Irish NGO Placement

Masters in Development Practice

TCD / UCD

Concern

‘Land Grabs: What is the economic value of Certificates of

Ownership and do they provide any protections against land

grabs?’

10th April 2015

Michael Baylen Campbell

&

Heidi Molloy

Module Coordinator: Dr. Susan Murphy

Concern Supervisor: Chris Pain

Index:

1.0 Executive Summary

2.0 Methodology

3.0 Introduction

4.0 General Discussion on Land Grabs

5.0 The Role of the State

6.0 Codes of Conduct

7.0 Customary Land Rights

8.0 Theoretical Debate

9.0 Tanzanian Context

10.0 Conclusions/Recommendations

11.0 Bibliography

Executive Summary

The phrase ‘land grab’ was originally coined by activists who were opposed to these

transactions for environmental and agrarian perspectives however it is now becoming de-

politicised and part of mainstream development language with regards to the extension of the

capitalist agrarian industry. Traditionally when we think of global land grabs we think of

trans-national commercial land transactions which are related to the production and sale of

food and bio-fuels. The actors that come to mind are usually national governments in finance

rich, resource poor countries who are looking to finance poor, resource rich countries to

secure their own food and energy needs. In reality the processes and actors involved are far

more complex and interconnected than first appears. This paper explores some of these

phenomenons in detail, looking into the role of the State in facilitating these transactions and

the role it can play in protecting against the negative impacts that the transactions can have on

local communities. We also discuss the introduction of Codes of Conduct and discuss how

these fall short in addressing the issue. The main body of the paper is concerned with

discussing the two main schools of thought with regards to issuing individual or community

land rights to the poor. This discussion is based upon the work of Hernando De Soto on the

one side who has been influential in the policies of The World Bank and others in pushing for

the expansion of the privatised property or singular systems common to the global North, and

Howard Stein as a basis on the other side, arguing against the issuing of these rights which

fall out of context of the existing systems in place in the States in question which are usually

binary systems. In short our conclusions are that the context in which these certificates of

land ownership are granted in is vital. Research has shown that land transfers can be erratic

within communal settings and strained institutions are unlikely to prioritize updating small-

scale rural titles that customary land rights are far from sufficient to protecting rural

communities against land grabs. Further we established through examination of the literature

that setting aside traditional power structures and advocating for a strictly singular system

would entail abandoning pre-existing land rights and inevitably social and cultural norms

within rural communities. From our interpretation of the literature the strengthening of one

system over the other could result in negative serious socio-economic impacts. We recognise

that the State can play an important role in the types of policies that they implement and the

role they play in either the protection or the violations of the rights of their citizens. What’s

more, the strength of any land rights system either customary or privatised, binary or singular

will continue to be tested as long as corporations vie for foreign land and states are seeking

investment. We found that in the end dispossession and displacement were occurring in both

places where people have no clear secure land rights as well as in places where they have

very clear rights.

Methodology

This study was based upon a review of the literature regarding land grabs. We began with our

analysis of Concerns Worldwide’s grey, and policy literature and framed our research within

their livelihoods framework and their definitions of the ‘extreme poor’. We then following a

request from Concern Worldwide began with an analysis of Concerns programs in Tanzania

where they were involved in the issuing of both Certificates of Customary Rights of

Ownership (CCROs) and individual land rights certificates and the criticisms that they came

under from economist Howard Stein. In order to balance the argument we looked to the other

side of the argument namely the work of Hernando De Soto and the policies of the World

Bank. We then set about our search of the expanded literature. We used a number of

databases including UCD and TCD online libraries and Google Scholar. We used key word

searches with words such as ‘Land Grab’, ‘titling’, ‘CCROs’ and ‘Tanzania’ among others.

We then used our discretion to narrow the search. We also used the bibliographies of the

papers that we found particularly useful in our analysis of the subject area.

