REPORT ON WORKSHOP ON LAND USE AND VILLAGISATION IN by zzz22140

VIEWS: 21 PAGES: 11

									Kigali Villagisation Workshop Report




  REPORT ON THE WORKSHOP ON LAND USE

            AND VILLAGISATION IN RWANDA



                                          Kigali
                                   20-21 September1999




                                          by
                                    Robin Palmer
                              Land Policy Adviser, Africa
                                     Oxfam GB

                                       October 1999




                                         CONTENTS

                         1.   Prelude to the Workshop              2
                         2.   A new Land Law?                      3
                         3.   Planning and Objectives              3
                         4.   The Papers                           4
                         5.   Key Points made in the Discussions   5
                         6.   Recommendations                      5
                         7.   After the Workshop                   7
                         8.   Conclusions                          7
                              Appendix: Summaries of the Papers    8




                                                                       1
Kigali Villagisation Workshop Report


1. Prelude to the Workshop
The most important thing about this workshop was that it took place at all. It formed part of a
long and ongoing process to encourage and open up a debate on villagisation in Rwanda. The
terrain is self-evidently extremely sensitive.

A crucial moment was the appointment in February this year of Patricia Hajabakiga as
Secretary General in the newly created Ministry of Lands, Human Resettlement and
Environmental Protection. Ian Leggett, Oxfam GB‟s Regional Manager for East and Central
Africa, met her shortly afterwards and reported that she was very keen to learn of the
experiences of other countries wrestling with similarly contentious land issues. So I began
sending her materials which I thought might be of interest and relevance to Rwanda.

Earlier, Ian Leggett had commissioned a desk study of villagisation experiences in Tanzania,
Ethiopia and Mozambique by Christy Lorgen. Her Oxfam GB report entitled The
Experience of Villagisation: Lessons from Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Tanzania was
completed in January 1999. It was intended to „draw out issues from the experience of these
countries that are relevant to Rwanda or any other country considering or implementing a
villagisation policy today.‟ All who have read it have been impressed by the quality and
sensitivity of Christy‟s report and we are told that it has been well received within Rwandan
Government circles for what it was; not a rush to judgement but rather a contribution to the
debates, and a warning of how things can go badly wrong and how one might try to avoid
that happening. A fascinating by-product was the dialogue Christy had with a variety of
people who had been involved in villagisation elsewhere; none were neutral about it and all
had very strong opinions on the subject, even many years after the events.

The next step was the commissioning of local research on the implementation of villagisation
in some parts of Rwanda. This was undertaken by a local NGO, RISD (Rwanda Initiative for
Sustainable Development). RISD had begun working in Rwanda in July 1997 and was fully
committed to participatory approaches. Following a dialogue with Oxfam GB in Rwanda,
RISD conducted surveys in the préfectures of Kigali Rural, Ruhengeri, Gikongoro and Butare
between April and July 1999. It was necessary to lay the ground carefully and secure official
approval before the work could begin.

The idea of holding a workshop was to present the findings of the RISD surveys publicly and
in so doing to open up some space in which the contentious subject of villagisation could be
aired. This required a great deal of time and diplomacy and I was involved in some of the
pre-planning during a visit in August, in which I met Patricia Hajabakiga and those whom
RISD was encouraging to write papers for the workshop. The primary intention was to target
decision makers and implementers at national and local levels, but also to reach sympathetic
donors, like SIDA (who took the opportunity to invite the experienced academic and land
expert, Kjell Havnevik). I was involved in trying to bring comparative experience from
elsewhere; in the end Fidelus Mutakyamilwa from the Tanzanian Ministry of Lands and
Margaret Rugadya from the Uganda Land Alliance attended and gave papers. I also urged
DFID to send a representative and Paul Barbour, an economist attached to their relevant
Desk, attended.

