ARnet Report -

Regional Network Meeting on Land Reform Southern African Region
Johannesburg, South Africa
28-29 October 1997

A. Introduction

On October 28 and 29, a meeting took place in Johannesburg, South Africa, arranged by Mafisa, the IFAD/UNRISD appointed regional coordinator for Southern and Eastern Africa. It was attended by eight individuals representing Mafisa, UNRISD, the National Land Committee (South Africa), Zimbabwe Environmental Research Organisation (Zimbabwe), and Associação Rural de Ajuda Mútua (Mozambique).

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the objectives, methodology and outputs of the project on Grassroots Initiative and Knowledge Network for Land Reform in Developing Countries. The meeting initiated one of the primary aims of the project, namely to encourage debate, to exchange information, and to promote networking around issues of rural poverty and redistribution.

Participants were informed by Mr. Krishna Ghimire of UNRISD about the practical implementation of the project, which will span two phases. The first phase, of which this meeting is part, will take place over a period of eighteen months, and has two primary objectives: · Identifying and analysing existing civil initiatives and organisations in the Southern and Eastern African region, through a combination of secondary literature reviews, workshops with relevant groups, and the intensive use of a questionnaire. · The results of the former will be used to establish a Knowledge Network, which will involve a minimum of three countries in the region.

The second phase of the project will begin in September 1998, and will involve four aspects: · Activate regional and national networks. · Establish and extend networks at grassroots level. · Continued thematic research in a number of chosen countries, focusing on a variety of diverse and promising civil initiatives, to establish why they succeed, what obstacles they face, and to what extent they can be replicated elsewhere. · Project planning, synthesis and finally dissemination of information.

After initial introductions, each organisation had an opportunity to make a presentation on the state of land reform and network initiatives in its respective country. During these presentations, several issues emerged which were common to all three the countries involved, including the central role of land reform in continued national socio-economic development; the complex legacy of past injustices; the fact that the process is largely state-driven; and, concomitant with that, the lagging pace of land reform.

National presentations on land reform

Mozambique

Oram, an NGO based in Maputo, has been involved with lobbying around land reform issues during the recent revision of the Land Law. Originally, the 1979 Land Law in Mozambique was written to function in a particular political climate, one that no longer prevailed. It was designed to operate in a one-party system, where all decisions on land distribution were taken on mainly political considerations and questions on who allocated land and on what basis, remained opaque.

Recognising that the issue of land is at the heart of Mozambican post-war recovery, the government returned its attention to land reform after the cessation of civil war. In July 1997 it passed a new Land Law, a translated copy of which was made available to participants. The new Law stipulated that all land remained the property of the state, but now recognised the land rights of individuals acquired through occupancy. Title can also be granted to communities through traditional structures (although Oram is concerned by the extent to which war destroyed these arrangements). The law has also granted women greater access to land.

Yet many issues remain which make continued land reform imperative: · The influx of South African commercial farmers into the Niassa province, and its implications for local access to land. · The role played by foreign investors in alliance with powerful local elites, in locking up huge tracts of land. · The problems faced by peasants even after they have acquired access to land, such as their need for implements, seed and emergency aid in a country vulnerable to natural and economic disasters.

These, and other issues like foreign debt and food security, have encouraged civil organisations like Oram to enmesh themselves in a series of overlapping national and regional networks.

Zimbabwe

In Zimbabwe too, land reform is in the process of changing focus. The central tenet has remained resettlement of homeless rural poor. Whereas initially this was driven by social considerations, the influence of international donors like the World Bank has shifted the emphasis to the economic. As in South Africa, the country has had to deal with the implications of basing land reform on a voluntary acquisition of land. Since 1992 the government has therefore made provision for compulsory acquisition of land from commercial farmers. In order to open up more vacant land for resettlement, the government is also attempting to move entire villages, rather than individuals or families.

Under these circumstances, Zero has identified some of the obstacles to land reform in Zimbabwe: · As in Mozambique, the role of influential individuals serving on the Land Distribution Committees, and the absence of any transparency in the process. · The unwillingness of the government to open at least some of its state farms to the redistribution process. · The bureaucratic and financial burden of subdividing and registering land. · Having to grapple with many of the same ideological presuppositions that have fed into land reform processes elsewhere, like doubts about the efficiency of communal ownership compared to freehold. · The underdeveloped nature of the NGO network focusing on land reform. There are few independent organisations that deal with issues of land, while donors are unwilling to fund land reform.

