, it goes on to explore the proposed institutional arrangements and concludes by making recommendations. Section B deals with the problems relating to effective stakeholder participation and makes recommendations on broadening participation and greater transparency through effective information dissemination. The last section, section C, provides some details on the possible innovative and complimentary approaches that could be tried under the Inception phase.

 SECTION A: OPTIONS FOR ENHANCING THE INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE LRRP-2- A. Dengu-ITDG

1.0 Background

The government is in the process of launching the inception phase of the land reform and resettlement programme (LRRP) which is in effect a re-launch and re-energisation of the on going land reform and redistribution programme. The NGO sector wishes to make a positive contribution to this process and it is motivated by a number factors which include:

Demands for a more inclusive and participatory approach to development as a pre-requisite for sustainable development. (It is now widely recognized that there is no single agency with sufficient resources to impose social change!)

The need to root the land issue/debate in communities and to use LRRP as a vehicle for empowering rural communities.

The need to increase the pace of land reform and manage the expectations of intended beneficiaries.

The notion of Policy as an on-going public action process of formulation, implementation, learning and applying the lessons and consequently the need for forums for non-state inputs on an on-going basis.

A dynamic process is unfolding (from rigid models or technocratic approaches to adaptive processes ushered in by the inception phase) and increasing the levels of uncertainty as the number of players in the land reform process increase. New demands are being placed on the current institutional framework, which has already been debilitated by on-going economic reforms. What institutional innovations are therefore necessary for a more inclusive process and to build consensus and maintain coherence in a multiple actor LRRP 2.

We often take institutions to mean organizations and their structures but the notion of institutions is much broader and implies stable patterns of practices, behavior and norms that are recognized and valued by society. An institutional framework would therefore imply an operational structure of relationships in which various organizations e.g. government, private sector and non government interact and exhibit norms, behaviors and practices that are designed to serve collective purposes.

It is clear that with such complex issues, as land reform there is no one organization with the ability to deliver in all aspects of the programme. This points to the need for an appropriate institutional framework to facilitate and steer the multiple actors, so that they contribute effectively to the development goals of the country and in particular the LRRP goal.

This section reviews the current institutional framework and explores opportunities for enhancing the proposed institutional framework for the management of the Land reform and resettlement programme (LRRP) to improve stakeholder participation, contribution and capacity development.

 2.0 The Current Institutional Framework and its Strengths and Constraints

The current institutional framework is a result of number of key changes over the past two years. Prior to the launch of the NECF in 1998 there was no significant non-government stakeholder participation in the LRRP. The key actors then were central government and its various line ministries and the ZANU (PF) ruling party through the land identification committees with the national committee chaired by ZANU (PF) national chairman. The key weaknesses of the pre-NECF era institutional framework may be synthesized to be:

Highly politicized and strong on rhetoric and consequently lacking balance necessary for development of a holistic and accountable programme intervention to bring about significant changes in the lives of intended beneficiaries. Politicization may both be strength and a weakness and values and political considerations underpin indeed development strategies. However these values and considerations need to be brought out in the open and be a subject of widespread debate rather than a preserve of the powerful few acting on behalf of the passive majority. How do the passive majority learn and build their institutional capacity if they are not actively involved in one of the key factors that determine their livelihoods?

Institutional failure i.e. failure to fully understand the way in which structures, norms and values are created and changed and consequently failure to develop institutional capacity to deal with land issues at various land user levels. A good example is lack of institutional clarity and division of labour between central government and RDC as well as between the RDC and the communities as represented by traditional authority (chiefs, headmen and sabhukus) that make up the RDC. This failure to understand institutional development process persists in the National Land Policy recommendations where blue print approaches are being recommended as institutional frameworks for Village assemblies and land administration.

A highly technocratic and centralized programme concerned more about numbers of people given land rather than the empowerment process i.e. facilitating people to participate effectively in their own affairs and achieve their socio-economic dreams including access to land, land rights, support services and institutional development.

The institutional framework did not create space to tape ideas from civil society and therefore to learn and apply lessons in policy adaptation and implementation.

The institutional framework did not allow for broad-based resource mobilization and therefore relied heavily on government funding.

A coherent vision of the programme did not emerge that would move the resettled farmers out of subsistence into commercial activities that would attract other non-farm investors e.g. agro-processing companies into these new areas.

Although government centrally drives the programme, the implementation responsibilities are fragmented among government agencies with inadequate coordination. For example land identification is ZANU(PF) driven , land acquisition -- MLA , land use planning -- Agritex, settler selection ñ Local Government, infrastructure development and settler placement -- DDF/Rural Resources Ministry. This fragmentation creates problems of synchronization and co-ordination. The RDC that is supposed to provide the local governance structure has no significant role in the current LRRP and consequently there continues to be a significant disconnection between the supply and the demand sides of this programme.

It is recognized that institutional considerations are fundamental in explaining patterns of socio-economic development. The scenario prior to NECF was characterised by a closed institutional framework with limited opportunities for learning and benefiting from wider society. Development of appropriate institutions limit the pursuit of interests that harm other stakeholders (e.g. intended land users and their communities) and provide clarity by making the behavior of the more powerful stakeholders (ruling party, central government and international financial institutions) more predictable and accountable.

 3.0 The Proposed Institutional Framework -what or where are the institutional innovations?

The proposed institutional framework builds on the positive changes that have been taking place in the past eighteen months. Key among these are the NECF and its taskforce on land, creation of dedicated capacity to coordinate land issues in the office of the President and Cabinet (OPC) and the establishment of the Lands department in the ministry of agriculture. The proposed institutional framework is outlined in figures 5.1 & 5.2 and annexes 5.1a & 5.1b of the IPFP document 1999/2000. The proposed institutional framework to guide the IPFP is underpinned or guided by the following principles (IPFP 1999/2000 pg. 3):

Transparency and sustainability consistent with the objectives of ZIMPREST.

Broadened and more flexible approaches to implementing land acquisition and resettlement.

Broadened and strengthened stakeholder consultations and partnerships. A focus on poverty reduction.

Addressing gender issues including access to and control of land and proportionate representation on decision-making structures.

Integrating Communal and Resettlement area re-organization and development into the LRRP-2.

Streamline land policies such as land taxation, subdivision and tenure.

These are sound principles, which if applied effectively would address the concerns of a number of stakeholders including civil society groups, and contribute to the development of a vibrant economy and civil society. The challenge is how do we ensure that the programme intervention adheres to these principles? What are the institutional innovations that allow the programme to learn and apply the lessons and be held accountable by its primary stakeholders -- the intended land users and their support institutions?

 3.1 Proposed Institutional Innovations

3.1.1 RDC Level

One of the key institutional innovations outlined by the IPFP (annex 5.1b) that brings the LRRP design, planning and implementation close to the primary stakeholders is the designation of the RDC as the LRRP planning and implementation authority. This is a move that must be supported to bring about the intended benefits. Clarification of a number of issues would help actualize this long awaited decision:

Elaboration of the LRRP linkages with the current RDC capacity building programme to enable the RDCs to take on this added responsibility.

Elaboration of the division of labour and power between central government and the RDC and the legal instruments that go with the division of power. Further elaboration of the division of labour and power between the RDC and the traditional authority structures would be necessary for the RDC planning to take effect.

Resource allocation to RDCs from the central budget and the mechanisms for them to raise money to support the LRRP.

An RDC LRRP subcommittee offers a window of opportunity for NGO participation and contribution. This is very useful in bringing on to the LRRP agenda community level insights and realities. However this needs to be complemented by a long-term strategy of capacity development for communities to represent themselves through councilors, CBOs and traditional authorities. This effectively implies an institutional framework for developing the capacity of the communities that make up the RDC and consequently make it more accountable.