There was some debate as to who should call the workshop: the Ministry, Oxfam or RISD?
There were good arguments for and against all three options. It was eventually concluded that
RISD should take the lead, and in the programme the workshop was described as „organised
by RISD in partnership with Oxfam GB.‟


                                                                                             2
Kigali Villagisation Workshop Report


2. A New Land Law?
In the meantime, Ian Leggett had attended a Rwanda day at DFID on 9 June, at which
DFID‟s draft Country Strategy Paper for Rwanda was tabled. This included a very precise
commitment to „proving secured access to land by reforming the land law in 1999/2000.‟ Ian
was told that this sentence - taken from a protocol signed by Clare Short and Paul Kagame in
April setting out the basis of a partnership between the two governments - was inserted at the
request of the Rwandan Government delegation. Patricia Hajabakiga told me in August that
it, together with a proposed National Land Policy, was inserted in the ESAF (Economic and
Structural Adjustment Facility) by the IMF and that both had to be enacted by the end of
2001. It is clear that there are those within government who want to push the land law
through quickly, and others who want to slow it down in order to consult more fully. Oxfam
supports the latter view, though naturally recognising the complexity of doing this, given
Rwanda‟s traumatic recent history.

On returning to England in September, I found a little more detail in an article by Saskia van
Hoyweghen, „The Urgency of Land and Agrarian Reform in Rwanda‟, African Affairs, 98,
July 1999, 353-72. She says the draft law on land use and rights had been agreed by cabinet
and discussed since May 1998 by an inter-ministerial commission, headed by Agriculture.
The UNDP/FAO consultant who prepared the law, O. Barrière, was said to believe that „there
is a need to move away from the Western notion of land as private property and return to the
“traditional” concept of patrimony.‟



3. Planning and Objectives
My advice in Kigali in August was that a workshop of this nature and importance required
very careful thought and planning. I was very impressed by the seriousness and commitment
of the RISD researchers. In the event, a planning group put in a great deal of hard work prior
to the event. In South Africa I received an email from Annie Kairaba of RISD to say that „the
interest of the international community and donors is overwhelmingly high. I only hope we
can manage to get the best out of the workshop.‟ It was decided to limit attendance to around
75 to make things tolerably manageable. There would be simultaneous French/English
translation, as is now customary in Rwanda. The stated objectives were:

General Objective
 To share information which can help to show the key concerns, ideas, positive and
   negative experiences among the various stakeholders in Rwanda on land use and
   villagisation.

Specific Objectives
 To gain a deeper understanding of positive and negative experiences of villagisation in
   Rwanda.
 To provide a platform for information exchange regarding the land and villagisation
   policy and their implementation.
 To stimulate discussion and dialogue on land use and villagisation.
 To make contributions to the development of land and villagisation policies in Rwanda.




                                                                                            3
Kigali Villagisation Workshop Report




4. The Papers
A very interesting and diverse range of papers was presented and discussed. This is the full
list in the order in which they were presented. A summary of each paper appears as an
Appendix to this Report (pp.8-10).



Author and Affiliation                         Title of Paper
Patricia Hajabakiga                            Policy on Human Settlement and Land Use
Secretary-General
Ministry of Lands, Human Resettlement and
Environmental Protection (MINITERE)
Eugène Rurangwa Burabyo                        Politique du Minitère en Matière des Terres
Directeur des Terres au MINITERE
James Kimonyo                                  Human Settlements (Habitat) Policy
Director of Human Settlements MINITERE
Médard Rutijanwa                               La Villagisation et l’Utilisation des Terres au
Member of Parliament (Deputé)                  Rwanda – Politique, Législation et
                                               Participation de la Population
Herman Musahara                                Villagisation and Land Use in the Context of
Department of Economics                        the Rwandan Economy
National University of Rwanda, Butare
Kalibana Marara                                Environmental Effects of Villagisation
National University of Rwanda, Butare          (presentation only – no paper)
Robin Palmer                                   Learning Lessons from Land Reform in
Land Policy Adviser, Oxfam GB                  Africa
Margaret Rugadya                               Land Reform: the Ugandan Experience
Programme Officer
Uganda Land Alliance
Fidelus Mutakyamilwa                           Villagisation in Tanzania
Land Development Services (Legal)
Ministry of Lands and Human Settlements
Development
Tanzania
David Musemakweli                              Towards a National Resettlement Policy –
Economic Adviser                               Imidugudu
Office of the Vice-President                   (paper only – no presentation)
RISD (Rwanda Initiative for Sustainable        Land Use and Villagisation in Rwanda
Development)




