|
|
|
Land is of interest to all sections of society. This includes the rich and the poor, rural and urban populations, farmers, industry, central and local government etc. The varied nature of these different social groups also translates into different and often opposing land demands. The different stakeholders are differently positioned in society. This translates into varied opportunities for the different groups of stakeholders to make input into the land reform processes. Of particular importance is stakeholder participation in critical aspects such as national land policy formulation, land acquisition and redistribution. National land policies, often guided (at least in theory) by principles of efficiency and equity, try to reconcile the different land demands presented by the various groups of people. For historical reasons, rural communities in Zimbabwe are marginalised in terms of having access to good quality land and hence the deliberate policies by government to try and resolve the situation. However, despite the centrality of land in a largely agrarian society such as Zimbabwe's, coherent debate on land issues has been limited.
A two-day national consultative workshop was held in Harare in May 1997. The conference was attended by participants from a wide range of institutions including: NGOs and CBOs working on land with grassroots communities; representatives of grassroots communities; government departments and parastatals involved in land management, distribution and settlement; research institutions with interest in land issues; civic groups such as women organizations and a few donor organizations. NGOs directly involved in the workshop included Zimbabwe Human Rights Association (ZIMRIGHTS), Zimbabwe Women's Resource Centre Network (ZWRCN), ZERO-Regional Environment Organization, Training and Research Support Centre, RUDECON Zimbabwe and the Zimbabwe Women Lawyers Association. This marked the beginning of a rather loose process aimed at:
facilitating dialogue between policy makers in government and all stakeholders in the land sector, building capacity of NGOs, CBOs and other sections of civil society to analyze land issues; and providing the base for establishing a coalition of civil society stakeholders and the government so as to make optimum contributions towards equity based policies in the country.
One of the main issues that emerged from the workshop was the need to initiate a process which is guided by concerted efforts aimed at increasing citizen participation in all land related issues, including land policy formulation. This reinforced the need for a wide consultation during the formulation of legislation and other related policies.
Zimbabwe is still battling to solve the land question. The land identification process headed by the National Land Task Force, working with other local based structures has made limited headway in promoting the participation of the broad spectrum of stakeholders in the process. The country is currently involved in the formulation of its national land policy and a white paper on the draft land policy is in the making. Although some stakeholders have put varied inputs into the policy formulation process, NGOs, CBOs and other civil society organizations are yet to make their meaningful and effective contribution. NGOs have since formed three working groups namely: Land and Sustainable Livelihoods, Land and Gender and Land and Social Justice. The main objective of these sub-groups is to increase the participation of civil society in the national land policy formulation process. Such initiatives have been constrained by a number of factors. It can be postulated that some of these inhibiting factors are:
The recently held Donors Conference (September 1998) represents an important initiative by government to include a broader range of stakeholders in the national land policy formulation process. Various donors and other participants that participated at the conference have made their comments on the current land policy formulation process. However, such a process is yet to be taken to the generality of the countryís population.
Generally, it has been observed that consensus building and broad consultations on land policy issues since independence have been limited in Zimbabwe (Moyo 1996). The Land Tenure Commission (LTC) was one major step toward a broader consultation process concerning the nation's most pressing land problems. However, the LTC itself was limited in terms of having wider forms of consultation as well as the issues covered. It addressed mainly tenure issues but failed to consider other crucial matters pertaining to land grievances, land redistribution, land based conflicts, conflict resolution mechanisms and many others. The views of ordinary Zimbabweans on such critical matters, especially the rural folk, is yet to be captured in most official documents and let alone contribute toward formulation of the country's national land policy and other aspects of the countryís land reform process. It has also been pointed out that women in particular were not adequately represented on the Land Tenure Commission and that most consultations were with men. Other vulnerable sections of society such as the squatters and destitutes were also not captured by the deliberations of the LTC. Many experts believe that transient commissions cannot permanently address such issues and many others, as has been the tendency in Zimbabwe. The demand for land and struggles for change are on-going. The major challenge is one of developing long-term institutional capacity to address these on an on-going basis.
A national land policy can be described as a framework of guidance, which is based on long-term objectives and principles. It illustrates the future path of development, starting from the status quo. Thus, any policy is made up of a number of components, chief of which include the following:
ï a vision ï objectives ï principles ï issues ï instruments of implementation (Mhlanga 1998, Zimmerman 1998)
The formulation of a new national land policy may also necessitate the effecting of legal and institutional changes in order to facilitate the implementation of such a policy.
Developing a clear vision on land as an economic, social and physical asset for Zimbabwe is crucial toward the advancement of sustainable development. Such a vision needs to be shared by the different stakeholders who include the general populace of the country, local government structures, farmers, industry, financial sector, NGOs and other development agencies. The formulation of an effective and enduring policy should be carefully couched with the full participation of all the concerned stakeholders. Whilst the over-riding objective of the countryís land reform is the need to re-distribute land to the disadvantaged majority black population, a much broader objective for land reform is needed to address the critical importance of land to the livelihoods of rural populations. A broad objective is important in as much as it opens the way for the incorporation of a broad set of issues to be addressed by the land reform programme.
A land reform process that is sustainable needs to incorporate a number of principles, some of which include the following:
- certainty in land law and policy; - increased drive towards decentralization; - comprehensive legal and institutional framework for all land matters; - consideration of the main relevant international conventions; - legal and institutional structures to resolve land disputes; - transparency in all procedures in land matters; - direct participation of land owners, land users or their representativeness in the decision making process for all land related matters; and - promotion and enhancement of accountability and responsiveness of government institutions (Zimmerman 1998).
The principles noted above are critical and of direct relevance to Zimbabwe's land reform programme and national land policy formulation process. For example, there are calls for an increased drive towards decentralisation in the implementation of the countryís land reform process. The major question then is how best can these fundamentals be incorporated in Zimbabwe's land reform programme and national land-policy formulation process?
It is within this background that ZERO has initiated a process aimed at increasing participation by civil society in land reform processes. Up until recently, land reform in Zimbabwe has largely been seen as a prerogative of the government alone. With the exception of individual contributions by leading academics, civil society has opted for an 'observer role' in the country's land reform process. National debate on the country's land reform process has up to now been restricted to certain sections of the middle class and not enough ideas and alternative options have been forth coming to the government as a contribution on the way forward. This paper makes an important step towards addressing some of these issues. To start the process, ZERO has carried out a survey within Zimbabwe.
1.1 Main Objective for Carrying out the Survey
The survey was aimed at understanding as well as synthesising what the various stakeholders see as the pertinent land issues in this country and how they think such problems can be tackled. The thrust was to get the key areas that need to be addressed in Zimbabweís land reform process as well as the alternative options to the current approach to the land reform process.
This paper gives a detailed analysis of the various issues that were raised during the interviewing process. It seeks to stimulate debate on land and other related issues. The paper highlights some of the key issues at stake and the gaps in information that require further investigation. Thus it is hoped that some of the ideas highlighted can be developed further through debate and research work. Although the process was not that extensive in terms of coverage, because of the constraints of time and resources and the fact that it was confined to institutions and individuals in Harare, the issues raised are quite substantive and comprehensive in nature.