 3.1.2 Innovations at the Central Level

Improved Coordination: It is proposed to improve the coordination of the key actors - CRD, Working Party, NECF and Taskforce on land by creating a Joint Committee of Working Party, Land Task Force, IMCRD and TSU.

This is clearly a step in the right direction to increase efficiency and effectiveness of the LRRP programme. However a lot would depend on the mandate of Working Party, IMCRD, Land Taskforce and the TSU before even considering a new institutional mechanism in the form of the Joint Committee. Mandates determine representation and the necessary capacities of these committees. Committees come in various forms from information sharing, advisory, consultation, and legitimization to executive. To the lay person it is not very clear what all these committees are for. One gets the impression that there is confusion between the straightforward control and command management functions to get the work done and the consultation functions designed to inform decision making and making it more transparent. Consultation processes without duly mandated executive agencies that exercise diligence, probity and that the public have confidence in will not bring the efficiency and effectiveness that is sought by the proposed Joint Committee. This points to the need for a lead executing agency with the necessary leverage to bring the multiple actors involved in the programme together for effective implementation.

The second key institutional innovation proposed at the national and central government level is the Technical Support Unit which will be located in the OPC ( at least for the inception phase ) . The main function of the TSU would be to support the IMCRD and the Joint Committee in moving forward the IPFP objectives essentially in documentation, appraisals, monitoring, evaluation and providing a window for the programme to interact with the public on an on-going basis. These are key functions in achieving the programme's stated objectives but what is the leverage of the TSU to achieve these goals?

One argument that has been put forward is that by placing the TSU within the OPC that should provide it sufficient authority to move the programme forward. This logic is sound in a centralized bureaucracy where decisions are centralized but if we refer to the values underpinning the programme then authority provided by the OPC may not be appropriate for developing a responsive delivery service. Rather it must derive its authority from the rights of the demand structure through a public act, although this may take time it is in line with decentralization and devolution processes that the government is already working on.

Moreover an independent body/TSU may be better placed to develop skills required to manage risk and uncertainty, power relations and conflict and negotiations in a manner that allows multiple actors to contribute effectively in the LRRP. These are new skills and competencies demanded by more inclusive processes of managing the country's economic and social resources not only for the LRRP but also for sustainable development of the country.

Is the TSU not an opportunity to develop this independent programme executing agency which can report progress to consultative forums such as NECF and its taskforce, implementing agency coordinating forum such as IMCRD and policy making bodies such as the CRD and take responsibility for the programme? This has an added advantage of utilizing existing committees for the roles they are better placed for i.e. consultation, information sharing, advisory, policy formulation etc rather than decision making and implementation which requires executive action. Another strategic consideration is that a programme driven by an independent body and responsive to clearly articulated widespread needs is likely to be affected to a lesser degree than the one driven directly by government in situations of political conflicts or political differences especially with major donors and financial institutions.

The National Land Policy Framework paper (Decí1998) recommends an independent land board through an act of parliament as an executing agency for all land related activities including land acquisition, land use planning, resettlement, survey, registration, etc. There are strengths and weaknesses in this proposed institutional mechanism. The key strengths lie in its clear mandate backed by a public act and link with the grassroots communities who elect members to the District Land Boards.

The key weakness has to do with the conceptual mode of the Executing Agency. It would appear that it is about doing things for communities and RDCs rather than coordinating and developing capacity for the multiple actors to get on with what they are supposed to do. Clearly if it is going to directly implement activities then it would inevitably be a massive bureaucratic organization which runs counter to the decentralization programme of government. We seem to be correcting the problem of fragmented centrally driven agencies by introducing a centralized centrally driven agency? Given the on-going economic and institutional reforms a lot more evidence is required to demonstrate the efficiency, cost effectiveness and long term sustainability before choosing to go down the route of this large bureaucratic organization.

Is not possible to think of the NLB and its DLBs as the lean lead organization in land and its various facets but whose main focus is coordination, resource allocation and quality assurance i.e. setting standards, ensuring that they are met and public information management? This way the focus is on developing capacity of RDCs and communities to deal with land issues on an on going basis.

The other questions on the institutional mechanism recommended by the NLP relate to the parallel bodies envisaged to oversee statutory and Village Assembly lands. What is our vision of the future? Is that vision enhanced or constrained by these parallel tenure regimes? How sustainable is this given that the coexistence between customary and common law is being questioned in other areas as marriage and inheritance?

 3.1.3 Institutional innovations for non-state stakeholder participation.

Another proposed institutional innovation at the national level is to expand the IMCRD to include NGOs and the private sector. The inclusion of NGOs and private sector is a welcome development but the effectiveness of this proposal would dependent on the mandate and focus of the IMCRD. What is the appropriate role of such a committee and what can it effectively achieve? Is it guidance to the implementing agency/ies? Is it sharing best practice and policy refinements? Or is it programme/project appraisals, planning, monitoring and evaluation as stated in the IPFP document? What has been the track record to date of this forum? It is hoped the inception phase will tease out these questions and make the necessary changes where appropriate.

The NECF and its Land Taskforce provide yet another forum for non-state actors to input into the LRRP processes. To effectively take up the space and challenges proposed under the IPFP the wide array of civil society groups need to coordinate their efforts. This coordination can build on existing mechanisms like the Environmental Liaison Forum Land working Group and the Women and Land Lobby group. These NGO groups/forums bring together a large number of diverse NGOs and interested individuals and are already working at different levels, for example policy dialogue and advocacy at national level and project proposals and capacity building at RDC implementation levels. It is essential that NGOs have their own institutional forums not only to articulate their position on the LRRP but also to share information and experiences on best practice and to build a common vision. This facilitates their interaction with wider forums such as NECF & IMCRD and integrates their micro level insights, which are one of their key strengths into policy and strategy adaptations.

These NGO institutional forums are also necessary for building accountability and transparency within the NGO sector. Institutional development involving recognized focal points, practices and norms is a more appropriate approach for self reinforcing accountability than the proposed administrative accreditation. The administrative accreditation is another bureaucratic layer whose value-adding role is not clear as all NGOs have registration or cooperation agreements with government and in any case have to clear their activities in the respective RDCs that they work in.

 4.0 The Options for enhancing the Institutional Framework for the LRRP

Decentralize and devolve design, planning and implementation authority of the LRRP to levels within the capacity of intended beneficiaries to participate and negotiate i.e. the RDC level.

Clarify the division of labour and power between central government and the RDC in particular approval and contracting authority. (In the stakeholder meeting of the 21st May'99 there was confusion as to what levels or amounts the RDC could approve without reference to some central body?) For example can the RDC enter into agreements with private land developers to buy land and develop it for sale to qualifying farmers?

Establish a formula or mechanism for resource allocation to RDC from the central budget distinct from line ministries and the legal authority for it.

Integrate the LRRP into the development of the district economy i.e. LRRP must be part of the overall economic, social and institutional development of the district. This way the residual population in rural communities would derive direct benefits from the LRRP.

Develop a clear programme to develop the capacity of RDCs to take on this responsibility by building on existing programs like RDC capacity building and the traditional authority bill.

Establish an independent executing agency with a clear public mandate to establish consultation forums with stakeholders e.g. NECF/Land Taskforce/NGOs, IMCRD and CRD and to contract government agencies, NGOs and private sector as necessary to deliver on its mandates. This will strengthen organizational effectiveness and force behavioral changes within government institutions, as those who cannot bid and provide client oriented service will risk disappearing. In establishing this independent agency it will be useful to draw lessons from such institutions as TILCO/ARDA and DDF whose intended beneficiaries where somewhat similar.

NGOs and civil society groups to establish recognized issue-based forums to facilitate effective participation in the NECF and related forums and to enhance accountability in the sector. Examples include Women and Lobby Group, Environmental Liaison Forum Land Working Group, Farm Workers and Land working Group and Producer associations and unions.

