Publications

LAND ISSUE IN ZAMBIA TODAY: POLITICAL-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS AND CST REFLECTION

In Zambia today discussion of the land issue heightened by two burning issues: poverty and hunger.  How can we have a land policy that is genuinely pro-poor, beneficial to the more than 80% of the population who live below the poverty line?  And how can we have a land policy that assures greater food security in a country that has been battling with serious hunger problems?

This brief paper looks at the political-economic factors surrounding land policy in Zambia and suggests some evaluations or guidelines for that policy from the perspective of the churches’ social teaching (CST). Since central to CST is an option for the poor, the questions raised in the analysis and the suggestions made in the recommendations will particularly focus on the impact of land policies on the poor.

Two points to note at the start:

·         Ownership of land in Zambia is still entirely in the hands of the Republican President (managed through the Commissioner of Lands).

·         Tenure (how an occupier holds the land) is under the current system either Customary Land (about 94% of the 752,000 square kilometres) or State Land (about 6%).

[In compiling of this paper, I acknowledge the excellent background papers prepared by the Zambia Land Alliance and the helpful conversations with the Zambian Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace.]

A.      Brief History of Land Policy in Zambia

Any look at Zambia’s land policies and arrangements must take into account the historical influence on the current situation, placing this within the regional context of the struggles in several countries to pursue acceptable land reform policies.  The conflictual Zimbabwean situation is well known, but struggles current or pending in South Africa, Namibia and Malawi also are key.

In pre-independence Zambia, land was held under customary tenure, supervised by traditional rulers (chiefs or chieftainesses) or through other authorities in the local community.  The coming of white settlers introduced freehold and leasehold tenure systems, with colonial administration designating as Crown Land the most fertile areas.  The indigenous people were confined to less fertile areas known as Reserve Lands and Trust Lands.  Because title was given to whites for Crown Land, it became more readily developed.

With independence (1964), many whites left the country but retained title to their land.  By the early 1970s, this land was converted to State Land.  Statutory leasehold was to be for a period of 99 years.  All land, including traditional land, was vested in the Republican President, “to hold it in perpetuity for and on behalf of the people of Zambia.”  Subsequent legislation restricted the transfer of land tenure to non-Zambians under strict conditions.

The Land Act of 1995, influenced by the liberalisation policy (SAP) enforced by the World Bank and IMF, opened the possibility for conversion of customary tenure into leasehold tenure through a process involving recommendations from Chiefs and District Councils.  Because tenure was assured (at least for 99 years), the expectation was for greater development of these lands, even by foreigners.

The Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace, and several other civil society groups, raised serious questions about the organisation and operation of this 1995 Act.  One major problem was that the Act itself was pushed through the Parliament without widespread public discussion.  Indeed, when the CCJP circulated copies of the bill before it was to be voted upon, many MPs vehemently objected that people in their constituency had received copies – although these documents were, of course public documents!  Because of controversy raised over the proposed bill, it was withdrawn.  But then a short time later, it was passed in a night session of Parliament and did indeed become law.

The 1995 Act still stands on the books, though there is renewed public discussion about whether it should be amended. In August 2002, the Government of Zambia agreed to consult the major stakeholders about the land policy.  Some of the problems currently experienced include the lack of clarity over some of the arrangements for involving local authorities’ consent for leasing land; absence of any mechanisms for measuring, monitoring and preventing environmental degradation; the minimal access to Land Tribunals to settle disputes; and the lack of stronger commitment to overcoming gender inequities regarding land tenure.

B.      Concerns about Land Policy

For purposes of our presentation here, we can list the following five areas of concern about land policy in order to raise the value questions which can be subjected to review according to the principles of the churches’ social teaching.

1.       Philosophy of Land

Under this title of “philosophy,” we can note the different understandings of land as held by Government and by a group of civil society organisations committed to land policy review.

Government’s “Draft Land Policy” statement (it could be called a “vision statement”) was begun to be prepared in July 1993 but only officially published in November 2002.  It states in its foreword:

The greatest resource that Zambia has is her land.  The Government has recognised the importance of this resource in the development of a strong and prosperous nation.  Zambia’s vision could be achieved through the sustainable utilisation of her land resources not only in the short term but also in the long term.  The task of the Government of the day, therefore, is to ensure that the people of Zambia are given an equal opportunity to access and utilise this resource.