1.2 Research Methodology
The main research method used in conducting the survey was targeted interviews with key institutions and individuals involved in the land sectors. These included officials from government, academic field and the NGO sector. A checklist of questions was developed as a way of guiding the interviewing process. Permission to interview relevant authorities such as government departments was sought prior to the setting of appointments dates for the interviews. Such permission was granted with ease and this facilitated the interviewing process. Annex 1 shows the key guideline questions that were asked in the interviewing process. A total of 24 individuals from 21 institutions made input into the process (annex 2 refers). In some cases more than one member in an institution would be interviewed separately. The key institutions included relevant government departments and parastatals. The thrust was not necessarily to get the official position on a particular issue. More often than not, respondents gave their personal opinion and this helped significantly in enriching the debate as well as setting the basis for the generation of new ideas.
The lead question in the interviewing process was what options or alternative views would participants suggest or put forward in an effort to improve the performance of Zimbabweís land reform programme. The responses provided a good insight into what the selected members of civil society perceive as key policy issues that need the attention of policy makers. Generally, the initiative, small as it was, suggest that the current land policy formulation process can benefit quite significantly from the wealth of information that civil society has. Thus this paper represents an initiative aimed at stimulating debate on alternative options as well as suggesting complementary strategies that are targeted at making a contribution towards the improved performance of Zimbabweís land reform programme.
1.3 Summary of the Main Observations
The principal observations that this paper makes can be summarised as follows:
Zimbabweís land reform process has been based on the compulsory acquisition of the whole farm(s) for subsequent redistribution to blacks. This method has been rather inflexible and very few, if any, options or alternatives to this approach have been tried by the government. An alternative model that is based on the partial excision of farms is then proposed.
All activities take place on the land. This being the case, the land delivery system (which includes land reform) should allow people to get access to land so that they can engage in the relevant activities that sustain their lives.
An agriculturally sustainable land reform is one that addresses key issues such as diversification of agricultural production and intensification of land-use. Such an activity is complemented through the setting up of marketing infrastructure that will facilitate the selling of agricultural produce.
All stakeholders in the land sector need to actively participate in the development of a land reform policy. Particular attention needs to be paid to the effective participation of rural communities.
Institutions at both the national and local level have a central role to play in the successful implementation of any land reform programme. Zimbabwe's land reform programme has failed to address the problem of institutional capacity building, particularly at the local levels.
The next sections address some of these issues in detail.
2.0 PARTIAL EXCISION OF FARMS AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE CURRENT APPROACH TO LAND REFORM PROGRAMME
The approach used by the government in its land reform programme has been based on the acquisition of the whole farm for redistribution to the landless blacks. The recently announced compulsory acquisition of farms just confirms this modus operandi (Government Gazette 1997, various press statements). However, such an approach to land acquisition makes it imperative for the government to mobilise extensive resources to compensate for at least the cost of infrastructure development for the acquired farms. At the same time the government will also have to grapple with extensive criticism from both within and outside the country. A good example is the delay by the International Monetary Fund to release funds for the balance of payments to the government of Zimbabwe (a move seen by many experts as partly a result of the disagreement between IMF and government over the land issue). It must be acknowledged that in the view of many, a comprehensive land reform programme is inevitable for long-term social, environmental and political sustainability in the country. Yet the massive regional problem of overpopulation in the Communal Lands has tended be over-shadowed by a narrow focus on land redistribution. For various reasons, alternative proposals or land redistribution models have not been tried. In light of this, the partial excision of farms emerges as one such option that deserves to be considered as a viable and practical alternative to the current approach of Zimbabweís land reform programme.
2.1 The Principle
It is generally agreed that there is under-utilisation of land in the Large Scale Commercial Farming Sector (LSCF). Studies that have been done in the Mashonaland provinces have shown that most farmers in this sector utilise just around 30% of their respective farm sizes. The partial excision of farms is based on a rather conservative principle which makes economic sense as it leaves the farmers with:
existing infrastructure such as dams, irrigation equipment etc. and the land under active production (i.e. a fraction of the total farm size).
The model proposes that the remainder of the land that is not being utilised will be surrendered to the government at no cost. A distinction needs to be done on land that is not being used because it is not suitable for land-uses such as crop production as compared to the demands of other land-uses such as cattle ranching and tourist related activities. Diversification and intensification of land-uses to be promoted is one way of getting around the problem (see section 9). The amount to be excised from each and every farm will vary according to a number of variables, chief of which include location by natural region, the land use being practised and the minimum viable farm size per given landuse. Such a model would need to be flexible to provide for the specific production requirements of activities such as tobacco growing and grazing of cattle.
For the whole process to take off the ground, sufficient and reliable information will have to be collected, mainly from the farmers themselves. This information will assist in determining the total amount of land to be released to the government. The process could include all the large-scale farms, thus including farmers whose farms have not yet been designated so that the land problem is solved once and for all.
The key variables to be used in the data collection exercise include (but are not restricted to) the following:
farm size type of land use(s) at farm normal area under active production (cropping) average annual yields (5-10 years) minimum viable farm size based on the land use(s) being practised maximum disposable land per farm
Critics of this model are likely to argue that it seeks to secure the interests of the white LSCF farmers and thereby implicitly arguing that whites are the best farmers. The model however involves both parties (white farmers and government) making some substantive trade-offs. Generally, the model needs to be seen as a moderate approach which takes into account the new socio-economic and political order as dictated by both the external/global forces and the related macro-policies as well as other forces operating at the national level. The model has also a number of advantages, the immediate and more obvious ones being that:
1. The model seems to be a convenient one since on one hand the farmers will remain with the land under utilisation (and hence existing production is not affected in anyway) and the infrastructure they have developed over the years. On the other hand, the government does not spend a single cent in paying for the acquired land. Win -Win Situation!
2. Dualism in the country's agricultural sector will be eliminated. In addition, the existing social zonations which are based on racial and economic status (which are politically, socially and economically unsustainable) will be done away with.
3 . International donors are likely to support such initiatives where there are no losers.
4. Resources saved by the government (since there is no paying for the cost of land) are reserved for the actual resettlement of people (infrastructure development). Existing infrastructure such as roads, dams and electricity can either be shared at a cost to the resettled farmers or it can easily be expanded to cover the new farmers. This arrangement seems to be cost effective as there is likely to be optimum utilisation of existing infrastructure and there are no gaps between land acquisition and land distribution as is the case in the current land reform process. Hence, equipment and other infrastructure will not become obsolete during the transition period.
Possibility for sharing of farming information and experiences by the white commercial farmers and the incoming black farmers is enhanced.
Leasing of subdivided portions of farms (based on the principle of partial excision) by large scale farmers can also be tried by willing farmers as an off-shoot option
No farmer is pushed out of production (directly or indirectly) and those indebted to financial institutions will continue to meet their obligations. As a result, national food security is not threatened and with the correct incentives and dedication, agricultural production will be set for a boom.
8. Under such a model, the government would still reserve the right to acquire the whole farm for justifiable reasons that will always be made public.
The ideas and arguments being put across by this model are not new to Zimbabwe. Proposals along similar lines that allowed current owners to retain portions of their farms and assist with mentoring new farmers were made to the government in the 1980s. Unfortunately, the proposals were thrown out in the 1984/85 period. The major question is whether the government is prepared to reconsider the merits and demerits of such proposals. The inception plan of the countryís land reform programme phase 2 highlights the importance of complimentary approaches to the current government approach to land redistribution. This may be the opportune time for reconsidering the partial excision of farms as a viable option!
2.2 Tenurial Arrangements
The proposed tenurial arrangements under this model will be leasehold with option to purchase. An initial five-year lease period will be ideal, thereafter farmers who would have proven themselves would be allowed to ìpurchaseî their respective farms. Rukuni 1998, in his paper presented at the Zimbabwean Land Reform Conference in London, gave various options on possible tenurial arrangements that the countryís land reform can pursue.