Introduction:

In today’s world where population rates are rapidly increasing and food security is a

growing issue the acquisition of land is different from its previous forms in that it is fuelled

by states’ necessity to provide basic needs to their domestic populations. The practice of

‘land grabbing’ as it has been termed has become a direct threat to the livelihoods of

impoverished communities across the globe who are threatened to be pushed off their land as

a result of land grabs. Momentum is building behind this apparently new idea that large

holdings outside one’s own borders are needed in order to sustain one’s own populations and

as such we see an increasing number of national governments in finance rich, resource poor

countries who are looking to finance poor, resource rich countries to secure their own food

and energy needs. (Borras Jr and Franco., 2010)

‘Land grabbing’ is defined in the Tirana Declaration (2011) as acquisition or concessions of

land that are one or more of the following:

“in violation of human rights, particularly the equal rights of women; (ii) not based

on free, prior and informed consent of the affected land-users; (iii) not based on a thorough

assessment, or are in disregard of social, economic and environmental impacts, including the

way they are gendered; (iv) not based on transparent contracts that specify clear and binding

commitments about activities, employment and benefits sharing, and; (v) not based on

effective democratic planning, independent oversight and meaningful participation.“

The Scale of foreign investment in lands in parts of the world such as Sub-Saharan

Africa and parts of Asia have skyrocketed over the past two decades. A study suggests that

between 51 and 63 million hectares (ha) of land were purchased or leased as apart by foreign

entities between 2008 and 2010 alone. (Cotula, 2012) Countries like Tanzania, Madagascar,

Sudan, South Sudan, and many others are among the most affected. Large corporations enter

a country purchase or establish long-term leases via the government. There are other forms of

land grabbing where corporations invest in local entities until they become majority

stakeholders and can dictate the actions of the entities as a whole. (Cotula, 2012) There is

also the issue of large scale land acquisition for conservation and the idea that ecotourism can

provide the answer to sustainable development and an improvement in livelihoods for local

communities as well as the idea that one can ‘offset’ one’s own ecological footprint through

the financing or support of conservation projects elsewhere. Sustainability, conservation and

biodiversity are becoming commodified with international actors as well as national

governments at the forefront of the process. (Corson and MacDonald, 2012)

While land grabbing occurs in different forms this research is primarily focused on

the effects of land grabs on the livelihoods of small-scale and traditional landholders in

instances where their land is seized. The research will aim to determine the effectiveness of

issuing certificates of ownership to landholders as a form of protection from land grabs. Land

rights and land tenure have been thrust into the centre of the land grab debate as the scale of

the phenomenon has increased with time. Small-scale and traditional landholders are often

those most vulnerable who are then pushed off of their land with little or no compensation.

The issuing of land rights to small-scale and traditional landholders is seen to prevent

dislocation of communities.

In doing this we will begin with a discussion of land-grabbing as a practice globally.

This will highlight the effects on rural livelihoods and the role of the state in protecting in

protecting individual rights. Next, will be an analysis of the two main schools of thought on

the issue. This will highlight the development of the liberal land rights systems in place today

and their applicability internationally; focusing on the role of a state’s cultural and historical

context in relation to the development of land rights systems. In order to better contextualize

the analysis the discussion will then be applied to the case of Tanzania and the Concern

Worldwide land rights programs in the country. Finally, we will draw our conclusions and

outline any recommendations that we may have.

General Discussion on Land Grabs:

Zoomers (2010) discusses land grabs as the ‘foreignisation of space’ which provides

benefits and costs to host countries. As mentioned above, foreign direct investment in lands

for food production is the most frequent process by which land grabs occur. Other forms

include foreign direct investment for bio-fuels, green-grabbing or blue-grabbing, the creation

of special economic zones, tourist complexes, residential migration, and land purchases by

migrants in their home countries. (Zoomers, 2010) While all these forms have different goals

they marginally result in similar outcomes upon the livelihoods of those residing on the land.

Assumed positive effects include an increased level of investment and thus foreign

currency within a country’s economy as well as the possibility of new market development,

employment opportunities, and infrastructure development. While possible these benefits do

not occur in many cases. As mentioned communities are often displaced as a result of large-

scale land deals. Moreover, increased employment opportunities don’t materialise due to a

mismatch in skills or the importing of foreign labor. The instability created by such projects

also result in community backlash, increased crime, and other pervasive social side effects.