South Africa

Ownership and control of land are at the heart of the South African transformation, and since 1994 the country has on paper devised a visionary process of transforming relations in the countryside. The land reform process has three arms: restitution, redistribution and land tenure reform. The reality of land reform has proved, however, to be even more intractable than envisaged: · Like in Zimbabwe before 1992, political considerations have imposed a market-driven approach. As result, rising land prices have made the small subsidy granted to prospective buyers even more inadequate. · An organisational structure that could add financial support for these aspirant farmers, is absent in South Africa. · So is the efficient organisation of rural communities, who lack the skills to organise effectively and access the limited resources that are available. · The political commitment of the government is wavering, a huge obstacle where land reform is driven by the state. Even where such commitment exists, the government bureaucracy is inadequate. Thus of about 20,000 land claims lodged under the banner of restitution, only ten have been dealt with so far, with the cut-off date for claims looming. · As elsewhere in the region, the NGO capacity is sorely limited, and there is a pressing need for greater and more effective networking in the region. The National Land Committee is helping to spearhead attempts in this direction.

Methodology

Mafisa, working with the NLC, will act as the regional coordinator responsible for collating the results of the questionnaire and for drafting an analytical paper based on these results.

The NLC together with Nangoc (Namibia NGO Coalition) have undertaken to help consolidate a network of NGOs working in the area of land reform and food security in the SADC region. The network has already had one meeting and is in the process of being consolidated. It comprises NGOs from 11 countries in the SADC region. These are Tanzania, Angola, Malawi, Zambia, Botswana, Namibia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland and Lesotho.

It was agreed that the method of administering the questionnaire and writing the analytical paper should be done in a way that strengthens this emerging network while at the same time meeting the objectives of the Knowledge Network.

At the last meeting of the network basic data was collected relating to land reform policies, the extent and nature of civil society organisations working in each of these countries and the key issues they face. This data base will be made available for use by the Knowledge Network.

Because of the need to be inclusive and to consolidate the working of the regional network it was agreed to administer the questionnaire in each of the member countries. The final report will thus reflect a scan of land reform policies; civil society initiatives; some revealing, interesting and promising case studies from a number of these organisations; an assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of civil movements in these countries; and an outline of the key issues and needs facing these movements.

Within this framework, three countries will be subjected to more intensive analysis. These will be treated as in-depth cases of the issues being explored by this project. The three case countries will be Zimbabwe, Mozambique and South Africa. Systematic efforts will be made to ensure the questionnaire is more widely distributed in these countries. The analytical and comparative components of the final report will be deepened in the case of these case countries. This will require the interaction and networking with national and grassroots organisations, collection of relevant articles and "grey literature" (unpublished reports, project proposals, pamphlets etc) in these countries.

The NLC will act as the national organisation in South Africa. Zero will play this role in Zimbabwe and Oram in Mozambique.

It was noted that, given the time constraint, it will not be possible to administer the questionnaire at "grassroots" level in any of the countries involved. Civil society is made up of many layers. In most countries concerned this involves, in vertical order: 1. National organisation 2. Regional/provincial branches or affiliates or associates and other relevant institutions and organisations (such as women's movements, community conservation groups, landless people or squatter organisations etc) 3. Community based organisations 4. User groups at the local level It was agreed that, given the lack of time and logistical support, the questionnaire will be sent to organisations up to level 2. Where possible, and this will be the exception, the questionnaire will be administered at level 3.

The following targets were set for the number of questionnaires to be administered in this way in each country: Maximum Minimum · Zimbabwe 40 20 · Mozambique 200 50 · South Africa 150 75

The analytical paper will be sharpened after the February meeting in Rome by sending the questionnaire deeper into levels 3 and 4. It will be submitted to all participating organisations for comment and suggestions about how it can be refined. The analysis will be intensified on the basis of these comments, insights gained at the Rome conference, new literature collected, and questionnaires conducted amongst new groups.

Outputs

The following outputs will be ready by the time of the February meeting in Rome: 1. Analytical and overview paper as outlined above (this will be prepared in power point form for presentation). 2. Two or three promising examples from each country. 3. Photographs, videos, booklets, magazines for display in stalls. The following outputs will be prepared in the period between February and September: 1. Modified and adapted analytical and overview paper. 2. Country action plans for activities and projects to be developed during phase two.