2.3 Supporting Policy Environment
A model such as the one proposed above needs a supporting policy environment for it to succeed. Some of the relevant supportive policy options to be considered in such a model include the following:
1. Reviewing of the subdivision policy to allow the flexible implementation of the land reform programmes. In addition, the minimum farm sizes set by AGRITEX will have to be reviewed to suit the new socio-economic demands. The agricultural viability of land has changed with improved technology as well as the strengthening of diversification and intensification of land-uses as a viable strategy. The agricultural land subdivision policy, in particular the concept of minimum viable farm size, needs to be adjusted accordingly.
2. Data collection is done in a professional and transparent manner. The success of this process will depend on the level of co-operation by the large-scale farmers. The current ìclosed door policyî adopted by most large-scale farmers is not conducive.
3. Acceptance by both parties (white and black farmers) that co-existence and the sharing of land and boundaries is the only way forward. This, interestingly, involves a change in mindset by all parties concerned.
The model can start on a small scale, particularly as a pilot project in selected localities or districts. The finer modalities of such a model will always be developed. Such a pilot project could start with agricultural graduates as the guinea pigs.
The general perception amongst many Zimbabweans is that the need for a new model (such as the one described above) for guiding redistribution of land in this country is an urgent one. Under the prevailing circumstances of growing poverty, the idea of giving land for free tends to be the ideal for the resettlement of the rural populations which are poor. However such an arrangement needs to be re-examined since the basis for sustainable development is hinged upon having the resettled farmers subscribe something for the land given to them. This view has been echoed by different interest groups. Payment or contribution towards land given to the resettled farmers can be deferred until the farmers are in full production. A revolving fund can be formed for ease of administration of such funds.
As a matter of fact, any new model needs to introduce the issue of appropriate land sizes based on the needs of particular land-uses. Thus the above described land reform model needs to be flexible so as to meet the specific production requirements of different landuses. Specific resettlement projects that emphasise different activities can be tried and tested. Such an approach can focus on activities such as horticulture, grains production, vegetables, paprika and cattle production.
It needs to be stressed that the above described model subscribes to the view that land reforms, particularly issues relating to under-utilisation of land, need to be discussed primarily from a moral and social point of view. The point of emphasis being that under-utilisation is a subjective term. The urgency of an all encompassing land reform stems from the fundamental point that it is morally and socially wrong to have the few large-scale farmers holding on to most of the land when the majority are not only overcrowded, but starving as well. Further to that, the status quo is a potential cause of civil unrest and disturbance. For instance, interviews with certain officials revealed that the people who really need land are silent. They (rural communities) do not demonstrate their needs through squatting and other forms of resistance. However it is not possible to anticipate what action that they might take in order to have their demands realised. The land problem is therefore a time bomb (recent developments, which have been characterised by land invasions by local communities into predominantly white owned commercial farms, seem to be an important pointer to this perspective). On the other hand white farmers need to be convinced that they cannot continue to confine themselves in a class of their own. Time is fast running out on their part and there is a real danger of a social upheaval if the land issue is not addressed. Various authors have challenged LSCF to come up with genuine offers on the voluntary release of land. Policy measures meant to encourage large-scale farmers to release more land, such as the introduction of the long awaited progressive tax system are long overdue.
However, in the view of many, the nation needs to exonerate itself from the notion that everybody must be given a piece of land. It is not feasible since land is a finite resource. Thus as the nation discusses the need for land redistribution, it must be realised that the land itself is not elastic and at some point the government will stop issuing out land. The cut-off point, that is, the point where government will stop further redistribution of land, needs to be generally agreed upon by the nation at large. Thus a vision on such an important issue needs to be shared. It must be understood that the nation fought the liberation war for the empowerment of the majority in all the sectors (land redistribution represents just one component of economic empowerment process). Other economic fronts need to be opened up so that not all the people will depend on land.
Environmental considerations have been singled out as major priority in Zimbabweís development initiatives. Zimbabweís resettlement areas have experienced serious problems of environmental degradation such as deforestation, soil erosion and veldt fires. Few studies have been done to quantify the extent of environmental damage in the resettlement areas. The new resettlement models need to avoid such an unsustainable scenario. It is important to carry out base-line surveys in all areas where new resettlement schemes are going to be established. This will become the basis for all environmental monitoring and management activities in the resettlement areas. Zimbabweís Environmental Impact Assessment policy of 1997 states that agricultural subdivisions, new land development for agricultural production and conversion of woodland to other uses are prescribed activities that require environmental impact assessments. This is an important area that needs due consideration.
3.0 DEVELOPING APPROPRIATE INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURES IN THE RESETTLEMENT AREAS
Studies that have been undertaken tend to suggest that problems in the resettlement schemes have been worsened by the fact that institutional / organisational structures in these areas have not been adequately addressed. The institutional structures at the resettlement schemes remove the power from the people. At the same time the state does not have the resources to run these institutions and hence a vacuum has been created. It has been observed that most structures in these areas are party structures or committees and are inappropriate administrative authorities.
After independence, the traditional role of chiefs and headman in the allocation of communal land was removed from them and reallocated to the rural district councils by the central government. This has however not been the case in practice as the chiefs still wield a lot of respect and authority in many communities. Analysts perceive this as resilience and a clear indication that tradition has not succumbed to the pressure of being "swept away" and hence current efforts by the government to restore those powers.
However, as of late, there has been a growing source of discontent in some sectors of the community over the issue of restoring power to the traditional leadership. The village heads and chiefs are supposed to be custodians of the land resources but currently some chieftainships have been rocked with problems or conflicts of varying nature. In most cases it seems there are no longer any straight succession lines as the case used to be. Others have been involved in illegal deals such as the sale of communal land. Various researches have since confirmed this scenario in a number of localities country-wide (Moyo 1995, Moyo et al 1998). The question being asked is why this group of people should be entrusted with land rights when some of them seem to be busy selling out land illegally. The imminent observation is that customary practices have since changed and in some cases these have generated into a myth. Some analysts have suggested that a lot of assumptions have been made about the traditional line of authority, especially on the capacity of chiefs and headmen to guide land management. Their educational level and ability to meet the demands of their roles in the changed economy is also being questioned.
And yet some of the resettled people have expressed the concern that they do not have chiefs or village headman who can assist them in solving their problems. The resettled farmers still believe that a chief (mambo/induna) would provide some form of protection to them. The major challenge then is one of developing appropriate power structures and institutions that are suitable and acceptable to the resettled farmers. There is need for capacity building of institutions responsible for the management of land and other natural resources in the resettlement areas.
Katerere and Guvheya (1998) make a fundamental observation that there are a number of new concepts developing around the theme of environmental resource management which include concepts such as water management, biological diversity, community based natural resource management and ecological sustainability. Such concepts have the common characteristic that they transcend the concept of individual property boundaries which is the dominant tenure type that most people would want to see established in the resettlement areas. Natural resources management and tenure issues are central to the debate on sustainable utilisation of natural resources in resettlement areas and yet individual or freehold tenure can be conflicting with some of these concepts on natural resource management. The formulation of appropriate tenure system for the resettlement areas and the development of relevant institutions that are ideal for these areas remain a major challenge for government and other relevant stakeholders.