(Zoomers, 2010)

Regardless of the effects, the practice land grabbing is only growing in intensity as

“the richness and fertility of African soil, coupled with the financial turnover and economic

viability in investment in the continent has led to a race to acquire African land”. (Smis,

Cambou et al., 2013) This agenda was set into stone in the 1990s with the implementation of

the Market-Led Agrarian Reform (MLAR) approach created by the World Bank. In the years

that followed land rights for small-scale farmers came to the forefront of the issue as civil

society groups and international bodies advocated for the prioritization of human rights over

economic growth (McKeon, 2013). The protection of land tenure for impoverished rural

agricultural workers has since become a priority among states internationally. The Rio +20

Conference in 2012 recognized the protection of land tenure as a component of promoting

sustainable development globally (United Nations, 2012).

This has primarily been a result on the ground as NGOs and other groups have

witnessed the detrimental effects land grabs on the lives of impoverished rural communities.

Rural communities are highly dependent upon agricultural activities to sustain their

livelihoods; and as already noted when displaced they become increasingly susceptible to fall

into poverty. Women are often more adversely affected by land deals than their male

counterparts, specifically in the Sub-Saharan African context where “poor rural women face

disadvantages in land access and ownership in both customary and formal title systems, even

prior to a deal”. (Behrman, Meizen-Dick et al., 2011) Gender empowerment plays a crucial

role in development as studies have proven that women are more likely to allocate income

towards education and healthcare more so than men. (Behrman, Meizen-Dick et al., 2011)

Land grabs are most common where corrupt of indebted governments with little ability to

regulate or protect the poorest communities. (Borras, Hall et al., 2011) Some land is cleared

of existing inhabitants but not yet used. Often times buyers are waiting for next crisis to hit

and have bought the land in anticipation. (Borras, Hall et al., 2011)

The Role of the state:

The role of the State varies depending on whether they see the processes of large-

scale land acquisition as an opportunity to further development or a threat to local

communities and livelihoods. Borras and Franco et al (2013) claim that there are three main

political tendencies where states are concerned; they will either regulate in order to facilitate

investment in agriculture and large scale land transactions; or they may regulate in order to

mitigate the adverse impacts of these transactions and at the same time maximize the

opportunities of land deals; and regulate to stop and rollback land grabs. The State’s role in

the facilitation of these large scale land acquisitions is major and ultimately a fundamental

aspect in their progress. It falls on the State to initially provide the reasoning or justification

of the need for large scale land investment after which they must then reclassify or define

where the so called ‘marginal’ land or ‘underutilised’, ‘empty’ land. Only then can they

identify suitable tracts of land for acquisition and re-allocation to investors. (Borras, Franco

et al., 2013)

In these situations where the State is the facilitator of these land deals we see a

number of trends emerging. The way in which the land for investment is selected negatively

impacts those most vulnerable or already marginalised. Generally where there is no formal

ownership in place the State can declare it to be State land with little resistance, similarly

where there are no significant formal settlements or big farms recorded on the census data the

State can declare the land not used and as such they can designate it for reallocation and

‘development’. (Borras, Franco et al., 2013) We also often see the view reflected that any

harm that is caused by these deals is merely collateral damage and that it can be addressed by

‘good’ governance institutions however this is rarely the case. (Borras, Franco et al., 2013)

Of course the role of the State need not always be menacing. In situations where the

State is opposed to these transactions and implements policies intended to protect against or

prevent land grabs there are a number of avenues that the State can take. Civil society and

local governments can help to build critical links to local communities in three ways,

educating about rights; negotiate, implement and monitor investment projects and act as

watchdogs. (Borras, Franco et al., 2013)

Codes of Conduct:

In an attempt to mitigate the negative effects of these transactions particularly on the

poor and vulnerable within States the World Bank proposed a set of codes upon which these

transactions ought to be based. These Codes of Conduct (COC) were based around a

consolidation of the land grab agenda. They were intended to unite multiple stakeholders

around a set of basic best principals – an international code of conduct – based upon capitalist

economic development. The rhetoric that came through in the COCs is that the problem is not

one of land problem rather it is an investment problem that could be addressed with large

scale investment seen as solution to rural poor. (Borras Jr and Franco., 2010) The arguments

for these COCs revolve around the need for better management of so called ‘reserve

agricultural land’ and the untapped resource rehabilitating concerned with ‘degraded land’.