                                                                                             4
Kigali Villagisation Workshop Report


5. Key Points made in the Discussions
These were some of the key points made during discussion of the papers:

   Continuing with the status quo is not really an option.
   „There is no alternative‟ to villagisation.
   There is a need to learn lessons from success stories.
   Villagisation (and uncertainty over tenure) can have a negative impact on agricultural
    production.
   Solutions will not be found in agriculture alone; there is a need to look at exit options
    from agriculture.
   Trying to develop a land law without a land policy being in place is mistaken.
   People have to be convinced of the benefits of villagisation – and move voluntarily.
   Villagisation policy needs to be dynamic and to learn along the way.
   Middle class people dislike villages and only vulnerable groups go into them; this was
    originally stipulated by NGOs, who should now re-think. (One burgomaster rejected an
    entirely old people‟s village).
   Villages vary enormously between préfectures and some are not sustainable as they are;
    but there is much more careful planning of new villages now.
   Villagisation has increased risks for young women and girls because of the greater
    distances they have to travel.
   Diseases spread more quickly in villages.


6. Recommendations
On the second day, the workshop divided into 6 small groups to discuss issues in detail and
draft recommendations. A task force met the following day to synchronise and rationalise the
proposals from the groups and draw up recommendations for submission to government.
These were the recommendations:

A. Policy Process and Law
Believing that governments are well advised to consult widely on sensitive issues such as
land in order to legislate in ways that will command maximum support, the workshop
recommended that:
 the policy process should be inclusive;
 the existing settlement policy should be clarified;
 a new land law should be preceded by a national land policy.

Clarity and further consideration are also important with regard to:
 cultural, gender, environmental and economic issues;
 customary tenure;
 compensation;
 the respective roles of local authorities, beneficiaries and other stakeholders in the
   implementation of the villagisation policy.

B. Successful Villagisation
 The RISD research and analysis emphasised a lack of clarity on policy which needs to be
   addressed.




                                                                                           5
Kigali Villagisation Workshop Report



 Common guidelines regarding the implementation of Imidugudu policy and technical
  specifications should be developed, publicised to all stakeholders, and followed.
 There is need for further research/information so as to learn from past mistakes and assist
  in better implementation.

C. Planning Steps
 There should be detailed planning that gives broad guidelines to officials to take
   appropriate decisions on technical and specific issues according to the local context.
 The legal context of settlement should be clarified.
 The consultation process from the lowest administration levels should be formalised for
   effective implementation.
 To avoid uncertainties the plan for villagisation should be put in a timeframe which is
   made known to all.
 Mobilisation of resources and donor support is essential to the success of villagisation.

D. Imidugudu, Agriculture and the Environment
 Appropriate technologies such as organic farming, water harvesting, improved pit latrine
   planning, community forest management, and alternative energy resources (e.g. solar and
   biogas) should be explored, and information on those technologies made available to
   implementers and local authorities.
 Agriculture should be intensified in a sustainable, labour intensive and gender sensitive
   approach.
 Activation of agricultural extension services should be considered.
 Umudugudu should be of small size to avoid long distances from houses to farms and
   fields and the plot size should be big enough for housing, kitchen, garden, fruit trees, and
   small livestock
 Crop production should be specialised based on the suitability of the soil.
 Communities should be involved in land allocation so as to ensure social equity.