Another important point to consider is the legal status of Zimbabweís rural communities which in general seems to be grossly inadequate and therefore needs to be addressed. This tends to slow the pace of rural development. For instance, if a donor wants to give money or assist a community, one will have to go through the council and the elaborate process often reduces the value for money. Taking this into consideration, one option for solving the problem is that of developing legislation that defines communities as well as recognising them as legal entities. Such legislation should give communities powers to implement and manage their own projects. Institution building at the local level then emerges as a very important aspect of rural development and indications suggest that the government need to give first priority to this. Development of appropriate institutions is also an important characteristic that defines the identity of a community. The notion of group rights is one way forward. The Land Tenure Commission has made similar recommendations. Already, this is being tried in other countries.
4.0 GENDER CONSIDERATIONS AND THE NEEDS OF OTHER SPECIFIC GROUPS
Most problems affecting women in this country emanate from flaws in the legislation of the country. Further, the general feeling that has been cultivated in society is that land belongs to men. Even in terms of production, it is often thought most of it belongs to the husband except for selected crops like roundnuts (nyimo/indlubu) and groundnuts (nzungu/amazambani). A new thought that allows women and men to co-own both the land and the agricultural produce needs to be cultivated in society. The option of having young women being allowed access to land whose ownership they would be expected to cede upon marriage has not been given serious thought. An alternative view that came up from discussions with some officials was that women cannot be given land until "mazamu awa"(i.e. when is no marriage has taken place), after which, land can be allocated to them. What do rural communities, particularly the rural women think about such issues? Such ideas and many more need to be thrown to society so that they can be debated openly.
However, perceptions from certain sections seem to suggest that the champions of gender issues usually fail to capture the real issues. According to such analysts, gender has more often than not been taken to mean "women" and as a result more important issues have been missed. The contribution of women in agricultural production has since been acknowledged but the problem lies in that most of the gender issues have been championed by the top women. As a result, some analysts argue that the gender aspects of the suffering women in the rural areas are not sufficiently covered, if at all. What do the ordinary women in rural communities perceive their situation and what are the key or priority gender aspects they would want to see addressed by the countryís land reform process?
The use of child-farm labour in the LSCF farms is another important issue of concern. The impact of this on the national economy, in particular the impacts on educational development, employment and agricultural production are yet to be clearly identified. What is the magnitude of the problem and how can policy address the issue? What motivates farmers to employ child labour?
It is also interesting to note that there is unfair treatment of youths and men of a particular age group. In a discussion with some researchers, it emerged that a research carried out in a district in the Midlands found that men were drinking more and were spending most of their time away from homes so as to escape "mistreatment and troubles" at home (N Moyo, personal communication). The study also challenged the generally held view that men do not do most of the agricultural work in the rural areas.
There are other sections of our society that have their special demands to the land reform process. Examples include the ex-combatants, youths and the old aged.
4.1 Land and Excombatants
Ex-combatants in particular are a sensitive sector of the population in the land debate. They went to war mainly over the land question and there is always the potential threat that they can resort to violence if their demands are not met (as they did during the 1997 demonstrations). The government has given them special consideration by allocating them 1/4 of the resettlement land but indications are that the group might not be satisfied with the current arrangement. How have ex-combatants who have been allocated land been performing? What skills in farming and natural resources management do ex-combatants have?
4.2 Land and Youths
Another interesting observation that policy makers need to realise is that sustainable land reform needs to pay particular attention to the youth. Researches have also proven that youths and the middle-aged men are feeling the effects of overpopulation in their areas and it is believed they support the idea of being resettled. However, the old aged people have strong cultural ties with their areas and they might not support the idea of being resettled. Zimbabweís land reform programmes needs to take cognisance of the special needs of these groups in society. Does the countryís land reform programme have a youth development policy? Who are the youth anyway and do they have an interest in farming? How do the youths themselves perceive the countryís land reform programme?
Thus the countryís agricultural farming system has been criticised as not giving enough challenge to the young generation. This forms the basis of youth migration to towns. In most cases it is only the failures elsewhere who remain at home. As a result, farming in the communal areas is often seen as a "losers' game" and is not a first choice for many. The country no longer needs a reserve pool of labour in the communal areas as was planned by the colonial governments and the land reform programme needs to take the lead in promoting rural development in the communal areas (Marongwe and Matowayika 1998).
4.3 Land and Technological Capability
Investment in innovative techniques and other relevant technology is another strategy of ensuring that that the youth can be self employed. Youths need to be supplied with correctly packaged information to enable them to do this. The absence of libraries and other materials for rural communities to read is instead causing the youths to lose fast their reading skills. Complementary programmes to primary education systems and information flow will form the basis of rural development in the rural areas and relevant policies need to take cognisance of this. Because of the lack of innovation, the youths in the rural areas have nothing to do and as a result they just sit and wait for their fathers to die, so that they can inherit their land. Such a situation is not conducive to rural development. What appropriate technology need to be developed in the rural areas as a way of improving land productivity or reducing dependency on subsistence agriculture?
4.4 Land and Non-Agricultural Uses
The land reform process needs to note that it is important to realise that not all people who want land are farmers. Some sections of society want land for purposes other than farming such as for the construction of retirement homes. Most people in cities and other workplaces do not have decent accommodation and on retirement they need some land to settle on and hence growing pressures in the Communal Lands. The perception that ownership of land is an important indicator of wealth in society needs to be disowned by society at large. Some need land for burial purposes while others need it for economic reasons. These are some of the special demands that land policies and the land reform process need to pay attention to.
5.0 TOWARDS BUILDING A LAND BASED INFORMATION DATA BASE
One major limitation of past and current efforts at land reform has been that the land reform policy has been developed with insufficient information and has always been short term in its perspective. The Land Tenure Commission of 1994 has made similar observations. Even the fundamental principles of transparency and accountability are based on the availability of information. Further, information is the foundation of policy formulation and implementation. Emphasis has not been placed on other key areas such as capacity building in areas such as the collection of land related information which will assist the government in policy formulation. In addition, there are no adequate and appropriate fora for the government to consult widely and to understand the current situation as a way of moving forward and yet the basis for moving forward should be the understanding of the baseline situation.
5.1 CAPACITY TO COLLECT AND SYNTHESISE INFORMATION
There are numerous hitches that hinder the development of a land related information database. For instance, farm level data for both the LSCF and SSCF farms is not easily accessible, if at all. Thus information pertaining to the large scale and small scale farming sectors is to a large extent limited and this situation leads to poorly designed land policies and programmes. In the past, a farm returns system existed for both the small and large scale farming sector but indications are that the system has broken down. This raises a number of fundamental questions: Why did the system break down and why did the concerned departments allow it to collapse - no value added or lack of resources? Was the system a policy requirement? What were the perceived benefits for the participating farmers? Can such a system be re-introduced and what the constraints?
These are important issues and national land policy needs to address them. In addition, land policy formulation needs to understand more of what is happening in the small-scale farms and resettlement areas as a basis for moving into the future. Many experts believe that communal and resettlement agriculture has been over-studied. As an illustration, there are indications that suggest that polygamy has increased in the resettlement areas as male farmers sought to boost their farm labour through large families and yet the problem is not properly understood and its magnitude is not known. If left un-addressed, such a situation is likely to affect production as the scanty information pertaining to small-scale farms seems to suggest. Should the national land policy continue to pretend that nothing is happening? What are the implications of polygamous marriages on land productivity and the problem of illegal subdivision of land? How can the land reform process accommodate problems emanating from polygamous marriages?