As development is seen here as a solution a two pronged approach is proposed which

includes the creation of a favourable policy environment in the location State and an

international COC to which investors agree to comply. (Borras Jr and Franco., 2010) The

problem with these proposals however, is that there is a danger that they will create a

diversion from the real issue. While they were promoted to produce best possible outcomes

and fair as possible transactions what we in fact see is that these COC’s provide a space for

negotiations between the rural poor on the one hand and on the other the land deal drivers and

promoters of foreign, local, and national governments, meaning that there is an inherent

imbalance of power. Borras and Franco (2010) argue that the likelihood that large sale land

transactions undermine the poor’s rights to land access is seen as a mere side effect to the

essentially beneficial ‘cure’ and as such a COC framed response should not even be used as a

2nd best approach as it will not block further land grabs.

Customary land rights systems:

Customary land rights systems in much of Sub-Saharan Africa contain a whole set of

economic, social, and cultural rights within themselves which work to provide for the

protection of small-scale and traditional landholders. These are systems that go beyond

governance and are more deeply imbedded in tribal or communal relations which many rural

communities may adhere more to than that of the state. Customary rights have been adopted

to some degree in most African states, however the strength of these rights are being

continually tests and often defeated as traditional communities are pushed off their land in the

name of economic growth. (Smis, Cambou et al., 2013)

While customary rights uphold longstanding communal structures and provide many

protections they are not without fault, specifically in regards to gender. As mentioned above,

women have less access to solidifying their own land rights. Patriarchal traditional power

structures dictate land tenure to that of their husband or that of the closest related male

relative. Women’s land rights are generally determined by their marital status regardless of

the division of labour or daily roles of the family members. (Koopman and Ibamar, 2012 )

Thus, women are unable or reluctant to posit ownership of their land. As a result of this

dynamic, even when communities or families are compensated for their land female heads of

household rarely receive those funds. (Behrman, Meizen-Dick et al., 2011)

These factors form part of the rational which has influenced NGOs, international

organizations and many scholars to advocate for the development of more western and

liberal land rights systems in the regions in order to protect the livelihoods of the poor.

Beyond providing protection from being pushed off their land this approach aims to empower

the poor by giving landholders all the rights that come with land ownership including,

gaining access to capital. The implementation of such programs has resulted in varying

levels of success in different states.

Through our research we have concluded that the historical and political context in

which land rights systems are being built are directly linked to the success of these types of

programs. For the sake of this research we have broken the discussion between ‘binary’ and

‘singular’ systems. Binary systems being cases where a pre-existing land tenure system

predating the state is still in place (tribal or communal) while singular systems would systems

like that of the United States where land rights systems we established uniformly under the

guise of the state. It is in this distinction that we have approached our analysis. Customary

land rights systems exceed the western perception of land ownership as land is a facet of

tribal culture upon which the identities of entire communities are bound. These systems

usually limit independent the sale of individual plots of land within the communal territory. It

is here where the distinction between binary and singular systems rests. Moreover this is

where the academic and practical debate on the issuing of individual land rights is centred as

traditional lifestyles and principles are being challenged by the effects of globalization. As

Lawry writes, “the global community should focus less on creating rights that don’t exist and

more on protecting and deepening the rights that already do”. It is our goal to determine the

validity of this statement and how it applies to the greater context of the issuing of individual

land rights. In prioritizing the livelihoods of the rural poor one must consider if it is more

beneficial to strengthen and widen the binary system already in place or to advocate for the

widespread implementation of a singular system.

Theoretical Debate:

As previously mentioned, the scholarly debates on the issuing of issuing land rights

have been dominated by the works of Hernando De Soto and other scholars who advocates

for the issuing of individual land rights. This has been the approach that was adopted into the

policies of the World Bank, and many NGOs over the past decade.

De Soto’s work focuses on the existence of the ‘extra-legal’ system or informal land

sector and the absorption of this system into the formal land sector in various cases like that

of the US, post-soviet states, and post-war Europe. His work discusses the need for legal

structures to adopt the extra-legal structures through accepting social contracts and other

accepted agreements into law as a way to create an all inclusive land rights system. He

advocates for this through legal reform to allow for impoverished or marginalized

communities to gain access to “legal property mechanisms necessary to generate capital”.

(De Soto, 2001) This is the cornerstone argument for his debate. In 1980 De Soto created the

Institute for Liberty and Democracy (ILD) through which he set out to research the

‘extralegal’ economy in Peru. Since then De Soto and the ILD have been responsible for

initiating Peru’s economic reforms and played a role in the modernisation of its economic and

political system. They have also worked across a number of countries in Latin America, Asia,

and the Middle East where they are engaged in ‘the practical implementation of measures for

bringing the poor into the mainstream’.