E. Cultural, Gender and Social Implications and Reconciliation
 Guidelines on villagisation should include considerations of social structure to ensure the
   mixing of social groups and different generations, to allow for social growth and
   encourage the development of social skills and sustainable livelihoods.
 Existing Imidugudu where such a mix is absent should be adjusted appropriately.
 Imidugudu should in future be recognised units of governance to enable dwellers to form
   social networks and institutions for a better livelihood.
 The roles and responsibilities of recently elected committees in the process of villagisation
   should be clarified.
 Formal and informal education systems have to consider that living in villages requires a
   different set of behaviour and skills than living individually, including:
a) organisational skills;
b) sharing of resources and assets;
c) social capital structures;
d) human rights, needs, responsibilities, and capacity;
e) tolerance;
f) sex education;
g) specialisation;
h) planning for the exit option from agriculture for future generations in a manner that does
    not break family ties.


                                                                                             6
Kigali Villagisation Workshop Report


7. After the Workshop
After the workshop I was involved in discussions with RISD together with Odhiambo
Anacleti (from Oxfam GB in Nairobi), who has extensive knowledge of villagisation in
Tanzania and previous experience of post-genocide Rwanda, and with Kjell Havnevik, of the
Swedish Agricultural University, Uppsala, who also has much experience of Tanzanian
villagisation. Both had made extremely valuable contributions to the workshop. I also had
further discussions with Oxfam GB colleagues in Kigali. These meetings helped me to
understand better some of the complexities and dynamics of what had gone on both before
and during the workshop.



8. Conclusions
As I said at the beginning of this report, it was very important that the workshop took place. It
helped make things public that needed to be made public. It was effective in providing a
forum for dialogue between decision makers at national and local levels, NGOs, academics,
and donors and local embassies. A high level of attendance was maintained throughout.
There was palpably keen interest shown in the subject. The papers covered an interesting
range of topics and were generally well presented. There was informed discussion about land
issues broadly. Moreover, the workshop was deliberately designed to allow space for
discussion and small group work. Such inclusiveness was important in principle and much
appreciated in practice, with the 6 thematic small groups all being characterised by genuine,
positive participation and by vigorous debate.

The Government ought have been encouraged by the general consensus that, given Rwanda‟s
particular history – but also its demographic problems of very longue durée – villagisation
may be the only viable approach, and attention should thus focus on implementation and on
learning the lessons, many of them bad lessons, from elsewhere. This was very much the line
adopted by David Musemakweli, Economic Adviser in the Office of the Vice-President, in
his paper, which he was unfortunately unable to present in person.

But the workshop was just part of a process. RISD should be congratulated for its role in
making it happen – and now has the responsibility, with others in civil society, for continuing
the process and for sustaining the momentum achieved.




                                                                                               7
Kigali Villagisation Workshop Report


                                 APPENDIX: Summaries of the Papers

Patricia Hajabakiga - Policy on Human Settlement and Land Use
Introduced 2 papers (on land and on human settlements) from colleagues in new ministry, MINITERE,
established in February 1999. Since July 1994, Government of National Unity has issued policy guidelines on
human settlement and land policies and is now in the process of elaborating laws on land, human settlement, and
environmental law. Term „resettlement‟ implies a process, usually directed. In Rwanda, term used to describe a
number of policies; essentially a relationship between a group of people and the land they use, and usually
involves a relationship between the people. New policy of resettlement and new settlement pattern of
villagisation, popularly known as Imidugudu, meant to redefine land use and processes of change.