 5.0 Conclusion

To conclude there are four key components to consider for the institutional framework to realize the values that underpin the programme and effectively steer and facilitate the land reform process to achieve its stated goals.

First the institutional framework should facilitate devolution of planning and implementation authority to institutional levels closest to the land users and within their capacity to negotiate i.e. the RDC and its sub-components .The devolution should be matched by commensurate resource allocation and authority to raise the necessary resources to support the programme

Secondly the institutional framework must facilitate capacity development of support agencies, producers and their communities as well as the RDCs themselves .New skills and competencies are required to facilitate and steer interaction that develops institutional capacity at various levels including government and NGOs.

Thirdly, although land reform is a complex issue involving many actors there must be a lead agency with sufficient executive authority to effectively execute the programs. Multiple actor consultation and participation without a sufficiently strong platform for action that is matched by resources will not deliver the intended results. In fact stakeholder consultation without executive capacity to process stakeholder inputs and to refine policies and strategies runs the risk of loosing the big picture getting bogged in the trees rather than the forest.

The forth point is that for producer groups and NGOs to take full advantage of the on going changes e.g. windows to participate in key forums they have to coordinate their efforts and demonstrate their value adding roles. This call for issue based NGO forums that build coherent cases for change from the diverse insights offered by the wide array of NGOs.

Finally the development of an appropriate institutional framework is to a large extent guided by the long-term vision of government on land rights and how these rights are to be secured. Whether it is using the LRRP to correct past imbalances as well as problems of market failure and therefore evolving a market based system or not? Clearly the institutional framework for a market-oriented reform model for managing supply and demand of land would be different from the social solidarity model designed to provide access to land for the disadvantaged sectors of society. For example the market oriented reform model may focus on incentives for private land developers including the current large-scale farmers to develop small holdings for sale and the complementary financial institutions to support land development. While the social solidarity reform model may focus on public institutions and the civil society groups as the lead agencies as obtains in urban low-income housing delivery. Given the Country's historical background it is necessary to pursue the twin track. However, whatever choice of reform model or combination of models Government makes, it must be based on a clear understanding of where these models lead us to in the long term. It is the understanding of that long-term vision of Zimbabwe that the NGO/ELF Land Working Group and other civic organisation seek to contribute to and enhance.

 PRIVATE tc \l 5 "" PRIVATE References tc \l 5 "References " PRIVATE tc \l 5 "" Inception Phase framework Plan 99/2000-- An Implementation Plan of the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme Phase 2.

Proceedings of the Environmental Liaison Forum Land Working Group workshop 10-11May 1999.

tc \l 5 "Proceedings of the Environmental Liaison Forum Land Working Group workshop 10-11May 1999." PRIVATE Stakeholder Workshop Inception Phase Framework Plan for the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme phase 2. tc \l 5 "Stakeholder Workshop Inception Phase Framework Plan for the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme phase 2."

National Land Policy Framework Paper ñMinistry of Lands and Agriculture December 1998.

SECTION B: STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION, INFORMATION AWARENESS AND COMMUNICATION- G.MAGARAMOMBE

 1.0 BACKGROUND PRIVATE

Since independence government has instituted several initiatives to resolve the inequitable distribution of and ownership of land in the country. The process has however been characterised by a lack of consultation of all stakeholders. Prior to the 1998, donors' conference the process was characterised by a culture of secrecy with very little information is being made available to the public. Information flows tended to be confined to central government, farmer organisations, international finance organisations, the donor community and a few local NGO's. Those who were privileged to receive information were not able to communicate and share it with others. This resulted in the formulation of ideas, which were not backed up by sufficient data and information. In addition there have been lack of clarity and confusing signals about the process emanating from different state and party officials. This lack of transparency and confusion in the process has hindered the participation of all relevant stakeholders. The September 1998 donors conference was significant in that the government signalled its intentions to adopt a more inclusive approach to land reform by involving all the stakeholders. This has resulted in a wider network of stakeholders being involved in the process. However while this as a positive development, there is need for a clear-cut strategy that will ensure the participation of all in the process.

Although space might have been created for all stakeholders at the negotiating table, the challenge faced by both government and the NGO community is how to effectively bring in the concerns of those who have been traditionally excluded on to the agenda.

While there are several levels of stakeholders this papers main concern is on how the poor, the land short and the landless both in urban and rural communities (including farm workers) can be involved in the reform process. All stake holders, especially the resource poor and marginalised communities can only effectively participate in the process provided that they have adequate and timely information. Effective stakeholder participation therefore pre-supposes an unfettered two-way communication process among all stakeholders. NGO's as institutions rooted in the most marginalized communities, the rural poor and commercial farm workers have an interest in ensuring that the resource poor and the voiceless participate in the process. This can be achieved through assessing their requirements, defining how people can participate and encouraging their participation through their own structures.

There are three key areas in which the NGO community can participate in the reform process: at the policy level, at the implementation stage and through dissemination of information to stakeholders about the reform process.

At the policy level, until recently only a few NGO's have been involved in consultations with government. This has impacted negatively on the ability of NGO's to share information about land reform process as they too have lacked up to date data. At the implementation level at least two NGOs have already initiated programs involving the rural communities in the land reform process. The Farmers Development Trust, a private sector initiative and the DAPP an international NGO have both taken the lead in resettling those who have displayed a commitment to farming and or have acquired appropriate skills and resources in their programs. However the major constraint that both initiatives face has been the lack of land to implement their programs as a result they can only cater for a limited number of beneficiaries.

 2.0 PRIVATE STAKEHOLDER PARTICIPATION tc \l 1 "Stakeholder Participation"

A stakeholder can be described as an individual, a group or organization that has an interest in or stands to benefit or to loose from a particular entity. In this case stake holder refers to all the different parties who have an interest in or stand to benefit or loose from the land reform process. Although there are a number of stakeholders with a direct interest in land reform and resettlement in the country; only the economically and or politically powerful stakeholders have so far been involved in the consultations and negotiations over land reform and resettlement.

While focus is being put on the resource poor and marginilised communities it is appreciated that they do not exist in isolation. It is therefore imperative that the capacity of other actors to facilitate the reform process be analysed and enhanced. Government, donors and NGO's need to have a common understanding of participation, as this will determine the form, quality and level of participation by different stakeholders. Participation means different things to different people. Literature on development is replete with many definitions of participation, but the most common theme is that people have to be placed at the centre of planing and decision making. People should not be viewed as objects of planing to be planned for but the subjects of planing who should be involved in the process. Participation should therefore be viewed as a process by which stake holders -especially disadvantaged people can exercise influence over policy formulation, design alternatives, investment choices, management and monitoring of development interventions in their communities. Participation should also be viewed in terms of the institutional arrangements and methods of approach to involving stakeholder participation. (IIED 1989)

The mere acceptance of the need to involve all stakeholders in the process does not in itself bring about effective participation that guarantees genuine participation by all stakeholders, especially the marginalized communities. The rural people should not be limited to participating at the grass roots level. They must be represented at all levels of national decision making and be in a position to call state representatives and other bodies to account. Decision making bodies have to be representative at all levels from the village committee right up to Parliament. The decision making process has to empower the communities. Participation involves a policy option that is extremely complex, as it is fundamental. It raises questions policy makers and planners have great difficulty in addressing. Such as who decides on the options? How are the options implemented? Is participation a means or an end? that is to say an integral part of the style of development one aims at promoting. (IIED1992) These difficulties can be compounded when the objectives of the state and those of beneficiaries contradict each other. For example during the first phase of resettlement programme there was a contradiction between the objectives of the state and the beneficiaries who saw resettlement as another way of expanding their communal areas mode of production.

Participation demands that people have the fullest information on all matters affecting their lives and have the opportunity for true communication, horizontally and vertically in the entire society. It is however acknowledged that there are several constraints to effective participation of the different stakeholders as discussed below.