5.2 Capacity and Will to Share Information
The lack of information also expresses itself quite differently in the two sectors (LSCF and SSCF). A rather disappointing observation that has been highlighted in various studies is that the large-scale farming sector operates in a rather closed environment and one cannot easily access farm-level data for its members. Policy making at government level is therefore starved of detailed information on large-scale farms. Research has also tended to be very biased as most of it has tended to be concentrated in the communal and resettlement areas. Very little research has been done in the small-scale farms which have largely been ignored by researchers while the large scale farmers are not willing to share the data they generate. Perhaps the major issue at stake is developing incentives that encourage the generation and exchange of information among the countryís main farming sectors!
Part of the reason why the large-scale commercial farms have not been studied is that the white farmers do not make available sound and reasonable information and seem to operate in a closed system. Land is of national importance and critical issues such as farm productivity need not be viewed as constituting private-business confidential information. Land policy needs to pay attention to some of these issues. There is need to share the views of LSCF and get them to release their land. The major challenge is how best LSCF farmers can be convinced to open up their system as the nation cannot continue to rely on the press statements that they make for getting to know of what is happening in their sector. Maybe part of the answer to this problem is the adoption of a more collaborative approach that recognise that LSCF farmers as a resource to the nation as opposed to a confrontational approach that treat them both as a constraint and threat?
6.0 ENTRENCHING TRASPARENCY IN ZIMBABWEíS LAND REFORM PROCESS
Moyo 1998 noted that particular sections of the national population such as rural communities, community based organisations and NGOs have not had any meaningful involvement in the land reform process. Further to that, information on the land policy formulation process is not easily accessible, if at all, to such sections of society. Moyo 1998 went further and called for openness, public debate and analysis in critical aspects of land acquisition and redistribution including some of the following:
who owns which farms in this country and what is productivity on each of the farms quality of land to be transferred in the land reform programme type of farmers and owners affected spatial distribution of acquired land existing land-uses on acquired land employment situations at farms targeted for resettlement who is to be resettled
Two issues can be singled out from this, namely:
the need for a stakeholder forum for defining and debate relevant issues defining the research gaps or areas that need more information
The importance of land related information in the national land policy formulation and land reform process has already been alluded to. It is therefore critical that research activities need to be under-taken in order to make readily available information on some of the identified issues. Such information needs to be correctly packaged for distribution to all the stakeholders. It must also be acknowledged that there are currently a number of research activities, for example, that are going on. It is therefore important to understand the ongoing research activities, identify the research gaps that still need to be filled as well as elaborating on some of the issues that would have been raised.
The need for the establishment of a "neutral" platform for debating as well as exchanging ideas on land related issues should be seen as a priority issue since land forms the basis for mankind's survival. People need the platform to share their experiences on a regular basis, as well as updating one another on various issues that cut across all the sectors. There is need to initiate the process of starting a series of debates on land related or development related issues. Such fora need to develop methods of promoting interaction with the rural people. As a matter of fact, there are many people in the rural areas who have a lot of experiences and yet these are not writers and there is no platform through which one can learn from these people. What makes such a process critical is the observation that the most important things that affect people's daily lives are not captured by the institutional reports from the various organisations. The development of the fora also means the creation of a market for the research that would have been undertaken.
The recently held Donors Conference (September 1998) reinforced the importance of most of the issues pertaining to public participation in the national land policy formulation process. The Donors Conference brought together key stakeholders in the land reform process, particularly the donor community. These initiatives and other related activities however still need to be consolidated further as well as taking the process to the rural communities who have since been marginalised.
Thus, put simply, the call is for a consultation that reaches the people. It comes from the realisation that despite the various attempts by government, the consultation between the policy makers and the people affected by the policies is not sufficient. The present consultations are not reaching the people as they are taking the form of institutional representation where the councils and their councillors are assumed to be representatives of the people. However, in reality, many analysts believe that the views of councillors are more like those of government officers. More often than not, they speak for the government and not for their respective constituencies. More so, councils are still dominated by men and yet when one goes down to the village, the predominant users and managers of the resources are women. The representativeness of organisations such as the Zimbabwe Farmers Union is increasingly being questioned. The holding of national workshops has also been restricted to certain sections of urban societies. How can rural communities be effectively involved in national land policy formulation and what the major limitations to such initiatives? How have other countries in southern Africa tackled the problem? What lessons can be learnt from land related campaigns in Zambia, Mozambique and Namibia?
7.0 FORGING OF STAKE-HOLDER PARTNERSHIP
It has already been highlighted that over the years, no civil society organisation has volunteered to be a leader in matters relating to land reforms for a variety of reasons. As a result, over the years there have been no organisations and partnerships that have tried to work jointly with the government in the land reform programme. Non-Governmental Organisations in Zimbabwe have not been advocating for land reforms. This is in sharp contrast with other southern African states like Namibia, South Africa, Zambia etc. where NGOs and other organisations have formed consortiums and partnerships for the purposes of advocating for land reforms with a united voice on particular issues in their countries. Yet, in this country it is only the government and individuals that speak on the need for land redistribution. NGOs and other institutions have not met the challenge of forming an alternative voice which will speak in favour of speedier land reforms in this country. Only loose associations among these organisations have emerged but no concrete actions have been initiated as yet.
It is generally understood that there are gross inequalities in the distribution of the land resource in Zimbabwe. However, what is yet to be clarified is whether there is consensus by the different players on the nature of the problem. The first critical question that needs to be addressed is who are the stakeholders, what are their land demands and how do they perceive the problem? Some of the key stakeholders in the land debate in this country can be broadly classified as:
government local government (rural district councils, town boards, municipal and town councils) private sector (industry, mining, tourism, financial institutions) NGOs and CBOs church organisations rural communities researchers and academic institutions farmer organisations and their affiliate commodity based organisations
However, these are too broad categories that need to be refined further. These groups therefore need to be dis-aggregated and an entry point needs to be defined for each of the groups. For example, defining the rural communities and how best they can participate in the policy formulation process is a major challenge. The Church has generally not taken an active role in most critical matters pertaining to Zimbabweís land reform process. The question is why this should be the case when land rights are increasingly being seen as basic human rights? And yet the church can play a crucial role in areas such as land rights related awareness campaigns. The demands of all these stakeholders can also be both competing and conflicting? How can the land reform process and the national policy in particular seek to address this?
The different stakeholders are differently positioned in society and have different opportunities in terms of participating in the national land policy formulation process. For example, it has already been noted that the rural population is yet to make a significant and direct input into how they see the land problem in this country and their proposed solutions to this. The question also translates into an issue of power relations. Those without power and influence (especially the rural communities) do not get to sit around the ìpolicy fireî as it were. Thus the major issue is how the poor, landless etc. can be reached so that their issues can be heard and that they can negotiate for a desired policy outcome.
7.1 Co-operation among farming sectors
At the sub-levels of government, co-operation and co-ordination is difficult to achieve. For instance, co-ordination across districts, particularly those in different provinces can be very difficult to achieve. As an illustration, if one wants to co-ordinate an activity in two districts that are in separate provinces, one needs to pass through the respective governorsí offices as a matter of policy and procedure. Such an arrangement is not conducive to the promotion of co-operation among farmers. Co-operation amongst the farming sectors is one option that can facilitate, inter-alia, the flow of information, ideas and experiences amongst the different farming sectors. Such a process could start with large-scale commercial farmers sharing and helping in developing the skills of surrounding populations in the communal areas. This way the commercial sector will be doing well for itself by making a social investment in skills development for the communal farmers. This will also help to eliminate the element of mistrust built upon historical factors since it is common knowledge that they are holding onto land which was grabbed from the people. A good example is that of the large-scale farmers in Mashonaland West province who have already started to co-operate with their counterparts in the communal areas. Similar initiatives have been reported in various parts of the country but most of these still remain undocumented. The challenge is document and disseminate such initiatives. The possibility of selling the idea to other farmers as well as scaling-up such initiatives can always be explored.