Eugene Rurangwa Burabyo - Politique du Minitère en Matière des Terres
Pressure on even marginal land has reached limit, with high population density, poor soils, intense erosion. Area
available for agriculture only about 60%; to go beyond that would invite catastrophe and environmental disaster.
Predominance of customary law, inappropriate to the Rwandan context, has had negative effects of excessive
sub-division of land and encouraging people not to produce beyond for subsistence. Also poor use of land and
unplanned settlement. Taking following steps to address these problems. i) Preparing tenure legislation - this
will involve organisation of popular consultation in the préfectures, circulation of the law and popular
sensitisation; ii) Classification of all land and its allocation; iii) Elaborating a plan for allocating and using land;
iv) Putting in place appropriate mechanisms for land management - this will involve collaboration with NGOs,
UNDP, FAO, World Bank; v) Strengthening institutional capacity.

James Kimonyo - Human Settlements (Habitat) Policy
Rural and urban human settlement patterns poorly planned for decades. Faced by challenges of large number of
returnees, many vulnerable groups and shortage of housing, government had to embark on resettlement
programme. Adopted village type of settlement, Imidugudu. Ministerial decree of January 1997 said agreed type
of settlement in rural areas is Imidugudu. Had advantages of being cost effective to provide services, facilitating
land use management and national reconciliation, easy implementation of community-based non-agricultural
activities and maintenance of security. Government will: finalise and disseminate National Human Settlement
(Habitat) Policy; elaborate law governing human settlements; sensitise population on advantages of living in
villages; identify proper settlement sites; promote public-private partnerships; mobilise people to participate in
construction and maintenance of infrastructure. Villagisation and proper urban planning remain government
policy. Housing and infrastructure provision need very heavy investment and hence support of international
community. New settlement sites will be developed and existing ones consolidated.

David Musemakweli - Towards a National Resettlement Policy – Imidugudu
Stating personal views, not Government policy. 70% households below poverty line. Potential advantages of
Imidugudu include delivery of services at lower cost, fewer service providers needed, more people will benefit,
more efficiency in providing services, reduction in costs will appeal to Government and donors. Policy not an
end in itself, simply creating an enabling environment. Success will depend on people‟s acceptance of changes.
Government can only play limited part, bigger part must come from the people. This should be done through
dialogue and participatory approach involving all stakeholders, who should share views and ideas concerning
implementation of the policy. Government comes in as facilitator, mainly to coordinate and guide activities.
Planning must be comprehensive and exhaustive. Need to mobilise and sensitise all stakeholders. Imidugudu
should be included in budget to formally commit Government and ensure recognition. Care should be taken to
allow for variations within policy framework to accommodate differences in cultural, geographical and regional
set-up of beneficiaries. Will provoke less resistance from the people if their natural way of life is not
compromised by the new policy. Potential positive impacts include batter land management, more equitable
land distribution, more social services, establishment of cooperative movements, encouragement of informal
sector, improved security. Potential negative impacts include prevalence of communicable diseases, social ills
and petty crimes, significant reduction of time spent in fields. Main constraints needing to be overcome include
lack of awareness of benefits among recipients, wrong signals sent by Government in its zeal to sell the
programme, misconceptions among donors, costs on individuals and Government, need to overcome culture and
tradition.

Government should continue with awareness programme, but based on measurable, affordable, realistic,
time-bound results. Where success achieved, organise visits to testify to benefits. Participatory approach that
involves people taking their own decisions should be encouraged to create sense of ownership. Participation also



                                                                                                                      8
Kigali Villagisation Workshop Report


ensures sustainability and results in reduced costs on Government. Need to synchronise implementation of
Imidugudu with Public Investment Programme. Farm plots for food production should be equitably distributed.
Introduce appropriate technology. Diversity in settlements should be considered strengths which allow people to
keep their traditions while benefiting from policy. Implementation period should not be rushed; this will give
Government leeway to match resources with realities and get feedback and act accordingly through policy
reviews. Government should establish a monitoring system to evaluate implementation. Need for a feedback
system that prompts corrective or remedial action. This best achieved through direct dialogue and Government
should take advantage of newly elected grassroots leadership. Need for impact assessment. Expected positive
impacts could be far reaching, but only if extra care and commitment is demonstrated by all stakeholders.

