On 8th October, an unexpected cabinet announcement laid out plans for a completely new tenure regime in the land reform areas. This was to provide a secure form of tenure arrangement; not necessarily title but with an arrangement that was to be ‘bankable’, allowing for collateral to support investment. It was to be implemented across land reform areas, with war veterans and women prioritised. The registration and granting of tenure rights was in turn expected to allow for sale and purchase by ‘indigenous’ Zimbabweans.
Many questions raised
The announcement has caused a huge amount of debate, raised many questions and quite a lot of consternation. Given its provenance (from cabinet) and timing (just before a major party gathering) it has been seen as politically significant, but the details remain very opaque. Many asked, if not freehold title, what would the secure tenure arrangement entail? Would it really be bankable given the objections that the bankers had made about even the revised 99-year lease? Would all prior offer letters, permits and leases become null and void, and would this registration and allocation process have to start from scratch, so affecting all the informal and semi-formal rental, lease and purchase agreements that have been put in place over the last decades? Would purchase be allowed for only a single farm, or many? Should the proposal be applied to all land reform land, or only in practice A2 land? Who was to be defined as ‘indigenous’, does this include white Zimbabweans? How would the process guard against proxies acting on behalf of others, including investors from South Africa and beyond? And so on.
This article is from Zimbabweland, a blog written by IDS Research Fellow Ian Scoones. Zimbabweland focuses on issues related to rural livelihoods and land reform in Zimbabwe.