Rural communities: Not given adequate and accurate information Currently not well informed and unaware of options. Information not user friendly and easily accessible the language is too technical One way communication process (top down) Victims of political machinations( confusion due to conflicting statements from politicians Lack of adequate representation within all stakeholder representative organisations Information not easily available, strategic direction of government has not been clear and therefore limited intervention strategies by other stakeholders. Fragmentation of policy and procedures in different ministries

NGOs Physical presence not broad based for maximum impact. Lack of adequate information about the process Have had to operate within government policy which is not very clear Lack of transparency by government on policy and procedural issues. RDCs Involved only at the implementation stage Little consultation about the options Currently structures do not adequately articulate the concerns of rural communities (top down approach) but represent only the official point of view Councillors are not adequately informed about the policies and procedures Resource allocation is not related to the magnitude of the problem (number of farms made available for resettlement). Inadequate and limited capacity in too many innovations given the variety of development programmes to be implemented Roles not adequately understood in relation to roles of other actorís e.g. DA, resettlement officer, Chiefs etc.

 Of critical concern are the levels of stakeholder participation and the representative nature of the different stakeholder organisations. This calls for a change ion attitude and a more participatory approach to the reform process, which can only be achieved through a willingness to accept contributions from the marginilised communities and input them into the policy making process. This essentially calls for reorienting attitudes of technocrats from perceiving communities as passive dependants of government programmes to one that seeks to enhance their own capacity to work with communities in a supportive way. This calls for change in attitude and a more participatory approach to the reform process, which can only be achieved through a willingness to accept contributions from the marginalised communities and input them into the policy making process. This will therefore require beneficiaries to define the levels of their participation in the land reform process. In fact it becomes necessary for the levels of participation of all stakeholders to be defined through collaborative processes. While this would ensure transparency it would also minimise the chances of having certain groups advancing hidden agendas.

Participatory development should not be viewed as a set of development techniques, but rather as a state of mind reflecting a deep rooted respect for the values and creativity of others. Participatory development can not take place without due recognition of the potential creativity of the poor and making them the subjects and not the objects of development. Policy makerís resettlement officers and extension assistants, have to internalise the need to ensure grassroots participation at all levels. The need to involve beneficiary communities in planning as well as in monitoring and evaluation therefore needs to be emphasised.

While the focus of resettlement in the first phase was rehabilitative, there is a need to strike a balance between the current shift towards maximising land use only through agricultural activity, and ensuring that those who are of less fortunate circumstances are not left out of the process. Thus if too much emphasis is placed on possession of resources the resource poor may not participate. On the other hand there is need to guard against encouraging the development of a dependency mentality. For example Governmentís policy of free food handouts during times of drought was grossly abused and has undermined the capacity of the people to act on their own behalf, as they believe that the state has a duty to provide.

The technologies, the structures, the human resources, and the communication systems that are currently in use seem to be opposed to genuine participation of all the stakeholders. At the structural level the administrative arrangements make it extremely difficult to get effective co-ordination. The process involved in acquiring a farm for resettlement is a case in point. Although Rural District Councils are supposed to administer the resettlement areas, they are often brought in at the tail end of the process. They are not involved in the identification of farms for resettlement in their areas, nor in the planning process. The Ministry of Agriculture is involved in land identification and once the farm has been acquired it hands over the farm to the Ministry of Local Government which in turn hands over the farm to the RDC. The RDC through a formal resolution of council decides which model of resettlement to adopt. It hands over the farm back to the ministry of Local Government, which then invites the Ministry of Rural Development and Water Resources through the District Development Fund and the Ministry of Agriculture through Agritex to plan the farm. The farm is then handed back to the Ministry of Local Government, which in turn hands over the farm to the RDC, which will select the beneficiaries. The process is too complicated and leads to problems in co-ordination. There is therefore the need to streamline the co-ordination process.

The role and functions of institutional systems also need to be clarified. There is also the need for a change in values, in how projects are implemented. To be effective institutions have to be deeply rooted within the community that they aim to serve. The lack of an all embracing representative nature of the structures and organizations involved in the reform process is a cause for concern. Women constitute the majority of farmers in the communal areas but are under represented in the decision-making structures of all A representative groups. The challenge is therefore to ensure real as opposed to token representation of women at all levels. Similarly our local government structures have to strive to be more representative of women and other vulnerable groups such as farm workers. While the LRRP inception phase document recognizes the right for women and other vulnerable groups to participate in the programme. Measures have to be put in place to ensure gender representation at all levels both in word and in deed.

To ensure participation it is therefore necessary to define at the policy level the content and form we wish to give stakeholder participation. This becomes a means of not only increasing the performance of the development process but also as an end. Success of the above strategy is however dependent on transparency, which makes effective information, flow a prerequisite.

 3.0 PRIVATE tc \l 1 "" THE CURRENT INFORMATION DISSEMINATION AND COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS

Information on the land reform and resettlement process is not easily available to make it open for further discussions and consultations. In addition there is need to package the information in a user-friendly manner. For example although various government reports i.e. the Rukuni Commission are available at the government printers, apart from the cost these are in a technical language that the ordinary person would not understand. The absence of a central authority, which can provide all the information, has resulted in the often different and contradictory statements issued to the public by the different government ministries. Naturally this has led to confusion and uncertainty and delays in implementing the programme.

The most vital component for effective communication in any organization is feedback between various units of that organization or society. Government relies on various forums of communication to the its various stake holders. At the at the local government level, information dissemination and communication systems are a function of the institutional arrangements. Thus councilors, kraal heads and chiefs are the main actors in this process. In addition communities can also communicate directly with the office of the Provincial Governor or their local MP who will in turn take up the matter with the relevant government minister. At the national and international levels, communication is achieved through bi-lateral and multilateral agreements, conferences, meetings, workshops and seminars. Government also relies on the use of the mass media both print and electronic and the government gazette. In the current land reform programme government has relied to a large extent on meetings with stakeholders and workshops to disseminate information. Policy statements and press releases and interviews are also part of governmentís communication strategy. However it is the use of the mass media that has lead to different and contradictory statements being issued by different government officials.

Within the NGO community and civil society communication among the various actors is also achieved through meetings with the communities, during programme implementation activities, workshops, seminars and field days. Position papers, annual reports and dissemination of the results of research findings. NGOs also communicate to government through sector ministries that they work with and through the RDCs in their programme areas and through the district development meetings and full council meetings.

Communities communicate with other communities through meetings, at the ward level, social functions (i.e. funerals, weddings, attendance at church functions etc). Communities especially women also take advantage of social gatherings such as at clinics and at water points to discuss issues of importance.

The problem of effective information dissemination is one of the major constraints to development in the rural areas. This is largely because of the inaccessibility of both the print \and electronic media. Although Zimbabwe has developed a vibrant and growing print media sector its urban focus tends to reduce its effectiveness in reaching the rural communities. Government in an effort to address this problem has introduced provincial newspapers through the Community Publishing Group; these are however limited in there out reach given the need for literacy. It is therefore imperative to develop complementary methods have to be used in order to reach the rural population which is not only far-flung, but is also usually too poor to afford both print and electronic media products.

The print media products like newspapers, magazines, pamphlets, etc. have an obvious drawback because of the need for literacy and cost (even where they are freely distributed). However literate members of the community can also share the information with others. The radio is one of the most powerful means of communication at the disposal of government, yet it is not being used to its full potential? Radio does not require literacy skills and can easily reach the most distant parts of the country. Radio programmes can be listened to in groups (listening clubs) and some community leaders can lead the discussions emanating there from. Indeed the public sphere created by these two media should be such that feedback must be received from the target groups and the general public so that the policy formulation and planning for land reform incorporates the wishes and aspirations of the people. These public fora will lead to greater participation by all stakeholders in the programme.