Médard Rutijanwa - La Villagisation et l’Utilisation des Terres au Rwanda
Analyses much past history. Purely technical aspects predominate over political and socio-economic
considerations among initiators and implementers of villagisation and land legislation. Popular participation has
been insignificant, but with recent grassroot level changes it is now possible to organise a creative and
constructive dialogue. There are those who want to see land privatised; they approve of villagisation without
reservation to liberate the maximum amount of land for production. There are those convinced the land belongs
to the state, which is in direct line with colonial laws, and is a mechanism for alienation and expropriation.
Others are reticent about villagisation, preferring the status quo. Others, including himself, see the need to
change settlement and land use to resolve issues of unemployment, demography, poverty and
underdevelopment, but this means studying villagisation properly to take account of all problems and concerns.
Villagisation is a vital and urgent necessity. Gives his vision of what villages should be like in future, not just
urban dormitories, which is the case now. People should undertake useful, diverse, complementary activities.
Villages should contain both people with land and the landless. To break from past history it is necessary to be
open and creative. Village land should be protected by law from all speculative activity.

Herman Musahara - Villagisation and Land Use in the Context of the Rwandan Economy
Need for dialogue between policy makers and people. Villagisation precipitated by genocide but can be traced to
previous history of land scarcity, demographic pressures, declining productivity, breakdown of farm-family
cycle. Average family farm size now less than 0.5 ha. Highest population growth rate in Africa. Past history of
emigration. Villagisation might be means by which Rwandan society could be reconciled, but new villages have
not solved problems of low productivity. Distance to farms can be long, failure to deliver social services can
bring dissent and set of new problems. Some villagers have been helped by international NGOs, but many more
have had to depend on their own efforts. Need for an exit strategy from agriculture, involving introduction of
micro-credit. Villagisation can provide opportunities for new approaches and outlooks, including bottom-up
approach, land reform, transformation of economy to non-agricultural productive activities, new policies on soil
conservation and the environment, empowerment of women, democratisation of decision making, participation,
good governance.

Kalibana Marara - Environmental Effects of Villagisation
General fall in productivity result of dispersed settlement, customary inheritance, fragmentation, soil erosion.
Some soils not appropriate for dense settlement. Problems facing agriculture will not be the same in all parts of
the country. New village sites often chosen irrationally, leading to cutting of trees, building on slopes etc. You
need „town‟ rules in villages and non-agricultural jobs to generate investment for equipment.

RISD - Land Use and Villagisation in Rwanda
Believe evaluative and participative process should be integrated into implementation of villagisation so it is
linked to people‟s clear understanding and acceptance. Conducted survey on land use and villagisation in Kigali
Rural, Ruhengeri, Gikongoro and Butare so as to make informed contribution to land policy development and
villagisation process and stimulate discussion and dialogue through dissemination of findings.

Villagisation policy dates back to Arusha Protocol of June 1993 under which returnees away for more than 10
years would not claim back their property but be assisted to settle in villages by government. Then came war
and genocide, so problem became an emergency. Cabinet meeting of 13 December 1996 and ministerial
directive of 9 January 1997 made Imidugudu only legal rural settlement; building on other plots was prohibited.
But policy still shrouded in controversy. January 1997 guidelines and procedures for construction of Imidugudu
not followed because of massive scale of returnees, so most constructed in a hurry and rather disorderly.
Guidelines for site selection also not followed. Determining factors were mounting pressure on authorities to
resettle the homeless and availability of land for resettlement.