Writing, “official law made no sense if a sizeable part of the population live outside of

it” in reference to the United States Homestead Act of 1862 which granted large plots of land

to settlers. This legitimization of extra-legal land agreements was immediate step towards

development in that it created capital and expanded markets. (De Soto, 2001) Land was

divided and allotted in the US using a uniform system of surveying in which land was broken

into linear plots allowing for simple lines of division and rights of ownership. Uniform

surveying and division of land is a key determinant in bringing together the extra-legal and

legal systems through the issuing of land rights. The west was primarily unsettled land and

territories that were inhabited were divided and allotted without consideration of residents

(Native Americans) that may have already been living upon the land. This allowed to the

rapid issuing of land rights. In the more settled, Eastern parts of the US issuing land rights

was much more difficult as simple lines of division were much more difficult to be drawn.

(De Soto, 2001)

While these aspects focus on the practicality of issuing land rights and the division of

land, they also allude to the challenges in applying this approach to the context of the

developing states in Sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. It is here where the binary and singular

system division is most visible. The liberal land systems in Western and developed states are

what we classify as singular systems. De Soto’s analysis of the US has a primary focus’ of

squatters settlers obtaining land rights. Under the Tomahawk Rights system which was

implemented in the mid 18th century squatters were able to retain or gain their land rights

under their guise of progress in that they had to show they were improving their land by

either clearing it or growing crops. (De Soto, 2001) Thus, underpinning a system which

prioritized improvement over protection.

De Soto’s interpretation is also formulated of land rights systems, while valid discuss

cases where there are high levels of homogeneity among the populations. Homogeneity is

determined by religious, political, social, or ethnic identity. A defining characteristic between

our classification of binary and singular system is that of the social contract individuals abide

by in legitimizing their land rights. He discusses in detail of the “emergence of extralegality”

in European states and the gradual merging of extralegal into the legal in the 17th and 18th

centuries. European states even at that time presented high level of homogeneity in regards

gaining legitimacy of their rights under the state. (De Soto, 2001) The same could be said in

the American context where settlers sought land rights under as issued by the government in

gaining legitimacy. In these cases homogeneity is characterized by a similar political and

social affiliations which aimed bringing about economic growth. The prioritization of

improvement over protection is no better outlined than in the case of the history of U.S.

government’s repressive and exclusionary of Native Americans’ land rights. This exclusion

of traditional landholders has been an inherent practice within the development of liberal land

rights systems and continues to play a role in the phenomenon of land grabbing.

Binary systems of land rights in Sub-Saharan Africa persist due to the duality that is

presented between traditional power structures and the state. Thus, De Soto’s stance on the

issuing of land rights to small-scale and traditional land holders seems to be a logical for

promoting land tenure security. This brings us back to Lawry’s stance to whether or not

strengthening the rights that communities already have would be more beneficial that issuing

new rights altogether? The work of Stein and Askew as well as many others outlines the

complexity of going about this in the presence of long standing binary systems.

Stein and Askew (2009) counter De Soto’s argument by discussing how it is based

upon the Classic works by Alchain (1965) and Demesetz (1964) on property rights which

hold that individual rights to use; sell; and transform property are central to economic

efficiency and progress. Individuals must be free to enter into contracts which can be

enforced. Stein and Askew argue that this is ‘based upon neo-classical notions that efficiency

can only be achieved by removing impediments to rational self seeking individuals.’ They

also points to the fact that De Soto’s work in Peru has not been successful in that it has not

increased accessibility of credit to poor because lending to poor is far too risky regardless as

to whether or not they have land to seize. (Stein and Askew, 2009) Foreclosures are not

something banks are in favour of doing and especially not in poor areas where property does

not hold high monetary value.