The starting point could be co-operation between like minded people or those that produce the same products in all the four farming sectors of the country. The membership of existing associations is racially based and the major challenge is to transform these into racially balanced organisations that benefit the small-holder / communal farmers. One suggestion that has been put across is for policy makers and planners to analyse the district economy and working out strategies on how best it can be integrated. For example, linkages might be forged among commodity based organisations such as ostrich producers, fish farmers, tobacco farmers, wheat farmers etc. Such an approach has the potential to consolidate an already existing framework as opposed to creating a new framework for co-operation. One possible obstacle to such initiatives is that people in the communal lands are highly expectant and if one approached them they always believe that that person has brought something for them. Consequently, it might be necessary to educate the farmers on various aspects of development as some of them have developed a dependency syndrome whereby they think that somebody else will do the job for them. In fact, some experts believe that such an approach needs to be made part and parcel of the land reform process. On broader level, the major issue at stake is what institutional and behavioural changes are required in order to make the land reform process a success?
7.2 Setting the basis for sharing of Experiences that add Value to Land debates
The sharing of experiences is one critical aspect that adds value to land debates. The opportunity for co-operation and the sharing of different experiences in the land sector by all those involved has never been exploited. The basis for such institutional co-operation could be on the understanding of who is doing what in the land sector in the country. This could be the starting point and maximum use would be made of existing land-related institutions. Such a process could start with the identification of key actors and sourcing ideas from them. Both the peasant sector and the large-scale farmers could be targeted and their ideas tapped. What should be the driving force for such a process?
Discussion with relevant institutions revealed that there is room for co-operation among NGOs, government departments and community based organisations. The prime requirement is that organisations should "open-up" and refrain from being territorial in the way they operate. More openness by organisations will actually reinforce their activities. Lobbying by individual institutions does not carry enough weight that will convince the international community and donors on the urgency for land reforms in this country. Civil society needs to take the challenge to start bargaining as a group as a way of pulling ideas and providing options to government as well as helping to keep the government moving in the right direction.
Such partnerships need to be clearly and cautiously developed as there is always the real danger of infiltration by other forces with different agendas and government might be tempted to see it as a threat. At the same time organisations must have clear and specific goals and targets so as to avoid manipulation.
8.0 RISK MANAGEMENT AT THE LOCAL LEVEL
Rural communities are confronted with risks of varying nature in their daily lives. Scoones et al 1996 gave a detailed analysis of risk occurrence and risk management at the local level. Such risks might be directly or indirectly caused by processes such as natural calamities (droughts, pest invasion), civil disturbances, poverty, unfavourable macro-policies and others. Of interest to note is that society used to have its own safety mechanisms or strategies that were used as options of risk management for the benefit of the poor. For instance, the option of land and crop sharing were often used as "society's welfare policy" for the benefit of the poor. People without land or with insufficient land would cultivate somebody else's land for a given period of time and they would give it back at a later stage. Livestock, especially oxen for draught power, could be loaned by those with plenty to those with little or nothing. This practice is still in existence in some isolated parts of the country. Others did not even plough as they would work for food through the programme of maricho (short term contract work) and people could get paid in either cash or kind (mainly in the form of crops and livestock). The challenge that confronts society today is whether such mechanisms still have a role to play in our society and whether they can be rejuvenated? Other important social gatherings included occasions such as nhimbe, jangano/ilima where the poor people received help through social networking. The challenge is still whether society can recreate some of these institutions in an effort aimed at improving productivity in both the communal and resettlement areas. The idea and concept built around such social arrangements can also be sold to the large-scale farmers. Thus modalities for resource sharing arrangements between large-scale farmers and peasant farmers can also be built around similar concepts. For instance, some analysts are of the view that resource-sharing arrangements (at a fee) can include some of the following activities:
leasing of unused land for either crop production or grazing purposes dead ñwood collection for use as firewood wild fruits collection. Examples include wild figs (mutsamvi), marula (mapfura), bird plum (nyii), monkey oranges (matamba), matunduru, tsvanzva, mazhanje, snot apples (matohwe/uxakuxaku) sustainable wild products exploitation (wood for use as construction material, honey collection, collection of amancimbi-(mopani worm), cropping of game, harvesting of mushrooms)
9.0 STRENGTHENING OF AGRICULTURAL AND NON-AGRICULTURAL DIVERSIFICATION AS A WAY FORWARD
The policy of diversification of the agricultural production base in Zimbabwe has been in existence for a long time (Muchena 1994). However, agricultural diversification was first aggressively promoted during the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI) era (1965 to 1980) as it was aimed at cushioning the effects of international sanctions on the economy through reducing the countryís dependence on the export oriented tobacco production. Zimbabweís land reform programme has generally not been emphasising agricultural diversification and intensification of land-uses as a way of promoting expanded production of specific commodities as well as cushioning the effects of droughts which are occurring more frequently.
Land use regimes being promoted by the current land reform programme do not encourage the broad diversification of agricultural produce. More often than not people are told that land given to them is for farming and the only thing that comes into their minds is crop-based production, particularly maize production. Cutting down of trees in preparation for cultivation becomes the next step.
From a historical perspective, experts assessed land quality according to the ecological zones / regions which are more applicable to cropping as a form of land-use. The agro-ecological zones need to be viewed as broad categories under which further land use classification can be done. Such a land classification and the subsequent land quality classes would then best be related to the land use type. For example, rocky land can become super land for wildlife while crop requirements are also different. For instance, land quality required for millet (mhunga/imhunka) is different from that required for maize. Thus a comprehensive rural land capability analysis or land evaluation process that estimates the potential of land for several alternative uses needs to be considered. Such a land evaluation process gives the potential of the total land-system and is therefore a form of natural resources classification and ideally, it should constitute the basis for land use planning. The land classification system can be done on the basis of the suitability of land for some of the following key land-uses:
Agriculture. This would assist in identifying areas suitable for: - cultivation of specified crops (cereals, horticultural produce, root crops.) - irrigated agriculture - grazing Forestry. This would identify land suitable for: - logging of natural forest - forest plantations Wildlife conservation and other related tourist activities
This kind of land classification would be useful for the supply side analysis. The missing element in the land reform process would then be the demand side analysis which would lead to different land-uses. Such an approach can easily guide the process of agricultural diversification.
Agricultural diversification has also been hampered by the fact that agencies which sponsor research are mainly allied to agro-industries whose special interests might be geared towards the promotion of specific products. For instance, research in the promotion of indigenous crops such as sorghum (mapfunde/amabele), millet (mhunga/imhunka) and rapoko (zviyo/uphoko) is very limited, if any. Other agencies like Chibuku Breweries promote the production of sorghum (mapfunde) but this is mainly to cater for its needs in the traditional beer brewing industry.
It is important to note that in the drive toward diversification, policy-makers and the people in general need to learn from the experiences of other countries in both the developing and developed world. In the developed countries, it is not the size of the land that matters but the intensity of use of the land. A small piece of land will be partitioned for use as a golf course, wine production, tourism, flowers, residential etc. To varying degrees, the situation obtains in Zimbabweís small and large farmers. However, the missing element, particularly for the small farmers, is intensity of diversification and its market link. For diversification to be intensified, the right conditions need to be nurtured, chief of which should be the provision of land and water resources. Access to and provision of water enables the multiple uses of the land and hence multiple production, which will increase the net returns.