However given the current economic hardships in the country use of the above needs to be complemented by other low cost locally available technologies. The oral media or ìoramediaî reaches all levels of society as since it is a collectively owned network, which is grounded in the indigenous culture produced and owned by the people. Examples of oramedia are the social relations at such meeting points- hospitals, shopping centers, religious meetings, womenís clubs, burial societies etc (Ugboajah 1985). Government has developed grass roots structures such as the vidcos and village assemblies as well as the village community worker who can be used effectively in the dissemination of information. There are very effective for disseminating information since they involve close-knit groups who usually respect and trust each other.

Examples of these in Zimbabwe would be the social relations at use of such meeting points as hospitals, clinics, shopping centers, business centers, religious meetings, womenís clubs, burial societies, credit and savings clubs and other voluntary and informal associations in rural and urban areas.

Another component of effective information dissemination is through research, especially the current Participatory Rural Appraisal methodologies which aim as much as possible to capture the feeling and nuances of the target community. If done by the experts this method can also go a long way in involving the grassroots in contributing to LRRP. It is in this area that the NGO community can play a pivotal role.

Films and videos are also very powerful forms of visual media. Short film and video documentaries featuring local community members (especially the resettled and the target group for resettlement) can be made and disseminated through the Ministry of Information. In these documentaries they would be expressing their expectations and experiences in the resettlement programme as well as solutions to the problems that they themselves encountered. The ordinary villagers and urban dwellers can also be interviewed expressing their views on the land reform issues. The idea is to have the films reflecting what the stakeholders wish to see packaged in the LRRP. The ordinary peopleís views will also serve to gauge whether the views of the landless people are not over the top and therefore impractical. Success of the above would be dependent on the analysis of the information needs of the different stakeholders. The table below represents a framework for such an analysis.

 Stakeholder Information requirements Dissemination strategy Rural communities Simplified and accessible information about policies and procedures. Information about the options in terms of types and geographical location. Technical support available. The mass media radio and print Use of the local government structures. Use of traditional forms of communication Use of appropriate languages. Aggressive civic education programmes NGOís Procedures and guidelines Strategic direction of government Level of awareness of community on past nd present initiatives Media print and electronic Workshops and seminars , conferences Official documents Dialogue with government Interaction with communities RDCís Extent of needs in respective districts All information on policies and procedures Available resources Available options
 
 

-4.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

In light of the above observation that currently there is no policy or strategy on information dissemination about the land reform process, it is recommended that the government take urgent steps to address this situation. Such a strategy could be based on the strategy adopted by the National Constitutional Assembly, which involves use of both the print and electronic media and the use of public meetings.
 
 

References

M.O Arigbede A Billion Flowers Unimagined Beauty: Critical Popular Activity and Leadership Fidelity in Africa AALAE 1993

 B Bhathagar and A. C. Williams Participatory Development and the World Bank, Potential Directions for Change. World Bank Discussion Papers 1992

Mutahaba G Participatory Forms for Self-Reliance in Rural Development: The Experience of Eastern Africa Arusha Tanzania March 1990 ACARTSOD

UNECA African Charter For Popular Participation Development

UNECA Underlying Principles for Enhanced Dialogue, Co-operation and Interface Between Governments and Peoples Organisations Studies in Participatory development

Sub Regional Training Workshop on Participatory Development Methods Popular Participation Workshop Series No 17. 22- 24 May 1995 Harare

National Policy Workshop: Enhancing Diologue , Cooperation and Interface Between The Government and Popular Development Organisations in Namibia. Popular Workshops Series no 3 11-13 Windhoek Namibia 1993

GOZ Inception Phase Frame work Plan 199-2000. An Implementation plan of the Land Reform and Resettlement programme ñPhase 2. The Technical Committee of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Resettlement and the National Economic Consultative Forum, Land Reform Task force. March 1999.

National Land Policy FrameWork Paper. FAO and UNDP 1998

 SECTION C: INNOVATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY APPROACHES TO LAND REFORM AND RESETTLEMENT PROGRAM-N. Moyo - ICFU

 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The inequalities in land distribution in Zimbabwe are a historical legacy that has to be corrected if the country is to enjoy a peaceful and prosperous future. The ramifications of this problem are the high levels of unemployment and poverty and the restive landless populations that are threatening peace and stability in the country.

The government in the post-independence era to address the problem of uneven land distribution with rather limited desirable results implemented several efforts. The efforts consisted of various models that were conceived by government and implemented with little consultation of the stakeholders. In some instances these models clashed with certain cultural and traditional practices thereby limiting their effectiveness.

Chapter 3 of the Inception Phase Framework Plan Document goes into detail of how innovative and/or complementary approaches can be integrated into the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme.

The terms innovative and complementary harbor specific meaning in this context. Innovative means alternative though not antagonistic or substitute, but appropriate and imaginative. Complementary in this context means supportive to the existing or proposed.

This paper reviews the IPFP document in view of developing the guidelines for formulation of the innovative and/or complementary approaches to facilitate participation of various stakeholders especially the Non-Government Organizations (NGO).

 1.1 Background

Several documents outline the history of land reform globally and in Zimbabwe under the Land Resettlement programs. Government policies of the past and their efforts at addressing the problem of inequality of land distribution are documented. Evaluation reports on resettlement schemes are also available.

The following table shows descriptions and subscription levels of each of the previous models/schemes for resettlement.

 MODEL NAME DESCRIPTION REMARKS

Model A Communal grazing, demarcated fields and homestead on previous commercial farms, lease title not clear Was the most prominent and took the most households who were resettled. Selection of settlers was not clear. Most occupants preferred freehold title.

Model B Cooperative operation on a commercial farm. Members registered as members of cooperative Failed because of inter alia cultural/traditional incompatibility and poor technical support systems that were not fulfilled. Has since been discontinued and the farms are to be re-planned.

Model C Out-growers adjacent to large estates. Benefit from excess capacity of the estates. Otherwise similar conditions as Model A.

Assumed that the core estate would have excess capacity and in most cases it did not. Participation by the out-growers was also dependent on them having access to the right materials such as dairy cows in Rusito Valley, which they did not readily.

Model D Seasonal grazing on large farms by nearby communal areas on a seasonal basis Poorly administered and most grazers preferred to occupy the grazing farms continually rather than on a seasonal basis. Commercial Settlement Scheme Sub-divided ARDA Estates on lease basis Allocation procedures were questioned. Supportive services were not implemented.

2.0 ANALYSIS OF FAILURES AND SUCCESSES OF PREVIOUS RESETTLEMENT EFFORTS

2.1 Previous Land Delivery Approaches

Most land on the first phase of the resettlement programme was acquired by Government from Large-Scale Commercial Farmers on a willing seller willing buyer basis. Some of the sellers were in a process of migration out of the country and government made provisions for them to remit their funds from the sale of their farms out of Zimbabwe. Generally land acquired this way was of marginal agricultural value mainly in semi-arid regions with minimal infrastructure. The land was, therefore not suitable for intensive settlement for purposes of arable farming.

 2.2 Identification of Settlers in Phase I

Various categories of households were identified and settled. Among these were the following:

Former refugees of the liberation war Former freedom fighters who were demobilized at independence Successful Master Farmers from congested communal areas Destitute urban dwellers

At the start there was an influx of qualifying households who were genuine cases in need. Later, however there were some cases that were forced into resettlements by the authorities as they were nuisances elsewhere.

2.3 The Settlement Processes Employed Before

The schemes were planned by Agritex and implemented by the Department of Resettlement. Model B was also implemented under the Department of Cooperative Development. The Commercial Settlement Scheme was implemented by Agricultural and Rural Development Authority (ARDA).