They continue to argue that reform outcomes are shaped by the characteristics of the

institutions that have existed previously in those locations. They view African ex-socialist

states as experiencing an ‘institutional hiatus’ which they explains to be when existing habits

of thought are no longer capable of coordinating economic activity due to a shift in the rules;

a change in the organisations; or an erosion in capabilities. (Stein and Askew, 2009)

Research carried out in Tanzania constitutes the basis for Stein and Askew’s (2009)

paper. In this he explains how under the Tanzanian 1999 Land Laws, customary rights to

village land had been given equal footing to statutory rights. Meaning that villagers now had

legal rights to their land yet despite this, villagers were being encouraged by external donors

to formalise individual land rights via titling. (Stein and Askew, 2009) They note that this

push towards formalisation is part of an agenda promoted by the World Bank and others in an

effort to extend privatisation and property rights in Africa and maintains that the World

Bank’s vision is driven by a misconceived neo-classical notion of markets as the spontaneous

interactions of self seeking individuals through flexible prices however this is not the case.

What we regularly find in these situations is monopsony. (Stein and Askew, 2009) They

conclude their argument by discussing how the evidence points to decreasing security and

increasing economic differentiation and pose the question of what it is that titling achieves? If

it does not bestow ownership because that was already in place through customary laws nor

does it facilitate access to loans then it seems that the only benefit that this lengthy and costly

process seems to have is that it gives individuals a sense of ownership and a feeling of

empowerment. (Stein and Askew, 2009)

Following on from this many argue that ‘Dispossession and displacement are

occurring both in places where people have no clear secure land rights as well as in places

where they have very clear rights.’ (Borras Jr and Franco., 2010) Much evidence that formal

land property rights no guarantee against dispossession but in fact appear to be at leading

edge of it. Borras and Franco (2010) argue that the issuing of these rights results in a

recalibration of an area of struggle where who has, or should have what rights, who counts,

who does not becomes the basis for conflict. They argue that there is a need for a deeper

understanding of the societies in which these rights are being issued and that while property

rights are necessary how these rights are interpreted, formulated, distributed and implemented

by numerous state and non state actors, often in line with their own agenda is an area that

needs to be addressed if the policies are to be considered ‘pro poor’. (Borras Jr and Franco.,

2010) A fundamental issue in understanding the politics of land property relations is to know

the direction of the transfer of effective control over land based wealth and power or lack of

control caused by land policy or the lack thereof. It is important to realise that land policy

does not emerge out of a vacuum it causes changes in the existing land based social relations.

Land law and policy are not self interpreting or self implementing; they are a dynamic, and

remain in continuum. (Borras Jr and Franco., 2010) As such they argue that the common

‘catch all’ recommendation that the majority should have land tenure security in midst of the

local land grab in order to protect themselves it at best a weak argument, and at worst that it

is neoliberal advocacy to privatise public land for reallocation of control. (Borras Jr and

Franco., 2010)

Harvey (2003) argues that capitalism needs ever expanding spaces where

accumulation by dispossession can occur, allowing market economy to spread. He refers to

the ‘ongoing process of commodification, privatisation, suppression of rights, appropriation

of assets and the creation of institutions to enable these processes’ as an example of

expanding capital into new spaces; and argues that market liberalisation will produce chronic

crisis of overaccumulation which require continual release of new assets that over

accumulated capital can seize and convert to profit. He claims that accumulation always

occurs at the expense of others. Historically we seen this is post-soviet states where land

rights were squandered under the weight of weak institutions and poor legal grounding. (De

Soto, 2001)

Bi-lateral and multi- lateral agencies such as World Bank and German GTZ have

begun in joining the chorus criticising large scale land acquisitions, however we find that

their policies provide a contradiction in that they include massive advocacy for privatisation

of land worldwide through policies and projects. (Borras Jr and Franco., 2010) There is a

distinct lack of truly pro poor frameworks and processes within the global land grab

discourse, procedures, and practices. Land grabbing not inevitable it can and should be

stopped. However prioritising a truly pro-poor outcome will mean adopting a human rights

based approach and taking the right to food and to land seriously. (Borras Jr and Franco.,

2010) Pro poor policy needs to be class conscious; historical to allow social justice; gender

sensitive; ethically sensitive; aimed at productivity increase; livelihood enhancing;

sustainable and diverse; and right securing in order for it to deliver on its promise. (Borras Jr

and Franco., 2010)

Tanzania Context:

Radical title over all land in Tanzania had since German colonial times been vested in

the State. (Stein and Askew, 2009) After independence in 1961 a number of villagisation

schemes were initiated. These schemes were based upon the ‘Ujamaa’ concept which formed

the basis of Tanzania’s African Socialism. (Tsikata, 2003) The concept and related schemes

arose out of a political theory aimed at nationalisation; whereby villages were merged, and

land was divided and redistributed. These settlement schemes collapsed in the 1980’s after

the Tanzanian government made agreements with the IMF to liberalise their economy which

included the 1983 National Agricultural policy of Tanzania moved to demarcate and title all

villages. However by 1992 still only 291 out of 10,832 had been issued with certificates; 151

of these were in one region; Mbeya. (Stein and Askew, 2009)

These State policies had clear implications on land relations. They favoured foreign

large farmers and TNC’s; they also benefitted local large farmers while smallholders and

peasant farmers were often excluded. (Tsikata, 2003) The Tanzanian government even began

running advertisements for investment in ‘favourable policy conditions’ with fertile ‘unused

or general land’ ignoring the rights of the citizens who were residing on these lands. (Stein

and Askew, 2009) To make matters worse the process by which one could secure title to ones

land was an expensive and lengthy one and as a result it also became an unequal one with

primarily elites being able to complete it. As such only large holders registered their land;

smallholders remained under customary land laws. This had implications on class relations,

gender relations, intergenerational relations and clan lineage. (Tsikata, 2003) It was not until

1999 that new land laws were introduced that gave customary land rights equal footing as

statutory land rights. (Stein and Askew, 2009) This marked the end of the socialist patterns of

production and distribution in Tanzania and can be seen as an institutional hiatus similar to

that experienced in the soviet bloc. (Stein and Askew, 2009) It also paved the way for the

binary system of land Tenure that now exists in Tanzania.

As we mentioned earlier NGOs, international organizations and many scholars have

been advocating for the development of more western and liberal land rights systems in the

regions in order to ‘protect the livelihoods of the poor’. One such intervention has been

undertaken by Concern Worldwide in Tanzania. They piloted and ran a project in which they

assisted villagers in obtaining Certificates of Customary Rights Ownerships (CCRO). The

aim of the project was to go beyond providing protection to individuals from being pushed

off their land and also aim to empower the poor by giving landholders all the rights that come

with land ownership including, gaining access to capital. The project has come under some

criticism from Stein and Askew (2009) who argue that the rhetoric put forward by the World

Bank and others is based on misconceived neo-classical ideals and that it has not resulted in

any benefits to individuals involved.

Much of the evidence we have come across through the course of our research comes

to similar conclusions as Stein and Askew. The consensus seems to be that providing title to

land rights in situations where there are not the proper institutions in place to uphold these

rights or in situations where there are conflicting land rights and customary systems already

existing does not lead to beneficial outcomes. Further we have found that in certain cases

issuing land rights, rather than protect from land grabs, can sometimes be at the forefront of

the process. There is agreement amongst the majority that a deeper understanding of land

relations and customary systems and practices are needed in order to be able to address the

situation and that imposing elements of a singular system upon an existing binary system is

not the answer.

Conclusions/Recommendations:

Through the course of our analysis we have highlighted the theoretical and practical

aspects of land grabbing and the issuing of land tenure rights to small-scale and traditional

landholders. In our discussion of De Soto’s The Mystery of Capital we can see the

importance of issuing and strengthening land rights for impoverished communities. However

through discussing his work’s interpretation of liberal land rights systems the scholarly

critiques of his approach we have come to several conclusions. It is clear that the issuing of

land rights can be tied to protecting human rights, however the sustainability of this approach

has been highly questioned from a practical standpoint. Research shows that land transfers

can be erratic within communal settings and strained institutions are unlikely to prioritize

updating small-scale rural titles (Luke, 2013).

In carrying out the research we encountered a lack of scholarly work specifically

focusing on small scale individual land right to rural communities, especially in the East

African context. Moreover, the implementation and outcomes of these programs is still in its

infancy. Inevitably the long-term effects of Concern’s programs’ and others like it will be

subject to local and individual maintenance of land titles; the ability of the systems in place to

adapt; and the state to uphold land rights. Through our analysis we can understand that with

the time division between binary and singular systems may erode with increased

development, however as it stands the division between singular and binary systems creates

issues to the issuing of individual land rights.