Generally, there is lack of support for initiatives from farmers in this country, especially the emerging black farmers. The level of investment involved in commercial farming is high and the interest rates charged by banks and other financial institutions can best be described as detrimental to the farming business. Hence, one option that has not been considered is the establishment of special programmes to nurture and cushion farmers from the combined effects of the frequent droughts and high interest rates.
Smallholders, particularly the resettled farmers, need to be encouraged and supported in diversifying and intensifying agricultural production. Another option that has not been given due consideration by policy-makers is the importance of regional specialisation within the country based on the comparative advantages of given localities. Such a development strategy will be guided by an indicative kind of national plan (as opposed to a blueprint) which will facilitate the diversification process into new production patterns. In areas such as Matebeleland, parts of Masvingo, Midlands, etc., it is inappropriate to talk about drought since these areas naturally have low rainfall. As such, people in these areas need to be encouraged to move into livestock production and not crop based production. Suitable farming systems need to be developed in the resettlement areas as well as in the communal areas. With the correct demand driven incentive system in place, markets will sprout in these areas and this will stimulate expanded production.
To assist in the transformation, the policy environment must be supportive. The translation into reality of devolution of every state planning activity would be the first important step. With devolution of power and the decentralisation of all other planning activities, provinces would have the opportunity to specialise production according to their resource bases and these provinces would also be able to collect all relevant revenues from within the province. Such an arrangement could allow the provinces to retain a certain percentage of total earning and the state would also receive a certain percentage. The state will then plan for measures to assist other provinces that are not well endowed with enough resources.
9.1 Promotion of Broad Based Consumption Patterns
For diversification of produce to be achieved or to succeed, it is a fundamental pre-requisite that the consumption patterns of the nation change overtime. The proposal is to have a close re-look at the definition of food and the variety of food options that need to be developed in an effort to broaden the survival strategy of the people. Currently people have a limited choice as they continue to rely on maize as the staple food. Other options like rapoko (zviyo/uphoko), millet (mhunga/imhunka) and sorghum (mapfunde/amabele) need to be developed / rejuvenated. People, rational as they are, would then make choices that suit their circumstances. Some of these products could actually be nutritionally healthier than maize meal. The major question to be paused is whether the current national and agricultural policies and the present institutional structures promote this type of diversification. How about the practice, is it supportive if such policies are or were in place? The "westernised" consumption patterns are often seen as not conducive and as a result people prefer food stuffs like rice, spaghetti etc. at the expense of local products which are suitable to the country's environment. Yet local produce such as millet (mhunga/imhunka) do not have international markets. A good illustration is the case of listeners and viewers in the electronic and print media who are always bombarded with advertisements that seek to promote particular brands of maize-meal (e.g. CHIBATAURA roller meal, ngwererewere, pearlenta ) which in essence seek to promote maize consumption and production. There are no ready markets for rapoko (zviyo/uphoko) and millet (mhunga/imhunka) and there are no deliberate policies ear-marked at the promotion of the production of these products. As a result, strategies to facilitate change need to be characterised by:
Research activities and dissemination of information on agro-ecologically appropriate crop varieties, and Development of market incentives for farmers to grow these crops
Agricultural diversification is also very essential for the purposes of attaining food security at the household levels. Hence, the policy aimed at addressing food security should look at broader issues such as pre and post harvest food losses and the balance between the production of cash crops and food crops. The development of appropriate post harvest technologies for the main crops grown in the country (cereals, vegetables, root crops) is one strategy of boosting food security in both the resettlement and communal areas. Other strategies for increasing food security in rural communities include:
enhanced wild fruits production and harvesting, and practising cheap food conservation techniques such as drying and salting
Diversification should also be taken to include the processing of agricultural products such as the preparation of butter and sterilisation of milk on the farm. In such a scenario, it will be interesting to not if such initiatives as on-farm processing would not result in the production of cheaper products that would be more affordable to the generality of the people? Farmer organisations such as ZFU, ICFU and CFU have a central role to play in initiating such activities. Some LSCF farmers have already embarked on such endeavours?
9.2 Promoting the Cattle Industry
The gap between land acquisition and land redistribution has long been identified as a cause of concern. One strategy that has not been actively pursued by the government is that during the transition process, the communal people could use acquired land for grazing purposes at an affordable fee. The communal people need to be given a chance because they are capable of producing well on their own. From a historical and traditional perspective, the countryís economy was based on cattle. For instance, before colonisation, the countryís economy was cattle based and when the whites came they also started with cattle. Hence there is need to revamp the cattle economy using the chunk of land that is under-utilised, including the land acquired for resettlement but has not yet been resettled for cattle grazing. The lack of active markets for cattle in both the resettlement and communal areas is not conducive to high productive farming.
9.3 Promoting Off-Farm Activities
The lack of a rural industrialisation strategy is another issue of concern. ZERO (1998) highlighted that there is little information pertaining to the social, economic and environmental contexts in which rural industries operate and this has tended to hinder the development of appropriate policies and other support systems that should promote the development of these industries. For example, the non-recognition of the role of off-farm activities such as clay moulding, craft, sewing etc. by policy making has contributed to the slow growth of non-agricultural diversification activities. The growth point policy led to the development of an urban hierarchy characterised by growth points, district service centres, rural service centres and business centres and ideally these were supposed to act as diffusion centres for rural industries. To what extent have this urban development strategy promoted rural industrialisation? Further, how best can the growth point strategy and rural industrialisation be best linked to the land reform process? It is necessary to promote more off-farm activities that would supplement the income of the people. This should enable the people to free themselves from subsistence agriculture, as they will be engaged elsewhere.
10.0 SYNCHRONISING URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT
Naturally, land reform is largely a rural based activity. However, there are functional links between rural and urban land. The relationship between urban development and rural land has never been closely explored by policy. Some of the relevant issues that need to be considered include the constant expansion of urban land into rural land and the policy implications of this. Another issue is exploring the urbanñrural market linkages.
10.1 Expansion of Urban Land into Rural Land
The cause of concern is that urban land is always expanding into agricultural land. Yet, there are no clear guidelines for people with land that surrounds urban areas as to how they should invest in their land. The issue is whether these people need to be advised to undertake only short-term investments on land. The current planning system is not taking this into consideration and because of this, there is also an under-supply of land for urban development. Hence the persistently inflated land prices which are causing further problems. One suggestion could be proper planning so that people will have several options available to them. Such a plan would also give a longer grace period to the farmers whose land will be acquired so as to enable them to wind up their business. Another option that can be considered is that all land within a 50km radius of major cities needs to be subdivided into small-holder plots as a way of bringing more players into the farming industry. The available infrastructure in the cities can then be easily extended to the peri-urban areas. How can the linkages between peri-urban development and the land reform process be forged and enhanced?
10.2 Exploring the Urban ñrural market linkages
The rural and urban economies are intricately linked to one another. There is always a constant flow of goods and cash between the two areas. The major issue is how best can the urban-rural market linkages be enhanced without particularly disadvantaging the rural communities? The communal lands are currently subsidising the formal sector. Another illustration is that the communal lands are acting as the safety net for urban people in distress and they also provide a cheap labour reserve to the urban sector. Rural-urban migration is also a common phenomenon throughout Zimbabwe. Some experts have proposed the development of growth centres that have residential /market gardening holdings as one way of curbing rural to urban migration! Is such an initiative practical and can this be successful implemented in the resettlement areas? How can the countryís land reform process accommodate such initiatives? How best can the relationship between the communal lands and the rest of the economy be restructured so that this subsidy is done away with?