 2.4 Support Services and Productivity of Settled Farmers/Individuals

In most cases there was a resident Resettlement Officer and an Extension Officer/Worker from Agritex. Some land (0.5 to 1.0 ha) was cleared free-of-charge for the settlers and ploughed for free for the first time. In the case of Model B, the Department of Cooperative Development administered some cooperative education programmes and later registered the cooperatives. On Commercial Settlement Schemes ARDA was to assist the settlers with mechanisation inputs on hire basis as well as financial packages for production inputs and infrastructure development.

Generally, most of the support services promised the settlers were not fulfilled and this resulted in the low performance of the schemes.

 3.0 REVIEW AND ANALYSIS OF PROPOSALS MADE UNDER IPFP

3.1 Interpretation of Proposals in IPFP

The Inception Phase Framework Plan details possible areas that could be developed under Chapter 3: Testing New and Complementary Approaches. The objectives of the Complementary Approaches are stated as:

To establish effective multi-stakeholder and multi-sectoral procedures for implementation of LRRP-2 To test various cost effective approaches to land acquisition

To settle a maximum number of farm and non-farm families in resettlement schemes and rural service centres on up to 300,000 hectares in two years

To develop more optimum land use, settlement and production options

To promote participatory approaches to resettlement, and

To promote learning and capacity building among stakeholders.

The Chapter then goes to considerable details in outlining possible models and institutional frameworks for their incorporation. It gives reference to the existing government model A2 as possible target for these Complementary Approaches.

Basically, the Chapter does not seek to limit imagination, but to promote it.

 3.2 Implications of the Proposals

The existing government approaches are already under implementation and any complementary approaches to come out of the Inception Phase will have to be incorporated as the existing approaches are being implemented. This may be difficult to do as certain routines may be difficult to interrupt.

There may be competition for the available land between the existing government approaches and the innovative and/or complementary ones. This will be particularly so on the grounds of quality of land available.

Some innovations will require substantial revision of the present laws governing land sub-division and ownership. While it may be assumed that there will be cooperation with the law-makers, the speed with which the laws may be revised may prohibit timely implementation of some of the innovative approaches.

Agricultural innovative and/or complementary approaches are subject to seasons of the year and as such may only be partially tested if there are delays in the start of implementation of the proposed models.

 4.0 POSSIBLE INNOVATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY USES OF LAND

Ideas on possible innovative and complementary approaches emanate from various stakeholders/interest groups. These stakeholders normally do not have the whole idea thought out, but tend to focus on a specific aspect of the idea. It remains the task of the project formulators to complete the whole concept and sell it back to the originators, on one hand, and the government, on the other. It is important that the finalized projects remain identified with the originators in order for the implementation to be driven by the interest group. Where possible several ideas will be combined into a single project and the various interest groups will then have to work together in specific aspects of the project.

The following sections outline the main attributes of projects and their interest groups.

4.1 Direct Improvements on Existing Government Approaches

The existing government approaches, namely; Model A1, Model A2 and the Three-tier Model all have ample scope for improvement. Determination of the basic infrastructure requirements, mobilization of the resources, orderly settlement of the farmers and post-settlement services provision cut across all the models. It is, however necessary to learn what government departments plan to do as a standard for each scheme before designing complementary projects. Government implementers of these models should submit their scheme plans to the Technical Support Unit for distribution to those NGOs that will have been accredited in certain areas/aspects of project implementation. These NGOs should then formulate a complementary proposal and submit it back to TSU and TSU may arrange meetings between the government implementers and the interested NGOs. There may be situations where several NGOs would have offered to participate in a certain project. In this case it should be the role of TSU to select the most suitable according to the capacity of the NGO as declared (and probably verified by TSU) during the accreditation process.

4.2 Improved Land Delivery

An ideal situation in respect of land should be one where there are several sources of land that can be obtained in various ways. There should also be free-flow of information of available land and requirements for its occupation and use. Essentially land should remain perpertually available on the market for future generations. While there may be a high demand for land right now, the Inception Phase should also educate those that demand land that they should do so for the right reasons, i.e., its optimal and sustainable use as a productive input. Land presently not being used optimally, nor sustainably will have to be made available for better use by others.

 4.3 Voluntary sub-division of land

Large Scale Commercial Farmers should be supported to sub-divide their farms and make the additional units available for settlement by new farmers. The largest potential for voluntary sub-division is with the indigenous (mainly black) commercial farmers. Land held by this category of farmers is under-utilised due to low levels of investment, mainly because of obligation on land acquisition. Most of these farmers still owe on the land loans, with a significant number in arrears and under threat of liquidation. A majority of farmers affected would welcome sub-division of their land as this will also alleviate their loan burdens.

Farmers are afraid of volunteering for sub-division of their farms as they believe that they may fall victim to either one of the following:

Their farms may be designated and they may be left with no land to carry-out their farming activities; The compensation for the excess units may be unfair and they would have no recourse while still having the loan obligations; The distorted land market will not yield a satisfactory price for sub-divisions; The land sub-division laws/regulations are too restrictive on minimum land holdings in spite of alternative land-use approaches that emphasize intensification and non-conventional use of certain classes of land. Fear of likely incompatible new neighbours. This is particularly linked to the tenure systems that would be implemented on the sub-divisions, such as communal systems that are perceived to simply exploit (mine) resources. Free-hold titles would be preferred as they would safe-guard the retained sub-division from spill-over the communal influence. There should also be a possibility for the farmer to reserve and develop some of the sub-divisions for his/her children.

A project along the lines of sub-dividing the Large Scale Commercial Farms would bring a substantial amount of land on a willing-seller, willing-buyer basis that is most preferred and self-regulating as afar as selection of settlers is concerned. If properly coordinated, all the commercial settlement requirements as well as those of Model A2 could be met from this initiative. Project activities could involve:

identification of farmers who would like to participate in the sub-division approach, review of the laws regulating sub-division of commercial land, assessment of the specific land on offer for use and sub-division possibilities, implementation of sub-division activities (surveying), infrastructure development and support services for the settled farmers and employees.

4.4 Induced sub-division of land

Several farms are facing foreclosure due to failure by the operators to service their debt obligations. In such situations, the farms could be sub-divided before liquidation and the sub-divisions valued and sold separately. The present operator would have a chance of remaining with one of the sub-divisions if the debt can be fully met from the proceeds of the sale. The major obstacle to taking this approach at present is the haste with which foreclosures are executed. If the creditors were assured of a well-coordinated liquidation of the property, then a more imaginative procedure could be pursued.

However a guarantee that the whole process would be followed through lawfully with the consent of all parties is critical. The creditors fear that the farmer would play delay tactics using court interjections. This fear can be allayed if a court order can be drawn as a guarantee that the process of liquidation will proceed with minimal disruptions and that the proceeds will be distributed fairly. It would also be important to link this approach to the simplified and quicker sub-division procedure.

There is a possibility for a project that could review the sub-division laws and link them to the realities of the prime candidates for sub-division in this case and that of 4.2.1.

 4.5 Land tax incentives

While it is widely accepted that taxation on land would result in better land utilisation and that more land would then be available on the market, there is a need to consult stakeholders further before proceeding with the implementation. The results from land tax may be delayed as implementation of the tax may only take place after the Inception Phase.

The expected effects of imposing a tax on land are as follows:

Those with excess/idle land will be forced to sell it; The excess land sold this way may attract lower prices as the buyers will also be conscious of the tax implications of buying the land for speculative purposes. This, however, will be desirable for the land acquisition as it will be available at reasonable prices;

Revenues raised from the land tax can be used within the land reform programme.

There are ample possibilities for projects to chart the way to an effective land tax. The following questions need to be answered through these projects:

Which land tenure systems will be affected by the land tax;

What should be the basis of the tax and what are the likely levels that will result in the desired effects;

How will the tax be collected, used and accounted for.

Along with the above questions, there will be a need to register all land in the country, hopefully before the tax is imposed for an effective collection of the tax. This alone is a mammoth task that may take years, as it will involve surveying the land to determine, among other things, its category for tax purposes.