While we acknowledge that the issuing of individual land rights provides legal

protections on face value, there may mixed outcomes and varying effects. Providing

communities and individuals with land tenure seems an inherently positive step. It is however

important to remember that this process may seem to be more proactive than immediately

productive in terms of protecting livelihoods. Moreover, it has become clear that these rights

do not protect individuals within communities equally. Women’s right to land tenure is vital

for protecting livelihoods and bringing about development; yet is often unachievable.

Providing women with greater access to land tenure via individual rights or central role in

customary structures is essential.

We must also acknowledge that customary land rights are far from sufficient to

protecting rural communities against land grabs. The strength of customary land rights will

continue to be tested as long as corporations vie for foreign land and states are seeking

investment. The State can play an important role here in the types of policies that they

implement and the role they play in either the protection or the violations of the rights of their

citizens. It is here where States’ must take the charge in bridging the gaps between binary and

singular systems.

Yet, to support the setting aside traditional power structures and advocate for a strictly

singular system would entail abandoning pre-existing land rights and inevitably social and

cultural norms within rural communities. From our interpretation of the literature the

strengthening of one system over the other could result in negative serious socio-economic

impacts. As De Soto discusses the legal must envelop the extralegal, this is not an immediate

but evolutionary in nature.

Bibliography:

Alchian, A. (1965). Some Economics of Property Rights: Il Politico 30. . Indianapolis:

Liberty Press.

Behrman, J., R. Meizen-Dick and A. Quisumbing, R. (2011). The Gender Implications of

Large-Scale Land Deals. International Food Policy Research Institute.

Borras Jr, S. M. and J. Franco. (2010). Towards a Broader View of the Politics of Global

Land Grab: Rethinking Land Issues, Reframing Resistance. ICAS Working Paper Series(No.

001).

Borras, S. M., J. C. Franco and C. Wang (2013). The Challenge of Global Governance of

Land Grabbing: Changing International Agricultural Context and Competing Political Views

and Strategies. Globalizations 10(1) 161-179.

Borras, S. M., et al. (2011). Towards a better understanding of global land grabbing: an

editorial introduction. The Journal of Peasant Studies 38(2) 209-216.

Corson, C. and K. I. MacDonald (2012). Enclosing the global commons: the convention on

biological diversity and green grabbing. The Journal of Peasant Studies 39(2) 263-283.

Cotula, L. (2012). The international political economy of the global land rush: A critical

appraisal of trends, scale, geography and drivers. The Journal of Peasant Studies 39(3-4)

649-680.

De Soto, H. (2001). The Mystery of Capital: Why Capital Trumps in the West and Fails

Everywhere Else. Great Britain: Black Swan.

Demsetz, H. (1964). The Exchange and Enforcement of Property Rights. . Journal of Law

and Economics 3.

Harvey, D. (2003). The New Imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Koopman, J. and F. Ibamar (2012 ). Land Grabs, Women's Farming and Activism in Africa.

Land Deals Politics Institute.

Luke, Monika. (2013). Human Rights Assessment of German-Cambodian Land Rights

Program (LRP). Gernamn Institute for Human Rights.

McKeon, N. (2013). ‘One Does Not Sell the Land Upon Which the People Walk’: Land

Grabbing, Transnational Rural Social Movements, and Global Governance. Globalizations

10(1) 105-122.

Smis, S., D. Cambou and G. Ngende (2013). The Question of Land Grab in Africa and the

Indigenous Peoples’ Right to Traditional Lands, Territories and Resources. Loyola of Los

Angeles International and Comparative Law Review

35(493).

Stein, H. and K. Askew (2009). Embedded Institutions and Rural Transformation in

Tanzania:Privatizing Rural Property and Markets. Paper Prepared for the Fourth Meeting of

the Africa Task Force, Initiative for Policy Dialogue (Columbia University), Pretoria, South

Africa 9,10 July.

Tsikata, D. (2003). Securing Women's Interests within Land Tenure Reforms: Recent

Debates in Tanzania. Journal of Agrarian Change 3(1-2) 149-183.

United Nations. (2012). The Future We Want. Rio +20 United Nations Conference on

Sustainable Development.

Zoomers, A. (2010). Globalisation and the foreignisation of space: seven processes driving

the current global land grab. The Journal of Peasant Studies 37(2) 429-447.