It is interesting to note that the greatest resource is not people, but land!  It is the development of land, not people, that will lead to a strong and prosperous nation.  The people only come in at the end of the statement in their task of access and utilising the resource of land.

I do not want to push the implications of the wording of the statement too far, but simply to note at the outset that it would appear that in the Government’s view, expressed here at least, the people are subordinate to the land which in turn is subordinate to the overall economy.

Contrast this expression of land philosophy with that found in the Zambia Land Alliance’s position paper on land policy, drawn up in consultative fashion from September to December 202.  Here it is stated in the introduction:

For most poor people in developing countries like Zambia, land remains the primary means for shelter, generating a livelihood as well as the main vehicle to invest, accumulate wealth and transfer it between generations.  It affects, among other [things, a] household’s ability to engage in gainful economic activity (within and outside agriculture), both for subsistence and for the market, their social and economic status and often their collective identity, and their incentive to invest, and use their resource in a sustainable manner.

In this statement, one can see an emphasis upon people, and in particular an emphasis upon the poor.  In Zambia, some 80% of the population live below the poverty line.  Land is seen not primarily as an input into a prosperous economy but as an asset enabling a more full and sustainable livelihood of the majority of the people.  It even affects a community’s identity.

Again, without pushing the argument too far, it appears that civil society, while recognising the instrumental function of land in the operation of the economy, chooses to focus first on what land means to people, especially to poor people.

I believe that the implications of these two philosophies of land will become evident in the sections that follow.

2.       Need and Use of Land

The need and use of land follows from the philosophy.  Traditional use of land under the Customary Land tenure was seen as inefficient in that it did not encourage private ownership that might have attracted either national or foreign investors.  It was said that farmers (both corporate and individual) would not risk investing in development projects for the understandable fear that the land might at any time be removed from them. A need for improving food security is seen as one of the key driving factors for more efficient tenure of land.  Therefore the Government’s Draft Land Policy can say: “The high demand for land calls for the conversion of Customary Land into State Land to meet future land requirements.”

But the counter argument is made that Customary Land need not be converted to State Land so as to secure titles, but a more efficient means could be found to secure some form of title in the Customary Land itself.  In theory at least, this would assure more local community control over land, and possibly prevent alienation of land to outsiders at the expense of the local people, especially the poor.  This means that the key issue is more the delivery system, the actual allocation process with clear tenure, than the issue of ownership, the holding of title deeds, of the land.

3.  Ownership of Land

What does it mean in Zambia to say that all land is “owned by the President”?  This is a carryover from the colonial times when land was vested in the Governor General for the Crown.  Titles of tenure can be awarded for up to 99 years.  Among many consequences today of this legal fiction, two are outstanding:

First, local communities have no power over their land (even if they thought they did), since before anybody can be allocated land in a customary area the consent of the Commissioner of Lands (representative of the President) must be obtained.

Second, we have seen in recent years the political manipulation of land allocation for the purposes of securing votes.   For instance, during a 2001 political rally on the Copperbelt, President Chiluba even issued title deeds to sitting tenants of mining houses – over-riding the technical petitions of others for these titles.

Civil society has urged that a more fair understanding of ownership would be to vest land in the state, not in the President, with clear mechanism for distribution of the land.

4.       Gender Issues

The Government’s Draft Land Policy states the “current laws do not discriminate against anyone on the basis of gender.”  It is argued by civil society that this is misleading because customary laws and traditions do in fact discriminate.  One indication of this discrimination is that 90% of State Land is titled to men.  In some systems, married women need consent from their husbands in the application for land.  And most elders or officials involved in land allocation in villages are men (even though there may be a Chieftainess).

It is of course an acknowledged fact that most of the food in rural areas is grown by women.  Policy reform should take this into account for promoting greater food security and eventual eradication of poverty in the rural areas.

To deal with this situation, the Draft Policy Paper states that 30% of the land to be demarcated and allocated “is to be set aside for women and other vulnerable groups,” arguing that this policy will provide “an enabling environment for women, people with special needs and all disadvantaged groups to own land.”

Civil society has understandably reacted with two points.  First, by lumping women with anyone who is vulnerable, specially needy and disadvantaged, the policy seems to imply that being female is a physical or biological disadvantage!  Second, given the role of women in food production and the past discriminatory patterns, the policy should state that 50% (not 30%) of the land should be demarcated and allocated to women (with another 10% to vulnerable groups with special needs).