4.5.1 Efficiency of planning services

The capacity of technical services in respect of land determination (surveying, classification, etc.) will determine the rate at which land will be made available for the land reform programme on other than the modes already specified on Land Acquisition and Resettlement Act (1992). This assumes that the legal framework would have been finalized by then. Technical services need a substantial improvement if innovative and complementary approaches are to have a significant impact on the Land Reform Programme.

There is need to identify the current capacity to deliver the requisite technical services and depending on the findings, to develop the required additional capacity. This task can be in form a manpower survey or literature review if a similar study has already been done. Even with the latter scenario, it would be still necessary to ascertain the availability of the technical capacity to innovative and complementary approaches to land reform. This will involve reviewing submissions by technical services providers to the TSU and a possible analysis to determine whether the services would be adequate.

Depending on the findings, there may be a need to carry-out technical capacity building in this area as a project.

 4.5.2 Minimum infrastructure before settlement

Various classes of land will require different infrastructure to ensure that the settlers are operationalized in the shortest possible time for the good the settlersí livelihoods and the national economy. There will be need to determine the minimum infrastructure requirements to be put in place before the innovative and complementary settlement models can be implemented.

A project may have to be implemented to indicate the infrastructure requirements of the innovative and complementary approaches. Each innovative or complementary approach may integrate its requirements as part and parcel of the specific project during formulation. While land may be physically available in some instances, it may, however be not available for specific projects until serviced to certain standards.

 4.6 Shareholding on land rather than exclusive ownership and use

The concept of shareholding on farming businesses (referred to as Equity Corporate Model in IPFP) can be further separated into three sub-models as follows:

 4.6.1 Non-participatory by urban dwellers (or off-farm dwellers)

Urban dwellers may be offered shares on farm businesses that go public. There may be several classes of shares with varying possibilities of transferability. The management of the farm businesses would still be undertaken by the farmer and complementary management team. Policies would be influenced by a board selected from the shareholders at their annual general meeting or any other general assembly that would review progress of previous periods and proposed future activities. They would be responsible for declaring dividends or requesting for additional shares for sale.

Farm businesses opting for this model could advertise their intentions and prospects in a prospectus with a wide circulation in both rural and urban areas. The prospectus would indicate the current value of the business, its performance, share value and requirements for qualification as shareholder.

A project can be formulated during the Inception Phase to explore the possibilities and standardize some steps in setting up such public owned businesses.

 4.6.2 Participatory by farm-workers

A variation of the sub-model concept described in 4.3.1 could involve limiting the shareholders to farm employees. In this case the shareholders (farm workers) would contribute some of their labour towards acquisition of shares on the farm business and then get dividends when the business has performed.

This sub-model would require very clear guidelines for both the farmer (farm manager) and the workers (shareholders) and this can be developed through a project in the Inception Phase.

 4.6.3 Non-participatory by related industry workers and/or farm-workers

Another variation to the above models could involve vertical integration of agro-industries and allowing the employees at various levels to be shareholders in the primary production level (farm production level). This will ensure that the raw materials that the industry depends on will be consistently available. These vertically integrated industries would probably perform best with specialized and heavily capitalized commodities such as horticulture, forestry, dairy, sugar, pigs and tea/coffee.

Processing plants could be located either on-farm or at the nearest rural service centres thereby promoting non-farm rural employment and increasing rural householdsí incomes.

The Inception Phase can implement several projects to set up the skeletal structures of the vertically integrated industries and sell shares to existing employees of down-stream industries.

Generally, all the shareholding types of models require comprehensive education of the intended participants on the implications and operational requirements of these concepts. Besides, the concepts themselves require substantial development before they can be tried on the ground. There will be need to arrange visits to situations where these concepts or relatively similar ones have been tried.

 4.7 Intensive Production Systems

One of the most effective ways of ensuring that more households are settled on farmland to carry out agricultural production is through intensification. While intensification can have negative connotations in respect of sustainable development, it can actually be a vehicle for sustainable development if properly planned and implemented. Such planning would involve thorough investigations of possible negative impact of application of recommended inputs. In cropping systems, the dominant factor that determines viability of intensification in this sub-region is irrigation. For livestock systems the determining factor is supplementary feeding.

Intensification requires higher levels of management that are lacking in the target population for resettlement. There will be a need, therefore for rigorous training of the settled farmers either before being settled on these sub-models or as they are being settled. The selection should take into account aptitude for this level of management. As stated in IPFP, land holdings in the intensive models can be greatly reduced allowing more farmers to be settled per given land area.

4.8 Irrigated high value crop

There is need for irrigation investment to be accompanied by selection of high value agricultural products as enterprises. Irrigation lowers the risk in further investment in the enterprises and actually allows for higher levels of management.

There will be need to target some farms for potential high management (intensification). These farms would then have to be developed and equipped with the necessary infrastructure before settlement takes place.

 4.9 Feed-lot livestock production

Similarly for livestock enterprises, there can be high management through feedlot operations. The viability of such feedlots and their implications in the numbers of household they can sustain need to be verified.

4.10 Eco-tourism

Land use for other than agricultural should be explored in order to open up possibilities for sustainable use of land that is presently considered as marginal for agriculture. Eco-tourism models can also be implemented in the presently congested communal lands as a method of rehabilitating these lands. The interpretation of the Eco-tourism should be as wide as possible to include photographic and hunting safaris as well as game farming. There should be a variety of ways in which Eco-tourism can be operated including the following guidelines:

 5.0 Community operated

Community based systems could be modeled after Campfire Trust that has operated in Communal areas relatively successfully. The approaches could adapt the experiences of Campfire to present realities and improve on distribution of benefits.

5.1 Individual operated

Individually operated Eco-tourism businesses should also be explored. These could be operated as a network of venues and promotional services as well as other support services such as transportation and accommodation for clients. Individual operators located in the same vicinity could form consortiums to optimize the operations in their respective properties.

6.0 Integrated Production and Processing Systems

The practice of producing and processing certain commodities within the farming environment is already common with such commodities as sugar, tea, timber and fruits. This approach should be expanded to allow employment creation in rural areas and participation of farmers in adjacent areas as out-growers. Private corporations who would also put up the necessary processing equipment could still develop the core schemes.

There is a need to carry out investigations on the future implications of this kind of development, particularly the moods of the peripheral out-growers vis-ý-vis the belief that large corporations tend to exploit small producers. There could also be complementary relationship between these initiative and shareholding approaches. This model could involve publicly traded corporations thereby further benefiting a wider category of citizens.

 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ON DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE LAND

These section touches on how land can be identified, acquired and developed on one hand, and how beneficiaries can be identified, settled and supported into being productive and self-reliant on sustainable basis.

 7.1 Commercial Farmers' Initiatives

Commercial farmers may approach the Technical Support Unit with suggestions of how a model of the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme can be implemented in order to maintain productivity and complement and/or improve their own situation. The motives of their initiatives should be transparent and in line with the general aims and goals of the Programme.

Farmers with more land than they genuinely require may choose to offer some of the land to the Programme. These farmers may, or may not already be on the compulsory acquisition list, but should be given assurance that they will not be victimized for coming forward with such offers. To avoid possibilities of victimization, these farmers could coordinate their offers through an intermediary such as their farmersí unions/associations in collaboration with some relevant and accredited NGOs.

The land offered this way must be assessed for suitability in the various suggested and approved innovative and/or complementary models including the existing government approaches. Such models as the sub-division of larger properties may be coordinated in this way.

The functions of NGOs in this initiative could be to encourage and support the efforts of farmers while interpreting the farmersí initiatives into the IPFP reality. \ 7.2 Settlers Initiatives

Prospective settlers may take the initiative of settling themselves by suggesting to the TSU how they intend to do so through specific models. They would describe what they consider as suitable land for their activities and even go as far as identifying it either as land already earmarked for the Programme or new sources. They may even indicate how they intend to acquire the land and what assistance they require, if any, to acquire and develop the land.