                                                                                                                 9
Kigali Villagisation Workshop Report



Quality and size of houses built varied according to agency involved; they showed vastly different levels of
integrity. No systematic procedures to ensure uniform and fair selection of beneficiaries. Were mostly those who
did not have homes of their own or afraid to go back home, those on whose land villages were constructed or
young people wanting to set up homes apart from their parents. Number of housing units much smaller than
number wanting them. The more conscientious tried to give priority to the more vulnerable, elderly or poor.
Elsewhere it was first come, first served, or a lottery system, or people paid money. Most of the initial target
groups, like old case returnees, are still unhoused, while some who had no housing problem got a house, and
some unscrupulous ones, including leaders, got more than one house and are now selling or renting them. Extent
of participation varied depending on implementing agency, some not required to participate at all, others asked
to help with e.g. site levelling, brick making, building. This sent mixed signals to beneficiaries. Implementing
agencies ambivalent about community participation, some feeling it slowed down the work. For most it was an
emergency response, though a few have recognised that while there is much to criticise about implementation,
Imidugudu are there to say and something has to be done to assist people to achieve viable livelihoods.

Survey found all completed Imidugudu more or less fully occupied. Question of shelter took precedence over
everything else. Only one village could boast running water, schools and health centres. Most do not have
facilities to enable people to resume a normal life. Many have no land while those who have land have to walk
long distances. No off-farm activities because people lack capital and/or skills. The youth are redundant. Most
people agree Imidugudu have enhanced security, but a concern that they contain a preponderance of one ethnic
group (Tutsi). There are environmental concerns; the building of Imidugudu involved substantial tree cutting.
There are few CBOs in Imidugudu. There are some informal leaders, but most control only 10 heads of houses.

Despite numerous shortcomings, some strong points should be acknowledged – it was an effective response to
the shelter crisis, it helped people sustain themselves after the war, government was able to maintain security.
But because people have to travel far to their land there are fears production may diminish. In some areas sites
were allocated within farmland, reducing amount available for cultivation. Currently no law governing land
distribution, so there is victimisation and land sometimes expropriated from those who resist leaders. People feel
insecure over ownership. Those given land told they can only use it temporarily until it is allocated permanently.
People who previously owned land conscious they can be dispossessed. So increasing disputes between leaders
and communities and between communities. People eagerly awaiting new land policy. Responsible actors
should therefore address issue, aware of its gravity and possible consequences, and expectations and fears of the
population. People call on those responsible to rectify mistakes made during construction of houses; not to build
Imidugudu in one style all over the country, but be designed to suit local topography; establish social
infrastructure; initiate a programme to support farm and off-farm activities for the vulnerable poor and improve
transport services to enable people to engage more effectively in productive activities.

Robin Palmer - Learning Lessons from Land Reform in Africa
Attempts in bullet point form to draw lessons relevant to Rwanda from land reform experiences in Uganda,
Tanzania, Kenya, South Africa, Zimbabwe, Ethiopia, Mozambique, West Africa, Malawi, Namibia, Botswana,
Zambia. Concludes with personal beliefs in principles of subsidiarity, consultation and participation, need to
establish women‟s rights to land and think through issue of donor dependency. In extreme situations
villagisation may be necessary; debate then should turn to drawing lessons from past mistakes, along the lines of
Christy Lorgen‟s paper.

Margaret Rugadya - Land Reform: the Ugandan Experience
Examines 1998 Ugandan Land Act in historical perspective. Major challenge now of establishing new
institutions. Need for a comprehensive national land policy. No strategic plan at inception of the Bill to work out
required resources. Recent studies have shown that it is not implementable in its present form. Need to review
and update several other laws.

Fidelus Mutakyamilwa - Villagisation in Tanzania
Challenges of 1999 Land Act and Village Land Act include establishment of administrative structure from
national level down to over 9,000 villages and creation of public awareness of new tenure system. Examines
history and problems of villagisation in Tanzania, including its illegality, which led to legal challenges from
those dispossessed, and lack of consultation over village boundaries. Dispute settlement mechanisms under new
land legislation is intended to avoid past mistakes. Rights and interests of citizens in land not to be taken without
due process of law and full, fair and prompt compensation to be paid when land is acquired. New Land Acts will
promote participatory land use planning and decentralised land management and administration.


                                                                                                                 10
Kigali Villagisation Workshop Report




                                       11

								
To top