5.       Allocation to Foreigners

This last concern regarding the giving of title to lands to foreign nationals is, of course, one of the most controverted issues.  It has been a long-standing dispute, both regarding the basic acceptance of whether foreigners should be able to secure tenure to land in Zambia and regarding the purpose to which they put these lands to use.  But the dispute has of late become even more heated because of the current Zimbabwe situation and the petition of many white farmers from that country to secure land in Zambia.

In recent months, several Government ministers have stated their welcome to these white farmers, assuring them they may choose where they want to locate. The Vice President was reported several months ago to have said that 125 white farmers were in the Northern Province carrying out soil investigations.  Just last month, BBC reported that a total of 90,000 hectares are to be allocated to commercial farmers.

The main reason given in public for allowing in these farmers is the need to get help in growing food at a time when Zambia has been suffering extreme food shortages.  (The Minster of Agriculture even accused Zambian farmers of contributing to food shortages through laziness!)

But many very serious policy questions remain unanswered.  Is there any limitation on land purchase by foreigners, both at national and local levels? Will foreigners secure the most fertile land, at the expense of poor Zambian farmers?  Will their picking of the land of their choice mean that some current land dwellers would be evicted?  With what recourse or assistance for those evicted?  What assurance is there that maize will be grown to benefit our food security or will high income earning crops such as tobacco, flowers, luxury vegetables, etc., be grown for export?  What are the conditions for workers salaries, environmental protection, etc.?

Civil society is not saying an outright “no” to the purchase of Zambian lands by foreigners.  But it is strongly urging a more rigourous, participative and transparent mechanism to be put in place to manage the process, in the context of an overall land policy oriented to contribute genuinely to the betterment of the Zambian people

C.      A Value Framework for Land Policy

Given the historical background of the current land issue in Zambia and the set of specific concerns around land policy, it is important now to make some value analysis of both the situation and the possible response.  I propose that some principles from the churches’ social teaching can be helpful in providing the framework for our value discussion.

By the “churches’ social teaching” (CST), I mean the body of social wisdom about the human person in community and the structures and practices that enable the person to come to full human development.  That wisdom is found in our scriptures (the Bible), in the reflections of theologians, in the statements of church organisations and in the witness of committed men and women.  The CST is not so much a set of answers or detailed plans as a frame of questions and guiding principles and norms.  It has been described as “a light for our paths, not a roadmap for our journeys.”

It is my thesis that this CST does indeed provide a “value-added element” to public discussions, debates and decisions such as those going on now in Zambia (and elsewhere) over land policy.  By that I mean that this public process is enhanced by injection of the principles, norms and directives found in the social teaching.  The “value-added element” provides a framework within which to focus on what should be the priorities of policy based on the priorities of human society.

1.  Selected Principles

Before highlighting some elements in this CST frame, I want to draw attention to a list of values set down in the brochure of the Zambia Land Alliance.  The Alliance (which includes CCJP in its composition) describes its vision as: “A Zambia in which the rural poor have secured access and ownership of land for development.”  It states it believes in the following values:

·         Rural poor people’s participation

·         Accountability

·         Commitment

·         Self-reliance

·         Equity and fairness

·         Justice and human dignity

·         Impartiality

I believe that that list is a very good summary of the CST principles to be summarised below.

It is important to note, of course, that for African people, the tradition is that land is something sacred.  It is part of the gracious gift of God who provides for the people.  Thus traditionally the land belonged to the community, under the guardianship of the chief or chieftainess.  Individual families could use part of the communal land, with the expectation that they would cultivate it and stay there from one generation to another.  Other parts of the communal land were for the service of all or a reserve for future needs.

In Judeo-Christian biblical terms, the earth belongs to God the Creator and people are only stewards.  Leviticus 25:23 reminds the people that “Your land must not be sold on a permanent basis, because you do not own it; it belongs to God, and you are like foreigners who are allowed to make use of it.”  Moreover, land and its fruits should be equally and equitably shared.  Hence the practices such as the redistribution of land every Jubilee Year (Leviticus 25:28) and the leaving of some fruits for the poor after harvest (Deuteronomy 25:19-22).  Jesus’ respect and appreciation for land is evident in his many agricultural-based parables and in his special concern for the poor, most of who were landless.

