Achim Blume (1996): Land Tenure in Rural Zimbabwe

3.2 The Stage Reached by Discussions of a New National Land Policy

The Zimbabwean government came to realise in 1990 that there was a major national land-tenure problem, affecting every subsector and unrelated to land distribution. The land-tenure problems in the CAs, SSCAs and the RAs described above were therefore recognised. In addition it was admitted that a policy aimed solely at redistribution or nationalisation, as pursued under the Resettlement Program, is not an adequate means of ensuring that land use is efficient and socially balanced. From the point of view of what was still formally a socialist government this was a remarkable admission. In line with the international discussions in the academic and development-policy fields, the importance of rights of disposition being granted on an individual basis was recognised and emphasised.

Accordingly in June 1990 the government decided to establish a Land Tenure Commission which was to create the basis for an active national land policy. In 1992 the terms of reference for the Commission were submitted and adopted. Finally, in November 1993 twelve experts were appointed to the Land Tenure Commission under the chairmanship of Professor Rukuni. In addition to representatives of commercial farmers, the members of the Commission included several Members of Parliament, as well as the president of the ZFU, Mr Makazire. The president of the ZFU has the important role of representing the interests of smallholders in the SSCAs, CAs and the RAs.

According to the terms of reference the role of the Commission is to analyse the existing systems of land tenure together with associated problems and development trends. In addition the Commission was asked to draw up recommendations for an alternative land policy and proposals as to how it can be operationalised in institutional and legal terms (cf. Terms of Reference in Appendix 3.2). Initially it was intended that the Land Tenure Commission would submit its report in August 1994, but its publication has been delayed on numerous occasions. In December the Commission finally presented an overview of the concept and of its preliminary conclusions to the government. However, none of the report’s substance has yet filtered out to the outside world. If, in spite of speculation to the contrary, the report is indeed eventually published, for political reasons that will undoubtedly not take place until after the elections. Observers are eager to see the report, not so much for its analysis of the problem, but for its recommendations on future political action and the medium to long-term objectives.

Unlike the government, the principal agricultural interest groups have already expressed their views or submitted policy documents on the subject of land-tenure reform. The CFU’s proposals are not very convincing for it of course believes that individual freeholds would be the most appropriate form of land tenure in the LSCAs, in accordance with the interests of its own members. At the same time it does not have any separate proposals to offer for the smallholders, whom it does not represent.

The ZFU on the other hand presented a detailed policy document on national land-tenure policy in February 1994. Taking account of the particular problems of the individual subsectors the ZFU comes to the conclusion that the existing systems of land tenure in the CAs and the RAs do not ensure that development will either be ecologically, socially or economically sustainable. The basic position of the ZFU on this question is that only a system of tenure based upon secure individual property rights will ensure that individuals have a sufficiently long-term perspective for their land use. It believes that such a long-term perspective, in turn, is a fundamental prerequisite for individuals to undertake investment in a way which is economically, ecologically and socially appropriate and that it is therefore a crucial element in the implementation of sustainable agricultural development. All in all, their basic ideology is heavily influenced by neoclassical concepts of the theory of property rights. The arguments according to which individualisation clarifies accountability for resource utilisation and enables arable land to be mortgaged for financing purposes also come under this heading.

In contrast to its basic ideology, the ZFU’s policy recommendations are more pragmatic. The ZFU is aware that the desired transition can only be achieved in the long term, but it pleads for its initiation in a focused way.

In essence a policy of selective individualisation and "titling" of arable land, concentrated on the most productive farmers, is recommended for the CAs. The farmers would have to share the cost of "titling" by paying fees. The ZFU believes that the system of common use should be continued for pasture land. It proposes that local Farmers’ Committees or Land Boards, composed of VIDCO chairmen and councillors to represent the formal local administration, and kraal heads and chiefs to represent the traditional informal community, should be responsible for administering grazing rights and for monitoring compliance with land-use rules. In order to achieve a more equal and fairer distribution of land the ZFU proposes that land should be reallocated within the CAs. In addition, in order to ensure that the reallocation achieves the required distribution, the principle of imposing sanctions against disposals by the Land Boards should be considered. However, in general land sales should be formally allowed under the proposed system. The ZFU has not indicated what form the sanctions would take. Taxation, e.g. on the basis of a progressive local purchase or sales tax related to the size of the plot, would certainly be one option.

The same system of land tenure ought to be introduced in the RAs, thereby replacing the unsuitable permit system, according to the ZFU’s proposals. The ZFU proposes that a lease system, incorporating a purchase option in respect of residential and arable land, should operate for a transitional period. Evidence that the farmer has practised sustainable agriculture could be required before the purchase option could be exercised. Individual rights of disposition in respect of pasture should, say the proposals, be granted where permitted by conditions in the region. The ZFU proposes that this package of amendments should be incorporated immediately in plans for forthcoming resettlements.

On the basis of experience gained in the SSCAs the ZFU also highlights important complementary requirements in addition to the system of land tenure as such, which it believes should be met if the objective of deriving as widespread a positive impact as possible from the reform is to be achieved. It points out the importance of an appropriate agricultural policy (pricing, marketing and credit policy), promotion of the institutional and administrative decentralisation of land tenure and land-use planning, and the government’s responsibility for creating a clear and efficient system of inheritance.

It remains to be seen to what extent the ZFU proposals will be incorporated in the Land Commission’s recommendations. However, whatever those recommendations, experts and observers expect only minor changes to be made to what has been a rather passive national land policy to date. Nobody would therefore be surprised if the report were to remain unpublished.

The international donor community has not so far provided any direct support for the concept of an active land policy. The Zimbabweans are currently trying to resolve what is an internal political issue themselves and have not, as far as we are aware, sought assistance from any donor organisation. Certain donors are only involved indirectly in their capacity as advisers to ministries. However, because of the extremely sensitive political nature of the issue, even advisers to the Ministry of Agriculture, such as Dr. Walker on behalf of GTZ, have only had limited access to channels of information and influence on key organisational levels as regards future land policy, e.g. the Land Commission. A means of exercising influence which is probably growing in importance and which, from the point of view of German development cooperation, is already being used by the FES, is to advise and cooperate with the ZFU. By involving the ZFU’s chief economist the FES currently has direct contact with the organisation’s senior officers. However, as the largest and most important NGO in Zimbabwe, the ZFU is very much in demand among other donor organisations as a point of contact, which does not make for easy cooperation.

If the GTZ intends to become more involved in Zimbabwean land policy in the future we would recommend that it undertakes two further studies.

Firstly an analysis of the expected impacts of implementing the ZFU’s proposals would be useful. This would enable information to be obtained about the advantages and disadvantages of the proposals and therefore about whether they should be promoted. The same study should of course also identify potential levels and starting-points for any such promotion.

Following on from the recommended special study on the Resettlement Program, we would advocate a second study to concentrate on opportunities for the political implementation of land tenure transition, that is, a study of the political economy of transition policies in the broader sense. Both studies would also be of great value as examples for other countries in Southern Africa, such as Namibia and South Africa. However, priority should be given to the second study because of its importance in relation to all reform and transition initiatives. This subject has not yet been studied in great depth, even in the context of the international academic, development-policy discussion on land tenure and transition processes.