Recommendations

Participants discussed the fact that this is a region where means of communications are often completely inadequate, due in part to geographic isolation and rural underdevelopment. Moreover, the existing NGO networks are often over-extended and woefully underfunded . Yet the project requires that national coordinators make available their limited time and resources towards establishing the Knowledge Network. After a discussion on the issue of what can realistically be achieved in a very short span of 6 weeks under these circumstances, it was recommended that: · In order for this activity to be completed in the limited time allotted, IFAD should make more adequate resources available during the first phase. Meanwhile, the three national coordinators now identified (NLC, ORAM and ZERO) will request the $1500 per country made available immediately by IFAD for purposes of mailing, translation, limited networking and the preparation of country action plans for the second phase. These funds will be crucial to the successful pursuit of the project, especially given the constraints of language, distance and communications in the region.

Participants discussed the need to balance the interest of against the need to meet the requirements of phase 1 in a way that will most benefit national organisations. This raised the issue of the number of participant countries. After due discussion, it was decided that: · For the successful pursuit of this project, the donor-driven methodology of the project should be adapted in ways that dove-tail with local needs and imperatives.

The questionnaire was also discussed in light of the specificity of regional needs and conditions. It was therefore decided that: · In both terminology and content, each national coordinator will adapt the given questionnaire to suit national conditions, and to help elucidate the process and structures of grass roots initiatives related to land reform in that country, while keeping within the parameters of the project as defined by IFAD/UNRISD.

Finally, participants agreed that in view of the fact that land reform is one of the single most important issues facing countries in Southern and Eastern Africa, the project's focus should not be limited to the outputs required for the IFAD conference in Rome. Therefore it was recommended that: · While producing the required output for that event, for the project to be truly meaningful within the context of regional debates, it should be driven by a process of continued research and interaction sponsored by IFAD and other organisations.

Timetable

In order to complete the tasks as set out by the project, the meeting agreed on the following deadlines:

28 Oct 1997 Identify regional and national coordinators. These organisations meet to discuss the scope and object of the project, to establish an acceptable methodology, to discuss and adapt the questionnaire to the specifics of the region, and to fix a timetable of progress. This will serve to initiate networking activities.

Nov. 1 1997 National coordinators will have studied the questionnaire, adapted it to their own country-specific needs, translated it where necessary (predominantly Mozambique) and will send it out to chosen civic organisations and initiatives directly related to land issues (see Decisions above).

Dec. 1 1997 At this point many or even most of the completed questionnaires will have returned. The national coordinators need to examine these, and where necessary, translate. They will also prepare a brief national overview which will discuss land reform policies, give an overview of civil organisations, their strengths and weaknesses, and have identified, based on the returned questionnaires, two or three interesting and promising case studies.

Dec. 15 1997 National coordinators will by this date pass on to the regional coordinator both their national overview (4-5 pages) and the returned questionnaires with appropriate translations.

8 Jan 1998 The regional coordinator will deliver to UNRISD a draft document of its regional analytical paper (30-40 pages), a progress report on networking in the region (4-5 pages), and two or three promising cases per country, identified in collaboration with the national coordinators. These will then be prepared by IFAD/UNRISD for the midterm meeting in February 1998.

Febr 1998 Rome conference of IFAD, where the regional coordinators and national coordinators will present their study, together with representatives from a few grassroot organisations involved in promising land reform initiatives.

End of April 1998 Regional analysis paper will be completed. Final action and research proposals will be completed, which can then be followed-up and supported in the second phase of the project. During this period, the regional coordinator will continue to liaise with their national counterparts. Regional networking will intensify. Interactions with grassroot organisations will continue, as will interaction upwards with UNRISD and IFAD. Work will continue both into the developing networks and into the evolving processes of land reform and civil organisation.

May 1998 Action proposals which had been finalised by national coordinators, will be discussed in a regional workshop, which is to function as a follow-up and report-back session to the Rome conference. This workshop may be arranged in collaboration with the National Land Committee's own regional networking activities.

1 Sept 1998 Second phase is initiated when detailed action programmes are launched, with the support of IFAD, UNRISD and other organisations.

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Mafisa  
Peter John Massyn
Eddie Koch
Andrea van Niekerk

UNRISD  
Krishna Ghimire

ZERO    (Zimbabwe Environmental Research Organisation)
Nelson Marongwe

ORAM    (Associação Rural de Ajuda Mútua)
Paulo Cuinica

National Land Committee
Brendan Pearce
Mokomane Mekgoe