In the documents of the church, the topic of land is usually treated in the discussion of property.  To briefly recall the basic teaching, the CST perspective is that property is subject to the common purpose of all created things, namely the benefit of all people.  The Second Vatican Council in its main document, The Church in the Modern World, stated quite plainly: “God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people” (GS 69). Paul VI could follow that up in his 1967 The Development of People with the re-affirmation of a long-held principle that large landed estates that “impede the general prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring hardships to people or are detrimental to the interests of the country” can in the name of the common good be expropriated by national authorities (PP 24).  John Paul II clarified that further by stating in his 1987 The Social Concerns of the Church that “Private property, in fact, is under a ‘social mortgage,’ which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods” (SRS 42).

In their 1992 Pastoral Letter The Future Is Ours, the Catholic Bishops of Zambia reminded policy makers and ordinary citizens of “the fundamental norm for judging the success of any economic reforms: they must serve all the people.” Therefore the privatisation process – which would eventually affect the land question – “must not concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few for their own benefit.”  (Future, 25-26)

One very clear summary of the CST on land is found in the 1980 statement of a group of bishops from the mid-western part of the United States.  I believe it has great relevance to the current discussion in Zambia (and wider in Africa).  In response to problems raised by land ownership and use, the bishops recommended ten principles of land stewardship – principles clearly biblical and in accord with statements of the Popes mentioned above:

·         The land is God’s.

·         People are God’s stewards on the land, co-creators with God in guiding the land’s productive power and in conserving the land’s natural gifts.

·         The land’s benefits are for everyone – both for the present and future generations.

·         The land should be distributed equitably.

·         The land should be conserved and restored.

·         Land-use planning must consider social and environmental impacts.

·         Land use should be appropriate to land quality; for example, prime farmland should not be used unnecessarily for urban expansion or highways.

·         The land should provide a moderate livelihood.

·         The land’s workers should be able to become the land’s owners.

·         The land’s mineral wealth should be shared.

2.  Policy Applications

Guided by these principles and by the biblical and documentary references outlined above, I see at least three major emphases that are relevant when we refer back to the issues raised in our discussion of Zambia’s land policy.  This is where I return to the “value-added element” crucial to the discussions, debates and decisions about public policy.

First, the land policy must be grounded on the recognition that land is not simply another economic commodity, but something very central to the well being of human society.  It is not to be bought and sold on simple market principles.  It is, indeed, something sacred since it is so essential to the well being of every woman and man.  This means that economic reform measures such as structural adjustment programmes (SAP) cannot be the primary determinant to land policy in a country like Zambia.  This calls, therefore, for a thorough review of the 1995 Land Act and all its implications.

Second, a primary concern for the poor in Zambia (the overwhelming majority of Zambians!) must guide the land policies.  Land tenure must always be designed in ways that do not discriminate against the poor – either because of cumbersome and expensive management requirements to fulfill or because available good land is being bought up by foreign investors who have access to ready cash.  Allocation of titles to land, whether Customary or State, must respect the rights and needs of local communities and especially the poor – of whom the largest number are women.

Third, land policies must be holistic, that is, they must be integrated into larger development planning that takes account of issues like food security, employment, environmental concerns, community identity, regional infrastructure, etc.  For example, when the PRSP speaks of a commitment to “expand lands used for agriculture by identifying new farm blocks,” plans should be designed in this holistic fashion.

Conclusion

As the Zambian Government now designates agriculture as the number one national priority, it is clear that the land policy moves to the forefront in addressing current burning issues like poverty and hunger.  The churches’ social teaching has many significant things to say about these issues.  For this reason, I repeat my thesis: there is a value-added element in public discussions when the resources of CST provide a framework for making decisions and taking action.

Zambia can and should be an example to our neighbours in this critical area at this crucial moment.

RESOURCES

Government of Zambia, Ministry of Lands, The Draft Land Policy, November 2002.

Zambia Land Alliance, Civil Society Land Policy Review Committee, Initial Position Paper on the Draft Land Policy, December 2002.

Ephraim K. Munshifwa, The Draft Zambian Land Policy: Comments and Proposals to the Review Committee, January 2003.

BBC News Africa E-Mail, “Zambia Wants Farmers to Fight Famine,” 05 February 2003.

Catholic Agricultural and Rural Youth Movement, Land Tenure in Zambia, January 1993.-