Again, these efforts may require assurance that there is optimum communication between the initiators and the Programme on one hand, and the present holders of the identified/suitable land, on the other. The initiators of such models could include farm workers, women groups, ex-combatants and any other disadvantaged groups. In addition, this category may include business consortiums that intend to invest in agriculture.

The development of these models may require support of some relevant NGOs in the formulation of the ideas into projects that fit into IPFP.

 7.3 Use of Private Sector Scheme Development Approaches

The private sector real estate development companies may have a business interest in the rural land. This can be viewed in a context similar to that in urban real estate in which these developers acquire land from urban councils (and other sources) and develop it along some approved plans. It must be stressed in this case that the land would be developed according to recommended and approved land use plans. The proposals of the private developers would have elements of acquisition, development, settlement and post-settlement services.

This is an area that will need consultation with reputable developers to ascertain what their ideas are in respect of the subject. They may need to be educated on the opportunities that exist in the various land use ideas. NGOs could develop a dialogue with this sector and formalize with the Programme.

7.4 Commercial Farmer Development Programmes

Nearly all farmers settled on the Programme will be expected to operate on a sustainable and, relatively commercial basis. This is so mainly because it is generally agreed that those settled must produce in surplus and improve their incomes in order to support themselves in other areas of need such as education and health. There will be need, therefore to introduce settlers to commercial practice of farming. This can be extended to be the vehicle of accessing the land on the Programme.

7.5 Agricultural College farm-based apprenticeship

Agricultural colleges will be coordinated by Kushinga-Phikelela National Farmer Training Trust to train mainly young commercial farmers on an apprentice programme that should allow the graduands to access land upon completion of their training. This training programme is planned to last a period of three years, meaning that the first lot of graduands will complete after the current Inception Phase.

Planning of land that will be offered to the graduands can take place in parallel to the training activity. In addition, other farmer development efforts can be pursued in parallel, particularly targeting those farmers settled to existing government models and on innovative models with other than traditional farming practices.

There is substantial scope for participation of the NGO community in coordination and implementation of commercial farmer development activities.

7.6 Own-farm-based apprenticeship annex

The training of farmers on college farms is limited by land availability for demonstration and practice. It would greatly improve the capacity of training if more land was available and farmers were trained on the land they would permanently settle. For those farmers with access to land already, it may be important to extend the apprenticeship programme to them. This would require much more capacity on the part of the trainers as the training would be in various venues and this would require replication of training resources in these venues.

It may also be feasible to allocate land to farmers with an aptitude of being trained on the land as a prerequisite. These farmers would then be required to enroll in the approved training programmes as soon as they occupy the land. Again, NGOs are the most ideal to start-up such programmes and probably hand them over to commercial training services providers as time goes by.

7.7 Farmer-to-farmer supervision programme

Working as a farm manager before moving on to operate own farm is a valuable way of imparting farming skills on the new farmers. Currently practicing farmers may be encouraged to volunteer for a programme that would allow farmer-to-farmer training. This programme would work well with Large-Scale Commercial farmers who voluntarily opt for sub-dividing their land and offering the additional sub-divisions to new farmers. It would then be relatively easy to supervise the activities of the new farmers in the vicinity.

Incentives for new farmer supervision need to be developed along with the farmers opting for sub-division. NGOs can facilitate the establishment of such model details.

8.0 Private sector initiatives

The private sector may see business opportunity in developing new farmers/settlers along certain lines that complement their business activities. Such initiatives must be encouraged. NGOs could facilitate effective communication with the Programme.

 8.1 Residential Stands in Rural Service Centres

While residential stands are part-and ñparcel of the existing government approaches, there is need for complementary efforts to ensure that this option is taken up by those that do not have agricultural production desires. This could also complement some other innovative approaches such as non-participatory shareholding sub-models suggested earlier as well as Eco-tourism sub-models that may require that some of the proprietors do not live within the land used for this purpose.

There is therefore ample opportunity for NGO participation in such areas as alternative housing designs and community layout options.

8.2 Commercial/Industrial Stands in Rural Service Centres

Similarly, there is a need for innovative and/or complementary considerations for commercial/industrial stands at rural service centres. Consideration should be given to agro-industries that will emerge as a result of activities generated in the new land-use models. The environmental impact of these new activities will have to assessed and negative impact minimized.

There will be a need to fully plan the industrial areas within the rural service centres in order to enhance industrial efficiency and this is a task that NGOs can participate in.
 
 

9.0 STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF INNOVATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY APPROACHES

9.1 Institutional Support Requirements

It should be noted that there are several categories of essential institutions to the Land Reform and Resettlement process some of which have capacity and others that do not. In most cases, institutions that represent those that may be settled do not have the adequate capacity. In addition, government technical institutions generally do not have adequate capacity to implement programmes at the magnitude of the proposed LRRP, particularly with its innovative and complementary elements.

There should be a deliberate effort on the part of NGOs to complement each other and especially support for those institutions that will eventually champion the interests of the beneficiaries. The survey on institutional capacity proposed earlier could be the platform for establishment of capacity deficits of some critical institutions and basis for their capacity building.

9.2 Coordination of Various Efforts

While the LRRP and IPFP have established an institutional framework that can coordinate the Land Reform Programme, there is a need for the NGO community to similarly coordinate itself. (This aspect is dealt with elsewhere)

9.3 Minimum Infrastructural Requirements

There is a need to establish policy implications on what would be the generally expected level of infrastructure that the existing government models are proposing. This will assist in formulation of both innovative and complementary models. It will also make it possible to differentiate between the existing and innovative models thereby making it possible to allocate responsibilities between Government and NGOs. Furthermore, this differentiation will make it clear to the prospective beneficiaries which model to opt for.

9.4 Resource Mobilization

As stated earlier, not all participants in the land reform process are endowed with the requisite resources to carry out the necessary activities. It is, therefore critical that resource mobilization is strategically planned and executed. Although all participants can solicit for resources, there is a need for declaration of resources to a central clearinghouse such as the TSU. This will improve transparency and accountability. In fact some donors may even choose to let TSU allocate the resources as per needs on the ground as the TSU will be having all the proposals and the capacities of those that would have been accredited to implement.

9.5 Environmental Impact Considerations

Each project should have a thorough environmental impact assessment to determine and minimize negative impact. There is ample opportunity for NGOs to be accredited for doing the assessments and for monitoring the projects in progress for any adverse impact on the environment. It is no longer enough to simply monitor the negative impact, but to maximize natural capital. This concept needs to be fully studied in the context of LRRP.

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ARDA Agricultural and Rural Development Authority
CBO Community Based Organization
CRD Cabinet Committee on Resettlement and Development
DDF District Development Fund
DLB District Land Board
ELF Environmental Liaison Forum
ICFU Indigenous Commercial Farmer's Union
IIED International Institute on Environmental Development
IMCRD Inter Ministerial Committee on Resettlement and Rural Development
IPFP Inception Phase Framework Plan
ITDG Intermediate Technology Development Group ñ Zimbabwe
LRRP Land Reform and Resettlement Program
LRRP2 Land Reform and Resettlement Programme Phase 2
MLA Ministry of Lands and Agriculture
MP Member of Parliament
NECF National Economic Consultative Forum
NGO Non government organization
NLB National Land Board
NLP National Land Policy PRIVATE tc \l 5 ""
OPC Office of President and Cabinet
RDC Rural District Council
TILCO
TSU Technical support Unit
TSU Technical Support Unit
ZANU (PF) Zimbabwe African National Union Patriotic Front
ZIMPREST Zimbabwe Programme for Economic & Social Transformation