10.3 Placing Urban Agriculture in its correct perspective
Once the urban councils have taken land, it ceases to be rural land. To some extent, this land will also be used for urban agriculture. To what extent does urban agriculture contribute to the problem of land degradation? Despite the negative policies and views on urban agriculture, the practicality of the matter is that urban agriculture needs to be taken seriously in this country. Urban agriculture has not been given sufficient attention by researchers and policy makers and it is always seen in its negative perspective. The suggestion is the need for laws and policies that support this as more and more people in urban areas are increasingly turning to urban agriculture as a way of supplementing their food requirements. Urban agriculture also helps in keeping the city green.
11.0 CONCLUSION
The survey, small as it was, has revealed that there is a wealth of information in society that remains untapped. One major challenge is that of developing a strategy for tapping of ideas from the broad spectrum of society. This includes both the rural and urban populations. As mentioned earlier on, some members of the local populations could as well be sitting on answers relating to some of the critical problems of our society. The discourse on land and other development issues still needs to be extradited from being a preserve of the few. In addition, such a process would be incomplete if no strategy is developed to input such information into policy making. Land reform issues remain the main unresolved problem in the country. It would be desirable to have the land debate taken to the rural communities in particular.
The processes of land policy formulation and implementation are ongoing. It is evident in the current situation that policy level decision-makers have not yet significantly benefited from insights and inputs of primary stakeholders, that is, rural communities in their endeavours at policy formulation and implementation. A clear framework that allows primary stakeholders to participate and feed in their insights on an ongoing basis should be the first priority for those determined to see transformation and secure livelihoods of rural communities.
12.0 REFERENCES
Katerere, Y. and Guveya, E.(1998): Seeking New Perspectives in Land and Natural Resource Management, paper in Marongwe, N. and Matowanyika, J. Z.Z. (Ed.)(1999): Proceedings of a Regional Workshop on Setting the Foundations for Building, Networking and Research on Land Reforms in Southern Africa, Lesotho Sun Hotel, 1-3 July 1998, Maseru, ZERO Publications, Harare.
Matowanyika, J..Z.Z. and Marongwe, N. (1998): Land and Sustainable Development in Southern Africa: an exploration of some emerging issues, Sustainable Land Management Discussion Paper Series No. 1, ZERO Publications, Harare.
Mhlanga, A.B.N. (1998): The Development of a National Land Policy for the kingdom of Swaziland and the issue of Land Tenure Reform, in Barry, M. (ed.) (1998): Proceedings of the International Conference on Southern Africa, University of Cape Town, 27-29 January 1998 pp582-587.
Muchena, S.C (1994): Diversification of the Agricultural Resource Base, chapter in Rukuni M. and C. K. Eicher (1994): Zimbabweís Agricultural Revolution, University of Zimbabwe Publications, Harare, pp 361-390.
Moyo S. (1995): The Land Question in Zimbabwe, SAPES Trust, Harare.
Moyo S. (1998): The Land Acquisition Process in Zimbabwe (1997/8), UNDP Resource Centre, Harare.
Moyo S, P. B. Matondi and N. Marongwe (1998): Land Use Change and Communal Land Tenure under Stress, in Masuko L (ed.) (1998): Economic Policy Reforms and Meso- Scale Rural Market Changes in Zimbabwe: The case of Shamva District, Institute of Development Studies, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, pp147-200.
Land Tenure Commission (1994): Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Appropriate Agricultural Land Tenure Systems, Volume One, Main Report, Government Publishers, Harare.
Scoones et al (1996): Hazards and Opportunities: Farming Livelihoods in Dryland Africa: Lessons from Zimbabwe, ZED Books Ltd, London
Zimbabwe, Government of (1997): Government Gazette, Vol. LXXV, No. 62, 28th November 1997, Government Publications, Harare, Zimbabwe.
Zimmerman, W. (1998): Facing the Challenge of Implementing a New Land Policy: Lessons learnt in the context of International Co-operation, in Barry, M. (ed.) (1998): Proceedings of the International Conference on Southern Africa, University of Cape Town, 27-29 January 1998 pp582-587.
ZERO-Regional Environment Organisation (1998): Energy and Sustainable Rural Industries: issues from pilot studies in Tanzania, Zambia, Botswana, Mozambique and Zimbabwe, ZERO Publications, Harare, Zimbabwe
13.0 LIST OF APPENDICES
13.1 APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONS FOR INSTITUTIONAL INTERVIEWS ON LAND MODELLING & LAND CONFLICTS
1) What do you think are the pertinent land related issues that need to be addressed in this country and the and why?
2) What do you think are the main issues that need to be addressed under the following themes?
a. resettlement programme and its effect on sustainable management of land resources
b . socio-cultural issues in land reform debates -gender issues -inheritance problems -food security and land reforms -relationship between population growth and land distribution
c. assessment of land quality
d. relationship between land reform and other sectors? -water -wildlife -forests
e. land reform policy
f. relationship between national and global policies and land reform debates?
g under-utilisation of land?
h. land based conflicts
-squatters -competing landuses (agriculture and wildlife) -alluvial gold panning
i. customary practices of managing land based conflicts
3) a) Do you think there are any land related activities that are not receiving sufficient attention from the various actors in Zimbabwe and why do say so?
b) Do you think there is room for co-operation by governments, institutions, individuals etc (regional, national, provincial, district levels) in land related issues? If yes, in what areas?
4) a) Are there any land related activities that you are failing to do and why? (limitations)
b) What are your future plans in the land sector?
c) What do you feel should be done by other organisations in the land sector other than your own organisation? why do you think such activities are better done by other organisations?
5) Do you have any other burning issue that is related to land that you would want to share with others?
13.2 APPENDIX 2: INSTITUTIONS AND INDIVIDUALS INTERVIEWED PRIVATE
PRIVATE NAME OF INSTITUTION INDIVIDUAL INTERVIEWED
Department of Natural Resources Mr Mandisodza (Deputy Director)
Zimbabwe Farmers Union Mr Mawonera (Economist)
Association of Rural District Councils Mr Chikate (Chief Executive)
AGRITEX
Je de Dong (Deputy Director Mr Mawere (Land Use Planning Specialist)
ITDG-Zimbabwe Mr E Dengu
Agricultural and Rural Development Authority Dr J Made (Deputy Director)
Africa 2 000 Mrs Mhlanga (Director) Mr A Samu
Centre for Applied Social Sciences Dr J Murombedzi Dr C Nhira
Indigenous Commercial Farmers Union Mr Moyo
(MWENGO) Mr Mpofu
Ministry of Environment and Tourism Mr D Marongwe (Assistant Secretary)
Forestry Commission Dr Shumba
Ministry of Lands Mrs Tsvakwi (Under Secretary)
SAPES Trust Professor S Moyo (Director of Studies)
Women and Law in Southern Africa Research Trust Sara C. Mvududu (Regional Co-ordinator)
Campfire Association T. Mavheneke (Chief Executive)
ZIMTRUST C. Chinhoyi (General Manager)
Indigenous Commercial Farmers Union Mr Moyo (Director)
Ministry of Local Government, Rural and Urban Development Mr J. Jonga (Director General-DDF)
Ministry of Lands & Water Resources Mrs T Tsvakwi (Under Secretary)
SAFIRE Mr Kudhlande (Deputy Director)